Unfortunately for anything the Club may wish to dissociate itself from (and given the publicly voiced comments from many on the new committee, I doubt that would be their desire), the website portrays itself as closely connected to the club and the main source of breed information for the UK.
Opinions are always one's own -- but given the source, and the close connection of columnist to many committee members, the echo of the phrasing of of the election documents of an actual committee member, and the publication of the column in the past as THE breed column in one of the main show magazines, it definitely reflects and will be seen to reflect a perspective that, as Margaret has confirmed, seems to place health issues at the periphery of what a club committee is supposed to be about.
It is an incredibly crass statement, insensitive to many individuals and issues, and certainly will do the new committee no favours if it is actually trying to be seen as an actively pro-health, pro-breed committee. And as an example of a hopelessly clueless breeder and club perspective, it is a retrograde piece of writing that should be passed along to relevant decision-makers as an example of why outside regulation is the only hope for pedigree dogs. It will, for example certainly not persuade Prof Bateson or many MPs or KC officials that the club is moving forward from its past crises around health and its own (mal)functioning that were so ridiculous at times that it was repeatedly highlighted in the UK national mainstream press.
I know many, many people will be watching this committee at this very critical point for the breed, and hoping it will be responsible and actively pro-health,and act on the breed's behalf even if it requires taking brave stances on health issues that many breeders have demonstrated they wish would simply go away. There is certainly heightened scrutiny now on any committee, especially of this particular breed club.
Bookmarks