Having listened to Eric Martlews interview with DW today I'm shocked at the alleged lack of response or 'engagement' of Pedigree breeders along with the conclusions made regarding reasons we didn't engage ie we realised there was a problem and kept our heads down?

I am one who did submit to the APGAW but surely I'm not in a minority or am I?

No you are not in a minority, but only a very small number got to speak to the committee. Did you get to speak to the committee?

Afraid not never heard a word until I got my copy of the report via email.  Maybe because I am a breeder who knows her COI's, does health testing despite non being required by the KC and breeds with carrier animals of a recessive disease safely to maintain the breed gene pool they felt there was nothing I could offer?

I think the real reason why many didn't is because they felt having a member of the RSPCA as the secretary that no matter what was written it wouldn't matter. 

Having listened to Mrs Kiskos interview I was equally shocked at how rude she was about "individuals" who submitted information. She described them as "just individuals who don't necessarily have any expertise at all" and then implies these individuals do not know what they are talking about compared to breed clubs. I assume she is referring to the "pet owners"?
This to me just shows how the KC have no understanding, time or respect for anyones opinions unless they are in the KC or in a breed club. This does nothing but tarnish their reputation further.

Have to agree Olive, I was quite appalled by the dismissive comments which I assume is about individual pet owners.  No pet buyers equals no dogs and it is the public i.e. pet buyers who pick up the pieces.  At a time where the KC should be 'winning back' the pubic, well she is not going to 'win back' the public with comments like that. 

And to say 'one bad experience does not make someone an expert.' is appalling. Dismissing people living in the real world with real experiences of poor breeding practices.

>And to say 'one bad experience does not make someone an expert.' is appalling.

I think it's true. It's equally true that one good experience doesn't make someone an expert either. An expert will have many experiences to draw upon to be able to see that there are many shades of grey between the two extremes of black and white.

> An expert will have many experiences to draw upon to be able to see that there are many shades of grey between the two extremes of black and white.

So many "individual" experiences should be ignored by the experts?

No, but they should each be considered in context.

many "individuals" or "pet owners" have lots of experience. Many have been campaigning for years, have scientific evidence to back their views and contact with similar "individuals" with similar experiences. The evidence they submitted should not be shunned by the likes of the KC purely because they are "individuals" that represent many. Mrs Kiskos comment was uncalled for.

Whilst I feel that "my" experiences as a pet owner over some 50 years have relevance, I have to accept the fact that over that 50 years, we are talking about less than a dozen dogs (plus 5 or 6 litters of puppies up to the age of 9 weeks or so).    Even had I started correlating all the information I might have noted 50 years ago, and continued in the same way over the 50 years, my information/experience would only be a small drop in the ocean.   Giving it to the breed clubs means that a far better evaluation of such evidence/information can be gained - and it cannot be slewed to a personal point of view - which is important.

What we feel is one thing - what we know is another.

that could be seen as biased (just a comment)

also you are missing my point which is that the evidence submitted may be from an individual, but may represent evidence from many. None of us will ever know. But to make sweeping comments about "individuals" does nothing to improve the KC reputation.

> that could be seen as biased (just a comment)

Meaning precisely?

that assuming breed clubs points of view are more valid than those submitted from individuals (whose experience and evidence are unknown to people like the KC)

"individuals", be them brilliant breeders that do all the health checks, or anyone else, should not be of less value than "groups"

There is no reason why pet owners cannot represent their views whereby they can give meaningful value collectively.  There were a number of dog owners who gave written or oral evidence to the inquiry but I don't know if that was their own personal experience or whether they represented a collective group of dog owners.  For example, if I had needed assistance with DM years ago, I would have contacted a dog owner in the US who assisted in the research and provided information to dog owners worldwide when DNA testing became available.  She simply started as an owner who had dogs with DM and committed herself to this disease.  Probably knew more than the KC for many years but the point to this, is that there may be many like her, simple dog owners in the UK that will be able to contribute information of meaningful value, not just by their personal experiences but driven by their personal experiences to research and enlist the help of others.  For CK to dismiss this, it just shows how short sighted she is or maybe it's because such information doesn't suit her agenda.

>that assuming breed clubs points of view are more valid than those submitted from individuals (whose experience and evidence are unknown to people like the KC)

I think it depends on how many individual animals are represented by each individual person's account. An individual reporting on 50 dogs will statistically give a more accurate evaluation than an individual reporting on one or two dogs. It's the same principle of considering the breed mean hip score as opposed to the hip score of an individual dog.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.  ~Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

As someone who works with stats and information, its perfectly possible that some people submitted absolute twaddle.  Just an observation. 

My problem with the report is the lack of experienced breeders names listed yet 'certain' individuals with an axe to grind are given much credance with their names showing up several times. 

I know I'm not the only responsible breeder out there and am frankly sick to the back teeth of the 'few' who seem to be all out to rid the world of pedigree show dogs and their breeders, so much publicity and credance given to so few.  I asked for support for the good breeders, a contract that is enforceable we can use against the unscrupulous liars out there who tick all the right boxes, then shock us when they pull every dirty nasty trick in the book for the sake of profit, neither we the good breeders or the law can stop.  Give us some support to deal with these problem people at grass roots level but no that doesn't fit with party lines eh?