Susan Cochran said: > <<What benefits require two sets of papers>> > > Each club has something to offer the other doesn't. I like them both. The > benefits I like from the CKCSC that you do not see in the AKC off the top of > my head are > 1) Every CKCSC show is like a specialty with the number of entries. > 2) I feel a CKCSC champion often has to go through tougher competition to > get the title so it may mean a bit more. I have heard people say my dog is > an AKC champion but I don't show it old club because it probably couldn't > finish. In fact I own two of those CH's myself. > 3) NO PRO HANDLERS in the old club (or very minimal) Makes it a little bit > harder to buy wins. >
Dave, all of the above can be done without requiring the CKCSC to have a registry. In the AKC, a specialty club win carries clout, a specialty club can hold huge specialty shows and they do. They can require special rules to apply at their shows, such as puppy sweeps or futurities. I imagine that they could require no professional handlers if they wanted (not sure about that, but it should be possible as specialties are under the direction of the particular club so they could make all the classes bred by or owner handled). In any event, you named nothing that cannot be done without a CKCSC registry, which makes my point that the CKCSC registration is unnecessary. All the best, Susan Cochran ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [CKCS-L] Educating the Members > Where to begin I am sooo far behind <G> (This is gonna be long) > > As Yogi would say... its deja vu all over again! > > Chris Meager said: > <<Actually there is no registration that means anything as to the health of > any dog>> > > Well that sounds like a basic problem to me right off the bat. > > <<This my registry is better than your registry does a great disservice to > the breed as a whole>> > > This is SO heart of the matter. AKC, CKCSC, whatever alphabet you want to > put in front a Cavalier is a Cavalier and if you profess "for the betterment > of the breed" then that means ALL Cavaliers regardless of what kind of paper > tag is hung on them. > > Myra said: > in reference I believe to mandatory health testing / protocol: > <<Winnie, that simply isn't going to happen now, or any other time. If the > club pushed that issue, many, many breeders would give up their club > membership or try to find a way to circumvent those rules.>> > > Are these then the overwhelming majority of breeders who claim to be doing > all of this already? What does that tell you. > > <<I am a big proponent of health testing....but.....putting on my flame > retardant suit > once again......I will personally never wait until one of my boys is 2.5 > years old before I breed him.>> > > I think it is a shame to be in such a race to breed that we would rather risk > passing on bad genes then risk losing a dog from our breeding program. I > have a girl now who has a pedigree I really like. I waited to breed her the > first time until after 2.5. She missed. Circumstances prevented me from > repeating on the next cycle. If she misses again I may lose her from ever > breeding as I am not sure I want her to have a first litter after 4. I will > be really sad if I don't get pups from her but would do it all the same again > as I would rather lose ONE dog from the program then possibly pass along > genetic issues to MORE THEN ONE dog and raise the potential of it > geometrically mushrooming from there. Any of you know a particular name or > two of any widely used dog that turned out to pass on bad stuff? Would you > have liked to have seen that dog NOT used? Would it have made any difference? > > <<I would think that the reason that it simply can't be mandatory is because > there are too many questions, too many different scenarios and too many > exceptions to the rule for a governing body to make the decisions that would > affect all of the breeders. In other words....who makes the decision that > says a breeder could not use their own 9 year old heart clear boy just > because he has mild hip dysplasia in one hip? Who decides that you couldn't > use your fully tested, heart clear 10 year old boy because he can't get > CERFed because of a cataract of unknown etiology? Who, in fact, wants to > take the ultimate responsibility for telling a person who owns a dog and > owns a bitch, that they aren't allowed to breed their own two dogs. It > sounds really good on paper, but when you start trying to design a system > that will work for all, and, most importantly of all, work for the > betterment of the breed, you get stopped on about the second word.>> > > I totally disagree. Lets start by doing what everyone says they are already > doing but making it confirmed through documentation and public. To register > a litter you have to produce all medical test results done on the parents. > These will be published in a public forum. If you don't have them, didn't do > some of them, the publication notes, not provided. Everyone can breed to > what they want. Nobody is denied registration privileges. BUT the general > public can see what was done and what wasn't. Information is provided to > help people make decisions on. And you can bet that the natural tendency > would be for the buying public to first seek those who provide good test > results. And the breeders will follow. And you STILL can make that decision > when looking at the whole picture to breed to that girl or boy with the > wonderful heart who is slightly dysplastic because everything else is great > and you feel the risk is minor and overall it will produce better offspring. > But everyone will know you did it. If it was the right thing to do this > should not be a concern. I would rather see it mandatory to test to register > but I am very comfortable with first just making what is and is not done > public. This would be a MAJOR milestone for the breed. Anyone who runs from > that level of requirement in my opinion can't be acting in a way beneficial > for the breed. Everyone should be willing to stand by what they are doing if > they believe in it. The runners would be the ones who KNOW what they are > doing is wrong. > > Laura Lang said: > <<The real excuse is that the club is never going to put itself in that > position>> > > I think you are right. No make it I hate the fact that this is probably a > very accurate statement. > > <<It truly would be sheer suicide for the CLUB>> > > If this is true then again... what kind of people are we who have such high > numbers profess to be doing these things already but would see mass exodus if > someone calls the bluff. > > <<Those who are over-focusing on such an idea need to stop and redirect your > thoughts to another option. It is like paradise--a lovely idea--but could > never happen>> > > I haven't given up on it yet. Maybe I just like mass suicides (sips his cool > aid) > > <<If you want to see a *club* with breeders who fully test and follow the > heart protocol, lobby for a 2-tier registration system with CKCSC. They can > add a new category to Foreign, Associate and Regular members and offer a > slightly different type of registration certificate from those breeders who > fully test and follow the protocol. Make it *desirable* to be in this group > and slowly others will follow.>> ( I think Roseanne suggested something > similar) > > A different angle that surely is worth considering in some form. Documented > who is willingly doing these things in public record. Peer and buyer > pressure can move mountains! > > Gerri Said: > <<I would like to see the same restrictions placed on ALL dogs imported into > the Club, not just AKC only dogs>> > > If it is a real concern for Cavaliers and NOT animosity against an > organization it HAS to be done this way. Otherwise the real intent becomes > clear, and that intent would not be "in the best interest of the breed" but > rather feelings against a particular organization. > > Pam said: > <<Are there really that many "pet only" members in the CKCSC that this issue > can't be resolved>> > > It is a mistake to think only pet owners don't want to allow AKC breedings. > It is also a mistake to classify people into categories it just increases the > problems. We need to accept every member of Cavalier clubs as Cavalier > enthusiasts interested in what is best for the breed before we will make > progress. > > Susan Shidler said: > <<The CKCSC,USA will, IMO, have a membership vote on accepting AKC only > registered dogs in the near future. What we should be concerned with now is > educating those members who still think of the AKC as a threat to world > peace.>> > > I think they will have a vote too. I think making sure everyone (Breeders, > pet owners, etc) is VERY informed is one important thing to do. The ranks of > the informed/uninformed really do not know boundaries between pet owners and > breeders as much as some think. There are very informed and very uninformed > in both camps. But even MORE important then making sure people are informed > is making sure WHAT is drafted addresses the needs and concerns of both camps > in a way that makes AKC dogs available to breed to but protects the breed in > as many ways as possible. Saying the same thing that was said in the vote > years ago LOUDER will not make a difference. We have to recognize the > concerns. Let everyone KNOW we hear the concerns, and draft something that > ADDRESSES the concerns if we really want to win this issue over to resolution > in a manner best for all Cavaliers. Lets not screw this one up or it may be > a long time before another chance presents itself. I don't want to be > sitting here in a few years saying " we will never try that again it was > voted down twice and you just can't get it by the pet owners". Lets partner > breeders and pet owners and anyone else who loves this breed and not ask HOW > can we get you to vote our way. Lets ask HOW can we draft something that > works to satisfy both goals. It CAN be done but oh my god breeders of years > gone by may have to actually work with those pet owners as peers. Get over > it folks lets do something right here. > > Susan Cochran said: > <<What benefits require two sets of papers>> > > Each club has something to offer the other doesn't. I like them both. The > benefits I like from the CKCSC that you do not see in the AKC off the top of > my head are > 1) Every CKCSC show is like a specialty with the number of entries. > 2) I feel a CKCSC champion often has to go through tougher competition to > get the title so it may mean a bit more. I have heard people say my dog is > an AKC champion but I don't show it old club because it probably couldn't > finish. In fact I own two of those CH's myself. > 3) NO PRO HANDLERS in the old club (or very minimal) Makes it a little bit > harder to buy wins. > > Having said the above I can list a similar set of things that I like better > about the AKC. They are two different flavors, not for everyone maybe but > for some it is worth having both around. > > Judy Gates said: > <<The vote will fail. Whenever it's taken, the vote will fail...as in, WILL > FAIL. > Those people chosen as a committee will formulate the terminology to not > reflect the real point, everyone will vote via 'secret ballot' by siging > their name in at least two places (one on the ballot) and the vote will > fail. Same old, same old.>> > > I fear Judy may be right. But this kind of attitude will increase that > chance of failure. For someone who holds a prominent position in the > Cavalier world I would have hoped you would have posted some suggestions as > to how to give the vote a better chance rather then risk turning some > borderline voters totally off by assuring them they are wasting their time. > > Lydia Wardell wrote: > <<How will this affect the price/value of any of his progeny to be only > listed in the "old club?">> > > If this becomes a price of sale issue I am going to throw up. The scary part > is for some dual registering it may already be a driving incentive ackkkkk! > > Claudia Said: > <<here in the east most of the breeders are in favor of akc also. in fact, > i know many ckcsusa members who have said that if they find an akc only dog > they want to breed to, they will do so and not worry about what the club > thinks. have also > heard members say that if akc only dogs are not going to be recognized then > they are getting out.>> > > I think this is true but really don't view it as being pro AKC and/or Anti > (or pro) CKCSC. Actually this attitude is pro Cavalier. Do the best > breeding you can and let the chips fall where they may. > > Dave > CastleMyst Cavaliers > http://members.aol.com/CMystCavs > > > > > > > > > . > > ========================================================= > "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. ========================================================= "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.
