«2. Minutes of the Meeting of 29th January 2007 (already circulated) All present agreed that the Minutes of the Meeting were a true record. 3. Matters ...»
Minutes of the Meeting of 27th October 2007, held at Norton
Lindsay Village Hall, Warwickshire.
Present: Bryan Mayoh (Chair, Minutes), Allan Trigg (DCC), Ted Brearley
(NHCC), Oliver Joyce (DRCC), Tony O’Neill (ESCC), Don Payne (CCC),
Caroline Smith (RVCC), Nikki Matthews (CSCC), Joan Phillips (PVCC), Penny
Bell (NACC), Ken Yates (NTWCC), Hugh Pashley / Ian Reynolds (RCC, only 1
eligible to vote).
1. Apologies: Nicola Hadley (Secretary / Treasurer), Simon Neesam
(ACC, notes sent to Meeting)
2. Minutes of the Meeting of 29th January 2007 (already circulated) All present agreed that the Minutes of the Meeting were a true record.
3. Matters Arising from the Meeting on 29th January 2007 (and not on the Agenda) Mrs Matthews asked when the Council would review the way in which the Alpaca is being catered for by the PVCC, stating that, although the breed had gained many BIS, only two of the successful exhibitors were members of the PVCC. The Chairman replied that the meeting of the Council to be held in mid 2008 would be an appropriate time, and that he would schedule a discussion on the matter at that time.
He went on to suggest, however, that Mrs Matthews’ comments on successful Alpaca exhibitors not joining the PVCC was to some extent a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, since she herself was the most successful such exhibitor and had long held the view that the PVCC should not have been given the Alpaca and so had not joined the club. He reiterated his previous comments that the CSCC and the PVCC should work more closely together for the interests of all Longhair breeds. Mrs Matthews and Mrs Phillips indicated that they were doing this, but Mrs Matthews suggested that the PVCC should ask Alpaca breeders that were not members of their club why this was the case.
It was agreed that all other Matters Arising were to be dealt within the body of the Meeting.
4. Chairman’s Opening Remarks The Chairman thanked all Councillors for devoting a day of their time to attend the Meeting. There were several important and some potentially controversial matters to discuss; and so, although it appeared that there was the luxury of plenty of time, he believed that this would not prove to be the case and that a meeting of several hours would be required.
However, it was likely that the Council had now reached a position where only one such formal meeting would be needed each year.
In response to the Chairman’s query as to whether any clubs had sufficient members that they could claim two votes, Mr O’Neill responded that the ESCC had over 200 members, so that this would apply.
5. Update of Financials A copy of the Financial information prepared by the Treasurer was circulated. This indicated that the Council had cash assets of £1,592.26 plus £60 owed by the RCC and the ESCC. However, this sum included £790 prepaid for advertisements in the Breed Standards booklet. The Chairman advised Councillors that these assets would largely be used up in publishing and circulating the Standards Booklet (see Item 6 below) and that it would therefore be necessary to rebuild Council funds to some degree. Mrs Smith advised the Council that the Prefix Scheme typically generates circa £200 - £300 per annum; but the Chairman suggested that this would be fully utilised in future to pay ongoing expenses plus the costs of issuing updates to the Standards Booklet.
6. Update on Publication of Standards Booklet Mr O’Neill circulated a draft copy of the Standards Booklet that he had produced. The Chairman explained that the production of the draft booklet had taken longer than expected; so that, with the imminence of this meeting, he had decided to delay production so as to incorporate the effects of decisions taken today.
The improved clarity of layout produced by Mr O’Neill had caused an increase in the number of pages required and so in anticipated costs.
These would be £1,171.57 for printing 700 booklets, £324.24 for brass binders for the booklets and £50 for the labour to bind the booklets.
CAVIES would bear the costs of mailing circa 500 of the booklets along with the December 2007 issue. Printing more or less booklets would increase / decrease costs by circa £120 per 100.
It was agreed that widespread circulation of the new Standards was essential in fulfilling the Council’s remit. Councillors felt that sufficient additional copies should be produced so as to satisfy demand from new fanciers or those too cheapskate to subscribe to CAVIES. It was therefore agreed to increase the print run to 800, which would incur a total cost of circa £1,665, thereby using the entire funds of the Council.
It was further agreed that surplus copies should be sold both directly by the Council and via Specialist Clubs, the NCC and the SCC. The recommended price for each booklet would be £7; but copies would be sold to these other clubs for £5, thereby compensating them for the effort involved in selling the booklets. These £5 charges would be the principal means of rebuilding the Council’s assets.
It was agreed that, in order to maintain the accuracy and consistency of Standards issued to fanciers, henceforth only the Council would publish Standards Booklets; so that the present arrangements whereby the NCC and the SCC had been granted permission to do so would be terminated.
Council Rule 4.1 will be modified to reflect these arrangements for publication of Standards, to state that: “The Council will maintain an up-to-date register of all breed standards; will publish new standards or modifications to existing ones in official cavy publications as defined by the Council; and will from time to time publish a booklet detailing all Full and Guide standards. For an appropriate charge copies of this booklet will be made available to, and may be sold by, all Specialist Clubs that are members of the Council and by the National and Southern Cavy Clubs.”
7. Consideration of Additional Details of Disqualifications Various suggestions had been made as to how the Disqualifications applying on the grounds of ‘Physical Deformities’ and ‘Evident Ill-Health’ might be expanded or clarified.
In terms of the former, the consensus was that ‘Missing Testicles’ should not be added to the list; and, for the sake of clarification, the rider should be added that: ‘Neutered boars may be shown’.
As regards the ill-health disqualification, it was agreed that the guidelines originally suggested by Mr Oulton, via the ESCC, should be added, to read: ‘Evident Ill-Health, such as obvious, visible breathing difficulties; significant evidence of mucus or other abnormal discharges from the eyes, nose, mouth, ears or reproductive or intestinal openings’.
8. Proposal from RVCC for Full Standards for Fox and Tan The Chairman stated his view that the most fundamental issue as regards the proposed Standards for the Fox and Tan was that, although they described the markings accurately, these markings were possessed by the overwhelming majority of Tans and Foxes; and the Standards said little about what constituted an appropriate quality of markings. Mrs Smith accepted this point. The Chairman suggested that this could be resolved, but that it was only worth doing so if Councillors agreed the principle that these breeds should be given Full Standards. This was agreed unanimously.
Councillors then debated how the proposed Standards might be clarified and improved so as to allow sufficient guidance to judges and exhibitors.
Eventually Standards were defined that satisfied such requirements, and these were agreed unanimously. It was further agreed that Tans and Foxes should each be recognised in four colours, these being Black, Chocolate, Lilac and Beige. These Full Standards will be included in the Standards Booklet, and will come into effect on January 1st 2008.
The so-called ‘Otter’ cavy was discussed; and it was the overwhelming view of the Council that this was an appropriate name for tan-type cavies based on lemon ticking colour. As these are colour variants of a (now) Full Standard breed, by implication such cavies now have a Guide Standard; but the RVCC was encouraged to clarify colour requirements.
It was further agreed that, at the same time as the Tan and Fox achieve Full Standard status, English Crested and Satin Tans / Foxes would also be granted Full Standards. The situation as regards Dalmation and Roan Dalmation Tans and Foxes was discussed; and the general principle was agreed that, as the effects of different markings frequently compete with each other (Dalmation Tans would actually be tricolours with red spotting confined to the underside of the cavy, other than eye circles, whilst Dalmation Foxes would lack spotting on the entire underside of the body), varieties based on combinations of different markings will not be regarded as having (Full or) Guide Standards unless such have been specifically defined or agreed.
Finally, the Council agreed with Mr Trigg’s suggestion that Himalayan, Tan and Fox cavies should be collectively regarded as ‘Marked Pattern’ cavies, this category covering short-haired, normal-coated cavies that have markings occurring in a defined pattern, the clarity and definition of which are most important.
9. Proposal from NTWCC for amendment to points for Colour (to 20) in TW Standard Mr Yates argued for this proposal, stating that NTWCC members had voted overwhelmingly for such a change to the BCC Standard that was agreed in June 2006 and that has since been enhanced after further discussions with the NTWCC. The TW standard had included 20 points for Colour for many years, and members saw no reason for this to change.
He agreed that there should be similar Standards for TWs as for Tris, Torts etc., but argued that Dutch and TWs should not be compared.
The Chairman suggested that one of the reasons that NTWCC members did not wish to agree to the BCC Standard was that the arguments for change had not been properly put to them. He had written to the Secretary of the NTWCC asking to address the AGM on the NTWCC on the matter; but this request had been rejected. He noted that neither Mrs Bell nor Mr Neesam, who were each successful TW breeders in favour of the BCC Standard, had been able to attend the meeting. Mrs Bell further gave it as her view that the ballot had not properly put the issues to the membership and so could not give a valid result.
The Chairman reiterated the reasons why the Council had determined the appropriate Standard for TWs, Tricolours, Bicolours, Tortoiseshells and Dutch as incorporating 60 points for Markings and 15 for Colour, and on which he had written several times to the NTWCC without receiving a reasoned response. He argued that it was not logical for the TW to carry fewer points for Markings than do Dutch, Dalmations & Roans, since the importance of markings in the breed is at least as great. Additionally, as the TW is a complex breed with many requirements contained within the Standard, 15 points represents a very significant allocation to a single factor – more than are (by implication) contained within the new Standard for Line, for having at least 3 patches on each side of the body and for having all 3 colours on each side of the cavy.
However, he believed that the most significant issue was that the NTWCC had not taken into account the very important point originally made by Mr Trigg, namely that the original TW Standard quoted 20 points for Colour to include the stipulation that: ”Each colour must be clear and distinct without being intermixed one with another.” The BCC Standard included 15 points specifically covering the quality of Colour within the patches; but within 25 points for ‘Shape and Clarity of Patches’ included the requirement that ‘Patches to be clean-cut and distinct from each other, with no intermingling of colours’. If these 25 points for Shape & Clarity were viewed as giving as much as 10 each for ‘Patches to be square-cut with straight edges’ and 10 for ‘Patches to be of equal size’, then 5 were still available to cover ‘Patches to be cleancut and distinct from each other, with no intermingling of colours’, one of the requirements that was contained within the 20 points for Colour in the original NTWCC version.
He therefore stated it as the BCC’s position that the new Standard in no way suggests that Colour is any less important than it has ever been in the TW (indeed it includes for the first time a statement that ‘cavies showing excessively light, 'washed-out' colour should be severely penalised’); and he offered to publicise this statement in CAVIES so as to emphasise the point.
A vote was then taken on the NTWCC Proposal, which resulted in one vote being cast for the Proposal, nine votes being cast against, with two abstentions. The Proposal was therefore rejected.
10. Discussion on which Breed Clubs cater for various Guide Standard (GS) Cavies The Council considered inconsistencies between which Specialist Clubs cater for particular Guide Standard and Unstandardised cavies. The general principle underlying current responsibilities is that, where such cavies are colour or ticking variants on a Full Standard breed, then the Club catering for the Full Standard breed also has responsibility for the Guide Standard or Unstandardised variant, e.g. NACC for Solid Agoutis, DCC for colour variants of Self or Ticked Dutch. Where the variety is not a colour or ticked variant on a Full Standard breed, e.g. Belted, Ridgeback, Teddy, then the RVCC caters for the breed. However, anomalies do exist, particularly that Selfs in Slate, ‘Caramel’, P.E.
Cream etc. do not come under the remit of the ESCC.
It was agreed that the general principle described above should be upheld; and that ideally the ESCC should assume responsibility for GS Selfs, by putting on GS classes for them at its Stock & Area shows, and to then control the potential development of such breeds to Full Standard status. Mr O’Neill will put this proposition to the ESCC Executive. In the meantime the RVCC will continue to cater for these varieties.