Urgent! GSDCA and WDA members: Contact your organizations ASAP! - Page 5

Some of us feel easier about giving second chances when we
know that earlier criticisms have been accepted / apologised
for / paid off / made other restitution.  THEN the perpetrator
gets to carry on, to be a better person.  Not sure there's any
sign of that acceptance of having done anything wrong, in this
case ?

Hundmutter .. you know Ray Jeffers or your dog was mistreated by him??  Plenty of people know him and have had him work with or care for there dogs who like him just fine.  Hexe started this character assassination in two different threads with a couple of others and the rest are just joining the hanging party for the fun of it apparently.  Call the GSDCA-WDA and complain if you have any evidence he ever did anything wrong other than make enemies of Hexe and friends.

@ Hundmutter ...do you know that they haven't ???   You do know from first hand testimony on here that currently the individual and the dogs with the individual NOW appear to be very satisfactory. So lets get this straight, you base your current thoughts on something second hand told to you from the past, over numerous first hand information from now......lol.  ....... But we justify it by wanting some form of apology or repentance that their currents actions doesn't indicate.....OK ....Gotcha! 
I'm done....smh, I don't do well when emotion supersedes logic!

Well guys no I don't know, so I posed it as a question (?) -
either of you two or anyone else know the answer (s) ?
Apparently there was an outstanding Court award that
- when last recorded on here at least - was still unpaid.
Plus those whose dogs were badly treated seem to have
maintained to this date, 5 yrs on, that Mr Jeffers never
expressed he was sorry.  So in the absence of any contributions
to say that those 'victims' were eventually satisfied, he is open
to have that question asked, isn't he ?  No matter how great he
has been in the years since then.  Same as ANYONE in that
situation would be.  NO ONE has proved that the allegations were
untrue, either.  Even those people rooting for 2013-style Jeffers.
And as someone else has already pointed out, Hexe is not one
of those posters who spends any time spreading falsities, or
turning a drama into a crisis, so why would she on this particular
topic ?

[Cliff, I think your post is more 'emotional' than mine was !]

And logical too!

WHAT is 'illogical' about my POV ?  Let's take it to another
arena - suppose you had a nanny who had some years ago
previously run over a child with her car ?  We all know a lot
of traffic accidents do not get much in the way of penalties,
'accidents' are seen as just that.  But accidents tend to
happen as a result of someone being less than alert, not
quite in control, even if not actively doing something which
could be tried in Court as being "without due care and attention".
Before you put your child in a car with her, would you not want
to know she had taken some steps to improve her driving
abilities, just on the off chance there was something she could
have done better / differently at the time ?  Wouldn't you want
to know if she had expressed concern for that child's family
after the accident ?  Would you not wish to know whether she
has paid any fines imposed on her, before you trust her with
your own offspring ?   

Hundmutter,

Your example is quite different than the circumstances posted here. Allow me to correct.

Let's say you heard from people you had never met that a nanny had run over a child. You had no intention of using this nanny. You were concerned that a the National nanny organization was going to send her to the National Nanny competition. Upon hearing this news, you remembered what some people you had talked to said about the nanny years ago. This prompted you to post derogatory personal remarks and opinions about this person you never met..

There's your comaparison.

There is a certain responsibility for members of dog clubs to express their opinions, pro and/or con, about any activity or person that may have an impact on their membership status and/or the club itself. The GSDCA and the WDA should take all comments seriously and investigate them accordingly. If you have no objections to Jeffers, say so and why. If you do object, say so and why after you have learned the correct venue for such comments.

Blitzen,

I agree. All of these clubs have a way to file complaints. The organizations can review the allegations, look at whatever facts are presented, and make an educated decision. That's where and how issues like these need to be resolved. Not on PDB.

Hundmutter, I would want to know that he had changed his ways from the alleged/purported act from the past!!! Plain and simple! And short of knowing that person personally as neither of us does, i would take their ACTIONS as a barometer as to whether they feel remorse. You can never know how a person feels....the feelings didnt do harm to the dogs, you CAN judge a persons actions, and that is a way to determine if they they either learned from mistake, or show the respect to change so that said mistake doesnt happen again. Numerous people have said they have seen the individuals dogs and dogs in their care NOW and they appear to meet acceptable standards. You continue to harp on second hand info on the past and brush aside the relevant info of now, then hide behind some feelings of remose that it is impossible to assess, unless by ACTIONS.....yes LOGIC!....or Illogic ...however you want to view it.