THE INDEPENDENT OBSERVER

THE IDEPENDENT OBSERVER
Linda Ward
Side Shows and National Breed Clubs. "Hurry, folks right this way. Only a dollar buys you a walk through to see the blue cow. Bring a friend and as you exit, at no cost to you, we will give you a genuine copper engraving." Come ons like this are the patented banter of many carnival sideshows. They are very successful in trading in half-truths. You pay a dollar and so does your friend; you walk though a dimly lit trailer past a jello blue dyed bovine. On the way out you are handed your genuine copper engravings, a penny.

Certain national breed clubs operate the same way. Vague purposes, patented phrases and very little for your money. Let's take a closer look at common practices that have lead me to this conclusion.

A club's stated purpose is the "betterment of the breed". How does this happen? Things look pretty plain on the outside: committees for every purpose from health to publications, elected board of directors, member directory, printed codes of ethics, annual specialties and year end awards. All these people and committees synchronized to move as one towards the utopian goal, harmony and hard work marching hand in hand towards a common goal, the perfect dog. The breed club bastion of all that is right in dogs, guardian of the genes, protector of the fancier, unselfishly committed to excellence. Not from my experience.

Just as the carnival barker deals in half-truths so do some breed clubs. The general mood of the majority of the members is cultivated apathy. Whining about club problems has become an art form but resolving issues inconceivable. Committees are hopelessly bogged down not from an overload of work but from the constant tussles for control and thinly veiled animosity among members. Elections are held by mail with minimal response. Some positions are even gained by default, no one else willing to take them.

Partially due to this lackadaisical attitude, some board members confuse their duties. Annual meetings are held and secret issues brought forth and voted on that are entirely personal and in no way affect the "betterment of the breed". Issues to be voted on are unknown to the membership, they are not posted anywhere at the national specialty (where the meeting takes place) or mailed out beforehand for feedback. It is sad that these people do not realize that they were democratically voted into power not swept into a dictatorship by Coup D"Etat.

An example of this occurred at a recant specialty. An outgoing member, for reasons of his own, proposed an amendment to advertising copy. This was done because of personal feelings about a particular winning dog and its owner. These were mentioned Specifically by Name at the meeting. Present in the room and privy to all this were the judges for the breed at the next day's nationals and for the local specialty the day after. The issue was a surprise to all, questioned by None, and unanimously passed. In doing so one person had infringed on the First Amendment rights of All club members and even exposed the club to the possibility of legal action from the target. Not only was the instigator of this not questioned, he was given an award for service at the annual dinner. Secrecy has no place in an honest organization. Issues should be known to all before being decided upon. Minutes should be complete and promptly distributed. Are these people not the elected representatives of the majority? Should their decisions not reflect the opinions of all? While it is true that many members are apathetic they still have a right to know club business and express themselves. They have a right to be heard.

On that issue let us look at the club magazine. It is perennially late in arriving. Minutes from meetings are so outdated and abbreviated they are hardly read. The minutes of any meeting should be in member's hands while still pertinent. Letters to journalists are printed in their entirety but responses censored. A ridiculously unfair policy. Disagree but don't censor. Free speech should exit in all areas of club activity.

In its role as guardian of the breed what criteria does the club require of new members? In this case all that is needed is an application signed by two current members. Applicants names are then published in the perpetually tardy journal. There is also a set deadline for negative comments about applicants, a date the usually corresponds with the magazine's arrival. There are no screening techniques. No reference requirements about the applicant's past dog history. No veterinary reference or references from lay people familiar with the care and love the future member's animals receive. No kennel visits by local members or questions about numbers of litters bred and sold. NOTHING. I can only wonder how you can "better the breed" if you do not know the character of the club members and make no effort to find out. To be concerned there needs to be a unilateral standard for entry into the club based solely on dog qualifications.

Becoming a member has certain perks, the newsletter arrives, and the new member's name is published in a directory. In this listing are the address, phone and services the new member offers. Being listed this way can easily be seen as a club endorsement of sales, stud services, etc.. The club body has no real knowledge about the new member or the care his dogs receive and yet after the fee is paid he is listed in the directory. How does this "better the breed"? An overly lax acceptance policy coupled with a blanket endorsement benefit no dogs or gene pool only purses.

Year-end awards are parceled out at the National each year. The stud dog of the year award is currently given to the dog that has sired the most champions in one year. To the uninitiated it does seem suspect. Rewarding quantity over quality would seem at cross-purposes to the club's stated purpose. There are no required listings as to the number of bitches to whom any dog was bred. To be fair and not reward the commercial breeder over the hobbyist shouldn't the criteria be geared to the Percentage of champions a dog sires? We should be endorsing the dog that sires the best the most consistently. Stud records should be made public, as to numbers bred, litter size, live puppies. The stud dog award directly affects the popularity of some dogs. They are used because of it and directly affect the direction the breed will take. We should be entitled to all relevant information so as to be able to make informed choice. The current system of blanket membership acceptance, dictatorial decision making, editorial censorship, and reward based on numbers serves no dog breed. It does nicely serve some members of the human breed however. "Hurry, hurry, come join the breed club, only forty dollars and a free prize at the end".