Missouri: Where Fighting
Animal Abuse Gets You In Hot Water
MODA has come under national
scrutiny since the MO state auditor's report exposed it's corruption. Click
here for the full report.
Missouri
is well known as the largest producer of purebred puppies in the United States.
This is no claim to fame. The vast majority of those puppies come from puppy
mills. But rather than confront rampant neglect and abuse routinely committed by
puppy millers who contribute tax dollars to the state, the Missouri Department
of Agriculture (MoDA) seems to find it simpler and easier to harass individuals
who support the breeding of dogs only by reputable persons and under humane
conditions.
Here is a communication I received
on January 12th from the author of the "No Puppy Mills" web site:
On January 4th 2000, I was sitting all alone in my very
rural home in Missouri. As always, I was plugging away on the computer
and I heard a car coming down my driveway (which is 1/2 mile long and posted
'no-trespassing'). Two men dressed in jeans and cowboy boots stepped out
of a large white car with Missouri government license plates. The men
asked me if I was Kim ******** and I answered 'yes'. They identified
themselves as Len Clayton and Tom Jacques and said they were inspectors with
the Missouri Department of Agriculture. They said they had proof over
the internet that I was running an animal shelter without a license.
I told the men that I needed to go inside and get my shoes
on (which I did, as it was very cold out!) and I came back out with my shoes
on and a video camera running. I asked them to identify themselves again
and state their business and I also asked them if they had a warrant to search
my property. At that time, Tom Jacques said, "Come on, let's go,
we'll just report that she is refusing to get a license."
Today I got a certified, return receipt letter from Mr.
G.A.
Salmon, the head of the Animal Care Facilities Act Program in Missouri.
It reads:
Dear Mrs. ********:
Individuals acting as an animal rescue group in the State
of Missouri must have a license....
It goes on to define an Animal Shelter and closes
with:
You are to cease ALL activities relating to an
animal shelter until you have a license with the Missouri Department of
Agriculture.
It is signed by G.A. Salmon
Now, since I do not fit into the definition of an animal
shelter and the only dogs I have are my own dogs, I am assuming that he is
referring to my website. I have spoken with an attorney who stated that
he feels that they are interpreting my website to fall under the Missouri
definition of, "A person whose primary purpose is to act as an animal
rescue, to collect and care for unwanted animals or to offer them for
adoption."
This leaves me in quite a pickle. Should I continue on
as I am doing and chance being arrested and charged with violating the
Missouri ACFA? (and will you guys bail me out of jail LOL) Shall I
be the sacrificial lamb to finally challenge the Missouri Department of
Agriculture's retaliation against my website and anyone that has anything to
do with my website? (All Missouri based groups that advertise on my site
have also received certified letters) Or should I be a good little
citizen and shut down NoPuppyMills.com?
Well, I am not going to do either right now. I will
write a letter to Mr. Salmon and ask him to define what activities I am doing
that constitute licensing with MoDA. I will let you know what his
response is and until then I will type softly and carry a big stick!
Kim
Here is my response to Mr. Salmon:
TO:
G.A. Salmon, MoDA
As one of the thousands of
supporters of the "No Puppy Mills" web site, I was made aware of
MoDA's recent charges against the site's author. Missouri is known as a haven of
animal abuse, so I was not surprised to hear that the Missouri Department of
Agriculture harassed proponents of animal welfare. However, there is no animal
shelter connected with either the web site, or it's author. Your charges are
specious.
You should also know that the
site's supporters live in all 50 states. For example, I live in Illinois, and
have offered to mirror the "No Puppy Mills" web site. Currently, the
site is posted in a single location. But if harassment continues, I would not be
surprised to find it posted in 50 different locations all over the Internet.
Missouri's reputation will be greatly enhanced by this, don't you think? We will
be watching this situation closely.
Please show your
support of the "No Puppy
Mills" web site by emailing The Missouri Department of Agriculture at aginfo@mail.state.mo.us.
