This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Videx on 06 April 2010 - 18:04
Out of sight = out of mind
The KC campaign on "loose hocks" is clearly only targeted at "exhibitors" - I wonder if they considered a KC "undertaking" for their ABS GSD breeders on "loose hocks"? I don;t think so!
They wouldn't want to risk registrations!
The KC campaign on "loose hocks" is clearly only targeted at "exhibitors" - I wonder if they considered a KC "undertaking" for their ABS GSD breeders on "loose hocks"? I don;t think so!
They wouldn't want to risk registrations!
by Dingodog on 06 April 2010 - 18:04
SueB
GSDP asked for this and the KC said no, then they asked for that and the KC lost patience, where exactly did the KC ever give or offer any form of compromise, which the GSDP refused?
This exactly illustrates what I am trying to say. The KC asked for some agreement on tackling the issue of unsoundness. The partnership asked for this and that, which were unrelated to the original issue. There was never a likelihood of a compromise whilst counter demands unrelated to the original issue were made. That I think is where they lost patience and the opportunity for compromise was lost.
GSDP asked for this and the KC said no, then they asked for that and the KC lost patience, where exactly did the KC ever give or offer any form of compromise, which the GSDP refused?
This exactly illustrates what I am trying to say. The KC asked for some agreement on tackling the issue of unsoundness. The partnership asked for this and that, which were unrelated to the original issue. There was never a likelihood of a compromise whilst counter demands unrelated to the original issue were made. That I think is where they lost patience and the opportunity for compromise was lost.
by Zac on 06 April 2010 - 19:04
Dinodog, I dont know so much about Davids list of name calling being scary. What I DO find is scary is that someone with his attitude will (I am sure) be thinking he deserves some sort of status in these new tomorrows. Its exactly the sort of arrogance (IMO) that people will be wanting to avoid.
by Wildmoor on 06 April 2010 - 20:04
http://www.gsdleague.co.uk/Response%20from%20the%20KC.doc
No Alyson you are not being dense, a dog with severe HD or ED can show no clinical signs, so not sure what visible conditions they are trying to eliminate apart from weak hocks and poor pasterns.
On the other hand a dog whos structure is correct will not move correctly if their muscularture (weight, muscle tone, ligature and tendon strength) is poor: there fore it is possible for a dog to move poorly through lack of conditioning rather than structure, equally so a dog with a grade 3 elbows (poor construction) can move well!
No Alyson you are not being dense, a dog with severe HD or ED can show no clinical signs, so not sure what visible conditions they are trying to eliminate apart from weak hocks and poor pasterns.
On the other hand a dog whos structure is correct will not move correctly if their muscularture (weight, muscle tone, ligature and tendon strength) is poor: there fore it is possible for a dog to move poorly through lack of conditioning rather than structure, equally so a dog with a grade 3 elbows (poor construction) can move well!
by missbeeb on 06 April 2010 - 20:04
I always enjoys your posts, Wildmoor. You do your research, you post links... facts, you deal in facts!
by pacosbear on 06 April 2010 - 21:04
Dingodog - what is unsoundness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and then name me a breed where there is no unsoundness.
The real health problem with the GSD, in the eyes of the KC, is double handling that is why the undertaking they wanted clubs to sign to has 5 of the 9 points dealing with this matter.
2 further points on instructing judges how to judge.
1 point on - ' The Club accepts that there is a degree of unsoundness in the hindquarters of the breed and in particular in the hocks of some dogs and that these problems are to be penalised at shows.
So in essence 3 points on instructing a judge how they should judge.
and my main objection the infamous point 9.
For general champ shows all undertakings are in respect of double handling.
For real scientifically measurable 'problems' the KC dont want to know, they can talk a good talk but they cant do the walk
by Sue B on 06 April 2010 - 22:04
Dingodog , what came first the chicken or the egg? I ask this because you speak as if you are fully conversant with who asked who for what first, i.e Did the GSDP ask the KC for mandatory health checks first or did the KC ask the GSDP to acknowledge unsoundness first? So who is feeding you this misinformation?
From your post above you appear to be under the impression the KC asked the GSDP to acknowledge unsoundness first, which actually is not the case. However, when they did, the minuted documentation of that shows that the GSDP told the KC that there was an acceptance of the fact that there was a degree of unsoundness in the breed and that this was being addressed. Indeed, this was proven by the fact that the German Main Breed Warden Herr R Meyer had addressed this issue to the assembled crowd at the meeting held on the Saturday evening of the Sieger show weekend in Ulm 2009.
So although you raised a valid point, you once again got it the wrong way around. It was the KC which were not conceeding to any compromise not the GSDP and actually when it comes to the Breeds health, where exactly do you believe we should compromise????
My regards as always
Sue b
From your post above you appear to be under the impression the KC asked the GSDP to acknowledge unsoundness first, which actually is not the case. However, when they did, the minuted documentation of that shows that the GSDP told the KC that there was an acceptance of the fact that there was a degree of unsoundness in the breed and that this was being addressed. Indeed, this was proven by the fact that the German Main Breed Warden Herr R Meyer had addressed this issue to the assembled crowd at the meeting held on the Saturday evening of the Sieger show weekend in Ulm 2009.
So although you raised a valid point, you once again got it the wrong way around. It was the KC which were not conceeding to any compromise not the GSDP and actually when it comes to the Breeds health, where exactly do you believe we should compromise????
My regards as always
Sue b
by Videx on 06 April 2010 - 23:04
Zac: I assure you and everybody who reads this post, I seek no status whatsoever in the new tomorrow.
I was 65 years of age last month, and during my life, I have been there, done that, and worn the T shirt.
I am actually retiring from my activities in our breed. I will be unavailable to deal with the numerous "private" requests for help and advise that I have received over the years. I am also unavailable for the majority of requests for advice, with one important exception. My advice is exactly that, advice! I do not dictate to anyone, not even my wife, especially not to my wife. I just want to spend more of my time with my wife and family. I would also point out that my advice is usually sought.
I present no threat to the ambitious amongst you.
Best wishes to you all. I have no doubt you will all have the future you deserve, in whatever you do!
David Payne
I was 65 years of age last month, and during my life, I have been there, done that, and worn the T shirt.
I am actually retiring from my activities in our breed. I will be unavailable to deal with the numerous "private" requests for help and advise that I have received over the years. I am also unavailable for the majority of requests for advice, with one important exception. My advice is exactly that, advice! I do not dictate to anyone, not even my wife, especially not to my wife. I just want to spend more of my time with my wife and family. I would also point out that my advice is usually sought.
I present no threat to the ambitious amongst you.
Best wishes to you all. I have no doubt you will all have the future you deserve, in whatever you do!
David Payne
by missbeeb on 07 April 2010 - 10:04
Sue, excellent post!
I'm disappointed that you've received no reply from Dingo.
by Dingodog on 07 April 2010 - 11:04
Missbeeb
I hate to disappoint, so here we are. I, like you I am sure, do have other things to do, so cannot spend all my time on here, and as I return to work it will be less (hurrah I hear you say :)
I have the greatest respect for how Sue has laid out her explanation, and her patience. Without going over every post ever made, every letter, every meeting etc (especially when it cannot even be agreed what was said at a particular meeting) it would be impossible for me to answer, but I suspect that her knowledge of the timeline of events is better than mine.
Perhaps this is a perception - but one that has come across pretty universally to those not directly involved - that the KC raised the issue of unsoundness and that the council/league/breed obscured the request with counter demands for mandatory health testing, two tier registration system, Accredited GSD breeder scheme etc etc. This certainly led to a perception of the breed dodging the issue. Perhaps it was simply that no plan was offered in respect of the unsoundness issue, prior to these other 'schemes' being presented to the KC. The timeline is probably not particularly important, more the veering off the issue that the KC had raised, by the presentation of numerous other requests that the KC were not going to consider in the climate. If a breeding strategy to address the unsoundness was presented to the KC, I would very much like to see it. Perhaps you can direct me to where that I can find it.
Whether I am right or wrong in the timeline of events, what is obvious is that the wheels came off. Perhaps it was the much touted articles by DP himself that continually sidestepped the soundness issue in favour of the other alternatives which drove the wedge in so deep? Hard to say.
So I acknowledge that I may be wrong with the timeline, so can I ask then Sue, what the KC asked first?
Re Herr Meyers speech, indeed I was heartened to hear that finally this problem was being publicly acknowledged. What I don't understand is why that speech has not been published, DP promised to put it on his website. I would very much like to hear the SV's proposals to counter the problem, and maybe it would help us in the UK if we knew what strategies were being put forward.
BTW - I find the timing of DP's withdrawal from the breed to be interesting.
I hate to disappoint, so here we are. I, like you I am sure, do have other things to do, so cannot spend all my time on here, and as I return to work it will be less (hurrah I hear you say :)
I have the greatest respect for how Sue has laid out her explanation, and her patience. Without going over every post ever made, every letter, every meeting etc (especially when it cannot even be agreed what was said at a particular meeting) it would be impossible for me to answer, but I suspect that her knowledge of the timeline of events is better than mine.
Perhaps this is a perception - but one that has come across pretty universally to those not directly involved - that the KC raised the issue of unsoundness and that the council/league/breed obscured the request with counter demands for mandatory health testing, two tier registration system, Accredited GSD breeder scheme etc etc. This certainly led to a perception of the breed dodging the issue. Perhaps it was simply that no plan was offered in respect of the unsoundness issue, prior to these other 'schemes' being presented to the KC. The timeline is probably not particularly important, more the veering off the issue that the KC had raised, by the presentation of numerous other requests that the KC were not going to consider in the climate. If a breeding strategy to address the unsoundness was presented to the KC, I would very much like to see it. Perhaps you can direct me to where that I can find it.
Whether I am right or wrong in the timeline of events, what is obvious is that the wheels came off. Perhaps it was the much touted articles by DP himself that continually sidestepped the soundness issue in favour of the other alternatives which drove the wedge in so deep? Hard to say.
So I acknowledge that I may be wrong with the timeline, so can I ask then Sue, what the KC asked first?
Re Herr Meyers speech, indeed I was heartened to hear that finally this problem was being publicly acknowledged. What I don't understand is why that speech has not been published, DP promised to put it on his website. I would very much like to hear the SV's proposals to counter the problem, and maybe it would help us in the UK if we knew what strategies were being put forward.
BTW - I find the timing of DP's withdrawal from the breed to be interesting.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
