ausngrc.orgausngrc.org/assets/ankcnbcminsjun10-v2.doc · Web viewOnce agreed they should develop a proposed breed survey rationale, with questions that must be answered and a proposed

Summary of the Conference of National Breed Councils held on Saturday, 26 June, 2010 in the River Room at the Kogarah Golf Club, 19 Marsh Street, Arncliffe, New South Wales commencing at 9.30 a.m.

1. PRESENT: Mrs M Merchant Chairperson

25 Delegates representing the following National Breed Councils:

National Afghan Hound Council (Australia)National Border Collie Council (Australia)National Borzoi Council (Australia)National Boxer Council (Australia)National British Bulldog Council (Australia)National Bull Terrier Council (Australia)National Bullmastiff Council (Australia)National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council (Australia)National Dachshund Council (Australia)National Dobermann Council (Australia)National Golden Retriever Council (Australia)German Shepherd Dog Council (Australia)National Labrador Retriever Council (Australia)National Tenterfield Terrier Council (Australia)National Weimaraner Council (Australia)National Welsh Corgi Council (Australia)

IN ATTENDANCE:

Dr K Hedberg ANKC Canine Health CommitteeMr R Bridgford ANKC Breed Standards Coordination Group

APOLOGIES:

National Dalmatian Council (Australia)National Old English Sheepdog Council (Australia)National Rhodesian Ridgeback Council (Australia)National Samoyed Council (Australia)National Whippet Council (Australia)

MINUTES RECORDED BY: Ms T Barry ANKC Administrator

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME(Mrs Marie Merchant)

The Chairperson welcomed delegates to the eleventh Conference of National Breed Councils. Delegates noted Dr Karen Hedberg the National Canine Health & Welfare Committee (CH&WC) Chairperson was in attendance together with Mr Roger Bridgford representing the National Breed Standards Coordination Group (NBSCG).

Delegates noted advice from Mrs Merchant that the National Tenterfield Terrier Council (Australia) delegate, Jane Harvey had been omitted from the minutes of the 2009 meeting and the minutes would be amended to reflect this inclusion.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of W Stacey/D Cross that the July 2009 National Breed Council Conference minutes to be amended to acknowledge the National Tenterfield Terrier Council (Australia) attendance at the meeting.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

For: National Afghan Hound Council, National Border Collie Council, National Borzoi Council, National Boxer Council, National British Bulldog Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council Australia, National Golden Retriever Council, National Labrador Retriever Council, National Tenterfield Terrier Council, National Weimaraner Council, National Welsh Corgi Council

Abstain: National Dachshund Council

2. APPROVAL OF THE SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL BREED COUNCILS CONFERENCE HELD 18 th JULY, 2009 BY THE ANKC CONFERENCE:

At the October 2009 ANKC Conference, Delegates received the Summary of the National Breed Councils Conference held 18th July, 2009 and discussed recommendations arising there from.

2.1 Dangerous Dog/Breed Specific Legislation(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 5.2)

Discussed: Aug 05, item 5.9Discussed: Oct 05, item 2.9Discussed: Oct 06, item 7.6.2Discussed: Oct 07, item 5.17Discussed: Jun 08, item 2.15Discussed: Oct 08, item 6.3.3

German Shepherd Dog Council

The ANKC should look at a broad approach to this increasingly troublesome area. There should be input from the various NBC's that are particularly likely to be affected such as- Rottweilers, Dobermanns, German Shepherd Dog's, Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers etc.

Rationale:The anti-dog lobby is constantly chipping away at the various state legislations. We as a group via the ANKC have considerable strength and power (if welded in time and on a unified front) to be proactive and put in submissions every time these laws comes up for review. Unfortunately, the ANKC has seldom called for input by the most vulnerable breeds that are/will be affected by breed specific restrictive legislation. We as a breed have a history of being affected by such legislation, it may be up to us to lead the way in being strongly proactive against re-instatement of such legislations.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of K Hedberg/M Burns to refer this matter to the National Welfare Canine Committee.


It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of J McMurtrie/G Cowie to deal with this matter at the main conference during discussions with Professor Bob Hales.

Delegates noted this issue was not dealt with at the last ANKC Conference and has been resubmitted for the October 2006 ANKC Conference.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of M Hammett/P Frost to defer this item to the main conference agenda.

MINUTES of the conference of National Breed Councils – 26.06.2010 2

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.For: ACTCA, CAWA, CCCQ, NACA, SACA, TCA, VCAAgainst: DOGS NSW

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of K Irwin/M Bungey for the VCA Threatened Breeds Committee to review whether the ANKC should look at a broad approach to this increasingly troublesome area. Should there be input from the various NBC's that are particularly likely to be affected such as-

Rottweilers, Dobermanns, German Shepherd Dog's, Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers etc. and come back to the next conference.

The VCA Committee has responded advising they are unclear as to what was required and felt that in the absence of clear directions there was little purpose in progressing. They recommend that if the ANKC wishes to progress the matter, the National Breed Council should take it on board and set up a Task Force/Working Party/Special Needs Group made up of the breeds involved which would be charged to report back to the main conference on their findings.

It was unanimously RESOLVED that this matter be referred back to the relevant National Breed Councils and they be requested to forward their submissions to the National Canine Welfare Committee.

Mrs Neddermeyer said the GSDCAA believed this to be a sensitive issue in respect of their breed. She said the GSDCAA had formed a Breed Specific Committee and had conducted meetings with NSW Local Government Departments and urged the ANKC to take a more proactive approach as this issue not only affected German Shepherds but every breed throughout Australia.

Despite assurances from State Governments, politicians tend to change their attitude when confronted with public pressure as a result of negative media reports relating to dog attacks. Ultimately politicians were the ones who make the law.

Questions were raised concerning breeds that do not have a National Breed Council which may want to make a submission with the majority of delegates agreeing that the ANKC should issue a Press Release to cover these breeds.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of J Neddermeyer/L Gunter for an ANKC Press Release to be issued to Member Bodies for publication in their next gazette/journals seeking submissions from Breed Clubs which do not have a National Breed Council. These submissions would then be sent to the Canine Welfare Committee.

Discussion then followed on the current situation facing Dogs Victoria in respect to changes to State Legislation. Mr Frost confirmed that as State President he had attended meetings with the Head of the Department of Primary Industries and what had become evident was that government officials had little knowledge of the dog world in terms of breeds, breeding, etc. It was essential that the ANKC and Member Bodies continued to develop open dialogue with government officials to get our point across.

Delegates agreed the issue of Breed Specific Legislation was not just an Australian issue but a Worldwide issue.


It was RESOLVED on the motion of B Parker/P Frost to endorse the recommendation for an ANKC approved Press Release, to be issued to Member Bodies for publication in their next gazette/journals seeking submissions from Breed Clubs which do not have a National Breed Council. These submissions would then be sent to the Canine Welfare Committee.

It was unanimously RESOLVED that this matter be referred to the ANKC PR Consultant.

Mr Frost briefed delegates on the current progress with the appointment of the ANKC Public Relations Consultant and confirmed it should be resolved within coming weeks.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of W Stacey/M Cowin that a recommendation be made that National Breed Councils are to be advised when the ANKC Public Relations Consultant is appointed.




Delegates expressed disappointment that the matter of breed specific legislation had been discussed at numerous meetings with little action being achieved. After further discussion it was agreed that the National Breed Councils should form a Working Party to deal with issues such as these.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of B Knight/E Gunter that a recommendation be made that the National Breed Councils form a Working Party to deal with breed specific legislation.




It was RESOLVED on the motion of E Gunter/D Cross that a recommendation be made that the Working Party have the power to co-opt from interested parties from breeds who do not have National Breed Councils.





It was RESOLVED on the motion of E Gunter/K Rogers that a recommendation be made that J Neddermeyer from the Germans Shepherd Dog Council of Australia be appointed as Convenor of the Working Party.




Mrs Merchant then called for interested parties who wished to join the Working Party to provide their names and contact email addresses to Mr Peter Frost at the meeting.

The following confirmed their interest in joining the Working Party:

National Breed Council Name Email AddressBorder Collie Judy de Jong [email protected]

British Bulldog Keith Meredith [email protected]@froggy.com.au

Bull Terrier Di Cross [email protected] Kim Rogers [email protected]

Dobermann Tanya Hill Will confirm elected participantTenterfield Terrier Leanne Bennett [email protected]

2.2 Amendment to ANKC Regulations Part 6(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.1)

Discussed: Aug 07, item 4.4Discussed: Jun 08, Item 3.6Discussed: Jul 09, Item 2.6

National Labrador Retriever Council

That there be a regulation inserted in the ANKC Regulations Part 6 Section 8 that there be no litter registration limitations imposed on any breed without a national survey of all registered owners of that breed indicating a majority are in agreement.


mailto:[email protected]






Rationale:Following recent events where the phrase “and for certain higher risk breeds the ANKC has the power to insist on an unaffected test report as a prerequisite to litter registration” has been included in a published document that has been ratified by the ANKC, it is imperative that the principle of breeders having ultimate control over decisions and regulations pertaining to hereditary disease testing within their breed be clearly stated by the ANKC and supported by regulation.

Dr Hedberg said she believed this was the current ANKC Policy in respect of litter registration limitations however some delegates disagreed.

Mr Boxhall suggested that consideration should be given to a new set of ANKC Regulations being compiled containing decisions from the Canine Health Committee.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of S Powers/S Pretty that this matter be referred to the National Canine Health Committee.


For: For: National Borzoi Council, National Boxer Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council, National Cocker Spaniel Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council, National Labrador Retriever Council, National Poodle Council, National Samoyed Council, National Shetland Sheepdog Council, National Tenterfield Terrier Council, National Weimaraner Council, National Welsh Corgi Council, National Whippet Council.

Abstain: National Border Collie Council

Action: National Canine Health Committee

Mrs Powers advised the original intent of the motion was to request an amendment to the ANKC Regulations to ensure that a national survey of registered breeders of any breed was conducted before any LRL’s were implemented.

Dr Hedberg said she did not believe the ANKC could impose an LRL without a breed survey however she would be raising this in our submission to the annual ANKC October Conference.

It is accepted practice by the ANKC for a national breed survey to be conducted with registered breeders prior to an LRL being imposed.

Dr Hedberg confirmed that delegates at the last October Conference had endorsed a set of LRL Guidelines which are noted below:

Guidelines for Developing Litter Registration Limitations

i) A National Breed Council (NBC) or Breed Specialty Club(s) (where an NBC does not exist) must agree that the disease(s) is/are a problem in the breed.

ii) Once agreed they should develop a proposed breed survey rationale, with questions that must be answered and a proposed date of commencement (after the Breed Survey (BS) is completed).


iii) The proposed BS should then be sent to the ANKC Canine Health Committee (CHC) for comment, advice and assistance in the final wording and understanding (including any ramifications of their decisions). This is then sent back to the NBC/Breed Club. [If it is a Breed Specialty Club(s), they must work through their State Controlling Body.]

iv) Once the final wording has been accepted, the BS sent out to all owners and breeders of the breed involved Australia wide.

v) If the survey results are in the affirmative, it is then published in Member Bodies Journals/Gazettes.

vi) The LRL is then applied, with commencement dates usually 6 months in advance of publication.

Removing Litter Registration Limitations

i) If a NBC or Specialty Breed Club wishes to remove an LRL after a period of time, they can apply to the ANKC CHC with accompanying proof that the condition no longer warrants close monitoring.

ii) If the ANKC CHC agrees with the removal of the LRL, this approval and the request for removal of the LRL should be forwarded to the ANKC for final approval.

Mr. Bleakley said he understood a procedure had been in place for many years but had not been put into the regulations.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of L Bleakley/G Acreman that ANKC Guidelines/Policies should be converted to Regulations.

That there be a regulation inserted in the ANKC Regulations Part 6 Section 8 that there be no litter registration limitations imposed on any breed without a national survey of all registered owners of that breed indicating a majority are in agreement.

It was noted Litter Registration Limitation guidelines already existed in the regulations however delegates agreed it was important that ANKC guidelines and policies should be in the regulations.

It was unanimously RESOLVED that ANKC adopt the recommendation that ANKC Guidelines/Policies should be converted to Regulations.

The Litter Registration Limitation Guidelines have now been included in Section 8 of ANKC Regulations Part 6.

Whilst delegates noted the work completed regarding this matter, they also supported a suggestion by Mrs Neddermeyer that a survey template should be made available to assist National Breed Councils and Clubs when preparing their own surveys.

Dr Hedberg agreed to arrange for a template to be made available.

2.3 Amendment to ANKC Regulations Part 13, Clause 4.2.5(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.2)

Discussed: Oct 08, Item 7.1Discussed: Jul 09, Item 2.14

CCCQ


That the ANKC Regulations 13 Part 4.2.5 that states that 'where a National Show is held, no Challenge Certificates shall be awarded for the breed/s involved in the National Show, within a radius of 1000km from the show on that day/s' be amended to reduce the distance from 1000km to 500km

Rationale:The distance is excessive and is causing problems in Qld. For example the National Dalmatian Show on 18 April 2010 to be hosted by Dalmatian Club of NSW causes a problem with the Kennel Association of Queensland Show (one of Qld's oldest Club Shows) as no Challenge Certificates can be given at this Show. The CCCQ at present cannot award Challenges when a National Show is held in Sydney (733km) or Canberra (945km), this is felt to be very excessive. The ACTCA is also greatly affected at present and cannot award Challenges when a National Show is held in any of the 'Eastern Capitals' (including Adelaide). I attach below a table of distances for reference.

Brisbane Sydney Canberra Melbourne Hobart AdelaideBrisbane 0 733 945 1373 1788 1600Sydney 733 0 247.4 712 1056 1161

Canberra 945 247.4 0 465 857 958Melbourne 1373 712 465 0 597 654

Hobart 1788 1056 857 597 0 1161Adelaide 1600 1161 958 654 1161 0

It was RESOLVED that the ANKC Regulations 13 Part 4.2.5 that states that 'where a National Show is held, no Challenge Certificates shall be awarded for the breed/s involved in the National Show, within a radius of 1000km from the show on that day/s' be amended to reduce the distance from 1000km to 500km.

It was unanimously RESOLVED that the change to Regulations 13 Part 4.2.5 be implemented from 1 January 2010.

Mrs. Merchant referred delegates to the recommendation from the NBSCG contained in their tabled report.

Delegates concurred with the recommendation that the change to the distance in Clause 4.2.5 from 1000kms to 500kms should revert back to 1000km to protect national shows.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of G Acreman/J MacDonald that the NBSCG recommendation be endorsed that the ANKC delegates reconsider their decision moved at the 2008 ANKC Conference to reduce the distance from 1000 km to 500 km where Challenge Certificates cannot be awarded on day/s a National Show is conducted. It is recommended that the distance of1000 km radius remain and the regulation convert to the previous wording of:

“Where a National Show is held, no Challenge Certificates shall be awarded for the breed/s involved in the National Show, within a radius of 1000km from the show on that day/s.”

Discussion revealed that the majority of delegates agreed there was a need to support National Breed Councils and National Shows.


It was RESOLVED that the ANKC adopt the recommendation for the ANKC delegates to reconsider their decision moved at the 2008 ANKC Conference to reduce the distance from 1000 km to 500 km where Challenge Certificates cannot be awarded on day/s a National Show is conducted in Regulations Part 13 Clause 4.2.5 and for the distance of 1000 km radius remain and for the regulation to convert back to the previous wording of:

“Where a National Show is held, no Challenge Certificates shall be awarded for the breed/s involved in the National Show, within a radius of 1000km from the show on that day/s.”

It was RESOLVED that the new regulation is to take effective from 1 March 2010.

Noted.

2.4 Allowable Colours Listing(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.3)

Discussed: Jul 09, Item 5.1

National Bull Terrier Council

THAT the changes to allowable colours in breeds, taken effect on April 1st 2009 be revised immediately, and ANKC must consult with the individual breed councils/ clubs & breed standards, to obtain a list of correct colours, specific to each individual breed.

Rationale:Current changes to allowable colours in force from April 1 this year do not correctly represent colours as written in individual breed standards for all of the breeds listed.

In a number of breeds, genetic colour patterns (eg. Tricolour , brindle, smut ) determine the colours & markings of offspring from specific colour matings. This information if printed on pedigrees must be specific & correct, to future reference for breeders, otherwise incorrect colour combinations will result from breedings done for a deliberate colour or colour pattern.

As an example; with bull terriers/ bull terrier miniature……..tricolour is an important colour pattern. Tricolour in particular, mated to white carrying brindle produces rich colours of a full spectrum, including brindle. However any colour mated to a colour without the brindle gene will produce a different range of colours & NOT produce brindle offspring. Similarly reds & fawns with smut markings produce a different range of colour intensity & markings to parents with clear coats. Tri colour is currently changed to Black, Red & white, or Brindle, Red & white………Red Smut & white would be classed as Red, Black & white…………this information can be deceptive for dogs with completely different colours & or genetic colour shadow.

It is a necessity for this information to be documented precisely.

Mrs. Merchant confirmed that the ANKC had recently resolved that the ANKC Allowable Colours listing was to be discontinued as a mandatory document for registration purposes and the colours, variations and patterns, as stated in the current breed standards were to be the criteria for registration on the Main Register.

This decision had been brought about due to the ongoing complaints and confusion with the listing.


Mrs. Merchant advised that the Allowable Colours listing had resulted from a case where someone had tried to register a lilac Border Collie. She explained that the majority of administrative staff in State Offices were not dog people.

She said she had total empathy to those who had difficulty with the listing but questioned for instance what a Tri-colour was as it meant different things in different breeds. Another was the issue of the colour Wheaten and whether dogs should be registered as Wheaten and not extended colours.

Even though the listing had been well intentioned it had resulted in considerable angst and this was hopefully resolved now with the new decision.

Mr. Frost reminded delegates that the listing had been prepared by the NBSCG under the direction of ANKC delegates. The Group had spent considerable time and effort in reading and consulting the relevant breed standards.

Discussion then followed with a number of delegates complaining that the majority of National Breed Councils had not been consulted when the original allowable colours listing was implemented and agreed the ANKC should be requested to do so in future.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of P Berman/N Weeks that the ANKC must consult with the individual Breed Councils/Breed Clubs & breed standards, to obtain a list of correct colours, specific to each individual breed.

Delegates noted the recommendation however endorsed the electronic decision made earlier in the year where the Allowable Colours listing was discontinued as a mandatory document for registration with the colours, variations and patterns as stated in the current Breed Standards to be the criteria for registration on the Main Register. Dogs with colours, variations or patterns not in the Breed Standard will be registered on the Limited Register.

Only patterns will be recorded, not the actual individual colours that make up the pattern. Tri-colour will be recorded not the three colours that make up the tri-colour, the same goes for Pied not the two colour that make a up pied.

Mr Frost confirmed the drop down listing of allowable colours on the national database reflected what was in the breed standards.

It was noted that as Australia was not the Country of Origin or Development for the majority of breeds we could not amend these breed standards as they were controlled by overseas organizations such as the FCI, Kennel Club (England) and the American Kennel Club.

Discussion followed with some delegates suggesting that perhaps those affected National Breed Councils or Clubs could approach the overseas organizations who own the breed standards and request for them to amend the standards.

Mrs Gunter confirmed the reasoning behind the National Boxer Council having white boxers banned from registration (Refer Regulations Part 6 Clause 6.2) was that dogs on the Limited Register were being bred from because they were perceived to be a registered pedigree dogs.


Mrs Merchant suggested that those Clubs and National Breed Councils who have colour problems could follow the example of the National Boxer Council and put forward submissions to the October 2010 ANKC Conference to amend Regulations Part 6 Clause 6.2 Colours. The ANKC Administrator confirmed the agenda for this conference closes as at COB Friday, 6 August 2010.

2.5 Change to Tri-Colour on Allowable Colours Listing(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.4)


National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council

The Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council (Australia) request an explanation from the ANKC as to why the registered colour 'Tricolour' has been changed to 'Black, Tan & White'. We further request that in future the ANKC clearly communicate the relevant information in relation to any proposed changes, such as this one, to the affected National Breed Councils prior to implementation of those changes.

Rationale:The Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council (Australia) feel that the ANKC's move to change the colour description on registration/pedigree certificates of Collies (Rough & Smooth) will lead to confusion. The Breed Standards as written are a concise description of the dogs themselves and we support the view that the Standard is the ultimate authority. 'Tricolour' as a colour description of Collies (Rough & Smooth) on the official paperwork is preferred by the Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council (Australia) to the ANKC's description of Black, White and Tan.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of J Cook/C Miller that in future the ANKC clearly communicate the relevant information in relation to any proposed changes, such as this one, to the affected National Breed Councils/Breed Clubs prior to implementation of those changes.

Delegates noted the item and referred to discussions in 6.3.3 (Item 2.4 on this agenda).

Noted.

2.6 Name of New Breeds(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.5)


National Poodle Council

We request that the ANKC prevent any new breeds being registered with any reference to poodle in the name (eg oodle or …..../poo).

Rationale:1. That is derogatory to the poodle breed.2. It gives a false impression that it is a legitimate pure breed as opposed to

a cross breed or mongrel.3. It conveys to the general public the impression that these dogs have the

same predictable attributes as pure bred poodles – eg. Non shedding coat or lack of typical dog body odour.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of J Sculac/J Harvey that the ANKC Regulations Clause 10.2.1 be amended to read:


“Any new breed or breed of dog under development must have a unique breed name, and is not a combination of recognized breed names or part of a recognized breed name and it must be pertinent to the purpose of the breed.”

It was unanimously RESOLVED that the ANKC adopt the recommendation for ANKC Regulations Clause 10.2.1 to be amended to read:

“Any new breed or breed of dog under development must have a unique breed name, and is not a combination of recognized breed names or part of a recognized breed name and it must be pertinent to the purpose of the breed”.

Noted.

2.7 Rottweiler Breed Standard Extension (BSE) – Tail Carriages(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.6)


National Rottweiler Council

To include the ADRK Pictorial Explanations of acceptable and non acceptable tail carriages in the ANKC Extended Rottweiler Breed Standard."

Rationale:There is a misunderstanding on the part of some judges in Australia as to the acceptable tail carriages due to the ambiguous wording in the Breed Standard. The ADRK Pictorial Explanation shows very clearly that only the fourth picture tail carriage in unacceptable. (refer below)

Mr. MacDonald advised that the Rottweiler breed standard on the ANKC website was not correct and they believed by adding this to the breed standard extension it would resolve the matter.


It was RESOLVED on the motion of J MacDonald/E Singer that the ADRK Pictorial Explanations of acceptable and non acceptable tail carriages be included in the ANKC Extended Rottweiler Breed Standard.

For: National Basset Hound Council, National Border Collie Council, National Boxer Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Chihuahua Council, National Dachshund Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council, National Labrador Retriever Council, National Poodle Council, National Rottweiler Council, National Samoyed Council, National Shetland Sheepdog, National Welsh Corgi Council, National Whippet CouncilAgainst: National Tenterfield Terrier Council

Mr. MacDonald agreed, at the request of the ANKC Administrator, to arrange for an email to be sent to the ANKC highlighting the anomalies they have with the ANKC breed standard so she could follow these up with the NBSCG.

It was RESOLVED that the ANKC adopt the recommendation for the ADRK Pictorial Explanations of acceptable and non acceptable tail carriages be included in the ANKC Extended Rottweiler Breed Standard.

Delegates noted there were some translation anomalies which needed to be rectified before it was included in the BSE and suggested the National Rottweiler Council liaise with the NBSCG.

Delegates noted this matter had been dealt with.

2.8 Lifetime Protection of Prefixes(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.7)


National Weimaraner Council

That Regulations Part 10 be amended to include the ability for National Breed Councils to apply to protect historic prefix.

Rationale:National Breed Council can submit names of prefix that they believe have historic value to their breed in the country, a fee could be set for that the National Council to pay to protect that prefix for a certain period of time. (Fee and time to be determined)

Any national council has the option to take this and the cost be paid by the national council.

Submission be made and fee’s paid by the particular National Council for the period of time and then once that period is up renewal notice sent to the National Council with in 12 months of expiry so the prefix can be renewed.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of L Bleakley/G Acreman that Regulations Part 10 be amended to include the ability for National Breed Councils to apply to protect historic prefix.

It was agreed it would be the decision of the delegates at the October 2009 Conference to determine whether a Working Party was required to determine the criteria required and the Working Party could be formed at the October Conference.

Delegates supported the recommendation however agreed they would need to see the proposed amendments to the regulations before endorsement was


given. It was agreed for Mr Bridgford and Miss Rushby to draft the required amendments and for these to be circulated to Member Bodies for endorsement.

It was noted this was work in progress and on the advice of Mr. Bridgford would be completed for the October 2010 ANKC Conference.

2.9 Amendment to ANKC Regulations Part 13(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.8)


National Whippet Council

The National Whippet Council requests that Clause 2.3.2 of the current ANKC Regulations Part 13 be amended to allow multi breed clubs to host National Breed Shows.

Rationale:Currently the Whippet & Greyhound Club of SA Inc cannot host a single breed National Show as they are considered a “multi breed” club.

This puts the Whippet Clubs at a disadvantage as there are only two Whippet Clubs plus the “multi breed” Whippet & Greyhound Club.

This Council believes that all Clubs who pay full fees should be permitted to host a National Breed Show. The Whippet & Greyhound Club of Sa Inc feel they have been discriminated against by having to pay fees whilst they are not entitled to the full benefits of being part of a National Breed Council.

It was generally agreed this would only apply where there were two Breed Clubs and one Multi-Breed Club and not three Multi-Breed Clubs.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of N Harris/C Miller that Clause 2.3.2 of the current ANKC Regulations Part 13 be amended to allow multi breed clubs to host National Breed Shows.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of N Harris/C Miller that the NBSCG recommended change to Clause 2.3.2 of Regulations Part 13 be adopted. Clause 2.3.2 to read as follows:

2.3.2 Where members of Breed Clubs cannot comply with the requirements of Clause 2.3.1 in that three (3) Specialist Breed Clubs, each affiliated with a separate Member Body of the ANKC do not exist, consideration will be given where two (2) Specialist Breed Clubs exist and members actively interested in the breed are represented by a “Breed type Multi-breed Club” i.e. “Setter Club”, “Spaniel Club” etc. (but not a Group Club) in at least one (1) other State or Territory. Membership of the two (2) Specialist Breed Clubs and the one (1) “Breed type multi-breed Clubs” will be sufficient qualification to apply for registration of a National Breed Council for the breed. The membership qualification will not be accepted unless all of the clubs are located in different States or Territories. Membership of the National Breed Council will not qualify the “Breed type multi breed club” to conduct a “National” Show. Membership of the National Breed Council will qualify the “Breed type multi breed club” to conduct a “National” Show for the single breed of that National Council and not for the other breed/s covered by the “Breed type multi breed club.


It was unanimously RESOLVED that the ANKC adopt the recommendation to change Clause 2.3.2 of Regulations Part 13. Clause 2.3.2 to read as follows:

2.3.2 Where members of Breed Clubs cannot comply with the requirements of Clause 2.3.1 in that three (3) Specialist Breed Clubs, each affiliated with a separate Member Body of the ANKC do not exist, consideration will be given where two (2) Specialist Breed Clubs exist and members actively interested in the breed are represented by a “Breed type Multi-breed Club” i.e. “Setter Club”, “Spaniel Club” etc. (but not a Group Club) in at least one (1) other State or Territory. Membership of the two (2) Specialist Breed Clubs and the one (1) “Breed type multi-breed Clubs” will be sufficient qualification to apply for registration of a National Breed Council for the breed. The membership qualification will not be accepted unless all of the clubs are located in different States or Territories. Membership of the National Breed Council will not qualify the “Breed type multi breed club” to conduct a “National” Show. Membership of the National Breed Council will qualify the “Breed type multi breed club” to conduct a “National” Show for the single breed of that National Council and not for the other breed/s covered by the “Breed type multi breed club.

Noted.

2.10 Australian Canine Eye Scheme (ACES)(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 6.3.9)


National Shetland Sheepdog Council

The National Shetland Sheepdog Council wishes to place the following Item on the Agenda for the National Breed Councils Conference to be held on the 18th July, 2009.

Provision be made on the ACES forms for examining Ophthalmologist to fill in their complete contact details, e.g., name, address & telephone number, as well as their signature.

Rationale:On the current ACES documentation, for eye examinations, there is only provision for the examining Ophthalmologist to sign and print his/her name, there is no where for other contact details e.g., address and telephone numbers. These details need to be clearly endorsed on the ACES certificate, in the event a concerned purchaser of a puppy, particularly one diagnosed with a hereditary disease, knows who to contact if the need arises.

It was unanimously RESOLVED on the motion of G Acreman/N Weeks that provision be made on the ACES forms for examining Ophthalmologist to fill in their complete contact details, e.g., name, address & telephone number, as well as their signature.

It was unanimously RESOLVED that the ANKC adopt the recommendation to make provision on the ACES forms for examining Ophthalmologist to fill in their complete contact details, e.g., name, address & telephone number, as well as their signature.

The ANKC President confirmed he would liaise with the AVA on this matter.

Dr Hedberg confirmed she had attended a meeting with the AVA to discuss the scheme along with the Hip & Elbow Schemes. Refer Item 8.1.


[Note: Dr Hedberg has since confirmed this matter has been dealt with after further discussions with the AVA.]

2.11 Bull Terriers and Bull Terrier (Miniatures) – Run Offs at Shows(Refer Minutes 17.10.09, Item 7.1)

NATIONAL BULL TERRIER COUNCIL

THAT Bull Terriers do not run off against Bull Terrier (Miniature) for 'In-Show' awards at Championship, Open or Specialty Shows conducted by state member clubs."

Rationale:The Bull Terrier and the Bull Terrier (Miniature) are recognised as two separate breeds by the ANKC as well as their country of origin. Importantly in the country of origin run offs are not held and as we follow their standard the majority of clubs believe that run offs between the two breeds should cease.

This motion was received via email from the NBTC Secretary confirming that it had been endorsed by the Member Clubs of the NBTC with a request for it to be ratified by delegates at the October 2009 ANKC Conference.

There was no support for this motion and as a result it lapsed for want of a mover.

It was noted on the advice from Mrs. D Cross that the National Bull Terrier Council would be resubmitting this matter to the October 2010 ANKC Conference and would ensure their State Member Body were aware of the history and rationale behind this issue in order that they seek support at the conference from the other Member Bodies.

3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES:

Nil.

4. REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL BREED STANDARDS COMMITTEE:

Delegates will receive an update report from the National Breed Standards Coordinators Group (NBSCG).

Mr. Bridgford tabled a written report from the Group (copy attached) and explained it dealt with issues on the agenda and could not be circulated prior to the meeting until the Group had received the agenda and had had time to review it and prepare their response.

Mrs Cowin referred to a recent request from the NBSCG where they had asked the National Dobermann Council to provide them with permission from the original author of the illustrations included in their proposed Breed Standard Extension (BSE). She explained that unfortunately they were unable to do this and as a result had investigated the cost of producing new illustrations which had proved to be very costly and they would be asking the ANKC to consider paying this cost.

Mr. Bridgford stated that other National Breed Councils and Clubs had not experienced the same problem and questioned if the NDC had contacted Mrs. Davison who he understood had originally provided these illustrations as she had in the past provided permission for other NBC’s and he could see no reason why she would not do the same for the NDC.


5. ITEMS SUBMITTED BY NATIONAL BREED COUNCILS:

5.1 Pre 1987 Breed Standard

National Boxer Council

THAT the ANKC retain The Kennel Club (England) pre 1987 Boxer Standard with the amendment for Tail description as agreed and approved by all Affiliated Clubs of the National Boxer Council at their last meeting held in Sydney on 11 April, 2009.

Rationale:The Kennel Club (England) pre 1987 Boxer Standard is a complete and thorough document which precisely details the blueprint for the Boxer as we know it today. The only section in this standard which required modification is a review of the “tail” description to bring it in line with current climate/Legislative requirements in this Country. It refers solely to the set of the tail and makes no mention of the word “docked” which is deemed to be politically incorrect. All member clubs of the National Boxer Council endorsed a new Boxer Breed extension on the 11 April, 2009, which was submitted to the ANKC through the National Boxer Council and is currently being considered. This document includes an excellent revision to the tail description and only the revised tail description need be substituted in the Kennel Club (England) pre 1987 Standard. This could also be easily implemented for all previously docked breeds that previously opted for the Kennel Club (England) pre 1987 Standard. Additionally, the Kennel Club (England) pre 1987 Standards should be renamed to conform to Australian requirements. History suggests that breeds who chose the Kennel Club (England) pre 1987 Standards have never been given the option to change these Standards in any form since they made the choice, it is therefore, surprising that the ANKC, without consultation, has decided to discard the Kennel Club (England) pre 1987 Standards that have described and served these breeds so well over many years.

Ms Gunter explained she was also a designated spokesperson for the National Old English Sheepdog Council who also had a similar motion on the agenda, refer Item 5.3.

She understood there was a rescission motion before the Member Bodies to rescind the October 2009 ANKC Conference motion and said that all they wanted was the right to retain the Pre 1987 standard.

Mrs Egan expressed disappointment that the National Afghan Hound Council had, like many other Councils, not been consulted with in terms of the Pre 1987 breed standard which they also held.

Discussion followed with many of those Councils who currently hold Pre 1987 standards also expressing their disappointment that no consultation with the relevant Councils had been conducted prior to the October 2009 ANKC Conference decision and as a result they had not been given the right to choose what they wanted.

Mrs Merchant confirmed there was a motion being dealt with electronically by the Member Bodies to rescind the October 2009 ANKC Conference decision in respect of the Press Release and as such all work relating to this decision had been put on hold but advised delegates that this meeting was their opportunity to put forward what they wanted.


Mr Bridgford confirmed that National Breed Councils could make a request to adopt a breed standard however a survey would need to be conducted of all owners of registered dogs.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of E Gunter/M Wheeler that a recommendation be made that the ANKC retain The Kennel Club (England) pre 1987 Boxer Standard with the amendment for tail description as agreed and approved by all Affiliated Clubs of the National Boxer Council at their last meeting held in Sydney on 11 April, 2009 – refer below:

“The tail attachment should be high. The tail should be preferably docked and carried upwards and should, preferably, be not more than 5 cm (2 ins) long.

Note that the tail attachment is high on a slightly sloping croup. Regardless of the length of the tail, it should be carried upwards on the move and whenever the Boxer is alert.”



Abstain: National Dachshund Council, National Samoyed Council


National British Bulldog Council

THAT the British Bulldog National Breeds Council Australia wishes to continue to retain the pre-1987 British Bulldog Standard.

Rationale:This matter was initially debated at a Breed Council Meeting, with an open audience, that was held during the week of activities at the first National British Bulldog Show held in Newcastle in 1988. All Bulldog Clubs in Australia were represented. The decision was to reject the amended Standard proposed by The Kennel Club (UK) and a strong request to be made to the ANKC to allow the retention of the existing Standard. This request was submitted to the ANKC via the then Administrator Mr. W. Kinsman and eventually an official meeting was set-up between the ANKC and the National British Bulldog Council (Australia) - aka NBBC(A).

The special meeting was held in Melbourne between an ANKC Sub- Committee and the NBBC(A) at the RAS of Victoria Showgrounds. The Subject: "The British Bulldog pre-1987 Breed Standard". The discussion centered around changes made by The Kennel Club (UK) which had NOT been discussed with the Bulldog Clubs in England.

Those in attendance were:The AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL KENNEL COUNCIL: Mr. W. Crowley, Mr. R. Lott and two (2) others.The BRITISH BULLDOG NATIONAL COUNCIL (Aust): Mr. W. O'Hehir (President), Mrs. J. Turton (Secretary), Mr. W. Stacey (V/Pres), Mr. C. Turton (Delegate).


The "pro's and cons" of the existing Standard and the new English Standard were discussed in detail, at length by both Parties and many long standing dedicated British Bulldog owners. The result was to recommend to the ANKC that the pre-1987 Standard for British Bulldogs be retained. This recommendation was approved at the following ANKC Conference.

It is interesting to note that prior to this meeting, The Kennel Club (UK) had sent to the ANKC the list of changes it had made to the Breed Standards of Australian indigenous Breeds. These were made without notice, question nor reference to the ANKC or Australian Breed Clubs or breeders at any time!

After due consideration, the ANKC rejected the The Kennel Club (UK)'s edict!Soon afterwards, The Kennel Club (UK) was advised that the ANKC had become a full member of the FCI.

In February 2009, The Kennel Club (UK) made sweeping changes to many Dog Breed Standards, mainly due to pressure from the BBC and the English RSPCA. This was portrayed on British Television with a world wide coverage and the British Press. The worst possible images of sickly, untypical, unhealthy dog breeds were used and in many cases, the dogs on view should have been kindly destroyed; (and some owners put in Mental homes).

The portrayal of dogs in such condition was evidence ruthlessly used by the BBC against The Kennel Club in an ongoing battle over the right to film Crufts Dog Show the previous year. In the case of the RSPCA, there had been an ongoing major conflict between the RSPCA and The Kennel Club since the major battle between the two bodies during the period when Mr. Martin Sinnatt was Secretary of The Kennel Club.

The almost immediate reaction headed by the current Chairman of The Kennel Club (UK), Mr. Irving could be considered by genuine dog lovers as being that of a person being totally out of control. There is no doubt that the TV images were not only literally obscene to most dog lovers, but predominantly, they were not typical of the overall situation in the English dog world. Undoubtedly, drastic action should have been taken via the respective dog Breed Councils and Local Councils; also, in co-operation with the RSPCA (if that was possible) against irresponsible owners and commentators! Instead, The Kennel Club immediately took action against the majority of the Breed Councils and their respective Breeds by way of forcing changes to many Breed Standards.

As the National Breed Council for British Bulldogs in Australia, we do not agree to the current Bulldog Standard owned by The Kennel Club (UK) and reject the changes made by The Kennel Club (UK) to the Bulldog Breed in England. These changes were made predominantly by academics and not the English Bulldog Breed Council, nor its Breed Clubs.

Fortunately, our Australian Breed Council was rightly able to convince the ANKC not to adopt the earlier Bulldog Breed Standard changes made by The Kennel Club (UK) enabling our Breeders to continue to produce the healthy, sound British Bulldog we have today -- using the "pre 1987 British Bulldog Standard".


It is interesting to note that our Breed Council requested a very respected Bulldog breeder of long standing, ANKC judge Miss Salina Chan who lives in Tasmania to do the drawings comparing the existing Bulldog we have in Australia today and the proposed Bulldog as per The Kennel Club (UK)'s new Standard. These were shown on British and Australian Television simultaneously. Comments from breeders/owners and judges of Bulldogs in many Countries are in agreement that the drawings of the new English Standard were almost of the Australian (Aussie) Bulldog which of course is not recognised by the ANKC. Owners of Australian (Aussie) Bulldogs also agree. It is interesting to note that there was no written acknowledgement of the situation by The Kennel Club (UK).

Another item of interest.Subsequent to the English TV Programmes, a satellite Programme was produced and broadcast in Australia. Our Members readily offered their dogs available to the Producer/Presenter Ms. Jonnica Newby. The offers of co-operation were many. However, Miss Newby did not avail herself of them except one or two. It was disappointing one of the Members who offered her dogs and facilities is devoted to Obedience training and breeds specifically for this sport. Apart from being successful in Australia, the dogs she has sent to the USA have been very successful. However, as with the other dedicated Bulldog owners, the appointments were not wanted by the Presenter/Producer of the T.V. Programme which could not find any detrimental viewing material to support the British criticism.

CONCLUSION:British Bulldogs being bred and shown in Australia under the "pre-1987 British Bulldog Standard" have maintained a very high Standard since the commencement of The Breed Council. We thank the ANKC Personnel who met with this Council resulting in the continuation of breeding the typical, healthy, sound British Bulldogs which are so successful in the show rings across the Country today.

We sincerely hope that the ANKC will allow our Breed to continue successfully in the future.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of W Stacey/E Gunter that a recommendation be made that the British Bulldog National Breeds Council Australia wishes to continue to retain the pre-1987 British Bulldog Standard.



Abstain: National Dachshund Council, National Samoyed Council

Mr Stacey gave the Chairperson a copy of a submission the National British Bulldog Council had provided to the Kennel Club (UK). Refer Attachment 5.2.



National Old English Sheepdog Council

THAT the ANKC reverse the October ‘09 decision to cancel its policy of choice of pre-1987 Breed Standards and of consultation on changes to Breed Standards; and that the ANKC consult with the relevant Breed Councils regarding any proposed changes to their Breed Standards, including any proposal to take away the choice of staying with pre-1987 Kennel Club Standards.

Rationale:The ANKC decided in October 2009, without consultation with the breeds concerned, to take away from breed Councils one of the primary reasons for their creation – the right to be considered custodians of the Standards for their breeds in Australia by being consulted on amendments to Breed Standards.

The ANKC’s Policy on Adopting Breed Standards – as still published on its web site – states that where an amendment to a Standard is proposed, “The ANKC policy does permit input from National Breed Councils\Breed Clubs before the amendment is adopted”. Where a Club or Owner requests a change to the breed Standard, the Policy says there must be an extensive consultation process with owners, showing the advantages & disadvantages of such a change. Yet in one stroke, the ANKC has not only shut out input from the relevant National Councils but also made sweeping changes to their Standards.

In the ANKC’s summary of the inaugural Conference of Breed Councils (29 August 1998), the Chairman of the National Breed Councils Liaison Committee said ‘the main reason for the establishment of National Breed Councils was not the conduct of National Shows...... The primary purpose for the establishment of National Breed Councils was for the protection and development of the breed on a National basis.... And to provide an avenue of dialogue direct to the ANKC on all matters appertaining to that breed..... It was the intention of the ANKC... that National Breed Councils take complete control of their breed in this country.... all proposals for the development... for the breed would come in the form of recommendations to the ANKC via the National Breed Councils Liaison Committee.... all initiatives would now come from them and not from the controlling bodies”. Mr Hugh Gent & Mr Roger Bridgford were both present at that conference.

To the Old English Sheepdog fraternity in this country, maintaining the integrity of our Breed Standard has always been paramount - and it needs to be respected, sacrosanct. So much so, that when the National Old English Sheepdog Council was given the opportunity by ANKC of changing the Standard (the options being either Pre-1987, FCI, or country of origin/development), all Australian OES Clubs voted unanimously to retain our current Standard. The National Council has re-affirmed its position in a recent vote, following the ANKC’s October ’09 decision.

Our pre-1987 Standard had been drawn up in the UK early last century (with only those minor format changes required by ANKC of all Breed Standards, to coordinate headings). It is also the basis of our Australian Extension to the Breed Standard, which took more than a decade to draft and have approved. To say that we are anxious to now retain this long-established Standard, and these hard-fought-for breed 'milestones', is an understatement!


Indeed, we were very much given to understand by ANKC that our strongly-held desire to retain this Standard would be honoured. In a letter to the NOESC dated 20/7/94, the Chair of the ANKC's Breed Council Liaison Committee stated: "Re your approved standard of 1/1/94, from where I stand there is absolutely no need for concern or risk as to its future. If there were to be any changes in the future, it would have to be at the request of your Council members through the National Breed Council sub-committee of the ANKC, any request being recommended to the full body would I am sure be approved... the canine fancy in Australia were given the right to determine the standard that suits them best, you cannot have anything more democratic than that, so please have no concern."

It has always been our clear understanding that no changes to the Breed Standard would be made other than through our National Council. This commitment and reassurance given to us appears as if it is now being dishonoured - with no real explanation, or opportunity given for consultation. In fact, our Council has not even been informed by the ANKC of this significant decision.

We feel strongly that we should be allowed to breed towards the time-honoured 'blueprint for perfection' already in place, rather than being tied to constantly changing 'interpretations' from overseas, which often seem designed to reflect more whatever certain factions are currently promoting in the showring. Such self-serving agendas do not 'improve' a breed - but merely 'change' it! In the case of the Old English Sheepdog, for instance, the current English Kennel Club Standard's minimum height (making the breed another 5.08 cm or two inches taller), will not produce healthier, sounder, or better Old English Sheepdogs. Just bigger ones! Over the years, the minimum height had already been increased by two inches from the original Standard to our current requirement - so to now jump that up by another two inches for no good reason achieves nothing productive. Particularly when you consider that this breed has no listed maximum allowable height, so it is not as if the way our Standard presently reads ever penalised bigger dogs! How will this change ‘eliminate exaggeration’, which was the reason given by the ANKC for its decision on October ’09 to cancel our right to consultation and choice. Similarly, changing from a level to a scissor bite (which the current UK Standard specifies) will alter not just a dog's dentition, but also the shape of the jaw - in the process impacting negatively on the desired truncation of the muzzle. Placing an emphasis on markings - as the KC Standard now does - would also give rise to more 'cosmetic' considerations when OES are bred or judged. Anything that places a focus on glamour ahead of functionality is in our view a retrograde step. The reason the Old English Sheepdog fraternity in Australia rejected the KC Standard (country of origin Standard, in our case) is that it makes major changes to our breed – and not ones which will ‘eliminate exaggeration’.

It should be noted that the need for a tail description could easily be incorporated into the pre-1987 Standard without 'changing' the rest of the dog. We are very aware of current sensitivities regarding health and soundness, and are cognizant of the need to address community concerns brought about by the damaging documentary "Pedigree Dogs Exposed". However, to change breeds for no constructive purpose is to ride roughshod over the design blueprint put together by those breeds' founding fathers, not to mention conscientious breeders and fanciers who have often dedicated their lives, as well as huge financial resources, to get breeds to where they are today. Only to then have them changed for no good reason. Over the years, the English Standard for the OES has been altered significantly, and tinkered with extensively. The thought that we could now be irrevocably tied to ongoing changes not necessarily in the breed's best


interest, is concerning in the extreme. We want to maintain the integrity of our breed - not be held to ransom by whims and vagaries of whatever is 'in fashion' overseas at the time.

This is why we wish to retain the right to consultation and choice – including that to retain our current Pre-1987 Standard or to move to the US Standard for the Old English Sheepdog (which is closer to the pre-1997 Standard than the KC Standard), and ask for your support in helping to be consulted and offered a choice. We ask for your support for those breed Councils which, like us, were promised the input and consideration recently ‘cancelled’ by the ANKC.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of E Gunter/M Cowin that a recommendation be made that the ANKC reverse the October ‘09 decision to cancel its policy of choice of pre-1987 Breed Standards and of consultation on changes to Breed Standards; and that the ANKC consult with the relevant Breed Councils regarding any proposed changes to their Breed Standards, including any proposal to take away the choice of staying with pre-1987 Kennel Club Standards.


For: National Afghan Hound Council, National Border Collie Council, National Borzoi Council, National Boxer Council, National British Bulldog Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council Australia, National Golden Retriever Council, National Labrador Retriever Council, National Samoyed Council, National Tenterfield Terrier Council, National Weimaraner Council, National Welsh Corgi Council


Mr Knight advised he understood that a decision had been made some years ago where breed standards could not be amended without prior consultation with the relevant National Breed Council.

It was noted that in the current climate the ANKC could not be seen to still promote an illegal activity such as tail docking and this had contributed to the majority of ANKC delegates supporting the October 2009 decision.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of E Gunter/J De Jong that a recommendation be made that when any matter to do with breeds is to be considered by the ANKC for whatever reason, that the ANKC reach agreement through consultation with all National Breed Councils concerned, or where no National Breed Council exists then with relevant breed clubs.


For: National Afghan Hound Council, National Border Collie Council, National Borzoi Council, National Boxer Council, National British Bulldog Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council Australia, National Tenterfield Terrier Council, National Weimaraner Council, National Welsh Corgi Council

Abstain: National Dachshund Council, National Golden Retriever Council, National Labrador Retriever Council


Mr Bridgford advised that this would not be workable as the suggested consultation would be very time consuming and few if any decisions would be achieved.

5.4 Spokesperson for a Breed

National Golden Retriever Council

THAT in future any spokespeople for any breed should come from the respective National Breed Council – not a breed club.

Rationale:This arises from concerns following the president of one club acting as a spokesperson for the Golden Retriever breed. It would be appropriate for spokespeople to represent their breed through the breed council not from an individual club.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of C Kaspura/B Knight that a recommendation be made that in future any spokespeople for any breed should come from the respective National Breed Council – not a breed club.


For: National Afghan Hound Council, National Border Collie Council, National Borzoi Council, National Boxer Council, National British Bulldog Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council Australia, National Golden Retriever Council, National Samoyed Council, National Tenterfield Terrier Council, National Weimaraner Council, National Welsh Corgi Council

Abstain: National Dachshund Council, National Labrador Retriever Council

5.5 Notations on Pedigrees – Genetic Status

National Border Collie Council

THAT the ANKC be requested to include notations on pedigrees to indicate the known Genetic Status of individuals.

Rationale:- Ethical breeders DNA test breeding stock, where progeny is Clear by

Parentage for Multiple generations provision of genetic documentation becomes unmanageable i.e. 4 generations of Clear by Parentage requires copies of 96 certificates for a single puppy. The ANKC should note the status of individuals by letters such as –

N - NormalN/P – Normal by ParentageC – CarrierC/P – Carrier by ParentageA – AffectedExample - NCL = N, N/P, C or AExample - TNS = N, N/P, C or AExample – CEA/CH = N, N/P, C, C/P or AHealth status is more important than titles and should be included on pedigrees.


It was RESOLVED on the motion of J De Jong/E Gunter that a recommendation be made that the ANKC be requested to include notations on pedigrees to indicate the known Genetic Status of individuals.


For: National Afghan Hound Council, National Borzoi Council, National Boxer Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council Australia, National Golden Retriever Council, National Samoyed Council, National Tenterfield Terrier Council, National Weimaraner Council, National Welsh Corgi Council

Abstain: National British Bulldog Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth), National Dachshund Council, National Labrador Retriever Council

Dr Hedberg explained that a meeting of the Canine Health & Welfare Committee earlier in the year had developed a set of protocols which were currently in the process of being approved by the ANKC.

5.6 Notations on Pedigrees – Hip & Elbow Score of Border Collies


THAT the ANKC be requested to include notations on pedigrees to indicate the hip and elbow Score of Border Collies.

Rationale:Breeders who hip and elbow score their breeding stock should be able to have the score recorded on pedigrees as such information is as important as titles.

The majority of delegates understood the reasoning behind the National Border Collie Council wanting to include these notations on pedigrees however they did not believe it should be imposed on other breeds.

Dr Hedberg reminded delegates that they would need to provide permission to include these notations from owners.

Mrs De Jong agreed for this matter to be referred to the National Canine Health & Welfare Committee.

5.7 ANKC Procedure to amend a Breed Standard of an Australian Breed – Rescission Motion


THAT the ANKC rescind 7. ANKC procedure to amend the Breed Standard of an Australian Breed 16th July 2009 (7. A moratorium of five (5) years will be placed on any further amendments/changes to a breed standard for an Australian breed once adopted.)

Rationale:It is not in the best interests of pure breeds to restrict amendments to breed standards to Intervals of half a decade, particularly when the pedigree dog world is addressing public concerns of health and soundness. Dr Peter Higgins, a veterinarian and spokesman for the ANKC, recently claimed in a National publication “breeds standards are reviewed by the ANKC constantly, if not yearly then at least every two years”, he says. “It is not something set


in stone; we say show us the science and we will work towards it.” “Breed standards are about the soundness of the structure of a dog, beauty come last.” Australian breeds are often in a developmental phase, examples are the Tenterfield Terrier and Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog which recently developed. The Koolie/Coolie is likely to be developed in the future. A moratorium of five years on amendments to breed standards will disadvantage the pure breed dog world.

Moved by J De Jong, seconded S Shrigley that a recommendation be made that the ANKC rescind 7. ANKC procedure to amend the Breed Standard of an Australian Breed 16th July 2009 (7. A moratorium of five (5) years will be placed on any further amendments/changes to a breed standard for an Australian breed once adopted.)

On being put to the vote the motion was LOST.

For: National Border Collie Council, National Tenterfield Terrier Council

Against: National Borzoi Council, National British Bulldog Council, National Samoyed Council, National Welsh Corgi Council

Abstain: National Afghan Hound Council, National Boxer Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth), National Dachshund Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council, National Golden Retriever Council, National Labrador Retriever Council, National Weimaraner Council

5.8 ANKC Regulations Part 13, Clause 4.2.5


THAT the ANKC be requested to amend 4.2.5 to read: Where a National show is held, no Challenge Certificates shall be awarded in Australia for the breed/s involved in the National Show on that/those day/s.

Rationale:The rule was amended to 500 km. [the change to above Clause 4.2.5 from 1000km to 500km to be implemented as from 1 January 2010. (Amended 10/08, 7.1)] without consultation with clubs which had already agreed to host National Shows. The rule is discriminatory and should apply to the whole of Australia or not at all.

Moved by J De Jong, seconded E Gunter that a recommendation be made that the ANKC be requested to amend 4.2.5 to read: Where a National show is held, no Challenge Certificates shall be awarded in Australia for the breed/s involved in the National Show on that/those day/s.

On being put to the vote the motion was LOST.

For: National Border Collie, National Boxer, National Collie (Rough & Smooth), National Borzi Council

Against: National Afghan Hound Council, National British Bulldog Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council, National Samoyed Council, National Tenterfield Terrier Council, National Welsh Corgi Council

Abstain: National Dachshund Council, National Golden Retriever Council, National Labrador Retriever Council, National Samoyed Council, National Weimaraner Council


5.9 Hip Score Register

National Samoyed Council

THAT the ANKC approach the AVA to ask that the hip score register be an open register and not closed.

Rationale:Currently when a dog has it's hips evaluated the data is submitted to the AVA, and because the registry isn't an open registry there is no way to research the genetic quality of the dogs behind a particular prospective sire/dam. Selective breeding for preventing or controlling hip dysplasia requires accurate estimates of parameters in prospective breeding stock, at the moment we have no way of evaluating the genetic "quality" of breeding stock other than the result presented to us when the evaluation of hips is done under the AVA scheme and the results of the dog evaluated are sent to the owner/breeder, no research into the genetic background regarding a dogs hip score is available. An open registry, administered the AVA the ANKC, or by a breeds respective national body or state breed clubs, or an independent registry organisation, would, be the easiest and fastest way to a short term solution which would avail breeders a better quality of information.

In the UK where a similar scheme is administered, once the X-ray has been scored, the result is returned to the vet, who relays it to the owner, and a copy is sent to the Kennel Club for recording on the registration database and publication in the Breed Records Supplement. It is possible to obtain a list of all the dogs recorded on the database which have been hip scored; this report shows the dog’s registered name and number, the date of birth, the hip score attained, the date of examination and the HD scores for its parent, this makes for a much better tool to evaluate genetic "quality" of a dog.

Apart from a dog's individual hip score the only other "tool" a breeder has to determine if a dog should be used is "the breed average" and it is widely acknowledged that this average is only of limited value as not all breeding dogs have their hips scored. If a breeder were able to research not only a particular dogs ancestry but also ascertain the quality of stock produced from siblings parents grand parents etc. more informed choices could be made and this can only benefit a breed in the long run.

It was agreed to refer this matter to the National Canine Health & Welfare Committee to seek further clarification from the National Samoyed Council as to whether this was breed specific.

6. CORRESPONDENCE:

Nil.

7. GENERAL BUSINESS:

7.1 Limited Register

National Samoyed Council

The limited register was designed to prevent dogs with breed defects from being shown or bred. However, current trends are for breeders to put puppies on the limit register to prevent buyers from showing and breeding perfectly normal dogs. This trend is causing Limit registered dogs to be bred and produce unregistered puppies. In the long term, this practice will only reduce


the registered dog gene pool and severely impact on exhibit numbers at dog shows.

Varying views were revealed during discussion on this matter with some delegates believing the Limited Register supported breeders in preventing buyers of Limited Registered dogs from breeding and showing these dogs.

The register was used by these breeders to register dogs and bitches which are not worthy of being bred from or for those buyers who are not sure if they want to show. It was seen by these breeders that the register gave breeders the right to manage their stock.

On the other hand some delegates expressed concern that by allowing breeders to register, in some cases, the majority of their litters on the Limited Register, it alienated buyers from the general public. Many of those at the meeting agreed they had commenced their involvement with the dog world through the purchase of a pet.

Breeders should be proud to be able to breed sound dogs which can achieve titles at shows. We need to continue promoting how we enjoy our hobby and educate the public via an improved Public Relations campaign of who we are and what we do.

Suggestions that the ANKC should consider changing the Limited Register certificate which many considered to be too similar to that of the Main Register certificate, as well as reviewing the cost of registering on the Limited Register were discussed to deter breeders from registering the bulk of their litters on this register.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of B Knight/E Gunter that a recommendation be made that Item 7.1 be referred to the October 2010 ANKC Conference and the concerns of the National Breed Councils be expressed.


For: National Afghan Hound Council, National Border Collie Council, National Borzoi Council, National Boxer Council, National British Bulldog Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council Australia, National Tenterfield Terrier Council, National Welsh Corgi Council

Against: National Golden Retriever Council, National Labrador Retriever Council, National Weimaraner Council


8. OTHER BUSINESS:

8.1 Report on AVA Meeting

Dr Kedberg confirmed she had met in Brisbane in late May with Mark Lawrie AVA President, Bill Twentyman (Kevin Doyle’s deputy CEO of National AVA), several members of the AVA Board and three members from NZVA, one of who liaised/represented the NZKC.

Fairly extensive discussions took place on various issues. The end result though was good – CHEDS will continue and will incorporate the NZ data as well as the scheme is too small to be economically viable in NZ. The NZ


reading system sends all plates via 2 readers which considerably increases both time and costs. The NZ people were reassured that the AVA readers (which includes Wyburn, Lavelle, Allen etc) were scoring to a similar acceptable level. Differences were discussed but these were felt to be anecdotal.

Andrew Worth, the Senior Lecturer and Head of Small Animal Surgery at Massey University (the NZ Veterinary School) was very pro PennHip, more so because he constantly has to deal with the surgical rescues in both hips and elbows.

The NZ people felt there had not been significant gains in the hip area but however in the elbows there had been considerable improvement, mainly due to a fairly hard attitude to elbow arthritis. Advice is being given against breeding with Grade 2 and above.

Similar advice was thought to be needed (both NZVA and AVA) in the hip scheme, where animals scoring well above their breed means should ideally not be bred from.

The data that has been collected by the ANKC was discussed and Dr Hedberg informed them we should shortly be in a position to update breed means and ideally have a grand mean as well as a current 5 year rolling breed mean. As soon as these were available, we would share these with both organizations.

PennHip was discussed fairly thoroughly. It was felt that it is the better diagnostic tool and has the added benefit of being able to be done earlier. It was acknowledged that one could remove more animals than were desirable in some cases as not all dogs with joint laxity went on to develop HD. However, the majority did.

Dr Hedberg discussed the need to keep as much breeding stock available as possible as many breeds were trying to control several diseases (as many as 4-5 in some cases) at any one time and we needed to keep as much genetic diversity as possible. In order to do this we could not always be as hard as was ideally acceptable. This was accepted and taken on board (to a reasonable extent she felt). Certainly Andrew was keener to take the harder line in the hip area.

Sires progeny results was also discussed and how that had dramatically improved the GSD stats and they were all impressed on that front.

The lack of availability of the PennHip results and generational data was acknowledged and Andrew was going to discuss this matter with Gail Smith of PennHip on the Friday as he would be at the Conference. It was felt that if this was available, it could assist the ANKC as well in the long run.

The Elbow scheme was also discussed in general. The prospect of giving advice against breeding with severe elbow arthritis with the results was noted and again all were in agreement that this type of breeding advice was well worthwhile.

The end conclusion was that we (the AVA and definitely the ANKC) would continue with CHEDS. The majority of breeds testing will probably continue to use this system, ditto the NZKC. It was noted that all the major breeds heavily rely on the CHEDS scheme. The PennHip data should be continued to be collected and be made available for analysis (ideally to the ANKC as well).


Long term goals could be better evaluated down the road once the PennHip data had more depth. Whether sires data could ever be developed via this scheme is unknown at present.

A decision to note on the paperwork of high hip scores (well above breed averages) as being not suitable for breeding was accepted in general principal by all present. This will probably go further forwards as a recommendation to the Radiology Chapter.

8.2 ANKC NBC Affiliation Fees

Mrs Kaspura raised concerns regarding the increasing affiliation fees National Breed Councils were expected to pay.

Delegates noted advice from the ANKC Administrator that at a number of previous National Breed Council Conferences a National Breed Council delegate had raised the issue of the fee and how it had been reviewed. This had ultimately alerted ANKC delegates to the fact that no procedure had been put in place for these fees to be reviewed and it was agreed that the fee should be increased annually by CPI to avoid huge increases as had occurred in the past.

8.3 Voting – National Breed Council Affiliate Clubs

Mrs Gunter questioned the voting of affiliate clubs in terms of National Breed Council matters and in particular where a State may have multiple breed clubs. She queried that where a member belongs to more than one club, it could be seen to be ‘double dipping’ if they vote at both clubs and therefore the independence of the process is not followed. Those States with only one club are being disadvantaged.

Mr Bridgford confirmed that current ANKC regulations would override any National Breed Council constitution on this matter.

It was RESOLVED on the motion of E Gunter/J De Jong that a recommendation be made that the ANKC look at the irregularity of the voting rights of National Breed Council affiliate clubs where a State may have multiple breed clubs.


For: National Border Collie Council, National Boxer Council, National Bullmastiff Council, National Golden Retriever Council, National Labrador Retriever Council, National Weimaraner Council

Against: National Afghan Hound Council, National British Bulldog, National Dobermann Council, German Shepherd Dog Council

Abstain: National Borzi Council, National Bull Terrier Council, National Collie (Rough & Smooth) Council, National Tenterfield Terrier, National Welsh Corgi Council

8. MEETING CLOSED: There being no further business the meeting close at 2.00PM.


Documents

ausngrc.orgausngrc.org/assets/ankcnbcminsjun10-v2.doc · Web viewOnce agreed they should develop a proposed breed survey rationale, with questions that must be answered and a proposed