If politics is the art of the possible, as 19th-century German leader Otto von Bismarck suggested, then Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon just painted a masterpiece.
When the Missouri Legislature chose last week to gut Proposition B, the voter-approved measure that would protect thousands of dogs that are abused every year in rogue Missouri puppy mills, Mr. Nixon faced a quandary.
He could sign the bill (Senate Bill 113) and anger the urban voters and animal lovers who overwhelmingly approved the measure last fall, or he could veto it, putting himself on the opposite side of the issue from nearly every rural county in the state. Instead, as we had suggested earlier, Mr. Nixon demonstrated some leadership and brought both sides together to seek a compromise.
It’s unfortunate that in today’s hyper-partisan political world, compromise can be viewed as a dirty word. In fact, were more Missouri politicians willing to compromise to bridge gaps rather than widen them, Proposition B never would have been on the ballot in the first place.
For years, animal welfare groups tried to persuade rural lawmakers to rein in the worst abuses in the dog-breeding industry, which has been responsible for the abuse and deaths of thousands of puppies in Missouri, the nation’s capital for such poor treatment of canines.
But those efforts fell on deaf ears. Instead, national groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, put a stringent proposal on the ballot that would protect dogs by completely rewriting dog-breeding rules in the state.
Now those national groups have been somewhat left out of the compromise brokered by Mr. Nixon, and they aren’t happy about it.
“We had an election. The issues were debated and the voters decided,” Humane Society of the United States CEO Wayne Pacelle told us.
Indeed, lawmakers showed an utter disrespect for the electoral process by seeking to gut Proposition B before it even took effect. But, as governor, Mr. Nixon is faced with the reality of dealing with a Missouri Legislature that often cares more about politics than process. We have been critics of the governor for failing to make his positions clear on issues, and this is another example where Mr. Nixon could have brought the sides together earlier, rather than wasting most of a legislative session.
Timing criticism aside, Mr. Nixon was right to find a common-sense solution to this problem. The voters want dogs to be protected better than they are under existing law, and, in many ways, the compromise that has been reached by Missouri animal welfare groups and the dog-breeding industry achieves that. There would be better veterinary care, solid surfaces for the animals to stretch out, abundant water and larger cages. We still believe strongly that Mr. Nixon should veto the bad bill passed by lawmakers — SB 113 — as part of his plan to implement this compromise.
And we hope lawmakers put aside their angry rhetoric that seeks to divide urban and rural interests and instead adopt the attitude of St. Louis animal rights activist Bob Baker, executive director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation.
For 30 years, Mr. Baker has been fighting for better conditions for puppies in rogue dog-breeding facilities. He’s seen the worst of the worst. Mr. Baker says the compromise isn’t perfect, but he believes it will drive out Missouri’s bad actors.
“I wouldn’t sign on to it if it wasn’t good for the dogs,” he said.
