|
by Donna Bass
Webster’s Dictionary defines LEGAL as: adj.
- : of or relating to law or the processes of law (a legal question) (take legal action)
- :
- : deriving authority from or founded on law (a legal tariff rate) (a legal government)
- : fulfilling the requirements of law (a legal voter)
- : having a status derived from law: recognized as such by law (a legal certainty)
- : created by operation of esp. statutory law (legal incompetence) (a legal presumption) — compare CONVENTIONAL, JUDICIAL
- : established by law (the legal test for mental capacity)
- : conforming to or permitted by law : LAWFUL (a referendum to make gambling legal)
- : recognized or made effective under principles of law as distinguished from principles of equity : deriving from or existing or valid in law as distinguished from equity — see also EQUITY — compare EQUITABLE
- :
- : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or one of its members (a corporate legal department) (the legal community>
- : of or relating to the study of law (continuing legal education)
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
It also defines ETHICAL as:
- Of, relating to, or dealing with ethics.
- Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession. See Synonyms at moral.
- Of or relating to a drug dispensed solely on the prescription of a physician.
It also defines ETHICS as:
- A set of principles of right conduct.
- A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
- ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
- ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.
So what has all this to do with the cat fancy and Selkirk Rex? Let me give you a couple of scenarios and from them I will make my point.
Several years ago, the Oriental Shorthair AOVs (the non-Siamese-colored pointed cats) were included in the same exhibition class as the Colorpoint Shorthairs. The original idea behind this combination was that eventually the two breeds would be combined (because they came from the same hybridization process). This was the status quo for many years. There were a few attempts to get the AOVs out of the CPSH over the years, but there was never the numbers in the CPSH breed council to get the job done – the number of breeders of AOVs OSH was greater than the number of CPSH breeders.
Then the WIAB came along.
It was then that the legal, but unethical behavior began. Some members of the CPSH Breed Council decided they needed more votes to overcome the greater numbers of the Oriental Shorthair Breed Council. They signed up as many as 6 people each on litters and show cats to qualify them for the breed council. Some of these people might have been previous breeders of CPSH who had given up the breed and gone on to other breeds; some might have never bred CPSH but were breeding other breeds; and some might have been non-breeders/non-exhibitors who were friends of the CPSH breeders on the breed council.
Yes, according to the breed council rules at the time, this was perfectly legal. As a side note, because of the actions of this group, the rule has been changed so that only two co-owners/breeders can claim a cat/litter.
The question that should be asked is, “Yes, it is legal, but is it ethical? Is it RIGHT?”
The CPSH BC voted to kick the AOVs OSH out of their show class. The Board of Directors of CFA tossed the OSH AOVs out of CFA's show rings, after 15 years of winning, including many national, regional and breed winners. They are now unable to even achieve a title.
There were other consequences of these activities. The number of cats registered each year, which had fluctuated no more than around 1,500 up or down in the previous five years or so, suddenly dropped by more than 5,000. The number of cats registered in CFA has continued to drop. There may be other reasons that have continued to keep the numbers dropping, but the drop has not been as dramatic as that first year after the AOVs were thrown out of the show ring.
Another scenario: One year, when there was still ring point averaging, two cats were neck and neck for Cat of the Year in CFA. One was a white Oriental Shorthair, the other was a Persian. The last show of the season, the two cats were at different, but essentially equal large count shows. There was one difference. At the show where the Persian was exhibiting, the Persian’s owner brought a bunch of “stuffers” – cats that would increase the count but would only be shown in one ring so as to not overshadow the important Persian. This increased the ring point average of that show while decreasing dramatically the actual number of cats being shown. At the other show, there were no “stuffers” brought in, because the exhibitor wanted his cat to win on its own merits. The result: The Persian became Cat of the Year. Close behind was the Oriental. At the Annual that year, there were many wearing shirts proclaiming the Oriental the “true” COTY, and just as many proclaiming the Persian COTY.
Here is the point I am making. To far too many in the cat fancy (and the dog fancy, the horse world, ice skating, etc. etc. – any place where subjective assessments are made), winning is so important, they will do anything to win. As long as it is “legal”, they are willing to do anything, including what might be called “cheating,” to win. Yes, you can enter as many cats as you want in a show, but is it right to do it when the only reason to do so is to raise the count for your cat? Is winning so important that HOW you do it is less important than that you did it? Yes, you can sign up your friends on your litters/show cats and get them into the Breed Council, even if they have no intention of breeding or showing your breed so they can vote favorably on your pet proposal. Yes, you can provide “goodies” for your friends who just happen to be judges. Yes, you can sign up for your show only the judges who have finalled your cat and subtly let them know that that is the reason they are judging at your show.
Think about how you feel about winning. Is it so important to you that you would do anything to win (such as the scenarios above, giving favors to the judges, promising judging assignments for finalling your cat, etc.)? Some well known people are leaving the fancy because they are tired of the unethical behavior of judges and other exhibitors. Are you part of the problem or do your ethics require you to do what is right despite how your cat finals?
When you do something, think about how it might appear to others. Does it appear ethical or does it appear as if you are using a loophole to win? Does your “ethics meter” say “Yeah it’s legal, but it’s not right” or is it silent to unethical behavior? You have the choice to make.
|
![[Woolgathering]](.../images/woollogo.jpg)