[ SHOWGSD-L ] long but excellent.......

  • From: Peggy <pmick@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: showgsd-l <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:51:46 -0400

shared by Peggy
As you may know, DOG NEWS has freely and openly printed verbal attacks 
on the PAWS opposition coming from the 4 AKC Board Members who voted 
against AKC support of S 1139, as well as other well known fanciers, AND 
Donna Malone who is the moderator of the NAIA Animal Talk list.  None of 
the 4 AKC Board Members, nor Wayne Cavanagh, nor Donna Malone, etc., 
have ever to my knowledge issued public verbal attacks aimed at those 
AKC Board Members who voted to support PAWS. Donna Malone was the target 
of John Mandeville's INSIDE OUT column in a recent issue of DOG NEWS. 
Well, she took him on didn't she?
We know that AKC, DOG NEWS, and other persons/groups who support PAWS 
monitor the various lists that are talking about PAWS. So there is no 
doubt that Mr. Mandeville has read this letter.
Turning Mandeville "Inside Out"
by Donna Malone                      

The August 19, 2005 issue of Dog News included an article entitled, 
"Inside Out - Our Fathers' AKC..." by John Mandeville (aka John '2B' 
Mandeville). This is my response:


    Mandeville writes, "This time Donna Malone . . . stands in for all 
those people whose Internet blather is seldom if ever called to 
account." I am amused that ol'2B (or 3B or was that another time?) threw 
the gauntlet down on what he alleges to be "Internet blather," but 
pleased to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the THOUSANDS upon 
THOUSANDS of members of the Fancy opposed to PAWS.

    Mandeville says my "dissection of Sari's PAWS column is the usual 
anti-PAWS rhetoric" and that "And after untold renditions it is really 
boring. And trite. And not worth getting exercised about." Except he 
does.... He chides, "Someone should tell Donna Malone her zealotry and 
bombast work with the committed. That is hardly the way to make 
converts, especially among those of us who have a jaundiced view of the 
entire PAWS debate." My parody of Sari's article was widely read and 
well-received. Considering Mandeville's, uh, "passions," it is 
surprising that he would mistake my passionate objections to Sari's 
article for "zealotry and bombast work" but, well, apparently his best 
work is not done with the head on his shoulders. More about that 
later... ; -)
    Mandeville suggests I "take note of Carmen Battaglia's widely 
circulated Internet memo" or "Charlotte McGowan's August 5 DOC NEWS 
article "Pausing to Understand Objections to PAWS." (Both are excellent 
works. If you haven't read them, I encourage you to do so. Google for 
them.) However, I am in a unique position compared to most of the other 
parties to the PAWS debate. I don't show. I don't breed. I am not, and 
do not aspire to be, a judge. As such, I am at liberty to say things 
that neither McGowan nor Battaglia dare say for fear of retribution.

    Back to Mandeville's article, "Malone resorts to McCarthyism." How 
about another perspective on McCarthyism? "Thirty years after the death 
of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy . . . the term "McCarthyism" is still 
widely used as a convenient and easily understood epithet for all that 
is evil and despicable in the world of politics. . . . Despite the 
frequency with which the term is invoked, however, it is quite clear 
that not one critic of McCarthy in a hundred has the slightest idea of 
what he said and did during that controversial period from 1950 to 
1954." Quoted from: 


    Did McCarthy make mistakes? Yes. However, in the aftermath of 9/11, 
when so many Americans are questioning the decidedly un-American 
activities of Al Qaeda members, it is interesting to note that (type of 
"ism" aside) those are the very type of activities that McCarthy sought 
to forestall. McCarthy's Alien Registration Act (also known as the Smith 
Act) made it illegal to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of 
overthrowing our government. It also required all alien residents over 
14 file a comprehensive statement of their personal and occupational 
status and a record of their political beliefs. Does any of this sound 
familiar? But, enough of the history lesson Mandeville obviously missed....

    Mandeville demands names of all the "attorneys and those active in 
the legislative forum have contradicted his [Holt's] interpretation for 
years." Let's start with the names of attorneys, off the top of my head, 
including but not limited to, Sharon Coleman, Cindy Cooke, Jeffrey 
Helsdon, and Jerald Tannenbaum. Names of others active in the 
legislative forum, again off the top of my head, including but not 
limited to, Mary Beth Duerler, Charlotte McGowan, Kelly Wichman, Anne 
Edwards, Norma Bennett Woolf, Karen Strange, Tere Woody, Linda Chance, 
and Cherie Graves. ALL OPPOSED TO PAWS... (Please Google these names 
folks! And, my apologies to those of you whose names did not spring as 
readily to my mind as those listed when I was writing this.)

    Have you even HEARD of these people Mandeville? Many are principals 
in state federations that do the "hands on" legislative work in the 
cities, counties and states around the Country AND THEY OPPOSE PAWS. 
They protect your right to own and breed! AKC counts on most of them, 
like it counts on me, to oppose legislation restrictive to the rights of 
owners and breeders! BTW, you are aware the AKC counts on US to 
interpret those laws, right?

    As for your allegations that I am "exaggerating, if not lying," and 
your demand for dates and places and "what they said, independently 
verifiable, of course, where their contradictions of Holt's 
interpretations have appeared 'for years.'" I'll do you one better than 
that, let me refer you to the SOURCE MATERIALS! See the legislative 
intent behind the AWA (federal records), the enforcement history of the 
AWA (available from the USDA), and case law, most notably, Doris Day 
Animal League v. Veneman, see: 
as that is the material that WE (see above list of attorneys and others 
active in the legislative forum) have been quoting non-stop since AKC's 
insane endorsement of PAWS.

     Mandeville also wrote, "as someone who has the utmost regard for 
the legal profession, sleeping with an attorney as I do, rather than 
citing attorneys to give your assertion heft you are better advised to 
cite their legislative and lobbying credentials - in Washington, please, 
this is Federal legislation we're concerned about." Admittedly, I am not 
an attorney and I have not slept with one. I am a paralegal (graduated 
top of my class) and have worked for attorneys 20+ years. I have 
researched case and code and prepared all types of legal documents. When 
Memphis proposed BSL, I advised the City it would not withstand 
challenge. Two of the top law firms here assured our City Council and 
County Commission that it would. GUESS WHO WAS RIGHT? ;-D

    Mandeville also demands "legislative and lobbying credentials - in 
Washington, please. . ." Sir, Will Rogers pretty much summed up what 
most folks think about Washington when he said, "I don't make jokes. I 
just watch the government and report the facts." (You aren't seriously 
suggesting that only Washingtonians are capable of 
drafting/understanding legislation and/or lobbying are you?)

    Mandeville next attempts to justify his and Sari Tietjen's demands 
for the resignation of two or three of the AKC's board members who 
opposed PAWS alleging a "conflict of interest." Correct me if I am wrong 
here, but rumor has it you are the same Mandeville that got FIRED from 
the AKC for....? (Isn't that where ya got that nickname "2B" or "3B" or 
whatever it is? (You know, the number of the room where you were doing 
what you do best?) Come to think of it, seems like there was a rumor 
that Sari has her own demons... something about being on the AKC's 
payroll and showing maybe? Neither of you appear to have the 
ethical/moral authority to be pointing a finger at anyone!

    For the general audience reading this, conflict of interest arises 
whenever the personal or professional interests of a board member are 
potentially at odds with the best interests of the nonprofit. If anyone 
is acting in a conflict of interest, it is the board members who voted 
for PAWS. Members of the board have a fiduciary responsibility to act in 
the best interest of the Fancy but what are they doing? Spending time 
and $$$ promoting PAWS, a law so at odds with the purpose of the AKC 
that they are having to REWRITE the AKC's statement of purpose! 
Mandeville further attempts to justify his conflict of interest 
assertion by alleging that so and so says he is right. I can see it now. 
Mandeville calls them, gives them his rendition of the "facts", and they 
say something along the lines of IF you are right and IF thus and such 
actually happened the way you said it did, THEN it MIGHT not be ethical 
behavior. Any "attorney" stupid enough to do otherwise should not be 
practicing law!

    Finally, Mandeville recognizes my "we want OUR FATHER'S AKC" "is "a 
rhetorical plea for a time when AKC's legislative perspective was in 
harmony with hers," but calls it "delusional." He knows, as well as I 
do, that I am talking pre-PAWS. He does bring up an interesting point 
though - that the AKC has only "bothered" (his word not mine) with 
legislation for the last 15 or so years. And, "bothered" generally means 
they call or email someone in the trenches (LIKE ME) to get out and 
oppose it. Yes, they serve a purpose BUT it is not the same as being 
there, hands on.

    Speaking of the AKC lobbying... Folks, you have now seen what the 
AKC can do when they WANT TO compliments of PAWS. What did the AKC do 
when restrictive legislation was last proposed in your area? They 
probably did not travel all over the applicable area lobbying clubs to 
help you oppose the legislation, did they? Hmmmm... They probably also 
did not take out, much less pay, for a FULL PAGE AD in local papers 
opposing the bill, did they? Unh, unh... They probably also did not make 
a personal appearance before elected representatives, much less hire a 
lobbyist to oppose the bill, did they? Tisk, tisk.. Yeah, they mailed a 
"package" to applicable elected representatives, if you supplied the 
names and addresses to them. Oh, and, let's not forget that handy dandy 
one page (front and back) brochure on how to plead your case to elected 
representatives! Although that really isn't a substitute for the other, 
is it?

    My intention is not to discredit the legislative department or its 
employees (I like them) BUT there is another side of this story that is 
not being told. The people opposing PAWS are not a bunch of 
inexperienced and legislatively ignorant yokels. Most of us have MUCH 
MORE expertise on legislative issues than the AKC has or will have in 
the foreseeable future and, taken collectively, the AKC may never be 
able to catch up with us on the issues. WE ARE THE EXPERTS AND PAWS IS 
BREEDER LICENSING LAW! And, if PAWS is any example of what we can expect 
legislatively from the AKC in the future, the AKC needs to GET OUT OF 

    To read more about WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE PAWS visit:





Donna Malone


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. 


For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org

Other related posts:

  • » [ SHOWGSD-L ] long but excellent.......