Sent on DFOW letterhead to AKC Board members:

June 7, 2005

Dear Honorable Board Members,

It was extremely dismaying to read the American Kennel Club’s initial press release on May 27th, 2005, regarding the introduction of PAWS. Your declaration of support, stated in the FAQ posted on Friday, June 3rd was even more alarming in its implications.

It is a pity that the Board is not further along in the strategic planning process. Even a simple, but honest self-assessment, in the form of a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Analysis would show that AKC’s current stance on this legislation will have grave consequences.

Integrity is core to your product and all your ensuing endeavors. It is, fundamentally, the cornerstone of your foundation. Without integrity, there is no value to the AKC logo – be it stamped on a pedigree, co-branded merchandise, or on your legislative department letterhead.

An honest and forthright SWOT Analysis would show that your past failures must be taken into consideration alongside your future goals. It would further illuminate a clear path that would allow you to escape your current reactive approach to all legislative matters. (A proactive effort on behalf of AKC will require a properly staffed legislative department, and a federal lobbyist that doesn’t presume to speak on behalf of animal hobbyists outside of AKC parameters.)

Further, full assessment of the past political damage – done in areas such as the state of Colorado with the Pet Facilities Licensing, North Carolina’s inconsistent action alerts that displayed a naïveté of what constitutes effective grassroots lobbying (http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2018), and New Mexico’s Dangerous Dog Act – to name just a few places where AKC provided “expertise,” must be complete and display a willingness to confront the brutal facts. When AKC’s past activity is juxtaposed with the current, such as the Massachusetts House Bill 1346, subtly inconsistent AKC positions would seem to suggest a riderless horse, with no accompanying boots in the stirrups.

Specifically, following the AKC legislative trend and including your current support of PAWS – in some instances, the AKC must view hobby breeder licensing with required inspections for compliance checks as actually a “good thing.” Or doesn’t it? Your own Canine Legislation Position Statement reads as follows:

BREEDING RESTRICTIONS

The American Kennel Club strongly supports and actively promotes a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.

It is certainly long overdue that the threat represented by the Animal Rights agenda (HSUS, DDAL) garner more complete scrutiny by AKC than what your PAWS FAQ implies here:

It is imperative that we work along side legislators to develop compromises that can lead to effective legislation. The alternative is to be left out of the process entirely, which is likely to make hobby breeders more vulnerable to restrictive legislation.

Compromise and negotiation are both legitimate tools in the lobbying process. However, these tools only work when dealing with reasonable and rational people. At this juncture we must ask – what is it about Wayne Pacelle’s dictum that HSUS office employees must observe a vegan lifestyle that you fail to take into consideration? Does this not strike you as an extreme position? DDAL would like to see all breeding regulated. Does this not also, strike you as extreme?

Additionally, the fear you express about being “left out of the process entirely,” is based on your own track record. Again, if one is to work for growth and improvement in the legislative arena; then surely you must acknowledge the brutal fact that the Dog Federation of Wisconsin, and others like us, prefer that AKC legislative activity remains at a bare minimum in our state. We do our own assessment of the political climate, the proposed legislation, and the most effective strategy. We learned this the hard way after incorrect information was posted by AKC on your website regarding Wisconsin’s Assembly Bill 536 – Pet Facilities Licensing Act – of the previous legislative session. Do we purposely keep AKC at arm’s length because we like to? No, certainly not. It is now abundantly clear even to onlookers, with your support of PAWS, that we keep you at arm’s length as a matter of self-survival.

You have the power to address these issues, and provide the leadership that “Taking Command” suggests. You can survive reversing your position on PAWS. The final question, at the end of the day is – Can you survive without it?

Sincerely,

Kelly Wichman
President & Lobbyist

cc: Wisconsin AKC Delegates