VIEW FROM THE
CENTER
PUPPY MILLS, OUR IMAGE, AND
AKC PUBLIC RELATIONS
by Margaret Shappard
(about
the author)
The fancy cannot produce enough puppies for
everyone who wants one - is this a bad thing?
Over the past six months we have heard and read
from a handful of people, a form of the statement "the fancy cannot supply
enough puppies to satisfy the American public." How many of us think of
this as a good thing? Not everyone who "wants" a puppy should have
one! Looking at shelter and rescue statistics, can we not see the results of
having puppies available for any and everyone who wants one? How many of
us have backed off of our own breeding programs because there are not enough
good homes?
Why would anyone believe that it is necessary
to "conference" with puppy mills? They already know what the AKC
requires; that is why many are suspended. We have set the minimum standard for
compliance in order to register puppies with the AKC; can you even imagine them
ever going the extra mire for health screenings? Just because "they are
here to stay" does not mean we should even consider giving our approval to
what they do or how they do it. I am reminded of the phase "the appearance
of impropriety." What will the general public think of the AKC if given the
"appearance" that the AKC is encouraging puppy mills? The general
public will not be interested in the fine print; they will care if we appear to
approve of the mass production of puppies.
My definition of a puppy mill is anyone whose
primary motive for breeding is money -including some in the fancy - whether he
breeds one litter a year or one hundred. We have developed canines as
companions; they are not livestock and should not be bred or raised as such.
Over the years most of us in the fancy have
supported the AKC, even when we have felt that an error was made; thousand, of
us at no financial gain, year after year, have supported the activities of
purebred dogs (i.e., the AKC) through our volunteer efforts. For this we as
private and ethical breeders get a slap in the face, and it could not be more
blatant. Being told that we are recognized as the backbone of the sport and
other verbal pats on the head are not enough.
Find out from those in the trenches (many of
our delegates) how best to educate the general public regarding the advantages
of acquiring a puppy from a private, ethical breeder and get this information
out using very basic language; for example, how we make breeding decisions,
health clearances, puppy rearing and socialization, how to find us, and what
will be expected of them concerning responsible pet ownership. Televised dog
shows may be entertaining, but they certainly do not bridge the gap between the
fancy and companion dog owners. We want the best homes for our Puppies, and a
good, effective AKC public relations program can help us to that end.
If the AKC is to remain true to its commitment
to the welfare of dogs, registration revenues cannot be the driving force!
AKC expenditures can be cut considerably to
help off-set the loss of registration revenues; how about moving out of New York
City, which would also reduce the cost of board and delegate meetings. Why not
let the handlers govern themselves under specified policies? To do so would not
even require an AKC office, let alone a $300,000 per year expenditure. Why not
reimburse directors for meeting expenses only, not $1000 each per month?
Many involved in AKC decision making have been
out of "the trenches" for a long time; they need to take advantage of
the information available that can be provided by those of us who talk to the
public every day and learn of their concerns and interests. Talk with the
delegates and ask for their input before making decisions that affect all
of us and how the public perceives us. We can all do a much better job if we
work together.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for me
to express my views.
Margaret Shappard
Fayetteville, GA 3O215
|
