conztruct

Transparency is nice and expected more and more in organisations now but I agree there are times when privacy and confidence is required, however my points aren't about transparency they're about contradicting statements in the constitution that may impact members democratic opportunities (again this is my reading of the constitution, not an expert but it is unclear. As an example there is a provision of postal votes which are required to be submitted 3 days before the meeting, however, there is another provision that states the management committee can determine the method and parameters of voting and reduce the notice time for voting. What this may mean is that a management committee could constitutionally make a decision to deny postal votes or reduce the notice time so that members are unable to get their postal votes to DQ within the notice period, making them invalid constitutionally. This is the tightening and further review I am talking about, rather than the provisions be changed altogether, they just need to be clarified so the voting process and notice periods may be decided but not at the expense of providing sufficient opportunity for postal votes to be submitted and count. I agree transparency should not be an opportunity to damage someone and I do not advocate this however, none of the requested alterations to the constitution are seeking this? DQ have stated that they will provide summaries of minutes, etc for members to view which is great however, the issue again is the current draft constitution not the procedure which can still be adopted after further review and development of an improved constitution through a more robust and extensive consultative process. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your statement about the "what more do the regions want?" Are we not also members of the association? This totally highlights the problems that the regions have had to put up with for years being referred to as those whinging people who always want to have a say in how things happen but don't have the numbers to vote one of their own is as a representative. The DQ policy so far has been to consult when they felt it was necessary which was basically not at all which has resulted in many decisions which have later had to be overturned, exceptions put in place, etc because they were made without considering the diversity of our members. The regions are being short changed now, with no representation on the management committee at all and having to deal with and constantly fight to not be impacted detrimentally by decisions of people who don't consider, don't understand and probably don't care - you really would had to have been on the receiving end to understand why your questioning over whether we would be shortchanged by having a voice in the management of the organisation or whether it would be of value is.......I'm trying to think of the word......as unintentional as it is on your part because you haven't been privy to the same perspective as regional members, really @#$%ing insulting. It's like saying Tasmania would be shortchanged because they have seats in parliament for the same reason, so they shouldn't have them - if you can understand how that would feel to a Tasmanian, you will understand what a regional member would think of this notion. A clear deck in my opinion is the highest form of democracy and that's what we're after isn't it? Every year, candidates will nominate for election including those who already serve on the management committee and be considered equally by the members and voted on. If the existing councillors are doing a great job, it is highly likely they'll be re-elected, if not they'll get the boot...isn't that preferable to protecting poor performance and complacency by not having to go through the election process. I understand where you are getting at about experience, but I don't think someone being experienced should take precedence of a democratic process and it doesn't necessarily equal effectiveness or good performance. In terms of the majority vote - you need to review the provisions of the draft constitution because majority vote is certainly not the case in several instances - as some examples there is provision for 4 management committee members to proceed with meetings and actions to remove a MC member even if the other 8 are against this, 5% of members can instigate actions within the organisation even if the other 95% are opposed, there is still a clause requiring a 75% majority for passing a motion in some instances - unless my maths is wrong, there is no simple majority in these few examples. This is the danger of the DQ propaganda - they say that everything will be decided democratically but if you read the provisions in the constitution it is only true in SOME instances - this is highly misleading and members are being manipulated by untruths.

I think personally when it came to the actual ballot question DQ was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Incorporation law in Queensland requires any organisation to have a constitution. If they don't the organisation must by law adopt all of the rules of the Model Constitution. So the way I see it DQ had two options to ask the question about incorporation without the question about the constitution, thereby proceeding to incorporation under the Model Constitution in its entirety, or ask the members would they accept the proposed constitution which is the path they chose. Could DQ have handled things differently, of course they could have. But hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think we forget that the councillors are all volunteers, they are not paid to do this, as is the case in most incorporated organisations. I certainly take your point and of course, there will always be some people who aren't happy with a process. I guess the thing that made me most unhappy was the statements that went along with the question that voting no meant that we didn't support incorporation, the RNA were going to take us over and steal all our assets. This was not the case - everyone supported incorporation (I don't know this for a fact but I'd but $5 on it) but there were many who did not support the draft constitution and now the revised draft constitution because it is full of flaws and there is an absence of a key component (allocated regional reps) that many members have been calling for but MC has decided not to put to the vote. This isn't letting the membership decide and is not democratic and in fact the campaign and statements have been misleading and at times patently incorrect. Probably about 15 years ago, but it may have been longer there was a push to separate from the RNA that was defeated at the time, I can't remember all the particulars. I have for as long as I have been a member of Dogs Queensland never understood why as a member I couldn't chose our representatives. It has always irked me that the only way to have a say in how things would run, would be to join the RNA which I have never done. In all the time I have been a member of Dogs Queensland I can never remember the RNA calling for expressions of interest for the positions of councillors, so yes I regard that step as interference in our process. Why suddenly change something now? Why does the RNA need to guide us through the incorporation process? Surely our organisation is solvent and successful enough to stand on its own two feet and work through the process itself. Will there be mistakes? Of course, there will always be mistakes, but those mistakes will happen whether the RNA appoints a new council or not, or is involved in the process or not. The point that frustrates me the most, that if we as DQ members are truly in charge of our own destinies we MUST be allowed to make those mistakes ourselves, it is part of the growing up and leaving home process. We should change absolutely and from the communications both DQ and RNA have same objective of incorporation for Dogs Qld so that it is it's own entity. RNA has called for nominations because according to the rules the CCCQ council is appointed at their February meeting the time for which is cutting short and I haven't seen any nomination process from Dogs Qld instigated - the RNA are following a logical, systematic process to ensure our council is in place. I would imagine in the past that Dogs Qld have prepared their nominations and recommendations for the appointments by this point in the year which would negate the requirement for RNA to drive the process. Again, the appointed CCCQ council will be guiding us through the consultation process, not RNA - after the consultation process and ignorance and contempt directed towards the suggestions and submissions (especially those which heavily impact on regional members) by CCCQ, it is a good thing that someone is advocating a more stable, robust process. The reference to mistakes I agree with, there are always mistakes, but mistakes suggests a lack of intent, but the reality is that CCCQ filtered the submissions especially the one regarding allocated regional representation on the MC and refused to even let it go to a vote. Intended and unintended actions are completely different. Of course we need to set our own direction but the draft constitution proposed is highly flawed, does not even allow a democratic vote on key provisions that I feel are essential to meet the needs of members and ensure democracy (as I've outlined above) and is being campaigned on by statements that do not reflect the true content or mechanics of the document. To start off in such a precarious position and to establish it by misinforming the membership leaves the organisation at risk of abuse and not functioning for the members or the objectives of the organisation. To have a truly democratic organisation DQ needs to have a constitution that: Doesn't contain the current contradictions exposing DQ to the risk of abuse and conduct not in the spirit of the intention of the document - this is simply a matter of reviewing with consistency Guarantees at least one representative from each Zone to ensure that decision-making is fully informed and considers the Qld-wide impact as part of the process. Vacates all management committee positions each year enabling the members to have a democratic vote for our MC (not to protect councillers from being judged) Reflects that a majority vote carries all decisions and actions There are probably other provisions that other members want to put forward so it demonstrates that the draft is deficient and the original process was not adequate to establish a draft constitution that met the needs of the members, and the need for greater consultation, time and effort being invested in making sure we start off on the right foot.

I don't think that it is a case of DQ only representing the views of SOME members. We had the referendum and of those that returned the ballot 90% supported the question that was to incorporate with the proposed constitution. I agree that not all members returned the ballot, but what does that really say ... to me it says they are not interested in the outcome either way. Which for me is sad, but it is their right. You can't force people to care. So in my opinion DQ have been acting on the majority view of people who are actively involved in the process. It is unfair for people who chose not to have a voice in the original ballot to now cry foul (and please I am not accusing you of being one of those people) I believe that ballot gave DQ the mandate to carry through with incorporation with the constitution. Now DQ has revised the constitution again surely in any democratic process that is what we expect? I know what you're saying but 90% of the respondents is SOME of the members, not all. I don't think it matters about a majority or minority view, as we are all equal and paying members of the organisation, why is it that the resources of the organiastion have been used to only represent one view, and why hasn't the opportunity been provided from those with different views to use these same resources and have equal opportunity to campaign their view, even if in the minority. Should we not all have equal opportunity no matter what our view? If you are going to liken this situation to the political arena, all parties (or views if you will) have opportunity through the media etc to campaign for their cause. If DQ is all about democracy, how democratic is it to deny all other views except one the resources and media space (website) of the organisation. By censoring all other views than one, how does this give people a democratic say unless they toe the line of the majority. With all due respect the ballot was a loaded question - many people didn't like elements of the constitution but were told that if they did not vote yes, they were against incorporation (not true everyone including RNA is for that), they were told that there would never be another opportunity to incorporate (again not true - here we are only a few months later), the RNA were going to take us over (again not true) and I must say this is the only democratic ballot I've been involved in where a letter from only one side of the question campaigning their cause and including the above falsehoods was enclosed with the ballot. Do you really think that a ballot tainted with propaganda based on misinformation is really democratic?? I agree totally that while wearing their work hat that is how they should act. Now I will be the Devil's advocate again, what if someone makes private comments to other people not as Julia Gillard, Prime Minister, but as Julia Gillard private person, where there is an expectation that the comments made are to remain private, only to find they are on the front page of the paper the next day? I am sure I have, as you have have said, and written in emails things we wouldn't necessarily want repeated to the whole world, sometimes even in the heat of the moment, sometimes because you assume the person you are talking with/emailing or whatever is someone you trust. I think it says more about the character of the person that released private emails than the people who wrote them, as if we are to be honest with ourselves we are all guilty of saying the wrong thing about people at times. But to call yourself a friend and then betray the friendship that is something different again. Julia? Yes what if. This happens all the time as you would know. That is why our politicians have staff and exercise extreme caution over the statements they make, even in private. It is their responsibility to ensure they do this otherwise they are fair game should their irresponsible comments fall into the wrong hands. Is it nice? No. Do I support that kind of thing? No. But as above DQ have not exactly behaved like little angels with the accuracy of their propaganda of what the RNA is supposed to be doing even without any evidence such as emails (intended to be private or otherwise) to validate the legitimacy of their claims. Are you saying that DQ have acted perfectly in all this and the RNA are behaving badly? As I mentioned it was a member of the organisation who chose to out the group for whatever reason and I assume it's her character you are calling into question. As you have read the communication from the RNA, you will know who this member is and I'd recommend that maybe you challenge her directly on her character for doing this and maybe ask what the justification was? Unless you find out, any assumed motives is merely baseless speculation. You are right . It is not about who said what about whom, or who sent what private email to whom. It IS however a matter of how we all perceive we have been treated as members by DQ. For me personally, I have never had a problem. I breed infrequently, the last litter I bred the registrations were processed quickly & efficiently. I had a problem with a long term owner dumping a dog in another State, DQ were very helpful when it came to advising me the best way of proceeding so legally I was in the clear. I get my magazines on time. I whinge when memberships go up, but I understand why they do, the cost of everything is going up. The RNA says it will provide more rigorous consultation, but I don't want the RNA involved in our organisation. If I wanted to be a member of the RNA I would join it. I joined Dogs Queensland and to be quite honest I remember a number of years ago when we tried to disengage from the RNA and that failed then. I just want it done with, so we can make our own choices, and yes our own mistakes if need be. I am sick of the nanny state mentality we live in in the wider community and I don't want it in my hobbies. I have no issues with the operational aspects of DQ at all. But this issue is structural and strategic. The correspondence from RNA clearly states that they are appointing an interim council to move DQ towards incorporation so it seems they are intending not to be involved, they aren't asking you to be a member of RNA so I'm not quite sure how they're trying to make it a nanny state as you say. The RNA are advocating a more rigorous process of consultation to be outworked by the interim DQ council so again while the hysteria that RNA are taking over is being ramped up, it's not the case. Yep, I'm selfish - as I said DQ have failed our regional members and refuse to even put our calls for designated regional representatives in a draft constitution to go to a vote (not very democratic) the current council have picked and chosen what they want. If you read the explanatory notes that went with the previous draft of the constitution the reasons for the council denying this progressive step were thin, irrelevant and trivial. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the historical reference, I assume that you don't mean that even though the RNA have clearly outlined their process for DQ to be their own members organisation through incorporation that it won't happen because their was a failed bid in the past? It would be far easier if all DQ and the RNA just stuck to the fact and the supporters on both sides (not directed at you either) did too, but unfortunately whenever human beings are added to the mix there will always be these types of tactics and attacks. It would seem the concept of a "gentleman's war" went out a very long time ago. Yep - it's a sure sign of the times - politeness, decency, professionalism and all those good values are dead when it comes to the lengths people will go to, to get their way. Fortunately there's still a few who play by the rules a bit and I'd hope I still fit into that category. Whilst I might make personal judgements about people based on their behaviour, I well and truly make my decisions based on the facts of their position. I tend to tune out when the attacks on the other parties rather than their policies/positions occur as they're just trying to divert attention away from the facts. I can see your point of view with allocated representative seats on the management committee. But being the Devils Advocate again. Say we had the allocated seats, would that mean that no other people from zones 2 & 3 would be able to stand for a committee position. Or Should we have a Zone 1, 2 & 3 allocated positions and the rest are up for grabs? What would happen (and I realise this is unlikely, but humour me in anycase) but what would happen if all the committee positions were filled by people from zones 2 & 3. leaving zone 1 unrepresented? The way the revised constition is doesn't stop people from zones 2 or 3 from seeking a committee position does it? Also noone can assume that someone selected from Zone 2 will always do what Zone 2 wants, likewise if a committee member lives in zone 1 it doesn't automatically make them against zone 2 or 3? I really am trying to understand and put a couple of ideas out there too. Honestly, the mechanics would be up to someone much smarter than me to ensure our diverse membership is adequately represented and this is the whole point of my arguments. I would suggest (and again this isn't from someone with constitutional expertise) that some type of procedural clause be that the members of the council are elected by majority ballot with the highest polling nominations elected providing at least one representative from Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 are on the management committee. Should a representative from each zone not be elected through number of votes, the highest polling nomination from that Zone will be allocated on of the allotted positions on the management committee. This would mean that even in your example where say Zone 2 and 3 people polled the highest number of votes, the highest polling Zone 1 person would be elected to the management committee. The constitution in any form has never prevented a nomination from Zone 2 or Zone 3 but how many Zone 2 or Zone 3 people have been elected to council in comparison to Zone 1? The reason is that there is a significant disparity in numbers between Zone 1 and regional areas and of course, this has been exacerbated by no provision for postal voting. Even with the provision of postal voting however, the disparity in numbers is still too significant to enable a Zone 2 or Zone 3 person to realistically have the same opportunity and chance. In terms of explanation, it's like having a vote for the 8 rural seats in the state election (population 200,000 of so) and having all Brisbane (say 5 million or so) voting for it - there are 8 regional candidates and everyone in the rural areas vote for one of them because they desperately want a local representative = 200,000 votes, there are 8 candidates in Brisbane for the seats and they all get in despite everyone in the regional area coordinating their vote because they just don't have the numbers. This is why there are designated regional and metropolitan seats in parliament, to have a parliament that represents the constituency. DQ should not have a problem with doing the same. There is always a risk that elected representatives will not do what their constituency want no matter what the structure, so to use is as an example why Zone 2 and Zone 3 shouldn't have designated representatives on the management committee isn't really valid because the risk would not be limited to that particular structure but is inherent in every situation. Edited to add: You'll have to excuse some of my horrendous spelling, grammar and word choice errors as there is too much for me to go through and change and I don't have enough time to do it - lol

Yes, the Dogs Qld website advises that FAQ questions will be posted today - as yet they haven't eventuated but I'm keen to see what further information they have to provide. I get where you're coming from with playing the devil's advocate but with all due respect Dogs Qld is not a political party, as a member of the organisation I do not agree with the propaganda representing the view of SOME members (it certainly doesn't represent mine) which has been created using the organisation's resources that we ALL pay for, appearing on the Dogs Qld website. I do not expect my organisation to be driven on the whims of a power-group's agenda. What I expect as a member is information that enables me to make an informed decision and cast an informed vote if I was to travel to Brisbane to attend the meeting - not misleading, incorrect, feeble propaganda. I also expect professionalism and objectivity from the employees of the organisation. So as you can imagine I'm not exactly sympathetic that people making vulgar, stupid statements got caught out and now everyone knows about it. We go through life finding out things and making judgements based on things we discover that others probably wish we hadn't - if you don't want to face the consequences, don't put yourself in the way of harm. To be honest, I think whatever anyone in their secret group said or did whilst valuable information to know the character of those you are dealing with, is irrelevant at this point - it's another issue to be dealt with at another time. The point of the matter is that CCCQ is not willing to listen to their members on the matter of regional representation and is trying to rush through a deficient constitution based on a campaign of misleading statements that contains many undemocratic provisions and is not going to serve the needs of members, especially the regional members who have been conveniently ignored and brushed aside for years. The RNA have advised their intention is for Dogs Qld to become it's own entity through incorporation and are providing a far more rigorous consultation process for members than has been provided by CCCQ. It's not a personal attack Agatha but as I have said a number of times to many others (and it applies to all parties to this issue equally), as soon as someone seeks to discredit the actions of another party instead of addressing the actual issue at hand, it speaks volumes of the merit of their argument (or lack thereof). The behaviour of all parties at times has been poor and it is mediocre at best to assert a greater moral or ethical authority by claiming that of all the parties the others behaved worse than you........... I'd rather focus on the issue at hand. For me, CCCQ has ignored and will not support the constant calls for regional (Zone 2 and Zone 3) allocated representative seats on the management committee as well as identification of many undemocratic provisions and deficient, contradictory clauses prone to abuse as I have outlined in this thread. I know I sound like a broken record on these issues but I and many other supportive members will unapologetically continue to pursue them and don't think for a moment that the people in charge will make an ounce of difference to that.

Hi again, thanks for telling me how to do the reply stuff, I am a dumbo when it comes to computer stuff. I agree there are always two sides to every story. Both the RNA and Dogs Queensland are entitled to put their point of view and concerns up. That is part of the democratic process. The RNA though keeps referring to Dogs For Democracy as a separate group, I just assumed that was the catchphrase that Dogs Queensland was using to get members attention. I must admit I am disappointed that the RNA thinks that it is okay to publish the names of individual members from a private chat list though. Maybe this is why Dogs Queensland has not handed over our email addresses to it? And no I am NOT one of the people listed on the emails. But I am a firm believer in the right of everyone to voice their opinion in private without it suddenly appearing publically. I am sure you would not want everything you write to people privately put in the public domain just as I wouldn't. If everyone suddenly has to fear that everything we say will be put out there for the public to see no one will talk to anyone again, this is the curse of social media and organisations such as the RNA should not be lulled into its embrace. As I understand it the Dogs for Democracy communication was born from a self-selected group of members (a closed group, not inclusive of the whole membership and not providing any opportunity for other interested, equal members to be involved) who put the slogan and supporting documentation together using CCCQ's resources. It's fine for them to have their opinion and to advertise it widely but not to use the organisation's resources as far as I'm concerned. I have my own opinion and have certainly discussed it widely but I haven't had the opportunity to have CCCQ staff work on it, do a flashy design makeover on it, be granted the prominent use of the organisations website, had legal advice sought and provided and sent off for publication of flyers to be mailed to members - why should some members have this opportunity to support their view from the organisation and not others - not very democratic from a group calling for democracy - how much is it costing the members?. I absolutely agree that Dogs Qld did the right thing in not providing the members contact details to the RNA - whether it would constitute a breach of privacy law or not, I don't know but it doesn't matter because protecting privacy even as a matter of principle or integrity rather than law is important. But I do believe that it would be appropriate in the interests of a balanced view for Dogs Qld to publish a link to or the contents of RNA's communication on their website. As I read the communication from RNA - they have inserted an email from a member of the organisation who names the group conducting these discussions - this email and the communications have been published on a chat site and circulated to many members. As you correctly identified, the internet is a curse where one should exercise caution as to what they say and who they circulate it to. However, when you send an email your address as the sender or receiver may identify you and people know this - it is an inherent risk that people take, that their communication will be forwarded to and viewed by others. If privacy of group membership or the content of the discussion was a concern, there are plenty of steps that can be taken to conceal a distribution list so I can only assume these people are happy to stand by their commitment to their cause and their statements. There are many parties in this including the many calling for allocated regional representatives who have communicated and are only too happy to have their names attached to it for all to see. I know what you're saying and in some ways I agree, but these people freely circulated their commentary with full knowledge that it may be onforwarded - there was no request for the discussions to be kept confidential or security to keep it that way. What I find more disturbing is that a group of members have established themselves without including others to push their opinion using the organisation's resources - not appropriate and I for one am glad that I found out. As unpleasant as it is, this kind of unprofessionalism is exactly the kind of information members need to be aware of to make informed judgements. Don't get me wrong Agatha - I don't do things in black and white - I'm disappointed with and pleased with different actions of each group in this issue and prefer to judge on an issue by issue basis. The main thing for me is that I don't agree with the proposed constitution - it's deficient and doesn't serve the interests of the members so for me, an opportunity to have further input into the development of a better constitution is obviously a huge positive for me especially considering CCCQ are unwilling to listen to or take on our suggestions. Given that both parties have advised that incorporation is the objective, the constitution is the deciding factor.

Communication from RNA for CCCQ members interested in having all the facts. There are indeed two sides to every story and I would be interested in additional information from CCCQ including as to how much of the members money has been spent on what is a campaign by a closed group of members who have not been inclusive of the membership as a whole - is that democracy? http://rna.org.au/media/440038/combined-letter-to-cccq-9-jan-2012.pdf

To all who are interested - here is some information from RNA that address what the process will be if the motion at the special general meeting is defeated. In the event of a "NO" vote. The RNA will appoint an INTERIM committee (as per the correspondence from the RNA asking for committee nominations "The newly appointed CCCQ committee must as a matter of urgency, move to incorporation under a constitution which is founded on rights of democracy and fair process. Importantly, the new CCCQ must confer with CCCQ members so that any new constitution reflects the views and wishes of CCCQ members". The RNA have stated that they wish to convene meetings across the state with the assistance of Ulla Greenwood and Lionel Blumel to get the views of the widest cross section of the membership as possible. ALL members will be given the right to ask any questions they wish both at the meetings and via correspondence. They will have the right to make suggestions about alterations to the constitution and, where possible and appropriate they will be adopted. If a suggestion is unsuitable members will be informed as to why. Details for democratic elections will be included in these discussions. Once the constitution is at a fundamentally sound and acceptable stage for the vast majority of members a special general meeting will be called to vote on accepting it as the constitution. If accepted then progress towards the first fully democratic election according to the process agreed on by the members. It is envisioned that this process would take LESS than 6 months if all goes well. For me, this would be a good outcome - as I mentioned above I believe that CCCQ are rushing the process with a constitution that has not been properly and completely developed and still contains a number of contradictions, gaps and opportunities for abuse; and most importantly does not serve the needs of the members especially those in regional areas (Zones 2 and 3) who need allocated management committee positions so that decision-making is informed and conscious of impacts throughout the whole state. For those creating hysteria and telling us that RNA are going to take us over and take all of our stuff if the YES vote doesn't occur, it would seem this is not correct and they intend to send us on the same path to incorporation but with a more robust, extensive and inclusive process of establishing the supporting constitution. Certainly from the regional perspective, CCCQ and their constitution draft are unwilling to listen to our calls for allocated regional representation so an opportunity to further develop the constitution and make our case (and hopefully get a fair hearing instead of being dismissed and ignored) is in our interests, and in fact the interests of the whole organisation. The benefits that the inclusion of regional representatives for more balanced decision-making would certainly reduce the backflips, exceptions, duplications and protests that have occurred due to ill-informed, out of touch decision-making in the past. My other question is why is Dogs Qld spending members money on their advertising, etc for this vote when incorporation and democracy through a far more inclusive and rigorous process than CCCQ used, is what the RNA will be directing us to do?

Oh God I don't know how to do what you have done above to make things easier to read:0) I am a bit of a computer illiterate when it comes to this stuff especially on forums. You are right if we were sitting down and talking about this at a show or whatever it would be easier to have a good debate. I really think we should all contact Dogs Queensland with any questions, concerns, etc. They have asked members to contact them and that what I will be doing about anything I'm not sure of. Ultimately I prefer the postal vote system to a proxy vote system though as it is more "honest" providing the issue with time frames is clarified. To do that - just hit reply and then click in the original post you are replying to where you want to insert the text and I then highlight it and choose the italics or bold or something so it looks different. That's fair enough to ask the questions of Dogs Qld but from our perspective we've asked questions, made submissions, etc and they haven't been listened to so it gets pretty frustrating. It also important to note that in a YES or NO outcome the future is uncertain for Dogs Qld and neither DQ or RNA have done anything in particular to impress me or many others that they are the "better" party in this - I think both parties have been far too involved in protecting their own or destroying the others reputation to concentrate on a good outcome for the members. My comments are solely related to the very one-sided information appearing on the Dogs Qld website which makes voting YES all sound wonderful but is in fact trying to rush through an outcome with a constitution that has too many loopholes at the moment that need to be tightened, clarified or closed and does not serve the needs of the membership (particularly the regional members) as is claimed. We should also remember that when we had the last vote there was a lot of talk from DQ that this would be our only chance at democracy, yet here we are a short time later with another opportunity. I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of being told one thing when it is apparent or a little research reveals it is not the case.

I'll address these one by one as I think it's the best way for it not become confusing.

I respect your viewpoint and your right to voice your concerns. However, I would like to understand exactly what it is about the proposed constitution that is undemocratic. Much of what is in is required by Qld law in any case. Patronising much??? How about we just overlook that.......I am no constitutional or legal expert so you'll have to accept the view of the uneducated in this and as flawed as it may be, I'm a member like anyone else (even they who are more learned) - we all sit on our own backsides after all don't we.....and it's what democracy is all about - being equal. Dogs Qld is asking us to vote YES for Democracy based on these principles: 1. You will have a democratic say in all aspects of Dogs Qld All??? ALL??? Well not really, we can elect a management committee who make decisions in all aspects of Dogs Qld - so I don't really think this statement is fully correct is it? Are we going to have a ballot every time a decision needs to be made? That's how it reads but I don't think that's going to be the reality of it now, is it? How is the decision-making truly democratic - I think you need to clarify that you are establishing a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy. People vote for representatives who vote on things. Meeting procedure for Special General Meeting - rather than a majority of votes, 75% of present members are required to remove a Management Committee member - this is inconsistent with other aspects and provisions of the proposed constitution which requires a majority and is undemocratic where a majority may vote to remove but be denied because of the % provision. Section 19 - casual vacancies - the management committee appoint - why can't there be nominations and elections for this position?? That's not a democratic process for the "you" (members) you are referring to in the communication. S.37.4, S37.5 & S37.6 - enables the management committee to with-hold minutes of certain meetings if they don't like the justification for wanting the information - this is inconsistent with normal procedure where minutes and information should be readily available to members. Whilst not exactly an issue of democracy - deliberately with-holding information for whatever reason places far too much power in the hands of a few and marginalises the members who have no say over this. 2. You will have a constitution that serves your needs. I think we've covered this above - it is a wideheld view that the proposed constitution does NOT serve our needs - certainly not in the regional areas, many of whom reject this assumption, and this has been communicated extensively to the appropriate people, only to be ignored - nice! 3. You will elect 8 Councillors by March 2013. Nice try at making it seem a lot but it's only 4 in this year - not even the majority of the management committe. As per Section 17 of the proposed constitution, I don't think it's democratic at all - all positions should be vacated and the membership should vote on their management committee - existing MC can stand for election and be judged on their performance, not use an undemocratic provision in a constitution to hold on to power if they haven't been doing the job. Also note that while there is provision for postal votes s17.6 states that the ballot will be conducted as determined by the management committee and s17.9 (i) no election will be invalidated....because a shorter time-frame allowed than is otherwise required under this constitution has the potential to be abused to the detriment of democratic opportunities especially for regional members using postal votes. 4. You will be able to have a postal vote. Well yes, as long the management committee decide that it's part of the manner determined to conduct the ballot and they provide sufficient time to lodge these which according to the constitution may not occur. So you only get a postal vote in certain circumstances which are uncertain - a little inconsistent with such a definite statement. 5. You will be able to change the constitution. Well again yes - it sounds easy to do but it isn't really. It relies on certain conditions. Any incorporated organisation can change it's constitution so this is a given really so it's not like anyone did some special work with the proposed constitution to enable this. 6. You can make a difference. This is what is referred to as a "weasely" statement - it sounds nice but what does it specifically mean??? At the moment the regional areas aren't listened to and don't have any allocated representatives which is what we want so how is voting YES going to make a difference for us on this point? 46.3 The Management Committee may take such steps as it determines to be necessary to ensure that the interests of all zones are adequately represented, including permitting a representative from the regional zones to participate in Management Committee meeetins save that such representatives shall have observer status only and shall not be entitled to vote unless duly elected. Yeah well, thanks for that. So us regional people MAY be consulted as the management committee see fit - is this the same see fit that saw the DOTY/POTY rules changed without ANY consultation with the regions and resulted in greatly diminished participation at their finals?? I've got news - the regional zones MUST be consulted and MUST participate in decision-making - the logical way to do this is to have allocated representative positions on the management committee to provide balanced decision-making that considers Qld wide issues, impacts and considerations. These are but a few sections that I consider to be out of line with a democratic and progressive organisation - admittedly from a largely inept and uneducated person when it comes to interpretation of law and constitutions, however, from where I'm sitting, I don't have much confidence that after reading this document and the propaganda by Dogs Qld about this vote, that they have any better idea. There are enough holes in this document and inconsistencies that could provide the opportunity for abuse from what I can see, to call it a piece of swiss cheese!! By the way - all this one-sided propaganda and advertising Agatha. Are you a management committee member of Dogs Qld? Or can we get one of the management committee to tell us how much this is all costing us? There has been staff time, legal consultation, printing of leaflets, etc used in this process - so how much is this agenda/push costing the membership?? I see bleak days ahead for Dogs Qld - the good of the organisation has become overrun by the egos and politics of the two power groups (DQ and RNA)vying for the edge in this dispute. The thought of the majority of the Dogs Qld people, who have been behind this, participated in this and their performance, retaining their council positions is an unthinkably poor result should the incorporation vote proceed.

You're right most metropolitan members don't know what has happened in the regions, I agree. I am sorry if my use of language offends as it wasn't meant to. The point I am making is that there has been a process by which people could make submissions. No one has been denied a voice. People only are denied a voice who remain silent. I don't know about what has been happening in other zones, again because I am not in them, just as you probably don't know what is necessarily happening in all of the metropolitan areas. The point I am making is we need to incorporate, be out from under the wing of the RNA, we MUST have a constitution to do that, that's the law in Queensland, and the sooner Dogs Queensland members, and all the members whether they live in the regions or the city, can control their own organisation the better. It is not about the regions verses the metropolitan members; it is about the dog world in its whole, conformation, obedience, herding and everything else being able to chose their own leaders and make their own decisions. It is about democracy. Everyone wants incorporation but when we have a constitution that serves the membership in the best way. As it stands, despite the "consultative process" where some suggestions have been picked and chosen by our management committee and others not (what a great example of democracy....) is flawed and has delivered a flawed product. As the RNA stated in correspondence, they support CCCQ incorporation however, did not believe that the constitution drafted served the needs of the members so opposed on these grounds. You don't just push ahead with a flawed structure and process for the sake of it. It is fallacious to assume that things will be better with incorporation with the proposed constitution, there is in fact great opportunity for the power-hungry to push their own agenda which certainly will not advance the objectives of the organisation or be for the betterment of the membership - this is why it is so important to have a well-constructed constitution rather than make a few rushed amendments and put up a catchy slogan on the website to appease the last few % required to pass the special motion. There are many undemocratic provisions in the proposed constitution so it is also a flawed argument to state this will bring about democracy. The message is loud and clear and the same thing I have been saying all along, throughout the consultation process a very strong case has been made for allocated regional representatives as being essential for Dogs Qld being a truly statewide organisation. This case has been continually ignored by the management committee, and more insultingly dismissed through a raft of illogical, feeble, irrelevant excuses. We should also bear in mind that if incorporation proceeds the majority of this management committee will remain in power - how is this democracy - clear the decks and let them be judged on their performance, not use the proposed constitution to hold on to power. I have never said that it's about metropolitan vs regional, it's about having regional representation as the model for the management committee to make more balanced and informed decisions and consider their impacts on the whole state - simple as that. As I mentioned this same model is used widely by progressive organisations, so I can't understand why (in the absence of any agendas) why it wouldn't be adopted as the structure for an organisation that says it wants to progress. Democracy is good - this constitution does not deliver it. Rushing an outcome through without proper consideration and exploration of the impacts is exactly the wrong way of doing it, and you would find has been the basis of much poor decision-making in the organisations history. It would be well advised to do a more in-depth analysis rather than rush something through to try and beat action from the RNA - the politicking and grandstanding by our current committee has been nothing short of shameful, wasteful, arrogant and inconsistent with the objectives of the organisation - did I mentioned that if this is rushed through, the majority of this committee will remain in power?? Scary......

People were invited to have a say throughout the 18 month process as far as I am aware and there were dozens of submissions received. In terms of the ballot question I think what people fail to understand is that you can't incorporate and then work out the constitution later that is Queensland law, not something Dogs Queensland made up for its convenience http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/incorporated-association-rules.htm If Dogs Queensland Incorporates without its own Constitution in place then it must by law adopt the model constitution http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/AssociationsAndNonprofits/Model_rules.pdf Then it would not be so easy incorporating all that the dog world needs into the model constitution. I would have thought the regions would have been happy theat members would be able to have postal votes under the revised constitution on AGM agenda items, something they don't have now. To me this would be more inclusive for the regions? The other thing to remember that in the end Dogs Queensland could spend 100 years consulting, getting feedback etc, but there would never be concensus, because there would always be some that didn't want this bit or wanted that bit changed. So really folks just come to the meeting cast your ballot understand why we can't just vote for incorporation...Queensland law requires we have a constitution, not a draft constitution and get on with it. Then again, incorporating with a deficient constitution is hardly the way to progress which is what this is all about....? Of course it is a step forward (small albeit) to allow members to have postal votes under the revised constitution however, this is limited only to AGM agenda items and any statement that this somehow provides a greater voice and inclusiveness in decision-making for the regional area is simply insulting to the regions who continue to have to deal with the fallout from out-of-touch, ill-conceived decisions. The regional areas need dedicated advocates on the management committee to provide balanced decision-making and I would again add that this concept is in no way novel - it is used in all variety of sporting management committees, companies and our government at all levels. What the regions (if I may speak for them and I don't know that I represent their feelings) are unhappy with is that the only provision for regional consultation is that it MAY be obtained where the management committee sees fit but this does not provide the regions with any influence or voting power in decisions. Are we going to rely on the management committee's determination that regional consultation is needed when this was sadly lacking in the DOTY rule change fiasco which decimated the Zone 2 and Zone 3 DOTY/POTY finals this year? The score is on the board and it's poor...... Honestly, people wonder why the regions have such a negative view when they have been left right out for so long and then a token gesture claiming a voice and inclusiveness is offered which will deliver next to nothing. The first draft of a proposed CCCQ constitution was forwarded to all members on 15 April 2011 seeking feedback prior to 8 May 2011. Many members provided extensive feedback both by way of formal written submissions and by informal consultations held at the meeting rooms at Durack and elsewhere. Members were invited to provide feedback in the manner that suited them. After meeting with the RNA on June 14 Dogs Queensland suggested extending the consultation time to allow members more time to submit feedback. This feedback time was extended to July 1. So basically members had about three and a half months to read it, go through it, pick it to pieces, put in a submission about what they liked or didn't like about it. If members in the regions had/have specific concerns did they make submissions to the process? From what I understand submissions have been continually sent to the Dogs Queensland office since that 1st draft came out. The draft now being put up for voting on is the third or fourth revised constitution after Dogs Queensland looked at the concerns of people who provided feedback and for that matter many of the concerns of the RNA as well. Everyone has had a chance to have a say. It is a democracy we live in. Staying silent often says as much as speaking out. The time for arguing about the nitty gritty really is over. We can't separate the vote on the constitution and incorporation, by Queensland Law we MUST have a constitution to incoporate. If we continue to go back to the drawing board it may take another 2 or 3 years for us to have a voice in our hobby. Absolutely, all throughout the consultation process regional clubs and members have expressed their concerns that all versions of the proposed constitution does nothing to further involve the regional areas (Zone 2 and Zone 3). The message has been loud and clear that the regional areas want dedicated representatives on the management committee so they have a voice in decision-making - to date these constant and consistent wishes of the regional constituency have been ignored and dismissed by the current management committee who refuse to include it in the constitution drafts - one only need view the feeble, irrelevant arguments against this specific request in the notes to earlier versions of the proposed constitution to see there are no valid reasons why Dogs Qld should not follow suit with the multitude of progressive organisations who base their structure on regional representation and adopt this as our management structure. Again it is insulting to label this point of contention "nitty gritty" and it speaks volumes of the whole issue for regional clubs - the metropolitan members don't understand, don't know and more than likely don't care about the regions at all and rather than have an organisation that is truly representative of the whole state, want to concentrate the power in the metropolitan where they have their numbers and can continue to make their out-of-touch, self-serving decisions that negatively impact on the regions. Case in point DOTY/POTY eligibility rule changes WITHOUT any consultation with Zone 2 or Zone 3 which decimated our end of year finals - as I mentioned earlier, the score is on the board and the regions want more than a weak, cynical clause saying that the management committee will consult with them when it sees fit - talk about labelling your regional members as second-rate....... Your assertion that members should simply agree with a deficient constitution that fails to include all members (especially the regional areas) in the decision making processes, because CCCQ has gone through a long, cumbersome, ineffective process simply reward mediocrity. The regions are under no illusions that with our lack of numbers it is unlikely we have the power to make any change, however, we will push for them none the less as we have done throughout the WHOLE process only to be continually ignored and dismissed as some kind of fringe group who doesn't have the right make this noise. And you wonder why we feel this way - are we looking at progressing or just rewarding mediocrity and having to continue to endure the same cumbersome, out of touch management we have had to put up with for so long?

People were invited to have a say throughout the 18 month process as far as I am aware and there were dozens of submissions received. In terms of the ballot question I think what people fail to understand is that you can't incorporate and then work out the constitution later that is Queensland law, not something Dogs Queensland made up for its convenience http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/incorporated-association-rules.htm If Dogs Queensland Incorporates without its own Constitution in place then it must by law adopt the model constitution http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/AssociationsAndNonprofits/Model_rules.pdf Then it would not be so easy incorporating all that the dog world needs into the model constitution. I would have thought the regions would have been happy theat members would be able to have postal votes under the revised constitution on AGM agenda items, something they don't have now. To me this would be more inclusive for the regions? The other thing to remember that in the end Dogs Queensland could spend 100 years consulting, getting feedback etc, but there would never be concensus, because there would always be some that didn't want this bit or wanted that bit changed. So really folks just come to the meeting cast your ballot understand why we can't just vote for incorporation...Queensland law requires we have a constitution, not a draft constitution and get on with it. Then again, incorporating with a deficient constitution is hardly the way to progress which is what this is all about....? Of course it is a step forward (small albeit) to allow members to have postal votes under the revised constitution however, this is limited only to AGM agenda items and any statement that this somehow provides a greater voice and inclusiveness in decision-making for the regional area is simply insulting to the regions who continue to have to deal with the fallout from out-of-touch, ill-conceived decisions. The regional areas need dedicated advocates on the management committee to provide balanced decision-making and I would again add that this concept is in no way novel - it is used in all variety of sporting management committees, companies and our government at all levels. What the regions (if I may speak for them and I don't know that I represent their feelings) are unhappy with is that the only provision for regional consultation is that it MAY be obtained where the management committee sees fit but this does not provide the regions with any influence or voting power in decisions. Are we going to rely on the management committee's determination that regional consultation is needed when this was sadly lacking in the DOTY rule change fiasco which decimated the Zone 2 and Zone 3 DOTY/POTY finals this year? The score is on the board and it's poor...... Honestly, people wonder why the regions have such a negative view when they have been left right out for so long and then a token gesture claiming a voice and inclusiveness is offered which will deliver next to nothing.

I don't think anyone was opposed to incorporation however, that was not the ballot question. CCCQ decided to attach incorporation question to a draft constitution which was deficient in many ways and this is where the opposition and ultimate defeat of the motion resulted. CCCQ has provided an amended constitution advising that it has listened to concerns and adjusted accordingly - my question is, who was consulted, when and how? As a club secretary there was no communication to my club requesting feedback or suggestions which I think would be a logical move - the governing body consulting with it's member clubs. From a regional viewpoint, I believe that there must be regionally allocation Zone 2 and Zone 3 management committee members for Dogs Qld to be a truly Queensland wide organisation - this sort of structure (regional representation) is in place in NSW, in many organisations, sporting management committees and at all levels of government and is in place for a reason - to ensure the views of the entire constituency are considered in decision-making. Before making a decision, members would be well advised to consider that only 4 management committee members will change this year under the proposed constitution which means that the majority of the management committee who oversaw several poor decisions that impacted on regional clubs and competitions (ie DOTY rules) without consultation, who oversaw a double-edged ballot questions which ultimately failed and cost members a large amount of money then sought to blame everyone else except themselves for it (interestingly, this was one of the only ballots where I have ever received a propaganda letter from only one side of the question in my ballot......tainted much?), and are partaking in political games and grandstanding with RNA which is ultimately injurious to and deviates from the objectives of the organisation. If we really want change and democracy, we should clear the decks completely and start again with all positions vacant. Our current councillors will have the opportunity to nominate, so I think it would be appropriate to allow the members to have their voice heard on their performance. We are all for incorporation and democracy, however, this proposed constitution is deficient as was the previous and there are many holes in it. I can't help but think that the current management committee is using persistence to wear down the membership into voting YES when it is apparent that a great deal more thought and work needs to go into developing a constitution that will really allow the organisation to progress when incorporated, not to flounder.

I love Bedlington terriers - I'd definately love one if I had the time for the grooming and had learned to do it properly. Maybe something to consider when I retire and the Bullies are getting too boisterous for me....LOL.

there is in Victoria ... I have always got a BOB Certificate (with the Breed points) & a BIG Certificate (with 25pts on it) when I've been fortunate to win the Group In NSW we just cross out the points and make it 25 points instead and put Best In Group under the points on the BOB certificate... cheapskates ... tell them to buy the Group cards LOL I was thinking the same thing. LOL, they're 40 cents each, same with the Best in Show cards (from Dogs NSW gazette). I know in Qld when I write we're supposed to cross the breed points out on the BOB certificate and change it to the group points, but we still do the group/show cards as well.

I don't see that as being correct, though I might have missed something.... BOB Challenge is the total of dogs and bitches, therefore if the bitch gets BOB she gets the challenge points for the dogs as well as herself, making it a 14 point Challenge (BOB) and 13 point Dog Challenge No - I might have missed something because I haven't read through the detail - lol. I guess maybe then the only thing I can complain about (and I'm not really complaining - the point score is what it is no matter what the parameters) is the poor RU/BOB who is judged second best for the breed but the opposite sex challenge winner takes home the points.

Hmmm, I like most of the aspects of this. I must admit though I'm a little hesitant about the challenge aspect and the ommission of RU/BOB - I mean if a bitch wins BOB and the reserve challenge is RU/BOB, the dog would appear on the pointscore to be better. I know that's purely putting up a hypothetical situation, but I think by taking the focus away from BOB, it can reward mediocrity - eg 8 dogs and 1 bitch - bitch is BOB and goes on to win show...in the challenge pointscore the dog challenge winner would appear to be better. I don't see it as a massive issue given that most in the know don't use DOL pointscore to judge the quality of a dog - it's just a competition run within parameters that represents the result based on those parameters but I guess the thing for me is where there is a numerical deficiency in either the dogs or bitches, a points award advantage may exist where the specimen doesn't even rate when it comes to all of the breed being judged. So I'd have to say I favour the best of breed competition - it rewards the winner and second-place getter. I do agree with the aspect of taking the absentees, babies out of the picture.

This thread has both extremes of the argument - the customer who says the groomer didn't listen to them and the groomers who know what is best for the dog and what is feasible in a given situation. If the matting was so bad that clip was the only feasible option fair enough but as the customer specifically said they didn't want those areas clipped I think the groomer either should have called to advise what was feasible to do or as others have mentioned simply told the customer that they would do what was best for the dog, what it entailed of they had the choice to go elsewhere. Sorry but I do see some responsibility on the groomer to communicate better in this instance. Most of the groomers on here seem to be very clear about what they will and will not do up front, and why and I think that's great and probably why their customers like them - they give the customer an immediate, informed choice. There is also some responsibility on the OP though to understand their dog, it's coat and what if feasible if there's a problem. I'd love to learn to groom properly, although only my own dogs (after working with the public in other industries, I can empathise with the sheer hell that service providers have to go through) - Bull Terriers should be pretty easy but our professionals would probably laugh at my attempts

Here's my wishlist..... Group 1 - Toys 1. Pap 2. Bichon Frise 3. English Toy Terrier Group 2 - Terriers 1. Bull Terrier (and miniatures) 2. Bedlington Terrier 3. Scottish Terrier with honourable mentions to Foxies and Manchester Terrier Group 3 - Gundogs 1. Welsh Springer Spaniel 2. Irish Red & White Setter 3. Weimaraner Group 4 - Hounds 1. Whippet 2. Rhodesian Ridgeback 3. Greyhound Group 5 - Working Dogs 1. Border Collie 2. Finnish Lapphund 3. Maremma Sheepdog Group 6 - Utility 1. Samoyed 2. Rottweiler 3. Sibe or Alaskan Malamute Group 7 - Non Sporting 1. Poodle 2. Japanese Spitz 3. Boston Terrier

I agree that it can be hard to get started in showing. I was very lucky because I went to a lot of shows as a spectator (or strapper holding onto friend's dogs) so got to meet a lot of people before I was any threat and learn a lot of things, so when I started showing I had a great group of friends to help me and make the social side of the day so pleasant too. I really enjoy showing but have to admit that if the social side of it was not so enjoyable, I don't think I'd do it. I guess the difficult thing with showing is that you've not got a level playing field in that you often have to compete against better, more experienced dogs, groomers, handlers, etc. Whilst this is the nature of the game, I can understand how this can be very daunting to the newbies. Add to that being able to socialise your dog and train them to deal with the show environment (which can be very hard to recreate). I guess we can go on and on forever about the reasons why people don't show, stop showing, etc but I have found that most people stick with an activity while it is fun. Once the fun stops, interest follows. Maybe we just need to start working towards shows being a great social event as well as a competition.

I agree with you to a point. Rather than see through the printed media, the judges need to have some integrity and be above all of that. If judges cannot see past this or are influenced by it, then they are not a good judge and they lack integrity and objectivity and need to judge what is presented to them on its merits. By banning advertising it will do nothing to address the deficiencies of the judge in question. As for buying deficient pups - it is an awful situation but it really does highlight the importance of the buyer doing their research upfront. Without all the facts of the cited situation and what both parties did in the aftermath, I imagine that a refund would be on the cards in line with the legislation pertaining to sale of goods.

I think the ANKC could do a little more to promote purebred dogs but to an extent it can be difficult because actually obtaining a purebred dog involves dealing with a range of breeders in most instances who all have different levels of skills and knowledge and different attributes they are seeking for a potential home. There is nothing wrong with this either - most breeders want the best for the dogs they're placing and their expectations will be different - just as the consumer's is. The great conundrum is when looking at purebred vs BYB/puppy farm is that most purebred breeders have some standards or expectations whereas most BYB/puppy farms are only too happy to tell people what they want to hear and reply yes to everything to make a sale. When you factor in the aspect that to a large extent, we are an instant gratification purchase society...it's easy to see how people are beguiled. I think (and it's only my thought) is that the purebred fraternity should continue to focus on being a provider of quality dogs to a niche market of potential owners who are willing to learn, be responsible and view their dog as more than a throw-away possession. It's not an easy issue by any stretch.....ANKC really only has limited powers because consumers have the right to make whatever choice they like and given the option of having a potentially difficult purchase answering questions where the breeder (salesperson) is very much in control (and should be),etc vs an instant acquisition (which our society is pretty much culture-programmed to seek) where the consumer is told everything they want and made to feel like they're honourable and right in everything they say. Then you've also got the problems of a few rogue purebred breeders which the gives a false impression of the purebred fraternity as being willing to give people whatever they want, when that is not usually the case - for example - at a recent show I heard the following: PUBLIC JO: I really like staffies, especially the blue ones because they are rarer and all the ones I've seen are much better quality than the other colours.... BREEDER: Oh yes, definately, they are very rare, we breed some very good quality ones - that's why they are so much more expensive than the others......

In my breed I've heard quite a few: Pig dog Bull Pit (?) Roman Noses and the list goes on.... The two I've found the most amusing was when I overheard Foxies being referred to as Giant Tenterfield Terriers (LOL) and Weis being called Wire Llamas......

ain;t that the truth. I hear it over and again, people complaining that they have competition. They take one look at the catalogue and hope they don't show up. I feel embarrassed when I don't have any and they hand me 6 points, thankfully my dogs are competitive beyond breed level and get class in groups most weeks and frequently classes in show. Yeah I've seen this attitude a lot too which is a shame but really a reflection of the quality of some of the dogs being shown too. I get a little bored without any breed competition and it's a little disappointing when there aren't any others of my breed there. I guess it depends on peoples' showing goals - if winning the CH or BOB is everything to them then their attitude is the above. For me, I'm really happy with my dogs if they show great for me - when they do they usually win which is wonderful but if they don't it's the judge's decision and out of my control. Again, as I said earlier having a title before the pedigree name or winning challenges, BOB or other awards really doesn't have a great deal of bearing of my opinion of the dog in terms of how good it is against the standard. I've seen some stunning dogs miss out and some utter rubbish awarded - that's dog showing.....