This post is also available in: Nederlands (Dutch)

Reply to the post of Hans van den Berg

As you can read from the WOB (act open information government: see also ‘Dutch Kennelclub exposed’), Rony Doedijns was sent by the Minister to the European Parliament to represent her. It looks like a way for the Kennelclub to prove her loyalty to the Minister.
I’ve always wondered why the Minister had so much confidence in the Kennelclub and mister Doedijns. The post of Hans with the accompanying photo explains why to me.

After the total failure of the ‘Fairfok’ program, the Minister obviously could have a firm grip on the Kennelclub. Due to the debacle of Fairfok (as also stated by the action group Dier&Recht) they had become malleable and now had to work together with the Minister?

It also could explain why the Kennelclub, despite the ‘Ministry’s requests’, did not contact the University of Utrecht and did not participate in the discussions about the enforcement criteria. This was also published in Raadar , the magazine of the Kennelclub. The Kennelclub has not been involved in drawing up the enforcement criteria.’

The board of the Kennelclub including the CEO Doedijns now functions within the ‘Fairdog program’ under the leadership of the veterinarians, where of course the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine has a big say. And even works in cooperation and consultation with the action group Dier&Recht.

The Dutch KC functions now disconnected from its members and may enter into alliances of which the members have not been informed in advance and have not voted for. On a regular basis the Dutch KC published their ideas without consultation of its members. The same applies to the presentation of Rony Doedijns to the European Parliament in June 2018, as Hans van den Berg points out correctly.

Throughout the cynology and the Kennel club a culture of fear and omerta seems to prevail. Again and again the council does not want breed clubs to communicate with the breeders, their members. The most shocking example of this was the silence concerning the breeding guidance plans submitted on 1 August 2019 as an alternative to the breeding ban and accompanying criteria of the Minister. Until their submission, these had not been communicated to the members of the breed clubs by order of the Kennel club. At just about every meeting the members of the board of the breed clubs receive the ‘request’ of the Kennel club not to communicate with their members, otherwise the Kennel club couldn’t ‘arrange anything any more’. The letter from the Minister dated 30th of April 2020 to the Dutch KC in which she explained her rejection of the breeding guidance plan has never been forwarded to the breed clubs. There was also nothing in it about not issuing pedigrees. A peculiar situation which again raises serious questions.

However, this ‘omerta’ was broken by the breed clubs a few days ago. A first step towards an open and transparent consultation culture. But also a first step towards healthier pedigree dogs as will become apparent later on.

It seems that the culture of fear has turned into anger of the breeding community, which is mainly focused on the CEO of the Kennel club and his position as a judge. After all, these two tasks are difficult to reconcile at the moment. The world of judges in the Netherlands, but especially outside, is now wondering how to react to Dutch judges under this Kennel club board, a board that stands for crossbreeding of 12 breeds to get a longer nose. The question is also what the judges will be instructed to do at the next ‘compulsory’ meeting for judges organised by the Kennel club. The required much longer nose that on the one hand really does not contribute to a healthier pedigree dog as shown by a lot of scientific work and on the other hand the contradictions with the FCI breed standards.

The question now arises whether the board of the Kennelclub also collaborates with the action group Dier&Recht?

It was very suspicious that almost immediately after the publication of the revealing letter of the breed clubs to the Kennel club, the action group Dier&Recht came with its publication on different FB groups.
The Kennel club does nothing about the others of the 30 short-muzzled breeds. These should also be tested and judged.
I do not get the picture out of my brains of an angry CEO of the Kennel club who, after seeing the ‘forbidden’ publication, hangs on the phone with the action group Dier&Recht to orchestrate the answer towards the breed clubs. And that as a ‘punishment’ for the openness of the breed clubs towards breeders. The fact that I don’t get this image out of my brains is partly due to the breed clubs that have been hijacked before by crossbreeders. Breed clubs such as Griffonia and Commedia.So in the Dutch world of pedigree dogs it is a way of working together that says something about the way of acting within the cynology. A world in which open communication and working together in open dialogue towards the healthy pedigree dog is driven away by coups and dark collaborations to get the pedigree dog of the stage.

After all, I have not yet seen one seriously substantiated plan from the cross breeders, the University of Utrecht and all those who stand for a longer muzzle which shows how the pedigree dog is preserved thanks to crossbreeding with ‘I don’t know what’.

So far we have only seen wild crossbreeds without any serious scientific guidance and without any goal that will come further if the crossbreed itself having a longer nose. Something with which hundreds, sometimes thousands of years of careful breeding for characteristics ends up on the manure heap of history.

So Hans with your post about the presentation of Doedijns to the European Parliament in June 2018 and the images shown with it, you reveal a ‘dot’ that shows a line that makes me shiver.

Edwin Meyer Viol

Stichting Ras en Recht

(Foundation justice for the Pedigree dog)

27 juni 2020

Connecting the ‘dots’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.