Arnhem, The Netherlands
14th April, 2009
1. Opening of Meeting
The President opened the meeting at 9.20 a.m. and welcomed everybody, including the onlookers, to the 2009 meeting. She pointed out that it was possible that an executive session during the meeting might be called, at which time the observers would be asked to leave.
2. Attendance of Delegates
All members were represented and the President introduced the individual delegates.
3. Establishment of breaks during the day
The Secretary pointed out that the coffee and tea were already available in the meeting room and breaks could be as the meeting wished. The menu for lunch was also provided but a time had to be set and the orders placed by 10 o’clock. The President proposed a 15 minute break at 10.30, Lunch at 12.30 reconvening at 1.15 with a further break at 3 p.m. Mr Hansson pointed out that he had to leave at lunch time but his place would be taken by Mrs Shingleton.
4. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of 2008
The Secretary had circulated the minutes many months previously and they had been approved by e-mail. Unless there were any further points raised, she would pass them round for signature.
Mrs Morgan Blythe asked when the Minutes were deemed to be formally finalized. The President replied that it was at the next formal meeting which was the present meeting. Mrs Morgan Blythe referred to the matter of recognition of Siamese and Savannah on page 4, she then spoke of a meeting on Open Doors. Mr Reijers then interrupted saying that these comments were not understandable. The President was also mystified. Mr Reijers asked to be allowed to explain what he thought to be the point. He referred to the original corrected minutes which had been circulated and to which Mrs U’Ren had replied with an additional amendment. The amendment had come rather later as she had had computer problems. The Secretary had then circulated the final version of the Minutes, which included Mrs U’Ren’s amendments and Mr Reijers had a copy of an e-mail from Mrs Morgan Blythe stating that the later version would be circulated to the ACF members. As there had been no protest to the later version, he therefore considered this to be tacit acceptance of the minutes. Mrs Morgan-Blythe said she had been asked to make the comment. Mr Reijers moved to accept the Minutes as circulated, seconded by Mrs U’Ren. Mrs Fisher asked if she had to abstain as she had not been present but was assured that as her organization had accepted them, this was not necessary. The Minutes were approved with one abstention and the secretary5. Business Arising from Minutes of 2008
a) Ratification of the acceptance of the amended logo.
This has been accepted by e-mail but needed to be ratified. The President explained that the original logo had incorporated the logos of the earlier members but as the membership had expanded it was not possible to have so many logos incorporated; it had therefore been agreed to change the logo to show only the words “World Cat Congress.” Mrs Morgan Blythe moved to accept, seconded by Mrs Fisher and carried unanimously.
b) Artificial Insemination – further developments
Mrs Morgan Blythe had circulated information that AI had already taken place. She said that a veterinary surgeon in Melbourne had already artificially inseminated a Sphynx and she felt that the time when the fancy had to deal with the administration and registration of kittens being produced by artificial insemination was rapidly approaching. She pointed out that this matter was first raised in 2007 when ACF had felt it advisable to have a protocol acceptable by all registering bodies. She stated that she understood kittens produced by artificial insemination were already registered in the United States, but she had no means of knowing whether they were declared as AI kittens or not.
Mr Hansson said that at present there was nothing on registration forms to indicate whether the kittens were produced by AI or naturally. Until such time as there was something to indicate this, it would be assumed they were produced naturally.
Mr Reijers felt that there was not a problem since he believed the registries would have serious protocols in place. There were already rules in place in some countries such as Sweden, where the procedure had to be carried out by a certified veterinary surgeon and the cats concerned had to be identifiable by microchip.
The President said that Joan Miller of the CFA had done a lot of research on AI. At that time the only way of getting semen was by electro ejaculation and the animal had to be anaesthetized for this to take place. Sperm could be frozen, but eggs could not. She had also had a long talk with Lesley Lyons on the subject and had learned that UC at Davis where Dr Lyons had her lab had been working on this procedure. Whilst it was feasible for dogs, it was incredibly expensive for cats. As a cat’s eggs could not be frozen, it was the embryos that were frozen and it was not yet known how long an embryo remained viable in that state. At this time the board of CFA was not in favour of registering kittens from an AI mating because of the difficulties of the procedure. The animal welfare implications were also formidable as it involved invasive surgery.
Mrs Morgan Blythe thought that a good reason for not accepting it as such. The President said that she thought it necessary to have a number of occurrences in order to find out how prevalent this was. Mr Reijers stated that they did have numbers and it was zero. CFA had also had none brought to them. Was it good to give a heightened level of awareness to this or would it be better to keep an eye on it and, if necessary, come back with it later. Mr Hansson felt that politics would enter into it, the cat fancy, together with other animal breeding bodies, was already under a spotlight and going down the route of accepting AI would heighten that perception. Mr Reijers said that he had learned that, apart from some endangered large cat species in zoos, AI had not been used. The situation was the same in the United States. The President also said that everybody had been excited when the idea first arose as it was seen as a way of expanding gene pools without having to import cats. However, the fact that firstly an egg had to be removed from the female and fertilized, then the resulting embryo had to be surgically implanted back into that female made this a complicated procedure and not one which every veterinarian would be competent to do.
Mrs U’Ren asked Mrs Morgan Blythe about the reported case in Victoria, checking where the sperm had come from. Mrs Morgan Blythe said it was an Australian male and had been done because the female did not like the male.
Mr Reijers proposed that the discussion should be minuted but that no action should be taken. The President suggested that reports on any instances encountered should be sent by e-mail so that the situation could be monitored. This was agreed.6. Proposals
a) From the Executive, the proposal read:
Addition to the Constitution, under Point 7 Finance, new point (8)
"The accounts of the WCC shall be audited annually by an independent person who is suitably qualified".
There were no comments and Mr Reijers made a motion to accept which was seconded by Mr van Rooyen and carried unanimously.
b) From ACF
1) The first proposal was introduced by Mrs Morgan Blythe who said that as the Constitution did not mention a date for the financial year, the proposal sought to correct the situation and read:
7: Finance. (to precede 7.1)
“The financial year shall close on 31st December each year”
The proposal was seconded by Mrs Fisher and was carried unanimously.
2) Mrs Morgan-Blythe moved the following proposal:
7.4:
“All WCC delegates and officer/delegates shall have the same travel costs to attend the meeting.”
Mrs Fisher seconded. In the following discussion, Mr Reijers said that he had always assumed that to be the case as, with the exception of the Secretary, any delegate present who was also an officer was basically present as a delegate. He questioned whether the amendment was necessary. The President found the present wording in the Constitution rather confusing and suggested an amendment to give more clarity. Since it was not possible to change the wording of the Constitution at the current meeting, Mrs Morgan Blythe suggested it be tabled for a future meeting. Mrs Fisher had not understood the distinction between ‘officer’ and ‘officer/delegates’; The President explained that she was at the meeting as the delegate of CFA but she was also President of WCC. The Secretary explained further Mrs Fisher that it was also stated in the Constitution that the expenses of the President, Vice-President and Secretary would be paid by WCC. The President added that this was only if they were not present as a delegate. Mr Reijers felt that it was clear. The motion was put to the vote and rejected with 1 in favour, 1 abstention and 7 against.
3) Mrs Morgan Blythe moved the following motion:
7.5:
"The reasonable expenses of the Secretary and Chairman (President or his/her deputy) at a Congress shall be paid by the WCC, less any amount compensated under 7.4.
"7.4 All WCC delegates shall have the same travel costs to attend the meeting.
For those delegates who receive compensation for possible judging engagements in connection with the WCC or the weekends immediately preceding or after such meetings, this compensation will be deducted from the amount they may receive from WCC. In principle no compensation will be given if the meeting takes place on the continent of residence of the WCC delegate.”
Mrs Fisher seconded the motion. Mrs Morgan Blythe explained that it seemed sensible to specify that it was the Chairman of the meeting who should be subsidized; that might not necessarily be the President as well as the Secretary, both functions being essential at the meeting. Mr Reijers quoted the existing clause 8. (5) and took exception to the word ‘reasonable’ being inserted as he felt that all delegates were reasonable people. Referring to the rationale, he explained that until 2004 the expenses of the then President had always been paid by FIFe and some reimbursement had always been made by the host club when the President had judged. When a new president, who was not a judge, had come in he had also managed to get sponsorship and it was felt that WCC could afford to pay for the President’s attendance. He said that if the intention was not to reimburse the Vice-President, he felt sure that in the event of the Vice-President not being invited to function as a judge, either she would be asked not to attend or every effort would be made to find her a judging engagement. He did not find it correct to make a distinction between members of the Executive. Mrs Morgan Blythe said it could not be amended at the current meeting but she felt that, as it stood, it was open to misinterpretation. Mr Reijers said that whilst not wishing to give offence, he found such proposals very negative and working from the assumption that the nine members were not able to solve things together; he felt that they were able. Referring to the growth of WCC mentioned in the rationale, he questioned whether there had been any more applications. The President said there had been one and whilst agreeing, he pointed out that it was not expected to grow to 50 or 60 members. He felt that if any member was not satisfied with any action taken by the Executive, they would talk about it to those concerned.
The motion was put to the vote and was rejected with 1 in favour and 8 against.
4) Mrs Morgan Blythe moved the following proposal, which had been submitted by ACF to be tabled in the event that their third proposal was not accepted:
7.5:
“The expenses of the three officers; the President, the Vice President and the Secretary shall may be paid by the WCC subject to the delegates’ determination that the financial situation of the WCC is able to support this expenditure.”
This was seconded by Mrs Fisher and the President invited comments. She then observed that for some members, who had less financial resources than others, it might become a matter of whether they could afford to send a delegate. Mr Reijers commented, with amusement, on the fact that it was a little unorthodox to have a proposal tabled in the event of another one on the same subject not being passed. Again, he felt that this was already covered in the Constitution. It was subject to the financial position of the WCC and this would have to be reviewed in the event that sponsorship ceased. Mr Hansson felt that it was not acceptable to put in two proposals for the same thing but the President pointed out that it was allowed under Roberts Rules as long as it was pre-noticed.
Mrs Wagner objected to the phrase in the rationale that “We may not always have a cautious treasurer,” she queried who, in this small group, would not be cautious. Mr Reijers said that it seemed that there was a feeling in ACF that there were terrible undercurrents going on. Mrs Morgan Blythe denied this and Mr Reijers then said he suggested that future rationales should be worded slightly differently. He felt that it was not helpful to repeat what was already in the Constitution. Mrs U’Ren felt that the Constitution had functioned well in the past and questioned the need to change it. Mrs Morgan Blythe then asked if the meeting objected to the substitution of the word ‘may’ for ‘shall’ as it was not an absolute. Mr Reijers said that this clause had been inserted into the Constitution to cover the event of an officer not being a judge and therefore not receiving any reimbursement. He did not feel a future officer would necessarily feel able to take part in a meeting if their expenses were not to be reimbursed. Mrs Morgan Blythe emphasized that this was to cover a future situation and pointed out that the Constitution also stated that each member would have to contribute in the event of a deficit. Mrs Fisher then called for a vote to be taken. The proposal was rejected with 1 in favour and 8 against.
5) Mrs Morgan Blythe proposed the following:
ACF proposes that WCC reverts to its former practice of alternating the years for election of officers. To this end, the following be reinserted after 5.1.
She explained that it was immaterial to ACF which officers were on odd or even years but wished to ensure that there would be continuity and not a total change of officers in any given year.
Mrs Fisher seconded. Mr Hansson pointed out that the two officers who tended to be needed for continuity were the president and the secretary and with this proposal they could change in the same year. Mrs Morgan Blythe accepted that and said ACF did not have a problem with these being changed. Mrs U’Ren agreed with Mr Hansson. This had been included in the original Constitution but had been removed later. The President felt that with such a small group, such changes would not make a great difference. Mrs Morgan Blythe gave a notice of motion for 2010 but as the proposal was already on the floor, it was put to the vote and the comments of the members noted. The proposal was rejected with 1 in favour, 1 abstention and 7 against.
Mrs Morgan Blythe formally announced a notice of motion for 2010 with the President and the Secretary not being elected in the same year.
7. Elections
All three officers were to be elected.
The first position was for the President and nominations were called for. TICA nominated Ms Delabar. FIFe nominated Mr Reijers. The result of the vote was 5 to 4 in favour of Ms Delabar who was accordingly elected as President for a period of two years.
The second position was for the Vice-President and nominations were called for. NZ nominated Mrs U’Ren. There were no other nominations so Mrs U’Ren was accepted by acclamation.
The third position was for Secretary/Treasurer. FIFe nominated Mrs Bydlinski and there were no other nominations so Mrs Bydlinski was accepted by acclamation.
Mr Reijers asked for the floor. He wished to explain that the reason for his candidature was because FIFe felt that in the last two years the Executive had not done what it was supposed to do. His candidacy was a protest. A President and a Vice-President had been put forward and elected but when the Minutes came to be checked, he found himself being the one to do it. The same applied to amendments to the Constitution. In the previous year there had been queries from two delegates, CCCA and SACC, and these queries were addressed to him and not to the President. FIFe thought that if all the questions were coming to him, then he might as well take the function. This was not something he wished to do and this was a strong appeal to both President and Vice-President to support and contribute whenever the Secretary had the need for this. He would not be the one to do it in the future. He said that when people stood for election, they must take their responsibilities. He would also like to ask that delegates did not call or write to him when they were unsure about something. All procedures were written in the guide to hosting a WCC meeting, they were also in the Minutes and he had been appalled by the questions which arose over the uncertainty of payments the previous year. He did not wish to take any office as he had more than enough to do in FIFe, but if the Secretary turned to him because she had not had a reply from other people, then he helped her.
The President said that she thought that, thanks to her advantageous telephone contract, there was now a good line of communication. Mr Reijers stressed that the issue was the lack of knowledge the previous year which had led to so much confusion. The President agreed and said this had now been rectified.
8. Financial Matters
The Treasurer had circulated her report (Annex 1) as well as the Accounts (Annex 2) and the report of the Auditor (Annex 3). She asked if there were any questions about the accounts. She had brought bank statements with her and they were there if anybody would like to see them. The bank balance on the 30th March was in excess of AU$40,000 being approximately Euro 20,000. She said that it appeared that GCCF may have paid twice but she would sort that out before the end of the year. The balance at the end of the previous financial year was AU$ 19,207.00. The profit for the year was just over AU$2000 and the total assets at the end of the year were AU$16,117. The annual fee had been decided at AU$340 but this had not been discussed properly and should perhaps be re-visited. The President asked what the Treasurer recommended and she replied that she considered that figure was probably a good one in light of the fluctuations in the exchange rates. Mr Reijers protested to discussing the figure at this point as the information had been given to the members a long time before and if anybody had any comments, they should have reacted at the time. He thought that the meeting, which was an expensive exercise, should concentrate on discussing aims and objective, matters which could be accomplished. The President then asked for a motion to ratify the annual fee at AU$340, this was proposed by Mrs U’Ren and seconded by Mrs Morgan Blythe and carried unanimously.
The Treasurer had not been able to make a proper budget as she had no figures but she had now got them. She expected to be paying Euro 700 to both CCCA and ACF and to NZ abut Euro 500. The figures were therefore well within those she had budgeted for. The sponsorship had now been increased to Euro 10,000. Royal Canin had asked to have this invoiced in Australian dollars, which she had done in the sum of AU$19,372.00. The agreement was for the next five years. Royal Canin would send a contract for signature. She stressed that Royal Canin were more than willing to help the Congress with anything such as printing or publishing or circulating through the medium of their stands at shows. She thought this could be very useful in the event of the delegates deciding on what they wished to do.
Mr Hansson asked if, in light of that, would it not be a good idea to start work straightaway on the next year’s Congress so that advance advertising could be carried out through Royal Canin. The Treasurer agreed. Mrs U’Ren said that Royal Canin was giving good sponsorship to CCCA for the WCC 2010 and they had been advertising around Australia since the previous October.
The Treasurer reverted to the budget where she had allowed AU$ 6000 for the expenses of the meeting and AU$ 4000 for the delegate’s expenses, she thought the meeting was within that budget.
Mrs Fisher moved to accept the accounts and Mrs Morgan Blythe seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously accepted.
The Treasurer pointed out to the delegates that the travel expenses which were reimbursed by WCC were only travel expenses, the hotel costs were not covered in the Constitution. She felt this may not be clear to some of the delegates. She added that anything that was received from the host body, whether it was described as judge’s reimbursement or travel, should be taken into account. She thanked Mundikat for their part in inviting the judges at the current meeting and said how much difference this had made to the WCC finances. Mundikat had been very generous. This was greeted with applause.
The President asked if there were any further questions or any questions about the audit. She said that the gentleman who had performed the audit was based in Brisbane and was a certified public accountant. He was known to Mrs U’Ren and Mrs Morgan Blythe, as well as herself.
Mr Reijers pointed out that before closing Financial matters, point 10b) on the Agenda had to be discussed. This concerned a possible donation to the Australian Fire Disaster. The President explained that she had been changing planes in Brussels and had called the Treasurer just as the plane doors were closing. She had suggested a donation of AU$1000 to the fund of which had been established by the Victorian Councils; this had been mistakenly understood to be AU$1000 per member of the Congress. She referred to the media coverage, which everybody had seen, and the fact that the effects of the disaster on the animals would go on for some years.
The Treasurer said that whilst she was very much in sympathy with anything of this nature, she felt that it was not covered by the WCC Constitution. If the members wanted to do something, they would have to consider what sort of disasters they were going to help and make provision as such in the Constitution. Mrs Morgan Blythe agreed, she said that whilst she was Australian and felt desperately for this situation, she did not feel it was the brief of the WCC. She pointed out that nothing had been said when hurricane Katrina had happened in the United States and it was a disaster of similar magnitude. If the members wanted to do this, she thought it should be dependant upon a surplus of cash and should be discussed on an annual basis rather than just when a disaster happened. Mr Hansson felt there was a danger of organizations ending up doing multis; GCCF clubs had sent donations but not GCCF itself. He did not believe that the WCC had been set up for such purposes.
Mr Reijers commented upon the President’s explanation of how this suggestion had come about. He referred to the telephone conversation which the President had had with the Secretary, which had resulted in the latter sending out an e-mail. In that e-mail it was stated that it would be AU$9000. He had reacted to the e-mail and the President had then replied that the idea was never for AU$9000; this he did not understand since the reply had been appended to a series of e-mails which included the original one sent out by the Secretary. He also felt sympathy for the situation and referred to other disasters, such as the flooding which was also in Australia. He had, at the time, reacted to the rather large amount of money being suggested.
An on-line vote had been taken which had rejected making a donation and the meeting needed to ratify this. Mr Reijers made the motion to ratify the on-line decision not to make a donation which was carried unanimously.
Mrs Morgan Blythe asked if the basic figure for the participants expenditure should be set at this time, the Treasurer agreed and suggested that it should remain at Euro 500 as in previous years. That meant that each organization would pay Euro 500 of their travel expenses to attend the annual meeting. The WCC would compensate any amount above that figure less any contributions made in respect of the delegate’s judging activities. Mrs Morgan Blythe moved that the amount according to 6.1.5 of the Constitution be Euro 500. Mr Reijers seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.
9. Matters raised from Member’s reports
Mrs Lowe explained that as this was her first time, she had not been aware that the reports were to be sent in 14 days prior to the meeting. She had only seen three reports that came in within that time and did not understand whether all of them would be tabled. She did not understand the acceptable process. Mr Hansson said that one of the e-mails from the secretary had clarified this.
Mr Reijers made a point of order, it had been clarified and there was no obligation to submit a report, but if there was something in a report that a delegate wished to discuss, they could do it under this point in the Agenda. The President thought it nice to let other people know what the organizations were doing. She also asked that people tried to follow the deadlines. Mr Reijers commented that originally there had been only one member who ever made a report but this had now grown. He felt that whilst it was very nice to know about the organizations national shows, everybody had access to the web. He was in favour of the old system where the delegates talked when they met and only put such things in writing that were for the good of all. He thought that only if an item had relevance in promoting the cat fancy should it be put in writing. Mrs Morgan Blythe pointed out that the motivation for written reports was to save time at the meeting, not that it was a must. She thought that Mr Reijers was implying that a member could bring points for discussion in the same way that SACC had done. Mr Hansson repeated that the Secretary’s e-mail had made it perfectly clear that a report may be filed or not as the organisation wished. If a report were issued, then unless anybody had anything to say in respect of something in the report, it need not be discussed.
The President said that she saw nothing wrong in reporting on an activity which might give the other members something helpful to take back to their own organizations. She pointed out that everybody had problems with legislation and also in maintaining the same level of interest in the cat fancy as it had once enjoyed. She thought that came under our remit of promoting harmony in the cat fancy.
Mr Reijers said that this was the first year, and he had sat there almost from the beginning, when for example, CFA put in a written report but they had always brought matters to discuss. If it could be established that this was a nice way to inform the others of what’s happening, he would agree but if there were matters to discuss, such matters should be addressed directly rather than finding a back door to get to those problems. He had found nothing in the submitted reports that affected everybody. He referred to the previous year when power point presentations had been made by all delegates presenting their organizations at the Open Meeting; he had found that very nice and could be an idea to repeat in the future.
For the sake of order, the Secretary repeated that there was nothing in the Constitution requiring reports but, over the years, some people had submitted them or made oral reports. In order to avoid the time wasted in reading these reports out at meetings as had previously happened, the Executive had decided that if a member wanted to put in a report, it should be done ahead of time so that everybody had a chance to read them and if there was a point that anybody would like to discuss, it was to be brought up under this point on the Agenda. Mrs Lowe was questioning the fourteen days and indeed some reports had only come at the last moment and had not been in time for the delegates to read them in advance. She felt a ruling was needed. In the past she had included any reports as annexes to the Minutes and asked what she should do this year.
Mr Hansson reverting to the reports, said that they were of interest, but unless they generated something specific, they were only for information.
Mrs Lowe commented that NZCF’s attitude to reports being attached to Minutes was that it could have been done on the telephone. NZCF didn’t know what the World Congress did, which was why she had been sent to find out She thought it was important since it cost a lot of money to send a delegate.
Mrs Wagner found it very interesting to read the reports. She apologized for not sending one from WCF but she had had a computer crash.
Mrs Fisher echoed Mrs Lowe’s sentiments in that the delegates had the opportunity to meet once a year and this meeting was tied up with expenses. She pointed out that the meeting had been going for more than two hours and had not done anything towards the welfare of cats or the cat fancy. She thought reports were nice but were basically informational. She thought the meeting should be focusing on its mission and try to define what it could do to promote its hobby and the cat’s welfare. She would like to see the group spending its time in more strategic rather than administrative discussions. Mr Hansson said that unless the meeting were constructive, his organization would be getting nothing out of the event, it therefore needed to be constructive.
The President then said that whilst everybody had been talking in the general, she wanted to know what specific ideas they had. She pointed out that there were nine members and it was not up to only one person to come up with ideas.
Mrs U’Ren said that from her organisation’s point of view, they enjoyed reading the reports as issues developed in other countries which might have to be addressed in their own. CCCA had referred to inheritable diseases and had brought literature on legislation with her (Annex 4). She thought this legislation would spread throughout Australia and could become an issue in other countries.
Mr Reijers said that the President had said a very important thing in that it was not up to just one person. He referred to he minutes from the Dortmund meeting in 2007 which had been circulated during that year. An exercise had been set with certain results and he quoted verbatim from page 3 of those Minutes. He thought everybody, including himself, had done nothing about it. They sat there every year and each year the question was asked as to why they were there and what were they really doing. He acknowledged that WCC was now financially in a better position, but it had been FIFe that had kept the whole thing running for the first eight years. Had FIFe not brought a proposal to help with the traveling expenses of delegates, the members would never have received any money. Equally, had FIFe not proposed the removal of the references to ‘founder members’ in the Constitution, not all members would have had a vote on certain issues. FIFe had brought these proposals because it believed in democracy. The only thing expected of the members was to bring something. He agreed with the President that everybody had so much within their own federations that they sometimes forgot why they were there together.
The President repeated that it was not incumbent upon one person to bring matters to the table. She referred to individual national decisions, which affected everybody, and said that she thought those kinds of things should be solved face to face. She spoke further about the problems within the cat fancy in the States and said that the Congress needed to find a way to promote itself and foster harmony with each other.
Mr van Rooyen spoke of his report which might raise several issues which could not be discussed because they were not on the Agenda. The President said that they could be discussed under this particular point on the Agenda. Regarding the number of issues which could arise, it would be up to the chair to control the time given to any one issue.
The Secretary suggested that the reports could be left as circulated and would not be attached to the Minutes and could be dealt with whether they were received in time or not. Mrs U’Ren thought that the idea of circulating any reports 14 days prior to a meeting was a good one. She then moved that members may circulate written reports within a time set by the Secretary prior to the meeting to enable members to pursue any relevant issues for discussion. If a member had a definite point to bring, they were free to do so.
Mrs Fisher thought that it was not just a matter of reports but rather what was in those reports. She thought perhaps the reports should not be general but should be related to the purpose of WCC and would give some background on items which would be discussed. The report would then be not just a general report but a sort of white paper that might raise an issue to be brought for possible discussion or have a report on progress which might have been made towards one of the Congress’s primary purposes.
Mr Reijers objected to a motion being put, he pointed out that there had always been member’s reports on the Agenda but the point was whether it had to be written. He asserted that it did not.
He suggested that the meeting follow the Agenda as set. Mrs U’Ren withdrew her motion.
Mrs Morgan Blythe referred to the SACC report where provisional status for tabby Russian was mentioned. There was reference to it being recognized in Australia. She said that these cats were recognised by only one of ACF’s member bodies; within that state there was a proposal for recognition at the last AGM which had failed for lack of a seconder. She thought that was indicative of how ‘recognized’ they were in Australia. Mrs U’Ren concurred and said it had been blown out of proportion in Australia. Mr van Rooyen explained that in South Africa they would accept a new colour after going through certain stages and if at least one of the WCC members accepted the colour in question. So if one of the ACF bodies accepts it, the requirement had been met. Mrs Morgan Blythe said that it was now official that ACF did not accept them.
Mr Reijers pointed out that this immediately solved one of the problems raised in 2007, namely consistency in standards. Each organization had the right to do as it saw fit and the other organizations had to respect that. The idea was to respect each other. He added that there was one exception with regard to the acceptance of judges in FIFe; clubs may invite non-FIFe judges with permission from the board, but this would normally be confined to judges from one of the WCC members.
The President reminded the delegates to supply a current judges list to all other members to facilitate the exchange of judges. She also asked that if a judge lost his credentials, this should be notified. Replying to Mrs Morgan Blythe’s enquiry about finding CFA judges on their website, the President explained that the site was being revamped and it would be easier to find things in the future.
Mr Hansson said that all organizations were facing the possibility of legislation and the fancy was under scrutiny. He thought it would get harder. He felt that adding another defect to the list of breeds recognized, such as polydactyl Maine Coons would only make matters worse. He felt the fancy had to be even more conscious nowadays about the breeds it recognized. Mr Reijers pointed out that the legislation in New Zealand was different to that of Europe, for example the existence of pet shops. Whilst he agreed with Mr Hansson, he said that breeds had already been established which would not pass scrutiny and cited Manx as an example.
Mr Hansson agreed and referring to Manx, said that in the previous year only 10 cats of this breed had been registered I GCCF. He appreciated that some registries had many more. The President said that TICA produced some of the best Manx in the world. There were some breeds that were on the list circulated by Mrs U’Ren that she thought would have problems and the fancy would have to make some difficult decisions further down the road but it was up to each individual organization to make such decisions. The President pointed out that organizations were trying to make the best genetic predictors that they could by the use of DNA testing.
Mrs Morgan Blythe referred to page 2 of the report from CCCA, specifically the Scottish Folds. She said that this was an instance where perhaps WCC could have done something. The issue had
been raised in Houston in 2004 and there were Fold breeders who wanted to establish the viability of their breed; this was not, however, followed through despite being raised by ACF. She felt that if it had been discussed at the Business Meeting in 2004, it would be on the record and there would have been some defence for this breed.
Mrs U’Ren explained that this legislation was, at present, only in Victoria. One of the CCCA members had represented them at Government level. The original proposal had been drafted by people who own ed neither a cat or a dog and it was fortunate that they were contacted by the Victorian government and given the opportunity for Dr Truda Strade, who was a geneticist, to go along and put some commonsense to them. The only way that their arguments had been accepted was to give a guarantee that all four organizations in Victoria would accept the protocols and show that they were responsible breeders. If an individual sold or passed on an animal with one of the listed defects, the organization concerned would be fined AU$33,000 because this was now law.
Mr Reijers said that he was exceptionally grateful that some years ago FIFe had decided that every breeding cat must be identifiable by microchip. The law Mrs U’Ren had referred to was also law in Europe and this should galvanise into action all those who had unconditionally recognized Scottish Folds. WCF had tried to get something going with Scottish Folds with the help of Dr Leslie Lyons; this would have cost the breeders nothing, but there had been no response. FIFe had had the same lack of response when Lorraine Shelton had made a similar offer. On that information FIFe would not consider recognizing Scottish Folds if the breeders were not willing to let their breed be scrutinized. He felt that the Fold breed could potentially kill the cat fancy.
Mr Hansson said that, at the risk of setting alarm bells ringing, the breeds which were most questionable in the UK were Persians and Sphynx. There would always be members who would do irresponsible things and it was not possible to stop them. He gave an example of a Don Sphynx in Russia which had been photographed with the owner stretching up a large amount of loose skin on the body. A normal person would be horrified. With Persians the problems of the small nose leather and their breathing difficulties were cited. People liked to get their cat’ s picture in the Newspaper but when the photographs were negative, the effect was bad for the whole cat fancy.
Mrs Wagner thought that people should be educated before being given a licence to breed. Speaking about the Scottish Fold tests, she pointed out that as it was not allowed legally to breed those cats, it was not possible to supply swabs for research. At the time that the request for genetic material was made, people were not allowed to breed the Folds; they are doing so again now as nobody was checking into it. Speaking personally, she said that her own Folds were extremely healthy and had none of the typical defects. The President remarked on a Fold, belonging to Kitty Angel, which was twenty years old. Mrs Wagner did not think it was an answer to forbid the breed.
Mr Reijers agreed with her and accepted that there were many healthy Folds about but when he had judged in New Zealand he had disqualified four Folds because they were not able to stand up. At the WCF show in Moscow, Alva Uddin, Lili Anciau, Penny Bydlinski and himself found every Scottish Fold to be stiff in the joints and with a foreshortened tail. It was obviously a breed that needed attention and for that the co-operation of the breeders was required.
The President said that more and more genetic tests were becoming available and it was hoped eventually to have an entire range available from a simple sample which would also give the breeders some credibility and an opportunity to prove that assumptions about the health of certain cats were wrong.
Referring to the WCF report, Mr Reijers firstly offered his commiserations to WCF at having to do a web site in five languages, FIFe still had it in only one. Regarding the standard information service and the request for a contact in each organization to keep the standards updated. He said that in the course of the year all FIFe standards would be available on the FIFe web site. These standards were copyright protected, so any copying of the wording of those standards would need the consent of FIFe. FIFe could not provide a name for somebody responsible for the standards as it was the responsibility of the General Assembly to accept any changes.
The President said that she would be distributing the CFA standards, as well as the rules, to everybody. CFA had a Breeds & Standards Committee which co-ordinated with the breed councils.
She thought it interesting to know how the different organisations made their breed standard changes and explained that in CFA it was done by the breed councils and then submitted to the Executive of CFA who either accepted or rejected it. The board could not do anything with a breed council change if it had not received a 60% approval of that council.
Mr Reijers said that FIFe was very different, the only changes were made through the General Assembly and only the members, the board and the commissions had the right to bring proposals.
Proposals concerning breed standards were coming from members but would have been brought to them by the relevant breeders. Those proposals were circulated well in advance of the General Assembly to all members. At the General Assembly there was ample time to discuss those proposals before the members voted on them. Whilst the proposals might come from the breeders, the ultimate power did not lie with them. There was a breed council system in place which was inadequate. There was a new proposal coming to the next General Assembly to only allow any standard changes if they had first been accepted by the breed council concerned. He hoped this would be accepted so that the breed councils really had influence. The big problem in FIFe, which was probably the same in WCF, was that people in the breed councils spoke many different languages and there were many good breeders who did not speak English; this he saw as a big problem and for that alone he was envious of the organizations where only one language was spoken.
Mr Hansson said that the GCCF’s standard of points basically evolved from the input of the Breed Advisory Councils. GCCF itself would not normally propose anything that was contrary to the wishes of the relevant BAC. This information was contained in the GCCF Constitution which he had circulated.
Mrs Morgan Blythe said that ACF’s procedure was much the same as FIFe’s in that it was the membership which voted at the AGM. They did not have breed councils but there was a middle stage when any proposals relating to breed standards, which had first to come from member bodies, were considered at the AGM of the Judges Guild who then made recommendations.
Mrs Fisher said that TICA’s system was similar to that of CFA; the board could consider a change so long as it had a majority vote of the breed committee.
Mrs Lowe speaking for NZCF said that they had individual breed representatives who reported to the breed standards council who only made recommendations. The Executive Council approves it if they agreed, which was not always the case. It never went to an AGM because that ran the risk of it becoming an AGM document which would have to go through a particular process.
Mr van Rooyen reported that in SACC they had a breed council system where a change of standard was voted upon by breeders who were qualified to vote.
Mrs U’Ren explained that in CCCA there was a standards sub-committee made up of representatives of each CCCA member body. The documents were then circulated and ratified at a national meeting. Where an application for recognition of a new breed was involved, if the breed existed in elsewhere, the standard was checked to ensure that it was in accordance with the country or organization of origin.
Mrs Wagner said that WCF breed standards were proposed and brought out by the commissions. The proposals went to the General Assembly for approval.
The President commented that it was interesting that the different organizations had such different procedures in regard to breed standards.
Mrs Morgan Blythe asked which bodies did not have their breed standards on their web sites. It transpired that FIFe and GCCF were currently the only ones. There was some discussion about having standards on web sites and the fact that changes came at different times according to the organization and the procedures for such changes.
The President referred to the Seminar commenting on how good the speakers had been. Mrs Morgan Blythe said that in the past the Open Meeting had had an Agenda so that the public knew what was being discussed. It was an encouragement to people to put their questions
Following the lunch break, Mrs Shingleton replaced Mr Hansson as the GCCF delegate.10. Points for Discussion
a) points from SACC
Mr van Rooyen had submitted a document which had inadvertently not been circulated by the secretary. He then wished to give feedback on the issue raised by SACC the previous year regarding a new WCF club in South Africa. He had had the opportunity to discuss this with Mrs Wagner. His conclusion was that the WCF in Europe were not aware of what was happening with their club in South Africa. He said that he would make sure in future that there was more communication between himself, his executive and that of WCF. He proceeded to read a report on the situation concerning registration of cats in South Africa. (Annex 5) He explained that this only concerned registrations and was nothing to do with other organization holding shows.
Mrs U’Ren asked for clarification about the registration process in South Africa, she wanted to know how cats were registered for shows. Mr van Rooyen said that any registrations were acceptable for shows but because the WCF club was offering free registrations, people were obviously registering with them. Mrs Wagner said that it was not true that the registrations were free. She added that even if they were free she did not think this could be forbidden. She thought there was also a problem in the fact that individuals could be actively involved in management in more than one organization. She felt that decisions could be made which were in conflict with the rules of one organistion and acceptable to another. She suggested it would be better if a rule were to be made whereby an individual could not be an executive of more than one organization. However, she thought that such matters should be solved between the member bodies and not in the WCC.
Mr Reijers agreed with the final remarks of Mrs Wagner. He did not think the purpose of the World Cat Congress was to settle individual conflicts. This had happened in the past and it was decided then that such things would not be dealt with. The matter of South Africa had been brought to the Congress the previous year and it was minuted that, after discussion, the matter had been closed. He felt that if a member had such problems, they should contact the relevant organization and if that member organization did not, in the opinion of the complainant, behave according to the Constitution of WCC, then it could be brought as a complaint. However, the WCC had always said it would respect the differences that existed. He had sympathy for South Africa but felt it was now experiencing what almost every other organization had been experiencing for many years and that was competition, whereby people could choose where they wanted to go. He thought that the message SACC should take home was to try to be much better than the other club and thereby win people back to them.
Mrs Morgan Blythe said that she thought SACC had had competition for some years. Mr Reijers agreed but wanted to state that he found it regrettable that people who did not manage their way within their own federation, as for example a particular judge in South Africa, could then go and found another club under another organization. He thought WCF should consider whether this was how they wanted to run their federation. He found it also strange that the judge in question was still saying he was an SACC judge when he was on the WCF’s list. Mr van Rooyen explained that it was possible to be an official judge for both organizations, because they do not have a rule forbidding it. This ruling would be made, but it would take time.
Mr Reijers referred to a FIFe member judge, who was officiating at the Arnhem show, who had originally qualified as a TICA probational all breed judge and later had qualified as a FIFe judge. FIFe could not take away the qualifications that judge already had as nobody had the right to take away something that a person had personally achieved but, whenever he asked for permission to judge at a TICA show he followed the same procedure as any other FIFe judge asking to officiate at a non-FIFe show. FIFe had a new statute which stated that people could not hold office in two organizations, but he was aware that there could be a problem with Common Law.
The President said that CFA required anybody coming from another association and going into their judging programme to first resign from that association before applying.
Mr van Rooyen said that South Africa and possibly New Zealand and Australia were in a different situation, they worked differently as they had no ambition to become international organizations. He felt that there was some moral obligation towards each other, that an international organization would not go into a country with a national member and destroy that member. He felt that should be considered.
The President said she felt that it was incumbent upon the WCC members in promoting harmony in the cat fancy to help find a vehicle for resolution of such anomalies and if the fact of sitting face to face could facilitate this process, she felt that WCC had fulfilled one of its obligations by providing that vehicle. In her opinion, speaking sociologically in any organization or country, if one wants to get a thing organized, it was usually best to have a dictatorship because fragmentation was not desirable, and centralization was, She personally felt that the younger cat fancies should not be targeted.
Mr Reijers referred to complaints received in Europe on a regular basis about other organizations; one of the big problems in the UK was that TICA organised shows on the same weekend as the FIFe club. This had been mentioned before and Mrs de Villbiss had promised to do something about it. It was one of the things that had been agreed in WCC that every effort would be made not to conflict with show dates of other organizations. Mr Reijers asked that Mrs Fisher would check into this once more with the member in the UK.
Mrs Fisher said that she had to laugh a little as this also went on between the regions in the US. Whilst she sympathized, she felt it was not an uncommon situation. Mr Reijers asked about the distances between shows. Mrs Fisher said they were also talking about people traveling long distances to shows. She gave the example of the fact that for a show that was 450 miles away was a close show. Mr Reijers replied that this was normal within FIFe. There were between 12 and 20 shows every weekend and that was not the problem. FIFe had a rule that there should be 400 kilometres between venues. The problem in the UK was that the TICA clubs there announced a show in one place but when they saw a FIFe show in another town, they then, at the last minute changed their venue to that town. It t was a deliberate move to get the exhibitors from the FIFe club. He said that a joint show might also be possible in the UK. He had suggested it to the FIFe member in the UK. It could be seen also as promoting harmony, but both organizations would have to co-operate. Mrs Morgan Blythe quoted one of the WCC by-laws which said “Member clubs shall respect the dates of shows of other organizations.” The Secretary told Mrs Fisher that she had discussed the situation in the UK with Mrs DeVilbiss. At that time Mr Wood had stated that the FB shows in the UK were not publicised in advance but she had explained to Mrs DeVilbiss that all FIFe shows were on the FIFe web site in advance. Mrs DeVilbiss had then written to Mr Wood asking him to respect the dates and had copied her in on the correspondence.
Mr van Rooyen just wanted the situations in the individual countries to be understood and respected in the interests of the cat fancy. The President said he had brought up an important point in that Mrs Wagner might not have had any idea of what was actually going on in South Africa. She reported on an instance which she had been told about by two CFA judges who had been on the same judging panel as the South African judge in question; he had been passing two week old kittens round the dinner table to show the development of their coats. She found this totally unacceptable from an animal welfare point of view.
Mr Reijers referred to the Minutes from 2008 where it was clearly stated that WCF were unaware of any problems between SACC and its member club. He would have expected that in the following year they would have looked into the situation more closely. There was also always the possibility to write to the other WCC member to make a complaint about one of their judges and because of the WCC affiliation this should be considered.
Mr van Rooyen then raised a second matter which was causing trouble in South Africa. Because of its geographical position, many cats had to be imported. There had been an instance where the money had been paid and the cat had not been shipped. They found it impossible to get any feedback from the relevant organisation. The other instance was of a cat that was shipped to South Africa but it had been impossible to get the registration documents. They had tried to contact the registration body but again could get no feedback. They had the feeling that once a member of one of the other registration bodies is implicated, that body did not want to give an answer. He asked what he could do about this.
The President said that it would be useful to know what process each organization had in place. In CFA there was an Ombudsman who tried to solve things separately from the Protest Committee, which also existed under the Constitution. This behaviour came under the heading of conduct detrimental to the cat fancy. If CFA was approached, they would put it into one of these chains. Another alternative was that if they get no sense from the breeder, they would go ahead and issue papers based on the documentation which the buyer supplied.
Mr van Rooyen spoke of the difficulty of proving something when no contract of sale had ever been entered into. He said that he felt the fact that the money was paid and that could be shown by bank statements should be enough to prove a contract between the two parties. Mr Reijers said that there might be problems legally since it was a contract between two individuals. He added that if a case arose with a FIFe member, he should be written to as General Secretary and FIFe would then contact that member. He pointed out that not every FIFe member was fluent in English and it needed to be established that the member was aware of the situation. It might be possible for FIFe to get a duplicate registration for the cat in question. As had been said at the seminar, it was important for the individual member if entering into a contract, to find out what legislation was ruling in the country.
Mr van Rooyen asked if he could then state that the agreement between those at the meeting would be that his registrar could contact the relevant delegate of the organization. Mr Reijers asked that people would first be absolutely certain that the breeder was a member of the organization to which they were addressing their complaint. Mr van Rooyen then summed up by saying that if no results had been achieved by going through the normal channel of contacting the relevant registrar, it would be in order to contact the organization direct. He asked if each of the WCC members had their procedure available either on a web site or in a Constitution and was told that was the case. He asked if the WCC members would wish to know if there were similar cases in the future. Mrs Shingleton said that as long as the organization was being contacted, she saw no reason for the WCC to be involved. Mrs Morgan Blythe then asked whether, in the event of such a procedure resulting in disciplinary action, the WCC would then wish to be informed. Mr Reijers said that in FIFe it would normally be the member who disciplined one of its members, not FIFe itself. However, on one occasion FIFe had instructed a member to investigate an individual breeder because that person was damaging FIFe and its judges by stating on television that FIFe judges were bribed under the table at a world show because her cat had not won. Such things were not passed over.
Mr van Rooyen spoke of individuals who had been disciplined for animal welfare offences and the fact that many people in South Africa used different organizations to register their cats. The President said that CFA and TICA exchanged information where a breeder had been disciplined on animal welfare issues.
Mr van Rooyen thought that if a breeder had taken money and not delivered either a cat or had withheld documentation; such information should be shared at WCC level with the different members. The President agreed that this could be done.
11. Matters raised at Open Meeting
The President referred to the subject of polydactyl Maine Coons having been raised. Mrs Morgan Blythe had noted three points which she thought should be discussed, she did not think there was a lot which the Congress could act upon. The first was that some governments categorized cats and dogs as a product and whilst it was realized that WCC can in itself do nothing, delegates were asked to make every endeavour to promote the concept of cats having a legal identity. The President considered their pedigree gave them a legal identity. Mr Reijers felt the Congress could not stand above the law. Many animals were treated legally as objects legally. The Secretary thought that in the UK the dog did have a legal identity and it would be possible to fight to get a similar status for the cat. Mr Reijers did not consider that it was his fight. Within FIFe he was concerned only to help their members who register and show cats. If the members brought that request, it would be different. Every country had different laws and it was up to the country to do as it saw fit. The President pointed out that under current legislation in the United States, the owner had become a ‘guardian’ and she explained that this could mean that if an owner, for example, had a cat neutered, he could be sued by another person. The veterinarians were also at risk if, for example, an old animal did not recover from anesthesia. She therefore felt it very dangerous to attempt to give animals the same rights as human beings.
A further point which had been raised was that testing for disease should be mandatory within the member bodies. Several organizations had, in some cases, already made this a requirement. The President pointed that the problem of making something mandatory, was not only to specify, but also to enforce such measures.
Another question raised was whether WCC could work out common ground to present to governments and welfare agencies who were imposing rules of care and welfare of cats. The President thought the Congress might want to consider standards for promoting animal welfare. perhaps the formulation of a letter. which could be used in various places. showing it had the backing of the WCC.
The Secretary said that there had been some discussion about the different descriptions of colour between the organizations. Similarly the nomenclature of breeds and varieties differed. She thought it might be useful if a table of some sort could be set up which could also include the breed policies as these varied between the organizations. Mr Reijers agreed pointing out that an Angora in GCCF was not the same as an Angora, for example, in FIFe. It was one of the reasons that FIFe had managed to change the name of the Javanese breed to that of Oriental Longhair in order to conform to other organizations.
Commenting on the difference in breeding policies the Secretary said that for example a long haired cat from two Exotics would be classified as a Persian in FIFe but not in CFA. The President said that something she had omitted from her report on CFA was that as from 1st May, long haired issue from Exotic could be shown as Persians. They would, however, still be registered as long haired Exotics.
Reverting to the health issues raised, Mr Reijers said that FIFe had a Health & Welfare Commission and also breeding and registration rules. Within those rules FIFe had a lot of matters concerning the health and welfare of cats; the FIFe members were expected to remind their members to adhere to these rules. More would be added in the current year; the health & welfare Commission believed that breeders must do tests on specific breeds, for example there was a new gene in Norwegians as well as several other things. He felt that not many of the questions that had come up at the open meeting actually had relevance to the Congress. He made the exception of the breed descriptions and breeding policies that the Secretary had mentioned as that was something the Congress could usefully produce. He thought that the health & welfare of cats was included in the rules of all the members and the Constitution of the WCC stated that its prime aim was the good of the cat.The secretary mentioned the list of common disqualifiers which was published on the web site and which needed to be updated. She asked the new members to let her have the information so that this could be done.
Mrs Morgan Blytne asked about the outcome of the suggested document on health and welfare to be presented to government and welfare agencies. The President suggested establishing a committee to do this. Mrs Morgan Blythe was thereupon volunteered for this position. Mr Reijers made what he described as an ironic remark concerning a lady who purported to be a cat therapist and who frequently, on seeing cats in distress, would cover their eyes, had come to the open meeting wishing that the welfare of cats should be addressed. He said it should be clear that by joining the Congress, we were there for the welfare of cats. To set up a committee would be to get rid of the problem for this meeting but he would like it minuted that next year a full report was to be given. What that lady wanted to know was something that she should have already known. The Congress members did protect cats which were abused by people. There were rules in place. The President said she was not addressing this particular lady’s concerns. The intent of the Congress was to come up with a letter, which could be used in the event of running into certain situations, which would say that WCC members had rules and were policing themselves in these cases. Mrs Morgan Blythe could do this. Mr Reijers agreed that was another matter. The President wanted an overall statement that could be sent out.
Mrs Morgan Blythe referred to a discussion about the EMS codes. She had observed from that discussion that people had difficulty in translating breed codes. She asked if the meeting should address that point. Mr Reijers said that the registrars all had access to the codes of the other organizations and in Australia the description was written out in full.
Before going on to the next point on the Agenda, Mr Reijers interrupted to say that there was a point on the Agenda for matters raised from Member’s reports/ There had always been a point on the Agenda for reports and those members who did not have a written report could say something at the meeting. FIFe did not have a lot to say but Mrs Lowe might want to say something for NZCF, Mrs Fisher for TICA or Mrs Shingleton for GCCF.
He continued to say that the FIFe the World Show had been in Lisbon, whilst it was one of the smallest World Shows FIFe had had in many years with 700 cats, considering the geographical location this had been good and it had been a nice show. There were many new applications to join FIFe from all over the world which were being considered. There were various new plans to restructure the board and the commissions of FIFe which would of course have to be ratified by the General Assembly which would be held in Malmo, Sweden. The next World Show would be in Switzerland with a maximum of 1400 cats allowed in the venue. The Maltese member had left FIFe owing Euro1200. It was understood they had re-formed under another name and joined TICA.
Mrs Lowe said that she had said quite a bit at the Open Meeting. NZCF had also taken on the case of the solid coloured Ragdoll with the provisional name of New Zealand Velvet Dolls; they were going through the process for preliminary recognition. The Foreign Whites were now being shown as Siamese. Regarding pet shops, there was a charter in place for selling cats in pet shops which was policed but it was only with one particular chain of shops, there were requirements concerning vaccination, follow up etc. It had taken approximately 18 months to negotiate but it seemed to be working. Position descriptions had been drawn up for all members of the Executive Council and they all had to be accountable for everything they did. Accountability was high on their priorities and they were striving for a more professional image. There was a small amount of competition in NZ and some people did dual register. The only mandatory requirement was that their judges may not judge for the other organization neither could officers hold posts in another organization.
Mr Reijers moved to have the subject of the solid Ragdolls, whatever name they were given, dealt with under Any Other Business.
12. WCC Meeting 2010
Mrs U’Ren reported that the whole weekend would be hosted by the Feline Control Council of Victoria. They had set up a substantial sub-committee with some interesting people with a lot of expertise. The plans which had been worked pointed to a fabulous event. The venue that had been selected was the Flemington Racecourse, which was where the Melbourne Cup was run. It was about 15 minutes by car from Melbourne airport which would make it very easy for delegates and also for exhibitors at the show. There was excellent accommodation available with various units, hotels, motels etc. and was also very close to Melbourne city. Whilst it was costing them an arm and a leg, Royal Canin had stepped forward with a generous donation. They stipulated that they were the sole sponsors of food products but there might be other sponsors for things like litter. At this stage she expected the Royal Canin sponsorship to be in the region of AU$25000 plus products. CCCA would be raising the other AU$25000 as they were looking at a budget of AU$50,000. to allow them to stage the Seminar, a two day show and the Business Meeting of the Congress. The show would have four rings and they were hoping that all delegates would be able to participate as judges. Because of quarantine regulations the show would be restricted to Australian cats or New Zealand cats subject to the agricultural permits. They had several events planned for entertainment. A glossy presentation had been sent to Royal Canin and a copy would be sent to the Secretary for her records. The date for the Open Meeting would be Friday 30th April and the first day of the show would be 1st May with the second day on 2nd May. The first day would consist of the Australian Group 1, which was all longhaired breeds, and Group 2 which were Siamese and Orientals. The second day would be all the other shorthaired breeds and some household pets. The finals would also be held on the second day. The Business Meeting would be on Monday,3rd May.
Mrs Morgan Blythe asked when Easter fell in 2010 and was told it was 4thd and 5th April. She was thinking about local participation and wondered if the Friday was a public holiday. She was told it was not.
Reacting to a comment from Mr Reijers, Mrs U’Ren asked that the delegates would let the Secretary know, as soon as possible, who would be representing their organizations and also if any other colleagues would be traveling with them. They would also ask if there was any possibility of any of the judge delegates going either a week before or staying a week after so that they might be shared with a show in another part of Australia, within both CCCA and ACF, as well as NZCF.
Mrs U’Ren promised to keep the delegates posted and said that a tremendous amount of publicity had already been done and they were hoping to have a truly wonderful event.
The Secretary asked Mrs U’Ren if she expected to get a reasonable amount of people to attend the Seminar/Open Meeting. Mrs U’Ren thought they would as the people who had shown interest would be centred around the event. They had also advertised in Southeast Asia and they had visitors coming from there from both the CFA and TICA organizations as well; she thought they would get a considerable number of people through. People had had advance warning and would plan on a long weekend.Any Other Business
Mrs U’Ren said she would like to discuss the issues that were contained in an e-mail which she had sent to the Secretary for circulation (Annex 6) regarding possible recognition of three different breeds/varieties. This had arisen because of the exchange of cats with New Zealand. CCCA had been asked whether they were considering recognizing solid colour Ragdolls, cinnamon Burmese and polydactyl Maine Coons. CCCA did not recognize any of these varieties currently. Some members were very interested, the Ragdoll breeders had been upset and then the suggestion had come to call them Ragamuffins. Burmese breeders did not want to know about the cinnamon – the pedigrees submitted were actually of cats with one Mandalay parent. The polydactyl Maine Coon was a major issue because it contravened their list of recognized faults. There was a further consideration of health and Mrs U’Ren suspected that if they were to recognize them the government would be against it.
Mr Reijers spoke about the three varieties. Within the Burmese in FIFe there was a restriction to allow only the 10 recognised colours which currently existed, as well as forbidding outcrosses. He therefore did not see how cinnamon Burmese could happen. It would be up to the Burmese breeders but if that was what they wanted in the future, they would first have to change the Breeding and Registration rules and then meet all the requirements to recognize a new colour variety. That would then have to be accepted by the General Assembly. Polydactyls had also been discussed extensively and it was not possible.
Regarding solid Ragdolls, it had been decided, but needed ratification, to call the solid cats Ragamuffins because a very academic reply had been sent from the Breeding and Registration Commission to a member who had registered such a cat as not recognized longhair with the target breed of Ragdoll. The breeders who had these solid cats would like them to be called Rainbow Dolls but FIFe as well as all other members had a restriction in the Ragdoll standard which precluded anything other than blue eyes. He said that he had been contacted by somebody in the Netherlands who he had invited to come to the Open Meeting. This lady had imported a cat from the United States (TICA) and it said on its pedigree that it was a Ragdoll with green eyes and this fact was a major concern for FIFe and FIFe was not sure if they could trust TICA pedigrees. FIFe felt it necessary to trust the pedigrees of those members of the WCC as being the breed they purport to be. According to TICA’s own standards a black cat with green eyes could not be a Ragdoll. The club was waiting for a reply from TICA, whether a mistake was made in the office or what had happened. Somebody in Europe could order a Ragdoll and then get a black cat with green eyes and then bring it to a show, thinking they had a Ragdoll. He did not understand what TICA was doing with this. Mrs Fisher said she would look into it.
Mrs U’Ren asked what outcross was used in the Ragdoll to get the solid colour. That was not known as the ones in Europe had been imported and some people in Europe had imported Ragamuffins from CFA and others had imported solid Ragdolls from TICA as well as from other independent organizations. Mrs Wagner said that some people had asked to outcross to household pets but WCF did not permit that. Mrs Lowe said that the ones in New Zealand were all imported with TICA registrations. Mr Reijers had also seen some pointed ones as CFA recognized Ragamuffin in that variety. He said within FIFe they would probably go into the Ragdoll breed via the novice class. He thought the Ragdoll breeders would be well advised to keep that possibility open since in the future, they may need outcrosses for health reasons. The President said they were not recognized for championship status but for registration purposes. The majority of the ones seen on the bench were tabby and white.
To become a recognised breed in CFA an application had to be made and accepted by the board, the first step was to Miscellaneous status, the next step was provisional. In the interim a standard was being worked out, at present disqualifications were poor health or condition, crossed eyes, visible tail kink, polydactylism or pointed colours.
Mrs Morgan Blythe asked whether within the different organizations that recognized Ragamuffins, they had a different coat standard from the Ragdolls. She foresaw the same problem with this breed as there was for example with the Bombay, that is that the standard was different in the organizations. Mr Reijers said that if the FIFe General Assembly decided to call a breed by a certain name, then that is what it would be called. He said hat he failed to see the logic of a solid coloured Ragdoll. He said there was a wonderful breed which came out of Thailand, it had blue eyes and it was called a Siamese. As soon as some people had a Siamese accidentally mated by a housecat and some moggies with beautiful green eyes were born, those people thought why not, they look elegant, let’s start to breed Orientals. Some people had put in housecats and other breeds to get other colours. It was also decided that this solid cat with another eye colour would not be called a Siamese, but an Oriental. FIFe is very illogical in this, it had a dominant white gene in Siamese and Oriental which caused in FIFe a new breed to be called Seychellois, which was a pointed cat with white. They had now accepted the Neva Masquerade which was a recessive gene on a solid cat. In his opinion that cat should be called a Siberian colourpoint because it was a recessive gene. They would of course have a different standard for coat because a pointed cat would never have the same coat as a solid cat.
Mrs Shingleton said that GCCF had just received an application to recognize the name of Ragamuffin and there were several cats being imported from America. There was no indication for cinnamon Burmese but they were working on cinnamon Asians. They were not in favour of polydactyl Maine Coons and would not register them.
Mrs Fisher said that Ragamuffin breeders had gone to TICA several years before and were rejected by the board; they had not applied again. A vote had been taken within the past year on polydactyl Maine Coons, the breed committee had been polled and had resoundingly rejected them. Mrs Fisher also confirmed that they could be registered but not shown.
CFA did not recognize solid coloured Ragdolls but they did have Ragamuffins in miscellaneous status and it would take some time to progress. Most of the cats seen on the bench were either tabbies or tabby with white. CFA did not have cinnamon in Burmese. Polydactyl Maine Coons were not recognized or registered but they did appear in household pet classes.
The President added one of the main premises used when talking on Animal welfare versus animal rights and the cat fancy policing itself, was that the cat fancy was one place that, apart from spaying and neutering, did not allow any surgical alterations – this did happen in the dog fancy. She thought that if the fancy started promoting animals with extra digits which could cause the animal discomfort then it would get into difficulties with its own standards. She then referred to the breeder in the States who had bred polydactyl to polydactyl for several generations and had developed some kangaroo-like animals that she called ‘twisties’ which hopped around on their back legs. She thought that was just the aberration of a sick woman. Mr Reijers said that the Congress had strongly condemned that in 2001 or 1999.
Mrs Lowe distributed the latest New Zealand club’s magazine and referred to the cinnamon Burmese and Mandalay programme. They had reached the third generation in the programme but there were very few of them. They were not given championship status but only provisional recognition. The cinnamon Burmese had been given a breed code. Mrs U’Ren said that CCCA had received a pedigree saying the cat was a cinnamon Burmese with one Mandalay parent, Mrs Lowe said it would be a cinnamon Mandalay. NZCF had concerns about the integrity of pedigrees which was one of the reasons Polydactyl Maine Coons had been accepted; a number of such cats had been exported from New Zealand with normal Maine Coon pedigrees where polydactyl cats were not identified and the reason they had been accepted was that it was now a mandatory requirement for the breeders to identify such kittens. The code (p) would be carried in perpetuity. Referring to the solid colour Ragdolls, Mrs Lowe said the New Zealand Velvet Dolls were up for review in December 2009. They were given a year to be shown and assessed and for the pedigrees to be looked at.
Mr Reijers said he wasn’t an expert on polyactyls but appreciated that New Zealand was independent and had the right to do as it wished. The argument he had been given that some of the original cats showed this feature, he saw as being indicative of cats breeding in a specific area with a limited gene pool which led to a genetic defect, Such a defect is not desirable because it does not fit with a general description of a healthy cat. The president commented that Mr Reijers had said on one occasion that not every cat that is born is a show cat. Mr Reijers concurred and added that it wasn’t necessary to breed everything just because it was possible.
Mr van Rooyen said that they did not have polydactyl Maine Coons but that might come up in the future. At the moment they did not register them. One solid colour Ragdoll had been imported and was being used in a breeding programme but they did not accept Ragamuffins.
Mrs Wagner said that WCF had Ragamuffins and they had been recognized at their last General Assembly. They were very beautiful and were well accepted. They did not have cinnamon Burmese, apart from the Asians. The definitely did not accept polydactyl Maine Coons.
Mrs Morgan Blythe summed up by saying that at present no organization fully recognized solid coloured Ragdolls and at present there was more than one name for them. She added that Ragamuffin were a distinctive breed separate from the Ragdoll. There was some discussion on the different names and it was pointed out that the WCC could not do anything about that, but at least they could be aware. Mrs U’Ren would also like to know the accepted outcrosses. The President said that in CFA the allowable outcrosses for the Ragamuffin were Ragdoll or Persian but kittens born after 15th July 2006 may only have Ragamuffin parents.
In FIFe there were no breeding instructions once a preliminary code had been accepted. After an application for probational status was submitted, the Commission would look at the breed for viability. Mr Reijers added that this was not a new situation. Sometimes he thought it might be good to accept what is possible, but on the other hand the organizations are saying that they breed pedigree cats so what then did ‘breed’ mean? In FIFe there was a pointed cat accepted as a pointed British and this could be applied to any breed but he asked why this would be done, would one want a pointed Maine Coon for example. The President felt there had to be some standardisation
The President then spoke about the terminology used in CFA in breeding policies. The term ‘natural breed’ was used and it indicated how the cat originated, not what had been done with it since. There were basically breeds like the Siamese, as opposed to established breeds such as the Birman, then there were the mutations such as Rex and then the hybrids such as Orientals. She had felt at odds with the speaker at the open meeting who had asserted that nothing was a natural breed once it had been domesticated. She asked if any other organizations used the term. Mrs Fisher said TICA also used the term.
Mr Reijers said that he thought everybody knew, and it was written in the FIFe standard, that the origin of a Maine Coon was that of a farmhouse cat in the State of Maine and it was a breed that was found there and adapted. Just as we all know that the Abyssinian did not come from Abyssinia nor the Singapura from Singapore, but we all use the term ‘natural’ breed from time to time. His problems were FIFe related in as much as there had been suggestions to split the existing very large shorthaired group; one suggestion is to take the solid cats, the elegant cats and the mutated cats. He is then terrified of what some people in Germany might do to this when there were already problems with cats displaying physical mutations. Another problem was that exhibitors argued that a ‘natural’ cat did not need bathing. This problem was rather less than in the past as exhibitors had learned to bath their cats for a show.
The President asked about allowable outcrosses on some of the developing breeds, whether outcrossing to domestics was allowed and for how long. She said it was an issue raised by the animal rights lobby who argued that if the pedigree cats were so important, why did breeders also keep cats that were randomly bred. Mr Reijers said that FIFe had no specific allowances for outcrossing with housecats but specific permission could be given. Mrs Wagner said that in WCF the Scottish Fold was recommended to outcross to the British. Mrs Morgan Blythe said that In ACF this would come under their breeding By-laws and would be a matter of ‘on appication’ for an experimental programme to create something very specific, for example if somebody wanted to create a new line of Australian Mists and applied to use a domestic cat, that would be permissible under the rules. If a Devon Rex breeder made a convincing argument, that might also be allowed but health considerations would be the primary objective. Mr van Rooyen said they had two breeds that allowed domestics; the La Perm and the Munchkin and they required that the domestic should be registered if it was to be used for breeding. There are certain steps to be followed including being checked by a veterinarian for good health and having the colour confirmed. Mrs Lowe said the breeds allowing it had review dates of December 20009 and these were Devon Rex, Sphynx and La Perm. Mr Reijers said that if the Devon Rex breeders applied for permission to use domestics in FIFe for health reasons, they could apply to their national member who could give permission, but it was normally only for one mating and the progeny would have to be assessed as to whether they could be registered for breeding as Devon Rexes but this was not happening on a large scale.
Mrs Morgan Blythe said that ACF, and she was sure other organistions also, had adopted breeds which originated in the US where a different system was operated. The original standards had been adopted and the use of words such as penalise and fault were retained. She asked TICA and CFA exactly what was meant by ‘penalise’ and ‘fault’ and how it correlated to ‘withhold certificate’ and ‘withhold challenge’.
The President took a Birman as an example for ‘penalise’ which would apply if there were a small runner from one of the gloves or boots. If the runner had colour in it, it was then a disqualifier. In other words something that could be penalized was a fault that could be lived with but not encouraged. Mrs Shingleton said that GCCF had a list of withholding faults and for those any certificates, or in the case of a kitten a first prize, had to be withheld. Mrs Morgan Bythe wanted to know how to apply this to a different system such as FIFe’s.
Mr Reijers asked how it was done in Australia because the way that the President had described was exactly as FIFe practiced it. In Ragdolls for example, white on the ears was a fault but if he had two Ragdolls, one with white on the ears but otherwise good type and the other one had bad type but no white on the ears, he would prefer the one with the white.
Mr van Rooyen said that in SACC the first place was awarded together with a certificate, but the certificate could be withheld if the judge thought the cat was not good enough.
In CFA it was not possible to give a first without a certificate so if the judge felt that the cat had insufficient merit for a certificate it would be awarded a “NA/IM” (no award insufficient merit) and if an exhibit was awarded three of these, it would not be shown further.
Mrs Shingleton raised the subject which had been discussed earlier in the day, as to how the WCC could improve its image and make it more widely known. She wondered if it would be a start in promoting the name for the member organizations to have adverts in their show catalogues. She meant particularly the big shows. She appreciated that this would cost money. She wondered whether WCC could have an advert designed, which could go into catalogues and whether Royal Canin might help with the design. Perhaps the Congress would have enough money to help each organization with the cost of the advert. She thought the Congress was in a difficult position because it was unable to do a great deal but it did receive money from RC and perhaps if some advertising were done, it were possible there would be feed back. She felt the Congress needed to be more active. The annual meeting was very nice but it was also very expensive for the individual organizations to send a delegate. This was currently particularly bad because of the global financial situation.
Mr Reijers thought this was a wonderful idea and Royal Canin might well be happy with it also as they could be in the same advert. The President also agreed.
Mr Reijers said that also in FIFe the financial aspect was very relevant as FIFe had to budget for attendance at the Congress and the question was asked as to what the organization got out of being a member. He felt that in the first place the fact that the members got together and talked was very positive because if that did not happen, then the organizations had nothing. At this point he wanted to raise another matter. The Treasurer had informed the meeting that the cost for the current meeting and compensation of the delegates was rather low and it would be a lot lower than the following year. However, In 2010 there would be at least 6 people who had to travel a long distance and even if the basic Euro 500 which each organization had to pay for its delegate’s travel were maintained, there would still be a much larger amount for WCC to pay. This year Mundikat had also been able to use the delegates as judges which had helped enormously. He wanted the meeting to bear in mind the fact that in the next year the meeting would inevitably cost Euro 3000 more than in the current year.
The President pointed out, however, that Delta Airlines were doing massive reductions on fares although it was not possible to book over twelve months ahead.
Mr van Rooyen explained that the cost was one of South Africa’s biggest issues as they were so far from the rest of the world. He had told his members that the Congress was going to be held in South Africa in 2011 and they would then understand what it could do for them. He supported the weekend, he thought to have a seminar such as had been held on the Saturday with people able to ask questions would be very valuable for the South African members. He agreed with the need to advertise and do what marketing was possible.
Mrs U’Ren also supported Mrs Shingleton’s idea and wondered if a uniform advert could be drawn up which could be circulated to all members for use in catalogues or other advertising media. CCCA had a member who might be able to design such an advert and submit it for approval. She added that the publicity they had been doing for the 2010 meeting was very effective and people were now using the term WCC freely.
Mrs Fisher thought the idea was wonderful but, to be contrary, she said that it then begged the question of what the WCC actually did. It went back to the question of what was being marketed. Was it the fact that once a year an educational seminar was put on, or that once a year everybody got together in some wonderful, exotic place and talked, or was it we marketing the fact that the group could actually do something to promote and enlarge the cat fancy because, she added, if the cat fancy did not grow, it would die. She suspected that if the total number of registrations over the past ten years were pooled at the moment, it would be found that it had gone down. If that were the case, then it was an issue of survival. Therefore the group needed to know what was being marketed, was it a case of trying to preserve the cat fancy, to market pedigree cats and let people know that the pedigree cat was there and it was great and wonderful? She considered that nothing had been done in this meeting except talk about things that restrict the cat fancy rather than about things that grow it. She loved the idea of marketing the WCC but she wanted to be able to identify the purpose. Mrs Shingleton agreed and said that was exactly what the meeting should be talking about.
Mrs Fisher referred to the list of things which Mr Reijers had quoted from the Minutes of 2007. Some of those things were to the point but had not been pursued. The President interjected that whilst she absolutely agreed, there had to be more than one person working on it. Mrs Fisher agreed and said that there had to be a process which took ideas and projects from the meeting and carried them forward. Whilst it was easy to sit and make plans, it was something else to take the responsibility and get something done. This was greeted with applause from the onlookers.
Mr Reijers said that it was also necessary to do something for Royal Canin who has supported the Congress with generous sponsorship. This sponsorship had been negotiated by John Bythe when he was president. He also wanted to acknowledge that the Treasurer had re-negotiated the extended sponsorship when the existing agreement ran out. He thought that in an advert the mention of their name as partners with the WCC would be sufficient The other thing was that in the years he had attended the meeting he had always wondered why he was there, but he concluded it was better to be there talking together than not being a part of it. He pointed out that through the years TICA had not brought proposals except for many years ago when Larry Paul had brought one. On the other hand, ACF came with four proposals and of those, three were already covered in the existing rules. He would like a mechanism for checking proposals on receipt. However, he entirely agreed with Mrs Fisher that as yet there had been no discussion on what would or could be done. However, he thought that the members could at least be told that the delegates were sitting together talking. He thought that fifteen years ago it would have been unthinkable that the President of CFA and the President of TICA would sit at one table discussing matters jointly or that a TICA judge would judge at a CFA show or a CFA judge at a TICA show. That he thought had been accomplished and should not be forgotten. He considered that the challenges for the WCC were limited because they were different in each country with an appeal to different people. Every year the Secretary asked the meeting to identify something it could do and he found that extremely difficult because any decisions would have to be agreed by the individual members. He did not see what could be done concretely.
The President said that from this meeting there was a committee of one to draft a statement which all members could use in their own theatres of operation. Secondly, she did not see why there could not be more committees. Royal Canin, who had excellent design facilities, would probably be happy to design an advert and might not charge the Congress. She felt that action had been taken in the past, for example, a letter had been sent to the Australian authorities asking them to enforce their own rules on the shipping of cats to Asia. These actions were outside the individual organizations.
Mrs Fisher said that it seemed to her generally that with the illustrious brain power in the room, there must be ways to find of promoting cats, be it through education, through marketing or whatever. The Animal Rights lobby was on target and it was a very emotive subject. She thought that the cat fancy should be out there talking about the wonderful cats and breeds that they were trying to preserve and just market that. If more people could be encouraged to join, that was a way of preserving the fancy.
Mr Reijers said that when he judged at a CFA show for the first time, he read all the standards and made notes on them. When he first attended a WCC meeting he also read all the previous Minutes, he suggested that Mrs Fisher should also read through the Minutes and she would see that everything that had been said at the current meeting was all a repetition of what had been said before. He said there was one person present who was doing all the work, writing the Minutes, correcting all the rules and organizing the By-laws and that was the Secretary. Decisions had been taken and were not put into effect. He thought that everybody should do their share.The Secretary referred to Mrs Shingleton’s idea, she said that Royal Canin had asked her over the last two years about the aim for the year. They asked if there was anything they could help with. She had problems in replying to this as she did not know what the aim was. She was in a difficult position as far as Royal Canin were concerned because they would like to see something coming out of the meetings, they were genuinely keen for WCC to achieve something and to be more widely known. She was sure it would be possible to approach them about the advert. The other thing she did not understand and which had been discussed at the Open meeting was backing up the health issues. She could see no reason why the WCC could not introduce itself at EU level as a body representing the major cat organizations of the world. She realized that she was only speaking for Europe, but felt that this was a large and heavily populated area although it would be different in Australia and the United States. It was known that the legislators would put through rules and many of these things the cat bodies already had in place. She felt that the WCC could approach the official bodies to make them aware of the steps the fancy were taking themselves.
Mr van Rooyen said that if the members did not know what WCC did, then it was the delegates fault. They tried to put something in their magazine about what had been done in the current meeting. If it were possible for somebody to produce something that could be used in Newsletters, that would be very helpful.
Mrs Wagner referred to the list of aims from 2007 which had been forgotten, she proposed that it should be sent out to the members. Mr Reijers pointed out that it was in the Minutes and also those minutes were on the web site. She agreed but thought it could be sent out again. She also thought that more preparation should be made for the meeting, not just waiting to see if proposals arrived but setting some points from the list of aims and see if somebody could find ways to achieve something on a particular point.
Mrs Fisher said she was going to propose that a small group, of which she was willing to be one, should come up with a proposal for Royal Canin for how they might support the WCC in some printing or marketing areas.
The President said that she hoped in future meetings there would be no more snide comments or lambasting of any ideas which came up. She did not think such attitudes were conducive to problem solving or to promoting harmony in the cat fancy. She thought that everybody should act as an adult and respect other people’s views and, where necessary, pick up the telephone and communicate. She stressed the need to work together.
Mrs U’Ren thought the situation existed because the Congress could not dictate to any of the organizations and had to respect each organisation’s procedures. It was a recommendatory body only. Would it be worthwhile working out minimum guidelines as to how clerks, or judges or stewards are trained? Was it possible to get some sort of uniformity even in a minor form?
Mr Reijers thought that the general membership did not really read and take in very much. The Minutes had been available for several years and he thought that if anybody had really read them, they would have asked what had happened to certain ideas which had been voiced. They perceive the WCC as it presented itself. FIFe presented it as a serious body, it was on the Agenda at the GA, there was a budget, and there was a link on the website. He thought that all that could be done was to bring out the cat fancy in a positive way.
Mrs U’Ren said that was why she had made her comments because there was such diversity amongst the members, she was trying to find things that were in common. The more advertising which was done, the more members would ask what the Congress had achieved. She would like to be able to tell them something had come out of the meeting.
Mrs Wagner said that something concrete was that all the WCF cattery names were published on their web site. She though it would be very nice if other organizations could also do this so that duplication of names could be avoided.
Mr Reijers said that the FIFe names were also on the web site. He added that WCF had brought a proposal in the past about having cattery names compared between the members but this had proved to be impossible. Mr van Rooyen liked the idea for new prefix applications.
Mrs Lowe was thinking about why she was at the meeting. She had been sent by her organization to see what WCC actually did. The first thing she noted was that it was an élitist group. Each person was a judge, with the exception of Mrs Wagner, and she then posited that the budget set for the delegate to attend the congress was based on the fact that the person would be able to judge at the show in conjunction with the Congress meetings. She thought perhaps the make-up of the WCC needed to be looked at. All delegates were busy people with limited ability to contribute to an organization such as the WCC. She thought the delegates should think beyond the little square they were in. Having listened to what had been said, she thought that the consensus around the table was that they had come to a meeting which was an absolute waste of time, had cost a huge amount of money and the group were not very proactive. That was her summing up of what she had heard and she thought it really sad. She repeated that the organisation was élitist. She might suggest that another person should be the delegate the following year but if that person was not a judge, the organization could not afford to send them. Mr Reijers understood what Mrs Lowe meant but said there was already a major improvement from the subsidy WCC gave to the delegates. He did not think her message should be that the WCC was nothing because for instance when Mrs Wagner had made the suggestion over the cattery names, Mr van Rooyen had found it to be a good idea. In FIFe it could only be agreed without a proposal to the FIFe General Assembly. He thought that their members would also not like the idea of asking for the approval of the World Cat Congress in order to get a cattery name.
Mrs Shingleton said that in their organization also, the Executive committee was nearly all made up of judges, as well as the other committees. This was, she said, because it was usually the busiest people who did the work and the judges were some of the busiest. The younger people had to work and had families and one was left with an aging group. All the cat fancies were in a similar situation. People were also unwilling to do the work required in a position.
Mr van Rooyen said that also in SACC the workers were the judges and on his Committee they were all judges. The cost of sending a delegate to the WCC was an issue but they made plans and managed to get sponsors for that purpose.
Mrs Wagner agreed that it was the older people who were working on the clubs and there was a decline in numbers. She thought an education programme for school children could be a good idea and to seek to get co-operation with schools and universities because children at the age of ten and eleven have animal welfare on their curriculum and at these times they asked for companion animals. It might be wise to find co-operation with schools in all countries.
The Secretary responding to what Mrs Lowe had said, pointed out that each organization now only had to contribute Euro 500 to their delegate’s travel expenses. Mrs Lowe said she understood that but the meeting had not understood what she was getting at. She was trying to express that the membership at home saw the WCC as an élitist group of judges. Speaking about the education idea, she said in New Zealand they had an organization called ASET, which was Animals and Schools Education Trust. NZCF was a major sponsor of this organization. The organization had a full education programme for cats, dogs, and fish. guinea pigs, rabbits and birds. They had published pamphlets which go into the schools and set up an education programme on an annual basis.
Mr Reijers said that his membership had the attitude that it could do no harm to take part in the World Cat Congress. Regarding education, he said this had been done all over FIFe. He also said that if he did this in his home town, he would promote his own club and federation.Mrs Fisher reverting to a comment made by Mr Reijers earlier, said that the whole notion of bringing everybody together was a really god thing and an indicator of the success of the WCC was the fact that everybody was there. This should not be discounted. She had been listening to all that had been said and she thought the last half hour or so had been the best. She had noted things to consider further. Regarding the idea of being involved in education, she said they had resources all over the world which could be used in some way. She suggested publishing lists on the web site of educational material available for people to make use of. Another good point had been to Approach Royal Canin with a view to marketing the concept of pedigree cats. Also getting materials which could go to legislative bodies could be useful. She had a phrase in her head which she repeated to the meeting: “Tradition is defined as just because it’s always been done that way, doesn’t mean it is not incredibly stupid.” So, she concluded, tradition had its place but the challenge to everybody both in WCC and in the individual organizations was to remember that phrase. She thought it necessary to think what it was that the fancy’s customers wanted that was obviously were not provided since the fancy was not growing.
Mrs Lowe said she was going back home and would ask their membership and their executive what they wanted and what they expected of WCC. She would report back. The President thought that a good idea. Mrs Lowe moved that all delegates should go back to their member organizations and discuss the future aims of the WCC and Mrs Fisher seconded the proposal.
Mr Reijers supported it. He went on to say that when he went to the European Union he went to represent FIFe but he always included a section on the World Cat Congress but if he went to the TICA web site, he found no reference to the World Cat Congress. He asked if it could be put on their web site for their members to see. He said that the meeting hosted by TICA had been a good one with a fantastic seminar and he would like to see TICA promoting the WCC on their web site.
The motion tabled by Mrs Lowe was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.
The President spoke of the need for sub-committees or committees to be appointed to deal with specific matters. She would put some more ideas in writing later.
The President then expressed her enormous gratitude to Mundikat for hosting the weekend. She knew it was not an easy task and she had been honoured to judge at their show. She thanked the delegates for their attendance and officially closed the meeting at 17.00.
Ms Pam DelaBar (President of WCC, delegate of CFA and in the chair)
Mrs Lesley Morgan Blythe (Delegate of ACF Inc.)
Mrs Cheryle U’Ren (Delegate of CCC of A)
Mr Eric Reijers (Delegate of FIFe)
Mr John Hansson (Delegate of GCCF)
Mrs Betty Shingleton (Substitute Delegate of GCCF)
Mrs Chris Lowe (Delegate of NZCF)
Mr Jan van Rooyen (Delegate of SACC)
Mrs Vickie Fisher (Delegate of TICA)
Mrs Ortrun Wagner (Delegate of WCF)
Note: Underlined portions indicate actions to be taken