JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — On Oct. 7, Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) spokeswoman Christine Tew announced Dr. Jon Hagler, MDA director, had completed final alterations to Section 273.345 – the controversial “Puppy Mill Bill.”

Hagler was authorized to make the changes by an amendment, Senate Bill 161, earlier this year. Section 273.345 was the subject of much heated controversy, both in the weeks leading up to its passage last November and during the amendment process this spring. Some, such as the Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB), claimed the law was part of a radical animal-rights agenda, and its passage would lead to a slippery slope in which livestock would be the next target of regulation.

The law, as originally written (and passed by a margin of less than 2 percent), stated its purpose to “prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills by requiring large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog … with basic food and water, adequate shelter from the elements, necessary veterinary care, adequate space … and regular exercise.”

Specific regulations added by the section included the requirements for annual veterinary examinations, temperature controls, a certain amount of space per dog and a limit on how often dogs could be bred. The section does not mention any species besides dogs, either in its original form or in later revisions.

One opponent to the bill’s passage was the Missouri Veterinary Medical Assoc., which convinced the majority of the state’s veterinarians Proposition B, as it was called, was ill-advised. In mid-October 2010, an anonymous survey of 37 vets and vet assistants in Missouri showed 16 were “against” the bill, 13 stated no opinion, four were ambivalent, three were dissatisfied either with bill language or existing lack of enforcement and only one was unequivocally supportive of the bill.

“We already have protections for these animals for these purposes,” said Dr. Chuck Dake, explaining the organization’s position. “If someone can take care of 10,000 dogs, there is no reason why they (should not) be allowed to have 10,000 dogs.”

Other objectors to the bill included some livestock groups, as well as most county Farm Bureau chapters. One MFB leaflet distributed at farm shows depicted a row of wooden blocks marked “Pets, Pork, Poultry, Beef, Dairy, Hunting, Fishing, Farming” in that order, with a finger preparing to push the block labeled “Pets” to knock over the whole stack.

The text denounced the law, which it attributed to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which did assist in Section 273.345’s passage, and associates the law implicitly with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Earth Liberation Front. The leaflet points to inefficiencies in the HSUS budget and that only 0.5 percent of donations actually helps animals in hands-on shelters.

Most researchers on animal and agricultural law, however, have been unable to find any legal way the new law could be used to place restrictions on livestock operations. Many believe the entire claim was drummed up by a group called the Alliance for Truth, chaired by Mark Patterson.

It was later revealed the Alliance for Truth was formed largely by the efforts of Center for Consumer Freedom attorney Rick Berman, who earned the nickname “Dr. Evil” from critics because of aggressive strategies as a lobbyist for the tobacco and alcohol industries. Berman was once quoted as saying, “Our offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger. Given the activists’ plans to alarm beyond all reason, we’ve got to attack their credibility as spokespersons.”

The Alliance for Truth made several false statements in its literature, according to Dr. Elizabeth Walker, professor of animal science at Missouri State University. For example, one bulletin it distributed last fall in an effort to stop the Section’s passage included the claim “HSUS is attempting to abolish pet ownership.” Walker said the Alliance was confusing HSUS with PETA, and that HSUS is favorable to pet ownership.

She added the bulletin, which features strong emotional wording and bold red print, is “just propaganda” and similar literature was also issued by the other side of the debate.

The initial ballot language was changed by a three-step process. Initially, an amendment called Senate Bill 113 was passed, which changed some of the bill’s original provisions. Many believed this amendment was a sabotage to the law, since it removed key provisions such as the limit on total breeding dogs any breeder could keep.

In March, Missouri radio host Jeff Clinkingbeard took on the task of opposing Bill 113 and related provisions, which he famously said would “neuter” the original law. Although the 113 amendment initially passed, it was quickly superseded and repealed by the “Missouri Solution,” or Senate Bill 161. This bill restored the original “Puppy Mill Bill” language, but gave the MDA the authority to make some adjustments.

The department held public meetings at five locations across the state: Branson, Harrisonville, Lebanon, Mexico and West Plains. The last meeting drew nearly 100 attendees. All of the meetings occurred in September.

The final changes include specific regulations requiring more space per dog in a kennel and an outright ban on stacked wire cages (“wire-strand flooring”), which had been only implicitly forbidden by the original bill. It also retained the ceiling at 50 dogs per breeder operation, a provision that drew much of the initial protest.

The claim that the “Puppy Mill Bill” would ultimately lead to tougher restrictions on livestock operations likely originated by analogy with bills sponsored by the HSUS and others, which made space requirements such as these for chickens. Missouri’s dog regulations also have several other theoretical similarities to poultry laws in some states.

Dr. Kenneth Struckhoff, a Saint Robert, Mo., vet who led efforts to stop the “Puppy Mill Bill,” is only partly satisfied with the changes.

“I think the new bill was better than (Senate Bill 113), and it was certainly better than the ‘Puppy Mill Bill,’” he said.

“(But) I don’t think a new law fixes the problem of illegal breeders, (who) were lawbreakers before, during, and after … the bill,” Struckhoff added.

He is more optimistic about the ability of better enforcement to “fix” the problem. This year, in association with the Missouri Solution – but technically not as a part of it – the Missouri General Assembly approved a $1.1 million budget allotment to Missouri’s animal care program, which funded the addition of four new top-level inspectors and a state investigator.

“We are mindful that these important changes prescribed by statute and rule require a significant commitment from our licensed, professional breeders,” said Hagler, the acting director of the program. “With that in mind, we have developed a plan to make financial resources available to professional breeders as we move forward, to keep the breeding industry vibrant and strong.