September 10, 1998
The Board of Directors,
The North American Working Bouvier Association,
The failure of Frank McEniry to deal with the issue of his illegal entry in the Schutzhund trial at the California NAWBA championships has been a festering sore in the working Bouvier community for the past two years.
Although this was an unfortunate lapse in judgement and propriety, if dealt with in a forthright matter at the time it would have been a relatively minor incident. A simple acceptance of responsibility and apology would have put the matter behind us.
Although I disagree with Mr. McEniry on several issues, I have in many ways been impressed with his diligence it performing his office. And I have said so in public and on the net on a number of occasions.
It never occurred to me that Frank would actually be so arrogant and foolish as to deny the impropriety of his actions with the lame excuse that it is not against any NAWBA rule. But this was his incredible statement at the Annual NAWBA meeting this past Sunday.
This is an unbelievable development, directly comparable to the Clinton boy's denial of having sex with "that woman" on the grounds that "oral sex is not in a legal sense sex", whatever that means.
NAWBA trials are conducted under the AWDF umbrella and, de facto, the rules and regulations as promulgated by Schutzhund USA. His actions are also in clear violation of the FCI, the organization to which we are applying for membership. Does he think he can have his dog search only three blinds or have his dog pass without doing the out because these issues are not covered in NAWBA rules?
Now the time has come for the NAWBA board to accept responsibility for this serious threat to the credibility of the association. If Mr. McEniry fails to accept responsibility and make the appropriate apologies then it is incumbent on the board, for the sake of their own personal integrity as well as that of the association, to secure his resignation or effect his removal from office. At this point, and given his arrogant attitude, nothing less will suffice.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the time for patience is past. The time has come for you to accept your responsibility and act to resolve this matter in a manner which will preserve your own personal integrity and the good name of the association.
Most respectfully,
Jim Engel
March 13, 1998
Memo to: The NAWBA Board
From: Jim Engel
cc: the World Wide Web
Subject: The Temperament Test Committee
It has come to my attention that Ms. Christeen Redenbach is, in her capacity as chairman of the NAWBA temperament test committee, pushing the discredited test used in France and Belgium.
My objections to this are many and diverse, and fall into the following general areas:
* "Temperament Testing" is in and of itself counter to the stated purpose of the association. We like to pretend that this is a working dog association, so does it not follow that we should qualify dogs as of working character by real working tests, as do the serious people and the organizations behind the successful breeds? If we aspire to stand among the serious breeds, we must emulate their methods and standards rather than pandering to the show breeders and pet owners. ( If you want to be the association of show breeders and pet owners, why don't you just rename the association the "North American Pretend Working dog Association" and be done with it? ) Temperament tests are nothing more than a formal way of pretending that that unproven dogs are working dogs. As this test is intended to be used, there is a simple, short English word to describe it, and that word is "lie."
* Even if there were valid reasons for a temperament test, France and Belgium are the last places on earth we should look to for guidance. Sad as it may be, the Bouvier as a working dog is virtually extinct there, and the national clubs have been direct causative factors in this decline. I have seen this test in person, and it is without credibility. It is nothing more than a bunch of old show breeders taking turns putting the mantle on each others dogs. The dogs do not need to engage the helper to pass, and the test as performed is, in the words of Justin Chastel, "a scandal."
Over the past twenty years people have told me about this or that little pocket of working dogs in Belgium or France, but they always turn out to be like urban legends, something mentioned last week to a friend in another city. When I do manage to trace down such a dog, it invariable is from Dutch working lines, from people like Fred and Carla or Ria Klep.
So I have this challenge to those who would discredit my claim: I am going to spend three or four weeks in Europe in May and June, so send me names, addresses and telephone numbers of serious French or Belgian trainers, currently competing at the French ring III level or Schutzhund III level, so I can go see for my self. Otherwise, go peddle your canine fairy tales somewhere else. ( Why is it that these people who think there are working dogs in France and Belgium don't just buy one and bring it back and show us? Why do the people who search in Belgium and France end up buying dogs out of the dwindling Dutch Police lines, just like the rest of us? )
* Even if temperament tests were not a fundamentally bad idea, and even if there were good tests in Belgium and France, it would still make no sense to adapt such tests here. Tests in America need to have credibility in the American working dog community, and there is only one group of credible judges in America: the USA Schutzhund judges, and those judges affiliated with other AWDF members which have all been through the USA training program. As an AWDF member, we should never even consider going anyplace else. ( As far as I know, no one has even mentioned appointing NAWBA members as temperament testers, which would be the mother of all stupid ideas. )
* The credibility of the committee, especially the chair person. If you are going to try and convince the world that you can certify working character without actually working dogs, then it is elementary that those selecting and/or devising such tests should have training credentials above reproach, and should have put the dogs on the field to prove it.
Instead Ms. Redenback, after more than twenty years of pontificating, has taken one dog half way to the ring one level, more or less the equivalent of one leg on a CD. (If this statement is not absolutely correct I will of course acknowledge further information; but I have made it many times without any response.) In addition, Ms Redenback has over the years repeatedly disparaged Schutzhund titles and described the French Ring as much more valid and demanding, a childish habit all too many wanna be ringers have fallen into. It seems to me that this is baggage a serious working dog association could do without.
So if we must have a temperament test committee, it seems to me self evident that it should consist of and be led by people who know working dogs and have proven it by putting serious working titles on more than one dog.
Finally, the complete formal description of any proposed test needs to be published for membership comment prior to board action. This procedure was followed prior to the enactment of the current "B" requirement, and to do less in such important business would be a most serious breach of proper procedure and democratic process.
NAWBA members have received a letter from the board. Here is a brief reply, stay tuned, more to follow:
Memo to: The NAWBA Board
From: Jim Engel
Date: July 31, 1998
Subject: Your letter to the membership of July 24, 1998
Your recent letter to the membership makes important and valid points. Unfortunately, it also contains irresponsible and inaccurate statements which must not be left unchallenged. In this memo I will address one particular urgent point, leaving a more detailed response of other issues for later.
The By Laws state:
Section 2: This constitution and By-Laws may only be amended by a vote of the membership on a mail ballot sent to all members of the Association in good standing. An affirmative vote of 2/3 of those returning ballots shall be necessary for any amendment of the Constitution; an affirmative vote or at least 60% or those returning ballots shall be necessary to amend, substitute or add any By-law. Members shall have not less than two weeks nor more than 30 days to return ballots, as specified by the Board.
By no stretch of the imagination does burying a form in the magazine, which many of us add to a pile of magazines to read when winter comes and training intensity lessens, constitute the "mail ballot" required by the constitution. This is clearly an illegal ballot, and it was irresponsible of the board to conduct it in this shoddy manner.
You state: "Several years ago there was an election in NAWBA which was widely rumored to have been tampered with."
This is a grossly irresponsible and insulting statement. I demand that you specify the election that you refer to and identify those persons making these allegations. During my various terms in office, all elections were conducted by secret ballot with sufficient and carefully executed precautions to ensure an honest tally. Both sides in contested elections were invited to have observers present, and no complaint was ever received.
If the current NAWBA board is incapable of conducting secure secret ballot elections, as you claim in your letter, than all one can reasonably conclude is that you as a group are simply not smart enough to execute the offices you hold. You can be assured that I will stand up at the annual meeting and demand answers to these questions. Personally, I expect an apology for these irresponsible and unfounded accusations.
Finally, Mr. McEniry must explain to the membership his illegal entry at the California championships. This is a festering sore that will not heal until he does so.
Most canine magazines and newsletters present the "official word," are under the thumb of those in power. Most of these publications are the house organs of canine organizations, such as the Schutzhund USA magazine, the NAWBA Journal and the various European club magazines. I of course can not complain, have, as they say, been there and done that. But the internet and the web have changed all of this forever, for now those in control of a club publication no longer have their hand on the spigot of information.
Case in point: NAWBA Journal editor Billy Kachman has just rejected - read censored - a letter sent in response to his request for member comment on the various temperament test proposals.
This is the censored letter:
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Kachman, As an interested member, I would very much appreciate your printing this letter in the NAWBA Journal ---->
April 10, 1998
The Editor, The NAWBA Journal:
In response to your request for member input on the character test proposals in the Winter issue of the Journal, there are a number of relevant issues that need to be addressed.
In particular, I am very concerned that Ms. Redenbach is, in her capacity as chairman of the NAWBA temperament test committee, pushing the discredited test used in France and Belgium. I am told that this test will be proposed even though the committee has never actually met and even though several members are opposed.
My objections to this are many and diverse, and fall into the following general areas:
* "Temperament Testing" is in and of itself counter to the stated purpose of the association. We like to pretend that this is a working dog association, so does it not follow that we should qualify dogs as of working character by real working tests, as do the serious people and the organizations behind the successful breeds? If we aspire to stand among the serious breeds, we must emulate their methods and standards rather than pandering to the show breeders and pet owners. ( If you want to be the association of show breeders and pet owners, why don't you just rename the association the "North American Pretend Working dog Association" and be done with it? ) Temperament tests are nothing more than a formal way of pretending that that unproven dogs are working dogs. As this test is intended to be used, there is a simple, short English word to describe it, and that word is "lie."
* Even if there were valid reasons for a temperament test, France and Belgium are the last places on earth we should look to for guidance. Sad as it may be, the Bouvier as a working dog is virtually extinct there, and the national clubs have been direct causative factors in this decline. I have seen this test in person, and it is without credibility. It is nothing more than a bunch of old show breeders taking turns putting the mantle on each others dogs. The dogs do not need to engage the helper to pass, and the test as performed is, in the words of Justin Chastel, "a scandal."
Over the past twenty years people have told me about this or that little pocket of working dogs in Belgium or France, but they always turn out to be like urban legends, something mentioned last week to a friend in another city. When I do manage to trace down such a dog, it invariable is from Dutch working lines, from people like Fred and Carla or Ria Klep.
So I have this challenge to those who would discredit my claim: I am going to spend three or four weeks in Europe in May and June, so send me names, addresses and telephone numbers of serious French or Belgian trainers, currently competing at the French ring III level or Schutzhund III level, so I can go see for my self. Otherwise, go peddle your canine fairy tales somewhere else. ( Why is it that these people who think there are working dogs in France and Belgium don't just buy one and bring it back and show us? Why do the people who search in Belgium and France end up buying dogs out of the dwindling Dutch Police lines, just like the rest of us? )
* Even if temperament tests were not a fundamentally bad idea, and even if there were good tests in Belgium and France, it would still make no sense to adapt such tests here. Tests in America need to have credibility in the American working dog community, and there is only one group of credible judges in America: the USA Schutzhund judges, and those judges affiliated with other AWDF members which have all been through the USA training program. As an AWDF member, we should never even consider going anyplace else. ( As far as I know, no one has even mentioned appointing NAWBA members as temperament testers, which would be the mother of all stupid ideas. )
* The credibility of the committee. If you are going to try and convince the world that you can certify working character without actually working dogs, then it is elementary that those selecting and/or devising such tests should have training credentials above reproach, and should have put the dogs on the field to prove it. Starting at the top, this committee falls seriously short.
So if we must have a temperament test committee, it seems to me self evident that it should consist of and be led by people who know working dogs and have proven it by putting serious working titles on more than one dog.
Finally, the complete formal description of any proposed test needs to be published for membership comment prior to board action. This procedure was followed prior to the enactment of the current "B" requirement, and to do less in such important business would be a most serious breach of proper procedure and democratic process.
For the board to enact a temperament test without the details of the rules and the way in which the judges would be designated published for member comment would be grossly irresponsible.
Jim Engel
______________________________________________________
Although Billy did not state specific objections, NAWBA president Frank McEniry has promised that they will be forthcoming. When they are, they will of course be printed here, so that you too can understand the Journal rules. Perhaps this will evolve into a debate, which would not be a bad thing. Stay tuned.....
The point of this is certainly not that you should feel sorry for Jim Engel; far from it. Over the years I have had ample opportunity to express my views in many forums, and the fact that your are reading this here is ample proof of the fundamental openness of society in the internet area.
No, the point is honesty and credibility in conducting NAWBA affairs. If the temperament test committee really is a sham, and reports and recommendations are being put forth for board and member consideration even though the committee has never met and the chair has acted on her own, apparently with her preordained agenda, then the membership and other interested parties need to be aware of what is going on.
If I am wrong on any point of fact, then I will of course make a prominent, large type correction. And if others have contrary opinions I will be most pleased to debate them in the internet forum of their choice.
It truly is a new world, for now everybody can be heard, and there is no place to hide. Censorship, blatant and subtle, is becoming essentially impossible.
___________________________________________________________________________
|
CENTAURI Bouvier des Flandres Kennel |
19007 Millstream Road February 27, 1998 |
NAWBA, Mr. David Cameron White
Dear David,
Over the past several days I have given serious consideration to participation on the AWDF team in Denver. For reasons this letter will attempt to explain, I find that I must respectfully decline your invitation.
The problem is that NAWBA is at its very core false, is and was from its inception a fundamentally fraudulent institution. We called it a working dog association, but it is not. A true working dog association, such as those behind the success of the German Shepherd, operates on the principle that a dog is not truly a member of the breed until he has proven himself in a serious working test. Instead of emulating this noble and successful example, we have always pandered to the show breeders and pet owners, have let our heritage slip through our fingers because we did not have the courage and wisdom to take the necessary steps. Our duty was to serve as the advocate and protector of the working heritage. Instead we have spent twenty years telling each other fairy tales while the last real chance to turn the tide of history and preserve the working heritage slipped away.
As a founder of the NAWBA I am of course fundamentally responsible, and my deepest personal regret is my part in creating an association destined to pander to the lowest common denominator when only a true, hard core organization could have made a difference. I will forever regret this failure, for if we had acted with wisdom and courage from the beginning it is just possible that we could have succeeded.
A real working dog association simply would not hand out trophies to "show dogs" without a serious, high level working test. A working dog association with a "Conformation Committee" chairman such as Cindy Stumm, who neither believes in nor has the slightest comprehension of working dogs, is a farce, pure and simple. What does this mean, what does this say to the working dog world at large, that there are two Bouviers, the show dogs and the working dogs? Then why do we pander to these people, who have their own organizations and use us only to perpetuate their myths? Why do we have a "character" test committee headed by a person who only pontificates on dog training? And, apparently, is ignoring input from her committee to pursue her own agenda.
By seeking to appease those who want to be associated with a "working dog" association but will not work a dog we are driving out the serious people, such as Charlie Porter and David Regier. When are we going to support the working trainers and breeders? We all know that to truly certify a working dog one must put forth the effort to train, to know the inner soul of the dog through labor and effort. Why do we pretend that we can make up some sort of "no work" test which will validate a working dog without the labor of training? Why do we lie to ourselves, when in our hearts we know the truth, that the only road to the preservation of the Bouvier is one of blood, sweat and tears?
The French and Belgians have played these games for thirty years, and what do they have? Nothing, for there are in fact virtually no serious working Bouviers in either country, other than imports from the same dwindling Dutch working lines you and I both train. I have seen, and written about, this character test in Belgium, and the fact that it had become a farce was the direct cause for Justin Chastel to leave the Belgian club, after fifty years. If Justin Chastel had the courage to tell the truth, can we do less?
The working Bouvier is being swept away before our eyes. For twenty years I participated in the malignant lie that is sucking the life out of the breed, mostly by standing silent or speaking out only indirectly, while we squandered the last real chance to preserve the breed. When I did finally find the courage to tell the simple truth, I received no support, as the election results so dramatically illustrate. Old friends, who know the truth, remained silent. Others saw an opportunity to hold office.
This lie has, on one level or another, been part of my life for twenty years. I will lie no more. And to serve as a representative of the association, on any level, would mean to endorse it's existence, to once again become an active participant in the lie.
Martha Sadler has said that the time has come to let the working Bouvier die in peace, and sad as this may be, it is true. I gave serious consideration to changing breeds, but after all of these years could not bring myself to give up my own dogs. I simply love them too much, even though they are among the dwindling remnants of a dying breed.
I will continue to train and breed a few dogs for myself and whoever else might be interested, but will in all likelihood never again attend a NAWBA event, or any other Bouvier specific event for that matter. It is not so much that I am angry at those who know I am right but would neither support me nor lead themselves, but rather because the time has simply come to close this melancholy chapter of my life.
Respectfully,
Jim Engel