The BVA/KC Scheme. A wasted feedback exercise

Oreo said:

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

Click to expand...

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

anniemac said:

Maybe we are not as smart in the usa, but how would you or a potential pet buyer use the information?

Click to expand...

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

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."

:xctly:

Results of ballot from the Cavalier Club website

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:
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” –
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

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.

Brian M said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cavaliers and the delays in implementing proposed official health screening

I decided to write to a few Animal Welfare organisations.............

http://www.cavaliertalk.com/forums/...plementing-proposed-official-health-screening

The bva/kc scheme .a wasted feedback exercise

Margaret C said:

I decided to write to a few Animal Welfare organisations.............

http://www.cavaliertalk.com/forums/...plementing-proposed-official-health-screening

Click to expand...

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