stanford-cs336/owt-sample · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 105k
In the end, Mr. Trump settled on a third option. He declined to recertify the deal but didn’t abrogate it — for the present. He set in motion a process to correct the agreement’s worst flaws. The odds are against that outcome, but now it’s at least within the realm of the possible.

You’ll recall that President Obama framed the JCPOA — the most consequential nuclear arms limitation agreement of the century — not as a treaty, but only an “executive agreement.” That sidelined Congress. Decertification puts Congress back in the mix, providing an opportunity for it to do what it did numerous times during the Cold War: improve bilateral and multilateral arms control agreements.

A decision by Congress to reimpose sanctions suspended under the JCPOA would terminate the deal. More probable: Congress will penalize Tehran for other nefarious behaviors that the Obama administration spent eight years ignoring. Even Antony Blinken, deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration and a vehement deal defender, said last week that he would support “targeted sanctions on Iran that do not violate the nuclear accord.”

For example, sanctions could be imposed for Iran’s continuing development of missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads to targets anywhere in the world, its aggressive pursuit of hegemony over its neighbors, its support for the mass-murdering Assad regime in Syria, its incitement of genocide against Israel, its taking of American hostages, and its domestic violations of human rights. The JCPOA does not constrain sanctions for such conduct — notwithstanding Iranian claims and some media reports to the contrary. Such sanctions could both send a message and exert pressure.

Significant as decertification is, it’s only one component of the broader strategy announced last week. Other “core elements” include revitalizing America’s “traditional alliances and regional partnerships,” restoring “a more stable balance of power in the region,” and denying funding and international legitimacy to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps by designating it in its entirety under a “global terrorism” executive order.

Decertification has already produced one positive result. French President Emmanuel Macron and several other European leaders now appear willing to go to Iran’s rulers and say (in effect): “Look, we believe you’re not developing nukes and don’t intend to do so. But we have to get along with that cowboy in the White House and if he makes us choose between the U.S. market and the Iranian market, what are we to do? So why not make a few minor adjustments?”

European leaders must know, even if they won’t say, that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not confirmed that Iran is coloring within the lines. My colleague and former IAEA deputy director general Olli Heinonen tells me: “Based on a careful reading of the IAEA’s reports to date, we can’t conclude that Iran is fully complying with all obligations arising from the JCPOA. The language used in the IAEA statements is not enough to make such a conclusion at a high level of confidence.”

It may be worse than that. A report released by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), alleges that Tehran’s “weaponization program” remains “fully operational.” It identifies four military complexes containing large underground tunnels providing “the possibility and flexibility of covering up the activities of the warhead project.” It adds that North Korean experts have been “particularly helpful” in design aspects of the project.

Is this report reliable? I don’t know. What I am certain of: IAEA inspectors should be all over these sites. But Iran’s rulers have declared their military facilities off-limits. Reassurances by Obama administration spokesmen that the JCPOA would authorize “anytime, anywhere” inspections haven’t held up.

Amendments to the JCPOA could repair that dangerous defect as well as eliminating “sunset” clauses that end restrictions beginning in six years on the deployment of easier-to-hide advanced centrifuges, industrial-scale enrichment of uranium, reprocessing of plutonium, and other elements of Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program.

President Trump said last week that his aim is to “deny the Iranian regime all paths to a nuclear weapon.” The alternative is to procrastinate as successive administrations did vis-a-vis North Korea.

With the current deal in place, self-proclaimed jihadis and the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism could, within about a decade, have an arsenal of nuclear-tipped ICBMs modeled on those produced by their friends in Pyongyang. Iran’s ruling mullahs could then use them to achieve their most ambitious goals. We can hope that doesn’t happen. But, as I’m not the first to point out, hope is not a strategy. In this case, it’s more like slow-motion surrender.

• Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.<\|endoftext\|>A puppy mill, sometimes known as a puppy farm,[1] is a type of commercial dog breeding facility. Although no standardized legal definition for "puppy mill" exists, a definition was established in Avenson v. Zegart in 1984 as "a dog breeding operation in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits".[2] The ASPCA uses a similar definition: "a large-scale commercial dog breeding operation where profit is given priority over the well-being of the dogs."[3] According to the Humane Society of the United States, there are an estimated 10,000 licensed and unlicensed puppy mills in the United States, in total selling more than 2,000,000 puppies annually.[4] Commercial kennels may be licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture and state and local jurisdictions which may inspect the kennels routinely.[5]

The term "mill" is also applied to operations involving other animals commercially bred for profit, including cats.[6] For-profit breeding on a smaller scale may be referred to as backyard breeding, although this term has negative connotations and may also refer to unplanned or non-commercial breeding.

Differences in breeding conditions [ edit ]

The Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club state that responsible breeders should raise their animals with the intent to produce healthy dogs and to ensure that all animals are provided responsible homes and socialization. However, there is no way to enforce these wishes or records kept to prove this is the case.[7][8] The socialization period in a puppy occurs between the ages of 4 weeks up to 14 weeks of age.[9] This period is crucial for adult development as almost all adult abilities are learned during this stage. With puppy mills essentially skipping the process of socialization, it can result in social problems when the puppy matures to an adult.[9]

In puppy mills, female dogs are sometimes bred every time they are in heat, which results in gradually-decreasing sizes of litters.[10][11] Once a breeding female can no longer be bred, whether from pure exhaustion or from age, the female is usually killed.[12] Puppies are also often weaned from their mothers well before the eight to ten weeks recommended.[13]

Common problems [ edit ]

The ASPCA states that some puppy mills can have up to 1,000 dogs under one roof. Because of the high volume of animals, the mill runner will often resort to housing them in wire cages. This results in the animals having poor locomotion.[14] Keeping dogs in wire kennels can lead to injury and damage to the dogs' paws and legs. It's also fairly common for these kennels to be stacked on top of each other in columns.[12] The conditions in these mills are so unsanitary that the animals are often coated in their own urine and feces, causing mats in their fur. Due to unsanitary conditions, puppies from mills will often have internal parasites, affecting their health.[15] Puppy mills are often unheated and this increases the number of deaths due to cold among the dogs used for breeding.[14] Conversely, the mills can also be too hot in warmer weather leading to hyperthermia.[16]

Other common conditions in mills include malnutrition and untreated injuries.[16]

Due to the frequently poor breeding conditions in puppy mills,[17] puppies bred there often suffer from health and/or social problems. Puppies raised in a cramped environment shared by many other dogs become poorly socialized to other dogs and to humans. Dogs are then transported over long distances in poor conditions, sometimes resulting in animal stress and death. As the surviving mill dogs grow older, they are more prone to developing respiratory ailments and pneumonia, as well as hereditary defects such as hip dysplasia.[10] In addition, mill dogs are more prone to having problems with their temperament due to lack of socialization, enrichment, and positive human contact. Puppies from mills are usually sold as purebred dogs in an attempt to attract the higher prices associated with purebreds. However, due to the indiscriminate breeding practices of puppy mills, the dog may not actually be a purebred puppy.[18] A high population of puppies from mills are inbred due to uncontrolled breeding.[19] The vast majority of puppy mill animals are sold to pet stores by "dealers" or "brokers". Some puppies are sold by dealers masquerading as authentic breeders.

Puppy mills in the US often start with hundreds of female dogs which serve their entire lives in the establishment. The females are bred until they can no longer conceive puppies, and are often euthanized after that.[20] The conditions in puppy mills are considered inhumane because all of the dogs are in a small, dirty area which is confined with disease and bacteria. Because of the poor living conditions, dogs are often sick and malnourished. Food is often found crawling with bugs and feces is almost everywhere. Health issues that are prevalent in puppy mills consist of giardia, mange, heartworm, respiratory infections, and much more.[21]

History [ edit ]

According to Chanis Major V. publications, puppy mills originated in the post-World War II era. Midwestern farmers looking for an alternative crop reacted to a growing demand for puppies, resulting in the development of the first commercial puppy business. As the industry grew, both small and large retail outlets began to sell puppies through pet departments. At around the same time, the first pet store chains were born.[22]

Puppy mill dogs are usually housed in a small, wire cages similar to rabbit hutches and chicken coops.[23] In addition, veterinary care for these puppies was often overlooked because of an inability to pay. As a result, organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States began to investigate breeding kennels, leading to the passage of the Animal Welfare Act of August 24, 1966.[22][24]

Prevalence [ edit ]

According to the Humane Society of the United States, there are an estimated 10,000 licensed and unlicensed puppy mills in the United States, in total selling more than 2,000,000 puppies annually.[4]

A high concentration of both puppy mills and breeders has been reported in the states of Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri.[25]

Pennsylvania, and in particular, Lancaster County, has been labeled the "Puppy Mill Capital of the East" due to its high volume of puppy mills.[26][27][28]

Missouri has been labeled the "Puppy Mill Capital of the U.S." by animal welfare and consumer protection groups.[3][29][30] A study by the Better Business Bureau concluded that the southwest corner of Missouri is the hub of the nation's puppy mill industry, and termed it the "national hot spot of the puppy industry."[30]

Hobby breeders [ edit ]

Miniature breeds at a US puppy mill

The term "puppy mill" has been widely used by animal rights groups in protests against breeders who have substandard breeding conditions. Critics in the breeder community claim that emotional rhetoric, sensationalism and pictures of dirty kennels are used to justify additional legislation or additional restrictive licensing that travels well beyond the initial goal of removing dogs from truly deplorable conditions,[22] or that attempts to legislate puppy mills would put them out of business. They argue the laws requiring additional costs in updating and maintaining their facility and licensing would be detrimental to the dogs in their care. They cite existing lemon laws for puppies as sufficient protection for both dogs and prospective buyers.[25]

Media coverage [ edit ]

On May 1, 2008, MSNBC aired a report about puppy mills, in which talk show host Oprah Winfrey revealed an industry fraught with problems and apparent cruelty. The broadcast showed puppy mills with small cages, with chicken wire floors, stacked in rows from floor to ceiling, and stated that many dogs spend their entire lives within these tiny cages. Many of these dogs are sold on the internet or by pet retailers to buyers who are unaware of the dogs' background. The report claimed that customers who object to this treatment of puppies unknowingly allow the industry to thrive.[clarification needed] It also pointed out that many of the puppy mill bred dogs suffer long-term health problems.[31]

Legislative response [ edit ]

United States [ edit ]

In the United States, some elements of the dog breeding industry are regulated by the Animal Welfare Act of August 24, 1966.[32]

In recent years, state legislatures have passed new laws aimed at eliminating the worst abuses at puppy mills. New laws include limits on the number of breeding females, requirements that facilities be licensed and inspected, and requirements that dogs be given proper veterinary care. Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Virginia passed puppy mill laws in 2008, and 10 states passed laws in 2009 to crack down on abusive puppy mills. In 2010, Missouri voters passed Proposition B, the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act", which establishes minimum standards of humane care and limits breeders to 50 intact dogs.[33]

However, voters experienced push-back from the industry in the state of Missouri. Dog breeders and other farmers, worried about costly animal welfare measures spreading to their farms, pressured the state to repeal the law. In April 2011 Proposition B was repealed.[34]

A compromise, dubbed the Missouri Solution, was signed by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.[35]

It retained some of the provisions of Proposition B, and made available some state funding for inspections. Humane Society of Missouri President Kathy Warnick reacted favorably, seeing a step in the right direction for animal welfare.[35]

Detractors, which include the President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, point to the "shameful" overturn of the voter's will to weaken Proposition B.[36]

“Lawmakers should never have substituted their judgment for the people of Missouri and gutted core provisions of Prop B,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "The so-called compromise was not about protecting animals, it was about placating agri-business."[35]

Below is a set of lists describing some of the key differences between Proposition B and the so-called Missouri Solution.[34]

Proposition B (approved by Missouri voters in November, 2010) Wire flooring for cages eliminated by November 2011; Maximum allowable breeding females per business = 50; Cage height = taller than any dog standing erect; Maximum number of times a female may be bred within 18 months time = 2; Larger enclosures by November 2011.

the “Missouri Solution” (compromise law signed by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, April 2011, after repealing Proposition B) No wire flooring for new enclosures in 2016, existing wire flooring permitted to remain indefinitely; No limit on number of breeding females; No restriction on cage height; No restrictions on how often females are impregnated; Larger enclosures in 2016.

Australia [ edit ]

Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore has responded to the problem of puppy mills in Australia by proposing the Animals Regulation of Sale Bill.[37] It would ban the sale of dogs through pet shops, the internet or newspapers. The aim is to crack down on impulse purchases and shut down unregistered backyard breeders. These breeders should no longer easily profit from the sale of the dogs and the number of unwanted and abandoned animals could drop.[38]

In the end, Mr. Trump settled on a third option. He declined to recertify the deal but didn’t abrogate it — for the present. He set in motion a process to correct the agreement’s worst flaws. The odds are against that outcome, but now it’s at least within the realm of the possible.

You’ll recall that President Obama framed the JCPOA — the most consequential nuclear arms limitation agreement of the century — not as a treaty, but only an “executive agreement.” That sidelined Congress. Decertification puts Congress back in the mix, providing an opportunity for it to do what it did numerous times during the Cold War: improve bilateral and multilateral arms control agreements.

A decision by Congress to reimpose sanctions suspended under the JCPOA would terminate the deal. More probable: Congress will penalize Tehran for other nefarious behaviors that the Obama administration spent eight years ignoring. Even Antony Blinken, deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration and a vehement deal defender, said last week that he would support “targeted sanctions on Iran that do not violate the nuclear accord.”

For example, sanctions could be imposed for Iran’s continuing development of missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads to targets anywhere in the world, its aggressive pursuit of hegemony over its neighbors, its support for the mass-murdering Assad regime in Syria, its incitement of genocide against Israel, its taking of American hostages, and its domestic violations of human rights. The JCPOA does not constrain sanctions for such conduct — notwithstanding Iranian claims and some media reports to the contrary. Such sanctions could both send a message and exert pressure.

Significant as decertification is, it’s only one component of the broader strategy announced last week. Other “core elements” include revitalizing America’s “traditional alliances and regional partnerships,” restoring “a more stable balance of power in the region,” and denying funding and international legitimacy to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps by designating it in its entirety under a “global terrorism” executive order.

Decertification has already produced one positive result. French President Emmanuel Macron and several other European leaders now appear willing to go to Iran’s rulers and say (in effect): “Look, we believe you’re not developing nukes and don’t intend to do so. But we have to get along with that cowboy in the White House and if he makes us choose between the U.S. market and the Iranian market, what are we to do? So why not make a few minor adjustments?”

European leaders must know, even if they won’t say, that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not confirmed that Iran is coloring within the lines. My colleague and former IAEA deputy director general Olli Heinonen tells me: “Based on a careful reading of the IAEA’s reports to date, we can’t conclude that Iran is fully complying with all obligations arising from the JCPOA. The language used in the IAEA statements is not enough to make such a conclusion at a high level of confidence.”

It may be worse than that. A report released by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), alleges that Tehran’s “weaponization program” remains “fully operational.” It identifies four military complexes containing large underground tunnels providing “the possibility and flexibility of covering up the activities of the warhead project.” It adds that North Korean experts have been “particularly helpful” in design aspects of the project.

Is this report reliable? I don’t know. What I am certain of: IAEA inspectors should be all over these sites. But Iran’s rulers have declared their military facilities off-limits. Reassurances by Obama administration spokesmen that the JCPOA would authorize “anytime, anywhere” inspections haven’t held up.

Amendments to the JCPOA could repair that dangerous defect as well as eliminating “sunset” clauses that end restrictions beginning in six years on the deployment of easier-to-hide advanced centrifuges, industrial-scale enrichment of uranium, reprocessing of plutonium, and other elements of Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program.

President Trump said last week that his aim is to “deny the Iranian regime all paths to a nuclear weapon.” The alternative is to procrastinate as successive administrations did vis-a-vis North Korea.

With the current deal in place, self-proclaimed jihadis and the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism could, within about a decade, have an arsenal of nuclear-tipped ICBMs modeled on those produced by their friends in Pyongyang. Iran’s ruling mullahs could then use them to achieve their most ambitious goals. We can hope that doesn’t happen. But, as I’m not the first to point out, hope is not a strategy. In this case, it’s more like slow-motion surrender.

• Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.<|endoftext|>A puppy mill, sometimes known as a puppy farm,[1] is a type of commercial dog breeding facility. Although no standardized legal definition for "puppy mill" exists, a definition was established in Avenson v. Zegart in 1984 as "a dog breeding operation in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits".[2] The ASPCA uses a similar definition: "a large-scale commercial dog breeding operation where profit is given priority over the well-being of the dogs."[3] According to the Humane Society of the United States, there are an estimated 10,000 licensed and unlicensed puppy mills in the United States, in total selling more than 2,000,000 puppies annually.[4] Commercial kennels may be licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture and state and local jurisdictions which may inspect the kennels routinely.[5]

The term "mill" is also applied to operations involving other animals commercially bred for profit, including cats.[6] For-profit breeding on a smaller scale may be referred to as backyard breeding, although this term has negative connotations and may also refer to unplanned or non-commercial breeding.

Differences in breeding conditions [ edit ]

The Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club state that responsible breeders should raise their animals with the intent to produce healthy dogs and to ensure that all animals are provided responsible homes and socialization. However, there is no way to enforce these wishes or records kept to prove this is the case.[7][8] The socialization period in a puppy occurs between the ages of 4 weeks up to 14 weeks of age.[9] This period is crucial for adult development as almost all adult abilities are learned during this stage. With puppy mills essentially skipping the process of socialization, it can result in social problems when the puppy matures to an adult.[9]

In puppy mills, female dogs are sometimes bred every time they are in heat, which results in gradually-decreasing sizes of litters.[10][11] Once a breeding female can no longer be bred, whether from pure exhaustion or from age, the female is usually killed.[12] Puppies are also often weaned from their mothers well before the eight to ten weeks recommended.[13]

Common problems [ edit ]

The ASPCA states that some puppy mills can have up to 1,000 dogs under one roof. Because of the high volume of animals, the mill runner will often resort to housing them in wire cages. This results in the animals having poor locomotion.[14] Keeping dogs in wire kennels can lead to injury and damage to the dogs' paws and legs. It's also fairly common for these kennels to be stacked on top of each other in columns.[12] The conditions in these mills are so unsanitary that the animals are often coated in their own urine and feces, causing mats in their fur. Due to unsanitary conditions, puppies from mills will often have internal parasites, affecting their health.[15] Puppy mills are often unheated and this increases the number of deaths due to cold among the dogs used for breeding.[14] Conversely, the mills can also be too hot in warmer weather leading to hyperthermia.[16]

Other common conditions in mills include malnutrition and untreated injuries.[16]

Due to the frequently poor breeding conditions in puppy mills,[17] puppies bred there often suffer from health and/or social problems. Puppies raised in a cramped environment shared by many other dogs become poorly socialized to other dogs and to humans. Dogs are then transported over long distances in poor conditions, sometimes resulting in animal stress and death. As the surviving mill dogs grow older, they are more prone to developing respiratory ailments and pneumonia, as well as hereditary defects such as hip dysplasia.[10] In addition, mill dogs are more prone to having problems with their temperament due to lack of socialization, enrichment, and positive human contact. Puppies from mills are usually sold as purebred dogs in an attempt to attract the higher prices associated with purebreds. However, due to the indiscriminate breeding practices of puppy mills, the dog may not actually be a purebred puppy.[18] A high population of puppies from mills are inbred due to uncontrolled breeding.[19] The vast majority of puppy mill animals are sold to pet stores by "dealers" or "brokers". Some puppies are sold by dealers masquerading as authentic breeders.

Puppy mills in the US often start with hundreds of female dogs which serve their entire lives in the establishment. The females are bred until they can no longer conceive puppies, and are often euthanized after that.[20] The conditions in puppy mills are considered inhumane because all of the dogs are in a small, dirty area which is confined with disease and bacteria. Because of the poor living conditions, dogs are often sick and malnourished. Food is often found crawling with bugs and feces is almost everywhere. Health issues that are prevalent in puppy mills consist of giardia, mange, heartworm, respiratory infections, and much more.[21]

History [ edit ]

According to Chanis Major V. publications, puppy mills originated in the post-World War II era. Midwestern farmers looking for an alternative crop reacted to a growing demand for puppies, resulting in the development of the first commercial puppy business. As the industry grew, both small and large retail outlets began to sell puppies through pet departments. At around the same time, the first pet store chains were born.[22]

Puppy mill dogs are usually housed in a small, wire cages similar to rabbit hutches and chicken coops.[23] In addition, veterinary care for these puppies was often overlooked because of an inability to pay. As a result, organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States began to investigate breeding kennels, leading to the passage of the Animal Welfare Act of August 24, 1966.[22][24]

Prevalence [ edit ]

According to the Humane Society of the United States, there are an estimated 10,000 licensed and unlicensed puppy mills in the United States, in total selling more than 2,000,000 puppies annually.[4]

A high concentration of both puppy mills and breeders has been reported in the states of Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri.[25]

Pennsylvania, and in particular, Lancaster County, has been labeled the "Puppy Mill Capital of the East" due to its high volume of puppy mills.[26][27][28]

Missouri has been labeled the "Puppy Mill Capital of the U.S." by animal welfare and consumer protection groups.[3][29][30] A study by the Better Business Bureau concluded that the southwest corner of Missouri is the hub of the nation's puppy mill industry, and termed it the "national hot spot of the puppy industry."[30]

Hobby breeders [ edit ]

Miniature breeds at a US puppy mill

The term "puppy mill" has been widely used by animal rights groups in protests against breeders who have substandard breeding conditions. Critics in the breeder community claim that emotional rhetoric, sensationalism and pictures of dirty kennels are used to justify additional legislation or additional restrictive licensing that travels well beyond the initial goal of removing dogs from truly deplorable conditions,[22] or that attempts to legislate puppy mills would put them out of business. They argue the laws requiring additional costs in updating and maintaining their facility and licensing would be detrimental to the dogs in their care. They cite existing lemon laws for puppies as sufficient protection for both dogs and prospective buyers.[25]

Media coverage [ edit ]

On May 1, 2008, MSNBC aired a report about puppy mills, in which talk show host Oprah Winfrey revealed an industry fraught with problems and apparent cruelty. The broadcast showed puppy mills with small cages, with chicken wire floors, stacked in rows from floor to ceiling, and stated that many dogs spend their entire lives within these tiny cages. Many of these dogs are sold on the internet or by pet retailers to buyers who are unaware of the dogs' background. The report claimed that customers who object to this treatment of puppies unknowingly allow the industry to thrive.[clarification needed] It also pointed out that many of the puppy mill bred dogs suffer long-term health problems.[31]

Legislative response [ edit ]

United States [ edit ]

In the United States, some elements of the dog breeding industry are regulated by the Animal Welfare Act of August 24, 1966.[32]

In recent years, state legislatures have passed new laws aimed at eliminating the worst abuses at puppy mills. New laws include limits on the number of breeding females, requirements that facilities be licensed and inspected, and requirements that dogs be given proper veterinary care. Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Virginia passed puppy mill laws in 2008, and 10 states passed laws in 2009 to crack down on abusive puppy mills. In 2010, Missouri voters passed Proposition B, the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act", which establishes minimum standards of humane care and limits breeders to 50 intact dogs.[33]

However, voters experienced push-back from the industry in the state of Missouri. Dog breeders and other farmers, worried about costly animal welfare measures spreading to their farms, pressured the state to repeal the law. In April 2011 Proposition B was repealed.[34]

A compromise, dubbed the Missouri Solution, was signed by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.[35]

It retained some of the provisions of Proposition B, and made available some state funding for inspections. Humane Society of Missouri President Kathy Warnick reacted favorably, seeing a step in the right direction for animal welfare.[35]

Detractors, which include the President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, point to the "shameful" overturn of the voter's will to weaken Proposition B.[36]

“Lawmakers should never have substituted their judgment for the people of Missouri and gutted core provisions of Prop B,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "The so-called compromise was not about protecting animals, it was about placating agri-business."[35]

Below is a set of lists describing some of the key differences between Proposition B and the so-called Missouri Solution.[34]

Proposition B (approved by Missouri voters in November, 2010) Wire flooring for cages eliminated by November 2011; Maximum allowable breeding females per business = 50; Cage height = taller than any dog standing erect; Maximum number of times a female may be bred within 18 months time = 2; Larger enclosures by November 2011.

the “Missouri Solution” (compromise law signed by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, April 2011, after repealing Proposition B) No wire flooring for new enclosures in 2016, existing wire flooring permitted to remain indefinitely; No limit on number of breeding females; No restriction on cage height; No restrictions on how often females are impregnated; Larger enclosures in 2016.

Australia [ edit ]

Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore has responded to the problem of puppy mills in Australia by proposing the Animals Regulation of Sale Bill.[37] It would ban the sale of dogs through pet shops, the internet or newspapers. The aim is to crack down on impulse purchases and shut down unregistered backyard breeders. These breeders should no longer easily profit from the sale of the dogs and the number of unwanted and abandoned animals could drop.[38]