ASPCA Blog Banner

November 3, 2010

Victory: Missourians Vote In Puppy Mill Reform!

dog

Fed up with their state’s well-deserved reputation as the Puppy Mill Capital of America, Missourians hit the polls on Election Day to declare that enough is enough! Last night, voters in the Show Me State passed the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which appeared on their ballots as Proposition B, by a margin of approximately 60,000 votes. It is an incredible victory, and one we hope will send a strong message to the governments of other states—namely, that the public wants better conditions and more compassion for puppy mill dogs.

The new Missouri law, which becomes effective in one year, ensures that dogs who spend their entire lives breeding puppies at these large-scale facilities receive basic, humane care. It requires dogs to be provided with sufficient food and clean water, regular veterinary care, adequate housing and space, and access to regular exercise. Temperature parameters for kennels will be established to ensure that dogs are warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and female dogs will get adequate resting time between breeding cycles. And with passage of Proposition B, Missouri becomes the fifth state—joining Louisiana, Oregon, Virginia and Washington—to create a limit on the number of intact, adult breeder dogs a commercial dog breeder may keep.

In no other state were the stakes higher for puppy mill dogs. Missouri’s weak, confusing laws regulating commercial kennels have made it a haven for substandard breeders. The ASPCA has participated in many raids and rescues at Missouri puppy mills, and we have seen firsthand the unspeakably heartbreaking and inferior conditions to which these dogs are subjected.

Home to one-third of all the commercial dog breeding facilities in the U.S. (no other state even comes close), Missouri supplies more than 40 percent of all dogs sold in pet stores nationwide. No matter where you live, there’s a good chance that the puppies in the window of your local pet store came from a Missouri puppy mill. Implementation of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act will provide welcome relief to tens of thousands of adult breeding dogs—not to mention the approximately one million puppies born in Missouri kennels every year. 

 “Yesterday’s passage of Proposition B reflects a landmark achievement in the ongoing fight against animal cruelty,” says ASPCA President & CEO Ed Sayres. “We are proud to have worked diligently on this campaign, and we celebrate this victory alongside the caring citizens of Missouri. The ASPCA is committed to working with local animal welfare groups to help breeders transition to the new humane standards and find loving homes for any displaced Missouri breeding dogs.”

The ASPCA wishes to thank our supporters all over the country for helping us advocate for Proposition B to your friends and family in Missouri. We will continue to cover this development and its nationwide implications in the coming days—to make sure you don’t miss a thing, please sign up to receive the ASPCA’s fun and informative weekly email newsletter.

Post your comments

Your comments are welcome here, but please remember to practice proper comment etiquette. Comments that include inappropriate or personal information will be deleted.

  • Submitted by Hanna at:April 4, 2012 10:42 PM

    The anti-puppy mill projects have made such HUGE seirdts this year!! When I saw states starting to outlaw pet stores I knew we were making some huge progress! Its such a good feeling to know our government officials are doing something right & so many furry lives are being saved.

  • Submitted by Tamara at:April 2, 2012 04:29 PM

    Its strange that you came up with this mix bcuaese they are all so different in temperament. For a first dog I would definitly recommend a Boxer.Since the dog is going to be a rescue it is likely to have behavioral problems. You do not want a 200 lb dog with a behavioral problem or a notoriously aggressive breed like a rottwieler when you are starting a family.english mastiffs are one of my absolute favorite dogs but only if you have thousands a year to contribute to medical expenses and basic up keep. Bull Mastiffs are great too but I dont like the look as much as the english mastiff. Are you talking about you are going to buy a house or rent a house? If you are renting you will likely not be permitted to get a large dog and you do not want a huge dog that causes damage to your home either. When it comes time your best bet is to see if you are buying/renting and if you will surely have a place to keep the dog for the next 10-15 years. Make sure the dog gets along with your girl friend. Ensure that you have the income to upkeep a large breed. (at least $2K expendable income per year plus extra for emergency vet care)Good luck. It is a big choice and one worth pondering.

  • Submitted by Deb at:April 29, 2011 08:24 PM

    This law has been amended to almost non-existent. We must get involved as this coud happen in other staes too.

  • Submitted by mary at:April 29, 2011 01:51 PM

    what people will do and have done for the love of money$$$$ shame on all those that make blood money. my only peace is you will have to answer to your maker one day......

  • Submitted by shirley at:April 25, 2011 11:38 AM

    Please help the animals who have not voice. There is so much abuse and pain going on in the puppy mills. Thank you for not letting this bill pass.

  • Submitted by CANDACE at:April 20, 2011 12:56 AM

    I SURELY HOPE & PRAY THAT THERE IS no more Puppy MILLS. This is not a very good sign for all puppies or dogs.please put a stop to all Puppy mills now.it will help a lot of people in the long run.

  • Submitted by J at:April 18, 2011 07:59 PM

    This was a no brainer, So it has to be about money

  • Submitted by cindi at:April 18, 2011 11:09 AM

    Well even though I know this will not be posted I am going to send it anyway. I am glad this law is not going to go into effect. The ASPCA is a private for profit corporation that makes it's money by telling the public lies to get the public to support the ASPCA's private agendas. They are animal haters and do not wish anyone to breed an animal without their permission.

  • Submitted by Linda at:April 18, 2011 09:28 AM

    So In Missouri, The People's Vote MEANS NOTHING huh? Let's Hope that Gov Nixon is a Compassionate Man with a Conscience. Let's Hope he Takes A Few "Tours" of these "Houses Of Horror" BEFORE HE GOES AGAINST THE VOTERS OF HIS STATE. People of Missouri, Please Don't Let A Bunch of GREEDY Politicians Silence You, The Voter! Remind them that you help put them in office and you can just as easily Take Them Out Of Office. And, Always "ADOPT DON'T SHOP"

  • Submitted by Virginia at:April 17, 2011 06:41 PM

    I have recently moved out of Missouri. I lived most of my life there while being embarrassed that I was from such a backward, ignorant state...the puppy mill and meth lab capital of the U.S. It's shocking! I left a lot of friends in St. Louis to continue the fight for humane treatment of animals and I will do the same wherever I am. I pray that Gov. Nixon will not allow Prop. B to be overturned.

  • Submitted by Kathy at:April 16, 2011 08:10 AM

    THERE SHOULD NOT be any puppy mills in ANY state!!All comes from greed and fast EASY $ .... and no one cares about animals!! the Animals can not talk they count on us to help and protect them JUST STOP THIS!!!!!

  • Submitted by Kathy at:April 16, 2011 08:07 AM

    THERE SHOULD NOT be any puppy mills in ANY state!!All comes from greed and fast EASY $ .... and no one cares about animals!! the Animals can not talk they count on us to help and protect them JUST STOP THIS!!!!!

  • Submitted by Jackson at:April 15, 2011 09:39 PM

    This is really an incredible thing to think so many people are so stupid and misinformed to believe this dribble. Now here's question for you genius... Which group (Side) are the dummies on? For or Against? I know the truth, but do you?

  • Submitted by Brian at:April 15, 2011 07:08 PM

    Well folks of Missouri, the ball is in your court. Vote these legislators out in the next election. You can now see how much they represent your interests and how once they are in office, they are more interested in pandering to the special interest groups, ie puppy mill breeders, than they are for serving the will of the people. What a slap in the face this is to the people of Missouri.

  • Submitted by Dean at:April 15, 2011 02:28 PM

    What is the use of VOTING if the law makers change the vote?

  • Submitted by Elise at:April 15, 2011 02:13 PM

    Please help to stop the inhumane, cruel treatment & deplorable conditions that these puppies have to live in.

  • Submitted by terry at:April 15, 2011 01:55 PM

    This is so sad, that these ignorant people have to do this and disregard the poor animals being and living in such poor conditions. I wish we could do to the people what they do to the dogs.

  • Submitted by Lisa at:April 15, 2011 12:49 PM

    There are too many "rescue" dogs that come from puppy mills! There's enough dogs and puppies out there that need to be rescued and they didn't come from these puppy mills. We rescued our 1 dog from a puppy mill and we rescued our 2nd dog from a neglectful previous owner. These puppy mills need to be stopped because dogs don't NEED to be bred! There's enough being done by breeders and nature itself!

  • Submitted by Kelsi at:April 15, 2011 11:59 AM

    What I don't understand, is how the Government can make all of us pay for their mis-use of the tax payers money. Then to make up for it cut programs that the American people voted for. What is the purpose of voting if the Democrats and Republicans are just going to over turn what the people of America voted for??? We as a Country, voted to protect these animals and the Government said to bad....We screwed up again and now you get to pay for it and all the animals. We are Stewards of this beautiful Earth and all upon it.

  • Submitted by KCole at:April 15, 2011 10:34 AM

    please consider the lives of these poor creatures and stop the mills!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The mills are inhumane living forced on these poor dogs.

  • Submitted by evonne at:April 15, 2011 10:17 AM

    please help pass this law

  • Submitted by Mary at:April 15, 2011 10:00 AM

    It is indeed a sad day for the animals. Who wants to be locked up day in and day out. These poor dogs were depending on you to save them. Now they will continue to suffer. Please stop the cruelty and re-instate the protections. They need them!!!

  • Submitted by alisha at:April 15, 2011 09:51 AM

    STOP TREATING THE DOGS LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE FEELINGS OR THEY DON'T HAVE EMOTIONS...MY DOG KNOWS LOVE HE KNOWS WHEN HE HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG MOST OF ALL HE KNOWS WHEN I COME HOME HE IS WAITING FOR ME AT THE DOOR AND WAITING FOR MY HUG AND MY PAT ON HIS HEAD AND HE IS MOST HAPPY CUDDLE IN MY ARMS....FEELING MY LOVE!

  • Submitted by alisha at:April 15, 2011 09:51 AM

    STOP TREATING THE DOGS LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE FEELINGS OR THEY DON'T HAVE EMOTIONS...MY DOG KNOWS LOVE HE KNOWS WHEN HE HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG MOST OF ALL HE KNOWS WHEN I COME HOME HE IS WAITING FOR ME AT THE DOOR AND WAITING FOR MY HUG AND MY PAT ON HIS HEAD AND HE IS MOST HAPPY CUDDLE IN MY ARMS....FEELING MY LOVE!

  • Submitted by kate at:April 15, 2011 09:47 AM

    please help the puppy mill dogs live a more humane life! we see what they are living now and it is not fair to them and we are not going to buy a puppy from a pet store never again!

  • Submitted by claire at:March 31, 2011 07:18 PM

    thats sad

  • Submitted by Renato at:March 11, 2011 02:32 PM

    As a "stupid" supporter against deplorable/horrible puppy mills in our city/state , i'm here once again to fight against this terrible issue .....

  • Submitted by Linda at:January 14, 2011 01:35 AM

    Although the passing of prop b is a start our goal needs to be putting an end to all puppy mills everywhere. We have laws in place making pit bull fighting illegal but what is the difference between that and operating a puppy mill. Cruelty is cruelty,no matter how you look at it, craming a large number of dogs in wire cages, with little or no food or water,no human contact,no health check ups, no exercise and females breeding time after time, I don't care if its 1 dog or 100 its inhumane. Dogs are meant to be family pets able to run in the grass freely and be around people so they are socialized. A suffering animal can't just open its cage and runaway or call out for help that is why we have to be their voice and make our goal here to put an end to all puppy mills. Every puppy mill raid is a very heartwrenching scene and its is the same situation over and over, they are run by greed for the purpose of profit only so why is it not illegal? THANK YOU MISSOURI for taking the first step to helping those who can't help themselves.

  • Submitted by Sharon at:December 10, 2010 02:15 PM

    Way to go Missouri. One of my sweet beagles is a rescue from a Missouri puppy mill, one of the lucky ones. Adopt don't shop...

  • Submitted by alison ferro at:November 16, 2010 12:00 AM

    Animal organizations need to all work together for the good of the animals. Whether it is the HSUS or ASPCA the money that is being donated by people like myself and other's want that money spent on the animals not on it's staff. They hound you for donations but then waste it. I will now only support my local humane society.

  • Submitted by Teresa at:November 15, 2010 12:00 AM

    I live in Missouri and voted YES. Many rural folks were against it because they said it would bleed over into agriculture, they are uninformed. Others I spoke with said they were going to vote NO because there were "already" laws against animal cruelty, but WHY vote NO??? I don't get it. Unfortunately and sadly, it was reported on the news a day or two after the vote that it may be overturned/repealed because it was such a narrow margin!! 60,000!!! Even 6000 would have been the majority...why would ANYONE be against the promotion of decent care for animals??

  • Submitted by Diane at:November 15, 2010 12:00 AM

    I certainly wish that this proposition applied to breeding catterys, as well.

  • Submitted by cindy from Illinois at:November 12, 2010 12:00 AM

    It seems to me that people in Missouri need to get their issues straight. This had nothing to do with farmers raising animals for consumption. (big separate issue there). This is for people raising dogs in inhumane conditions. Period. The people who supported this obviously never watched any puppy mill footage, not produced by ASPCA. Watch a few of these films and get back with me. We have the same problem in Illinois with the Amish, who consider these little pups a commodity. Good going Missouri, some of you pulled your head out of the sand. It's too bad they are waiting a year. And I hope they can enforce this, lets create some jobs, let me know when you are hiring, I'll be down. The earlier poster is correct, these "breeders" will probably just shoot excess animals, as they have done in Pennsylvania, just to get out of inspections and vet bills.

  • Submitted by James at:November 8, 2010 12:00 AM

    @Angela: I'm pretty sure the ASPCA is smaller than HSUS, so I don't really see why they would be giving them money. I don't know one way or another how either of these organizations are financially structured, but I still don't see why that's a reason to vote against Prop B. HSUS could be the worst run organization in the world for all I care. If they are, that's a good reason not to donate to them, but it's no reason to not vote against animal cruelty.

  • Submitted by Jill Zaccariello at:November 8, 2010 12:00 AM

    All puppy mills should be abolished! Not just restricted... Innocent animals are being neglected and abused by greedy lazy reprehensible people who DO NOT deserve one cent. Everyone will face judgement day! I hope all of them are treated in the same deplorable manner. Breeders should all choke on their filthy money. It never makes sense to use a pet store or a breeder when all their wonderful neglected left overs are suffering in overpopulated filthy shelters or thrown away like the garbage that runs these puppy mills!

  • Submitted by Ron S. at:November 8, 2010 12:00 AM

    Two issues. I was disturbed by the numbers that Angela reported on Nov. 5 and would like to see if these figures are accurate as it may determine my future contributions. These seem like obscenely high administrative and solicitation costs. Secondly, I'm happy to hear that the Mizzou referendum passed, but am disappointed that it takes a year before such new regulations are put into effect. I understand that this is common practice, but still concerned for the unnecessary abuse that will lawfully continue until that time. Goes again to show that money is the root of all evil.

  • Submitted by Sara Acevedo at:November 7, 2010 12:00 AM

    I noticed my cats drink out of the drip saucers under potted plants - even though their water bowls are clean and full - so I now have deep drip pots so they can't reach that plant water.

  • Submitted by LabbyLover at:November 6, 2010 12:00 AM

    YAY Finally. Puppy Mills should be banned in EVERY STATE. GREAT JOB missouri.

  • Submitted by RON at:November 6, 2010 12:00 AM

    Please post a link to the full text site, for this LAW - from the official gov guy site. Thank You

  • Submitted by Judith at:November 5, 2010 12:00 AM

    While I'm delighted at the passage of Prop. B, the very fact that it's a citizen initiative, perhaps with no meaningful support in the legislature, means that enforcement will suffer from lack of budget. I'm concerned, too, that the limit on the number of dogs a breeder can keep will mean that more will be put down sooner rather than support the expense of keeping them in decent conditions.

  • Submitted by Angela at:November 5, 2010 12:00 AM

    I voted against Prop B after reading an article in the Nov 2010 Missouri Ruralist. Here's an except from the article by Dr. Alan Wessler: "An analysis of its 2008 tax returns shows that HSUS received $86 million of income. It paid out $31 million in salaries (more than the White House payroll), $24 million in fundraising expenses and $20 million in legal expenses (HSUS thrives on stirring up conflict that allows for more fundraising.) Only $450,000 went toward the actual hands-on care of dogs and cats. That’s less than one-half of 1 percent of the organization’s income. This means for every $19 requested in the group’s emotional TV ads, only one thin dime goes to the actual care of animals." I was going to join the ASPCA because I am an animal lover, but when I read the money that HSUS has and how it is spent and now know that you all support them not a chance! Why aren't you people spending more on the care of animals instead of putting the money in your pockets. This is insane. Spend that money where it should be spent...on taking care of the animals.

  • Submitted by James at:November 5, 2010 12:00 AM

    @Angela: The ASPCA isn't HSUS. They're two separate organizations. But it is worth pointing out that there are plenty of things besides direct aid a group could spend money on that helps the cause of animal welfare. Funding Prop B efforts, for example, isn't money going going to "hands-on care for dogs and cats" but it will save hundreds of thousands of dogs from suffering. In any case, just because you have issues with how HSUS manages it's finances doesn't make it OK to abuse puppies. At the end of the day, a vote for Prop B was a vote for dogs, not for HSUS.

  • Submitted by paula at:November 4, 2010 12:00 AM

    Thank god! may it stay like that forever. They dont deserve to be mistreated and abused. And i am sooo happy people have no idea how important to end cruelty!!! thank you Alleluya!!

  • Submitted by Ray Van Ostran at:November 4, 2010 12:00 AM

    The State still needs to provide the money and personnel to enforce the law. There are many laws not enforced due to a lack of funding. The fight is not over yet.

  • Submitted by Denise at:November 4, 2010 12:00 AM

    AMEN!!!!!

  • Submitted by Kelley at:November 4, 2010 12:00 AM

    I normally live in St. Louis, MO but right now I go to school in Northeast MO. It is appalling how many people out here were against Prop B. We sponsored a debate at my school about the issue, and the only arguments that the No on B panelists were making was that this bill would eventually force regulations on their livestock. It was obvious that the panelists also had a major problem with the bill being sponsored by the HSUS. Many people involved in agriculture in Missouri do not like the HSUS for enforcing humane treatment of livestock. One panelist went so far as to claim that animal rights activists were all "eco-terrorists" who broke into people's homes to steal their dogs. It is because of propaganda like this that the bill so narrowly passed. The only reason this bill was able to pass is because of Kansas City and St. Louis voting so strongly in favor of the bill. It makes me embarrassed to live out in rural Missouri. I would like to thank the ASPCA for its support with Prop B, and encourage everyone to continue fighting against animal cruelty.

  • Submitted by Jessica at:November 4, 2010 12:00 AM

    Lanie -- Prop B doesn't affect good breeders at all. It is actually a very, very conservative bill that says things like dogs' cages have to be big enough for them to turn around and stretch their limbs. Good breeders are not keeping dogs in cages that small, only puppy mills are. And a limit of 50 breeding dogs per facility is in no way a ban on breeding. This is just a good, basic, commonsense law for a state that really needs it.

  • Submitted by maya m at:November 4, 2010 12:00 AM

    i think this is really horrible bacause animals are so cute and sweet i dont knoe why poeple do this to them i dont think these poeple have no hearts or a consece i would die if i kiiled an animals.

  • Submitted by Jen at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I am very happy that my fellow Missourians voted to pass Prop B! It literally brought tears to my eyes when I found out it passed last night. It's a great day for dogs and dog-lovers everywhere!

  • Submitted by Ana at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I'm so glad that Pro B passed! I wish that Pro B will be passed in Florida too! GO DOGS!

  • Submitted by Tracee at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I was sweating bullets at first as it looked like it was not passing. I was actually embarrased to live here. The farmers were told this ill could lead to how many livestock they can own which is why so many rural people voted no. Plus they are the puppy mills. Now if we can just get it restricted it more! No more than 10 dogs..bred 1 time only... and 1 breed at a time. Better yet, scrap breeding, adopt! I had 3 babies and that was not fun...can you imagine having sevral at one time and all the time?..

  • Submitted by Carla Allen at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I am so relieved this prop passed, I think I would have fallen into a depression if it hadn't. It's a great start to ending this horrendous practice of mistreating animals.

  • Submitted by Strange-1 at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I was amazed at how many paranoid people seemed to think that this would lead to limits on farming, or owning animals. It specifically states "breeding" and "dogs". I'm thankful that it passed!

  • Submitted by Linda at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I am so proud of my fellow Missourians who voted YES on this very important issue. We sent a strong message that we won't stand for deplorable puppy mills in our state! It is a victory for Missouri dogs and I couldn't be happier!

  • Submitted by Greg at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I am shocked that the results were so close! I expected a total landslide in favor of the Prop B. But instead it just narrowly passed. Unbelievable! Thank God it passed!

  • Submitted by bob at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I was just in Southern Mo. last week-end and I was blown away by the number of anti prop B signs.

  • Submitted by Lanie at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    While I am overjoyed that there will be stronger regulations in place to protect the dogs owned by commercial breeding operations, I am worried about how far this will go. I am all for adoption (I run a national, and a local rescue), but look at the big picture: if all breeding was banned, it could provide a SHORT-TERM solution, but eventually dogs would cease to exist. GOOD breeders are being lumped into the same category as puppy mills, and their programs are suffering through some of these new laws. Someone really needs to put their thinking cap on and determine how to put a stop to puppy mills and commercial breeding, while at the same time protecting the good breeders that put the dogs' welfare first, rigorously health test and certify their dogs, place puppies on strict contracts, etc.

  • Submitted by Cindy at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    Thanks Missouri for stepping up to the plate, really great job! The little Angels finally have a voice.....God Bless!

  • Submitted by Sharon at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    Way to go Missouri. One of my sweet beagles is a rescue from a Missouri puppy mill, one of the lucky ones. Adopt don't shop...

  • Submitted by JJK at:November 3, 2010 12:00 AM

    I am not a Missourian, but today Missouri makes me proud to be an American. Congratulations to the voters of Missouri for listening to their common sense and doing the right thing. Keep vigilant, and make sure your politicians provide full and proper enforcement of this measure in the years to come. Once the people of our great nation see that the bill's opponents' scare tactics were just hurtful lies, and everyone sees the benefits it brings to our canine friends, the whole nation can move toward a more humane, common sense approach to dog breeding. Thanks again, Missouri. You've shown the nation that it's patriotic middle-America common sense to be good to our canine best friends!

  • Captcha