Commenting Guidelines

    • The HSLF invites comments—pro and con. Keep them clean. Keep them lively. Adhere to our guiding philosophy of non-violence. And please understand, this is not an open post. We publish samplers of comments to keep the conversation going. We correct misspellings and typos when we find them.

« September 2010 | Main | November 2010 »

October 2010

Thursday, October 28, 2010

North Dakota Hunters Speak in Support of Measure 2

This week the Humane Society Legislative Fund launched a TV ad campaign in North Dakota, featuring North Dakota hunters who support Measure 2, a ballot initiative seeking to ban the unfair and unsporting practice of shooting tame deer and elk in fenced enclosures. North Dakota hunters led this fight and placed the measure on the ballot, and when HSLF saw them being outspent by the extreme elements of the hunting lobby and the commercial wildlife ranching industry, we decided to help give the responsible hunters an opportunity to make their case to the North Dakota voters.

We interviewed the hunters, and they told us in their own words why they oppose canned hunting and why they support Measure 2. I had a chance to ask Craig Schmidt, one of the North Dakota hunters who appears in the TV ad, to answer a few questions and share some of his thinking with blog readers.

Michael Markarian: Tell us a bit about yourself.

Craig Schmidt: I was born and raised in Minot and have lived in North Dakota my entire life. I’m a hunter and proud of it. My dad was a hunter, my granddad was a hunter. It’s a family tradition.

MM: So why do you support Measure 2?

CS: Because it would stop the unsportsmanlike killing of tame animals. It’s just like shooting caged animals at the zoo. It’s immoral and unethical. That’s why I was happy to lend my support to this effort. It’s important that the word get out there.

MM: What do you think of the opposition’s claim that this measure violates your private property rights?

CS: It’s totally false. Everyone knows that you can’t just do anything you want on your property. You can’t have a toxic waste dump, grow marijuana, or hold dogfights on your property just because you own it. The opposition is just playing on the fears of us North Dakotans and just trying to save their immoral money making schemes.

MM: What do you think would happen if Measure 2 doesn’t pass?

CS: There would be a continued mockery of hunting in this state by those people catering to rich non-North Dakotans who get satisfaction by shooting tame animals trapped against a fence. The failure of this measure would give a green light to more canned hunts and it wouldn’t be long before the everyday North Dakotan no longer has a place to hunt.

MM: What is the one thing you want North Dakotans to know?

CS: Voting YES on Measure 2 is the only way to protect our hunting heritage in this state.

Monday, October 25, 2010

MUTTS for Prop B

The readers of more than 700 newspapers in 20 countries this weekend were given a special treat with their Sunday comics: Patrick McDonnell’s popular MUTTS strip is spreading the word about Missouri’s puppy mills and calling on readers to take action to save dogs. With just over a week until Missouri voters decide on Proposition B, which will stop puppy mill abuses by establishing common-sense standards for the care of dogs, it’s the perfect time for this dog protection message.

Mutts Cartoon - Missouri Puppy Mill

MUTTS © 2010 Patrick McDonnell

Several newspapers in the nation’s top puppy mill state—St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Columbia Tribune, Jefferson City News Post, Joplin Globe, St. Joseph News-Press, Poplar Bluff Daily American Republic, Park Hills Daily Journal, Monett Times, and Sedalia Democrat—carry MUTTS, and I wanted to share Sunday’s comic with blog readers as well. MUTTS will run a full week of comic strips addressing the problem of dogs confined in large-scale puppy mills.

“Missouri is famously known as the ‘Show-Me’ state.” said McDonnell. “By voting YES on Prop B, and encouraging their friends and family to do the same, my Missouri readers can show the world that the way we treat our animals matters. This expression of kindness will go a long way to making the cruel puppy mill industry a thing of the past.”

MUTTS has covered a number of critical animal protection issues over the years, including the conservation of tigers and sharks, shelter pet adoption, and the protection of farm animals. Sunday’s strip features a dog who was rescued from a Missouri puppy mill, and is now dancing for joy at no longer being crammed into a small and filthy cage.
You can send an e-card featuring the comic to your friends and family in Missouri, urging them to help stop cruelty to puppy mill dogs by voting YES on Prop B. Election day is just eight days away, and you can join MUTTS in spreading the word this week.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Newspapers Speak Out on Statewide Ballot Measures

Missouri’s two largest newspapers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Kansas City Star, today offered resounding endorsements of Proposition B, and urged Missouri citizens to vote Yes on this measure to stop puppy mill abuses by establishing common-sense standards for the care of dogs. Both papers debunked the false claims of critics in agribusiness and the puppy mill industry, and urged voters to side with the Missouri veterinarians, responsible dog breeders, and humane societies backing Prop B.

With election day just eleven days away, and three statewide ballot measures that will have a major impact on animal protection issues, opinion leaders in all three states have sided with animal advocates in these public debates. It shows broad and mainstream support for the positions advanced by animal welfare groups, and today I offer a round-up of newspaper editorials in Arizona, Missouri and North Dakota, to share with blog readers what some of the papers are saying.

On Proposition B in Missouri, the measure to crack down on cruelty at large-scale puppy mills:

Puppies bred in Missouri turn up in pet stores around the country, sometimes with serious behavioral or health problems that are related to the conditions under which they were raised.

Current state regulations allow dogs to be kept in wire mesh cages stacked atop each other so that feces and urine produced by one animal can drip or fall into the cages below. Proposition B would end that.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 22, 2010


Defenders of the status quo protest that the problem is confined to unlicensed breeders. But that’s inaccurate.

Citing records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Humane Society recently issued a report naming 12 of the state’s worst offenders — all of them licensed. Here is a summary of problems at a breeding operation in Milan, Mo., S & S Family Puppies:

Dying dogs who had not been treated by a veterinarian, dogs in frigid temperatures with frozen water bowls and without adequate shelter from the elements, dogs so severely matted that when the mats were removed their skin was raw and oozing, and dogs with open, bloody wounds.

Kansas City Star, October 22, 2010


On Proposition 109 in Arizona, a constitutional amendment referred to the ballot by politicians who want to take away voting rights on wildlife issues:

Prop. 109 would set a bad precedent. Amending the constitution to spell out the rights of traditional recreational activities is a slippery slope. Will hikers, skiers, ATV users and others be next?

This proposed amendment—with broad, undefined terms—is ripe for legal battles. It would open up any action of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, including establishing seasons, to a constitutional challenge.

Arizona Republic, October 8, 2010


While we support the continuance of hunting and fishing, activities which are an important part of the American tradition, we do not support the idea of trying to “rope off” them off from full political participation by all citizens who may or may not support these activities.

In addition, the legislative arena is also not an ideal place to decide wildlife policies. This is something better left to those who have dedicated their careers to managing wildlife and who can take a wider view of the best policies to protect this natural resource for all citizens, whether they hunt and fish or not.

Yuma Sun, October 17, 2010


The Game and Fish Department's "wheel" needs no reinventing. It is self-sustaining funding without state general revenue funds; effective wildlife conservation and habitat preservation; creation of recreational hunting and fishing opportunities; and high-quality statewide conservation education.

A conservation-oriented attorney notes that the language of Proposition 109 is so vague that no one knows what the Legislature would do with its newfound control over hunting and fishing.

Arizona Daily Sun, October 17, 2010


The board is against this proposition because it does not believe the state constitution should be changed for a privilege that is not currently being threatened and because it may open the state up to lawsuits from hunters.

Kingman Daily Miner, October 17, 2010


Prop 109 would create a new constitutional right to hunt and fish in Arizona, and would block future propositions that could in any way limit hunting and fishing by giving the Arizona Legislature the exclusive authority to regulate hunting. We think voters have made wise decisions in this area in the past (such as a ban on the barbaric use of steel-jaw traps), so we're not inclined to restrict our authority and amend the Constitution to placate a small special-interest group. Vote no.

Tucson Weekly, October 7, 2010


Put wildlife management into the hands of politicians? We think not. That job is currently done by Game and Fish, and it's done not just by regulating hunting seasons and requiring fishing licenses, but by using complex calculations and science.

Arizona Daily Star, September 27, 2010


Proponents say they are worried the Game and Fish Commission can become too political because its membership is made up of gubernatorial appointees. But do proponents really think that by handing fish and game responsibilities to the lawmakers, this will make it less political? How in the world will that be an improvement?

Sierra Vista Herald, September 27, 2010


On Measure 2 in North Dakota, to stop the canned hunting of tame animals in fenced pens:


Although the issue isn't really so sensational, at the core many North Dakotan find shooting confined animals in the name of "sport" repugnant. And, yes, that's despite growing up on farms and ranches where livestock are killed in the butchering process.

North Dakotan have historically been protective of individual property rights. But when it comes to a choice between those rights and public hunting and sportsmanship, the state's residents are willing to release their tight hold on property rights.

Bismarck Tribune, October 11, 2010

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Dog Breeders Speak Out for Missouri’s Prop B

Meet Lucky. Lucky was rescued from a Missouri puppy mill last year. Ellen Lucas, a dog breeder and breed rescue coordinator who bought Lucky from a Missouri dog auction for a token amount of money, says, "When I got him he smelled, was covered in mats, could not eat from a bowl, did not know what a biscuit was, had never seen a toy, had never been on a leash, and had lived in a two-by-two-foot cage his entire one-and-a-half years. He is adorable now and Velcroed to my hip."

Lucky with vet (after) 2 Under all the filth and matts, Lucky was, allegedly, a dog of known bloodlines. According to Lucas, he came with registration papers stating he was a purebred AKC Norwich Terrier. But Lucas says DNA testing proved Lucky is actually a mixed breed dog.

Lucky was not the only dog Lucas rescued from Missouri puppy mills who had false papers. As she wrote in an email to the YES! on Prop B campaign, “I have rescued Clint (sold as a Norwich but actually a brindle Cairn), Lucky (sold as a Norwich but DNA tested as over 50% Norwich and over 20% Yorkie) and then most recently, three Norwich—two five-year-old adults and their three-year-old daughter ALL with AKC registrations. The male, Gambler, DNA'd as a Norwich but the older female came back 50% Cairn/50% Norwich. Their daughter is obviously 75/25%.”

“Again all three have AKC registrations. The AKC does nothing about these puppy mills and in fact is encouraging the puppy mill breeders to register their dogs through FREE registration and a special administrative registration program.”

Ellen Lucas, a breeder of Norwich Terriers since 1998, is concerned about the false papers she received with Lucky and the other dogs—papers that prove puppy mills may be distorting the bloodlines and legitimacy of generations of purebred dogs. “If this is happening to me, how many other dogs living in these bad conditions are being sold as purebred but are actually mixes concocted by the commercial breeders? The AKC says they are looking out after the small breeder’s interests, but legislation against a kennel with [a large number of] breeding bitches is certainly not a threat to me as a small breeder and owner.”

Lucas and breeders like her are fed up with the way puppy mills are distorting the bloodlines of generations of dogs, misleading the public, and, perhaps worst of all, confining breeding dogs to small, filthy cages for years on end, without adequate exercise, attention or veterinary care, solely to churn out puppies of questionable health and quality for the pet trade.

That’s why three Missouri dog breeders—Cecily Barker, who has been breeding Irish Setters for 40 years and is an AKC hunt test judge, Bev Stobart, who has been breeding Irish Wolfhounds for 30 years and is a veterinary technician, and Dr. Melanie Mercer, a breeder of Salukis and Irish Wolfhounds and a graduate of the University of Missouri College of Veterinary Medicine—are appearing in new TV ads launched today urging Missouri citizens to vote YES! on Prop B. I hope you’ll watch these ads, and if you live in Missouri, join the responsible dog breeders, veterinarians, humane societies and others working to stop the cruelty at large-scale puppy mills and establish common-sense standards for the care of dogs.

Paid for by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs/YES! on Prop B, Judy Peil, Treasurer.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

HSLF Launches TV Ads to Support Animal Welfare Leaders

The midterm elections are just two weeks away, and there are dozens of competitive races around the country that will have an impact on animal protection. The Humane Society Legislative Fund has endorsed more than 300 candidates in the upcoming contests, and today launched four television ad campaigns supporting congressional champions for the humane treatment of animals in key districts from the Inland Empire to the Great Lakes to the Bayou.

The HSLF ads showcase the leadership of two Democrats and two Republicans who are standing up for animals in a very determined way, and who have demonstrated effectiveness and skilled policymaking in advancing reforms to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. HSLF strives to be entirely non-partisan, and our endorsements reflect that approach. I hope you will watch each of the four TV ads, supporting David Vitter for Senate in Louisiana, Mary Bono Mack for California’s 45th district, Gary Peters for Michigan’s 9th district, and Betty Sutton for Ohio’s 13th district.

Vitter sponsored the Captive Primate Safety Act to stop the trade in dangerous primates as exotic pets, and the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act to establish better standards for the care of dogs at large-scale puppy mills. He has actively pushed a number of animal protection bills in the Senate, including the 2007 federal law establishing felony-level penalties for dogfighting and cockfighting, and he publicly supported a ban on cockfighting in Louisiana, the last state to outlaw the activity.

Bono Mack sponsored the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, to require accurate labeling of garments trimmed in animal fur so consumers aren’t deceived by unlabeled jackets falsely advertised as “faux.” And with her help, this animal welfare and consumer protection bill passed the House this year by a voice vote. She has actively supported a raft of other bills, on animal fighting, banning horse slaughter, and other issues.

Sutton sponsored the Dog Fighting Prohibition Act, and thanks to her work, many of the provisions from her bill were adopted as part of the Farm Bill passed by Congress in 2008. The legislation increased the federal penalties for dogfighting and cockfighting up to five years in prison, and banned the possession and training of animals for the purpose of fighting. She has supported a wide range of animal protection efforts in Congress, including efforts to crack down on puppy mill abuses and stop the inhumane treatment of “downer” cattle too sick or injured to walk.

Peters, in his first term in Congress, led the fight to ban the trafficking in obscene animal “crush” videos, after the Supreme Court invalidated a previous federal law on video depictions of animal cruelty. His new, more narrowly crafted legislation passed the House this year by a vote of 416-3. Peters, too, has supported a number of animal protection bills, on horse slaughter, chimps in research, fur labeling, and puppy mills.

HSLF took out TV ads in this suburban Detroit district two years ago, and helped to defeat then-Rep. Joe Knollenberg, who had one of the worst records on animal cruelty in the entire Congress. Knollenberg had voted time and time again opposing common-sense animal protection bills, and we exposed his record of siding with animal abusers. Peters’ opponent this time around, Rocky Raczkowski, voted to allow the target shooting of mourning doves for the first time in a century when he served in the Michigan Legislature, but thankfully Michigan citizens later rejected this attempt by Raczkowski and his allies to trample over 100 years of dove protection, voting 69-31 statewide against shooting doves.

We need all of these leaders back in Congress next year to continue their animal protection work, and HSLF is fighting hard to help them and other humane lawmakers around the country win reelection. We need every person who cares about animals to support humane candidates at the polls, and stand up for the people who are standing up for animals. Please send these TV ads to your friends and family, and consider making a donation to help HSLF keep the ads on the air and continue our critical work in elections around the country. And please visit our Voter Guide to find HSLF-backed candidates in your area.

Monday, October 18, 2010

AZ Fact Check to NRA: “False”

The Arizona politicians in the pocket of the NRA are trying to pull one over on Arizona voters. They placed Proposition 109 on the ballot, which would amend the state constitution regarding the “right to hunt,” but it would do much more than that. It’s a power grab by politicians and special interests to take away the citizens’ right to vote on wildlife issues.

In fact, the NRA’s advertising materials urging Arizonans to support Prop 109 claim the measure “specifies that wildlife-management decisions will be based on sound science, not the emotion inspired by radical animal ‘rights’ groups.” But the Arizona Republic, the state’s largest newspaper, issued an "AZ Fact Check" item examining these claims and declared them to be “false.” Here’s what the Republic reported:

Although Prop. 109 would change the way wildlife is managed in Arizona, there is nothing in the ballot language that ensures wildlife-management decisions would be based on science. Rather, Prop. 109 would give more weight to hunters’ rights by making hunting and fishing “the preferred means of controlling and managing wildlife.”

The bottom line: Nothing in the ballot language specifies that wildlife-management decisions will be based on “sound science.”

So the NRA and its allies blather on about “science-based wildlife management,” but the effect of Prop 109 is to undermine that very principle: to weaken the professional wildlife management agency. For 80 years, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has made wildlife management decisions and scientific expertise has been kept separate from partisan politics. Now the commission is going to have to get clearance from the politicians before it makes a move on anything.

It’s clear the backers of Prop 109 are the ones relying on “emotion,” not “science.” They want to scare Arizona voters into thinking there is a threat to hunting and fishing, and into giving up their own voting rights. The fact is there’s been no attempt to restrict hunting or fishing in the state, but Arizona voters have made the right calls when they have been asked to weigh in on practices such as steel-jawed leghold traps, cockfighting, and factory farm confinement.

A coalition of groups working to tell Arizona voters the truth about Prop 109 today held press conferences in Phoenix and Tucson unveiling a new TV ad opposing the measure, and you can watch the ad here.

If you live in Arizona, or know people who do, please help spread the word: Say “no” to the power grab by politicians, say “no” to taking away voting rights, say “no” to replacing science with partisan politics, say “no” to the false rhetoric of the NRA, and say no to Prop 109.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Prop B Opponents Barking in the Wrong Direction

Many reputable dog breeders wholeheartedly support cracking down on large-scale puppy mills, cruel mass-breeding facilities that draw funds and attention away from good breeders and give the business a black eye. Good breeders know that stronger humane regulations can only lead to happier and healthier generations of dogs.

A-7-fields-dirty-dozen But over the past several weeks, a number of people claiming to be responsible breeders have lashed out with heated rhetoric against Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, on Missouri’s statewide ballot this November. Why would good breeders with nothing to hide oppose basic protections for man’s best friend? We dug a little deeper, and found that some of their stories don’t quite add up.

Some of these voices opposing the measure may have quite a bit to hide. In September, Stacy Farley of K-9 Canyon Kennel in Lancaster, Mo., wrote a letter to the Columbia Missourian declaring Prop B was “cruel.”

“I am licensed, I follow the regulations and am inspected,” Farley wrote. Yet Farley’s kennel was cited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2009 for several Animal Welfare Act violations, including five dogs housed outside with only round plastic barrels for shelter and five puppies kept in tiny cages that had only about half of the required minimum space.

In an October 2008 inspection, USDA inspectors found Farley supplying some of her dogs with “large clumps of contaminated, moldy food” and water buckets with “green scum” in them. Another water receptacle had “a dead mouse floating in the offered water,” according to the USDA inspector, and the outdoor runs had “an excessive amount of fecal waste.” Considering she is apparently unable or unwilling to abide by even the weak standards already in place, it’s not hard to understand why Farley says she is “infuriated” by the animal care standards of Prop B.

Corgi breeder Jon Kimes told KMOX radio that Prop B would adversely affect his small home kennel and cost him $40,000 in retrofitting expenses. He made similar claims in a July column in the Columbia Missourian. But, our researchers could not find any breeder by the name of "Kimes" on a list of licensed kennels received from the Missouri Department of Agriculture. If Jon Kimes’ small hobby kennel is not even licensed in Missouri, this means he is either breeding ten or fewer female dogs (any more requires a license), or currently operating without the required license—a class A crime.

Unless Mr. Kimes is saying he is a criminal, Prop B won’t affect him at all because it does not apply to breeders with ten or fewer intact female dogs. Small breeders who are currently exempt will stay exempt under Prop B.

The same is true of Janice Swofford, treasurer of the Southwest Chapter of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association. Swofford told a Neosho Daily News reporter that she would have to “give up” her breeding kennel if Proposition B passes because her kennel is indoors and does not have outside runs. Yet, according to the same list of licensed Missouri kennels, no breeder by the name of "Swofford" holds a current state kennel license. This indicates that she is either an illegally unlicensed breeder or has ten or fewer breeding females. If she is exempt from current licensing requirements, she would be exempt from Prop B as well.

Considering how well-placed Kimes and Swofford are in the professional pet industry, they should know the rules. Therefore it’s difficult not to become suspicious of their motives when they falsely claim Prop B will put them out of business or affect them in any way. 
Kara Crass, the owner of K-Jacs Kennel in Jenkins, Mo., told the Columbia Missourian that only “responsible breeders that go out of their way to follow the laws we already have” would be affected by Prop B. Unlike Kimes’ and Swofford’s operations, however, Crass’ kennel is no small business. According to USDA inventory records, Crass’ kennel held a whopping 260 dogs at its last inspection (180 of them adults). Crass reported to the Missouri Department of Agriculture that she sold 200 puppies last year, which could easily produce an income of up to $100,000, more than twice the median household income of most Missourians.

Yet Crass’ dogs don’t seem to be enjoying the basic standards of care that such a financial yield should allow them. The USDA cited Crass in March 2010 for having filthy feeders filled with “dust, gunk and dirt” in them, and evidence of rodent contamination. In March 2009 she was cited for portions of housing being in disrepair and excessive feces in an enclosure with a mother dog and eight puppies.

In the end, it seems that many of those claiming to be responsible breeders spewing falsehoods against Prop B either will not be affected by it at all, or are opposed to putting teeth into the state’s dog welfare standards mainly because they are already failing to meet the weak standards provided by current law.

Good breeders who are already abiding by humane standards of care have nothing to fear from Prop B. The measure will not apply to hobby breeders with fewer than ten female dogs, and will not affect farming or hunting in any way.

Missouri is home to approximately 3,000 puppy mills—30% of all puppy mills in the country—and some of most appalling operations in the state are still licensed as of this year. Missouri voters can join the many responsible breeders, veterinarians and vet clinics across the state, and others who are working to turn around the state’s reputation as the puppy mill capital of America, by voting YES! on Prop B.

Paid for by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs/YES! on Prop B, Judy Peil, Treasurer.

Monday, October 11, 2010

New Voices Hit the Airwaves for Missouri’s Prop B

The campaign for YES! on Prop B to crack down on puppy mill cruelty in Missouri today launched its second week of TV and radio advertising, with new ads featuring Tony La Russa, manager of the St. Louis Cardinals and co-founder of the Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF), and Dr. Connie Medling, staff veterinarian for the Humane Society of Missouri.

La Russa and Medling speak to Missouri voters about the 3,000 puppy mills in Missouri, where dogs are crammed into small and filthy cages, denied veterinary care, exposed to extremes of heat and cold, and given no exercise or human affection. As La Russa says in the ad, “No responsible pet owner would ever treat an animal like that. It’s cruel, it’s inhumane, and we need to change it.”

The ads show the breadth of support for Prop B, which has been endorsed by Missouri veterinarians and veterinary clinics from across the state; animal welfare charities and organizations, including the HSMO, ARF, the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, Central Missouri Humane Society, Humane Society of Southwest Missouri, Wayside Waifs, the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, HSLF and The Humane Society of the United States; prominent Missouri figures such as Tony La Russa and Linda Bond; as well as responsible dog breeders, elected officials, religious leaders and Missouri businesses.

Prop B's opponents—operating under the misnamed Alliance for Truth and consisting of puppy millers, agribusiness, and others who don’t like our effective action to protect animals—have trotted out a litany of absurd and false arguments. Last week, they rolled out Ohio’s Joe the Plumber, who offered an incomprehensible screed.

The ad featuring Tony LaRussa can be viewed here, and the one with Dr. Medling is available here. I hope you will watch them and help spread the word to Missouri citizens to vote YES! on Prop B on election day.

Paid for by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs/YES! on Prop B, Judy Peil, Treasurer.

Monday, October 04, 2010

Puppy Mills in Primetime

The campaign for YES! on Proposition B, the Prevention of Puppy Mill Cruelty Act, officially kicked off today in Missouri, as the coalition supporting the statewide ballot measure launched its first TV ad of the election season. The 30-second spot, titled “Bad News,” began running today in St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, Columbia/Jefferson City, Joplin, and Cape Girardeau. A 60-second radio version is also running statewide.

Prop B would amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. The measure would also prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets and create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.

The TV ad features video footage from large-scale puppy mills in Missouri, including one in Tuscumbia where more than 100 dogs were removed from filthy conditions, and another in Rolla where more than 100 dogs and puppies were rescued and which had 103 violations in less than two years, according to the Better Business Bureau. The ad shows a U.S. map with puppy mills concentrated in Missouri and tells viewers, “We have approximately 3,000 puppy mills in Missouri—30 percent of all puppy mills in the nation. Prop B will stop puppy mill abuses by enacting common-sense standards for the care of dogs."

I hope you’ll watch the TV ad, and help communicate this positive message for the humane treatment of dogs to Missouri voters in every corner of the state, by making a donation to Missourians for the Protection of Dogs/YES! on Prop B. With your help, voters will see the images of puppy mills and learn about the large-scale cruelty to dogs in the nation’s top puppy-producing state. And please spread the word to your friends and family in Missouri, and urge them to vote YES! on Prop B to help dogs on election day.

Paid for by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs/YES! on Prop B, Judy Peil, Treasurer.

Get Political
for Animals

Powered by TypePad