Von Krenz Bordeaux(R)--A BenchMark Breeder(TM)

If anyone had told me 10 plus years ago that DDBX politics is one of the most outrageously, vindictive form of politics that I would ever encounter, I surely would have said ‘no way’! Well, over the last 10 plus years of being very much a part of the DDBX community, I have come to see first hand how ugly things can really get!

This is my forum, my place, to sound off, share and expose some of the craziness that goes on within this community! You know you have made it in this community when you are the target to outright lies and fabricated stories by other breeders that have only one goal in mind, that is to slander/liable another DDBX program … specifically, Von Krenz Bordeaux ® - A BenchMark Breeder ™.

I will be very deliberate in only posting things that I know to be truthful, factual and can back up with documentation (must have been all of my years involved in LE that had me saving all the old DDB posts from the underground chat boards!). I won’t hit below the belt like so many of the other ‘so-called’ world-class DDBX breeders have. No, Von Krenz Bordeaux ® - A BenchMark Breeder ™ is a classier operation than those are.

You think the Democrats & Republicans have a battle going on, well, that pales in comparison to the nasty stuff that I have seen over the years!

Admittedly, early on I nearly fell for so many of the outrageous claims that other kennels were lodging at other kennels, I am ever so glad that I resisted!

In addition to addressing some of the nasty politics within the DDBX community, I will also do some cut & pasting from other web sites that are making outlandish claims. For example, claims about how much health certifying they are doing, when in fact, in the 10 plus years that they have been breeding, they have certified only a fraction of their dogues. Or I will address their inflated claims, expose them for whom they really are!

Check back often, I have been known to stay up late pondering over wild claims by others

Here is something that a friend was kind enough to send my way, it is from one of the 'underground chat boards'!

My personal thoughts is that every quality organization should have a Code Of Ethics for it's membership as well as a set of by-laws that keeps the club on track to accomplishing what it's trying to accomplish.

Given the choice, I would be the first to sign onto a COE that sets a much stricter breeding policy for our breed as well as being rewarded for full disclosure rather than being punished for being honest (which some organizations have taken to doing).

In my opinion, the DDBSA.org is going to be pushing more breeders out of the club with this CoE...is this a good idea for the parent club to the AKC, will this help the breed? I’d assume the club would want to embrace as many in the DDB world as possible. My wife & I were considering re-joining the DDBSA.org, but after reading the CoE I’ve decided to pass on membership and will wait until after the next board elections to reconsider joining .... If the DDBSA.org BOD is really concerned with ethics then they should consider hiring an accounting firm to tally the BOD voting... is it ethical for the current BOD to be tallying votes that directly impact their positions with the club, it sure looks like a conflict of interest to me. I’m not saying anything unethical has happened, but doing so would help eliminate the possibility....if the BOD wants to write ethics maybe that’s a better place to start. I’m glad I didn’t renew my membership with the DDBSA.org, if I were a current member & breeder I’d leave if the CoE was enacted.

Has the DDBSA.org’s membership increased, decreased or remained flat after being named parent club. By all rights it should have increased dramatically, especially considering the demise of the USBC....does the DDBSA.org want members or just power? Is this new CoE the results from a rescue club running the parent club, if you ask me the club should be separated, both have their own unique set of goals...so is one faction getting in the way of the other. I noticed the last Nationals was poorly attended, and what should have been the major money maker for the club was most likely a financial looser, could the poor turn out be a message the members are sending he club directors? What’s the BOD’s take on the poor attendance? Maybe the BOD should reevaluate the direct they are moving the club and open the club up to be more democratic...shouldn’t all resolutions be voted on by club members, not just put into place by the BOD? I realize the CoE is potentially going to be put up to vote, but will each section of it be voted on or is it an all or nothing vote?

Please don’t take this as a personal attack, it’s not directed entirely toward you...but since you are a member of the BOD and since I consider you to be a friend and an asset to the DDB breed I’m posing these concerns to you.... feel free to cross post this email.

Thanks for your time,

Nick Fiorentino

Re: [westcoastdogue] Code of Ethics questions (Fri Oct 5, 2007 12:30 am)

Maybe quality members over quantity members is a good things in your opinion, but if you don't make your club soemthing that members feel they want to be a part of, then you don't get their money and funds to support your club. And without $$$ a club can't function.

How much has financial support has wained in recent years to the DDBS???????? Does that not speak volumes alone??

If you legislate yourself into a corner then eventually you tie your own hands.

I think DDBS is cutting their own throat by making this COE's mandatory.
A recommendation... Ok, fine, but making it manadatory leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths... like they are being ruled by a communist regime. This is not just my opinion, this is the opinion expressed by MANY DDBS members and non- members alike.

My opinion is to suggest it would be wise to listen to the majority of the people who keep your club alive and kicking with their support.

Michelle Convis (Red Dog Ridge)

--- Nicole Stark <dogue@...> wrote:

> I'd be curious to know how the members would receive a code of conduct proposal for all members and an additional one specifically for those breeders who wish to sign on as a COE DDBSA Breeder. Like a USDA stamp of approval, not mandatory but a prop for those who subscribe to specific values and standards. Call either whatever you like but I think you get the idea.
>
> If the current COE (proposed that is) doesn't serve the breed in the long run by running off members who will seek the freedom to do as they choose outside of the confines of the DDBSA COE who does this proposal truly serve if the ultimate goals aren't met in the end?
>
> Understand, I am no longer a member of any DDB affiliated breed club but I was at one time one of the driving forces behind a revised COE. Not knowing the issues/concerns now or the membership attitudes/perspectives I am sure the BOD may have what they perceived to be legitimate reasons behind their proposed ideas. Again, if it's reactive to things done wrong in the past there may be other ways to address or counter those issues. I don't think sheer numbers should be a goal of the club in terms of membership. I'd sooner strive for quality members over the quantity of such who likely would bring very little to the table.
>
> Before a COE revision is put into place I think there are a number of larger, certainly more pressing issues that need to be evaluated and
> addressed.
>
> JMO.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: spoiltdogues@...
> To: westcoastdogue@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [westcoastdogue] Code of Ethics
> questions
>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
> I certainly wont be able to answer all of the questions but will address what I can below.

> Kris & the Brats
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nick Fiorentino
> To: westcoastdogue@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:08 AM
> Subject: [westcoastdogue] Code of Ethics
> questions
>
>
> Kris, is the DDBSA.org serious about the Code of
> Ethics, why would a club make rules just for
> breeders, shouldn't the club rules/bi-laws be
> equally applied to all members ...breeders, show
> people & pet owners alike?
>
> Our current COE covers both breeders and
> pet/rescue owners. There are parts in it that cover
> both breeding (thus, effecting breeders) and basic
> dog care (effecting both breeders and pet owners).
> The PROPOSED COE is similar, it has rules that would
> apply to those breeding AND to those who just own
> dogues.
>
> In my opinion the CoE has left many things open
> to interpretation. For example take this part of
> the CoE, “I subscribe to the policy that only those
> dogs known to be free of defects should be used for
> breeding”...lol, now that’s funny and just plain
> wrong, because every dog carries a minimum of 4
> defective genes, it’s been scientifically proven
> from research of several breeds, not just the DDB
> but all breeds. Just because most do not know what
> those defects are in their lines it does not make
> them go away, the defects are there in all dogs and
> they will eventually show up in future breedings....
> so what does the DDBSA.org do then, kick out the
> breeder whom is unfortunate enough to mix the wrong
> combo of recessive carriers? This section of the
> ethic code does not take genetics, particularly
> recessive traits, into account and should be better
> thought through!
>
> I see you have been talking to Rhonda/Kym or
> others:o)) If you KNOW a dog has a "defect" such as
> wry mouth, kinked tail, heart condition, whatever
> the defect may be, DON'T BREED IT! It's that simple.
> The club is not the Gestapo, but rather trying to
> set a standard of excellence.
>
> Secondly, the breeding age is not in line with
> the AKC recommendations. Can you please explain the
> reasoning behind the 24 month old breeding age? Why
> is wrong to breed a bitch after her 2nd or 3rd heat
> if she is 18+ months old....is the DDBSA.org say
> after a couple of heats that the bitch is not
> physically mature, now that’s funny as well as
> incorrect! btw are they mentally mature at 24
> months ... lol, some lines take 3 ½ years to fully
> mature physically...I’m not sure how to determine
> mental age, sounds a little ambiguous to me? I
> believe the AKC states males 12 months old are
> acceptable to breed....what’s the justification for
> the tighter breeding age restriction by the
> DDBSA.org?
>
> At 24 months of age, you can have permenant
> OFA's, before 24 months of age, you cannot get
> permenant #'s for hips/elbows. Allot CAN change in
> the year between 12 months and 24 months and allot
> of the issues within the breed don't show up until
> around 24 months (I have spoken to people who did
> prelim cardiac on their dogs at 1 year, then at 2
> they did them again and they had DCM). My opinion on
> this is different than the proposed COE. Take a look
> at the American Rotti Club (ARC)- their
> COE/MANDATORY PRACTICES are MUCH stronger than what
> the club is proposing.
>
> How about some clarity on the hip & elbow
> evaluations, does this imply OFA/PennHip passing
> grades or just a test without accounting for the
> scores & does the cardiac evaluation require an echo
> or just a normal vet with as scope? Are these
> requirements or recommendations? BTW has
> OFA/PennHip helped eliminate bad hips & elbows in
> any breed, if so I’d like to see the study, has all
> the hip & elbow testing made any positive impact on
> any breed or has it just made some cash for some
> orgs? Let’s face it, the OFA/PennHip has been
> around for more then a few decades, so can you show
> me any scientific data proving all this testing has
> done a lick of good in any breed? Without mandatory
> testing on ALL dogues produced, including pets &
> show dogues, this testing is a waste of
> time....there are such things as recessive carriers
> & failing dogues won’t be turned in, so is this
> going to clean up anything or just mask a problem &
> mislead prospective puppy buyers?
>
> To know what you have you AT LEAST should be
> x-raying your stock, right? If you know what you
> have, it's your option to breed it or not. This
> gives those that don't want to OFA/PH an out (IMO),
> it just says "evaluation", that can mean your vet
> x-raying your dog and interpreting the x-rays
> himself and telling you what he thinks. The club is
> not saying that you can only breed OFA good/fair
> whatever, they are (IMO) saying that if you know
> what you have and are using that info responsibly,
> it's up to you what you do with it.
>
> There are numerous breeds who's hips have
> improved over the years, rotti's and Dobe's are a
> few, even GSD have improved. I don't feel this would
> have been possible without responsible breeders
> health testing their stock and breeding to better
> their breeds. So, yes, I feel that OFA/PH HAS
> improved health in dogs.
>
> Why limit the number of litters allowed, first
> of all why is this any of the ddbsa.org’s business?
> If a breeder is doing everything right then why
> limit the quantity they can produce.... And does
> the limit of 6 litters only apply to DDB litters,
> some breeders have multi-breeds do their other
> breeds litters count toward the 6? There’s way too
> much ambiguity it the wording and not much sense in
> the limitation...you are only hurting the good
> breeders.
>
> I don't have an answer for this because I agree
> with you... This is what the "proposal" and ensuing
> discussions are all about, trying to find something
> that works for everyone while still protecting the
> breed.
>
> Also, why no mandatory DNA’ing, especially after
> the “CD” with allegation of falsifying
> paperwork...could it be maybe somebody is afraid
> this may effect some of their dogues and doesn’t
> want to open that can of worms? DNA is cut & dry,
> unlike the hip, elbow, & cardiac testing.
>
> I feel that ALL dogs be DNA profiled, whether
> they are pets or breeding stock, but that's because
> I had a dog with a fraudulent pedigree (Boogie). And
> those "cans of worms" have been and still are
> open:o)) I do not know why it's not in there. We
> are having members bitch because they think us
> wanting Microchipping by the breeder to be on the
> Breeder
=== message truncated ===