Quote:
Originally Posted by GalomyOak
It's cool to have different ideas, and points of view - that's what makes an organization strong.
|
I agree with this 100%!
I think it's when it gets to the point where people are too afraid (or feel it's too hopeless) to go against the status quo that you start to get problems where you no longer see different options anymore. I think that's why a lot of breed clubs have the problems they do where they're not willing to admit they have issues, because they resent so much that they've been doing things for so long that they can't fathom that they possibly have gone off course. Even if you don't agree with something, just the act of discussion while you hash things out can make you at least see things you hadn't before and make adaptations accordingly. If you have to "justify" your position on something (the right way, mind you, buy making an actual persuasive argument) it automatically makes you reevaluate your position every time, making it stronger, or possibly making you see where you need to change. It's as good a rule for life is it is with breed clubs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalomyOak
A few misconceptions about AKC tracking. First off, tracking (ground) and trailing (air) are totally different scent theories - trailing is used in SAR, and typically has a quicker and more efficient accuracy. Tracking trials are completely blind - the flags are only used in training. It's an excellent sport, my CSVs have very deep noses and deviate from the track very little in comparison to many of the other dogs out there (Goldens, GSD, Weimeraner). Don't think it should be used as a sole qualifier of a breedable dog...
|
I'm glad you posted this! I was under the impression that AKC tracking WAS more like trailing because the rules weren't as strict about the dog keeping its nose to the ground. I also don't think ANY of the sports we've been talking about should be used as a sole qualifier of breedable stock.
There are obviously going to be a lot of things at play regarding testing dogs, and I feel that if we are going to at the very least (as a breed club)
recommend that the dogs obtain titles, I think it should be confirmation, and "something else" that would be picked off of a list. For me, this is more to prove that the
breeder is dedicated to doing the best possible for the breed less than it is about the dog's actual ability.
This brings me to my next thought... While I like the idea of a breeding commission, I wonder if the club should just be more strict as to who it actually recognizes as breeders? Maybe there can be an application process stricter than just regular membership in the club for people to be on an "approved breeder" list or something? Then there could be something on there about confirmation and evaluating stock for correct structure for endurance and correct temperament. This way, titles could be encouraged, but the ultimate discretion would still be left up to the breeder to decide if an untitled dog would still work well in the program. Or maybe something about at least one of the dogs needing titles? Or a combination of at least one working/sport title and one confirmation title between the two of them?
Mind you, I have zero experience about how breed clubs typically work, so I have no idea how feasible any of this is, just throwing out ideas.
