This is a placeholder text
Group text
by missbeeb on 18 November 2009 - 09:11
I suspect the KC (and a few others) would love the meeting to end up as a free for all slanging match. Please, please, please... don't let this happen, don't give them what they're trying to incite. Again, I say... let THEM take the blame for it does truely lie at their door, not ours! Let THEM worry about how many breeds may follow in our footsteps if they refuse to see the light. They should worry, for it is already being talked about in three other breeds that I know of!
Let's show them how united we can be, this is for OUR breed and it's vital, that as many people as possible complete the questionnaire; never mind if you don't entirely agree on the content... everyone has to have a chance to "voice" their opinion. Having the majority and being able to prove it, may be very important. There's plenty of time for all other issues in the near future.
by paulie on 18 November 2009 - 10:11
I agree with missbeeb in her statement that the blame lies at the feet of the KC, the only sticking point in my opinion is that maybe the questionaire needs updating with some pertinent questions, eg. should we still remain in dialogue with the KC after the statement issued to the Dog Press, should we elect at this meeting a body of people to oversee the GSDP, ( call it a working party if you like ) because unfortunately the people who sit on the Partnership seem to be answerable to nobody, the phrase De Facto springs to mind, and lastly it should be understood that we are not attending this meeting to squabble amongst ourselves, because that can be seen here on this board in all it's Gory Glory.
Let us for once speak as one and then maybe, just maybe, we will be taken seriously.
Regards.
Paul Rattigan.
Let us for once speak as one and then maybe, just maybe, we will be taken seriously.
Regards.
Paul Rattigan.
by peterlee on 18 November 2009 - 10:11
Look, of course unity is what we want. And of course we do not want this meeting to descend into a slanging match. But the basic question (which does not appear on this questionnaire) is how we should respond to the KC.
If the KC say, ‘We are concerned about unsoundness in the breed’, does it really make any sense for Sue to answer a questionnaire for them saying, ‘Yes, I agree there is an unsoundness problem developing in the breed’. Can you imagine what the KC will make of that? Look at the use to which they are putting Reinhardt Meyer’s remarks.
No, this debate should NOT be on the KC’s terms. What we really want to know is what the GSD community thinks the response to the KC should be. And that is not going to be established by ticking boxes prepared for us by the KC.
If the KC say, ‘We are concerned about unsoundness in the breed’, does it really make any sense for Sue to answer a questionnaire for them saying, ‘Yes, I agree there is an unsoundness problem developing in the breed’. Can you imagine what the KC will make of that? Look at the use to which they are putting Reinhardt Meyer’s remarks.
No, this debate should NOT be on the KC’s terms. What we really want to know is what the GSD community thinks the response to the KC should be. And that is not going to be established by ticking boxes prepared for us by the KC.
by Blerio on 18 November 2009 - 10:11
Hi Sue, I think there is confusion about some of the issues being debated here, If the K.C. and the partnership on the 18th agreed about unsoundness and it's in the minutes, and both parties are now disagreeing on the content of those minutes, thats confusion! Sue, I didn't suggest there was no unsoundness in the breed, the point I made was, If the partnership and the K.C. have both agreed at the meeting on the 18th, about an element of unsoundness in the breed, and supported by top SV judges. why does that section need to be debated or voted on in the questionnaire. The K.C. have used Reinhardt Meyer as head breed warden to support their argument about unsoundness. Why is Herr Meyer promoting dogs to sieger positions that are responsible for the faults that are under discussion. Maybe his after sieger statement should be taken as, "do as I say, not as I do". Sue, what you put on you're Questionnaire sheet is you're business not anyone else's, you stated you were not advocating which way anyone should vote! but in you're reply to Paulie you stated, "Though I strongly advocate you tick the "YES" box for question 2. You're words Sue, You may be clear in you're mind on the direction you want to go, but not everyone has you're clear vision and single mindedness. Sue if you have known about the K.C. statement prior to it being aired on here by Nixtev, Why did you feel it couldn't be shared with everyone on this thread. regards Bill Owen.
by missbeeb on 18 November 2009 - 10:11
We must be seen to be reasonable... at all times! Any deviation may allow the KC to portray us in such a way, as to make it difficult to be taken seriously by the rest of the dog world... the effects could be very far reaching indeed; don't under estimate the power and the potential spite of the KC! If we "go" they are unlikely to make life too easy because they will not want other breeds following our example.
At the moment, the KC is our governing body, therefore, we must be seen to be able to work with our governing body... until THEY make it impossible, until THEY close the doors.
by paulie on 18 November 2009 - 10:11
Peterlee, just a brief note going off on a tangent, but dont you think it's a bit rich of Meyer to be commenting on unsoundness in our breed, when he is primarily responsible for the accentuation of the unsoundness debate. by promoting Vegas, when a Blind man on a galloping Horse can see the excessive angulation and unsoundness in quite a high proportion of his progeny.
Regard Paul.
Regard Paul.
by Videx on 18 November 2009 - 10:11
The way the questionnaire is worded, could, in my opinion, give the KC a huge propaganda victory.
I can see the headlines:
"HUGE MAJORITY IN GSD BREED AGREE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH UNSOUNDNESS"
Jemima & Kennel Club proved right!
instead of:
A HUGE MAJORITY IN GSD BREED REJECT ANY ASSERTION
THAT UNSOUNDNESS IN THE GSD BREED IS A BIG PROBLEM.
IT OCCURS OCCASIONALLY AND IS PENALISED BY JUDGES
SOUNDNESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF JUDGING GSD
GSD BREED AGREE ANNUAL JUDGES SEMINAR
TO HIGHLIGHT ASPECTS OF THE GSD WHICH REQUIRE ATTENTION
BY BREEDERS & EXHIBITORS
GSD BREED ALSO AGREE ANNUAL BREEDERS SEMINAR
TO FOLLOW THE JUDGES SEMINAR
THE COMMENT BY REINHARDT MEYER ON SIZE AND UNSOUNDNESS
WAS PART OF A SIMILAR PROCESS IN GERMANY
A PROCESS WHICH HAS EXISTED FOR MANY YEARS
I can see the headlines:
"HUGE MAJORITY IN GSD BREED AGREE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH UNSOUNDNESS"
Jemima & Kennel Club proved right!
instead of:
A HUGE MAJORITY IN GSD BREED REJECT ANY ASSERTION
THAT UNSOUNDNESS IN THE GSD BREED IS A BIG PROBLEM.
IT OCCURS OCCASIONALLY AND IS PENALISED BY JUDGES
SOUNDNESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF JUDGING GSD
GSD BREED AGREE ANNUAL JUDGES SEMINAR
TO HIGHLIGHT ASPECTS OF THE GSD WHICH REQUIRE ATTENTION
BY BREEDERS & EXHIBITORS
GSD BREED ALSO AGREE ANNUAL BREEDERS SEMINAR
TO FOLLOW THE JUDGES SEMINAR
THE COMMENT BY REINHARDT MEYER ON SIZE AND UNSOUNDNESS
WAS PART OF A SIMILAR PROCESS IN GERMANY
A PROCESS WHICH HAS EXISTED FOR MANY YEARS
by Blerio on 18 November 2009 - 10:11
Totally agree with peterlee, when this meeting is over and some constructive way forward is established and the K.C. and our breed have agreed what is wrong and right. The K.C.will bounce it back clearly into the breeds court and say, "So what are you going to do about it" Those are the kind of questions that need some thought, discussion, and solutions. Remember, The K.C. is a private club and we play by their rules. If you don't like it tough! That are the undertones in their statement to the dog press. Bill Owen
by Videx on 18 November 2009 - 10:11
Paul: You surprise me. ALL males have faults which they may produce in some of their litters.
You do NOT reject an outstanding male just because it is over- angulated, when in almost every other area it is simply OUTSTANDING.
If that was the case, Vegas would never have been used. They produce some unsound offspring, and they also produce some who are not unsound. Breeding is an ongoing process, and the owners of the females choose the male stud, NOT Meyer! Some breeders will take a chance with their female, perhaps a female who is also over-angulated, and possibly unsound. These facts of life result is ongoing vigilance and ongoing adjustments. ongoing, ongoing, ongoing etc etc.
Of course Meyer recognises the current conformation issues which require attention, and he also recognises the excellent qualities that can be obtained from certain males, as well as the aspects which will require attention if they are transmitted to some of his progeny, by the sire or the dam, or both. An ongoing process of 'human assessment and human selection'
You do NOT reject an outstanding male just because it is over- angulated, when in almost every other area it is simply OUTSTANDING.
If that was the case, Vegas would never have been used. They produce some unsound offspring, and they also produce some who are not unsound. Breeding is an ongoing process, and the owners of the females choose the male stud, NOT Meyer! Some breeders will take a chance with their female, perhaps a female who is also over-angulated, and possibly unsound. These facts of life result is ongoing vigilance and ongoing adjustments. ongoing, ongoing, ongoing etc etc.
Of course Meyer recognises the current conformation issues which require attention, and he also recognises the excellent qualities that can be obtained from certain males, as well as the aspects which will require attention if they are transmitted to some of his progeny, by the sire or the dam, or both. An ongoing process of 'human assessment and human selection'
by missbeeb on 18 November 2009 - 11:11
I'm not certain that the KC will have sight of the questionnaires, but it cannot be news that there is unsoundness in our breed. it is NOT a health issue though, which is what they've called it and I think the questionnaire allows you to be pretty clear on that.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
