View Full Version : Any news from the SGM?

5th October 2008, 02:59 PM
i sat here chewing my nails and hers!

5th October 2008, 03:17 PM
On Breed Notes (Cavalier) Dog World UK it is posted that Margaret Carter was removed from CKCS Club position :(

5th October 2008, 03:41 PM
do you have a link ?

Margaret is still the best she dosen't need them

5th October 2008, 03:49 PM
Link http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/40-CAV

Friday 3 October 2008 #35 post

5th October 2008, 03:55 PM
well, the breeders just proved they are not a breed club but a breeders club. There's a huge ethical difference.

5th October 2008, 03:57 PM
well, the breeders just proved they are not a breed club but a breeders club. There's a huge ethical difference.

well said

Jan Bell
5th October 2008, 04:21 PM
I am upset about this, but not suprised. Margaret said that the breeders against her were going there in force, and these are going to be the people who regularly attend meetings. The majority of the membership are still pet owners who would not usually go to the meetings.

Next year there will be a postal vote and Margaret has said she will stand again - though I could forgive her if she tells them what to do with their club, which is how I feel at the moment. On the other hand, the CKCS Club is the only focal point for the breed, and we are now left without the person who was prepared to stick her neck out and push for breeders to follow the recommended protocols, based on the research done so far.

I have just read that Gordon Inglis thinks it is his right, along with other breeders, to breed how they think fit as the research isn't conclusive. I have always believed that along with rights go responsibilities, so I assume that they will now be taking responsibility for their choices by telling all puppy buyers that they are ignoring current CKCS Club recommendations.

He also claims that Pedigree Dogs Exposed didn't expose anything as SM was already known about by breeders. A pity then, that none of the ones shared that information with me when I was looking for a new Cavalier 18 months ago. He rather misses the point that the exposure was to the general public.

So, where do we go now? A new Cavalier King Charles Club perhaps? Any ideas?

Margaret C
5th October 2008, 05:08 PM
Hello to you all,

You already know the results of the SGM.

The voting was:-
204 voted for removing me from the committee of the Cavalier Club
31 voted against my removal.
4 people abstained.

I would like to thank the cavalier owners that managed to get to the SGM and support me. I really appreciate it.
Also, thank you to the members of this talkboard that have given me so much encouragement and support

It has been a fairly stressful day so I now intend to sit down with a glass of wine to cuddle my dogs & watch a video.

I will post again tomorrow.

Margaret C

Cathy Moon
5th October 2008, 05:16 PM
:hug: (((((((hugs))))))) to you, Margaret. :flwr:
Thank you for all you've done for cavalier health, and all that you will continue to do. :flwr:

5th October 2008, 05:23 PM
It's very disappointing news Margaret,but through it all you have conducted yourself at all times with remarkable composure and dignity.
Enjoy your glass of wine and we should all have a glass tonight in your honour.

5th October 2008, 05:34 PM
Sorry to read this, Margaret. I think whoever said about a new breed club hit the nail on the head since, as Karlin says, the current status quo is evidently run with the interests of the breeders in mind, not the breed itself.

Enjoy your wine and cuddles!

5th October 2008, 05:44 PM
What a sad state of affairs :x

5th October 2008, 05:51 PM
note to self, sort application forms.

5th October 2008, 05:52 PM
note to self, sort application forms.

me too

5th October 2008, 05:54 PM
Me three :thmbsup:

5th October 2008, 06:18 PM
Me 4
---Aileen and the gang (Barney---Jazzie---Jake)

5th October 2008, 07:45 PM
be sure to write your mp and euro mp citing this incident as clear evidence that dog breeding must come under animal welfare control as this vote indicates how little the kc can do about health and how much organized opposition to any honesty on health matters much less concern for the dogs. Fewer than 2 dozen breeders attended the two club sponsored sm conferences and virtually none who voted against margaret but 200 showed up to vote out the key person behind every ongoing club health campaign as originator or main supprter. Let your mp know how craven these breeders are. Ribbons and stud and puppy money are their selfish price for our breed's health. Don't let them away with this.

5th October 2008, 07:50 PM
A very interesting and true point!

5th October 2008, 08:11 PM
good point hun, i will be on the phone/writing in the morning.

5th October 2008, 08:15 PM
K9 magazine online has just published about the meeting and Margaret's responses to questions re: her participation in the program

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/...rgaret-carter/ (http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/976/why-i-spoke-out-about-cavaliers-by-margaret-carter/)

Brian M
5th October 2008, 09:15 PM
Hi Ciren / Stffers /Pauline

What do you mean about application forms

5th October 2008, 09:26 PM
I do believe that it is Margaret's 45th Wedding Anniversay this weekend and was due to go away. So congratulations to both you and your husband may you have many more happy years together. And you know what they say if you cannot beat them join them well this one aint.

5th October 2008, 09:28 PM
Sorry to hear this Margaret :flwr:
Enjoy your glass of wine, you deserve it. You have done so much good work for cavalier health and I hope you will continue to do so :flwr:

5th October 2008, 09:32 PM
Hi Ciren / Stffers /Pauline

What do you mean about application forms

Hi Brian, we mean application forms to join the CKCS Club so we get to vote next time if Margaret decides to stand again.

Daisy's Mom
5th October 2008, 09:36 PM
I will only say that I would never buy from any of the breeders who voted against her. They clearly know they have something to hide, IMO. It's a sad thing when someone's prestige is put above hundreds, if not thousands, of dogs' health and well-being. Sickening.

Sorry, Margaret, but know that you are too good for these people. I only hope that puppy buyers will take note of what those breeders did, and are doing, and act accordingly.

Enjoy your rest and relaxation. Maybe (as others have mentioned) a new club can be formed that cares more about the dogs than about blue ribbons and stud fees!

5th October 2008, 09:41 PM
Margaret, I wish to say a big thank you for everything you have done for the betterment of the breed. You are now not on committee but I think you may still continue doing what you can wherever you can.

5th October 2008, 09:47 PM
So sorry to hear this I will be joining the club as a pet owner and will be voting you back in. I feel for you you did so much for our lovely dogs.


Brian M
5th October 2008, 09:57 PM
Hi Pauline

I thought you did ,my forms for Dawn and i were sorted last week and in a weeks time i am arranging for my sister and hubby to join i am paying ,so thats four more and if i was totally unethical and untrustworthy and being in a position at work were people shall we say like to keep me happy i am sure i can persuade a lot more to join.So all these additional votes maybe up to 40 can be countered on to vote for the cavalier health conscious loving animal lovers ,so that rules out that bunch of gangsters that voted in the majority today and come to think of it could we not devise a hit list of our own to rid the club of these out of date misfits thus slowing enabling that club to be promoting what it should have done a long time ago ,a strictly controlled health caring breeding protocol and vote out of the club all these money grabbing two faced hypocrites that seem to have taken over and as Karlin correctly put it Its now an unethical get rich quick stuff the public and the dogs lets just make loads of money and keep a big GOB to shout anybody down who dares question us like that champion of the right M C. But M C if she wishes will swiftly return stronger wiser and with far far more support ,those idiots do not realise what they have done.Sorry again if i am OTT.i apologise in advance only to our mrmbers

5th October 2008, 10:04 PM
I have posted a message in support of Margaret in the ckcs comm on livejournal. They tend to ignore health issues or even downplay them, so it will be interesting to see the response.

Quailing slightly, here...

5th October 2008, 10:43 PM
Fewer than 2 dozen breeders attended the two club sponsored sm conferences and virtually none who voted against margaret but 200 showed up to vote out the key person behind every ongoing club health campaign as originator or main supprter.

Regarding the two club sponsored sm conferences have you got the details, dates, where, etc., this as it may be best to include this in any correspondences. Maybe post on the list so we all know.

5th October 2008, 10:57 PM
rugby oct 2007 and London nov 2006. I can check list of attendees but would not think more than a dozen if that of the club outside a handful of truly health committed breeders. Also many clubs have had such a hard time getting breeders to use the 100 pound scanning days that they have routinely had pet owners fill their empty slots. It is ridiculous, those scanning programmes should be packed

5th October 2008, 11:10 PM
Please check for numbers at each, and who spoke at the conference. I think details adds meaning, particularly if sending emails or letters.

Kate H
5th October 2008, 11:40 PM
The Midland Club held a seminar taken by Geoff Skerrit and his team in February 2007; about 60 people attended, almost all of whom were breeders - I was one of the few pet owners present (one of the breeders present has been one of the leaders in the move against Margaret, in spite of all the clear evidence presented by the vets). The Midland Club, as a result of that seminar, pioneered the £100 scans at Geoff Skerrit's hospital; over the first 3-day session in June 2007, 75 dogs were scanned; on the day that I took my Oliver to be scanned, I was the only pet owner there - all the others were breeders. I agree that many of the larger breeders are trying to ignore SM, but many smaller breeders - who really only breed when they need a puppy to carry on their own line (sometimes only a litter every 5 or 6 years) ARE scanning their breeding stock and their puppies are much sought after by other small breeders and pet owners.

So don't give up on the Cavalier Clubs - join and prod and redress the balance! The big breeders only have one vote each - let's make sure we can outvote them. And insist on a postal vote next time...

And spread the SM word - to your vets and to pet owners that you meet; Oliver and I did a day at Discover Dogs at Crufts this year and spent almost the whole day talking to Cavalier owners about SM - and got a special thank you from the Midland Club (who organise the Cavalier stand at DD at Crufts) for doing so.

The CKCS Club will only be a club for breeders if we allow it to be.

Kate and Oliver

Cathy Moon
5th October 2008, 11:49 PM
The CKCS Club will only be a club for breeders if we allow it to be.

Hi Kate, what are you saying? Need clarification here. ETA: Oops, I read it too fast! Never mind!

6th October 2008, 01:30 AM
i just read the link, am now stinkingly angry. they don't even have the common decency to allow her to speak, she was heckled!!!

i can't read anymore or i will wake hubby up swearing.

so soooo angry at this stage.

Cathy Moon
6th October 2008, 01:41 AM
Their behavior is a reflection of who they are...

Jan Bell
6th October 2008, 08:38 AM
I'm out today for physiotherapy and hospital appointments, but more letter drafting starts tomorrow. I have several points I want to make to the CKCS club using quotes from comments made to the Dog World site. I have been making a list over the last couple of weeks.

Now I have more to add, but need to do some research about numbers etc before committing pen to paper. Never thought being off work for this long would be so useful, but it has given me time to do everything I can.

Re: Karlin's comment about the CKCS club being a breeders club rather than a breed club: very true, so as a pet owner I think I need to get more involved, as do other pet owners. I am going to talk to Margaret C regarding this point to see what she thinks.

Brian's post has also made me realise that if this is going to be the case I need to sign up my husband, and my parents (also Cavalier owners) and as many other owner I can.

Will check back in later.

6th October 2008, 11:01 AM
i just read the link, am now stinkingly angry. they don't even have the common decency to allow her to speak, she was heckled!!!

i can't read anymore or i will wake hubby up swearing.

so soooo angry at this stage.

Ciren, I feel the way you do, but at the same time I'm not surprised at anything :(.

Whilst you're still angry, channel the anger into doing something positive to make things change.

For my part, I've made it my business to tell everything who saw the BBC1 documentary about how Margaret has been treated. People are horrified.

6th October 2008, 11:28 AM
It was very distressing to hear Margaret was heckled. What this courageous lady has been through. :(

But, the truth is out and that's thanks to her. :)

A big thank you to you Margaret cl*p

Kate H
6th October 2008, 12:23 PM
On another thread Karlin wrote: 'the low cost scans are very basic scans and consults to give breeders awareness of the status of their breeding dogs. Pet owners can use them too -- at a higher cost but still relatively low -- but again that doesn't involve treatment advice, or a full consult'

As far as I know, this isn't true of the Midland Club scans with Geoff Skerritt - the low price is simply because the Club is able to fill 3 days just with Cavaliers being scanned for SM, which reduces running costs for the hospital (and gives Geoff a lot more data for his research, because he mostly sees known SM positive dogs with symptoms). Geoff went through the scan with me, gave me a prognosis, and made sure I knew what to look for if Oliver did develop symptoms. As it happens, of the breeders who were there on our day, all their dogs scanned either clear, asymptomatic or with very mild symptoms - if their dogs had had severe symptoms they would probably have been under their own vets/scanned already. But my understanding was that this was an opportunity to have a proper scan, and full consultation if needed - it was just that for these dogs a lengthy discussion of treatment options wasn't necessary. Anyone with a symptomatic Cavalier, who belonged to the club and needed a scan at the time of the 'Club days' (now held twice a year), would be able to have a 'proper scan' and consultation at the lower price. Nothing was said on the booking form about it being simply a cut-price quick check for breeders so leave your symptomatic dogs at home - nor was there a higher price for me as a pet owner. But of course most of the Midland Club members are in fact breeders (though many I know breed very seldom) - like the main club, we need more pet owners to join and then they could also take advantage of these 'proper' but low cost scans (but most pet owners will only scan if their dog has obvious symptoms - I scanned asymptomatic Oliver because I'm a nosey parker and wanted to know his status, given his pedigree!). What happens in other low cost schemes I have no idea - I'm only involved in this one.

Kate and Oliver

6th October 2008, 02:21 PM
I don't know where all this talk about heckling is coming from. I attended the meeting and there was no heckling. Margaret did speak and 1 man did shout something but no one else did. Personally I thought it was a very sad day for our lovely breed to come to this and many others thought the same. There are a lot of us breeders who only breed when we want something for the ring and do ensure we abide by all the health testing.

6th October 2008, 02:25 PM
May I ask who spoke on behalf of Mrs Carter?

6th October 2008, 02:43 PM
What I would like to know is what the CKCS Club is going to do about Beverley Costello
Is she going to be removed as a member,banned from breeding and from the show ring?
If she had not been exposed as she was ,she would have gone on using her dog at stud .
Its time she was dealt with ,never mind Margaret Carter,who has done nothing wrong as far as I can see.
Oh boy am I angry!

6th October 2008, 02:53 PM
Kate, it is definitely not a proper scan for diagnostic work -- for surgery or further advice on treatment, you'd need to pay for a full consult and for surgery, get a full MRI. I know Geoff and just had four dogs scanned by him, having had two already scanned by him 3 years ago.

Geoff himself will confirm this. He goes through the scan and makes suggestions for initial approaches but this is not in any way a proper neurology consult. Also -- Geoff does not give grading certs so it is important for any breeder to have those MRIs reinterpreted for a grade.

Some clubs are better than others at getting people to scanning days. I wonder what the club's take now will be, given that key members of some committees are the ones who posted letters attacking Geoff's abilities as a neurologist? The very fact that he even continues to do low cost clinics at all testifies to his dedication to the breed as I know he was very hurt that those letters were posted and commented upon by people whose clubs -- even whom he has individually -- helped. Interestingly some who eagerly promoted the letter are also those who tout their own 'grades' based on Geoff's scans!! It seems Geoff's skills are in no doubt when they have a good result or wish to get inexpensive scans, but he can be publicly humiliated with their complicity if they wish to protect their own. Some have certainly underestimated how hurt he was by their actions.

the low price is simply because the Club is able to fill 3 days just with Cavaliers being scanned for SM, which reduces running costs for the hospital (and gives Geoff a lot more data for his research, because he mostly sees known SM positive dogs with symptoms).No, this is not necessarily the case for either point. He offers the low cost scans because he hopes to benefit the breed and breeders by giving breeders information and advice they can use for planning health-focused breeding programmes. Sadly, many ignore his direct advice, as was seen on national television. He was giving low cost scans long before he was doing club days. He also does a lot of scans generally. But doing a club day encourages more to scan.

And I also don't believe from talks with him that he mostly see dogs with symptoms. Because he does so many group scans for breeders and for pet owners (he has done 6 scans now for me, mostly on asymtpomatic dogs) I'd say the split is pretty equal if not largely outweighed now by asymptomatic dogs. On the other hand -- what owners see as symptomatic and a neurologist sees as symptomatic can be two enormously different things. Again this is why a full appointment is really needed by anyone who thinks they have an affected dog. Geoff and other neuros are NOT doing clinical exams along with the abbreviated scans. So owners have no idea about whether the dog is showing clinical signs and therefore may be deteriorating in ways the owner doesn't see.

6th October 2008, 02:56 PM
A man shouting is heckling. I understand he had to be asked to be quiet by the meeting chair (who was not from the dog world at all).

6th October 2008, 03:29 PM
I too have just read the link and am angry.My husband has gone to put the kettle on.He always makes tea when I am mad.I feel so sad for margaret and wish her well in the future and request please do not give up your health concerns for our lovely dogs.

eve & a happy healthy smudge

6th October 2008, 05:17 PM
OK went back and checked on attendees to the two club-co-sponsored international SM conferences. I stress these were well advertised, club supported and financed (including that club members got discount or free tickets).

These were not simply local breed club talks such as those by Geoff Skerritt or Clare Rusbridge -- they were conferences with a panel of the leading international canine SM researchers on cavaliers presenting latest research results and breeding guidance and answering questions directly from breeders -- someone from nearly every leading international research team over the two events. Both events were advertised months in advance.

Seems to be at most two dozen breeders-- if that -- that attended between both meetings. Of those, I know that seven are directly involved in health issues -- two came from abroad, another being Margaret herself and some others that are small scale breeders very involved in scanning and very interested in research. Much of the audience -- most of it I think -- were human SM experts there at the main conference but interested in the cavalier research!

That leaves at most 17 of the remaining UK breeders -- by my count, only 8 or 9 -- but I am hoping there are more whose names I didn't recognise -- that attended either conference -- out of hundreds of breeder members. The club and KC are promoting this now as one of their big contributions to health. Yet not even a few members from each club committee attended. At at least one of these events, not even 10 breeders -- TEN!! -- could attend these international meetings outside the usual small circle, but 200 could travel to vote at the SGM? Those must be two of the most expensive health initiatives ever for the club in context of value for money as so many breeders clearly had NO interest in SM, NO interest in the latest research, NO interest in a discussion on breeding... and NO interest in attending, though lots seem to have interest in silencing the one person who has always lobbied for health initiatives in this area. I made CDs of the talks with income going to the genome scan research, and almost all those sales went to US, Canadian and Australian breeders. Not more than 5 sets went to the UK. So almost no UK breeders cared enough to hear the people doing research on the breed's behalf. There were close to a dozen pet owners there though. So nearly as many pet owners attended even though we are not breeding our dogs.

Going by the posts I have read recently during this controversy on the L-list and other lists and websites, the level of knowledge about SM -- just basic knowledge -- is shockingly low in people who are actually breeding and selling cavaliers. Some of the most misinformed posts come from those most critical toward Margaret, many of them very dismissive of SM as well -- yet they cannot even get their basic SM facts and research facts right. Apparently they haven't even read their own breed club sites as some of this information has been up there for a long, long time.

Just again for those who keep missing this point -- Sarah Blott is NOT looking for genetic markers for SM. Clare Rusbridge, Penny Knowler, Guy Rouleau and others on the Canadian team are involved directly with the project looking for genetic markers. That research is already well underway, as has been reported before on several of the club sites, but no one seems to actually read any of the health info that gets posted.... Sarah Blott will use those markers, presuming they can be found, to produce more accurate estimated breeding values. But she herself is not the person doing that research. She just hopes to USE the research being done by Rusbridge et al. This is very clearly stated in an explanatory document on the UK CKCS site).

Jan Bell
6th October 2008, 06:21 PM
There are a lot of us breeders who only breed when we want something for the ring and do ensure we abide by all the health testing.


I am glad to hear this and have always believed it to be the case, but it doesn't alter the fact that so many breeders don't. The less somebody knows about Cavaliers the easier it is for them to assume that whatever they are being told is true, simply because they are being told by a CKCS Club/Kennel Club listed breeder.

When I phoned Kennel Club listed Cavalier breeders 18 months ago I didn't know much about SM, but did know about heart problems. I had a naive faith that breeders would be acting in the best interests of their dogs, but found that there were several who were not happy with me asking about heart certificates. Nobody mentioned SM to me at all.

I blame myself for not reading up more about SM (I vaguely knew about it from CKCS club letters, but still thought that MVD was the main problem) so I have now been making up for this by reading everything I can. Next time I want a puppy I will know which question to ask, but not everybody does.

I've recently read a post which I have mentioned on this site before, where Gordon Inglis says:

"The TV programme was called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. But, in respect of Cavaliers, how can you expose something that was already apparent. The conditions MVD and SM were already extensively documented and Cavalier enthusiasts were neither hiding nor ignoring these conditions, as has been suggested."

Actually, SM in particular was being exposed to the general public. The Cavalier community might have known about it, but the breeders I spoke to weren't keen to share this information.


"....while the UK and indeed the EU continue to preserve the principles of freedom of choice and views, surely those who consider this research as ongoing and, as yet, inconclusive, should be permitted to act as they consider appropriate without being verbally attacked and vilified by those who take a different view"

Gordon Inglis is a CKCS Club member who, as can be seen from this quote, supports ignoring the recommendations the Club makes. He may choose to do this, but should then stay a member of the Club? Also, if he is asserting his right to breed as he chooses, should he not also take responsibilty for his choices and inform any prospective puppy buyer that he is not following the protocols recommended to the Club he belongs to (which is often seem as a recommendation by buyers)?

I am getting a bit fed up of these 'it's not conclusive' comments. Research takes time and is often not conclusive, but can point strongly to a certain course of action, as it has done with SM. No one is pretending the problem will be cured overnight, but while breeders decide that they are better judges of the matter than the researchers there's not much hope of improvement.

It is a pity to have to look for legislation to regulate breeders, but voluntary breeding protocols don't seem to be working, particulary as breed clubs are not tracking or trying to enforce them.

I note that Clare Rusbridge has signed the petition to introduce legislation to dog breeding. Must be frustrating to do all that work and still have breeders ignoring it

Jan Bell
6th October 2008, 06:25 PM
My husband has gone to put the kettle on.He always makes tea when I am mad

Just had to add a comment to this, as my husband does too! In any crisis, put the kettle on. Is this an English thing?

6th October 2008, 06:53 PM
The conditions MVD and SM were already extensively documented and Cavalier enthusiasts were neither hiding nor ignoring these conditions, as has been suggested."


Not mentioning that you have used a dog that was widely known to have SM and defending the dog's breeder for also 'doing nothing wrong' in breeding that dog two dozen times after the diagnosis in a national publication constitutes NOT hiding or ignoring these conditions?

And breeders telling people (and I have the direct evidence) they have NEVER seen SM in their lines or NEVER heard back from owners of affected offspring, when they have and they KNOW they have, are not hiding or ignoring these conditions? This is what is so two-faced about these pleas for 'tolerance'.

while the UK and indeed the EU continue to preserve the principles of freedom of choice and views, surely those who consider this research as ongoing and, as yet, inconclusive, should be permitted to act as they consider appropriate without being verbally attacked and vilified by those who take a different view"

Actually if you read any of the now-breeder dominated lists, there are very few vilifications and attacks coming from those who suggest more control of breeding is needed. The attacks are coming from the breeders who keep insisting that SM isn't a problem -- many of them the same breeders who are not publicly revealing they have dogs producing this problem and they knowingly choose to use dogs with the condition at stud and breed their own dogs way outside the MVD protocol too -- as Rollo (Beauella Radzinski) was, starting his life at stud at NINE MONTHS OLD. Nearly two YEARS before he should have been bred.

So: if most puppy buyers do not know what health problems to ask about in the first place, how many breeders explain them? How many explain whether they followed the heart protocol -- not just for the current litter but for whenever the parents were first bred? I know from talking to hundreds of pet owners that almost zero do. I know that it seems more backyard breeders and puppy mills are likely to volunteer (though it is false or incomplete) information about hearts and testing than the club affiliated breeders. I know from doing simple reverse pedigree checks on publicly available pedigree info online, and looking at puppy gazettes, that many if not most breeders are busy breeding dogs, especially studs whose genes so deeply influence the future of the breed as they produce so many puppies, way before the MVD protocol kicks in.

The fact that it gets easier and easier for us, the general public, to SEE what is going on does mean this information is harder and harder to deliberately hide. But why, when some reveal FACTS, is that then an 'attack'? And why is it moral to breed sick dogs, and immoral to expose that people have done so?

Why does the club and KC post all this information about health programmes and protocols as if they are making major contributions to the betterment of the breed, when they know that few follow them or care about them (otherwise I'd have seen more than 10 breeders at the international conferences in the UK, SURELY?!)? That is what is making people angry -- that and the fact that we end up with the vast majority of those sick dogs because the breeders of course mostly only keep the ones they will breed and show.

Thanks goodness for the truly health focused breeders who do care, but they are hard for pet buyers to find.

6th October 2008, 07:04 PM

6th October 2008, 07:15 PM
On deleting posts and what people can post -- if people do not like the perspective of this board, there are other places to go. I make no apologies for giving free space to talk to people who feel it difficult to impossible to post in many other forums. Likewise as I have always said, this is my forum, my personal site, and my money running it. No member pays to be here; no one has a 'right' to be here -- but I have always had an open door to pet owners and to many breeders. I am sorry things have reached a point where many breeders feel they don't care to be here or don't get to say what they want but on this particular issue -- I simply do not care. Every other list and board I know of sans one has a strong breeder membership or board ownership and discussion as a result is truncated on the topics I allow to be freely discussed here from the opposite perspective. Also, anyone can go set up a forum of their own where they too can make up the rules.

As for deleting posts -- I am very clear about why I delete some; but someone needs to ask Norma Inglis the same question about all the posts that endlessly vanish from the comments on her column perhaps, for which there's no explanation?

And as I have said before -- the breed clubs unfortunately seem more about breedERS, not the breed. It is indeed a sad day when someone has to expose shoddy breeding on national television because breeders themselves not only failed to shame the person out of breeding but continued to use the dog when at least some must have known his status. The funny thing is, a lot of those now saying *Margaret* 'exposed' the confidences around this dog are the same who passed around news of his SM status themselves a long while ago and have now conveniently forgotten this and how many others knew. I find it hard to believe that *I* could have known about him ages ago-- and NOT from Margaret! -- yet some breeders who used him at stud did not?

There are others who know Margaret was not breaking any confidences, but they remain silent. The agenda was indeed protecting the club, not the breed. Though by its very actions I would guess that vote is probably the single most damaging thing the club will ever have done to itself in its history. Watch and see.

And there is ONE person who could conclusively prove the scan and the advice she received were not as has been stated. The breeder of Beauella Radzinski has merely to ask Geoff Skerritt to reveal what was said and will be on the dog's record; or to ask Geoff Skerritt to give the scan to an independent panel. If as has been said, no one is hiding anything, then why has this not been done to resolve the questions of several reputations?

If nothing is being hidden, then there is no reason not to openly discuss that scan!

I do recognise that, depending on the scan results, and advice given at the time, and who knew what, when, that there might be legal implications...

6th October 2008, 11:17 PM
Words fail me! Disgusting! someone who tries to help our breed of dogs! and cos telling the truth they are voted off!!!! Truth!!!!! what would happen in a court of law!!

7th October 2008, 01:57 AM
Dog World UK Breed Notes

(dont know what good that is going to do ,since now it's a closed forum :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

7th October 2008, 11:04 AM
Has anyone looked at the web site reccomended by the editor of Dogs Today magazine you can find it via the editors blog
It's a lovely web site and an example of what all breeders should be doing, lovely photos and information about their health testing efforts including MRI scan results
Hats off to them I say:thmbsup:

7th October 2008, 07:28 PM
Just in case anyone missed it, the Kennel Club has criticised the CKCS Club vote at the SGM and come out in support of Margaret.


Kennel Club Hits Out at Cavalier Club; Supports Margaret Carter
Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 7/10 Posted Under: Animal Welfare

The Kennel Club has spoken to K9 Magazine about its concern following the decision of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel club to vote out one of its committee members, Margaret Carter, who spoke out about breed health on the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

The Kennel Club told us:
The Kennel Club is concerned about the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club’s decision to remove breeder, Margaret Carter, from its committee.
Mrs Carter appeared to speak for those very aims that the Kennel Club and the Cavalier King Charles Club itself supports, which is reflected in the vast amount of effort that the breed club has put into ensuring that the health of the breed is progressed. Mrs Carter’s intentions appeared to be honourable and her will to ensure that the health of the breed is maintained, through responsible breeding practices, is one that the Kennel Club fully supports.

The Kennel Club has also issued news today that it is put the health of all of its 209 recognised breeds under review, due to be completed early next year.
Dog lovers all over the country will be heartened to see the Kennel Club taking a positive stand on these issues and the organisation should be resoundingly praised for their support of Margaret Carter on this issue.
The Kennel Club is correct. The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel club is out of step with the opinions of health conscious, right minded dog lovers and they should be ashamed of their actions.