By Tim Schmidt, Record Editor
On next Tuesday’s ballot will be Proposition B, which generally is referred to as the anti-puppy mill measure. But it is much more than that, would be costly and would over-regulate the care and treatment of animals. Proposed by initiative petition, Prop B ballot wording doesn’t sound bad. It would require large scale dog breeding operators to provide adequate food, water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and rest during breeding cycles; limit breeders to 50 dogs or less for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and would create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy cruelty” for any violations. It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (ongoing costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Enforcement is expected to cost more and there is estimated savings related to reduced animal care activities. On the surface of the ballot wording, Prop B sounds good. But there is more. The proposed law could be interpreted to include other animals as “pets” and the required care is over-reach, and unreasonable. The state has more than 1,400 licensed commercial dog breeders. Fair and uniform enforcement of the proposed regulations would be nearly impossible. Many good breeders could be put out of business. In some respects, the current laws are stronger than what is in Prop B. We agree with opponents who argue that current regulations are adequate if enforced. Farmers fear this measure will lead to limits on raising farm animals. We have had examples of puppy mills in which animals were mistreated, had to be rescued, some had to be put down and others cared for until adopted. Those examples have given the state a black eye and resulted in this proposition. More laws aren’t the answer. Enforcement of what we have is the answer. We will vote no on Prop B.
