Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by German Vanegas:
what else in the article is "incorrect"?... You are over looking the entire article. As you may have noticed, is a lenghty writing, and it deals with a lot more than just the clubs' voting power.
By the way, the article is also about working V. showing... 
[This message has been edited by German Vanegas (edited January 03, 2001).]</font>
|
The article is lengthy so I will not attempt to address all of the errors. But I will address the ones that he uses in the beginning of this rambling article.
Already in Paragraph one he makes a false assumption about the reason the clubs vote as they do.
In Paragraph two he makes a statement that the European Dog clubs are under the authority of the Governments. That is not true. The FCI and AKC are very similar in the way they operate. They are different, but the FCI does not have authority bestowed on it from any Government body.
In paragraph five he makes a claim that the AKC has an agenda to turn every breed into a "Show Dogs". If this were true then would it not reason that before you could register your dog the parents would have to be Champions? If this were true why would the AKC go through expense and effort to hold working trials such as Hunts, Obedience, Tracking, Agility, and other working events?
He makes this claim and does a poor job of proving his point.
Paragraph nine is a prefect example of the nonsense of the whole article. "they wield immense aggregate power in that they control the selection of jugdes for their shows and send a voting delegate to AKC. To my knowedge the size and legal status of these clubs are not public available."
Who else would select the Judges for any show other than the hosting club? Is this not more of a duty than immense aggregate power?
Did he even once suggest how else a judge should be selected? Did he even once show how this is inappropriate? All he did was hint that this amount of power of any club that "only" puts on a show or two a year is wrong.
By the way putting on a show takes a lot of work and dedication on a clubs behalf. It is not uncommon for a poorly run show to loss hundreds of dollars. Why do these clubs do these events, because the clubs are made up of dog fanciers. The dog people love their dogs and their breed, so they put in the hard work and take a chance on financing the event. Have you ever thought about the cost of hosting the Judges, rent on a Convention Center, cost of insurance, cost of the Superintendent, and many other miscellaneous cost?
Sure these clubs are the ones sending the delegates to vote on AKC policy. They should be the ones because these clubs and the members of such are the ones most effective by AKC policy. These clubs are the protectors of the breed.
Bottom line his article was poorly written because he makes claims and accusations that are never substantiated. The truth of the matter he really never took the time to simply ask any club for its legal status or size. These clubs are not required to give a public record of size, but it is not a seceret society either. You can find the legal status of any at the county level if you wish. All he had to do in most cases is simply ask for a club newletter.
It is a easy thing to write an article if you don't have to prove your points. He did site a few other sources but he never quoted them to show how they prove his points. Just alluding to them is nothing more than padding.
It would have been better had the author taken the time to research a little more than to make claims based on his ignorance.
His whole aggrument suffers, because it is based on false assumptions.