It seems that the issue of the sable merle has become the secondary issue and that honoring the CCA Constitution and Bylaw's and the right for the membership to vote and be counted is the main issue.

I truly believe that good and right always prevails. I know that the CCA is filled with people that will stand up for what is right.

Here is my letter I sent to Bob Futh :

Mr. Futh,

 I AM a supporter of the sable merle being added to the standard but 
your recent actions have made that issue secondary.

You were not appointed as King of the CCA you were elected by those 
that VOTED for you. You are now trying to suppress a VOTE by those 
same members. A VOTE that OUR constitution and bylaws allows.

 Read the constitution and bylaws and see what the job description is 
for President. This is AMERICA. Your blatant disregard of the 
membership and the underhanded, unethical tactics used by Janine 
Walker Keith are things we sadly see in third world countries. Was 
Janine Walker Keith elected to some position we are not aware of??

 I have told people that being a member of CCA is important. Pay your 
dues so that you have the right to cast a VOTE and have a say in 
important issues regarding our beloved breed. So now what??? Pay your 
dues and lets hope the King says the vote will count??? It does not 
work that way here in AMERICA, Mr. Futh!

You seem to be living in oppositeville. You say the the CCA is two 
clubs… and that Janie Clymer is aiding the "Rogue Club"…… Funny 
that the "Rogue Club" as you call it IS following the rules!!!! Which 
is WAY more than we can say about you.

If you can not or will not follow the CCA's constitution and bylaws I 
would hope the Board and membership does not slip into apathy and 
calls for your resignation or impeachment. ~jules

I think everyone should write Mr. Futh and their DD's and let them know your feelings and thoughts on this. 

Which ever way you voted on the petitions ballot, it should count!!!

Dog Heatstroke Survival Guide

Know how to treat and prevent this dangerous condition.
What is heatstroke?
In simple terms, heatstroke occurs when a dog loses its natural ability to
regulate its body temperature. Dogs don't sweat all over their bodies the way
humans do. Canine body temperature is primarily regulated through respiration
(i.e., panting). If a dog's respiratory tract cannot evacuate heat quickly
enough, heatstroke can occur.

To know whether or not your dog is suffering from heatstroke (as opposed to
merely heat exposure), it's important to know the signs of heatstroke.

A dog's normal resting temperature is about 100.5 to 102.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Once a dog's temperature rises above 105 degrees, physiological changes start to
take place, and the dog begins to experience the effects of heatstroke. At 106
to 108 degrees, the dog begins to suffer irreversible damage to the kidneys,
liver, gastrointestinal tract, heart and brain.

If a dog is experiencing heatstroke, you may observe excessive panting;
hyperventilation; increased salivation; dry gums that become pale, grayish and
tacky; rapid or erratic pulse; weakness; confusion; inattention; vomiting;
diarrhea; and possible rectal bleeding. If the dog continues to overheat,
breathing efforts become slowed or absent, and finally, seizures or coma can
occur.
The amount of damage a dog sustains when stricken with heatstroke depends on the
magnitude and duration of the exposure. The longer and more severe the exposure,
the worse the damage will be.

What to do
1 Pay attention to your dog. Recognizing the symptoms of heatstroke and
responding quickly is essential for the best possible outcome.

2 Get into the shade. If you think your dog is suffering from heatstroke, move
it into a shaded area and out of direct sunlight. Apply cool water to the inner
thighs and stomach of the dog, where there's a higher concentration of
relatively superficial, large blood vessels. Apply cool water to the foot pads,
as well.

3 Use running water. A faucet or hose is the best way to wet down your dog's
body. Never submerge your dog in water, such as in a pool or tub – this could
cool the dog too rapidly, leading to further complications, including cardiac
arrest and bloating.

4 Use cool – not cold – water. Many people make the mistake of using cold water
or ice to cool the dog. When faced with a dog suffering from heatstroke,
remember that the goal is to cool the dog. Using ice or extremely cold water is
actually counterproductive to this process because ice and cold water cause the
blood vessels to constrict, which slows blood flow, thus slowing the cooling
process.

5 Don't cover the dog. One of the keys to successfully cooling your dog is
ensuring the water being placed on the dog can evaporate. Never cover an
overheated dog with a wet towel or blanket. This inhibits evaporation and
creates a sauna effect around your dog's body. Likewise, don't wet the dog down
and put it into an enclosed area, such as a kennel. Any air flow during the
cooling process is helpful in reducing the dog's body temperature. Sitting with
the wet dog in a running car with the air conditioner blowing is an ideal
cooling situation.

6 Keep the dog moving. It's important to try to encourage your dog to stand or
walk slowly as it cools down. This is because the circulating blood tends to
pool in certain areas if the dog is lying down, thus preventing the cooled blood
from circulating back to the core.

7 Allow the dog to drink small amounts of water. Cooling the dog is the first
priority. Hydration is the next. Don't allow the dog to gulp water. Instead,
offer small amounts of water that's cool, but not cold. If the dog drinks too
much water too rapidly, it could lead to vomiting or bloat.

8 Avoid giving human performance drinks. Performance beverages designed for
humans are not recommended because they are not formulated with the canine's
physiology in mind. If you can't get an overheated dog to drink water, try
offering chicken- or beef-based broths.

See a veterinarian
Once your dog's temperature begins to drop, cease the cooling efforts and bring
the dog to a veterinarian as soon as possible. Your dog's temperature should be
allowed to slowly return to normal once cooling has begun. A dog that's cooled
too quickly may become hypothermic.

Even if your dog appears to be fully recovered, the veterinarian needs to check
to determine if the heatstroke caused any damage to your dog's kidneys and
liver. The effects of heatstroke can continue for 48 to 72 hours longer, even if
your dog appears normal.

William Grant, DVM, a veterinarian for 20 years and former president of the
Southern California Veterinary Medical Association, has treated hundreds of
cases of heatstroke, ranging from mild to fatal.

According to Grant, the most common cause of death following heatstroke is
disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (blood coagulating throughout the body),
or DIC, which can occur hours or days after the heatstroke episode.

DIC can also be caused by pyometra or septicemia, but Grant says heatstroke is
the most common cause. "Once a dog develops DIC, it may bleed in the thorax,
abdomen, nose and intestine," Grant says. "Once the blood-clotting factors are
consumed, there is an inability of the blood vessels to prevent leaking; the
condition is almost always fatal." For this reason, follow-up veterinary care is
essential following a heatstroke episode, even if your dog seems to be
completely fine.

Prevention is the best medicine
The best treatment for heatstroke is prevention. Especially during the summer
months, it's essential to be aware of the potential for heatstroke. Knowing the
signs of heatstroke, and taking the necessary steps to prevent it, will ensure
your dog can have a safe and active life year-round.

The CCA President alone cannot rule on anything. There is a reason that we have a board that serves as representatives of the members. The board must vote to support Futh's action.

If you boil this down to its most component parts—one person is attempting to deprive the membership of a constitutionally called for vote. Whether you are for change or desire the standard to remain as it, it really just boils down to your due process right to vote.

The AKC was given inaccurate information and as such provided an opinion based upon the information it was provided. Just consider the source of who provided the information.  In the absence of law and fact, Futh and others have chosen to confuse the issue by twisting the facts and attempting to confuse those involved.

I plead with all members to write an e-mail to Mr. Futh, and to your DDs, and ask that the vote be counted and asking that the board not vote to support Mr. Futh's actions.

Jennifer Weiner
Edenrock Collies

Lessons From Dallas Spay/Neuter Mandate

Californians Could Face $50 million Unfunded Mandate

Based On Dallas Experience – MA, FL, IL & AZ Take Note

by JOHN YATES
American sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org <http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/>

asda@csonline.net <mailto:asda@csonline.net>

This report is archived at http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=50 <http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=50>

DALLAS, TX (July 7, 2009) – A year ago, Dallas City Council voted to enter the brave new world of a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance for dogs. That vote was based on the promise by animal rights group supporters of lower animal shelter admissions, a lower euthanasia rate, and an increase in licensing revenues to support the animal control program.

A year after the Dallas ordinance was passed, those promises have proven to be fraudulent, based on actual budget data from the Dallas Animal Control program that was obtained by the American Sporting Dog Alliance. In looking at all of the promises made in Dallas, the actual results have proven to be diametrically opposite of what City Council had hoped it was voting to do.

Now, the California Legislature is close to passing a statewide spay/neuter mandate, similar legislation is on the table in Massachusetts, and municipal ordinances are pending in Chicago and communities in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Florida. We ask citizens and lawmakers in those states to pay close attention to the Dallas experience.

Based on what happened in Dallas, municipal governments in California could be facing a de facto state mandate for $50 million in unplanned local spending, and their shelters would be overflowing with dogs facing a future without hope. We are making this evidence available to the California Assembly Committee on Appropriations, which has scheduled a July 15 hearing on Senate Bill 250. SB 250, which already has passed the Senate and is the closest thing possible to a statewide mandate to spay or neuter all dogs and cats.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance predicted adverse results in Dallas, based on the actual experiences of every city in America that has passed a mandatory pet sterilization ordinance. However, Dallas City Council chose to ignore the facts and fall for the hollow promises of animal rights activists, such as Robert “Skip” Trimble, the darling of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States.

A year later, the Dallas experience has proven to be a fiscal disaster, and a nightmare for anyone who loves dogs and the dogs themselves.

The Dallas experience provides reasonable evidence of what can be expected to happen in California if SB 250 is passed into law. Dallas has a population of 1.3 million people. California, at 36.8 million, is 28 times more populous than Dallas. Thus, a reasonable expectation can be obtained by multiplying the Dallas numbers by 28.

Here is a summary of what has happened in Dallas, and what is likely to happen in California, based on official Dallas budget documents:

 
While animal rights activists were telling City Council that a spay/neuter mandate would reduce shelter admissions, the 2008-09 city budget called for a 10-percent increase in animal shelter admissions. The budget was designed to “increase the number of animals impounded by 10% to 37,000.” Thus, if AB 250 is passed, California municipalities can reasonably expect a 10% increase in shelter admissions, and this legislation would be an unfunded state mandate to pay for these additional animals. In California, it is illegal for the state to force municipalities to accept unfounded mandates, without full reimbursement for the costs.

In the 2007-08 fiscal year, actual expenses for the animal control program were pegged at $6.4 million. The 2008-09 budget calls for spending $7.8 million, which is a $1.4 million increase, or 22-percent. Extrapolating from those numbers, Californians also might be expected to see a 22-percent cost increase to municipal government (and taxpayers), to about $39 million. That, too, would be a de facto unfunded mandate from the state.

While expenses are escalating, license sale revenues have plunged in Dallas. The fiscal year loss of pet license sales is projected to be in excess of $400,000. That means the Animal Control Department will have to take care of more animals on less money. License sales drop because people who cannot comply with the spay/neuter mandate cannot obtain a license without proof of sterilization. This has been proven in every municipality that has tried a spay/neuter mandate, and now has been proven again this year in Dallas and Los Angeles, which recently passed a similar ordinance. Based on the Dallas experience, California municipalities can expect to see a corresponding $11.2 million drop in license sales. This, too, is a de facto unfunded mandate from the state.

Here is a link for Dallas budget information: http://www.dallascityhall.com/Budget/adopted0809/CleanHealthyEnvironment.pdf <http://www.dallascityhall.com/Budget/adopted0809/CleanHealthyEnvironment.pdf> .

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is not the only organization that is projecting a large de facto unfounded mandate if SB 250 passes into law.

Our conclusion is shared by the California Department of Finance, which recently released a report on SB 250: “This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund…to reimburse local government shelters’ cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines.”

That means millions more healthy and adoptable animals will be euthanized at animal shelters that are already swamped by dogs and cats that had to be abandoned by their owners due to home foreclosures and job losses. When people lose their homes, pets become homeless, too. When people lose their jobs, they cannot afford to sterilize animals or even take care of them in many cases. The inevitable result is a rapid increase in abandonment and euthanasia at animal shelters.

Such is the murderous intent of the animal rights movement, which seeks to gradually eliminate animals from American life. Its immediate goal is to force people to sterilize or euthanize as many dogs and cats as possible, and SB 250 was written for this reason. Our research has clearly documented that spay/neuter mandates in Los Angeles, other California communities and elsewhere have bankrupted animal control programs and led to large-scale pet abandonment and rapid rises in shelter euthanasia rates. Our research shows a 30-percent increase in shelter euthanasia and a 20-percent increase in admission rates since the Los Angeles ordinance was passed a year ago. At the same time, the Los Angeles Animal Control Department has been devastated financially by a drastic reduction in license revenues and large increases in expenses.

The Department of Finance report to the Legislature concluded that “the Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because it would increase costs for an existing state-mandated local program, potentially create a new state mandated local program, and result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2009-10 Budget Act. Mandatory
spay and neuter provisions have failed throughout California at the local government level.”

In California, the official unemployment rate has soared to 11.5-percent, real unemployment is estimated at 20-percent, the unemployment rate is projected to be 12.5-percent by the end of the year, home foreclosures and business failures are the highest in the nation and approach Great Depression levels, state government is facing an immediate $24.3 billion budget deficit and is paying its bills with IOU’s, and essential services are being decimated. Of the 10 U.S. cities with the highest rates of foreclosures, California has six. An estimated 200,000 jobs have been lost in California in the past year alone. Some communities already have been forced to eliminate fire protection, cut their police forces, shutter services and close schools. In addition, more than $15 billion in tax increases are being proposed, massive layoffs of state and municipal employees are planned, an energy tax alone would result in the loss of an estimated 10,000 jobs, prisoners would be dumped in the streets and most would no longer have probationary supervision, and elderly, disabled and blind people would lose $1.4 billion in state benefits, programs to help them remain in their homes, and protections that now allow them to save their homes from tax sales. The state’s future will be mortgaged by $10.3 billion in loans to keep government afloat and by the deterioration of infrastructure such as roads and bridges. California already has the highest sales and business taxes in the nation, and the second highest income taxes.

In light of California’s devastated economy and $24.3 billion budget deficit, it would be sheer fiscal insanity to pass SB 250 into law.

The statewide consequences would be inevitable and bleak. The result will be people and local governments pushed over the financial edge and into the abyss, and the highest price will be paid by millions of dogs and cats that will lose their homes and face almost certain death in overcrowded animal shelters.

Economic impacts are really impacts on people and their pets. San Francisco Chronicle Columnist Christi Keith wrote an extraordinary analysis of these impacts in the June 9, 2009, edition of the paper (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/06/09/petscol060909.DTL <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/06/09/petscol060909.DTL> ).

It is the best writing on mandatory spay/neuter laws we have seen in any major newspaper. “When did the party of ‘Yes, we can!’ become the party of ‘No, you'd better not’ when it comes to dogs and cats?,” Keith wrote.

Her column continues: “Under the bill, every California pet owner must obtain a license to keep a dog or cat who hasn't been sterilized, a license that can be revoked if the owner violates<http://saveourdogs.net/2009/05/29/analysis-of-sb-250-as-amended-may-28-2009/>  a number of animal laws — not just big ones like animal cruelty and neglect, but little ones, like letting your dog stand next to your car in a beach parking beach without his leash on. If that happens, you can be forced to spay or neuter your pet, unless a veterinarian certifies that the animal would ‘suffer serious harm or death if surgically sterilized.’ If a pet owner can't afford that option or refuses to comply, the animals can be seized and sterilized or even killed at taxpayer expense.

Keith correctly identifies the root of the problem, and also the impact of SB 250.

“Both the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)  <http://www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/pet-statistics.html> and the Association of Pet Product Manufacturers<http://www.naiashelterproject.org/shelter_chart.cfm?shelter_id=946&%0Dstate=CA>  report that nearly all family pets are already spayed or neutered — except those belonging to poor people.

“While spay/neuter rates among pets owned by middle and upper income people approach 90 percent, only 53 percent of pets owned by poor people are spayed or neutered. The majority of lower income owners say they want to alter their pets but either can't afford to pay for the surgery and/or can't get their pets to a facility that will do it.

“In many communities, no form of public or private assistance is available to defray the cost of spay and neuter surgeries, which range from less than $100 for a cat to $900 for a very large dog, depending on local veterinary rates. And for people without a car, simply transporting pets to clinics or hospitals can be nearly impossible.

“The progressive solution would be to fund free and accessible spay/neuter for people who want to alter their pets but can't afford the procedure. That's what happened in New Hampshire, which subsequently saw its shelter intake numbers plummet and its euthanasia rate drop by 75 percent. Many California communities, including San Francisco, have done the same, with similar results.”

We applaud Ms. Keith.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all California dog owners to take immediate action, before the Assembly Committee on Appropriations holds a hearing on SB 250 on July 15. It is urgent that a large number of Californians express clear opposition to SB 250, which is very close to being passed into law.

Remember that the Appropriations Committee deals mostly with financial aspects of legislation, such as the outlay of government funds.

Please phone and also email each member of the committee as soon as possible. Members of legislative committee represent all Californians, not just their own constituents. Here is contact information for all of the committee members:

 
 
  Committee Members  District  Phone  E-mail
   Kevin de Leon – Chair  Dem-45  (916) 319-2045  Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov>
   Jim Nielsen – Vice Chair  Rep-2  (916) 319-2002  Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov>
   Tom Ammiano   Dem-13  (916) 319-2013  Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov>
   Charles M. Calderon   Dem-58   (916) 319-2058  Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov>
   Joe Coto   Dem-23  (916) 319-2023  Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov>
   Mike Davis   Dem-48  (916) 319-2048  Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov>
   Michael D. Duvall   Rep-72  (916) 319-2072  Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov>
   Felipe Fuentes   Dem-39  (916) 319-2039  Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov>
   Isadore Hall III   Dem-52  (916) 319-2052  Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov>
   Diane L. Harkey   Rep-73  916) 319-2073  Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov>
   Jeff Miller   Rep-71  (916) 319-2071  Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov>
   John A. Pérez   Dem-46  (916) 319-2046  Assemblymember.Jo
hn.Perez@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov>
   Nancy Skinner   Dem-14  (916) 319-2014   Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov>
   Jose Solorio   Dem-69  (916) 319-2069  Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov>
   Audra Strickland   Rep-37  (916) 319-2037  Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov>
   Tom Torlakson   Dem-11  (916) 319-2011  Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov <mailto:Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov>

The California Legislature is slated to adjourn on July 18 for summer recess, and SB 250 could face a vote of the full Assembly on July 17.

To read our analysis of the legislation, please visit http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=48 <http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=48>

To read the actual text of the legislation, go to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_250_bill_20090528_amended_sen_v95.html <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_250_bill_20090528_amended_sen_v95.html> .

Thank you for helping California pet owners and the dogs and cats that they love.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org <http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/> . Our email is asda@csonline.net <mailto:asda@csonline.net> .

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org <http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/>
Please Join Us

An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585089x1201462806/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JulyExcfooterNO62>

Well that very well may be the NEXT battle!!!!

The petition vote's deadline to be in the Tellers Committee is TODAY!!!!!!

I have a strong feeling that the amount of votes turned in will be HUGE!!!!!

I just hope the majority say YES!!!!!!!

We are sifting thru lots of stuff because Pres. Futh has sent out a letter that was posted on several lists:

To:  The Board of Directors

I have not been looking forward to writing this letter, although I knew it was inevitable.  Inevitable became immediate when I received the attached letter from James Crowley.
 
The Executive Secretary of the American Kennel Club, James Crowley, has reviewed documents sent by a concerned CCA member and a registered parliamentarian and he concurs with the findings of the PRP that the petition and subsequent ballot were not in order.  I asked the board in April to disavow the petition and you failed to do so. Now Mr. Crowley has given us the official opinion of AKC that the vote was done incorrectly. The ballots are not to be opened. The tellers committee chair shall keep them in a locked and secure manner.
 
We are down to the wire.  It is time to do what is right, even if it is not popular.  We cannot act contrary to our or AKC’s constitution and bylaws.
 
Robert Futh, president
 
CC. Mr. James Crowley
 
Attachments:  Letter from Janine Walker-Keith
Letter from James Crowley, AKC Exec. Secy. 
Second letter from JWK
PRP statement of appropriateness
PRP complete analysis
Also sent: supporting documents sent to Mr. Nolan and to Mr. Crowley
 

I am SURE that not ALL the correct info and paperwork were given to A Parliamentarian or the AKC.

Has Futh told the Tellers Committee NOT to count the votes???What a slap in the face to ALL CCA members…. however they voted!!!!!

This blatant disregard to the members, the CCA constitution, the AKC and The Collie is the reason I feel that impeachment is in order……..

time will tell if yet another petition of 100 EASY to get signatures will be needed…..

CCA members are fed up with Futh's bullshit and not just on the sable merle issue!!!!!!

July 5, 7:56 PM · Beth Coughlin – Boston Dog Laws Examiner

IPopular Mechanics, September 1947

In the world of animal advocacy, it sometime can be difficult to keep an accurate scorecard between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights groups. One of the keys to telling the difference: if someone says there is no difference, they are on the animal rights side of the debate. As a responsible pet owner, it is critical to recognize the difference and support Animal Welfare organizations.

Animal welfare is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association as "The ethical responsibility of ensuring animal well being".

Some of the primary activities this includes are:

The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian's Oath.

Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge and professional judgment with consideration of ethical and societal values.

Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior.

Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering.

Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced.

Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, and scientifically prudent.

Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death.

The veterinary profession shall continually strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, education, collaboration, advocacy, and the development of legislation and regulations.

(retreived 7-5-09 from AVMA.com, "Issues in Animal Welfare")

The other half of the equation are animal rights groups. These include well-known names like PETA and HSUS, as well as many of the local shelters that they support in the guise of animal welfare groups.

  These organizations:

Advocate pure veganism

Object to any form of companion animal in principle and any planned breeding of companion animals in practice

Seek to outlaw all forms of medical research requiring any type of animal other than human

Seek to outlaw any form of medicine requiring animal inputs, such as natural forms of insulin

Seek to outlaw the use of any form of animal skin for use in clothing or other manufacturing

Oppose any form of animal cruelty

The one goal they both share is the ending of animal cruelty.

Where the true difference lies is in the definition of cruelty. To the animal rights activist, the 20,000 years we have shared with dogs as companions, cooperative hunters, and fellow herdsmen is a form of slavery and cruelty rather than a beneficial relationship for both species.

Know the facts before you donate to an organization.

For more info: Vist the AVMA.com and the Animal Welfare Council .

This ad done by the opposition was in extremely poor taste!!! I wanted to cry when I saw the ad….. They used a obvious pet quality collie to make a point. This dog was probably the love of someones life…. that brought love, joy and happiness to his or her family. Shame on you whoever did this ad and threw the pet dogs under the bus just to make your point.

There are pet quality collies is EVERY color!!!!!

I was not able to copy and paste the ad it just went straight to the SRC booklet.

So here is the link  Poor, Poor classless ad done by the "concerned"

July 5, 2009

Dear Tom, Bob and SRC;

It has been 7 days since the Sable Merle Advocates for Change submitted a list of questions to the Standard Review Committee and our CCA President. These were not just our questions, but questions from those opposed to the change as well. Emotions are passionate on both sides. As yet, we have not received your reply. We are hoping that you are not ignoring this large group of CCA members by not responding. We truly want the answers.

We have heard comments that you feel our questions are too involved, or too long — but we do not feel that they are any more involved than the ones that the SRC sent out to the mentors. We have however, simplified the questions below.

Tom has answered some of our questions, when they were asked by one of our peers, who happens to be opposed to a change in the standard. This has left us wondering why you and Bob can't extend the same courtesy to us.

When the SRC was formed, Bob Futh wrote:

“When they have completed their review, it will be brought before the entire membership for continued discussion, and we can move on from there.”

And then later, we heard from Tom:

”Rational, intelligent discussion rather than emotional polarization is our choice of how to proceed."

Lastly, Tom wrote:

“The reason that we are using the Tellers Committee is because of the current atmosphere of distrust in this club.”

It is our feeling that perhaps an “intelligent, continued discussion” and answers to our list of questions would help to dispel that “distrust."

Questions to which we still request answers are these:

1. Is the survey/poll document considered an "official CCA ballot?"

2. If the answer to # 1 is yes, then was there a special meeting called using one of the 4 means required by CCA by-laws allowing the SRC to call for an official vote? The purpose of the SRC was originally to "survey" members.

3. Is the survey/poll intended to supersede the "one statement, yes or no ballot" – deadline July 8?

4. Will the Teller's Committee count the "yes" & "no" votes on all poll questions, and will the TC tabulate all the answers to the survey?

5. Usually, the TC keeps everything for a specified period and then disposes of it in keeping with a secret ballot and CCA bylaws, so will they follow this procedure with your document?

6. What is the purpose of the signature on the document?

7. How will the information in the survey/poll be used and presented and by whom will it be used and presented?

8. Do we understand correctly that the survey portion of the survey/poll previously collected by Tom has been counted by the SRC?

9. If the answer to #8 is yes, do those who turned it all in previously need to fill out the poll only for the Teller's Committee?

10. What has happened to the survey/poll sheets that were filled out and mailed or turned in by members earlier at the national and elsewhere? Who has these documents?

So that you understand that we are "worthy" of answers, we would like to share. Eight of us compiled and proofed the questions sent to you on behalf of an e-group with approximately 150 members. Of the 8 drafters, 6 of us have 20 to 40 years experience as collie fanciers/exhibitors/breeders/CCA members. We are lawyers, teachers, executives, and business owners. We are not "uneducated beginners." We are dedicated to the collie and its future, do not like being ignored, and would appreciate answers to our questions.

Respectfully,
Candi Sapp