New Bwra Ruling

[Fleesh]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

I understand the same as you Jac - even if we're wrong we're on the same wavelength

 

[hellbound]

SO cane we reg pups or not yes or no

as the proposal stands, ie no cut of time for litter already born but not reg with the bwra, then no you cant reg with the bwra,

sorry but do think this proposal only came about because off the way some members were breeding " greyhound to 3/4 greyhound " or greyhound to 1/2 greyhound and calling them whippets,

think alot of members were getting worried about what they were running against,

i voted against the capping off 55lb because i believe with the breeding in place it would bring down the size but like we all know you will get the throw back from the greyhound in none peds which may go over the 55lb cap, and i feel if that should happen that dog should be able to race,

the way the cap and the breeding are at the moment, i dont feel anyone will now use greyhound or for that matter a stud dog over 26lb in case you get something you cant run,

 

[Karen-Coral]

BWRA Asfordby AGM

Whippet News :

"The chairman asked to cap the size of no-limit scratch dogs. Tony Cooper said that dogs that were to big were not whippets, they were greyhounds and asked for a 50lb limit. Dave Galea asked what we were going to do with the bigger dog that could not get in traps and asked for a 55lb limit. Gary Farmer asked not to throw out the biggers dogs. Dennis Ward said that when no-limit came in it was to bring in bread for brood bitches and to stop whippet/greyhound to greyhound. Debbie Savage said that if they can get into whippet traps the should be aloud to run. Don Syson said it was down to breeders to breed smaller. Gary Farmer said it was a big class and should be left alone. Nigel Presswood's said people who breed big dogs were being discriminated against and that some dogs are freeks and go overweight Chris Cornish asked for a 55lb limit. Steve Boyd asked if we could put in a proviso that big dogs be catered for each year and bring the cap down. It was proposed that for 2003 to have a cap of 50lb and bend racing have a super heavy weight class with no run off. Prop Andy Railton, Seconded Nigel Presswood to stay as it is. Prop Ted Fox, Seconded Tony Cooper to have a 50lb limit. The first vote was close so there was a second vote which produced a tie. The chairman's casting vote went to leave it as it is WITH A WARING THAT THE WEIGHT SHOULD BE BROUGHT DOWN IN FUTURE."

This was 2003 we are now in 2009 pups born would now be veteran racing ----

steve

 

[milly]

This is how the new ruling will work, I'll give you a example.

1 Pennysworth came out of a greyhound x Sugar Fire, so when I breed with her she can't be put back to a full greyhound for 2 generations :thumbsup:

2 So lets say I use Avit :thumbsup: I keep a pup out of this mating and I name her Echo, she cant be bred to a full greyhound also :thumbsup:

3 So now I want to breed with Echo, she can't be put back to a full greyhound, so I decide to use Dennis the Menace, I keep a bitch out of this mating, and I name Sally.

4 I decide to breed with Sally and put her back to a full greyhound :thumbsup:

Anyone who can't follow this simple example shouldn't be thinking of beeding a litter :teehee:

Geoff

 

[ahorsnall]

2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but after an outcross progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members.
Reasons: - This would address peoples concerns about what some see as excessive use of greyhound outcrosses but would still allow for the introduction of new lines. It would also help to gradually reduce some of the more extreme excesses in size and may help to promote the use of existing scratch stud dogs for those actively wishing to race in the scratch.

This is the proposal that was put to the membership together with my reasons for proposing it. It is quite clear that the intention is to reduce outcrossing to full greyhounds, nowhere in the proposal that we voted on did it say anything about breeding 1/2 crosses. In fact if you read my reasons which were also sent with the proposal I make it crystal clear that part of this proposal was to promote the use of scratch stud dogs for those wishing to scratch race. I am an active scratch racer myself and have no wish to see an end to the breeding of scratch dogs. If the ruling is different to this then it is not a ruling that the membership voted on but something else entirely and absolutely nothing to do with my original proposal

right this is were i dissagree if this is what was voted in should if voted be done as it was proposed .no were is there a right to race any already racing if less than two generations or over 55lb.im a paid up member and as bought my pup before any agm why does mine get excluded when there are closer bred ghd racing.please tell me how one dog 56lb cant race and yet another can that could be 70lb.and i agree steve about racing whippets not ghds but surely all should have the same rules implied dont you think?

 

[mutley]

the whole thing is a farce chris

 

[Paws123]

the whole thing is a farce chris

bring on the trumpets

 

[mutley]

im saying nowt else on this in k9 but it needs sorting for thwe sake of this sport

 

[hellbound]

2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but after an outcross progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members.
Reasons: - This would address peoples concerns about what some see as excessive use of greyhound outcrosses but would still allow for the introduction of new lines. It would also help to gradually reduce some of the more extreme excesses in size and may help to promote the use of existing scratch stud dogs for those actively wishing to race in the scratch.

This is the proposal that was put to the membership together with my reasons for proposing it. It is quite clear that the intention is to reduce outcrossing to full greyhounds, nowhere in the proposal that we voted on did it say anything about breeding 1/2 crosses. In fact if you read my reasons which were also sent with the proposal I make it crystal clear that part of this proposal was to promote the use of scratch stud dogs for those wishing to scratch race. I am an active scratch racer myself and have no wish to see an end to the breeding of scratch dogs. If the ruling is different to this then it is not a ruling that the membership voted on but something else entirely and absolutely nothing to do with my original proposal

right this is were i dissagree if this is what was voted in should if voted be done as it was proposed .no were is there a right to race any already racing if less than two generations or over 55lb.im a paid up member and as bought my pup before any agm why does mine get excluded when there are closer bred ghd racing.please tell me how one dog 56lb cant race and yet another can that could be 70lb.and i agree steve about racing whippets not ghds but surely all should have the same rules implied dont you think?

sorry chris but cant make out what your saying ?? (w00t) (w00t) just me being thick, :- can you explain just for me lol :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[milly]

2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but after an outcross progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members.
Reasons: - This would address peoples concerns about what some see as excessive use of greyhound outcrosses but would still allow for the introduction of new lines. It would also help to gradually reduce some of the more extreme excesses in size and may help to promote the use of existing scratch stud dogs for those actively wishing to race in the scratch.

This is the proposal that was put to the membership together with my reasons for proposing it. It is quite clear that the intention is to reduce outcrossing to full greyhounds, nowhere in the proposal that we voted on did it say anything about breeding 1/2 crosses. In fact if you read my reasons which were also sent with the proposal I make it crystal clear that part of this proposal was to promote the use of scratch stud dogs for those wishing to scratch race. I am an active scratch racer myself and have no wish to see an end to the breeding of scratch dogs. If the ruling is different to this then it is not a ruling that the membership voted on but something else entirely and absolutely nothing to do with my original proposal

right this is were i dissagree if this is what was voted in should if voted be done as it was proposed .no were is there a right to race any already racing if less than two generations or over 55lb.im a paid up member and as bought my pup before any agm why does mine get excluded when there are closer bred ghd racing.please tell me how one dog 56lb cant race and yet another can that could be 70lb.and i agree steve about racing whippets not ghds but surely all should have the same rules implied dont you think?

I think all pups bred before the new ruling came into force should be allowed to be registered, and 9 weeks after this new ruling.

Regarding the weight cap, if any of the above go over the 55lbs cap they should still be allowed to race.

 

[rodders]

Firstly the little bit about a new vote and only those who voted last time being the only ones eligible that is wrong ---for various reasons i wont go into but the main one is that all members have a right to vote! irrespective of whether they did prior to this---

I think everybody agrees these proposals are voted in by the membership ,and as such should stand :thumbsup: The problem comes with the fact that there was no start date on the proposal form for either the breeding or 55lb cap proposal.I think it was assumed(rightly or wrongly) that the proposals wouldn't affect dogs already here.I just believe that if there is a vote regarding pups and yearlings already here,then the vote should apply to those who voted the proposal in

Chris you have got it from both sides,firstly the breeding of your pup Bigland Boy/Mismatch Mini and also the 55lb cap on the assumption the pup makes more than 55lb.I also believe if allowances are made for one proposal because of dates,then the same HAS to be applied to the 55lb cap proposal.If you can't backdate one you certainly can't backdate another.Think that would be discrimination

 

[rob67]

MY LETTER IS GOING IN TOMMOROW TO THE BWRA ITS A DISGRACE WHAT IS HAPPENING.ANYTHING BORN OR BRED BEFORE THIS DATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REGISTER WITH THE BWRA.

I completely agree with you Gary about the starting date of the proposal, and will willingly put my name to any letter that requests a review of the start date imposed by the BWRA. I dont think the proposal is that difficult to understand or implement, but it seems that, as usual, instead of trying to resolve this through the correct and sensible channels, there are some people on here who resort to discrediting those who proposed it..........................how many people voted for this to be taken on board as a proposal?? Dont just have a go at Marie and Myself, or if you do, say it to our faces and then we can have a conversation about it rather than insult our integrity on here.

There is no point shouting about it on here, I'm quite happy to speak to my rep about it , I have already done so about the earlier confusion, but don't slag me or marie off because we proposed it. EVERYBODY had the voting slips before the AGM and hed the chance to go to the AGM........................if more people had of objected maybe it wouldn't have gone through, maybe people could also have influenced the start date, had they attended.

Chris.

 

[ahorsnall]

Firstly the little bit about a new vote and only those who voted last time being the only ones eligible that is wrong ---for various reasons i wont go into but the main one is that all members have a right to vote! irrespective of whether they did prior to this---
I think everybody agrees these proposals are voted in by the membership ,and as such should stand :thumbsup: The problem comes with the fact that there was no start date on the proposal form for either the breeding or 55lb cap proposal.I think it was assumed(rightly or wrongly) that the proposals wouldn't affect dogs already here.I just believe that if there is a vote regarding pups and yearlings already here,then the vote should apply to those who voted the proposal in

Chris you have got it from both sides,firstly the breeding of your pup Bigland Boy/Mismatch Mini and also the 55lb cap on the assumption the pup makes more than 55lb.I also believe if allowances are made for one proposal because of dates,then the same HAS to be applied to the 55lb cap proposal.If you can't backdate one you certainly can't backdate another.Think that would be discrimination

i agree karen just seems daft when his sister can race and he could not as i know hes not reg but he could have been if i knew lol and i was a paid up member then too

 

[gary farmer]

2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but after an outcross progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members.
Reasons: - This would address peoples concerns about what some see as excessive use of greyhound outcrosses but would still allow for the introduction of new lines. It would also help to gradually reduce some of the more extreme excesses in size and may help to promote the use of existing scratch stud dogs for those actively wishing to race in the scratch.

This is the proposal that was put to the membership together with my reasons for proposing it. It is quite clear that the intention is to reduce outcrossing to full greyhounds, nowhere in the proposal that we voted on did it say anything about breeding 1/2 crosses. In fact if you read my reasons which were also sent with the proposal I make it crystal clear that part of this proposal was to promote the use of scratch stud dogs for those wishing to scratch race. I am an active scratch racer myself and have no wish to see an end to the breeding of scratch dogs. If the ruling is different to this then it is not a ruling that the membership voted on but something else entirely and absolutely nothing to do with my original proposal

right this is were i dissagree if this is what was voted in should if voted be done as it was proposed .no were is there a right to race any already racing if less than two generations or over 55lb.im a paid up member and as bought my pup before any agm why does mine get excluded when there are closer bred ghd racing.please tell me how one dog 56lb cant race and yet another can that could be 70lb.and i agree steve about racing whippets not ghds but surely all should have the same rules implied dont you think?

CHRIS I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE THIS SINCE 14 OF DEC BUT NO ONE WANTED TO LISTERN

ITS A CASE OF IT DONT AFFECT ME SO WHATS THE PROBLEM

BUT I FOR ONE WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING I THINK IS WRONG

MAYBE THIS MIGHT EVEN BRING SOME OF US TOGETHER BUT THEN AGAIN MAYBE NOT LOL

GARY

 

[rodders]

MY LETTER IS GOING IN TOMMOROW TO THE BWRA ITS A DISGRACE WHAT IS HAPPENING.ANYTHING BORN OR BRED BEFORE THIS DATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REGISTER WITH THE BWRA.

I completely agree with you Gary about the starting date of the proposal, and will willingly put my name to any letter that requests a review of the start date imposed by the BWRA. I dont think the proposal is that difficult to understand or implement, but it seems that, as usual, instead of trying to resolve this through the correct and sensible channels, there are some people on here who resort to discrediting those who proposed it..........................how many people voted for this to be taken on board as a proposal?? Dont just have a go at Marie and Myself, or if you do, say it to our faces and then we can have a conversation about it rather than insult our integrity on here.

There is no point shouting about it on here, I'm quite happy to speak to my rep about it , I have already done so about the earlier confusion, but don't slag me or marie off because we proposed it. EVERYBODY had the voting slips before the AGM and hed the chance to go to the AGM........................if more people had of objected maybe it wouldn't have gone through, maybe people could also have influenced the start date, had they attended.

Chris.

 

[Karen-Coral]

Chris i agree the rules should be same for all --but they are not you only need to look at seeding over the years to see that --The BWRA in 1968 had a 32lb limit and as such you needed a dog that complied we at Lancaster jioned and as we were Rag Racing up tapes rather than chasing a lure had very big dogs 50lb was the norm but we thought as many more did the bwra was the way forward and we all had to retire of our big dogs and if we wanted to carry on racing get smaller breeding which is what we did ---This was without any warnings --i feel very sorry for anyone who now finds themselves with dogs that dont or wont meet requirements but that is solely down to the breeders and you can see for yourself they wetre told at the asfordby AGM and it had been mentioned long before that ---

I asked if this capping could be introduced year bye year at this meeting but was not taken up on it--

sorry if it appears that Gary Farmer thinks he is being victimised but as you can see by the quote from that meeting they were warned--

also with regards to any votes on any aspect of any rule the full membership have a right to vote

that is why postal voting was brought back following the same meeting at Asfordby with regards to kickboards ==

steve

 

[rodders]

EVERYBODY had the voting slips before the AGM and hed the chance to go to the AGM........................if more people had of objected maybe it wouldn't have gone through, maybe people could also have influenced the start date, had they attended.

Chris.

Spot on Chris I've said the same thing on more than one occasion :thumbsup:

 

[ahorsnall]

i voted for the genration proposal but certainly thought it was ment from then on not to outcast any racing or bred or mated before.

 

[rodders]

i voted for the genration proposal but certainly thought it was ment from then on not to outcast any racing or bred or mated before.

We all thought the same Chris

 

[Trojan]

Would there be any reason why this couldn't be looked at again by the proposers and the bwra reps to iron out the creases in the proposal. YES it has been voted on and YES passed so obviously it is the way the majority of voters wanted it to go. The implications that have arisen by various points put across since. Some of which are very valid points for e.g why should one dog bred exactly the same as another litter be allowed to run but a later litter (already here) not and even more bizarre if one of the litter had been reg at xx amount of weeks old they would but brother who was not until 11 months couldn't run (in fact seems cant even be registered) In theory the proposal is workable if timings are re looked at that way people who already have either dogs over the 55lb weight limit or youngsters already bred don't feel they are being discrimanated against.

Re look but the proposal has been passed so should therefore go ahead - see i just like to keep everyone happy and before anyone shouts you are quite right it has nothing to do with me cos i aint into the big lads but can still have an opinion. well maybe lol and if i've got it all wrong then just ignore me, i thought i knew what i meant when i started lol