Historically, ear cropping was banned in England in 1895 by virtual edict of the King. That law remains in force to this day. Docking remains legal there, although recent moves to ban that practice so far have remained futile, notwithstanding some heavy pressure to institute such a ban. Of interest in the States, of course, is that in the same year of 1895 the Delegate Body at its December meeting voted 11 to 8 to also BAN cropping. The vote failed, however, notwithstanding the majority of the then-Delegates voting to be in favor of it! This was because this Rule change required a two-thirds majority vote. Sound familiar? Had just two of those eight voted yes, AKC would have banned cropping in America as well. Another vote on the subject, in which a majority of the Delegates voted to approve cropping, 12 to 5, was taken in 1896. So there was a little switching of position even then, it would appear.
Furthermore, cropping had been banned by Statute in New York State into the 1920's which law was subsequently repealed. It seems the Bull Terrier people were of the opinion that the New York State law may have prevented them from entering their dogs at Westminster. Furthermore, of course, is the provision within AKC's By-laws, the origin for which is not substantiated, that a cropped dog may not be shown in any state where ear cropping is banned. To my knowledge, no state today has a ban against ear cropping, although Massachusetts has some kind of county law against the practice. There is a provision though which excludes dogs traveling through the state for a five-day period for this law to apply to them. Which, of course, would cover show dogs there on a temporary basis.
Therefore, no violation of state nor AKC laws and or Rules, respectively, would apply.
This kind of history is worth mentioning, particularly in light of the SB 1548 situation. Fortunately the amendment to ban ear cropping was withdrawn in California but in light of the long and controversial history that this matter has, it would be well for everyone concerned with the problem to keep in mind this is a fight that is not going to be easy to overcome.
Thanks to the DiNardos—both Sheila and Tony—and through The Doberman Pinscher
Club of America, not only was the entire Fancy put on alert as to what was going on in California, but a fund to hire lobbyists to fight the provision was established. This fund has money left in it and I understand people are being given the choice of either having the monies pro rated and returned to them or to donate the money to this good cause. Knowing full well that this is not the last of this issue makes one hope all monies collected will be reused for future needs. Now here's a case where a Parent Club really used its power prompted by a leading member. Everyone should keep this is mind when future and similar discussions arise. The reaction on the part of the DPCA and the DiNardos was neither self-serving nor politically motivated.
A week or two ago I wrote about a USA TODAY report on the “Collie Family Tree.” This was the heading used by USA TODAY. I thought the paragraph to be rather innocuous, and quite frankly the report itself to be a questionable study at best. This conclusion was based upon what that newspaper reported. Well good gracious, one would have thought I had written the USA TODAY article. All I did was tell you what it said and my reaction to it. It turns out the blip in that paper was totally incomplete and failed to report exactly what the study was all about. I probably never would have mentioned it at all if not for its references to the long-haired whippet and the so-called silken sighthound. These were breeds I had
never heard of before. If you read this week’s “Letters to the Editor”, you will see what I'm talking about. It's the first time it even occurred to me that I should research that which appears in a newspaper to check its accuracy. And you know something? I don't think I will either.
I read that President Sprung has announced the new Committee for Judges Approval. I certainly hope this Committee has the strength and intestinal fortitude to truly give meaning to the words "approved to judge at AKC shows". Let's hope. (Notice I did not say “expect to see some thorough changes in attitudes and presentations of people's names for approvals.”) It will be interesting to see the extent of the Field Rep's input, which is supposed to go down to 45 percent under this new system. But really, if the field reps' input is what the reps claim it was—which was not in the past implemented—this new committee will really be put to the test. •
