Coalfire

Looks good to me Erny (spelled your name right this time) I personally would however delete this line "Consequently, I would like to have my objection to the ANKC issuing or electing to issue a directive such as it has/intends, without putting the matter to National vote, formally noted." Because thats exactly the reason for it being agended in October a National vote by the state clubs. I don't care if they vote (we can't stop it anyhow) as long as the outcome (vote) from our individual state clubs kills it off stone dead. Thats why I think it absolutely imperative that we ensure all our state canines are overwhelmed with objection to this proposed act of desercration of properly gained and sanctioned valuable titles on our dogs Greg

For those who might not be as active or as 'close' to the politics/workings of the ANKC and their own Dog State Body, it can be difficult to put something down in writing that is pertinent and makes sense. Might understand enough about it to have an opinion and object to the titles being disregarded and removed from the pedigree, but just not enough to know how to sum up enough for a letter, other than "I object to working titles being disregarded and removed from dogs' pedigrees" (which I guess would at least be better than nothing). Tapf .... it would probably be helpful if you are able to put up a copy of your letter, if you would? People would be able to read, gain some writing inspiration and form their own letter/s from there. Would you mind putting your letter/s up? I've done it in the past for other things that I believe have been 'wrongs' and I know it has helped immensely as an encouragement to others. Especially when you go to put pen to paper but end up with writers block. OK Ernie I am not Tapf but this was mine to the CCCQ this was sent over ! week ago and I probably with more thought could nave done it better however such is life--maybe some of you guys can do it better --please do asap Dear Barry, A week ago I read with great consternation the ANKC directive to remove all working titles related to Schutzhund and IPO from dogs pedigrees, now I fully well realise they have now rescinded that decision, after quite an outcry. However I believe it will still be on the October ANKC conference agenda. I would urge you and your committee to strongly oppose any attempt to re-implement this falsifying and bastardry of FCI sanctioned titles, not only sanctioned but in some FCI countries demanded in order to prove stability of temperament and working usefulness as per the standards. The Propaganda emanating from Dogs Victoria and the ANKC that Schutzhund is attack training is completely false and a blight on the integrity of the FCI. Obviously there are plenty of statements about the people and organisations driving this agenda on the internet but I am largely uninterested in finding scapegoats or people to blame at this point- FACT is its happened and FACT is it needs to be stopped- which is why I write for your support. Regards Greg Coalfire Rottweilers M/ship No

"It seems to me that the ANKC think that providing their membership counterparts raise a topic and vote upon it, they can do as they please without reference to their FCI obligations???." Hi Pam and Malsrock Trouble is No member of the ANKC as far as can be ascertained voted on or raised this issue of removing titles from pedigrees--so even if dogs vic was instructed to put it on their website-Why did they do it--Probably to guage reaction from Breeders!!!!! BUT why use dogs vic? Why not direct all state bodies to upload said information to their websites? Why float it then withdraw it then say it's on the Agenda for the October conference leaving minimal time for Breed clubs and state canines to ascertain their members feelings on the issue and then have appropriate input. Who dreamn't up this corruption anyway ( meaning who put it on the ANKC agenda) WHICH CLUB. Greg

How does this work, though? Does the ANKC take notice of each person's voice, or does the ANKC only take notice of the voice of each State Body, with the State Body being made up of all the individual voices? Or is it a matter of both? IE Voice opinion to both the ANKC direct as well as to your State Body? I would hope it's a matter of both. If the breed has a national council, then hopefully that will be a strong stance (as I believe all national councils can't act without motions from the state clubs, and the state clubs can't submit motions without majority votes from their members), and if the breed affected does not have a national council, then the individuals should also voice their concerns. If the ANKC won't listen to National Councils, then they should be bombarded from individuals that are/may be affected by this ruling. Personal opinion - they are suggesting that they are going to alter pedigrees, and if that's the case, then it's all or nothing. Either they recognise overseas titles or they don't - there should be no bias based on the 'type' of title. Agree entirely, I have not posted on this site for a cple of years but this issue of Basterdizing pedigrees by the ANKC(tho funny that all state canines disavow all knowledge--So dogs Vic claim its just administrative --well who died and made them God.) OH dear hang on maybe dogs vic think they are the ANKC. Whilst many of you are justifying positions or apportioning blame are you also putting the same effort into ensuring this issue collapses at the conference in October. Have you instigated motions thru your breed clubs??? Have you written your State Canines to push your views on this debacle--time is runnin out Greg