There are few people as hardcore anti-PETA as am I. Indeed, I find their extreme tactics totally repulsive and as contrary to basic freedoms guaranteed by our American Constitution as anything in society today. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to answer, somewhat defensively, Cindy Cooke's column of last week, entitled “The HSUS Hates Us!” I mean maybe she's right — maybe they do hate purebred breeders. But nothing she wrote convinced me of that totally. They may have turned their interest away from animal welfare towards animal rights, but just by being against using animals for medical research hardly categorizes them as being anti-dog ownership. And as far as their views on hunting, they hardly stand alone on that point either. I personally believe in using animals for medical research on a restricted basis in today's highly technological society, but without those who pushed so hard—perhaps excessively for most people's taste—would this have come to pass? I don't know about that Cindy, do you? I don't know this new President of HSUS, and wouldn't know him if I fell over him. I do hear he is terribly good looking, and a charmer as well. Maybe he has seen the light and his new position as president has made him more willing to work with pet owners. Isn't it worth sitting down to find out? Should all attempts at reconciliation be ignored or thrown out based upon all past performances? I think that's all Denny Kodner was trying to say and did say. And you know something, Cindy, I agree with Denny, and I think there is nothing lost in having a dialogue with HSUS. And as far as being shocked that DOG NEWS would print Denny's article, why didn't it shock you when we printed, as part of their press release, that UKC encouraged the breeding of mixed colored poodles? As UKC's legislative director, I would think that should have shocked you, just as I am shocked you wear two hats—AKC Delegate and UKC Legislative Director!
As for the result of the lawsuit going against the Canine Health Foundation, I can't say that considering the facts that have come to light and who was testifying in favor of Ms. Lynch and the attitude and actions in which certain officials at the Foundation reacted, that the decision could have been anything but in favor of Ms. Lynch. Now then, on appeal and not in front of a jury, perhaps things will be altered; nonetheless, the manner in which Ms. Lynch was alleged to have been handled business-wise was anti-diluvium at best. Certainly the Foundation had the right to terminate her employment at their will. But at least they should have done it in a manner consistent to present day employment practices. And then to become retaliatory after the firing was just unbelievable, if in fact this did occur. I truly never followed the proceedings while they were going on, since I thought the matter too personal and was merely a "he-said-she-said" employment disagreement. But now that the trial is over and the business practices of the Foundation are being publicly aired, it really makes you wonder at the past arrogance of the organization.
I truly believe in the need of the CHF for our dogs' sake! This being the case, no matter what happens on appeal, the Foundation must continued to be supported. Certainly, it is hoped that not only will a more open and proactive Foundation Board be encouraged, but that the new Executive Committee, which started in March of this year, will be more sensitive to the needs and the concerns of its employees and treat them accordingly. •
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
