Menu
Local breeders say puppy mill ballot issue could hurt reputable breeders
As the November election draws near, voters have more to consider than just who they are going to vote for when they reach the polls. One of those issues on the statewide ballot that has the potential to affect Vernon County is Proposition B, known as the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act."
Missourians for the Protection of Dogs support the proposition and say that it "aims to establish stronger animal care standards on high volume, commercial dog breeding operations." But opponents say, among other things, it would put some reputable dog breeders out of business.
Proposition B is intended to curtail and strictly control the operations of the estimated 3,000 dog breeders in the state that produce approximately 200,000 puppies per year. The driving force behind the initiative is the Humane Society of the United States.
Both sides of the issue have strong support. However, opponents of Proposition B say that they can use the HSUS past as an indication of what will happen if Proposition B passes in November. The Missouri Farm Bureau opposes the measure saying that it will lead to further limitations on agriculture. "They're going after dog breeders now," according to Leslie Holloway of the Farm Bureau. She said their next move would be to limit other forms of animal ownership and production. "Because of their track record, we know this is what's next," she said.
Other opponents say the same thing. Many of them, like David Martosko of humanwatch.org, call the HSUS a group of radical animal rights activists. He said it looks like "HSUS is bringing well over $1 million into Missouri from out of state with the intention of dictating what dog breeders could do."
Barbara Schmitz is the campaign manager for Missourians for the Protection of Dogs and the state representative for HSUS. She said that "Missouri is the puppy mill capitol of the country, with as many as 3,000 breeders, and some of the dogs are treated fairly cruelly." She went on to say that "Proposition B is going to improve the standard of care for dogs at large scale breeding facilities."
One Vernon County breeder disagrees with Schmitz. Cathy and Max Blacklock are the owners of the Lucky Dog Ranch in eastern Vernon County. Though their operation is not huge, the Blacklocks have about 100 animals of breeding age, of several different breeds. They run what appeared to be a clean, well organized and full-licensed facility. And they have a pet store on the property that sells pet food, books, collars and other items, as well as a few small birds and guinea pigs.
Cathy said the passage of Proposition B would mean the end of their business. "They've created such ridiculous space requirements that you can't stay in business." The Blacklocks say they can't possibly provide the proposed 12 square feet of indoor floor space for a dog the size of a Chihuahua.
The dogs would have to go, "and without the puppies, the store is gone," she said.
The Blacklocks are licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Missouri Department of Agriculture, and the facility inspected annually by both departments and by a veterinarian.
Also, they have American Kennel Club registered animals, which makes them subject to an inspection from that organization as well.
Both Blacklocks feel like Proposition B will do more harm than good. One of the measures in the new law would require that dogs are fed at least once a day; but current law says dogs must be allowed access to food two times a day. Blacklock thinks that the language in Proposition B that says dogs must be allowed free movement in and out of climate-controlled enclosures to the outside would prove harmful to some breeds that are not physiologically suited to extremes of heat or cold.
And they fear what other measures the passage of Proposition B could lead to in the future. Both of them think that the proposition goes against their rights as property owners. "They're telling us how many animals we can own. They'll start here -- what's to keep them from regulating the number of cows or other animals we can own?" she said.
Max Blacklock said the proposition has wider economic impact than just the two of them and their livelihoods. Lucky Dog Ranch has three employees who would be out of a job if it passes, he said. The Blacklocks spend between $5,000 and $10,000 per year on feed and that much again on vet bills, grooming and other goods and services. "We keep everything as local as we can," Max said.
The Blacklocks adamantly disagree with Proposition B; but nevertheless, they do think something needs to be done about the true puppy mills in the state -- the breeders who keep their dogs in unsanitary conditions, give them minimal health care and breed them too often, then discard them when they can no longer breed. Everyone agrees on that, but most of the opponents say that the breeders that operate that way are flying under the radar now and will continue to do so in spite of more regulation.
The Blacklocks and other breeders in Vernon County operate within a 23-page set of regulations. Those regulations are enforced by a division of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The Animal Care unit has been, by the USDA's own admission, somewhat lacking in its efforts, according to the office of the USDA's Inspector General's audit report number 33002-4-SF, dated May 2010 and titled "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care Program, Inspections of Problematic Dealers."
This audit report lists several factors as being deficiencies in the program,
* AC's enforcement process was ineffective against problematic dealers.
* AC inspectors did not cite or document violations properly to support enforcement actions.
* APHIS' new penalty worksheet calculated minimal penalties.
* APHIS misused guidelines to lower penalties for AWA violators.
* Some large breeders circumvented AWA by selling animals over the Internet.
Several recommendations in procedure and changes to the Dealer Inspection Guide have been recommended to correct the system. The Missouri State Auditor noted in a report of the audit of the Missouri Department of Agriculture that the MDA failed to meet some of its obligations in the inspection and assessment areas of its responsibility regarding breeders in the state, and opponents of Proposition B wonder how the new laws it proposes would be enforced.