PDA

View Full Version : Article on Dogworld re: Cavalier club members thwart health plans



sins
25th March 2009, 11:38 AM
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/13-cav-health-plans

Sins

frecklesmom
25th March 2009, 02:21 PM
How horribly sad :(.

Karlin
25th March 2009, 05:00 PM
This is their front page story. What pray tell is the point of spending over 1000 pounds on "media training" if the members -- and I am sure that included some of those who got the costly "media training"! -- are so foolish and uncaring to the breed as to vote in this way? Can't the committee stand up to these childish bullies? A core group that pushes the committee folks around -- and arrived late to the meeting, having missed their own club cardiologist's Simon Swift's important presentation on hearts and MVD research, and then insisted a revote be taken on the SM issue certainly just showed exactly how dedicated to health they are -- and have yet again, and I am sure not for the last time, made the club a laughing stock.

Some might wish to ask the famous Dog World breed notes columnist whether she was there from the start of the meeting and how she voted... and that whole roster of ladies who huffed way from the camera in Pedigree Dogs Exposed; I think you will find most of them prominent amongst those who MISSED the heart presentation and they should be named and held accountable if they are on one hand arguing how strongly they all support breed health, yet not even bothering to hear the club's own main health presentation at an AGM!! :sl*p: The Kennel Club must yet again be squirming. And I feel very, very sorry for the many dedicated breeders who have to watch these clowns skewer their club and make it look so utterly craven and ridiculous in the public eye. I feel sorry for the committee as it was, at this event, focused on keeping health issues to the forefront.

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/getattachment/0715a325-8e65-4217-a8bf-3b99b44ca13c/13-cav-health-plans.aspx


Members thwart Cavalier health plans
25 Mar 2009 08:59



A BID by the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club to halt the spread of syringomyelia (SM) in the breed has been thwarted.

At last weekend’s AGM, the committee wanted to include a clause in its code of ethics – similar to those concerning heart and eye-testing protocol – recommending that breeders MRI scan dogs before using them at stud.

An initial motion was passed, but later members asked for the vote to be taken again because they felt there had not been enough discussion and that some people had not understood the proposal.

This was agreed and this time the motion was lost by a heavy majority.

Under scrutiny

The breed has been under scrutiny since the programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed showed Cavaliers suffering from the painful condition SM.

After the AGM, chairman Lesley Jupp said the committee had been ‘very disappointed’ by the outcome of the vote.

At the start of the meeting it was reported that Margaret Carter – who featured on the BBC programme talking about SM – had been the only person nominated to join the committee, but that she had withdrawn her nomination. Three vacancies have still to be filled. This was followed by the committee’s proposal to add the SM recommendations to the club’s code of ethics.

Under new rules, the Kennel Club has drawn up the code and allows each breed club to suggest additions. At first the motion was passed by 25 votes to 15, with nine abstentions. But a little while later discussion became heated when members demanded that this vote should be taken again. Some said they had not heard what was said and thus not known what they were voting for.

Under some pressure, Mrs Jupp agreed that a vote could be taken on an amendment to remove the SM recommendations from the code. This was carried by 37 votes.

Afterwards Mrs Jupp said: “We wanted to bring in a clause in our code. We have guidelines for eyes and hearts and we wanted to include them for SM. Breeding stock is supposed to be MRI scanned – these are recommendations, not stipulations. It would be in line with our eyes and heart recommendations.

“We are very disappointed that this was not passed – and by such a considerable majority.”

Asked why such a recommendation would be so unpopular, Mrs Jupp said: “Anyone could hazard a guess.”

Mrs Carter, now a controversial figure within the club’s membership, was present at the meeting.

“I didn’t speak. I wasn’t going to act as a catalyst for anything,” she said on Tuesday. “Anything that happened was not initiated in any way by me.

“The committee was wholeheartedly behind the motion and the chairman said it was important that owners health-check their dogs and it was their responsibility to do so. To be fair, the committee is trying to take things forward but it is being beaten.”

Media training

It is understood that the treasurer’s report showed that the special general meeting held to oust Mrs Carter from the committee had cost the club £2,082.

There was an additional expenditure of £1,147 which paid for the committee to be trained on how to deal with questions from the media following the SGM.

Clairelou
25th March 2009, 06:00 PM
This is saddening and disgraceful. Shame on those breeders!! I am however encouraged by the intent of CKCS club, but surely they have more power than this?? can't they do any more??

Karlin
25th March 2009, 06:03 PM
Folks making submissions to the Bateson enquiry on how to better manage and perhaps in future, legislate for dog breeding in the UK might wish to consider the above and include the article in their submission as it obviously, directly relates to how the national and regional club members feel about improving breed health through self-managed initiatives and how successful such initiatives are likely to be. If at their own AGM, core breeders don't care about even something as simple as making a 'recommendation' -- not a requirement -- that dogs be MRI'd -- something their own committee supports and Dr Sarah Blott needs in order to give the breeders the Estimated Breeding Value scheme they (supposedly?) want -- then what chance has this breed got?

The Bateson committee is taking submissions until May 15th -- here's more info:

http://board.cavaliertalk.com/showthread.php?t=29219

Karlin
25th March 2009, 07:39 PM
And this is how other breeders in other breeds and cavaliers, are responding. Just a taster of the comments on the article as they come in.

Bet Hargreaves (Bolshie on comments) was the person pointing out (as she often does) that SM is in other breeds too.


I breed and show dogs, not the Cavalier. I am SICK AND TIRED of Cavalier breeders bringing dog breeding and showing into disrepute!! Ok, what if SM is not confined to the Cavalier??? using this as a reason not to MRI scan Cavaliers is illogical!!! MRI scaning is the best tool breeders have at the moment - use it!! I have many friends in the show world and the words Cavalier breeder leave a bad taste in their mouths also. CLEAN UP YOUR BACKYARD AND DO US ALL A FAVOUR!!!!!!!!!
Posted at 14:49 on 25 Mar 2009 by
Loveslife | Report as inappropriate

5
In addition to the above post... I realise some Cavalier breeders do scan, THANKYOU, I don't want to 'tarnish you all with the same brush' my apologies to those who do.

Posted at 14:58 on 25 Mar 2009 by
Loveslife | Report as inappropriate

6
I agree that the cavie people have just managed to vindicate everything that Jemima Harrison said about them. What does this say to the public? If this gets into the national papers they will have a field day and I for one am mad at the cavie people for not taking this seriously. We are trying to promote ourselves as responisble breeders and they are just trashing the good work that has been carried out so far. Mrs Jupp should have stuck to her guns and stated that if they had really not heard what was being said they should have spoken up at the time not later after all I would imagine that the discussion had happened prior to the first vote. As Beckyess said they should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted at 15:01 on 25 Mar 2009 by
hounder | Report as inappropriate

7
Doubt that they know shame,they'll hold their heads high and keep trying to shove SM under the table. Where is reality for them? The sweet CKCS will be taken care of by dedicated breeders not by these shams.

Posted at 16:14 on 25 Mar 2009 by
Patz | Report as inappropriate

8
Agree totally with the above comments - it seems that people are happy to let their dogs be used at stud, take the money and to hell with the consequences. On another "point of procedure" - surely once a motion has been carried that is it - is it allowed to go back and have a revote? If that is the case there could be an election for a post of say secretary, and then if the members didn't like it they could keep having another vote until they got the person they wanted!!!!! It seems totally bizarre that a re-vote was allowed. If the members had not liked the wording they should have proposed an amendment immediately - then they would have voted on that. The amendment having been carried would then become the "proposal". Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Posted at 16:23 on 25 Mar 2009 by
Downstream | Report as inappropriate

As soon as I can get hold of the minutes or someone's report on the meeting, I will note who exactly initiated this revote and who idiotically argued against the support of merely *recommending* that *just stud dogs* be MRId -- hardly a huge issue, one would think, given the vast influence studs have on the total gene pool in the breed, as they are used over and over and over! One would think in a sane world that simply making a *recommendation that studs be MRId* would be a responsible position to take. :sl*p: But I guess not in the cavalier world.

Carol Fowler
25th March 2009, 07:45 PM
Yes, Karlin, another opportunity lost for Cavaliers and more evidence for me that reform of dog breeding will not come from within the current system. I applaud the Cavalier Club Committee for proposing that the MRI screening for SM be added to the Code of Ethics, but it seems that there are others who will always put their own interests before the health and welfare of dogs and the future of the breed.

Karlin
25th March 2009, 07:51 PM
And worth emphasising that club members have been insisting they are always being set up by an anti breeder, pro Pedigree Dogs Exposed, unfair media. :rolleyes:

Well, Dog World is the show breeders' own publication with many of their prominent breeders as columnists.

So this is how their own media world is reporting their activities. Hmmmm.

Margaret C
25th March 2009, 11:16 PM
Yes, Karlin, another opportunity lost for Cavaliers and more evidence for me that reform of dog breeding will not come from within the current system. I applaud the Cavalier Club Committee for proposing that the MRI screening for SM be added to the Code of Ethics, but it seems that there are others who will always put their own interests before the health and welfare of dogs and the future of the breed.

I know a lot of members to this board are not interested in Cavalier Club politics.
The problem is that if you believe that this lovely breed deserves to have long and healthy lives, then you need to know what is going on, because it is only through the breed clubs things will change.

The Cavalier Club committee is to be congratulated on their attempt to give a very clear message to their members, by adding the SM breeding recommendations to their Code of Ethics.

I am really sorry that the very verbal and overbearing crowd that overturned the committee's proposal is seen to represent Club members. This is not so, the majority of members are loving owners who would do their best to prevent their cavaliers from suffering from painful inherited conditions. This rent-a-crowd are commercial breeders that gang together to protect their own interests.
Like everyone else they have SM in their lines, and they do not want to identify and remove affected dogs from their breeding programmes

Below is part of my submission to the APGAW group. I think what happened on Sunday illustrates what I have said..........


'Successful dog show exhibitors are very influential. They are usually the top judges and they own the top stud dogs.
People that show dogs are highly competitive. Every week they will spend hours preparing their dogs, rise in the early hours & travel hundreds of miles to a show.
They will be reluctant to disagree with top breeders for fear of not winning in the show ring, or being unable to mate their bitches to the best dogs

There is a prevailing culture within the dog showing and breeding community that actively discourages recognition of health issues within pedigree dogs
Successful breeders are those most threatened by buyers knowing about health problems There is an unspoken rule that inherited health issues should not be acknowledged or discussed because this will ‘ruin the breed’

The Dog World report omits the fact that most of those who voted against adding the SM recommendations to the Code of Ethics arrived half way through the morning.
These members were not at a rather poorly attended earlier meeting where the 'Cavalier Club's cardiologist', Simon Swift, gave a talk on new heart research and again emphasised that the protocol said that cavaliers should be 2.5 years old and with no heart murmur, when first mated ( and their parents should be 5 years and free from murmur )

These late arrivals included influential cavalier breeders such as the Dog World breed note writer, whose husband actually proposed the amendment removing the SM guidelines, owners of leading stud dogs and top champions, and regional club officers and committee members
One of this group, who twice spoke eloquently against MRI scanning, was the Chairman/Health Representative of a Southern based regional club.

Until their influence is challenged Cavaliers really don't have much of a chance.

Margaret C

Karlin
26th March 2009, 01:19 AM
Let me get this clear for people to consider.

So Gordon Inglis, husband of Dog World cavalier breed notes writer Norma Inglis (Craigowl kennel affix), proposed that a vote be redone as he said the discussion hadn't been understood well enough by the breeders present, even though they themselves were not present for Simon Swift's hearts presentation or much of the discussion on SM which other members, who did vote, actually DID attend and participate in?

The same Norma Inglis who said in a cavalier Breed Notes column in Dog World that she was refusing to scan her own dogs?

icon_nwunsure

Speaking as someone who has been on committees and in various clubs over the years (and currently with the formal procedural and legal obligations as a board member of a semi-state body) I don't understand how a vote can be taken and then a motion put in to retake a vote by people who were absent from a discussion they say was not adequate for members to understand... how would they know? What was "clarified" in the interim? What is so hard to understand about a simple recommendation that studs be scanned? Is that a really difficult and complex concept? icon_nwunsure How come the committee and members there before the late arrivals had no problem understanding this proposal, and then it became so highly complex that people could have "misunderstood" only once these influential people who are also frequently judges, showed up? Does the club follow any recognisable procedures or is it just ad-libbed as they go along? We would not have allowed this type of procedure even in college clubs -- it would immediately have been challenged.

Updated to add: see further on in the thread, the Club chairwoman's dispairing and disparaging note about these people who came in and voted this amendment down after rudely standing outside and drinking coffee and gossiping during all of Simon Swift's hearts talk. As she says, the members have shown they have NO interest in health and are incapable of self-regulation when it comes to breed health. She specifically condemns those who don;t health test and those who do but use their affected dogs anyway. Hmmm.

kmatt
26th March 2009, 02:54 AM
The even more unfortunate thing is that the AKC here in the USA won't adopt any of the breed standard changes that were instituted in GB.

Cathy Moon
26th March 2009, 03:56 AM
What a shame this happened. It must be so embarrassing and demoralizing to the many health focused breeders and the committee to have their actions overrun by that shameful group.

Margaret C
26th March 2009, 12:46 PM
What a shame this happened. It must be so embarrassing and demoralizing to the many health focused breeders and the committee to have their actions overrun by that shameful group.


http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html

See the Cavalier Club Chairman's view of what happened.

Margaret C

Karlin
26th March 2009, 12:52 PM
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Here's the direct link:

http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/events/reports/agm/post_agm_09.html


A BENCH MARK WEEKEND

Before the AGM last Sunday, Simon Swift, Cardiologist, gave a talk to members to inform us of the present situation, current research and to update us on the new BVA/KC heart testing scheme that involves a number of breeds including cavaliers.

His talk was attended by about 25 members, including the committee, out of a current total UK membership of 1050. At the end of his talk Simon had difficulty in leaving the room for the throng of other members waiting outside for the AGM, chatting and drinking coffee, whiling away the time until his talk was over. So much for breeders’ interest in, and concern for heart problems within the breed.

The AGM then followed, attended by 63 members. The agenda contained a proposal from the committee that the Code of Ethics should include the recommended breeding guidelines for SM. These are not mandatory rules, merely recommendations, and would have been in line with Hearts and Eyes breeding guidelines, which have been in place for some years.

These proposals seemed to me to be innocuous and reasonable. However, the proposal was substantially defeated by the meeting. This was a triumph by the members present over neurologists and geneticists, and of course, over the committee. It would seem that cavalier club members continue to progress, like lemmings, towards mandatory breeding regulations that will surely come, as surely as night follows day. There are many members who are still not prepared to health check their breeding stock, and of those who do, it would appear that many would not hesitate to breed from affected animals. I have tried my utmost to defend and support the breed and the club. This weekend was proof, if proof is needed, that there is no point in deluding myself, or others, that self-regulation is possible.

Mrs Lesley Jupp
24th March 2009

That's pretty blunt. So almost a THIRD of his audience would have been the committee, meaning only about a dozen and a half club general members cared enough to attend rather than gossip outside? How incredibly rude to Dr Swift, in the first place, setting aside what it implies about a total disinterest in breed health and the breed outside of winning ribbons and trophies. Thanks for demonstrating your REAL level of total NON commitment to breed health, despite what you post on other discussion lists (and a website so ironically dedicated to, er, 'cavalier HEALTH' in the UK. Yeah, right. :sl*p:).

Start to show your commitment rather than thinking any of us, except the brain-dead, believe what you huff and puff about on discussion lists. Stop believing that your talk speaks louder than your (non) actions. Learn that media training means zilch if you have nothing of substance to defend in the first place -- the truth about your actions and beliefs will out, AND IT HAS.

Karlin
26th March 2009, 01:43 PM
NB I stand corrected that the SM amendment would have applied to all breeding dogs, not just studs; though the Dog World story indicates it would only have been applicable to studs. That's a much better recommendation (to include all breeding dogs) of course. :thmbsup:

frecklesmom
26th March 2009, 03:13 PM
Mrs. Jupp's public statement is so poignant. The use of the word "triumph" is excellent in characterizing the activities of these bullies-loud and ignorant. The defense mechanism is alive and well as they continue their attacks on M.C. and Karlin as if they caused this vote-what a spin :rolleyes:. Can anyone ever question their motives-it's not about the dogs, it's about them. Sad,sad day for progress in the Club.

sins
26th March 2009, 04:28 PM
I still think the committee need to tighten up on procedure. If a vote had been taken on a motion,then the motion to remove the clause should have have been put on the agenda for the next AGM after being received in writing.
As a chairman of a club myself,if a posse in my organisation decided to pull a stunt like that, I would have had to rule this new motion out of order.
Next time people show up late for an AGM,lock the bl@@dy doors and let them stay outside.!!!! ( fire safety regulations pemitting;)).
As for Mrs Jupp's statement on the cavalier club website,it shows that she's nailed her colours to the mast and displayed firm leadership.She and the committee has taken their share of the grief in the past whether justified or not.
It's now up to the breeders and exhibitors who have in good faith supported the health initiatives to weigh in behind the committee.Hopefully this turn of events will encourage breeders who want to reduce the incidences of SM & MVD to continue breeding,knowing that their committee support their efforts and that the pet owners who buy the bulk of the "PetQuality" cavaliers appreciate their dedication and are trying to understand the challenges they face.
Sins

HollyDolly
26th March 2009, 07:11 PM
Have had trouble getting onto CT this week but today success.

I am so saddened at this outcome, and to post my true feelings would result in me being thrown off.


Nanette:mad:

Margaret C
26th March 2009, 07:27 PM
Many of you will have seen these articles but they do sum up what has been happening in Cavaliers....
Perhaps it is time for things to change?

http://letsdiscussjudging.com/Omerta.html

http://devinefarm.net/rp/rpostr.htm

http://devinefarm.net/rp/biggest.htm

Margaret C

Cathy Moon
27th March 2009, 04:22 AM
Mrs. Jupp's public statement is so poignant. The use of the word "triumph" is excellent in characterizing the activities of these bullies-loud and ignorant. The defense mechanism is alive and well as they continue their attacks on M.C. and Karlin as if they caused this vote-what a spin :rolleyes:. Can anyone ever question their motives-it's not about the dogs, it's about them. Sad,sad day for progress in the Club.

Yes, they're trying to change the focus from themselves to others, but that is a very transparent tactic and very telling.

Jan Bell
27th March 2009, 10:29 AM
I have been pretty unimpressed with Committee of the CKCS Club up until now, as I felt that they were failing to give a clear indication to it's members of what was expected.

Full credit to them now though, as this was an unambiguous statement of intent.

I am very disappointed about the outcome: I have gradually read about or been told about more breeders who are scanning and I was hopeful that this would be the start of a widespread change. The recent events rather crush this hope.

I nearly choked on my cup of tea when I read how much money was spent on the SGM etc. There am I pleased with my efforts at raising the odd 20 quid or so for the SM fund and all this money was squandered. :bang:

Margaret C
27th March 2009, 12:50 PM
I have been pretty unimpressed with Committee of the CKCS Club up until now, as I felt that they were failing to give a clear indication to it's members of what was expected.

Full credit to them now though, as this was an unambiguous statement of intent.

I am very disappointed about the outcome: I have gradually read about or been told about more breeders who are scanning and I was hopeful that this would be the start of a widespread change. The recent events rather crush this hope.

I nearly choked on my cup of tea when I read how much money was spent on the SGM etc. There am I pleased with my efforts at raising the odd 20 quid or so for the SM fund and all this money was squandered. :bang:

The Cavalier Committee and their Chairman are to be congratulated on the efforts they are now making. There was an excellent & encouraging health report which can now be read on their website

There are a lot more breeders scanning.

The members that turned up to defeat this committee proposal were the same hard core of breeders/exhibitors that organised the petition to dismiss me from the committee.
They do not want to health check their dogs for SM.

These top breeders are determined to try and stop the research into SM. While saying publicly that they support Sarah Blott's EBV programme they are actually trying to discourage & downplay the need to MRI & submit the results.
They will not be concerned about the waste of money.

Hopefully next year some more moderate members will manage to get to the AGM and make their wishes known.

To be fair, there were some things that could have been improved at the AGM, although I do not think the committee could have anticipated the numbers that walked through the doors after the MVD talk.

The excuses about lack of information or lack of paperwork are merely tactics designed to divert blame now that these members are being questioned about their reasons for throwing out the Cavalier Club health proposal.
The proposal was clearly explained and these people knew what they were voting for.

I sat there and watched a regional breed club health representative twice get to her feet, walk to the microphone, and eloquently persuade and encourage a group of cavalier owners to throw out a reasonable and measured attempt to encourage members to scan their cavaliers.

You may begin to understand why it is such a hard & dispiriting task to make progress on health issues in this breed

Margaret C

sins
27th March 2009, 01:02 PM
Hi Jan,
I've been away for a while and picked up a copy of Dogstoday on my way back from the airport.I was pleased to see that your letter had been published:).
That was a substantial sum of money spent on the SGM.An expensive SGM but a low cost cannonisation.The Vatican should investigate because it costs them millions to produce even one Saint;).
The money spent on media training wasn't outlandish though and following the fallout from PDE it was probably important to update the skillset of the officers to deal with questions from the media.Thankfully the officers didn't resign because if they did it would have been a waste of money.To be fair though,money spent on training and education is always well spent,no matter what the organisation.

Jan Bell
27th March 2009, 02:17 PM
I've been away for a while and picked up a copy of Dogstoday on my way back from the airport.I was pleased to see that your letter had been published:smile:.


I confess that I have mixed feelings about this now, as the letter was written several months ago, and now seems out of date in regards to numbers of people scanning, which I am told has greatly increased since PDE. Still, you can only say what you feel at the time.


The Cavalier Committee and their Chairman are to be congratulated on the efforts they are now making.

I agree with this. Despite disliking earlier decisions taken by the Committee it's time to move on and support any efforts made by the Commitee and breeders who are scanning and supporting research.


I know a lot of members to this board are not interested in Cavalier Club politics.


Anybody who has, or wants to have, a Cavalier in their lives has to be aware of the health issues. I don't like the politics either, but I think it is important to follow what is happening and to read as much as possible - and here the internet is a wonderful tool - all sorts of research available from many sites. I can't honestly say I understand it all - but I am having a good try.:)

Clairelou
27th March 2009, 03:49 PM
Many of you will have seen these articles but they do sum up what has been happening in Cavaliers....
Perhaps it is time for things to change?

http://letsdiscussjudging.com/Omerta.html

http://devinefarm.net/rp/rpostr.htm

http://devinefarm.net/rp/biggest.htm

Margaret C

Great links those!!! so sad but so true!

chloe92us
27th March 2009, 05:32 PM
I find it interesting that no one who voted against the amendment is posting ANY comments about what happened and defending their decision?

HollyDolly
27th March 2009, 08:09 PM
Many of you who know me would know I would not let this matter rest. Here is the reply to my email to the Kennel Club outlining my fear for the breed and also my utter contempt at the breeders who voted against this motion.




"Thank you for your email. I have to agree with you, this is a most unfortunate decision, but it really demonstrates the difficult position the KC finds itself in. There is absolutely no compulsion for anyone to register their dogs with the Kennel Club and so this really limits what we can do. It is certainly true that the KC could require that Cavalier breeders can only register dogs from parents that have been scanned with an MRI. Unfortunately, I doubt that this would force the people who voted against this proposition to use MRI scanning. The limited value of a KC registration to them would not force them to use MRI scanning. So, this means that if the KC did adopt such a position, the ‘quality’ of Cavaliers on the database would improve, but these would represent a very reduced number of Cavaliers. Those people that voted against this proposition would still continue to breed Cavaliers, but now outside of any influence that the KC might exert. The solution lies in working with these breeders to ensure that they see the sense in MRI scanning, and that has to be down to encouragement and education."


Nanette

*Pauline*
27th March 2009, 08:44 PM
I think the KC underestimates its influence. I'm sure breeders want to KC register their pups.

sins
27th March 2009, 09:23 PM
if the KC did adopt such a position, the ‘quality’ of Cavaliers on the database would improve, but these would represent a very reduced number of Cavaliers.
So quantity is preferable to quality...I see.....:eek:

Those people that voted against this proposition would still continue to breed Cavaliers, but now outside of any influence that the KC might exert.
So what do they actually think a typical top exhibitor with decades of sucess in the showring will do? Refuse to register with the KC,turn their back on the showring and retire to a genteel life of puppyfarming????:shock:
My poor bewildered brain needs some time to process this one.....:sl*p:

Clairelou
27th March 2009, 09:48 PM
That KC reply is a joke!!! just doesn't make sense!

Margaret C
27th March 2009, 09:54 PM
So quantity is preferable to quality...I see.....:eek:

So what do they actually think a typical top exhibitor with decades of sucess in the showring will do? Refuse to register with the KC,turn their back on the showring and retire to a genteel life of puppyfarming????:shock:
My poor bewildered brain needs some time to process this one.....:sl*p:

That email is certainly something for the Bateson Enquiry.

What do they mean when they say 'the limited value of a KC registration'? The Kennel Club has a monopoly on licensing dog shows. Only KC registered dogs can enter at those shows, only KC registered dogs can become Champions. These successful breeders need their cavaliers to be KC registered.

Nanette, can I put your quote on the Dog World comment page?

I wonder if someone could call a SGM to reverse this vote?

Margaret C

diddy
27th March 2009, 10:16 PM
So quantity is preferable to quality?

So what do they actually think a typical top exhibitor with decades of sucess in the showring will do? Refuse to register with the KC,turn their back on the showring and retire to a genteel life of puppy farming



In a word Yes :mad:. I'm sure this makes perfect sense to someone somewhere, but not to me it doesn't. Though I admit I could never claim to be Brain of Britain. NOTE TO KENNEL CLUB ...In order to gain rosettes, prize money and prestige, one first has to enter Dog Shows under KC rules. One of those rules is Your dog has to be registered with the kennel club.

sins
27th March 2009, 11:14 PM
Not a very comforting thought to imagine someone like the author of that e mail imposing regulations on the Cavalier Club at any date in the future.
If anything illustrates the need for the Club to self regulate then this surely is it??
Sins

Brian M
27th March 2009, 11:41 PM
HI Margaret
Tks for your kind comment ,just catching up on the posts on CT and Cav Chat are these people so stupid, it seems they are ,but other ones who scan and health test to the best off their ability and are trying so hard for our breed but that other crowd are ones who are self destructing our breed and will they pls get out you are way to old and out of date you do lots more harm, you are destroying the breed and I don't give a TOSS what you did in the past pls get out you are not wanted the damage you have caused is immense.

I also realize there are more and more good heath focused breeders who are growing daily but do we want to be held back by these other obnoxious dinosaurs who will not change now is the time get rid them.Oh how wish I was a member ,and lastly cant these cretins who voted no be named and shamed then surely the buying public will not go near them and thus hopefully stop these bxxxxxx breeding by the power of the press and hence their money grabbing ways .OH if I only knew now ten years ago things would be so different I hope.

Yous
pet owner and no breeder

Brian Murtagh

C M I W SC

HollyDolly
28th March 2009, 01:46 AM
Nanette, can I put your quote on the Dog World comment page?


Margaret C



Yes of course Margaret.

Nanette

HollyDolly
28th March 2009, 06:00 PM
I wonder if someone could call a SGM to reverse this vote?

Margaret C


How would one go about asking for a SGM to reverse the vote.
Also I am at a loss as to why it was allowed. the reasons given that members did not understand what they were voting for seems far from a adequate explanation.
:bang: Nanette

Margaret have been trying to get into my email all day, seems my computor keeps having funny turns this week. So will let you know the author of the email from KC when it
starts playing again.

Cathy Moon
29th March 2009, 03:15 PM
Also I am at a loss as to why it was allowed. the reasons given that members did not understand what they were voting for seems far from a adequate explanation.
Still waiting for an adequate explanation. Time will tell.

sins
29th March 2009, 03:26 PM
walk to the microphone, and eloquently persuade and encourage a group of cavalier owners to throw out a reasonable and measured attempt to encourage members to scan their cavaliers.

What were the points used by this individual in the effort to convince the members to dismiss the proposal?
Was the argument purely based on the technicalities of the voting procedure i.e. not enough copies of the proposal,insufficient time to debate the proposals or did the speakers actually argue against the merits of MRi scanning.
The identity of the individual(s) doesn't especially interest me but the substance of their argument greatly does.
Sins

Margaret C
29th March 2009, 04:27 PM
What were the points used by this individual in the effort to convince the members to dismiss the proposal?
Was the argument purely based on the technicalities of the voting procedure i.e. not enough copies of the proposal,insufficient time to debate the proposals or did the speakers actually argue against the merits of MRi scanning.
The identity of the individual(s) doesn't especially interest me but the substance of their argument greatly does.
Sins

It had developed into a fairly chaotic meeting and some people did protest about certain procedural matters.
There were lots of people talking loudly at the back but, if I remember rightly, when this member spoke the argument was against the use of the breeding recommendations.

The second time she spoke two sentences were cherry picked from the start of the recommendations......

"These breeding recommendations are made using current information and in response to CKCS breeder request for guidelines. It has yet to be proven if this guide is appropriate"

She then announced she rested her case. This individual can certainly work a crowd, & would make a great politician

If she had continued with the next sentences it goes on to state.....

"The aim of these recommendations is to reduce the incidence of symptomatic syringomyelia (SM) in the breed not to create litters of puppies guaranteed not to have SM as the chance of producing an affected dog cannot be predicted without knowing the inheritance".

There are no false promises in these recommendations, just a genuine attempt to identify & breed away from a serious & painful condition.

Margaret C

HollyDolly
30th March 2009, 10:56 PM
This little snippet was in the Opinions column of the Dog World Friday 27th March.

"Once again a decisive number of members of the Cavalier breed's parent club have shown they are not in tune with the spiritof the times regarding health testing. One can understand that they feel they have been pushed into a corner, but they really do need to appreciate that they must be seen to be doing all they can to keep the breed free of poblems"

Nanette