Kennel Club secretary *What's on offer?" - Page 2

HERE'S AN OFF THE WALL SUGGESTION.

WHAT IF ALL THE GSD BREEDERS DID NOT REGISTER THERE LITTER'S WITH THE K.C OR DID NOT BREED FOR 6 OR 12 MONTHS.
THAT WOULD GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. 

Hello Myfanwy

I am afraid that your suggestion will not work.   Agreement is not possible and from the KC point of view the revenue from the GSD world is a spit in the old bucket and they can survive without it.  It would be self damaging.

Mackenzie

i agree with david 100% but we need everyone of us to back this or we will get nothing as i said in the could this happen in the UK thread
Mackenzie i would say that around 250.000 pounds a year is not a spit in the ocean for anyone in this present climate and i am sure the KC could not and would not like to loose this revenue.
jim h

 LISTED DISEASES: as per my post above, point 3:

I want EPILEPSY on the list.

Hello Jim h

I agree with you that everyone has to pull together if we want to effect change.  That is clear.

I would also say, that to you and I, and most of the people reading the posts, the sum of 250,000 pounds is more than a spit in the ocean.  However, if we put this a little more into focus it may not appear so great, especially to the KC.  For example, take into account the revenue generated by all the breeds together and, our breed is only one, then the total annual revenue is a phenominal figure.  Add to that the revenue from shows, sales and other things the KC income is even higher.  Even once expenses and taxes etc are deducted  I am sure that the balance sheet shows a healthy figure.

If you then take into account any organisation in the world which is embroiled in a campaign affecting ego and reputation the expenditure in protecting these becomes a secondary consideration until after the dust settles. 

I do not know the amount of Revenue generated by the KC but it would be interesting to find out.

Mackenzie

I agree with David that Epilepsy should be included on the List of Diseases.  I disagree with David on the matter of the KC to prepare the list.  I think a better way would be for us to put forward all the diseases we would want to include leaving the KC to exclude (with their reasons) any disease they feel inappropriate to include.   We must get them to argue their case at every opportunity.

Mackenzie

Videx, If the three stated rules you want put into effect, were effectively carried out by the KC, in twenty years you will have pigeonholed your lines of use to a point that you would start doing more damage than you're attempting to correct. There is a reason that no other national KC has taken things to this level,( And its not because you in the UK were the first to think of this). I think suggestions like this need to be thought out more indepth as to negative impact.....for every action there is a correlating reaction and sometimes that reaction in the long term is worse than the problem the action is seeking to correct.JMO 

Hello Gustav 

You are quite right in saying that suggestions need to be thought out in depth.  Perhaps you can help here by saying what damage you envisage may arise in say twenty years or earlier.  All contributions are welcome at this point in the discussion.

One would hope that any drastic changes that start to appear will be looked into and dealt with as and when the indications appear.    Many health problems are insidious in their onset and have a hold before they are recognised as a major problem.  It is the same in humans.

regards

Mackenzie