PDA

View Full Version : Cavalier club in turmoil



HollyDolly
22nd January 2009, 08:34 PM
Have just read the news section in this week's Dog World.


http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedsNews.aspx?nodeID=264


Nanette

*Pauline*
22nd January 2009, 10:17 PM
Interesting reading Nanette. Some good replies too.

Karlin
23rd January 2009, 01:18 PM
You could use the UK CKCS Club as a textbook study in how to execute a PR disaster. :rolleyes:

The notion too that you can resign then un-resign -- what an interesting sort of making up the rules as you go along! Generally in the Real World, where normal people do normal things, and rules actually mean rules you run your club by, not 'whatever suits us this week as an interpretation', if you have formally resigned (and especially, made a big fat hoo-hah about it with a public announcement on your club website), you need to actually go forward and stand again, not un-resign your resignation. Unless the whole thing was a big fake-out because members are not beneath manipulating the larger club membership in this ridiculous way (see first point...).

Really, if this club doesn't want to continue as a public laughing-stock, they really do need people to stand again for those roles, not skulk back in. But I suspect they fear some might not be re-elected.

And after all this is the club that has now put forward Pedigree Dogs Exposed 'star' Beverly Costello to judge two shows; yes, that is right, the same woman who is now BANNED from registering puppies under her own Beauella affix by the Kennel Club in the UK for refusing to respond to complaints that in violation of CKCS Club ethics rules (those pesky, pesky rules apparently freely open to Club interpretation, remember!) she knowingly bred a dog that has SM and which she was told by a neurologist not to breed, ever.

sins
23rd January 2009, 01:40 PM
this is the club that has now put forward Pedigree Dogs Exposed 'star' Beverly Costello to judge two shows;

Really? Why don't they get her to stand as Club health rep while they're at it?:-?:huh:

frecklesmom
23rd January 2009, 02:43 PM
Good one, Sins! It's the old "don't do as I do,do as I say" and the rules, for some, have a lot of:wggle: room.

frecklesmom
23rd January 2009, 03:19 PM
Found this good reading on the "infamous" Terrierman site today

No Tolerance for Diversity is the heading


http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/

HollyDolly
23rd January 2009, 06:49 PM
Margaret I know has done the only good thing in all of this by not accepting the nomination because SHE has the Breed welfare at heart and is not interested in the politics as these officers clearly are.
I am just worried that health issues will not be tackled effeciently without Margaret on the committee, and I certainly agree that this club is in turmoil but it has been all their own doing.

Nanette

Rj Mac
23rd January 2009, 07:34 PM
The vitriol, and venom that some of the posters use on DW, never ceases to amaze me, with some of these people it's always a b****y blame game, and they claim to be interested in the breed....when all they really want is to appear controversial, there is 1 poster in particular, who really winds me up, I have complained numerous times to DW, and the fact that this person is still alowed to spout there aggressive nonsence is a disgrace....they claim to be Scottish......and if it's true.....well it makes me ashamed to be scottish!!!!!!!

I can never understand when there are people such as Margeret and others, who only want what is best for the breed, and for things to progress........

Yet they can't progress as.....there are some incredibly small minded people trying to hinder them at every turn.

R.

Karlin
23rd January 2009, 08:03 PM
And they are spreading ridiculous rumours as well that some key club members know is not the case and make no attempt to correct.

Meanwhile the UK Club is actually trying to get money donated from other international clubs to fund their £8000 PR agency!! :lol:

From the latest Canadian Club newsletter. No surprise who sent out the letter and the begging bowl!


Mavis Holub and Norma Moffat read a letter from Veronica Hull, Telvara Cavaliers UK, asking for international help. The Cavalier Club in the UK is working on hiring a PR firm at the cost of 8,000 pounds, to help combat the negative publicity our breed has taken from the video, Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Discussion followed. Mavis Holub made a motion to recommend to the board, to send 150. Pounds to the UK to help with the cost of the PR, seconded by Norma Moffat. All in favor. A notice will be sent to the board members asking for their approval. One of the suggestions was to hold an on line auction to help raise funds after our initial donation.

:sl*p:

Cathy Moon
23rd January 2009, 10:56 PM
Oh my! Just gotta love the little group (a subset of the CKCS club) who have created much, much more negative publicity for themselves than either PDE or anyone besides themselves ever could.

The near total lack of self awareness of this group is so astounding to me! :sl*p: How many times have they accused others of breed and breeder bashing, destroying the breed, etc. - for the simple fact that many others believe that health testing and following research-based protocols is the way to improve CKCS breed health.

None of the group has come to the realization that they, their own little group, is who the criticism is aimed at. Not the *breed*, not *all breeders*, but specifically the very breeders who would rather cover up their mistakes than 'fess up and start doing the right thing! :sl*p:

The behavior of these folks is sooooo abnormal - I daresay they couldn't get away with it in any other situation except as the 'leaders' of such a dysfunctional club. This is how spoiled, manipulative children behave - not mature, honorable adults. :sl*p:

*Pauline*
24th January 2009, 12:24 AM
One of the suggestions was to hold an on line auction to help raise funds after our initial donation.


Oh and I wonder where they got that idea from. :rolleyes:

Jan Bell
25th January 2009, 09:18 AM
And after all this is the club that has now put forward Pedigree Dogs Exposed 'star' Beverly Costello to judge two shows


The post below on DW, by the anonymous "Cavlady" which I post in the interest of fairness and as I would like to know more about how judges are selected.



I notice on Karlin Lillington's CavalierTalk website she has wrongly accused the Cavalier Club of asking Beverley Costello to judge two Open Shows. As you will know this has nothing to do with the CKCS Club.


I admit to knowing nothing of the showing/judging world, so I am not sure if she means that BC isn't being considered as a judge, or that she is, but the CKCS Club has nothing to do with it. Could somebody enlighten me as to how judges are selected? I had assumed that the CKCS Club were responsible for this, but perhaps I am wrong.

I confess that after reading some time ago that a lady who had been prosecuted by the RSPCA was now a judge I haven't had much faith in the system, whatever it is.

Karlin
25th January 2009, 11:35 AM
Cavlady is Sandra Ireland Cooke.

The club and some very prominent members have made it clear that they fully and openly support Beverly Costello even though she has had the most severe sanction available placed on her now by the Kennel Club itself -- removing her ability to register puppies under her affix, meaning Beauella is dust. That is a very severe restriction on a breeder -- their de facto elimination as a show kennel, reducing them down to being a breeding and stud service to other breeders (in this case, with guess what dog used at stud...). I am quite aware too of the background encouragement being given by some very prominent club members to push breeders to put dogs forward under Beverly so that she will not be seen as the disgraced figure she is at least in the Kennel Club's eyes through the above sanctions. These private comments, emails and their own posts to lists they think are, er, private (hi, ladies! have you noted yet the huge silent majority on your lists? Do you think they are all in silent agreement? Are you sure you really know who everyone is? :lol:) make this quite clear.

A shame on individual clubs and members, and shame to the national club's own continuing complicity, in supporting Beverly Costello in numerous ways. To suggest the national club has not done so is utterly two-faced and ridiculous. For example as of yet not a SINGLE announcement about the KC decision against Beverly Costello, which is the end result of a formal ethics complaint made to the national club, has been made on the national club website, much less in great big letters on the front page, even though the KC's actions tacitly support Margaret Carter and highlight that Beverly Costello is unwilling to even take the basic step one would assume any reputable breeder would be eager to do -- of being honest and open with the inquiry, and sharing the disputed scans and responding to her own club's and the KC's requests.

Yet the club in its childish pettiness posts every negative, insulting detail they can on their website front page about Margaret (I am sure the PR firm will tell them this is one of the FIRST things they need to stop doing! :rolleyes:).

Meanwhile Beauella Radzinski has been used at stud even AFTER the PDE revelations and Costello has been asked to judge at shows that the national club has insisted focus just as much on the inner health of the dogs as the outer appearance.

And they expect anyone to believe their line on health issues generally?

I feel so sorry for the many committed health focused breeders doing their best to learn more and support research and know as much as they can about their own dogs. These are the folks who show up and support health initiatives such as the talks by Sarah Blott, scan and submit information for the genome and EBV work. And their actions are constantly undercut and devalued by the public face of the national club and many of the individual regional clubs by the actions of many of their more prominent members. It must be utterly exasperating for the people actually doing something constructive.

I wonder how many of those people feel £8000 is needed for PR rather than say, helping breeders fund scans? Especially as some of the big name breeders saying they won't scan or discouraging others from scanning harp on in nearly every post to a list or board about the cost burden for breeders? £8000 would enable 80 cavaliers to be scanned for free, for example. Or 160 to be scanned for just £50 each. Imagine how fantastic that would be in support of Sarah Blott's work, as she needs those scans badly! Think of the difference for the EBVs!

Daisy's Mom
25th January 2009, 03:07 PM
Anyone who would knowingly use Beauella at stud now is just as bad as his breeder is for continuing to offer him at stud. The stupidity and/or evil intentions of these people are just appalling. I am truly disgusted. This is why I am less and less enamored of dog shows in general. This is the type of behaviors they incentivize. Yes, we know that many of these dogs will suffer in pain for much of their shortened lives, and their owners will have the emotional and financial burden of dealing with the issues, but hey, a few of them will LOOK good enough on the outside to earn some ribbons, so it's all worth it, right?

It truly is sickening and something has to change. I know personally that I will never watch a dog show again without thinking of these people and their actions. In fact, I may never attend/watch a dog show again, period. It's all so much vanity, at least as it stands now, with everything about looks and nothing about health. And it's definitely not the dogs' vanity I'm talking about....

rosiesmum
25th January 2009, 03:42 PM
I see Qunicy's comment on Dog World on the meaning of a 'Loose Cannon' has been deleted - I wonder why? Perhaps the loose cannon herself didn't realise what it acutally meant and felt a little bit embarrassed? The admission of being a loose cannon is on comment 76.

If you are out there Quincy, perhaps you might like to repost it again on Dog World for those that didn't see it, and keep reposting it every time it is deleted. Sorry if I sound a bit childish, but that woman (the loose cannon) is really, really annoying and needs to be brought down a peg or three!

Karlin
25th January 2009, 03:44 PM
Given the various serious health issues facing the breed, and the ethical implications of decisions made so far, one thing is certain. The decent breeders, and there are many, urgently need and deserve a national club that can show some true leadership rather than putting a minority of clique-ish breeders and personalities before the breed they are supposed to preserve, honour and protect. Those club members deserve a club that can look hard at its own problems and address them("a club in turmoil" as Dog World so rightly says, and slowly self-destructing in public), that can rise above petty bickering; stop allowing a small group of prominent bullies to manipulate the broader, more important agendas; set up an equitable, transparent election system that doesn't let that little bully coterie pressure members out of contesting committee positions; and which stops blaming their misfortunes on what some silly women continue to believe is a small radical group of animal rights proponents. :rolleyes: Clearly, the farce is going to continue as long as these people run around thinking their actions are productive for the club, breed, or general breeder community.

Yes, talk about none so blind as those who will not see that they have generated, all by themselves, massive general public disgust at how they conduct themselves. It amazes me that (as flattering as that misguided opinion may be! :) ) this silly group think a couple of media folks or discussion boards fuel what is now a bona fide *national debate* that has moved up to parliamentary level and shaken the KC (I nor any of the handful of us that are apparently included in this ridiculous aspersion do not have that influence, but thank you for thinking we do! As your PR hire will eventually tell you, the pressure comes from the broader public who cannot believe the things that continue to happen -- or rather, not happen -- on issues they rightly know to be important).

These people themselves keep their silliness in the public eye by appalling actions, ridiculous decisions and announcements that get media attention because their activity begs for it! :rolleyes: Yet again why maybe, come to think of it, they really do need to get that £8000 PR firm on board so that the PR firm can tell them what they refuse to listen to from everyone else... amazing though, that they will go waste £8000 of money to learn what any sensible person could tell them, has told them, and will no doubt, tell them again. :lol:

Jan Bell
25th January 2009, 04:20 PM
A while back "Quincy" posted a nice little story on DW, which made me smile. :) I can't remember the exact story but it was something like:


A man collapsed, and a doctor rushed up to help, but was pushed aside by a man who said "I'm a paramedic". The paramedic was then pushed aside by another person who said "I'm a nurse", who was then pushed aside by another person who said "I'm a first-aider". The man who collapsed was finally pronounced dead by a medical insurance salesman.

Apologies to Quincy for borrowing the story, but it was so appropriate with given those who believe that their knowledge of breeding means that they know best.

Pat
25th January 2009, 05:28 PM
Having some background as an officer in a club and some understanding of how things work, I do fully understand what the KC restrictions on BC represent. As we've discussed before, the restrictions speak to the breeder's lack of response to the KC inquiries rather than to the status of the dog in question. However, this is a very serious infraction for a serious breeder. The normal response would be to clear this up as quickly as possible in order to remain a breeder in good standing who can register litters. So this speaks volumes.

I also understand what Karlin is saying about the various ways that some other breeders continue to support this breeder. That's pretty clear. I keep waiting to hear if anything comes from the COE complaints filed with the Cavalier club Ethics Committee. In the CKCSC USA club, any sanctions/penalties resulting from a COE complaint are published in the club newsletter. However, nothing would be publicized while a case remained "open" and not yet resolved or if a charge was "dismisssed"

I'd still like to know the details on what shows this lady is going to judge and who issued the invitation and how the invitation came about. For example, in the U.S. there are regional and national judges committees in a breed club that select judges, or there are committees in various local all breed kennel clubs that will select judges, etc. I can't seem to find specifics in this instance, and I'm very interested to know.

Pat Beman
Atlanta

Pat
25th January 2009, 05:48 PM
For example as of yet not a SINGLE announcement about the KC decision against Beverly Costello, which is the end result of a formal ethics complaint made to the national club, has been made on the national club website,

Whoops - I'm just carefully re-reading. I assumed that the KC restrictions were made as a result of a direct inquiry by the KC to the breeder as a result of the PDE uproar. I thought this was independent of the COE complaint to the breed club.

I'm a little uncertain of the process as I compare to the CKCSC USA since that club also controls registration directly as an independent breed club/registration body (versus the KC/UK breed clubs and the AKC/US breed clubs) so I'd like to understand step by step.

So in this case, the COE was made to the breed club, and then does the breed club simply hand it up to the KC for a hearing/decision......or does the breed club have a hearing/decision of its own and then pass it up to the KC? Can the breed club and the KC each reach a different conclusion? If the breed club finds no ethics violation, does it end there or does the KC review and/or hold a hearing regardless of the breed club decision?

Pat Beman
Atlanta, GA

Tania
25th January 2009, 05:50 PM
If you type in "Margaret Carter in Saturday Times" into Google. This bit
of press made the club look pretty stupid.

Karlin
25th January 2009, 07:03 PM
So in this case, the COE was made to the breed club, and then does the breed club simply hand it up to the KC for a hearing/decision......or does the breed club have a hearing/decision of its own and then pass it up to the KC?

The complaint went from two club members to the national CKCS Club. It contacted BC and asked for a response to the complaint. She refused to reply to the complaint and clarify the issue. So the club then was required to refer the matter on up to the KC, at which point it was/is considered to have gone up considerably in seriousness, because the breeder herself has chosen to ignore a formal request for response from the national breed club. When she also refused to respond to the KC they took the route of the sanction they have for such a case -- she is barred from registering any puppies under her kennel affix Beauella because she has supplied *no defense* to the ethics charges against her. This is extremely significant yet neither the KC nor the CKCS CLub has chosen to issue a statement to this effect or clarify what has happened-- even though this is on evidence a full vindication of Margaret Carter's deep concerns about what happened and why she thought it so disturbing that it should be highlighted nationally. It says a lot that both CKCS Club and KC keep this key fact hidden away. Could be an agenda operating here?

I understand concern has also been expressed to the KC that this form of sanction nonetheless allows the dog to be used at stud by other breeders who can themselves register the puppies under their own affix -- shocking. And shocking that a couple of breeders *knowingly* have chosen to do this.

I will see if I can get the details of how Beverly Costello was incited to judge not at just one, but I currently understand two shows. I do know who has been encouraging others to put dogs forward as well. Maybe these people would like to express their open support for her -- they have the ability to make this known publicly after all.

I am sure there are many, many people who would like to know the role they are playing in this situation. If they are not ashamed then why will they not make their support publicly known and publicly encourage people to show before her as judge? Or is this all stuff they prefer to keep hidden? And if so, doesn't that itself speak volumes? In some ways I feel sorry Beverly has such 'friends' who keep shoving her name out in public while hiding away themselves and refusing to lay their own cards on the table. If I were her, I'd sure want these great pals to make their support publicly known rather than privately contacting and pressuring breeders to 'show their support' by showing under her when they themselves won't make their support public!

HollyDolly
25th January 2009, 10:18 PM
It is the indivual show society that chooses their judges, each area usually has the own society i.e. my area is Bolton so it is Bolton show society. Each year at their committee meetings they would choose their judges for their shows the following year. Many judges are approached for each breed and and it would be their decision to take up the judging appointment. For Open shows no KC permission is required but that changes for Championship Shows when Challenge Certficates are on offer.
On each show committee someone usually knows someone who would be able to judge a particular breed and the criteria is that person would NORMALLY have been showing/breeding for a few years.
In this case I would think that BC would have been appraoched by the secretary of that show society (Nantwich) and asked to judge Cavaliers long before PDE was televised.
I would have hoped that this appointment would have been revoked and another judge appointed, obviously not.
Having her kennel banned from registering puppies, her affix (Beauella) is rendered worthless and it is usually this that show people use to determine if they want to show under that judge..

Nanette

HollyDolly
27th January 2009, 06:31 PM
Nantwich and District Canine Society
Secretary 01270/664645.


CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIEL. JUDGE: Miss.Bev Costello.(BEAUELLA)
43. Puppy Dog. 44. Junior Dog. 45. Post Graduate Dog. 46. Open Dog.
47. Puppy Bitch. 48. Junior Bitch. 49. Post Graduate Bitch. 50. Open Bitch.

Karlin
27th January 2009, 06:54 PM
She and that club have absolutely no shame.

Karlin
28th January 2009, 09:49 AM
In the latest bit of ludicrousness, I see Veronica Hull and Nessie, moderator of the CavaliersUK list, both are sure I am 'Quincy' posting on Dog World comments. Someone even suggests Quincy is... er, my FATHER? :rotfl: Amazing as it may seem to some, my 80+ father has no interest in dogs or dog breed notes. :rolleyes:

I haven't even followed the breed notes comments in weeks -- and as people know, I always have used my own name for comments and participation on boards (for 20+ years) -- I am registered on Breed Notes, have posted comments there before, and unlike, say, ignoramuses like the charmless (and spelling-challenged) "Cav-Carer", I don't criticise others while hiding behind anonymous names.

I do know who Quincy is however. :)

Veronica has a habit of getting things wrong, though! She already thought someone else (EddyAnne) was me, too, til Marianne, moderator on the Cavaliers list, pointed out that Veronica clearly had not spent much time actively on the various cavalier lists and clearly didn't know 'everyone in cavaliers' as she has insisted, as EddyAnne has been 'in cavaliers' for at least as long as Veronica Hull, and is extremely well known and respected.

But then, as I have repeatedly pointed out, these silly people seem to think there are about three people, and not a broad public, who disagree strongly with their perspective.

Oh, and I do multitask, but not quite to the degree they seem to think! :lol:

Jan Bell
28th January 2009, 11:18 AM
When she also refused to respond to the KC they took the route of the sanction they have for such a case -- she is barred from registering any puppies under her kennel affix Beauella because she has supplied *no defense* to the ethics charges against her

I was interested to read this, as in response to a letter I wrote in December I was told that the CKCS Club could not comment on an ongoing investigation. But at this point, surely it can no longer be considered ongoing if BC refuses to correspond with the KC. I would therefore expect a notice on the CKCS Club website – to not post such a notice shows their support to BC and other members who refuse to scan their dogs or follow breeding protocols.

In the same letter I was told that the CKCS Club could only “encourage” members to follow breeding protocols and scan their dogs, and had no authority to insist. I feel that the CKCS Club wants it both ways: to get the credit for health initiatives and research, but also doesn’t want to upset those members who still insist that they know better than any researcher. This is shown by their failure to condemn BC for not responding to the investigation into her dog, among other things. A Club doesn’t have to have legal authority to make it’s position clear in what they believe should be happening

It appears that BC has a lot of support within the club, so I would like those who do support her to show the courage of their convictions and make themselves known. As a pet owner and future puppy purchaser I would like to know who I may be dealing with so I can make an informed choice. Ditto those who feel it is acceptable to post anonymously in order to spread rumours and innuendo (I notice that Cav Carer is rather quiet now since the great election fiasco).

There are a lot of good breeders out there, but it seems to be a minority that make the most noise. A pity with PDE revisited coming up…………….

sins
28th January 2009, 11:26 AM
I do know who Quincy is though. :smile:

Honestly woman,have you no control over your cat! Allowing him to run amok on a Dogmagazine?It's no place for a cat with all those doggy comments flying around.:rolleyes:
I must admit though that I have no idea who Quincy is,although I might have narrowed it down to a specific continent.It's also been suggested that Quincy is in fact The Stig.Some say he's part man/part machine.....others say he has the feet of a cavalier...
It ranks up there with other great mysteries of our time:
Who was Charlie in Charlie's angels?
Who shot JR?
Who is Quincy?

On the subject of the woman who phoned the puppy register coordinators in high dudgeon.I was amazed that the language,conduct and behaviour of the woman caused them to admit to being "shocked" and "enraged".
Not one person batted an eyelid though, or was even remotely "shocked" by the diagnosis of SM in a ONE YEAR OLD cavalier.
Some more free PR advice coming:
Try developing a common strategy and formal protocol for dealing with dissatisfied customers who have bought puppies from club members.Try placating them if possible but even if the customer lights you to blazes, NEVER EVER refer to that customer in such a fashion in a widely read publication.It only serves to widen the gap between pet owner and breeder.Some recent posts about "pet people" shows the contempt that a small number of breeders demonstrate towards the people who buy their puppies.

Jan Bell
28th January 2009, 11:35 AM
Who was Charlie in Charlie's angels?
Who shot JR?
Who is Quincy?



:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Brian M
28th January 2009, 11:51 AM
Hi

I think Quincy is either Spartacus or Elvis and he was spotted outside the chippy on Woodchurch Road last night ,Elvis that is ,honest.:)

HollyDolly
28th January 2009, 06:23 PM
I have to disappoint you Brian, Quincy comes in our post office everyday to get info for the breed notes. :wggle:

Nanette

Aileen
28th January 2009, 08:43 PM
I thoght Quincy was on TV:rotfl:
---Aileen and the gang(Barney---Jazzie---Jake)

Brian M
28th January 2009, 09:06 PM
Hi
Will the really Quincy step forward ,sorry Holly Dolly it is definately Spartacus in drag .:) .

Rj Mac
28th January 2009, 10:08 PM
I,ve had my say on the DW thread,1st time i've posted there....not sure how it will go down thoughicon_nwunsure...........it's all the way down at the bottom,

sins
29th January 2009, 07:33 PM
I see the Cavalier Club has a committee again.There's a new announcement on the club homepage.
Sins

Margaret C
29th January 2009, 09:14 PM
I see the Cavalier Club has a committee again.There's a new announcement on the club homepage.
Sins

There is an interesting story attached to this.

My letter to the Electoral Reform Society apparently did not arrive, & I was asked to send another. No problem, it was on my computer, but in the meantime I found out what was going to be put on the website when they withdrew their resignations.

I thought it unnecessary & divisive to list the formerly unnamed committee members who had offered to resign. This also has the effect of identifying those of the committee who had been willing to stay & continue to work with me. This had been quite brave of them. For those still showing dogs the unspoken threat of finding your dogs are no longer winning as they deserve, is very real.

The Chairman was away but the Vice Chairman and I agreed that I would give her a copy of my withdrawal letter and she would arrange for the statement to be modified. It seemed a civilised compromise.
She was on the way to collect the letter when she received a phone call from the Chairman saying the statement must go up as written. At that point the VC said her only option was to turn back, as she could no longer keep her promise to me.

The next day I phoned the ERS to inform them what had occurred. I told them that under the circumstances I did not intend to send another copy of my letter, but I again confirmed that I had withdrawn my nomination in an email sent to the Chairman on the night the resignation notice went up on the Club website.

Margaret C

HollyDolly
29th January 2009, 09:53 PM
Can someone please help me understand all this?
As I understood once you have offered your resignation than that has to stand, if maybe it was done in the heat of the moment well maybe that could be an exception. This was not so, a couple of weeks have gone by now so do they not have to stand again for re-election? Maybe the Kennel club can enlighten me!:confused:

diddy
29th January 2009, 10:12 PM
Under 'normal' circumstances that is what should happen. But you have to remember this is the CKCS Club circa 2008! Spining themselves round and round in ever decreasing circles giving the press a field day yet again!

Jan Bell
29th January 2009, 10:17 PM
The whole episode makes the electoral procedure an absolute nonsence.

If Margaret had been voted in by members, would the Committee members named would still have resigned?

So really nobody that those Committee members don't like could get on the Committee without knowing they are causing major problems for the Club.

So much for the democratic election process.

Karlin
29th January 2009, 10:21 PM
This also has the effect of identifying those of the committee who had been willing to stay & continue to work with me. This had been quite brave of them. For those still showing dogs the unspoken threat of finding your dogs are no longer winning as they deserve, is very real.

:sl*p:

Extraordinary. I give up: Veronica Hull was clearly right -- the Club obviously DO need to spend £8000 on PR to help them sort their behind from their elbow and stop showing the wrong end to the public at large :eek: ... the Clue Train has left the station, and most of the committee are still standing on the platform! :rolleyes: Maybe some professional advice would not go astray before the club implodes. The broader membership must find this whole situation appalling, and rightly so. For the rest of us, it is like watching a car wreck -- we know we shouldn't look, but it is so ghastly that you have to.

sins
29th January 2009, 10:22 PM
It would have been better not to have named the four committee members as they had not resigned or offered letters of resignation effective from next AGM.From the article on Dogworld it was indicated that they gave resignation promises (threats??)which are not the same as an actual resignation so it was not appropriate or necessary to name them.Only they know if they'd have gone through with it.Still, if they're ok with it, then that's fine.

Margaret C
29th January 2009, 11:08 PM
The whole episode makes the electoral procedure an absolute nonsence.

If Margaret had been voted in by members, would the Committee members named would still have resigned?

So really nobody that those Committee members don't like could get on the Committee without knowing they are causing major problems for the Club.

So much for the democratic election process.

Part of the notice on the website states:-

"The club also wishes to take advantage of ERS expertise on electoral processes when issues arise on which expert advice is needed"

I intend to take advantage of that expertise as well.
When I contacted the ERS I outlined a little of the circumstances to the nice young man there.

1. Voted off by 200 members a few months ago and yet not one person stood against me?

2. Club Officers who would resign and see the Club unable to continue, but had not arranged for candidates for the vacant positions?

3. Over 800 members, who were unable to attend the SGM, deprived of the chance to vote on my return?
(These are the non-show members, they would not recognise the names of top breeders or exhibitors, but they would recognise my name from all the health literature I had written over the years. Who do you suppose would get their vote? )

4. A very real threat that a new rule will be proposed to stop me from ever standing for the committee again?

The nice young man suggested that I write to the ERS with all the details.

Margaret C

Jan Bell
30th January 2009, 12:17 PM
Can someone please help me understand all this?
As I understood once you have offered your resignation than that has to stand, if maybe it was done in the heat of the moment well maybe that could be an exception. This was not so, a couple of weeks have gone by now so do they not have to stand again for re-election? Maybe the Kennel club can enlighten me!:confused:


Nanette, I don't understand this either, so I am going to write to the the Electoral Reform Services to find out. It may be that as the ERS wasn't officially informed of the resignations they are able to do this; so perhaps it is within the letter of the law, although certainly not within the spirit of the law.

I've been thinking about this overnight and have decided that, if only on point of principle, I should write to the ERS as I feel that there has been a manipulation of the election process. Whether this is within what is allowed or not, I believe as a member of the CKCS Club I should make my feelings known.

If any other Club member would like to write as well the addresss is:

The Electoral Reform Services
The Electoral Centre
33 Clarendon Road
London N8 0NW


__________________

sins
30th January 2009, 01:18 PM
When you joined the cavalier club you should have been given a copy of the constitution?
Have a look through that constitution and see if it clarifies the procedure for resignatiions for you.
Sins

Jan Bell
30th January 2009, 01:49 PM
When you joined the cavalier club you should have been given a copy of the constitution?



May have done 12 years ago, but don't have it now. The ERS may well tell me that everything is above board, but for my own satisfaction I am going to write. As I said before, I think that the manipulation of the election process makes a mockery of the elections.

I also think it is rather petty to insist on posting the names of those who were going to resign, thereby making sure everybody knows who wasn't going to resign. Nothing to stop the Chairman of course, but does rather show where her loyalites lay. Glad to hear that the Vice Chairman was prepared to be more reasonable, even though she was over-ruled.

Barbara
30th January 2009, 02:10 PM
They don't have to stand for re-election bcause they hadn't actually resigned. They were due to resign at the AGM in March, all except the vice chairman who resigned on the spot that is. She will have to stand again or be co-opted back on. They have now withdrawn their resignations and that has been accepted, so they remain in situ. !!!

Karlin
30th January 2009, 02:34 PM
What is curious -- and underlines how absolutely craven all this has been, and that there are some serious concerns about how this club makes up things as it goes along, and posts whatever 'truth' suits its current agenda -- is that the original notice made a big fat hoo-hah about how these people had RESIGNED. So now it turns out they hadn't resigned. This was all a big pose, an extraordinary, fake show of their 'ethics'.

And just why we are supposed to believe it when they say they are really truly, cross-our-hard-hearts focused on health, just because the chair and the rest make a website post to that effect? Or tell Dog World? Guess we have proof they will say whatever suits, with no substance necessarily behind what they say.

Yet the chairwoman vindictively would not accept Margaret's word that she had withdrawn her nomination, and therefore left their announcement notice up for weeks until she got 'proof'? Shame! Shame! Shame!

If the committee never resigned, then why did she post that they did?


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

This implies all three TENDERED their resignation formally!! So Lesley Jupp and Annette Jones never actually tendered their resignations yet a public post that was a LIE was deliberately made to their own club website because it suited the club's diatribe? None of these people corrected this LIE? Instead they propagated it across several other discussion forums? And left this LIE posted for over a MONTH?

That is certainly worth raising with the electoral commission.

sins
30th January 2009, 03:28 PM
I think the best solution would be for the committee to co-opt Margaret onto it.This would be the fairest compromise solution, save face for the committee and salvage the reputation of the sitting committee.
In the light of recent efforts by "mavericks" like cavcarer, and the failure of the committee to accept the result, the democratic process of the club has been undermined, it's reputation further damaged.
It looks bad that the club who put some much effort and organisation into holding a SGM to oust Margaret couldn't then between the lot of them field even one candidate.The enthusiasm for vacating the position obviously didn't extend to the filling of it.
The Moral of the story is that you shouldn't create a vacancy until you actually have a successor lined up.
Sins

Barbara
30th January 2009, 05:22 PM
Whoops I think I should have been clearer. sorry. They did tender their resignation but not with immediate effect and that has given them time to withdraw it before the AGM.

Karlin
30th January 2009, 05:50 PM
So resign, but don't really resign, just IMPLY that you did? If you resign the date on which it becomes active does not matter -- you have still resigned. If the resignations were tendered and received, when they come into effect makes no difference -- they should still have to stand again at the AGM as at that point, they will be OFF the committee. If they were not formally tenedered, then they never actually resigned. If there are now various shades of resigning as well, then that too is an issue to raise formally as it has serious implicaions for political manipulation, as has happened clearly in the case of this club.

sins
30th January 2009, 06:22 PM
If you resign the date on which it becomes active does not matter -- you have still resigned. If the resignations were tendered and received, when they come into effect makes no difference -- they should still have to stand again at the AGM as at that point,

That would normally be correct,but it would depend on what's written in the Club constitution.There would usually be an article outlining the procedure which a member would have to follow to tender a resignation.It can also include a time at which the resignation takes effect,e.g at the next meeting or in one month's time.
It can also include a paragraph to outline the procedure for withdrawing a resignation.If however a constitution doesn't contain a procedure for withdrawing a resignation then technically you can't withdraw it.It would have to run to the next AGM and be considered on the day.
So if anyone has a copy of the Club constitution it would be interesting to see what it says.This is why I asked earlier of Jan had her copy:)
(I'm currently resigning as chairman of a charity myself so am going through the procedure as dictated by our articles of constitution)
As for the four who gave a promise of resignation,this was little more than an indication of what they planned to do and has no standing so they can do as they please.

Rachel S
31st January 2009, 12:59 PM
Really? Why don't they get her to stand as Club health rep while they're at it?:-?:huh:

I would just like to comment re the above quip - if we are looking at health rep(advisers) and the suitability could I just point out that in a national magazine (Dogs Today)we have listed a helath rep (adviser) for cavaliers who to my knowldge (and I am willing to be corrected on this) has only ever owned two cavaliers - now surely that is just beyond belief? Hopefully the only advice anyone making contact will get is go to your vet!!! JMHO

Rachel S
31st January 2009, 02:06 PM
I think the best solution would be for the committee to co-opt Margaret onto it. Sins

but then there would be no committee and therefore no club....

Jan Bell
31st January 2009, 03:25 PM
I would just like to comment re the above quip - if we are looking at health rep(advisers) and the suitability could I just point out that in a national magazine (Dogs Today)we have listed a helath rep (adviser) for cavaliers who to my knowldge (and I am willing to be corrected on this) has only ever owned two cavaliers - now surely that is just beyond belief? Hopefully the only advice anyone making contact will get is go to your vet!!! JMHO


This follows the line that only somebody who is a breeder can understand about breeding etc, and can therefore ignore advice from researchers and geneticists on the grounds that they know best.

I believe the health rep you are referring to is Carol Fowler, who, having had the misfortune to have two Cavaliers with SM, has spend several years reasearching SM and other Cavalier health topics.

If Carol is able to give potential Cavalier buyers information on what health tests they should be asking for I cannot see why that is a problem for all the breeders who say that they are following the protocols recommended by the CKCS Club.

If you are unhappy about this, perhaps you ought to be putting your comment on the Dogs Today blog so that Beverley Cuddy can comment.

chloe92us
31st January 2009, 04:40 PM
Did anyone catch the post by a breeder who said she would NO LONGER adopt any male puppies out to families that plan on neutering????!!!!! This is because they tend to get overweight and have fluffy coats!!!! Forgot about the risks of unintented matings, or planned matings unkown to the breeder, or behavior problems, or the risk of flight or theft...I could go on and on. This is a classic example of a breeder clearly more interested in appearance than health or well-being of the dog.

Margaret C
31st January 2009, 04:44 PM
I would just like to comment re the above quip - if we are looking at health rep(advisers) and the suitability could I just point out that in a national magazine (Dogs Today)we have listed a helath rep (adviser) for cavaliers who to my knowldge (and I am willing to be corrected on this) has only ever owned two cavaliers - now surely that is just beyond belief? Hopefully the only advice anyone making contact will get is go to your vet!!! JMHO

Hello Rachel,

I think you are right, Carol has only owned two cavaliers, but she is one of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to the health issues in the breed. Many people, including myself, have been glad to take her advice.
I'm sure there are many long established breeders that know more, but only too often their pet buyers find them unwilling to help or advise when a health problem shows up in a puppy they have bred.

Margaret C

chloe92us
31st January 2009, 04:52 PM
Wow, that comment has been deleted [about not allowing adopters to neuter her males so they won't get fat and have fluffy coats].

Pauline, I know you saw it and commented on it!

Jan Bell
31st January 2009, 05:04 PM
Wow, that comment has been deleted [about not allowing adopters to neuter her males so they won't get fat and have fluffy coats


Oh, so the only value of a Cavalier is what it looks like? I agree that I don't like to see fat Cavaliers (or dogs/cats of any type) but then Toby was neutered when he was young and he isn't at all overweight. If you adjust the feeding, there isn't a problem.

As for the fluffy coat - yep, Toby has a fluffy coat. But do I love him less because of it? Not a bit of it. He may not have the smooth silky coat that Rufus has but he still has the adorable Cavalier nature and I love him to bits.

Incidentally one of the nurses at my vets has a three legged Cavalier (she was born like that). Never going to make the showring, but a more loved dog you couldn't find.

Looks aren't everything!

Pat
31st January 2009, 05:14 PM
Did anyone catch the post by a breeder who said she would NO LONGER adopt any male puppies out to families that plan on neutering????!!!!! This is a classic example of a breeder clearly more interested in appearance than health or well-being of the dog.

Actually, I plan to respond to that post and tell about my four neutered Cavalier boys that lived to be 14, 14, 15 and 16 1/2. They were all kept in very good lean body condition over the years, which I know contributed to their longevity.

I think this breeder WAS actually addressing health and well-being of her pet puppies in her comment as the discussion was about longevity - her thought was that ALL neutered pets become obese, which indeed cuts years from a dog's lifespan. However, I think that owners who over-feed their dogs - equating food with love - would do that whether or not their pet was neutered or intact. The key here is to educate pet owners that obesity kills - and excess food should be equated with death rather than love! I was more offended at the idea that all pet owners are stupid enough to over-feed their pet Cavaliers. Obesity (other than some metabolic disease or drug side effect or something similarly uncommon) is a result of over-feeding - period. It's not a direct result of neuter/spay.

As for fluffy coats - well it sometimes happens but not always. That's a trade-off that I'll make because of the benefits that Trisha mentions, and there are grooming techniques that can improve the appearance of a neutered dog's coat. Indeed if a boy has good body condition and is of a correct weight, that fluffy coat doesn't look as extreme as on an obese dog. My current boy has a very flat coat - he was neutered at age 4 when his show owner retired him and placed him in a pet home. He is very trim and looks very good.

Pat Beman
Atlanta, GA

chloe92us
31st January 2009, 05:20 PM
Pat, thanks for your input. Clearly comments can be interpreted in different ways!

As everyone here knows, I was one of the offenders that allowed one of mine to become overweight but worked very hard at helping her lose it all.

Overfeeding does NOT equal love! Overeating does NOT make me happy. Repeat; overeating does NOT make me happy! :) Yes, I too have recently lost 30 pounds of extra baggage and I feel a lot better about *myself* too! Me and Casey are now slim and trim...

Karlin
31st January 2009, 06:04 PM
I've had close to 100 cavaliers come through my rescue now. Of those, I'd estimate 95% are NOT neutered. Of all those dogs, I'd also estimate 85% are overweight. The intact dogs are are just as fat when overfed -- and owners, going on my experience, do tend to overfeed. Some of the intact dogs were VERY fat!

Jan Bell
31st January 2009, 06:06 PM
Yes, I too have recently lost 30 pounds of extra baggage and I feel a lot better about *myself* too! Me and Casey are now slim and trim...

Well done Chloe!

sins
31st January 2009, 06:36 PM
Hi Rachel,
I don't have any problem with Carol Fowler being listed on Dogstoday magazine as their contact for health advice. She's experienced SM in it's worst form in her spaniels and has presumably nursed them through their health issues and lost one of her pets to the condition.
Dogstoday is a magazine aimed at petowners who mainly have little interest in breeding or showing and just want some basic health info for their new companion.She's also pleasant and personable and is very approachable and also does the important job of steering potential pet buyers away from puppy farmers.
However the health rep on the cavalier club committee is a very different position.Whoever takes the role will have to be wholeheartedly committed to improving the health of the breed,will need to have extensive experience in breeding,be prepared to embrace the medical and technological advances on offer to breeders,should be PR savvy and uphold the recommendations if the club regarding breeding protocols. You can't really compare the two positions at all.
Best of luck to the new incumbent,whoever he or she may be.
Sins

Rachel S
31st January 2009, 07:15 PM
Hello Rachel,

I think you are right, Carol has only owned two cavaliers, but she is one of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to the health issues in the breed. Many people, including myself, have been glad to take her advice.
I'm sure there are many long established breeders that know more, but only too often their pet buyers find them unwilling to help or advise when a health problem shows up in a puppy they have bred.

Margaret C

Margaret - I do not wish to personalise anything so I am speaking in general terms - I certainly have full respect for people who have an interest in a subject and learn as much as they can - we are all learning throughout our lives - but there also has to be a place for good old experience and that cannot be gained easily and certainly not from a text book.....

Pat
31st January 2009, 07:45 PM
Trisha -

Those comments weren't deleted on the thread - they are still there #s 57, 58 and 59:

Original comment: "I can tell you that a lot of neutered pets who are often grossly overweight do die before tha age of ten I now do not sell male puppies to people if they intend to neuter. Neutering of males should only be done if the dog has a problem. I have seen far too many obese dogs with huge fluffy coats that have to be clipped to want any of mine to to end up looking like that."

Pauline replied: "thought that a neutered dog simply needs less food, male or female. Any overweight dog can go on a diet."

Reply to Pauline: "That is true Pauline. Sadly that doesn't always happen. Believe me, over the years I have seen too many overweight cavaliers. The extra weight must put a terrible strain on hearts." (My interpretation - she doesn't want them to look fat and fluffy, but mainly she doesn't want them to die before the age of ten - a valid concern. If I were rehoming a rescue and did a home visit where all the pets were obese, I wouldn't place the dog in that home. Not only strain on hearts but strain on joints, other internal organ and metabolic functioning, you name it.)

So I really do think the poster was more concerned about health of puppies sold as pets than about appearance. But, as Karlin pointed out from her experience in rescue, the problem of obese pets has far more to do with pet owner education than with neutering/spaying. I think that in the US there are far more spayed/neutered pets than in the UK.

Trisha - big congrats to you for recognizing that you had a problem with your pet and then DOING something about it! Most people, even if they recognize the problem, just don't ever follow through because it's hard work to change their behavior and their pet's expectations. And they are doing a real disservice to their pets. Congrats also for your own changes! I always say that I wish someone controlled what goes into my mouth as I do for my pets! I'm not obese, but I'm sure not as trim as my pets!

Pat

*Pauline*
31st January 2009, 07:54 PM
Wow, that comment has been deleted [about not allowing adopters to neuter her males so they won't get fat and have fluffy coats].

Pauline, I know you saw it and commented on it!

Yes, my breeder told me the same thing, not to neuter as he will get fat. Well Dylan isn't neutered and he isn't fat but that's because I keep an eye on his weight.

chloe92us
31st January 2009, 08:56 PM
I didn't realize it was not as common to spay/neuter in the UK as in the US.

Cathy T
31st January 2009, 10:42 PM
the problem of obese pets has far more to do with pet owner education than with neutering/spaying.


Absolutely!!! I get very frustrated when I hear someone advising not to neuter a male because of the change in coat/weight. The coat may change but that simply shouldn't matter to a pet owner. The problem is that unneutered males are too much of a temptation to too many unscrupulous people. The weight is totally an owner issue not a neuter issue. Jake is very slim and trim....and neutered.

chloe92us
1st February 2009, 12:40 AM
Pat, I must not be looking at the same page as you...comments 57-59 have nothing to do with neutering. Perhaps it was on breed notes and not the cav club article?

*Pauline*
1st February 2009, 12:47 AM
Hi Trisha, it was in News, not Breed Notes.

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/4-cav-club

Jasperxxgabby
1st February 2009, 12:48 AM
Trisha, it is on the Friday 23rd Jan breednotes post 57 :).

Pat
1st February 2009, 12:58 AM
Jasper/Gabby is right - Jan 23 breednotes. Pauline's link takes you to comments in rebuttal to the discussion over here, but the original comments were in breed notes.

Pat

chloe92us
1st February 2009, 01:01 AM
Okay, thanks! Finally found it.

*Pauline*
1st February 2009, 01:23 AM
Oh sorry! :o

Jan Bell
1st February 2009, 08:44 AM
:confused: Oops - just realised I called you Chloe, when you are really Trisha!
Apologies!

chloe92us
1st February 2009, 01:08 PM
That's okay, Jan. Chloe is the name of my very first dog- a toy poodle who was with me for 14 years so I take no offense! I've been using the same user name and password since 1992 when I created that one since I don't want to learn another one! haha.

Pat
1st February 2009, 04:47 PM
Original comment: "I can tell you that a lot of neutered pets who are often grossly overweight do die before tha age of ten I now do not sell male puppies to people if they intend to neuter. Neutering of males should only be done if the dog has a problem. I have seen far too many obese dogs with huge fluffy coats that have to be clipped to want any of mine to to end up looking like that."

Pauline replied: "thought that a neutered dog simply needs less food, male or female. Any overweight dog can go on a diet."

Reply to Pauline: "That is true Pauline. Sadly that doesn't always happen. Believe me, over the years I have seen too many overweight cavaliers. The extra weight must put a terrible strain on hearts."
Pat

Trisha,

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one! You quoted one line, but that is why I quoted the entire dialogue - which began on the subject of neutered dogs/grossly overweight/die before the age of ten.....and then another comment about extra weight/strain on their hearts. And no, she doesn't want dogs with her affix to "look like that" -- obese and fluffy. And I wouldn't either! I once saw a rescue dog that I had placed that had become quite obese and I was horrified. At a party last night, I saw a boy that won an award of merit at Westminster about five years ago, and he is overweight. He belongs to my friend, and I had a gentle talk with her about it, as did two Cavalier breeders who were also at the party. He obviously was not nearly as beautiful as he was before he gained the weight, but the motivation of all three of us who approached our friend is that his lifespan is going to be shortened because of the extra weight!

I truly do not believe that this breeder's comments were driven by vanity.

Since we've gone far afield the topic of "club in turmoil" I'll start another thread about neuter/spay - US versus UK, evolutions in thinking. It's kind of similar to vaccination protocol and feeding protocols.

Pat