• If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.

The BVA/KC Scheme. A wasted feedback exercise

Margaret C

Well-known member
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.
 
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 .
 
Last edited:
The bva/kc scheme. A wasted feedback exercise.

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
 
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
 
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
 
The bva/kc scheme .a wasted feedback exercise

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
 
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

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.
 
The bva/kc scheme a wasted feedback exercise.

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
 
The bva/kc scheme .a wasted feedback exercise

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
 
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.
 
The bva/kc scheme .a wasted feedback exercise

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
 
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
 
Last edited:
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
 
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?



 
Last edited:
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!!!
 
The bva/kc scheme .a wasted feedback exercise

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
 
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
 
Last edited:
The bva/kc scheme. A wasted feedback exercise.

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
 
Back
Top