This was sent to me by Dianna James  Snowcreek GSP. This is another well written letter from yet another blindsided Vet in CA. Thanks Dianna Leita

 

> Please cross post far and wide. Dr. Siebold has given her permission
> to do so.
>
> Dear Dr. Faoro:
>
> I recently read your letter to the board members regarding the issues
> surrounding AB1634. It is extremely disappointing that the leadership
> of this great profession has chosen to align itself with politicians
> instead of standing up for its members. Undoubtedly you and the rest
> of the executive board have your reasons. I do believe that you
> initially did not intend for this to become such a controversy but
> regrettably you have become so defensive that you will not be
> gracious and just accept that you made an error in judgment regarding
> the perspectives of the membership. It is ok to make a mistake; it is
> not ok to be so arrogant as to think that the voice of the membership
> does not matter.
>
> I take issue with a few of your statements and would like to point
> out that although this bill may pass it will not be because the
> veterinary community stood behind it but because a few thought that
> politics and future favors were more important than the integrity of
> the process and honesty to its membership. I attended the meeting in
> November and voted for a task force to be created to look at language
> for a spay/neuter bill. There was no urgency at that time and it was
> specifically brought up that we would have a year + to work on this
> very important topic. That process was violated.
>
> As a delegate I was blindsided when I learned that the CVMA had
> agreed to be a sponsor of this bill. I understand that "it was
> important to be at the table" but I believe that your personal
> beliefs and aspirations have weighed heavily on the decision making
> process. It was at that time that I began polling my members and
> learned that they were almost 95% against this bill. I know that many
> letters and faxes were sent to the executive office that were
> apparently not passed down to the BOG, that is very worrisome and I
> believe that was a strategic mistake because had the STAFF office
> listened to the opposition we would not be in this situation right
> now. I believe that it is our job to represent our constituents, not
> take on a path that we think or ASSUME is right- I believe that is
> called dictatorship/socialism/communism.
>
> In addition, it was discussed that this bill was targeting a specific
> group of people- namely the Hispanic/illegal's community in Levine's
> district where there is a significant problem with pit bulls roaming
> the streets. Political correctness dictates that you do not write a
> bill that is singles out a specific race. It was also brought up that
> everyone knew that this law was not enforceable and that it was being
> pushed as a political maneuver not really a solution. SB 861 was
> enacted to allow cities to implement breed specific mandatory S/N.
> San Francisco enacted the spay and neuter of Pit Bulls because that
> is the problem in their district. Levine supported this bill - why
> didn't he advise his district to implement it or something similar?
>
> Your inflammatory statements regarding Drs. Hamil, Pasten, and Hjerpe
> are uncalled for and truly unprofessional. As the leader of the CVMA
> you should be absolutely ashamed. When people resort to defending
> themselves by making inflammatory comments it is usually because they
> know that they are usually wrong and they feel compelled to attack
> their opponents on a personal level instead of debating the issues at
> hand. Look at our President- for all the condemnation and criticism
> that he has taken over the years he has never stooped so low as to
> condemn and abash his opponents on a person level.
>
> I personally take issue with your comments that many of the DVM's
> that are opposed to the bill are misinformed. That is an incredibly
> condescending statement and goes back to the point that the
> membership was left out of the communication loop and was never
> allowed to participate in the discussion. It is obvious that you are
> backed into a corner and that must be a very uncomfortable feeling. I
> know that many members are considering dropping their membership as
> well as insurance. I suppose that you will be happy if the bill
> passes, but I wonder if the CVMA will be happy with the economic
> fallout and the negative impact on camaraderie.
>
> If veterinary associations or their representatives express a
> profound lack of support for CVMA's alliance and co-sponsorship of
> this bill, and CVMA does not listen, who will they be forced to
> express their opposition to next? CVMA will be publicly exposed for
> its lack of judgment and poor representation. It is also very
> troublesome that there is more and more evidence that the animal
> rights group PETA have been working behind the scenes in getting this
> bill passed. That in and of itself, should worry you tremendously as
> a member of the veterinary profession. Maybe the reference you made
> to the "stewardship" of animals should be investigated, as that is a
> term that the animal rights groups use when pushing the guardianship
> issue for animals. Guilt by association, I for one do not want to be
> aligned with either of these groups and would bet that is the
> consensus of most of the profession locally and nationally.
>
>
> The proverbial ball is in your court, it always takes a man of
> integrity to admit error and accept his mistakes. The choice is
> yours.
>
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you wish to
> discuss this matter further. I look forward to seeing you with the
> BOG this coming week in Anaheim.
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> Karen E. Seibold, DVM, ACVECC
>
> CVMA Delegate San Diego
>
>
> cc. by fax Dr. Jeff Smith and the BOG, Mark Nunez