🚀 go-pugleaf

Continuing with president Bob Bostroms' "The prune" publication.
Here are a few things from Bobs' "The Prune" Vol 1#2

"The first issue of our little newsletter appears to be a smashing
success"

"...The vindictive nature of the board and the repercussions that might
occur if our newsletter were distributed on a wider scale..."
	"..We are writing to spur those individuals who have the
capacity  to act for the betterment of our breed to do just that and use
their influence in a positive manner for the replacement of the current
board.."
	"The 1993 board has made what is now touted as a major
advance in the history of the club, by voting to publish a breeders'
directory.."  (here is the oldest club and they didnt even have a
breeders directory!)
	"..Dwelling on past vendettas and charges of mismanagement
are fine within a short time frame, but continuing to bring these issues
before the membership over and over again..."
"...not many months ago the American St Bernard  world was turned
upside down. The was name calling, lies and the emergence of the
"Restoration slate" as the saviour of the club"
	"..We firmly believe the major problem with the Zielinski
presidency is Stans' lack of it (leadership). We believe we made it
pretty plain in the last issue that we consider Stan's leadership ability a
serious liability to the SBCA and the future of the club"
	"If you think the restoration slate was elected to kick out the
elitists and power mongers and restore control to the membership,
THINK AGAIN!!"

"We have said over and over again, and we'll say it again, the club
needs stable intelegent and responsible people on the board.."

"We believe that the animosity and cutthroat behavior which has been
prevalant throughout this year can be eliminated.."
"Stan is an intimidating force and it is clear with the current board that
few wish to get on his wrong side"

This is a man the rest of the club looks to, to set an example of what
they should do.
I have several issues of "The prune" on hand, and when I find time I will
post some more quotes and text from them. In short though, the entire
board and everyone was essentially replaced with the elections. Terms
were for one year only and every election brought out new people
because no one was happy with what any of the boards had done.
Oddly enough a motion was made to increase the terms during Bobs'
tenure... Thats a little self serving isn't it?

There are more quotes in the other issues, but this does show how
inept and incompetant this clubs' boards have been, what has been
going on, the infights and power mongers. Naturally any hip program
ideas would have been washed aside like a boat on a sunami... The
other "stuff" is far more important right?

With the illustrated standard fiasco, and the fact that the board voted to
spend $5,000 to print booklets that ultimately were discarded because
the memebrship couldnt agree on them and the drawings were torn
apart.
When the FCI decided to make a few changes to the breed standard,
the American Club decided NO, they wont go along with it. One of the
changes was in the eye lid shape to reduce entropian and ectropian
eyelid problems! Now, we will eventually see two separate breeds, the
American  breed and the  rest-of-the-world breed...

E Georgean Raulston, former president and author/judge has this in
part to say about the board in her Jan 13 1993 letter;
"..You need to know that a group of club members have decided to run
against the entrenched clique that now occupies the board positions."
"..I received a copy of the new illustrated standard and was appalled, I
was going to voice my objections in an article in the fancier. I called the
editor (Bostrom) to see if it could be gotten in for the Dec issue. A few
minutes later the chairman of the ill. standard committee called me and
asked that I not submit my letter so it would not unduly influence the
voting.... Upon receiving the Dec issue I found it full of articles
supporting the new ill. standard. Since I was tricked into not having my
thoughts presented, I have undertaken this letter"

And people actually want to join a club like this???

Dues were $35 a year, thats a LOT for a club membership, there was a
proposed rate increase in the Sept/Oct issue of their magazine last
year that was to raise the dues to $45. With the 800 members paying
out $30,000 in dues this club has more than enough money to start a
SERIOUS dysplasia control program. They have over $50,000 in the
bank as well, but they want MORE money. I thought this was a non
profit club too...
But instead of funding a REAL hip program and requiring members to
xray their breeding stock at LEAST,  the sept/oct club magazine, 1994
p 103 says this in part;

"Breeders trophy,.... the committee consisting of Winnie Vogel, Bob
Sykora and Glenn Radcliffe.."    The board then allocated up to $500 to
buy yet ANOTHER trophy for the national, note that two of those on this
committee were on the breeders' panel at the national speaking out
against OFA and xrays. Evidentally a trophy is more important than
other things, like a proposed donation of $150 to the American Dog
Owners Asso which fights against the anti dog laws and restrictive
ordinances. Bostrom, the president,  voted NO on that, citing that this is
AKC's job and why should the club duplicate AKC's efforts he asked.

Thats called "passing the buck"

Glenn Radcliffe runs a huge kennel, now heres a big bucks guy who
arrives at the national with umpteen dogs, and puppies  in a new
custom van, handlers etc, does he spend a little of his puppy sales
money on hip xrays? NO!!!
Why don't you call and ask him, I'm sure you will be as disgusted as I
am over this apathy on hips.

Brian Beninger, a member and respected Judge stated in his article in
the same issue of the clubs' magazine, page 24 in part;

"The Saint Bernard breed is in trouble. I am not talking about the
human pettiness that has been so evident these past few years within
the Saint Bernard club of America, I am talking about the dogs
themselves"

Speaking of two nationals one in Portland and the other a world union
show where American members exhibited;

"....I was sadly disapointed with both shows. The dogs are not what
they should be"

"...Far too many of the dogs were cripples. Cowhocks, roached backs
and dysplastic hips were everywhere"

 >You ask why breeders are hesitant to OFA their dogs. I have had an
>opportunity to talk to many of our current breeders and there appears
>to be a consensus: The information supplied through registries has
>been used for a purpose other than that, for which it was intended.

This is bullshit, even if this was true, it would be the case in EVERY
breed, so the playing field is level in all the breeds, its not like Saints
have been singled out here, and that only Saint breeders are going to
find negative test results used against them. Its that way in every breed.

>battle against genetic disease requires testing, as well as
communication
>between breed enthusiasts. Communication and subsequent
>revelations, however, must be put to good use and not wielded
>overhead, thereby
>damaging the necessary level of comfort and trust, needed to initiate
>disclosure. Many breed clubs have experienced this phenomenon and
>will
>freely admit that 'change' did not come quickly or with any degree of
>ease. The SBCA is no exception.
>You see: I look into these seven furry faces and see much more than
>a set of hips.

Now these are high spoken words of wisdom... for someone who has
not one single dog listed under her name or kennel name as being OFA
certified normal, I find it interesting Lets see, your kennel name is listed
as "Sonnenschein"
Lets take a look-see at the official OFA certification records in the "S"
section reproduced here;

SNYGG FLICKA			
SOLITUDE ANDY PANDA		
SONYA XII
SQUAW VALLEY PATTY		

Hmmm, I don't see any "Sonnenschein" dogs even listed, do any of you
out there see it?
Now we have to ask, WHY we don't see their kennel name at all here,
as having ANY OFA certified dogs. Could it be because they, like so
many of the club members who DONT OFA, are attempting to defend
their breeding practices by attacking the messenger (me) who is
showing the PROOF taken directly and indirectly from OFA records and
articles and other sources and reference materials and PUBLISHING
them on the net for all to read? This woman makes a few posts months
ago and vanishes, and now she has flopped out here again like a dick
out of an old mans' pants trying to defend poor breeding practices and
makign excuses for the apathetic.

Ask yourself why is it these breeder/club members are SO defensive
when it comes to xraying and certifying that their breeding stock is
NORMAL?
Is it too much to ask, in a breed with about 49% dysplasia rate of the
xrays SUBMITTED to OFA,  that we at least have breeders behind the
breed that care enough to X-RAY their stock so they can see where
their dogs are for health? Instead of making up excuses about why they
dont or cant x-ray?

It has been said that Saints probably have closer to 70% dysplasia due
to pre-screening by vets, as no one pays $20 to confirm what they
already know...that the dog has dysplasia.

From a potential puppy buyer calling a breeder of Saints;

>I called one other breeder, (Omar V Herman)  from DOGworld, and as
>soon as I mentioned OFA the call was OVER! He got supremely
pissed off and,
 >after telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, told me to find
>another breeder (like I would really buy from this guy)! All I did was
>ASK about OFA and he got mad.
>The listing was in Dogworld July 95

Thank you for sending me your letter, this was just a simple pet buyers'
call to an advertiser in Dog World Magazine... How come I am NOT
surprised...
You see, the way to change people like that is NOT education, because
they have  their minds made up! but the way is to embarass the hell out
of them, cajole them and  put the pressure on them. Puppy buyers
calling and ALL asking about hips is one way, hitting them in the wallet
when they say "Oh... you don't xray? well thanks anyway, I'll go to
someone who does" CLICK!

It is of interest that most of the Saint Bernard dogs in the OFA database
were bred and or owned by NON club members, that is why we see
names like "SNYDER'S LORD SWISS" or "Bobs jake"
instead of all the top known kennels and members.  Even the one board
member who does xray (Zappala) only has SIX dogs certified in the list
in all their years of breeding, and they may or may not have owned all
of them at the time of x-ray. Only one has a rating, indicating that this
dog was certified with-in the past 2-3 years or so when OFA made the
change of their format, the other five were certified  prior to then. One
dog OFA'd in 2-3 years is pretty poor..

Of course we cant forget about H.Mercer Cresaps' interview with the Saint
Quarterly magazine, (now defunct) Cresap is a breeder/judge/member of the
SBCA, and I think readers will find it very interesting what he had to say
on the topic of Hips in Saint bernards!

SQ:" Would you say that the biggest problem overall is the soundness?"
HMC: Perhaps thats number one, then not having proper type is a close
second. I'd hate to see people go back when, in the late 60s, everyone
was x-raying their dogs and looking for hip dysplasia. There were a
number of people who decided they were going to breed for soundness.
What they got was junk; they looked like giraffes and borzoi- you name
it" "...Over the years you've had a number of people in Saints that have
gotten involved in and absolutely HAD to make money out of it to keep
going Thes one of the pitfalls, when the dogs have to support temselves
Something is going to give and it's probably going to be quality and
ethics... with the big dog food bills, it is pretty nice to have a litter 
so they pay for themselves"

WONDERFUL quotes Mr Cresap, thanks for sharing them with us! I'd
suspect the first thing to "go" is hip and health checks because they cost
a lot of money and don't bring in actual direct income.
Now, this is a member/judge/breeder stating he would HATE to see everyone 
going back to the time when they all xrayed... interesting huh?

The breed used to have a huge puppy miller with a kennel called
"Sanctuary woods" the woman (Bea Knight) had over one HUNDRED
dogs in several breeds and had been suspended by AKC and was
unable to register dogs. Her kennels a deputy sheriff friend told me were
cited for health and sanitation complaints. These dogs also were not
OFA...
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to                abuse@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to    help@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to          admin@anon.penet.fi