Quantcast
Channel: Latest forum messages
Viewing all 3083 articles
Browse latest View live

Apparently the truth is VERBOTEN in the WDA? Questions about eligibility .

$
0
0

Hi,

After trying to get clarification for some friends from the "Official GSDCA WDA" facebook page  regarding 

the necessary qualifications for:

Entering , Competing and ultimately having won the National IPO/ FH Championship , in April,

and

By Laws REQUIRING WDA Club Officers to be members in good standing with the GSDCA

I was "booted " from the page for my queries

.   Why now?  Maybe it struck a nerve?

I guess questions regarding the truth are not allowed on that page. LOLOL

 

From the questions I have been fielding, I understand, there is a red flag being raised regarding the 

winner of the FH/IPO Championships (WDA) , as well as eligibility to be VP of the WDA?

Have the By Laws perhaps been changed?     Does the Entry Form for the aforementioned Championships,

where GSDCA membership is stated is a requirement for that competition, not apply to everyone, or all the time?

I have had several people asking me why the VP / Winner of the Championship does not appear on the Membership Roster

of the GSDCA?     I really don't know.

Can anyone out there clarify this?   People , and rightfully so are waiting for clear answers.

I have not dog in this fight , so to speak, but I did promise I would try to find out.  

Appreciate any insight here..  it is difficult when the people in charge not only refuse to engage in the conversation, 

but try to keep the whole subject under wraps, or so it would seem.

Perhaps the WDA leadership has forgotten that the GSDCA is still "Big Brother" to them (not in the Orwellian sense) and it is ONLY 

because of the WDA's affiliation with the GSDCA and the GSDCA's MEMBERSHIP in the WUSV, that they are able to be

recognized, world wide.    So when requirements state "must be a member of the GSDCA"  it should mean precisely that, one would think?

Or is there an addendum to the By Laws and rules that says "everyone must comply except the leadership of the WDA?"   I rather doubt it.

As a refresher, I have taken this quote directly from the WDA website:

"Through its relationship with the GSDCA and their membership in the World Union of German Shepherd Dog Clubs (WUSV), the GSDCA-WDA is able to offer internationally recognized events and programs to its members."

I am getting at least 10 private emails a day from WDA members that have questions about this.  I started off just asking for some friends 
who's hard drive went kablooey.    Whatever.   As they say the truth shall set you free.
Also if the Winner of the Championship is actually ineligible...boy that has got to suck for the owner of the 2nd place dog...yikes.
   Honestly these should be easy to answer and I am getting tired of all the emails.
 

    A smart boy from Canada

    muzzle training tonight

    $
    0
    0

    first time muzzletraining with 12 months old male

     

     

    K-9 SOLDIERS NEED HOMES

    Commenting on a certain type of dog

    $
    0
    0

    On another thread here a member said something like (if someone did not own (see in person/watch in a show etc) a certain line of a breed he/she had no right to judge/evaluate/critic it).

    Though I did not think it was directed to me, I did not argue due to two reasons, I didn't want to go off topic, also that member has my utmost respect. But I would love to see what you think of it.

     

    My view:

    Supposing, for example, I have a Wl and never owned a showline, if a topic concerns West German Showline that I never saw in person and never seen live ring show, I still have the right to say what I think about the good and bad I see in this line of the breed. My opinion might be correct and might be uneducated, it is upto others to make their own opinions based on what they think is best/most true of what they hear.

    If I didn't own a Gsl, I have no right to give opinion/comment/critic?

    Just want to see what you think, because if that is the case, then I might shut up and not talk about many things I currently share views.

     

    Ibrahim

     

    Majority Rules

    $
    0
    0

    With the new SCOTUS ruling, allowing prayer at public meetings, guess what happened next?

    Majority Rules

    Americans now get to decide which religions we want to protect. Guess which one will always win?

     
     
    Worshipers raise their hands as they pray during the America for Jesus rally on Oct. 22, 2004, in Washington, D.C.
    Worshipers raise their hands as they pray during the America for Jesus rally on Oct. 22, 2004, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

    Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

    When the Supreme Court handed down its decision Monday in Town of Greece v. Galloway, many commentators suggested that it was an overreaction to believe that it would impact religious freedom in America. If anything, they argue, we are all a little bit freer this morning, as the court has moved away from the stifling demand that religious invocations before a town council meeting be limited to “nonsectarian” references, such as the “Almighty” or “addressed only to a generic God.” In a significant shift from earlier case law, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that local government “cannot require chaplains to redact the religious content from their message to make it acceptable for the public sphere.” From now on, religious leaders can offer full-throated, unapologetic prayers to the God of their choosing in public meetings. And in language consistent with one of the most speech-protective courts in modern history, Kennedy reminds religious objectors that citizens who “feel excluded or disrespected” by such religious invocations should simply ignore them. “Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable,” he wrote.

    Dahlia LithwickDahlia Lithwick

    Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate. Follow her on Twitter.

    Whenever you hear cries that freedom has won, it’s worth contemplating who, if anyone, has lost. And less than 24 hours after the Court handed down its decision in Town of Greece, citizens of Roanoke, Virginia, have their answer. Al Bedrosian, a member of the Roanoke County’s board of supervisors, was sufficiently emboldened by the majority opinion to announce that he would seek to impose a Christian-only prayer policy.

    “The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian on Monday night, adding that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?” he asked.

    Indeed. Asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others, Bedrosian candidly replied that he likely would not. And does Bedrosian believe that he is curtailing anyone’s freedoms? No. “If a non-Christian wished to pray during a meeting,” Bedrosian said, he or she would be able to do so during the allotted time for citizen comment.

    In the event that you are still wondering what Bedrosian thinks about religious pluralism and tolerance in America, he isn’t hiding the ball here: “I think America, pretty much from Founding Fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology. … If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.” Bedrosian evidently wrote a letter to the Roanoke Times in 2007 making this same point. There he argued that only Christians should enjoy freedom of religion in America, and that “one of the greatest moments in U.S. Senate history came when a Christian group recently shouted for God to forgive us during the opening prayer of a Hindu in the Senate.”

    Now it’s easy to dismiss Bedrosian as an outlier, given that his all-Christian prayer policy not only violates the Constitution but also might alarm concurring Justice Samuel Alito, who indicated in his opinion Monday that he might view a legislative prayer policy differently if it were intentionally discriminatory against minority religions as opposed to just an inadvertent clerical error as it was in Town of Greece. (As I wrote Monday, it seems convenient, if not naive, to believe that inviting only Christian chaplains for almost a decade was simply a scheduling mishap.) It’s equally easy to dismiss Alabama’s Chief Justice Roy Moore, who said in a speech in January that freedom of religion in America applies only to the God of the Bible and that Establishment Clause protections do not extend to other religions, such as Islam and Buddhism. “Buddha didn’t create us. Muhammad didn’t create us. It’s the God of the Holy Scripture,” he explained.

    Well, crackpots are crackpots wherever they are, you may say. Except Kennedy’s plurality opinion Monday opened the door to precisely this line of argument as a result of all his airy talk of religious tradition and history. “The tradition reflected in Marsh permits chaplains to ask their own God for blessings of peace, justice, and freedom that find appreciation among people of all faiths,” writes Kennedy. “That a prayer is given in the name of Jesus, Allah, or Jehovah, or that it makes passing reference to religious doctrines, does not remove it from that tradition.”

    He adds that “it is thus possible to discern in the prayers offered to Congress a commonality of theme and tone. While these prayers vary in their degree of religiosity, they often seek peace for the Nation, wisdom for its lawmakers, and justice for its people, values that count as universal and that are embodied not only in religious traditions, but in our founding documents and laws.” In other words, because the prayers offered in the town of Greece abided by this long “tradition,” they are, in Kennedy’s view, acceptable. Even when explicitly Christian. Why? “A number of the prayers did invoke the name of Jesus, the Heavenly Father, or the Holy Spirit, but they also invoked universal themes, as by celebrating the changing of the seasons or calling for a ‘spirit of cooperation’ among town leaders.” What Kennedy did here, in the event that you missed it, was to announce that as a matter of constitutional law, some religious traditions that are universal and longstanding are basically Christian and also that Christian values are basically universal. Done and done. But in so doing he also drew a line between “traditional” and accepted religions, and religions that are “other.” That seems to open the door for Bedrosian to zone out the Muslims and the Jews and for Moore to zone out the Buddhists and (surprise!) the Muslims.

    It’s hard to avoid noticing that in its decision, the court publicly and vocally split almost perfectly along religious lines, with the three Jews and a Catholic arrayed against the five Catholics in the majority. So much for monolithic Judeo-Christian values. The court also did a massive disservice to religions that are neither old, nor traditional, and even to the old, traditional religions that cringe at the watering down of their religious beliefs in a public forum. Instead the court practically invited local legislators to make judgments about which “traditions” are sufficiently lofty and universal to warrant offering them meaningful speech and religious protections. Whatever the First Amendment was or was not intended to do, creating a class of respectable, “traditional” religions and another class of lesser religions shouldn’t have been the object. As Thomas Jefferson put it in a letter to Elbridge Gerry on Jan. 26, 1799, “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” The real worry after Town of Greece is that we get to pick, apparently by popular acclaim, which are the American religions and which are the un-American ones.

     

    But it's the Christians who are perscuted?  Really?  We're edging closer and closer to what you all think will be paradise, aren't we?  Lock step with the Christians or you are no American.  Heads should be lowered ----> in shame.

    Critique please - 22 month WL Bitch

    $
    0
    0

    I know what I like and don't like about my bitch, but would like some outside views.  This girl is from the first litter we had after taking a 12 year hiatus.  She just got her BH last month and we are planning on trying for IPO1 in the next couple of months.  She is 22 months old.  I know the grass will prevent critiques of her pasterns and feet... I apologize for that. 


     

    Dog shields missing toddler...


    Waleed, this one is for you,,,

    $
    0
    0

    In answering your question to how fast the dogs are traveling in their "show gates" SV, AKC, or any thing in between is this:

     

    We have not tested our WGSL boy at his top speed as he is only 11 months old;  however, we have clocked our samoyed female (5 years old) at a speed of 8 to 9 miles per hour at he top show gate just before going into a gallop/cantor/full running trot or whatever you want to call it. 

     

    We will try to test our young male but usually don't even count anything serious until fully matured;  but it has to be at least between 10 and 15 miles per hour.  We will see.  Interesting question, how do those handlers keep up with these guys??  We will try to test on a 3 wheeler with a speedometer.  Usually accurate.  Gives you an idea of their abilities.  WOW...

     

    And as you have learned thru various discussions on structure that this speed is going to vary from dog to dog depending on their conformation and structure as well as fitness.  Again,  WOW...

    unedited, some bites down town.

    $
    0
    0

    just happened to have someone that said they would take a bite no big thing. they were supposed to hide in the dead end alley but chickened out and i had to send the decoy back in. he forgot to throw boxes at the dog. dog near knowcked him on his butt and he grabbed the wall to keep from falling over. no contest - dog wins;

     

    First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab

    $
    0
    0

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-life-with-alien-dna-created-in-lab/

    First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab

    An engineered bacterium is able to copy DNA that contains unnatural genetic code
     
    alien DNA


    The addition of new letters to the 'alphabet of life' could enable biologists to vastly expand the range of proteins that they could synthesize.
    Credit: National Nanotechnology Initiative

    For billions of years, the history of life has been written with just four letters — A, T, C and G, the labels given to the DNA subunits contained in all organisms. That alphabet has just grown longer, researchers announce, with the creation of a living cell that has two 'foreign' DNA building blocks in its genome.

    Hailed as a breakthrough by other scientists, the work is a step towards the synthesis of cells able to churn out drugs and other useful molecules. It also raises the possibility that cells could one day be engineered without any of the four DNA bases used by all organisms on Earth.

    “What we have now is a living cell that literally stores increased genetic information,” says Floyd Romesberg, a chemical biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, who led the 15-year effort. Their research appears online today in Nature.

    Each strand of the DNA's double helix has a backbone of sugar molecules and, attached to it, chemical subunits known as bases. There are four different bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These letters represent the code for the amino-acid building blocks that make up proteins. The bases bind the two DNA strands together, with an A always bonding to a T on the opposite strand (and vice versa), and C and G doing likewise.

    Test-tube letters
    Scientists first questioned whether life could store information using other chemical groups in the 1960s. But it wasn’t until 1989 that Steven Benner, then at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, and his team coaxed modified forms of cytosine and guanine into DNA molecules. In test-tube reactions, strands made of these “funny letters”, as Benner calls them, copied themselves and encoded RNA and proteins.

    The bases engineered by Romesberg’s team are more alien, bearing little chemical resemblance to the four natural ones, Benner says. In a 2008 paper, and in follow-up experiments, the group reported efforts to pair chemicals together from a list of 60 candidates and screen the 3,600 resulting combinations. They identified a pair of bases, known as d5SICS and dNaM, that looked promising. In particular, the molecules had to be compatible with the enzymatic machinery that copies and translates DNA.

    “We didn’t even think back then that we could move into an organism with this base pair,” says Denis Malyshev, a former graduate student in Romesberg’s lab who is first author of the new paper. Working with test-tube reactions, the scientists succeeded in getting their unnatural base pair to copy itself and be transcribed into RNA, which required the bases to be recognized by enzymes that had evolved to use A, T, C and G.

    The first challenge to creating this alien life was to get cells to accept the foreign bases needed to maintain the molecule in DNA through repeated rounds of cell division, during which DNA is copied. The team engineered the bacterium Escherichia coli to express a gene from a diatom — a single-celled alga — encoding a protein that allowed the molecules to pass through the bacterium's membrane.

    The scientists then created a short loop of DNA, called a plasmid, containing a single pair of the foreign bases, and inserted the whole thing into E. coli cells. With the diatom protein supplying a diet of foreign nucleotides, the plasmid was copied and passed on to dividing E. coli cells for nearly a week. When the supply of foreign nucleotides ran out, the bacteria replaced the foreign bases with natural ones.

    Alien control
    Malyshev sees the ability to control the uptake of foreign DNA bases as a safety measure that would prevent the survival of alien cells outside the lab, should they escape. But other researchers, including Benner, are trying to engineer cells that can make foreign bases from scratch, obviating the need for a feedstock.

    Romesberg’s group is working on getting foreign DNA to encode proteins that contain amino acids other than the 20 that together make up nearly all natural proteins. Amino acids are encoded by 'codons' of three DNA letters apiece, so the addition of just two foreign DNA 'letters' would vastly expand a cell’s ability to encode new amino acids. “If you read a book that was written with four letters, you’re not going to be able to tell many interesting stories,” Romesberg says. “If you’re given more letters, you can invent new words, you can find new ways to use those words and you can probably tell more interesting stories.”

    Potential uses of the technology include the incorporation of a toxic amino acid into a protein to ensure that it kills only cancer cells, and the development of glowing amino acids that could help scientists to track biological reactions under the microscope. Romesberg’s team has founded a company called Synthorx in San Diego, California, to commercialize the work.

    Ross Thyer, a synthetic biologist at the University of Texas at Austin who co-authored a related News and Views article, says that the work is “a big leap forward in what we can do”. It should be possible to get the foreign DNA to encode new amino acids, he says.

    “Many in the broader community thought that Floyd's result would be impossible,” says Benner, because chemical reactions involving DNA, such as replication, need to be exquisitely sensitive to avoid mutation.

    The alien E. coli contains just a single pair of foreign DNA bases out of millions. But Benner sees no reason why a fully alien cell isn’t possible. “I don’t think there’s any limit,” he says. “If you go back and rerun evolution for four billion years, you could come up with a different genetic system.”

    But creating a wholly synthetic organism would be a huge challenge. “A lot of times people will say you’ll make an organism completely out of your unnatural DNA,” says Romesberg. “That’s just not going to happen, because there are too many things that recognize DNA. It’s too integrated into every facet of a cell’s life.”

    This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on May 7, 2014.

    Critique on my 24 month old WL female

    $
    0
    0

    Please give me a critique on my girl and our stacking. She placed SG-1 in her class at 18 months; but after we get our IPO1 at the end of the month, I'd love to show her again. Here are a few we took this past weekend. 

     

     

    My wife and I and our puppies

    GSDCA Announcement

    $
    0
    0

    I have received the following information directly from the GSDCA and have been given permission by the GSDCA to post this information publically.  These are not rumors but confirmed facts!

    As of today the following persons have resigned their positions on the WDA Board of Directors:

    Frank Fasano

    Mike Andrel

    Lucinda Schneider

    Martylou Plinski

    Michael West (verbally, he is at a training seminar and has no computer access, once he has access his e-mail will be sent)

    Joy Schultz as Secretary

    Effective today Joy Schultz has also given her 30 day notice that she is resigning her position as the WDA Office Manager.

    As some of you may be aware last week, the WDA President Mr. Dan Yee, sent out an announcement saying that the GSDCA had sent him a letter stating that the GSDCA was terminating the agreement between the GSDCA and WDA.  That was in fact a true statement.  The GSDCA has formed a new Working Dog Committee.  It is a rather large committee made up of multiple smaller sub-committees.  All sub-committees and the committee as a whole, is headed by the GSDCA President Mr. Frank Fasano.  The GSDCA Executive Committee will also have a say in the operation of this new Working Dog Committee.

    The GSDCA has been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to get this new committee up and running.  The GSDCA has been following their protocols and procedures to ensure that all actions taken are in the best interests of the organization, its’ members and ultimately the GSD.  Mr. Fasano has reached out to discuss the decision and actions taken by the GSDCA with the AKC, and has received the full support of the AKC with these changes.

    In response to the original letter mailed to Mr. Dan Yee from the GSDCA, a reply was received directly from Mr. Yee and not from the attorney who has been representing the WDA.  The GSDCA’s attorney, Mr. Samuel Israel, then sent the following reply to Mr. Yee.  This e-mail message has been approved to be published in public forums and is contained here in it’s entirety.

    From: Samuel Israel <sisrael@ifklaw.com>
    Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:31 AM
    Subject: response
    To: danyee.wda@gmail.com

    Dear Mr. Yee:  

    The purpose of this letter is to provide you an opportunity to resolve our dispute without litigation.  We are aware of no less than two incidents where you unilaterally contacted the WUSV specifically without our prior knowledge or notice in violation of the terms of the Agreement between the WDA and GSDCA (the “Agreement”).  First, you arranged and promoted the WUSV North American Sieger Show last year.  Obviously this show was sanctioned by the WUSV, who provided to you its approval.  Thus, the WDA used our license to promote one of the largest shows in North America without even discussing this event with us.  We discovered that you ran the show only after the show had occurred and only from other members of the WDA.  Second, you have stated to your board and other members that that the WUSV informed you that you could continue to hold events and it would process your paper work without any authorization from the GSDCA.  Obviously you could not make such statements without a prior l contact with the WUSV and for obvious reasons we were ont informed of such contact.

     Your conduct has also shown a desire to attempt to separate the WDA's association with the GSDCA and to obtain the license that the GSDCA holds with the WUSV.  You have violated your own bylaws in 2014 by not appointing one of the two persons selected by the GSDCA to your board of directors.  Furthermore, you dismissed the other duly appointed GSDCA General Director in violation of your bylaws at the January 2014 WDA board of directors meeting.  You have also gone way out of your way to attempt to make the GSDCA look as if it did not want to promote a first class show last year even though we have spent more on the world trials than any other organization has ever done and was complemented by all participants.   You also had two reading of a Bylaw change removing the WDA from the GSDCA and we understand that you have a plan to send the change to the members for their approval. These actions, combined with your unilateral contact with the WUSV, shows a pattern of action that you and the WDA have violated the terms and the spirit of the Agreement with the GSDCA and that it has no desire to comply with the terms of the Agreement and more importantly a pattern of trying to have the WUSV reassign our license to the WDA.  These actions clearly violate the terms and spirit of the Agreement.  We obviously will not sit by idily while you attempt to reduce our presence in the working dog world and further attempt to have our license with the WUSV reassigned to the WDA.

     Accordingly, we intend to disassociate with the WDA and perform all functions with the WUSV pursuant to our license with the WUSV without the WDA.  This includes putting on the 2014 WUSV Combined Qualification Trial on May 31 and June 1, 2014.  If we don't receive from you and the WDA a statement that your organization will not interfere with our operation of this show, we will seek a declaration from a court that the WDA is in material violation of the Agreement and the WDA's attempt to interfere with our contract with the WUSV and will further seek an injunction to ensure that you and the WDA shall not interfere with our operation of the show.

     Sincerely,

    Samuel Israel

    Mr. Frank Fasano has been engaged in multiple conversations with the President of the UScA, Mr. Jim Alloway, to ensure that the 2014 Joint Qualification Trial to be held at the end of this month, proceeds as scheduled.

    I am sure that this change has caused many of you to wonder how this will affect you and your dogs’ training, trialing and showing this year and going forward.  I will be more than happy to act as a collection point for questions.  Since I am sure that many of you will have some of the same questions, I will collect and forward those questions to the GSDCA and post their replies.  Feel free to send your questions to me at cmandela@aol.com

    GSDCA Official Announcement re: WDA

    $
    0
    0

    Sharing:

    GSDCA Announcement

    I have received the following information directly from the GSDCA and have been given permission by the GSDCA to post this information publically. These are not rumors but confirmed facts!

    As of today the following persons have resigned their positions on the WDA Board of Directors:

    Frank Fasano
    Mike Andrel
    Lucinda Schneider
    Martylou Plinski
    Michael West (verbally, he is at a training seminar and has no computer access, once he has access his e-mail will be sent)
    Joy Schultz as Secretary

    Effective today Joy Schultz has also given her 30 day notice that she is resigning her position as the WDA Office Manager.

    As some of you may be aware last week, the WDA President Mr. Dan Yee, sent out an announcement saying that the GSDCA had sent him a letter stating that the GSDCA was terminating the agreement between the GSDCA and WDA. That was in fact a true statement. The GSDCA has formed a new Working Dog Committee. It is a rather large committee made up of multiple smaller sub-committees. All sub-committees and the committee as a whole, is headed by the GSDCA President Mr. Frank Fasano. The GSDCA Executive Committee will also have a say in the operation of this new Working Dog Committee.

    The GSDCA has been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to get this new committee up and running. The GSDCA has been following their protocols and procedures to ensure that all actions taken are in the best interests of the organization, its’ members and ultimately the GSD. Mr. Fasano has reached out to discuss the decision and actions taken by the GSDCA with the AKC, and has received the full support of the AKC with these changes.

    In response to the original letter mailed to Mr. Dan Yee from the GSDCA, a reply was received directly from Mr. Yee and not from the attorney who has been representing the WDA. The GSDCA’s attorney, Mr. Samuel Israel, then sent the following reply to Mr. Yee. This e-mail message has been approved to be published in public forums and is contained here in it’s entirety.

    From: Samuel Israel
    Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:31 AM
    Subject: response
    To: danyee.wda@gmail.com

    Dear Mr. Yee: 
    The purpose of this letter is to provide you an opportunity to resolve our dispute without litigation. We are aware of no less than two incidents where you unilaterally contacted the WUSV specifically without our prior knowledge or notice in violation of the terms of the Agreement between the WDA and GSDCA (the “Agreement”). First, you arranged and promoted the WUSV North American Sieger Show last year. Obviously this show was sanctioned by the WUSV, who provided to you its approval. Thus, the WDA used our license to promote one of the largest shows in North America without even discussing this event with us. We discovered that you ran the show only after the show had occurred and only from other members of the WDA. Second, you have stated to your board and other members that that the WUSV informed you that you could continue to hold events and it would process your paper work without any authorization from the GSDCA. Obviously you could not make such statements without a prior l contact with the WUSV and for obvious reasons we were ont informed of such contact.
    Your conduct has also shown a desire to attempt to separate the WDA's association with the GSDCA and to obtain the license that the GSDCA holds with the WUSV. You have violated your own bylaws in 2014 by not appointing one of the two persons selected by the GSDCA to your board of directors. Furthermore, you dismissed the other duly appointed GSDCA General Director in violation of your bylaws at the January 2014 WDA board of directors meeting. You have also gone way out of your way to attempt to make the GSDCA look as if it did not want to promote a first class show last year even though we have spent more on the world trials than any other organization has ever done and was complemented by all participants. You also had two reading of a Bylaw change removing the WDA from the GSDCA and we understand that you have a plan to send the change to the members for their approval. These actions, combined with your unilateral contact with the WUSV, shows a pattern of action that you and the WDA have violated the terms and the spirit of the Agreement with the GSDCA and that it has no desire to comply with the terms of the Agreement and more importantly a pattern of trying to have the WUSV reassign our license to the WDA. These actions clearly violate the terms and spirit of the Agreement. We obviously will not sit by idily while you attempt to reduce our presence in the working dog world and further attempt to have our license with the WUSV reassigned to the WDA.
    Accordingly, we intend to disassociate with the WDA and perform all functions with the WUSV pursuant to our license with the WUSV without the WDA. This includes putting on the 2014 WUSV Combined Qualification Trial on May 31 and June 1, 2014. If we don't receive from you and the WDA a statement that your organization will not interfere with our operation of this show, we will seek a declaration from a court that the WDA is in material violation of the Agreement and the WDA's attempt to interfere with our contract with the WUSV and will further seek an injunction to ensure that you and the WDA shall not interfere with our operation of the show.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel Israel

    Mr. Frank Fasano has been engaged in multiple conversations with the President of the UScA, Mr. Jim Alloway, to ensure that the 2014 Joint Qualification Trial to be held at the end of this month, proceeds as scheduled.

    I am sure that this change has caused many of you to wonder how this will affect you and your dogs’ training, trialing and showing this year and going forward. I will be more than happy to act as a collection point for questions. Since I am sure that many of you will have some of the same questions, I will collect and forward those questions to the GSDCA and post their replies. Feel free to send your questions to me at cmandela@aol.com

     
    •  
       

    Xray pic..Help Needed

    $
    0
    0

    Hello all. I am new to this site and have been a long time lover of the GSD. I have a young WL male. He is just turned a year old. At about 10 months I got him xrayed. The Vet said his hips were bad. I am extrememly disappointed. I have been reading how important the dogs positioning is. Could this be the case in my dogs xrays? Both the sire and the dam had good hips. Is there a possibility that if his hips are bad now they might improve as he gets older? Thank you for your time.

    Hoaxers Rebuffed

    $
    0
    0

    I am very proud of the Newtown School Board who totally ignored Wolfgang Halbig when he attended the school board meeting. He asked his "sixteen simple questions" and was totally rebuffed with silence. Class act by the community.

     http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Newtown-school-board-greets-Sandy-Hook-skeptics-5458643.php

    Back story: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/24/wolfgang-halbig-heads-to-newtown-for-the-truth-about-sandy-hook/

    This is also another sad example of such disturbed hoaxer thinking:

    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Group-to-replace-stolen-Sandy-Hook-sign-5464533.php

     

     

    Avoiding Scams

    $
    0
    0

    Avoiding Scams

    You can avoid would-be scammers by following these common-sense rules:

    • NEVER WIRE FUNDS VIA WESTERN UNION, MONEYGRAM or other wire service - anyone who asks you to do so is likely a scammer.
    • FAKE CASHIER CHECKS & MONEY ORDERS ARE COMMON—BANKS WILL HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE when the fake is discovered weeks later.
    • PEDIGREEDATABASE IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY TRANSACTION, and does not handle payments, provide escrow, "buyer protection" or "seller certification."
    • NEVER GIVE OUT FINANCIAL INFORMATION (bank account number, social security number, eBay/PayPal info, etc.).
    • AVOID DEALS INVOLVING SHIPPING OR ESCROW SERVICES and know that ONLY A SCAMMER WILL "GUARANTEE" YOUR TRANSACTION.
      • Check if your personal bank provides escrow services

    Who should I notify about fraud or scam attempts?

    U.S. Federal

    If you are defrauded by someone you met in person, contact your local police department.


    Recognizing scams

    Most scams involve one or more of the following:

    • Inquiry from someone far away, often in another country.
    • Western Union, Money Gram, cashier's check, money order, shipping, escrow service, or a "guarantee."
    • Inability or refusal to meet face-to-face before consumating transaction.

    Any of the following “red flags” should signal a scam:

    • You are asked to wire money.
    • You are sent a check in connection with a payment request. Cons often win their victims’ confidence by sending a fake check for more than the amount of purchase or to cover so-called processing fees, shipping costs or other expenses. It may be a cashier’s check, personal check or money order. They instruct the victim to cash the check or money order and send them a portion of the money by wire. Read more about fake check scams.
    • The contact indicates a confirmation code or money transfer control number (MTCN) is needed before your money can be withdrawn.This is a blatant lie. Once you wire money, it can be picked up immediately.
    • A caller or e-mail appears to originate from overseas.
    • The person communicates via TTY service. TTY is used by the hearing impaired. Cons prefer the service because it disguises thick accents and makes calls untraceable. Follow-up correspondence is by e-mail.

    Types of Scams

    • Classified ad purchases – fake buyers: Swindlers browse online classifieds, auto sales journals and newspapers for potential victims. They contact those advertising cars, electronics or just about anything of value, pretending to be an interested buyer. Payment arrives as a counterfeit check – often for more than the sale price. You are instructed to wire the extra amount to a third party or reimburse the difference. Typically, cons claim the wired money is payment for an intermediary to ship the item. Other times, they may send a check for the correct amount, then back out of the deal and ask for a refund.
      • How to protect yourself: Deal with local buyers. Only accept payment for the actual purchase price. When possible, accept only cash. If you accept a check, ask for one drawn on a local bank that you can visit to determine conclusively that the check is good. Don’t relinquish your car or other valuables until the issuing bank (the one listed on the check) has verified that the check has cleared.

     

    • Classified ad purchases – fake sellers: Cons post bogus advertisements for cars or other high-ticket items then ask for payment via wire transfer. Other times, they may suggest use of a phony escrow company.
      • How to protect yourself: Deal with local sellers. Question any seller who insists on using a particular form of payment and refuse requests to wire money.

    Happy Mother's Day

    $
    0
    0
    Happy Mother's Day to all the moms! What a rewarding job it is to be a mom!

    I am so thankful for my two grown children. My husband and I have a 24 year old son who is a software developer and a 21 year old daughter who just completed her junior year in college majoring in public health.

    working line gsd breeders, looking to buy F pup

    $
    0
    0
    I'm really looking for mainly a guard dog, companionship, NOT breeding purposes. I would not want a breeder who wants me to spay her because I want the aggressiveness towards intruders. I would say the most I will spend is 2,700.
    I want a female who is red/black, or all black.
    Also I would like thick legs/ thick body .
    Larger female
    2 1/2 feet tall and around 4 feet long.
    I do love a muzzle similar to a Czech Gsd would have.
    I'd like good proportions
    a decent size head.
    Just mainly to be intimidating for intruders.


    I'm not looking for breeders with bad reps. I do intend on keeping the dog for its full life span so please do not advise on a breeder if it does have reviews of genetic defects after 6+ years. Also please no hip problems from the breeder.


    I love her look

    http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=627800-pala-von-trafalga


    Viewing all 3083 articles
    Browse latest View live