The Most Dog Friendly Community Online
Join and Discover the Best Things to do with your Dog

Register

The Whippet Club Agm

S

Smiffy@VeronnaV

New Member
Registered
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Went to the AGM and since then I have had people asking what was said - by now you all know Paul is standing down as sec of the WCRA, that Kim has been elected as the new one, that the person who had the least votes for the WCRA Sub committee will have to stand for election again next year and that both the WC and WCRA have money in the kitty and need even more!

You may know that the KC have given permission for the rule relating to entire males to be incorporated within the rules of racing, (this was agreed and seconded last year, but as yet we have not had a revised set of rules issued). Their refusal to go any further was given as follows '.. but not allowed the amendment to the passport procedures on the grounds that it is mandatory, which is now contrary to Kennel Club policy, ...'

The business of the Whippet Club is as usual, the usual stood for election uncontested and were again elected, but Denis is resigning as sec this year.

The other sections of the Whippet Club were not there to give reports, nor the Whippet Magazine - so it was going swimmingly.

Item 12 The Breed Council - the proposal put was refused on the grounds that the coat colour of the whippet is so varied it is not possible to determine without doubt the progeny are, or are not, from the stated parents (I think that is what was said). It seems that one of the problems is the preponderance of white within our breed, and another is that breeders do not register their pups using the correct colour codes - eg they use "slate, charcoal, grey, apricot ..."

Item 13 (I said it was going swimmingly - until this). It was proposed that "the WCRA hold an annual meeting open to all members of the WC and members of all affiliated racing clubs. This meeting to discuss any items of concern or any proposed changes to the rules of racing". Needless to say it was thrown out as unconstitutional, (have we seen the exact wording for the insertion of the non entire male into the rules of racing and exactly where it is to go? No, we have not, was the section, sub section and number given? No it was not so how come that is constitutional, and what was proposed was not because wasn't written correctly (!!!), they didn't want it, didn't see the need for it, and anyway they decide how racing is administered etc etc etc. (At least they were honest about it I suppose). That is what the WCRA committee is there for blah blah blah. They like the format for the annual jolly to which we all go (to be insulted), and don't believe that there is any merit in every person having a vote as some clubs are larger than others and could steam roller through/block items of their liking/disliking. (HMMN). The meeting broke up at 1.10 after it was decided to bring the motion back to the floor next year - correctly written. (Which of course was a whitewash, because the Whippet Club AGM is the only format at which it is possible to propose, discuss and vote upon changes to the rule book of the Whippet Club, and by default the Whippet Club Racing Association Sub Section. The meeting is normally over by 12.15 at the latest).

Item 14 Trophies - there were no sports man/woman put forward from racing, just one youngster. The club expressed its disappointment at this as it is seen as a way of recognising the dedication and service provided by people within racing who unfailingly give of their time and expertise willingly for the love of the sport and the dogs. (So come on you lot, you know who they are, lets make sure that next year all 3 slots are taken!).

No AOB ('cos it was soooo late).

If anyone who was there notices any errors in my interpretation, please correct it. The parenthesis are mine and mine alone.
 
The answer to item 14, For sportsman/woman, were put forward to Paul Chappell at the 3rd champs by hand in a letter.

SO WHERE HAVE THEY GONE ????????????????
 
Thanks for that Carmel :thumbsup: .....Its a shame to hear about Paul (and Jo) ....They'll be a great loss to racing ....
 
Is Paul staying on the committee?

I didn't understand what you meant about entire males in the rules of racing Carmel - can you elaborate a bit?

Who was the person with the least votes who will need to stand next year?

Thanks for relaying the information :thumbsup:
 
>You may know that the KC have given permission for the rule relating to entire males to be incorporated within the rules of racing, (this was agreed and seconded last year, but as yet we have not had a revised set of rules issued). Their refusal to go any further was given as follows '.. but not allowed the amendment to the passport procedures on the grounds that it is mandatory, which is now contrary to Kennel Club policy, ...'

IMO This is a most interesting and disturbing matter.

1) It seems to me if I have understood correctly that part of the breed standard can be (but hasn't yet been) inserted into the whippet racing rules. Some people who were at the Talk In 2 years ago might remember that I asked the question of where will that end. Are we going to see other parts of the breed standard concerning the structure of the dog inserted into racing rules?

2) That if the KC have decided that mandatory rules ie disqualifiers are against their policy then what about weight and height restrictions.

Also there is the little matter of what have been deemed in the past by the WCRA to be unacceptable pedigrees but who are nonetheless KC registered dogs and can take part in any other KC club organised event without any restriction.
 
As I remember, the majority vote at the Talk-in last year was in favour of addressing the issue of monorchid/crpytorchid dogs in racing. There was very little objection from the representatives present. I presume the WC/WCRA are just moving forward with the decision (within the restraints that have been laid down by the KC) as was discussed the January before last.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joanna said:
As I remember, the majority vote at the Talk-in  last year was in favour of addressing the issue of monorchid/crpytorchid dogs in racing. There was very little objection from the representatives present. I presume the WC/WCRA are just moving forward with the decision (within the restraints that have been laid down by the KC) as was discussed the January before last.
Click to expand...
No they aren't Jo. They have the okay from the KC to include the wording re cryptorchid dogs from the breed standard into the racing rules BUT they didn't vote on it. As you know it can't be included into the rules unless it's voted on at the AGM. So they have actually done nothing.

However it would be a rule without any teeth as the KC have disallowed the WCRA to make it mandatory. As our events aren't judged as a matter of someone's opinion, as are show events, the inclusion of a non mandatory rule has no effect on the dogs racing. We mustn't forget that the UK breed standard has NO disqualifying rules only faults and the dogs are judged according to the judges own view on how severe the fault is. In order for this rule inclusion to have any effect the dogs would have to be judged to the breed standard before being racing AND then marked down accordingly, those marks counting against the dogs placing in the racing. I believe that something like this does happen in the USA
 
>No they aren't Jo. They have the okay from the KC to include the wording re cryptorchid dogs from the breed standard into the racing rules BUT they didn't vote on it. As you know it can't be included into the rules unless it's voted on at the AGM. So they have actually done nothing.

Thinking about this was it voted on at last years Whippet Club AGM? In which case then has it been added to the rules of racing?
 
Smiffy@VeronnaV said:
Item 12 The Breed Council - the proposal put was refused on the grounds that the coat colour of the whippet is so varied it is not possible to determine without doubt the progeny are...
Click to expand...
Out of interest, what was the original proposal? :unsure:
 
The Bruvs said:
The answer to item 14, For sportsman/woman, were put forward to Paul Chappell at the 3rd champs by hand in a letter.

SO WHERE HAVE THEY GONE ????????????????

Click to expand...
As I understand it, it is not accepted form to nominate a standing member of a committee for an award, and as Paul is a member of the committee it would not be 'right'. However, when that person has stood down from the committee, then the member may be nominated. Hope that helps.
 
Joanna said:
As I remember, the majority vote at the Talk-in  last year was in favour of addressing the issue of monorchid/crpytorchid dogs in racing. There was very little objection from the representatives present. I presume the WC/WCRA are just moving forward with the decision (within the restraints that have been laid down by the KC) as was discussed the January before last.
Click to expand...
But there has been no movement either way has there? It's not yet been included in the rules of racing which is the very least WC members might expect from the 2007 AGM!
 
~elizabeth~ said:
Smiffy@VeronnaV said:
Item 12 The Breed Council - the proposal put was refused on the grounds that the coat colour of the whippet is so varied it is not possible to determine without doubt the progeny are...
Click to expand...
Out of interest, what was the original proposal? :unsure:

Click to expand...
In the words of Homer, Doh! We were not given the wording last year, only a very lengthy talk on the non whippet characteristic of large litters, large numbers of registrations from dogs which, on paper at least, could NOT possibly have produced that colour coat etc. But at no time either in 07 or 08 were we informed what the Breed Council put forward as a proposition; and none of us were quick enough to ask that very pertinent question - sorry.
 
BeeJay said:
>No they aren't Jo. They have the okay from the KC to include the wording re cryptorchid dogs from the breed standard into the racing rules BUT they didn't vote on it. As you know it can't be included into the rules unless it's voted on at the AGM. So they have actually done nothing.
Thinking about this was it voted on at last years Whippet Club AGM?  In which case then has it been added to the rules of racing?

Click to expand...
I think it was Barbara, and possibly now it will be included in the rules, but in what way, and how will it be enforced?

You couldn't really stop cryptorchids from running - that wouldn't be fair - but maybe they could say that it would be brought in from a certain date - and dogs applying for passports from a certain date perhaps? That would stop people using cryptorchids in their breeding programmes in the future.
 
Smiffy@VeronnaV said:
We were not given the wording last year, only a very lengthy talk on the non whippet characteristic of large litters, large numbers of registrations from dogs which, on paper at least, could NOT possibly have produced that colour coat etc.  But at no time either in 07 or 08 were we informed what the Breed Council put forward as a proposition; and none of us were quick enough to ask that very pertinent question - sorry.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I see from where it was coming now :thumbsup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeeJay said:
>No they aren't Jo. They have the okay from the KC to include the wording re cryptorchid dogs from the breed standard into the racing rules BUT they didn't vote on it. As you know it can't be included into the rules unless it's voted on at the AGM. So they have actually done nothing.
Thinking about this was it voted on at last years Whippet Club AGM?  In which case then has it been added to the rules of racing?

Click to expand...
To clarify the matter, it WAS voted upon at the 07 AGM and accepted for insertion into the rules of racing. (My apologies if I misled anyone). The crux of this is that because it WAS accepted at the WC AGM it is adopted as a rule unlike the 'talk-in' where any votes taken have no validity. What has not yet happened is the insertion of the rule into the rule book (which it should have been).
 
Smiffy@VeronnaV said:
To clarify the matter, it WAS voted upon at the 07 AGM and accepted for insertion into the rules of racing. (My apologies if I misled anyone).  The crux of this is that because it WAS accepted at the WC AGM it is adopted as a rule unlike the 'talk-in' where any votes taken have no validity.  What has not yet happened is the insertion of the rule into the rule book (which it should have been).
Click to expand...
 

Wasn't it that it was accepted at the WC AGM - only then to be shelved by them not being able to get the go ahead from the KC?
 
I'm so confused I think I've lost the will to live :( Thanks for trying though Carmel :thumbsup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wasn't it that it was accepted at the WC AGM - only then to be shelved by them not being able to get the go ahead from the KC?





No, wrong way round it would seem! The KC agreed to the adoption of a rule - this rule was accepted at the 2007 AGM. Racing club secs would, I assume, have received some information relating to this matter AFTER March 2007.

As thing stand, even with this rule on the rule book, what is there to encourage the breeding of healthy sound stock? Nothing. At least in the show ring, you may enter your non-entire male, but it will never be put up, never made a champion and by default never used in a breeding programme!

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now, nothing has changed. Why am I not surprised?

My final comment upon the matter is this, Gaye Robertson made an interesting comment at the AGM last year which related to using non-entire males in a breeding programme. It was that under normal circumstances they should never be used in a breeding programme as it is an inheritible trait that is detrimental to the health not only of the breed as a whole but to progeny born with the problem. That if it is in a line breeders should consider whether they use that line at all, as it is recessive and will be passed on. Should the dam also be carrying the recessive gene then some male dogs will be affected - but all the pups can carry the trait. Litter sisters should be taken out of breeding programmes too, unless the bitch is worthy of being bred from, and only then if you can be as certain as you can be that the male line to which you intend to put her does not carry the same trait.

If only ..... see, the AGM is not only an informative meeting, but an interesting meeting as well - you should all join..........
 
Judy said:
I'm so confused I think I've lost the will to live  :( Thanks for trying though Carmel  :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
me to :oops: :oops: and mums head has just exploded :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
 
Last edited:
Smiffy@VeronnaV said:
Gaye Robertson made an interesting comment at the AGM last year which related to using non-entire males in a breeding programme... Litter sisters should be taken out of breeding programmes too, unless the bitch is worthy of being bred from, and only then if you can be as certain as you can be that the male line to which you intend to put her does not carry the same trait.
Click to expand...
Was that made with reference to the breed as a whole, or just racing whippets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top