There are so many holes, so many sins of omission in Wayne Cavanaugh's letter of August 2 to THE HOUND ENTHUSIAST that one must sit back and really wonder if he truly believes what he has written. Perhaps his funniest line (which I am sure he did not consider funny) is when he raises the question as to whether or not "you have the same goals and traditions as HSUS and PETA?" Of all the arguments used against PAWS, the weakest to my mind has been the one that attempts to discredit the proposed legislation on the basis of the broad coalition of organizations that are in favor of it. By Wayne's thinking, how in the world can Patti Strand and he agree on anything? When Wayne was an employee of AKC—he is now the proprietor of the FOR-PROFIT United Kennel Club—he and Patti never agreed on a single thing. I take that back—they agreed to disagree. If Wayne said black, Patti said white. But now that they have joined forces in opposing PAWS, they appear to be in complete agreement. That's fine with both him and me. But don't tell everyone else to oppose PAWS because organizations or people that you have disagreed with in the past are for it. With that kind of thinking, Wayne and the NAIA, led by Strand, would never have been able to join forces.
As to Wayne's sins of omission, he certainly failed to list in his opposition list the 22 OTHER commercial registries, along with the HUNTE people, who are opposed to it. How convenient  to forget about that red flag, eh? Also, to list only DDAL and HSUS with AKC is clever but not very fair, is it? The ASPCA now comes out in favor, as has Westminster, to say nothing of the myriad of clubs within AKC. This may be a debater's modus operandi, but it is hardly credible, is it? By the way, Wayne, where does the NRA stand on this? That's a point both you and Patti prefer to ignore, don't you?
As for being shocked at AKC's actions, did it ever occur to you that UKC is using this stand as a means to increase its own registration base? AKC has gone to great lengths to supervise and inspect kennels that violate its rules and regulations. Indeed, it has cost them thousands of registrations by taking a stand for the welfare of the dog. What kind of inspection does UKC provide for the welfare of dogs registered with them? I am sure this is of utmost concern to the Coonhound and Bear Hunting Clubs—yeah! And AKC has more than gone overboard with its Canine Health Foundation and the monies it offers this organization for the health and welfare of dogs. What CHF has UKC developed. And don't hit me with your past AKC alliance and your role in the development of AKC's positive CHF approach. I'm asking where UKC stands in these areas.
 Don't get me wrong, Wayne. I question the civil liberties aspect of PAWS, and quite frankly anything with which Rick Santorum may get involved. But in the long run, there is little doubt in my mind that the overall effect of this bill is positive and should be considered positively. In the long run, I truly believe your civil liberty argument is secondary to your financial goals. I think you see a way to weaken AKC by attacking them frivolously and I for one hope you fail in your plot.
I understand AKC's re-adopted mission statement is soon to be released. In addition, the Conflict of Interest Report has been made public. Will try and get it in this issue. If not, it will be in next week's for sure.
Hopefully, this will give you plenty of time to make travel arrangements. •
|
