This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, April 19, 2011 - For both sides in the battle over Proposition B, the clock is now ticking.
On Monday, many agricultural and animal-welfare groups announced that they had reached an agreement that "will strengthen requirements for the care and treatment of dogs and protect Missouri agriculture."
The agreement is in the form of a measure aimed at superceding a controversial bill -- SB 113 -- that does away with most of the provisions in Proposition B, which imposes restrictions on dog breeders. The proposition was narrowly approved by Missouri voters last fall but is opposed by rural legislators.
Approved by both chambers, SB 113 was formally placed on Gov. Jay Nixon's desk Monday, as well. Nixon now has 15 calendar days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it or allow it to go into effect without his signature.
Nixon announced Monday that he backed the agreement proposing the alternate measure and that he and his staff had been involved in helping to bring it about. Nixon, a Democrat, is running for re-election in 2012; he'd like to avoid getting stuck between rural voters who opposed Proposition B and the suburban and urban voters who backed it.
"Over the past week, my administration has been working closely with folks on every side of this issue to reach an agreement that respects the will of the voters, protects dogs and allows responsible breeders to earn a living in our state," the governor said in a statement.
"Throughout this process, I have met personally with representatives of Missouri's major animal-welfare and agricultural organizations and with leaders on this issue in both the House and the Senate. The agreement that was signed today upholds the intent of the voters, protects dogs and ensures that Missouri agriculture will continue to grow. I look forward to continuing to work with these leaders as we move this proposal through the legislative process as swiftly and efficiently as possible."
A Nixon spokesman sidestepped questions as to whether Nixon planned to veto SB 113. Instead, press secretary Sam Murphey said that the governor wants the alternate bill to "supercede SB 113."
Nixon got a boost Tuesday when Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, a fellow Democrat also running for re-election, endorsed the agreement as well.
"If the legislature chooses to support this solution, the Attorney General's Office will be ready on day one to aggressively enforce Missouri's new dog-breeding laws," Koster said in a statement. "Our intention is to add new prosecutorial resources to Operation Bark Alert, and we will continue to work aggressively to change Missouri's reputation to a state that respects the humane treatment of these animals."
He also promised to designate an assistant attorney general to focus full time "on prosecuting wrongdoers. which Koster estimated would total 100 cases a year.
Koster also pledged to set up a toll-free hotline to collect complaints via telephone, and to feature a tip link on his official website.
Closer look at compromise
The compromise:
- Repeals the limit of 50 dogs that a breeder can own. Sen. Mike Parson's bill also takes out this provision from Prop B. This is one of the most controversial changes.
- Changes the definition of "adequate breeding cycles." Under Prop B, dogs could not breed more than twice every 18 months. The compromise changes that to what's "appropriate for the species, age, and health of the dog," according to a veterinarian. Parson's legislation also includes this change.
- Phases in the requirement for bigger cages over several years.
- Specifies veterinarian care. Under Prop B, a licensed veterinarian must examine the dogs at least once a year; it also requires prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian. Parson's legislation loosens that to "at least two personal visual inspections annually by a licensed veterinarian." The compromise reverts back to the Prop B language, except it places the word "serious" in front of the phrase "illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian."
- Increases to $2,500 from $500 a year the maximum fee for obtaining a license for a breeding facility. Parson's bill also includes this provision.
Both measures would require breeders to maintain all veterinary records and sales records for the most recent previous two years. The records shall be made available to the state veterinarian, a state or local animal welfare official, or a law enforcement agent upon request.
Support for compromise may not be solid
In any case, the alternative bill apparently would still need to be approved by the Senate and House quickly and placed on Nixon's desk before SB 113's 15 days run out. If Nixon vetoes the bill, the legislature would have until May 13, when this session ends, to override a veto.
Any override effort may be hampered by the fact that SB 113 did not pass with a veto-proof majority.
Yet it's also unclear how solid the support is for the proposed alternate bill.
For example: State Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, who sponsored SB 113, is listed as one of the compromise's backers.
"Growing Missouri agriculture and protecting dogs are both important priorities, and this agreement is a win on both fronts," Parson said in a release announcing the agreement.
But Parson said in an interview that he wanted the governor first to sign SB 113 into law -- and then sign the proposed alternative, should the legislature pass it.
Parson said the main differences between his bill and the new agreement are the types of veterinarian care required and the square footage of the cages confining the animals.
Parson said that the agreement would be "dead" if Nixon vetoed SB 113.
"If we're truly going to get this done, we're going to know before this veto happens," Parson said. "I hope the compromise is worked out. I hope everyone at the table can get it done. You've got to get it through the [legislature] in a short-term period of time, which is a very difficult process to do. We're going to work for that, if that's what the coalition decides."
"But I think to say that we're going to veto [my bill] right off the bat to do this, I don't think we're going to want to use this as a political game," Parson added. "And I hope that nobody's doing that."
One of the agreement's backers is Kathy Warnick, president of the Humane Society of Missouri. "The Humane Society of Missouri believes this landmark agreement will ensure for decades to come what the majority of Missourians want -- humane standards of care for Missouri's breeding dogs," said Warnick in a statement.
"The agreement upholds the primary intent of Missouri voters concerning the treatment of dogs in breeding facilities and proposes new legislative language that provides a higher standard of care than currently stipulated in Missouri law," she added.
But later Monday, within hours of the announcement of the agreement, national Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle was among a coalition announcing its opposition.
"The will of the people should be respected, and this deal falls far short of the animal-care standards that Missouri voters approved in Prop B," Pacelle said. "We were never against the idea of compromise, but we are against the idea of capitulation."
Ed Sayres, president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said, "We applaud Gov. Nixon and the Department of Agriculture for strengthening enforcement, but enforcement is meaningless without strong standards for the welfare of dogs. Missouri voters want to turn around the state's reputation as the puppy mill capital of America, and the common-sense standards for dog breeding enacted with Prop B should not be jettisoned."
Gregory Castle, chief executive of the Best Friends Animal Society, said, "We are disappointed that the compromises incorporated in the recently announced proposed legislation to amend the provisions of Prop B clearly fail to provide the protections for dogs in Missouri's puppy mills that the citizens of the state wanted. We approve moves to strengthen enforcement, but Prop B's improved standards for the humane treatment of these animals should not be discarded."
Parson replied, "That's a disappointing fact that people from [outside] the state of Missouri don't even want to compromise when all the animal rights groups in Missouri are agreeing to this."
Senate Majority Leader Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said in a news conference he couldn't comment on the agreement since he hasn't seen the details. Asked if mid-April was an appropriate time for the governor to be proposing such a deal, Dempsey replied, "Earlier would have been helpful."
"January, February, March," Dempsey said, referring to times when the agreement would have been more useful.
"October, November of last year," added Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, R-Dexter.
One possibility is that the agreement's proposed alternative could be placed onto another existing House bill seeking to overhaul Prop B, Dempsey said. That bill is still in committee.
State Rep. Tom Loehner, R- Koeltztown, handled SB 113 in the House. He said he hopes that Nixon signs SB 113 into law, as well as the alternate measure.
"I don't know if the passage of [SB 113l] brought one side closer to the table maybe, who knows?" Loehner said. But he acknowledged, "It's a late date to try and get it all through."
Ultimately, Loehner added, the fate of SB 113 hinges with Nixon. "It's in his hands now."
State Sen. John Lamping, R-Ladue, signaled Tuesday that he's also cool to the compromise - and aappeared to side with Prop B supporters. Lamping also too a jab at the governor.
"I am disappointed that the will of the people was not followed by lawmakers," Lamping said. "If, in fact, all stakeholders truly came together to reach the agreement, this may have some merit. Unfortunately, leadership came too late. The fact that the governor chose to wait until April 18 rather than work with all interested parties throughout the legislative session speaks to a lack of leadership."
