GSD FCI and AKC Breed Standard Comparison Chart - Page 2

 I would also point out that there are many dogs, including those from working lines, that do not really meet the standard. We can, for example, look at all the dogs from working lines who have such a long back. This cannot be a good thing, especially when the dogs are doing really hard work sports like Schutzhund where long bites often result in significant torque to the body of the dog. Improper angulation is also a common fault, not only of show lines. Lack of pigment is common too in working bloodlines. I have both and appreciate what each dog brings to the table. The point Rik makes above is also excellent that there are problems everywhere, including in all bloodlines, and all countries. I agree with him that the difference in the standard really is, as I said above, the judging. Just as one home plate ump may call a strike a ball when another might call the same pitch a ball in the first place, because there is no computer measuring parameters, there is always the human element involved. That may not be all bad, if people honor the sacred trust they have taken. But many don't give a damn about this and that includes some/all of the organizations involved.

If WDA's official position is there is no difference between the standards, it's simply a difference in "interpretation", no wonder USA sees being a member of such an organization a conflict of interest.   Unbelievable.  Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. 

Conflict of interest is not being used correctly. It is not about what you beleive in as opposed to another person or club. It is a legal term the IRS uses regarding officers, directors or trustees in a 501 C corporation.  It speaks to officers, directors or trustees (NOT MEMBERS) or people of substancial authority. 

From the IRS page http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=139515,00.html   :

Form 1023: Purpose of Conflict of Interest Policy

What is the purpose of the conflict of interest policy?

Charitable organizations are frequently subject to intense public scrutiny, especially where they appear to have inappropriately benefited their officers, directors, or trustees. The IRS also has an oversight role with respect to charitable organizations. An important part of this oversight is providing organizations with strategies that will help avoid the appearance or actuality of private benefit to individuals who are in a position of substantial authority. The recommended conflict of interest policy is a strategy we encourage organizations to adopt as a means to establish procedures that will offer protection against charges of impropriety involving officers, directors, or trustees.

A conflict of interest occurs where individuals’ obligation to further the organization’s charitable purposes is at odds with their own financial interests. For example, a conflict of interest would occur where an officer, director, or trustee votes on a contract between the organization and a business that is owned by the officer, director or trustee. Conflicts of interest frequently arise when setting compensation or benefits for officers, directors, or trustees. A conflict of interest policy is intended to help ensure that when actual or potential conflicts of interest arise, the organization has a process in place under which the affected individual will advise the governing body about all the relevant facts concerning the situation. A conflict of interest policy is also intended to establish procedures under which individuals who have a conflict of interest will be excused from voting on such matters.

Apart from any appearance of impropriety, organizations will lose their tax-exempt status unless they operate in a manner consistent with their charitable purposes. Serving private interests more than insubstantially is inconsistent with accomplishing charitable purposes. For example, paying an individual who is in a position of substantial authority excessive compensation serves a private interest. Providing facilities, goods, or services to an individual who is in a position of substantial authority also serves a private interest unless the benefits are part of a reasonable compensation arrangement or they are available to the public on equal terms and conditions.

1. Conflict of Interest - Any relationship that is or appears to be not in the best interest of the organization. A conflict of interest would prejudice an individual’s ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities objectively.

Rationalizing and justifying what the Am Line AKC GSDCA has done to the breed and the standard is most definitely not in the best interest of the GSD - but since WDA is now in bed with them I guess that's exactly what you are doing. 

The 5 things I pointed out are indeed different in each standard.  Again, rationalizing and minimizing might suit the new purposes of WDA with GSDCA, but it most certainly is not in the best interest of the breed.   To even speak of working line dogs in the same breath as American Show Lines is well, at best reaching.

To even speak of working line dogs in the same breath as American Show Lines is well, at best reaching.
How?  You can't tell me that all the working line dogs are correct and all the show are not.  There's incorrectness in all the lines.

I never said all working line dogs are correct  but as a whole  they are a damn sight closer to the FCI standard than the American Show Shepherd, which of course makes sense, since the ASS has a different standard.    The GSD is a WORKING dog, not a trot around the ring dog.  The fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of GSDCA members don't give a damn about working ability or the SV standard.  If they did, their dogs wouldn't be the god awful messes that they are.   If some of you feel the need to rationalize the fact that  your new best friends  have destroyed the breed in this country that's fine, just don't expect everyone else to drink the same koolaid.

I honestly do not know why people feel so threatened by GSDCA - sure, I don't particulary like the dogs.  But everyone has a right to what they want.  There are plenty of different styles of GSD's around - GSDCA has never said you can only belong to them and can only have their type of dog - just think if GSDCA had taken the way of USA - telling you that you cannot belong to another organization and you were stuck with their way of seeing a dog which is absolutely CONTRA  to the AKC Standard which, if you read critically, is just different wording and says the same thing as the FCI - again that's where it came from, just an earlier version.  Not sure why that is so hard to grasp other than fury clouds the eyes - all that people see to see is the dog rather than than the standard.  Its two seperate things.  Again, GSDCA is not breeding to their own standard.

No one has ruined any dogs except individuals.  No club has mandated my way or the highway on breeding dogs.  Until now no club did that until now.  Speaking of Koolaid.......

Sue, the USA is a 501 c corporation - the definition is what it is with the IRS, that is all they can funtion under and the statues of the State of Missouri.  A simplistic layman's dictionary definition is not how the phrase is being used and its a terribly misleading way of keeping members in the dark, betting no one has enough experience to understand the meaning of things.  No offense to anyone, but these are not the people I would put my legal affairs or investments in the hands of .  Its OK for a fun dog organization, but when they all start spouting of legalities and nobel causes and feel so threatened they have to try to kill any perceived competition - its just does not show in dog terms good temperament or stability. 

We have the freedom in the United States to breed good or bad as any individual sees fit.  I have not seen GSDCA or AKC and take you away in the night with your dogs or anyone else's because you did not breed like "they" did.  I don't see anyone else all that worried other than USA.  I for one know any day of the week I can go out and buy a good female and male or select a male, import them and have a nice litter.  That's the freedom we have.

But the purpose of the thread was to show that the both breed standards were essentially the same so that the sound byte of GSDCA & AKC does not go by FCI Standards really had no bearing on GSDCA's legitimacy to be in the WUSV which was the intent of the remarks by USA..  Fair is Fair.  Had it been the other way around, I would have posted the same for USA. 

USA, GSDCA and WDA are all doing what they have a right to do. their members have a right to do what they do.  You have the right to have any kind of dog you want - did someone force you to have what you perceive to be a typical GSDCA dog?  I think you have the kind of dog ou want.  So do I, so does everyone else on this board. That's the point we can choose and no one told us we can't.  and certainly no breed standard quoted in my poste ruined any dog.  If anything it should have made them look whole lot more alike.

The standards are not essentially same, as indicated by some of the differences I outliined above. It's simple really, GSDCA  by laws state:

"To urge members and breeders to except that Standard of the breed as approved by the American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which the German Shepherd Dog shall be judged."

In my opinion, AKC GSDCA and the fanciers who belong to it are responsible for the American Show Shepherd, the ruination of the American Lines of the GSD and the standard is indicative of the problem.  Obviously AKC GSDCA is very happy, proud even,  with the direction they have taken the breed.  Personally I can't belong to an organization I feel has done so much harm to this breed, nor would  I be comfortable aligning myself with an organization in bed with such a group.