BVA/KC CMSM Test becomes a recommendation for Assured Breeders Scheme.

[Margaret C]

This is among a list of breed-specific changes that have been made by the UK Kennel Club. Breeders have six months to comply.

I am looking forward to the time they change it to a requirement rather than a recommendation, but at least it is a start.

I get a lot of puppy enquiries through the ABS and this will help underline the message I try to give to these buyers.........A responsible breeder, with nothing to hide, should be able to show BVA/KC MRI certificates for both parents.

[Soushiruiuma]

That's a positive step.

Hopefully there will be more compliance now that this recommendation is in place.

[Kate H]

It's also a reminder to breeders who still persist in saying that CM/SM isn't a major problem that the KC is beginning to take it seriously, so they're not going to get away with it indefinitely. A step in the right direction.

Kate, Oliver and Aled

[sins]

The KC appear to have very little confidence in their own scheme.It's been six months since the first scans were read and still no results published on the KC healthfinder.Instead of the grading for a dog,the result reads "Seek results from owner",despite the scheme notes stating that results will be published on the KC healthfinder.I can't see them changing it to a requirement for assured breeders.When it comes to making this scheme float..seems the KC have one foot firmly on dry land..
While it would be very neat and tidy to have both parents of a litter graded under the BVA scheme,it's not likely to happen.
There are many responsible,health focused breeders who mri scan their dogs outside of the scheme.From a pricing point of view,it's not helpful to create a monopoly on an increasingly expensive test..I think it very fair and reasonable that a breeder look for the best service and value for money that they can find..especially now that multiple scans are advised.
Personally,I'd be happy to have a puppy from scanned parents,provided that the scans were done at the appropriate ages and read by a competent nuerologist/radiologist.It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the scans were not read by the BVA panel.
Sins

[Karlin]

Agree, there are many issues with this programme and the backdown on publishing results is pathetic! -- but lack of published results I would suggest is due to pressure from clubs and breeders NOT to publish. That lobby is still very strong in convincing the KC what to do. I do think that it is a significant and very good start to even see MRIs now mentioned in connection with the Assured Breeders Scheme, which everyone knows needs a serious overhaul to be meaningful. I would hope that soon, MRIs should be a requirement of breeders who are supposed to be particularly health and welfare focused -- the idea of the Assured Breeders Scheme in the first place. Otherwise it seems to have only the most minimal requirements and clearly few breeders get involved as they too see it as a weak programme in the past.

And the irony remains that in the past, one of the biggest issues for breeders and one they most vociferously complained about was a lack of certified consistency in readings -- especially given that there are many cases now of some neurologists giving clear grades to dogs that do have CM (which is not an area all that familiar to many neurologists, producing a wide range of interpretations. I am aware of one in the US who is known for not being very good at spotting CM who has given numerous grades now stating dogs are completely clear of CM. Something the breeders then trumpet, without wondering isn't it odd that this one neurologist seems to be one of the only ones finding such dogs from a range of breeders?! Yet only a a couple have been found in a decade in the whole UK, where far more are scanned? Submitting those scans to the BVA panel would get a more consistent reading, something the owner breeders have not done). And there's some inconsistency between some popular scanning centres and their grades and grading system, and what the BVA/KC panel grades.

Curiously, breeders then started to create an alternative scanning system abroad which -- guess what -- would also not publish results... and would be open to varied interpretations and scans from anywhere.

This all suggests the problem is that most club breeders themselves want the system to be as hidden and bendable as possible. That makes things difficult for those who are really working towards health, as many are!

Demanding a panel of neurologists to offer consistency in scan interpretations only seemed to be wanted when it wasn't there and was therefore a good excuse for dismissing the point of scanning when one neurologist might say one thing and another say other things. I stress again that it was the clubs and club breeders themselves who raised the issue of having a panel many many times some years back! How could a programme like MateSelect work if there's no verified consistency or group of approved scanning centres using a consistent grading scheme? Such broader, breeder-supportive, health focused initiatives need consistency to be meaningful and fair.

Many people are going to a centre offering vaguely similar grades without being on the grading programme at all, allowing breeders to indicate they have grades that look official, but are not. I would add, from a centre that had for a long time not graded or even reported CM at all because they didn't consider it important. Using such scan information for personal info for breeding purposes is one thing but the centre itself opted not to be involved in the broader health initiatives and has never reported scan results to any of the researcher programmes, nor does it go to any of the club supported or other health initiatives. Surely breeders at the very least should be pushing for such centres to be part of a broader and more valuable scheme that collates scan information for breed health?

If breeders and clubs want a real, effective, consistent and comprehensive scheme that supplies information to a service like MateSelect and supports research, they need to be willing to actually support it. If costs seem too high (but how else to pay for admin costs and specialist time? Something to be worked out between clubs and KC == and neurologists get very little of that amount), then why do clubs not fundraise to support underwriting the reading costs? It seems strange to me that primarily pet owners have funded these reports now for some time for breeders using signficant amounts of Rupert's Fund money, yet breeders and clubs do not have programmes in place to similarly fund their own members to submit to this scheme. All of this is what Rupert's Fund is for -- but more than time for breeders to step up with a similar/matching fund for this kind of thing?

Surely clubs -- with their broad membership, club events, social events, online discussion boards, email lists etc -- have far greater opportunities to fundraise for this purpose than we do through Rupert's Fund?

[Margaret C]

The KC appear to have very little confidence in their own scheme.It's been six months since the first scans were read and still no results published on the KC healthfinder.Instead of the grading for a dog,the result reads "Seek results from owner",despite the scheme notes stating that results will be published on the KC healthfinder.

The results will be published, I recently had a letter from the KC confirming this and that work on the "suitable advice" is close to completion.

While it would be very neat and tidy to have both parents of a litter graded under the BVA scheme,it's not likely to happen.

Yes it is, although it may take some time. I have a bitch with a BVA/KC Scheme certificate and I know two owners that both have two stud dogs scanned under the official Scheme that I would happily use.

[Karlin]

The results will be published, I recently had a letter from the KC confirming this and that work on the "suitable advice" is close to completion.

Excellent! Slow but sure progress.