New war of words in KC/GSD battle

A MAGAZINE article has re-ignited the spat between the German Shepherd Dog fraternity and the KC.
Writing in Dogs Today, Jemima Harrison, writer and producer of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, questions whether the man who developed the GSD in the 1890s, Max von Stephanitz, would be happy with how the breed looks today.
The piece is illustrated with a drawing of a GSD with frog’s legs.
Ms Harrison writes that her programme showed GSDs in the show ring with ‘roached backs, droopy back ends and wobbly hocks, a distorted shadow of the wonderfully fit and functional dogs they used to be...’.
But Ms Harrison’s criticism of some GSD show dogs has been eclipsed by a statement in the article attributed to KC chairman Ronnie Irving, saying he had spoken out strongly against exaggerations, ‘…even going so far recently as to say that if the GSD breed clubs don’t get their house in order they may be thrown out of the KC’.

Trouble flared


Past remarks made by Mr Irving and the KC generally have inclined more towards regret that any breed might decide to abandon affiliation to the KC in the face of new edicts, rather than threatening them with the boot, and proving the origin of the quote has not been easy.
But just the publication of it has been enough to light the GSD community’s touch paper once again – and the quote has not been denied by the KC.
Trouble flared in the summer when the KC announced that it was withholding allocation of CCs for 2012 until ‘certain matters’ were resolved within the GSD fraternity.
The KC said it was concerned about the breed’s conformation and the double-handling that went on at shows. Double handling was continuing despite a warning a year ago, the KC said, and the practice had serious safety implications for people and dogs.
The GSD fraternity responded by saying it felt ‘let down and victimised’, but despite this the GSD Partnership – which represents the breed council, the GSD League and the British Association for GSDs – agreed to continue working with the KC in a bid to encourage it to introduce mandatory health requirements for all KC-registered GSDs.
A meeting – later described as frosty – took place at Clarges Street at which a ‘frank and forthright’ exchange of views took place. Discussion was constructive, according to a joint statement issued afterwards, but there was still a distance to go before full agreement was reached on some matters.
However, a way forward had been agreed and all parties were said to be resolute that the breed’s health and welfare was paramount. Then all went quiet until the magazine article appeared.
The GSD Partnership quickly issued a lengthy statement saying the reported remark had created a ‘highly-charged situation of huge conflict’.
“The KC and the GSD community are at a crossroads,” it said.
“The fact that a KC-registered GSD does not need to have any health qualification at all in order to breed and for the KC to register the subsequent 12,000 puppies every year is what the breed clubs through the GSD Partnership wanted the KC to fundamentally address at our first meeting in October 2008.
“The threat to not allocate CCs in 2012 came without any prior discussion with the GSD community or the GSD Partnership.
“This misguided attack on the GSD breed clubs has brought what was a period of constructive dialogue with the KC... to a highly-charged situation of huge conflict between the parties.
“There was no need for the KC to have acted the way it has, as both parties had been actively talking to the KC specifically on health issues via the planned improvement plan and the KC Accredited Breeder Scheme (ABS) for GSDs for six months prior.”
The Partnership was still concerned about the KC’s ‘conduct and attitude’, particularly after reading Ms Harrison’s article. It described the remark attributed to Mr Irving as ‘flagrantly confrontational’.
“Clearly the GSD Partnership and clubs have a mountain to climb to persuade the KC to implement any mandatory health improvements while we are in this conflict position,” the statement read.
“As long as this ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitude prevails... then the conflict situation will be tough to resolve.
“If the KC’s unprovoked attack on the GSD clubs is a premeditated attempt to pander to pressure from (Ms Harrison) or to influence the current Professor Bateson enquiry on dog breeding then it may work.
“The subsequent collateral damage to relationships with the KC and GSD clubs and community, however, may be irreversible, with the KC seemingly prepared to ‘throw out’ the breed clubs – a price we can only assume it is prepared to pay. We are.
“The general public needs to wake up to the fact that the KC is just a registration database, which the KC itself likens to Somerset House, and apply real pressure to it to restrict the number of GSDs being registered to only those which conform to incremental mandatory health and welfare requirements.”

‘Contemptuous’


He continued: “Despite the contemptuous way we have been treated the GSD community has responded to issues by allowing the breed Standard to be changed and by pledging full and unfettered assistance to the KC with any health issues which they are aware of and can be proven.
“The GSD Partnership has only ever been shown photographs of one dog at Crufts with two complaints by the general public as the KC’s justification to launch this attack on the GSD clubs.
“The KC has never produced any evidence to back up its allegations of health issues associated with its current allegations and threat to the breed clubs.”
All the GSD groups and championship show judges will take part in a forum shortly to discuss ‘the conflict’, the statement said.
“The GSD’s future is in our hands, not the Kennel Club’s,” the statement concluded.
Partnership spokesman Joe Summerhill told DOG WORLD that the statement had caused fear.
“We are not looking for scapegoats but hundreds of breeders are up in arms about what has been printed,” he said. “I have written to the KC about it. If the KC says it didn’t say it that’s fine. We have asked for its view but in the meantime it has caused a massive amount of fear within the GSD fraternity.
“We have pledged to return to the KC with a four-point plan for the way forward and we do believe we have to continue talking to the KC.
“Perhaps some breeders have gone to the extreme when it comes to conformation but on the subject of outside attraction we will never agree unless it is proven that the practice is detrimental to the health of the GSD. If the KC wants to pick a fight, pick a fight on stuff it’s absolutely sure about. We are dealing with the looseness in the quarters and other conformation points.
“We have written to Jemima asking for an explanation. Given the delicacy of the situation this has just fuelled the flames and we didn’t want to start the fire to begin with.”
The KC said it would be sad to part company with any breed club.

‘Stand firm’


“We have made it clear that it will stand firm in the face of breed club resistance to changes aimed at improving the health of a breed,” its statement said.
“This applies equally to GSDs as to other breeds. That is why we have said that until appropriate steps are taken to address the conformation problems of GSDs it will not allocate CCs for the breed in 2012.
“We would be very sad to part company with any breed club but if they cannot work with us then we may have to accept this in order to protect all the other breeders and dogs that the KC represents.
“We believe that ensuring that the breed’s conformation is healthy should be a priority for the GSD clubs. The importance of health testing, which is the issue that they continue to raise, is something about which we are all in agreement.
“Within the ABS, members are required to give their dogs the applicable health tests for their breed which includes hip scoring for GSDs. Those breeders who are not yet part of the ABS but who register their dogs with the KC are educated about the importance of health testing.
“Health test results are available online in order to empower consumers with the knowledge about the health tests that their chosen breeder may or may not have taken and to ensure that consumer demand for health testing can act as a further incentive to breeders to ensure that they are on board.
“As registration with the KC is voluntary and legislation about health testing does not exist, anything more draconian risks alienating breeders which would not help the dogs.
“Refusal of registration is not the answer as the dogs will still be bred but out of all sphere of influence – as has happened in the US – and to the severe detriment of pedigree dogs.”
The statement said that all GSD breeders were ‘warmly invited’ to join and support the ABS.
It continued: “In the meantime it is essential that the breed gets its house in order and takes the appropriate steps to erase the conformation problems about which we receive so many complaints.”
Ms Harrison said that the disenfranchisement of the GSD would be not only a ‘huge loss, but also a real admission of failure’. She said she believed the breed council was right in demanding more stringent health testing as a condition of KC registration and that the KC was right in demanding that the conformation changes.

Symposium


“And I believe it may now be in a position to provide some of the scientific evidence the GSD breeders have demanded,” she said.
“I’d like to see the KC host an international symposium on the future of the GSD with invited speakers and presentations from all camps, top representatives from the veterinary and scientific world and, most importantly, real dogs to compare – including exhibitions of movement and working ability. Everything possible needs to be done to find a way forward and it would be a positive move to open it up to beyond frosty, closed-door meetings between the GSD breed council and the KC.”

havent read it all but at end of the day i think that Max von Stephanitz will be rolling in his grave and hate some of todays GSD's just as i do as a working dog person