PDA

View Full Version : It’s a no-show by the KC for the House of Lords’ dog breeding debate



Sabby
7th December 2011, 11:21 AM
Please delete if you think it's not appropiate.

THE KENNEL Club refused to turn up for an important House of Lords meeting about dog breeding on Tuesday evening after it heard that Passionate Productions would be filming it for the new Pedigree Dogs Exposed programme due to be broadcast early next year.
The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) had invited along the main players to hear what progress had been made in the three years since the first programme was aired and following the various reports into dog breeding.
The KC should have joined a panel comprising Dog Advisory Council (DAC) chairman Prof Sheila Crispin, former British Veterinary Association president Harvey Locke, DAC member and former Dogs Trust veterinary director Chris Laurence, and the RSPCA’s head of companion animals James Yeates for a thorough airing of the current state of play.
But at the start of the meeting APGAW chairman Neil Parish announced that the KC had declined his invitation, and read out a statement from the club instead. This said that although canine health and welfare issues were of paramount importance to the KC it had elected not to attend because it did not trust Passionate Productions ‘to provide an unbiased account of proceedings’.
Mr Parish told those present in the packed committee room: “I told the KC it would be a good idea to put their point of view at the meeting, but at the end of the day the decision is theirs and one which I respect.”
During the meeting there was a consensus view that although a lot of progress had been made, including much work by the KC, there should be an independent and expert review of the breed Standards. Mr Locke said the KC should be more aggressive and radical with them.
“The person who sets the Standards has to realise that the way a dog looks will affect the whole of its life.,” Mr Laurence said. “Some dogs can’t breathe and walk freely because of the way they look. They have to realise that and modify the Standards accordingly.”
Full story in next week’s DOG WORLD.

Nicki
7th December 2011, 03:43 PM
I am quite disgusted and saddened at the Kennel Club's attitude, there is no mention of the meeting on their website either.

Isn't it insulting to the other members of the panel?

Tania
7th December 2011, 04:12 PM
I went to the meeting last night. There will be detailed minutes on the APGAW website fairly soon. The meeting was very positive, it is just a shame it takes so long for the changes to happen.

Karlin
7th December 2011, 06:21 PM
What?! A pretty pathetic (non)showing. Why would they not just record proceedings themselves? Isn't a complete transcript made of parliamentary proceedings anyway? They certainly will look very childish and cowardly -- as well as remiss as pedigree dog advocates -- if it has to be stated that they refused to even show up at such an important review simply because they were afraid of a broadcaster!! You really do wonder if they have a clue about their own public image -- and how silly they come across. People would rightly lambaste their politicians if they refused to show up simply because a proceedings -- an ON THE RECORD discussion with so many parties present plus politicians -- would be filmed. :sl*p:

On the other hand -- I would wager a lot more was accomplished without them there. :rolleyes:

Margaret C
7th December 2011, 08:28 PM
What?! A pretty pathetic (non)showing. Why would they not just record proceedings themselves? Isn't a complete transcript made of parliamentary proceedings anyway? They certainly will look very childish and cowardly -- as well as remiss as pedigree dog advocates -- if it has to be stated that they refused to even show up at such an important review simply because they were afraid of a broadcaster!! You really do wonder if they have a clue about their own public image -- and how silly they come across. People would rightly lambaste their politicians if they refused to show up simply because a proceedings -- an ON THE RECORD discussion with so many parties present plus politicians -- would be filmed. :sl*p:

On the other hand -- I would wager a lot more was accomplished without them there. :rolleyes:


I suppose they knew they would be asked to answer some difficult questions.

Nobody would want to try and defend the indefensible.

Karlin
8th December 2011, 01:45 AM
It's astonishing -- and frankly, alarming -- that the national kennel club organisation refused to take its invited place on a panel for a parliamentary discussion. That would be like the AKC refusing to attend an invited discussion before Congress or the Senate in the US, or the Dail or Seanad in Ireland. Extraordinary. And to say the least, incredibly unprofessional.

I wonder do breeders think this approach really represents their interests and concerns? :confused: I would have thought breeders in particular would want them there and also want to hear their answers before the House of Lords.

Davecav
8th December 2011, 04:56 PM
Did breeders know about it? and if not, then how can they be represented without the Kennel club? it seems a bit wierd.

sins
8th December 2011, 06:20 PM
On the surface it may seem that the KC have gained the approval of a cross section of dog breeders for refusing to attend the meeting and "stand up to" Passionate Productions.
After all,it would be infuriating to be subjected to being filmed by the enemy.
But let's dig a little deeper under the surface.
Let's take a quick look at the main players who will forge the future for Dog breeding.
APGAW,DAC,RSPCA,BVA and the KC.
In July,Dogworld reported on a meeting held by the DAC.
Such topics like vaccinations,puppy contracts and limiting use of sires was discussed.
The KC did not attend.
Spokesperson Caroline Kisko told Dogworld that that the KC did not take part in the council meeting because of the ‘huge amount of paperwork’ which would have been involved.
Today's Dogworld reports on a recent DAC meeting which discussed the eight welfare priorities drawn up by the council with the objective of providing ‘routes and tools to resolve them’.
The KC was invited,but did not attend.
Prof Crispin said the Council was trying to arrange a seminar involving the KC and its breed health co-ordinators, but that no response had been received yet to its invitation to the KC.
The KC also declined an invitation to attend the APGAW meeting "as although canine health and welfare issues were of paramount importance to the KC it had elected not to attend because it did not trust Passionate Productions ‘to provide an unbiased account of proceedings’."

It appears that a lot of meetings have been held without the presence of the KC...and these influential groups will forge ahead and chart the future of pedigree dog breeding,perhaps culminating in restrictive legislation.
And when the KC will be asked by breeders to explain exactly how this has happened,they can reply..
"We weren't there"...
Well they SHOULD be there.
They must surely be running out of creative excuses to remain so remote from all these meetings.
Sins

RodRussell
8th December 2011, 11:20 PM
Not much more needs to be said regarding the KC's behavior. This is very foolish. I really thought that, by now, the KC would recognize both the value of getting its views seen and heard AND making sure that those views were no longer ostrich-like.