07.28.10
Posted in Animal Ownership at 4:57 pm by Administrator
Taking Responsibility – by Amy Peterson
The right to breed dogs (or cats, or hamsters, or bunnies, even!) continues to be under attack, spearheaded primarily by the extreme animals-rights activist groups who seek to eliminate the owner-pet bond.
Dedicated hobby breeders generally belong to their National breed club and as such, agree to adhere to a very strict code of ethics regarding the breeding and selling of their dogs. As such, the vast majority of responsible breeders will agree to take an unwanted dog back, at any time during its life, no questions asked.
So why are there pets in shelters? The radical animal rights groups like Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) would like you to think it is because of breeders. But how can this be? It is not the breeder who is turning these pets into shelters or dumping them on back roads to be picked up later by animal control. It is the irresponsible owner who chooses to do so.
If we buy a car, we research make, model, mileage, and performance. If we buy a house, we research the neighborhood, taxes, schools, and so forth. We make informed decisions as consumers. It would make sense, therefore, that we should research potential pets as well. We should understand their activity levels, potential health problems, relative shedding quotient, dander levels, etc.
There is no valid reason to dump a pet at a shelter. Certainly living circumstances can change, necessitating rehoming of a dog, but there are many options other than dumping it at a shelter. Breeders and breed rescue groups are dedicated to the rehoming of unwanted animals. Dumping a dog at a shelter is the owner’s decision. Choosing not to spay/neuter a pet thus producing an unwanted litter is the owner’s decision. Allowing a dog to roam is the owner’s decision. Choosing to purchase a dog from a puppy mill rather than a responsible breeder is the owner’s decision. Making an informed decision regarding the purchase of a puppy is the owner’s decision.
Perhaps it is time to stop bashing responsible breeders, whose sole goal is to preserve the history of their chosen breed and to provide happy, healthy, well adjusted pets, and start putting some of the onus on the people who purchase them. Research your potential breed. Talk to other people who own the same breed. Visit your breeder. Your breeder will be happy to tell you the good as well as the bad points of the breed. Take responsibility for your purchase. And if you find you cannot keep your pet, please contact your breeder or your breed rescue group. Explore the options available before sending your pet to a shelter.
Permalink
Posted in On the National Front, Pet Laws at 3:24 pm by Administrator
This could set a frightening precedent for the rest of the country if it is passed. Please read! If you have over six intact dogs OVER 8 WEEKS OLD (that will include litters) you must pay $100 per dog.
If you sell six or more puppies (or dogs, or cats) a year, you will pay a fee.
Your property (including your home) may be inspected at any time without notice or warrant.
If a complaint is made and your dogs are seized – even if unlawfully – and you are found INNOCENT, you still must pay for any boarding fees or other fees while the dogs are not in your care.
More below.
From:
“AKC’s Government Relations Department” <mba@akc.org>
To:
Date:
07/27/2010 01:47 PM
Subject:
Jacksonville, FL council to discuss onerous new dog laws TODAY
________________________________________
Dear AKC Delegates, Judges, Club Officers and Breeders:
Please share this information with anyone in the Jacksonville area.
The Jacksonville City Council will hold a public hearing today on a proposal which will effectively eliminate the breeding of dogs by hobby breeders. AKC has only been made aware of this proposal in the last few hours and we apologize for the late notice. If you are unable to attend, please call or send a polite letter or email to your city council member detailing your concerns with this measure.
A vote will NOT be taken before the August 10th meeting, but it is important to communicate your concerns at tonight’s meeting if possible. Speakers will need to sign up when they arrive and will be allowed to speak for three minutes each.
Jacksonville City Council Meeting
Tuesday, July 27th
5:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
117 West Duval Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Provisions of the Ordinance
• Requires an annual “Excessive Intact Animal Permit – Hobby Breeder” if there are between 6 and 20 intact dogs or cats (combined) over the age of eight weeks on a property. The fee is $100 PER ANIMAL.
• Establishes an annual “Excessive Intact Animal Permit – Professional Breeder” if there are more than 20 intact dogs or cats (combined) over the age of eight weeks on a property. The fee is $100 per animal for up to 20 animals and $200 per animal for 21 to 40 animals.
• Prohibits housing more than 40 intact dogs or cats (combined) over the age of eight weeks on a property.
• Changes the definition of “occasional selling” from selling, trading or giving away more than 39 dogs, cats or other animals per year to six animals per year. Therefore, any resident who sells six or more animals in a year will be considered an “animal dealer” and held to standards written for pet stores and breeders who sell at wholesale.
• Requires that “animal dealers” allow animal control to inspect their premises at any time and without a warrant.
• Redefines “baiting” as follows: “shall mean to `face off’ two or more animals; to have two or more animals in close proximity while restrained to simulate a fight or aggression superiority. . . ”
o This effectively prohibits the practice in terrier conformation shows whereby two terriers are brought face-to-face to assess their posture and evaluate the likelihood that the dog would perform the breed’s function in hunting vermin.
• Requires that owners found not guilty of violations pay boarding and other fees associated with the care of the animals. This is unreasonable if the animals were improperly seized, and may in fact force owners to relinquish or euthanize beloved pets due to an inability to pay.
• Additional onerous provisions.
What You Can Do
• Attend the public hearing TONIGHT and oppose the adoption of this ordinance.
• Write a respectful email or letter to the members of the city council and mayor asking them to vote against this proposal.
Mailing Address for City Hall:
Jacksonville City Council
117 West Duval St., Suite 425
Jacksonville, FL 32202
John D. “Jack” Webb
President
Phone: (904) 630-1388
Email: Webb@coj.net
Stephen C. Joost
Vice President
Phone: (904) 630-1396
Email: Joost@coj.net
Clay Yarborough
Phone: (904) 630-1389
Email: Clay@coj.net
William Bishop Phone: (904) 630-1392
Email: WBishop@coj.net
Richard Clark Phone: (904) 630-1386
Email: RClark@coj.net
Don Redman Phone: (904) 630-1394
Email: Redman@coj.net
Art Shad Phone: (904) 630-1382
Email: AShad@coj.net
Dr. Johnny Gaffney Phone: (904) 630-1384
Email: Gaffney@coj.net
E. Denise Lee Phone: (904) 630-1385
Email: EDLee@coj.net
Warren A. Jones Phone: (904) 630-1395
Email: WAJones@coj.net
Reginald L. Brown Phone: (904) 630-1684
Email: RBrown@coj.net
Ray Holt Phone: (904) 630-1383
Email: Holt@coj.net
Daniel Davis Phone: (904) 630-1380
Email: DDavis@coj.net
Michael Corrigan Phone: (904) 630-1390
Email: Corrigan@coj.net
Ronnie Fussell Phone: (904) 630-1393
Email: RonnieF@coj.net
John R. Crescimbeni Phone: (904) 630-1381
Email: JRC@coj.net
Kevin Hyde Phone: (904) 630-1398
Email: KHyde@coj.net
Glorious J. Johnson Phone: (904) 630-1387
Email: GloriousJ@coj.net
Permalink
07.25.10
Posted in Animal Activists at 12:32 am by Administrator
Everyone with a head on his shoulders believes in the humane treatment of animals. But egg farmers and American consumers will soon face a choice between what’s actually humane and what some animal rights radicals claim is humane. It may seem like a hair-splitting exercise, but the wrong choice will send American egg farmers the way of the telegraph operator.
In 2008 California voters passed Proposition 2, which, among other things, required egg farmers to build facilities by 2015 that allow laying hens to have more freedom of movement. And a newly signed California law expands this requirement to the 49 other states by requiring that all eggs sold inCalifornia come from producers who abide by Proposition 2 standards.
Is this good? Is it bad? It’s unclear, because nobody can agree on what Proposition 2 actually means.
Egg farmers have one way of looking at it. One farm in Modesto just spent $3.2 million installing “enriched cages” to give its hens more room.
But America’s wealthiest animal rights group, the Humane Society of the United States – not to be confused with your local pet shelter – sees things differently. HSUS, the main financial backer of Proposition 2, believes all California egg farmers – and out-of-staters who sell eggs in the Golden State – now must eliminate their cages.
So who’s right – the farmers or the animal rights activists? And which solution is better for the hens?
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/24/2911463/groups-goal-is-for-an-egg-less.html#ixzz0ucImOpzx
Permalink
Posted in Animal Activists, Miscellany, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights, elkhounds at 12:28 am by Administrator
http://tinyurl.com/2edj2p7
http://www.salon.com/wires/allwires/07/23/D9H4UND81_us_odd_not_a_coyote/index.htmlFRIDAY
JUL 23, 2010 15:22 ET
Woman’s dog mistaken for coyote, set loose in wild
BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
AP
Copper, an American Kennel Club-registered female Sheba Inu, is seen in
a July 3, 2010 photo provided by the Frankfort Ky. Police Department.
Copper has been turned loose in the wild after the Frankfort Humane
Society mistook her for a coyote. (AP Photo/Frankfort Ky. Police Department)
An American Kennel Club-registered dog has been turned loose in the wild
after the Frankfort Humane Society mistook her for a coyote. Copper is a
female Sheba Inu.
Lori Goodlett told The State-Journal her pet of 11 years disappeared
from her fenced back yard on July 3. It was after she put up posters
that a police officer recognized Copper as the dog he had taken to the
shelter. A shelter worker later called police and said it had to be
picked up because coyotes weren’t allowed there……
NAIA News
National Animal Interest Alliance
Permalink
07.21.10
Posted in Guardians? Or Owners?, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights, What is HSUS?, What is a puppy mill? at 6:00 pm by Administrator
by Amy Peterson
What is happening to our constitutional rights? Why are we listening to all the arrogant drivel spewed forth by the Animal Rights Agenda? Why is the public so willing to listen to an organization, the Humane Society of the Unites States (HSUS), that is headed by a man (Wayne Pacelle) who does not even own an animal? And why is the American Veterinary Medical Association (AMVA) catering to his outlandish demands?
We individuals who enjoy the human-animal bond, be it dogs, cats, birds, or other; who choose to own, train, and breed companion animals; who recognize that vegan lifestyle is a choice and is not sustainable on this planet; who choose to engage in agricultural animal husbandry, are on the brink of losing our constitutional rights to do so.
I own dogs. I don’t believe in the concept of guardianship. I choose to house my dogs in my home, with me. I choose to treat them as my companions and friends. I have a deep, emotional bond with my canine friends. But in the end, I own them. To imply that a guardianship relationship exists would also be to imply that such guardianship can be revoked, or that a third party may interfere if I am not acting in what that party feels to be the best interests of my dogs. I don’t need that. I don’t want that. I make the decisions that affect my dogs. I provide more than enough love, nutrition, water, care, veterinary care, exercise, sleep, and attention. But I am not their guardian. They are my dogs. They do what I say when I tell them to do it. I own them. I am proud to own them. Decisions I make regarding their health and well-being should be between me and my veterinarian – not some third-party guardian who knows nothing about me, my dogs, or my vet.
I breed dogs. Not very often, likely less than a litter per year. Now, why do I have to say that? Why must I feel the need to be apologetic because I breed dogs? Why must I defend myself as a breeder by saying I “only” breed a litter or less a year? Why must I be ashamed? I’m good at what I do. My breeding program – yes, breeding program – produces – yes, produces – physically and temperamentally sound puppies that make their new owners – yes owners – very happy. I don’t “adopt” my dogs out. I sell them. Yep. There is an exchange of money. Why do we as breeders feel the need to say we “adopt” out our puppies? Simple fact of the matter is that we sell them. To new owners.
I don’t think I need Mr. Pacelle, who does not own an animal, admits that he has no “particular fondness” for them, and has no education in animal husbandry, telling me when I can and cannot breed a litter. I don’t think Mr. Pacelle has the animal husbandry background to tell me which dogs I can let run together, or whether or not it’s ok to let my puppies intermingle with the adults. I think that is my decision to make. And I certainly don’t need Mr. Pacelle using the deep pockets of his money-laundering HSUS to influence the AVMA to adopt his policies. And I ashamed that the AMVA has bowed to his demands.
Can you imagine imposing these requirements on human parents? Just think…find the mathematical square of the sum of the length of the child in inches as measured from the tip of the nose to the base of its butt, plus 6 inches. Divide this product by 144 to calculate the minimum required floor space, in square footage, that must be provided for your child. Or, the clause indicating that the dog’s exercise cannot consist of forced activity (that includes walking on a leash). This might mean, in human terms, that you must provide your child with exercise, but you cannot force him to do so. Yeah, right, you can no longer “force” Johhny to out and play.HSUS is not an animal welfare agency.
Out of a $19-per-month donation, only about 9 cents goes to the direct care of animals in need. HSUS is not affiliated with local humane societies or shelters. They don’t give them money. Most of the donations HSUS receives goes toward six-figure salaries for their management staff, toward their pension plans, and to their lobbying efforts. In fact, there has been a demand for an investigation by the IRS regarding the HSUS 501(c)3 status. The goal of HSUS is to end animal ownership and use – period.
I don’t like puppy factories any more than the next person. I rescue and I foster. I know what’s out there. But I believe there are sufficient regulations already in existence that simply need to be properly enforced. And by the way, when was the last time you read about HSUS visiting a GOOD breeder?
I am a breeder. I am good at what I do. I don’t need politicians and bureaucrats and lobbyists telling me how to properly engage in my hobby and my passion.
Permalink
07.14.10
Posted in Guardians? Or Owners?, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 10:19 pm by Administrator
Guarding the Guard Dogs?Are you a dog “owner”—or a dog “guardian”?
By Jon Katz
Last month, In Defense of Animals, a California-based animal rights organization, sent me some materials about its “Guardian Campaign.” A polite letter complimented me on my most recent book, then requested that I use the term “guardian” rather than “owner” in future writings about dogs.
The benefits of relating to animals as guardians rather than as owners would be “far reaching,” wrote IDA president Dr. Elliot Katz (who’s no relation). Changing how we speak would help change how we act. In a world where dogs are protected rather than owned, Katz argued, it would be easier to crack down on animal abuse, end the puppy-mill trade, and stop the killing of animals at shelters.
As a dog lover, owner of a rescue dog, and member of two rescue groups, I’m not convinced there will be concrete benefits from this metaphoric, even Orwellian revolution. How exactly will these semantic changes improve the lot of animals? Why can’t we shut down puppy mills, end some cruel animal research, save the lives of dogs and cats in shelters, prosecute animal abuse, and still call ourselves “owners”?
IDA’s letter proudly pointed out that San Francisco; West Hollywood; Berkeley, Calif.; Boulder, Colo.; Amherst, Mass., and the state of Rhode Island have already enacted ordinances changing owners into guardians. (Some of those jurisdictions have also embraced the animal-rights movement’s other language crusade, changing “pets” into “companion animals.”)
Although IDA cited these cities and state as evidence that the notion of “guardian” is spreading, to me it suggests the opposite: Its successes are confined to left-wing pockets. I’ll be impressed when Kansas City takes up the idea.
Social movements are only as effective as their ability to win popular support. I’m currently living in rural upstate New York, and I showed the IDA packet to Sandra, a sheep farmer who lives down the road with her female partner. She was shocked. “I love my Rottweiler,” Sandra told me. “But I’d love to marry my partner and I can’t. I have to say I’m a bit uncomfortable with dogs having more rights than I do. Me first.” Sandra had just filed legal papers to have her partner declared her legal guardian in the event of serious illness. She said she was not about to do the same for her dog.
I reminded Sandra that animal rights don’t really come at the expense of human rights—there’s no reason both species can’t have some protection. But her reservations are important. Easing animal suffering is inarguably worthwhile; turning animals into a kind of human is another matter.
And such a transformation seems the goal of some animal activists. My IDA packet contained a testimonial from a Michael Mountain of the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. “People of other genders, races and even age groups were once treated as property in this country,” Mountain wrote. “Now, it is time for ‘people’ of other species to be accorded the same simple dignity of being recognized, not as someone else’s property but as beings in their own right.”
Mountain couldn’t have made the point more dramatically—or offensively. I don’t care to jump in with a moral value system that equates my beloved border collies with human slaves. Nothing about this comparison helps animals. It distorts their true natures and diminishes ours.
The guardian campaign is a vivid example of the growing tendency to blur the boundaries between us and our pets. Many Americans have already stopped seeing their dogs and cats as animals. They’re family members, emotional support systems, metaphors for issues from our own pasts, aids for healing and growth, children with fur.
Seeing them the way we see ourselves—as having human thoughts and needs, human rights—is another kind of abuse and exploitation. It is cruel to crate a child, but it’s often helpful and soothing to crate a dog. No human would want to spend five minutes in a kennel, yet good kennels, much maligned by deeply attached pet owners, are often the safest and best places to leave dogs when we leave home.
Seeing dogs as piteous, deprived, abused, and needy can lead us to treat them unwisely. Vets cite overfeeding and the resultant epidemic obesity as a major killer of dogs and cats in America. Yet I can’t count how many times I’ve heard somebody say, “I feed him because I just can’t bear to starve him.” Or “I just can’t resist when he begs for food. He’s so cute.” Any vet or animal nutritionist would tell these people that they’re doing as much harm to their cute little beggars by overfeeding them as they would by kicking them.
People who see their dogs as humanlike often struggle to train them properly, especially if they believe they were abused or mistreated. Owners sometimes think their dogs have already suffered so much that they couldn’t possibly inflict any more criticism. Yet it’s that very firm, effective training that would make those dogs happier and more secure. And what about the growing number of owners who find neutering cruel or unbearable, because they would find it so? Refusing to neuter may put their own pet or someone else’s in danger—causing aggression, running away, and unwanted litters. Or the pet owners who make their dogs hyper by believing they need to “play” continuously, like overprogrammed boomer children? They drag them to unruly play groups, toss Frisbees and balls night and day, haul them to an endless round of organized activities—but fail to teach them how to be calm.
The humanlike view of dogs affects the decision about when to euthanize a sick or elderly pet. I recently attended two veterinary conventions where scores of vets told me their biggest recent problem is people who see their pets as so human that they simply cannot end their lives or suffering, no matter the cost or the pain.
There is no evidence that dogs have the kind of complex emotional lives and value systems that we do. It’s one reason why we love them so much, in fact. They are neither “good” nor “bad.” They don’t hold grudges, act in petty ways, or seek revenge. They read our moods, but not our minds. If they did, we’d start loving them as we love other humans—which could mean a lot less than we love them now.
Dogs are not “people” of another species. They are another species. To train and care for them properly, to show them how to live in our complex world, requires first and foremost that we understand that. I owe my dogs much—more than I can say—but they are not my “companions”—as if we voluntarily chose to hang out together but none of us has authority over the others. I bought and/or acquired them. I own them. I am profoundly responsible for their care and well being.
Guardianship, a word always applied to human beings, implies equality—the highest and perhaps most noble of all goals in this democratic nation. Ownership implies responsibility. Americans who own dogs need to be more responsible for them, literally and emotionally—not more equal to them.
The drama of the modern dog is that he is segregated from society—from work, children, public places—and then blamed for not knowing how to live in our world. The things he wants to do—have sex, roll in gross stuff, roam freely, squabble with other dogs, chew shoes, pee on every other tree—are either illegal or frowned upon. His challenge isn’t to become a free and equal person in the best traditions of our society but to learn how to live in the alien world of people.
Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish. This is impossible in our dog-unfriendly world. Ownership implies a human duty to help the dog adjust to this difficult, inhospitable place.
”Dog owner” is a proud title. It suits me fine.
Permalink
Posted in AKC, Animal Activists, On the National Front, Pet Laws at 10:06 pm by Administrator
By Dr. Al Grossman
For the past five years, part of which I spent as an AKC Delegate, I have
seen AKC inadvertently shoot itself in the proverbial foot. The PAWS
legislation, which tore the fancy apart, and the “clandestine” approach to
the agreement with the Petland Pet store chain come immediately to mind.
During this period PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and
the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) turned themselves into a
powerful legislative juggernaut backed by millions of dollars that were
milked from a gullible public and have become a royal PITA (Pain in the
Ass). AKC was slow to recognize their growing influence and has suffered the
consequences,
Three major tsunamis occurred during this time to create a perfect storm for
AKC and the world of purebred dogs. First was the expansion of leisure time
and the phenomenal growth of the recreation industry. Many different
opportunities arose for leisure time activities from Little League baseball
to the explosion of the cruise industry. The cadres of die-hard fanciers
stopped growing as the next generation found other pursuits more interesting
and challenging. Breed and All Breed clubs began to wither and die on the
vine as few new members were to be found.
A growing number of entrepreneurs saw an opportunity to make a fast buck
from the growing pet dog population by starting “registration” bodies and
issuing a piece of paper stating “Your dog is now registered with God All
Mighty Kennel Club” – no need for a stud book, inspections, DNA testing or
whatever. You now have a purebred dog registered on the cheap. With a PC and
a printer you too can become a registration body. Just print the meaningless
document and collect the dough.
At last count, AKC had 26 competitors in the registration business. For many
years the only “real” competitor was the United Kennel Club. At least they
maintained a stud book, published magazines, and held dog shows. Everyone
could live with such legitimate competition.
Interestingly enough the number of homes with dogs as pets has increased as
AKC registrations dropped. The registrations of AKC began a steady decline
as people either were not convinced of the value of registering a dog with
AKC or were deceived by effective advertising and promotion to register with
other bodies. Of course, it did not help that many puppy mills, discouraged
by AKC’s growing number of stringent rules about inspections, frequent
sires’ DNA confirmation, and emphasis on health and good animal husbandry,
turned away from the AKC bureaucracy and created their own registration
bodies, which for them simplified their registrations and cost them less
money. The new registration bodies were able to promote these “new”
registration entities to the pet shops, which sold their products, by giving
them kickbacks.
Some of these entrepreneurs also found another gold mine. They helped foster
the breeding and promotion of so-called “designer dogs.” CockaPoos,
Labradoodles, Puggles and the like began to be the “in” thing for the
unsophisticated public. Eureka, another vein to mine.
Now along came the most vicious threat to the sport of purebred dogs – the
resurgence of the Animal Rights Movement. This is a movement so insidious
that it grows likes a cancer. An unhealthy amalgamation of extreme
environmentalists, Greens, Greenpeace, ALF, PETA, HSUS, etc., has learned to
prey upon weakened institutions like a bunch of jackals. It appeals to the
young and idealistic who are seeking a cause to give meaning to their lives.
They practice all of the techniques of cults and give them a philosophy of
veganism, environmentalism and radicalism. Upset the status quo, be in the
forefront of a new movement, change the universe and you will be part of the
new chosen ones, is their motto. This has high appeal to impressionable
young people and is a message as old as time now supported by money,
advertising and hucksterism.
These people have become dangerous. They have destroyed facilities using
animals for research. They have killed and maimed animals in their quest for
the new nirvana. They have harassed researchers and others involved in vital
medical research. Lastly, and most telling, they have learned the art and
skill of manipulating legislative bodies. With their huge cache of money,
they have been able to mount punitive anti-dog legislation in city after
city and state after state. The punitive, anti-dog legislation in
Louisville, Kentucky shows that the inmates have taken over the asylum.
Many years ago, when I was the publisher of Doral Publishing, Patti and Rod
Strand came to me about publishing a book exposing the takeover of the
Animal Humane movement by groups of fanatics. We published it under the
title THE HIJACKING OF THE HUMANE MOVEMENT. It was a great critical success.
As a result of its publication, I received a number of death threats, but I
also got to participate in the founding of NAIA (National Animal Interest
Alliance) and served on its first Board of Directors.
As I became more and more concerned about this insidious cancer, I
approached AKC to take some affirmative action against these fanatics. I got
plaudits for my writings but the powers-that-be at AKC indicated that the
situation wasn’t too serious and that I was being an alarmist. So much for
foresight.
As these events hovered in the background, they finally came together to
form a perfect storm which hit AKC and the fancy with unprecedented
violence. AKC and the fancy reacted with shock and dismay at our failure to
anticipate the results of our inaction and the support of PAWS and Petland
without consulting the delegate body and the fancy in advance. The
realization of unintended consequences struck us like a thunderbolt. We have
been scurrying around ever since trying to regroup and decide on a
corrective course of action. As the famous Oliver Hardy of the Laurel and
Hardy comedic team would say, “Well, here is another nice kettle of fish
you’ve pickled me into”.
Having painted this canvas full of gloom and doom, I would like to take this
opportunity to change my pallet and paint another type of picture. Hopefully
one that uses brighter colors and offers some clues to a better future.
First off, we need to recognize we are no longer in a growth industry. We
need to re-identify what business we are in. Just like the Pennsylvania
Railroad, who discovered they were not just in the railroad business but the
transportation business, we are no longer just in the dog game. We are a
part of the leisure and recreation industry and must begin to act
accordingly. We must change our constitution and by-laws to accommodate this
change.
· We need to recognize that the sports of Agility and Rally are the growth
portion of our new industry, and begin to give them the recognition and
representation they deserve.
· While the emphasis on the bottom line is important to our survival, we
should not become overly dependent on the roller-coaster stock market for a
major share of our income.
· We should initiate a study of the possibility of acquiring the UKC so
there would be one strong body representing purebred dogs. Greater economies
of scale would be possible with this concentration of resources.
· AKC should move out of New York, sublease the current facilities, and join
with the Raleigh portion of the company. As our registration income shrinks,
it is folly to stay in New York with its ultra-high costs. Admit the
division was a mistake and now rectify it.
· Let’s admit that the delegate body has become unwieldy as the number of
clubs joining AKC increases. The new constitution and by-laws should address
a new way of representation, making sure that it’s duties and
responsibilities are more clearly spelled out.
· The archaic notion that the Board of Directors of AKC must come from the
delegate body has to be reviewed. We should have the opportunity to bring in
expertise from other arenas to give us wise counsel as needed. We need to
open our eyes to the realities of the 21st century. Our flexibility is being
limited by our own “inbreeding”. We need what we extol in our dogs – “hybrid
vigor,” which some good outcrosses can give us.
· The Board of Directors should cease micromanaging the organization and
delegate more authority to the President and staff.
· The National Championship show should be permanently located in one city
so it can grow its’ identity. It needs to be placed in a location that can
rival New York City as a destination city. Tampa and Long Beach do not meet
those criteria – Las Vegas does. Good transportation, lots to do and see,
and excellent facilities. It’s a natural.
· We need to change the direction and philosophy of how to combat animal
rights legislation. AKC should take a leaf from Union organizers and hire
people to go to the hot spots, organize the campaign, help letter writers,
and lobby the local/state legislators in place. They should spend at least a
month on-site to do this.
· AKC should retain a PR firm whose sole job is to poke fun and ridicule at
some of the preposterous things that animal rights groups do. They need to
point out that these people don’t realize the consequences of their own
actions and spell out the unintended consequences. Humor can be very
effective, especially biting humor.
I leave you with the following guideline. Tactics knows what to do when
there is something to do; Strategy knows what to do when there is nothing to
do.
Dr. Grossman, a long time judge of Sporting Dogs and publisher of Doral
Publishing is now the President of WinningSolutions.info, a website devoted
to developing the Professional Mentor concept via vital information for the
beginning breeder/exhibitor at http://winningsolutions.info
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
