Puppy Mills: Missouri Compromise SB 161 a Victory or Sham

Missouri SB 161, the Governor's compromise bill entitled the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act was passed and signed into law on April 27.  It takes effect immediately.  Some Missouri animal welfare groups are calling this a great victory for puppy mill dogs.  Other animal welfare groups are calling it a sham and a shame.

Frankly, I don't consider it a victory.  Nor do I consider it a sham.  I fervently supported MO Prop B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.  Bottom line, I'd like the puppy mills put entirely out of business and I didn't think Prop B had strong enough language.  However, I'm a resident of the real world and, like it or not, that's not going to happen in Missouri any time soon.

The nature of a compromise is that both sides have to give at the same time as they get.  By definition, SB 161 is a good example.  Compromise:  A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.  In the case of SB 161, both sides definitely made concessions.


I did not support SB 161.  Nor did I oppose it.  I have been pretty vocal about my disgust that the Missouri Legislature would tamper with a voter passed initiative ballot measure.  (However, that's not for the first time, as I discovered in my reading about so-called democracy in the great state of Missouri.)


My bottom line concern is the dogs.  Are their living conditions improved?  

If I have a raging fever of 105 and my temperature drops to 104, that's an improvement.  Is my health still in jeopardy?  You betcha.  My body still has a battle to wage.   And so do dog lovers in Missouri.

The new law requires that dogs in large breeding facilities receive hands-on vet care, continuous clean water, nutritious food twice daily, and more space in which to live.  In addition, Missouri Governor Nixon has committed to add over $1 million to the MO Department of Agriculture's budget for more inspectors and veterinarians to enforce the new regulations.

The original Prop B, passed by 51% of Missouri voters in November, required an indoor floor space of at least 25 square feet for small dogs;  30 square feet for medium size dogs and 35 square feet for large dogs.  The new law doubles the previous minimum space requirements by January 2012 and triples them by January 2016 for existing breeders.  Wire flooring is also be prohibited.  Any dog housing facilities constructed after April 15, 2011, will have to comply with the tripled space requirements immediately.

The original Prop B required at least one yearly exam with prompt treatment for any illness or injury.  The new law requires one yearly exam and prompt treatment of a serious illness or injury.  Though the new law does not include a mandated breeding cycle rest period, it does require a recommendation by a licensed veterinarian for breeding and requires vet records be maintained for two years.

The new law requires dogs to have continuous access to water, access to food at least twice daily - an increase from the original Prop B once daily requirement.  However, generally is inserted in front of a requirement that the water be free of debris, feces, algae and other contaminants.

Under the new law dog breeders could pay as much as $2,500 instead of the current $500 maximum and will pay an extra $25 annual fee to finance Missouri's efforts to crack down on unlicensed dog breeders.

Some who opposed the SB 161 compromise see this as no victory at all.  Rather than seeing the glass half empty, I prefer to see it as half full.   It's a long road ahead, but Missouri dog lovers have gained some ground.

Puppy Mill Compromise SB 161 Signed by Missouri Governor Nixon

According to the Associated Press, Missouri officials pushed through new regulations for the state's dog breeders in a flurry of legislative activity Wednesday that started with Gov. Jay Nixon signing one bill (SB 113) repealing sections of a voter-approved dog-breeding law and ended with the governor signing another measure that implemented a deal between dog breeders and welfare groups.

The maneuvering was needed to pass a compromise on new rules for Missouri dog breeders that was brokered by Nixon's administration and supported by several state-based agriculture and animal welfare groups. Nixon called the new legislation "a dramatic, important, significant step" that would improve the care of dogs while ensuring breeders can continue to operate. The industry has an estimated $1 billion impact in Missouri.

In the end, Nixon and lawmakers eliminated parts of the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" passed last November by voters, including a limit of 50 breeding dogs per business. Other portions were changed. The new law sought potential middle ground on the specifics of the living-space requirements, and it gives breeders more time to comply with the new rules.

Nixon said voters' support of the dog measure this past fall was an important impetus toward reaching the final agreement and had changed the discussion about regulation of dog breeders.

"But for the action of the public, there wouldn't have been another force that was necessary to coalesce people to make these changes," Nixon said. Later he added: "Their votes did matter."

The ballot measure, called Proposition B, was approved by about 52 percent of the statewide vote as supporters in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas outweighed opposition in much of the rest of the state. The initiative was scheduled to take effect as law this November. The bill Nixon initially signed superseded that by making changes that take effect Aug. 28. However, the compromise measure that Nixon signed last repeals the earlier bill and takes effect immediately.

Supporters of the voter-approved law said Missouri's previous regulations for breeders were too weak, allowing operators to keep dogs in wire cages and exposed to excess heat and cold. Critics of the voter-backed law have said it would wipe out the dog-breeding industry by forcing costly renovations to facilities and effectively limiting how many dogs the businesses can sell.

Several of the national animal groups that helped to finance the dog ballot measure oppose Nixon's compromise. Some have said that they could seek to put the issue back on the ballot through it was unclear if one option — a referendum of the new law — was still available.

"It is a far cry from what the voters put in place under Proposition B," said Cori Menkin, the senior director of legislative initiatives for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "I don't think the compromise is much of a compromise."

The voter-backed law required an indoor floor space of at least 25 square feet for small dogs, 30 square feet for medium-size dogs and 35 square-feet for large dogs. The new law approved by Nixon doubles the state's previous minimum space requirements by January 2012 and triples them by January 2016 for existing breeders when wire flooring also would be prohibited. Any dog-housing facilities constructed after April 15 will have to comply with the tripled space requirements immediately.

It also attempts to compromise on veterinary visits. The voter-approved law requires at least one yearly exam with prompt treatment for any illness or injury. Lawmakers changed that to two annual visual inspections that did not need to be a hands-on exam in the first bill Nixon signed. Ultimately, there must be one yearly exam and prompt treatment of a "serious illness or injury."

The new law also requires dogs to have continuous access to water, access to food at least twice daily — an increase from the ballot measure's once daily mandate — but looser than the voter-approved law because "generally" is inserted in front of a requirement that water be free of debris, feces, algae and other contaminants.

Plus for state licenses, dog breeders could pay up to $2,500 instead of the current $500 maximum, and will pay an extra $25 annual fee to finance state efforts to crack down on unlicensed dog breeders.

Missouri Puppy Mills: Compromise and Combat over SB 161

Usually I have plenty to say about puppy mill legislation in Missouri.  Lately I've not been sure what to say.

My email inbox is full of messages from various animal welfare organizations pleading with me to call my legislative representative and tell him how to vote on SB 161 - the Governor's compromise bill resulting from the flap over Prop B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other national groups want me to urge against SB 161.  The HSUS even sent a handy chart that demonstrates how the governor's so-called "compromise" is too week and would leave thousands of dogs suffering in Missouri puppy mills.  They call SB 161 a faux reform.

The Humane Society of Missouri (HSMO) and the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (MAAL) want me to urge my legislator to vote for SB 161.  MAAL is obviously familiar with the HSUS chart, because they sent me a sheet entitled Facts vs Myths about SB 161.

Politics makes some strange bedfellows and some strange enemies.  I never thought I'd see the day when animal welfare groups were allied with commercial pet breeders.  Nor did I consider such a wide divide and split between local and national animal welfare groups.

The national groups seem to be taking an all or nothing attitude and casting all their chips on the table in hopes that Governor Nixon will veto SB 113 and preserve the voter-passed Prop B.   Some are saying that they'll organize another petition drive if they have to, plus they've not ruled out legal action.  A risky roll of the dice.

The local Missouri groups have managed to do what I honestly believed was not possible:  struck a compromise with dog breeders.  Their compromise is not perfect - it does seriously monkey with the original Prop B - but it would be a vast improvement over the status quo and, therefore, over SB 113.

I feel a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place.  

Intellectually, I agree with the ASPCA and HSUS.  Right is right.  Prop B should be upheld because it is the will of Missouri voters.  It provides the greatest protection and humane standards for the thousands of Missouri dogs living in commercial dog breeding operations.


However.... and it's a big however... something is better than nothing.  Plus I can't ignore that if the compromise, SB 161, is passed over one million dollars would be generated for the Missouri Department of Agriculture to add desperately needed inspectors and veterinarians to ensure breeders comply with the new law.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  Though it's no sure thing the compromise will pass, I feel I have to support it because - bottom line - I'm on the side of the dogs.  And in Missouri something really is better than nothing.

Missouri Compromise on Puppy Mills: Senate Bill 161

Photo:  St Louis Today  

Both the Humane Society of Missouri and the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation have come out in support of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon's puppy mill compromise bill.

SB 161 would be an improvement over Missouri's current law which allows breeding dogs to be confined to small wire floored cages for their entire lives.  Current law also denies veterinary care, including an annual vet exam to the dogs, and allows even frozen water to satisfy requirements for water.

SB 161 would:

• require an annual veterinarian examination of breeding dogs, as well as require that any dogs with a serious illness or injury receive prompt vet treatment. 
• require continuous access to clean water
• require ample space for confined dogs with three times the current space requirement
• require constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise run
• prohibit wire flooring
• provide funding for additional inspectors and veterinarians to enforce the law

Politics aside, SB 161 would definitely be a winning proposition for thousands of dogs living in Missouri commercial breeding facilities. 

Unfortunately, politics can't be set aside.  Legislative leaders say they will advance SB 161 only if the Governor signs SB 113.  If both bills are passed, both could become law - even with contradictory elements.