With a little help from my friends, a few questions that are demanding to be answered.
What “Supporting” Role Did Patti Strand Play in the Drafting of the APHIS Rule?
I believe that the ALL/AKC Breeders and the Leadership within AKC should ask Patti Strand to answer the following 20 questions with respect to the conversations and communications that she had with Dr. Rushin “before” and “after” the Proposed APHIS Rule was published last year, as well as why she believes that the APHIS Final Rule should not be opposed:
- How long have you known Dr. Rushin?
- How many times has Dr. Rushin, on his own initiative, contacted you and asked for your advice or information on any breeder related topic.
- How many times did you discuss, either by phone or E-Mail, with Dr. Rushin any breeder-related issue before the APHIS Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register?
- Did you discuss with Dr. Rushin the need to increase the number of breed intact females from 3 to 4 “before” the APHIS Proposed Rule was published?
- During the time that you Chaired the AKC High Volume Breeders Committee, while serving as an AKC Board Member, did you ever suggest to anyone that the Animal Welfare Act needed to be Amended, or that APHIS needed to expand the coverage of its Regulation through the rule-making process?
- In 2006, Mr. Ron Menaker, the then Chairman of the AKC, sat next to Mr. Wayne Pacelle and testified in support of the PAWS Bill that would have amended the Animal Welfare Act. As an AKC Board Member at the time, did you support the decision of the AKC to support the PAWS Bill, which Bill the HSUS Lobbied intensively in its efforts to persuade Congress to enact?
- On reflection, especially since the HSUS stated earlier this year that the AKC was “joined at the hip” with the “PMs,” do you believe that the AKC may have unwittingly been duped in 2006 to support the PAWS Bill that was orchestrated by the HSUS?
- Why did you state on September 24, 2012: “We generally oppose bad laws and regulations completely but not in the case of the proposed APHIS regulations.” (emphasis mine)
- Since Ms. Sarah L. Conant, the former HSUS Litigation Attorney, will be a key APHIS employee who will be making “case-by-case” decisions as to whether 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders are in compliance with the APHIS Final Rule, what “practical” and “realistic” assurances do AKC Hobby Breeders have that they will not be presumed to be in non-compliance with the APHIS Rule, and will not be required to incur the stress and expense of defending their assertions that they fall within an “exception.”
- Will NAIA provide the necessary financial resources to the 1,000s of AKC Breeders who relied upon “assurances” that the APHIS Rule will not affect the overwhelming majority of AKC Hobby Breeders?
- If NAIA does not have the financial wherewithal to provide the financial resources to AKC Hobby Breeders, will you, as a former AKC Board Member, urge the AKC Leadership to finance the defense of potentially 1,000s of AKC Breeders who relied upon the AKC assurances and your assurances that there was basically no reason for the overwhelming majority of AKC Breeders to worry about being swept under the coverage of the APHIS Rule and being required to defend themselves against any and all allegations that they are not in compliance with the APHIS Rule?
- What assurances do AKC Hobby Breeders have that once the APHIS Rule becomes effective on November 18, 2013, the HSUS will not step up pressure on the USDA to aggressively challenge the assertions of AKC Hobby Breeders who claim to fall within an “exception” in the APHIS Rule.
- Why do you believe that the HSUS will not use the Legal Court System to attempt to obtain information about every AKC Hobby Breeder so that it may orchestrate its “time-tested” blueprint for “raids” on AKC Hobby Breeders, in much the same fashion that it has orchestrated “raids” on USDA Licensed Breeders?
- Do you not believe that the HSUS has not already downloaded information from the “Classified” link on the AKC Website that identifies AKC Hobby Breeders who have used this form of “Internet” advertisement for selling their AKC Registered Puppies?
- Do you believe that the HSUS will drop its on-going efforts to push for passage of the PUPS Bill if the APHIS Rule is not challenged in Court by the AKC?
- If so, why, especially since the HSUS has been aggressively attempting to persuade Congress to amend the Animal Welfare Act each and every year since 2004 when Mr. Pacelle became President and CEO of the HSUS, and because he and the HSUS have used “puppies” as its primary fund raising tool that generated over One Billion Dollars in donations to the HSUS?
- If it turns out that 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders are subjected to the “scrutiny” of APHIS, the HSUS and other Radicals, and their lives are turned into a Living Hell as a result of “unexpected consequences” of the APHIS Rule, what will be the “after the fact” explanation that NAIA and the AKC will provide as to why they did not attempt to block the APHIS Rule by seeking an Injunction?
- Why did Mr. Julian Prager, your legal advisor to NAIA, state that the AKC did not have legal standing to seek an injunction on behalf of AKC Hobby Breeders when the AKC 2011 Tax Return shows that the AKC received over $28 Million in Revenue from AKC Registrations (“financial interest” for “legal standing”), which amount would not have occurred were it not for the 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders who will be adversely and financially affected by the APHIS Rule?
- Does NAIA and Mr. Prager believe that $28 Million is an insignificant amount of money?
- Since the HSUS has already declared that the AKC is “joined at the hip” with the “PMs,” why does NAIA view the APHIS Rule in the “BEST CASE” Scenario, as opposed to the “WORST CASE” Scenario?