The most disturbing thing to my mind about the Delegate's decision not to open the organization to the professional judge was that not even a majority of the Delegates supported the move. I never really expected a two-thirds vote as required under the Constitution, but a vote of only 46% percent in favor shocked the hell out of me. Last time, at least, the number was a respectful 55% in favor. No doubt there are a small number of Delegates who sincerely believe that philosophically this is how the organization should be run. And candidly, with these people, I have little quarrel. This is a matter of genuine concern to them and something which I understand. It's the self-interest vote combined with the economic vote that I cannot abide. Let's face it, for many clubs, which would they rather have as a Delegate? Someone who knows what's going on or someone representing them merely because they can carry their own freight? The freight carriers would be the first to go were the Delegate Body opened, and so they protect their seats, with no concern for the corporation itself. It gives them a power thrill they ordinarily never would have nor experience. On the other hand, many clubs felt threatened economically by this proposal. They believed their expenses would get out of hand at the shows themselves if professional judges were admitted to the Body. Since Delegates come ostensibly for expenses only, they are much cheaper to have on a slate than a professional judge. Of course, if one carried this kind of thinking to a logical conclusion, then these clubs should, as is done in the U.K., pay only expenses plus a minor stipend of thanks. Would they even suggest that? You know the answer to that one better than do I!
I heard the Pink Panther was seen lobbying behind nooks and crannies in the halls of the hotel where the Delegates were staying. He was lobbying against the Board's authority to establish eligibility standards for judges. If one thing is clear, this is an area given to the Board constitutionally. Personally, I thought he was pleading his own case all too clearly, rather than objecting to the overall philosophy of what the Board adopted. It applied to him quite correctly too, I thought. Indeed, for years now, this has been my belief. So long as you are competing registry for registry, I believe AKC has every right to protect itself. More cloudy are the areas where they are no registries but strictly competing events. The Cavalier situation is a registry conflict, as far as I know. Whether ARBA is or not, I am unaware. Certainly, UKC is definitely one.
A new "Dog Lovers Map of Manhattan” has surfaced. Inserted in the Magazine Section of THE NEW YORK TIMES by of all companies, OLD NAVY, with a come-on to nominate your pup as its new mascot, Magic. This only takes the importance of owning dogs to new heights in American society. Do you remember years ago a Board Chairman's statement in support of moving AKC out of New York City on the basis that people in that city don't own dogs? Don’t tell that to OLD NAVY and their advertising firm, too. See how far that argument will take you. •