Dark Water Rising (www.darkwaterrising.com) is a documentary film by Mike Shiley that chronicles the efforts of rescuers—both organized and not—who attempted to rescue pets in the Katrina aftermath. It's a tough watch, and was aired August 29. It makes a good case for setting up the need for animal evacuation plans in the event of natural disasters.
It certainly should be interesting to see how the Delegates will react to the unanimous Board proposal to add to the list of already ineligible categories that prevent a club from appointing a person in good standing to be a Delegate. The proposal is to add that individual who has a serious role in a competing registry or organization to the list. I believe this to be the only legitimate exclusionary listing. Obviously it was not originally thought to do this, since until relatively recently the problem had not been a real one. But now, between the radical animal rights antagonists and the large number of competing registries, it makes good sense to take this precautionary step. And once again, how nice it would be to take a recorded vote to learn how the Delegates and/or the Clubs stand on an issue. What a shame this procedure was not implemented on the vote to eliminate the professional judge from the exclusionary list. The reasons these public recordings are so necessary is that it is the only way the Delegates' positions are publicly heard. It is a form of accountability, which when ignored, as it presently is, makes a mockery of Delegate voting procedures. After all, it was the Delegate Body that forced the Board Minutes to contain recorded Board votes and make them public. Why shouldn't the Delegates be held to the same degree of accountability!
It amuses me to some extent how certain topics and problems are eitherjust ignored or put on the back burner for ages. Take the issue of disqualification in standards. Twenty or so years ago, this was a hotly debated issue. The U.K. did away with disqualifications in their standards, and I believe FCI does not have them either. Through the years, in the States, not only is the issue rarely discussed, but some Clubs are trying to add more disqualifications to their standards. Personally, I have never been in favor of disqualifications. Treat them as serious faults is my approach, and then it's up to the judge, in whom one has faith to make the final determination.
You know, I keep on reading about shows losing entries compared to previous years. And I suppose this is a legitimate concern. But if that is the case and this is something to worry about, why is there nothing being said about planning for the shows themselves? Look at this Labor Day weekend, for instance. Clusters of three or four days in Perry, Georgia; Lexington, Kentucky; and Raleigh, North Carolina. Is one killing the other off, and if not, does a problem really exist with declining show entries?
One last thought relative to media frenzy and sensationalism. Certainly the handling of that Karr man in the Jon-Benet murder is a clear example of media overreaction. Forget about the legal reaction, that's another story. What a lesson, though, to the e-mail-circulating crowd and the bloggers of the world. Just as in our own little microcosm of the dog world, people want to live on sensationalism and ready-made scandal. The national press gets caught up in the process. In part to keep up with the Internet reports, for sure. At some time, responsibility and accountability will have to become the test. When this will be, no one knows, but let's hope it will be sooner than later. •