It's been a number of years since we whelped a Skye litter at home, and of course it happened the day before Bucks. Bucks is one of my all-time favorite shows, and I hate to miss it for any reason at all. But whelping a litter is, of course, one factor which must take preeminence for anyone in dogs. I certainly am not one of those who believe in whelping in motor homes at shows nor in moving the bitch to unfamiliar surroundings. We have co-bred two or three litters in the past four years with our partner, Kirsi Sainio of Helsinki, Finland, but as I said, this latest litter is the first purely home-bred one on the ground in quite some time. Pups and mother are doing fine. Skyes are easy if not lazy whelpers, and Linda, who is a great mother, was no exception—so far, that is.
You know, each and every time I go into the whelping box, I can't help but think of the Delegates' refusal to open its membership body to anyone in good standing with AKC. In June, of course, they will be voting on opening the doors somewhat to the professional judge. This will require, as all by-law changes do, a two-thirds majority vote, which, of course, is most difficult to achieve. Impossible to achieve if the motion were broader, I would think. The last vote was close, and would have been even closer if not totally in favor but for the famous “whelping box” exclusionary speech given by a powerful and longtime proponent of retaining the status quo. Every litter I have whelped since that infamous talk comes to my mind WHENEVER—no matter the time of day, night or morning it may be—infuriating me more about the basic unfairness of her emotional but flawed appeal. Let's hope a similar approach is not going to be taken, and if it is, that not only will the DelegateBody answer this argument in kind but will reject it as being fallacious as well.
There seems to be some confusion about how the original George Bolton suspension was initiated. It would appear that in instances where conduct may be considered prejudicial to the sport, either the CEO or the Board may institute proceedings. Who originally instituted the proceedings has come into question based on what I wrote last week. Initially, I was told Staff initiated the proceedings, but after checking with Staff, I was told it was the Board. I was then called, after the story was read by a Board Member, that, indeed, Staff had done it.
Quite frankly, the point of the story, in any event, had to do with a need to revamp the entire Trial Board procedures, so it really didn't matter who initiated what. However, it would have been nice for the procedures to have been accurately stated. I still have not been able to find out who initiated what!
Well, I am told the Board policy as it regards to the "60 Points of Light" has been changed to the degree that it is considered “dismantled.” Furthermore, a combination of two unsatisfactory field rep reports on a breed or several breeds may result in a judge being put on probationary status. This will prevent you from getting additional breeds, and you'll have to re-judge those breeds. If, once again, you are deemed unfit, you either appeal or, depending on the procedure, are out of luck. While I could not agree more with the decision to finally set-up a way to take breeds away from people, I really don't like the idea of the ultimate result being in the hands of possibly only two field reps. Should they have this power alone? I doubt it. Are all field reps capable of making these kinds of evaluations? I doubt it! Is there a possibility that other people such as judge experts in the breed or breeders themselves should have been made part of the process? Of course this should have been considered AND so implemented.
In other areas, the Board wisely decided to require AKC-trained judges, who are approved by AKC to limit their judging in the U.S. to AKC shows only! Of course, this is a good idea and with certain exceptions will now be spelt out in areas where breeds are not recognized by AKC. It makes total sense. I mean, really, AKC spends a fortune establishing requirements and schooling these people, and other organizations take advantage of it. That should have been done years ago. Furthermore, if one owns, works for or has a sufficient interest in other registries or event-giving organizations, effective January 2007, you will not be allowed to judge AKC shows either. One may divest oneself of these interests, but why in the world should AKC allow these few but highly-visible people to take advantage of this kind of competitive situation? As to Delegates who fall into that category, the Board will request the Delegate Body to implement a similar Rule towards Delegates. Makes sense to me, too. What did not make sense to me was their failure to make a recommendation about their agents, the show supers. But for the time being, I guess they thought they had created enough for everyone to consider.
The problem of territory and exclusivity was handled aswell. It's a confusing situation, traced back to the 1912 Rule that requires a member club to hold a show every other year to protect its geographical boundaries and exclusivity in that territory. The old language did not specify "in its own territory," since quite frankly, in those days, shows were never held outside of their territories. This practiced was established several decades ago. In 2002, the Board interpreted this Rule to mean that to protect exclusivity and require a host letter exception, the member club had to hold at least one show in its own territory every other year. Problem was that administratively this communicated in all related correspondence EXCEPT in the motion itself. Those magic words were omitted. This caused confusion at best. A compromise was used permitting certain clubs in Texas the right to hold a show in another's territory for one year only as a result of this mix-up. It seems that some shows go so far as to "warehouse” geographic areas by not holding shows within their territories for years and refuse to give new clubs in these sprawling urban areas permission either. Hopefully, this problem is in the process of being straightened out. Confused? So am I!
And the last bit of gamesmanship revolved around the heretofore Battaglia-rejected Working Sport implementation. This was rejected for all-breed shows. But four Parent Clubs, through the Parent Club Delegate Committee—GSD, Bouvier des Flandres, Doberman and Rottweilers—came up with a new idea which got the green light from the Board to hold these events at their Nationals only. Will this always be so limited in nature? I doubt it, but why should it be? I thought the original idea should have been passed with which to begin anyway.
That's enough for now, wouldn't you think? Possibly too much. •