Prop B – House Bill 131

Canine Cruelty Prevention Act

Proposition B “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” passed with a 51.6 % vote in November 2010, was set to take effect November 2011.

It’s a sad day (4/8/2011) today for people fighting against changes to Prop B. The MO House of representatives voted in favor of changes to be made to Prop B. HB131 will now go back to the Senate for another vote on the changes that were made in the House and then to the Governor’s desk.  

4/13/2011 HB 131 has been sent to Gov. Nixon.


Agriculture Groups – The main concern of ranchers, who make up a large portion of MO’s rural population is the possible restrictions placed on the amount of livestock owned. They fear that today Prop B is limiting the amount of dogs a commercial dog breeder can have, tomorrow it will include the amount of livestock ranchers can own.

Dog Breeders– The obvious reason why dog breeders are opposed to Prop. B, is the reduction of income when limits are place on the amount of puppies a breeder can produce. But the implementation of Prop B also increasing the expenses by requiring a higher standard of living for breeding dogs. Close to half of the current commercial breeding facilities in MO would get penalized according to Prop B and 14 of the largest dog-breeding facilities wouldn’t even stay in business.

Instead of penalizing these commercial breeding facilities. The MO government would rather change the law to suit the commercial breeder, rather than maintain the law for the good of the animal.

Veterinarians – Loss of income due to restrictions placed on the amount of dogs a commercial breeder can have. The main income for veterinarians in rural areas, from puppy breeders comes from spays & neuters, vaccinations and treating medical issues related to reproduction.

House Bill 131 Everything between parentheses has been omitted.

House Bill 131 removes the current law prohibiting anyone from having more than 50 dogs when the purpose is to breed them and sell the resulting puppies, allowing breeders to have an unlimited amount of dogs. HB 131 increased this number to 100 dogs.

If 50 female dogs give birth to 3 to 5 puppies, they can produce 150 to 250 puppies a year. Multiplied by the number of breeding facilities in MO alone (1400) is approximately 200,000 to 350,000 puppies a year. Double the number of puppies to 400,000 to 700,000 a year after HB 131 is passed. This hopefully explains why the Humane Society of the United States, the Humane Society of Missouri and the ASPCA (the organizations that financed the Prop B. ballot), are opposed the changes to Prop B.

If there has ever been a time to reduce the amount of dogs in our Nation, it is now!!!

  • House Bill 131 also raises the threshold for criminal penalties. Violators will be sued in civil court, with fines up to $1000 per violation. A grace period of between 30 and 180 days will be provided in which to correct serious violations. Followed by two inspections. Repeated violations of the law will no longer be subject to felony charges, but rather be classified as misdemeanor offenses.

What was supposed to be a victory and example to other states has turned into yet another political power struggle.

What to do next?

  • Sign our petition that will be sent to Gov. Nixon before he signes HB131, urging him to veto these bills.
  • Inform rural Missouri about the benefits of Prop B; less stray dogs, healthy puppies not infected with diseases such as Parvo or genetic abnormalities. No longer being the “the puppy-mill” state of the country. Decrease the amount of dogs in animal shelters, decrease the amount of dogs euthanized.
  • Spread the word amongst rural Missouri ranchers, that Prop B is a law against puppy mills, not livestock owners. If they ever make a Prop C that wants to regulate the amount of cows a rancher can own, they can vote against that!!
  • Listen to your veterinarian when it comes to animal health, not politics!!

Please use this blog to brainstorm and share this information with as many people as you can, together we can make a difference. It’s not to late, let us be the voice these dogs do not have. The time to act is now.

2 thoughts on “Prop B – House Bill 131”

  1. I am beyond angry at the fact that government has chosen to ignore the wishes of voters and is attempting to repeal Prop B even before it goes into effect. Once again money is the overriding concern and the health and welfare of dogs living in puppy mills is to be dismissed. If this repeal passes, it will make me completely ashamed to call Missouri my home state (even though I’m currently living in Pennsylvania.) Please, don’t favor the extreme unhealthy conditions found in puppy mills to benefit the financial interest of livestock owners in rural Missouri. Prop B has nothing to do with large animal livestock.

    1. Thank you Beth, for your feedback. Veterinarians in rural MO have convinced ranchers that Prob B opens the door for laws to be put in place that will, in the future, dictate the amount of livestock they can own. I personally know this first-hand and we have heard the same from other ANCS-associates working in rural MO. It was a clever tactic that almost worked back in November 2010. In this struggling economy, veterinarians want to do everything they can to maintain revenue generated by these puppy mills. They stand to loose half of the volume of spays & neuters, vaccinations and costs related to reproduction, if the minimum amount of covered dogs a breeder can have is set at 50. The MO representatives don’t want to loose their jobs over this and have based their descision, to allow changes to be made to Prop B, on the amount of votes for and against Prop B in their district, back in November of 2010. The majority of votes in favor of Prop B are from a handfull of urban districts versus the minority of votes against Prop B from a larger number of rural districts. The only fair solution would be to let MO residents vote for or against SB113 & HB133, not the representatives. This issue concerns the entire nation for MO is a mere example of what is to happen in other states aswell.

      Please send Gov. Nixon a message ( and sign the petition if you have not already done so. Again Thank You!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In-depth pet health care information