[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: My Choice
- From: MarcatoGSD@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:20:21 EST
I do suppose I'll have to disagree then. If a dog had full dentition, and a
tooth/teeth were lost due to decay/accident why should the dog be penalized
for it, if one can prove it was there, and was not lost due to genetics?
Obviously, it will depend on the dog, the day, and the judge that is looking
at the class, but if there is a legitimate reason for the tooth to be gone and
it is NOT because of genetics, why shouldn't the judge be allowed to consider
the letter/picture/documentation?
Technically speaking, it is not a fault if the dog did not lose the tooth
because of genetic reasons.
- Jackie
Marcato Shepherds
Where it's about function, not flash
In a message dated 12/7/2005 1:11:09 PM Central Standard Time,
arycrest@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
A judge should NOT be allowed to consider a letter of explanation for a fault
or DQ unless the standard or AKC rules are changed to allow reasonable
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
