Last fall, at a CERF clinic, Gracie was diagnosed as sub-luxated in both eyes. The following day I got a second opinion from Dr. Matthew Chafkin, at the Veterinary Referral Center of Colorado. He confirmed the diagnosis, and mentioned that he had noticed that, during a laser surgery not related to LL, the lens would sometimes get attached to the back of the iris; and that he was thinking this accidental side-effect, if he could reproduce it, might be beneficial in cases of sub-luxation by keeping the lens from moving, thus preventing full luxation.

I told him that he was welcome to try it on Gracie. Soon after that, he performed the experimental surgery on one of her eyes, leaving the other as a control.

As Regina said, I immediately publicized this on the Web. I also told Beth Ward-Sanders, who is Gracie's breeder, and with whom I co-own her.

Gracie is my first AKC show dog. I thought that it might not be right to continue showing her, since I knew she had a hereditary defect. Beth told me that it was up to me, but that she would like to see her finish. I know that plenty of people have finished dogs that they had no intention of breeding, so I went ahead and entered her in the Rocky Mountain Classic in February. I compromised with my conscience by deciding that it would probably be her last show; or, if not, that I wouldn't go to any great lengths to finish her if she didn't get her remaining major at the RMC.

Please note that it was my decision to show her; I am not blaming Beth in any way.

During all this, the thought of violating Chapter 11, Section 8 never crossed my mind. But, since that is what Regina is accusing me of, I will defend myself.

I did not break the specific rules. They ban showing a dog "changed in appearance by artificial means;" and say "A dog is considered changed in appearance by artificial means if it has been subjected to any type of procedure that has the effect of obscuring, disguising or eliminating any congenital or hereditary abnormality..."

Since LL is not visible to the naked eye, the surgery did not and could not "obscure" or "disguise" it. In fact, the surgery makes it detectable, because when the pupil contracts in bright light, it appears square. Neither did the surgery "eliminate" it. We hope that it will prevent that eye from progressing to full luxation; and an eye exam of any dog who has had this surgery will still reveal lens luxation.

It's highly experimental, and Gracie was the first dog to have it done. In other words, the surgery was done to see if it will work, rather than to fix the eye.

My broadcasting of Gracie's sub-luxation demonstrates that I had no intention of hiding it. Therefore, I believe I am not guilty of a rule violation.

There you have it, folks. You can make up your own minds about what happened. I know Regina well enough to be sure that she is following her conscience, and that it is not a personal attack on me. She is still my friend, and I hope will continue to be.