Re: [PyrNet-L] GPCA & PS:Bulletin

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/27/00 1:55:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
pyrsrgr8@yahoo.com writes:

<< I don't think you can simplify the issue this way - the current
 membership requirement has a purpose.  >>

Surely not, but this is a complicated subject.  

<>

If we enforce the code and made public the offenders with due process we 
would deal with these.  When I see new members dealing with rescue dogs to 
farmers as breeding stock and portraying themselves as "agents" to the naive 
public and this information is reported prior to and after membership comment 
period, one wonders exactly what type person can be bared from membership.  
So what we have now is those who are unfortunate enough to not know any 
members to sponsor them.  We are a pretty big country and the notion that 
local clubs will serve all are held by the big clubs with big memberships.  
The old requirement of a simple two member sponsorship would probably work as 
well as any limiting requirements and be fairer to all than the present 
policy.  Maybe it was a coincidence, but the present policies followed fairly 
closely a "record numbers" vote on a controversial matter.  Enough said, as 
anything else is pure speculation.

Joe