German Shepherd Dog > THE GSD PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (98 replies)
by Videx on 18 November 2009 - 11:09
|"unsoundness NOT a health issue" - a very debatable statement.|
by missbeeb on 18 November 2009 - 11:11
Yeah... I guess it is, David... but you KNOW what I'm saying.
by petowner on 18 November 2009 - 11:20
Videx how can you say that unsoundness only occurs occasionally and is penalised by judges ????????.
That is not true Videx and you know it !, If that were true there would not be a problem . It's more like the opposite where soundness only occurs occasionally !!!!!!.
by peterlee on 18 November 2009 - 11:21
|What Reinhardt Meyer considers to be ‘unsoundness’ and what is ‘unsound’ with the breed here in the UK are worlds apart. Almost every day I see people walking GSDs that are crippled and have ghastly mobility problems. That is what the BBC raised and what started the current furore. Every breeder in the country knows why this is so. It is because any damned GSD can be registered with the KC and the breeding requirements of the KC are negligible. The public think they are getting some guarantee of quality with a ‘KC pedigree’ and they are not. That is the real ‘unsoundness’ with the breed here in the UK and we should not forget it. And it is directly attributable to the KC. |
Let us focus on what is relevant here. And that is how we RESPOND to the KC. Videx makes a valid point when he tells you what the KC headline will be if we answer this questionnaire as drafted.
by Videx on 18 November 2009 - 11:26
|petowner Simon (aka pencil) - I know what I wrote, and I am far from blind or silly.|
by Videx on 18 November 2009 - 11:33
|I reckon a clear majority of GSD are bred by breeders who never show their GSD, and who never hip score their GSD, and who never enter any debate about GSD, and will never respond the any Kennel Club diatribe.|
Now consider the minority within the GSD breed who do exhibit, and they are shrinking. How should the Kennel Club sort out health problems within our breed?
They should MAKE HEALTH SCREENING TESTS A REQUIREMENT FOR KENNEL CLUB REGISTRATION.
By failing or refusing to do this, they declare themselves "UNFIT FOR PEDIGREE DOG HEALTH ISSUES"
The KC currently "tinker around the periphery of health issues"
Therefore we must create our own SYSTEM - which will be much better than the Kennel Club's system.
by petowner on 18 November 2009 - 11:41
Videx I said you might be blind , I said the statement you wrote was silly !. The statement you wrote is not true !. I am only stating facts. By the way what does aka pencil mean please ?, is this some sort of insult that I am not familiar with ?.
by Videx on 18 November 2009 - 11:44
|petowner: You should carefully study what constitutes FACT.|
by missbeeb on 18 November 2009 - 11:44
|Great... here we go again with all the crapola. I guess some just can't get past their own little agendas... what a debt of thanks our breed owes to you!|
by paulie on 18 November 2009 - 11:48
|David, you know what i mean, i am the first to make allowances for slightly loose hocks,but we getting to the point with some animals, ( as Peterlee points out ) where it appears that the whole skeletal structure is changing, at this moment in time probably not enough to panic about, but never the less it needs addressing. Maybe this topic should be discussed elsewhere, but in a positive vein.|
by petowner on 18 November 2009 - 12:00
Videx you always sway off the subject. FACTS are what I and everybody see with their own eyes !.
by Sue B on 18 November 2009 - 12:03
|Missbeeb, thanks for the voice of reason.|
Bill, yes I agree, what I put on my questionaire is my business and by the same token it is my business to share with others or not as I see fit. As for what I said to Paulie and me trying to advocate which way people should vote, did you not notice the emicom that followed that sentance? For goodness sake it was a private nudge, nudge, wink, wink joke to Paulie and others, please try not to make more of it than was meant!!
Re your question why unsoundness needs to be included in the questionaire, once again because it was included in the KC letter dated 23rd July. Look, as Missbeeb pointed out, "We must be seen to be reasonable... at all times!" .
Look, on one hand you have Paulie asking, "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," whilst on the other you Bill are saying, "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?". It seems they just cant win, either they are accused of having too much power in making decisions for us or they are villified for actually putting all of the KC questions directly to us!! Who for goodness sake wants a seat on the GSDP?? Damned if you do and damned if you dont!!
Look, we might all think we know the answeres but first lets ask the questions so we can be certain we know the answeres then we can set about the solutions. Dont any of you realise how impossible it would be to prepared a questionaire designed to give the solutions? Even if you ask people for their idea;s there will be a hundred different ways people would suggest we proceed and that is what I suspect this meeting will begin to achieve. Once the KC questions are answered we have continued to show our reasonable decorum of trying to co-operate but if the answere to ALL THE QUESTIONS dont suit the KC (and I suspect the answere to the majority of the questions wont) then at least they (the KC) cannot accuse us of unco-operative and avoioding the issues raised by not answering the question. Yes it was easy to ask these questions but they needed to be asked in order for us ALL TO MOVE ON!!
Those who care, want to be counted and who have the future of the tbreeds best interests at heart will complete the questionaire (truthfully as they see fit) and then make every effort to be there on Saturday. This may be the first meeting of this type but I suspect the ideas for future initiatives that could/should come out from it will ensure that it is only the first of many more to come, until we mould the future of our beloved breed in the UK into something worthwhile for all involved, be it owner, breeder or show exhibitor.
See you there Bill , Paul , Peterlee (whoever you are) and Missbeeb hopefully.
PS Bill you asked why I didnt post the KC Statement on the board at first. That is because it was sent to me in confidence, before it appeared on the KC website. I do not break a confidence but as soon as it went onto the website I would have posted it, except I dont have the time to keep checking the KC website every minute of the day and then Nixtev beat me to it and kindly posted it for you.
by Sue B on 18 November 2009 - 12:52
|Peterlee, to my stick two fingers up comment you said, "Indeed, but the questionnaire as drafted is not designed with a view to answering that basic question." Dont you see that depending upon the answeres to the questions that could be exactly what the majority of us end up doing but not quite a cruedly ! The KC want us to address the issues they have raised as Health problems because these are the Health problems the KC are saying we have. If the majority of us dont agree ALL of them are problems then we can be considered as sticking two fingers up albeit in the politest possible way of course. |
by peterlee on 18 November 2009 - 12:54
|If, say, we were debating the European Union the question people would want to be asked would be, ‘Do you want to stay in the EU or not?’ They would not expect to be asked (or want to answer) a question such as, ‘What do you think about our balance of trade with France?’|
In this case the KC has decided not to award CCs to the German Shepherd in 2012. The question everyone wants answered is, ‘What are we going to do about that?’ That is the central issue and it is what people want to express their opinions on.
by Liebe on 18 November 2009 - 13:01
|Something I think many people have overlooked is that this breed has dogs that look very different - from the Germanic to the English and the Working lines. All these types are "German Shepherds" so even if you believe problems are not in your "type" are they in the other types?|
We have to remember that what ever we do now we are doing for the future of the breed and that is probably beyond our life times and I think the "me, me me" approach that we hear so often on the forum is the wrong approach.
Many people hark on to the old times etc., but look how much the breed has changed since the 50's and it will continue to change and evolve in the future. There is cries of the numbers of entries declining, why is that happening? do people have to the money to go to club, drive across the country etc. Training classes are further apart restricting people's ability to attend and this means that their dogs are not trained in the same manner and this affects their decision to attend shows.
People being belittled doesnt help. Its time to put personal one upman ship aside and remember why we love the breed.
by jaymesie51 on 18 November 2009 - 13:45
|Yes there is unsoundness in the hocks of some dogs shown but not all i see more sound dogs at shows than i see unsound ones so as yet it is not a problem but if not acted upon it will become one,and as the GSD breed recognise this and are now acting upon it NO PROBLEM, double handling is not a health problem so NO PROBLEM the topline of our breed is not a health issue so NO PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM is the KC they cannot or will not come out of the 19th centuary they are simply a money making machine and see the mandatory health testing of all pedigree dogs before registration of their offspring as a money loser that is what this is really about them losing money they could not care less about the health and wefare of our dogs as long as we keep paying them (because if they did they would have made all health tests mandatory years ago) Has anyone ever tried to work just how much the KC would lose if they could not register pups from untested parents i personally think it could be millions per year. If all breeds or most of them got together and demanded yes demanded mandatory health testing of parents before puppy registration the KC would not have a leg to stand on and if this was passed most puppy farms would disapear the unsound dogs you see walking with their owners would in time disapear because the puppy farms (or for money only breeders) would not be breeding the health and welfare of pedigree dogs in this country would improve no end.|
by Trotters123 on 18 November 2009 - 13:58
|I have to partially agree with Jamsie in that I think that all dogs used for breeding and KC registered should be mandatory health tested for whatever disorders are within their breed.|
However I do have to add that I do NOT think this will stop puppy farms one iota!
The reason is, most of them do NOT register their dogs anyway, their buyers do not really care, all they want is a cheap puppy bottom line regardless of health tests and registration.
Look at the Dog Lovers Association, they took ANYTHING, does one honestly believe for a minute that if the Kennel Club were to only register pups from health tested parents that some enterprising charlaten (sic) wouldn't start up some kind of similiar registration scheme to help aid sell puppies from unteste parents to puppy buyers who are unaware of the difference between said organisations!!!!
Wherever there are rules and regulations there are people who have the 'savy' to get round them and make a buck or two!
I would love to see only licensed experienced dog breeders being able to produce puppies with mandatory health testing for all registered stock. But this ain't going to happen - well at least not in my life time and it would certainly be a brave new world if ever.
Puppy buyers do not in general ask a lot of questions, they take it for granted certain things. They are the ones who need educated to only buy from breeders with health tested parents. Educate the public, teach them where NOT to buy whether or not the puppy is KC registered or not but make sure the parents ARE tested for the breed checks.
If we do not educate the public then puppy farms will go on and on and on regardless.
by Sue B on 18 November 2009 - 16:30
|Sorry Peterlee but I cant agree. I certainly wouldnt want such a direct question been asked in such a way on this questionaire. Say for example your suggestion of, "Do you want to leave the KC " was asked and got a majority NO reply, where would we go from there? At that point we might as well lay down and offer ourselves up to be the KC's doormat. |
Also, as far as the KC taking away our CC;s for 2012, that isnt what has happend yet, what has happened is that they have so far declined to allocate them. A fundamentally different scenario altogether and I will reiterate for the last and final time, it is for this reason and this reason alone that the GSDP have issued the Questionaire in the format it is in.
The KC asked us to reply to these percieved problems, I understand that if we reply to them the way they want us to then they will allocate CC;s to us for 2012, if we dont reply the way they want, then they will continue to withold allocation of the 2012 CC;c for as long as they can before been forced to announce that they have made their final decision to ISSUE THEM OR NOT ISSUE THEM as the case may be.
You might want and be quite happy to walk away from the KC show scene, so might I and a few others on this board, but there are more who are not contributers to this board than there are who do contribute to it and they too have a right to have their opinions and wishes count. There is time to talk about alternative schemes, in fact there is absolutely no reason why we cant talk about alternative schemes whilst still attending KC shows and taking it one step further still there is nothing to stop us applying alternative schemes and attending alternative shows whilst still registering with the KC and attending KC shows.
In other words this meeting should not be about whether we leave the KC or not, just whether we should start creating an alternative or not and if so how do we go about it. Thats the REAL QUESTION HERE and not one that would cut any mustard by putting it onto a questionaire due to the various alternatives. It requires discussion, voting then people prepared to stand up and be counted to actually DO SOME WORK ON ACHIEVING IT. Now theres where the REAL TEST COMES. Do I see your hand up Peterlee? Paulie? Bill? Jim? or anyone else who comes on here. Talk is cheap.
by missbeeb on 18 November 2009 - 16:58
My previous offer still stands, Sue.
by Blerio on 18 November 2009 - 17:47
|Hi Sue, Can't believe you're opening statement to peterlee, "Do you want to leave the K.C." as being such a direct question, and if you got a majority saying NO! you wouldn't know where to go! If that was to be a question, and No was the answer, you would have to accept the majority vote. Are you saying the voting public on these issue's are not capable of making a decision on their own, without being guided by questions put in a certain manner or way. You obviously hate the K.C. with a vengeance, and feel contempt for the voting public, who you feel must be saved from themselves. Personal agenda's and ambitions have been mentioned many times, I know you are very passionate about how you see things, but you must accept not everyone agrees with you're point of view. If this breed leaves the K.C. because they can't agree with the end result, they will be fragmented, and isolated, and will eventually dissolve. I don't think anyone wants that, no one wants to take up positions of authority, from the Breed Council, to club level. If that was the case Sheila Rankin would not still be secretary. Sue I don't think anyone knows what the answer is to resurrect the fortunes of this breed. maybe Its run it's race and may very well self destruct. regards Bill.|