Re: [PyrNet-L] Breeding

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/2/99 3:03:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, woodskk@eburg.com 
writes:

<< The GPCA had to tighten the rules when
 unscrupulous people were using their membership as an endorsement
 for selling puppies and not following the Code of Ethics.  I joined 17
 years ago and at that time had to have
 two members sign for me.  >>

Maryann and I joined the GPCA over 25 years ago.  I have been against the 
limiting of new members this way for all the reasons some have already 
mentioned.  Historically the club came from a period that the membership was 
literally controlled by a few in the "East".  We now go back to the fifties 
and sixties.  This was finally broken down and the club has thrived since.  

The reason above that "the club membership was some endorsement of their 
unethical breeding practices" never made sense.  Why stop unethical people 
from subscribing to a code of ethics?  When they use "membership as an 
endorsement
 for selling puppies and not following the Code of Ethics," the code of 
ethics itself has a provision for discipline.  Discipline these non-ethical 
violators is far superior to simply excluding them.  They then have no code 
to adhere.  If the public was aware that a breeder was violating its own 
rules of good conduce, this would not be healthy to ones success selling 
puppies, etc.  

Does not make sense to establish a code of ethics and then not let people 
join and subscribe to it.  Also would the public know the difference if one 
was a member of the GPCA or some contrived group, possibly named the 
"National Great Pyrenees Society of America".  Sounds impressive, so 
credibility issue also makes little sense as well.  Its better to let all in. 
 The numbers will equalize the abuses and give the club a greater voice.  It 
will require more club work, but that's one of the current challenges facing 
us all as the breed gains in popularity.  

Joe