AKC Director Steven Gladstone's Version of PAWS's History and His Views on its "Nay-Sayers," including SAOVA

SAOVA's February 5, 2006 comments are limited to the more important points of this personal, longwinded, repetitious, self-serving, post-hoc rationalization of the PAWS mess. From: akc-delegate-l@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Steve Gladstone Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 7:49 AM To: akc-delegate-l@yahoogroups.com Subject: [akc-delegate-l] AKC and PAWS II - A View from the Board Room PERMISSION TO CROSS POST GRANTED There continues to be much speculation and misinformation about AKC's role and involvement with the PAWS bill. My purpose here is to present the facts as I understand them. Since I am a member of the AKC Board and have participated with Ron Menaker and Jim Holt in the negotiations and redrafting of the bill's language, I would hope that my knowledge of the "inside story" might be of some use. The first time I (and as far as I know the rest of the Board of Directors) heard about the PAWS bill was at the May 2005 AKC Board meeting when Jim Holt addressed the Board. This isn't true or is very unlikely, since the PAWS bill was discussed at the September 2004 AKC Lobby Day in Washington (eight months before it was officially announced). James Holt briefed the group and its members met with Senator Santorum's staff to lobby the substance and principles of the bill, although it wasn't called "PAWS" at that point. My take on that situation was that Senator Santorum was about to introduce new legislation designed to address importers and internet sellers who were unregulated under the Animal Welfare Act. Holt advised that the new bill was nothing like the previous Puppy Protection Act, and that most of the provisions were originally presented as alternatives to the Puppy Protection Act by its detractors, including AKC. The choice presented was for AKC to either express its disapproval of any legislation, thereby eliminating us from further involvement with crafting the language of a new proposal or to have AKC express its support in principle for the goals of the new Act. We were told that notwithstanding the efforts of many, including the AKC's legislative department and Board Legislative Committee members, no workable definition of a retail dealer without the use of a numerical threshold was feasible. A bill aimed at retail sellers of any kind would require a numerical definition of which retail sellers would be determined to be 'Dealers" under the AWA and therefore subject to regulation. No such agreement was reached on any formal action, according to other "insiders" present. James Holt was told to continue to "work the problem." The AKC Board voted unanimously that day to support the principles of the proposed legislation to regulate importers and internet sellers who sold at retail. This statement flies in the face of facts and reason. There's no record of any such vote during the May 9-10th meeting, or in subsequent reports of that meeting's Executive Session and AKC Secretary Crowley's statements. Most, if not all of the Directors felt they were blinded-sided by AKC's subsequent late May press release announcing its support of PAWS. In effect, they'd been presented with a "fait accompli" and hadn't approved any such commitment or press release. The June 12, 2005 Special Director's Meeting, which resulted in a split 8-4 PAWS support vote, was as much about how this snafu had happened and what to say about it, as anything. SAOVA, CFA and UKC were left to tell pet owners what PAWS would do. Ron Menaker and James Holt spent the next six weeks contradicting one another about the meaning of "or" & "and". AKC's "PAWS Facts of the Day" were so erroneous and self-serving, they made its credited author a national laughingstock. Much of the rest of the year was consumed with spinning the PAWS story and attacking its opponents. Notwithstanding the spin sailing across the internet, supporting the principles of the legislation was not, and never was, endorsement of specific language, especially since none of us, to my knowledge, had seen the language. Rather we were asked "do you want to be under the tent negotiating or out in the street picketing". This is clear post-hoc rationalization and extremely weak. The entire world had read PAWS's language before AKC's 8-4 vote. You don't give up your only advantage before a fight's begun. AKC's maximum leverage lay in being outside of the "tent." Once James Holt committed to work with the Santorum-HSUS-DDAL team and the AKC Directors endorsed PAWS, it was forever compromised and its ability to seriously influence the legislative process and outcome was destroyed. Clearly, the AKC Board voted to support the principles of the legislation, meaning that we agreed that the AWA's simplistic retail/wholesale bright line between unregulated sellers and regulated dealers was no longer practical or useful. (It is my judgment that indeed the continued use of the wholesale/retail test is not in the best interests of the dogs we are charged with protecting. Many may disagree, but my fiduciary duty is to the AKC and by extension, to the dogs AKC's Constitution and Bylaws charges me with protecting. That is the territory that goes with being elected to the AKC Board). Protecting what, exactly? That's the crux of AKC's problem. It's now terribly transparent that AKC's principal PAWS goal is to improve its financial bottom line. If it injures breeders and other registries that it feels are beneath them, so be it. There's nothing in PAWS to protect purebred dogs. We were told that day that the then current draft used the simple number of 25 sales to determine a retail dealer. That situation caused much consternation due to the inequities of large and small breed litter sizes and the inappropriateness of such a single dimension view. Jim Holt was well aware of these concerns and suggested that the AKC's own numerical definition for its inspection requirements of High Volume Breeder, 25 transactions and more then 6 litters would be more appropriate. Indeed, Holt reported back shortly thereafter the simple 25 sale threshold had been rejected by the Senator and he had immediately agreed to switch to the 25/6 definition. AKC presence "under the tent" stared paying off immediately, even before introduction of the first language of the bill. Holt next advised that even that definition would be raised at our request to add another 25 not bred or raised on the premises of the seller. When the PAWS language was released to the public and AKC's support for the bill was announced the hue and cry began. "Numbers will be the death of us." "This is a conspiracy between AKC, DDAL, HSUS and PETA." "There is no need to regulate retailers." Email campaigns to boycott AKC began. Outsiders, who had never had any interest in AKC before attacked by flaming emails inciting hysteria. Notwithstanding the spin now being put forward, AKC was condemned for its support and told to denounce the bill in its entirety. I remain firmly convinced that had we followed that course the ultimate PAWS bill would indeed have been disastrous for AKC's people and our sport. This AKC Director's idea of "outsiders" are a whole lot of people with AKC-registered dogs who foresaw the day when the threshold numbers could be easily be reduced further and further until all breeders were subject to federal regulation. "Outsiders" also included all the dog owners/breeders whose dogs were UKC registered or registered with other registries or CFA, TICA, and other pet species registrants, whom AKC ignored and whose concerns were dismissed out-of-hand. AKC's Board rejected the abandonment of legislation we felt necessary to protect the welfare of puppies being imported and sold at retail, as well as puppies being bred here in the US and sold at retail over the internet. Thus, at the June 2005 Special Meeting of the Board, AKC reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of the PAWS bill. Every member of AKC's Board has agreed with me that our vote that day did not mean that AKC was in support of the bill regardless of the final language it contained. Rather, our majority (8-4) support was for the principles of the bill, with the clear understanding that we would seek amendments to the language of the bill to address the many concerns we had with the then proposed language. It was abundantly clear that if, at the end of the day, our presence at the negotiating table had not yielded a legislative scheme we could support as being in the best interests of AKC, its many constituents and the dogs we all seek to protect, AKC could and would withdraw its support and go out to the street to picket. Emphasis added. AKC may picket over PAWS, but others can't object or they will be labeled ill mannered and nay-sayers? In August Ron Menaker and David Merriam asked me to become involved in the negotiations to provide language changes that would accomplish the bills objectives while protecting AKC constituents. They knew that I have had considerable past experience with negotiating and drafting legislative language. I agreed. First, I set out to identify and thoroughly understand the objections many had expressed. I spent much time in "shuttle diplomacy" between AKC Board members, Delegates and other AKC constituents, as well as reading carefully the hundreds of emails I had received, trying to be certain I understood the issues. We contacted Senator Santorum's offices and sought their input on process for amendments. When I met with Senator Santorum he assured me that he had no preconceived agenda other than to protect imported and internet marketed puppies. To that end, the Senator told me that he would favorably review any suggested changes to the introduced PAWS bill that we might put forward along with other supporters of the bill. It was clear to me the Senator would support different methods of identifying those that needed to be regulated without impacting AKC constituents as long as the details could be worked out to the satisfaction of other supporters of the bill. I attempted to redraft a dealer definition which included the retailers we agreed needed to be regulated (internet sellers and importers), without the use of a numerical threshold. I was unsuccessful. Without the use of a numerical threshold loopholes sufficient to destroy the intent of the bill are unavoidable. My challenge then, was to continue to use a numerical threshold while exempting even those who met the threshold but were not intended to be regulated as dealers. Who needed to be regulated as dealers? Just those "outsiders" who DARE to register their dogs with some other registry? Or cat dealers whose cats are not eligible for AKC registration? All the rabbit and bird breeders? The rescuers? Ron Menaker, Jim Holt and I corresponded and met with Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS, and his executive staff to discuss alternatives to the numerical definitions of the bill and other concerns we had so as to arrive at language that would further our goal of protecting the dogs and AKC constituents. (I know to many just attending that meeting is heresy, but I am always willing to meet and talk with even my adversaries in an attempt to negotiate satisfactory resolutions). We had several very fruitful meetings in which we all agreed in concept to proposed changes to the bill. Notwithstanding the misinformation being flung around the internet, HSUS and Senator Santorum fully support the inspection exemption we created and negotiated. (DDAL does not. No one asked PETA). How terribly naive, if not disingenuous. Wayne Pacelle is extremely intelligent, a zealot and is a truly accomplished negotiator. He and his team have taken advantage of AKC personnel at every turn. Ever hear of the good cop - bad cop routine? During the November 8th hearing, which Mr. Gladstone attended, Wayne Pacelle was overheard to tell a friend, with regard to alternative inspectors, "I'm letting Sara (Amundson of DDAL) do the heavy lifting today." HSUS is delighted to allow an AKC inspection to exempt an otherwise large enough retailer from regulation because that will permit USDA resources to be expended in a more meaningful manner. Their attitude is that with limited resources, USDA should not be re-inspecting breeders who AKC has already inspected. Thus, the PAWS II bill includes an exemption from the Dealer definition of anyone inspected by a non-profit private third party who the Secretary of Agriculture determines "to have standards and inspection protocols that are no less effective" then USDA's inspections. AKC's standards and inspection protocols will instantly qualify. This AKC pipedreamimg is too embarrassing, and it gets sillier every time an AKC officer or director repeats it. If the Congress or USDA ever accepted such a substitution of AWA statutory inspection responsibility or separate engineering and performance standards, and they shouldn't, a court would overturn such a regulation in an eye-blink, as restraint of trade in a commercial business area and anti-competitive. Separate regulations and standards for two parts of the same regulated class, giving one class an economic advantage is entirely indefensible. If PAWS were somehow to pass, that enforcement alternative would be striken, leaving AKC's gullible constituents gasping for air, subject to commercial breeder engineering standards and care inspections by USDA employees. Where would that leave HSUS, DDAL and PETA? Grinning like fools. For eight months the fancy's been told time and time again "Trust us, it's better to be on the inside than on the outside. Nothing's wrong with PAWS, all those nay-sayers are ill mannered, not very bright and have secret agendas. But if we're mistaken, we'll fix everything and get AKC people exempted." (sic) The numerical definition will have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on an AKC registrant who is successfully inspected by AKC under AKC's inspection standards. No one will be FORCED to be inspected by anyone they do not wish to allow on their premises. No "Engineering" standards will be forced on any AKC registrant. The inspection exemption is completely voluntary. Under our proposed Inspection Exemption not one AKC registrant will become a Dealer because of PAWS, regardless of the number of dogs bred, co-bred or sold. (Should the CFA choose to qualify, the cat fanciers will also be exempt). Similarly, HSUS and Senator Santorum have agreed with our proposed third party Dealer Inspection, for the same reasons. Those sellers who are classified as Dealers who are AKC registrants are now subject to both USDA and AKC inspections. This is viewed as a duplicative waste of resources. Under our proposal when a Dealer is inspected by AKC that Dealer may choose to use that successful inspection as evidence of compliance with the AWA mandated inspection standards, so as to avoid the need for two inspections. Once AKC's inspection protocol is confirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture under PAWS II, Dealers who are AKC registrants may adhere to AKC's inspection standards rather then USDA's standards and still be in compliance with the AWA Again, this program is entirely voluntary. Not withstanding the spin on the internet, the numerous commercial breeders and their industry representatives I have spoken with (again personally) are thrilled with the prospect of having a successful AKC inspection count as a USDA inspection, The numerical definition of a Dealer will clearly indicate that any retailer can sell 25 dogs not bred or raised on their premises. In addition to those 25, a retailer for personal use to a pet buyer can sell whatever number of puppies are produced in six litters or 25, whichever is greater. That's 25 stud fee puppies and another minimum of 25 and maximum of the number from 6 litters that we can sell without meeting the dealer definition. Even then, the Inspection Exemption will exclude those who meet that threshold of 50-75 sales of pups and are inspected by AKC. To me this is a completely appropriate result. Other changes we have been able to negotiate include clarification of no change for hunting dog breeders, Lawyer Gladstone needs to read the Animal Welfare Act more carefully. Hunting dog owners are the ones specifically at risk from PAWS, not hunting dog breeders. The problem provision reads The term "dealer" means any person who buys, or sells any dog for hunting, security, or breeding purposes. But perhaps he already knows that and this is a clever lawyer wording trick. exemptions for rescue and shelters and definitional changes to narrow and clarify pet store exemptions. None of this would have been possible had we, the AKC, heeded the advice of the likes of SAVOA, UKC or the hundreds of people and clubs demanding we abandon the dogs that need our protection by denouncing PAWS from the beginning. SAOVA's repeated private and later public advice to S. Gladstone and all the other AKC Directors from the very beginning has been - 1) You're in over your heads. 2) HSUS can't pass PAWS without AKC's assistance, no matter how hard it tries. 3) When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. 4) There are huge PAWS problems with the numerical basis, the handling of rescuers, cat breeders, hunting and security dog owners and with USDA enforcement Now AKC's position is that those problems were "fixed" due to its efforts?? That's doubtful. Many will want to read the printed Congressional Record version of PAWS II to see what it really says, if it ever arrives. What is certain is that AKC's joining with HSUS to support PAWS months and months ago created a problem that would not have existed if it had the sense to decline Senator Santorum's and Wayne Pacelle's invitation to collaborate and not oppose S1139. The temptation to use PAWS to enhance its market position and also increase its profits was just too great. The bill that I have helped draft will not draw in one single AKC registrant who is not now a Dealer under the AWA. No AKC breeder or club need fear the inclusion of a numerical threshold to define large retailers. AKC has participated in redrafting the PAWS bill for the benefit of the dogs that need protecting and every one of our constituents. The spin doctors can spin away, but AKC has served its constituents and the dogs it is obligated to protect by following the course we have been on. My obligations are to AKC, its registrants and the dogs, not to the myriad of nay-sayers who have other agendas. Sixty-six percent of the dogs registered by the AKC are breeds whose clubs oppose PAWS. Do all these dues and fee paying dog owners have nay-sayer agendas, or has the AKC's incompetent management finally gone too far? We'll know shortly. Most important of all, if what I am reporting to you today does not come to pass in the final language of the PAWS bill, I, and I believe the rest of the AKC Board, will not support it. Steven D. Gladstone, Esq. AKC Board of Directors, Class 2009 After wasting all this time, goodwill and money, while jeopardizing the future of a once respected canine registry, and ruining its ability to represent dog owners anywhere, James Holt, you and the entire AKC Board should RESIGN regardless of PAWS's final disposition. "We're sorry," or "We did our best" is wholly insufficient. SAOVA

Back