"Of course members of the breed club test. They also host tests where dogs from our breed club come along with different breeds from different clubs. It helps divide the costs. There are also members of one breed club that will run their dogs in tests hosted by other breed clubs. Judges come from all breed clubs as well, but this is all conducted under the rules of a completely separate organization... but something tells me you already know this :-)

"But then you wont believe that either." Come on Red... you're bigger than this. This is exactly the type of attitude I'm talking about. One guy disagrees with the premise of the APLA or the foundation upon which it is based and everybody comes out of the woodwork shouting "foul!!!!!!" and get their panties wound up so tight they could be used in a Game 7 of the World Series as an official ball."

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.

Read post 147.

most of your judges in NAVHDA are breeders!

JW

I'm not trying to be thick here red, but I still don't get your point.

Jw I would agree that most navhda judges have bred before. I would say the majority are the type that might have a litter every 2-5 years,but for sure there are a handful that breed more consistently. For sure every judge has a connection with some breeds

Also keep in mind that, like the JGHV, navhda is not specific to one breed. There are a large number of gsp and gwp folks, but also pp, wpg, viszla, bracco Italiano, gl and sm are folks that I run into frequently that judge. I believe that every judge wants every dog to succeed. Holy cow, I'm just waiting for the kool-aid guy to crash through the wall :-)

toby now is pointing or standing when he takes a pee,wont lift his leg anymore.he is doing this now on everything,birds, bears,mice,rabbits,ice cubes in his drinking water.

i am hoping to see a POINTING LAB this fall.PACO invited me along for grouse hunt.hoping i get invited and can make it.

Maybe toby is wanting to hunt on the other side of the fence!

Do a search of dogs listed by intelligence. The Shorthair doesn't even crack the top 10. Goldens and Labs are in the the top ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligence_of_Dogs

labs are smart,i never saw dog like toby .i swear he understands me. i only have to tell him once.