Wrap Up on Prop B Discussion Panel

As shown from our live twitter feed, Monday night's discussion panel on Proposition B was filled with emotion and heated debate. We took many notes during the discussion panel and we want our readers to know what we found. 

We would first like to comment on the format of the panel.  There were four representatives for each side of the argument-four who want Prop B to pass and four who want current legislation to stay as it is. Each panelist had up to 7 minutes to speak and since the event got a late start, there was less than an hour left for audience questions to be answered. While the opening statements helped the audience more fully understand each panelist's view on the controversial topic, everyone (including us) began to feel restless when an hour went by without any questions being asked.

We are not going to go through every question and answer that was discussed in the panel because it is all covered on our twitter page @adairalerts. Instead, we want to focus on the overall theme that was presented throughout the two hour discussion.

Main views from the opposition:

• Legislation is already put in place to regulate dog breeding operations in the form of the Animal Care Facilities Act of 1992. Opponents argue that it is actually more thorough than the proposed proposition
• Another way breeders are already held accountable is the through Operation Bark Alert, a toll-free hotline that residents can call with complaints or concerns relating to breeding facilities. 
• Breeders already ready thousands of money on their facilities in order to keep up with current regulations. If the proposition passes, many breeders (and veterinarians) will be out of business. 
• Not one breeding facility, including those in good standing, would be able to comply with all of the regulations set by the proposition
• Proposition B WILL NOT stop unlicensed breeders from continuing their illegal practices

Main views of the supporters

• While the Animal Care Facilities Act helps regulate breeding facilities, it is not enough. Proposition B does not get rid of existing legislation but rather builds on to it. 
• Operation Bark Alert is working. However, it only targets unlicensed breeding facilities. 
• Regulations very similar to those that are in Proposition B have been enacted in other states and have proven to be successful.
• Proposition B was not driven by outside forces like many think. It was put together by a coalition that live and work in Missouri.

The issue of bringing emotion into the discussion was brought up often. Dr Foster, a practicing veterinarian, argued that it is impossible to keep emotion out of it when thousands of peoples' jobs are at stake. Along with this, name calling occurred throughout the debate, even after the moderator asked the panelists to stick to the facts of the proposition. Calling supporters "eco-terrorists" and opponents "supporters of puppy mills" is immature and it does nothing to educate voters about the proposition. 

Another common theme that continued to be brought up was the relationship between the Humane Society and the proposition. Those who opposed the proposition argued that the Humane Society were the main contributors to the proposition. The supporters, however, said that while the Humane Society has been major supporters of Prop B, they were not the main contributors.

So who won the debate? Well, the four panelists who oppose the proposition all had credible backgrounds and first-hand experience with the issue. As a result, they had many stories to back up why they oppose the proposition. The supporting panelists, however, did not have the same credible backgrounds. For example, two out of the four were professors from Truman State University who support the proposition but have no connection to breeding facilities.Therefore, we think that those who oppose the proposition won the debate. They had solid evidence to back up their statements and they made the best case for themselves.

What do you think? Do you support Prop B?