From the desk of Senator David Pearce

Combating Animal Abuse in Missouri

No one in our state condones animal abuse. We must do everything we can to make sure animal abuse, and its perpetrators, are stopped. 

Missouri voters narrowly passed Proposition B last November to protect dogs and, although I agree with the spirit of the legislation, there are issues that need to be addressed to ensure the safety of dogs and protect legitimate dog breeders. The Missouri Senate recently had a spirited debate on Senate Bill 113. Senate Bill 113 was created to correct some flaws in Proposition B that voters approved to prevent animal abuse. The bill passed in the Missouri Senate and will now go to the Missouri House of Representatives for its consideration. I voted for its passage, and I feel I should explain my reasons.

The proposition only dealt with licensed breeders. However, last year, 61 out of 76 major cases of canine cruelty involved unlicensed breeders.  Therefore, the bill did not pertain to the most egregious offenders. The cost of Prop B was estimated at $800,000, with no source of revenue.  Animal shelters and pet stores were exempt from the requirements of Proposition B. It seems that if we are truly interested in animal welfare, it should pertain to everyone involved, not just dog breeders. The language of the bill also used the word “pet” and defined it as “any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof,” so even though much of the rest of the bill pertained to dogs, it could be liberally construed to affect other types of animals.

One of the small things that looked appropriate in the original language of Proposition B dealt with climate control, which made it a criminal offense for temperatures in cages to exceed the range of 45-85 degrees. However, there were no exceptions for power outages or the use of heat lamps.  Therefore, if for some reason a breeder was without power, or they needed to use heat lamps for new-born puppies, they were subject to criminal offenses.

In SB 113, we made some positive changes. We provided a funding mechanism to help pay for increased inspectors and inspections. We increased the fee for dog breeders to pay up to $2,500 based on the number of animals they produce that could help pay for seven additional inspectors. We also increased the number of annual inspections. We required that if cages are stacked on top of one another, there must be an impermeable barrier between the layers to prevent droppings from falling on lower layers. This was not included in Proposition B.

Senate Bill 113 also removed the 50 breeding dog limit in Proposition B. With the additional required state veterinarian visits and the other modifications made, a competent, licensed breeder could adequately handle more than 50 animals. Also, there would be a potential for animals having to be placed in shelters or possibly destroyed due to the limits being imposed. 

In Missouri, there is an increasing trend for ballot initiative measures to be brought directly to the voters and skip the legislative process. Many times, initiative petitions are bankrolled by out-of-state groups who spend millions of dollars. That happened with Proposition B, with the Humane Society of the United States spending over $6 million on this campaign. Not only does it shrink the issue into slick, 30-second sound bites, but, by skipping the legislative process, it doesn’t give time for the issue to be fully discussed and improved along the way.

Proposition B was passed by Missouri voters by a very narrow margin last November. The measure barely squeaked by, only passing in large proportions in urban areas. In fact, in Bates County, the measure failed by 79.8 percent, in Johnson County by 57.6 percent, and in Vernon County by 73.5 percent. By a narrow margin, Proposition B did pass in Cass County by 51.7 percent, or 1,215 votes. These percentages mean that the measure failed by an average of 64.8 percent in the 31^st Senatorial District.

Proposition B was a good measure, but like every bill brought through our state government, there is no perfect piece of legislation. And, like most legislation passed either by the legislature or through the initiative petition process, there are changes that can be made.

This is not the first time a proposition has been brought back to the legislature for a revision.  Proposition A in the 1998 election sought to ban cockfighting, bear wrestling, and other kinds of animal fighting. In that proposition, one of the definitions in the language specified that no animal could be baited, effectively making fishing illegal under that law. The Senate stepped in to create clear language that removed the potential grey area that would have put a large Missouri industry out of business. 

In this tough economic time, we must do everything we can to protect honest, hard-working Missourians. Missouri has hundreds of legitimate, hard-working dog breeders who are struggling to get by. We should not make their job more difficult by burdensome regulations and, in many cases, creating situations that would put them out of work.

At the same time, we must also ensure that the unlicensed and dishonest that prey on innocent animals and skirt the law are dealt with and put out of business.

I think we reached a good compromise with SB 113, and it will help protect both animals and legitimatedog breeders.

I welcome your comments.

As always, please feel free to contact me or my staff with any questions or concerns at any time. We look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions and trying to answer any questions you may have. You can reach us by phone at 866-277-0882 (toll-free) or 573-751-2272, or by fax at 573-526-7381.

Senator David Pearce serves Bates, Cass, Johnson and Vernon counties in the 31^st State Senatorial District.