PDA

View Full Version : The BVA/KC Scheme. A wasted feedback exercise



Margaret C
12th April 2011, 11:49 PM
Up till now all Offiicial Schemes have published full results.

In the case of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme the Kennel Club proposed only the name of the dog and its age at scanning should be published.

UK Cavalier Club members have been sent a paper asking for feedback on this partial publication proposal.

There are two options 'agree' or 'disagree' and a comments box.
The option for 'full publication' of results and for 'no publication' were not made available as options.

Today I sent the following email to the BVA & KC with copies to the Cavalier Club and some of the animal welfare organisations.

"As a breeder and Cavalier Club member, I am writing to register my concern about the the attached 'feedback paper' that has been sent out by the Club.

The paper sets out the proposal for partial publication of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme results. It has two boxes for either an agree or disagree answer. There is also a comment box.

Although it is a welcome new development that the Cavalier Club and some of the regional cavalier breed clubs are making efforts to gauge the opinion of their members, I feel I need to point out that it would be a grave mistake to believe that any conclusions drawn from this exercise will be valid. This feedback paper does not allow for all the options available.
There was no box for for 'full publication of results' and no box for 'no publication of results'. This leaves those members that want these options unable to express their wishes.

To illustrate the problem, I ticked the agree box despite the fact I really want full publication. I felt that if these are really the only two options available I would prefer partial publication. I feared that if I ticked the disagree option it could be taken I did not want any sort of publication.
In discussion with another member, who also believes that there should be full publication, it appears she ticked the disagree box because she felt partial publication was wrong.

So, two members with the same view but who have voted in two different ways because the option of full publication is not on that feedback paper.

The results of this exercise will inevitably be skewed and capable of being interpreted in any way that anyone feels like presenting them. The comments may give an indication of the voters' true feelings but I doubt whether they are going to feature when the results are presented.

I fear that these results will be used to suggest that either the members want no publication of results at all ( if disagree votes are the majority ) or they have voted for partial publication ( if the agree box has the most votes )

I am therefore writing to the Kennel Club, the BVA, and the Cavalier Club to draw to their attention that no conclusions can be drawn from this survey because the full range of options were not made available to the members.

I had written to the Cavalier Club to highlight this problem prior to these papers being posted out, and suggested at the time that other options were added, but I had no reply and it did not happen"

I have blogged this post. If anyone wants to see the full details of the KC proposal they are at the end of the blog.

Brian M
13th April 2011, 09:44 AM
Hello Margaret

It seem a typical fudge again by The K. C. and The CKCS Club by not offering the black or white option, and so I feel the full publication of results that most pet owners seek will not be given
and therefore another chance to save the breed will be lost ,the sun has almost set .

Is there anything non club members can so .

Bet
13th April 2011, 11:28 AM
Up till now all Offiicial Schemes have published full results.

In the case of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme the Kennel Club proposed only the name of the dog and its age at scanning should be published.

UK Cavalier Club members have been sent a paper asking for feedback on this partial publication proposal.

There are two options 'agree' or 'disagree' and a comments box.
The option for 'full publication' of results and for 'no publication' were not made available as options.

Today I sent the following email to the BVA & KC with copies to the Cavalier Club and some of the animal welfare organisations.

"As a breeder and Cavalier Club member, I am writing to register my concern about the the attached 'feedback paper' that has been sent out by the Club.

The paper sets out the proposal for partial publication of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme results. It has two boxes for either an agree or disagree answer. There is also a comment box.

Although it is a welcome new development that the Cavalier Club and some of the regional cavalier breed clubs are making efforts to gauge the opinion of their members, I feel I need to point out that it would be a grave mistake to believe that any conclusions drawn from this exercise will be valid. This feedback paper does not allow for all the options available.
There was no box for for 'full publication of results' and no box for 'no publication of results'. This leaves those members that want these options unable to express their wishes.

To illustrate the problem, I ticked the agree box despite the fact I really want full publication. I felt that if these are really the only two options available I would prefer partial publication. I feared that if I ticked the disagree option it could be taken I did not want any sort of publication.
In discussion with another member, who also believes that there should be full publication, it appears she ticked the disagree box because she felt partial publication was wrong.

So, two members with the same view but who have voted in two different ways because the option of full publication is not on that feedback paper.

The results of this exercise will inevitably be skewed and capable of being interpreted in any way that anyone feels like presenting them. The comments may give an indication of the voters' true feelings but I doubt whether they are going to feature when the results are presented.

I fear that these results will be used to suggest that either the members want no publication of results at all ( if disagree votes are the majority ) or they have voted for partial publication ( if the agree box has the most votes )

I am therefore writing to the Kennel Club, the BVA, and the Cavalier Club to draw to their attention that no conclusions can be drawn from this survey because the full range of options were not made available to the members.

I had written to the Cavalier Club to highlight this problem prior to these papers being posted out, and suggested at the time that other options were added, but I had no reply and it did not happen"

I have blogged this post. If anyone wants to see the full details of the KC proposal they are at the end of the blog.

THE BVA/KCSCHEME. A WASTED FEEDBACK EXCERISE.


Could I join in here with my Comments about this CON JOB by the UK CKCS CLUB COMMITTEE.

There are certain Members who do not want this to be Passed, that the Results of the MRI SCANS are Publicised.

OH YES, there is a List on the CLUB WEB SITE giving the Names of Cavaliers who have been MRI SCANNED , but not the Results of the Scans.

Why is the Committee still hiding behind what the Kennel Club had Proposed ,but then this Proposal had to be Swiftly with-drawn when the BVA objected to it ???

Why is the CKCS CLUB COMMITTEE using it, they must know that this not what the BVA wants, so why not be Honest with the Club Members and ask Question that the BVA wants to be involved with ???

Bet

tuppenlil
14th April 2011, 08:43 AM
Up till now all Offiicial Schemes have published full results.

In the case of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme the Kennel Club proposed only the name of the dog and its age at scanning should be published.

UK Cavalier Club members have been sent a paper asking for feedback on this partial publication proposal.

There are two options 'agree' or 'disagree' and a comments box.
The option for 'full publication' of results and for 'no publication' were not made available as options.

Today I sent the following email to the BVA & KC with copies to the Cavalier Club and some of the animal welfare organisations.

"As a breeder and Cavalier Club member, I am writing to register my concern about the the attached 'feedback paper' that has been sent out by the Club.

The paper sets out the proposal for partial publication of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme results. It has two boxes for either an agree or disagree answer. There is also a comment box.

Although it is a welcome new development that the Cavalier Club and some of the regional cavalier breed clubs are making efforts to gauge the opinion of their members, I feel I need to point out that it would be a grave mistake to believe that any conclusions drawn from this exercise will be valid. This feedback paper does not allow for all the options available.
There was no box for for 'full publication of results' and no box for 'no publication of results'. This leaves those members that want these options unable to express their wishes.

To illustrate the problem, I ticked the agree box despite the fact I really want full publication. I felt that if these are really the only two options available I would prefer partial publication. I feared that if I ticked the disagree option it could be taken I did not want any sort of publication.
In discussion with another member, who also believes that there should be full publication, it appears she ticked the disagree box because she felt partial publication was wrong.

So, two members with the same view but who have voted in two different ways because the option of full publication is not on that feedback paper.

The results of this exercise will inevitably be skewed and capable of being interpreted in any way that anyone feels like presenting them. The comments may give an indication of the voters' true feelings but I doubt whether they are going to feature when the results are presented.

I fear that these results will be used to suggest that either the members want no publication of results at all ( if disagree votes are the majority ) or they have voted for partial publication ( if the agree box has the most votes )

I am therefore writing to the Kennel Club, the BVA, and the Cavalier Club to draw to their attention that no conclusions can be drawn from this survey because the full range of options were not made available to the members.

I had written to the Cavalier Club to highlight this problem prior to these papers being posted out, and suggested at the time that other options were added, but I had no reply and it did not happen"

I have blogged this post. If anyone wants to see the full details of the KC proposal they are at the end of the blog.

Margaret

I couldn't agree more.
A wasted exercise. A wasted opportunity.

I had also written to the CKCS Club asking that full details of the proposed scheme were sent to all members. I also requested they canvas their members on PUBLICATION OF RESULTS, and that their questions were worded FAIRLY and WITHOUT BIAS.
I also never received a reply.

To many members what is going on with the BVA/KC CM/SM scheme is a complete mystery!! The CKCS Club have never sent out written details of the scheme to the members that are not online, never sent out any details of the seminars to those that are not online.

As far as I am concerned, a very large proportion of members haven't got a clue whats going on with the scheme.

So a questionnaire dropping through the letterbox doesn't mean much if you don't understand all the issues. It also doesn't contribute much if it doesn't ask the right questions.

Maggie

Kate H
14th April 2011, 10:51 AM
What makes the exercise even more pointless is the BVA are never going to agree to non-publication of names and results. Why should Cavaliers be a special case? If they give way to us, then German Shepherd people could start objecting to publication of hip results, so could all the breeds that have BVA schemes for eye disease, etc, etc. It would wreck the whole business of health testing, so of course the BVA won't have it. The Cavalier Clubs can't dictate terms to the BVA, and the KC should never have raised the possibility that they could. So this silly insistence on anonymity will simply wreck the whole MRI scheme for Cavaliers. What the referendum ought to be saying (in order to be honest) is 'Do you want a BVA scheme or don't you?' A No vote would be such a bad PR exercise for the Cavalier Club that it might bring a few people to their senses.

Kate, Oliver and Aled

Bet
14th April 2011, 11:09 AM
What makes the exercise even more pointless is the BVA are never going to agree to non-publication of names and results. Why should Cavaliers be a special case? If they give way to us, then German Shepherd people could start objecting to publication of hip results, so could all the breeds that have BVA schemes for eye disease, etc, etc. It would wreck the whole business of health testing, so of course the BVA won't have it. The Cavalier Clubs can't dictate terms to the BVA, and the KC should never have raised the possibility that they could. So this silly insistence on anonymity will simply wreck the whole MRI scheme for Cavaliers. What the referendum ought to be saying (in order to be honest) is 'Do you want a BVA scheme or don't you?' A No vote would be such a bad PR exercise for the Cavalier Club that it might bring a few people to their senses.

Kate, Oliver and Aled


Yes KATE , you sure have Hit the Nail on the Head with your Post.

How has it happened that those Few Cavalier Breeders are dictating to the Majority of Cavalier Owners and those of us who Love Cavaliers,how did they get onto the Cavalier Committee and have the control of it ,what a Legacy they are going to Leave behind them for the Continuation of the Cavalier Breed.

Bet

tuppenlil
14th April 2011, 01:16 PM
Yes KATE , you sure have Hit the Nail on the Head with your Post.

How has it happened that those Few Cavalier Breeders are dictating to the Majority of Cavalier Owners and those of us who Love Cavaliers,how did they get onto the Cavalier Committee and have the control of it ,what a Legacy they are going to Leave behind them for the Continuation of the Cavalier Breed.

Bet

People only have 'power' if others give it to them.

If the majority don't like what a powerful minority is doing, then they should speak out, make sure their opinion is known.
Write a comment in the questionnaire box, write to the Clubs, write to the KC, write to the BVA.

Apathy allows those with the strong opinions to old sway.

Maggie

Margaret C
14th April 2011, 05:24 PM
Margaret

I couldn't agree more.
A wasted exercise. A wasted opportunity.

I had also written to the CKCS Club asking that full details of the proposed scheme were sent to all members. I also requested they canvas their members on PUBLICATION OF RESULTS, and that their questions were worded FAIRLY and WITHOUT BIAS.
I also never received a reply.

To many members what is going on with the BVA/KC CM/SM scheme is a complete mystery!! The CKCS Club have never sent out written details of the scheme to the members that are not online, never sent out any details of the seminars to those that are not online.

As far as I am concerned, a very large proportion of members haven't got a clue whats going on with the scheme.

So a questionnaire dropping through the letterbox doesn't mean much if you don't understand all the issues. It also doesn't contribute much if it doesn't ask the right questions.

Maggie


I have received an identically worded voting paper from the Eastern Counties Club.
Nothing to explain why the proposal was made. Members that do not have computersto keep themselves informed are really so disadvantaged, and discounted as members, these days.



People only have 'power' if others give it to them.

If the majority don't like what a powerful minority is doing, then they should speak out, make sure their opinion is known.
Write a comment in the questionnaire box, write to the Clubs, write to the KC, write to the BVA.

Apathy allows those with the strong opinions to old sway.

Maggie

So true.

It is being said that one of the regional clubs is in utter disarray and the Kennel Club has had to become involved. Some blatant jockeying for power led to an unlawful AGM?

There are many really decent breeders around that are doing all they can to improve the health of cavaliers.
Unfortunately they do not appear able or willing to stand up to the vocal minority.

If nice people sit back and allow unscrupulous breeders to act as their spokesmen, they have only themselves to blame if they are also perceived to be uncaring and devious.

Bet
14th April 2011, 07:38 PM
I have received an identically worded voting paper from the Eastern Counties Club.
Nothing to explain why the proposal was made. Members that do not have computersto keep themselves informed are really so disadvantaged, and discounted as members, these days.




So true.

It is being said that one of the regional clubs is in utter disarray and the Kennel Club has had to become involved. Some blatant jockeying for power led to an unlawful AGM?

There are many really decent breeders around that are doing all they can to improve the health of cavaliers.
Unfortunately they do not appear able or willing to stand up to the vocal minority.

If nice people sit back and allow unscrupulous breeders to act as their spokesmen, they have only themselves to blame if they are also perceived to be uncaring and devious.

THE BVA/KC SCHEME .A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE.

The Cavalier Breed really is in Big Trouble ,it's a good job that the INTERNET can let the Lovers of Cavaliers know what is going on with this Powerful Minority who have taken over .

Unfortunately it's the Cavaliers who are going to Suffer.

I just can't understand what is behind this Vocal Powerful Minority's Attitude ,are they not Interested in the SM and MVD Problems in our Beloved Cavaliers.

Bet

Bet
14th April 2011, 08:00 PM
THE BVA/KC SCHEME .A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE.

The Cavalier Breed really is in Big Trouble ,it's a good job that the INTERNET can let the Lovers of Cavaliers know what is going on with this Powerful Minority who have taken over .

Unfortunately it's the Cavaliers who are going to Suffer.

I just can't understand what is behind this Vocal Powerful Minority's Attitude ,are they not Interested in the SM and MVD Problems in our Beloved Cavaliers.

Bet


THE BVA/KC SCHEME .A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE.

I forgot to ask this Question once more, why was the Proposal from the KC so Hurredly Withdrawn from the UK CKCS CLUB'S WEB SITE ,after the BVA made Such Strong Objections to the Wording of it.

Why are the Various CKCS CLUBS still insisting on using the KC's Proposal on the Voting Slips about this , when the BVA is so against it?

Why was it ever Issued by the CKCS CLUBS when the BVA have strong Objections to it's Wording ,and are blaming the KC for going giving out this Proposal when the BVA does not agree with it ?

Bet

Margaret C
14th April 2011, 08:51 PM
THE BVA/KC SCHEME .A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE.

I forgot to ask this Question once more, why was the Proposal from the KC so Hurredly Withdrawn from the UK CKCS CLUB'S WEB SITE ,after the BVA made Such Strong Objections to the Wording of it.

Why are the Various CKCS CLUBS still insisting on using the KC's Proposal on the Voting Slips about this , when the BVA is so against it?

Why was it ever Issued by the CKCS CLUBS when the BVA have strong Objections to it's Wording ,and are blaming the KC for going giving out this Proposal when the BVA does not agree with it ?

Bet

The cavalier clubs were given a proposal to consider and, as I said, they are to be congratulated on consulting with their members.

It is just such a shame that despite being warned of the problems that would arise if members were given very limited options, they have gone ahead with what is a very flawed consultation.

Instead of being able to go back to the BVA & KC with definitive answers, the cavalier clubs will now have figures that everyone will know can be interpreted a hundred different ways.

There was a comment box, but how likely is it that any opinions for 'full publication' or 'no publication' expressed within that box will be translated into figures when the results are presented?

After all, if that was the intention then the obvious thing would have been to add extra boxes ( as they did for scanning pre scheme information ) to record those opinions in a meaningful way.

Bet
15th April 2011, 07:50 PM
The cavalier clubs were given a proposal to consider and, as I said, they are to be congratulated on consulting with their members.

It is just such a shame that despite being warned of the problems that would arise if members were given very limited options, they have gone ahead with what is a very flawed consultation.

Instead of being able to go back to the BVA & KC with definitive answers, the cavalier clubs will now have figures that everyone will know can be interpreted a hundred different ways.

There was a comment box, but how likely is it that any opinions for 'full publication' or 'no publication' expressed within that box will be translated into figures when the results are presented?

After all, if that was the intention then the obvious thing would have been to add extra boxes ( as they did for scanning pre scheme information ) to record those opinions in a meaningful way.


THE BVA/KC SCHEME.A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE

I just wonder if the Powers that be in the ADVISORY COUNCIL know what is happening about the Voting for the MRI BVA/KC SCHEME ,and what they are making of it.

Bet

penquite
18th April 2011, 12:46 PM
THE BVA/KC SCHEME.A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE

I just wonder if the Powers that be in the ADVISORY COUNCIL know what is happening about the Voting for the MRI BVA/KC SCHEME ,and what they are making of it.

Bet

Hi Bet
They will only know if people e mail them and give their opinions, as many of us have already done.
I believe it was requested that the proposal was removed from the Club web site as it was not a done deal at that time, therefore the clubs could have polled their members on all the options including no publication and full publication. A missed opportunity.
All the best
Sue

tuppenlil
18th April 2011, 06:24 PM
Up till now all Offiicial Schemes have published full results.

In the case of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme the Kennel Club proposed only the name of the dog and its age at scanning should be published.

UK Cavalier Club members have been sent a paper asking for feedback on this partial publication proposal.

There are two options 'agree' or 'disagree' and a comments box.
The option for 'full publication' of results and for 'no publication' were not made available as options.

Today I sent the following email to the BVA & KC with copies to the Cavalier Club and some of the animal welfare organisations.

"As a breeder and Cavalier Club member, I am writing to register my concern about the the attached 'feedback paper' that has been sent out by the Club.

The paper sets out the proposal for partial publication of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme results. It has two boxes for either an agree or disagree answer. There is also a comment box.

Although it is a welcome new development that the Cavalier Club and some of the regional cavalier breed clubs are making efforts to gauge the opinion of their members, I feel I need to point out that it would be a grave mistake to believe that any conclusions drawn from this exercise will be valid. This feedback paper does not allow for all the options available.
There was no box for for 'full publication of results' and no box for 'no publication of results'. This leaves those members that want these options unable to express their wishes.

To illustrate the problem, I ticked the agree box despite the fact I really want full publication. I felt that if these are really the only two options available I would prefer partial publication. I feared that if I ticked the disagree option it could be taken I did not want any sort of publication.
In discussion with another member, who also believes that there should be full publication, it appears she ticked the disagree box because she felt partial publication was wrong.

So, two members with the same view but who have voted in two different ways because the option of full publication is not on that feedback paper.

The results of this exercise will inevitably be skewed and capable of being interpreted in any way that anyone feels like presenting them. The comments may give an indication of the voters' true feelings but I doubt whether they are going to feature when the results are presented.

I fear that these results will be used to suggest that either the members want no publication of results at all ( if disagree votes are the majority ) or they have voted for partial publication ( if the agree box has the most votes )

I am therefore writing to the Kennel Club, the BVA, and the Cavalier Club to draw to their attention that no conclusions can be drawn from this survey because the full range of options were not made available to the members.

I had written to the Cavalier Club to highlight this problem prior to these papers being posted out, and suggested at the time that other options were added, but I had no reply and it did not happen"

I have blogged this post. If anyone wants to see the full details of the KC proposal they are at the end of the blog.

I see a new statement has been posted on the CKCS Club website this afternoon.
Reads to me as though some Clubs won't ask the members about "publication of the results" in case we get the wrong answer !

However some clubs are quite happy to ask their members about scans done prior to the scheme - BUT they weren't asked that either by the KC !

So on the hand we hide behind "we weren't asked to ask" and on the other we ask the members because it "suits our purpose".

I wonder if the Clubs are too scared to ask if their members want publication in case the majority would opt for publication - I mean ALL the members - the pet and small breeders, not just those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and secrecy ?

Of course many of the members don't know what on earth is going on anyway! Not if the are not online, what would they know or understand about the BVA scheme ?

How many pet owners would vote for secrecy?
How many small time breeders would want to know what they are "buying" unwanted with their stud fees ?

Maggie

Davecav
18th April 2011, 06:36 PM
How many small time breeders would want to know what they are "buying" unwanted with their stud fees ?



The small time breeders are members of the Cavalier Clubs? therefore they should be testing their dogs, and they should be asking to see the health certificates of the sire they wish to use. They should be doing this now! and if they haven't got the guts to ask, then they shouldn't be breeding. I can't see that publishing the results should make such a difference to them, apart from maybe, if they gen up well before, they may not have to ask the stud dog owner..


As of now, if the sire's owner seems a bit reluctant economical with the truth - then seek out someone who has all the up to date health certs and shows them.

As a small time - or big time breeder - it is their responsibility to make sure they have all the information before going ahead with the mating.

The breeders who don't test, or who say they test but don't show certificates should be given a wide berth.

It's no different from the advice given to new pet owners - seek out breeders who test their dogs and don't use young dogs and have all the documentation to show they do this.

Publishing results would be useful? if people (pet owners) know where to look and how to interpret them, and for breeders. but as I have said, breeders should be cheking all this right now as a matter of course?

Margaret C
18th April 2011, 06:59 PM
Hi Bet
They will only know if people e mail them and give their opinions, as many of us have already done.
I believe it was requested that the proposal was removed from the Club web site as it was not a done deal at that time, therefore the clubs could have polled their members on all the options including no publication and full publication. A missed opportunity.
All the best
Sue


Opportunities are sometimes deliberately missed.

It is all part of the foot dragging that means the BVA/KC Scheme and the EBV's continue to be delayed.
This puts off the time that breeders will have to face up to seeing their scan results both good and bad published, or the fact that they do not MRI their breeding dogs become obvious.

The proposal for partial publication was put forward by the KC Genetic Advisor because many of the breed club representatives were threatening to boycott the BVA/KC Scheme if results were published

In an email about the February 3rd meeting Jeff Sampson told me that the Scheme had to work and that was why he suggested the compromise on reporting results. He went on to say the clubs, the KC & BVA had still to discuss it.

This compromise proposal has eventually been presented to cavalier clubs' members as if it is the only option available.

As has been said, a wasted opportunity, especially as I was told by a BVA representative that they have not accepted the proposal.

Does this all mean more discussions, more proposals, more feedback forms, more delay, while allowing more underage unscanned SM cavaliers be bred and add more unhealthy dogs into the gene pool.
The longer this goes on the less chance there is for this breed.

The voting slips sent out had no explanation to put the request for feedback into context. Members without computers would have no idea what was going on, even those with computers would have found no information on club websites.

Members that were not on the the forums would not know what the BVA/KC Scheme was about, let alone why there was discussion about publication of results.

There is a message on the Cavalier Club website which is a little economical with the truth and I will make sure that the KC are aware that it is said that full publication of results was not an option offered by the Kennel Club.

Full publication was always the original intention of the Scheme and was therefore always an option. Unfortunately not one that pleased the breeders who now run the clubs, and so not included on the feedback paper.

Message from the Kennel Club’s Cavalier Health Representative, Peter Towse, regarding CH/SM Ballots by participating Cavalier Clubs
"To clarify:

The Kennel Club wrote to me asking me to communicate with all of the clubs and request their feedback on the attached proposal by no later than 30th May 2011. The proposal is copied below exactly as sent to me
Despite there being some members that would prefer full publication of results, this was not an option offered by the Kennel Club. The Kennel Club asked for a simple yes or no answer to the acceptance of their proposal of February 3rd 2011
The majority of the Clubs have complied with this request and we ask that however many Clubs you belong to you take the time to complete the individual ballots thereby recording the interest by individual Club’s membership
Some clubs have included a “tick box” to ask if previously scanned dogs should be recognised and most Clubs have included a comment box
We await your responses!!!

Bet
18th April 2011, 07:49 PM
Opportunities are sometimes deliberately missed.

It is all part of the foot dragging that means the BVA/KC Scheme and the EBV's continue to be delayed.
This puts off the time that breeders will have to face up to seeing their scan results both good and bad published, or the fact that they do not MRI their breeding dogs become obvious.

The proposal for partial publication was put forward by the KC Genetic Advisor because many of the breed club representatives were threatening to boycott the BVA/KC Scheme if results were published

In an email about the February 3rd meeting Jeff Sampson told me that the Scheme had to work and that was why he suggested the compromise on reporting results. He went on to say the clubs, the KC & BVA had still to discuss it.

This compromise proposal has eventually been presented to cavalier clubs' members as if it is the only option available.

As has been said, a wasted opportunity, especially as I was told by a BVA representative that they have not accepted the proposal.

Does this all mean more discussions, more proposals, more feedback forms, more delay, while allowing more underage unscanned SM cavaliers be bred and add more unhealthy dogs into the gene pool.
The longer this goes on the less chance there is for this breed.

The voting slips sent out had no explanation to put the request for feedback into context. Members without computers would have no idea what was going on, even those with computers would have found no information on club websites.

Members that were not on the the forums would not know what the BVA/KC Scheme was about, let alone why there was discussion about publication of results.

There is a message on the Cavalier Club website which is a little economical with the truth and I will make sure that the KC are aware that it is said that full publication of results was not an option offered by the Kennel Club.

Full publication was always the original intention of the Scheme and was therefore always an option. Unfortunately not one that pleased the breeders who now run the clubs, and so not included on the feedback paper.

Message from the Kennel Club’s Cavalier Health Representative, Peter Towse, regarding CH/SM Ballots by participating Cavalier Clubs
"To clarify:

The Kennel Club wrote to me asking me to communicate with all of the clubs and request their feedback on the attached proposal by no later than 30th May 2011. The proposal is copied below exactly as sent to me
Despite there being some members that would prefer full publication of results, this was not an option offered by the Kennel Club. The Kennel Club asked for a simple yes or no answer to the acceptance of their proposal of February 3rd 2011
The majority of the Clubs have complied with this request and we ask that however many Clubs you belong to you take the time to complete the individual ballots thereby recording the interest by individual Club’s membership
Some clubs have included a “tick box” to ask if previously scanned dogs should be recognised and most Clubs have included a comment box
We await your responses!!!


THE BVA/KC SCHEME. A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE


Could I mention that who-ever put the Version on the UK CKCS CLUB to-day about the BVA/ KC Scheme should have checked his Facts.

On the CLUB WEB-SITE,it is stated that a Meeting of Representatives from all Cavalier Clubs will be held on the 3rd of Febuary to discuss with the Kennel Club ,to discuss THE PUBLICATION of the Results.

That when a Cavalier is Scanned and a Cavalier Puppy is Purchased,there has to be Accessibility of Information, Openess and Transparency

Nothing can be Clearer than That.

So who put stop to the MRI Scan Results being Published ,this does not seem to have KC's intention ,when they wanted the Buyers of Cavaliers to be having ,ACCESSIBILITY of INFORMATION ,OPENESS and TRANSPARENCY.

So the Blame must put with some of the Clique who are now ,sadly to say ,running the Cavalier Club.

Bet

Margaret C
18th April 2011, 10:41 PM
Today's comment from a regional club health representative......

"And as for pet owners wanting to see results.....How on earth would they know where to look for them and would they even understand them."

She has obviously not looked at:-

http://www.cavaliercampaign.com/

http://cavalierpuppy.co.uk/

http://www.cavaliermatters.org/

We will keep cavalier buyers updated.

Oreo
18th April 2011, 11:28 PM
Today's comment from a regional club health representative......

"And as for pet owners wanting to see results.....How on earth would they know where to look for them and would they even understand them."

I read that comment earlier today and it immediately got my ire up . . . .

When I read that I hear ". . . all pet owners must be idiots and cannot possibly be capable of understanding."

Of course none of us could be concerned enough to want ancestral pedigree health information either. :roll: . . . or possibly have an inkling about ancestor loss coefficients or COI.

It does not matter that there are some pet owners who could care less about this information. Those that do care should not have to jump through hoops to see it.

Are not uninformed pet owners often blamed for some of the ills in the dog world because of the choices they make? You would think, then, it would make sense to embrace any scheme that helped them in informing themselves.

. . . and then some voice wonderment as to the impression that has been made by the breeders that make these kind of comments.:sl*p:

Oreo

Bet
19th April 2011, 10:16 AM
I read that comment earlier today and it immediately got my ire up . . . .

When I read that I hear ". . . all pet owners must be idiots and cannot possibly be capable of understanding."

Of course none of us could be concerned enough to want ancestral pedigree health information either. :roll: . . . or possibly have an inkling about ancestor loss coefficients or COI.

It does not matter that there are some pet owners who could care less about this information. Those that do care should not have to jump through hoops to see it.

Are not uninformed pet owners often blamed for some of the ills in the dog world because of the choices they make? You would think, then, it would make sense to embrace any scheme that helped them in informing themselves.

. . . and then some voice wonderment as to the impression that has been made by the breeders that make these kind of comments.:sl*p:

Oreo


THE BVA/KC SCHEME .A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE.


Oreo,

I know for a fact after having spoken with a Member of the Kennel Club a few months ago ,that they are taking note of all the Posts on the Other Forum List.

What they will be making of some of the Ill Tempered Comments that have recently appeared on it, is any- body's Guess.

Bet

anniemac
19th April 2011, 01:26 PM
I read that comment earlier today and it immediately got my ire up . . . .

When I read that I hear ". . . all pet owners must be idiots and cannot possibly be capable of understanding."

Of course none of us could be concerned enough to want ancestral pedigree health information either. :roll: . . . or possibly have an inkling about ancestor loss coefficients or COI.

It does not matter that there are some pet owners who could care less about this information. Those that do care should not have to jump through hoops to see it.

Are not uninformed pet owners often blamed for some of the ills in the dog world because of the choices they make? You would think, then, it would make sense to embrace any scheme that helped them in informing themselves.

. . . and then some voice wonderment as to the impression that has been made by the breeders that make these kind of comments.:sl*p:

Oreo

Maybe we are not as smart in the usa, but how would you or a potential pet buyer use the information? I am not asking this for or against publication, but being in the usa where I believe not as many people even scan, I wonder how one would use it (non breeders). If something helps researchers, and breeders, by all means publish but wonder how it would be used for pet buyers. Would one first look at a breeder with a certain grade? See that there are puppies and check the publications but do people not still ask for certificates? Would it be a place to start like rod says with our CHIC database but I can't see how something like SM grades be factored in here when we just need people to scan.

The puppy buying guide on this forum is very detailed about what to do and ask for certificates and what if they don't have certificates etc. The other websites margaret mentioned I scanned through I could not see the grading protocol at first but to ask if they have been tested. how would those change if published? I have tried to not post now on this because I'm in the usa, but when a comment is made and taken to mean we are "idiots", I would want to know how pet buyers could benefit. In the usa we have CHIC where we can get some information, but we always want to check age, see certificates etc. For me, (a person who might be called an idiot) I don't understand how the grades would factor in. It is not like a pass fail.

I have been told when asked about having certificates here etc. And how a pet buyer could know without certificates, and was pointed to the puppy buyers guide. So maybe its different in the uk but in the usa, I think we have a far way to go and would not be understood here.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Oreo
19th April 2011, 03:50 PM
Maybe we are not as smart in the usa, but how would you or a potential pet buyer use the information?

I have always considered that an obvious answer. They would use the information to confer with the breeders about risks and determine IF they wanted to purchase a pup from that breeder. It is especially important if one is attempting to decide between a few breeders.

I have a background in stock breeding . . . and I am in Canada. I do not purchase any animal without knowing as much about what is behind it as I can find out. It helps one to have an idea of the risks that you might encounter in your pet/animal.

Oreo

Margaret C
19th April 2011, 07:00 PM
Anne,

I cannot say how publishing full results of cavaliers' MRI scans under a UK Scheme would immediately help the American pet buyer, because I don't know.

I do know how it will help UK cavalier puppy buyers.

I also know that full publication of results will, over time, help all CAVALIERS worldwide.

It will not be at all easy for anyone to understand the new gradings and the guidelines that are designed to lessen the spread of SM, but that is nobody's fault. CMSM in cavaliers is an extremely complicated condition
We can't change how things are, we are stuck with it, we have to deal with it. Both breeders and pet owners will struggle, as they often do now with the existing grades & guidelines.

The importance of publishing as much information as possible is that non-disclosure allows breeders to lie to each other and the buying public.
It allows them to produce more SM dogs that will have painful lives.

There are various ways that breeders deceive........

*Some say they have MRI'd their cavaliers, but it is not true.

*Some breeders MRI their cavaliers at a young age when there is a better chance of a SM free scan and then claim they are 'clear'.

*Some mate their unscanned or early scanned cavaliers long before the age set out in both MVD & SM guidelines.

Half the cavalier litters registered, from club members and non-club members have one parent that is under age.
This means that even within the group of breeders that belong to breed clubs the SM will not improve, it will get worse.

Although in theory puppy buyers can ask to see certificates, breeders can be adept at fobbing them off.
It is difficult for anyone to insist on seeing paperwork when faced with a seemingly friendly breeder who obviously expects them to trust their word when they say that, although they don't have the certificates to hand, every health tests has been done.

The important point of publishing full results is that, even if many people struggle to understand the grades, the mere fact that they are available will stop breeders lying abut dogs they have scanned and the results the dogs had shown.

Breeders will know that records will show if the dog was underage when scanned and will show if two SM affected dogs have been mated together.

Full publication of results will help to give potential buyers the knowledge that will make it less likely that they will choose the first pretty puppy they see.
The guidelines will show them that they should not choose a puppy from cavalier parents that were too young, or parents that are unscanned or have SM.

If the welfare of the dogs were really a priority, then UK health representatives would be promoting the education of all potential puppy buyers, because they would be trying to protect the future generations of cavaliers. They would see buyer education as a way of making sure that health guidelines are followed by club members.

They would not be saying .....................

"And as for pet owners wanting to see results.....How on earth would they know where to look for them and would they even understand them."

What a genuine health representative, whose priority was the health of the breed, would say is.......

"And as for pet owners wanting to see results.....We must make sure they know where to look for them and that the information is there so they can understand them."

Karlin
19th April 2011, 07:46 PM
:xctly:

Margaret C
5th May 2011, 07:02 PM
The results of the feedback exercise have been published.

It is obvious that the majority of those that replied wanted publication of results. It is just a shame that the opportunity to find out for sure how many wanted full publication rather than partial publication was missed.


CAVALIER KCS CLUB BALLOT OF MEMBERS RE:
PROPOSAL FOR RECORDING & PUBLICATION OF RESULTS BY THE KENNEL CLUB UNDER THE NEW BVA/KC CM/SM SCHEME
Following the meeting at the KC Building on 3rd February 2011 the Southern Cavalier KCS Club balloted its members and the data was submitted to the Kennel Club. At Crufts The Kennel Club requested that all the Cavalier Clubs send out the same ballot to all their members and therefore the Cavalier KCS Club balloted its 1250 UK members using the same format courtesy of the Southern Cavalier KCS Club.

A total of 257 forms were returned (20%) and the results have been submitted to the Health Liaison Representative, Peter Towse, who is collating all the Clubs’ results for submission to The Kennel Club.

On behalf of the Cavalier Club and the Kennel Club I would like to thank all those who felt that this was an important subject and wanted to have their voices heard. This was clearly an emotive subject and of the 257 forms returned comments were attached to 87.

The results:

198 were in favour of the proposal
57 were against the proposal
2 abstained
A higher number were in favour of including dogs scanned prior to the scheme with wording “scanned pre scheme” to be added to the result rather than “no result” –

221 were in favour of recording previous results
25 were against the recording of previous results
10 abstained with regard to recording of previous results
There were a variety of comments made in the “comments box” and these will be taken forward to your Committee. A total of 23 who agreed with the proposal would have preferred full publication of results. A total of 6 who did not agree with the proposal would have preferred full publication of results.

Of the remaining 58 who had made comments there were a variety of negative views with regard to the scheme itself and therefore did not wish for publication at this stage.

Sheena Maclaine
Chairman
04 May 2011

Brian M
6th May 2011, 10:54 AM
Hello Margaret

Hope you all had a happy holiday and that you didn't fetch any full bottles back .:)

Thank you for the information re the Cavalier Club ballot ,my first thoughts are what a disappointing turn out only 20 % bothered to vote, why do you think it was that low ,was the way the questions were presented or just plain apathy by many .Surely a non vote is a wasted vote and a huge opportunity missed.

Margaret C
6th May 2011, 03:16 PM
Hello Margaret

Hope you all had a happy holiday and that you didn't fetch any full bottles back .:)

Thank you for the information re the Cavalier Club ballot ,my first thoughts are what a disappointing turn out only 20 % bothered to vote, why do you think it was that low ,was the way the questions were presented or just plain apathy by many .Surely a non vote is a wasted vote and a huge opportunity missed.


Lovely sunshine thank you Brian, and only one full bottle of wine came back, but for the prodigious consumption of "countless" bottles I blame my husband and other family members.

Apathy is one answer but there is also the fact that many people are not on the computer and depend on the Cavalier Club to send them information.

In the last year there has been very little health information sent out to ordinary members and there was nothing posted with the 'feedback' papers that would have explained the relevance of the exercise.

Yes, a wasted opportunity and I suspect the clubs will try and use these results to prove that the majority of their members want partial publication only.

We are making sure that the BVA, KC and welfare organisations are aware that full publication of results were not shown as an option, so no conclusions ( except perhaps that those wanting no publication are in a minority ) can be drawn from these figures.

Margaret C
18th May 2011, 02:13 AM
I decided to write to a few Animal Welfare organisations.............

http://www.cavaliertalk.com/forums/entry.php?193-Cavaliers-and-the-delays-in-implementing-proposed-official-health-screening

Bet
18th May 2011, 11:26 AM
I decided to write to a few Animal Welfare organisations.............

http://www.cavaliertalk.com/forums/entry.php?193-Cavaliers-and-the-delays-in-implementing-proposed-official-health-screening


THE BVA/KC SCHEME .A WASTED FEEDBACK EXERCISE


Margaret ,

Thanks for your Post.

I have just started getting again the Kennel Club Cavalier Breed Supplement.

What caught my eye was the Joint KC/BVA Health Schemes for our Cavaliers.

What is the excuse for the Reluctance for the KC/BVA MRI SCANNING Scheme going ahead?

I was shocked to read that earlier this year the UK CKCS CLUB HEALTH REPRESENTATIVE was banned from attending the latested CMSM Meeting.

I would have thought that this Person would have had the most information to be give to give to the Meeting.

What has happened to the CKCS CLUB?

TWO of the Newly Appointed Health Representatives ,One has said she will not Divulge the MRI Information of her Cavaliers, they are for her Breeding Information alone.

The Other ,that she does not believe with the Figures the MVD Researchers in Cavaliers have given for this Problem Afflicting.

The Chairman of the CKCS HEALTH LIAISON COMMITTEE spent over TWO YEARS with his complaint about SM how it was mentioned on the PDE Program ,only for it to be over-turned.

Finally a Member of the CKCS CLUB COMMITTEE, wrote an Article in DOG WORLD about 3 years ago, saying that the SM Problem in Cavaliers had not much basis for Accuracy.

Last but not least ,the Secretary of the Health Liaison CKCS COMMITTEE ,Posted an Article on a Cavalier Forum ,which said that the Mentioning of the SM Problem in our Cavalier Breed was a SMEAR CAMPAIGN against CAVALIERS.

FINALLY ,FINALLY ,Margaret mentioned about Health Certificates being required before a Cavalier was given their Significant Award .

I sent in this this Proposal to the CKCS CLUB'S AGM last year, ...

It was flung out , in-fact I was sent a Private E-Mail from a Prominant CKCS CLUB Member ,telling me to ZIP IT ,about my Views on this Subject.

The UK CKCS CLUB is not a Happy Place at the Moment.

Who is Suffering?

OUR BELOVED CAVALIERS !!!!!

Bet