PDA

View Full Version : Do we need a new ckcs club.........



MARK MARSHALL
3rd November 2009, 06:41 PM
But one that is more focused on Cavaliers as PETS rather than show specimens ?

Health would be a priority but showing and breeding would/ought to be included.

It could be a WWW CLUB with a small joining fee, non profit making, other than to keep it solvent and as much as possible going to research.

It is endless what could be achieved - so please share your thoughts.

I am not seeking to be in a position of control but keen to make things happen.

It doesn't have to be before Xmas 2009 but in my mind, sooner rather than later ?

Your feedback is awaited.

Mark Marshall.

*Pauline*
3rd November 2009, 06:56 PM
What a fantastic idea. Count me in. This could be so useful to Cavalier owners. We could have health talks from the experts and raise money for charity. Even if the money raised keeps the club going in the early days.

Yorkysue
3rd November 2009, 07:31 PM
An interesting idea, I really like the idea of it being focussed on pets and health, and hopefully giving lots of help advice on not buying from the wrong 'outlets' etc. And maybe organising fun days(once it gets established?)

If showing and breeding was included in it though, wouldn't it finish up being like the other clubs in the end? even though the emphasis starts off with pets, the showing side of it could take over. and how would the breeding side of it fit in? Sorry about all these questions, (don't feel that you need answer them) I'm just 'thinking aloud and trying to see what it could turn out like.:biggrin:

Tania
3rd November 2009, 07:40 PM
Yes a great idea, you have my full support, if you want me to do anything let me know :p

Margaret C
3rd November 2009, 07:50 PM
An interesting idea, I really like the idea of it being focussed on pets and health, and hopefully giving lots of help advice on not buying from the wrong 'outlets' etc. And maybe organising fun days(once it gets established?)

If showing and breeding was included in it though, wouldn't it finish up being like the other clubs in the end? even though the emphasis starts off with pets, the showing side of it could take over. and how would the breeding side of it fit in? Sorry about all these questions, (don't feel that you need answer them) I'm just 'thinking aloud and trying to see what it could turn out like.:biggrin:

Thinking aloud and brain storming is good. There is a lot to be thought about with a suggestion like this

MARK MARSHALL
3rd November 2009, 07:52 PM
Sue, please have your say. A brain storm is good for airing ideas.

Showing need not be Champ or Open types. Can be Companion or otherwise. Fun on a sunny day is what we want and classes like 'The most Gay tail'

We must start small and move slowly.

Breeding could include everything about the subject other than producing pups from your own bitch.

Regards Mark.

*Pauline*
3rd November 2009, 11:39 PM
Fun on a sunny day is what we want and classes like 'The most Gay tail'

Oh we might win something yet! :rolleyes:

Margaret C
3rd November 2009, 11:54 PM
Just throwing ideas around, because I still don't know that this is the way to go.

I like the name companion cavaliers rather than pet cavaliers. That is a description that covers every cavalier wherever they were bred.

I would like to consider a breeding section, where the aim is to produce healthy companions with really good temperaments, although that concept will sit uneasily with some people.

There is still a strong feeling that 'genuine' breeders should be testing the standard of the dogs they breed by exhibiting them in shows. If you breed to supply pets for the non-show owner you are a BYB or puppy farmer.

I know many health testing, pet ownng, occasional breeders who just love having puppies.

Karen and Ruby
4th November 2009, 12:17 AM
I like the name Hobby breeder better- I doesnt have so many misinterpretations as BYB.

I love the idea though. I have been thinking alot lately of how I could raise miney for SM reasearch and what I could do.
It would be great to get to the larger fun shows next year.
Paws in the Park etc.
Obviously being nationwide there would need to be moderators in all corners so that travelling wasnt too much of an issue for some.
Maybe we could start with stuff that has nothing to do with Showing- the better things in life- all this fit for function malarky!! CavAgility/Obedience/Scent stuff.
I think people everywhere would be interested in doing fun stuff with their cavs and all the while establishing breeders to get on board that will breed for health rather than type.
Wasnt there a lady a while back who wanted to re create the breed using the papillion and so on?

Where do we start is the million dollar question but I am well and truly on board! Sounds great!

antigone
4th November 2009, 07:15 AM
If we want healthy dogs, why couldn't we award championships based on health and temperament not just appearance? I am NOT saying that appearance should count for nothing but often the healthiest person or pet is also the most beautiful. This would also start to select healthy breeding stock (?... somehow that sounds like the wrong word, though) and these champion HEALTHY dogs would be the dogs that were the most sought after as parents for puppies. With the limitations of how many times the dogs could be bred, it would also go part way toward avoiding the problem of so few dogs producing an overwhelming number of puppies. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why those healthy older dogs are not already preferred as sires and dams in the first place. A four year old healthy Cavalier would rank higher than a one year old healthy Cavalier. The health of puppies born from any parent could be one of the factors which added or subtracted from the total score. This might additionally start to show which dogs were carriers of disease even though seemingly unaffected themselves (the health of any puppies they had fathered or mothered as a factor in scoring).

It would also find more healthy dogs for contrasts in genetic studies because a contest which had all these health factors as a big part of any "showing" would find them. We all have heard rumors of 14 year old healthy Cavaliers. Where are they? Are they just urban legends or do they really exist? I am not suggesting that a dog that age be bred but it could be a prize dog whose lines would be sought after.

Ahhh! I am too tired to be writing this and I am not using the correct terminology so, if anyone can understand what I am trying to say and could restate it so that it made sense, I would welcome your help. I think that there may be something to this idea but I am not going to be able to communicate what I intend to communicate without some help here.

My son is having an acute "flare" of his chronic condition and I am just about worn out for the day. So, if anyone can help me so that what I am trying to say actually gets said, then the idea could be evaluated as a possible direction for judging in the alternative Cavalier Club. As I try to reread what I have written here, however, even I am getting confused.

I am CERTAINLY getting tired of hearing about some healthy older dog that someone just heard about existing. How about trotting that "puppy" out in the flesh instead of just using hearsay about such a dog as "proof" that there isn't really a Cavalier health crisis!

Sorry about this post. I almost feel like I am TWI (typing while intoxicated) but it isn't nearly as much fun as that might be!

Kathy

MadPip
4th November 2009, 08:31 AM
Originally Posted by MARK MARSHALL http://board.cavaliertalk.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://board.cavaliertalk.com/showthread.php?p=341133#post341133)
Fun on a sunny day is what we want and classes like 'The most Gay tail'


Oh we might win something yet! :rolleyes:

Oh I don't know, Pippin may give Dylan a run for his money on that one.icon_whistling:jmp2:

Kate H
4th November 2009, 09:58 AM
I can't quite see why we need a club in order to have fun with our Cavaliers - I seem to do it quite well anyway! What I think we need is more pet owners joining the existing Cavalier clubs (both national and regional) and starting to throw their weight around - ie turning up at AGMs, going to health talks (Geoff Skerrit's talking to Humberside Club about the latest SM research fairly soon), writing in magazines, going to fun days, health days etc. And taking our SM and MVD dogs along with us - in their buggies if necessary (I've entered my two NFC at the Midland Club Champ show in December, and Oliver will go along in his buggy; I also intend to go to the weekend next August at Blenheim Palace). Because I showed Oliver a bit in his younger days, I know quite a lot of show people by sight; they all love him, some of them know he has SM, and I shall use the opportunities to gently 'spread the word'.

Too many breeds (eg German Shepherds and Pekes) have multiple clubs which frequently fight and don't do their breeds any good at all. Don't let's join them! Strengthen the bridges, don't hack them down...

Kate, Oliver and Aled

PS As a rescue Aled has no papers, but is on the KC Activities Register (costs 10), so can go to breed shows NFC.

PPS If anyone wants a sponsor to join the Cavalier Club or the Midland Club, I'm happy to oblige.

Brian M
4th November 2009, 10:07 AM
Hi Kate

I tried to join the UK Cavalier Club last year but was refused membership for being outspoken :confused: democracy in action :confused:, but I was welcomed by South and West Wales Cavalier Club even though I live in N W England but that was thanks to a very educated and forward thinking President of that club .:)

Brian M
4th November 2009, 10:09 AM
Hi Kate

Just another thought I would be interested in joining also Midlands if they would care to have me and I promise to behave ,as surely more members equals more funds .:)

Kate H
4th November 2009, 10:34 AM
The secretary is Mrs Mary Rees, 'Little Oaks', 114 Hawkes Mill Lane, Coventry CV5 9FN (024 7640 3583). Ask for an application form, fill in your bit and send it on to me - I can find a second sponsor as well. If anyone queries why you want to join, the Midland Club was the first to organise group scanning at ChesterGates, after a talk by Geoff Skerrit nearly 3 years ago, so anyone would want to join such a forward thinking club! (We do have our share of ostriches, but also a good proportion of members who MRI their breeding stock.) About 40 members turned up to hear Sarah Blott last February as well.

Just behave - or Mary will never speak to me again!!

Kate, Oliver and Aled

PS The Midland Club looks after Discover Dogs at Crufts - Oliver and I have helped for about 5 years, and Mary really appreciates having someone on the stand who can talk (fairly) knowledgeably about SM; last year I took Oliver's scan to show people.

Brian M
4th November 2009, 10:59 AM
Hi Kate

And Scouts honour ( even though I was turfed out of them but I am a reformed football hooligan and alchohlic but we all have skeletons in the cupboard ) seriously though have faith .:)

Sandrac
4th November 2009, 11:02 AM
PS The Midland Club looks after Discover Dogs at Crufts - Oliver and I have helped for about 5 years, and Mary really appreciates having someone on the stand who can talk (fairly) knowledgeably about SM; last year I took Oliver's scan to show people.

Kate - are you there this year as I'll be there with Minnie and Cinders taking part in the KC Safe & Sound Scheme Demonstration.

woops - just realised you meant Crufts not the London Discover Dogs which is taking place next weekend - (senior moment!!)

Bet
4th November 2009, 11:15 AM
Could I say ,not a New UK CKCS CLUB ,make the one wev'e got more Representative of the Cavalier Pet Owners or the Cavalier Owners who don't Breed or Show Cavaliers.

With the forth-coming Elections for the the Committee ,let's us hope that , I have seen Carol's name mentioned would be interested in putting her name forward .

Nicki
4th November 2009, 12:09 PM
... This would also start to select healthy breeding stock ...

Kathy


Kathy, this is really the aim of the EBV scheme, Sarah Blott at the Animal Health Trust...

In the not too distant future, we should be able to obtain EBVs on our dogs, these are based on the results submitted to Sarah though.

It would be a huge help if everyone could health test their dogs and submit these results, as the results of the offspring affect the score for their parents.

See http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html, health, EBV for more information...





Kate H
What I think we need is more pet owners joining the existing Cavalier clubs (both national and regional) and starting to throw their weight around - ie turning up at AGMs, going to health talks (Geoff Skerrit's talking to Humberside Club about the latest SM research fairly soon), writing in magazines, going to fun days, health days etc.


Kate, I quite agree - if we set up an alternative club, this creates even more of a "them and us" environment. We want to work together, and playing together really helps this...

The more "Companion" people who join and take an active role, the better :D

MARK MARSHALL
4th November 2009, 01:29 PM
Please don't try to create this 'Club' before the idea has properly been discussed. It has NOT been suggested that it be a UK CKCS Club and is in no way, ever going to challenge any of the existing Clubs in this Country.

If you want the type of Club that already exists - then join, but you won't find a Club in the sense of your local swimming, running, bowling Club.

I have been to a couple of CKCS Club shows and the entries were terrible. The members don't seem to want to properly support the events, other than if CC's are awarded of course.

My thread is more about a Club for anyone, UK USA or AUSTRALIA.

A www. type of experience, Just focused on Companion Cavaliers.

Regards Mark.

Brian M
4th November 2009, 01:39 PM
Mark

How were the entries terrible ,in what way ,what do you mean.

Margaret C
4th November 2009, 01:39 PM
Kate, I quite agree - if we set up an alternative club, this creates even more of a "them and us" environment. We want to work together, and playing together really helps this...

The more "Companion" people who join and take an active role, the better :D

As I have said I'm not quite sure of the idea of an alternative club, still thinking out loud in a way.........

I do agree that it would be better if cavalier companion owners were more represented in the existing clubs, but unfortunately any members that were proposed by me last year were turned down ( they do not have to give reasons )

In the regional clubs, the Southern and Eastern Counties were so scared of 'pet people' taking over, that they changed the rules to deny newcomers a vote at AGMs.

Nikki, we could always propose you for the Cavalier Club or Scottish Club Committee?

Nicki
4th November 2009, 01:56 PM
Thanks Margaret - biggest problem is distance...

The Scottish committee meetings are about 5 hours drive away - just not possible for me.


In the regional clubs, the Southern and Eastern Counties were so scared of 'pet people' taking over, that they changed the rules to deny newcomers a vote at AGMs.


This is shocking isn't it?? Shows what they truly think...


How do we go about changing the "us and them" situation?


The Scottish club have a Summer Party - they have games and a rescue parade, but is viewed by breeders as a "pet people" event so most of the breeders don't attend....

Pat
4th November 2009, 02:23 PM
We all have heard rumors of 14 year old healthy Cavaliers. Where are they? Are they just urban legends or do they really exist?

I am CERTAINLY getting tired of hearing about some healthy older dog that someone just heard about existing. How about trotting that "puppy" out in the flesh instead of just using hearsay about such a dog as "proof" that there isn't really a Cavalier health crisis!


Kathy, they do exist, they are not urban legends - I have one who is 14 1/2 and is heart clear and symptomless for SM.......and a 7 year old who is the same, although I don't consider 7 to be a senior but rather to be middle aged. I've had healthy teenagers in the past also, and I've had friends with Cavaliers who lived into their mid-teens.

But, just because they do exist, they are not "proof that there isn't really a health crisis." They should be the norm rather than the exception. My gut feeling (from 20 years of having and observing the breed) is that perhaps 20% make it into their early to mid-teens with pretty good health and quality of life, perhaps 50% have an "average" Cavalier life span of 10-11, and then there is that remaining 30% or so
that die very young - from 6-8. That is a very unscientific, rough guesstimate, although I suspect it is pretty accurate.

But for a breed of this size, I believe that the figures should look more like 50-60% living until 13-14, 20% living until 15-16, and the lower 20% living until 10-11. (There will always be some dogs of every breed who die at a young or middle age.) If the early-onset MVD could be significantly eliminated, these later numbers would be more of a reality.

Pat

(Ironically, the 7 year old boy was retired from the show ring and neutered because of his gay tail! He is a very nice looking boy.....and probably should have remained in the breeding pool......The 14+ year old girl did have at least one litter, and I wish I knew where the offspring were. Unfortunately, her kennel is now defunct and those genes are gone. I had a total of five Kilspindies.....they lived to be 13, 14, 16, 16 1/2.....none died from heart disease; three died from cancer. The fifth one is my current girl who is 14 1/2. )

Holly
4th November 2009, 04:11 PM
I just spoke with someone the other night who has a 15 1/2 year old Cavalier who has a Grade 2 murmur and is taking no meds at this time for his heart. That's a long-lived life!

Margaret C
4th November 2009, 04:25 PM
In the regional clubs, the Southern and Eastern Counties were so scared of 'pet people' taking over, that they changed the rules to deny newcomers a vote at AGMs.






This is shocking isn't it?? Shows what they truly think.......

I have just remembered something that really amused me at the time.

At the Eastern Counties AGM there was heated comparisons drawn between the possible infiltration of the club by subversive pet owners and the actions of the Militant Tendency in Liverpool.

The speaker was one of the pet note writers for the Cavalier Club website.

Brian M
4th November 2009, 04:37 PM
Hi Margaret

I used to sit by a certain Mr Derek Hatton when I used to go to watch Everton F C in the Jo Mercer Suite ,I wondered why I was refused membership of the UK CKCS Club could this be the reason subversive activities.:)

Margaret C
4th November 2009, 04:43 PM
Hi Margaret

I used to sit by a certain Mr Derek Hatton when I used to go to watch Everton F C in the Jo Mercer Suite ,I wondered why I was refused membership of the UK CKCS Club could this be the reason subversive activities.:)

Brian,

You have just confirmed everyone's suspicions about you.

Pat
4th November 2009, 05:06 PM
The most noteworthy event in the history of Cavalier clubs that illustrates the above discussion is the infamous schism when the twelve prominent members (referred to as the "splinters" or the "saviors" in those old days, depending upon one's point of view!) split from CKCSC, USA (original breed club for Cavaliers in the US) and went on to form the ACKCSC which became the parent club for Cavaliers in the AKC.

The new club vowed never again to let pet owners have a majority vote in a breed club and set up membership rules to ensure that this indeed would never happen again. (This was after the pet owner majority vote in the original club which rejected the invitation of the AKC to become the parent club for Cavaliers.)

There was talk some years back by some of the old time CKCSC members about starting a third club, but it was never more than just talk. I tend to agree that it's much better to work within current clubs.

Pat

diddy
4th November 2009, 05:12 PM
[QUOTE=

At the Eastern Counties AGM there was heated comparisons drawn between the possible infiltration of the club by subversive pet owners and the actions of the Militant Tendency in Liverpool.

.[/QUOTE]

:lol::lol:

WoodHaven
4th November 2009, 05:55 PM
The most noteworthy event in the history of Cavalier clubs that illustrates the above discussion is the infamous schism when the twelve prominent members (referred to as the "splinters" or the "saviors" in those old days, depending upon one's point of view!) split from CKCSC, USA (original breed club for Cavaliers in the US) and went on to form the ACKCSC which became the parent club for Cavaliers in the AKC.

The new club vowed never again to let pet owners have a majority vote in a breed club and set up membership rules to ensure that this indeed would never happen again. (This was after the pet owner majority vote in the original club which rejected the invitation of the AKC to become the parent club for Cavaliers.)

There was talk some years back by some of the old time CKCSC members about starting a third club, but it was never more than just talk. I tend to agree that it's much better to work within current clubs.

Pat

This was (and in some ways is) a big issue. The CKCSC,USA would accept internationally accepted registries into its registry -- except for the AKC (which changed just a few years ago). I brought my UK registered dog right into the CKCSC, USA registry without an issue.
I always heard them referred to as the 'dirty dozen'.

RodRussell
4th November 2009, 07:02 PM
The most noteworthy event in the history of Cavalier clubs that illustrates the above discussion is the infamous schism when the twelve prominent members ... split from CKCSC, USA (original breed club for Cavaliers in the US) and went on to form the ACKCSC which became the parent club for Cavaliers in the AKC.

The new club vowed never again to let pet owners have a majority vote in a breed club and set up membership rules to ensure that this indeed would never happen again. (This was after the pet owner majority vote in the original club which rejected the invitation of the AKC to become the parent club for Cavaliers.)...

I would not have called them "prominent". I know that at least one of them had not even been a breeder for a year at that point. Most were relatively new to the breed, compared to many other Cavalier breeders with a many more years of Cavalier breeding experience.

I disagree that the CKCSC,USA vote against joining the AKC was due to pet owners having a majority vote. I am sure that pet owners were in the overwhelming majority (over 90%) voting against the measure, but so too were an overwhelming majority of breeders, including the really "prominent" breeders in the club at that time.

The reasons for CKCSC,USA's vote against joining the AKC included the fact that AKC would not allow CKCSC,USA to enforce its code of ethics. Another was the fear -- since well proven-- that AKC recognition would result in massive publicity, prompting an upsurge in new, opportunistic breeders, puppy mill sales, pet store sales, and increased numbers of litters overall, which would be contrary to the best interests of the breed. With early-onset MVD becoming rampant, the last thing the breed needed in the mid-1990s was increased breeding by newcomers and others ignorant of the breed's serious health issues.

The new AKC parent club was not at all concerned that pet owners would have a majority vote. That was no problem, since hardly any AKC parent clubs allow pet owners to vote. The parent club feared most that the truly prominent CKCS breeders, the ones who voted against joining AKC, would join the new parent club and take it over. So, the AKC parent club's "twelve" made if very difficult for any other CKCS breeders to become voting members, and made blackballing of member-applicants very easy.

The CKCSC,USA's board of directors -- which rarely had any pet owners as members (Pat B. was one of them) -- voted to penalize the "twelve" for violating the CKCSC,USA's code of ethics. When the "twelve" refused to pay their fines, the CKCSC,USA's board of directors voted to expel the "twelve" for not paying those fines. So, this was not just a matter of pet owners versus breeders.

The end result of AKC recognition has been a disaster for the Cavalier in the USA. One "prominent" example is the ACKCSC's refusal to even disclose the existence of the MVD breeding protocol on its website. That website is supposed to be where all AKC Cavalier breeders should go to find out what they need to know about the breed, including its genetic health issues. But, instead of informing all of the AKC breeders about early-onset MVD and how to try to eliminate it from future generations of Cavalier litters, the ACKCSC's website says absolutely nothing about the MVD breeding protocol.

Margaret C
4th November 2009, 07:09 PM
Please don't try to create this 'Club' before the idea has properly been discussed. It has NOT been suggested that it be a UK CKCS Club and is in no way, ever going to challenge any of the existing Clubs in this Country.

If you want the type of Club that already exists - then join, but you won't find a Club in the sense of your local swimming, running, bowling Club.

I have been to a couple of CKCS Club shows and the entries were terrible. The members don't seem to want to properly support the events, other than if CC's are awarded of course.

My thread is more about a Club for anyone, UK USA or AUSTRALIA.

A www. type of experience, Just focused on Companion Cavaliers.

Regards Mark.


Perhaps we already have a www. kind of unofficial club; we certainly have a worldwide community here.
Should we be building on that?

antigone
4th November 2009, 07:20 PM
This is the closest thing to a Cavalier Club that I would want to join. I guess that I am not much of a club kind of person. I hate meetings where everybody sits around and they (the meetings) follow Robert's Rules of Order. I don't want to hear the reading of the notes of the last meeting and new business and old business. I have read some of the notes of Cavalier Clubs around here (actually in Oregon) and the discussions about who is going to be allowed to be a member and who isn't. I don't like sitting around and talking about sanitized topics. I don't think I could stand to be a member of clubs that took themselves so seriously. From what I can tell, any club around here is more difficult to join than getting naturalized American citizenship.

For some reason, it seems like people who get involved in these clubs start to think that the clubs not only resemble the real world but begin to think the club IS the real world and the focal point of their lives.

In the US, rules about puppy breeding and selling only apply to pet stores or large scale breeders. Some states have consumer protection laws but again, the usually explicitly exempt "hobby breeders." There are USDA (United States Department of Agriculture rules but, in all the cases I have found, "hobby breeders" are exempted from even those rules. USDA does not run a clean ship. The main focus is large scale meat production and things like that. Some woman was arrested for animal cruelty close to here a few years ago because she had 67 dogs in her house. She was certified by the USDA. BTW, as far as I know, she skipped out on her bail and has not been found again.

I am reading a book right now by Jonathan Safran Foer and the title is "Eating Animals." It is horrible in content but very well written and factual. USDA is mostly involved in "supervising" factory farms which is another term for animal torture facilities. Just awful. I am not writing about this now, however, I just mentioned it to explain what kind of regulation there is here. So, if the clubs won't regulate breeders and only admit "certain" kinds of people, and the only other regulations are USDA rules or consumer protection rules that only apply to pet stores, basically NOBODY regulates Cavalier breeding (or the breeding of any companion animals).

I can't see how trying to join any of these clubs is going to help with the main problem we are dealing with dog breeding and the SM and MVD problems. I only know what I see and read about, though. I guess that it is possible that things are different in other countries. Somehow, neither kind of club appeals to me. That is just me, however.

Kathy

WoodHaven
4th November 2009, 08:14 PM
I would not have called them "prominent". I know that at least one of them had not even been a breeder for a year at that point. Most were relatively new to the breed, compared to many other Cavalier breeders with a many more years of Cavalier breeding experience.

I disagree that the CKCSC,USA vote against joining the AKC was due to pet owners having a majority vote. I am sure that pet owners were in the overwhelming majority (over 90%) voting against the measure, but so too were an overwhelming majority of breeders, including the really "prominent" breeders in the club at that time.

The reasons for CKCSC,USA's vote against joining the AKC included the fact that AKC would not allow CKCSC,USA to enforce its code of ethics. Another was the fear -- since well proven-- that AKC recognition would result in massive publicity, prompting an upsurge in new, opportunistic breeders, puppy mill sales, pet store sales, and increased numbers of litters overall, which would be contrary to the best interests of the breed. With early-onset MVD becoming rampant, the last thing the breed needed in the mid-1990s was increased breeding by newcomers and others ignorant of the breed's serious health issues.

The new AKC parent club was not at all concerned that pet owners would have a majority vote. That was no problem, since hardly any AKC parent clubs allow pet owners to vote. The parent club feared most that the truly prominent CKCS breeders, the ones who voted against joining AKC, would join the new parent club and take it over. So, the AKC parent club's "twelve" made if very difficult for any other CKCS breeders to become voting members, and made blackballing of member-applicants very easy.

The CKCSC,USA's board of directors -- which rarely had any pet owners as members (Pat B. was one of them) -- voted to penalize the "twelve" for violating the CKCSC,USA's code of ethics. When the "twelve" refused to pay their fines, the CKCSC,USA's board of directors voted to expel the "twelve" for not paying those fines. So, this was not just a matter of pet owners versus breeders.

The end result of AKC recognition has been a disaster for the Cavalier in the USA. One "prominent" example is the ACKCSC's refusal to even disclose the existence of the MVD breeding protocol on its website. That website is supposed to be where all AKC Cavalier breeders should go to find out what they need to know about the breed, including its genetic health issues. But, instead of informing all of the AKC breeders about early-onset MVD and how to try to eliminate it from future generations of Cavalier litters, the ACKCSC's website says absolutely nothing about the MVD breeding protocol.

This was before I had cavaliers, but I was told there were major miscommunications.
The AKC was coming, because no breed stays in the misc. forever. The CKCSC, USA could have been the parent club-- but....

RodRussell
4th November 2009, 09:02 PM
...The CKCSC, USA could have been the parent club-- but....

But? But, it would have not been in the best interest of the breed. AKC recognition was not a foregone conclusion. Had the twelve not started the ACKCSC, AKC would not have recognized the breed, because AKC requires that there be a parent club with members well-experienced with the breed, and the only Cavalier breeders who fit that qualification were those in the CKCSC,USA. AKC does not drag people in off of the street and make them a parent club.

It was not in the best interest of the breed, and as a result of AKC recognition and the ACKCSC's anti-health-protocol attitude, the breed has suffered greatly.

WoodHaven
4th November 2009, 09:44 PM
But? But, it would have not been in the best interest of the breed. AKC recognition was not a foregone conclusion. Had the twelve not started the ACKCSC, AKC would not have recognized the breed, because AKC requires that there be a parent club with members well-experienced with the breed, and the only Cavalier breeders who fit that qualification were those in the CKCSC,USA. AKC does not drag people in off of the street and make them a parent club.

It was not in the best interest of the breed, and as a result of AKC recognition and the ACKCSC's anti-health-protocol attitude, the breed has suffered greatly.

They would have found people to start a club... that WAS the threat. People not nearly as knowledgeable in the breed WOULD have been given this POWER. And as we all saw, once they became recognized-- breeders who were VERY anti AKC flew to the stud book.
The CKCSC club was given plenty of time and plenty of notice--

According to some people-- cavaliers have been suffering since the 1940's-- let us not blame the AKC for that.

Pat
4th November 2009, 10:11 PM
This was before I had cavaliers, but I was told there were major miscommunications.
The AKC was coming, because no breed stays in the misc. forever. The CKCSC, USA could have been the parent club-- but....

That was the "spin" from the people (prominent or not!) who left the club to start the new club. I don't know anyone who was there at the time who voted to remain independent who believes that there was any "miscommunication." We may have been a bit naive to think that there would not be a splinter group but I think most would vote the same if we could do it again. One of the biggest issues was that most of us wanted to remain autonomous so that the club's Code of Ethics could be tied to registration privileges since AKC parent clubs have no control over registration and have no enforceable COE.

We hear the same lament over and over from breed clubs in the US and the UK - "we can't enforce our COE because we don't have control over registration.....whine, whine" - well by golly, the CKCSC could enforce a COE because a breeder lost registration privileges if found to be in violation of the club COE. If you sold puppies through a broker or pet store, for example, you couldn't register your litters anymore; etc. The COE could be specifically tailored to our breed, and the club had the clout it needed to really enforce the COE, so the COE became a requirement rather than a "suggestion." Breeders toed the line whether they wanted to or not because there were real consequences if they did not.

Had the club chosen to do so, there could have been REAL progress made toward tying some basic health testing requirements to the ability to register litters. CKCSC registration could have truly "meant" something to puppy buyers, but unfortunately there was never agreement among the various factions to take that groundbreaking step and the health protocols remained "suggestions." (I sat through many a long meeting where this was debated.)

The other big issue was puppy mills. We knew that Cavaliers would be extremely attractive to millers once they had the "AKC stamp of approval."

Pat

RodRussell
4th November 2009, 10:24 PM
They would have found people to start a club... that WAS the threat. People not nearly as knowledgeable in the breed WOULD have been given this POWER. And as we all saw, once they became recognized-- breeders who were VERY anti AKC flew to the stud book.

Nope. There wasn't anybody else. If all CKCSC,USA breeders had hung tough, AKC would have had to wait a very, very long time, if ever, to find anyone who would meet AKC's own standards to start a new breed's parent club.


The CKCSC club was given plenty of time and plenty of notice--

The CKCSC,USA was given time and notice, and its members thoughtfully responded with their overwhelming decision, which was to tell AKC to go pound sand.


According to some people-- cavaliers have been suffering since the 1940's-- let us not blame the AKC for that.

Cavaliers have had MVD for a long time, no doubt. The problem, however, was magnified greatly by AKC recognition just at the time -- the mid-1990s -- when we were finding out that it was genetic and how to eliminate the early-onset variety of it. The last thing we needed at that juncture was for totally ignorant breeders of other AKC breeds switching over to the CKCS as the latest money breed. I say "ignorant" not derogatorily; it was just a fact that they did not know about MVD or the other rather unique genetic health problems of the breed.

They just jumped in and started breeding and showing -- and at the start and for several years thereafter, producing very poor specimens as "champions", I might add, thanks to pathetic judging by judges who had never seen a Cavalier before 1995 and ignored the CKCS breed standard because they thought it was goofy and full of typos.

Until AKC recognition of the CKCS, Cavalier puppies very rarely showed up for sale in pet stores, and puppy mills did not waste their time with them. Then, AKC adds them to its Dog Book and puts them on calendars, etc., and the new parent club turns its back on the MVD breeding protocol, and the breed has been spiraling ever since.

Pat
4th November 2009, 10:25 PM
breeders who were VERY anti AKC flew to the stud book.


Yes, that was a big disappointment to me........I only know of two breeders who stood by their convictions and did not dual register their breeding stock. But dual registration happened NOT because breeders had changed their minds about AKC, but because they feared that the old club would go out of business and disappear and they would be left with breeding stock that could not then be registered with AKC and would thus be "worthless" (since there was a very short window that AKC would accept CKCSC registered dogs into the AKC) and they would only have registration with a defunct registering body. So this was a business decision rather than an ethical decision, and had nothing to do with a change of heart or mind but rather was a protection of monetary investment in breeding stock.

Pat

RodRussell
4th November 2009, 10:29 PM
That was the "spin" from the people (prominent or not!) who left the club to start the new club. I don't know anyone who was there at the time who voted to remain independent who believes that there was any "miscommunication." We may have been a bit naive to think that there would not be a splinter group but I think most would vote the same if we could do it again. One of the biggest issues was that most of us wanted to remain autonomous so that the club's Code of Ethics could be tied to registration privileges since AKC parent clubs have no control over registration and have no enforceable COE.

We hear the same lament over and over from breed clubs in the US and the UK - "we can't enforce our COE because we don't have control over registration.....whine, whine" - well by golly, the CKCSC could enforce a COE because a breeder lost registration privileges if found to be in violation of the club COE. If you sold puppies through a broker or pet store, for example, you couldn't register your litters anymore; etc. The COE could be specifically tailored to our breed, and the club had the clout it needed to really enforce the COE, so the COE became a requirement rather than a "suggestion." Breeders toed the line whether they wanted to or not because there were real consequences if they did not.

Had the club chosen to do so, there could have been REAL progress made toward tying some basic health testing requirements to the ability to register litters. CKCSC registration could have truly "meant" something to puppy buyers, but unfortunately there was never agreement among the various factions to take that groundbreaking step and the health protocols remained "suggestions." (I sat through many a long meeting where this was debated.)

The other big issue was puppy mills. We knew that Cavaliers would be extremely attractive to millers once they had the "AKC stamp of approval."

Pat

Right on, gal!

WoodHaven
4th November 2009, 10:48 PM
Yes, that was a big disappointment to me........I only know of two breeders who stood by their convictions and did not dual register their breeding stock. But dual registration happened NOT because breeders had changed their minds about AKC, but because they feared that the old club would go out of business and disappear and they would be left with breeding stock that could not then be registered with AKC and would thus be "worthless" (since there was a very short window that AKC would accept CKCSC registered dogs into the AKC) and they would only have registration with a defunct registering body. So this was a business decision rather than an ethical decision, and had nothing to do with a change of heart or mind but rather was a protection of monetary investment in breeding stock.

Pat

The stud books were open for quite a while--some anti akc breeders were there within the first months.

Pat
4th November 2009, 10:55 PM
"Pound sand"????

I'm sitting here laughing because we Americans have hijacked your thread. And you thought that you in the UK had a monopoly on passionate club politics!!!

Ah well, my original point was that we talked over here about yet another club but I don't think that would have helped matters at all.

Turning discussion back over to you on the other side of the pond now...........

Pat

WoodHaven
4th November 2009, 10:57 PM
That was the "spin" from the people (prominent or not!) who left the club to start the new club. I don't know anyone who was there at the time who voted to remain independent who believes that there was any "miscommunication." We may have been a bit naive to think that there would not be a splinter group but I think most would vote the same if we could do it again. One of the biggest issues was that most of us wanted to remain autonomous so that the club's Code of Ethics could be tied to registration privileges since AKC parent clubs have no control over registration and have no enforceable COE.

We hear the same lament over and over from breed clubs in the US and the UK - "we can't enforce our COE because we don't have control over registration.....whine, whine" - well by golly, the CKCSC could enforce a COE because a breeder lost registration privileges if found to be in violation of the club COE. If you sold puppies through a broker or pet store, for example, you couldn't register your litters anymore; etc. The COE could be specifically tailored to our breed, and the club had the clout it needed to really enforce the COE, so the COE became a requirement rather than a "suggestion." Breeders toed the line whether they wanted to or not because there were real consequences if they did not.

Had the club chosen to do so, there could have been REAL progress made toward tying some basic health testing requirements to the ability to register litters. CKCSC registration could have truly "meant" something to puppy buyers, but unfortunately there was never agreement among the various factions to take that groundbreaking step and the health protocols remained "suggestions." (I sat through many a long meeting where this was debated.)

The other big issue was puppy mills. We knew that Cavaliers would be extremely attractive to millers once they had the "AKC stamp of approval."

Pat

Pat,
If I had to choose a CKCSC, USA only registered cavalier or an AKC only registered cavalier-- guess which one I'd pick. I don't believe there is a registering body in the world that recognizes the CKCSC registration... btw, every cavalier here is dual registered, every pup I've ever bred is dual registered. I do the paperwork and I pay the fees.

The ladies that worked the CKCSC, USA in the early days wanted AKC recognition. Why... IT is the USA's registering body for dogs.

You don't need the AKC's stamp of approval for puppymills-- they require paperwork and inspections. There are 4- 5 other 'registrations' in the USA that give you a piece of paper, no questions asked.

Pat
4th November 2009, 11:06 PM
The stud books were open for quite a while--some anti akc breeders were there within the first months.

As I recall it was two years.....or maybe three......that the stud book was open to CKCSC registered dogs. Nevertheless there was fear that the CKCSC would go belly up and/or the rules would change and the stud book would be closed so people did move quickly to protect their investment in their breeding programs and to "cover all bases." Again.......I was disappointed.

Pat

WoodHaven
4th November 2009, 11:10 PM
As I recall it was two years.....or maybe three......that the stud book was open to CKCSC registered dogs. Nevertheless there was fear that the CKCSC would go belly up and/or the rules would change and the stud book would be closed so people did move quickly to protect their investment in their breeding programs and to "cover all bases." Again.......I was disappointed.

Pat

Ms. Twigg is a delight to talk to... I spent hours with her one night. She liked to talk about Maxholt dogs. She carried pictures (black and white) on her to show.

RodRussell
4th November 2009, 11:34 PM
Ms. Twigg is a delight to talk to... I spent hours with her one night. She liked to talk about Maxholt dogs. She carried pictures (black and white) on her to show.

Joan Twigg can look at a CKCSC,USA Cavalier and tell you which breeder bred it, and sometimes even who the sire was.

Pat
4th November 2009, 11:40 PM
Pat,
If I had to choose a CKCSC, USA only registered cavalier or an AKC only registered cavalier-- guess which one I'd pick.

The ladies that worked the CKCSC, USA in the early days wanted AKC recognition. Why... IT is the USA's registering body for dogs.

You don't need the AKC's stamp of approval for puppymills-- they require paperwork and inspections. There are 4- 5 other 'registrations' in the USA that give you a piece of paper, no questions asked.

Of course you would pick AKC - but it's a business decision based on showing, breeding, etc.

I actually can speak for those ladies, because Liz Spalding is a dear friend. THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS after they saw what they had achieved as an independent breed club/registry and what AKC had become! (Well, Trudy was dead and Sally was no longer involved.........but Liz was the strongest anti-AKC breeder around during the vote and she is one of two who never dual registered Cavaliers. She is also the reason that I found myself sitting on the national BOD.)

This happened before AKC initiated new requirements such as DNA registration of studs, etc. and before the new bogus registries emerged. Then, there was pretty much only AKC and UKC as US multiple breed registries. We were also not the only independent clubs to "resist" - remember what happened with border collies and JRT's.

Pat

Pat
4th November 2009, 11:50 PM
I don't understand the reference to Joan......unless you are saying that she was one who did not dual register. If so, then the number moves from two to three breeders.

Now I'm really nostalgic for the old days (but NOT the fighting!)......I'd move heaven and earth to have another Kilspindie..........when Susie dies it will truly be the end of an era for me.....

I remember Joan and Oliver's all time favorite girl - Tuesday - who was a McGoogan (spelling?). She was treated like a queen and was absolutely "rotten."

Pat

RodRussell
4th November 2009, 11:51 PM
I don't believe there is a registering body in the world that recognizes the CKCSC registration...

That would only be because of AKC recognition and the international agreements it has with other countries' kennel clubs to not recognize non-AKC registries.


btw, every cavalier here is dual registered, every pup I've ever bred is dual registered. I do the paperwork and I pay the fees.

If you register your litter puppies with AKC, then I tip me hat to you! I have been campaigning for three years to get AKC parent clubs to urge their members to register all of their puppies along with the litters. The closest I have come thus far is to get AKC to roll out the AKC Registration Pledge Challenge this past June -- see http://www.akc.org/regpledge/ -- a rather lame version of my proposal.


You don't need the AKC's stamp of approval for puppymills-- they require paperwork and inspections. There are 4- 5 other 'registrations' in the USA that give you a piece of paper, no questions asked.

You are talking about now, not then, in 1993 and 1994. Back then, there were no Cavaliers in puppy mills because AKC had not recognized the breed. And back then, AKC's inspections were a lot less arduous than now.

WoodHaven
5th November 2009, 12:02 AM
That would only be because of AKC recognition and the international agreements it has with other countries' kennel clubs to not recognize non-AKC registries.



If you register your litter puppies with AKC, then I tip me hat to you! I have been campaigning for three years to get AKC parent clubs to urge their members to register all of their puppies along with the litters. The closest I have come thus far is to get AKC to roll out the AKC Registration Pledge Challenge this past June -- see http://www.akc.org/regpledge/ -- a rather lame version of my proposal.



You are talking about now, not then, in 1993 and 1994. Back then, there were no Cavaliers in puppy mills because AKC had not recognized the breed. And back then, AKC's inspections were a lot less arduous than now.

The AKC has made it easier for breeders (I sound like a commercial) to register a full litter to themselves first. I had to register puppies in the old club and I wanted their names to match in the AKC -- so I do it and pay for it.

Does this sound familiar-- per AKC
"Full Litter Registration also creates an added incentive for fanciers to successfully participate in the AKC Registration Pledge Challenge currently underway. By using Full Litter you are guaranteeing that 100% of your puppies are ultimately registered with AKC."

Margaret C
5th November 2009, 12:16 AM
"Pound sand"????

I'm sitting here laughing because we Americans have hijacked your thread. And you thought that you in the UK had a monopoly on passionate club politics!!!

Ah well, my original point was that we talked over here about yet another club but I don't think that would have helped matters at all.

Turning discussion back over to you on the other side of the pond now...........

Pat

Fascinating stuff.
I know some of the history of the 'Old Club' 'New Club' as I was around when it was happening.
I'm enjoying hearing what really happened & why.

WoodHaven
5th November 2009, 12:26 AM
I don't understand the reference to Joan......unless you are saying that she was one who did not dual register. If so, then the number moves from two to three breeders.

Now I'm really nostalgic for the old days (but NOT the fighting!)......I'd move heaven and earth to have another Kilspindie..........when Susie dies it will truly be the end of an era for me.....

I remember Joan and Oliver's all time favorite girl - Tuesday - who was a McGoogan (spelling?). She was treated like a queen and was absolutely "rotten."

Pat

What I am saying is that I did try to get some information from people who were there first hand. Coming in to this issue after the fall out -- you hear a lot of 'they said, he said, she said' etc... but facts are sometimes harder to get. I spent an evening with Pat Winter(Cobblestone) in Pennsylvania during an old club show. We had just started trying to find our first show pup. She takes a Thanksgiving picture with her 'WHOLE' family. I remember asking, "do all those dogs live with you"--lol.

Yes, the Twiggs never went to the AKC.

We started our own AKC regional cavalier club 7 years ago (there are about 20 now in the US)-- We have our own CofE and ethics board.

Pat
5th November 2009, 12:55 AM
Ah, yes I have one of Pat's photos on display in my home office. I think she hot glue-gunned the dogs' butts to the front steps. (I realize that I just made up that verb!) I think it was Pat (or maybe Anne....) who introduced me to Rod.

Rod, do you remember making xerox copies of flyers and doing mass mailings to all club members? We didn't have the internet, and I purchased my first fax machine then to make communication easier.

I sat on the national ethics committee back then, and we took our responsibilities very, very seriously. Again, there were serious consequences if one had an ethics charge against them that was upheld as there could be fines or other penalties up to expulsion. Then, if a breeder lost the ability to register his/her puppies/litters and show, there was a real impact. COEs are fine, but with no serious consequences for violating the COE, they don't have any "teeth."

Pat (feeling very old.....)

WoodHaven
5th November 2009, 01:03 AM
I sat on the national ethics committee back then, and we took our responsibilities very, very seriously. Again, there were serious consequences if one had an ethics charge against them that was upheld as there could be fines or other penalties up to expulsion. Then, if a breeder lost the ability to register his/her puppies/litters and show, there was a real impact. COEs are fine, but with no serious consequences for violating the COE, they don't have any "teeth."

Pat (feeling very old.....)

That consequence only has teeth IF the breeders/owners want to stay with the club. IF they make the hobby of dog owning and breeding too onerous-- people can and do leave. I know of a half dozen that have quit the CKCSC in the last couple of years due to problems in that system.

I myself got charged $250 EXTRA to register a litter-- due to a glitch in registration in ENGLAND three generations back.

Pat
5th November 2009, 01:20 AM
That consequence only has teeth IF the breeders/owners want to stay with the club.

My point EXACTLY! Back then, the CKCSC was the only game in town so serious breeders had to comply with the COE to be able to breed and show registered dogs. If they decided to leave because the rules were too stringent - nobody cared!

Now, there are multiple choices (and most of them have COEs not tied to registration) so breeders can do as they please with few consequences.

Pat

RodRussell
5th November 2009, 01:30 AM
The AKC has made it easier for breeders (I sound like a commercial) to register a full litter to themselves first. I had to register puppies in the old club and I wanted their names to match in the AKC -- so I do it and pay for it.

Does this sound familiar-- per AKC
"Full Litter Registration also creates an added incentive for fanciers to successfully participate in the AKC Registration Pledge Challenge currently underway. By using Full Litter you are guaranteeing that 100% of your puppies are ultimately registered with AKC."

Full litter registration became available recently but has been rarely utilized, like under 2% of all litter registrations. It started out as temporary test program a couple of years ago, and I encouraged David Roberts of AKC's registration department to not end it when its initial time ran out. The AKC board agreed with his recommendation to extend it.

Then, in June the AKC board agreed to offer this AKC Registration Pledge Challenge program, where parent clubs are to urge their members to, in turn, urge their puppy buyers to register their puppies. This is not what I proposed. I proposed that the parent clubs urge their breeder-members to register the puppies with the litters under the full registration program. AKC thought that was trying to go too far too quickly, so the pledge challenge program is a watered down compromise, like a first step towards combining litter and puppy registration as the usual way of doing business.

Full litter registration is a no-brainer for CKCSC,USA members, since all puppies are registered with their litters in the CKCSC,USA. But most AKC-only breeders, of all breeds, have viewed blue slips as the puppy buyers' responsibility. This has been so for decades. So, I suggested that the breeders be given a discount for registering the puppies and the litters at the same time.

Maybe, sometime, AKC will convince its parent clubs, and the parent clubs in turn will convince their members, to use full litter registration all the time. At least that option is still available, rather than AKC ending the full litter registration program after the end of its test period.

WoodHaven
5th November 2009, 01:37 AM
My point EXACTLY! Back then, the CKCSC was the only game in town so serious breeders had to comply with the COE to be able to breed and show registered dogs. If they decided to leave because the rules were too stringent - nobody cared!

Now, there are multiple choices (and most of them have COEs not tied to registration) so breeders can do as they please with few consequences.

Pat


Most cavaliers are not born of show breeders-- those would be the only ones that would care. Most people I've sold cavaliers to have never heard of the CKCSC, USA
AND-- someone has to press charges, many infractions aren't caught.

No, our c of e isn't connected with registration-- but being a member means you will abide by the rules, or risk fines/expulsion.

Cathy T
5th November 2009, 01:37 AM
What an absolutely fascinating conversation this has turned into!! You all have enlightened me so much about things I wasn't aware of. I knew about "old club" and "new club" and knew about the differences, but have learned so much more from this conversation. How enlightening to havd you "oldies" (and I don't mean that in age ;) I mean that in experience) give us your thoughts and perspectives.

I absolutely love being a member of my regional Cavalier Club. I have learned so much, met so many wonderful people....and have so many more Cavalier experiences than I ever would have had without my club. Two of my very dearest friends I've met through my club. We have riveting speakers at every meeting. We discuss health testing, feeding, vaccinations, training....everything. And I have such wonderful resources to go to if I have an issue with my dog. I think I am lucky that our club is still relatively small. It's a very intimate group, I know everyone in my club and that makes it really special.

RodRussell
5th November 2009, 01:38 AM
Ah, yes I have one of Pat's photos on display in my home office. I think she hot glue-gunned the dogs' butts to the front steps. (I realize that I just made up that verb!) I think it was Pat (or maybe Anne....) who introduced me to Rod.

Rod, do you remember making xerox copies of flyers and doing mass mailings to all club members? We didn't have the internet, and I purchased my first fax machine then to make communication easier.

I sat on the national ethics committee back then, and we took our responsibilities very, very seriously. Again, there were serious consequences if one had an ethics charge against them that was upheld as there could be fines or other penalties up to expulsion. Then, if a breeder lost the ability to register his/her puppies/litters and show, there was a real impact. COEs are fine, but with no serious consequences for violating the COE, they don't have any "teeth."

Pat (feeling very old.....)

It was either Pat Winters or Anne Eckersley who introduced us. All of those dogs in Pat Winters' annual photos were heavily leashed, and the real troublesome ones usually were wedged between the legs of the humans in the photos. There is one of Pat Winters' annual photos in Bruce Fields' book, at the start of a chapter (for you UKers to look up).

Back then, we prepared flyers and sent out mass mailings (like, about what questions to ask breeders about health), and we also photocopied research journal articles about MVD and passed them around, too. Pat Winters carried several copies of MVD articles in that big bag she had at the shows, and she gave copies to anyone who seemed interested.

RodRussell
5th November 2009, 01:43 AM
Now, there are multiple choices (and most of them have COEs not tied to registration) so breeders can do as they please with few consequences.

Registration tied to the ethics code was key in 1993-1994. CKCSC,USA had it (and still does). AKC would not allow CKCSC,USA to have it as an AKC parent club. So, CKCSC,USA rejected AKC's overture as being bad for the breed. CKCSC,USA was right then and still is right. No AKC specialty clubs' ethics codes are enforceable against non-members, who still would be allowed to register their litters with AKC.

WoodHaven
5th November 2009, 01:46 AM
What an absolutely fascinating conversation this has turned into!! You all have enlightened me so much about things I wasn't aware of. I knew about "old club" and "new club" and knew about the differences, but have learned so much more from this conversation. How enlightening to havd you "oldies" (and I don't mean that in age ;) I mean that in experience) give us your thoughts and perspectives.

I absolutely love being a member of my regional Cavalier Club. I have learned so much, met so many wonderful people....and have so many more Cavalier experiences than I ever would have had without my club. Two of my very dearest friends I've met through my club. We have riveting speakers at every meeting. We discuss health testing, feeding, vaccinations, training....everything. And I have such wonderful resources to go to if I have an issue with my dog. I think I am lucky that our club is still relatively small. It's a very intimate group, I know everyone in my club and that makes it really special.

I've learned a lot from Rod and Pat. I find it very interesting to see many peoples points of view. We didn't agree- but we discussed a very controversial and painful period.

Cathy, I too really like the feeling of our local club -greater chicago club. We can get together, do seminars- help each other. It is a great support group, and informational group.

RodRussell
5th November 2009, 01:49 AM
...Cathy, I too really like the feeling of our local club -greater chicago club. We can get together, do seminars- help each other. It is a great support group, and informational group.

Another good thing about regional clubs is that you can put on your own specialties and have decent judges, which makes them worth more than all breed shows.

Cathy T
5th November 2009, 01:52 AM
We are having our 2nd Specialty coming up in February. I have learned so much by participating in putting on this show. I don't know diddly about showing ;) but sure do see what goes into putting on a show.

RodRussell
5th November 2009, 05:46 PM
There are 4- 5 other 'registrations' in the USA that give you a piece of paper, no questions asked.

I overlooked this comment yesterday. Actually, Sandy, there are about 30 other dog registries, which I call "paper mills", which puppy millers and other commercial breeders use to "register" their "purebreds". None of them are non-profit organizations, like AKC is, and none of them use their income to serve the purebreds, their owners and breeders, and the dog community in general, like AKC does.

Some of these "registries" were created by the commercial breeders' groups themselves to fool the dog-buying public into thinking they were buying a dog "with papers" and a "pedigree". These paper mills are a major reason that AKC's registrations and income are dropping lower every month.

AKC has been trying to reverse this decline, every which way anybody can think of. A consequence of this drop in registration income is that AKC has had to raise fees on events. AKC does not want to cut back on its many valuable services to the canine community, but cuts are looming in the future if the constant decline is not halted, if not reversed.

Brian M
7th November 2009, 09:04 PM
Hi

Kate ,I phoned Mrs Rees on Friday she is putting application forms in the post to me ,so I will fill in and return with necessary fee and hopefull look forward to being a PROUD member of your club .
Thanks again

brian

RodRussell
17th November 2009, 11:19 PM
Full litter registration became available recently but has been rarely utilized, like under 2% of all litter registrations. It started out as temporary test program a couple of years ago, and I encouraged David Roberts of AKC's registration department to not end it when its initial time ran out. The AKC board agreed with his recommendation to extend it.

Then, in June the AKC board agreed to offer this AKC Registration Pledge Challenge program, where parent clubs are to urge their members to, in turn, urge their puppy buyers to register their puppies. This is not what I proposed. I proposed that the parent clubs urge their breeder-members to register the puppies with the litters under the full registration program. AKC thought that was trying to go too far too quickly, so the pledge challenge program is a watered down compromise, like a first step towards combining litter and puppy registration as the usual way of doing business.

Full litter registration is a no-brainer for CKCSC,USA members, since all puppies are registered with their litters in the CKCSC,USA. But most AKC-only breeders, of all breeds, have viewed blue slips as the puppy buyers' responsibility. This has been so for decades. So, I suggested that the breeders be given a discount for registering the puppies and the litters at the same time.

Maybe, sometime, AKC will convince its parent clubs, and the parent clubs in turn will convince their members, to use full litter registration all the time. At least that option is still available, rather than AKC ending the full litter registration program after the end of its test period.

I realize that this is pretty much a dead thread now, but the press release below from AKC came out today, and it is relevant to what I was writing about here.

--------------------------------------

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AKC(r) ANNOUNCES ENHANCEMENT TO FULL LITTER REGISTRATION PROCESS

New York, NY- The American Kennel Club(r) is pleased to announce the
enhancement of its Full Litter registration option which allows breeders
to register all puppies in a litter to themselves for a reduced fee. For
no additional fee, AKC will now allow breeders to assign the limited
designation to a dog after registration through the first transfer. The
dog must have been first registered through the Full Litter Registration
process. All breeders of the dog have to agree to add the limited
designation.

"By utilizing Full Litter Registration, breeders are not only getting
the best value for themselves, they are contributing to the long term
well being of the American Kennel Club by registering all the puppies in
their litter," said AKC Vice President of Registration David W. Roberts.
"In addition, new puppy owners will know they are bringing home an AKC
registered puppy."

Breeders can also request limited registration when the initial
application for registration is submitted. As an additional enhancement
these new transfers will receive a complimentary 60-day trial of the AKC
Pet Healthcare Plan if not previously activated for the dog. The trial
plan offers coverage for unexpected accidents or illnesses up to $1,500
($500 per incident).

Breeders who register a litter using Full Litter Registration between
now and December 31, 2009, will also receive a special $20 pedigree
discount coupon to apply towards their next purchase of an AKC-Certified
pedigree. The coupon will be sent to breeders after the completion of
their Full Litter Registration.

AKC first implemented the Full Litter Registration option in 2006 at the
request of AKC breeders who wanted the option to register a litter and
all its puppies in one easy step. This benefits breeders by eliminating
the individual litter puppy fee, reducing puppy registration fees and
providing discounted pedigrees for each puppy in the litter. Full Litter
Registration also offers breeders a 35% percent discount on registration
fees (based on litter of five puppies); a streamlined process to
complete the entire registration; and the ability to select each puppy's
name, ensuring kennel names are used correctly.

The Full Litter Application and the Application to Designate Limited
Status can be found at the following links:
* AKC Full Litter Registration Application:
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/Full_Litter_Registration_Application.pdf
* Application to Designate Limited Status:
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/AXL001.pdf

For more information please contact AKC Customer Service at info@akc.org
or 919-233-9767.
---------------------------------