Show you care
An open letter to ALL General Canine Society Officers and Committees, where are you? Twice yearly the Shows Liaison Council, North East, holds a meeting to discuss and formulate ideas on how we may improve the Open Shows held in our area. There are some 90 ‘Open’ societies in our region, and if the number of Societies that attend the meetings are a true reflection of our pastime, we have nothing to worry about.
Well, fellow Committee Members, you are living a dream in your individual “fiefdoms”, the only time numbers increase at the meetings are when a ‘specific’ comes from The Kennel Club, then the lazy Societies think it might affect them, they honour the meeting with their presence then they go back to hibernating.
So to those lazy uncaring Societies, uncaring in the sense they are only interested in their bit, I guess your Societies must be thriving, in super venues, with super entries, no problems contracting good judges, no problem with the mountain of rules and regulations that have gradually been poured upon Societies since the Judge’s Working Party.
Obviously some Societies’ Officers are afraid of being involved with, standing up and being counted when trying to change the General Committee’s ideas. Others will be just too idle to give us a few hours per year by becoming involved in thinking about our pastime.
So, come on you uncaring people, do not let the very small amount of those that care for our dog scene do all the work, get off your a**** and join those few loyal show people who care about our sport.
Yours etc
Peter A Broadbent
Dismayed
I am greatly dismayed by the comments of Messrs Locke and Petrie, presidents of the BVA and BSAVA respectively, on the issue of Caesarean sections as reported in the canine press following letters to the Veterinary Record. The stance taken by the KC is reasonable, and correct in my opinion, and their criticisms, including those to date of implementation and ‘scientifically proven welfare reasons’, are pettifogging and nit-picking.
Caroline Kisko is quoted pointing out, quite correctly, that there are many reasons why a bitch may require a C-section other than faulty conformation, something that many, if not most experienced breeders, will have experienced. Good examples are puppies from each uterine horn becoming locked together, removal of a retained dead whelp (possible after delivering the rest of the litter normally) or a grossly deformed monstrous whelp, etc. Can you blame the bitch for a chance occurrence or some genetic error in the whelp? Absolutely not! But the only conclusion one can reach is that Messrs Locke and Petrie regard a defect in the bitch to be the cause of every C-section; this is false logic and reflects badly on them and the organisations they represent.
It also reflects badly on them that they have joined the ranks of ‘KC knockers’ when the KC and numerous responsible breeders have done so much on health matters for decades and there are more important issues to be addressed. The KC’s decision to limit C-sections applies only to litters being registered with it – what about litters produced by breeders and puppy farmers who do not register with the KC or register with other organisations which do little, if anything, to promote good health? If such breeders present a bitch requiring a third or even fourth C-section, there is absolutely nothing a vet can do about it; it would be unethical and against the veterinary oath to refuse to carry out the operation. (And, let’s face it, there is no way that veterinary chains or individual vets who are money-oriented are going to refuse such income! Also do any vets refuse to do elective sections?)
Messrs Locke and Petrie also show a complete lack of scientific savoir faire in another respect, namely the effect on gene pools were bitches limited to a single litter delivered by C-section. We are extremely aware of the need to maintain gene pools as large as possible, irrespective of any other consideration, but their ideas, if implemented, could lead a significant and possibly disastrous reduction. Over the years, many eminent scientists and vets have warned against ‘throwing baby out with the bath water’ but this is exactly what they are proposing!
Going public on their part was a major error of judgement and one can only trust they were not pressurised in any way by anti-KC elements either within or without their profession.
Responsible breeders, most of whom are informed laymen, give priority to health issues but they need to have access to the appropriate scientific literature, so that those with the relevant experience can conduct their own appraisals.
Thus Messrs Locke and Petrie would serve their cause better were they to supply publicly any published studies, especially those in peer-reviewed journals, on which they have based their point of view; it would be a great step forward if journals like the Veterinary Record gave easy free on-line access to laymen rather than members of the veterinary profession.
Nevertheless the KC has taken a major policy step forward, which inevitably will require reappraisal in a few years, and it is highly regrettable that the leaders of the BVA and BSAVA, organisations with whom the KC has worked closely for many years, can do nothing better than ‘put the boot in’!
Yours etc
Archie Bryden PhD
Premature demise
I am happy to tell you that the Liddesdale Show continues today in much the same format as before, as does the Eskdale Show with classes for Collies, Terriers and Gundogs.
Most farmers in the 1950’s had a Border Terrier at heel, many I am sure bred by Wattie Irving. The Liddesdale Hunt is still run by the Laing family.
Ronnie Irving mentioned the wild hills, he omitted to mention that this area was actually known as the debatable lands - a lawless area between Scotland and England. For over 300 years the families or clans on both sides of the border indulged in cattle rustling and murder, which makes USA’s Wild West look tame, they were known as the Border Reivers and originated the word Blackmail.
Yours etc
R Harvey
Major change
I was eager to read this months gazette, being the first of a new year. Where are we going to show this year? Who is judging? What good news is there in the world of dogs?
My spirits fell when I read the first page The Chairman's Report Mr Irving couldn't let the first week pass without announcing even more changes for the targeted 'High Profile Breeds' Is this action legal? Owners of dogs in this group are being singled out for 'special' treatment. What of our European Rights of equality? Why should a vet have to examine Best Of Breeds, and dogs being awarded their third CC? Who has complained about them? Have all rounders highlighted inferior quality of dogs being sent forward to the group?
None of us are afraid of veterinary examination of any of our show dogs, BUT, as we know only too well, there are many breed phobic vets about. How do we know that the officiating vet has our breeds interests at heart, and will not be unduly harsh in his conclusions of such examination findings? This is even more important when presenting a three CC winner for the VETS APPROVAL of awarding champion status. Does this mean that the judges opinions are secondary to the vet and Kennel Club?
We could shout for this edict to apply to all breeds, but in my opinion this is unwarranted, NO BREED should be subjected to such treatment at shows. Heaven knows how we find the money to attend the shows at the current time, I fear in the future we may well stay at home.
We know the penalties promised for the dogs that fail veterinary examination, but what about the judge who sent the dog forward? Are they to be penalised? And how? Show committees have a hard enough job finding approved judges for their forthcoming shows, after this announcement, the search will be even harder.
Does The Kennel Club realise that they will never do enough to satisfy the anti dog lobby, and they have handed work to Jemmima Harrison and her like yet again. Many breeds agreed to changes in their Standard, and are committed to change, but this will not happen in one year, or two. One generation or two. Breeders must be given time, but every few months some other burden is placed upon the shoulders of the targeted few.
I know The Kennel Club never change their mind, and all our questions, and objections will probably come to nothing, but when is the Clarges Street empire going to work on behalf of their cliental? If they can't, major change is called for.
Yours etc
Janet King
Bravo
HAVING JUST just read the news about dogs being examined before competition at Crufts and other shows, we want to applaud the decision.
At last something definite is being done to help dogs become healthy. We know serious breeders who really care already make sure their dogs are in good health on all counts, but it is great to hear that all persons showing their dogs are also obliged to take notice.
Bravo K.C.
Yours etc
John and Mavis Payne, France
Misgivings
I read with some, or rather much, misgivings the article in the Kennel Gazette by Ronnie Irving.
I was extremely interested in his inclusion of the Clumber Spaniel in his list of non normal breeds. Just who are these K.C Health Group advisors who have chosen the 15 “high profile’ breeds which the K.C has taken a violent dislike to over the last few, or maybe not so few, years. The “caring” K.C appears to have taken no notice of the improved state of health generally with this breed.
I have bred, shown and worked clumber Spaniels continously since the 1970s and have yet to be criticised for having unhealthy , or even unfit, dogs in the show ring. In fact I believe that in most cases my dogs have been singled out for praise regarding fitness, health and especially movement. Like most clumber owners I have endeavoured to keep up with all health practices, bent on improving health and well being of my dogs.
I have owned, exhibited and worked mostly Clumbers and American Cockers since my retirement from my career as an infantry solider. I have spent an extremely active career as a sportsman in the service and have owned dogs since my first Clumber in 1927 when I have my first memory of my father owning one. I have looked after this breed most exclusively since retiring from the service and I can say , without any doubt, that I have never, never, never owned a “ non normal dog” within the breed.
At present my wife and I own and care for 9 Clumbers and 2 Border terriers and cannot differentiate between the grades of normally advocated by the K. C
Dogs are mostly what you make them and there are good and bad examples of all breeds. I believe that the most important aspect of dog ownership is that of keeping the dogs fit and happy. I sometimes feel that the Kennel Club is more against the dog owner than for them.
Judging , especially in Clumbers, of late has been far below par as a rule which has resulted in some poor quality dogs being placed. I’m afraid that the better judges are being replaced by poor quality substitutes - not only my opinion but one widely held. Although somewhat disturbed by this I do exhibit at both Open and Championship Shows and do keep up with the picture. I just cannot resign myself to appreciate the great drop in knowledge apparent today. Luckily, there are still a few competent judges
Please don’t put this aside and dismiss me as a poor disillusioned Clumber fanatic. I have owned many, many dogs in my 86 years but have spent most of my time and work on Clumbers and feel that I really know them quite well. Most dog people who know my Clumbers and I feel that I really know them quite well. Most dog people who know my Clumbers appreciate that qualities and names like Full Ch tollylog Angus Mor of Belcrum and Am. Ch. First Dawn at Tavirosh are introduction enough to most gundog devotes on both sides of the Atlantic.
Yours etc,
Bill Ironside |
