Printable View
There is a statement from Jeff Sampson on the cavalier club site. Discussions are taking place to introduce new heart testing schemes and also discussing a BVA/KC like scheme for MRI scanning. Could this be progress ??? :rah::rah:
There is also the club's response to the KC's support of Margaret. :mad:
www.thecavalierclub,co.uk
Thanks for those. The new schemes will be a great step forward -- but depending on how they are implemented and observed.
The statement on the SGM is an interesting twisting of language so that now the KC and CKCS CLub are in accord in their 'concern'. That concern is not an accord at all, and a club can still have the support of the KC without the KC thinking it has acted well in a given instance. The KC clearly does not think this step was the correct one for the club to have taken or it would have stated that it viewed the actions of Margaret Carter with concern -- not the actions of the club.
In addition there is clearly an overriding interest for the betterment of the breed -- indeed for its survival -- to expose the continuing and deliberate misuse of ill dogs for breeding, and the deliberate avoidance of testing that would confirm the likelihood of illness, and the obnoxious decision by some judges to keep awarding dogs in the ring that are definitely ill.
It is the very nature of whistleblowing to go against rules. To punish the contravention of a set of rules designed to protect the breeders behind a continuing wall of silence while conveniently removing the person who speaks out about what lies behind that wall of silence -- well, how very useful! Also the club states the status of the dog wasn't in the public domain -- how much more public does it have to be for non club members like me and many others to know? How does the club define 'public domain'?
The club's bottom line is supposed to be the protection and betterment of the breed, not the betterment of breeders and pocketbooks. They still are seen by the general public as doing the latter -- and they still haven't figured this out. If the KC was truly in support and alignment -- then no one is going to believe they will change much through all their recent announcements.
Let's hope they all get on board with testing and following protocols.
It's a little ironic in that they could have/should have already been doing this for years. Let's see how different the new protocols are from the ones already in place - the very ones they've been calling optional 'guidelines'.
And how will the breeders, who keep insisting this sort of thing doesn't work for lack of DNA, react to this? Luckily there are ways to police them somewhat, by looking at birth dates on pedigrees and puppy registers and asking for copies of health certificates. We all need to learn how to read health certificates!!!!
It still bothers me how secretive the club has been with test results. Probably the strangest thing of all is how some breeders go to the trouble of health testing, get poor test results, and proceed to breed their dogs anyways. :sl*p:
I am finding it quite facinating how the CKCS Club cannot see how they are being seen by the general public. The latest twisting of the Kennel Club statement is just another example.Quote:
The club's bottom line is supposed to be the protection and betterment of the breed, not the betterment of breeders and pocketbooks. They still are seen by the general public as doing the latter -- and they still haven't figured this out.
No neutral person reading the Kennel Club statement would read it the way the CKCS Club has interpreted it. Is there nobody there who realises (or more to the point, realises and is prepared to say) that this just makes them look worse? Do they really think that this is going to convince anybody?
It's particularly interesting as even the Kennel Club (who I thought to be a hopeless case after the complaint to Ofcom) has now woken up to the fact that they were being percieved as an organisation who were doing little help the health of Pedigree Dogs, despite the amount of research they have done.
How the Kennel Club's plan develops in the coming months is still to be watched, but they have at least realised that the public are able to form opinions and they can't just carry on doing nothing. Also that Pedigree Dogs Exposed did have valid points, even if they didn't like the way the programme was edited.
There is a sort of arrogance about some of the CKCS Club breeders that know best and nobody else can possibly have a valid opinion. Particularly if you are a pet owner - apparently that makes us unable to read and assimilate the research so far. My opinion is apparently a result of 'brainwashing' which I find quite insulting, but not suprising.
I am still somewhat wary of the KC, but I think that they do recognise that if they do nothing they will not stay viable as an organisation. Pity the CKCS Club can't see this.
The KC finally realizes that the general public and many, many pet owners are supporting change. Before Pedigree Dog Exposed was aired, it seems to me the breed clubs dictated how things would be run in the KC; otherwise they would stop paying KC dues, etc. But now the problems are highly visible to so very many people and organizations - the KC has to take action. As long as the pressure for change is sustained by the public and other groups, it will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Bell
If MVD and SM scanning came under a BVA/KC scheme, the results would presumably be published regularly in the Kennel Gazette, as happens already with hip and eye results in other breeds. Do the breeders know what they're getting themselves in for? They can hardly vote to ditch the KC for 'breaching confidentiality'!
Kate and Oliver