Removal Of Titles Gained

[wednesday]

This affects so many dogs, why doesn't everyone just put the 'breed' aside, and stand united. I think I read somewhere that about 4,000 dogs were affected by this ruling, therefore it should be a strong voice to the ANKC if everyone just pulls together.

[Erny]

This affects so many dogs, why doesn't everyone just put the 'breed' aside, and stand united. I think I read somewhere that about 4,000 dogs were affected by this ruling, therefore it should be a strong voice to the ANKC if everyone just pulls together.

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?

[Tapferhund]

The Malinois people have said that very rarely does one of their breed come in with Working titles so they are not fussed about the removal of the titles because it is not a point of breed worthiness with them and never has been.

what the? Who told you that?!

Nekhbet,

It was said ....but on another major forum. The person who said it is involved with WL and heavily involved with Schutzhund. They basically said the Mal clubs wouldn't care as mal imports are rarely titled anyway....and as there are very few mal WL breeders in Aust. the chances of them being able to make some noise is limited.

This affects so many dogs, why doesn't everyone just put the 'breed' aside, and stand united. I think I read somewhere that about 4,000 dogs were affected by this ruling, therefore it should be a strong voice to the ANKC if everyone just pulls together.

Absolutely agree with you wednesday

[wednesday]

This affects so many dogs, why doesn't everyone just put the 'breed' aside, and stand united. I think I read somewhere that about 4,000 dogs were affected by this ruling, therefore it should be a strong voice to the ANKC if everyone just pulls together.

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.

[Nekhbet]

The person who said it is involved with WL and heavily involved with Schutzhund. They basically said the Mal clubs wouldn't care as mal imports are rarely titled anyway....and as there are very few mal WL breeders in Aust. the chances of them being able to make some noise is limited.

I would love to know who said that. There are enough working line Mal breeders in Australia to make noise trust me.

[Coalfire]

This affects so many dogs, why doesn't everyone just put the 'breed' aside, and stand united. I think I read somewhere that about 4,000 dogs were affected by this ruling, therefore it should be a strong voice to the ANKC if everyone just pulls together.

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

[Julie R]

Hi Greg

Have you ever given any thought that it might be on the directive via the ANKC that information is posted on CC websites such as DOGS Vic. ??

Pam

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

Edited August 28, 2010 by Pam

[Tapferhund]

Hi Greg

Have you ever given any thought that it might be on the directive via the ANKC that information is posted on CC websites such as DOGS Vic. ??

Pam

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

Yes Pam, that's where the directive was first noticed....on the Dogs Victoria web site.

[malsrock]

As far as we have established looking into this situation, the ANKC under their obligation to comply with the FCI requirements as an associate member, do not have the power to alter or make policies in regard to anything of FCI recognition. 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???.

It wouldn't surprise me to know that the ANKC administration have little knowledge of the FCI requirements and would make a more substantial complaint to inform them of an FCI membership breach if that is the case???.

I also don't know of anyone involved with working line Malinios as someone suggested in this thread, that are not concerned with working titles being removed from their pedigrees Malinios titles are often more difficult to search for and confirm than GSD titles under the WUSV and I would think it of greater importance that Malinios titles are retained in their pedigrees.

Edited August 29, 2010 by malsrock

[Coalfire]

"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

[Yesmaam]

The person who said it is involved with WL and heavily involved with Schutzhund. They basically said the Mal clubs wouldn't care as mal imports are rarely titled anyway....and as there are very few mal WL breeders in Aust. the chances of them being able to make some noise is limited.

I would love to know who said that. There are enough working line Mal breeders in Australia to make noise trust me.

The other problem is that unlike other breed clubs the malinois doesn't have a national body like the GSDCA, they only have individual state clubs and operate separately.

Re: WL malinois breeders......at a guess less than 10 in the country (and thats probably being modest). Make some noise, yes but to what effect when there are so few and who in the state malinois clubs would listen...?????

[Yesmaam]

[/qoute]I also don't know of anyone involved with working line Malinios as someone suggested in this thread, that are not concerned with working titles being removed from their pedigrees Malinios titles are often more difficult to search for and confirm than GSD titles under the WUSV and I would think it of greater importance that Malinios titles are retained in their pedigrees.

Don't take it the wrong way. WL mal breeders are very interested in whats going on. The hurdel will be trying to rally up support from the individual mal clubs as they dont have a national body like some other breed clubs. Hey, we all could be wrong here but its a lot harder to table the subject at separate meetings and get the same result we are looking for....

Edited August 29, 2010 by Yesmaam

[Tapferhund]

IMO it doesn't matter if your breed doesn't have "National" body ...as long as your breeds club/s , along with as many individual members you can rally, put down on paper their opinions on the matter and send it in to their States controlling body as well as the President of the ANKC. The more individual letters and emails they get , regardless of whether you own a German Shepherd or a Belgian Shepherd, Rottweiler , Boxer or Dobe......it ALL goes toward having this stupid directive overturned.

MalsRock,

Australia is not even an associate member of the FCI. I know it has it up on the FCI website but I can asure you we are not a member. I too thought we were but I have seen written evidence that clearly states we are not. The reasons being we , probably due to our quarantine regulations amongst other things , cannot hold CACIB shows ...and it also has something to do with recognition of FCI standards.

[malsrock]

IMO it doesn't matter if your breed doesn't have "National" body ...as long as your breeds club/s , along with as many individual members you can rally, put down on paper their opinions on the matter and send it in to their States controlling body as well as the President of the ANKC. The more individual letters and emails they get , regardless of whether you own a German Shepherd or a Belgian Shepherd, Rottweiler , Boxer or Dobe......it ALL goes toward having this stupid directive overturned.

MalsRock,

Australia is not even an associate member of the FCI. I know it has it up on the FCI website but I can asure you we are not a member. I too thought we were but I have seen written evidence that clearly states we are not. The reasons being we , probably due to our quarantine regulations amongst other things , cannot hold CACIB shows ...and it also has something to do with recognition of FCI standards.

Hi Tapferhund,

Is that 100% accurate the ANKC is not an FCI member???, did they used to be, or what happened there???. They are listed as members as you have said

[malsrock]

"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

That's interesting to know Greg People have said that the other state bodies offiliated with the ANKC had no knowledge of the situation other than Dogsvic.........Hmmmmm, I could take a guess at what club is involved, but I guess without conclusive evidence it would be unfair to speculate. I can however imagine which club would benefit dramatically from the removal of working titles though

[Erny]

IMO it doesn't matter if your breed doesn't have "National" body ...as long as your breeds club/s , along with as many individual members you can rally, put down on paper their opinions on the matter and send it in to their States controlling body as well as the President of the ANKC. The more individual letters and emails they get , regardless of whether you own a German Shepherd or a Belgian Shepherd, Rottweiler , Boxer or Dobe......it ALL goes toward having this stupid directive overturned.

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.

[Coalfire]

IMO it doesn't matter if your breed doesn't have "National" body ...as long as your breeds club/s , along with as many individual members you can rally, put down on paper their opinions on the matter and send it in to their States controlling body as well as the President of the ANKC. The more individual letters and emails they get , regardless of whether you own a German Shepherd or a Belgian Shepherd, Rottweiler , Boxer or Dobe......it ALL goes toward having this stupid directive overturned.

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

[Erny]

Thanks Greg. That's a help. For me, and I'm sure, for others.

If anyone else (Tapf inclusive - as you're quite 'up' with the happenings/workings in this regard) have extra points that would do well to raise with the ANKC and/or VicDogs (or for anyone else whom we might wish to send a letter to) that would be helpful too.

In the meantime, I've shot off an email to the FCI (I think it was the FCI ) asking it to clarify whether ANKC is or isn't an FCI Member, in ANY capacity. I think we need some current confirmation there, from the horse's mouth.

[Erny]

Ok. Here's mine (draft). Greg - yours was a great help in me being able to put something together.

Please feel free to suggest/add/amend - especially if I have any of the finer technical things incorrect.

It is with consternation that I have recently become aware that the ANKC issued a directive for the removal of all Schutzhund and IPO Working Titles from dogs pedigrees. Whilst I understand that directive has since been withdrawn, I am given to believe that it remains on the ANKC agenda for the next meeting in October.

This provides very little time for Clubs/Breed Clubs to arrange to meet and recruit the opinions, thoughts and views of their own members in relation to the ANKC’s intentions. On such an important matter where so many have worked hard and arduously to achieve the awards that they have, it should at least deserve to be a decision made by Members FOR Members – all of them. How such a directive came to be an elective on the ANKC’s agenda is a quandary and for the time being, not an issue to dwell on at this stage.

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.

I would also like my objection to this now proposed directive forming any part of the ANKC’s meeting agenda or at the very least, my objection to the passing of this now proposed directive. To refuse to acknowledge the working titles is to deny a reality and, as part of the dogs' pedigree and Titled capabilities, this is akin to a lie, a lie by omission. This is especially so where other of the dogs’ Titles shall still be acknowledged and included on the dogs’ pedigree register. To have one but not the other assumes that one does not exist, and that is a blatant falsification.

I would like my objection formally noted not only by ANKC but also by VicDogs, who is the State Dog’s Body of which I am a current financial member.

Furthermore, I would like the ANKC and VicDogs to review its stance and policy in regards to Schutzhund training and move to ask them (ANKC and VicDogs) to alter their view from one of denial to one of acceptance. Claiming the sport to suggest “attack training” and producing “dangerous dogs” is blatantly incorrect and in my opinion ignorant of the fine discipline that Schutzhund is and the solid foundation of training for a sound temperament and reliable obedience responses that it provides.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Erny

[Coalfire]

Ok. Here's mine (draft). Greg - yours was a great help in me being able to put something together.

Please feel free to suggest/add/amend - especially if I have any of the finer technical things incorrect.

It is with consternation that I have recently become aware that the ANKC issued a directive for the removal of all Schutzhund and IPO Working Titles from dogs pedigrees. Whilst I understand that directive has since been withdrawn, I am given to believe that it remains on the ANKC agenda for the next meeting in October.

This provides very little time for Clubs/Breed Clubs to arrange to meet and recruit the opinions, thoughts and views of their own members in relation to the ANKC’s intentions. On such an important matter where so many have worked hard and arduously to achieve the awards that they have, it should at least deserve to be a decision made by Members FOR Members – all of them. How such a directive came to be an elective on the ANKC’s agenda is a quandary and for the time being, not an issue to dwell on at this stage.

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.

I would also like my objection to this now proposed directive forming any part of the ANKC’s meeting agenda or at the very least, my objection to the passing of this now proposed directive. To refuse to acknowledge the working titles is to deny a reality and, as part of the dogs' pedigree and Titled capabilities, this is akin to a lie, a lie by omission. This is especially so where other of the dogs’ Titles shall still be acknowledged and included on the dogs’ pedigree register. To have one but not the other assumes that one does not exist, and that is a blatant falsification.

I would like my objection formally noted not only by ANKC but also by VicDogs, who is the State Dog’s Body of which I am a current financial member.

Furthermore, I would like the ANKC and VicDogs to review its stance and policy in regards to Schutzhund training and move to ask them (ANKC and VicDogs) to alter their view from one of denial to one of acceptance. Claiming the sport to suggest “attack training” and producing “dangerous dogs” is blatantly incorrect and in my opinion ignorant of the fine discipline that Schutzhund is and the solid foundation of training for a sound temperament and reliable obedience responses that it provides.

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