S.B.T. Kennel Club Liaison Council Delegate’s Report
David Levy 8th October, 2005

My apologies for not attending this meeting of the Breed Council but at the time I booked my holiday I had no expectation of being KCBLO again. I have distributed this report to everyone on the club circulation list via e-mail. Perhaps someone (Jaci?) would be so kind as to take some paper copies along to the meeting. If there are any questions on my report then please e-mail me and I will respond to all on my return.

KC Liaison Council

I have been in correspondence with the KC over my position as KCBLO and was only confirmed in the role in June. I asked whether I was also to replace Jim as Terrier Group representative but I have to report that the KC still hasn’t appointed a delegate in Jim’s place and the group therefore only has 3 rather than 4 representatives at the 2005 meetings. I asked who the 3 people are and for copies of previous minutes. The reply arrived in mid-August and the terrier delegates are Mary Swash, Ferelith Somerfield and Peter Eva.

The deadline for items for the November meeting had to be submitted by 2nd September and I’d not had anything specific from any club; hence nothing forwarded to the delegates. If anything arises from this Breed Council meeting then I will approach Mr Eva to present it under AOB if allowed.

BC Agenda items

My position as KCBLO only allows me to comment on agenda items with the permission of the Chairman but since I won’t be at the meeting I am including my comments where I think these might be useful to delegates.

5.1 – I did obtain a response from the KC regarding overseas judges being appointed in the UK and that was circulated. Essentially the KC claims there are occasions when they have no need to ask for further information about candidates if they have enough suitable evidence from the judge and his/her national KC. I have continued to point out that more information can only improve decision making but so far, to no avail. I suggest this matter needs to be raised through the KC Breed Liaison Council, i.e. be referred to one of our terrier delegates to take up with other breeds before being forwarded to the KC committee again.

5.2 & 5.3 – There are 2 opposing arguments about overseas judging criteria and I urge delegates not to get caught between them. EITHER we are trying to specify a criterion that the KC will see as reasonable OR we are trying to protect our breed by ensuring that all judges can demonstrate a high level of experience. I suggest that whilst the latter may be our avowed aim, unless the KC takes notice of our view then a strict criterion will actually serve no practical purpose. It is an unfortunate fact that many overseas judges have fewer opportunities to judge numbers of quality Staffords than their UK counterparts but “setting the bar too high” will achieve nothing.

5.4 – More and more correspondence is moving to e-mail. There has never been any guarantee that club secretaries and/or delegates have actually received paper copies so I see no difference if information is distributed electronically rather than in paper. It is cheaper and far less work for the BC Secretary and provided suitable security is put in place, perhaps clubs “registering” their valid e-mail contact details with the BC Secretary then nothing is lost.

5.5 – As far as I am aware, most breed rescue services try to contact breeders where they are definitely known. A majority of dogs on rescue are not KC registered and the breeders are rarely known or the owner claims to have already contacted them. It is also regrettably true that many “known” breeders are actually not interested in helping to re-home pups when they come to Rescue. I am sure that a letter will elicit a response along these lines since it would clearly help the people doing rescue if they could rely on breeders. Do breed club codes of conduct incorporate the responsibility for breeders to assist with rescuing their own stock? Perhaps item 5.12 could assist on this.

5.6 – As far as I know the KC does abide by their code of ethics which includes a clause relating to veterinary advice being a means for over-riding the rules. Unless any letter includes specific examples where we believe the rules have been misapplied then the only response will be a general note along these lines.

5.7 – This may require the unanimous support of all clubs – please try to avoid abstentions for technical reasons.

5.8 – Seems a good idea to me.

5.9 - Seems a good idea to me.

5.10 – No view

5.11 – Not sure of the benefits of a debating forum unless it is e-mail based. It is hard enough getting delegates from sufficient clubs to voting meetings so the likelihood of a reasonable attendance at a meeting where no decisions are actually made seems doubtful.

5.12 – I fully support this proposal which was unfortunately rejected on a technicality several years ago much to the detriment of our dogs. The important word here is “minimum”. If each club insists on a particular small point and therefore rejects the whole code then it will never gain a suitable majority and we will have nothing to judge bad behaviour against. Much like the judging criteria, any club should be free to impose a higher standard on their members but the Breed Council code must be based on the minimum level acceptable to all clubs.

For example, if the code of contact were to specify a number of litters per year and 3 clubs (A, B & C) want this to be 2, 3 and 5 respectively. If Clubs A & C can be persuaded to accept 3 as the criteria then a code can be achieved but if those clubs refuse to sign up to a compromise then no criteria will be agreed which means that everyone loses. In this instance the minimum criteria would be 5 litters which although unacceptable to clubs A and B at least sets a line in the sand which can maybe get tightened in the future.

Hopefully a combination of compromise and flexibility will enable the Breed Council to agree the minimum standards to be expected of ALL Stafford owners in or out of clubs and clubs A and B are free to set a higher standard for their members.

5.13 – The numbers are important but equally important is for clubs to try to create a good “working” relationship with those dog homes for the benefit of Staffords. Some homes will not hand over dogs but that shouldn’t stop clubs agreeing to work to provide support whether that is providing potential owner details, temperament testing or breed identification. Once a relationship begins it usually improves with increasing trust.

5.14 – Another that has come forward before and been rejected because unanimous agreement is required and some clubs “couldn’t see the point of the change”. It has been acknowledged that this clause was dropped from the Breed Standard inadvertently by the Kennel Club when re-drafting all standards in 1987. It was an administrative error but one that requires a formal agreement to be changed back. In the meantime, an important attribute of our breed has been ignored and it is insufficient to merely say that any judge worth their salt would still consider this characteristic. The whole point of the Breed Standard is that ALL judges have the same written basis for their decisions and so I would urge all clubs to support adding this back into our breed standard. It is not an open invitation for many future changes, merely restoring a clause removed in error.

Dangerous Dogs Legislation

Canada – I am sure that others will bring you up to date with developments in Canada. To prevent any misunderstanding, the monies donated to the Westminster Fund following the SBT Aid were NOT specifically for UK use – very much the opposite since the impetus for Andrina and Wendy to make that superb effort that raised around £7,500 was the likelihood of funds being needed in Spain. The Breed Council remains the authority for distributing that money and we set a criterion at that time to ensure that any precedent set would not be likely to permit future fraud by any unscrupulous person making unjustified claims for funds. The rules are that the requesting SBT breed club must get their attorney to write to the BC Secretary on Company headed paper explaining what funds are needed and what they will be used for. The Spanish club were unable to meet that requirement but if Canada has then I urge delegates to strongly consider supporting their request and urging both individuals and clubs to assist them in fundraising to reach the very large sum. It is my strong belief that losses around the World encourage other politicians in other countries to try something. Equally, successful legal challenges to BSL that cause governments to pay out substantial damages and costs are equally likely to make politicians think before taking precipitous action.

France – It was certainly a shock when we learned that the new French Interior Minister asked the Ministry of Agriculture to prepare a report on adding the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to the breeds listed as category 2. These animals must be muzzled in public and registered as “dangerous” at the local town hall. There was certainly some confusion over who should and should not write to where in France but my understanding is that the eventual recommendation from the Ministry of Agriculture was NOT to add the Stafford to this list. At the time of writing we still do not know what decision will be made by the Interior Ministry but I think we have done as much as we can to help our colleagues in France.

UK – Virtually nothing has happened in the UK for some time now. The Kennel Club remains committed to opposing the DDA and meets regularly with DEFRA and where possible, Scotland Yard. The initiative from last year that seemed likely to produce an opportunity to propose a new law to replace the DDA, backed by the Police as well as dog charities, etc. has gone quiet. It is unfortunate because this really did have some momentum at first but changes in Police personnel have interrupted the KC’s efforts and they now seem almost at a halt.

Others – Alan Hedges asked me for documents to send to Slovakia following his visit there on a judging appointment. I assume these have been sent on but I have heard nothing direct from that Country nor from Alan. There have been references to activity in the USA but again, I have had no direct contact. I have also had no further recent information about legal challenges in Germany.

Sub-committees

Apart from correspondence about Canada as part of the BC Emergency Committee I have heard nothing about any other sub-committees.

DEFRA & Citizens Advice Bureau

Both DEFRA and the advisory service of the Citizens Advice Bureau have updated their contact lists for advising members of the public with problems relating to Staffords. By agreement with Patrick and Jaci, my and Veronica’s details have been confirmed in both cases.

I also asked the Kennel Club to urge DEFRA to provide better advice to Britains planning to move on business, retire or holiday outside the UK and take their dogs with them under the Pet Passport Scheme. Despite the publicity relating to breed legislation around the World a large number of dog owners are completely unaware of the various laws in France, Spain, Italy, etc. I probably receive about a call a month from someone who already has plans to travel abroad and has suddenly been told by friends or family about the risks to their pet in another country. Often it relates to military postings but more recently, I have had several calls from people planning to retire to Europe.

I strongly believe that DEFRA have a responsibility to warn people when they are applying for their passport and hopefully they are now considering that request. In the meantime, I urge clubs to carry a suitable message in their magazines and newsletters.

Media reports

Hopefully delegates will have seen the article published by former shadow Home Secretary, Mr Roy Hattersley in The Guardian entitled “Tyson’s death on my conscience”. A copy is on the web site so please do read this since I suggest it clearly sets out the risks of politicians pandering to public/media outcry.

Responsible ownership
A colleague at work, well-knowing my involvement with Staffords, never-the-less chose to go and purchase a puppy advertised on the Internet. The dog is KC registered and at 13 weeks when I visited, was about 16½ inches tall, very snipey and so uncontrollable that it sulked away from me rather than being the excitable friendly bundle I’d expect. It then scratched me quite badly when I tried to get it to stand still just for a few moments whilst screaming as if being badly injured. My concern is that it clearly is not a pure-bred Stafford and the temperament really worries me. My colleague has a 4 year-old daughter and I have tried to stress the importance of ensuring that the dog is taught his place in the family hierarchy. Hopefully they are going to get professional training but my concern is how such animals are officially “Staffordshire Bull Terriers” and that if any problems do occur, we will be caught up in the repercussions. This is obviously not an isolated situation but one that we, as the forum for discussion about our breed, perhaps need to consider more actively.

David Levy

Staffords.co.uk / K.C.Liaison/ K.C.B.L.O. Reports