This is a placeholder text
Group text
by patrick on 05 February 2009 - 22:02
by Sue B on 05 February 2009 - 23:02
When you actually compare the KC Standard we have all been happily using since 1982 , in itself a shortened version of the accepted WUSV / FCI Standard (as printed in the GSDL's Handbooks,( please see my notes on this above) ) there are very little differences at all. However as also previously stated, the agreed amendments to the shortened KC version as proposed and voted on by the Breed Clubs assembled together on Sat 24th Jan 09 have not yet been sent to the Kennel Club as they had to go to Mr Brian Wooton first so he could add one of his superb drawings as the blueprint and cast his professional eye over the agreed amendments (as proof reader as it were). I suggest the fact the KC have not yet recieved the Breed Clubs agreed version is the reason that the copy currently frequenting the KC website very plainly states Interim'.
When the KC finally recieve the Breed Clubs agreed amendments I am certain you will find ( providing the KC accept them all ad infinitum of course), that the Clubs agreed amendments to the KC Standard actually add more precise definitions (such as degree angles of pastern and croup) to the KC Shortened version of the WUSV standard than we have been working with for the past 20yrs.
In the meantime I advise everyone to print off the latest version shown on the KC website and compare it to the shortened version we have been happily using since 1982 and point out precisely which major deviations you are strongly objecting to and if it is something the Breed Clubs have already addressed and amended at their meeting on the 24th then this could all be a fuss about nothing.
I am just trying to put things into perspective here and find some assemblance of order to what could turn out to be a totally futile debate. There are many things we need to be fighting, but I seriously cannot see the problem here. If there is a problem with the KC Standard then it hasn't just materialised but has been with us since 1982 !!
Regards
Sue B
by Sue B on 05 February 2009 - 23:02
Regards
Sue
by Member on 05 February 2009 - 23:02
John
by paulie on 05 February 2009 - 23:02
Hi Sue.
I agree with you entirely regarding the standard being virtually the same as the 1982 version, unfortunately !!! according to some, the Dogs are not, and that Sue, is the crux of the matter, it's all about " interpretation" we all know that judging is subjective, what the KC will try to impose is to make it objective, make it impossible to disagree with a KC official, or a KC appointed Vet, anyone who has had to deal with a KC observer when judging will know what i mean, they can be very pedantic when giving you the KC, gospel.
I'm going to bed now, so goodnight.
Regards Paul.
by patrick on 06 February 2009 - 08:02
by reason on 06 February 2009 - 10:02
Patrick (Bill) your last post is relevant and one of the many reasons why i withhold my identity
Paulie (Paul) your last post crystalizes some concerns re the KC observers
Sue B your last post is accuarate and informative
BUT
We need to look at the fallout from the change in standard
POINT 1
Leading SV approved judge this year awards best dog and CC to a animal which he thinks is the best there on the day by comparision to the WUSV standard a standard which he MUST judge against
K C Observer/vet comes into the ring and says you cant do that it is not healthy as per the UK KC guidlines, Judge replies (in German) and will NOT change his decision.
K C retract the CC from the dog, owner objects and provides hip and elbow xrays and scores!
What will the KC DO
POINT 2
Leading SV judge returns home and submits a report for the show, advising the SV that the UK KC do not wish the dogs to be judged to the WUSV standard
SV contact the laison officers at the 2 WUSV Member clubs and ask what the hell is happening, and warning that unless this is changed SV judges will not be available to judge in the UK
POINT 3
WUSV member clubs advise the KC of the dilemma and ask for a meeting
Then we are back on the roundabout again
If the above could happen its not about the change of a few words in the standard, its the principle that the KC have taken away the judges mandate to judge to a standard based on their experience and knowledge AND HAVE UNILATERALLY MADE A DECISION AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BASED ON A KNEE JERK REACTION TO A TV PROGRAMME
by Videx on 06 February 2009 - 10:02
patrick: Bill, there is NO way we can exercise democratic and open debate on an issue relating to the GSD without it being communicated to the Kennel Club, as soon as!
There are too many people within our breed who will ensure the Kennel Club are well informed, and not necessarily with much regard for accuracy.
The major issue I have with the Kennel Club in respect of the GSD breed Standard amendments, is the fact that they made these changes UNILATERALLY.
The GSD Breed has a Breed Council, and two major GSD Breed Clubs, both WUSV member Clubs. These three organisations are fully capable of consultation with the Kennel Club, on behalf of our breed, in ALL matters connected with the GSD here in the UK, and particularly on matters relating to the GSD breed Standard. Who the hell do the Kennel Club think they are to make AMENDMENTS to the GSD breed standard, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION with our national organisations. THIS IS THE THIN END OF A WEDGE, and an insult to our GSD breed, breeders, judges, Clubs, and most particularly these three GSD organisations. It is unacceptable for them to call them "INTERIM" AMENDMENTS, and implements the amended breed standard for even ONE show, before proper and meaningful consultations have been concluded.
If we fail to STOP this happening at Crufts, then we MUSTobtain absolute assurances, in writing, from the Kennel Club, that OUR GSD BREED STANDARD, here in the UK, will NEVER again be amended, without PRIOR consultation with our National GSD organisations. If they do not agree, then I would urge our GSD Partnership to immediately and UNILATERALLY adopt the FCI GSD Breed Standard, and notify ALL Clubs, GSD breeders/exhibitors, Judges and the FCI and the SV, of their decision. What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander.
The Kennel Clubs UNILATERAL amendments have opened the door for our breed to make UNILATERAL CHANGES, and of course FOLLOWING THE ANOUNCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE CHANGES, we can, through the GSD Parnership, hold discussions with the Kennel Club, on our changes. NOT WHAT EXISTED PRIOR TO OUR CHANGES, Much like what the Kennel Club have done to us. - Let us Fight FIRE with FIRE.
Our GSD Partnership, should announce the name of our breed will henceforth be GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG.
by Sue B on 06 February 2009 - 11:02
OR looking at it another way Bill, the KC could realise how demeaning we make them look to the Rest of the World by NOT giving us the things we request.
This database serves as an archive of what we have been saying about them for years, imagine if we asked Oli or one of his Moderators to search back into the archives and dredge out some of the other (past) debates telling how the KC constantly FALL SHORT of aiding us in our endeavours to improve our Breed, by refusing our many requests to introduce mandatory Health Tests on Sires and Dams before allowing their progeny to be registered. At the very least it would be concrete proof that the GSD do have Breeders who care and did so long before she and her sensationalistic journalism of biased reporting and bigotted productions appeared on the surface like a destructive Oil Slick. Apologies to keep harping on about that poor excuse for an informative documentary but to me misrepresentation is as vile a crime as dishonesty (just wrapped up differently but the means tantamounts to the same ends except the ends to those type of means are certainly NOT Justice).
Paulie you said - according to some, the Dogs are not, and that Sue, is the crux of the matter, it's all about " interpretation
John (Member) said - I am not sure why there had to be any amendments however small in the first place and I think this is the issue.
Again I agree with both of you, indeed I said the same as John almost word for word in the Meeting on 24th Jan (well more or less , with the emphasis on a sarcastic more but you know what I'm like and some things never change). However the initial point and subject of this thread was that the KC should face a Legal Challenge due to changing the standard and I just felt that since the majority of the changes are really just a play on words to the one we have had since 1982 that such a challenge would never reach the starting blocks, or laughed out of court if it did. If we are to have a fighting fund, lets have one to fight the other issues then mentioned, force the KC to Put The House of Registering Pedigree Dogs in order, make jurisdiction to tell them to listen to the wishes of ALL THE BREED CLUBS, not just the GSD's, then we will be talking and COOKING ON GAS. Imagine how much more money would be in that Fighting Fund if we MADE THIS AN ISSUE TO INCLUDE ALL BREEDS !!!! Afterall, since the KC seem more than happy enough to lay all the ill's of Pedigree Dogdom at the door of Breeders and their Breed Clubs, then why not make it so it is THE BREEDERS VIA THEIR BREED CLUBS which DICTATE which HEALTH SCHEMES should be in place before the KC issue any PEDIGREE REGISTRATION of that Breed?. Now is that 'Food for Thought' or just another Half Baked Scheme?
Regards
Sue
by Sue B on 06 February 2009 - 11:02
I understand every point you are making re the judging and have thought exactly the same myself and can only say I am as unsure about 'WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT' as you are. Like most things in a Senario , until it happens we have no way of knowing WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT. What for example if the Dog in question hadnt had ANY HEALTH CHECKS? Would it then have to go get them done in order to prove a point? Or what if it had been put through the Health Schemes and it Had Bad Hips etc, would that then mean the KC had proved their point by withholding the CC and in the scheme of things (considering that under SV rules the Judge always has knowledge of both Pedigree and Health status of the dog) would the SV object to the CC being withdrawn from a dog who had failed their own checks? Please understand i'm now Playing Devils Advocate here with this but I'm sure you will be get the drift as to why.... simply we just dont know which Garden Path these new KC Intiatives is going to lead us down. Again I suspect the majority of it is just the KC making Soundbytes and perhaps the only Objections that will be made will be those where the KC Observer has previously done his Homework (before the event takes place) on the entries it recieves and ANY DOG not having had certain Health Checks performed OR Any dog that has received BAD RESULTS could be the one for the High Jump if the Judge selects it to take the CC. Would that be a bad thing? Well that would depend on your viewpoint.
Best Regards
Sue
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top