Wednesday, November 3, 2010


Yesterday, Prop B, the "Puppy Mill" bill passed here in Missouri. It was sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, an animal rights activist group.

I was and remain against the passage of this bill because of the involvement of this organization. That and there is no reason to add more laws to the books in my state. We already have adequate laws to protect dogs and breeders in Missouri. What we don't have is adequate funding for enforcement of the law. Prop B makes no mention of funding nor does it set up any sort of funding mechanism. All it does it create more rules that will burden the law abiding kennel owner while having no affect on the illegal kennels.

In this regard Prop B is no different than most laws. Gun laws don't alter criminal activity, they just control the law abiding while in the process stripping those same law abiding people of their natural law and Constitutionally protected rights.

Prop B alters property right laws in that it limits how much property one can own and it controls the use of that property through regulation. Animals are not human and thus have no rights. Sorry, that's just the way it is. They are either wild or they belong to someone.

I haven't had time to dig into the results but my guess is that the narrow victory was achieved in the urban and suburban areas. Exactly the places where the puppy mills aren't.

Here in the rural areas, where the puppy mills are, we know just how difficult a law like this will be to enforce. Not only because there aren't that many police but also because we tend to stay out of each others business. We don't have cameras on every corner and cops cruising up and down the street.

Let's face it; the laws that are already on the books aren't being enforced. I know this because Missouri is still the number one state for illegal breeding. So how do the people that voted for these new laws expect them to be enforced? Or to make any difference?

I hope they don't want our cops to stop going after the meth makers and dealers to start looking for bad breeders. Because, given a choice, and with the limited funding we have, that's where the focus should be, on the drug problem. Sorry if some dogs get mistreated but meth is destroying our communities. Skinny dogs, not so much.

I don't mean to sound callous but truth is truth. If all the urban areas want to create some sort of special fund, that they pay into and we are exempt from to ramp up the police out here, go ahead. Nobody's going to complain. But if you think we're going to pay more to chase down dog breeders when most of us are having a hard time paying for electric, you've got another think coming.

I live on a dirt road that connects to a road that was just paved so I guess you could say that we're kinda' upscale. If I see a county sheriff on my road more than once a year I'd be shocked. So what do you think the chance of seeing any police on a dirt road that damn near requires four wheel drive to traverse is? We've got plenty of those out here. And if somebody raises dogs back on that road, what do you think the chances are that anyone around them cares what goes on back there? It's the owners property and unless he gets into my world what he does is none of my business. So how do all these new laws affect him?

This is another instance of emotion trumping reason. The bill was an easy sell because all they had to do was show pictures of mistreated dogs. It's a whole lot harder to make the case, especially in the cities, that out here we've got bigger fish to fry. And we've got a different way of thinking.

We'll put our rights and our safety ahead of dogs any day of the week.

No comments:

Post a Comment