|
We
receive many reports of discriminatory, even vengeful actions by
the AKC Board against individual judges. This story is
presented because if Fred Lanting does not
"traffic in dogs", he has been severely and unjustly treated.
If he is guilty of trafficking in dogs, one has to ask why other
judges are allowed to
find or purchase dogs and arrange
sales
and are not even censured by AKC.
A case in point is
The Purloined Poodle, the story behind the 2008 Westminster
Group Winner, which clearly documents a top AKC judge who "traffics"
in dogs. According to AKC, if Lanting is a
“salesman or solicitor … whose primary source of income” is from
dog-related publications; what about the numerous judges who write
books and
magazine columns? Is their income
from these activities measured against their total income from other
sources? Do judges have to produce income tax records to prove it
is not “primary” income? Who decides who gets suspended and who
does not? If an AKC officer awards BIS to a dog owned
by someone whose B.O.D. he sits on, is that a conflict? This
is indeed a grey area and it should not be. Addamo Asks more
questions in the
Lanting Interview
which may also interest you.
Revenge
of the “Evil Empire”
(Part One)
by
Fred Lanting, International and (former) AKC judge
The following deals with AKC’s unfair and malicious suspension of my
judging privileges. Darrell Hayes in his March 6, 2000 letter asked
for an explanation of “advertising” at the Plum Creek show in
Colorado in February, because I had left a note where exhibitors
picking up armbands could see it. In that note, I tried to help a
friend get a good dog for the betterment of the breed and the sport
in his far-away country (Pakistan). I had absolutely no gain
possible except knowing I had done my charitable duty, and I have
been wrongly punished. I am positive it is an excuse for
long-standing animosity toward me because of articles I used to
write years ago, critical of AKC policies.
The “Canine Consulting service” an AKC letter referred to is my
long-time activity on the lecture circuit. Similar to Quentin LaHam
and other judges. There is nothing in the guidelines or rules that
indicate AKC’s policy on seminars has changed. I don’t consider my
books, lectures, or seminars to be “commercial use of judging
approval” any more than Carmen Battaglia does with his
lectures or books, or any number of others do. Nor do I “trade or
traffic in dogs” in any way. I had no idea that a note on the table
asking for breeders’ help here in America in finding a dog could be
perceived as objectionable under any rules or guidelines.
"Trading or trafficking in dogs" may be an infraction of AKC rules
but it does not pertain to me. I am also innocent of any charges
relating to “occupational ineligibility”. The only income I have
besides social security is from my seminars (HD, Gait-&-Structure)
and a part-time consulting job in the polymers industry from which I
had retired three years ago to devote time to my love of the dog
sport.
AKC staff misunderstood the word “client” that was used at one point
in my correspondence appealing the suspension. My consulting clients
in the area of orthopedic disorders have nothing to do with the
accusation upon which the suspension was based. That one of these
clients coincidentally happened to be a person who asked me to pass
along his need for a couple of Hip Dysplasia-free foundation bitches
has apparently been misunderstood by both staff and board. He asked
me to help him after my seminar on orthopedic diseases in Pakistan
January 2000. He wrote a letter to AKC to explain this need for good
brood bitches. He was ignored.
The fact remains as it was then: I am not a person who would
“buy, sell, and in any way trade in or traffic in dogs as a means
of livelihood in whole or in part” (Chapter 7, Section 1, Rules,
March 2001). I never got any favors or money for trying to help
people find each other in a search of their needs. Yet, because the
person I was trying to help in this instance was a non-paying
“client” (only in the connection of my consultation on orthopedics
matters) and I had used that one word in one communication regarding
this situation, I have been accused of being a dealer or broker even
though it does not resemble the Rules quoted above. AKC is using the
“occupational ineligibility” rule, even though I am NOT a “dealer or
trafficker in dogs” or a “broker” or anything of the sort.
I
did not have Internet access at the time, which is why I made the
mistake by putting my friend’s request on the table where I was
judging in Colorado. A Rottie exhibitor who did not win BOB was told
by the dog’s owner to turn that note in to the reps who then
reprimanded me and said they would have to send it to AKC. On that
basis, I was accused of “dealing in dogs.” I feel there is no
difference from a veterinarian-judge who puts his clients’
“wanted” and “for sale” notices on his lobby bulletin board. We are
only trying to help people and indeed he derives direct income as a
result of helping his customers sell their litters. Not only does
that breeder become his regular customer, so do the owners of the
puppies, etc.
AKC's responses have been repeated denials of my appeals and an
extension of suspension until they can be pretty sure I've died.
~Fred
Related Articles for
your reference:
AKC
Ethics
teaches Judges How To Judge but loses Judges. Julie Borst Reed asks Where's the logic?
Crime and Punishment
Some heard it on the chats. Insiders heard one side or the
other from AKC or Fred. But when "Addamo Asks" she always
gives you the straight story. A judge gets a lifetime
sentence. Was it fair or was it punishment?
The Purloined Poodle, the WKC Group winner, some would say it
also reflects a
judge "trafficking in dogs" but AKC did nothing to the
judge.
Next week: the sordid trail of intrigue as the Evil Empire Takes
Revenge.
comments or news
to contact@thedogpress.com
|
