Thanks Slyvia

Your are NOT poking your nose in! Many thanks. Like you it seems I
have also been given access to the full agenda of the ANKC/NBC
meeting in June from which you have added a file here. I am currently
seeking confirmation that the document is not confidential althouigh
I cannot see why it should be and I am pleased to hear your advice
that it is public.

There are a number of sections in the agenda and attachements that
cover CEA/ACES in a variety of ways. In particular two attachements
from Karen Hedburg that relate to control of CEA are of huge
significance to those of us with CEA affected breeds and should be
read and digested by all! If I get confirmation of the public nature
of these documents I will attempt to provide them here.

In relation to concern in VIC that CEA affected breeds should have
all litters checked I personally cannot see why this is a problem.
Frankly anyone breeding with a CEA affected breed who is not breeding
DNA Clear to DNA Clear (and that possibility does not exist for most
of us!) should test all pups? Most of us do already as collie rough
breeders? Let's fight the big battles we need to and not the ones
that are not winable?

Best wishes
Peter
Balinfern Collies

--- In ozeyescheme@..., "Sylvia Power" <zenchel@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Peter and all,
>
> Please forgive me for poking my nose in at this point, however I
was just
> sitting at the computer trying to condense, sort out and type up a
document
> to send out to our state breed clubs in order to answer just the
questions
> you are asking, in time for their response prior to the National
Breed
> Council Conference June 28.
>
> I will put it down in point form so it's as clear as can be for
everyone.
>
> (1) Yes, there have been sustantial amendments to the original
Information
> For Owners and Rules And Procedures documents.
>
> (2) However, there are still several issues that have previously
been listed
> in several places by many different groups as "points of concern".
>
> (3) Earlier in April Dogs Victoria ran an information seminar for
people
> that had concerns about ACES. Following this seminar Dogs Victoria
wrote the
> letter that I have uploaded into the files - this letter has been
sent to
> all state canine councils and the ANKC. It is listed in
correspondence for
> the NBC Conference and will also be on the agenda of the full ANKC
> conference in October. I believe there have been similar concerns
voiced by
> Dogs NSW, CCCQ and TCA.
>
> (4) I have also uploaded the motion for the NBC Conference in
relation to
> ACES that the National Labrador Retriever Council has moved. As you
can see,
> this motion contains very specific points, however there are more
general
> concerns that will probably still exist, even if the motion is
carried and
> achieves its aims eventually. As a Labrador person, I would really
> appreciate anybody and everybody informing their NBC Conference
delegates of
> their views on this motion, so there can be a knowledgeable and
constructive
> debate on it at the Conference.
>
> (5) People from other states may not realise that ACES has a lot
more
> implications for Victorians than previously - the following phrase
is
> written in the suggested Code of Practice to be attached to the
State Govt
> legislation covering breeding from dogs that can suffer from CEA
(amongst
> other diseases).
>
> "With Collie Eye Anomaly (CEA) the approved breeding program must
submit
> all litters before 8 weeks of age for certification by
ophthalmologists
> appointed to the AVA-ANKC ACES Panel, to identify and remove any
puppy that
> is adversely affected by the condition."
>
> This Code of Practice has not yet been finalised and the eventual
outcome is
> anybody's guess, however this is a quote from the relevant section
in the
> response from Dogs Victoria.
>
> "DOGS Victoria strongly opposes the inclusion of the requirement
that all
> litters must be submitted before 8 weeks of age for certification
by
> ophthalmologists appointed to the AVA/ANKC ACES Panel; to identify
and
> remove any puppy that is adversely affected by CEA.
>
>
>
> We believe it to be an unnecessary restraint to require litter
screening, or
> any other screening, to be performed exclusively by any particular
group of
> specialists."
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about all
of this.
> By the way, I have obtained advice that putting the documents that
I have
> uploaded into the public domain is perfectly acceptable, as the
entire
> agenda of the NBC Conference (which includes these documents)
should be in
> the process of being distributed to all state clubs (and their
members) by
> the National Breed Council secretaries.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sylvia Power
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Mim and Leah
> >
> > May I impose upon you both to give me/list members an update on
where
> > we are at with ACES?
> >
> > When you live in the country and don't get to mix in person with
> > those involved/informed you only get 'bits' of the current
situation.
> >
> > I have heard Roberston has amended his documentation to
remove/amend
> > ALL the text we were concerned about? Is that true and has the
> > revised ACES documentation been subseqeuently endorsed by the
ANKC?
> > (That would mean I assume it would have had to be put to all breed
> > clubs and their NBCs which I have seen no evidence of).
> >
> > As there is an ANKC Combined NBC Meeting in June in Sydney it
would
> > be good for all of us that have an interest in this matter to
ensure
> > that our NBC is fully aware of what is happening and are being
> > proactive in ensuring that our concerns are being addressed.
> >
> > My email may show my lack current understanding of what is
happening
> > and for those who are better informed please accept my apologies.
> > However for those of us who remain concerned but 'in the dark'
may I
> > ask you to let us know what you know of the situation?
> >
> > With best wishes
> > Peter Cook
> > Balinfern Collies
> > balinfern.com
> >
>