PDA

View Full Version : Resignations of key CKCS Club members/Margaret BACK as health rep!



Karlin
14th January 2009, 01:26 PM
Amazing. What does it say about the club's supposed dedication to health that not a single member cared to stand for the position Margaret was forced out of?

And that these senior people are more concerned about their petty club politics than moving forward especially as THEIR OWN MEMBERS so clearly either quietly supported Margaret (beyond the little public show of their SGM, which so backfired with the general public and likely, broader club membership) or have abdicated any interest or responsibility towards making health a club-supported issue.

Some true colours have emerged here too, I think, in this post to the club website:


RESIGNATION ANNOUNCEMENT

The Electoral Reform Society yesterday notified our Secretary that it had received only one nomination for the 2009 Committee Elections. That Nominee is Mrs Margaret Carter. There being only one nomination, a ballot of the membership will not be required and, in accordance with the Rules, Mrs Carter will rejoin the Committee at the next Annual General Meeting (AGM).

Mrs Carter will rejoin the Committee having been removed as a committee member at a recent Special General Meeting. I do not wish to continue to serve the club under such circumstances. After much consideration, and with the deepest regret, I have decided to resign the Chairmanship, with effect from the forthcoming AGM.

Our Vice Chairman, Sheena Maclaine, has also resigned for the same reason as myself, with immediate effect. She will, however, continue as Show Manager for the next Championship Show in February. Our Secretary, Annette Jones, has likewise tendered her resignation and this will take effect from the next AGM.

Lesley Jupp
14th December 2009 As the Kennel Club itself clearly stated it felt Margaret had worked hard over many years on behalf of breed health, a goal the KC supported publicly, and given that the KC indicated its own deep concerns that the CKCS Club ever held its SGM and had removed its health rep from her position... one can only imagine that some fresh energy and dedication to breed health rather than just shows will be welcomed. Margaret for Club chair!!

I am also reliably told and have seen the evidence that the breeder of Rollo (Beauella Radsinski), the dog at the centre of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, refused to answer any of the Club's letters sent to her to defend what she did in terms of breeding subsequent litters after his SM diagnosis. As a result, the issue became one of non-compliance and far more serious and had to be forwarded on to the KC itself -- which has ruled that she cannot register puppies from further litters from this dog.

Of course that means other breeders probably could....

Interesting that the breeder never felt she could simply produce his scan and vindicate herself and clear the air for her dog, especially given that she let an eminent neurologist's (Geoff Skerritt's) reputation be maligned over and over by some of her 'friends' who posted incessantly on this topic.

How these people live with themselves is beyond me.

Jan Bell
14th January 2009, 02:08 PM
:thmbsup: Good news, congratulations Margaret.

So much for all those members who voted her out - one thing to criticise, another thing to take over the job, apparently.

Would say more about the resignations etc, but I think you have said it all already Karlin!

Brian M
14th January 2009, 02:10 PM
Hi

And many congratulations Margaret ,we start moving forawrd again.:):D:)

Karlin
14th January 2009, 02:16 PM
And to show the real face that some of these prominent club committee breeders hide from the rest of the world -- this is what one prominent breeder and (get ready) HEALTH REP for one of the biggest UK regional clubs said about Beauella Radzinski and his breeder last October to other show breeders in a public post on a discussion list little read by anybody except show breeders (many of whom do not agree with such stances of course!):


He is a great representative of the breed, and a very worthy Champion, in fact
without that MRI scan nobody would ever have known he had a mild form of SM. His
breeder did the responsible thing by having her dog MRI scanned at great
cost.... she was following health guidelines to the letter,This is totally and absolutely incorrect as any breed health Rep should have known (no wonder perhaps that these people did not run for the national club health position then! How can they be so sadly underinformed when this information is widely available).

Setting aside that he definitely did not have a 'mild form of SM' as the woman who was with the breeder at the neurologist when he gave the diagnosis was one who signed a complaint to the national club about the breeder's use of the dog after a SEVERE diagnosis -- this dog, because he was affected and scanned at under age 2.5, would very clearly and unequivocally be an E grade dog (http://sm.cavaliertalk.com/breeding/breeding/breeding.html) under the neurologists breeding guidelines which clearly states for E dogs: DO NOT BREED. In addition, as he was bred repeatedly from age 9 months, way underage for the international MVD protocol, he also fell completely outside the MVD healthy heart guidelines.

So what 'letter' was the breeder following for health guidelines? A big, fat F for failing to follow any at all?

sins
14th January 2009, 02:26 PM
I'm very surprised at the resignations and even more surprised that they published their reasons for doing so.It reflects badly on club as a unit.
It's a pity that they couldn't find some way to work with Margaret, after all, part of any committee or board usually involves working with people with different opinions and often with people you can barely tolerate.
Obviously they've put a lot of hours and hard graft into the committee and could have had much more to offer.
Still, it's no harm to introduce new faces with fresh enthusiasm and perhaps some new ideas,above all solid leadership needs to emerge and quickly.
I'll be happy to see Margaret back as health rep. I love the cavalier breed and they deserve to have someone as strong and dedicated as her in their corner.
I can understand the reluctance to stand against Margaret for this position.Her successor would have had the spotlight of every canine publication and website shining mercilessly on them.(It's a bit like the minister for health:razz:)
Hopefully a number of dedicated breeders will step to up to the plate and put personal differences aside to find a consensus on the way forward.

Shelli
14th January 2009, 04:00 PM
Great News. Well done Margaret :rah:

frecklesmom
14th January 2009, 05:05 PM
Never a dull moment :). Congratulations to Margaret and positive thoughts for the uphill battle that's still present.:thmbsup:

*Pauline*
14th January 2009, 05:24 PM
Regarding Karlin quote in post #4

"He is a great representative of the breed, and a very worthy Champion, in fact
without that MRI scan nobody would ever have known he had a mild form of SM. His
breeder did the responsible thing by having her dog MRI scanned at great
cost.... she was following health guidelines to the letter,"

There is no point in MRI scanning if you don't act on what you find. For the Health Rep to come up with this tripe is shocking. There is only one thing to be gained from this and that should be a crippling bad conscience. I couldn't live with myself if I had bred from a sick dog.

I also feel sorry for Rollo. I wonder when he will get treatment for his SM....

I'll be honest, I'm rather worried for Margaret working in such a hostile environment. :flwr:

Jasperxxgabby
14th January 2009, 05:45 PM
Great news Margaret and a sigh of relief that you back on the committee :).

Cathy Moon
14th January 2009, 06:12 PM
I DO believe in Karma now! :thmbsup:

MadPip
14th January 2009, 07:02 PM
There is no point in MRI scanning if you don't act on what you find. For the Health Rep to come up with this tripe is shocking. There is only one thing to be gained from this and that should be a crippling bad conscience. I couldn't live with myself if I had bred from a sick dog.

Well said Pauline

I also feel sorry for Rollo. I wonder when he will get treatment for his SM....

Also a very good point. In amongst all the denial you have to wonder .........
I'll be honest, I'm rather worried for Margaret working in such a hostile environment. :flwr:



Maybe with the resignations the environment will be better and mean the club can move forward? :xfngr:

chloe92us
14th January 2009, 07:19 PM
Some are posting on the Dog World comments that the reinstatement of Margaret was INTENTIONAL by those who are so against what she did. I'm very confused...something about the KC having to step in now since the club can't operate without a full committee? If anyone has a clue as what may be happening, please fill us in. All I know, is I hope some more decent people step up and take the seats that were just emptied.

Jan Bell
14th January 2009, 07:31 PM
Some are posting on the Dog World comments that the reinstatement of Margaret was INTENTIONAL by those who are so against what she did.


Pretty clumsy way of achieving an objective, if you believe it. :rolleyes:

Glad these people aren't running the country.

frecklesmom
14th January 2009, 07:35 PM
What can they be hoping the KC is going to do? Talk about politics! Whether its intended or not they are grinding the Club into the ground and how sad for the CKCS. Oh, Margaret, I think this is going to be tough.

*Pauline*
14th January 2009, 07:57 PM
As it will probably be deleted, this is what I said on Dog world.

"Margaret Carter did not breed my Cavalier but when she heard about my Dylan showing signs of SM and that we were going to the RVC for an MRI, she offered to come with us. Margaret sat with me in the waiting room, she came in with me and helped talk things through with the neurologist and asked questions I would not have thought of. Margaret came the following day when we got the results and comforted me when I cried over the results. It did not end there and Margaret continues to be supportive. Might I add, I had not met Margaret before Dylan's MRI. How many people would put themselves out like this. I am not the only one she has helped in the same way. I would say she is one of the kindest people I know."

chloe92us
14th January 2009, 08:12 PM
Not sure if I can cross-post this, but here is what I'm referring to (and this poster is notorious for internet-smacking MC, Jemima, and all others involved in PDE.)

>>why didn't anyone else want to be nominated and only Margaret Carter was nominated?>> To get action Quincy. We knew Club Officers would resign if Carter was reinstated, and we also know that will force KC intervention because Clubs are not allowed to continue business without a full quorum. We're elated, although sad to see some very respected Officers leave their position, but it's worth it, you just wait and see.

Not sure what to believe...

Jan Bell
14th January 2009, 08:35 PM
Hmmm - just done a google search ..... see post by Annette on

http://www.cavalierhealth.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=217

Doesn't read like the DW post to me.

diddy
14th January 2009, 08:38 PM
Well fxxx me! Its not often i'm speechless. As of 7.30pm I read that Margaret has declined to be on the cttee:( but 'they' are awaitiing confirmation.

Margaret you have my full support either way - its all down to you now.

Diane

Jan Bell
14th January 2009, 08:40 PM
Margaret you have my full support either way - its all down to you now.


I think that we all agree on this one. She has our support whatever happens.

sins
14th January 2009, 08:42 PM
I very much doubt that it's the case.According to the resignation announcement the chair and secretary are remaining until the AGM.Only the vice chair is resigning with immediate effect but is staying on as show manager for the February show.
If the committee officers resigned as part of an intricate orchestrated plot to force the Kennel club to intervene,freeze bank accounts and remove CCs then why on earth would the vice chair be giving a committment to organise a major show???? You can't run a show with a frozen bank account or without CCs to award.
The circumstances under which the officers are resigning seems straightforward.In the absence of an alternative candidate there will be no ballot for the position of rep on the committee.Therefore Margaret returns.
Perhaps the existing officers on a "point of principle" find it impossible to work with her when they presided over her expulsion from the committee so very recently.
I hope this does not indirectly put pressure on Margaret to step back form taking up her role again.Please hold tough Margaret, you have the
respect and admiration of so many.
As for reports of the elaborate plot? nah, I don't think so.

Margaret C
15th January 2009, 12:36 AM
"We knew Club Officers would resign if Carter was reinstated, and we also know that will force KC intervention because Clubs are not allowed to continue business without a full quorum. We're elated, although sad to see some very respected Officers leave their position, but it's worth it, you just wait and see. Cav-Carer"

My answer on the Dog World site:-

"So you are elated that you have succeeded in a deliberate attempt to destroy a long standing Breed Club, even if it meant removing some well respected Officers.

While I have spent the last few months arranging a scheme to assist Research into SM & MVD, and raising money to pay for it, you have spent the time planning to call another SGM if I went back on the committee.

You are obviously proud at what you have achieved. I presume you believe what you have done is right and can be justified. In that case you will obviously have no problem with identifying yourself.

As Gordon Inglis said in an earlier comment.... "it would assist understanding and give credence to comments if those who contribute anonymously, chose to identify themselves and/or give some indication of their association with the breed"

I have reason to believe you are a member of the Club you are seeking to destroy and also an Officer in one of the regional clubs.
I am sure you are not a coward and will have no reluctance in revealing your name.

Margaret Carter


Unbelievable as it may seem, it is apparent from posts on other forums that people were actively discouraged from standing for the committee. They were told that some big names were standing & they should not split the vote.

I do not know whether the big names got scared that they would be beaten when they stood against me in a vote of the complete membership, or whether this was a deliberate move by the anti-health-testing breeders to ensure that the full membership did not have the chance of validating my return to the committee.

There was talk of another SGM being called at the AGM, I'm not sure what they thought the grounds would be.

Despite all that has happened I am, & have always been, a loyal member of the UK Cavalier Club. I have always said that Lesley Jupp is a good Club Chairman & I have regretted that she & the Vice Chairman have been put in a very difficult position.
I do not want them to resign, or for the Club to be left unable to function.

I gave the film interview because I wanted to stop people from continuing to breed puppies that would have a painful life.
Many more breeders are scanning & many more puppy buyers know they must ask for certificates. I do not regret in any way what I did.

Allowing the UK Club to fold would not be in the interest of the breed, they are now committed to helping Sarah Blott with her EBV studies, & that research, and the Gene work being done in Canada, is the only hope for the future of these lovely dogs.

I am very grateful for the support you have expressed here, and so sorry if you feel I am letting you down, but I believe I have no choice but to withdraw my nomination for the Cavalier Club committee.

Many thanks to you all.

Margaret C

Karlin
15th January 2009, 01:05 AM
I totally support you in any personal decision you make, Margaret. I am sure many others here do too. The situation is complex for you, but certainly, the public statements of several breeders in other places and the thinly-veiled "Cav-carer" (was anyone ever so ironically and inappropriately named? :lol:) have shown how petty and craven some can be. That will be very, very useful, in time. :cool:

What has been clearly shown -- and which many breeders,even those who opposed you, realise, as can be seen from their bewildered posts elsewhere -- is the actions of the club committee and some of those who posted elsewhere have launched with fireworks yet another major PR disaster that they will no doubt come to deeply regret. (hint: Girls! Maybe you should spend that £8000 on PR advice after all!!). If ever you wanted to hand evidence that breed health means little to you and is not a priority for the club to media, pet owners, caring breeders -- boy, oh, boy, you just achieved that massive own goal, big time.

Cathy Moon
15th January 2009, 01:14 AM
I support your decision.

There appears to be a small group of UK cavalier breeders who are absolutely diabolical.

Pat
15th January 2009, 02:02 AM
Please enlighten the Americans on the club structure as I cannot figure it out from the club website.

Is the "committee" similar to the CKCSC USA Board of Directors? How many members, what is the length of term, how is rotation handled, etc. Are the Chairman and Vice-Chair equivalent to the President and Vice President? What is the function of the UK Club President and how does this position differ from the Chairman? (BTW, someone needs to correct the spelling of Lady Mary Forwood on the club site as she is listed as Lady "Forward" under past presidents.) Is the Electoral Reform Society equivalent to a nominating committee?

For instance, the CKCSC USA has four officers and a Board of Directors. Directors rotate off in different years to keep some continuity, and there are directors named by the four regional clubs. There are various club committees (membership, health, ethics, by-laws, etc) made up of Board members, officers, and regular club members who are currently not holding office. It is the job of the nominating committee to come up with a slate of candidates for the various positions as they become vacant, but members at large may also run if they are properly nominated and seconded by the membership. If nominated persons are unopposed, there is obviously no election.

So - does this mean that there was a vacancy on the committee (same as US Board) because of Margaret's expulsion, but that NO other member agreed to run for the vacant spot except for Margaret despite the ERS (i.e. nominating committee) actively approaching and seeking members to run? That seems odd to me that no other active breeding/showing members would be interested in the vacant spot.

Pat Beman
Atlanta, GA

sins
15th January 2009, 02:14 AM
Margaret,
Your decision was responsible,pragmatic and honourable.There will be no recriminations in this section of cyberspace:).

If one of us here admitted to having a strategy to get action by forcing the resignation of an elected club committee,in order to prevent the club from operating,by having the KC intervene, having bank accounts frozen and CCs withdrawn, thereby preventing the running of an upcoming championship show.

Q:....What would we be called?
A:....Animal Rights activists

frecklesmom
15th January 2009, 02:23 AM
Margaret, you're not letting anyone down-far from it. It seems to me that, as before, you remain above the chaos and continue your CKCS health endeavors with wisdom and serenity.:thmbsup:

Jan Bell
15th January 2009, 08:07 AM
Margaret, you're not letting anyone down-far from it. It seems to me that, as before, you remain above the chaos and continue your CKCS health endeavors with wisdom and serenity.:thmbsup:

I agree. The way certain members of the CKCS Club have behaved shows a lack of sense and balance, not to mention dignity, and they are the ones that are bringing the club into disrepute.

We are all with you Margaret.

diddy
15th January 2009, 10:21 AM
I am very grateful for the support you have expressed here, and so sorry if you feel I am letting you down.

Margaret Im sure no-one here feels you have let us down, dunno where you got that idea from:confused: You have acted, as usual, in a calm,dignified manner and with the best interests of the breed at heart. (which is more than can be said for the personalities involved in the Club, whom have once again in the full glare of publicity scored a massive own goal, which has only served to grind the club even further into the quagmire.)

You have our full support as ever.

Best wishes

Margaret C
15th January 2009, 05:50 PM
Please enlighten the Americans on the club structure as I cannot figure it out from the club website.

Is the "committee" similar to the CKCSC USA Board of Directors? How many members, what is the length of term, how is rotation handled, etc. Are the Chairman and Vice-Chair equivalent to the President and Vice President? What is the function of the UK Club President and how does this position differ from the Chairman? (BTW, someone needs to correct the spelling of Lady Mary Forwood on the club site as she is listed as Lady "Forward" under past presidents.) Is the Electoral Reform Society equivalent to a nominating committee?

For instance, the CKCSC USA has four officers and a Board of Directors. Directors rotate off in different years to keep some continuity, and there are directors named by the four regional clubs. There are various club committees (membership, health, ethics, by-laws, etc) made up of Board members, officers, and regular club members who are currently not holding office. It is the job of the nominating committee to come up with a slate of candidates for the various positions as they become vacant, but members at large may also run if they are properly nominated and seconded by the membership. If nominated persons are unopposed, there is obviously no election.

So - does this mean that there was a vacancy on the committee (same as US Board) because of Margaret's expulsion, but that NO other member agreed to run for the vacant spot except for Margaret despite the ERS (i.e. nominating committee) actively approaching and seeking members to run? That seems odd to me that no other active breeding/showing members would be interested in the vacant spot.

Pat Beman
Atlanta, GA

The Electoral Reform Society is an independent body that manages all aspects of voting procedures for any organisation that pays for the service.

The Cavalier Club elected Committee usually consists of Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, and eleven other members. The Secretary is not elected and has no vote.
The President is more an honorary role for 'Elder Statesmen' as it were.

The individual positions ( Health representative, Cup Steward, etc ) and sub committees are decided within the main committee.

Members are elected for a three year term and can only serve two terms consecutively before taking at least a one year break.

This is a rotating system, two or three members either stand for re-election or take at least 12 months off the committee every year.

I was due to re-stand this year, but was removed at the SGM, and another member decided not to stand again on completion of her three years. There were therefore two vacancies.

We do not have a nominations committee although committee members are free to encourage other club members to stand if they wish.

There were 200 exhibitors/breeders who voted me off at the SGM.
Not one of them were willing to stand against me when it came to a national vote, when over 1,000 Club members would have decided whether I should be re-elected or not.

Margaret C

Karlin
15th January 2009, 10:25 PM
There were 200 exhibitors/breeders who voted me off at the SGM.
Not one of them were willing to stand against me when it came to a national vote, when over 1,000 Club members would have decided whether I should be re-elected or not.

And as the ludicrous posts you have quoted clearly indicate, there was a plan to keep Margaret's standing for the position from coming to a vote.

Gee, were the Committee so scared of the possible outcome that they would not let the full club membership have their say? I guess it was all not so easy as an SGM, held in an inconvenient location where they bussed people in and even posted (incorrectly!) that members abroad could fly in for the SGM? (then of course, to much outside ridicule, had to pull that 'announcement' that even those with the briefest knowledge of club rules knew from the start was incorrect... :sl*p:).

Meanwhile Beverly Costello, the breeder at the heart of Pedigree Dogs Exposed who bred the dog that won at Malvern and who was told never to breed from him, who announced her departure from the breeding and show world, AND who refused to reply to letters from the Committee on complaints against her, is not just back showing but will be JUDGING and a name not too unknown to us all is busy contacting and encouraging breeders to put forward their dogs to go under her so she has LOOOOOTS of 'public support'. :yuk: A roll call of shame, more like it -- let's be sure to get a list from the show and name and shame ALL the breeders who put forward dogs under that woman. The CKCS Club sure has an amazing judges Hall of Fame, which includes the club member/puppy farmer convicted of animal cruelty for keeping and breeding dozens and dozens of cavaliers in appalling conditions... brought back into the fold just recently to judge a show again!

Sheesh, going on just the public evidence I guess the ONLY thing that the Club actually find appalling is for someone to be a longtime breed health advocate. :rolleyes:

Aileen
15th January 2009, 11:14 PM
good on you Margaret for putting the club first not like some people have
I cannot believe that the owenr of the dog at the show is now a Judge of Cavaliers :sl*p:
I thought that it was bad that the person who breed my first cavalier was a show judge but should not really be surpised that this has happened
Aileen and the gang (Barney--Jazzie---Jake)

Margaret C
16th January 2009, 12:32 AM
Meanwhile Beverly Costello, the breeder at the heart of Pedigree Dogs Exposed who bred the dog that won at Malvern and who was told never to breed from him, who announced her departure from the breeding and show world, AND who refused to reply to letters from the Committee on complaints against her, is not just back showing but will be JUDGING and a name not too unknown to us all is busy contacting and encouraging breeders to put forward their dogs to go under her so she has LOOOOOTS of 'public support'. :yuk: A roll call of shame, more like it --

Thank you for the support Karlin, but I'm afraid I must say I would not like people to be named and shamed for attending a dog show, whoever the Judge may be.
I suppose I think it should be a matter for their own concience

It is true that, after five months, I have had a letter from the Cavalier Club in connection with the joint Code of Ethics complaint I put in with the breeder who was there at the time that Ch. Beauella Radzinski was scanned.

I will paraphrase a little as my fingers are aching with all this typing, but I am willing to send a copy to anyone who is interested in the full text.

The letter informed me that the Kennel Club had been separately investigating the complaint against Beverley Costello.
They asked her for some form of explanation in respect of Rolo's ( Radzinski) diagnosis & the advice she had received concerning his use at stud.

She did not reply, so the KC advised they were entitled to treat Miss Costello as a reluctant correspondent and, as a consequence it is not currently accepting her registration applications.
They told the Club that neither the KC or the Club were able to take formal disciplinary proceedings without robust & satisfactory evidence upon which a disciplinary sub-committee could properly rely to impose penalties.

The cavalier Club had also written to Ms Costello three times but received no response.
The letter is signed by the Club Chairman.

This certainly does not say much in the argument that dog breeders can be self-regulating............
Just don't answer letters and a breed Club cannot do a thing ( unless you run to the expense of organising a Special General Meeting )
The Kennel Club is almost as toothless.

This dog has two litters registered in the last Breed Record Supplement. He was still being used at stud long after the film interview.

Please note it does not seem to be his puppies that will not be registered ( so he can still be used at stud ) it is only that Beauella litters, bred by his owner, will not currently be accepted.

As the results of the Code of Ethics complaint at the SGM and many other prejudicial statements have been put up on the Cavalier Club website I have asked, in common fairness, that this Code of Ethics ruling be similarly publicised.
So far I have had no answer.

Margaret C

*Pauline*
16th January 2009, 12:36 AM
Please note it does not seem to be his puppies that will not be registered ( so he can still be used at stud ) it is only that Beauella litters, bred by his owner, will not currently be accepted.

Oh my goodness. This must be an oversight by the KC. It makes me sick. Words fail me. I hope they change this and fast.

Pat
16th January 2009, 02:14 AM
Oh my goodness. This must be an oversight by the KC. It makes me sick. Words fail me. I hope they change this and fast.

Actually, having some experience in the way clubs work (having served on Board of Directors and on the Ethics Committee of CKCSC, USA) this is no surprise at all.

They are penalizing the breeder in question for failing to respond to the code of ethics complaints and related correspondence, so the only penalty that they can give is to refuse to register her litters. This has nothing to do with whether or not the stud dog should be used to sire litters due to health status. Since they haven't had a response from the breeder and therefore can't weigh the evidence as to whether or not the dog in question should be used at stud, they can't yet penalize other breeders who use this dog by refusing to register their litters.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about whether offspring of this dog should be allowed to be registered - but hopefully helping to illustrate how code of ethics complaints go through the "process."

And, since kennel clubs (in UK and America) have no restrictions in place at this time about health clearances required in order for litters to be eligible for registration, there would be no basis for not allowing these offspring to be registered unless changes were made in kennel club rules about registration eligibility.

And Margaret - thanks very much for explaining the workings of the UK Cavalier club - that helps me to understand what is going on as I read all of the dialogue on various sites. The only thing I can compare this to in the US is the big split in 1993 over AKC recognition of the breed. I sat on the BOD during that time, and I thought that was a very difficult situation with incredibly bitter feelings on both sides, but I must say that the current UK situation surpasses that event, perhaps because we didn't have the widespread internet usage in '93.

Pat Beman
Atlanta, GA

RodRussell
16th January 2009, 03:08 AM
I have had some experience with an ethics complaint filed with the CKCSC,USA back in the late 1990s against a member-breeder who admitted in a hand-signed letter that she had bred her CKCSC,USA-registered bitch with an AKC-only male and produced a litter which, of course, she did not register with the CKCSC,USA.

The ethics complaint against the breeder was filed with the CKCSC,USA and was approved by the ethics committee and presented to the board of directors of the club for action. The board decided to reject the ethics committee's finding of a violation (actually a few violations), despite the fact that the breeder openly admitted the violation in her signed letter.

The board's reason was unstated but obvious: the board was so contempuous of the person who filed the complaint that it would rather excuse the breeder than enforce the ethical code against her.

So, there could be any of a number of reasons -- few of the justified -- for why a club may choose to not enforce its code of ethics.

*Pauline*
16th January 2009, 10:03 AM
Thanks for explaining that Pat and Rod. I am trying to get to grips with the politics.

It seems strange to me that in this day and age things are not more black and white. Maybe it's my simplistic way of thinking, I don't do "grey", I'm far too opinionated.

Risking the possibility of producing SM dogs, and in an SM sire's case, that is probable, I see it in no other terms than animal cruelty. Some authority must have a rule about that? Or maybe there no rules to prevent cruelty before it happens.

diddy
16th January 2009, 12:23 PM
Maybe it's my simplistic way of thinking, I don't do "grey", I'm far too opinionated.

Hmm me too. Ones own concience usually sorts good from bad, right from wrong and black from white. I dont do "grey", and I really have trouble understanding and accepting "grey" decisions. (must be a personality flaw or something):eek:

OOps:o just re-read my post. Pauline I'm soooooo sorry. Didnt mean to imply you had a personality flaw, I was talking only about myself.:o:oPls accept apols.

jasperpaw
16th January 2009, 12:39 PM
When watching the programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed we could not get over the attitude of the breeder it really stuck in my mind and to carry on breeding and be a judge is unbelieveable.

*Pauline*
16th January 2009, 01:03 PM
OOps:o just re-read my post. Pauline I'm soooooo sorry. Didnt mean to imply you had a personality flaw, I was talking only about myself.:o:oPls accept apols.

I'm not offended, don't worry. We all have our flaws alright but knowing right from wrong isn't one of them.

merlinsmum
16th January 2009, 02:07 PM
Margaret,
Your decision was responsible,pragmatic and honourable.There will be no recriminations in this section of cyberspace:).



Here here! ( i think thats what you say when you agree:))

wotton12000
16th January 2009, 03:19 PM
Hello Pauline

When a painful and hereditary health condition is widespread in a breed and there is a way of lowering the risk of this by health screening, it is an animal cruelty issue if screening is ignored.

There is nothing in our Animal Welfare legislation or in the current self regulatory system of pedigree dog breeding to prevent this cruelty from happening. It was this discovery that led me to take the action that I did, in contacting my MP and the Companion Animal Welfare Council.

None of the measures taken by the KC so far, since PDE, really changes this. Also, the debacle within the UK Cavalier Club committee is a further demonstration that prorities do not seem to lie with guardianship of the breed and care about the dogs.

I for one will not be giving up until there is some real protection for pedigree dogs from this kind of cruelty and irresponsibility.

Carol

*Pauline*
16th January 2009, 03:52 PM
Hi Carol. Do your MP and the Companion Animal Welfare Council offer any hope for change?

EddyAnne
16th January 2009, 04:30 PM
Talking about Animal Welfare Legislation here is something interesting that has already come into effect as State Law in the State of Victoria Australia. It’s a start where in time more heritable defects might be added to the list, and being State Law it could apply to any dog or cat in the State.

See via this link and in relation to the Penalty Units it’s $6,840 for an individual and $34,200 for a body corporate, but note persons found guilty it’s not just involving money but a criminal conviction is imposed by the court.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/vic/consol_act/poctaa1986360/s15c.html

Here is the Table that goes with the above where in time more might be added.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/poctaa1986360/sch1.html
.

Daisy's Mom
16th January 2009, 04:33 PM
Reading the last couple of pages of this thread has literally made me feel kind of sick. When I read here at the height of the PDE storm several months ago that Beverly Costello had said she would never breed/show Cavaliers again, I was relieved and I even had a little more respect for her for at least being ashamed of her actions in breeding that dog. Apparently when the band of unethical Club supporters surrounded her, they have now convinced her that she did nothing wrong, so she is now not only breeding THAT DOG again, but she is even going to judge?!! That is truly sickening.

Such a huge amount of pain and suffering caused among these beautiful, gentle little dogs and their owners by such awful, egotistical, immoral people. If no one buys their dogs, would they be forced to quit breeding, or are they all independently wealthy enough to continue breeding and showing without the supplemental income they get from puppies? I don't know the show world much, but from what I see of it, it's not something I would EVER want to become involved in. I would MUCH rather buy from a non-show breeder who focuses on health -- does such a breeder exist out there?

sins
16th January 2009, 05:09 PM
I would MUCH rather buy from a non-show breeder who focuses on health -- does such a breeder exist out there?
I don't believe so!
Not all show breeders should be tarred with the same brush.There are increasing numbers out there who are prepared to screen for genetic disorders.They deserve the support of the pet buying public.
Non show breeders would be less likely to have healthy pups, the breeding stock would be from questionable origins,have zero health testing done and your pups can only be as healthy as the stock from which they're bred.Even if they scanned and screened they would still originate from sub standard dogs.
As for the behaviour of the elated members of the CKCS Club,who are willing to see elected club officers,fellow members,Mrs Carter and the reputation of the breed club become collateral damage in their efforts to further their own aims - well, if they consider this ethical behaviour towards their fellow members, I have little faith in their ability to deal ethically with the health issues in the breed.

Barbara
16th January 2009, 06:20 PM
I don't believe so!
Not all show breeders should be tarred with the same brush.There are increasing numbers out there who are prepared to screen for genetic disorders.They deserve the support of the pet buying public.
Non show breeders would be less likely to have healthy pups, the breeding stock would be from questionable origins,have zero health testing done and your pups can only be as healthy as the stock from which they're bred.Even if they scanned and screened they would still originate from sub standard dogs.
As for the behaviour of the elated members of the CKCS Club,who are willing to see elected club officers,fellow members,Mrs Carter and the reputation of the breed club become collateral damage in their efforts to further their own aims - well, if they consider this ethical behaviour towards their fellow members, I have little faith in their ability to deal ethically with the health issues in the breed.
I totally agree with everything you have said here. This has become a pesonal vendetta and they were willing to sacrifice the Club and put the research in jeapordy to get their own way. I am totally disgusted and I feel whoever was involved in this should be asked to resign their memberahip of the Club. How can members now have any faith or trust in a club that allows this to go on. Were they so afraid that they couldn't win a vote by fair means. Not all of Margarets supporters could get to the SGM but we could all most certainly have voted.
Margaret you have proved your loyalty to this club by standing down and have shown more integrity than the lot of them put together. This whole debacle is a total disgrace.

Daisy's Mom
16th January 2009, 07:45 PM
I would MUCH rather buy from a non-show breeder who focuses on health -- does such a breeder exist out there?

I understand that this person may exist only in my imagination, but I was only expressing a wish that buying a healthy puppy didn't require buying from a show breeder, when what so many of them think about are looks, looks, looks above all else since that's what they are rewarded for in the show ring by very definition. Given the way things are designed, the result is that an unhealthy dog that looks great gets rewarded over and over, and is bred extensively, while the healthy dog that maybe has a little bit more domed head, or a little bigger head, is immediately relegated to "restricted registration" and cannot be bred, ever. That just seems so irrational to me.

I know there are some wonderful, ethical breeders out there who do all the tests available, but I think they are rare, incredibly expensive, and very hard to find. You and I and most people on this board might be willing to go to the time, effort, and expense to find these people, but it leaves the average puppy buyer pretty much out of luck and drives them straight to the puppy mill dogs. I know this has been discussed to death, but I would wish for a world where it was health first, looks second, and I just don't see that happening in the dog show world as we know it.

Karlin
16th January 2009, 07:56 PM
There are many ethical, health focused breeders. There are very (at most a tiny handful!) few non-show breeders who do anything remotely close to the effort put into breeding properly for health AND conformation that a dedicated show breeder will put in. The only ones I know of are former show breeders who do not now actively show, for a range of reasons. Non show breeders start with poor quality dogs in most cases because reputable, health focused breeders would never even consider selling such people breeding dogs.

Please do not even consider looking for a puppy, ever, from a non show breeder on the mistaken assumption that such people will focus more on health! The exact opposite is generally the case but many will advertise to imply they 'do tests' and focus on health.

I have posted guidelines for finding a puppy from a reputable, health focused breeder in the Library. This, as with anything worthwhile in life, takes time and dedication. If anyone can find a nonshow breeder who can produce the documentation I recommend then go ahead and consider them for a puppy. But I wouldn't count on it.

Better to opt for a rescue cavalier if finding a good breeder seems impossible. :) They always need caring homes. :thmbsup:

Sabby
16th January 2009, 10:11 PM
Just to say that all three of my dogs are from a Non –Show Breeder, and she does belong to the CKCS Club and does all the testing. Rosies & Harleys mum is 7 years old and is still clear of MVD, also Ebony’s mum is 5 ½ years old and clear of MVD, there Fathers are all show dogs. She cares passionately about the health of her dogs. We have become friends and any problems I can ring her day or night. She took me along to the Malvern Show (she was having her dogs tested there) for me to see first hand why she is not interested in showing. I am glad she did take me along, but I must say I wanted to go home after one hour. There I witnessed first hand a conversation she was having with someone who shows there dogs, is a breeder and also is a judge. This person was telling her that the dog they were showing there had been diagnosed with a heart murmur and they went on to say that they still would use it as a stud dog. Well I could have dropped dead.
Suppose I am lucky she is only interested in the dog’s health as when I bought my first Cavalier I didn’t have a clue about all the health issues. It was actually the breeder who made me aware of all the health issues cavaliers can have. Unfortunately at that time she didn’t know much about SM, but she will scan if she has any more litters.

merlinsmum
17th January 2009, 10:55 AM
Just to say that all three of my dogs are from a Non –Show Breeder, and she does belong to the CKCS Club and does all the testing. Rosies & Harleys mum is 7 years old and is still clear of MVD, also Ebony’s mum is 5 ½ years old and clear of MVD, there Fathers are all show dogs. She cares passionately about the health of her dogs. We have become friends and any problems I can ring her day or night. She took me along to the Malvern Show (she was having her dogs tested there) for me to see first hand why she is not interested in showing. I am glad she did take me along, but I must say I wanted to go home after one hour. There I witnessed first hand a conversation she was having with someone who shows there dogs, is a breeder and also is a judge. This person was telling her that the dog they were showing there had been diagnosed with a heart murmur and they went on to say that they still would use it as a stud dog. Well I could have dropped dead.
Suppose I am lucky she is only interested in the dog’s health as when I bought my first Cavalier I didn’t have a clue about all the health issues. It was actually the breeder who made me aware of all the health issues cavaliers can have. Unfortunately at that time she didn’t know much about SM, but she will scan if she has any more litters.

Sabby, your breeder sounds very much like my breeder ( I am actually wondering if they are the same - will pm you about that...)

I was going to show my two but hearing the bitchiness and backstabbing that goes on in showing I thought better of it. It also seems like showing is more about the face at the handle end of the lead and NOT whats on the "doggie" end of the lead.

Jan Bell
17th January 2009, 12:44 PM
Just to say that all three of my dogs are from a Non –Show Breeder, and she does belong to the CKCS Club and does all the testing


I got Toby from a lady who I used to do agility with 12 years ago who was a member of the CKCS Club but did not show her dogs. She was an occassional breeder who had a litter when she wanted another dog herself, or had a few people she knew wanted a puppy, but was very careful about who she mated her dogs with (and who she let have one of her puppies).

She did all the heart testing on her own dogs and made sure the sire was also heart cleared: I don't know whether this was because she did agility with her Cavaliers and therefore wanted a healthy a dog a possible. I did agility with Toby when he was young; he developed a mild heart mumur at 8 years old. Toby now has a grade 2/3 heart mumur now, but remains relatively healthy and does not need medication at present.

By the time I got Rufus she had moved from this area on retirement, so I went via the Kennel Club list. Rufus' breeder did show, and had heart certificates, but I didn't know that SM was a problem so I never asked about that. She did only breed from older sires though, and didn't used young dogs as she said she prefered to use an older sire that she knew to be healthy, rather than a young dog that could develop problems later.

Returning to the current issues with the CKCS Club Committee, I am now quite confused about what is going on and who is saying what (been reading too many posts I think), but no doubt time will tell.

wotton12000
17th January 2009, 04:59 PM
Hi Pauline

A belated answer to your question about whether you think my MP or the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) can change things.

I think no single person or organisation can bring about a change in a system that has been in operation for so long. But clearly that system has catastrophically failed pedigree dogs because it is unregulated.

PDE has made the public aware of these failings and public awareness is one of the most important vehicles for change. Puppy buyers and pet owners now understand the issues more and will hopefully do their research before choosing a dog breed or a particular breeder. They will know what questions to ask and what health certificates need to be produced. Hopefully they will walk away from a breeder who does not fulfill those requirements.

CAWC was aware of the problems in pedigree dog breeding and published their Report on Breeding and Welfare in 2006. DEFRA were also aware of the problems and have been having discussions with the KC since around 2006. The KC launched its Accredited Breeders Scheme in 2005, but no-one is fooled by that, are they? CAWC also produced a Report in 2008, 'Tackling Genetic Welfare Problems', where Syringomyelia in CKCS was used as an example. Out of that will come an official MRI scheme and hopefully an offiicial scheme (as opposed to the current breed club scheme) for heart testing.

Now we have the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW)'s working group to look at pedigree dog breeding. They are currently calling for evidence and will produce their Report which will go to Government (they recently did something similar on the welfare of Greyhounds). Last week the Chairman of the Dogs Trust/Kennel Club Review was announced (Prof. Pat Bateson) and they will conduct their own 'call for evidence' and produce a Report. There is a possibility also of a DEFRA Select Committee on Pedigree Dog Breeding (note 'possibilty', it's not certain that this will take place). On return from the Christmas recess, my MP lodged a House of Commons Early Day Motion (EDM) to the effect that measures so far taken by the KC do not go far enough. And maybe, best of all there will be a PDE follow-up documentary which I hope will show what measures have been taken so far and how successful they have been. It will keep the issue in the public eye.

So, I think that with all these things happening, we should expect some fundamental change in pedigree dog breeding. Of course there will still be bad breeders and uncaring or incompetent breed clubs. Then it will be down to us to find the good ones and always ask for proof of health testing. There are already some wonderful Cavalier breeders who do their utmost to produce healthy puppies and are honest with pet owners. Somehow I have a feeling that their numbers will grow and that Cavaliers will become the healthy and 'sporty' little Spaniels they are meant to be.

Carol

RodRussell
17th January 2009, 10:37 PM
Please do not even consider looking for a puppy, ever, from a non show breeder on the mistaken assumption that such people will focus more on health! The exact opposite is generally the case but many will advertise to imply they 'do tests' and focus on health.

Ditto. I totally agree. Finding a health-conscious non-show breeder is far less likely than finding a show breeder with the same emphasis on health. I would not waste my time looking for such a non-show breeder.

There are suggestions on how to find health-conscious breeders in the US on the www.cavalierhealth.org website at http://www.cavalierhealth.org/breeders.htm#HOW_TO_FIND Those tips will work for you, but you need to take the initiative and also be patient. Such breeders' puppies often are less frequent and in high demand.

*Pauline*
18th January 2009, 11:09 AM
Hi Pauline

A belated answer to your question about whether you think my MP or the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) can change things.

Carol

Thanks for filling me in. I had no idea all this was going on, it's great. :thmbsup:

wotton12000
18th January 2009, 03:05 PM
Hi Pauline

Forgot to mention the RSPCA Scientific Review as well, due to be published some time this Spring.

Carol