Thought this was of interest, a statement made by Michael Parkinson at the AGM, met with much applause, but no response from the Chairman.

For those that have asked, the following is exactly what I said at the 2012 KC AGM :-

In the September 2011 issue of the Kennel Gazette the Kennel Club Chairman stated "There is justification in refusing to register close breedings such as parent to son or daughter, as this level of close breeding carries high risk."

He went on to state "A registration system is a powerful tool which we can use to help control inherited disease...it offers the public the ability to find a healthy, happy pedigree dog".

However; the Kennel Club Breed Records Supplements show that over a 12 month period a single breeder registered 15 litters of Cocker Spaniels totalling 108 puppies. It also shows that the dams of these litters have so far in their lifetime currently whelped a total of 230 puppies.

In a breed that has simple DNA tests for PRA and the fatal disease FN The Kennel Club's Health Test Results Finder shows that none of the sires or dams of these 15 litters have been health tested.

By continuing to register puppies whose parents have not been health tested the Kennel Club is endorsing this breeder by virtue of allowing these puppies to carry the KC registered branding.

This is not only de-valuing the hard work, dedication and commitment of responsible breeders, but it also shows complete hypocrisy in performing vet checks at shows.

The Kennel Club justify these vet checks for reasons of only wanting to see healthy dogs but at the same time continue to register the puppies of irresponsible breeders that could go blind or even worse develop potentially fatal diseases.

These vet checks are attacking those, who in the main are doing the very best for their breeds. How can it be right to attack the responsible breeders, whilst the Kennel Club continue to register the potentially unhealthy and unethical efforts of the puppy farmers.

> it holds the breed standards and can force changes, additions etc as it sees fit (eg tail docking, exagerated features etc).

Yes, they can force changes to the breed standard but only in as far as the written standard held by them. 
They cannot force people to breed without exagerated features, they can only try to prevent these features being rewarded in their show rings.
The Government changed tail docking.

>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.

I'm not sure that is true.  There has been much tooing and froing with the Bulldog Breed Club over the years, for example, with it looking very much like the KC have very little teeth in forcing them to moderate their breeding rather than the other way around.

> The Government changed tail docking.

I was referring to the KC insisting on the Docked/undocked  elements being written into the standards, regardless of the fact that no one had any clear idea what the tail carriage of the customarily dock breeds would be, with full tails.

Many breed clubs have had long, frustrating and seeminlgy pointless negotiations with the KC, the outcome always appears to be that the club's thoughts don't count, which is why they get long  and drawn out.  The KC holds the trump card of the ulitimate sanction, withdrawl of CCs form the breed, which it threatened the GSDw with if I remember right?

> I was referring to the KC insisting on the Docked/undocked  elements being written into the standards

I really don't think they had any choice on that one.  As the tail carriage of most of the breeds has turned out to be quite variable the negotiations could have gone on as long as some of those tails meanwhile the law had been enacted.

Another thread has made me ponder something.  Regarding membership of the Kennel Club, do you think that should be freely available to overseas members too?

>Regarding membership of the Kennel Club, do you think that should be freely available to overseas members too?

People overseas have their own Kennel Clubs of which to be members. :-)

> People overseas have their own Kennel Clubs of which to be members.

Is that a no then? :)

That would be logical. :-) There might be exceptions for longstanding members who emigrate to continue with associate membership.

So do you think it right that there are overseas members in the CA, a lobby group attempting to drive changes in the Kennel Club?

As the CA has no official standing in the running of the canine world in the UK, that's irrelevant.

The Kennel Club has no official standing but either way if the CA wish to claim influence on the basis of their membership numbers than the make up of those numbers and who may be influencing them should be relevent.

>The Kennel Club has no official standing

I'm sorry? How can the governing body of a sport have no official standing?

If the Government put them in charge of dog registration they might have official status but at the moment the only thing they govern in their own activities and much goes on with dogs outside that.
But if they were an official entity back to my point about the make up of lobby groups seeking to influence how they might be run :)

They are the only UK canine registration body that's recognised internationally; they do have official status worldwide.

The KC, in whatever form, doesn't need its own version of the West Lothian Question! Overseas members should not be allowed voting rights. :-)

> They are the only UK canine registration body that's recognised internationally; they do have official status worldwide.

Back to overseas influences again :)  I would rather we concerned ourselves with ensuring the applied welfare standards etc were entirely our own.

Overseas influences are very useful if you want to keep the canine pedigree gene pool wide. :-) Without the official international standing of the KC, no UK dogs could add to the overseas gene pool, and vice versa.

That wasn't the sort of influences I was talking about :)

Then you'll need to make your point clearer, I'm afraid. :-) I don't understand it.

Stooge, with respect I think you may be limiting the meaning of official to mean only a public servant. Any organisation can have officers, that are official within the terms of that organisation.

The KC pretty much controls the context in which pedigree dogs are shown and registered- those two factors taken together add up to a lot of power. There are always exceptions and one can split hairs about the details, but overall I think most would agree that the KC is a very powerful and influential organisation.

I thought naming welfare standards was quite specific :) 
As I said, another thread got me thinking about how other countries may have different priorities when it comes to animals in a competitive sport and whether we would wish them to, therefore, have any influence in how we set out our priorities here.

> I think most would agree that the KC is a very powerful and influential organisation.

Yes, I would certainly agree with that which is why we should look at the influences exerted on them.

Which particular influences would those be, that aren't exerted on everyone? We all read the papers, and (most of us) travel overseas and have access to information from overseas. Even on this very forum we learn about how the canine culture differs in different countries, and naturally that will influence how we think.

I see no reason why membership should not be limited to those with British citizenship, I don't see why this sort of limit on membership would obviate earlier points in favour of a wider membership?

I don't understand your question, JG.   The CA are seeking to influence the Kennel Club not anyone else.

>I don't understand your question, JG.   The CA are seeking to influence the Kennel Club not anyone else.

Yes, and so what? Only the KC members with the CA might be able to have any more influence on the KC than you or I putting forward our views.

> I see no reason why membership should not be limited to those with British citizenship

But do you think it should be? 

> Only the KC members with the CA might be able to have any more influence on the KC than you or I putting forward our views.

Not sure if I am reading this sentence correctly. Do you mean someone with duel membership?  If I have got that right I would agree but I rather think the CA are hoping to gain rather more influence than that :)

Why should it not be?

> Why should it not be?

No reason at all :)  but my question was do you think it should be?

>Do you mean someone with duel membership?

Pistols at dawn? :-D

>If I have got that right I would agree but I rather think the CA are hoping to gain rather more influence than that

I'm still not sure of your point. It's always been perfectly clear that the CA is an alliance of people from the grassroots of the showing world who think that certain decisions of the KC are unfair, and are asking for fairness across the board. That's no secret, and not a subversive conspiracy, which is what you seem to be suggesting. "He who pays the piper calls the tune", after all.

I'm not sure which of us is being more delphic; All I'll say is that I cannot see why membership should not be limited in the way I've suggested and that you seem to support :)

I think the fact the CA has overseas members within it's ranks has very little relevance at all. Soon, if not already, it will have more UK members than the KC so I would suggest that particular line of argument just muddies the water.
Jeff.

> That's no secret, and not a subversive conspiracy, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Not at all they have been very open in their demands.

I have no wish to muddy the water :)  What are the actual overseas memberships figures?

Stooge,

Okay, to look at it a different way. Assuming it is the case, why would you not wish to see membership of the KC expanded (though limited to those with British citizenship)?

Didn't say you wished to. :-) I don't know the overseas figure but the UK membership is the comparison I mentioned, I am sure somebody must know how many UK members and I am happy to wait for the actual figure.

> why would you not wish to see membership of the KC expanded (though limited to those with British citizenship

Just not convinced that those with the most motivation to change the make up have the right motives I suppose :)  Would you care to answer my question now? :)

I am a bit lost about the argument.  The facts currently are that both the KC and the CA have overseas membership.  As the CA membership is climbing everyday I don't think figures are yet available on this.  I know toe KC used to publish overseas memberships granted, so i presume somewhere they publish figures of actual overseas members?  Does anyone know if overseas members of the KC have the same voting irghts as UK members, ie, they can vote is present at the meeting?  At the moment, as the constitution etc of the CA has yet to be decided and written we cannot do other than speculate and express preferences on that front.

I had not previously considered overseas membership of the KC if it did become a democratic organisation, but lots to think about - 1)how do other National KCs operate overseas membership? 2)  Would the whole European  cross borders thing mean it was mandatory to admit members for the Union with full rights?  3) Should overseas members have full rights anyway as they are involved in as much as they can show here, import and export dogs? 4) Should overseas members be admitted on a non voting basis? 

No yet sure which way my opinions goes yet.

>1)how do other National KCs operate overseas membership? 2)  Would the whole European  cross borders thing mean it was mandatory to admit members for the Union with full rights?  3) Should overseas members have full rights anyway as they are involved in as much as they can show here, import and export dogs? 4) Should overseas members be admitted on a non voting basis? 

Currently my view would be 4) - overseas members would not be allowed voting rights (see my comment about the West Lothian Question).

Just not convinced that those with the most motivation to change the make up have the right motives I suppose :-)  Would you care to answer my question now? :-)

But unless those most motivated to change have some kind of thought control apparatus by which to control an expanded voting membership, I don't really see that it matters.

I think I have, in so far as I can.

Certainly our breed club has overseas members, and they have voting rights, though few would attend an AGM unless holidaying here, but certainly can take part in postal ballots for judges, committee etc.

> But unless those most motivated to change have some kind of thought control apparatus by which to control an expanded voting membership

They are the most likely to join and exert their voting right.

That's democracy at work. :-)

Stooge that is a circular argument. You'd prefer the status quo where decisions are decided by a select few good ol boys, so we don't have to worry our (pretty) little heads about it all?

> You'd prefer the status quo where decisions are decided by a select few good ol boys, so we don't have to worry our (pretty) little heads about it all?

I haven't said anything like that. 
Talking of status quo, hasn't this all come about precisely because the "good ol boys" want to bring changes to certain breeds so, whether you agree with the way they chose to do it or not, they can hardly be accused of wishing things to stay the same.

>I haven't said anything like that.

That's the impression given, I'm afraid. That the people doing the actual showing and breeding - the ones most affected by changes - aren't wise enough to have their voices heard. That they should just accept what 'the massa up at the Big House' decrees.

>precisely because the "good ol boys" want to bring changes to certain breeds

That's the problem - people believe it should be all breeds, not just a select few, and done in a fairer way, not that it shouldn't be done at all.

> Talking of status quo, hasn't this all come about precisely because the "good ol boys" want to bring changes to certain breeds so, whether you agree with the way they chose to do it or not, they can hardly be accused of wishing things to stay the same.

No, this has come about because "the good ole boys" made a badly considered decision to implement a ruling which they thought would be a good PR move to  the watching eyes of the media, driven by their initial knee jerk reaction to  PDE.  They apparently forgot to factor in either the logistics of how it would or could work, the fact that it would be seen as grossly unfair to single out 15  breeds, what it was actually aimed at doing/changing, they did not even seem to have figured it would effect the exhibitor as the initial speil form the Chairman was that it was aimed at Jduges and he did not see why exhibitors would be affected!

The instant cross breed reaction to this at Crufts and then online immediately afterwards galvanised a large portion of the showing/breeding fraternity, and deeply felt resentments about the lack of KC understanding of the  grassroots of the dog world's surpressed majority surfaced.  It can hardly come as a surprise that people want to have a say in how things are run, decisions made, changes implemented.  Dictatorships, by and large, are frowned upon.  It was not a KC decision to make changes which caused the upheaval, it was the KC inability to see or admit an gross error in judgement.

> That's the problem - people believe it should be all breeds, not just a select few, and done in a fairer way, not that it shouldn't be done at all.

I'm sure there have been lengthy discussions why it would be impractical and unecessary to treat all breeds in the same way.  It makes perfect management sense to identify priorities and what difference does it make to these breeds whether others are being looked at too? 
Whatever way it was done someone would object as, if we acknowledge it needs doing at all, they are going to find themselves affected in a way that they obviously don't agree with because that is the way they have been chosing to breed.

I think that by broadening the voting base you have greater opportunity to wipe out the effects of cronyism and selective hearing. Of course it won't be perfect and problems are bound to crop up, but there is greater opportunity for open debate on important issues, where the views and experience of the committed dog world can have greater bearing on outcomes.

I may be completely wrong but my guess is that every single person that currently shows pedigree dogs at KC regulated shows would probably want to join.

>what difference does it make to these breeds whether others are being looked at too?

A huge difference. Nobody, at any stage of life and in whatever situation, likes to feel picked on and punished for something they haven't done, especially when someone else isn't punished for the exact same thing. Fairness and equity are vital if meaningful progress is to be made as swiftly as possible.

I suppose it all hinges on whether you accept some breeds have issues due to exageration and fair enough if you don't.