View Full Version : A PLEA To The LIST.

22nd December 2009, 09:26 AM
I know this is the Season of Good-Will,but could I please be allowed to make this Comment .I feel I have been treated unfairly.

Norma Inglis made a mention about the Breeder in the Pedigree Dogs Exposed TV Program,now being Harassed.She also made this comment which appeared on the Dog World Forum Yesterday.

I Posted my Comment to the DW Forum ,saying that the Cavalier World ,at the Moment is not a Happy Place ,that I had been involved as a Cavalier Pet Owner for around 30 years, that on a Public Cavalier Internet Forum,I was accused of having Mental Problem.

This Statement is now with my Lawyer.

My Comment has now been Removed from the Dog World Forum, this can happen if some- one on the Forum objects to what has been said, .

What I can't understand ,is why a mention can be made about about a Cavalier Breeder being Harassed is allowed Prominance,yet is it because I have just been a Cavalier Pet Owner,the Scandalous Remark remark about me was Whipped Off.

Is it one rule for Cavalier Breeders and another for Cavalier Pet Owners.

22nd December 2009, 06:29 PM
Thanks Folks for letting me Mouth off This Morning, I sure feel better ,especially after receiving a couple of Private E-Mails, OH BOY, have I hit a Bulls Eye !!!!!

It's such a pity that some Cavalier Folk were'nt as nice as Cavaliers.

Any way I hope Karlin will allow me to say , that I wont be reading any-more should they come my way, the Delete Key is so Handy!

22nd December 2009, 09:33 PM
Bet, I wonder whether Norma Inglis has ever indicated her conflict of interest in writing about this breeder numerous times without once to my knowledge pointing out in these public columns that she herself used the dog in question at stud. Like Murray Ingpen, the supposedly 'neutral' MD source in Australia who turns out to be married to a cavalier club breeder and committee member and to own a directly related dog to the dog featured in Pedigree Dogs Exposed, defending the breeder and dog in question, and criticising the programme for being 'unfair' :rolleyes: without declaring this obvious interest in having doubts removed about the breeder or the dog, surely must be considered a huge conflict of interest and cast into doubt any impartiality as commentators -- not least as they have both failed to publicly declare these relationships.

22nd December 2009, 10:11 PM
I have deleted the details as unless this is confirmed, I do not want to note a dog's MRI results or location. :thmbsup: Not least as there are others who could discuss related dogs and MRI results and that discussion has been had elsewhere in detail. I would be delighted to be corrected that a Breed Notes column has addressed the issue of the connection between the two breeders and with Murray Ingpen as well, whose letter was championed by the same person, and the potential personal interest by both in how the dog in question was perceived.

22nd December 2009, 10:14 PM
I just deleted the whole message. It took me less than 2 minutes to find the answer.

23rd December 2009, 10:03 AM
With Norma Inglis' Stringent Comments about the Cavalier Mentioned in the PDE TV Program, it would be interesting to hear if she had ever used him in her Cavalier Breeding Program.

If he had been used ,what were the Results of the Off- Springs' MRI Scans, if any had been carried on them.

I really do think , that in a matter as serious as this, since Norma Inglis' has a Cavalier Breed Column ,she should be giving a Balanced View in her Reports, not one-sided as seems to be what is happening, .

So , has she used the Cavalier in Question in the PDE TV Program at Stud with any of her Cavalier Bitches?

Hope-fully she will reply to this Question in her Next Cavalier Breed Column.

Will our own thoughts just have to be being drawn about this, if Norma Inglis fails to answer this Question.

23rd December 2009, 11:22 AM
Bet, it is a matter of public record that she did use this dog at stud more than once, and that there were offspring.

Whether there was ever a discussion about MRI scans between the two dog owners -- well, they will know the answer to that.

As for MRIs of offspring -- as a general point on dogs overall, I certainly would not want to rely on a single MRI done at a younger age IF a parent is believed to have or known to have a very poor MRI regardless of whether symptomatic. I'd want a lot of proof that the scan wasn't a poor one and as a breeder I'd certainly be asking to see scans before a mating ever takes place. If someone failed to offer a scan that existed it would sure raise questions I'd like answered.

The people who bred these dogs, and the people who now own the offspring and may in turn choose to breed those dogs, have their own consciences to live with.

But it is always interesting to trace who owns particular dogs and offspring, and where the strongest public insistence that MRIs are not helpful come from.

As it isn't too difficult to trace who owns some of these dogs simply using registration records and pedigree databases, I'll leave that work to anyone interested in that kind of detective work.

Meanwhile I will close this thread as it covers ground gone over here and elsewhere before.

But I'd caution people as always to check pedigrees if you are buying puppies, and to use the online databases to get the relatives not just in the immediate lineage but related dogs. This is a useful way of spotting how close matings actually are (as many dogs may be far more inbred than is clear just from a five generation pedigree) and also where some lines and individual dogs crop up that also may not be in the direct lineage. All those things are worth weighing up when getting a puppy.

I'd also have at the top of my list the question: what is this individual breeder doing to help, or perhaps hinder, research and the spread of information? Are they involved with websites that clarify or obscure information, that openly discuss research or ignore it? What are they saying on other discussion lists and boards? Is this a person whose breeding philosophy I can support?

As always: caveat emptor.