In November, Missouri voters will get an opportunity to set better standards of care for dogs in mass-breeding facilities, when they cast a vote for the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
Proposition B would prohibit the possession of more than 50 breeding dogs and sets standards for care. Examiner.com reports those standards for care include – “” clean water, sufficient food, veterinary treatment, regular exercise, rest between breeding cycles and proper housing with enough space to stretch and move around. “”
A coalition of animal-welfare groups, Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, obtained enough signatures to gain the measure a place on the November ballot. Hopefully, the voters there will vote for the animals.
Another Examiner.com article from May of this year, includes information about which groups are opposing and supporting the ballot measure.
The Missouri Federation of Animal Owners and the American Kennel Club oppose the new regulations on these large, commercial breeders.
From the article – “” – AKC has said the restrictions on the number of dogs “confuses the real issue of animal welfare, which focuses on the quality of care given to animals, not the number of animals an individual owns … Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has.” – “”
The problem with this statement from the AKC? – It has opposed legislation in other states that did not include limits on the number of dogs a breeder possesses, such as the recent SB460 in North Carolina. What the AKC really does not want to see is any legislation that would cut down on the number of dogs being registered. This organization – and others like it – make money on every dog registered.
Fewer dogs born, means less money coming in. And in the meantime, the puppy millers keep flooding the market with dogs, many of them with emotional and physical problems. And when so many of these dogs end up in shelters, the end result is a death rate that is completely unacceptable.
I can’t take seriously the viewpoint of organizations that clearly benefit from maintaining these numbers out of puppy mills.
On its face, I do agree with the AKC’s statement – “Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has.” This is why we need inspection systems in place for all breeders, as we do for all restaurants. But when yearly inspections have been proposed within state bills, opposition crops up suggesting current laws and regulations are fine – with no inspection system in place.
So again, for these organizations, it’s all about keeping the breeding numbers up. But for animal-welfare groups, it’s about protecting dogs from cruelty and neglect – and an untimely death.