|
For the Record
Over the past months, we have become aware of several negative and false
allegations directed toward the California Federation of Dog Clubs. However,
since the sole purpose of our organization has always been to support and
defend the rights of pet owners, and in light of the enormous challenge
facing us in the form of AB1634, we elected to ignore it. We also did not
wish to dignify such idle gossip with a response, but unfortunately, a few
who are new to this battle do not comprehend the urgency of this crisis and
choose instead to waste their energy by broadcasting these malicious rumors
in print. Libel crosses the line, and forces us to address the issue
publicly.
To clarify, CFODC was founded in 1990, and is the oldest state federation in
California, possibly nationwide. Prior to AB1634, CFODC and The Animal
Council were the ONLY dog organizations maintaining watch and battling the
infiltration of animal rights agenda into California's state, county and
city issues. The founding members of the original board, which included many
esteemed individuals from the dog community such as Betty-Anne Stenmark, Ed
Gilbert and the Yamadas, have handed down the torch to its present officers,
most of whom have been in the trenches with the Animal Rights extremists for
over a decade.
Now to address the specific issues described above:
1. A former treasurer of CFODC embezzled funds from the organization.
Absolutely not true. In fact, we find it incredible that anyone has the
audacity to make such a statement, and demand a public, written retraction.
If not forthcoming, then we challenge the accuser to provide a shred of
evidence to support their claim.
2. Our lobbyist was not paid.
False. Not only has our lobbyist, George Steffes, been paid, we remain on
cooperative and cordial terms, as evidenced by at least three recent,
lengthy and pleasant conversations between the two of us. Since AB161 in
2001, we have not used Mr. Steffes' services, in part because minimal animal
rights issues came on the agenda. In addition, lobbyists are expensive and
we preferred to put our resources directly into the legislative battles,
including PAWS on the national level. During this time however, without the
assistance of a lobbyist, and despite the general apathy and lack of
response from the dog community, CFODC still managed to defeat all but one
of the measures we opposed.
3. CFODC, until recently, had no viable web site.
In fact, CFODC has maintained a web presence for many years, operated
entirely by unpaid volunteers. Unfortunately, the illness of our original
webmaster required a search for a replacement, eventually filled by the very
capable Anne Taguchi. We are thrilled with her work and take great pride in
our website, and find the above accusation an insult to the hours of
personal time Anne contributes to our organization.
4. CFODC had no presence at the AB1634 hearings in Sacramento.
Our Vice President and most of our board members attended EVERY hearing,
discussed our position with both Assembly and Senate members, and
disseminated educational literature at every opportunity. As sole operator
of my business, I was unable to join them, but like all our board members, I
represent CFODC as much as I am able. I have driven many miles at my own
expense, and often after a full day's work, to testify on the detrimental
effects of AB1634, both at political gatherings and at state, county and
city hearings, including Riverside County, and the cities of both Imperial
Beach and Huntington Beach. I spent countless lunch hours creating and
organizing booklets which I subsequently delivered in person to local
veterinarians with a voice in the CVMA. And, as President, I participate in
ALL telephone conferences regarding AB 1634, including, at their request, a
call with senior members of the Libertarian party seeking information before
taking a stand on the bill. As a result of that conversation, the party went
on record in opposition. Even my elderly mother devotes many hours typing
CFODC paperwork, and writing letters to Assembly and Senate representatives.
We do all these things because we take our positions seriously, and because
WE ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PET OWNERS.
5. A former CFODC director was responsible for the mass mailing to
California's CVMA veterinarians.
While a retired board member did participate in this incredible effort, it
was never the idea of one person. CFODC Vice President Judythe Coffman,
together with other board members and volunteers, spent many, many unpaid
hours on the project. After composing the letter itself, they printed
hundreds of copies and stuffed them into individual envelopes which were
then addressed, stamped, and mailed to the attention of each and every
veterinarian in California. The funds, which were used solely for the
printing costs, envelopes and postage, were provided entirely by the
generous donations of our membership. It's important to add, however, that
credit should also be given to John Hamil, DVM, whose own impressive letter
to the CVMA (viewable on the NAIA website at www.naiaonline.org) undoubtedly
had an important effect on the organization's decision to rescind their
support of AB1634.
6. CFODC is an "extreme" group, much more so than the AKC or NAIA.
As an organization which has worked closely with both the AKC and NAIA for
nearly twenty years, we find this statement to be completely ludicrous. Our
record during all those years is clearly conservative. We have stood united
with the AKC and NAIA against all animal rights incursions, with the one
exception of the PAWS initiative, which the AKC chose to support. CFODC and
NAIA strongly opposed PAWS, as did almost all federations throughout the
country, believing that negotiation is not possible with a bad bill. In the
same vein, AB1634 is a BAD BILL, and unlike one of the fledgling groups
organized to fight this battle, CFODC will NEVER negotiate the terms of such
a bill. Experience has shown us that negotiating with terrorists only
emboldens them.
The California Federation of Dog Clubs is committed, at all times, to
maintaining vigilance over the rights of pet owners. We have accomplished
this morally, ethically and legally, and will continue to follow this same
honorable path. In that regard, we are very excited about the new slate of
board members elected to serve in the coming year, but CFODC members or not,
we all have a rough road ahead and the sincere efforts of any person or
group will always be appreciated.
Divisiveness is neither helpful nor befitting. CFODC recommends solidarity
in pursuit of our common goal and hopes you will join us in preserving our
future.
Sincerely,
Susan Sholar, President
California Federation of Dog Clubs
|
