nsitional.dtd"> Dogworld South Africa
the dog site for show people, the show site for dog people
Dogworld

Show Reviews

Please read the Introductory Comment from the Editor prior to reading the Show Reviews.  If you wish to comment on any review please do so in writing.

 

7 January 2013

This is an outcry to the committees of championship show holding clubs to please circulate their show schedules as soon as possible, or even tentatively list their judges.

I’m sure I speak for a number of fellow exhibitors, that considering the current economic climate (and leave constraints), it is not possible for many of us to attend all or a great number of shows throughout the year.

In theory, all clubs with shows up to the end of June 2013 should have submitted their schedules and should be able to give us an indication of judges, save for KUSA schedule approval delays.

Thank you in advance to the committees for their efforts.

Louis Kruger


9 January 2013
Now you see it, now you don’t!

Isn’t it funny how posts sometimes mysteriously disappear from the Dogworld site. I thought I saw an interesting post on the Shows Forum yesterday, but it must have been my imagination. Or maybe it was there and fell victim to intimidation. Has a little raw nerve perhaps been exposed? We’ll see what the schedules reveal.

It’s really good to see that they are making the most of our two ambassadors in the Antipodes. Once done in Melbourne, their esteemed hostess will accompany them to NZ for a further judging stint. It’s all ensures good international relations and beneficial exchanges.

Tie me kangaroo down sport


10 January 2013
Gosh I dont know who was inspired to write about the latest trek to Oz by two well known ladies as the post has been taken down, but I think that whoever it was got it right! There must be a return appointment on the horison!!!! Not only are the Saffies hitting Oz, but together with their hostess they are leap frogging over the ditch to New Zealand! How cosy and exciting!

Bloodhound


13 January 2013
Indeed, posts do disappear under mysterious circumstances, without the courtesy of an explanation from the administrator. Having read the slander that has found its way onto this forum over the years, and stayed there for the longest time, I would have thought that a posting in the capacity as club chairperson on a serious issue, might have stood more ground.

The first, and last time I bother.

Eileen Ashton
Chairperson – Bearded Collie Club Of Gauteng


14 January 2013
Eileen Ashton
Join the stabbed in the back club. Breeders Restrictions, I have found are not worth the paper that they are written on. KUSA will do its upmost to undermine your good intentions even going so far as getting Mr Eva to phone Australia and work the person over to achieve certain of  his satellites wishes,  despite a letter being lodged at KUSA which gave me  power of attorney over this persons co owned dogs. I was also prevailed upon by a well known HANDLER to lift restrictions on a bitch which had been sold with a written contract this time I did not give in even though I was threatened. The same HANDLER some years later harassed yet another breeder in a different group to also lift restrictions, this time she won. Breeders comment was "Anything for peace". Another breeder friend of mine has actually gone one better than restrictions, and spays all her bitch puppies at 8 weeks and thereby sidesteps the restriction issue. We have suggested to her that she should go the whole hog and vasectomies all her male puppies as well. The cat world keep Teaser toms who obviously only fire blanks. This way you have ultimate control and will never need again to answer to lawyers or KUSA's bullying tactics. Probably like you, I will never forget and definitely never forgive.

Di Thompson
Stonecourt Show Dogs  


15 January 2013
A Case for the Ethics Police.

I recommend that the EP check the date of birth of a certain dog who came in the top two of one the final challenges at Sundays open show at Roodepoort

I hope this was a genuine mistake but it still needs to be addressed.

Peter Pan


18 January 2013
Dear Peter Pan,

If it worry’s you so much about the age of a dog who won at Roodepoort open show on Sunday and you are such a coward that you do not approach the owner direct or name the dog and hide yourself behind a pseudonym I suggest you go via KUSA and lay an official complaint.

Sue Melvin


18 January 2013
I totally agree with Louis Kruger...I certainly would like to know the dates of the coming shows so I can plan my away shows in advance, out of kindness to my bank account

Kangaroo...Hmmmm..you might have a point there..so much for freedom of speech!!

Bloodhound...I wonder why these posts are now missing...I can remember the days when there used to be loads of letters, lots of heated discussions..What happened, are the letters censored?

And now to the last tasty morsel......

Thank you Peter Pan for bringing this to our notice..Why has there been no response from the club in regards to this letter...I will give the exhibitor the benefit of the doubt that it was a honest mistake but the fact remains that the dog didn't win the award, it should be given to the next dog in line without any acrimony on anyone's part in the fairness of our sport!

Edie Wright


21 January 2013
Dear Sue,

Thank you so much for your letter...

I see that you won Best Puppy On Show at the above mentioned show. Hmmm. if the shoe were on the other foot and you had been screwed out of your ‘award’ by a dog too old to be in puppy how would you feel then? Before you jump in to defend the indefensible, try looking at it from a point of view of fairness and maybe then you will see my reason for writing the letter.

I didn’t mention names because believe it or not, I am not the horrible vindictive person you seem to think I am! I wanted to save  the poor dog, who probably didn’t know he was too old to be in that class, the embarrassment of having his name up on a public forum!

Why the heck would I want to pay money to KUSA for a matter that could be sorted out ‘in house’, so to say?  Pseudonym, nom de plume, anonymous, alias, whatever!  What difference does it make what name I sign, I am entitled to freedom of speech and I am also entitled to keep my name private to protect myself from any abuse, which I was sure I would get - and look I was right!!!

The blatant disregard for the rules and the unfriendly welcome to newcomers, coupled with unsportsmanlike behaviour, if a newbie so happens to beat one of the Upper Echelon people, (I said people deliberately)  has driven many newcomers to our wonderful sport away, never to return. This will sadly, hasten the downfall of dog showing in this country.

I am signing off now. I have given my opinion on this matter and I will not be entering into any slanging matches with friends trying to defend/ justify this, I say again, give the award to the correct dog!!

Eternally yours,
Peter Pan


21 January 2013
On the 4 August last year I posted a comment to the Show Forum the gist of which was that it was so boring to predict winners, not only in the breed, but also unto the third and fourth placings in the Groups.  My comments resulted in another post from someone called "SO EXCITED!!!!" advising fellow exhibitors to call me in order to make great savings on their entry fees.

Although I'm certainly not alone with inspired predictions, I must say that I'm happy to know that the old crystal ball is still working perfectly and that my talents now extend to overseas countries as well.  I've been advised that my forecasts for certain shows were Spot On.  How sad is that?

I'm now international and shall soon be intergalactic (but not spaced-out)!

Lucienne Ferres


21 January 2013
I agree with Peter Pan wholeheartedly!!..Rules are rules! The fact that the dog could have been entered in the class by mistake is not actually the point is it?..The point is, the dog was too old to win the award..end of story!! This matter could have been sorted out at club level with no fuss once it came to light....I think that Peter Pan didn’t mention the dog or owners name out of consideration not cowardice!...Look on the letter as constructive criticism, which to my mind, is what it was, as this one is meant to be also!!

I have been in the dog world for close on forty years..I’ve seen scandals come and go..Some would have been swept under the carpet if it wasn’t for some brave soul pointing out the misdemeanour..I say, brave soul, because the dog world can be a  very nasty place to be if you don’t ‘play by the rules’ ..This is one of the reasons people use nom de plumes, they don’t want to be shunned for voicing an opinion...OK, sometimes the opinion sucks but it’s their opinion and they are entitled to it without fear of being an outcast!!

All that being said..I will gladly sign my name with pleasure

Sylvia De Klerk


21 January 2013
If I may, I would like to give my opinion on this situation.....If the dog was entered in a class that it didn't belong in by accident, that's OK, we all make mistakes so we cannot point fingers...but...it all boils down to the plain and simple fact that the dog shouldn't have won the award and the award should go to the next in the line up..

If we look at the facts of this situation, we will see that...firstly, a dog that was a real junior dog should have won the Junior group and gone on to the Best Junior In Show ring.

Secondly, the whole outcome of the junior group was affected due to the fact we will never know where the the 'proper' junior dog would have stood in the finals..for all we know it could have won first place!!

Thirdly, why is there a debate on this at all? This is why rules are written, so we can follow the guidelines, thereby eliminating this sort of problem before it starts.

Fourthly, where is the owner of the dog, why isn't he/she here? I'm sure we would like to hear that it was all a mistake and that it was all sorted out and that the award was given to the rightful dog.

And last but by no means the least..What does it matter what the person's name is..A lie and a truth can still be penned under a name, the name itself doesn't give a statement veracity, the words should be read for the message they contain and it is up to the individual to decide on the reliability of what they have read, not to immediately assume that it must be a lie because the author chooses to use a pseudonym, after all some of the most famous writers of our time used non de plumes..Mark Twain, Boz and George Sand, who was in fact, a woman!

I will of course, sign my name, if only to please the small minded!

Roland Westwood.


24 January 2013
Hi Peter Pan

The delay has been caused by intensive investigation by the Ethics Police.

But even after “drilling down” I still do not qualify to join MI5, as regrettably I can still not give a definitive answer, I have eliminated the Veterans and the Puppies, all within the correct age range.

So by the process of elimination it should be a junior, but huge apologies to the BJIS/RBJIS but no one can remember who won.

If either of them would like to get in touch with me and verify their eligibility to compete in the Junior section we will be able to put “Peter Pan’s” mind at rest.

Rosemary Elliott (Ethics Police)
rosemary@ellrec.co.za
P.S. In future please give rank, name and serial number of supposed transgressors otherwise I shall be exhausted way before the end of the year.


27 January 2013
Dear EP,

BJIS – Staffordshire Bull Terrier, RBJIS – Italian Greyhound

Dr Watson


27 January 2013
After reading through all the hoo haa regarding the "Junior Dog" debacle, I will add my two cents worth.

The dog is question was actually UNDER 17 MONTHS OF AGE when entered at the show, as far as I am aware a dog is a Junior until it is 18 months of age??? Unless of course this has changed and no-one has been informed of this fact????

I do wish people would get their facts straight before pointing fingers, or the fingers might just get turned around and be pointed at themselves.

And I am not afraid to sign my name.

YVONNE MURGATROYD


27 January 2013
A friend of mine has brought to my attention the slur placed upon my Kennel, myself and my dog on the Dogworld forum. It is with great pleasure that I direct “PETER PAN’S” AND any other doubting Thomas’ attention to an advert on Showdogs for Staffyfriends Fantasma Negro de Sharrazar ( Diablo ). It can be clearly seen that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier that won BOB, BEST JUNIOR, BEST JNR GROUP , RESERVE BEST IN GROUP AND Best Junior in Show, was indeed less than 17 months old at the time of the Roodepoort Show! I am attaching a copy of his pedigree for your own verification. It truly saddens me that that after being in the game for 5 years and supporting more than 95% of Open and Champ shows that the “accusers” do not have the testicles to approach the exhibitor but need to resort to a public forum where an extreme amount of damage can be done. The registered birthdate is 24/08/11 thereby making Diablo a JUNIOR. Well, where I went to school that makes under 17 months! He will become a graduate on the 24th of February 2013. Should there be any other GENUINE, researched accusations, please feel free to contact me directly! My name and details are attached.

Adrian
Sharrazar Staffords



27 January 2013
Am I correct in reading from the new KUSA Amendments that from the 1 April we can have 4-6 month pups and neutered dog classes at the championship shows?
Just wondering...


28 January 2013
Oh My Goodness...I have to say this...if you had taken the time to really read the letters to the forum you would have noticed that at no time did any of the letters point to the winner of Best Junior...They said ..... 'I recommend that the EP check the date of birth of a certain dog who came in the top TWO of one the final challenges at Sundays open show at Roodepoort" and.......... "a dog that was a real junior dog should have won the Junior group and gone on to the Best Junior In Show ring"........ the Staffie DID WIN so how could it mean that dog!

The dog in question is the Italian Greyhound...He turned 18 months on the 23 Dec which makes him too old to be in the Junior class on the 13 Jan!!

Regards
Roland Westwood


29 January 2013
Thank you so much Roland, but unfortunately the comments that you refer to can be read two completely different ways! The ambiguity of the comments can quite easily point to the winner of the Best Junior class! The “EP” asked for the BJIS and RBJIS to contact her and accredit their dog. This was done. However, let me point out that the inference of “blatant disregard for rules” and , dare I say “cheating” , was very apparent. By association, the winning TWO dogs were under question. I feel I have cleared my side and re-iterate my point that the washing of laundry in public can so easily be avoided by an exhibitor approaching the show secretary immediately or , in fact, approaching the alleged “offender”. It’s supposed to be about the dogs! Not the ego’s! Maybe we all need to look inside and ask why we do this?

Adrian Austen



29 January 2013
Now that the Italian Greyhound has been “outed” as the one participating illegally in an age restricted class, I wonder what the EP is going to do about it. Is the exhibitor going to be reported to KUSA for discreditable conduct or be clapped in chains at the next show and dragged off to appear in the Ethics Court? Surely something must be done to show that “skelms” will no longer be tolerated in the dog world.

Awaiting the verdict with interest


29 January 2013
It was great attending a Grand Central show and for once not having to do any work! What a wonderful stress-free, friendly show it was! Congratulations to the club's new Chairman, Graham Thompson and Secretary, Jean Peden and their committee and helpers on running a fabulous show. They even got the weather right, not to mention that awesome, record-breaking entry of 50 dogs at an open show for a Utility Group Club (beating our previous record of 41). As Jack Peden pointed out, our open show entry beat many championship show entries in our smaller provinces. It's wonderful to know that after all our hard work Greg and I have left the club in such good hands! Thanks guys!

Lucienne Ferres & Greg Smith


30 January 2013
The investigation has been concluded, the BJIS cleared absolutely of any suspicion, and the perpetrator unmasked, (well actually he came to tell me). After an intense interrogation in the Ethics Police dungeon, and a momentous amount of wrist slapping, there was no confession forthcoming, so the only conclusion the EP could draw was that this was actually an honest mistake, the dog in question having been over eighteen months by a few days. Although how seriously we should take a mistake an open show I am not quite sure seeing as anyone could enter with an unregistered dog of questionable heritage. Perhaps we should be focusing on the more serious lapses of ethics that occur.

On a totally different note, Sunday 27th was the open show for Grand Central Utility Breeds, what a great day, exceptionally well run, wonderful prizes and the atmosphere round the ring friendly supportive and cheerful, what a great bunch of people we are in Utility, exactly what the show world should be. Thanks to everyone for making it such an enjoyable day, let’s keep the whole year like that.

Rosemary Elliott – Ethics Police


30 January 2013
To all the exhibitors who attended the Grand Central Utility Breeds Open Show a very big thank you for your support to our Sponsor Royal Canin what can we say about the fabulous prizes our exhibitors went home with we thank you all for your valued support we had an entry of 50 dogs to the people who are not on the Committee who helped Lorna Betty and Corinne thank you.

Chairman and Committee
Grand Central Utility Breeds Club



30 January 2013
As chairman of Grand Central Utility Breeds Club I must thank Jean Peden, our secretary, for pulling out all the stops to garner a record entry of 50 entries encompassing nearly all the breeds in our group for Jackie Mackenzie's first Utility appointment. Royal Canin for their sponsorship and Jaqui Baynes their rep for giving up her day to supervise the distribution of their products. Vanessa Nicolau for her prizes donated and Jack Peden and Dee and Tom Dowson for the beautiful rosettes. Thank you also the Ghost Donator for paying for the cost of our ring hire. We all had a fabulous day out with our dogs and even more remarkable, no animosity at all from any of the exhibitors, such a rare happening in today’s venomous dog world where dogs do not matter, only personal egos. A BIG Thanks to all the exhibitors that supported us.

Graham Thompson
Chairman


2 February 2013
Isn’t it AMAZING!!! Now that the EP knows who it was that broke the rules, it is not such a serious crime any more and nothing needs to be done.

The EP believes it was an honest mistake. Let me tell you THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HONEST MISTAKE!!! ONLY STUPID MISTAKES!!!!!!! There have been KUSA hearings where people claimed they made honest mistakes. THEY WERE STILL FOUND GUILTY and I bet they dont make the same mistake again why should this one get away with it.

I thought the Ethics Police was going to fix everything by bringing justice to the dog world and not letting people get away with breaking rules. But now this mistake is allright and forgiven. I smell a rat its just like South African politics !!! All talk and no action if it is a FRIEND!!!

Dissapointed


2 February 2013
The show year has hardly started and already the EP’s double standards are put on display. Now all of a sudden it’s an “honest mistake”!!! The exhibitor in question is of course some innocent newby who is the best sport in the world and who always cheers when other people win. This is the last person on earth who will snatch an advantage and shaft the competition.

No Confidence in the EP


2 February 2013
The Chairman and Committee of Eastern Districts Kennel Club would like to thank the exhibitors and guests at the Supa 7s Spectacular for leaving the venue in such a wonderful state. Everyone adhered to the allocated areas for parking, benching and exercise, used the dustbins for their rubbish, and generally cleaned up after their dogs.

We visited the OR Tambo Hall at Birchwood several times prior to the Supa 7s. One such occasion was the morning after a function and another was during a large function. I can assure you that the Supa 7s did not make a third of the mess that we witnessed at those events.

Thank you everyone, you set a fabulous example for our sport!

Carol Immelman
Secretary


4 February 2013
Why am I not surprised by the sweeping under the carpet of the RBJIS award going to the wrong dog!!! I, personally, don't think that 3 weeks is a few days over age! What I find laughable is the comment "Although how seriously we should take a mistake an open show I am not quite sure seeing as anyone could enter with an unregistered dog of questionable heritage." Do you really, really. really think that this scenario could actually happen, If you answered yes, I would like some of what you smoke!!!......It would be the stuff of fairytales if this miracle actually took place...for a complete 'nobody' to go to a show and beat all the 'FACES' pleeeeeeze!!! It's hard enough for anyone else to do it, so I don't hold out much hope of an 'outsider' managing it!

The whole thing stinks, the club hasn't made any kind of statement, and least of all the guilty party!

So much for 'Ethics Police'

Edie Wright



4 February 2013
Oh dear, “Disappointed and No Confidence”, you feel I have let you down.  The whole point of the Ethics Police is to point out to transgressors where they have gone wrong and what is expected of them.

The person in question was abjectly apologetic and assured me he will never make the same mistake again.  He is not a friend in fact I don’t think I have ever had a conversation with him before, I hardly know him.

But to the “tricoteuse” of the dog world, if you think I am going to burn someone at the stake, for any lapse you are sadly mistaken.  The whole point of the exercise is to improve ethics and standards, point it out, correct it and move on, trying to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

And to say there is no such thing as an “honest mistake”, can you really be so cynical?

Come on get a grip, let’s work together to make 2013 a really great showing year.

Rosemary Elliott (Ethics Police)



4 February 2013
Having followed the saga of the is it or is it not a junior the same refrain is now old news. A mistake is human error, let us all move on. To the complainants , to err is human to forgive divine.

Now it seems all trust in the Ethics Police is lost. Sorry Ethics Police you will have to pass on that T shirt , you can claim it back after the first Championship Show.

To pick up on a thread within the Ethics Police post, it is fact that any pedigreed dog may be entered at an open show, not encouraged, but not banned either. Perhaps the dual system followed by a Cape Club is not without merit, pre enter and entry on the day.  Aspirant judges will not be writing reports or critiques on unregistered dogs. You are also allowed to enter on the day, submitting a completed entry form will be obligatory.

Just another old way to tackle a not so new issue. I wonder how many unregistered dogs I judged.

Signed
The Piano Man


5 February 2013
So the Ethics Police are now the Ethics Police, Ethics Judge, Ethics Jury and Ethics Executioner. Since our self-appointed one-woman jurisprudence system has ruled, we can all sit back and relax, knowing that justice has been done even though the actual authorities have not even batted an eye. We can all go back to not thinking or doing anything about our shrinking show world.

And we get to be treated to such marvellous diatribes as to how justice was served such as:

“... a momentous amount of wrist slapping, there was no confession forthcoming, ... an honest mistake ... we should be focusing on the more serious lapses of ethics that occur”

Oh! Handbags at dawn! Ah, the Ethics Police 2013: completely unloaded - unconcerned that our system has had absolutely no response to any questionable ethical dealings. Glad that is sorted out then. No zero tolerance for this town!

So much for the thin blue line and the Ethics Police. Even the Fashion Police have more bite.

Much laughter



5 February 2013
To the Ethics Police......

I haven't picked up a knitting needle in years so you obviously don't mean me! Maybe you should have used chopping off the offenders head instead of burning them at the stake, it would have fitted in so much better with the “tricoteuse” comment!!

Abject apology...where I don't see it anywhere? You mentioned..... " point it out, correct it"......How has it been corrected may I ask?.....What does the club have to say about the debacle..have they rescinded the award?

Honest mistake....I doubt it...the dogs date of birth was written on entry forms for the whole of last year so that excuse doesn't hold water with me I'm afraid!!

I will close with the following found on all schedules...

'This show will be held under the Rules and Regulations of The Kennel Union of Southern Africa'

Need I say more!!!

Au Revoir

Edie Wright .............aka Madame Defarge


7 February 2013
Ok...How about this for an idea!!!

Roodepoort should rescind the award, give the Best Junior in the Toy Group to the Reserve Junior dog...not award RBJIS in show at all...... seeing as we don’t know what the outcome would have been with a different junior Toy.

The club should then put up a small announcement on both dog show sites saying the award has been withdrawn due to a mistake.

Ian should take down his ‘Brag’ about his win, after all its not true anymore..

Hey Presto!!! All sorted out!!...Leaving it and hoping it will go away is not the correct thing to do..Let’s do this by the book and make everyone happy!

Regards

Sylvia De Klerk


9 February 2013
To clarify the role of the Ethics Police

Firstly I am not self appointed – I made comments last year about how great it would be if the show world was more ethical - I was then given the appointment of “Ethics Police” by one of the brave souls using a pseudonym.

Having been given the task I saw it as an opportunity;   I really enjoy the dog shows and had noted with dismay the number of people that withdrew from showing because they perceived it as unethical, and because I had witnessed at firsthand how inferior dogs win because of the “favoritism system” and how some judges are not nearly as knowledgeable as they should be.

I wanted to do whatever I could to stop this, encouraging fair competition both by “outing” the transgressors, thereby hopefully shaming them into improving their ethics, and nudging the complaisant Judges to do their homework on the breed standards.

(Out of interest why do the majority of judges who have years of experience never brush up their skills by attending breed seminars)?

I have absolutely no authority to take any legal action against any miscreant, the most I can do bring it into the open.  Even then I need to check the facts.  You may not believe it but some people invent facts about other exhibitors because they are the competition!

There is a clear system if you feel strongly about an issue which is run through KUSA you can make a complaint to the Provincial Council, you can make a complaint to the Chairman of the officiating Club or you can lay an official complaint,  in terms of the Disciplinary Code Schedule One, where you would need to put down R2000.00, if anyone feels so strongly about a situation, one of these options would be the route to take.

The feedback I have received from many exhibitors is that since last year they are seeing a distinct improvement and I hope I have made a contribution. 

But each one of us can be “Ethics Police” we all need to work together without personal bias to keep the situation improving.

I still firmly believe if you consider a that a Judge is only likely to only choose friends and faces it would only take a couple of show where the person had a handful of entries for them to either reconsider their modus operandi or to stop judging. 

Rosemary Elliott (Ethics Police)
P.S.  You are quite right beheading would have gone better in the sentence and I did consider it but I felt “burning at the stake” was just more dramatic!


12 February 2013
Dear Rosemary Elliot, our Ethics Police, who gives new meaning to the term “missing the point by a country mile”

You state that you
“had noted with dismay the number of people that withdrew from showing because they perceived it as unethical”

We all agree.  Well I certainly do.  The number of shows I enter now are a fraction of old.  We are disappointed and disaffected that our system does nothing on a show to show basis for the ever more regular displays of patronage.  My amusement came from the irony embedded in the whole BJIS debacle and the response of the Ethics Police. An irony which the response email “clarifying the role of the Ethics Police” delightfully adds yet another layer of greater irony.  Let’s see if we can unpack the layers:

1.       Here we have a public transgression; clear, factual and much witnessed.  The opposite, indeed, of the difficulty of proving that favouritism is being done, let alone being in possession of enough evidence to lay down R2000 large (a fee, which interestingly enough, was doubled in a single year).  Apparently R2000 is the amount which will stop “some people [from] invent[ing] facts about other exhibitors”. 

2.       Nothing happens

3.       Whistle blowing on Dogworld

4.       Ethics Police enter the fray, keen to uncover the transgressor

5.       Two weeks later transgressor is “outed”

6.       Still no response from the club or any KUSA authority

7.       Ethics Police deliver judgement: nothing to see here, move along, “an honest mistake” of a “few days” and anyway a “mistake at an open show” is not really serious as we could be surrounded by unregistered dogs of “questionable parentage”.  Nothing really wrong here; was keen earlier but have now reconsidered the action and it really is minor.

8.       Club and KUSA do nothing

9.       Various posters declare dissatisfaction at lack of apparent justice.

10.   EP was on the attack, had a personal conversation, all cleared up now, everyone else is “so cynical” because they are not satisfied and want a due process from the actual authorities and are not satisfied with EP’s judgement of the case.   Irony? EP is delivering a judgement.  One person delivering judgement is not due process, especially as the authorities have not even bothered to engage in any due process leaves a somewhat, oh, how shall we say ... cynical? taste in the mouths of the peasantry.  Isn’t that ironic?

“so the only conclusion the EP could draw was that this was actually an honest mistake, the dog in question having been over eighteen months by a few days. Although how seriously we should take a mistake an open show I am not quite sure seeing as anyone could enter with an unregistered dog...”

“The person in question was abjectly apologetic and assured me he will never make the same mistake again.”

Nevertheless EP is adamant that her judgement is correct and therefore without her realising it, she is saying that she is the authority on the case and since she has spoken with the person so the rest of us should move on.  No one is asking her to behead people – in fact people have laid out in detail the actions they would like to see the Club and the individual do and none of it involves a beheading or even a one show ban.  They are just disagreeing that they are ready to move on.

EP asserts that “there is no favouritism here” because she does not know the transgressor.  True, she probably does not and the transgressor was probably duly humble and contrite.  This is not the point.  Aren’t we trying to get away from personal conversations?  Is that not why there are cries of double standards?  The point is not the Ethics Police.  Where is due process? Where is the Club? Where is KUSA? Why have the actual authorities still not batted an eye?  So we have a public transgression which can be proved and nothing is done.  Not very encouraging for other transgressions which are less obviously proven and for which we are expected to lay down R2000.  C’mon, EP: if “[t]he whole point of the exercise is to improve ethics and standards, point it out, correct it and move on, trying to ensure that it doesn’t happen again” is it not appropriate to point out failure of the system in not delivering its own due process? Is it not appropriate to point out to the Ethics Police that a simple personal conversation may not appear to fulfil strict ethics standards?  Isn’t that ironic that that is what the rest of the posters are trying to do?

Indeed, Ethics Police have no actual authority and will not “behead” people.  We know.  So does she.  Hence the term “self appointed”.  Self appointed is defined as “designated or chosen by oneself instead of due authority” (TheFreeDictionary.com).   Isn’t that ironic? The name may have been chosen by a “brave [anonymous] soul” (a great oxymoron by the way) but EP still bears the mantle and the due authorities have done with this like they do with most ethics issues: bugger all.  This does not make any souls any braver or inclined to make themselves R2000 poorer for little result.

Therefore: EP makes authoritative claims and claims she is not an authority at the same time – this is not the only irony here.  The irony is that no one was asking her to be judge and jury and executioner – in other words, dispense justice.  They are asking where is the due process in the system to deal with infractions, great and small.   They have a list of things they would like to see the Club do and everybody gets to live and continue to show together.  Comprendes? Interestingly enough Guillani started with small infractions in New York as a means to get at big ones – a practice termed “zero tolerance”. 

Most of the community appreciate some sort of ethics reporting; we appreciate that there is an EP and a Lucienne Ferres and all those other anonymous souls who bring poor behaviour out into the light but now one of those Ethics Police tow the party line and say: “There is a clear system if you feel strongly about an issue which is run through KUSA you can make a complaint to the Provincial Council, you can make a complaint to the Chairman of the officiating Club or you can lay an official complaint, in terms of the Disciplinary Code Schedule One, where you would need to put down R2000.00, if anyone feels so strongly about a situation, one of these options would be the route to take”. Isn’t that ironic? Yup because that system has been so effective so far at countering the concerns of the “number of people that withdrew from showing because they perceived it as unethical”.  Isn’t that ironic?

To sum:
The Ethics Police are busy defending their ethics while making authoritative judgements that the case has little merit while at the same time stating that they have no authority. 

The authorities are making no judgements at all even though they have the authority to adjudicate the merits of the case and no doubt want to attract many people in future to a well run, ethical show.

Then the Ethics Police, whose very existence stems from lack of a useful system to police ethics and the subsequent dwindling of show entries, now turns to due process; while failing to notice that no due process has taken place here; and now states that if we want any due process we must a) feel strongly b) invest R2000 and go back to the original due process which is currently not in action. 

And to pile irony upon irony EP is right after all: it is only an open show and no one actually feels strongly enough (or probably wealthy enough) or even dislikes the transgressor enough (he’s actually a nice guy) to lay down R2000.   So ironically, our actual authorities don’t have to do anything at all any way by their own system.   And we don’t want the transgressor to be burnt at the stake – so we want minor not major action anyway.  And that, Alanis Morissette, is ironic.

 Now Sighing, Not Laughing


12 February 2013
Regarding the open shows held on Sunday 10th February.  I did not attend however I did have several quite heated reports about the usual problems.

Exhibitors showing under close friends whose dogs they have shown, I did my usual and contacted the people involved to check if what I had been told was correct.

It is really a sad day when someone freely admits it all and says “We are neither ashamed nor embarrassed about our behaviour”

Then followed a personal attack which called improving ethics “a misguided, puerile and now rather tiresome witch hunt”

A lot of justification for the actions followed, concluding with the remarks that I am “a disagreeable, malicious and vindictive person”.

A bit of a shock for all you guys that said I was far too soft and should be a lot harsher.

However I believe an insult from that type of person is really a sort of back handed compliment.

I think the next stage might be to buy a “job lot” of witches hats and start handing them out.

Rosemary Elliott (The Ethics Police)


13 February 2013
I am totally aghast at what I am reading. That people have the effrontery to say they are not ashamed and that it is a witch hunt. How brass faced can you get!!!! These people are giving the rest of the dog world the ‘finger’, it’s a sort of,  ‘up yours’ we are the elite and we will do what we want!!!!.This is the very reason that the dog world is in such disrepute. It seems that integrity is really long gone, along with good sportsmanship, helping newcomers and breeders mating wonderful dogs together for the sake of the breed not their ego!!

I want to know what the club is doing about this BJIS matter...I heard that a couple of letters were sent to the club and a rather rude answer came back from the Chairperson. This must be sorted out at club level without abusing the people who brought your attention to it. Why hasn’t the club made some sort of statement about what they intend to do? It just cannot be swept under the carpet. We, the dog fraternity, should not allow this to happen, it is a blatant flouting of KUSA rules and regulations. I don’t care if it was an open show and a mistake, it MUST be rectified by the club and the exhibitor both. He abjectly apologized (not that anyone actually saw/heard...we were just told he did so) fine, now take down the brag on your Facebook page...it is not true!!

Roland Westwood


13 February 2013
I agree wholeheartedly with Sylvia De Klerk. This should be easy enough to sort out if there was a willingness to do so. If I had made a genuine mistake I should want to come forward to clear my name - not remain silent about it!
Diane Ward


13 February 2013
Hmmm, Constable Elliot of the Ethics Police … you condemn exhibitors for showing “under close friends” at Sunday’s open show.

Didn’t I see you at the Halloween open show in October? Didn’t you show a few dogs? And, didn’t I see the same person who judged you at that show sitting at your table at the Super 7s?

I thought you sat together because she is a friend of yours. Or am I mistaken?
PG


13 February 2013
Hi NS/NL

I agree with a lot of what you are saying – unfortunately there does not seem to be enough interest in improving ethics from the very people who should be standing at the front of the picket line.

Unless they are using a pseudonym I have not seen an overwhelming flow of comments from committee members about the abject state of affairs.

I also agree with you that just telling people that they are behaving unethically or bringing cheating out in the open only works if you are dealing with people with a conscience.

You ask why committees and clubs are not getting involved, why there is silence from the people who could really influence change.

I think is comes down to the following reasons:-

· Complacency – don’t really care enough, possibly don’t show their own dogs any more

· Arrogance – why should they bother what the hoi polloi say.

· It doesn’t suit them, because they also play policy games, and have questionable ethics

· They are scared of confrontation

· They are part of the “old boys” network and are quite happy to exchange favours, alternatively it their dear old friends who are the culprits and they do not want to upset them

· Denial – “people don’t leave dog showing because of that – they leave for other reasons ethics have got nothing to do with it”

· There is no way to enforce it without a lot of hassle and they can’t be bothered to change the rules

· Change aversive – let’s not rock the boat.

If you feel strongly about this issue and are committed bringing back the ethics to the dog world.

Please e mail or phone me

Unless you feel that the exercise will be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic - because the fate of dogs shows will be the same unless action is taken

Rosemary Elliott
rosemary@ellrec.co.za
011 425 6809 (Office hours)
083 629 9882 (Cell phone)


13 February 2013
The recent so called "Double-Bash" in Gauteng should be called "The Double Blunder". Gone is the refinement of the British Leadership and replaced with the arrogant loudmouth German and Eva, the polish of the past no longer prevails and the new leadership of the Super 7 and Eastern Districts indicate that there will be a new dictator coming to the fore, only he and Eva will call the success of the day purely because of the numbers. Certain Learner Judges were instructed by their Ring Stewards to stop writing reports and taking photos and get on with the judging, the afternoon shift judge in the major group armed only with his cell phone and no note pads should rather call it a day rather than pursue a future in judging, many of his winners came from the very ring that he was ring stewarding in the previous week. Unbeknown to him the dogs from the previous week were not necessarily the best of their breeds for various reasons. It would be good advice for the German to polish himself up instead of shirts hanging out, dirty denims and dirty green froggies to make him and Eva a bit more polished as was the image created from the past.
Don Smith


13 February 2013
Post removed


15 February 2013
Isn’t it strange that the owner of the IG at the centre of the current storm has not come forward to offer an explanation.  Why is he lying low?  Guilty conscience, perhaps?  I certainly hope so, because it’s rather underhand to rob other dogs of awards.  And please don’t give me the “honest mistake” thing, EP.  You know and I know that we are not talking about Snow White here.  This exhibitor will jump over the dead bodies of the opposition to get to the No. 1 spot.

Anyway, why waste your time writing to the club.  If you feel aggrieved, put down your R2K and lay a formal complaint.  As a KUSA rule has been broken there has to be a case and the person has to be found guilty.  Your money will have to be refunded.

No use to mope in the corner 


15 February 2013
To all of those baying for blood of the Junior dog debacle
:
If it matters so much, put your money down and lay a complaint. You have the right to do so. Stop trying to get other people

To the Ethics Police:
Congratulations!  While I don’t agree with the way you elected yourself judge & jury on the matter, I very much doubt that exhibitor will EVER make the same mistake (be it honest or not) again.

OBSERVER


15 February 2013
I really don’t know what Don Smith (what an interesting name – so original!) is on about.  The double whammy shows on Sunday were relaxed , enjoyable and a great success as far as I’m concerned.  The numerous compliments on FB will testify to this, so all I can think of is that “Don Smith” is firmly in the camp of Hamish and Peanut who  have a very personal axe to grind.  It really doesn’t take rocket science to figure out who is making the bullets for “Don Smith” to fire.

As for the “polish” of the past, give me a break!  The notorious pair have about as much polish as the patrons of a bar in Booysens.

Well done NTKC and EDKC


15 February 2013
My word Don Smith (or whoever you really are) … jealousy makes you nasty!

Get A Life


15 February 2013
Hi Rosemary,
I’m with you...where do I collect my badge?

No false name..

Sylvia De Klerk


21 February 2013
Ok...I’m going to start off by saying..Why should anyone have to put down money to complain to KUSA for something that was pointed out to the club a couple of days after it happened?......The exhibitor admitted to the mistake...Does he still have the award?...If yes...why??? Unfortunately I can’t go and take a look on his Facebook page to check, seeing as he unfriended and blocked me, he also did this to someone else who commented on this matter.. Neither of us were abusive in any way (like some people were) I, personally, just gave my thoughts on the incident. Friend or not he is still wrong holding on to an award he didn’t actually win fairly, mistake or not!

The club needs to come to the party now and explain why this taking so long to be rectified..What is the reason it’s not been sorted out? Could it be that they think if they leave it long enough it will go away...That attitude certainly sucks big time and should not be condoned at all!!

Where do we draw the line and say it was just a ‘small mistake’ or ‘Whoa..that’s a huge mistake, can’t let that one slide by’...That’s why we have rules to abide by...then we don’t have to think about it, we already know!!

Sylvia De Klerk


21 February 2013
Isn’t it amazing, the Ethics Police is quiet as a mouse now.

Were there absolutely no ethical transgressions last weekend at the open shows? No entering under friends this time? Or has PG’s question regarding the EP’s own ethics and who she shows under, made her stop and think twice before passing judgment on others?

Just Wondering


22 February 2013
Hi Just Wondering

Generally when I get a phone call or an e mail regarding what is perceived as a lack of ethics I discuss the issue with the people involved, sometimes it is a misunderstanding or sometimes just pointing it out can prevent reoccurrence.

After the double show weekend when I received so many complaints I was going to try and start a discussion based on showing under friends versus close friends.

I walk around at a dog show and chat to lots and lots of people, I like to think we are friends, would I show under them. Yes I would and have. Is it ethical? Yes I believe it is. Would I show under people that were “house friends” (those who visited my house and I visited theirs) with whom I chat to frequently away from the dog shows – no I wouldn’t, I believe that is unethical. Neither would I show under anyone who is a “dog show” friend but not a “house friend” who has helped me show my dogs or I have helped them show theirs, I think that would be extremely unethical. I was going to invite others opinions.

However after I was annihilated by the Panzer division, there was no opportunity for this discussion.

Rosemary Elliott (Ethics Police)


22 February 2013
Dear Don

if you got so much to criticize about WHY DONT YOU GET STUCK IN AND ARRANGE EVERYTHING !!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT if you did i WONT SHOW OR SUPPORT ( TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE LEARNER JUDGES ).

And i wont with hold my name IT IS ROB MARSHALL
FROM Boupeep Bedlington Terriers ( the only registered Belington terrier kennel in South Africa ) by the way so hope you succeed IN EVERYTHING ARRANGING THE NEXT DOUBLE WHAMMY BECAUSE I WILL ENTER MY MONGREL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


22 February 2012
Dear Rosemary,

You still haven't answered my question. So I’m going to repeat it.

The person you showed under at the Halloween show – is she not a close friend of yours?

Close enough to share your table at Super 7s and, I understand, also close enough to attend your birthday celebration?

PG


23 February 2013
Ah Ha,

So PG and JW are probably the same person, I should have remembered that you were the mentally challenged one. So let me spell it out for you.

No Rikkie is not a close friend, she is I hope, still a friend, I have never been to her house and she has never been to mine, we do not chat on the phone between dog shows.

And incidentally one of the things that you forgot to mention was at that show was one of the occasions my dog did not win top honours.

Rosemary Elliott


25 February 2013
OHHHHHHHHHHHH, now I understand!!!!!!!!! Ethics only matters IF YOU WIN!!!! It is OK that to show under your best friend if you LOSE!!!!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO


25 February 2013
To you of many aliases

Having just explained in words of two syllables that she is not a close or best friend I realised the futility of the exchange, as your motivations are hidden behind your pseudonym/s I have formulated a profile of the type of person you are.

A white female, around her forties or early fifties who probably had a domineering Mother and a complaisant or absent Father, you did receive an education, but not at a tertiary level. Single or if you are in a relationship you are the subservient partner, you do not have children. You try to be presentable, but somehow never quite make it. I doubt if you have many friends or keep them for very long, because they either outlive their usefulness, or start to see beyond your facade.

In a dead end job, you are not appreciated, have no power and no chance of promotion, you degrade your co-workers to each other as soon as their backs are turned.

Untrustworthy and dishonest, if you saw an opportunity to defraud or steal you would do so, but only if you were sure you could get away with it or blame someone else, because you are by nature, a coward.

Of average to below average intelligence you are non confrontational, you do not have the verbal skills to engage in discourse with others but you still have the ability to manipulate.

You sneer at people with a conscience and those who do have high standards because they make you confront your own uninspiring performance.

With no sense of self worth, showing dogs becomes the ultimate high for you,

You show indiscriminately and would be quite happy to show under a pedophile so desperate are you to win. You rejoice in hollow victories.

Your dogs are probably not abused but they are not loved. You would have no problem breeding from a dog with a major fault, you have no interest in improving your breed. When you sell puppies you do not provide registrations for all the new owners and you definitely do not encourage any of them to show their dogs.

You are unfriendly to new exhibitors, unless you see they can be of use to you. If not you give them the cold shoulder – more dogs would be competition and you would be quite happy to be the only person showing.

Ultimately you would betray anyone if it was in your self interest. You are the epitome of what is wrong in the dog world.

So whilst I am keen to engage in any discussion which will assist the dog world to improve its ethics, I will never again respond to someone of your dubious immoral character.

Rosemary Elliott


26 February 2013
I have to say this on the subject of knowing judges. I have been showing dogs for close on forty years so I know a rather lot of judges. I have no problem with sitting with them and talking with them on the phone on occasion; it’s bound to happen over so many years. I feel that the judge must have the integrity to be able to judge the dog and not the other end of the lead. I have found this to be true with the old timers, they are able to separate ‘In the ring’ and ‘Out the ring’, I would not expect anything less.

Our dog show world is very small so we are going to have people who know people, who know people. It doesn’t mean that because they sit next to each other at some do they are going to put up each other’s dogs (OK, in some cases it does!). What we need to do is - if we think that there is a ‘You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ situation going on. Don’t show under that judge!! Talk with your feet, they will catch on pretty quickly if they have no entries other than their ‘friends’ showing under them. I’m not going to a couple of shows this year for that very reason. I would sooner take my entry fees and donate them to an animal charity than give it to a judge who, I know, will not judge my dog against another dog but against who is on the other end of the lead.

I don’t know, maybe I’ve shot myself in the foot by saying this but at the end of the day I really, really hope that integrity/honesty will be part of our sport and that the right end of the lead will actually win the rosette!!

I will sign my name and take the consequences!!

Sylvia De Klerk


26 February 2013
Dear EP

It takes a while for me to check the posts, what with the frenetic running of a life in the Big Smoke. Thanks for the reply. I also do not check Dogworld as frequently as the event of Facebook has rendered the posting in general thereon less frequent. I wish that the site would stop directing traffic to Mark Zuckerberg’s creation as that compounds the friend of friends patronage problem that we face. It used to be said that international judges were just someone else’s locals; with Facebook everyone is rendered into someone’s locals (and your own if you do enough “friending”).

When will the “OBSERVER” [sic] get it that we are not “baying for blood”? A public mea culpa and giving up an award is not “blood”. If you continue to think it is, may I direct you to the Spanish Inquisition (circa 1391 for some of the heights of its excesses) and the French revolution (circa 1879). Or Vlakplaas if you need a local reference. That was blood. This is not blood.

To Rosemary Elliot: I am somewhat pleased and surprised you wish that I contact you. If you mean it, I will. How do we move from deck chairs on the Titanic to real change? A club, an exhibitor and the governing body will not do the slightest – slightest – about an evidenced transgression. Still there is a deafening silence from the actual authorities. The club gives the impression they should just ride out the indignation as people will forget or leave. Okay. No response is a response but a pretty pathetic one at that and one that leaves a cynical taste in the mouth. I am heartened that posters on Dogworld are not letting this go easily.

And to some general posters out there: irresponsible use of CAPITALS and over-punctuation!!!!!! belies rationality in a post and undermines whatever it was you were trying to say in the first place.

NL, NS


26 February 2013
Fait Accompli, no Gazette to inform us what's going on (how convenient) and there we have it, a Neuter class and Baby Puppy now on our Championship schedules. The Neuter class is not actually an issue or problem but had it in its conception stage been thrown to us all to hash over more could have been envisaged and the concept made more attractive. My take on this would have been to go the route of the Cat Fancy wherein spayed females and neutered males compete in one class for the coveted Premier certificate, which having won the prescribed number as in CCs, entitles the animal to the title of Premier in front of it's name, highly esteemed in the world of cat breeders. All horse shows that stage Breed classes, always offer classes for geldings as they feel this encourages people to reduce the number of entire males and only breed from animals that are above average. Imagine this applied in the dog world!!!

Now for the Baby Puppy class at championship shows. I strongly doubt that any consideration other than boosting dwindling numbers and raking in revenue was ever taken in when introducing this class. You will now see these babies carted from Cape to Cairo, endless hours in transit, yet more growing and playing time incarcerated in crates at shows and living on an irregular feeding regimes. God forbid, and I see it on the wall, some All-Breed club in its quest for yet another "----- of The Year" award staging Baby Puppy of The Year. Can you see the Ego Trippers exploiting these babies, it's akin to child labour. The rings are already filled with lack- lustre dogs who are jaded and show tired from over exposure. Please be fair to these babies.

Whilst on the subject of "----of The Year" awards, why was there such a hoo-ha over Ian Allison's Italian Greyhound, a week or two over the age at open show in the Junior class? I don't, after all care, but I have a serious problem with PUPPY and JUNIOR of The Year when the majority of the finalists are long out of their age groups on the day and have a VERY unfair advantage over more youthful participants. It should fairly be split into the first and second half of the year and titled accordingly.

I will also be asking the Ethics Police captain to broaden her horizon and monitor the exploitation of the Baby Puppy class and to name and shame those that indirectly are abusing their youngsters, after all there was the direct threat to my friend Tracy Martins some weeks ago, whose dogs are her life, so could you imagine what a field day her accuser would have seeing all these babies denied their puppyhood. A puppy's place is at home, look at all the child stars that end tragically, they too were denied a childhood.

Graham Thompson


26 February 2013
Just been looking at Showdogs results...hmmmmm..Looks like most of the results are there for most of the big shows except Roodepoort...Wonder why...could it be they don't know what to do about RJIS?

Looks to me and many others that this is, without a doubt, being swept under the carpet ..This is a total disgrace and Roodepoort Club should be ashamed of themselves as should Ian Allison!!!

This win at all cost attitude will drive away even more exhibitors..Ever noticed how many IGs are shown now..Why would people pay good money for a foregone conclusion...And, before you say sour grapes, no I don't show an IG, I'm not even in the Toy Group!!

Edie Wright


26 February 2013
To you of many aliases

It may appear that you have had an adverse effect on Rosemary, hitting her where it hurts, provoking her to conjure such a profound profile of you.

I wonder how long it took her to write such a detailed, disgraceful assumption. Apparent that far too many hours have been spent watching detective / murder movies and the likes thereof. The profile being very underhanded and below the belt, written by someone with such high morals and standards, when in fact, the simple truth was being brought to light. Maybe the profile given is an apt profile of Rosemary herself. A vindictive retaliation to say the least.

Yes Rosemary, you summed it up beautifully, “You are the epitome of what is wrong in the dog world.”

Yet another alias


26 February 2013

Sigh.

Yes Rosemary, I “forgot” to mention whether your dog won or not. Just like you “forgot” to answer the question about whether the judge concerned attended your birthday party.

Now, we’ll never know, because you’ve lumped me together with all the other evil alias-abusers and you’re never going to respond to us again.

Probably that will be better for you, since you're not making much sense anymore.

PG


28 February 2013
I really don’t know what Graham Thompson is on about. The Baby Puppy Class has been part of the Australian dog scene for years and the times I judged there I never saw a baby puppy that was distressed or that didn’t have fun in the ring.

What’s so wrong with trying to bump up entries at shows?

Enough other things to moan about


28 February 2013
Regarding the EP and her own ethics, let’s not forget where this all began – a Welsh SS showed to great effect under a under close friend and then brought back for some more sweet winnings under a close friend of the close friend. These wins were somehow “forgotten”, remember. Like one “forgets” a BIS.

No saint like a latter-day saint!


28 February 2013
Thanks guys for your support (both on and off the DW site) of the mission to improve ethics in dog showing, it is much appreciated. I do understand how some of you would not want to be involved overtly because of the tactics of those few exhibitors who are the perpetrators, but you should remember they are in the minority, and we do not have to tolerate them. Yes Graham we should certainly take the treatment of “baby” puppies into account, we need to engage in meaningful ways to improve all the ethical facets of dog shows in a constructive manner. To NL/NS yes please do get in touch.

Rosemary Elliott (EP)


28 February 2013
Dear NL, NS

If you think you are going to get some joy out of the authorities, the club or (perish the thought) the exhibitor you might as well set off in the hope of finding the fountain of youth.

Also forget looking at the EP for any kind of condemnation of improper behaviour on the part of this exhibitor. When it comes to friends the EP dons rosemary-tinted spectacles.

Shackles for some only