Brian it is realy good you have apologised, they NEED to grow up especial Ms VBG
Your timely apology, as soon as you realised you mistake is a responsible and sensible thing to do.
Unfortunately the Cavalier Club does not share your responsible attitude and I have been forced, for the second year running, to withdraw from the Club committee election.
Very briefly, the Cavalier Club circulated a defamatory statement that both the committee, and the writer, knew was a lie to over 1,000 people.
They have removed the untrue statement from the latest official Club documentation ( and why would they do that unless they knew it was untrue? ) but they have ignored my request that they inform the members that it is not true at the same time.
The whole saga has been protracted and quite complicated, so I have decided to start a blog which will allow me to explain the breeders attitude to talking about health issues in dogs.
I hope that over the weeks I will be able to explain the reasons why I gave an interview to the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed, and explore my relationship with a Club that seems more intent on punishing me for breaking the unspoken rule of silence, than with working to improve the future of our beautiful, but very health compromised, cavaliers.
Below is an excerpt from my email to the Cavalier Club Secretary...
"You will be aware that last year I stood for the committee and was elected unopposed. This led to key members of the Club threatening to resign and, as I did not want to see the Club unable to function, I withdrew my nomination.
This year there were more nominees than vacancies. I had hoped that I would be elected to the committee by members votes, so that it could be demonstrated that the majority of Cavalier Club members, in a postal vote, supported my stand on cavalier health and it was their wish that I should serve on the committee.
However, I now feel I cannot continue with my candidature, as in doing so it would appear that I have condoned the unfair and improper way this committee election has been run.
I am withdrawing my name from the list of candidates because I believe that the election process has been flawed by the irregularities that have made it necessary to set three different AGM dates, increase the stated vacancies from 4 to 7, and then to 8, and necessitated the printing of two sets of ballot papers.
I believe that I was personally disadvantaged by the circulation of a defamatory statement to over 1,000 members, and this was either deliberate manipulation, or gross incompetence, by committee members that knew that the statement contained untrue information.
Whether deliberate or not, this falsehood in official club documentation will have prejudiced my chances of being elected to the committee.
The removal of the defamatory statement from the AGM agenda, and the substitution of a revised page, is clear indication that the Club recognises that publication of the falsehood was wrong.
The refusal to inform all the membership that the statement was incorrect, before they voted again, means that the Cavalier Club has failed to provide a level playing field for all candidates.
The conduct of the committee members, in allowing a discriminatory sentence about being "sufficiently fit, in body and in mind" to be included in another Candidate's statement, is also of concern to me as a disabled person, and to many of the members that supported my nomination.
I will be submitting a complaint to the Kennel Club about the manner in which the Cavalier Club committee conducted this election".
After reading Margaretís post I ask myself how many people in The Cavalier Club really want to change things. I am not having a go at breeders my good friend is a breeder and I know there are good breeders out there but it canít be just two or three people in the Club to have that much influence over things? And there we are the pet owners that donate money to make things better the ones who end up with the vetís bills and the heart break. I think itís time that the Dinosaurs get a shove up the behind.
Unfortunately some of the better known breeders and judges, and the ones who tend to become involved in (micro) managing things, have a lot of reasons to have nothing change: going from the inconvenience in changing the way they have always practiced their 'hobby', to a threat to the money they make from puppies and stud fees (which in turn supports their 'hobby' and often more), to their reputation suddenly turning hollow if (and when) EBVs reveal the poor health in their lines and some of their key dogs of the past (as they never chose to tell other breeders of the problems they knew were coming from that line), to determination to keep pet owners, other breeders, or documentaries from revealing problems in their lines.., lots and lots of reasons.
There are also many decent breeders who do not support the approach and attitude of these others at all --mostly quite small breeders but some with more significant involvement. The bullies you see posting (and revealing themselves :rolleyes:) regularly elsewhere ensure most of these people are too afraid to speak out though many work quietly and with determination behind the scenes. Most of them are utterly fed up with clubs and individual breeders who keep trying to bury the health issues and who refuse to do more than window-dressing acts on behalf of breed health, if even that. But it is hard to risk losing your ability to show in your own country much less get a fair chance at being judged when so many of the names you will all recognise from their comments elsewhere on breed health issues are the ones who judge their dogs. Fortunately, many breeders are now concerned about SM and are scanning their dogs despite the best efforts of some;hopefully, they will also go forward using whatever tools for breeding emerge. What (little) has been done about MVD though remains a pretty sad example to date of how the bulk of club breeders respond to serious health issues. They will do a little bit here and there but the puppy gazettes show how many breed dogs, especially studs, long before they should be bred, when health tests are meaningless in progressive diseases. By the time a problem might show, that dog's genes are spread far and wide in the breed.
Club elections are intimidating because they turn into the sort of farce we all saw with the EGM at which Margaret was removed from the committee, having been the one person with the courage and decency and dedication to the breed to say publicly what many, many knew and about what widely goes on. Some of public criticism comes from the ones who keep insisting they have never bred a dog with SM or never been informed of such by an owner of one of their dogs and this, quite simply, is a pack of lies (in one case admitting they have a dog with SM but it was 'bought in from outside' as one post stated, not explaining that the dog's sire was the breeder's own stud dog and hence was hardly 'from outside'. These people know they produce SM; some of the affected dogs' owners have sent them registered letters; I have seen copies of the correspondence in many, many cases. It is a corrupt and morally bereft system overall which needs outside regulation. It is a system populated by some good people who actually care about ensuring a future for this breed, outweighed by far too many people trying to protect their cash flow and show profiles and nice trips abroad to attend and judge dog shows around the world.
Margaret, I am sure your writings will be followed with great interest by many publications, dog owners, and dare I say, the same breeders who seem to spend so much time reading this board and writing about it amongst themselves... :lol: I am sure many TDs and people involved with the parliamentary enquiry groups on dog breeding will also find the insights helpful of someone who knows the breeding world as well as you do.
Most Cavalier Pet Owners who watched Pedigree Dogs Exposed are grateful this
programme was aired and your contribution to it. If I had not seen this programme
Molly would have died a very painful death and it would have been assumed Dougall was a quiet dog not a dog living in pain!
I am appalled and disgusted how nasty people have been towards you. We are
all grateful for all of the hard work you have done for the Cavaliers and all of the support you have given endlessly to people who desperately seek help for their poor sick dogs.
You shouldn't have to explain your reasons for giving the interview to PDE, it is obvious to everyone, "The pain and suffering has to stop".
This continual back biting and malicious nastiness makes you wonder if the club is truly interested in improving the future health of these dogs. It is a shame that peoples pride and self interests are getting in the way of what really matters.
I so agree!!!! I'm glad to hear of more people speaking out and addressing the problems, hiding heads in the sand isn't going to help!!
When looking for my second Cav I have done a lot of "digging around" and chatted to people who give a damn about the health of the dogs they breed and the breed in general!
I know there are no guarantees with any puppy but after having a friend who lost both of hers (unrelated) to SM I wanted to go to a breeder who I felt was doing their best for the breed.
The breeder I settled on is a lovely lady, passionate about Cavs, even though she shows some of her dogs and has bred them for a long time she cares very much about the future of the breed. Funnily enough she was very interested in finding out a lot about my family too - a few people I called didn't ask a thing about my life and I wasn't happy going to them for a pup.
She does the best she can to breed healthy pups, MRI scans her dogs as well as the other checks. Thankfully Cassie passed two separate vet checks and at the moment is a healthy happy girl.
So again, hear hear to the people brave enough to break the mould and speak out, This can long term only be a positive step!!!!!!
Right that's it I'm getting off of my soap box now :)
I feel I have a right to chime in here about Margaret's Post
To have my Mental State called into Question on a Public Forum on the Internet , by a Person who is standing for the UK CKCS CLUB COMMITTEE,I just do not know, but is this not breaking this CKCS Club Rule.
Part A .General , Paragraph 3, Which States
That Members should not use any Method of Communication whatsoever that could be considered
Detrimental to another Member
I am a Member of the UK CKCS CLUB .
I believe this was the Rule used to have Margaret removed from the UK CKCS CLUB Committee.
I maybe wrong about this, I don't know.
I'm sorry that the thread of appreciation for Lesley Jupp has now become a thread of criticism of the Cavalier Club (however justified!). This makes the thread title very misleading. Please could we start another thread about the Cavalier Club AGM, ballots etc - and perhaps Karlin could move some of the posts on this thread (say, from message #4) over to the new thread?
Kate, Oliver and Aled
I agree with Kate's comments about changing the thread to Cavalier Club AGM.
And Karlin, you speak the truth so bravely and elegantly.
I'm very saddened to hear of Margaret's decision to withdraw again from her nomination to the Cavalier Club Committee. It is a very great loss for the breed. I was also amazed that such inferred criticisms of Margaret were allowed to appear on the agenda. This, with the mismanagement of the election by an attempt to lower the number of vacancies available is shocking. The Cavalier Club has over 1000 UK members and its committee should be accountable to them, rather than to the few who shout the loudest.
One of my proposals for the AGM is that the minutes of committee meetings be made available on request to ordinary members. In that way there is more openness and transparency and a better connection with the members. Just this simple change in the way of doing things is how trust can begin to be built.