I would like to make one more observation about our trip to Bogotá. In reading the  catalog, which I did after hurriedly writing last week's story, I was delighted to find that both of our picks for the Terrier Group winner was a Wire Fox Terrier bitch whose sire was none other than ChCo, Ch. Cottleston Corporal. Cottleson, of course, being the kennel prefix of one of America's most knowlegable and noted dogwoman, my dear friend the late Ruth Cooper. The bitch's coat, condition, length of neck and shortness of back particularly impressed me. True she was a mite “doggy”, particularly in check and head but not enough to overly bother me. I immediately called both Peter and Luc to tell them of this find, which pleased them both.
One of my gripes about the Al Cheauré presidency was the interference of certain Board members with their own  prioritization of issues and their daily, if not more than daily, calls to him. Unhappily some of these people are continuing their past practices, not only to the President but to other members of Staff as well. That the Board Chairman is more actively seen in the New York offices is basically his call (up to a point), one would think. But for other Board members to continue their past practices really should be tempered at best. I remember only too well when Judi Daniels set a precedent  when she was President. She required Board Members to call only her if they wanted to speak to staff. She then attempted to delegate those requests. How successful she was in this I don't recall, but it is the old story—too much Board interference with Staff on a day-to-day basis. Speaking of Mrs. Daniels, there was some surprise in certain circles when she was named to sit on the Board's Conflict of Interest Committee. For everyone's information, this appointment came about as a result of the Delegate Body electing her to be the Chairperson of the Delegates By-Laws Committee. This is the  Committee the Board believed should be the ultimate representative from the Delegates on their Conflict of Interest Committee. So those delegates trying to pin this appointment on the Board have only themselves to blame if they object to her appointment. And speaking of Delegates, what about the Delegate from a Club in Ohio who has totally gone over the top? Not only have her remarks on the delegate e line been totally out of line, but also the outlandish comments she has written on the Internet itself about AKC and its President Dennis Sprung. Really, where does delegate accountability and responsibility come into play? Just because one is a delegate does this give one a right to demean individuals, misquote facts and make totally untrue accusations about AKC employees. I mean her attacks on AKC's house counsel were totally libelous as well! Shouldn't someone be policing some of these Delegate remarks? Why aren't they accountable when they abuse others so terribly? Is there a Delegate Ethics Committee or is it just the Board of Directors that is held to a higher standard whilst certain delegates are permitted to run amok?
On the subject of ear cropping, I am one of those who believe in and  practice choice in the matter. I have owned three different Dobe bitches in the last 18 years. I have never bred one of them since I didn't want to put the puppies through ear cropping. This doesn't mean, however, that I have a problem with those Dobe owners who believe in it. Nor does it mean, as Mrs. Beyer seems to think in the articles that she writes for DOG NEWS, that I should not own a Dobe. I love the breed and no one's going to tell me whether or not I should own one. And yes, all my Dobes were cropped. Obviously the proposed bill in California must be defeated since this is as extreme in its thinking as Mrs. Beyer's in hers. Who in the world is a state legislature to criminalize such an act? Furthermore, if in fact this were done at the prompting of the veterinary organizations in that state, I would boycott those vets pushing this notion. AKC has it own problems with its Rules, particularly Chapter 11, Section 8D, as well as the Rules provision prohibiting cosmetic surgery on dogs themselves. I know breed clubs claim that ear cropping is not cosmetic in nature. Well, if that's the case and their claim is accurate, they have a long way in  convincing the American public about the need for ear cropping. It's a tough question today, particularly with the attitude of the extremists within the animal rights organizations. I personally support strongly those who want to crop the ears of their dogs just as I think those who don't want to crop or dock should have that right as well. Shoot me but that's what I believe, just as I believe that the defeat of SB 1548 should be the highest priority on every dog owner's list. Read Sheila DiNardo's column in this week's paper and react accordingly is my suggestion!
One last thought. The CFO at AKC reported to the Board that for the first six months of 2003, AKC ran at a net loss of $800,000 and that for the first six months of 2004 there was a net income gain of $5.2 million! That's quite a turnaround considering what all the naysayers have been writing and crying about AKC being run into the ground. How come the Delegate's haven't been acknowledging this fact, one must ask. •
|
