Lakeland-Winter Haven KC photos by Lisel Doreste-Hamilton
Sitting at a friend's home in magnificent Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and thinking about writing this week's “And More” column brought to mind how different the purpose of the dog is in today's society than that of years ago. Probably the role of the dog in Wyoming, particularly in the hinterlands of Jackson, is still more function-oriented than in more popular areas of the country. While the dogs in my friend's home are “children-pets,” as they are in so many homes today, the fact remains that in visiting outlying nearby ranches, one sees dogs of all breeds and varieties working with and among cattle, horses, and sheep as an everyday occurrence. While it is true that in certain strata of society dogs still do the work for which they were originally bred, “the child-pet” attitude seems to overwhelmingly prevail, particularly in suburban and urban areas. Too many people today totally reject or have forgotten the true purpose of the dog. That is not to say anyone should be more or less concerned for the dog's general welfare, but eyebrows must be raised at the degree to which some people pamper their pets. Those $1,000 Hermes collars and leashes, for example. Really, how extreme do we get!
Similarly, when we sell dogs we breed, some of us overstate the case in setting standards for prospective purchasers, in some cases making them almost equivalent to those set for adopting children. I mean, being careful is one thing, but setting up contractual demands almost impossible to fulfill goes beyond and above protecting the future well being of an animal. I have never sold a dog under contract, but do so instead on a good-faith basis. Of course, I don't breed that much either! The attitude of too many breeders is so overprotective that it turns people who “just want a household pet” away from many AKC breeders and to the pet store instead. I'm not against being careful, but I do believe reason should prevail.
I was fascinated by the resignations of some people originally involved in the formation of the Concerned California Group regarding AB 1634. I thought the somewhat public disagreements would best have been kept between the disputing parties. It hardly helped the cause to let those ARers know of intra-party disputes. Perhaps a little less use of e-mails in these kinds of situations would be advisable. Really, there is nothing kept secretive once it takes an e-mail form.
I hope you all had a nice Fourth of July, despite the Monday announcement of July 1 which emanated from the White House!•
