An Interesting Week
It has been an interesting week legislatively for dog owners and those concerned for the overall general welfare of anything canine. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts became the first state in the union to ban the surgery which devocalizes both dogs and cats. When performed on a dog of course it is called debarking. Under the new law anyone in the state who cuts or removes an animal’s vocal cords for non medical reasons may be fined or sentenced to prison for up to five years. Pushed by the advocacy group Animal Coalition, it was argued that the procedure is primarily used as a convenience by the commercial breeder. Those opposed, which included AKC as well as many veterinary groups plus the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs, argued that more animals will be turned over to shelters or abandoned in addition to causing more unnecessary euthanizations. For many responsible dog owners it is said that debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet’s noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. Additionally it was said that too much misinformation exists about the procedure itself. When performed by a veterinarian using laser or a biopsy technique, it is argued that the procedure is safe and relatively non-invasive. These pages are basically ambivalent about the issue but ultimately believe that the decision is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian and not to any regulatory authority be it Local, State or Federal. On a happier note the Village of Rockville Centre in Long Island repealed its ban on pit bulls and rottweilers by a 5 to 0 vote. Conceding that the ordinance violated the State law which forbids breed discrimination against dogs, it reversed the law’s earlier passage primarily due to the hard work of rescue organizations and legislative dog action groups including the Long Island Coalition of Dog Fanciers and the Long Island Responsible Dog Owners Association. AKC played a major behind the scenes role although these pages strongly continue to believe that in this particular instance the physical appearance of a member of the AKC Staff at the hearings would have served a strong psychological boost to the dog owners as well as having illustrated to the public AKC’s strong concern in an issue which affects its very raison d’être for existence. (See Ann Lettis’s Letter to the Editor this issue). Then in San Francisco, California the ordinance to ban the sale of all pets in the City gains momentum. It should be interesting to learn AKC’s take on this issue whilst the July 4th rescue of over 100 lab Beagles stirred the hearts of many. It seems that Ani-Clin of Oxford, New Jersey, a research facility where the dogs lived, had bellied up and locked its doors. St. Hubert’s Animal Welfare and Pets Alive Sanctuary after much legal machinations, managed to rescue and is re-homing these dogs. A real human interest story with heartwarming results we are happy to report. Yet another lost opportunity for AKC to have helped get the attention of the public in showing its support for dog rescue. It takes imagination and intuitiveness to get in on these cases PUBLICLY and not react just behind the scenes or to re-act as though all situations should be treated equally. Selective imaginative public responses are the answer --action not inertia should be the code word... not a response “our position its on our web site for all to see.”

Deaf Dogs Nixed
The Board overwhelmingly rejected the idea of deaf dogs participating in Agility Events by a vote of 10 to 3 with Haines, Menaker and Newman the three voting in favor of the proposal. Too bad the discussion about whether or not there should be an overall position statement addressing the issue of health qualifications it this issue did not materialize or alternatively was not published in the Board Minutes. Too bad, too, that the two Board members, who are both members of the Dalmatian Club, chose not to recuse themselves from the vote totally. Let’s face it, but the Dalmatian faction was so predisposed against the idea so as to make any discussions meaningless insofar as Directors Garvin and Strand were concerned. Not that these pages considered the deafness issue a problem of major importance in so far as competing in Agility is concerned. It is said that there are many deaf dogs already competing in Agility about which most people are unaware or about which they keep quiet but the point is that as a health issue generally how should deafness or any health issue be handled by AKC. By restricting the discussion to deafness only the Board ignored the general problem of health and instead focused only on deafness. Very short sighted in scope is the opinion of these pages and a missed opportunity to speak out on major canine health problems generally.

Other Board Actions Or Inactions Of Note
Instead of doing away with the entire concept of night specialties following all-breeds, the Board approved evening specialities to be held concurrently with an all-breed show with seven limitations, one of which is that the evening speciality can not be held if a concurrent specialty is held with the all-breed show during that day. While this has merit the fact is that evening specialties at most all-breeds are just totally unnecessary and are a disregard for the health and welfare of the dog itself. The strain of performing from 8am till midnight is too great a risk merely to get more points or assignments for more judges. Then the Staff in order to beef up the failure of the Amateur Owner Handler Class to gain the support of the exhibitor convinced the Board to award an AO Handler Championship Medallion as an inducement to any dog which earns its Championship with all points from that class. Sorry to say that when the class was first introduced we fought its adoption for many reasons. Obviously it is not being accepted by the Fancy and should be done away with, Medallions notwithstanding. On the Conformation Judges Annual Fee Staff is said to have outlined the steps taken to solicit input from the Judges Organizations, individual judges, and the Fancy, on the subject of a this fee. Excuse us but the steps taken were never outlined in the Minutes! Guess that’s too much information to expect, isn’t it. The issue of some chat rooms established by Delegate Committees appearing to provide official AKC positions which positions are not official was discussed. It was suggested according to the Minutes that such lists be “requested” to post a disclaimer, but the consensus of the Board was that this would be ineffective. Excuse us--demand the disclaimer and if it is refused don’t pay the $200 expenses per meeting those members of the Delegate Committees are now paid. They should not be paid that sum anyways but if they are misrepresenting AKC why let them get away with it at all? Take away their Delegate seats altogether, that’s what we say, else how to handle these misrepresentors is our position.

Thought For The Week
The Delegate Advocacy and Advancement Committee is sort of the elite of the Delegate Committees. It has gone through several name changes through the years but it has prepared and submitted to the Board a sheet concerning the role of the Delegate, which is supposed to include recommended qualifications for the position of Delegate. The committee has requested that the document with an introductory letter from the committee receive wide dissemination and that it be posted on the AKC’s website. It has been included in the Letters to the Editor pages of this issue. Too bad there is no mention how to unseat a Delegate, no mention of term limits for Delegates or Delegate Committee members, or how to handle Delegate Committees which misrepresent AKC in chat rooms, isn’t it? •