Thoughts on Limit Shows

Last year the CKC, through Show Modeling, allowed clubs to come up with innovative ways to increase entries.   While not new to hold multiple shows in one day (limit show),  they were allowed to hold larger limit shows.  For 2012 this option is up to the Directors for each Zone and most of us believe that if a club in a major center such as Calgary is allowed to do this it will negatively ipact the smaller clubs 
such as Camrose, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge and Red Deer who are also faced with lower entries and increased expenses.   Clubs need to be 'creative' in ways to lower expenses &/or increase entries.  Facility rentals are a huge portion of  the show clubs expense when putting on a show/trial.
 
Originally a limit show was only allowed in remote areas and I still support the Grande Prairie, Cold Lake and Fort Mac clubs hosting multiple shows that are capped at 175 dogs per show.  There is no way I can consider Calgary remote.  Other clubs, when faced with this same financial problems, chose to find cheaper venues - Alberta Kennel Club has moved their  winter show to Spruce Meadows, Edmonton Kennel Club has combined two indoor weekends into one four day outdoor weekend.  Clubs are working hard to find solutions that do not involve multiple shows.  CKOC chose not to do that.
 
Each Director makes their own decisions based on what they believe is good for their zone, that is what I did.  I don't factor in what is going on in Ontario or Manitoba, with their multiple shows.  In my opinion, you are either remote and entitled to limit shows or you are a major center and not at all entitled.

I do not believe the CKOC's only option was to hold a 'limit show'.  The days of endless growing entries are over, clubs have to deal with this and find other venues that are more in line with declining entries.  If other clubs are doing things that you might be critical of, at least they are trying and I respect their efforts.
 
Wendy Maisey
 CKC Director, Zone 10

CKC Board Meeting - Toronto - January 14 & 15

The 2012 Alberta Reps are as follows:

COUNCIL 2012 REP email

AGILITY Patricia Kopec – Calgary, AB kopingweims@shaw.ca

CONFORMATION Hilary Oakes sevenoaksmarketing@efirehose.net

DRAFT DOG Paul Bagnall lbagnall@planet.eon.net

EARTHDOG Mary Smithdorff smithart@platinum.ca

HERDING Gwen Haynes GHaynes@blg.com

JR KENNEL CLUB Loren Bressers abjuniors@gmail.com

LURE COURSING Pat Ingram ingrampm@rimouski.org

OBEDIENCE Jeff Lunder dogman@telusplanet.net

POINTING Sue Deyell suedeyell@xplornet.ca

RETRIEVER FIELD TRIAL Bruce MacDonald big-mac@shaw.ca

RETRIEVER HUNT TEST Kathy Miner kathyminer@me.com

SPANIEL Wayne Brennan brickburn@nucleus.com

TRACKING TEST Pat Solkshinitz triplebark@shaw.ca

WORKING CERTIFICATE Bill Marshall marshallbill1@gmail.com

Day one was largely orientation. A takeaway message from both the audit committee and legal counsel was talk to them early and often and especially before you sign anything.

We reviewed the contract for the new CEO, the first time that the board has been able to do so.  Benefits are identical to other CKC staff.   In light of the policy that salaries over $100k are disclosed at the AGM, the CEO's salary will be disclosed at that time.  The board was very satisfied with the contract.

The CKC Foundation has assets of $150,000 to fund canine health research with virtually none allocated. The foundation is struggling to attain meeting quorums and the new board needs to attend to this in the near future.

A newchair was elected in Michael Shoreman.  He thanked the previous chair, expressed a desire to increase member communication, to strive for excellence in board governance and management, service to members and marketing of purebred dogs and the CKC.

Day 2 dealt with regular business.  Since the budget was not passed at the previous board meeting in December, it was dealt with as the first item on the agenda.

Budget - expenses - fixed cost of building is killing us and the huge amount of vacant space due to the closure of Apex and associated staff layoffs at both Apex and the CKC is an issue at a time when there is lots of lower priced space. Attempts are underway to sublet space but there is lots of lower cost space both in the same building and the area. This is a big financial vulnerability given the lease length remains at 12 years.  In conformation we are chasing the same pool of declining numbers at a faster and faster rate. There is an urgent need to address since registration as 60% of revenue and where registration units are declining.   Memberships are also dropping.  A number of areas were identified where full expenditure may not occur. Savings in these areas may be required as the revenue budget for conformation shows may be optimistic given the rate of decline.   Operating budget was amended to increase French language translation by $35,000 and passed. The board will review forecasted actuals during the year to keep an eye on these issues.

The capital budget was not approved. The audit committee recommended moving to a requirement of project charters brought to the board on capital expenses greater than 10K which was agreed. A project charter was presented for the purchase of a digital scanner to replacing aging microfiche readers. This will allow prevention of data loss  and creation of stud books for the missing years of 1969-84.

Board members were appointed to various councils and committees. The priority dates committee was directed to bring back a definition of "remote" for the purposes of multiple shows per day for discussion at the March meeting.

The next meeting is in March  29-31 in Sudbury and includes the annual General Meeting.

Updates on Council

As your Director for Alberta, NWT and NU (Zone 10), I would like to welcome you to my blog. I will post CKC news, things of interest or concern as they arise.  Please check back frequently.

The 2012 Alberta Reps are as follows:

COUNCIL 2012 REP email

AGILITY Patricia Kopec – Calgary, AB kopingweims@shaw.ca

CONFORMATION Hilary Oakes sevenoaksmarketing@efirehose.net

DRAFT DOG Paul Bagnall lbagnall@planet.eon.net

EARTHDOG Mary Smithdorff smithart@platinum.ca

HERDING Gwen Haynes GHaynes@blg.com

JR KENNEL CLUB Loren Bressers abjuniors@gmail.com

LURE COURSING Pat Ingram ingrampm@rimouski.org

OBEDIENCE Jeff Lunder dogman@telusplanet.net

POINTING Sue Deyell suedeyell@xplornet.ca

RETRIEVER FIELD TRIAL Bruce MacDonald big-mac@shaw.ca

RETRIEVER HUNT TEST Kathy Miner kathyminer@me.com

SPANIEL Wayne Brennan brickburn@nucleus.com

TRACKING TEST Pat Solkshinitz triplebark@shaw.ca

WORKING CERTIFICATE Bill Marshall marshallbill1@gmail.com

I think we should be very happy with the talented and dedicated group of members who will be representing Alberta on the various national councils, your time and energy expended for the benefit of all our members is most  appreciated.  

Any opinions I may state on this blog are mine and mine only and do not reflect CKC Board policy unless I specifically say it is.

The CKC Policy and Procedures Manual has a section on the role of board members and what they can and can’t do.  For instance, when the board has voted a certain direction, I have to support that decision, whether or not I voted for it.  Up to that point though, I believe I certainly need to seek your views on matters that may be coming before the board, and can also communicate to you how I feel about an issue.  And I’m not supposed to try and solve various problems you may encounter (like registration issues) that office staff are supposed to handle but instead to direct you to the appropriate person at the CKC.  I thought I should make this clear at the outset.   

Many of you may be aware that in December, all of the remaining Dogs in Canada staff were laid off and the magazine ceased publication in any way, shape or form.  I don’t have many more details but do have a couple of personal observations.  First, the magazine had changed dramatically in the past 10 years of so to the point where I never even opened the plastic wrapping when it arrived.  This corresponded roughly with the time that the unofficial pages ceased to be published, CKC members stopped advertising in it by the truckload, Breedlines were severely curtailed and it took on a more “pet/non-purebred” focus.  So I don’t particularly regret the loss of the magazine as it had evolved.  But what I greatly regret is the absence of a regular communications vehicle for members.  I think there’s a need to find a way to bind like-minded purebred dog fanciers across the country.  And I recognize that a small minority of our members don’t have access to the internet which, for them, rules out on-line communications.  People who no longer breed or show dogs ask me why they should continue to be a CKC member.  Good question.  I THINK it’s the desire for connected-ness.  So, I will try and communicate to you via this blog in the absence of a better solution. 

 Last fall the CKC provided me with a list of Zone 10 (AB/NWT/NU) CKC members who were eligible to vote.  Note that doesn’t mean ALL Zone 10 CKC members.  Since a great many of the emails I sent to folks on the list bounced, please ensure the CKC has your current email address.  With the referendum changes passing regarding electronic voting, it will be IMPERATIVE that the CKC be able to contact you!!! 

Some of you may recall Amendment 32 in the recently voted bylaw changes which basically says members must confirm that parents of any puppies they breed conform to the breed standard’s size and coat colour characteristics with the explanation was that this would help ensure genetically healthier dogs.  Sounds innocuous enough, right?  Well a number of people have raised serious concerns about the practical application Amendment 32.  If a Sheltie is a half-inch oversize, does that mean it doesn’t conform to the breed standard and shouldn’t be bred?  Or let’s say the US standard for a breed allows/requires differences in colours and markings, does that mean you can’t breed to that American dog, no matter how outstanding he may be? That would be ridiculous, of course and I can’t believe that is the amendment’s intent - it is an evolving process that will be defined more appropriately as time progresses.  And others have pointed out that these features have almost nothing to do with the health of these purebred dogs.  Really….what research into health issues your breed club is funding???

Subsequent to the voting, members whose email addresses are correct and current would have received the following message from the CKC: “Amendment 32: These rules are meant to augment the Breed Standard, be more concise and describe the essential characteristics without which the dog could not be deemed to be a representative of the breed. Breed Clubs will be fully involved as we move forward in developing the language necessary for completing this requirement for each breed.  Since this will require By-law revision, all members will vote on the language used.”   I understand that a number of national breed clubs are planning on contacting the Minister of Agriculture  requesting that he not approve they bylaw changes (which is his/her responsibility and right).  Please bear with me on this one as we work through the matter so that we don’t end up creating more problems than we solve. 

The CKC is taking some steps to improve its on-line presence and has entered into a arrangement with Sue Coghlan who runs canuckdogs.com  I don’t know many more details but her website is easy to use and has lots of good information.  Hopefully she can do some good things for the CKC website/IT platform.   I believe that technology should be an enabler to an organization achieving its strategic goals and not an impediment.  I know money is tight but technology is one way of saving money down the road and we need to think about systems upgrades for these improvements and savings to occur.