Much has been written of late about who and what constitutes being a breeder. Some sanctify the title to the extent that they believe breeders should have the right to determine who should and should not OWN a dog at all. In a sense, this is 100 percent correct. After all, I have every right to determine where and to whom a Skye I have bred will go—if I decide to sell or give one away at all. But you'll agree, I would think, that I have no business telling someone else where or how his or her homebred dog should be sold. Except in those cases where a pet shop is concerned. And then this kind of sale should be basically discouraged or frowned upon anyway. But there is a major difference between selling a dog and owning a dog. How is anyone to say who should or should not own a dog? Short of being a child beater, anyone has a right to own a dog. Americans today are dog-crazed. And they want to own a dog or two or three and are willing to pay high prices for them. I mean, it has reached the point that the new Monopoly games have cards with “designer dog” on them! And that's only the tip of the iceberg. This craze goes so far that AKC breeders cannot meet the demand for puppies by a long shot. Well, that's not entirely true, is it!
Let's face it, if AKC had not, through the insistence of its hardcore constituency, implemented tougher and tougher inspection policies relative to the care and conditioning of dogs generally, the business of breeding and selling dogs unscrupulously would have gone on unchecked. New and basically meaningless registries would never have been formed in reaction, and the cash cow would still have been operating as it did 20 or 30 years ago. And make no doubt about it. This turn about in AKC is philosophically for the good. It should be used as a major selling point in getting people to register their dogs with a caring, concerned-type organization.
Does this mean turning our backs on the commercial breeding of dogs? Of course not. We as dog lovers have as much of an obligation toward these commercially-bred dogs as we do towards dogs bred by the hardcore constituency. How to show this concern and to effectively turn the presently unacceptable puppy farm problems into a plus for dogs bred in these bad situations is a major problem to resolve. PAWS offered a glimmer of hope, but realistically speaking, today it is probably a dead issue. Hopefully, some creative minds can come up with answers that satisfy the extremists on either end. If not, the ultimate loser, as usual, will be the dog itself.
Well, the Nominating Committee had six people submit their names for the Class of 2011. To think that of 570 delegates, only six were interested in running for the Board is a conundrum at best. The Committee stayed with sitting Director Haines and rejected Battaglia's bid, whilst Strand opted to sit this one out, for the time being, at any rate. Carmen will run from the floor. I'm not, at this point, expressing preferences for those nominated. Let's see who else may run from the floor. What I do find most disturbing, however, is the system established to seat Directors. Why must Directors be limited to come from the Delegate Body only? I realize the need for having dog-oriented and experienced people on the Board. But must it be 100 percent dog dominated? Shouldn't a $70 million organization have room for outside opinions and advise as well? Really, if this Board seats 13 people, which it does, why not have three seats put aside for outsiders not from the dog world? This could give a fresh and an enlightened viewpoint now totally missing. Furthermore, I would, once a Delegate is elected to the Board, give that Member Club the right to appoint another Delegate to represent them. Realistically, once a Delegate is elected to the Board, his or her legal and moral obligation is toward the proper functioning of the overall corporation and not the individual wishes of the Club they had represented. That's probably one reason the 12-to-1 vote in favor of Petland occurred. The overwhelming majority of the Board were looking at the overall corporate needs of AKC and not at the wishes of an individual club. These types of conflicts happen more often than not. For instance, it is my understanding that a club instructed a member of the nominating committee for whom to vote. That is just not within the purview of a club's authority. (I have no idea whether the person so instructed followed these instructions or not.) Similar to Ken Marden (who, by the way, I would hope is going to run from the floor) being instructed by his club, whilst a Board member, on how to vote, I think it was, on PAWS. A club in those kinds of instances has no authority to so instruct a Board Member, and the Board Member should so advise the Club. These are subtle distinctions perhaps open to argument, but that's how I feel about it, for sure.
One thing we can all agree upon is the need for a safe and healthy holiday season. Thanksgiving will be over by the time you all read this, and I hope you had a good one. You are probably gearing up for Christmas and the New Year, too, but before that, there is the Invitational to look forward to. Expect to see most you there. •