The BVA/KC Scheme. A wasted feedback exercise

[Margaret C]

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I forgot to ask this Question once more, why was the Proposal from the KC so Hurredly Withdrawn from the UK CKCS CLUB'S WEB SITE ,after the BVA made Such Strong Objections to the Wording of it.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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. . . . 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.

Oreo

[Bet]

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. . . . 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.

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