JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) – The Missouri Senate voted Thursday to repeal many of the mandates included in a dog-breeding law approved by voters four months ago.

Some lawmakers fear the law could wipe out the state’s dog-breeding industry by forcing costly renovations to facilities and effectively limiting the number of dogs each business can sell. The Senate legislation would eliminate a cap on owning 50 breeding dogs and roll back various requirements on the dogs’ living conditions. It also would eliminate provisions that make any violation a crime.

Instead, the measure would allow civil penalties and a misdemeanor charge for repeate offenses. Under the Senate measure, dog-breeders would need to provide appropriate space for their animals based on regulations set by the Department of Agriculture. The bill also would allow licensing costs of up to $2,500 instead of $500, and would impose an additional $25 annual fee to finance state efforts to crack down on unlicensed dog breeders.

Senators passed the bill 20-14, with much of the support coming from Republicans who represent districts away the from the St. Louis and Kansas City areas. The legislation now moves to the House, where leaders said they planned to consider the Senate’s proposal rather than their own.

The dog-breeding ballot measure, called Proposition B, was approved by about 52 percent of voters last November.

Copyright Associated Press

Comments (18)
  1. Nancy Winer says:

    adequate space , excercise and water and food…………….stiff penalties for those who break the law. Keep the Prop B but fix it….humane treatment for ALL

  2. wizard says:

    Irresponsible behavior would be allowing Prop B to be enacted as it is. Ask the voters the following:
    Did YOU vote to put THOUSANDS of Missourians out of work?
    Did YOU vote to destroy 1390 small businesses?
    Did YOU vote to kill thousands of dogs?
    Did YOU vote to create increases in veterinarian fees and put several out of business?
    Did YOU vote to help the illegal breeders by eliminating their competition?
    Did YOU vote to reduce tax revenues in the state?
    Did YOU vote to increase expenditures by 3/4 million dollars within the first year?
    Did YOU vote to increase expenditures every year by 1/2 million dollars?
    Did YOU vote to give the HSUS free rein to further destroy all of our animal agriculture?
    Did YOU vote to end the legal production of puppies?
    Should we really have to live with all these consequences just because some voters are too stubborn to admit that they were deceived by the 4-million-dollar emotional, deceptive campaign of the radical Humane Society of the United States?
    Ask your senator and representative to FIX the mess you mistakenly voted for.

  3. Shelley says:

    You have some errors in your story, but not surprising considering how misrepresented SB 113 has been by Mike Parson.

    Both bills contain the same misdemeanor provisions. SB 113, however, is so convoluted and difficult–requiring intervention directly by the director of the Department of Ag–that it will never be invoked.

    SB 113 removes every requirement listed in Proposition B. Veterinarians do not have to actually examine sick or injured dogs in SB 113. Veterinarians never have to do more than two physical site visits a year–they don’t have to actually examine the dogs.

    All the space requirements have been revoked and set back to the original requirements we’ve had for decades. This means wire cages (wire floors) for dogs that are only 6 inches longer than they are.

    No exercise area or fresh for dogs in indoor only kennels. They’ve reverted back to the “veterinarian plan”, which breeders just ignore, and an inspector can’t verify that breeders follow.

    Dogs in outdoor only kennels never have a warm place to go when the weather is below freezing, or a cool place to go when the weather is in the 100s.

    Dogs no longer have access to water continuously — the can be restricted to being watered only three times a day. Dogs during the weather are forced to lick bowls of frozen water, filled with contaminants.

    Even the new ceiling for the fees? This isn’t going to impact all but the largest breeders. It also impacts on the larger non-profit shelters, like Stray Rescue, HSMO, and the St. Charles shelter. Why? Because these dogs process hundreds, even thousands a dogs a year, and the fee is $1.00 per dog. Even the biggest breeders don’t sell 2400 puppies a year.

    This new ceiling is actually a punitive measure against the shelters, put their by Parson, after being encouraged by the breeders, to punish the shelters for daring to supporting Proposition B.

    SB 113 completely guts Proposition B, and it does so in the worst, most deceptive manner. The senators have nothing to be proud of with this vote — they should all be ashamed.

    And we should be ashamed that we would vote for people like these.

  4. Shelley says:

    Sorry, typos.

    These shelters process hundreds, even thousands of dogs a year.

  5. doglover says:

    Missouri dog breeders already have rules they must follow, they are required by current law to have any sick or injured dogs seen by a veterinarian among other things. I don’t know why people like Shelley keep saying stuff like this, WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS FOR ANIMAL CARE AND FOR CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!!!

    I’m glad Missouri lawmakers were able to see through the deceptive manner in which Prob B was presented to the public for a vote and that they have the courage to change it.

    1. Shelley says:

      Existing laws and SB 113 do not _require_ that the sick or injured dog actually be examined and treated by a veterinarian.

      The existing laws and SB 113 only state that a vet may be involved, may provide advice, may give instructions–but nothing in these laws _requires_ that the vet actually provide the treatment themselves.

      SB 113 is particularly deceptive in this regard. It specifically transforms the following

      prompt treatment of of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian


      prompt treatment of any illness or injury

      It specifically removes the requirement for vet treatment.

      The only time the vet is actually compelled to treat the dog themselves is if during the physical site visit they see signs of disease or injury.

      So for 6 months, or however long between site visits, the dog can be sick or injured AND IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL WITH SB 113.

      Incredibly deceptive — the senators should be ashamed of themselves. Especially Rupp, Dixon, Scfaaf, and Callahan, who voted for SB 113 against the wishes of the people in their districts.

      I guess big agribusiness money talks.

      1. Missouri Voter says:

        Shelley, you just continue your lies hoping someone might believe you. You don’t have a clue how a kennel operates. Kennel owners are intelligent and experienced enough to handle minor medical issues. Any medical issues that require a veterinarian to handle, the vet handles. How hard is that for you to understand? That is common sense. You could understand the concepts if you had any sense at all.
        Do you wonder why a breeder gets wrote up by the inspector for any obvious medical problems that have not been seen by a vet? Hmmm. Could it be because vet care is mandated in the current regulations? They only get cited because it is AGAINST THE RULES. You can’t be that dense, Shelley.

  6. wizard says:

    Garbage in, Garbage OUT.

  7. Shelley says:


    And they get written up again, and again, and again. The USDA requires that a breeder must commit the same violation through three different inspections before any action is taken just to pull the license.

    One breeder had a yorkie whose collar was so tight, it had embedded itself into the dog’s neck, leaving raw, open sores around the collar area. This violation was written up one year, and a repeat violation for the same dog, the same problem, written up a year later.

    Unless you want to call the USDA a liar, this is the state of dog breeding in Missouri that the senators want to preserve.

    And anyone can read SB 113, see the change I noted. It’s in black and white.

  8. fivestrand says:

    The LICENSED, INSPECTED, REGULATED breeders dislike ‘those’ types of breeders as well; they make us look bad. Fortunately they are FEW & FAR BETWEEN (NOT to be CONFUSED with the non-licensed breeders) the stiffer FINE will be a deterrent for those rags.

    1. Shelley says:

      Some of the worst violators are the LICENSED, INSPECTED, REGULATED breeders, regardless of what Barb York has to say at the Missouri Pet Breeder’s Association party this weekend

      Oh, speaking of which

      There’s you LICENSED, INSPECTED, REGULATED breeders.

      Regardless of what happens with the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, these breeders will no longer be able to operate in the shadows. Business will NOT go on as usual in Missouri.

      And every time a bad breeder who would have been closed with Proposition B is exposed, we’ll tie every single representative who went against he wishes of the people of this state to every sick, injured, dying, and miserable dog we find.

  9. fivestrand says:

    We AGREE! Go after those ‘bad breeders” Ive even called my state inspector on a few myself they make US look bad.

    1. Shelley says:

      If you’re a licensed breeder, seems to me you do a good job of making yourselves look bad all by yourselves.

  10. fivestrand says:

    Seems to ME that the facilities that have been out of compliance time&time again shoudl have been shut down. Why weren’t they? Why are ‘they’ allowed pages&pages of STRIKES yet allowed to stay in business? Would this not be on the inspector’s/USDA’s plates? so If there not already enforcing the ‘rules’ what makes you think they would later?
    Also-anyone know where to find USDA and/or MO inspection reports by kennel and/or owner names?

    1. Shelley says:

      The laws are loose and full of gaps is one problem.

      The USDA has to have have the same violation repeat through three inspections before it can make moves to revoke the license. It has no criminal statutes.

      The Dept of Ag has been encouraged to give “positive” reinforcement rather than be punitive. Problem is, dogs are suffering.

      Proposition B, for one, gives weapons so that any action against the breeder doesn’t have to involve the Department of Ag. Secondly, a serious violation is treated as such–not glossed over.

      You can access USDA inspection reports at

      The Department of Ag inspections are, unfortunately, not easily available. You basically have to go to Jefferson City and look through paper copies.

  11. fivestrand says:

    And Whiny Wayne tried to exempt shelters- why? Yes, Prob B is definately gettin’ a fixin’

    1. Shelley says:

      From your comment, I have to assume you’re very, very young. I’ll try to keep this simple.

      Missouri is not known to be the bad shelter capital of the US. It’s known to be the puppy mill capital of the US. This bill was specifically addressed to solve one problem: puppy mills.

      If you have reason to believe that we’re just full of really bad shelters, I would suggest you start up your own petition drive, and make your own modifications to the laws.

  12. fivestrand says:

    You’re goin’ down- so SIT DOWN and SHUT UP.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Listen Live