Polling for publication of the Official MRI Scheme results
by, 29th March 2011 at 01:38 PM (1303 Views)
There is some confusion surrounding the proposals for publishing the results of the BVA/KC CMSM Scheme, so I thought I would try and clarify the situation as I understand it.
Anyone who thinks I have got things wrong is welcome to contact me with their views. If not a member of this forum, there is a comment form on my website www.cavalierpuppy.co.uk
The confusion about this scheme dates back to a meeting in February. In an attempt to win breeder support for the scheme the Kennel Club presented a proposal to the Cavalier Representatives and the British Veterinary Association Representatives that only the dogs' names and the dates of the MRIs would be published.
It would seem the Cavalier Representatives left the meeting thinking that this was a fiirm offer, even though it was still unacceptable to some who did not want any details published.
It may be possible that the KC were also under that impression that their proposal was a done deal, as they gave permission for the details to be put on the Cavalier Club website.
The BVA had obviously not been consulted beforehand about what was a drastic change in the principle of open registries for official tests, and at Crufts I was told the BVA do not favour the idea of partial publication of official scheme results.
The details of the KC proposal were subsequently removed, at the KC request, from the Cavalier Club website.
In the meantime the Southern Cavalier Club, who are very good at consulting with their members, sent out a voting slip with details of this proposal asking whether members agreed or disagreed.
I must admit I found it hard to know what to answer as I wanted full publication, but that was not shown as an option.
The results were 75% in favour of
the proposal to publish some details, 25% against.
So the waters are somewhat muddy, but there was an overwhelming vote for publication of some details.
We have now been informed that the Cavalier Club are going to poll all their members.
This will obviously have to be a postal vote to give a true picture of the membership's wishes on this matter.
I presume that now this confusion has become apparent they will be extending the options to include publication of all details and have another box for publication of no details whatsoever.
I obviously hope that members will opt for openess and transparency and return a resounding vote in favour of publication of all results.