[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: final note on ROM proposal and plaques, etc.
- From: BJBuie@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dir@xxxxxxxxxx, edangsd@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:02:44 EDT
This is exactly what my proposal suggests. The animal gets the title and if
owned by a non-member just a letter announcing the award, or hopefully a
certificate, but no plaque. I would like to see the animal still have the page
in
the Review for the benefit of the breed so we could see the animal, pedigree
and progeny names for future reference.
Betty
In a message dated 9/13/06 6:44:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Msg: #2 in digest
> From: "Robert Dir" <dir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: ROM...
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:31:10 -0500
>
> I agree Ann. The animal should receive their ROM and what the PC decides
> about plaques and Review page is up to them. The title should be allowed.
> Sandi Card
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ANN SCHULTZ" <edangsd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pruett@xxxxxxxxx>; <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:40 AM
> Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: ROM...
>
>
> >I think that if an animal meets the qualifications to be a ROM, they should
>
> >receive it. HOWEVER, maybe only members should receive a plaque and get a
> >page in the Review. Ann
> >Laurie Pruett <pruett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >I couldn't glean who said what
> >from the below post and who is pro or con
> >>what..but I will just throw my two cents worth in. I strongly feel the =
> >ROM
> >>honor should be bestowed to a dog/bitch that is owned or co-owned or =
> >maybe
> >>we can add "bred" by a PC member. dogs don't know and couldn't care less
> >>about the titles we humans bestow upon them.
> >I think it is wrong for our club to deny an ROM title to an animal just =
> >because the PC owner was responsible enough to place the animal in a good
> >=
> >pet home after the animal was done with it's breeding career. And, in =
> >this day and age of liability and law suits, it isn't always a good idea =
> >to keep your name on as co-owner once an animal is placed. My ROM bitch =
> >was 9 years old before her progeny completed the requirements for her ROM.
> >=
> >She happened to retire with another PC member, her co-owner. However, =
> >if she had gone back to her breeder who is no longer a PC member, then my
> >=
> >ROM wouldn't be an ROM today. That's not right, IMO. I do not delude =
> >myself into thinking that my multi-dog part-time kennel, part-time in the
> >=
> >house living situation is better for my dogs than an only dog sleep on the
> >=
> >bed everynight pet home would be. I won't turn down those opportunities =
> >when they arise just be be assured that the retired breeding animal will =
> >be eligible for an ROM.
> >
> >Let's think of the welfare of the animals when developing criteria for PC
> >=
> >awards.
>
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2006. 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 - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues
============================================================================
Other related posts:
