[gsp-l] Fw:AB 1634 > GSP Forum

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Mailing Lists > gsp-l

Subject: [gsp-l] Fw:AB 1634

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

singltrak

Las Cruces, NM

MH
Posts:1149

08/18/2008 8:20 PM

Perhaps some of you would be interested in this letter to an all-breed club e-list in response to one of its members who felt the AKC response to be okay. It was written by Cindy Cooke, former delegate from Kalamazoo KC and current UKC Legislative liaison. Cindy sends along her permission to forward should anyone be so inclined.

Thanks!

Phyllis McNall***Singltrak Shorthairs

Las Cruces, New Mexico

"Look To The Past, Breed For The Future"

http://www.singltrakshorthairs.net

From: "Cindy Cooke" anstamm@charter.net

> Sent today to the ALLBREEDCLUB list in response to a member from the
> Plainfield KC who thought the ordinance was OK:
>
> I think we need to resist forced sterilization of pets under all
> circumstances. Had this bill been the first draft 1 1/2 years ago, we
> could have sat down and worked out something reasonable to penalize
> irresponsible dog owners. I think the position statement from the
> theriogenologists oppoising AB 1634 makes the very valid point that
> sterilization has medical risks to animals, based on breed, age,
> health, etc., and history has shown that it's not a good tool for
> ensuring compliance with licensing laws. I strongly encourage every
> member of this list to get a copy of the presentation made at the
> recent NAIA conference by the Animal Services Director from Calgary.
> In a few short years, he has achieved 90% dog licensing compliance,
> shelter numbers are dropping and euthanasia numbers are dropping. He
> has done this without forced sterilization, without dog limit laws and
> without breed specific dangerous dog laws. Even better, his program
> pays for itself.
>
> As for AKC's decision to move from "opposed" to
"neutral" I see the
> following problem. The many AKC customers who have been fighting this
> bill for two years were unaware that AKC's primary complaint about the
> 11th amendment of AB 1634 was the lack of due process. They assumed
> that AKC's position statement opposing forced sterilization (The
> American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding
> bans or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs.) meant that AKC would
> fight on both grounds. Once AKC decided that they could not win any
> concession on the forced sterilization part of the bill, they should
> have at the very least, contacted the leaders of the various groups
> that have been in the trenches for two years. Some of them found out
> about AKC's change of plans from the opposition-- you can imagine how
> hard that was for them to swallow. Now, the vast majority who are
> still opposed to forced sterilization are put in the painful position
> of calling Senators to say that AKC does not speak for them.
>
> For years, many of us, myself included, griped that AKC didn't do
> enough in the legislative arena. I have since come to the conclusion
> that AKC cannot speak for itself as a business AND for its customers
> in the political arena. We have groups with significantly more
> experience in politics who can and should be representing us to
> legislators. When things go pear shaped, as often happens in politics,
> at least AKC is not making its customers angry.
>
> Permission to forward.
>
> Cindy Cooke
> Kalamazoo Kennel Club
>

Look to the Past, Breed for the Future

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Mailing Lists > gsp-l > [gsp-l] Fw:AB 1634

ActiveForums 3.7