Kennel Club AGM - some interesting snippets were:  ( my thoughts in italics )

- votes 92 to 56 in favour of keeping high profile vet checks in place in their current form. - surprising given the strength of feeling against within the grass root exhibitors , where do the Canine Alliance go now ?

- members voted to increase the cost of registering a puppy from £13 to £15. - so ...it's ok to take more money from the grass root breeders and exhibitors but not listen to what they say !

-KC AGM hears Clarges Street property deal unlikely to conclude in 2014 as planned. There was no discussion due to commercial sensitivity

-New members elected to the KC's Gen Committee were: David Guy, Mark Cocozza, Paul Harding and Jan Wood.

-there were over 400 members present in the morning but this was reduced to around 150 by the afternoon as many had to leave to catch their trains - the venue had to be vacated by 5pm and guess when the vote for vet testing took place - yep at 4.40 !!


-KC members hear there are 100,000 searches every month from people seeking a puppy from a member of the ABS.

- ...and yet ..that over 80% of ABS members have STILL not been inspected - this surely undermines the whole idea - how can they be classified as 'Assured' if no -one is doing any checks ? 

- that Steve Dean said " if vet checks are stopped the anti show brigade will have a field day" - so is a certain section of the media now dictating Kc policy ? ...and WHY are the KC listening to them instead of  their paying 'customers ' ? - I simply don't understand their logic , the 'anti show brigade' will NOT back off because of KC appeasement they'll simply move the goal posts even further until the breeding and showing of pedigree dogs is banned


we live in interesting times folks - your thoughts ?

Yvonne

> -there were over 400 members present in the morning but this was reduced to around 150 by the afternoon as many had to leave to catch their trains - the venue had to be vacated by 5pm and guess when the vote for vet testing took place - yep at 4.40 !!

There may have been less people voting but why would you presume the proportion of the vote would be different?  The Canine Alliance is not the only opinion within the grass roots.

Equally you can't assume it would be the same ;-) ; it only shows that the voting figures aren't a true representation of the numbers who attended, and who would most likely have chosen to vote if they'd had an opportunity to do so.

If all 400 had voted you would not know it was a true representation of the entire membership.  150 is obviously not as good a selection as 400 but its a reasonable number never the less.
I'm not at all convinced that the late voting could squew the figures towards keeping the checks quite the opposite as I feel the CA supporters may have had the strength of feeling and the greater incentive to miss their earlier train but that is only guessing :)

Theonly way to have a true representation is to have a postal vote, so that people who can't attend meetings can have their say; the way postal votes are accepted for elections.

That sounds expensive :) 
Perhaps justified if you are electing an entire new government but full referendums on subjects otherwise debated in Parliament are rare. 
I don't think the proportions indicated by the 150 voters suggest anything like something close enough to justify it in this instance personally.  I don't think there is any way around the fact that the CA did not get the support they might have hoped for.

In my day jobs over the years I have organised AGMs for a range of membership type national organisations. The following things are typical features of an AGM:
1) Many people will leave early to catch trains. There are two strategies to address this: put an exciting issue at the end to keep bums in seats or deal with key issues early on so the best representative vote is achieved.
2) Many people find AGMs are boring and avoid them. The secretary will make an effort to get as many voting  members to the AGM as possible for the health of the organisation. 150 voters out of 1500ish isn't really that great, especially for a 'hot' issue. I would have been disappointed if I was behind organising this. If the 400 had stayed, that would have been very good indeed. I don't know if there are any arrangements for proxy/postal voting but if there were they may be included in the 150.
3) Never assume any result is representative unless the majority of members vote! This is the hazard of the model of the AGM and why so many organisations push for postal voting. It is perfectly possible that the 150 could have skewed the vote considerably, afterall they cared enough to stay and vote. It is also perfectly possible that the 400 would have produced the same result, and the same for the entire membership. Does that really matter at this point? Not really because the decision has been made. The KC now has to move forward on the decision made by its members. That is the way it is constitututed.

> 150 is obviously not as good a selection as 400 but its a reasonable number never the less

But not if some of those 150 were advised that the vote would be at 4.40pm and were those from the pro camp.

I suspect a poor statistical sample skewed for effect...... but thats just cynical old me.

Lol @ typo :-)

And the Canine Alliance and the UK dog world as a whole can now consider what further steps to take.  To carry on being governed by a non-representative body juggling media reaction with bad PR decisions, or to seek a path which will make arrive at a democratic organisation which is truly interested in the wellbeing of dogs and the interests of those who own them.

People knew the times of the meeting and there will I assume have been an agenda so why would it be a surprise that voting on matters could have been done at the end ? If people felt strongly enough then they would have made arrangements to stay until the end surely ?

@LJS: exactly

toolz,

I rather agree with you.

It occurs to me that if not a postal vote they could work in some kind of secure online voting for members- not that hard to do in this day and age. The KC most likely know which members are online (email addresses) and whether that number is a majority.

I think we also have to consider that the the GC came down heavily on the fact that any vote against the proposal would reflect negatively in the media, and of course not all members are from the show fraternity, apparently quite a few of those present had no idea at all of the issue and went along with the GC line.  This was not a proposal put forward by or on behalf of the the Canine Alliance but by an individual member (actually 3 members made similar proposals initially).  What has come out of it is, I think, an indictment against many of those who are currently members, they are interested in the kudos and  social side of wearing the KC badge, and can't be bothered with the ramifications of the dog world as it is currently being administered.

What is needed now is for everyone who feels that we need equal  representation  for everyone in the dog world to become a member of the CA, and increase the power of it's voice on our behalf.

> and can't be bothered with the ramifications of the dog world as it is currently being administered.
>

I think that is unfair.  You have no idea that they can't be bothered. We have no reason to suppose they do not feel quite positive about the show checks. 
I think we would have needed to be at the AGM and hear the speakers on both sides to draw any conclusions about the sense of feeling on both sides.
The GC may have made the point about the press reaction but that is not say the reaction would not be justified is it?
What we do know is a good proportion stayed to the end and voted it down.

I think that is as valid as your point of view - we have no idea they CAN be bothered nor do we know that they DO feel positive about health checks.
I disagree that those remaining represent a good proportion but that is just my view.
I don't know what proportion have any view regarding health checks but I suspect a more democratic and representative KC would hopefully carry more weight.
To have KC members with no interest in dogs is simply ludicrous - I have met them.
Jeff.

> we have no idea they CAN be bothered nor do we know that they DO feel positive about health checks.
>

I would not disagree with that.  We do not know either way.  Which was my point.
Other than the vote of course :)

>disagree that those remaining represent a good proportion but that is just my view.

Sorry, I worded it wrong.  I should have said, of those remaining, a good proportion, more than half as much again, voted it down.  If the total voting has been increased it is hard to imagine the proportion would have been so greatly different as to have a different outcome.

Indeed, but all we actually know is that of those remaining the majority were in favour keeping things in the present state.
I don't know how the proposal for the vote was worded but would love to find out - and shall. ;-)
Jeff.

> I don't know how the proposal for the vote was worded but would love to find out

It will probably be on the Canine Alliance Facebook page.

there's an interesting poll on the subject here http://www.dogworld.co.uk/index.php - is this perhaps a truer reflection of what most breeders and exhibitors think ?- personally I think that KC membership should be opened right up - it's not as if those who are KC members are voted on by the rest of us as a way of representing our views -KC membership is tightly controlled and limited and the same names cling onto their seat of power ad infinitum ( even if they no longer breed or show and simply see the AGM as a way of meeting up with their cronies, having a good meal and then going home ! ) - loads of us feel passionately about pedigree dogs and our hobby - how ridiculous  that the only way we can get our views heard is over the internet on forums like this !!!.

Yvonne 

> how ridiculous  that the only way we can get our views heard is over the internet on forums like this !!!.

You might be putting your views out there but I am pretty sure they are not being heard by anyone that matters :(

Stooge, I was taking my comment form reports by those who were in attendance at the meeting.  There was  a number of members present who had no idea at all about the HP breeds and the health check issues - from non showing/breeding disciplines, or just "social" members, who knows?  It can hardly be said that the 1300 or so members represent a true picture of the interests of the competitive/breeding dog world in the UK.  IF we had an open membership run in a deocratic manner then votes as this coudl be taken at face value, with the current system, they cannot.

One of the interesting things I have picked up from reports of the meeting is that there is still no KC reply to the coat testing issue - it is still being looked into, yet when this matter was brought up at the last AGM the GC's response was that there could be no question the tests were fair and carried out correctly.  The GC are hardly foolproof in their collective opinion.

Jeff,

I agree with your point about widening membership of the KC. Currently it is still very much an old boys private members club, including tie (ladies only fairly recently accorded equal status)- and very nice it is too. For one, the food is first class! A visit for lunch is like revisiting another era, G&T's at the bar, silver service and all. No wonder they want to keep things just as they are.

Perhaps there is a disjuncture between the infrastructure of what is essentially an Edwardian private members club and the demands of the modern dog community. Perhaps the KC is simply no longer fit for function.

An interesting post from a KC member on FB concerning the timing of this item on the agenda and the numbers who did not return from lunch.  Have requested permission ot corss post, will do so if it is OK'd

> Perhaps there is a disjuncture between the infrastructure of what is essentially an Edwardian private members club and the demands of the modern dog community.

But it is a private members club.  They happen to run shows and other dog activities and support research into the health and wellbeing of dogs but they are not a government department answerable to the nation so are perfectly at liberty to run their membership how they see fit and we all have the choice as to whether we use their services.  They do not have a monopoly on dog breeding, registration and other dog related activities by any means.
We may wish sometimes that they were fully answerable and more like a government agency but I would say be careful what you wish for :)

That may be so, but SHOULD it be a private members club given the virtual monopoly it does indeed have?
The way things are at the moment is definitely not my idea of much choice.

I do agree Jeff.  Stooge, are you saying that you are happy with the KC status Quo?  I can understand that a private members club is appropriate, or at least workable, for a minority activity such as Polo perhaps?  But how can it be considered viable, at this point in time, to have activities which involve thousands of participants ruled by a tiny and non democratic minority?  To say they are not in a monopoly situation is ludicrous, if we wish to breed and show, then the KC is our only option.  I know from your previous posts you appear to be slavishly in favour of the RSPCA, is this adherecne ot large organisations universal with you, are you simply very fond of following rules without wanting either personal thought or input, or are you playing a devils advocate role on CD?

Is it your opinon that those deeply involved in the dog world are misguided in attempting to have a voice in the ruling body?  That we should blindly follow rules which are proved to be misguided, wrong or unworkable? 

This is the post from a KC member which I mentioned earlier today :  "Many of us had dog sitters in so we could attend the AGM and I for one did not expect an hour and a half lunch break to take place in the middle, nor other agenda matters being moved in front of the vet check debate. We live in the North and yes had to leave to get the 5pm train. It was well planned and orchestrated to make sure many had left before the vote. It was also the case that many did not return after the lunch break including some of the General committee."

> To say they are not in a monopoly situation is ludicrous, if we wish to breed and show, then the KC is our only option.

Thousand of dogs are bred without a sniff of involvement with the KC and there are shows already outside their jurisdiction and nothing preventing anyone running more. 

> I know from your previous posts you appear to be slavishly in favour of the RSPCA

Really?  I think I take a very balanced view of what they do and have frequently said I do not agree with all it. That will be at odds with those that appear to wish to brief against them constantly but hardly "slavishly in favour". 
  Nor am I playing devils advocate, I give my opinion as the logic appears to me.    
I am quite happy to discuss this with you, Gwen, but can't see how it strengthens anyones point to be insulting.

  > We live in the North and yes had to leave to get the 5pm train. It was well planned and orchestrated to make sure many had left before the vote. It was also the case that many did not return after the lunch break including some of the General committee."
I don't understand the point here, Gwen.  If people on both sides of the divide left early how would this have affected the proportion of the vote?  It's not as if the vote was a close call.

>Thousand of dogs are bred without a sniff of involvement with the KC and there are shows already outside their jurisdiction and nothing preventing anyone running more. 

Without a consensus of the aims of all the clubs, they're of no overall benefit. They'd all have to agree to 'sing from the same hymn-sheet' to prevent their activities and goalssimply being random; what one thinks is right, another would fundamentally disagree with. Totally pointless, and would result in chaos and effectively the destruction of the breeds.

> Totally pointless, and would result in chaos and effectively the destruction of the breeds.

There are breeds that never have any truck with the KC but apart from that, I would agree, the Kennel Club is generally our best route to maintaining the quality of pedigree dogs.

Which is why it needs to be seen to be fair; if people - the ones who fund it - become disenchanted and feel betrayed and ignored then everyone loses. That's a situation they need to strive to avoid.

> if people - the ones who fund it - become disenchanted and feel betrayed and ignored then everyone loses.

We have no idea they are disenchanted do we? 
There is talk of the Kennel Club membership being a minority but how representative is the Canine Alliance? Do they not also amount to a minority of all the people showing dogs let alone using the Kennel Club services generally?

>

> We have no idea they are disenchanted do we?

I think that somewhere in the region of 2000 have joined the Ca, and over 6000 signed up to the Exhibitors Choice and Voice FB page show a considerable level of disenchantment.  But lets' do a straw poll on CD - woukd you consider that a representative sample of those in the dog game?

> There is talk of the Kennel Club membership being a minority but how representative is the Canine Alliance? Do they not also amount to a minority of all the people showing dogs let alone using the Kennel Club services generally?

The CA membership is open to all, how is that comparative to the KC situation?  In fact, the CA membership now far exceeds that of the KC.

I don't know the membership figures for the CA or the KC but it would not surprise me if the CA membership is many, many more than the KC and an open membership. When does a minority become a sizeable minority? What figure would you suggest is enough?
If we agree the Kennel Club is generally our best route to maintaining the quality of pedigree dogs I would suggest a more representative body would seem to make sense.

OK, so moving on from my last post, lets have a poll of CD'ers concerning the format/membership situation of the KC.  So we don't have shouts of "fix" about skewed questions, how should they be framed?  I favour something simple, along the lines of:

"Do you think the current  KC membership situation is fair?"

Yes, it should remain as it is.

No, membership should be open to all.

Is that too open?  Should there be more options/categories, qualifications?

> I think that somewhere in the region of 2000 have joined the Ca

Do you know the actual figure?  The only figures I have seen quoted are of the facebook members as opposed to the paid up members. 

Last count was over 1600 and moving up.  A new figure should be issued soon as the membership secretary gets all the applications tied up.  CA FB page is over 2000 members.

> If we agree the Kennel Club is generally our best route to maintaining the quality of pedigree dogs I would suggest a more representative body would seem to make sense.

I don't think it is that simple, Jeff.  We need an organisation that has to negotiate with other agencies, Government, veterinary and welfare.  I am not at all sure that would work if it was driven by an open membership which, I suspect, would be much more interested in maintaining their narrower specific show and breeding interests.
If this ever became the case I think the Kennel Club would become less able to compete with other agencies for any responsibility within the changes we may be facing in dog ownership or indeed breeding.

> I don't think it is that simple, Jeff.  We need an organisation that has to negotiate with other agencies, Government, veterinary and welfare.  I am not at all sure that would work if it was driven by an open membership which, I suspect, would be much more interested in maintaining their narrower specific show and breeding interests.

What qualifies the existing membership, or even the GC, to act in this way?  Surely a democratically elected governing body from an open membership would carry much MORE weight than  an eclectic elite from a very small pool?

I think if you enquired of the various agencies, Government bodies etc with which the KC needs to interact if they realised that the KC is a closed private members club they would be amazed!

They don't represent the interests of the dog world, they dictate and enforce.  Any disagreement, however well presented and  researched, is met with initial denial.

I don't think that would make any difference at all, many organisations with many members have a chosen committee/board which represents them - and an open KC might well carry more weight, not less.  

> I think if you enquired of the various agencies, Government bodies etc with which the KC needs to interact if they realised that the KC is a closed private members club they would be amazed!

I would be very surprised if they did not know how the KC was structured. 

Whilst the RSPCA is very well aware of the KC structure I have yet to meet anyone from the general media who knew how the KC structured, nor from any local government  department.  From recent correspondence with some MP's it seems most of those contacted were also in the dark about KC membership.  In fact, there is a largeish number of those involved in dogs outside of the show scene who are also clueless about KC structure.  Having only recently met up with some Agility people was amazed to find how far removed many are from KC activities or processes.

> There are breeds that never have any truck with the KC

but the KC is the only registration and show/trial body recongnised for the majority of recognised breeds, and accepted internationally.

When I bred and showed Rabbits everyone taking part in events and wanting to show had to be a member of the ruling body.

....When I bred and showed Rabbits everyone
taking part in events and wanting to show
had to be a member of the ruling body.

Yes that is true of all small-animal societies, one member one vote but they still rely on bums on seats at AGMs. In my experience as a committee member, few are able or interested enough to attend.

With cats GCCF it is different, each breed club has a delegate that goes to Council meetings and can put forward motions debated by club comittees, and also vote on wider issues, rather like an MP. I am sure it has its pitfalls like any other coinstitution, but I did attend council meetings as my club's substitute delegate, and saw it for myself. When council meet like that, it sure beats any form of AGM that I ever went to.

>each breed club has a delegate that goes to Council meetings and can put forward motions debated by club comittees, and also vote on wider issues, rather like an MP. I am sure it has its pitfalls like any other coinstitution, but I did attend council meetings as my club's substitute delegate, and saw it for myself. When council meet like that, it sure beats any form of AGM that I ever went to.

That sounds like a very sensible idea. There could be open membership (to allow puppies to be registered), and a ruling council comprised of an elected delegate from each parent breed club. Therefore the people making decisions would still be actively involved in their breed and have the ear of the grassroots membership of their breed. It would certainly be more representative than the current situation.

>There is talk of the Kennel Club membership being a minority but how representative is the Canine Alliance?

The difference is that anyone who wishes to can join the CA (just as anyone can become a member of the RSPCA!) - there is no limit on membership. That's what makes it so radically different to the KC, with its closed and restricted membership.

JG,
Exactly. 

Clearly the Victorian/Edwardian KC , as it was conceived, could not have forseen the massive hold and sway it would have over the future of dogs- it does pretty much control the development of pedigree breeds. It is simply that the club infrastructure has remained stuck in aspic and I think it is time for a radical overahul and the knowledge and expertise of the wider pedigree dog world should more directly have bearing on KC decisions.

No doubt the KC would argue that for a small fee they offer affiliate and associate memberships- but as we know, without voting rights these positions are not significant.

> it does pretty much control the development of pedigree breeds.

It has no control over the development of the breeds and that has been the recent problem.  Rightly or wrongly, they are trying to bring in changes that gives them control over the development of certain breeds.

> It has no control over the development of the breeds and that has been the recent problem.  Rightly or wrongly, they are trying to bring in changes that gives them control over the development of certain breeds.

Of course it has control - it holds the breed standards and can force changes, additions etc as it sees fit (eg tail docking, exagerated features etc).

The breed clubs and breed councils, health sub committees etc are all toothless when it comes yo making their opinions felt at the KC if those opinions run contra to the KC line.

and of course they ahve the final say in approving judges at CC level.