|
| Author |
Messages |
|
CathyYak
MH
Posts:963
 |
| 03/26/2008 8:22 PM |
|
|
Here is my big question. I would love an answer to
it. Say I have a GSP who is liver and white and his name is Ch.
Brownie, and I have a black and white GSP bitch and her name is
Blackie (whose dam is also black and white and sire is liver and white).
I cannot show Blackie as she is disqualified from ring
competition under the current standard. Both are purebred, both fine
examples of GSP conformation and working ability. I breed them to
each other (or really they breed themselves, I have little to do with it, I just
observe), and they have four pups. Three are liver and white (Uno,
Dos and Tres - all males) and the fourth (Quatro) is a black and white
bitch. Now I can show the three liver and white males, but not poor
Quatro, who, as fate would have it, is the pick of the litter (makes for a
better story that way).
Time passes and the lovely Quatro is my only bitch and I want a new pup for
myself so I choose a gorgeous liver and white male and breed him to
Quatro. They produce four pups (I know, it would probably be more, but I
can't count that high in Spanish). Two liver and white pups (one male one
female we will call Cinco and Seis) and two black and white pups (one male and
one female - Siete and Ocho). Out of these four, the two
livers finish. They will likely both eventually be bred.
So here we have a scenario where a black and white GSP is in the gene
pool, passing on it's genetic attributes to subsequent generations but that
cannot be tested for quality beside it's liver and white parent, siblings or
offspring. This is not uncommon. Many of our dogs go back to black
and white GSP's whether you know it or not. Black and white dogs are in
the GSP gene pool, have BEEN in it for almost 100 years, and will continue to be
used in future generations regardless of whether this change is made now or
not.
Here comes the question(s). As long as they are here to stay, I
don't understand why they are not permitted to be tested against
their peers in this one venue when they can be tested against or
beside their peers in every other AKC venue. Don't we want to be
breeding the best? The most worthy? If not, why bother showing at
all? Isn't the testing of breeding stock the reason dog shows were
developed, and the continuing reason why we can only show dogs that are
reproductively intact?
Can someone explain to me how it benefits the breed to exclude one segment
from the testing we have recognized for well over 100 years as the yard stick by
which we measure conformation quality (while allowing their liver and white
offspring to be shown)? My apologies for any misspelling of Spanish
numbers ( I hope those were all numbers). It's been many years since
Sr. Agnes Larkin tried to teach me proper Spanish. I
couldn't remember if Spanish even has a "Q" or if it should have been a
"C".
Any thoughts? I am very open to being educated, and if I am missing
something important please share!
|
|
Cathy Iacopelli
Claddagh Kennels
Long Island, New York |
|
|
ASKMEGSP
MH
Posts:184
|
| 03/26/2008 9:32 PM |
|
|
In a message dated 3/26/2008 10:10:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, CathyYak@aol.com writes:
Here comes the question(s). As long as they are here to stay, I don't understand why they are not permitted to be tested against their peers in this one venue when they can be tested against or beside their peers in every other AKC venue. Don't we want to be breeding the best? The most worthy? If not, why bother showing at all? Isn't the testing of breeding stock the reason dog shows were developed, and the continuing reason why we can only show dogs that are reproductively intact?
I agree Cathy. They SHOULD be allowed to be shown as that is the venue, supposedly judges breeding stock. I totally agree that black should not be a disqualification. The point of my post was NOT to oppose the guts of this change. However, due to the wording of the change, I'll have to vote no. I am not content to "live with it for five years and then fix it". FIX it and vote it in next year.
Ann
|
|
|
|
|
LahrGSP
MH
Posts:703
|
| 03/26/2008 9:59 PM |
|
|
Well I will vote yes because I don't think its right to not
let blacks be shown. Its not fair to their owners/breeders to make them wait
just because some don't like the wording.
Julie
Lahr
www.vonlahrheim.com
Nobody can make
you feel inferior without your permission.
-Eleanor
Roosevelt-
|
|
|
|
|
CathyYak
MH
Posts:963
|
| 03/27/2008 4:12 AM |
|
|
Well, that's fine. Everyone does get a vote so that they can express
their opinion. You can vote no this time because you feel that judges are
incapable of determining the difference between two colors on a dog and
three. And then if enough people also doubt the ability of the judges to
read the sentence and transfer it to actual judging and also vote no, then
we can re-do all of the hours upon hours of work and canvassing and
petitioning that was done in the past year to re-present Constitutional
Amendment (which is a TON on work) next year. And all of the people who
still think a judge needs to understand that you can't have black and liver on
the same dog can vote no again next year (like they did last time).
I really don't agree that the wording will lead judges to disqualify dark
liver dogs with the new wording any more than they will now with the current
wording. If a judge cannot tell the difference between liver and black,
the standard is not going to help no matter HOW it is worded! How often
has it actually that a judge has disqualified a dark liver for being
black? I've know of once, but even if it was five times that, I don't
think that is significant enough to panic about. Just don't show your
amazingly dark liver dogs to those judges (again, I only know of the one).
Of course, if a dog actually does have black and liver on it, it should be
disqualified now anyway!
|
|
Cathy Iacopelli
Claddagh Kennels
Long Island, New York |
|
|
bajnok
MH
Posts:67
|
| 03/27/2008 5:02 AM |
|
Cathy, I find myself in general agreement with you... not for
the first time of course  At the same time, I admit I empathize
with Ann's point of view. It seems a bloody shame to adopt a statement that has
no genetic basis as part of a breed standard just because the rest of the
changes are in order.
Taking the larger view, it seems to me that the benefits
of removing an outdated and unjustified colour DQ from the standard clearly
outweighs the inconvenience or harm that could be caused by the ignorant
statement that has been included in the Disqualifications. It is difficult
to understand something like that being adopted in a breed standard
in the 21st century!
I do wonder about a breed standard revision process that leads
to a statement like that surviving to the point at which it is part of a package
submitted to a vote of members. I presume a committee was involved and
that the national club executive reviewed their work before this was submitted
to members... was there no one to point out that short of a somatic mutation,
you will not find black and liver on the same dog? And if a somatic mutation
(and here I disagree with you Cathy), it is of no consequence whatsoever if the
dog is bred.
Francois-R. Bernier
Bajnok Regd Vizslas &
GSPs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:00
AM
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and
white
Well, that's fine. Everyone does get a vote so that they can
express their opinion. You can vote no this time because you feel that
judges are incapable of determining the difference between two colors on a dog
and three. And then if enough people also doubt the ability of the
judges to read the sentence and transfer it to actual judging and also
vote no, then we can re-do all of the hours upon hours of work and
canvassing and petitioning that was done in the past year to
re-present Constitutional Amendment (which is a TON on work) next
year. And all of the people who still think a judge needs to understand
that you can't have black and liver on the same dog can vote no again next
year (like they did last time).
|
|
|
|
|
CathyYak
MH
Posts:963
|
| 03/27/2008 6:13 AM |
|
|
Francois,
I think that people who might not have been as interested in the proposed change as I have been for the past three attempts might not recall the fallout the last time the change was voted on. MANY people voted against the proposal because it did NOT say that liver and black should not be found on the same dog. Remember all the discussion about mutations? How dogs could have patches of black? I did forget it was not genetic. My apologies.
Again, the point that it is genetically impossible for a black and liver and white GSP to exist outside of mutation, IMO does not preclude it from being included in the standard, unless you agree to remove the other DQ's that are also genetically impossible, such as wall eyes, lemon, orange and red coloring. We must be consistent, don't you think?
Cathy
... was there no one to point out that short of a somatic mutation, you will not find black and liver on the same dog? And if a somatic mutation (and here I disagree with you Cathy), it is of no consequence whatsoever if the dog is bred.
-----Original Message-----
From: François Bernier
To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
Sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 7:51 am
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and white
Cathy, I find myself in general agreement with you... not for the first time of course At the same time, I admit I empathize with Ann's point of view. It seems a bloody shame to adopt a statement that has no genetic basis as part of a breed standard just because the rest of the changes are in order.
Taking the larger view, it seems to me that the benefits of removing an outdated and unjustified colour DQ from the standard clearly outweighs the inconvenience or harm that could be caused by the ignorant statement that has been included in the Disqualifications. It is difficult to understand something like that being adopted in a breed standard in the 21st century!
I do wonder about a breed standard revision process that leads to a statement like that surviving to the point at which it is part of a package submitted to a vote of members. I presume a committee was involved and that the national club executive reviewed their work before this was submitted to members... was there no one to point out that short of a somatic mutation, you will not find black and liver on the same dog? And if a somatic mutation (and here I disagree with you Cathy), it is of no consequence whatsoever if the dog is bred.
Francois-R. Bernier
Bajnok Regd Vizslas & GSPs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and white
Well, that's fine. Everyone does get a vote so that they can express their opinion. You can vote no this time because you feel that judges are incapable of determining the difference between two colors on a dog and three. And then if enough people also doubt the ability of the judges to read the sentence and transfer it to actual judging and also vote no, then we can re-do all of the hours upon hours of work and canvassing and petitioning that was done in the past year to re-present Constitutional Amendment (which is a TON on work) next year. And all of the people who still think a judge needs to understand that you can't have black and liver on the same dog can vote no again next year (like they did last time).
|
|
Cathy Iacopelli
Claddagh Kennels
Long Island, New York |
|
|
CrawmerK
JH
Posts:26
|
| 03/27/2008 6:18 AM |
|
In a message dated 3/27/2008 7:51:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bajnok@videotron.ca writes:
And if a somatic mutation (and here I disagree with you Cathy), it is
of no consequence whatsoever if the dog is
bred.
**************************
Exactly. By its very definition a somatic mutation is not in the germ line,
therefore it can not be passed on to any offspring. If it can't be passed on,
what is the problem with breeding them?
Kiesha
|
|
|
|
|
ASKMEGSP
MH
Posts:184
|
| 03/27/2008 8:00 AM |
|
Cathy I am not the only person with amazingly dark liver dogs. There are tons of us out there east coast to west coast. Perhaps there have been so few disqualifications because we've always been able to say. If it is a liver nose, it is a liver dog ?
|
|
|
|
|
CathyYak
MH
Posts:963
|
| 03/27/2008 8:15 AM |
|
That was a generic "you" Ann, I did not mean to only address my post to you personally. I am sorry if it came across that way.
But in answer to your question, maybe. How many times has a judge actually tried to DQ your dog as being black? Does it happen often?
If the amendment passes, a judge will not try to DQ your dog for being black. it would actually help you!
The only problem would be if a dog's coat looked black and his nose looked liver. Or am I not following?
Cathy
-----Original Message-----
From: ASKMEGSP@aol.com
To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
Sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:48 am
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and white
Cathy I am not the only person with amazingly dark liver dogs. There are tons of us out there east coast to west coast. Perhaps there have been so few disqualifications because we've always been able to say. If it is a liver nose, it is a liver dog ?
|
|
Cathy Iacopelli
Claddagh Kennels
Long Island, New York |
|
|
ASKMEGSP
MH
Posts:184
|
| 03/27/2008 8:31 AM |
|
I show on average 2 weekends a month, and I would avoid the judges that I know to have issue. I would say on average, coat color has been questioned 3 or 4 times a year. (read $120 in entries) None of mine have been DQ'd because I point out the liver nose.
"If the amendment passes, a judge will not try to DQ your dog for being black. it would actually help you!" How would the amendment help ? ALL liver dogs have liver noses regardless of their coat color !
"The only problem would be if a dog's coat looked black and his nose looked liver." EXACTLY
Ann
|
|
|
|
|
singltrak1
JH
Posts:34
|
| 03/27/2008 8:31 AM |
|
|
That's exactly what the problem is,
Cathy. A dark liver (aka some judges think is black) bitch with a liver
nose. That is the issue that concerns me with this proposed change.
I've had it happen more than once (asking
if it was a black dog-that is). Don't assume that the issue is isolated to
only a few dogs. (we know what assuming does, don't we? )
Phyllis McNall
Singltrak
Shorthairs...home to Best In Show, Dual Champion German Shorthaired
Pointers
Las Cruces, New Mexico
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:04
AM
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and
white
If the amendment passes, a judge will not try to
DQ your dog for being black. it would actually help you!
The only
problem would be if a dog's coat looked black and his nose looked
liver. Or am I not following?
|
|
|
|
|
CathyYak
MH
Posts:963
|
| 03/27/2008 9:02 AM |
|
I am asking how many dogs it happens to am I NOT? I am not assuming anything. I am asking. Ann was kind enough to reply with her experince.
Perhaps the people whose dark liver dogs lack similar pigment in their noses could use to breed to a black and white and darken things up so they match. That was a joke, just kidding, I know that has not been proven!!! Just trying to lighten things up.
I would like to point out that it would not take much to send a letter to each AKC approved judge with a copy of the revised standard to explain the change (if passed) and point out that it is genetically impossible for a purebred GSP to be either red, lemon, orange or black and liver at the same time. This would help those of you who fear to have a problem. Removing black as a DQ helps those whose liver is dark enough to be taken as black, because if the judge thinks the dog is black, he will not be able to excuse it for color. And the letter would address the matter of the genetic impossibility of a tricolor GSP containing black and liver at the same time.
I would think if the standard was revised, it would be necessary to inform judges anyway. Adding a letter of explanation of the change would probably be protocol already.
Cathy
|
|
Cathy Iacopelli
Claddagh Kennels
Long Island, New York |
|
|
Almost Heaven GSP
Springfield, WV
MH
Posts:732
|
| 03/27/2008 9:07 AM |
|
| I recall those discussions well. Do we really have to go into the
GSP-L Archives to dig up those conversations??? Bet you would find
that the people that complained that this DQ was not included then,
are the same ones that are now complaining that it is included now!
Another added point: This was reviewed by the AKC if my understanding
of the process is accurate and they felt it was easily interpreted and
approved it as submitted, but then I guess if the Judges are not
capable of interpreting the Standard change; How can the AKC be
expected to interpret it, or understand what they are reading?
I for one, think some people are selling the AKC and it's Judges short.
Thanx Kindly and Have A Great Day,
Bruce
Quoting cathyyak@aol.com:
>
> Francois,
>
> I think that people who might not have been as interested in the
> proposed change as I have been for the past three attempts might not
> recall the fallout the last time the change was voted on. MANY
> people voted against the proposal because it did NOT say that liver
> and black should not be found on the same dog. Remember all the
> discussion about mutations? How dogs could have patches of black?
> I did forget it was not genetic. My apologies.
>
> Again, the point that it is genetically impossible for a black and
> liver and white GSP to exist outside of mutation, IMO does not
> preclude it from being included in the standard, unless you agree to
> remove the other DQ's that are also genetically impossible, such as
> wall eyes, lemon, orange and red coloring. We must be consistent,
> don't you think?
>
> Cathy
>
>
> ... was there no one to point out that short of a somatic mutation,
> you will not find black and liver on the same dog? And if a somatic
> mutation (and here I disagree with you Cathy), it is of no
> consequence whatsoever if the dog is bred.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: François Bernier
> To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
> Sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 7:51 am
> Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and white
>
>
>
> Cathy, I find myself in general agreement with you... not for the
> first time of course At the same time, I admit I empathize with
> Ann's point of view. It seems a bloody shame to adopt a statement
> that has no genetic basis as part of a breed standard just because
> the rest of the changes are in order.
>
> Taking the larger view, it seems to me that the benefits of
> removing an outdated and unjustified colour DQ from the standard
> clearly outweighs the inconvenience or harm that could be caused by
> the ignorant statement that has been included in the
> Disqualifications. It is difficult to understand something like
> that being adopted in a breed standard in the 21st century!
>
> I do wonder about a breed standard revision process that leads to a
> statement like that surviving to the point at which it is part of a
> package submitted to a vote of members. I presume a committee was
> involved and that the national club executive reviewed their work
> before this was submitted to members... was there no one to point
> out that short of a somatic mutation, you will not find black and
> liver on the same dog? And if a somatic mutation (and here I
> disagree with you Cathy), it is of no consequence whatsoever if the
> dog is bred.
>
> Francois-R. Bernier
> Bajnok Regd Vizslas & GSPs
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: CathyYak@aol.com
>
> To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:00 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and white
>
>
>
>
> Well, that's fine. Everyone does get a vote so that they can
> express their opinion. You can vote no this time because you feel
> that judges are incapable of determining the difference between two
> colors on a dog and three. And then if enough people also doubt the
> ability of the judges to read the sentence and transfer it to
> actual judging and also vote no, then we can re-do all of the hours
> upon hours of work and canvassing and petitioning that was done in
> the past year to re-present Constitutional Amendment (which is a
> TON on work) next year. And all of the people who still think a
> judge needs to understand that you can't have black and liver on
> the same dog can vote no again next year (like they did last time).
>
>
>
|
|
Money will buy a fine dog, but only kindness will make him wag his tail.
Bruce Shaffer
Almost Heaven GSP's
|
|
|
singltrak1
JH
Posts:34
|
| 03/27/2008 9:11 AM |
|
|
I am also kindly replying to your
question. I have a dark liver bitch with a liver nose. It is not
light liver, nor will I choose to breed black in to make it as dark as the
dog. I don't think your cute "joke", as you put it, is funny and does not
help to lighten up the mood. (I am using the generic 'you' of
course).
Our breed has many other problems (light
eyes, straight shoulders, gay tails as an example) that can and should be
addressed. As I said, I have already voted, and it is in the
mail. (Even if it weren't, my mind would not be changed by this
discussion).
Phyllis
Singltrak
----- Original Message
-----
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:49
AM
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and
white
I am asking how many dogs it happens to am I NOT? I
am not assuming anything. I am asking. Ann was kind enough to
reply with her experince.
Perhaps the people whose dark liver dogs lack
similar pigment in their noses could use to breed to a black and white and
darken things up so they match. That was a joke, just kidding, I know
that has not been proven!!! Just trying to lighten things up.
I
would like to point out that it would not take much to send a letter to each
AKC approved judge with a copy of the revised standard to explain the
change (if passed) and point out that it is genetically impossible for a
purebred GSP to be either red, lemon, orange or black and liver at the same
time. This would help those of you who fear to have a problem.
Removing black as a DQ helps those whose liver is dark enough to be taken
as black, because if the judge thinks the dog is black, he will not be able to
excuse it for color. And the letter would address the matter of the
genetic impossibility of a tricolor GSP containing black and liver at the same
time.
I would think if the standard was revised, it would be necessary
to inform judges anyway. Adding a letter of explanation of the
change would probably be protocol already.
Cathy
|
|
|
|
|
Almost Heaven GSP
Springfield, WV
MH
Posts:732
|
| 03/27/2008 9:13 AM |
|
| Orrrr, you could hold a Black lead up to the dog as I'm pretty sure
has been done before?
Thanx Kindly and Have A Great Day,
Bruce
Quoting ASKMEGSP@aol.com:
> Cathy I am not the only person with amazingly dark liver dogs. There are tons
> of us out there east coast to west coast. Perhaps there have been so few
> disqualifications because we've always been able to say. If it is a
> liver nose, it
> is a liver dog ?
>
>
>
> **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
> Home.
> (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
>
|
|
Money will buy a fine dog, but only kindness will make him wag his tail.
Bruce Shaffer
Almost Heaven GSP's
|
|
|
snomel
JH
Posts:36
|
| 03/27/2008 9:15 AM |
|
Just a little clarification as to how this revision came about.
A group of members prepared a petition to remove black as a disqualification in
the breed standard. They prepared the proposed changes and got signatures of
members (in excess of 10% of the GSPCA membership) who agreed with the proposed
change. The petition was sent to the GSPCA and the signatures were verified as
being members in good standing. The proposed change was sent to the American
Kennel Club for approval of the language before it was made part of the ballot
that you have received. That approval was given and the ballots were prepared
using the language that had been provided in the petition. This was done in
accordance with the Constitution and By-laws of the GSPCA. I thought you’d
like to know.
Sue Clemons
From: gsp-l-request@web.whc.net
[mailto:gsp-l-request@web.whc.net] On Behalf Of François Bernier
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:51 AM
To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and white
Cathy, I find myself in general agreement with you... not for the
first time of course At the same time, I admit I empathize with
Ann's point of view. It seems a bloody shame to adopt a statement that has no
genetic basis as part of a breed standard just because the rest of the
changes are in order.
Taking the larger view, it seems to me that the benefits of
removing an outdated and unjustified colour DQ from the standard clearly
outweighs the inconvenience or harm that could be caused by the ignorant
statement that has been included in the Disqualifications. It is difficult
to understand something like that being adopted in a breed standard
in the 21st century!
I do wonder about a breed standard revision process that leads to
a statement like that surviving to the point at which it is part of a package
submitted to a vote of members. I presume a committee was involved and
that the national club executive reviewed their work before this was submitted
to members... was there no one to point out that short of a somatic mutation,
you will not find black and liver on the same dog? And if a somatic mutation
(and here I disagree with you Cathy), it is of no consequence whatsoever if the
dog is bred.
Francois-R. Bernier
Bajnok Regd Vizslas & GSPs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and white
Well, that's fine. Everyone does get a vote so that they can
express their opinion. You can vote no this time because you feel that
judges are incapable of determining the difference between two colors on a dog
and three. And then if enough people also doubt the ability of the judges
to read the sentence and transfer it to actual judging and also vote no,
then we can re-do all of the hours upon hours of work and canvassing and
petitioning that was done in the past year to re-present Constitutional
Amendment (which is a TON on work) next year. And all of the people who
still think a judge needs to understand that you can't have black and liver on
the same dog can vote no again next year (like they did last time).
|
|
|
|
|
shortales
MH
Posts:336
|
| 03/27/2008 9:21 AM |
|
Francois Just to inform everyone that the GSPCA Board does not review the submission. It is presented as written for the members to vote on. I don't know if it was a joint committee effort. I do know that the Board as a group wasn't asked to review or participate in the writing of the document. Leita Estes Shortales German Shorthaired Pointers 1 Spotty dog (Dalmatian) Ch. Merry Go Rounds Match Point ----- Original Message ---- From: François Bernier
To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:51:07 AM
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and white
Cathy, I find myself in general agreement with you... not for
the first time of course At the same time, I admit I empathize
with Ann's point of view. It seems a bloody shame to adopt a statement that has
no genetic basis as part of a breed standard just because the rest of the
changes are in order.
Taking the larger view, it seems to me that the benefits
of removing an outdated and unjustified colour DQ from the standard clearly
outweighs the inconvenience or harm that could be caused by the ignorant
statement that has been included in the Disqualifications. It is difficult
to understand something like that being adopted in a breed standard
in the 21st century!
I do wonder about a breed standard revision process that leads
to a statement like that surviving to the point at which it is part of a package
submitted to a vote of members. I presume a committee was involved and
that the national club executive reviewed their work before this was submitted
to members... was there no one to point out that short of a somatic mutation,
you will not find black and liver on the same dog? And if a somatic mutation
(and here I disagree with you Cathy), it is of no consequence whatsoever if the
dog is bred.
Francois-R. Bernier
Bajnok Regd Vizslas &
GSPs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:00
AM
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Black and
white
Well, that's fine. Everyone does get a vote so that they can
express their opinion. You can vote no this time because you feel that
judges are incapable of determining the difference between two colors on a dog
and three. And then if enough people also doubt the ability of the
judges to read the sentence and transfer it to actual judging and also
vote no, then we can re-do all of the hours upon hours of work and
canvassing and petitioning that was done in the past year to
re-present Constitutional Amendment (which is a TON on work) next
year. And all of the people who still think a judge needs to understand
that you can't have black and liver on the same dog can vote no again next
year (like they did last time).
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
|
|
|
|
|
CathyYak
MH
Posts:963
|
| 03/27/2008 9:25 AM |
|
|
Phyllis,
Thank you so much for your note. Have a lovely day. And good luck with your dogs.
Cathy
|
|
Cathy Iacopelli
Claddagh Kennels
Long Island, New York |
|
|
RKeegan261
Posts:11
|
| 03/27/2008 10:05 AM |
|
|
I owned a bitch called Velvet. She was very dark liver and was often
accused of being black. She did how ever go on to be number one bitch
in 1993 or 94. I wonder with the wording of liver and black as a
disqualification how she would be looked at today. Could her nose be
interpreted as liver and her coat as black.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
RKeegan261
Posts:11
|
| 03/27/2008 10:21 AM |
|
|
Why not just copy the German Standard?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
You must be logged in to use this module.
|