[ SHOWGSD-L ] Q&A in Dixon, CA
- From: Peggy <pmick@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd-l <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:57:46 -0400
from another list...one person's observations
shared by Peggy
Read Holt's statement of less than 6 months prior
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/endanjholt.htm
Dixon , Ca comments
There were a lot of interesting tidbits from the Dixon meeting last
night. Dr. Holt is impressive, well-spoken, even passionate at times.
The one statement that continues to ring in my ears is this:
"Yes, the numbers WILL change. They will eventually go down."
If that one admission isn't enough to make you fight like hell to get
PAWS killed, then I don't know what will. I have a lot of notes. I
know there were a few other people on the list there, so hopefully
you'll get more than just my take.
At its peak, there were about 45 people, but at the end only about
ten. It is ABSOLUTELY clear that AKC/Jim Holt is going to push this
through no matter who or what is against it, since the ammendments
CAME from AKC.
He says he "has heard very little against PAWS from fanciers." Hmmm.
It appeared to my (albeit jaded) view, that he feels those who are
against PAWS fall into three camps: people with operations which are
currently operating illegally under the radar (probably "bad" breeders
anyway); people who are Ignorant, and organizations/people who have an
ax to grind with AKC (Bob Kane mentioned specifically).
However, when I presented him and the audience with a 4-ft long scroll
of animal advocacy groups who are against PAWS, he said if the list
came from SAOVA that there are plenty of names that "have NOT come out
against PAWS" - he mentioned PIJAC as one.
I asked if he wanted us to believe all those groups listed, including
Parent Clubs with legal analysis, were stupid. He said he would not
answer my question. Yet, he then commented that a Spaniel parent club
wrote that PAWS would hurt hunting dogs...something they keep saying
has been in the law for 30 years. He clearly thought they were pretty
stupid to use that as a reason.
More later.....
Linda
P.S. Patti Strand asked me if I was absolutely certain about what
Holt had said regarding the numbers. I went back and checked my
notes, and he DID admit "realistically the numbers WILL change. They
will go down eventually."
Strongly Oppose S1139 & R2669
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it
will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it
would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
Call & Voice your Objections - (202) 224-2035
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
