Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Three Years
Yesterday, year three of marriage gave way to year four. It hardly feels like any time has passed, yet over a thousand days lie between here and there. And however we perceive the passing of time, we are different now than when we began. (And by that I mean a lot more than just that appendix that went missing three weeks ago.) It may only feel like the journey just started, but that's okay: I never want it to end.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Friday, November 5, 2010
Missouri Proposition B Myths
With emotions riding high, both sides of the Proposition B issue have put out a lot of rhetoric. Several myths keep popping up, so I decided to record a few and explain what’s wrong with them.
Myth #1: Existing regulations will be weakened under the new law.
Fact: the law states the following:
Myth #2: Cats, sheep, or other livestock kept near a house would be covered.
Fact: the law applies to “covered female dogs.” That is, it applies only if you are breeding more than 10 female dogs. And it applies only to dogs, not to other pets or to livestock. And it applies only to dogs being bred: personal pets and even puppies are not covered. Any spayed or neutered dog is not covered.
Myth #3: Penalties aren’t any stronger under the new law.
Fact: under existing law, once a breeder has a license they are very unlikely to be charged with a crime. They may be fined or even lose their license, but it is very difficult to bring criminal abuse charges. The new law applies equally to licensed and unlicensed breeders. The specified penalties may not be worse, but they make it much, much easier to get a conviction.
Myth #4: It’s hypocritical because it doesn’t regulate shelters. It shouldn’t have exceptions.
Fact: shelters have dogs because of excess supply and irresponsible owners. Regulating shelters isn’t going to fix either of those issues. While Prop. B only addresses the supply portion, it is still a non-trivial factor in the equation. One law can’t do everything. Shelters aren’t for-profit operations, large-scale breeding is.
Myth #5: Enforcement costs will go up unnecessarily. Let existing regulations work.
Fact: existing regulations aren’t working, as audits from at least as far back as 2001 show. Part of the reason is that regulators are underfunded. So it’s going to cost more money regardless. Shelters are spending millions every year to care for the excess supply produced, so if that supply is reduced, money will actually be saved; that money can be directed to improving enforcement. There are already costs, and if we fix the problem, those costs will go down. Short-term thinking isn’t going to fix this problem.
The other problem with doing nothing is that we can’t necessarily trust the Agriculture Department to accurately report enforcement costs. There are former breeders who work in the Ag Dept. and in the past some of them managed to actually be involved in regulating other breeders. Often the regulators have greater interest in industry profitability than they do in enforcement of legal and ethical standards. The department has said that the cost will go up, but gave no reason why. Personally, I’m waiting for the next Auditor’s report before I believe any cost figures.
Myth #6: It’s an unfunded mandate and therefore unconstitutional.
Fact: it specifies criminal penalties for violations. It doesn’t specify in any way how it is to be enforced. Standard law enforcement is not an unfunded mandate. It does not force municipalities to do or pay for anything, therefore it does not constitute an unfunded mandate. Put differently, the state is not required to allocate funds every time it declares something to be a misdemeanor offense.
Myth #7: It’s all an outsider plot by Humane Society of the United States. They are just interfering in local business to push their animal rights agenda.
Fact: Over 100 veterinarians and clinics support Proposition B. There are businesses and non-profits that support it too. Thousands of Missourians who are directly involved in caring for pets that are not their own are in favor of the measure. Over 100 animal protection charities support it. That includes the Humane Society of Missouri, which has a budget of $15 million.
Myth #8: Puppies should be kept at 90°, so the 85° limit is actually harmful to them.
Fact: existing law has had an 85° limit for the last 18 years. Keeping puppies at 90° for a week does not mean that all of the dogs should be kept at such temperatures. Otherwise puppies should only be born in the summer, but that’s obviously not the case. Newborns are normally kept in a small, enclosed area, which is easy to heat. This has nothing to do with things like keeping dogs caged in a sweltering barn all summer, which is simply cruel.
Further, the law does, in fact, make exceptions for "individual treatment" and "recuperation." There is no sensible reason why this provision would not apply to a mother who has recently given birth. Hysteria about the welfare of newborn pups is, in short, unfounded.
Going along with myth #7 are assorted complaints, including a “slippery slope” argument and general conspiracy theories. (Apparently HSUS wants to ban all animal ownership and force us all to be pet-free vegans!) Of course, dogs are companion animals, so the only logical alternative to keeping them as pets is really extinction. That's not going to get any political traction in the foreseeable future.
Well, I think that’s about enough logic for one post. I hope my investigations have turned out to be informative. Politics can be messy. I feel dirty already. Time for a break.
Myth #1: Existing regulations will be weakened under the new law.
Fact: the law states the following:
The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section.Anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that no existing laws are affected in any way. People who make this claim either haven’t read the law, don’t understand the passage I quoted, or are being dishonest. This claim is completely false. If existing law is stronger, it still applies.
Myth #2: Cats, sheep, or other livestock kept near a house would be covered.
Fact: the law applies to “covered female dogs.” That is, it applies only if you are breeding more than 10 female dogs. And it applies only to dogs, not to other pets or to livestock. And it applies only to dogs being bred: personal pets and even puppies are not covered. Any spayed or neutered dog is not covered.
Myth #3: Penalties aren’t any stronger under the new law.
Fact: under existing law, once a breeder has a license they are very unlikely to be charged with a crime. They may be fined or even lose their license, but it is very difficult to bring criminal abuse charges. The new law applies equally to licensed and unlicensed breeders. The specified penalties may not be worse, but they make it much, much easier to get a conviction.
Myth #4: It’s hypocritical because it doesn’t regulate shelters. It shouldn’t have exceptions.
Fact: shelters have dogs because of excess supply and irresponsible owners. Regulating shelters isn’t going to fix either of those issues. While Prop. B only addresses the supply portion, it is still a non-trivial factor in the equation. One law can’t do everything. Shelters aren’t for-profit operations, large-scale breeding is.
Myth #5: Enforcement costs will go up unnecessarily. Let existing regulations work.
Fact: existing regulations aren’t working, as audits from at least as far back as 2001 show. Part of the reason is that regulators are underfunded. So it’s going to cost more money regardless. Shelters are spending millions every year to care for the excess supply produced, so if that supply is reduced, money will actually be saved; that money can be directed to improving enforcement. There are already costs, and if we fix the problem, those costs will go down. Short-term thinking isn’t going to fix this problem.
The other problem with doing nothing is that we can’t necessarily trust the Agriculture Department to accurately report enforcement costs. There are former breeders who work in the Ag Dept. and in the past some of them managed to actually be involved in regulating other breeders. Often the regulators have greater interest in industry profitability than they do in enforcement of legal and ethical standards. The department has said that the cost will go up, but gave no reason why. Personally, I’m waiting for the next Auditor’s report before I believe any cost figures.
Myth #6: It’s an unfunded mandate and therefore unconstitutional.
Fact: it specifies criminal penalties for violations. It doesn’t specify in any way how it is to be enforced. Standard law enforcement is not an unfunded mandate. It does not force municipalities to do or pay for anything, therefore it does not constitute an unfunded mandate. Put differently, the state is not required to allocate funds every time it declares something to be a misdemeanor offense.
Myth #7: It’s all an outsider plot by Humane Society of the United States. They are just interfering in local business to push their animal rights agenda.
Fact: Over 100 veterinarians and clinics support Proposition B. There are businesses and non-profits that support it too. Thousands of Missourians who are directly involved in caring for pets that are not their own are in favor of the measure. Over 100 animal protection charities support it. That includes the Humane Society of Missouri, which has a budget of $15 million.
Myth #8: Puppies should be kept at 90°, so the 85° limit is actually harmful to them.
Fact: existing law has had an 85° limit for the last 18 years. Keeping puppies at 90° for a week does not mean that all of the dogs should be kept at such temperatures. Otherwise puppies should only be born in the summer, but that’s obviously not the case. Newborns are normally kept in a small, enclosed area, which is easy to heat. This has nothing to do with things like keeping dogs caged in a sweltering barn all summer, which is simply cruel.
Further, the law does, in fact, make exceptions for "individual treatment" and "recuperation." There is no sensible reason why this provision would not apply to a mother who has recently given birth. Hysteria about the welfare of newborn pups is, in short, unfounded.
Going along with myth #7 are assorted complaints, including a “slippery slope” argument and general conspiracy theories. (Apparently HSUS wants to ban all animal ownership and force us all to be pet-free vegans!) Of course, dogs are companion animals, so the only logical alternative to keeping them as pets is really extinction. That's not going to get any political traction in the foreseeable future.
Well, I think that’s about enough logic for one post. I hope my investigations have turned out to be informative. Politics can be messy. I feel dirty already. Time for a break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)