ARC MEMBER COMMUNICATIONS

June 6, 2009

Dear Ms. Chaney:

Having been a member of ARC since 1976, 33 years of owning and showing Rottweilers has given me some insight into the changes we have seen in our breed. It was not too long ago that we were dealing with a large population of a breed dying at 6 years old with terrible cancers and poor immune systems that saw whole litters dying of parvo virus.

I also spent many years designing and directing the U.S. Department of Justice’s Explosives and Arson Canine Programs, which provides Explosives Detection canines throughout the world to U. S. Government, Foreign and State governments. Managing a program that has over 1 million dollars a year in veterinary expenses does give one a further insight into what works and what furthers progress in breeding programs and health of the animals.

I am somewhat dismayed at the recent actions of our Board regarding the dual sired litter bred by Pamela Marsh and Victoria Weaver of Gamegard Kennels.

The Mandatory Practices were designed to protect the breed from over breeding and to promote breeding only dogs that were healthy with no disqualifying faults according the breed standard. It was and continues to be in place for that elusive term “Betterment of the Breed”. They were revised in 1999, ten years ago.

Quite honestly, who among us has such stellar accomplishments and done so much for the breed as Pamela Marsh and Victoria Weaver? A breeding program that has produced 115 champions from a dog that is just 8 years of age, along with the all important health and temperaments we all strive for.

While the Board of Directors views the mandatory practices as a black and white issue, no AKC rules were violated with this dual sired litter. Who are we to question the breeding goals of Gamegard’s, considering their accomplishments in the breeding arena?

The ARC Board of Directors must strive to remain nimble and work towards the future. We need to continue to embrace our experienced members, as they are the teachers and role models for the newer members. I do think that in this instance, the Board of Directors has failed to deal with this issue in a manner beneficial to the breed and the club in applying a ten year old outdated measure, which was slated to be changed to reflect current AKC policy anyway.

I would suggest the Board of Directors revisit their decision regarding this matter and work towards uniting members of this club, versus doing irreparable damage to this club, in a further fractionalization of members, forcing them to take sides in an issue which should never have BEEN an issue.

I would request that this letter be published in the ARK in the furtherance of greater transparency that all breed clubs must strive for.

Sincerely,
Robert Noll

BOARD RESPONSE

June 17, 2009

Dear Robert:

We appreciate the opportunity to address your letter to the ARC Board of Directors dated June 6, 2009 concerning the upholding of the Mandatory Practices amongst the membership. We also thank you for your long time membership.

The American Rottweiler Club, like so many other AKC Parent Clubs, utilizes the practice of maintaining a set of Mandatory Practices or Code of Ethics for the betterment of their particular breed. The American Rottweiler Club Mandatory Practices were established in accordance with the objectives of the club, and adherence to these Mandatory Practices is required of all members.

Bylaws Article I, Section 3. Election to Membership (in part) states:

Each applicant for membership shall apply on a form as approved by the Board of Directors and which shall provide that the applicant agrees to abide by these Constitution and Bylaws, the rules of the American Kennel Club, and document that the applicant has read and signed in agreement with the ARC Mandatory Practices . . .

In signing, each member makes a choice to abide by the current rules and practices. The ARC Board would be remiss should they turn a blind eye to a member’s complaint over another member’s violation of any policy that governs all members. Nor do we have any provision in any of our policies to separate violations based on a privileged status. In fairness to all, the policies and procedures apply to everyone and must be addressed as such, whether it is in recognition of an accomplishment or violation of the rules of the Club. This impartiality allows for a more consistent method of determining outcomes without prejudice to any party.

The Mandatory Practices may only be amended by a mail ballot sent to the entire membership. However, any changes may be proposed either by the ARC Board or by petition signed by 20% of the members in good standing. Should the membership feel that the Mandatory Practices are outdated and need to be amended, they have the right at any time to be pro-active and initiate such a proposal.

In fact such an attempt was made at the 2006 Annual Meeting (from the minutes):

A motion was submitted by Juan Griego, who was not able to attend, requesting a motion to allow multiple sire litters. President Grant stated that because the current Mandatory Practices only allow one stud this would require a vote of 2/3 of the membership.

Although an actual change could not have been approved at the Meeting, those in attendance could have approved the sending of a ballot to the Membership for approval for such an amendment to go forward. A motion was made to this effect, but the members present reaffirmed the Mandatory Practices and the motion failed:

Roberta Martin motioned for a vote to the membership to amend the ARC Mandatory Practices to allow multiple sire litters. Second made by Jill Kessler Miller. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of multiple sire litters. Vote of attending members taken. Motion failed.

Proposing the changes to the ARC Mandatory Practices that are now before the membership was a long and arduous process. In July 2007, the Board appointed a Committee to review and develop proposed changes and these were accepted by the Board in March 2008 and mailed to the membership for comment in the beginning of April. As noted in the cover letter, the 2nd & 3rd Qtr. 2008 issues of the ARK would be allowed for members to comment and the Committee/Board would consider these comments and present a final proposal to the membership and the process would then proceed as outlined in our Bylaws. This was done and the final proposal was published in the 4th Qtr. 2008 ARK; the 1st Qtr. 2009 ARK was open for comments and the ballot was mailed to the membership on May 26, 2009.

Now it is up to the membership. We encourage all members to read the proposed changes and vote according to their beliefs. Some may pass and some may fail. But whatever the results of the vote, the “new” Mandatory Practices will be what will govern this club in the future. It will be up to future ARC Boards to implement and uphold for all members alike.

Sincerely,

Jeff Shaver, President & the ARC Board