Minutes Of The Kennel Club Liaison Council Breeds Council Meeting – 20th November 2013


Mrs C Boggia                        Mr N Bryce-Smith                

Mrs R Bryden                        Mrs D Curtis 

Mrs J Davie                           Mrs J Daws                          

Mr B Green                            Mrs J Iles-Hebbert               

Mrs T Jackson                      Mrs P Jeans-Brown            

Mr P Jolley                            Mrs E MacDonald               

Mrs E Needham                   Mr E M Paterson                 

Mr K Pursglove                     Mrs S Rawlings                   

Mr A Schaanning-Ling       Mrs B Smith                         

Mrs F Somerfield                  Mrs S Taylor                         

Mrs A Teasdale                    Mrs S Thomson                   

Mrs B Thornley                     Mrs S Walton                       

Mrs K Wilberg                                  


In Attendance:

Mr B Lambert - Health & Breeder Services Manager

Miss S Cooper - Breed Shows Team Leader

Miss K Marsh - Breed Shows Team Senior Specialist


The Chairman informed the Council that a newly appointed Delegate, Mrs Louise Harrington, had sadly passed away.  The Council observed a minute's silence in honor of her memory.




  1. Apologies were received from Mr L Anness, Mrs A Ellis, Mr N Gourley and Mr D Winsley




  1. The minutes were approved subject to the following amendments:


a.  Item 10, Paragraph 24

The spelling of the word'behaviour'was corrected.


b.  Item 10, Paragraph 28

The word 'classed' was corrected to 'classes'.




3.    The Council considered the results of its recommendations:


That a Working Gundog Certificate (WGC) obtained on game and awarded in all sections of the assessment enable the 'Sh' to be removed from the title of a Show  Champion in the same way as the Show Gundog Working Certificate.


  1. The General Committee agreed that the WGC was not an appropriate assessment to facilitate the amendment of a Show Champion's title. The WGC was an unregulated standalone assessment which tested the partnership between handler and dog in a working situation, unlike the Show Gundog Working Certificate which tested for working instinct only and was regulated. The WGC is not breed specific therefore not all sections of the assessment are required to be completed by all breeds. This means that a dog could achieve the WGC on work that it normally undertook but which was not normally part of the work its breed would undertake.


  1. The General Committee agreed that the WGC was not an appropriate assessment of a show gundog's working instinct and did not recommend the proposal.


The introduction of ramps to be used for Bulldogs and other breeds at Open & Championship shows.


  1. The Kennel Club General Committee approved a 12 month trial period for the use of ramps for showing Bulldogs, with effect from 1stJanuary 2014.
    It was agreed that the ramps allowed for a clearer examination of the dogs' eyes and skin and would therefore assist judges in their assessment of the dogs.
  1. The General Committee approved the proposal on the provisos:


·         That it be optional for the society to use a ramp.

·         That it be optional for the judge to use a ramp, and suitable wording should be included in the judge's contract.

·         That it be optional for the exhibitor to use the ramp in the ring, and it should be made explicit that an exhibit would not be penalised for not using the ramp.


A3 Judges List. 'For the purpose of inclusion on the A3 judges list and the requirement to have obtained three dogs in the Stud Book: That a partnership would have to be in place for a minimum of two years prior to obtaining the Stud Book number.


Stud Book Numbers. 'Currently there is no KC ruling that covers the "manufacture" of Stud Book Numbers (SBN) by transferring of dogs between owners for the purpose of acquiring 3 SBNs. However there is currently nothing technically "wrong" in this practice. There is a ruling (within the Code of Best Practice for Judges) that covers the transferring of dogs between owners to circumvent judging requirements (owners can't judge and show at same event). It proposed that the SBN issue should also be similarly addressed within the Code.'


  1. The General Committee considered the above proposals and was of the view that it would be very difficult to police and that the Kennel Club did not have the resources to monitor such requirements.  The General Committee did not support the proposals but agreed that it would continue to rely on breed clubs to bring to its attention those individuals who attempt to circumvent the requirements.   


That the Kennel Club reviews its decision to restrict Breed Club shows to scheduling a maximum of 3 Special Award Classes.


  1. The General Committee recommended the Council proposal for approval but only at those shows where the sexes are already split for breed judging and where there are two separate rings and two separate judges.



Proposed:    Mrs A Massie


That as part of the judges contract all critiques must be sent to all three of the following - Dog World, Our Dogs, The Show/Association Secretary - within a period of, say, one month of the date of the show, except under certain specific circumstances, which the Kennel Club can stipulate. The usual Kennel Club fine should apply for non-compliance with secretaries being asked to include in their annual returns a list of reports/judges they have not received.


  1. The Council expressed its disappointment that for the second time the nominated Delegate had been unable to attend the meeting and that no other delegate had been briefed in their absence. The Chairman advised the Council that when Delegates are unable to attend meetings it was important that they brief another member of the Council to speak on their behalf. The Office agreed to relay this information back to the Delegate concerned and it was agreed to defer this matter until the next meeting.


ITEM 5.          PROPOSALS


The following proposal was presented by Mrs B Smith.


Proposed:    Hungarian Wire-Haired Vizsla Association and the Hungarian Wire-Haired Vizsla Club of Great Britain


That the Kennel Club insists on a 5 generation pedigree if there is no prior registration at a recognised foreign kennel club.


  1. Mrs Smith, on behalf of the above clubs, explained that the current Kennel Club Regulations only require a three generation pedigree for registration on the UK register, and that this was not sufficient to allow breeders to assess accurately the breeding co-efficient when mating imported dogs.


  1. Mr Lambert informed the Council that the Kennel Club had recently discussed this matter at Committee where it was noted that only two countries issue a 5 generation pedigree, and the majority of others issuing 3 or 4. In the absence of a 5 generation pedigree the Kennel Club could not accept unauthorised pedigrees and could not therefore enforce the requirement. The Council was in agreement with the Committee's view and recommended that the proposal be withdrawn.


  1. Note: In considering the matter the Council had been informed that in the absence of sufficient pedigree information being available on the Kennel Club website a number of resources were available on the internet to assist breeders in calculating inbreeding coefficients, and the example of www.czerwonytrop.com was provided.


The following proposals were presented by Mrs S Walton.


Proposed:    Labrador Breed Council

The Labrador Breed Council would ask that the Kennel Club consider re-negotiating a full Reciprocal Agreement with the Kennel Club of Pakistan which would ensure that all dogs would only be able to obtain registration in Pakistan on production of a UK export pedigree.

  1. Mrs Walton, on behalf of the Labrador Breed Council, explained that although the Kennel Club has a reciprocal agreement with the Kennel Club of Pakistan it had concerns that the agreement was not being adhered to fully and that registrations had taken place without the correct paperwork being obtained.  Mr Lambert informed the Council that the Kennel Club is unable to deal with matters where only circumstantial evidence is available, substantiated evidence must be provided. The Council agreed that in the absence of sufficient evidence, no further action could be taken and recommended that the proposal be withdrawn.


15. The Office confirmed that further information on reciprocal agreements can be found in the Q Regulations.


Proposed:    Labrador Breed Council


The Labrador Breed Council is concerned at the high cost of the form that needs to be completed for each eye test that is carried out.  It is understood that the cost to the eye panellist is £8.65 per form which even applies when a form is spoilt.  This cost is, of course, passed on to the owner.   Would the Kennel Club please contact the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and ask the reason for such high printing costs, especially when the forms aren't even serial numbered.


  1. Mrs Walton, on behalf of the Labrador Breed Council, explained that owners are encouraged to have all their breeding stock health tested and that for many breeds this involved several different health checks, all of which were costly. The Labrador Breed Council expressed its concern that, particularly in the current economic climate, the rising cost of eye tests would deter owners from having their dogs tested. The Council noted that the current cost of the Kennel Club BVA eye test was £51 per dog and that the BVA charged Veterinary Practices £8.65 for its service. However it was pointed out that this was not the physical cost of producing the form but was simply the method employed by the BVA to provide income to cover the costs of running the scheme. Furthermore the Kennel Club receives no income from the KC/BVA health schemes.


  1. Mr Lambert informed the Council that the Kennel Club met with the BVA regularly to discuss the scheme and that the Kennel Club always emphasised the importance of keeping fees to a minimum. The Council noted the General Committee of the Kennel Club had recently agreed to publish ECVO eye scheme results on the online Health Test Results Finder and registration certificates since the scheme is already recognised by the KC.  In addition to this the Council were advised that other health schemes, not administered by the BVA, were currently under consideration.  Having considered the proposal fully, the Council agreed that it wanted to show its support to the Kennel Club for attempting to tackle the problem of rising eye scheme costs and unanimously supported the proposal.


  1. Mr Lambert offered to broach the issue of owners being charged for spoilt papers at the next BVA meeting, in order to seek clarification on this point.


Proposed:    Labrador Breed Council


The Labrador Breed Council requests that the Kennel Club look at the timing of the assessment of upcoming Championship Show Judges.   We suggest that this be moved from the first Championship Show and be replaced by an assessment at a Breed Club Open Show.


19. Mrs Walton, on behalf of the Labrador Breed Council, explained that assessing judges prior to awarding Challenge Certificates (CCs) would provide constructive feedback to aspiring judges and avert problems and bad practice at Championship Show level.


  1. The Office reminded the Council of the Kennel Club's A2 judge's approval route, which already met the proposal's criteria because it required an aspiring judge to be assessed on three separate occasions in advance of receiving a Challenge Certificate appointment. The Council discussed the proposed requirement to be assessed at Breed Club Open Show level and was of the view that it would be difficult for judges of minority breeds, which scheduled very few shows, to progress further. The Council noted that the A2 process not only allowed candidates to be assessed at Breed Club Open or Limited shows but also General Canine Society Open shows, General or Group Championship shows (non CC appointments), seminars, special award classes and mock classes.


  1. A discussion ensued about the lack of available evaluators/assessors. The Office explained that assessing judges is important and in order to maintain the highest possible standards only the most seasoned judges in a particular breed may carry out assessments/evaluations. The list of Assessors provided by the Kennel Club is made up of the most experienced judges in that breed, and who have judged recently. The Office advised the Council that it was unable to remove names from the list unless it was notified that the person no longer wished to be included, or if the person was deceased or retired. However in the event that a breed had been unable to appoint an evaluator they should notify the Judges Department at the Kennel Club who would endeavour to appoint a Group judge where possible. Similarly if an A2 assessor or first time CC Evaluator had been unavailable to carry out the assessment the Club could put forward an alternative name for the Kennel Club to consider.


  1. Having considered the proposal fully the Council agreed that the A2 process more than met the requirements of the proposal and therefore the proposal did not receive the Council's support.


  1. Note: The Kennel Club's A2 Judges List procedure is attached at Annex A for ease of reference. Further information can also be found in the Kennel Club Manual for Registered Societies.

The following proposal was presented by Mrs B Thornley :


Proposed:    Shetland Sheepdog Breed Council


The Shetland Sheepdog Breed Council proposes that the Kennel Club re-evaluate the procedures when appointing and subsequently assessing first time Judges by


(a)          Taking notice of attendance (and seek proof) at Breed Specific Seminars when appointing first time judges.

(b)         Take account of Breed Council's views on prospective Judges

(c)          Take account of the Assessors' reports on first time Judges


(a) Taking notice of attendance (and seek proof) at Breed Specific Seminars when appointing first time judges.


  1. Mrs Thornley, on behalf of the Shetland Sheepdog Breed Council, explained that the way in which some judges had gone over dogs suggested that not all first time CC judges had attended a Breed Specific seminar. The proposal required that as part of the judge's application process written confirmation of seminar attendance be sought. The Office advised the Council that it is the policy of the Judges Sub-Committee, when reviewing first time CC nominations, to request a certificate of attendance for the Breed Specific Seminar and that this information is requested in Question 7.c of judges' questionnaire.


  1. Based on the above information the Council did not support the proposal.


(b) Take account of Breed Council's views on prospective Judges

  1. Mrs Thornley, on behalf of the Shetland Sheepdog Breed Council, explained that when a judge is nominated to award CCs for first time, the Breed Council's opinion, as to the competence of the judge to award CCs in their breed, is requested. The Breed Council expressed its concern that on occasions when the majority has not been in favour of the candidate, the person had subsequently been appointed.


  1. The Office advised the Council that the Judges Sub Committee (JSC) takes a number of factors into consideration when reviewing a questionnaire i.e. Breed Council/Club opinion, depth of judging experience, geographical spread etc and confirmed that whilst Breed Club opinion is highly valued, it is one of several factors taken into account.


  1. Mr Bryce-Smith confirmed to the Council that the JSC takes its responsibility very seriously and takes a comprehensive view of the information given before reaching a conclusion. However he explained that the quality of the information provided in the opinion was crucial in its determination. In particular that information provided by the Club(s)/Council(s) must be objective and factual. The Office explained that opinions which are not quantified could only be treated as circumstantial.


  1. Having discussed the proposal fully the Council was of the view that the opinion process should be more transparent and that it would be helpful if the Kennel Club provided feedback to the Clubs/Councils after consideration of its opinion.

            The Council supported the proposal and recommended it be referred to the relevant Sub-Committee for further consideration.


(c) Take account of the Assessors' reports on first time Judges

  1. Mrs Thornley, on behalf of the Shetland Sheepdog Breed Council, explained that when first time CC evaluators are appointed to assess the competence and performance of the judge, they were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire. The Breed Council expressed its concern that despite evaluators submitting negative and/or critical feedback judges had been appointed to award subsequent CCs.


  1. The Office explained that the Judges Sub-Committee considers all adverse comments made on the evaluation form, but can only follow up those where a clear objective view has been recorded. For example instances where there has been a breach of regulation or the code of best practice for judges has not been followed would routinely be followed up by the Judges Sub-Committee. Depending on the nature of the breach the Sub-Committee would consider the most appropriate action, which varied from recommendations such as to request Breed Club opinion for future appointments, provide specific feedback to the judge, to be observed on a future occasion, to attend a requirements of a dog show judge seminar, or in the most serious of cases to not approve subsequent appointments.


  1. Having considered the Office's comments the Council did not support the proposal.




  1. None.




34.Breed Watch Enhancements  The Council received a presentation on the Kennel Club's enhancements to Breed Watch. The Office explained that to continue to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs, the Kennel Club was enhancing the interactive service - Breed Watch - with a number of improvements. The changes had been made to ensure that the most accurate and up to date information about the visible health of every breed of dog could be recorded and analysed for the benefit of all dogs.  The new improvements to Breed Watch include changes in the requirements of Championship Dog Show Judges in reporting any visible signs of health and welfare issues.  The Council noted that in 2014 it will be mandatory for judges at championship shows to report to the Kennel Club their observations of any breeds with a specific categorisation on Breed Watch. Previously only judges of 'high profile breeds' were required to report on the health of dogs exhibited under them, but from 2014 a new breed specific form will be sent by the Kennel Club to judges in advance of their appointments and the judges' feedback will be monitored by the Dog Health Group for all category 2 and category 3 breeds.


35. For all other Championship show judges an optional form had also been introduced, which would instead be provided in the back of each championship show judging book.


  1. The Council thanked the Office for its presentation and requested that a copy of the slides be included as part of the minutes (Annex B refers).


Note: to log on to Breed Watch please visit http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/watch/Default.aspx



  1. ABS Accolade  The Council queried who they could report incorrect Assured Breeder Scheme accolade listings to. The Office confirmed that such matters should be reported to Mr W Lambert (Health & Breeder Services Manager) hbs@thekennelclub.org.uk at the Kennel Club.




  1. The Council noted that the date of the meeting will be 21.05.2014, and that Agenda items must be received by 22.02.2014.


  1. The meeting rose at 13.07 with a vote of thanks to the Chair.






  1. A2 Judges List Procedure
  2. Breed Watch Enhancement Presentation slides
Copyright © The Kennel Club Limited 2020. The unauthorised reproduction of text and images is strictly prohibited.