Several months ago several of us worked out a "phone tree" to ask members of
CKCSC USA what their opinion of the CKCSC vs AKC issue was.  I don't know
what Laura Lang's eventual conclusion was, but the vast majority of the
people that I called said they would vote against it.  In my humble opinion
(and it really is humble, folks) if it is presented to the membership at
large, it would be defeated for sure.  However, the reasons that people gave
me were extremely biased and not based on the facts as I understand them to
be.  In other words, one of the major concerns was that AKC only breeders
don't do any health testing.  All of the AKC only people that I personally
know up here in the Pacific Northwest are just as concerned about health
testing as CKCSC members.  We all test to one degree or another up here, and
we are not divided along club lines in our concern about the health of the
breed.  I see as much alteration of the show dogs that are owned by CKCSC
members as AKC.  (More actually)  The AKC only dogs are the same as mine.
AKC only people are breeding nice dogs and importing nice dogs just like
everyone else.  The people who are AKC only breeders don't breed their dogs
any younger or any more often than people who dual register.  I can't speak
for the rest of the US, but here in the Pacific Northwest, we are really a
fairly cohesive bunch.  There is no division here as to practices nor
quality.  Myra Savant

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

=========================================================
"Magic Commands":
to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
to start it up gain click here:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL

 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html

All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.

Reply via email to