This is a placeholder text
Group text
by funky munky on 10 January 2010 - 18:01
by crossingate on 10 January 2010 - 18:01
The KC are not interested in us, only in the revenue they get from our puppies - if they can split us into little groups that bicker, all the better as far as they are concerned.
They certainly are not interested in the progress of the breed - witness the fact that they will register anything as long as it breathes - even if it hasnt had the basic health checks - and as it isnt DNA tested, it may not even be breathing!
They will need to get their house in order if the Bateson report is anything to go by.
The issue of double handling is a smoke screen - they allow it to go on in all other breeds in some shape or form ie: tit-bits in the ring, hairbrushes in the ring, boxes to stand the dog on in the ring, squeeky toys in the ring, a partner outside the ring with another of their dogs, coughs, keys - I have witnessed it at all shows including Crufts, but its the GSD that gets the bad press about it. We are only trying to present our dogs so they look their best - exactly the same thing everyone else is doing - but they dont get picked on.
Why is there a specific rule about outside attraction - each form of attraction could be classed as wrong but the KC dont outlaw the others - no! Instead all those other breeds call us cheats!
I really think that it is now the time to stand up and be counted - lets run a registration system parallel to the KC - it could easily be done, lets run our own shows under SV rules - it can easily be done.
I have always thought that Championship shows do not promote the better type of dog - its easy to qualify for Crufts when there are only 2 in the class - I would much rather have a grading out of 20 dogs!
Just some random thoughts of my own - but how many other people would agree with me!!
Sally Gunner
by hesley on 10 January 2010 - 19:01
First, is the question of how many litters are registered with the Kennel Club annually, which are made by show breeders? The reason for the question, is that I believe the number is something in the region of 20%. That leaves a huge 80% made by pet/byb/puppy farmers, who frankly. will not care a jot about a breakaway, they only want to sell pups with KC reg. So as far as worrying the Kennel Club about lost registrations, I doubt they will lose sleep. In effect this will be the split that has been brewing for decades now, but I don't think the majority of GSD breeders will desert the KC. Alsatianists, back yard breeders and puppy farmers will continue as before.
Should this breakaway go ahead, the KC will continue to receive registration income, but will be able to tell Joe public that the unreasonable element of show folk who would not address the hindquarter/back problems in their stock, have gone from their shows.
Setting responsible breeders apart from the uncaring and irresponsible. is very commendable, who wants to be lumped together with puppy farmers and the like? However, by withdrawing from the KC arena and going alone, effectively ends any voice breeders have in support and promotion of the correct gsd.
Secondly, as a private club, does the KC have the power to refuse registration of any stock? Would this prove an obstacle to any breakaway registration system?
I hope I haven't come accross as negative, but I would hate to see the breed compromised by action taken in haste.
by A Shepherd on 10 January 2010 - 20:01
AS
by hesley on 10 January 2010 - 20:01
by Mackenzie on 10 January 2010 - 22:01
In my opinion it would be a good idea to get the priorities in order and make a proper plan to go forward. Find a strong leader and let that person bring four or five others with them to construct the basis of the way forward that can be put to the people for discussion, amendment and whatever else. It will need a good administrative infrastructure and a well thought out business plan to take this forward. Funds have to be raised in fees, donations etc. People may have to be paid for their time and expenses incurred. Every aspect of the breed needs to be assessed as to it’s expenses and revenue income. It is not a five minute job. The bigger picture needs to be dealt with from the beginning.
Mackenzie
by hutch on 10 January 2010 - 23:01
I think I would rather see it used to establish an alternative registration scheme for GSDs - with adequate publicity. Our need for the KC is simply that the public think that KC-registered means "guaranteed" and so if we want to sell puppies we need the registration scheme. Legal action invariably lines the pockets of the lawyers and the fund so far will not get us very far with the charges that would be made.
I agree that we need someone to take the reins that the majority are comfortable with and feel they can trust. Perhaps the breed council could set up nominations and an election to appoint a democratic spokesperson - this doesn't have to be done before the end of the March, all we need to do before then is to work hard to make sure that no breed clubs sign the declaration - the urgent Breed Council meeting should focus on that.. (I do not have anything against anyone who has worked on this so far but think we need someone who has the formal support of the masses)
Most of all - let's be united against this apalling treatment.
FCI......So the KC tied up the chances of me registering in Germany - a long time after I made the enquiry, I wonder if there were a lot of such enquiries? I also note that the KC agreed to consult with the FCI on health matters - perhaps they could document what consultation they have had with the FCI on the health matters which they pretend to be concerned with at the moment.
I wonder if Jemima Harrison is as disgusted with the KC as we are over this? Could Jemima see past her criticism of our breed and use her very clear power of the media to expose the KC again?
Shirley Hutchinson.
by Penny on 11 January 2010 - 00:01
I already have the help pledged from a solicitor to act as "Legal Eagle" and he knows the system and the troubles - so thats an excellent start..
Just think. It wouldnt take long for Joe Public to know that a puppy with "two" pedigrees - or a "purple pedigree" is better.... and to be told why, it would be like taking sweeties off babies the way the KC have addressed our health issues, just the fact that to have a purple pedigree your puppys parents have to be hip scored and have a score within the limits, and if shown there are stipulations on breed survey, hip scoring etc etc - making it not the "beautyf" show the KC like, but a real breedworth exercise for the good of the breed
Lets not castigate the kennels that have not said anything on this thread, there are lots of top kennels that just dont want anything to do with the pdb - it doesnt make them wrong. Mo - Mascani.
by Penny on 11 January 2010 - 12:01
by funky munky on 11 January 2010 - 13:01
P.S. Sue, i can handle my old man,lol. My pledge still stands to be used whatever way is necessary. Liz
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top