• If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.

Article on Dogworld re: Cavalier club members thwart health plans

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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
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??
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Sorry about the politics

Carol Fowler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
: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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. (y)
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
 
frecklesmom said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're trying to change the focus from themselves to others, but that is a very transparent tactic and very telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top