Skip to comments.Is Missouri's 2010 Prop B another Amendment 2(2006)?
Posted on 10/13/2010 1:23:44 PM PDT by Wading Across
This article seeks to look into Missouris Prop B, which will be on the ballot in November. Prop B is the Puppy Mill Bill and it has become a heated debate. I mention Amendment 2 which was the stem cell/cloning bill which barely passed in 2006 here in Missouri. One of the major arguments against the bill and which I share was that the bills summary conflicted with its complete language and therefore lied to the public; in other words it is not a pro-life law. One of the arguments against Prop B is that it is vague and could affect any and all livestock breeders across the state; in other words that the bill lies and has a subversive intent. My hope is to air the bill out. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at wadingacross.wordpress.com ...
My general conclusion is ambivelance. It's hard to say how effective this law will be. It's apparent that it will put a number of breeders out of business due to the proposed cap (50 adult breeding dogs). The issue is enforcement and the concern is that HSUS (the group behind the law) is using this as a stepping stone for further, greater anti-breeding/farming laws.
I found some of the law vague and open to abuse, but mostly redundant. If it's not apparent, I'm not for the bill.
Why not just post it here?
My general conclusion is that you are pimping for blog hits.
As to posting it all on FR - it’s way, way too long. It was 4 pages single space on Word when I typed it out.
I’ve got enough tags on it that I’ll get hits off of search engines too as November approaches.
So you admit you are using FR as an advertising platform.
Have you any further comments on the matter?
Perusing the Blog/Personal board this morning I noticed three or four other postings by three or four different individuals doing exactly the same thing. Would it have made a difference if I’d used a different moniker when I signed up on FR? It’s entirely possible a far greater number of people are doing this.
I don’t post everything I blog on this site. If I have broken a rule that I am unaware of, then alert the FR staff and have this thread and my account deleted. I am posting “new” material; thoughts I came to on my own, not merely cutting and pasting - thus I put it on the Blog/Personal board. I have posted interesting items I’ve come across from other sites onto FR using appropriate boards, News, Religion, etc.
In effect, FR could be considered an advertising plaform for pretty much any site someone posts a link.
Show me the rule that I have broken, and I won’t do it again, simple as that, irrelevant of other people doing it.
Your blog is NOT on the “must excerpt” list.
There is no need to excerpt it, unless you are just looking for blog hits.
What is your intent?
To get the information out or to get blog hits?
Still learning the ropes of this particular site, even though I’ve been a long-time lurker. I hadn’t heard of a “must excerpt” list. The closest thing I can see is about “vanity posting”, but since I’m commenting on a bill that will be up for public vote next month, the closest vanity is that I’m posting my article from my blog using my account here. http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm
I no longer care about what your opinion is of my posting or method. What I care about is making sure I’m following FR’s guidelines and rules. So far I do not see proof of what you’re saying unless it’s some sort of unwritten “ethical” code posters have come up with on here.
The closest things I can find have to do with posting/excerpting news sites over copyright issues. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1111944/posts
It seems that this behavior has gone on before as noted by someone who was banned, the Conservative Examiner, over the exact same accused practices.
And it seems that you’ve pointed out this “error” to prior posters http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2596247/posts
Unless you can specifically point out a rule - with a link within this website - your accusations, opinions of my motives and claims aren’t worth squat. Viewing your recent commenting history, it’s clear that you make a habit of it.
And, as of this posting, I just discovered that you’ve been banned or suspended.
Thank you FR staff.
Dang, I hate it when that happens.
A poster "welshman007" who "writes" on the examiner blog
(Anthony G. Martin) was indeed banned. Does this indicate anything to you?
In fact, here’s a thread on that very topic.
Post #11 on that thread contains prophetic wisdom, seemingly written just for you.
Well then, here’s one person - me - who has a compliment about Mr. Wilders. “Keep it up!”
Not really. You haven’t proven squat. Where is the rule that I have broken? You have yet to provide hard evidence of a rule that I have broken. Your singular link discusses the behavior of a prior poster who was banned because of supposed threats. I am not making threats of any kind. I am merely asking if I have broken a rule, one you claim I have - yet have not backed up with anything except your own “rule”.
Prophetic wisdom for me? Not really. I’ve been a moderator before and written on message boards before. I know full well that message boards are not always perfectly run.
I ask again, where’s the rule? Specific link within FR please, as written and agreed to by FR administration. Are you a mod or administrator? All I see is a legalist with no law to back up claims.
I never stated you broke any rule.
I stated that your blog is not on the excerpt list.
You excerpt in order to get blog hits, this is USING Free Republic.
Refute that. You can’t. You’re a dang blog pimp.
I'm curious, why would you submit a post to one whom, ostensibly, has been 'banned or suspended'?
hg, how ru? have a grt weeknd.
You may have never stated it, but that’s what I’ve inferred. Furthermore, I suspect others get the same inferrence, whether that’s your implication or not. You state that my blog is not on an excerpt list. True. That list is for newsites which threaten lawsuits over copyright issues. There is nothing saying I must or must not excerpt portions of my own blog site. As for using excerpts in order to get blog hits, if I still post a link to my blog, I’m going to potentially get hits, irrespective of whether or not I’ve posted any portion of my original article.
You can call me whatever you want. I don’t really care. You still haven’t proved anything wrong on my part, only that you don’t like what you assume I’m doing as part of some sort of unethical practice. Unless I get a direct comment from FR administration that I’m doing something wrong, I do not see myself as doing anything wrong.
Were my original posting within 350 words, I’d have no problem posting it all on FR. As I previously noted, the whole thing was 4 pages long - I tend to write long articles and responses.
I have seen bloggers “self-promoting” on all sorts of other blog sites. The mere inclusion of a website (your own) in a comment name can be considered blog pimping and self-promotion. I have gotten viewings of my blog from other sites where I left a comment and the people clicked on the link within my name. Moe Lane and others on RedState crosslink their articles to their own website all the time. Lori Ziganto on Redstate also writes on NewsReal and iirc crossposts to her own website. That’s a form of self promotion. Big deal.
It sounds to me like you’re making a mountain out of a molehill with plenty of self-righteous judgement. Until I get specific notification from FR to cease and desist or correct particular posting methods, I will continue to do as I have.
If you post this in full I will read it. If you expect me to visit yet again another stupid blog forget it.
If you are excerpting for blog hits then you are using FR as a business platform and a nice large donation to FR would be appreciated.
If you post this in full I will read it. If you expect me to visit yet again another stupid blog forget it.
If you are excerpting for blog hits then you are using FR as a business platform and a nice large donation to FR would be appreciated.
And so will I.
You asked for it. Sure.
Mr. Gunner, it looks like you’ve got two handles, either that or another person on the exact same thread likes your exact same sig. line.
Whatever. To show that I don’t care, here’s the post. I said it was long. You asked for it, you get it.
This article seeks to look into Missouris Prop B, which will be on the ballot in November. Prop B is the Puppy Mill Bill and it has become a heated debate. I mention Amendment 2 which was the stem cell/cloning bill which barely passed in 2006 here in Missouri. One of the major arguments against the bill and which I share was that the bills summary conflicted with its complete language and therefore lied to the public; in other words it is not a pro-life law. One of the arguments against Prop B is that it is vague and could affect any and all livestock breeders across the state; in other words that the bill lies and has a subversive intent. My hope is to air the bill out.
Let us start with the the summary which is what will be on the ballot then the complete text.
Official Ballot Title:
Shall Missouri law be amended 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;
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?
It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.
Fair Ballot Language:
A yes vote will 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 amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of puppy mill cruelty for any violations.
A no vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
Section A. One new section is enacted, to be known as section 273.345, to read as follows:
273.345. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.
2. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills by requiring large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with basic food and water, adequate shelter from the elements, necessary veterinary care, adequate space to turn around and stretch his or her limbs, and regular exercise.
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:
(1) Sufficient food and clean water;
(2) Necessary veterinary care;
(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;
(5) Regular exercise; and
(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have custody of more than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet.
5. For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) Covered dog means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs.
(2) Sufficient food and clean water means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.
(3) Necessary veterinary care means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed Acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
(4) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animals enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit.
(5) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs means having (1) sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether); (2) enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog; (3) at least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and (4) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long; at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer (with the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail).
(6) Regular exercise means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog.
(7) Adequate rest between breeding cycles means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any 18 month period.
(8) Person means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate.
(9) Pet means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.
(10) Retail pet store means a person or retail establishment open to the public where dogs are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for retail sale directly to the public to be kept as pets, but that does not engage in any breeding of dogs for the purpose of selling any offspring for use as a pet.
6. A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead.
7. The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section. This section shall not be construed to place any numerical limits on the number of dogs a person may own or control when such dogs are not used for breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet. This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes; during lawful scientific research; during transportation; during cleaning of a dogs enclosure; during supervised outdoor exercise; or during any emergency that places a dogs life in imminent danger. This section shall not apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in section 273.325; hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet; or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs.
8. If any provision of this section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable.
9. The provisions herewith shall become operative one year after passage of this Act.
On the face of it, from a reading of the summary, the bill comes off pretty well. My family used to raise bulldogs years ago for show and sale, and at most we might have had ten adults and seventeen puppies (only once at one time). I cannot fathom nor understand the idea or reality of having 50 breeding dogs, but then we did it as a hobby, not a business per se, viewing each dog as a pet, not mere stock. The bill at least the summary appeals to a sense of good emotion and reason. Dogs are not cattle, pigs nor chickens. 50 would seem to set the bar high and liberal, though I know nothing about commercial puppy farming. 50 breeding dogs may be pretty standard.
The actual bill does have some troubling and vague aspects. One of the arguments made by many people in rural areas is a belief that this bill/law would extend to cattle and other livestock. However, the bill throughout notes it is focused on dogs and defines it as such in section 5(1). That said, perhaps some people see a contradiction or vague set up with 5(9).
My problem with the bill is its redundancy and potential for abuse (how ironic). Yes, Missouri has the/or is one of the largest number of puppy farms in the U.S., but they seem to be monitored fairly rigorously. It seems that every few months you hear of a puppy mill having been raided and rescues performed. There are already a number of laws on the books which law enforcement uses to monitor, regulate and prosecute puppy mills for abuses.
Sections 5(2) and 6 would seem to be open to interpretation and abuse. Who determines what appropriate amounts of food or good health are? What is the standard to base it? The same goes for water; is 100% purity demanded at all times? As soon as a dog drinks from a water source, that water is effectively contaminated, especially if theyve just come in from an open yard. Furthermore, breaking any portion of this bill would label the offender guilty of animal abuse/cruelty and breaking the law as a whole. That however would turn it over to the interpretation of a judge in sentencing.
I realize that any time any business has laws and regulations governing it, there is the potential for abuse by bureaucratic officials to subjectively apply the laws, but this bill would seem to codify the potential for loose interpretation by an inspector at his/her whim.
All it would take is for an inspector who doesnt like a particular breeder to visit a kennel and find one dirty water dish never mind that the bowl may have been cleaned and refreshed that morning as every morning and cite the business for a violation and thus subject to full legal action. An extreme view and estimation, but its certainly in the realm of possibility.
Here are two sites discussing the two views on the bill:
St. Louis Post Dispatch
This brings up a question about who is behind the bill, HSUS or the Humane Society of the United States. I must note that my initial response upon hearing the name was to immediately and directly connect it to local Humane Societies. Apparently nothing could be further from the truth. The two are not connected by anything except name. That said, considering what Ive learned about HSUS, it will no doubt give the local Humane Societies a bad name guilt by mere name association. People on both sides of the issue should make a specific point to clarify that HSUS and HSMO are not related nor connected and that HSMO does not stand behind nor accept HSUS platforms.
A complaint against the abuses by some breeders seems to be lax law enforcement. Well, thats when you go after the government to do their job. You dont create more laws, you enforce the ones you already have. Its a similar issue with illegal immigration and guns.
I agree that we should take care of animals and not needlessly or purposefully abuse them, we are stewards and caretakers of this world and everything in it, but I find the law partially vague, open for abuse and overall, redundant. As to HSUS involvement, that alone gives me serious pause to support it, especially if the accusations are true that this is part of a larger plan.
For futher perusal
Yes on B
No on B
The Humane Society of Missouri*
As I noted to someone recently who was supportive of the bill because it sounded nice; just because a bill/law sounds nice doesnt mean its a good or necessary law.
Its up to you the voting public to determine whether or not this law is acceptable and needed. If it passes, only time will tell whether or not it is truly good or necessary. Certainly a bill could be brought forth to repeal it, but repealing laws are typically more difficult than getting them passed.
*I have an in-law who works for a local chapter of the HSMO. I believe she is supportive of the bill, but she has acknowledged that it might not easily pass due to the strong backlash it is receiving outside of St. Louis.
As I noted in the beginning of this piece, Amendment 2 (2006) barely passed and the vote was pretty well split Kansas City/St. Louis for, everywhere else against. I suspect well see voting along similar lines for this bill next month.
Thank you very much! You should post the whole content every time! :)
I don’t get bloggers. They think they have something profound to say. They get a soap box, like FreeRepublic. And then then say half of what they have to say.
This is your soap box, man! If you have words of wisdom (most bloggers don’t, but maybe, just maybe, you are the rare exception), then say it! Say it!
Hell, even the lunatics downtown say what they have to say in full. I have yet to see a lunatic say “The end is near, excerpted, see the lunatic at 5th and Main for more!”
LOL! That is such a hilarious way of putting it! Hee Hee!
Thank you. I will try to keep that in mind next time, though I cannot gaurantee embedded links will transfer. I’m not a techie.
Gee, you got me Gunner. Three accounts and counting eh?
I am legion.
Having multiple accounts is a bannable offense.
Perhaps you should report me.. but then I'm already banned, aren't I?
“I am legion.”
Hmm. Implying something are we? If you are, it’s quite ironic and hypocritical.
Have a good day.
That is against FR's rules so why don't you either report me or apologize n00bie?
At least you can follow the directions.
Leave HG alone. Can’t you see he’s banned?
Thank you for posting the full content.
Aw, poor gunner. It must be awfully sad to be banned. Maybe he needs a banned aid? :)
I’ll let FR staff sort it out kid.
Banned Aid? Hey, we can all get together and have a concert for the banned!
Let’s all sing along:
We write the words
We are the bloggers
We are the ones who make a blog site pay,
So let’s start pimping
There’s a choice we’re making
Excerpting our own blogs
It’s true, we’ll make a blog site pay
Just you and I!
Yes, I see. After doing some more looking around, it’s apparent that you (plural) have been around for a while, and what’s more, FR staff are aware of you and “like” you. Another words, if you are one person using multiple accounts, they’re fudging their own rules for friends.
It’s apparent that you like to play games and toy with people. That’s not a sign of wit, wisdom or intelligence. It’s just pathetic silliness. And if this is what is expected/accepted of/on FR, then it’s not worth any attention in turn.
Correction. “We write the words” should be “We copy and paste the words.” But it messes up the flow of the song.
Lol! Funny song!
Or maybe you could just post the whole content.
Then the scary bad guys would go away and leave you alone.
If your "articles" are any good, folks will go look at your blog to read more.
Excerpting for hits just stirs up a hornets nest and fouls up your threads.
Showing up in someone's house and acting a fool, then claiming
there is no written rule against acting a fool is no way to
get the other residents to respect you. You don't just show up
and expect to make your own rules, existing culture be damned.
The big 'IF.' It is so funny. Why do so many blogpimps think that those who dislike their pimping are all the same person? I guess they can't comprehend that there are multiple FReepers who dislike pimps...
Its apparent that you like to play games and toy with
There, fixed it.... :)
Thats Blogpimping is not a sign of wit, wisdom or intelligence. Its just pathetic silliness.
Fixed it for you again...
And if this is what is expected/accepted of/on FR, then its not worth any attention in turn.
Yes, I agree, blogpimping is not generally accepted here at FR... ;)
What the heck are you talking about, boy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.