• If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.

Cavalier club in turmoil

You could use the UK CKCS Club as a textbook study in how to execute a PR disaster. :rolleyes:

The notion too that you can resign then un-resign -- what an interesting sort of making up the rules as you go along! Generally in the Real World, where normal people do normal things, and rules actually mean rules you run your club by, not 'whatever suits us this week as an interpretation', if you have formally resigned (and especially, made a big fat hoo-hah about it with a public announcement on your club website), you need to actually go forward and stand again, not un-resign your resignation. Unless the whole thing was a big fake-out because members are not beneath manipulating the larger club membership in this ridiculous way (see first point...).

Really, if this club doesn't want to continue as a public laughing-stock, they really do need people to stand again for those roles, not skulk back in. But I suspect they fear some might not be re-elected.

And after all this is the club that has now put forward Pedigree Dogs Exposed 'star' Beverly Costello to judge two shows; yes, that is right, the same woman who is now BANNED from registering puppies under her own Beauella affix by the Kennel Club in the UK for refusing to respond to complaints that in violation of CKCS Club ethics rules (those pesky, pesky rules apparently freely open to Club interpretation, remember!) she knowingly bred a dog that has SM and which she was told by a neurologist not to breed, ever.
 
this is the club that has now put forward Pedigree Dogs Exposed 'star' Beverly Costello to judge two shows;

Really? Why don't they get her to stand as Club health rep while they're at it?:-?:huh:
 
Good one, Sins! It's the old "don't do as I do,do as I say" and the rules, for some, have a lot of:wggle: room.
 
Margaret I know has done the only good thing in all of this by not accepting the nomination because SHE has the Breed welfare at heart and is not interested in the politics as these officers clearly are.
I am just worried that health issues will not be tackled effeciently without Margaret on the committee, and I certainly agree that this club is in turmoil but it has been all their own doing.

Nanette
 
The vitriol, and venom that some of the posters use on DW, never ceases to amaze me, with some of these people it's always a b****y blame game, and they claim to be interested in the breed....when all they really want is to appear controversial, there is 1 poster in particular, who really winds me up, I have complained numerous times to DW, and the fact that this person is still alowed to spout there aggressive nonsence is a disgrace....they claim to be Scottish......and if it's true.....well it makes me ashamed to be scottish!!!!!!!

I can never understand when there are people such as Margeret and others, who only want what is best for the breed, and for things to progress........

Yet they can't progress as.....there are some incredibly small minded people trying to hinder them at every turn.

R.
 
And they are spreading ridiculous rumours as well that some key club members know is not the case and make no attempt to correct.

Meanwhile the UK Club is actually trying to get money donated from other international clubs to fund their £8000 PR agency!! :lol:

From the latest Canadian Club newsletter. No surprise who sent out the letter and the begging bowl!

Mavis Holub and Norma Moffat read a letter from Veronica Hull, Telvara Cavaliers UK, asking for international help. The Cavalier Club in the UK is working on hiring a PR firm at the cost of 8,000 pounds, to help combat the negative publicity our breed has taken from the video, Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Discussion followed. Mavis Holub made a motion to recommend to the board, to send 150. Pounds to the UK to help with the cost of the PR, seconded by Norma Moffat. All in favor. A notice will be sent to the board members asking for their approval. One of the suggestions was to hold an on line auction to help raise funds after our initial donation.

:sl*p:
 
Oh my! Just gotta love the little group (a subset of the CKCS club) who have created much, much more negative publicity for themselves than either PDE or anyone besides themselves ever could.

The near total lack of self awareness of this group is so astounding to me! :sl*p: How many times have they accused others of breed and breeder bashing, destroying the breed, etc. - for the simple fact that many others believe that health testing and following research-based protocols is the way to improve CKCS breed health.

None of the group has come to the realization that they, their own little group, is who the criticism is aimed at. Not the *breed*, not *all breeders*, but specifically the very breeders who would rather cover up their mistakes than 'fess up and start doing the right thing! :sl*p:

The behavior of these folks is sooooo abnormal - I daresay they couldn't get away with it in any other situation except as the 'leaders' of such a dysfunctional club. This is how spoiled, manipulative children behave - not mature, honorable adults. :sl*p:
 
And after all this is the club that has now put forward Pedigree Dogs Exposed 'star' Beverly Costello to judge two shows

The post below on DW, by the anonymous "Cavlady" which I post in the interest of fairness and as I would like to know more about how judges are selected.

I notice on Karlin Lillington's CavalierTalk website she has wrongly accused the Cavalier Club of asking Beverley Costello to judge two Open Shows. As you will know this has nothing to do with the CKCS Club.

I admit to knowing nothing of the showing/judging world, so I am not sure if she means that BC isn't being considered as a judge, or that she is, but the CKCS Club has nothing to do with it. Could somebody enlighten me as to how judges are selected? I had assumed that the CKCS Club were responsible for this, but perhaps I am wrong.

I confess that after reading some time ago that a lady who had been prosecuted by the RSPCA was now a judge I haven't had much faith in the system, whatever it is.
 
Cavlady is Sandra Ireland Cooke.

The club and some very prominent members have made it clear that they fully and openly support Beverly Costello even though she has had the most severe sanction available placed on her now by the Kennel Club itself -- removing her ability to register puppies under her affix, meaning Beauella is dust. That is a very severe restriction on a breeder -- their de facto elimination as a show kennel, reducing them down to being a breeding and stud service to other breeders (in this case, with guess what dog used at stud...). I am quite aware too of the background encouragement being given by some very prominent club members to push breeders to put dogs forward under Beverly so that she will not be seen as the disgraced figure she is at least in the Kennel Club's eyes through the above sanctions. These private comments, emails and their own posts to lists they think are, er, private (hi, ladies! have you noted yet the huge silent majority on your lists? Do you think they are all in silent agreement? Are you sure you really know who everyone is? :lol:) make this quite clear.

A shame on individual clubs and members, and shame to the national club's own continuing complicity, in supporting Beverly Costello in numerous ways. To suggest the national club has not done so is utterly two-faced and ridiculous. For example as of yet not a SINGLE announcement about the KC decision against Beverly Costello, which is the end result of a formal ethics complaint made to the national club, has been made on the national club website, much less in great big letters on the front page, even though the KC's actions tacitly support Margaret Carter and highlight that Beverly Costello is unwilling to even take the basic step one would assume any reputable breeder would be eager to do -- of being honest and open with the inquiry, and sharing the disputed scans and responding to her own club's and the KC's requests.

Yet the club in its childish pettiness posts every negative, insulting detail they can on their website front page about Margaret (I am sure the PR firm will tell them this is one of the FIRST things they need to stop doing! :rolleyes:).

Meanwhile Beauella Radzinski has been used at stud even AFTER the PDE revelations and Costello has been asked to judge at shows that the national club has insisted focus just as much on the inner health of the dogs as the outer appearance.

And they expect anyone to believe their line on health issues generally?

I feel so sorry for the many committed health focused breeders doing their best to learn more and support research and know as much as they can about their own dogs. These are the folks who show up and support health initiatives such as the talks by Sarah Blott, scan and submit information for the genome and EBV work. And their actions are constantly undercut and devalued by the public face of the national club and many of the individual regional clubs by the actions of many of their more prominent members. It must be utterly exasperating for the people actually doing something constructive.

I wonder how many of those people feel £8000 is needed for PR rather than say, helping breeders fund scans? Especially as some of the big name breeders saying they won't scan or discouraging others from scanning harp on in nearly every post to a list or board about the cost burden for breeders? £8000 would enable 80 cavaliers to be scanned for free, for example. Or 160 to be scanned for just £50 each. Imagine how fantastic that would be in support of Sarah Blott's work, as she needs those scans badly! Think of the difference for the EBVs!
 
Anyone who would knowingly use Beauella at stud now is just as bad as his breeder is for continuing to offer him at stud. The stupidity and/or evil intentions of these people are just appalling. I am truly disgusted. This is why I am less and less enamored of dog shows in general. This is the type of behaviors they incentivize. Yes, we know that many of these dogs will suffer in pain for much of their shortened lives, and their owners will have the emotional and financial burden of dealing with the issues, but hey, a few of them will LOOK good enough on the outside to earn some ribbons, so it's all worth it, right?

It truly is sickening and something has to change. I know personally that I will never watch a dog show again without thinking of these people and their actions. In fact, I may never attend/watch a dog show again, period. It's all so much vanity, at least as it stands now, with everything about looks and nothing about health. And it's definitely not the dogs' vanity I'm talking about....
 
I see Qunicy's comment on Dog World on the meaning of a 'Loose Cannon' has been deleted - I wonder why? Perhaps the loose cannon herself didn't realise what it acutally meant and felt a little bit embarrassed? The admission of being a loose cannon is on comment 76.

If you are out there Quincy, perhaps you might like to repost it again on Dog World for those that didn't see it, and keep reposting it every time it is deleted. Sorry if I sound a bit childish, but that woman (the loose cannon) is really, really annoying and needs to be brought down a peg or three!
 
Given the various serious health issues facing the breed, and the ethical implications of decisions made so far, one thing is certain. The decent breeders, and there are many, urgently need and deserve a national club that can show some true leadership rather than putting a minority of clique-ish breeders and personalities before the breed they are supposed to preserve, honour and protect. Those club members deserve a club that can look hard at its own problems and address them("a club in turmoil" as Dog World so rightly says, and slowly self-destructing in public), that can rise above petty bickering; stop allowing a small group of prominent bullies to manipulate the broader, more important agendas; set up an equitable, transparent election system that doesn't let that little bully coterie pressure members out of contesting committee positions; and which stops blaming their misfortunes on what some silly women continue to believe is a small radical group of animal rights proponents. :rolleyes: Clearly, the farce is going to continue as long as these people run around thinking their actions are productive for the club, breed, or general breeder community.

Yes, talk about none so blind as those who will not see that they have generated, all by themselves, massive general public disgust at how they conduct themselves. It amazes me that (as flattering as that misguided opinion may be! :) ) this silly group think a couple of media folks or discussion boards fuel what is now a bona fide *national debate* that has moved up to parliamentary level and shaken the KC (I nor any of the handful of us that are apparently included in this ridiculous aspersion do not have that influence, but thank you for thinking we do! As your PR hire will eventually tell you, the pressure comes from the broader public who cannot believe the things that continue to happen -- or rather, not happen -- on issues they rightly know to be important).

These people themselves keep their silliness in the public eye by appalling actions, ridiculous decisions and announcements that get media attention because their activity begs for it! :rolleyes: Yet again why maybe, come to think of it, they really do need to get that £8000 PR firm on board so that the PR firm can tell them what they refuse to listen to from everyone else... amazing though, that they will go waste £8000 of money to learn what any sensible person could tell them, has told them, and will no doubt, tell them again. :lol:
 
A while back "Quincy" posted a nice little story on DW, which made me smile. :) I can't remember the exact story but it was something like:

A man collapsed, and a doctor rushed up to help, but was pushed aside by a man who said "I'm a paramedic". The paramedic was then pushed aside by another person who said "I'm a nurse", who was then pushed aside by another person who said "I'm a first-aider". The man who collapsed was finally pronounced dead by a medical insurance salesman.

Apologies to Quincy for borrowing the story, but it was so appropriate with given those who believe that their knowledge of breeding means that they know best.
 
Having some background as an officer in a club and some understanding of how things work, I do fully understand what the KC restrictions on BC represent. As we've discussed before, the restrictions speak to the breeder's lack of response to the KC inquiries rather than to the status of the dog in question. However, this is a very serious infraction for a serious breeder. The normal response would be to clear this up as quickly as possible in order to remain a breeder in good standing who can register litters. So this speaks volumes.

I also understand what Karlin is saying about the various ways that some other breeders continue to support this breeder. That's pretty clear. I keep waiting to hear if anything comes from the COE complaints filed with the Cavalier club Ethics Committee. In the CKCSC USA club, any sanctions/penalties resulting from a COE complaint are published in the club newsletter. However, nothing would be publicized while a case remained "open" and not yet resolved or if a charge was "dismisssed"

I'd still like to know the details on what shows this lady is going to judge and who issued the invitation and how the invitation came about. For example, in the U.S. there are regional and national judges committees in a breed club that select judges, or there are committees in various local all breed kennel clubs that will select judges, etc. I can't seem to find specifics in this instance, and I'm very interested to know.

Pat Beman
Atlanta
 
For example as of yet not a SINGLE announcement about the KC decision against Beverly Costello, which is the end result of a formal ethics complaint made to the national club, has been made on the national club website,

Whoops - I'm just carefully re-reading. I assumed that the KC restrictions were made as a result of a direct inquiry by the KC to the breeder as a result of the PDE uproar. I thought this was independent of the COE complaint to the breed club.

I'm a little uncertain of the process as I compare to the CKCSC USA since that club also controls registration directly as an independent breed club/registration body (versus the KC/UK breed clubs and the AKC/US breed clubs) so I'd like to understand step by step.

So in this case, the COE was made to the breed club, and then does the breed club simply hand it up to the KC for a hearing/decision......or does the breed club have a hearing/decision of its own and then pass it up to the KC? Can the breed club and the KC each reach a different conclusion? If the breed club finds no ethics violation, does it end there or does the KC review and/or hold a hearing regardless of the breed club decision?

Pat Beman
Atlanta, GA
 
If you type in "Margaret Carter in Saturday Times" into Google. This bit
of press made the club look pretty stupid.
 
Back
Top