Greetings Tim,
Yes, as you say, all good things must come to an end. St. Michael is in retirement, Scotty is in Houston, Dennis is in LA and the time of emptiness is upon Chicago and NAWBA. (Be careful about references to California, from the perspective in the heartland we think of the whole west coast as a virtual California, the land of fruits and nuts.)
Your comment on the USA judges illustrates the lack of consistency and basic honesty in the temperament test as proposed. The pretense is that this is a performance test, an objective evaluation of the basic working drives in a dog. For this reason a USA judge should be ideal, for he is beyond the political incest which has taken the breed to such a low level in Belgium and which will be inherent in a program of "NAWBA approved" judges. How are we going to look to the world when the AWDF judge, probably a USA judge, goes back to the judge's meeting and reports that he did the Bouvier event but failed the temperament test qualification, that he did not know enough about Bouviers so they had a "Bouvier correct" judge, in many instances someone who has never taken a dog to a high level, do the evaluation. Can you hear them laughing ? (By the way, Erik Johnson insisted three times at the annual meeting that you people are not stupid enough to use a DVG judge, but you might remind him.)
By saying a judge needs special education to judge a Bouvier event are we not saying - wink, wink - that the judge needs to lower his standards, lower expectations and show a sensitivity to political connection ? I think so, and the whole outside world will know so.
You mention that the B is still a prerequisite, and I congratulate you for good common sense. This is a positive and reasonable decision. Is it required as a prerequisite to the aggression test ? If not, it should be.
As I have said elsewhere it is not the temperament test I object to, but rather its use as a foundation of the "Select" designation.
Tim, would either you or Kathy, or preferably both, answer the question that both Andrzej and I have been asking, that is, about the use of the temperament test as the basis for the "Select" designation? If you don't believe you have enough dogs capable of being worthy why, instead of lowering standards and holding the breed up to ridicule, do you not just suspend the select ( and best of breed) designations until you believe a credible competition can take place?
Finally, we come to the judges. The draft proposal seems to be finely constructed to sneak Frank McEniry in the back door. I think he and everyone else should have to stand up to the same process and criteria. Look at his memos, I am sure you remember them, which are, and always will be, posted on the net. On an objective basis, is someone unfamiliar with the people involved going to read these memos an see a man with the intelligence and intellectual demeanor to serve as a judge and representative of NAWBA? or will they see an arrogant man? or an abusive man ? Pierre LaFond has written to the board a widely circulated letter very critical of Mr. McEniry's training methods and character, characterized him as abusive. These are very serious charges, and Mr. LaFond is, or at the time was, a NAWBA member in good standing and not a person of insignificance in the Bouvier community. Does the board intend to sweep all of this aside and endorse a man such as this as a spokesman for the association?
Apparently everybody else who would serve as judge would go through a process of member comment, should this not apply across the board, to Mr. McEniry as well as anybody else?
If you will recall past discussions I believe that Martha Saddler was always insistent that whatever we did we should not have internal Bouvier people serving as judge, and there was and is great wisdom in this. With such a small group of people involved, every decision is going to be seen as a political move. No matter whose dog is being evaluated the judge is going to be connected in one way or the other, as friend or foe, as owning a litter mate or of a competing dog on the sport field. A credible, knowledgeable person outside of our small community is the only one capable of bringing an objective view and credible opinion to the process. Anything less in incest.
Perhaps there is a reasonable program which would have some chance of preserving NAWBA as a serious organization, that is, keep the people who have shown that they can actually title dogs in or draw them back in:
1. Withdraw the use of the term "Select" or anything that can be construed as meaning the same thing until a credible program can be put in place.
2. Establish a specific date when the Schutzhund A or an appropriate herding
test will be required.
3. Use judges outside of NAWBA who have actually titled a dog to IPO III, Ring III or KNPV as part of their requirements to do the temperament testing.
(Kathy or Ro, If you can show how to work herding into this, please make a suggestion.)
Finally, I do not "advocate the destruction of NAWBA", for the board is doing a fine job of that. ( I refer to the failure to get out the Journal, poor publicity for the championships, the conduct of the former president and the content of this temperament test, among other things. More on this latter....)
My purpose here is not only to be critical, but to make workable suggestions. The best solution would of course be to bite the bullet, grow up and adapt real standards and make the effort to live up to them. (How long can people go on pontificating about working bouviers without going on the field for a real, high level title before becoming a parody ?)
The next best solution would be to make the NAWBA Breeding recommendation program, already on the books, the select designation. This program also requires a hip x ray, by the way.
Finally, the three steps above are perhaps a workable, though flawed, program.
My involvement in NAWBA is winding down because NAWBA as a serious organization is winding down, is giving in to the lowered standards and expectations that preordain a second rate future. My objective in this exercise is basically personal in nature and limited in scope, that is to differentiate myself from what is being done and to associate myself with those events and efforts outside of NAWBA which have a potential to be meaningful in a future for the Bouvier, to make a final effort for dignity meaningful whatever the eventual outcome.
In my journey through what are perhaps the waning years of the Bouvier des Flanders of the founders, I have nothing left except for the pleasure of living with a few good dogs and an enormous respect for the selfless struggle of those such as Bowles, Moreaux, Chastel and Gelineau. Although I never met Moreaux and met Mr. and Mrs. Gelineau only once or twice, I did have a small personal relationship with Miss Bowles and Mr. Chastel. For these reasons, I will conduct myself in a way that I believe would merit their respect. If I am eventually seen as in some very small way emulating the courage of Justin Chastel, who as an old man left the Presidency of the Belgian club on the issue of character, especially the conduct of the Belgian character test by those currently in control, than I shall be proud. And if people mock me, as they mock Chastel, I shall be proud to share that also.
Jim Engel