Originally Posted by
Red Label
"Heres another one Mustad. He who makes the rules wins the game. You have a different set of rules and definitions.
Let me ask you if you have attended an APLA test. Would the statement "You wont believe that either" apply if you watched one. You said you didnt say something you said. Havent heard if you agree you said it or not. How big are you?
As for the breed clubs you mention and the way they conduct their tests and breeding programs, I have no problem with their choices or conduct. May not be what I choose but certainly not wrong. As for your opinion of the APLA, allowing breeders as judges or board members must be what you are referring to. I can see how you might breathe human error or greed into this scenario. Consider the other side of this scenario. Who would want to create a stronger organization with better dogs than responsible breeders. There are plenty of people involved that aren't breeders also so there is a good blend.
You still haven't told me what I have said I didn't say, so I'm not sure how I can confirm with you that I didn't say it in the first place. If you are referring to the statement that lim made about unbiased vs bias; I don't believe I ever said that NAVHDA judges were biased as lim stated. The only thing I have stated is that separating the breed club from the testing organization removes conflict of interest. Making a jump from conflict of interest to deliberate bias would be erroneous.
If I were to attend any event, I would, just as I have, form my opinion on what I see.
The model of separating testing from the breed club has worked for over a century and a half with 10,000's of dogs; if not 100,000s. I'm glad you don't have a problem with it.