This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Dingodog on 05 May 2010 - 18:05
Let's face it, no-one commenting knows any more about what went on at that meeting than I do. Speculation, unfounded assertions and propaganda. It sounds to me like it was a good starting point for a first meeting with the signed clubs. All the right things seem to be on the table, but time will tell.
I don't see those clubs that have signed keep harping on about the non-signing clubs and fixating on what THEY are doing. No doubt if they are unhappy at anything they will unsign next time around, if not they won't. Their choice I think. As I said before, they seem to have the sense to try it first and see how it goes. They do then at least have the opportunity of working from within, and yes, perhaps they will have a positive influence.
Come on - more and more this sounds so much like sour grapes - have the courage of your convictions and just follow your own dream, enjoy your good life - no-one is trying to deprive you of it.
by noddi on 05 May 2010 - 19:05
by Dingodog on 05 May 2010 - 20:05
Yes, they certainly are familiar, and I am very glad to see them there. Perhaps these were items that the signed clubs wished to discuss and so have been tabled for discussion? I don't read it that the KC are trying to pass them off as their own ideas.
DH - no idea, and for me it is unimportant.
by noddi on 05 May 2010 - 21:05
by Dingodog on 06 May 2010 - 11:05
I did understand what you meant, that these very points had already been presented by the GSD Partnership during earlier talks. Now, for whatever reason (and I think they are numerous and convoluted), those talks broke down, resulting with the KC issuing the undertaking and clubs either chose to sign or didn’t.
My guess is that the clubs that did sign, during the meeting, have asked that these original points be tabled for discussion, quite rightly. So my take on it is that the signed clubs have now taken the opportunity to resume discussion with the KC on these matters. Picking up the baton on behalf of all perhaps?
I don’t think the KC will ‘adopt’ anything as their own idea unless they are actually going to implement it, and I would guess that we are a fair way away from that happening. Also it doesn't suggest that they are trying to take ownership of the ideas in the way the statements are phrased. Still, at the end of the day if the result was, for example, the introduction of mandatory health testing, do the why’s and wherefore’s really matter? Surely we would all simply jump for joy - I certainly would. Back slapping and self aggrandisement - on anyone's part - shouldn't be indulged in if the true goal is the betterment of the breed.
I honestly think that the point scoring, finger pointing, name calling, propaganda and poisonous drivel that certain people post about the KC, other clubs, and various individuals, is really detrimental to everybody, no matter where their personal preferences lie. It seems to be creating the most bitter and resentful atmosphere even between people who appear to have similar goals. If a certain someone reads my second paragraph for example, just watch for the vitriol that will pour forth. It won't be useful in any way. The KC aren't being divisive, look at the contribution that is being made on here at any given time - the KC frankly don't need to do anything divisive - everyone is doing it for them. I just think it's a sad waste of energies and opportunities.
by Sue B on 06 May 2010 - 12:05
I still cant decide if your statements come from utter naivety, narrow mindedness or just bloody mindedness where defense of the KC is concerned. When the KC chose to use punitive measures to punish Breed Clubs for wanting more for their breed with reference to Mandatory Health Checks than the KC show scene had to offer, you still champion the KC. Then when the GSD fraternity stand firm against the KC and expose them for what they really are, the KC now attempt to pretend they were always willing to discuss Mandatory Health check initiatives when clearly they were not.
It is beyond me just how many times I have had to repeat certain FACTS and still some of you fail to comprehend, or is it just that you don't want to acknowledge an understanding because to do so would be to acknowledge that the instigator of all the unreasonable behavior towards this whole scenario has been the Kennel Club all along.
For one last time, the Kennel Club has had the Mandatory Health Check initiative on the table (even one tailored to work within their very own KCABS) since July 2009 at the very latest. In all that time they have never even bothered to acknowledge this to the GSDP, the BC of clubs that passed it, or to the individual GSD Breed Club that put most of the work into the development of this initiative. It is the very fact that the KC continued to REFUSE to listen to the GSDP and Breed Clubs and accept that Health Issues will continue in our breed while ever they (the KC) are prepared to Register every litter application they receive regardless of the Health of the parents, is what forced some clubs to walk away. (i.e since Clause 9 of the undertaking restricted these clubs from running WUSV type shows based on Health Checked dogs whenever they wanted to). It became obvious to some of us that running these type of shows was the ONLY way to ensure the future Health and advancement of our Breed here in the UK.
Continued below
by Sue B on 06 May 2010 - 12:05
Now you come on here and say, quote "... it doesn't suggest that they are trying to take ownership of the ideas in the way the statements are phrased. Still, at the end of the day if the result was, for example, the introduction of mandatory health testing, do the why’s and wherefore’s really matter?" Of course they bloody well matter Dingo, they matter because its the whole bloody reason why some Clubs have been forced to walk away, it the bloody reason why some Clubs chose the breed Health over KC CC's, its the reason why some have spent hours attending committee meetings, traveled up and down the country attending BC meetings, spent a fortune on phone calls, computer ink, paper and postage stamps (to mention but a few expenses) in trying to resolve this problem with the KC. But NO, the KC didn't want to compromise or talk to us, they just wanted to dictate and communicate by releasing press statements. And now you think it should be absolutely fine for the KC (after possibly starting to realise what a hash they have made of things), to start discussing all these initiatives with the very clubs who cared the least? You think this is OK? A strange world you come from Dingodog, if every you have a good idea that you want to share with people who refuse to listen, who then punish you for thinking of it and as soon as you walk away they then start to discuss your idea as their own to make them look good in the eyes of the world whilst at the same time attempting to make you look like the enemy of the breed, then come on here and tell us how it doesn't really matter !! Next you'll be telling us its OK for an innocent man to be put in prison just so long as the real perpetrator of the crime mends his ways, See's the light and starts holding meetings to discuss the jailed mans initiatives, whilst the jailed man continues to be punished for a crime he never committed. Hey, Ho we should just rejoice in the knowledge that his punishment wasn't all in vain eh? With your type of reasoning you can only be one of them, a KC member that is, or if not you are aspiring to be one. lol
Regards
Sue
by missbeeb on 06 May 2010 - 12:05
... do the why’s and wherefore’s really matter?
Well, they clearly matter to you, Dingo because you invariably go to some lengths to point out what you claim to be the "good intentions" of the KC and how we misunderstand their intentions. One might be excused for thinking you were completely bias in the KC's favour... for whatever reason!
You deliberately and monotonously attempt to bait David Payne... why? What IS your interest? You don't show your dogs, you don't breed, you clearly don't have them surveyed, yet you have this big, meaningless (?) opinion. Almost every post of yours is kind of "loaded"... you tell us you search on-line and read books etc for your info, yet... you couldn't find any info on surveys and Koerungs!
Yeah, David gets his hair off and behaves badly sometimes, (like a bloke, actually lol) but he knows what he's talking about... read between the lines and don't forget to thank him for the links!
by Videx on 06 May 2010 - 13:05
missbeeb: I thank you for your clarity, I can live with that, I don't do 'popular'!
by Dingodog on 06 May 2010 - 14:05
Really Missbeeb
I do not deliberately and monotonously 'attempt' to bait DP, he's just not important enough. What I said was a straightforward observation. I suggest you read back through my 'reasonable' posts, to find out who leaps in and spouts meaningless drivel and insults. I think you prove my case by the fact that you could read between the lines as to who I may have meant when I described a certain set of (predictable) behaviours? And you say I'm monotonous! In my dialogue, 'it' was only mentioned in terms of how I perceive it adding to the bitter and divided relations in the GSD world.
I am fully aware of the requirements of the Koerung. What I cannot seem to find or get an answer to, is how the 'UK' breed survey matches against it. Perhaps you can point me to where it is set out, in full, and I will happily read it myself. So far, I have been unable to find this precise information. I did try the GSDL website, but couldn't find it there nor even on the Videx website - perhaps it would be informative if he would care to set it out there, in the same format as the Koerung, so it is easy to compare? BTW in case it escapes you, the reason I was asking was because I couldn't find it! Nothing more sinister than that!!
I didn't mention anything to do with good intentions of the KC, even though you seem to have read 'that I have gone to great lengths to point them out! ........ where exactly was that in my post? No - can't find it anywhere. In fact, what I was mentioning if anything was the good intentions of the 'signing' clubs, but I doubt that will suit you either. As you so rightly point out am not involved in breeding or showing, nor ever intend to be (so no, what would be the purpose of having my dogs breed surveyed?), so perhaps then I actually have a less 'loaded' point of view. I am interested in what ALL parties are doing concerning the breed, and I think that is a concept that is quite alien to some on here, and perhaps why you can't 'work out' what my intentions are.
OK, so it matters to you how and who mandatory health testing stems from. Sorry it doesn't matter to me, so long as it ultimately happens, but I do understand that some of 'you' may feel aggrieved.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
