Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Itís a no-show by the KC for the House of Lordsí dog breeding debate

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    2,614
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Itís a no-show by the KC for the House of Lordsí dog breeding debate

    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 RSPCAís 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 Ďto provide an unbiased account of proceedingsí.
    Mr Parish told those present in the packed committee room: ďI 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.Ē
    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.
    ďThe person who sets the Standards has to realise that the way a dog looks will affect the whole of its life.,Ē Mr Laurence said. ďSome dogs canít breathe and walk freely because of the way they look. They have to realise that and modify the Standards accordingly.Ē
    Full story in next weekís DOG WORLD.
    Sabby
    Rosie-06/06 - Ebony-01/07 Harley-08/08
    " My sunshine doesn't come from the skies, it comes from the love in my dogs eyes "

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Scotland - east coast
    Posts
    9,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    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?
    Nicki and the Cavalier Clan Our photos www.scotlandimagery.com
    Supporting www.rupertsfund.com and www.cavaliermatters.org

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,826
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.
    Tania and The Three Cavaliers!
    Dotty!- A Sweet Little Tri
    Molly - Pretty Tri Dougall - Gorgeous Blenheim

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    23,881
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    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.

    On the other hand -- I would wager a lot more was accomplished without them there.
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Leo Lily Tansy
    In memory: Lucy
    Cavalier SM Infosite:www.smcavaliers.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hatfield, Herts, UK
    Posts
    2,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karlin View Post
    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.

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

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

    Nobody would want to try and defend the indefensible.
    Margaret C

    Cavaliers......Faith, The Ginger Tank and Woody.
    Japanese Chins.... Dandy, Benny, Bridgette and Hana.
    Remembered with love......... Tommy Tuppence and Fonzi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    23,881
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    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? I would have thought breeders in particular would want them there and also want to hear their answers before the House of Lords.
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Leo Lily Tansy
    In memory: Lucy
    Cavalier SM Infosite:www.smcavaliers.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Did breeders know about it? and if not, then how can they be represented without the Kennel club? it seems a bit wierd.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Cork,Ireland.
    Posts
    2,561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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 Ďhuge amount of paperworkí 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 Ďroutes and tools to resolve themí.
    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 Ďto provide an unbiased account of proceedingsí."

    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orlando, Florida USA
    Posts
    1,186
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.
    Rod Russell

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •