Berry: Comparison Of Proposed Changes To Prop B

Brilliant flashes of Spring splashed across mid-Missouri this week, drenching skies in a glorious bath of sunshine and vanquishing the remaining vestiges of the massive amounts of ice and snow that had piled themselves like cold sentinels along streets and lots, removing any fleeting memories of the blizzard of 2011 and teasing us with hints of an early thaw…

THIS WEEK….

I have had many constituents contacting me regarding Proposition B. I share your concerns about cruelty to animals.

I believe it is my job to be informed on the bills I vote on. That is why I am asking for your input. Prop B was passed by the majority of district 35. So now I am faced with a hard decision. Work to make the law enforceable and practical there by changing the law and opening myself up to criticism. Or leave it the same and know there is not any money appropriated to enforce Prop. B.

Please take the time to review the chart and commentary below. Then I would appreciate your thoughtful response.

PROP B	HB 131
Does nothing to address the problem of unlicensed facilities	Creates a surcharge paid by licensed facilities to promote “Operation Bark Alert” targeting unlicensed facilities.
Offers no funding for any inspection or enforcement of Prop B regulations.	Increases maximum licensing fee from $500 to $2,000 to provide increased funding for inspections.
Applies to all dogs, requiring puppies purchased from exempt operations to have the same vaccination and health standards as those sold from licensed facilities.	Applies only to dogs with licensed breeders.
Requires dogs to be fed once per day.	Requires dogs to be fed twice per day.
“Pet” is defined and limited to dogs.	Pet is defined as “any domesticated animal,” which could also be interpreted to include livestock and put farms out of business.
Does not specify which state agency is responsible for regulating and reporting violations.	Places regulatory authority with the Department of Agricultures and state animal welfare officials.
No enforcement mechanisms.	State animal welfare officials may request the Attorney General or local prosecutors to bring charges in the Circuit Court of any county where a violation occurred. In addition, violators are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation.
Requires only one vet exam per year.	Requires at least two vet exams per year.
Regulations are arbitrary and not based on veterinary principles. For example, requires that dogs not be kept in temperatures above 85 degrees.	Sets regulations based on veterinary guidelines. For example, veterinary guidelines suggest keeping newborn puppies in a controlled environment above 90 degrees.
Limits breeders to 50 dogs, potentially costing the state $20 million in General Revenue to be paid from lawsuits by breeders impacted by the “regulatory taking.”	Eliminates the 50 dog limit, saving the state $20 million in General Revenue funds in a tough budget climate.

The following is a list of the most important changes:

1. Prop B did nothing to address the problem of unlicensed facilities. HB 131 places a surcharge on breeder’s licensing fees to create, promote, and fund Operation Bark Alert targeting unlicensed facilities. Without HB 131, Missouri authorities would have no funding or legal mechanisms by which to go off the worst abusers of dogs in our state.
   
2. Prop B provided no funding for inspection or enforcement of dog breeders. HB 131 increases the maximum licensing fee from $500 to $2,000 to provide increased funding for inspections.
   
3. Prop B only applied to licensed breeders and exempted many organizations that own dogs. I agree with the phrase, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” HB 131 applies protective regulations to all dogs, requiring that all puppies benefit from the same vaccination and health standards as those sold from licensed facilities.
   
4. Prop B failed to specify any government official charged with enforcing the law, unintentionally creating a system without any accountability. If everyone has the duty to enforce the law, no one is fully accountable for ensuring that its mandates are kept. HB 131 places regulatory authority within the Department of Agriculture and state animal welfare officials to ensure that there is an agency fully responsible for ensuring compliance with the law. In addition, it creates a mechanism for state animal welfare officials to refer cases to the Attorney General or local prosecutors for the bringing of civil or criminal charges against those evil Missourians who abuse dogs.
   
5. Prop B only required dogs to only be fed once per day and visited by a veterinarian once per year. HB 131 doubles both, and requires twice daily feedings and two vet visits per year.
   
6. Prop B created arbitrary regulations related to the care of dogs which were not consistent with best practices advised by veterinarians. For example, Prop B makes it a crime to keep dogs in an environment with temperatures above 85 degrees, but veterinary guidelines recommend that newborn puppies be kept in an environment with constant temperatures above 90 degrees. HB 131 changes the standard to ensure that dogs in Missouri are cared for in accordance with the best practices recommended by veterinarians.
   
7. Prop B placed an arbitrary limit of 50 on the number of dogs owned by one breeder. There is a strong argument that this new regulation would be considered a “regulatory taking” subjecting the state of Missouri in a tough budget year to potentially $20 million in damage claims from lawsuits brought by breeders under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. HB 131 removes the arbitrary limit to protect the state treasury.
   

Online Bill Information

If you would like to track legislation you may log on to www.house.mo.gov and select “Bill Information” and then select “Bill Tracking”. You may search by topic or bill number. If you want to track the bills that I have either sponsored or co-sponsored, just enter my last name and you will be able to look at each of those also.