This is a placeholder text
Group text
by bazza on 06 April 2010 - 09:04
Patience is a virtue!!!
by Videx on 06 April 2010 - 09:04
The KC and their supporters are FEARFUL of what we are developing, and they want to end it before it blossoms and shows itself to everyone in Great Britain.
They are very frightened for their own wholly inadequate and deceptive health & welfare system for pedigree dogs.
A system which provides a "comfort zone" for far too many unscrupulous breeders.
They are very frightened for their own wholly inadequate and deceptive health & welfare system for pedigree dogs.
A system which provides a "comfort zone" for far too many unscrupulous breeders.
by jaymesie51 on 06 April 2010 - 09:04
Dingodog if as you say you do understand then i sugest you change your wording you see using the word breakaway will make people think that that is what the non signing clubs have done so you see you are miss leading people there are people who read these threads that will now think because of your wording that these clubs and members have broken away from the KC which as i have pointed out is not the case (or maybe that is what you want people to think)
jim h
jim h
by Sue B on 06 April 2010 - 10:04
Lets clear up this misunderstanding once and for all.
West Yorkshire GSD is one of the Clubs which did not sign the KC Undertaking, refusing to sign does not mean it has broken away from the Kennel Club, all it means is that it will no longer be holding CC Shows. This was the Punishment dished out by the KC for not signing.
We DID NOT SIGN because Item 9 of the undertaking was an attempt by the KC to restrict our GOD given Human Rights to FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Now the KC say this was not so, they only wanted us to ASK them, but to my mind, those of WYGSD Committee, our Members and many others in our breed, IF YOU NEED TO ASK, THEN THAT MEANS THE ANSWERE COULD BE NO - and we did not want to be put into a position where we put CC's before the Health of our breed and surely running a WUSV type show where Mandatory Health checks are required is more meaningful for the Health of the Breed than gaining a CC.
Personally I find it very sad. I find it sad that the KC have still not replied or addressed the suggested Two Tier Registration system which of the Accredited GSD Scheme that was so painstakingly adapted to be incorporated within the KC ABS.
I find it sad that the KC so quickly appeared to stamp its feet on the floor like some spoilt child by suspending ongoing negotiations / talks with the GSDP a body mandated by all the Clubs to speak on our behalf.
I find it sad that the KC choose to ignore further letters from them and to introduce this Undertaking without even previous discussion on it.
I find it sad that the KC continue to make Public statements , one of which accuses the GSDL's decision to hold a WUSV Event in April (without KC permission) to be the reason for them inserting Item9 into the Undertaking in the first place. I find this sad that the KC choose to threaten to punish all clubs instead of requesting talks with the Club it apparently had the beef with.
CONTINUED BELOW
by Sue B on 06 April 2010 - 10:04
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
I find all types of Bully Boy tactics offensive and unacceptable, I also find them childish, of playground proportions and also note that those who use them do so when feeling threatened and are more often the ones in danger of losing the plot.
In my professional career I had to work with all kinds of people, both reasonable and unreasonable, those who listen and those who only wish to dictate, those who share their ideas to be developed and those who selfishly protect them and by doing so restrict them from ever being developed into the best they could be, something to suit everyone etc.
WYGSD will continue to pay its KC registration for as long as the KC dont take their bat and ball home and refuse it. We would love to continue working and talking with the KC, but the KC themselves have made it perfectly plain that the ONLY Clubs it is prepared to talk to are the ones who will always SAY YES!! We felt that was too high a price to pay so we (via the BC) put a compromise to them, remove Item 9 and we will sign, but the KC as sadly is often the case, are oblivious to the meaning of the word compromise, thus we all find ourselves where we are today.
I am optimistic for the future, yes there are lots to do and more importantly it will take many willing minds and hands to contnuing to make it work and take the breed, breeders, owners and exhibitors forward. How this is done remains to be seen, as you say Dingodog many like you will be watching and waiting, some perhaps hoping it will fail, others praying it will succeed. One thing I know for sure, only by embracing everybody will it work, if we wanted a dictatorship we might ust have well have signed up and kept our CC;s.
Regards
Sue b
I find all types of Bully Boy tactics offensive and unacceptable, I also find them childish, of playground proportions and also note that those who use them do so when feeling threatened and are more often the ones in danger of losing the plot.
In my professional career I had to work with all kinds of people, both reasonable and unreasonable, those who listen and those who only wish to dictate, those who share their ideas to be developed and those who selfishly protect them and by doing so restrict them from ever being developed into the best they could be, something to suit everyone etc.
WYGSD will continue to pay its KC registration for as long as the KC dont take their bat and ball home and refuse it. We would love to continue working and talking with the KC, but the KC themselves have made it perfectly plain that the ONLY Clubs it is prepared to talk to are the ones who will always SAY YES!! We felt that was too high a price to pay so we (via the BC) put a compromise to them, remove Item 9 and we will sign, but the KC as sadly is often the case, are oblivious to the meaning of the word compromise, thus we all find ourselves where we are today.
I am optimistic for the future, yes there are lots to do and more importantly it will take many willing minds and hands to contnuing to make it work and take the breed, breeders, owners and exhibitors forward. How this is done remains to be seen, as you say Dingodog many like you will be watching and waiting, some perhaps hoping it will fail, others praying it will succeed. One thing I know for sure, only by embracing everybody will it work, if we wanted a dictatorship we might ust have well have signed up and kept our CC;s.
Regards
Sue b
by Zac on 06 April 2010 - 14:04
David wrote: Zac (anonymous) would write a first paragraph like that - which CANNOT be verified. One thing about Zac which is clear - he/she is an ABS member. (puppy sales spring to mind)
I hope everything isnt so clear to you David or we are in REAL trouble! there is NO WAY I am an ABS member.
I hope everything isnt so clear to you David or we are in REAL trouble! there is NO WAY I am an ABS member.
by Dingodog on 06 April 2010 - 17:04
SueB
A good explanation.
Those who wish to dictate - it seems to me that that was the GSD breeds approach in it's dialogue with the KC - wanting to dictate to the KC, and that's where it all started to go wrong. Just MY perception. It seems as though the KC lost patience, and thus any opportunity of compromise was lost.
Regarding the WUSV event, it was always the case that the KC gave permission for non-kc events. This has always been the case, and to my knowledge every request has always been granted. If it hasn't been a problem historically - what has changed? Come to that the accredited breeder scheme has been in place for a long time, but aside from a few comments about is ineffectiveness, no-one seemed to want to go off and go for mandatory health testing - until now, but the opportunity has always been there.
If the whole negotiation hadn't gone pear shaped, I think there would have been a future for the GSD Accredited Breeder Scheme within the KC. But, dictating again, the breed wanted the KC to accept this before any other agreement was reached, not least acceptance that there was unsoundness in the breed.
Signed or not signed is I think somewhat irrelevant. Certain 'nuts' on this board think that anyone who puts forward an opinion wants the 'non-signers' to fail. You I think in the role you had in your professional career can see it differently, no-one in their right mind ever rules out a point of view. I don't want either 'side' to fail. I just see it as two paths to try and make the GSD the best it can be, but to me that does not only consist of mandatory health tests, that is but a part of it.
As I've said before, it should not be beyond the wit or wealth of the KC to at least ensure that animals competing in KC shows should be required to show evidence of satisfactory health testing, a very simple method for that can be brought in - literally overnight quite easily. Mandatory health testing for registration purposes, well I think it should be brought in by the KC, but I know others think that there are genetic implications to that. I don't know what the answer is to that, as I do find genetics horribly convoluted, so wouldn't presume to comment.
Jaymesie 51 - I accept that my wording is not accurate (just the way I think of the situation in MY head), why would it be what I want people to think? Is there some advantage in that? I will now not refer to it that way again. It was a fair comment.
Zac
David thinks anyone who disagrees with him is an accredited breeder, a scared member of the KC, an alsatianist, an animal rights activist, an alien from mars, a troll, an ignoramus, a hippo in a hula skirt, a siren etc. etc I haven't seen the whole list yet but it's really very scary don't you think?
A good explanation.
Those who wish to dictate - it seems to me that that was the GSD breeds approach in it's dialogue with the KC - wanting to dictate to the KC, and that's where it all started to go wrong. Just MY perception. It seems as though the KC lost patience, and thus any opportunity of compromise was lost.
Regarding the WUSV event, it was always the case that the KC gave permission for non-kc events. This has always been the case, and to my knowledge every request has always been granted. If it hasn't been a problem historically - what has changed? Come to that the accredited breeder scheme has been in place for a long time, but aside from a few comments about is ineffectiveness, no-one seemed to want to go off and go for mandatory health testing - until now, but the opportunity has always been there.
If the whole negotiation hadn't gone pear shaped, I think there would have been a future for the GSD Accredited Breeder Scheme within the KC. But, dictating again, the breed wanted the KC to accept this before any other agreement was reached, not least acceptance that there was unsoundness in the breed.
Signed or not signed is I think somewhat irrelevant. Certain 'nuts' on this board think that anyone who puts forward an opinion wants the 'non-signers' to fail. You I think in the role you had in your professional career can see it differently, no-one in their right mind ever rules out a point of view. I don't want either 'side' to fail. I just see it as two paths to try and make the GSD the best it can be, but to me that does not only consist of mandatory health tests, that is but a part of it.
As I've said before, it should not be beyond the wit or wealth of the KC to at least ensure that animals competing in KC shows should be required to show evidence of satisfactory health testing, a very simple method for that can be brought in - literally overnight quite easily. Mandatory health testing for registration purposes, well I think it should be brought in by the KC, but I know others think that there are genetic implications to that. I don't know what the answer is to that, as I do find genetics horribly convoluted, so wouldn't presume to comment.
Jaymesie 51 - I accept that my wording is not accurate (just the way I think of the situation in MY head), why would it be what I want people to think? Is there some advantage in that? I will now not refer to it that way again. It was a fair comment.
Zac
David thinks anyone who disagrees with him is an accredited breeder, a scared member of the KC, an alsatianist, an animal rights activist, an alien from mars, a troll, an ignoramus, a hippo in a hula skirt, a siren etc. etc I haven't seen the whole list yet but it's really very scary don't you think?
by Alyson R on 06 April 2010 - 17:04
For those who are interested in the KC viewpoint on health testing for the show ring - I suggest you read the letter sent to the League in response to their notification that they would not be signing the Undertaking. Note particularly the comments on Point 6. I was lost for words when I read it. Especially as the KC do not set limits on hip and elbow scoring as a condition of their ABS.
http://www.gsdleague.co.uk/Response%20from%20the%20KC.doc
So if it is not required for the show ring and if specific parameters are not set for the ABS - where does the KC set their standards for Health Testing?
Or am I being particularly dense?
http://www.gsdleague.co.uk/Response%20from%20the%20KC.doc
So if it is not required for the show ring and if specific parameters are not set for the ABS - where does the KC set their standards for Health Testing?
Or am I being particularly dense?
by missbeeb on 06 April 2010 - 17:04
Yup... what the eye doesn't see, the KC doesn't grieve over, I guess.
by Sue B on 06 April 2010 - 18:04
Alyson, no visible density in you, indeed you are being particulary astute in pointing out this item 6 !! Any co-incidence its an upsidedown 9 I wonder? lol
Missbeeb, It couldnt have being put more perfectly !!!
Dingodog, I hear what you are saying and much of what you say makes sense and is acceptable and could definately have been worked upon. The only place we seem to be at some dissagreement is where sadly, throughout your post you seemed to be implying that it was the GSDP not the KC that was not prepared to compromise and that couldnt be further from the truth. Indeed, it you read your own post again you will see that the GSDP asked for this and the KC said no, then they asked for that and the KC lost patience, where exactly did the KC ever give or offer any form of compromise, which the GSDP refused? Or have I missed something?
Best Regards
Sue b
Missbeeb, It couldnt have being put more perfectly !!!
Dingodog, I hear what you are saying and much of what you say makes sense and is acceptable and could definately have been worked upon. The only place we seem to be at some dissagreement is where sadly, throughout your post you seemed to be implying that it was the GSDP not the KC that was not prepared to compromise and that couldnt be further from the truth. Indeed, it you read your own post again you will see that the GSDP asked for this and the KC said no, then they asked for that and the KC lost patience, where exactly did the KC ever give or offer any form of compromise, which the GSDP refused? Or have I missed something?
Best Regards
Sue b
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
