Amend Reg Rules 33.2, 33.9. (Stop combining of Structural Mutations) - Dany Rationale: I am proposing a couple of rule changes with the intention to stop the creation of new breeds based on combining structural mutations simply because it’s possible. Too often the intentions behind these “designer breeds” are solely focused on the money that they will be able to generate with no or too little regards to the physical well being of their creations. Way too little is known about the side effects that the combination of structural mutations may cause. In the best interest of the cats we have to stop this practise. The following breeds are already considered Experimental in TICA: the Dwelf (Munchkin / Sphynx / American Curl); the Kinkalow (Munchkin / American Curl) and the Scottish Kilt (Munchkin / Scottish Fold). Just because their cats are listed as Experimental by TICA, many breeders are promoting their cats as being recognized and/or registered by TICA. This reflects very badly on us. If these breeds advance to Championship, this will definitely be the time when I stop being a TICA judge. Amendments: The following are my suggestions for rule changes – additions in red, deletions crossed out: Registration Rules 33.2 Classification of Registrations. A breed shall be classified for registration as one of the following: 33.2.1 Domestic Hybrid Breed - A breed developed from a deliberate cross between two existing domestic breeds, incorporating characteristics of both parental breeds into the new breed. Breeds that have a structural mutation as breed characteristic must not be used as source breeds. 33.2.2 Domestic x Non-Domestic Source Species Hybrid Breed – A breed being developed by means of deliberate foundation crosses between domestic cats and a single non-domestic source species. The domestic cats used must not have a have a structural mutation. Add a new registration rule: Structural mutations are “owned” by the first breed establishing championship status that displays that structural mutation (such as folded ears = Scottish Fold, short legs = Munchkin, curled ears = American Curls, etc.) New breeds may only use this structural mutation with permission (majority vote of the breed section) of the breed/breed group owning it. 33.9 New Traits of a Championship Breed. 303.9 Trait: A visible distinguishing characteristic. 33.9.1 Any new trait or traits of a Championship Breed, not recognized for competition in the kitten, cat or alter class of that breed, that is not a structural mutation (such as, but not limited to, folded ears, short legs etc.) may be exhibited in the New Traits Class. New Traits Class cats appear in the catalog and judges' books and judges include these cats in judging fees. Add to definitions: Structural mutation: Appearance of the skeletal and/or cartilage expression different from the average domestic cat such as, but not limited to, folded ears, shortened legs, shortened or absent tail, etc. The difference in expression may or may not affect the physical abilities of the cat. Rationale : The Munchkin is being used/over used extensively to create “designer breeds.” In addition to the previously-mentioned Experimental breeds there are more new “breeds” that are using the Munchkin: Bambino/Minskin (w/Sphynx), Genetta (w/Bengal), Skookum (w/LaPerm), Lambkin (w/Selkerk Rex) and the Napoleon (w/Persian Breed Group), which is planning to apply for advancement to Championship status at the Annual. Rules Committee Comments: (BT) While I understand and sympathize with what Monika is trying to accomplish with this rule change it basically defeats the whole purpose of the new traits class and would only allow new colors to be accepted in a breed. (PS) I have to agree – it also potentially stops the progression of those experimental or preliminary new breeds already accepted by TICA that include mutations in their standard, if they are no longer able to use source breeds with those mutations in their programs. While I’m not a fan of introducing mutations simply to create a ‘new breed’, I think each new breed needs to be evaluated by the TICA BOD on an individual basis as to whether it is truly a unique breed, or simply a variation of an existing breed. (EC) Personally I believe that it is detrimental to existing breeds to have "their" mutation used to create "sub-breeds". I have forwarded this to the Genetics Committee, because I believe that it is an issue that needs the opinion of that committee as well. IMO, the majority of our membership would love to see this type of protection for their breeds. (MW) I am in full agreement with Bobbie's comments. I think that the proposals are too restrictive in their present form. (TJ) I think Monica's rule change is properly written and I think it needs to go on to the board for discussion. This is a real "hot topic" right now. I believe it deserves the attention of the board. I know that I am hearing more and more from people that that they are kind of tired of the experimental breeds and people being able to say they are registered with TICA when they are just an experimental breed. Maybe what we need to look at is a change in words or semantics, if you will...instead of saying that they are registered with TICA, what about being recorded with TICA just for tracking purposes. I think that would go a long way with a lot of breeders. (BT) We have talked about that more than once....that the Experimental Breeds are not an accepted breed but are being tracked....and in fact, a breed is not accepted as a breed until Registration Only when the breed name and breed are accepted by the Board. Maybe that is the way to go. (AB) I know I get a lot of questions about this outside of Rules. People do not understand that breeds are not fully accepted until they reach championship. They try to misuse this confusion to get new breeds registered for championship using the fact that we register them. (NP) I think it would be simple to issue a Certificate of Record rather than a Certificate of Registration. If the breed moves on to Registration Only, then a Certificate of Registration can be issued. Because at that time, a breed name is approved and instead of EXP+birthdate a breed abbreviation will be assigned and used with the birthdate as in normal registrations. (BT) I think Nancy's idea has merit and should be considered. It was never the intent of the experimental registry to suggest an experimental was a breed. The name is approved by the Board when the breed is accepted for Registration Only. Before that happens they basically have no status in TICA. (SA) I agree with Nancy that the Certificate of Record is a more appropriate term, .