The Enemy Within: AKC Registration Numbers as Barometer of Public Opinion

Please keep in mind my perspective. It comes from working in the rank and file within the sport of dogs attempting to assist in keeping it viable in today’s society. It is one of respect for the AKC.� The AKC has established and maintained a uniform method of competition across our large nation. Its record-keeping has kept pace with modern technology. These functions reflect its mission statement.�� My writing while critical comes with the hope that the AKC will do what it takes so that future generations are able to enjoy the pleasure and contentment that sharing lives with canines brings.� My concerns in recent years about the AKC’s future were further crystallized by Ron Menaker’s September 2008 Chairman’s Report.

I am the second generation of my extended family involved in the sport of dogs.� I have been raised in awe of those true “dog” men and women that have dedicated their lives, talent and seamless blend of learned and instinctual knowledge to canine endeavors. The AKC’s own “breeding program” is not producing these exceptional caretakers in the number they once were. I grew up during the ‘50’s when the word breeder was a term of respect. It was a profession you wanted to aspire to, not be apologetic about in general society.

Yes, our society is rapidly evolving. Though well intended, AKC’s actions are more reactive than proactive. The writing was clearly on San Mateo’s wall in 1990. By AKC’s reaction to outside forces, they have turned up the heat on the people that were their support base. While having high morals standards within should be something expected and continually strived for, they should have quickly provided the public a real reason for joining in the sport, believing in the joy of pure-bred animals and really worked at making it easier to maintain a breeding program in today’s life-style.

Allow me to state a few of the obvious reasons, people are no longer actively breeding dogs and dedicating their lives to this activity.

•�Two people in a household need to work outside the home. This doesn’t leave time to raise puppies and take care of multiple dogs.

•�Limit laws prevent an active breeding establishment. Breeding one champion to one champion may produce a champion but it does not define a breeding program that will improve the breed.

•�Air travel is being hampered by laws, expenses, public attitude toward dogs and increasingly intrusive security scrutiny.

•�Cost of showing has increased. There are more shows with less leisurely quality time spent there.

•�Veterinarians, influenced by those against breeding, discriminate against breeders or particular breeds. Veterinarian costs have increased greatly while the local veterinarian’s average reproductive knowledge declined.

•�Breeders are not valued by the general public.

Placing more arbitrary standards on those within the sport can be compared to the education of our children in this country. Requiring more testing doesn’t really equate with better education. We must find the way to inspire and create curiosity so that individuals are self-motivated to be educated. If we educate well, the student will test well. However, conversely, if a student tests well doesn’t imply he has necessarily been well educated.

The analogy applies to the artificial promotion of health testing and care regulations as “gold standards”. Testing for testing sake shouldn’t be the end goal. Of course, we want people to care for their animals and do the best health and genetic screenings available. This should be morally promoted and accepted practice. Standards of care shouldn’t be to impress the public; they should exist because it is morally right and efficacious. The public naturally expects this. Therefore this should not be relied upon to create public incentive to own a purebred.� Promoting purebreds supersedes promoting purebreds that have passed a string of testing. The soft, fuzzy love of owning a purebred is why someone wants to purchase a purebred. Their true companionship and life benefiting love is why they keep those purebreds.� The “soft-sell” emotional commercial models are the ones to probably consider primary. We don’t need movies the likes of Disney’s 101 Dalmatians nor the up-coming Beverly Hills Chihuahua to spike registration numbers; but we could use the promotion of devoted, purposeful individuals integrated into a modern day life-style, a current Lassie, Rin-tin-tin, and Old Yeller figuratively, to keep us company. Smoltzy, yes. But it cuts to the core of human motivation.

Two unintended negative consequences of making the “gold standard” of health testing a primary public strategy must be addressed. The reflected increased costs per puppy prohibit both breeding and then purchasing puppies. Either the public is then convinced to go to their shelters to obtain a mixed breed that does not have this expense to cover; or they now expect guarantees on a puppy for its full life that only a plush toy could offer.

A conclusion can be drawn that if care and testing standards are written in a reactionary manner to animal rights pressure, we have allowed them to set us up for failure. No finite list of acceptable results on tests can assure that a puppy will be healthy and desirable. Like the above education analogy, the AKC must inspire and instill in its breeders the desire to morally use every possible tool to produce a desirable dog to the best of the breeder’s ability.�

I realize the concept of how to “inspire and instill” morals is a difficult one. It is one of motivation.� Today’s trend of legislative restrictions adds many additional constraints onto breeders. If the AKC adds further regulation in attempts to “prove itself”, it invites the real danger of snuffing the creativity of those truly gifted individual thinkers. I believe that one of the strong incentives to being a breeder is to have a hobby that is continually challenging while utilizing creativity and problem solving abilities. An activity that is highly regulated will not attract a gifted individual. The end result of over-regulation is mediocrity.� AKC should explore the concepts employed by Genentech, Google, think-tanks and innovative research facilities. This could help explain the decease of higher echelon participants in this sport.

At first I was disappointed that my children’s generation isn’t anxious to get involved in dog competition. Then I worried about where my grandchildren, when they become adults, will be able to purchase a family pet.� Unfortunately, I am now worried about whether they will even consider owning one, especially considering an AKC purebred. The AKC’s public relations campaign addressing the reasons to want to share your life with a purebred is too little and far too late. From advice given from experience in ring competition, the AKC shouldn’t concentrate so much on the competitor (other registries, designer breeds, etc.). Instead the AKC must concentrate on improving its own excellence! There is a passion in those that succeed. The uniqueness of successfully accomplishing its goals will then bestow recognition. Another way of stating this is if the people involved within the sport are truly enjoying what they do and receiving personal benefits, others will want to join in. The AKC has much ground to make up against the animal rights lobby. It must attack this far more aggressively. It must find its terrier within!

Until the AKC finds ways to push back against those forces, by finding ways to encourage and make a breeder’s life legal, more desirable, and a respected part of society, its registration numbers will continue to decline.� Until the AKC increases the activities that a normal working family can engage doing with their dog and encourage public places to be accessible and acceptable to people with dogs, its registration numbers will continue to decline. Until the AKC gives people reason to keep a registered purebred and/or rescuing another in just about every home, its registration numbers will continue to decline.

Since every organization needs fiscal soundness to survive, I have one further observation to make regarding the survival of AKC. I will address Ron Menaker’s noble comment concerning down-sizing. So far, the effort has been a beginning token. I’m sure there are corporate models that have successfully re-organized in order to survive which can inspire a more extensive expense cut-back.� Flat line expenses can only balance flat line revenue.� Until there is not a revenue problem, the balance solution remains the expense problem. Taking the advice we promote with breeders, selectivity is a main tool to achieve your goal.

The Board can respond, “But we have tried all that”. They have expanded their income base with parentage testing. They have fostered more programs than just breeding/conformation, recognizing the new revenue possibilities that activities like agility and rally have provided. They have fostered public education days, breeder recognition awards and televised dog shows. My intent is not to berate the AKC. I have done my very best to keep positive over the years and help in whatever capacity I am able; however, to be silent with these concerns would be tantamount to not helping. Until the AKC addresses some of the core directional issues I have mentioned, I question its ability to turn the present situation around.�

Obviously with the continued decline in registrations, the AKC will not be able to continue to sustain our beloved sport of dogs. Registration numbers should be considered the barometer of public opinion of the value of an AKC registered dog.� The “Gold Standard”? If a major redirection is not considered, I fear that, like the US dollar, the AKC won’t be worth a silver certificate.

Respectfully,

Marge Kranzfelder

Pomeranian Charitable Trust, Founding Trustee

American Pomeranian Club, President 2005-2006

American Pomeranian Club AKC Delegate 1999-2004

American Pomeranian Club Life Member

Northern California Pomeranian Club, Board Member

The Animal Council, Treasurer

San Mateo County Animal Task Force, 1991

Entry for September 1, 2008

 

MULTILINGUAL TRANSLATION TECHNOLOGY: A TOOL FOR ANIMAL CONTROL PERSONNEL?

The Town of Hillsborough Police Department (San Mateo County, California) the second town south from here, is trying out an ECTACO Speechguard PD-5, a handheld device that hold 3000 phrases to be translated into 25 languages on the spoken command of the officer.  With thousands of local residents having little or no English and the number of languages spoken far exceeding multi-lingual hiring efforts, traffic stops and other routine police contacts can be very frustrating and time consuming, particularly if the citizen cannot immediately call an English speaker to translate.  This model, costing about $950, had been advertised in a law enforcement magazine, and cannot translate responses or anything not programmed, but the company reports, “could be any important message you need to convey repeatedly or broadcast to a wide audience: Miranda or NITSA warning, evacuation procedure for your office building, special announcement in a riot control situation, information for patients during intake procedure, etc.”  These same non-English users who frustrate police present the same challenges for animal control personnel, so translation devices could come in handy to communicate to non-English using animal owners, as well.

Entry for August 21, 2008

EVOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATORY FACTORS IN CALIFORNIA DIFFERENTIAL LICENSING, PARTS I & II

Originally published in The Animal Council Updates, July 8 & 16, 2008All rights reserved.

EVOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATORY FACTORS IN CALIFORNIA DIFFERENTIAL LICENSING: Stanislaus County (enacted 2005) marked the first appearance of an unaltered dog license fee reduction other than basic unaltered differential authorized by state law available to all owners paying the fee without further discrimination or restriction: 

2005 Stanislaus County Code, 7.54.060 Licensing.

“A. Any person owning or having custody of any dog four months or older shall pay an annual license fee. The license fee for dogs shall be established by the board of supervisors and listed in the license fee section of this title. The increased fees collected by the department of animal services for unaltered dogs, less administrative costs, shall be used to pay for vouchers to support spay/neuter programs.

B. Any person owning or having custody of any unaltered dog who meets any of the following criteria shall pay a reduced unaltered annual license fee as listed in the fee section of this title:

1. An owner who owns or operates an actual livestock working ranch or livestock farming operation of more than two acres; or

2. An owner who registers and participates in an American Kennel Club (AKC), United Kennel Club (UKC), or other state or nationally recognized organization and is a member of a parent club or organization for the purposes of showing, training, agility trials, or hunting and provides documentation to the department of animal services of such membership and participation in the above animal activities.”

Former Stanislaus Animal Services Director Michael McFarland had in late 2006 proposed repeal of the reduced fee provision (along with enactment of “mandatory” sterilization provisions), and it has never been clear if these reduced fee licenses have actually been issued and in what numbers.  Presumably, most if not all unaltered licenses are at full $100 or there would be little reason to increase the fee in hopes of further reducing numbers of unaltered licenses.  In the past 3 years, the concepts of dog (or sometimes cat) club membership and participation in competitive activities have been used, instead of conferring benefit on certain dog owners, as a bar to obtaining an unaltered license or further restriction even with a license. 

In Sacramento County, many contentious meetings took place through 2006 concerning revisions to the animal ordinance, with final enactment in 2007 of the $150 unaltered licensed with a reduced fee unaltered license not as a benefit but restriction.  The County does, however, publicize and issue these licenses to owners who can successfully present qualifying documents: 

“Sacramento County $45.00 Reduced Unaltered Fee

The reduced unaltered license is available to Competition Dogs and Cats and Working Ranch Dogs. A Reduced Unaltered License does not allow the animal to be breed. Any animal that is breed must have an unaltered license. 

Competition Dogs –

The reduced unaltered license is available to owners who’s animals are registered with a valid registry such a AKC, UKC or CFA and are actively showing or have competed with their animal during the previous 12 months, or the animal has achieved a title from a purebred dog or cat registry.

In the case where the animal has recently been purchased or has not competed due to it’s current age, a letter from the breeder of the animal stating that this animal is of show quality and was purchased with the intent to be show and a copy of the animals pedigree will met the definition of this category.

Proof that an animal has competed in a show or event can consist of a cancelled check indicating entry fee paid or photo copy of entry catalog with name of owner, animal name and date of show or event.

Working Ranch Dogs –

Working Ranch Dogs are defined as a dog that has been trained and is used to herd and or guard livestock and the dog owner resides on or is the owner of property designated in the Sacramento County Zoning Code for agricultural use.

Application for a working ranch dog license can be in the form of a personal letter stating the address and zoning of the property and the training and use of the dog.

How to Purchase a Reduced License:

A reduced license can be purchased at the shelter or by sending in the required information as indicated above. If you have further question please contact the shelter staff at CountyAnimalCare@SacCounty.net or (916) 368-7387”

Also in 2006, the Los Angeles County ordinance took the concept of membership and competition a step further to issue unaltered dog licenses only to owners who could meet the County’s interpretation of these new “standards”.  The concept has spread to some other jurisdictions in southern California until the always conservative Los Angeles City Attorney’s office added a non-discriminatory alternative qualification – obtaining a breeding permit, albeit at extra cost but without exclusions based on membership or competition.  Other local jurisdictions had proposed exclusionary models but delayed action while AB 1634/CAHealthyPets version had been pending. 

Now that AB 1634 has been amended to punitive mandatory sterilization rather than a qualifying and exclusionary qualification for all unaltered dogs and cats, the future of local unaltered licensing of dogs, and cats where cat licensing is required, is of critical importance.  In this context, a simple high fee such as proposed now in Stanislaus County is preferable to other qualifications that can be either difficult or impossible to meet or implemented in discriminatory ways.  While these “qualifications” were initially proposed as distinguishing and even rewarding “responsible” owners, they were quickly turned into tools to make owning unaltered animals difficult or impossible. 

 EVOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATORY FACTORS IN CALIFORNIA DIFFERENTIAL LICENSING, PART II:  In our July 11 publication, we detailed the progression from the 2005 Stanislaus County unaltered dog license differential discount for a qualified rancher with working dog or owner of registered dog belonging to a club and participating in events to the Sacramento version for “Competition Dogs and Cats and Working Ranch Dogs” where the discount prohibits breeding to the still evolving Southern California variants requiring owners to meet complex participatory requirements in order to keep an unaltered dog (or sometimes cat).  These categories of requirements have been presented to lawmakers as feasible for at least some owners to qualify for despite wide latitude given to the enforcing agencies to approve individual applications as well as registries, clubs, documentation of membership and participation as required.  Lawmakers, and ostensibly enforcing agencies, responded to “proactive” opponents of the most draconian proposals who describe all the ways they themselves are “responsible” owners, usually with disregard of the widely varying practices, registries and organizations devoted to dogs or the incongruities of wholesale application of these ideas to pedigreed cats. 

These self-descriptive factors, originally presented to distinguish “responsible” from “irresponsible” animal owners, become codified as requirements to exclude the “irresponsible” from owning an unaltered dog (or sometimes cat).  The latest twist in this progression is the possibility of enforcing agency interpretations that would exclude even the most “responsible”.

For example, the Los Angeles Animal Servic
es Department presented to the Board of Animal Services Commissioners on April 14, 2008, a document, “Solicitation of Qualified Dog and Cat Registries and Associations for Approval of Exemption from Spay or Neuter Requirements”.  The Commissioners, being unfamiliar with registries thought this was a routine step in preparing to implement the newly enacted city mandatory sterilization ordinance by October 1 and approved the proposal.  (Note, a legal challenge to the ordinance by Los Angeles residents was filed and served later in April and is still pending.)

The Department proposed that registries apply for “recognition” as a step in the process of exempting certain dogs and cats from the spay or neuter requirements:

“The application process will include affirmation that certain minimum requirements can be met, the provision of key information about the registry or association, and an explanation of the procedure that a dog or cat owner would follow and criteria to meet for the registry or association to issue a certification.

Those organizations which meet the minimum requirements below and appear to have valid backgrounds would be submitted to the Board with evaluation comments, for the Board’s consideration.  This process will produce an initial list of recognized registries and associations, but the application process will remain open on a continuous basis.  The minimum requirements for a registry or association to be recognized for the purpose of spay/neuter exemption certifications are:

• Established for three or more years.

• Maintains and enforces a code of ethics for breeding that includes:

     – Knowledge of the breed standard, the basic principles of genetics, and the pedigrees of prospective stud and matron;

     – Restricting the breeding of animals that are not physically or temperamentally sound or have defects and life-threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed;

     – Requiring that animals are thoroughly examined by a veterinarian before breeding to determine that they are healthy, mature, and suitable for this purpose;

     – Denying, suspending, or revoking membership of any breeder in violation of its code of ethics or who is proven to have been convicted of a crime against an animal.

• Under no circumstances allows, endorses, or engages in any activity that is determined to be intentionally harmful or detrimental to the health and/or safety of animals or humans.

• Participates in, sponsors, or organizes bona fide competitions or shows that make awards based on merit.

• Proposes a method for assessing and certifying dogs or cats in conformance with LAMC that can be verified.

• Will hold the City of Los Angeles harmless from any liability relative to certifications or failure to certify a dog or cat as exempt.

Depending on the number of registry and association applicants received periodically, and upon dog and cat owner requests, additions to the Recognized List may be brought for the Board’s consideration quarterly or more frequently. Likewise, if new information comes to staff regarding a previously approved registry or association that has breached any of the requirements for recognition, and the registry or association is unable to correct the breach within 30 days after written notice by staff, that registry or association will be suspended pending reconsideration of the status at a subsequent Board meeting.

Other than if suspended or terminated as mentioned above, recognized registries or associations will remain in good standing for three years, at which time they may reapply for recognition.  Registries or associations not recognized at this first round of review will be allowed to re-apply at their discretion.

Subsequent to action by the Board and review of the City Attorney, staff will send solicitation of interest letters to known cat and dog registries and associations, and at minimum advertise the application process on the Internet and with the larger associations. This process, with its on-going character, is the most fair and impartial.”

The foregoing does not strike us as describing any dog or cat registry currently in existence and, if implemented, would negate the related ordinance exemptions.  LAAS General Manager Ed Boks attended The American Kennel Club’s invitational dog show in Long Beach last December and is acquainted with individuals associated with registries.  Had Mr. Boks been acting in good faith despite ignorance, he could have informally obtained some reality checks just from personal acquaintances before presenting this document in a public forum.  That it was approved by the Board without public objection may say more about us than the proposers.    

San Mateo County CA Converts to PetData

San Mateo County has now outsourced its animal license administration to Irving, Texas based PetData.   The small green postcard with nearly microscopic text is the renewal notice and easily mistaken for junk mail rather than the always distinctive county notice including a return envelope and personalized renewal statement. 

SAN MATEO COUNTY FREE SPAY/NEUTER VOUCHERS!

Finally, nearly 17 years after the “San Mateo ordinance” era began and years of bickering about how, when and whether to fund and subsidize spay/neuter, a voucher program for dogs, cats AND RABBITS is now in effect — announced by this small slip of paper inserted in license renewal bills.   For voucher information, call the County at 650-573-3940.  Assistance for feral cat caretakers is also available.  San Mateo County has not euthanized healthy dogs and cats since 2002.

JULY 17TH ANNIVERSARIES: A “DARLING PUPPY” AND A CORPORATION

July 17th has long been an anniversary of things I stop to ponder.  July 17, 1967 was the long awaited day my Rottweiler puppy arrived from Rodsden in a 70 pound crate on a UAL flight from O’Hare to SFO.  It was the “Summer of Love” in San Francisco, and it seemed there could be worse things for a girl to do than choose a new breed and start a new puppy.  I suppose…but the difficult dogs are the ones we learn from, and these years were formative years in ways I never imagined.

July 17, 1991 was the incorporation date of The Animal Council. It was 9 months into the San Mateo County moratorium on breeding ordinance, and it seemed a formal organization would be a ticket into our longer term and credible participation in public policy.  Had we known that 16 years later after year in and year out work, we would have found ourselves in the midst of AB 1634, we might have thought longer about former band singer Grace Slick’s telling us to get a new hobby.  We didn’t, because this is a life, not a hobby.  All the dogs and people over the past 40 years have been part of a greater community of meaning for us all — something legislator Lloyd Levine could not understand when he complained that we think an attack on one of us is an attack on all.  

This is what I pause to remember on July 17. 

Sharon A. Coleman, President, The Animal Council

CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF COMPANION ANIMAL ADVOCATES – LEST WE FORGET

The California Council of Companion Animal Advocates (CCCAA) or “3c2a” suggesting a mysterious chemical compound, which it may well have been, was a creation of the California Veterinary Medical Association that ambitiously included a diverse range of animal groups with the slogan, “Different Voices – One Goal”.  That goal was to study and eliminate “overpopulation” of dogs and cats, and the year was 1991.  We were never a named member, because our Board Member, Alice Partanen, had to make a quick decision at the first meeting whether to formally represent us or our sister organization, the National Pet Alliance.  Throughout the existence of CCCAA, NPA remained a formal member and participant along with all the big national names that sent representatives to quarterly meetings throughout the 1990s with the exception of The American Kennel Club which withdrew along the way.  CCCAA held 6 “POP” symposia over the years that began with great promise of addressing “overpopulation” but gradually shifted to related but more general topics — perhaps because “overpopulation” was being fairly well understood and controlled.  A final legacy was the roll of stickers, still intact in our label drawer, pictured with this entry.  The sticker was an ominous sign of CVMA’s drifting away from its committment to an inclusive, problem solving forum to its recent exclusionary relationships with animal control and humane organizations.  With renewed interest in “problem solving” and “working” with supporters of this year’s AB 1634, we have gathered archival material from our CCCAA files and included it on our web site, lest we forget and late comers never know what has gone before us.  

PETPAC RALLY AT CA CAPITOL, JULY 11, 2007

Following the California Senate Committee on Local Government hearing at dawn on a rare, cool overcast morning in Sacramento, California on Wednesday, July 11, when the infamous California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634) slipped into the legslative version of coma of uncertain prognosis, hundreds of opponents gathered on the west steps for a celebratory Rally sponsored by PetPac and a chance to greet many old friends and put new faces with familiar names known only online.  The crowd stretched out the wide walkway toward 10th Street where the TV news trucks were parked, up the west stairs to the doors into the Capitol and out the walkways in both directions to the sides with TV cameras lined up in front of the crowd.  In addition to State Senator George Runner and key opposition leadership, the “star” speaker was the adult Jon Provost, known best as the child actor who played “Timmy” in the “Lassie” TV series, along with the 9th generation “Lassie” — an unregistered Collie dog actually named “Laddie” and his owner/trainer, Bob Weatherwax.  Legislators had enjoyed photos with the lobbying “Lassie” who brought reality to the irreparable flaws in the bill. 

Entry for May 28, 2007

PETPAC TOWN HALL MEETING AT COYOTE HILLS KENNEL CLUB

William Hemby of PetPac spoke to a large gathering of dog fanciers at a Town Hall Meeting at the Coyote Hills Kennel Club (AKC Licensed) at the Saturday, May 19 show at the Solano County Fairgrounds in Vallejo, California.  The noon meeting had been announced by loud speaker throughout the morning and gave exhibitors new to the legislative process an opportunity to a chance to hear first hand about the campaign to defeat AB 1634.

Entry for May 21, 2007

PETPAC RALLY AT CALIFORNIA CAPITOL

Held at Noon on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 on the lawn outside the California State Capitol, the Rally organized by the new PetPac organization marked an historic watershed as dog and cat fanciers from throughout California wound down two days of work in the ongoing campaign to defeat AB 1634.  California Highway Patrol officers stood by after the CHP mounted officers had been needed to disperse a hostile crowd of the bill’s supporters that had included its author, Assembly Member Lloyd Levine.  Attendees held signs of dimensions permitted by Capitol rules and heard speakers including Senator George Runner.  For more information about PetPac, see http://www.petpac.net