This was posted to one of the JRT/PRT lists. If it's accurate, I remain
baffled as how using the AKC's name to market puppy mill produce sold in a
chain pet stores "promotes purebred dogs" in any positive way. :-P


*****PERMISSION TO CROSS POST GRANTED*****
September 13, 2006
From: Sally Nist, AKC Delegate, RCKC
To: Rapid City Kennel Club members

This will be somewhat short as it is late and I will write a more
complete report tomorrow. I am just back from the fall Delegate
meeting. It began with the normal committee elections and a vote on
the first proposed amendment. That was an amendment limiting outside
activities by delegates. AKC said it was to assist us if we had to
remove a delegate for conflict of interest but it was really setting
a stage of sorts. The existing restrictions were enlarged to keep
people out of the delegate body who didn't support "AKC objects".
Dennis Sprung and Board members explained that we could then
keep "animal rights" people from "taking over the AKC".

After lunch came the regular reports from the Treasurer, the new
archive program, etc. Buried in the Treasurer's report was a very
quick mention of a "new contractual relationship" between AKC and
the Petland chain of stores (120 in the US, with 20 more planned for
2007). The difference between Petland and PetSmart or PetCo is that
they sell puppies at Petland.

During the final portion of the meeting, several delegates--who were
completely caught off guard by the news of the contract--brought up
their concern and asked for more information. We were told that "we
would never see the contract (which I heard from another delegate
was just signed last Friday)", it is necessary for AKC to meet the
bottom line, and that it was the wave of the future and we should
get on board. At one point David Merriim, the attorney for AKC
actually said he had not seen the contract (great boos and laughter
ensued) and that if we don't work with Petland to get more dogs
registered we will be looking at $75 entry fees and become
an "elitist organization" . NOTE: you will be able to read the full
details in a couple of days on the AKC website so excuse me if my
quotes are not completely accurate. They may not be 100% correct but
very, very close.

From what we could gather from the very sketchy info parsed out by
the AKC staff to the delegates, the Board of Directors and
the "Management Team" have signed a contract with Petland endorsing
the sale of puppies under the AKC banner, with the Petland sales
people encouraging people to register the puppies with AKC. Needless
to say, all will be sold with no conditional breeding paperwork, as
is done by breeders who sell directly to new owners.

You will see when you read the minutes on the website that the
discussion went on for a couple of hours. I was in line to speak but
everyone had covered my thoughts and I stepped out. Main concerns
were the breeding of these puppies, the fact that we have always put
AKC above "puppy mills and puppy sales at stores", the fact that
these puppies will be the rescue dogs of the future, etc. A motion
was made by the Golden Retriever club delegate that the delegates
vote to let the board know we want them to rescend the contract. The
AKC staff kept saying that it was a "non-binding, sense of the
delegation vote". It carried nearly unanimously.

The delegate body is stunned. Of course, by the vote earlier in the
day, we are not "supporting the AKC object" but I, for one, think it
is critical that if members of RCKC do not agree with this sudden
and secret action taken by the AKC without any notification of the
general population it supposedly supports, we must make our voices
heard.

I suggest letters be sent to Dennis Sprung, to every member of the
Board of Directors, and every single higher-level management person.
Alternative ways to obtain additiional funds (which does have an $8M
reserve) we might consider release of the expensive NYC property, a
pay cut by AKC staff (often done in private industry to save a
business), cutting Board expenses, reviewing every expense line by
line, etc.

If you so direct, and if I am elected your delegate to the AKC (a
position I would like to hold in the upcoming year), I will vote
against every single member of the Board of Directors on this issue
alone, no matter how fabulously they may have served the fancy in
the past. I will carry any message to the next meeting on this
matter.

If this is not a concern, we can move on to other issues. If the
anger expressed by delegates is representative of the anger of
concerned breeders and members of RCKC, I urge everyone to act. The
contract has been signed and none of the delegates is sure if any
action can change anything but we can express our outrage and the
new direction AKC has taken. It began with our new embrace and
acceptance of "large volumne breeders"--some might say puppy mills--
and this seems to be the final nail in the coffin to separate
legitimate, concerned breeders from pet shop suppliers.

"Fostering harmony between the human and non-human animals of our world."

Pat Miller, CPDT, CDBC
Peaceable Paws, LLC
PO Box 3146
Hagerstown, MD 21741
301-582-9420
_www.peaceablepaws. com_ ( http://www.peaceabl epaws.com/
http://www.peaceabl epaws.com/)
Author of "The Power of Positive Dog Training," and "Positive
Perspectives"
Member ABMA, IAABC
Member APDT, #1238P, exp 12/06

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:54:42 -0400, "sionnach"
wrote:

[...]
NOTE: you will be able to read the full
details in a couple of days on the AKC website so excuse me if my
quotes are not completely accurate. They may not be 100% correct but
very, very close.
[...]

Mo

http://www.akc.org/about/petland_fac..._ BUTTON.Y=12


--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Rosie O’Donnell's Anti-Christian Smear.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=24544

Being Nice Will Get Us Killed!
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...djOTFiZjg4NGI=

The pope, the protesters & White Guilt.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...FhMDc4YmJmM2I=

Two books that every American (and Canadian) should read:

1) The Rage and The Pride, by Orianna Fallaci
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J13521A6D
2) The Force of Reason, by Orianna Fallaci
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T42552A6D

While they still can.

Please keep your attributions correct. I did NOT write the quoted
material; it is part of the forwarded letter.


"Handsome Jack Morrison" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:54:42 -0400, "sionnach"
wrote:

[...]
NOTE: you will be able to read the full
details in a couple of days on the AKC website so excuse me if my
quotes are not completely accurate. They may not be 100% correct but
very, very close.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:34:39 -0400, "sionnach"
wrote:

Please keep your attributions correct. I did NOT write the quoted
material; it is part of the forwarded letter.

Oops.

How's this?

[...]
NOTE: you will be able to read the full
details in a couple of days on the AKC website so excuse me if my
quotes are not completely accurate. They may not be 100% correct but
very, very close.
[...]


--
Handsome Jack Morrison

The Democratic Party and Jews.
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5876

Rosie O’Donnell's Anti-Christian Smear.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=24544

Being Nice Will Get Us Killed!
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...djOTFiZjg4NGI=

The pope, the protesters & White Guilt.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...FhMDc4YmJmM2I=

Two books that every American (and Canadian) should read:

1) The Rage and The Pride, by Orianna Fallaci
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J13521A6D
2) The Force of Reason, by Orianna Fallaci
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T42552A6D

While they still can.

sionnach wrote:

This was posted to one of the JRT/PRT lists. If it's accurate, I remain
baffled as how using the AKC's name to market puppy mill produce sold in a
chain pet stores "promotes purebred dogs" in any positive way. :-P

*****PERMISSION TO CROSS POST GRANTED*****
September 13, 2006
From: Sally Nist, AKC Delegate, RCKC
To: Rapid City Kennel Club members

This will be somewhat short as it is late and I will write a more
complete report tomorrow. I am just back from the fall Delegate
meeting. It began with the normal committee elections and a vote on
the first proposed amendment. That was an amendment limiting outside
activities by delegates. AKC said it was to assist us if we had to
remove a delegate for conflict of interest but it was really setting
a stage of sorts. The existing restrictions were enlarged to keep
people out of the delegate body who didn't support "AKC objects".
Dennis Sprung and Board members explained that we could then
keep "animal rights" people from "taking over the AKC".


This is rich considering that AKC's Board Chairman Menaker and
his wife, and a number of Board members, have donated to Humane
USA PAC and the Pennsylvania GOP, in support of Puppy Protection
Act and PAWS sponsor Senator Rick Santorum.

Have they not already "taken over"?

Amy Dahl

Amy Dahl wrote:



This is rich considering that AKC's Board Chairman Menaker and
his wife, and a number of Board members, have donated to Humane
USA PAC and the Pennsylvania GOP, in support of Puppy Protection
Act and PAWS sponsor Senator Rick Santorum.

Have they not already "taken over"?

As usual, if you look deeper it's not quite as heinous as it seems.

First of all, it's not like they're paying for registrations, or
registering non-AKC registerable dogs. What it is, is that when people
buy a puppy from Petland that has a blueslip, they can now, if they
want, register the dog directly from the store. That's it.

The AKC is a not-for-profit, but AKC's engine runs on registrations. Dog
events account for a measly 8% of AKC's income. In a position paper that
I read last week (and can't find now wouldn't you know) one of the
delegates pointed out that 10 years ago AKC registered 91% of all AKC
registerable dogs, now it's down to 67%. There is a lot of information
out there on the money the AKC is losing each year.

Many people would say "who cares, we don't want AKC registering puppy
mill dogs." But if you go to AKC events, run AKC events, or care about
things like fighting breed-specific legislation and canine animal health
you better care. People love to paint AKC as the big bad ugly,
conveniently forgetting all the things that AKC gives them.

And the fact is, the AKC has *always* registered puppy mill dogs. Right
now we're actually in a very scary situation. The USDA only inspects
commercial breeders who sell to a third party. The AKC inspects ALL
breeders with more than 7 litters for year, and can inspect for care and
conditions as well as paperwork violations. Commercial breeders now have
other alternatives to AKC registration, and JQP is too stupid to know or
care that it's not AKC. And commercial breeders can now sell direct over
the internet. Basically, if a commercial breeder sells directly over the
net and chooses to not use AKC, they are then free from any sort of
oversight whatsoever. Nothing, nada, no one looking after the dogs at
all. If, however, the AKC makes it worth their while to register with
the AKC, then the AKC gets needed revenue and the facilities get inspected.

On Fantasy Island, AKC would stop registering dogs from all puppy mills
and those mills would pouf--go away. In the real world, they not only
don't go away, they are free from any oversight of breeding practices.
On Fantasy Island, there would actually be a brand for puppy millers. In
the real world, many show breeders are puppy mills in all but name and
produce every bit as much as the worst mills do. Breeding to support
their show habit, breeding to produce the next special, breeding so they
can afford to campaign their special.

Me, I live in the real world. In the real world, puppy mill puppies are
going to exist. Our best bet is to try to get oversight on those mills.
To that end, we have to sleep with the enemy. It sucks, but it's real
life, not Fantasy Island.

Robin Nuttall wrote:


Me, I live in the real world. In the real world, puppy mill puppies are
going to exist. Our best bet is to try to get oversight on those mills.
To that end, we have to sleep with the enemy. It sucks, but it's real
life, not Fantasy Island.

I disagree. I think the best bet is to educate the public. As long
as the public thinks cheap purebred dogs are desirable, there'll
be a market for cheap purebred dogs. Trying to regulate "puppy
mills" is a pretext for making dog breeding untenable.

I don't know if you missed my point, or ignored it, but I'll repeat
just in case. My concern is the AKC board chairman and his
wife donating $29,000 to the ARs, and other board members
donating as well. I'd way rather have dogs, including commercially
bred dogs, and the constant problem of educating the public, than
have the ARs have their way and eliminate dog ownership.

Amy Dahl

Amy Dahl wrote:

Robin Nuttall wrote:


Me, I live in the real world. In the real world, puppy mill puppies are
going to exist. Our best bet is to try to get oversight on those mills.
To that end, we have to sleep with the enemy. It sucks, but it's real
life, not Fantasy Island.


I disagree. I think the best bet is to educate the public. As long
as the public thinks cheap purebred dogs are desirable, there'll
be a market for cheap purebred dogs. Trying to regulate "puppy
mills" is a pretext for making dog breeding untenable.

I'm sorry, but I've realized that this is never going to happen. People
want purebred dogs. You want them, I want them, and JQP wants them.
There are many reasons for this, some valid, some not valid. If
commercial breeders ceased to exist tomorrow, it would mean that a lot
of very, very good people would simply never have pets, OR that people
would simply start rampantly producing mixes. It's simple law of supply
and demand. There's a demand, and that demand is not going away. We who
are responsible breeder can never and will never meet that demand.


I don't know if you missed my point, or ignored it, but I'll repeat
just in case. My concern is the AKC board chairman and his
wife donating $29,000 to the ARs, and other board members
donating as well. I'd way rather have dogs, including commercially
bred dogs, and the constant problem of educating the public, than
have the ARs have their way and eliminate dog ownership.

Sorry, I missed it. Is it confirmed that PAWS is a move by animal rights
activists? What is the exact objection to the bill? Honest question, I
simply haven't really looked into it.

Robin Nuttall wrote:

Amy Dahl wrote:

Robin Nuttall wrote:


Sorry, I missed it. Is it confirmed that PAWS is a move by animal rights
activists? What is the exact objection to the bill? Honest question, I
simply haven't really looked into it.

Given that the ARs use the confusing name, "Humane Society of
the United States" and many other tactics to disguise and distract
from their agenda, there's probably enough ambiguity that
we could argue the point.

Dog clubs across the country felt PAWSwas threatening enough to fight
tooth and nail. The AKC's endorsement of it is disturbing.

Sadly, I haven't time to marshall and explain all of the details here.
I've been reading the ng while waiting for feedback on some stuff
I've done as part of the effort to oppose the ARs, and I've got it. Time
to get back to work.

I'll come back and post a link when the new SAOVA site is up. I
encourage you to watch for it and visit the site.

Amy Dahl

Robin Nuttall wrote:

Sorry, I missed it. Is it confirmed that PAWS is a move by animal rights
activists? What is the exact objection to the bill? Honest question, I
simply haven't really looked into it.

If you feel like doing some reading, there's a record of SAOVA's
work opposing PAWS he

http://saova.org/1139.html

It includes essential text from the bill, Bob Kane's analysis, letters
from AKC's Holt and Gladstone with some comments and
rebuttals, a bit about sponsor Rick Santorum and his history
with the animal rightists, and a list of breed clubs and dog and
cat clubs opposing the bill.

Some of the links go to pages on the "new" SAOVA site, which
has a completely different look. Hope this is not too disconcerting.

Amy Dahl