Come On, John & More

One of the nicest things about having a writer like John Mandeville on the staff of DOG NEWS is the ability one has to both agree and disagree with him publicly as well as privately. He is always fascinating to talk to, and through the years our relationship has grown into a close friendship, or so I think anyways. I do remember that for years that was not the case, particularly in the Daniels days and certainly not when I would call AKC offices and ask John what was going on business-wise at AKC. I remember his attitude well, which was to basically say, “How can you expect us to operate successfully if we tell you everything that is going on?” Our relationship then was guarded, if not cool. His most recent writings in last week’s column truly reminded me of how times have changed. No longer an intimate to the proceedings at AKC and anything but an insider, John is now asking total disclosure in all cases involving alternate means of income. Not only does he want to know how much is being made on each alternative mean introduced, but I get the very strong impression he wants both the Fancy and the Delegate Body to take part in the approval of these deals! Now that just can't be the same John who worked at 51 talking, can it? Or as a former employee, has he seen the light? The truth of the matter is probably a little bit of both. In the alternate income area, sure it is frustrating not to find out what is going on until after the fact. But from a business standpoint, is it fair to believe that AKC's staff and/or Board has to go to both the fancy and/or the Delegate body for input on every deal to be made? Obviously not! Nor from a business standpoint can one expect AKC to give specifics on the success or failure of each deal. Let's face it—there is a matter of non-disclosure in any deal made with outside people, which AKC is bound legally to stand by. As AKC turns to alternate forms of income, everyone associated with the dog world will have to learn to accept the fact that board and staff business will be less open than, say, the registrations results, which by Constitution must be made available to the general public. As AKC matures into a more diverse type corporation, some of the traditions of the past will fall into the area of business deals, which by their very nature should not and need not be totally met with public approval and consent. And as John so properly suggests, if the results are not acceptable, just "vote the buggers out" at the next election! I know this is controversial but it is topical, and that is the matter of AKC's role with the non-purebred dog. More and more it is becoming apparent that in certain AKC events and involvements, the non-purebred is playing some part. Whether it is the Canine Good Citizenship tests, in which the mongrel is warmly welcomed, or the CAR registration, which goes so far as to include cats, monkeys and the like, to say nothing of mongrels, AKC is definitely involved. Should this extend to Agility and possibly Obedience? I think so. Should it go as far as The Kennel Club in the U.K., which includes those events and now offers a form of registration? Well, maybe that's a potential good alternate form of income too. There, of course, I agree with John and would think Delegate input would be both necessary and proper but probably never achievable. And then taking the matter of the mongrel one step further is raising the thornier issue of AKC's relationship with humane societies. From where I stand, I believe talks at any level with any organization are in order. Talk doesn't hurt anyone — refusal to talk does! Have you noticed how the last several appointees to the positions of field reps have all been former professional handlers? Now then, don't get me wrong, I think all the people appointed have been top-notch and very deserving. Every last one of them. What I do question is how the gene pool is limited to professional handlers only. Is it because there is no public effort to let the Fancy at large know when these positions become available? For years now, I have been asking for a job description for field reps. I never get anywhere with that request, although I understand there is now in place such a description, which will not be made public. I can't understand that at all, and when I asked, I was told to apply and then they'll tell me if I fit the description—or words to that effect. The problem being, of course, how does anyone know when to apply if there is no public statement as to when positions are available? And how does one know whether in fact he or she fits the description if they aren't told what it is? Sometimes I have a problem understanding just what a field rep is expected to do and expected not to do at a dog show. Nothing in the present administration, which has opened the doors in so many areas, indicates a willingness to be open insofar as these jobs are concerned. I can't help but wonder why! •

Home o Dog News Top Ten o Pedigree Awards Breeders o Handlers o What's New o Advertise SUBSCRIBE Questions/Comments? - E Mail Dog News  No part of this site may be reproduced or used without written permission from Dog News all rights reserved (c) 2005