http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/alerts/CA_action_center/voice.cfm
Editorial comments below
CA Spay/Neuter Action Center
Voice of AKC
The Voice of the AKC on AB 1634
The California mandatory spay/neuter bill, AB 1634, has
resulted in massive opposition among the purebred dog
community and other affected animal interest groups. Many
AKC clubs and individual owners are actively involved in the
effort to defeat this legislation. We commend the efforts of
all Californians opposing AB 1634.
However, it should be noted that AKC’s official position on this issue is only represented by members of our Board of Directors, AKC staff or our legislative consultant -- Jeff Leacox of the firm of Greenberg Taurig, LLP. Mr. Leacox is the only California lobbyist that the AKC is working with in its opposition to AB 1634.
We welcome the opportunity to work with all opponents of AB 1634 but would like to remind legislators, media and concerned citizens that the AKC should be contacted directly to verify AKC positions on this legislative issue.
Paragraph 1 states the obvious but does not state that AKC is in opposition. What is meant by "other animal interest groups"? Patti Strand's NAIA is clearly in opposition and can be counted upon to use brilliant strategy but "animal interest groups" would include HSUS, DDAL, AHA - all of whom are or have been associated with AKC in a friendly way. AHA through the Pedigree Foods fiasco at Westminster; HSUS and Doris Day Animal League going back to AKC's support of PAWS. Stating "many AKC clubs and owners" are trying to defeat the bill is a far cry from stating AKC's Position which is notably missing from that paragraph.
Paragraph 2 use of the word "or" in connection with what is presented as AKC's position is confusing at best. AKC has cleverly NOT stated its position; only that it is represented by the B.O.D., Staff, or Mr. Leacox. Pointedly, AKC does not say what position any of the three have.
Additionally, is the last sentence of P-2, AKC stipulates that Mr. Leacox is the only lobbyist it is working with on 1634. Is that meant as a plus or is it a defensive loophole? Who is Jeff Leacox? What is his area of expertise or his accomplishments as a lobbyist? Is he doggy? i.e. is he qualified? Lobbying is not the strong suit of the firm, it is highly ranked in other areas. The main reference to the firm as regards lobbying is in conjunction with a scandal involving politicians, payoffs, and an Indian Reservation.... Will Mr. Leacox be any more successful with Calif. than Jim Holt (AKC lobbyist) was in trying to sell the fancy on PAWS? What has Mr. Leacox done to prevent AB 1534 from passing?
Paragraph 3 is obtuse and reads more like a warning than a promise to do anything to defeat this bill.
I tried again to "contact" AKC directly but despite the best efforts of the lady on the phone, no one could pick up my call. I left a voice mail message for Ms. Sprouse. We will endeavor to present a more positive and detailed position in the next edition of HEADlines.