I'm really not too sure how fair I thought the recent full-page ad in THE NEW YORK TIMES was to PETA. Nonetheless, I must admit to a vicarious delight in reading it. As many of you are no doubt aware, some PETA employees, in June 2005, were caught dumping bodies of cats and dogs in dumpsters in North Carolina. Whatever their reasons, the fact is and was that they euthanized these animals unmercifully, notwithstanding their claims of rescuing them from animal shelters in an attempt to save them from inhumane conditions. Such a vigilante attitude, which, of course, anyone familiar with PETA knows it encourages, resulted in a public relations nightmare for the organization, which thrives on publicity for its very existence. The acts of euthanization were bad enough but the reaction of the PETA hierarchy was even more shocking. Not only have they continued to employ the two perpetrators, but PETA's lawyers are defending them! Admit your error, cut the ties and go on with your work (however distasteful so many of us find it to be) is my reaction. But oh, no, this arrogant organization ignores the reality of what their employees have done and now encourage them and others to so act by throwing their support behind these and other similar acts.
Comes the Center for Consumer Freedom organization, long a target of PETA, to get its vengeance. PETA had been sticking it to CCF for years now over its support of both the meat industry and pharmaceutical companies that use lab animals in their research. With the start of the trial of PETA employees on felony charges of animal abuse, CCF ran this advert promoting a new PETA-bashing Web site as well as a roving billboard parked outside the Hertford County Courthouse in North Carolina. Let's hope this, at the very least, has some affect on PETA's $25 million annual budget and that celebrity supporters such as Pamela Anderson and Alec Baldwin will finally wake up and smell the roses about the organization they have thrown their status behind.
Well, the Board Questionnaire devised by DOG NEWS is now in the hands of the six declared candidates for the Board. The last day for filing is January 31, which is seven days from the writing of this column. If anyone else decides to hand in petitions (there are two or three other delegates who have them in their possession but either have not made up their minds or are waiting to the bitter end) and they will be sent them, too. Since the Questionnaire appears in The Garden issue of DOG NEWS, we've given the declared delegates more time to answer, which will also help up out publishing-wise as well.
I am told there are considerable postings on the delegate e-line concerning Patti Strand and her role with NAIA as well as postings and sub rosa rumors being spread about Carmen Battaglia's role with CAR and his accepting fees for lectures he gives about breeding programs and the like. Most of which, by the way, is on his Web site as well. Without making any endorsements or being critical of either individual, wouldn't it only be fair to bring whatever is being said out into the open by responsible and knowledgeable people? This kind of covert gossip encourages misinformation and does more harm than good. Most of the negative remarks, I am told, are either wrong or are gross exaggerations of the truth. Whether you read the restricted delegate e-line and see them posted or receive one of those myriad of phone calls being spread by you-know-who, why not ask these people to go public so that a degree of accountability can be established? Is that too much to ask? I think not.
I should like to tell you about a phone call I made yesterday. I called a series of individuals to ask them the “Question of the Week.” It was about their reaction to Steve Gladstone's motion to eliminate judges from charging fees in addition to expenses when judging. One of the people I called, who is a delegate and a show chairperson, and quite frankly is someone whom I have major philosophical differences about AKC, etc. (which was the reason that person was called to get a different opinion). When asked the question, they asked for time in which to answer it. A rare request, I may add, since most everyone answers off the tops, but I acceded to the request. An hour or so later comes a message on my answering machine saying, in effect: “Matt, I could not find in the Minutes the motion of Steve's to which you refer.” The implication being I had made up the question, of course. I rose above my immediate reaction, which those of you who know me well know what that would have been. I nicely called back and said if you look at the Board Minutes of January, on page 13 under “Judging Solicitation,” you'll see the motion to which I refer. The reply was, “Oh, I just read the summary of the Minutes sent out by AKC.” My reply was, “That's the difference between a non-delegate and a delegate, my friend. Non-delegates read the actual Minutes, delegates do not!” We both laughed, said our goodnights and, by the way, the person never did answer the “Question of the Week"!
And at the risk of teeing off an awful lot of people, I'll tell you how I feel about that motion of Steve's. I think it has a lot of merit. Not total merit, however. For sure, the professional handler who becomes a judge has every right to charge a fee. After all, he/she has spent a lifetime earning monies from dogs. I would put no cap on their fee schedules whatsoever. The professional breeder, too, may fall into such a category. However, for those people who do not fall into either of these categories, I would have AKC put a cap on the fee they may charge. Judging for this class of individual should be an avocation. It is an occupation pursued for enjoyment—a hobby. Not a means of making money. That's my thinking anyway. •