romanriver wrote:DR its still optional, I registered 2 yesterday.
This is the problem, untill the Kc grow a pair this problem will carry on, make it compulsory, get the problem sorted, prosecute for fraud the people that breed sprockers and sell and run them as cockers and let Platty judge the championship.
Problem solved - put DR in charge!
In life, it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Judy wrote:Perce, there have been allegations regarding some people running a different dog to that entered in the Trial, at least a quick scan would put that one to bed, and not done in the car park but at the start of the dog's run.
You scan owt you like but if you don't know what you're checking it against you're wasting your time.
romanriver wrote:DR its still optional, I registered 2 yesterday.
This is the problem, untill the Kc grow a pair this problem will carry on, make it compulsory, get the problem sorted, prosecute for fraud the people that breed sprockers and sell and run them as cockers and let Platty judge the championship.
Amberquest wrote:The problem with these DNA tests folk are using is the validity of them. I emailed the company and asked to see the names of the dogs which they have based their Cocker spaniel profile on. They wouldn't provide it.
They said they were TYPICALLY registered dogs, which to me means that some of them aren't registered Cockers and probably they have used a DNA sample that someone has sent in believing they have a Cocker to build the profile.
They also said that the test can't be used to validate a pure bred dog, only give an indication of its likely ancestry.
If their DNA profile has a significant number of sprockets which were assumed to.be Cockers by the owners which sent their DNA in, then we could potentially just be testing a sprocker against a sprocker without knowing the kc names of the dogs used to build the profile. The test gets sent to America for analysis which also adds more uncertainty for me.
The only way to clear it up is to DNA profile all dogs and their parents and start from scratch. The costs associated with that are prohibitive I'd imagine.
Compulsory microchip scanning at trials should happen in my opinion as it would take the club sec or steward of the beat 5 minutes at the start of a trial
This is what I iterated repeatedly earlier - the comparison database is dogs registered as Cockers with the KC. If we are are now calling into question the validity of pedigrees and registrations then comparing the suspect animals to a database built on suspect animals is akin to pissing into the wind quite frankly. Nevermind the fact the company categorically state the test is not to be used for any dispute resolution or judicial purposes.
Judy wrote:Perce, there have been allegations regarding some people running a different dog to that entered in the Trial, at least a quick scan would put that one to bed, and not done in the car park but at the start of the dog's run.
You scan owt you like but if you don't know what you're checking it against you're wasting your time.
Very, very simple to implement a rule stating all dogs competing must be microchipped - we already say they have to be KC registered. FTMS would make it easy for the secretary to print out a list of numbers for comparison purposes. If we can do it with racehorses, showjumpers, eventers etc it's not hard to do it with dogs
Miesque wrote:
Very, very simple to implement a rule stating all dogs competing must be microchipped - we already say they have to be KC registered. FTMS would make it easy for the secretary to print out a list of numbers for comparison purposes. If we can do it with racehorses, showjumpers, eventers etc it's not hard to do it with dogs
I may be a little Sceptical. But someone joins- makes 2 posts 1 after the other in a thread named sprockers thats 5 years old. An never visits the site again...
Coincidental timing- with all the goings on?
Dawnrazor wrote:Some of the dogs in question are still being advertised at stud!!!! Christ on a bike it can't be that difficult to get dna?!!!
Its getting people to agree to allowing it for one thing, for another it doesn't really prove anything on its own. What could be implemented, maybe, is a DNA test for parentage of every FTCh / winner which would force honesty from here on even if we can't prove whatever shenanigans may or may not have gone on before.
In life, it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
FTMS doesn't link to the KC at all. The owner could put any microchip number against their dog, turn up with the wrong dog, which on the day then scans correctly.
We went right through the card of 35 entries for a trial today, at 7pm last night I was contacting members and non-members asking if they wanted a run. To then have to prepare a list of microchip numbers would be an extra job I could do without. It was 10pm before I got the running cards to the FT Sec as it was.
The best that could be done IMO would be to scan the dogs, record the numbers and then return them to the KC. When would you actually scan the dog? If it's when the handler takes the lead off the dog does this become a job for the judge?
