PDA

View Full Version : Pedigree Dogs Exposed: part three



Karlin
6th September 2008, 01:17 PM
I totally understand the heartbreak, Sandy -- breeding is hard, but especially hard for smaller breeders too as many hopes ride on each dog. I know many great breeders who have had the tragedy of a dog needing to be removed from an already small programme for a poor heart exam, poor MRI and so on -- or where there were no puppies or the puppies died :( -- it is much more difficult to recover from such a situation when you might only have a couple of breeding bitches to start with.


Too many clear dogs have produced SM dogs for a MRI to be the thing we rely on entirely. I keep hearing this but as far as I can verify, this statement came from nowhere. What number is 'too many' (this implies lots and lots of cases) and who has the clear dogs, were they MRI'd, who graded the MRIs? Or is this people saying their asymptomatic and hence 'clear' un-MRId dogs have produced SM puppies? To date -- and I recently have discussed this with all the researchers I know directly -- I am only aware of a solitary situation where this happened, out of many, many clear to clear matings so far. One of the examples of this being widely touted on some of the other lists, no researcher seems aware of. More ridiculous, it was being claimed to be a test breeding Clare Rusbridge did. :rolleyes: This is a perfect example of the rubbish circulating around as 'fact'. NONE of the researchers breeds test litters. NONE of the researchers oversees or suggests test matings -- this can be directly verified by speaking to any researcher in the US, Canada, South Africa, Netherlands, Germany, France, UK. Breeders making their OWN choices and some involved with scanning programmes have reported back data for research to a range of researchers. However, the fact that occasional clear to clear matings will produce affected puppies has always been a known and accepted possibility, not some secret hidden away by researchers (at the CKCS SM conferences, it is stated clearly in the Rugby talks, for example, and at London). This is simple high school genetics -- if there are recessive genes involved, dogs with a clear phenotype (outward appearance) do not necessarily have a clear genotype (clear genes). But this is EXACTLY the situation with MVD, and research clearly shows that breeding least affected dogs does delay onset and severity. There is every indication that SM is the same.

Some of the other ridiculous claims made about Dr Rusbridge are that she initially claimed 90% of cavaliers had SM -- she has NEVER said this (as anyone can see by simply looking at the archived Rusbridge newsletter (http://sm.cavaliertalk.com/research/research/rusnews.html)s. The statement has always been that 90% of their samples have the malformation -- a figure which has been generally consistent across every single research group and from huge samples such as the 1000+ cavaliers Geoff Skerritt has MRId (his figure is at least 85%, and he MRIs lots and lots of breeder dogs that breeders believe to be clear). Initially Rusbridge and Knowler only had their group of MRIs of dogs of all ages (including lots of older dogs). In that early sample, 90% had CM, about 70% SM. Later studies, most with much younger dogs, show a minimum 30% affected rate with SM, and that same 90% with CM. It is wise to take the lowest percentages as a starting estimate -- Dr Rusbridge therefore now states at least 30% affected going from research samples (that was from the North Carolina study). It is quite routine to make population estimates based on research studies, especially when there have now been several, on several continents, all giving similar numbers; in all groups, dogs showing no signs at all of SM make up the majority of the test groups. They still all MRId with a minimum 30% with SM, about 90% with CM.

Also, the silly statement that 'she keeps changing the level of incidence'. Well, doh! That is what scientific research does -- you change your estimations based on new studies and a broader range of data. Are people really so unaware that they believe scientists are supposed to come up with a single figure and never revise it? Science is all about modifying theories based on study results.

If data starts to come in about clear lines, lower levels of incidence, and an easy way forward to breed around this problem, I know that no on would welcome this more than the researchers, ALL of whom are people who work at the front line of dealing with this condition in the REAL world -- they are all the people who see the sick dogs, the one in screaming pain, who do the surgeries, who give owners support after surgery, taking calls and answering emails in their free time as well. They are the ones actually dealing with the reality of this problem, as it presents in all its ugly, painful reality. By attacking the researchers publicly, some breeders have made themselves look utterly shameful on the public lists, where many, many decent breeders and pet owners are quieter members. many of those people have had their dogs cared for by the researchers as well. I know that hundreds of people who had their dogs MRId have had them interpreted, free of charge, by Clare Rusbridge, for example who has also taken many dozens of calls from vets and neurologists on behalf of their patients, owners of dogs around the world, to discuss potential treatments.

Finally there have been ridiculous statements that 'Clare Rusbridge never thanks breeders and the clubs' -- sheesh, I have seen this posted on lists on which some of the people who were publicly thanked at events (even given a thank you gift for their own contribution on behalf of breeders!) were there feeding the accusations while not once stating that this was totally untrue.

Again, simply reading the newsletters will show this is patently untrue -- clubs and breeders are regularly thanked. They were also publicly thanked and recognised at both CKCS SM events in the UK. And in Dr Rusbridge's doctoral thesis, there are specific thanks to the UK CKCS Club, the US clubs and Canadian clubs and their breeders, as well as specific members. How many more public thank yous are needed? :lol:

The lowest level of discourse -- and often the sign of the desperate defending the indefensible -- is to keep returning discussions of serious issues to ad hominem attacks on people and personalities. Questioning qulifications -- yes, do it, and defend it with FACT. But attacking personalities (even hairstyles and appearance! Goodness, that is critical to research, isn't it!) and making up wild 'facts' is laughable (and it the only criticisms of a researcher were hair length, whether they say thank you and whether solid, internationally peer-reviewed research goes into a PhD or not are the main criticisms -- you truly wonder what is actually valued? Research that only proves your own point of view and lets you continue doing as you've always done, with disregard to breed health or suffering?). As some of the key people in the US and Canadian clubs have asked of their breeder members -- if you have problems with believing what researchers are telling you, or with a particular researcher, then FUND OTHER STUDIES. To some extent, this is what the ACKCSC did with the North Carolina study. And guess what: the results basically aligned with Dr Rusbridge. Maybe now is the point where time and money should go towards a massive random scanning programme in the US to get that truly random sample -- this would be welcomed by all researchers too. It is time to focus support on Sarah Blott's EBVs and the Canadian genome research needed to make it truly accurate and helpful to breeders. And much work remains to be done on searching for cause and treatment.

But breeding of necessity is a lot, lot harder. Unfortunately, that is the reality and it isn't the fault of researchers that this is the case. Breeding when SM wasn't understood or recognised produced this problem and only careful breeding in conjunction with research knowledge is going to help the breed.

Karlin
6th September 2008, 02:11 PM
Review of Pedigree Dogs Exposed (http://cavaliertalk.com/scan0001.pdf) by the UK magazine Country Life (which would have a very pro-dog leaning because of sporting activities with dogs).

*Pauline*
6th September 2008, 05:37 PM
Anyone have time to do a rebuttal on Dog World-online-news-Cavaliers? Dr. Ingpen again being touted as an authority- that is just wrong.. I can't get on.

Will have a go if I can find the comment about Dr. Ingpen. Can you help me please? I found dogworld.co.uk

Cathy Moon
6th September 2008, 05:47 PM
Karlin, thanks for your recent post on this thread.

I've read a lot of this misinformation from various sources. I'm glad you've dispelled these myths. I've noticed differences between discussions based on facts vs. discussions based on misinformation. :cool:

Cathy Moon
6th September 2008, 06:00 PM
Will have a go if I can find the comment about Dr. Ingpen. Can you help me please? I found dogworld.co.uk
I couldn't find it either - I looked for it last night and this morning. :confused:

Cathy T
6th September 2008, 06:33 PM
Yes, Cathy.....that was some great information dispelling a lot of the misinformation going around masquerading as fact.



In the U.S. there are a small number of breeders following BOTH the MVD and SM protocols and getting in touch with these people is difficult, not to mention actually getting a puppy.

I believe that puppy buyers will play a large role in the future of properly bred cavaliers, but I am concerned with what this outcome may be.


I have written to two breeders here in the U.S. letting them know that, as a pet owner, I have been following the conversations. I've told them that I appreciate what they are doing and how they are doing it. I've let them know that I hope they are still breeding when I'm ready for my next puppy as I will be contacting them. And, believe me.....I have absolutely no problem buying an airline ticket to pick up my next dog!!

frecklesmom
6th September 2008, 06:34 PM
Sorry for not setting up good directions :xctly: When you go into Dog World,UK there is a Dog Breed section and scroll down to Cavaliers and click.
On the right you'll see Breed Notes Fri.5 Sept and click on "cont.reading Breed Notes"

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedsHome.aspx?nodeID=264 This will get you to Cavalier Breed Notes.

This is a very lengthy "letter". Thank you

HollyDolly
6th September 2008, 10:12 PM
Having read the Cavalier breed notes in this weeks copy of Dog World I am again angered beyond belief at the correspondents statements in relation to the best in show winner at Malvern.:bang: Should we be surprised, no I do not think so as the correspondent has used the dog in question 3 times at stud and who also condemns the person who exposed the breeder.
She comments that Breeders need people to give loving homes to their puppies does she not mean BUY their puppies and that pet-loving public need breeders to supply them, WHY? Yes I absoutely adore cavaliers and cannot imagine life without one but not to line the breeders pockets when they cannot even follow the protocols laid down and think about the pet-loving public who ultimately have to pay the vets bill.
She also comments that some groups are regarding these breeders as criminals, is it not criminal to use and SM affected dog on was it 26 Bitches? I think so. I also think it is criminal to organise petition signing in order to get Maragret C expelled from the Cavalier Club, one of the few breeders who do much for the health of the Cavalier. Perhaps now is the time for the owner of the best in show to make the scan public, surely that would prove one way or another who is right after all having been accused of the dreadful act would one not try to set the record straight.:xfngr:

*Pauline*
6th September 2008, 11:07 PM
Sorry for not setting up good directions :xctly: When you go into Dog World,UK there is a Dog Breed section and scroll down to Cavaliers and click.
On the right you'll see Breed Notes Fri.5 Sept and click on "cont.reading Breed Notes"

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedsHome.aspx?nodeID=264 This will get you to Cavalier Breed Notes.

This is a very lengthy "letter". Thank you

I registered with them but can't find anything to click on to reply. h*lp Won't you all try to reply too? I am not very good with words like some of you.

Karlin
7th September 2008, 12:14 AM
It might interest you to know that the person who wrote the Breed Notes, Craigowl breeder Norma Inglis, is I believe slightly in conflict of interest to have written what she wrote -- given that she herself has according to club records, bred SEVERAL bitches to the Malvern dog. Other breeders will be aware of this but probably no one else unless they follow the club puppy gazette or go research Kennel Club statistics. :rolleyes:

Perhaps someone would like to write Dog World and note that while anyone is entitled to their opinion this obvious financial and professional conflict of interest should be pointed out by the correspondent herself and might change considerably the perspective with which others read her opinions.

Within many publications, a journalist would lose their job over not disclosing such a gross conflict in an opinion piece. That is why at the foot of the piece I wrote on the editorial pages of the Irish Times on the programme, it indicates my SM website and notes that I have a direct interest in the subject of the programme. I discussed my personal interest with the senior editors at the Irish Times at the time of proposing an opinion piece, and we then discussed how to make clear my own perspective for writing the piece by adding such a footnote.

It also amazes me that these people continue to post the opinion of a human rheumatologist with no experience of reading vet MRIs whose lifetime around cavaliers comes from his WIFE being a breeder! And in a club in which the breeder of the Malvern dog is also a member in Australia! Is this too not a serious conflict of interest to roll such a person out as a 'neutral expert'? Much less the direct affront to one of the researchers who has given more time and discounted scans to the UK CKCS Club than any other in the UK, Geoff Skerritt, who once again will be doing deeply discounted scans next week for one of the clubs.

The only solution is what Dr Ingpen himself proposed -- take the scan to a truly neutral panel of MRI experts to pronounce upon it. And then announce the results, because public reputations have been called into question, raised by club members themselves.

*Pauline*
7th September 2008, 10:26 AM
Thanks Karlin, That's very helpful. I don't know why you can't post a reply to that particular post of hers. (5th Sept.)

Edit: I see I can now reply to her post, at last!

You know what, this makes me so wound up, I can't get over the fact that there are tests for SM, who in their right mind wouldn't use them. If it's too expensive, don't breed. The fact in the program that keeps going over in my head everyday is that if you beat a dog with a stick to cause the same pain that SM causes, you'd be in trouble with the law but breeders are in fact causing dogs excruciating pain by poor breeding practises.

I'll compose my post after lunch, for now I have to go to a meeting.

Jan Bell
7th September 2008, 10:33 AM
HollyDolly - totally agree with you about making the scan public.

I wrote the the Kennel Club and the CKCS at the end of last week and one of the issues I mentioned was the petition against Margaret C. I said that not only was this a disgusting thing to do, but it was also a method of distracting from the main point -ie: the Beauella dogs scan. If there is nothing wrong with the scan then why doesn't Beverley Costello show the results?

I am a non-showing, non-breeding member of the CKCS club, but still a member, so I wanted to know how they could possibly justify supporting Ms Costello and not Margaret, a member of their Health Committee, who is working so hard to improve the health of all Cavaliers.

Cathy Moon
7th September 2008, 01:29 PM
Having read the Cavalier breed notes in this weeks copy of Dog World I am again angered beyond belief at the correspondents statements in relation to the best in show winner at Malvern.:bang: Should we be surprised, no I do not think so as the correspondent has used the dog in question 3 times at stud and who also condemns the person who exposed the breeder.
She comments that Breeders need people to give loving homes to their puppies does she not mean BUY their puppies and that pet-loving public need breeders to supply them, WHY? Yes I absoutely adore cavaliers and cannot imagine life without one but not to line the breeders pockets when they cannot even follow the protocols laid down and think about the pet-loving public who ultimately have to pay the vets bill.
She also comments that some groups are regarding these breeders as criminals, is it not criminal to use and SM affected dog on was it 26 Bitches? I think so. I also think it is criminal to organise petition signing in order to get Maragret C expelled from the Cavalier Club, one of the few breeders who do much for the health of the Cavalier. Perhaps now is the time for the owner of the best in show to make the scan public, surely that would prove one way or another who is right after all having been accused of the dreadful act would one not try to set the record straight.:xfngr:
I agree with every point you've made. The scan needs to be turned over to a mutually agreed upon veterinary specialist panel for interpretation.

Karlin
7th September 2008, 02:15 PM
If it's too expensive, don't breed. Well, I do think the expense is prohibitive to do many dogs in many parts of the world, and will need to be dealt with in some regions -- and the gEBVs should also deal with things so that scans will not be a necessity -- but there is simply no reason for UK or Irish breeders not to be scanning. I know that the clubs are offering £100 per dog scans at special breeder scanning days with Geoff Skerritt for example -- that is about $175 at current exchange rates, and about €130. It is NOTHING.

*Pauline*
7th September 2008, 04:55 PM
I've sent a reply to Norma Inglis on Dogworld. Thank you for the help I had checking I got my facts right before I posted.

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/36-CAV.aspx

frecklesmom
7th September 2008, 05:09 PM
Great reply,Pauline :thmbsup: Think you nailed it :)

KR
7th September 2008, 05:11 PM
Has ist occurred to anyone here that according to the protocol it is permitted to breed with a dog who has a syrinx but is asymptomatic?

My internet availbaility is restricted at the moment - so I have not been able to follow the development of this discussion closely enough. I have the impression that many people are accepting everything the BBC dosumaentary hs said without questioning it for themselves.

The dog is nearly 5 yaers old now.

kind regards,

Katherine

back on line properly on Monday

*Pauline*
7th September 2008, 05:30 PM
Has its occurred to anyone here that according to the protocol it is permitted to breed with a dog who has a syrinx but is asymptomatic?

My internet availbaility is restricted at the moment - so I have not been able to follow the development of this discussion closely enough. I have the impression that many people are accepting everything the BBC dosumaentary hs said without questioning it for themselves.

The dog is nearly 5 yaers old now.

kind regards,

Katherine

back on line properly on Monday

I haven't come across any evidence that the documentary was inaccurate.

Karlin
7th September 2008, 06:53 PM
Has ist occurred to anyone here that according to the protocol it is permitted to breed with a dog who has a syrinx but is asymptomatic?
Yes, this has been discussed several times and I have pointed out many times that according to the recommended breeding advice (http://sm.cavaliertalk.com/breeding/breeding/breeding.html) offered by a panel of neurologists, dogs may have syrinxes. :thmbsup:

However there are specific grades that relate to the age of the dog when scanned, whether diagnosed with SM and whether symptomatic. To be graded, the dog MUST be at least 2.5.

As Beauella Radzinski was diagnosed at 16 months, he would have been graded an E. That means he does NOT automatically become a D when he gets to be over 2.5 or even 5. He must be rescanned or he becomes an F -- graded NEVER to be bred from. Also, you must add to this that the neurologist has said the dog had one of the worst syrinxes he had seen in a dog this age and should NEVER be bred from, regardless of whether symptomatic. This came from a man who is one of the leading specialists in SM in cavaliers.

Whether the dog is symptomatic or not, we can only take the owner's word. But she already denied on the BBC programme that he had SM. The breeder who accompanied her and was there for the whole conversation between the neurologist and the dog's owner has sent a letter to the breed club clearly stating that this is what Geoff Skerritt said and has stated she sent the letter because she could not believe her ears when she heard the breeder deny her dog had SM and was horrified to find she had bred him 26 times at least since the scan and the advice. In a later interview the breeder also refused to confirm or deny that he had been diagnosed with SM. Either he has, or he hasn't. It is also relatively easy to medicate so that symptoms do not show.

The debate over the scan at least could be easily resolved by having some neurologists not involved in the debate between Geoff Skerritt, who took and interpreted the scan, and Dr Ingpen, who has stated ONLY that he couldn't read it, NOT that the dog didn't have SM (as some are implying from his letter even though he has clarified himself that this is NOT what he has said). As several breeders have now put forward Dr Ingpen's letter as 'evidence' of the dog not having SM (rather bizarrely), and Dr Ingpen himself suggested having a panel look at the scan, then surely that is the obvious next step with the breeder accepting the interpretation and this being relayed to the club?

I wonder whether any of the bitches bred to him were scanned? If the breeder told the owners of the bitches about Mr Skerritt's professional advice? Curious how the owners of the bitches have all remained silent -- or not revealed themselves even when they publicly come out defending the breeder! If they have nothing to hide, and are advocating honesty and truthfulness, then why are they hiding?

Jan Bell
7th September 2008, 07:02 PM
I haven't come across any evidence that the documentary was inaccurate.

Katherine,

I understand Margaret C (CKCS club Health Committee) saw the scan and has confirmed that the breeder was recommended not to breed from that dog as a result of the scan.

If (which I do not believe) this is wrong, why has Ms Costello not allowed an independent expert to look at the results?

Have a look at the Health Forum (posts 168-170) from Margaret C and Karlin and decide if you think these are the actions of an honest breeder.

Best wishes,

sins
7th September 2008, 07:38 PM
To be fair, I have a certain amount of symapthy for Ms Costello.Is is unfortunate that she was the one who was "ambushed" at the Malvern show. However there is so much discussion surrounding the rights and wrongs of people's actions we must keep focused on the message that the programme delivered.
1. There is no requirement for a breeder to follow any MVD or SM protocol.
2. The health status of a dog has no bearing on the eligibility or suitability of a dog for the showring.
3. Breeders are not convinced of the value of MRI scanning as a tool for selection of breeding stock.

Villifying Margaret Carter and Carole Fowler is extremely distasteful. Instead they are owed a debt of gratitude for their sterling work in highlighting a very serious issue.
It's worrying that instead of working to find a way to deal effectively with SM in the cavalier breed there now seems to be a taste for vengeance with certain elements trying to discredit the established experts who have staked their careers on trying to help breeders to understand and control SM.
Perhaps MRI scanning isn't the complete answer but does that mean it should be dismissed?
I also feel we'll be hearing the same arguments about EBVs and why breeders choose not to use that resource either when it becomes available.
Sins

HollyDolly
7th September 2008, 08:13 PM
I would like to respond to Mrs Inglis breed note correspondent for Dog World but feel my emotions some times rule my head and the anger swells up inside me for what is happening to our lovely breed that I have owned for over 30 years. Would someone put together a response or could I use Karlins post?

*Pauline*
7th September 2008, 08:24 PM
I would like to respond to Mrs Inglis breed note correspondent for Dog World but feel my emotions some times rule my head and the anger swells up inside me for what is happening to our lovely breed that I have owned for over 30 years. Would someone put together a response or could I use Karlins post?

If I can do it you can ;) You can PM me your reply before you send it and I'll look over it if you like. Mine was checked for me before I posted it just in case I got any facts wrong.

HollyDolly
7th September 2008, 08:45 PM
If I can do it you can :wink: You can PM me your reply before you send it and I'll look over it if you like. Mine was checked for me before I posted it just in case I got any facts wrong.
__________________

Thanks for that. It may take a few hours but I will PM you just to check for me.

HollyDolly
8th September 2008, 01:26 AM
I have just sent my response to the Breed note correspondent for Cavaliers Dog World N. Inglis, will be interested to read her reply. I have also sent copy to the letters page of Dog World although have doubts as to it being published. Will be on holiday from Wednesday the 10th for one week so will not be around when the paper is due out next Friday. Thanks to Pauline for helping with this and also for submitting her response too.

frecklesmom
8th September 2008, 07:50 PM
this up today



MP clashes with The Kennel Club

2:18pm Monday 8th September 2008
http://m6-static.newsquestdigital.co.uk/system/comment_bubble.gif Comments (0) (http://www.cotswoldjournal.co.uk/news/local/moreton/3654606.MP_clashes_with_The_Kennel_Club/#show) Have your say » (http://www.cotswoldjournal.co.uk/news/local/moreton/3654606.MP_clashes_with_The_Kennel_Club/#commentsform)
By Simon Crump »

THE Cotswolds’ MP has urged the government to change the culture of pedigree dog breeding in Britain following a BBC One television documentary.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP spoke after the documentary, entitled Pedigree Dogs Exposed, criticised The Kennel Club for insisting traits be bred into pedigrees, causing them pain and endangering their lives.
Mr Clifton-Brown said he was pleased to see Gloucestershire’s Carol Fowler appear in the documentary.
Mr Clifton-Brown supports her campaign against trait breeding, which she launched after becoming aware of the syringomyelia genetic disorder that affects Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, the breed she owns.
He said he spoke with leading veterinarians, scientists, the club’s officials and senior officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The MP will also write to Lord Rooker, the government’s Animal Welfare Minister, encouraging him to arrange a meeting with Carol and himself to discuss the issue.
Mr Clifton-Brown said the documentary “showed the persistent criticism and ridicule that Carol has faced from breeders who have a vested interest in seeing the current status quo maintained”.
He added: “However, I know Carol to be a hugely determined lady and I will continue to assist her in persuading the government that they must act now to change the culture of pedigree dog breeding and showing in this country.”
Bill Lambert, Kennel Club spokesman, refuted the documentary’s allegations.
He said the club has introduced health testing schemes and changed breed standards, while working to improve canine health.
Mr Lambert said: "We fully understand how upsetting it can be to see one’s pet suffer from illness and why Carol Fowler asked her MP to take this up in Parliament.
“We have recently approached Mr Clifton-Brown's office requesting a meeting to update him on the work we are doing to improve the health of pedigree dogs, following questions that he tabled in Parliament."

Brian M
8th September 2008, 09:53 PM
Hi

Been following every word and cheering away in the background ,"Come on Ladies " .Meanwhile i emailed my local crusading MP Mr Frank Field and made him fully aware of the facts and the support offered by Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and received a reply on the 2 nd inst as follows.

Thanks for your email .I will contact Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown to see what he is planning and how I might help.

With Best Wishes

Frank Field .

Will all you experts on this horrible curse please advise us pet owner Cav people if there is anything else we can do ,i have signed and emailed as many people who i can think can add further weight and may i have permission to copy the mail previous to Mr Field to advise update of Mr Clifton-Browns recent activities.

Kind Rgds to All:thmbsup:

frecklesmom
8th September 2008, 11:13 PM
Brian, that piece is straight from the Cotswold Journal ( newspaper)today so is public. May I ask a question? What is an MP exactly?:huh:

HollyDolly
8th September 2008, 11:30 PM
Hi

Been following every word and cheering away in the background ,"Come on Ladies " .Meanwhile i emailed my local crusading MP Mr Frank Field and made him fully aware of the facts and the support offered by Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and received a reply on the 2 nd inst as follows.

Thanks for your email .I will contact Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown to see what he is planning and how I might help.

With Best Wishes

Frank Field .

Will all you experts on this horrible curse please advise us pet owner Cav people if there is anything else we can do ,i have signed and emailed as many people who i can think can add further weight and may i have permission to copy the mail previous to Mr Field to advise update of Mr Clifton-Browns recent activities.

Kind Rgds to All:thmbsup:
You could also write to dog world or send a response to N. Inglis breed note correspondent for cavaliers this can be down on line.

*Pauline*
8th September 2008, 11:40 PM
What is an MP exactly?:huh:

A Member of Parliament.

*Pauline*
8th September 2008, 11:58 PM
We got a reply to our comments in dogworld. :confused:

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/36-CAV

Cathy Moon
9th September 2008, 12:07 AM
I was pleased to read about this new development! :rah:

I'd like to add a comment about one part of the article.

Bill Lambert, Kennel Club spokesman, refuted the documentary’s allegations.
He said the club has introduced health testing schemes and changed breed standards, while working to improve canine health.
Mr Lambert said: "We fully understand how upsetting it can be to see one’s pet suffer from illness and why Carol Fowler asked her MP to take this up in Parliament.
“We have recently approached Mr Clifton-Brown's office requesting a meeting to update him on the work we are doing to improve the health of pedigree dogs, following questions that he tabled in Parliament."I hope someone will provide Mr. Clifton-Brown with a copy of the CKCS MVD Guidelines, which are Appendix C of the CKCS Club Code of Ethics, and additionally I hope someone will provide copies of the puppy gazette, examples of recent pedigrees and breeding information to show him which KC breeders/health officers don't follow the MVD guidelines by breeding their dogs too young.

frecklesmom
9th September 2008, 12:12 AM
Seems to be the way to fight criticism as once again snide commentary which doesn't deal with any facts. Is it worth answering?

HollyDolly
9th September 2008, 12:13 AM
Is that not a nasty response or what, seems to me that she in fact has not answered any of our questions, any thoughts on where we go next?

*Pauline*
9th September 2008, 12:22 AM
I'd only be going round in circles if I replied. Maybe someone good with words can post something. I still can't get through to her that Dr Ingpen is a human Dr. for goodness sake. And the fact that she says 100 puppies were produced from that Malvern dog and only one has been reported to the breeder as sick, well give it time.

WoodHaven
9th September 2008, 12:30 AM
Well, you did point out that she had a vested interest because she bred her bitches to the boy. If she didn't, I think she'd be rather miffed

Per: http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/36-CAV

"Finally Norma you failed to mention that you had used this dog on several of your bitches in your breed notes can you please tell us why? I again state that if this dog is clear of SM no one including yourself would be afraid to say I have used this dog at stud."

and

"Would it not be fair to say Norma while you are entitled to your opinion you have in fact bred several bitches from the Malvern dog featured in the BBC documentary. This obvious financial and professional conflict of interest should be pointed out."

These were rather abrupt comments too. Norma has forgotten more about cavaliers than I know. jmo, if you throw a punch, I wouldn't expect a gandi like retort back.

*Pauline*
9th September 2008, 12:37 AM
That's true, more research was needed on my part. I will apologise for that. What did you mean when you said, "Norma has forgotten more about cavaliers than I know."?

HollyDolly
9th September 2008, 12:57 AM
That's true, more research was needed on my part. I will apologise for that. What did you mean when you said, "Norma has forgotten more about cavaliers than I know."?

Sorry Pauline I do not realy know what you mean by more research!

WoodHaven
9th September 2008, 12:59 AM
That's true, more research was needed on my part. I will apologise for that. What did you mean when you said, "Norma has forgotten more about cavaliers than I know."?

There are probably about two dozen cavalier breeders that I could just sit at their feet and listen to them talk about cavaliers for hours. She has produced many lovely, typey, long lived cavaliers.

sins
9th September 2008, 01:48 AM
I was extremely concerned by the claim regarding Dr Murray Ingpen.
Dr. Ingpen DOES have a medical degree as denoted by the two letters DR and actually one of his "claims to fame" is that he has also treated human patients with this condition. .
He's listed on internet sites as being a specialist in Rheumatology.It's a noble calling and I'm sure he's a very fine clinician.
Having run a message board for supporting people with spinal deformity(some with Chiari 1 and Syringomyelia) for five years, I have only ever heard of them having decompression surgery or syrinxs drained by neurosurgeons.
I would rather personally to visit a neurologist myself for SM treatment.
I would rather my dog visit a veterinary neurologist than a Rheumatologist.
So if people feel that this rheumatologist is better qualified or more competent than someone like Rusbridge then they're entitled to have him diagnose and treat their dogs if they have the misfortune to develop SM.
However I feel it highly unlikely that Dr Ingpen will abandon his two legged patients in favour of the four legged variety.
Sins

Jan Bell
9th September 2008, 09:09 AM
Sandy,

Please don't take this as a "snidy" comment, as I am just curious and want more information.

You seem to know Norma and I accept the fact that she had bred many long lived Cavaliers. But from the article in Dog World I understand that she doesn't believe that MRI scans help.

I am no expert on this and but from all the reading I've been doing over the last couple of weeks I don't understand why the MRI scanning and breed protocols (if followed) wouldn't lead to healthier Cavaliers in time, and I am frightened for the future of the breed if there are no changes.

I understood that the CKCS club itself is recommending scans and the use of the breeding protocol as detailed on this site. The Kennel Club too was criticised on Pedigree Dogs Exposed because these were not being enforced, not that they disagree with them.

Why would DNA testing be better, and if so, shouldn't people have been campaigning in the same way for this if they feel it is the way to go?

It seems to me that the TV programme has enabled a lot of debate and discussion, so I would like to understand why this breeder feels as she does. From my understanding she seems to be saying that the MRI from the Malvern dog is irrelevant.

As I say, please don't take this as an "attack" - I would just like to hear your opinion.

Best wishes,

diddy
9th September 2008, 11:45 AM
Im with you 100% on that Jan.
Our breeder publicly stated she would not have her dogs scanned. The interview did not go into the reasons why (looks to me like it was cut in several places then re-joined later!!!). I cannot understand why with all the advice they give US i.e. heart scans and use an older dog as stud with good heart grades , they then go and do the complete opposite. I too cannot understand the thinking behind it.
diddy.:confused:

WoodHaven
9th September 2008, 02:28 PM
Sandy,

Please don't take this as a "snidy" comment, as I am just curious and want more information.

You seen to know Norma and I accept the fact that she had bred many long lived Cavaliers. But from the article in Dog World I understand that she doesn't believe that MRI scans help.

I am no expert on this and but from all the reading I've been doing over the last couple of weeks I don't understand why the MRI scanning and breed protocols (if followed) wouldn't lead to healthier Cavaliers in time, and I am frightened for the future of the breed if there are no changes.

I understood that the CKCS club itself is recommending scans and the use of the breeding protocol as detailed on this site. The Kennel Club too was criticised on Pedigree Dogs Exposed because these were not being enforced, not that they disagree with them.

Why would DNA testing be better, and if so, shouldn't people have been campaigning in the same way for this if they feel it is the way to go?

It seems to me that the TV programme has enabled a lot of debate and discussion, so I would like to understand why this breeder feels as she does. From my understanding she seems to be saying that the MRI from the Malvern dog is irrelevant.

As I say, please don't take this as an "attack" - I would just like to hear your opinion.

Best wishes,

First of all {smile}-- thanks for making sure I didn't get defensive. I do tend to get prickly fast. (Hubby says it is a character flaw of mine-lol).

Norma isn't in the minority. I'd say there are a HUGE percent of breeders that don't trust MRI's. MOST cavaliers have crowded cerebellums, most have the malformation-- so what does the MRI tell you?? It tells you the dog does or doesn't have SM today. It doesn't tell you if the dog is in pain (some dogs without SM show signs, some dogs with heinous SM (on MRI) are without pain and loss of feeling). It also really doesn't tell you if the dog SHOULD be bred. A clear dog by MRI could be a walking timebomb of genes just waiting for the female carrier to finish the poly genetic puzzle.
MRI's are a tool-- to hopefully use to breed away from SM. A blood test could be a much more exact tool. Compare the genes "carried" by both parents may be able to predict percentages of clears much easier.

Many breeders have put more years of their lives into their dog breeding program than we've been alive. They have taken their lines where they want to go. They want choices. If people don't like the choices the breeder has made-- then they have a choice to not buy a pup or to buy it elsewhere.

sorry, I have to stop mid thought-- I have 5 minutes before I have to leave for work.

Arlene
9th September 2008, 05:48 PM
"Many breeders have put more years of their lives into their dog breeding program than we've been alive. They have taken their lines where they want to go. They want choices. If people don't like the choices the breeder has made-- then they have a choice to not buy a pup or to buy it elsewhere."

Sandy, I know this sentiment well. I find, though, that when dealing with pups that may easily become afflicted and suffer with MVD or SM because of the choices the breeders want to make, there are more ethics needed behind a decision than simply "then they have a choice to not buy a pup or buy it elsewhere."

That pup born to suffer is still going to suffer no matter who purchases it or even if it stays in the breeders home. We should not be told that then we should be sitting idly by and letting this happen.

When breeders are given tools which they can use to make guided choices, and then refuse to use them, or find them inconvenient, then, in my mind their ethics are up for questionning. As a concerned citizen then I have a duty not only to not buy from them, but to also try to make changes so they cannot do harm.

As a breeder I would also feel I have a duty to make sure those within my breed were also doing their best to do no harm.

Of course, even following protocol there are going to instances of pups born with problems, but at least the breeder would have given it the best chance, not a mediocre one. To ignore sound MVD and SM protocol is not doing their best.

While this breeder - and many others - may have forgotten more about the breed than I know, as far as I am concerned that does not give them excuse for completely ignoring not only SM protocols, but MVD protocols as well. (Pedigree databases show that the majority of the breeders of the well known affixes are still ignoring both.)

If any one can explain the thinking that their experience should trump the protocols, I am up to trying to understand. As yet I am having a great difficulty.

Arlene and her three: J P - Alaskan Husky, Missie - Cavalier x Tibetan Spaniel, Rocky - All Sporty Cavalier :)

WoodHaven
9th September 2008, 05:59 PM
AS you should know... Protocol is a way of doing things. IF you can't get the experts to agree, you are never going to get breeders to agree. IF a breeder has inferior pups, trust me, word gets around.

I really don't know why you are pushing the protocol issue at all.

Arlene
9th September 2008, 06:14 PM
"so what does the MRI tell you?? It tells you the dog does or doesn't have SM today."

I am sorry for the double post but I just saw this.

Does not that MRI also tell whether or not that breeding dog/bitch has a greater or lesser chance of producing pups with SM, just as a dog clear of MVD until an older age has a better chance of producing early onset MVD?

I believe the work the Dutch have done has shown this about MRIs and SM.

Arlene and her three: J P - Alaskan Husky, Missie - Cavalier x Tibetan Spaniel, Rocky - All Sporty Cavalier :)

WoodHaven
9th September 2008, 06:18 PM
"so what does the MRI tell you?? It tells you the dog does or doesn't have SM today."

I am sorry for the double post but I just saw this.

Does not that MRI also tell whether or not that breeding dog/bitch has a greater or lesser chance of producing pups with SM, just as a dog clear of MVD until an older age has a better chance of producing early onset MVD?

I believe the work the Dutch have done has shown this about MRIs and SM.

Arlene and her three: J P - Alaskan Husky, Missie - Cavalier x Tibetan Spaniel, Rocky - All Sporty Cavalier :)

NO-- It doesn't tell you whether or not the genes are loaded to express a problem.
MVD is a deterioration of the valves-- I'd say SM would be more like HD.

ARE you this same Arlene?


Missie was born on 12/28/05 http://www.designermixes.org/Dogs/Bio.aspx?Dog=136
Rocky was born on 1/21/06 http://www.purebredpups.org/Dogs/Bio.aspx?Dog=24

The puppies were born on 2/17/08..... http://adamstoyspaniels.faithweb.com/photo5.html

Arlene
9th September 2008, 06:20 PM
"I really don't know why you are pushing the protocol issue at all."

So then we should just all ignore protocol and trust that the breeders are doing the best they can.

That has worked well for the breed so far hasn't it?

How much improvement has been made in hearts over the last 14 years?

Arlene and her three: J P - Alaskan Husky, Missie - Cavalier x Tibetan Spaniel, Rocky - All Sporty Cavalier :)

WoodHaven
9th September 2008, 06:29 PM
WEEEEeee are doing the best we can using the tools and knowledge at our disposal--

*Pauline*
9th September 2008, 06:29 PM
"IF a breeder has inferior pups, trust me, word gets around."

Word might get around in the breeding world if a breeder has inferior pups, but the poor unsuspecting general public have no idea.

[quote=WoodHaven;285504]I really don't know why you are pushing the protocol issue at all.

I think it's reassuring to pet owners if the protocol was adhered to and worthwhile for the health of the dogs. There are no guarantees but it's a start.

If a breeder doesn't feel MVD and SM protocol are important, what steps do they take to try to avoid dogs with these conditions?

Nancy
9th September 2008, 06:30 PM
If you are the breeder of those mixed puppies, it appears you didn't follow any protocol for either disease.

KR
9th September 2008, 07:56 PM
Pauline: there are other methods in use to combat mvd and sm that the mvd and sm protocols.

Alison_Leighfield
9th September 2008, 08:05 PM
KR....would like to hear much more about these other methods to combat MVD and SM other than the set protocols. Enlighten us....

Alison.

*Pauline*
9th September 2008, 08:05 PM
Pauline: there are other methods in use to combat mvd and sm that the mvd and sm protocols.

I don't know what they are, would you be so kind as to explain please? :)

KR
9th September 2008, 08:24 PM
As it is assumed that SM is polygenetic, two of the three clubs in Germany are using the standard method used to combat polygenetic diseases similar to the approach for PL etc..
Dogs with SM are not allowed to breed. Dogs which have sired sm dogs are only allowed to breed with dogs who have not sired sm dogs - In addition to that the parents of sm ill dogs are recorded and there is an aim to have as few of these as possible in a pedigree. This is not unlike the standard approach to combat PL except it goes a level further.It is a model which is also being emulated in other countries.
There are of course other clubs which are not following this model. We have found that the most current 4 dogs reported to us with SM would not have been born, had the model we are using be used.

As Woodhaven wrote, a scan will show you wether a dog has a syrinx or not at a particular time - it does not tell you if it will produce sm ill dogs or not - in particular as a syrinx can develop at a much later age.
I personally know an elderly stud dog (now 8 ) who has never had a symptom in his life and has fathered many puppies. Out of interest he was scanned and he has a syrinx - but not a single puppy sired by him has developed SM symptoms. I also know of an entire kennel where all dogs were free, but who still show symptoms which no one can explain.

No model is perfect - and can not prevent everything - so it is only usual that there be other approaches.

I am not going to discuss whether this approach is better or worse than any other method as only time will tell.
.....

With regards to MVD in the Netherlands there is a scheme to introduce mandatory regular farb doppler examinations of dogs used in breeding.

In a separate thread I wrote of the MVD situation as reported by the club I am a member of in Germany.

I am sorry I am not writing this all again - I do not feel uncomfortable here, as I have seen some very judgemental behaviour - something which is contradictory to my very nature.

Nancy
9th September 2008, 08:35 PM
KR, thank you for describing other methods, it's important to be open minded until we have this all figured out. I mentioned this before, but my only dog who has MVD is the one born to Swedish dogs who have some of the strictest rules. Sometimes it happens.

Arlene
9th September 2008, 08:55 PM
Nancy, I am the breeder of those mixed puppies.

That mixed litter also has taught me, when looking at pedigrees of breeders, to allow for the occasional litter that might have been an accidental breeding. A careless door left open by a teen son at Christmas break last year meant an early litter.

My first litter was scheduled for my dogs at the age of three in the spring of 2009.

The four pups are placed closely with friends who are aware the breeding was too early (both in the pair were just under two at the time of breeding and we had not yet MRId Missie as planned).

I am sure that this thread should stay on the topic of Cavaliers, and not mixed litters which is a whole 'nuther' topic which the owner of the board does not welcome, so I will ask that questions be aimed at my p-mail.

Arlene and her three :)

Alison_Leighfield
9th September 2008, 11:12 PM
Thank you KR for your reply, it's good that we can all call on each others experience and thoughts :)

Alison.

diddy
9th September 2008, 11:32 PM
First of all {smile}-- thanks for making sure I didn't get defensive. I do tend to get prickly fast. (Hubby says it is a character flaw of mine-lol).

Norma isn't in the minority. I'd say there are a HUGE percent of breeders that don't trust MRI's. MOST cavaliers have crowded cerebellums, most have the malformation-- so what does the MRI tell you?? It tells you the dog does or doesn't have SM today. It doesn't tell you if the dog is in pain (some dogs without SM show signs, some dogs with heinous SM (on MRI) are without pain and loss of feeling). It also really doesn't tell you if the dog SHOULD be bred. A clear dog by MRI could be a walking timebomb of genes just waiting for the female carrier to finish the poly genetic puzzle.
MRI's are a tool-- to hopefully use to breed away from SM. A blood test could be a much more exact tool. Compare the genes "carried" by both parents may be able to predict percentages of clears much easier.

Many breeders have put more years of their lives into their dog breeding program than we've been alive. They have taken their lines where they want to go. They want choices. If people don't like the choices the breeder has made-- then they have a choice to not buy a pup or to buy it elsewhere.

sorry, I have to stop mid thought-- I have 5 minutes before I have to leave for work.





Thank you for explaining that the MRI cannot be used to show if the dogs SHOULD be bred. You have answered most of the questions I had, and it helped me understand.
Thanks again

KR
10th September 2008, 12:26 AM
Hello,

I have not been eaten yet, so I will continue. Generally regarding genetic diseases (not sure that is the correct term, I have been out of the UK for over 20 years) in assessing who do breed with whom, you do not only look at the phenotype of the dog i.e. the way it is visibly constituted (how it looks, its health results etc..) but you also try to get an udnerstanding of the genotype of the the dog (the way the dog is genetically made up, which is not always expressed) and they way you do this is by looking at it's ancestors. Ancestors are of the utmost importance!

Regarding MVD - it can appear at any age, and the way the illness progresses can be very very different. For me a dog that is heart clear at 2,5 years is the norm! It is here, and should generally be nothing to get excited about. But the heart clear dog at 2,5 can be very sick at 4 - and this is where you have to gauge the likelihood - this is no exact science. If I were to have a hear clear dog at age 2,5 years whose parents were seriously ill by the time they were 6, I would think very seriously about not breeding this dog regardless of whether this complied with a protocol or not! If I were to have a dog who is heart clear at 2, whose parents and grand parents were heart healthy to a great age, I would expect that the same could apply to this dog and would not be concerned whether breeding this dog were against a protocol or not. This is because we are talking about an inherited disease - and whilst the heart clear dam at 2,5 may fulfill a protocol then there is a higher likelihood that she herself may develop the disease, and depending on what the offspring inherit from their sire - they could too.
I hope I have misunderstood the part of the protocol saying not to breed a dog with a murmer before it is 5 years old - because I think breeding one with a murmer after that age is cruel. Please can someone explain that part to me.

kind regards,

Katherine

*Pauline*
10th September 2008, 12:50 AM
Thanks for that KR, very interesting, I'm learning every day.

Nancy
10th September 2008, 12:54 AM
Katherine,
I believe the protocol is to breed at min of 2.5 with parents of that dog over 5. The protocol is very common sense oriented and I know many breeders who feel it is a guideline and their judgement and knowledge about the lines also come into play. For example, I know many breeders who feel that the benefits outweigh the risks if you wanted to breed a 2 year old female who had parents and grandparents heart clear at 5-8 years old and every other aspect of health was perfect. Especially if you breed her to a 10 year old heart clear male. In addition, a grade 2 murmur at 3-4 may never progress and to discard that male or female from the breeding pool is sometimes viewed as a mistake. These are my opinions and conclusions only, but when making these decisions, sometimes there are very hard questions and even more difficult answers. I don't think anyone would argue that the 2.5 year old clear boy who becomes ill anywhere along the line should not be bred.

KR
10th September 2008, 01:00 AM
Yes, but what is meant with the statement not to breed any dog with a murmer until it is over 5 years old?

I can not get that into my head. I have my girl mariet, who is just about to turn 5, she has been heart clear all her life, and I hope to breed her in October. Prior to her being mated I must have a heart certificate done - this is the rule here, and makes very much sense. When she is mated she is over 5 years old - unless I have misunderstood this protocol, according to the protocol it would be o.k. to mate her if she had a murmer.

This will never happen, amongst others these are the two main reasons 1) my club forbids it 2) I could would never expect a sick dog to endure pregnancy and raising puppies.

WoodHaven
10th September 2008, 01:05 AM
At first the protocol said no breeding UNTIL the dogs were 5. That thankfully was set aside unless you don't have complete health history of the parents.
I agree Katherine, I'd never breed a female that wasn't in top shape. I might breed an 8 or 9 year old male with a one murmur (if he was otherwise healthy).

sins
10th September 2008, 01:13 AM
I hope I have misunderstood the part of the protocol saying not to breed a dog with a murmer before it is 5 years old - because I think breeding one with a murmer after that age is cruel. Please can someone explain that part to me.


The protocol states "Do not breed any Cavalier who is diagnosed with an MVD murmur under the age of 5 years."

i.e. remove it from the breeding programme if it develops a murmur before the age of 5.

You are right Katherine, the way it's phrased it's open to interpretation.I also assume that it's ok to breed from a cavalier who has a heart murmur if the murmur develops after age 5.(according to protocol)

HollyDolly
10th September 2008, 01:45 AM
We got a reply to our comments in dogworld. :confused:

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/36-CAV

It appears I may have got it wrong, It has been stated that Norma Inglis did not breed any of her own bitches to Beauella Radinski and that it was not her that replied to my comments in Dog World.

WoodHaven
10th September 2008, 02:04 AM
I tried to warn you that Norma was a class act. She is top notch. She has no reason to hide anything.
She doesn't know me and I've never gotten in touch with her. I have nothing to gain by telling you this.

HollyDolly
10th September 2008, 02:17 AM
First of all I was going off information in a previous post re Norma mating her bitches to Beauella Radinski, so in future I will check rather than take what is written as gospel, so I apologise for that. You say that she is a class act, my opinion is that she seems to condone the mating of unhealthy dogs and we keep getting Dr Ingpen thrown at us well if that is class act:bang:

WoodHaven
10th September 2008, 02:28 AM
No, she has used her 35 YEARS in this breed not to blast others for what they did. Breeders try to make the best decisions they can with the information they have. Not blowing up at someone because you "think" they did something "WRONG" is being a class act. How many dogs are suffering because of the breedings done?? I'd really like to know that number.
IF you don't like Normas approach.... don't buy her dogs. Even tho they are some of the best specimens to be found.
I figured we would have learned by now what people SAY isn't quite what they do. Not here on the board and definitely not in real life.

HollyDolly
10th September 2008, 02:53 AM
Perhaps you should ask members of this board how many have Cavaliers with MVD or SM. I have loved and shared my life with Cavaliers for over 33 years, in that time I have owned 12 cavaliers out of which 5 were dead by the time they were 7 so NO I would not go to any breeder that could not show me that they had done all they can for the health of the breed. To watch your beloved pet faint, cough, gasp for breath and eventually die in your arms is no joke. As I have written before in a previous post I cannot imagine my life without a Cavalier I have 3 at the moment but next time I search for one I will definitely not be going to the Craigowls, surely by now HEALTH COMES BEFORE LOOKS AND BREED TYPE> I also forgot to mention Episodic Falling. Dry Eye / Curly Coat, Juvenille cataracts, patella luxation shall I go on

WoodHaven
10th September 2008, 03:10 AM
Perhaps you should ask members of this board how many have Cavaliers with MVD or SM. I have loved and shared my life with Cavaliers for over 33 years, in that time I have owned 12 cavaliers out of which 5 were dead by the time they were 7 so NO I would not go to any breeder that could not show me that they had done all they can for the health of the breed. To watch your beloved pet faint, cough, gasp for breath and eventually die in your arms is no joke. As I have written before in a previous post I cannot imagine my life without a Cavalier I have 3 at the moment but next time I search for one I will definitely not be going to the Craigowls, surely by now HEALTH COMES BEFORE LOOKS AND BREED TYPE>

Wow, 1st of all --5 gone by 7 is rough... so sorry.
I have a house full of cavaliers ages almost one to over 8. Not one is on ANY meds. All run, jump, tug, and tease each other without mercy. Right now they are hunting moths.
My first cavalier is over 8, her sire was heart clear past 9 -- her dam was heart clear past 5. Her dam was ruling the roost last time I visited, she was about 13 years old-- not on any meds. This is about normal of what I see with the sires/ dams of my crew.
Your choice 100% -- go to the ones you feel most comfortable with.

Jan Bell
10th September 2008, 09:49 AM
Well I am certainly learning on this board. But overall I am still worried about not having an breeding regulations. It's not that I don't believe that there are a lot of good and responsable breeders out there, but there are also some bad ones.

I am now getting into a position where I know what to ask (or who to ask if necessary) when I want another dog, but not everyone is. I think it is a bit naive to assume that every member of the dog buying public simply has the choice to buy from a good breeder or bad one. Cavaliers are an extremely popular breed and there are so many people breeding them. Unfortunately, people come as a mixed batch, and not all are honest or responsable. And not all people are knowledgable or wise enought to find out everything they ought to: buying a puppy is often an emotional experience.

13 years ago I bought my first pedigree dog, a Welsh Springer Spaniel, and went through the Kennel Club for a breeder as I was advised. I was set on an undocked Spaniel, a contentious issue at the time, but I didn't realise how contentious until I spoke to several breeders. It was then I discovered just how aggressive, rude and unhelpful some of these breeders could be - and this was simply asking for an undocked dog (which is now the norm of course). I did get my lovely undocked Becky eventually, from Dogs Today's "Tailwaggers Against Docking" list, and had her for 12 lovely waggy years - but that's another story.

In an ideal world everybody buying a puppy should do all the enquiries and only buy from a good breeder, but this isn't an ideal world. In all other spheres of life there are laws which protect the consumer against their own unwise choices, and to protect those who have been taken advantage of. I don't see this as being any different. I still believe that there should be some sort of regulations for anybody selling puppies to ensure a certain level of health. Nothing can be guaranteed in life and this is no different, but a minimum level of health for breeding or showing should be mandatory, in my mere opinion.

As I have said before, I am no expert, just a Cavalier owner and lover who can't bear to see the breed deteriorate. As for how this minimum level of heath comes about, well, this is why I think it is good that the programme on TV has started this debate. There are people out there who have the expertise and now they have to fight it out to get the best solution.

Not everybody is going to be happy (I still met a lady when Becky was 10 years old who told me that she was an "abomination" as she had a tail - no amount of legislation or public opinion was going to change her mind) but that again is life. It's also hard on those good breeders who have been doing their best all along, but as I say, not all breeders do this and everybody has to be taken into account.

HollyDolly - I felt quite heartbroken to think of all your lovely Cavaliers dying so young. Perhaps it is when you have had experience like that it give you a viewpoint from which to fight from though. My mum had an ex-breeder's Cavalier from a resuce centre (grade 4 mumur at 5 when she got her - my mum was one of those people who were led by their hearts and took her anyway) who died at 7 years old and it does give you a certain perspective when you have seen it happen.

Thanks to everybody for all the information anyway.

Cathy Moon
10th September 2008, 12:33 PM
It appears I may have got it wrong, It has been stated that Norma Inglis did not breed any of her own bitches to Beauella Radinski and that it was not her that replied to my comments in Dog World.
I just checked on World Pedigrees, and the BIS Malvern dog was bred with one of hers (there is no 'at' in her bitch's name); the puppies were born before the BIS dog reached age 2.
World Pedigrees: http://www.worldpedigrees.com/Default.aspx
You have to set up an account. Then search for 'Beauella Radzinski' and look at breeding number 4.

The information is also found in the stud book register.

Cathy Moon
10th September 2008, 12:49 PM
Dogs with SM are not allowed to breed. Dogs which have sired sm dogs are only allowed to breed with dogs who have not sired sm dogs - In addition to that the parents of sm ill dogs are recorded and there is an aim to have as few of these as possible in a pedigree. This is not unlike the standard approach to combat PL except it goes a level further.It is a model which is also being emulated in other countries.
There are of course other clubs which are not following this model. We have found that the most current 4 dogs reported to us with SM would not have been born, had the model we are using be used.
I'm learning, too, and hope you will continue to post.

I would like to ask a question, and before I do, I want to explain that we have many breeders who don't have the documents to back up what they say to puppy buyers. Therefore the puppy buyer is at risk of being lied to.

So I will ask my question: how do you determine which dogs have SM? Is it based on observation of symptoms and anecdotal information? Is it based on an MRI scan? Or both MRI and observation of symptoms?

Another reason I ask is because I know of at least one breeder who has so many dogs, she didn't even know that one of her dogs was deaf. So how could a breeder know if a dog has mild SM symptoms if only based on observation?

Alison_Leighfield
10th September 2008, 01:16 PM
MRI and observation together seems the most sensible to me, in finding affected Cavaliers.

Symtomatic SM dogs can scan unaffected and shouldn't be bred from, also scanned affected can appear normal and they also shouldn't be bred from. I would have thought that a balance of the two being MRI clear and observation along with family history combined makes the best option.

So how many are there that fit this particular window along with a clear family heart history, no Dry Eye/Curly Coat or other health concerns.

Alison.

KR
10th September 2008, 05:40 PM
So,

the reporting of an affected dog is done by it's owner directly to the club. The breeder of the dog has no say in this process.

This is done by filling in a questionaire, which questions what the diagnosis has been, the method of diagnosis, the vet treating the dog etc.. It is not mandatory for your dog to have been MRI'd to report a suspected SM case.

It would be counterproductive to expect owners of pet dogs to MRI their dogs in Germany and only to accept that as proof. Yes it is possible that mistakes might be made - but it is better to identify one dog too many than one too few.

It is quite possible in Germany for a breeder to deny that their own dog has SM, if the dog does not publicly show symptoms this could go undetected. I do however want to highlight that in order for a dog to be bred from, it has to pass a breeding examination - the dog is assessed anatomically by an appointed judge - who has additional training to spot suspected symptoms, this judge has the right to say no you can not breed from this dog, at this breeding licence examination the dog owner also has to provide a patella certificate which is from a specially designated vet appointed by the German kennel Club and in the case of a male dog, a heart certificate (certificates for females are provided at a different time). If the dog fails its licence it may be presented once more - if it fails ago - it can not will bred with.
It is quite possible that a dog develops SM later, and this is not reported by the owner - however at the latest when the dog produces affected offspring - the dog will be identified as a carrier and will be registered regardless whether the breeder likes it or not.

I think this is all a bit complicated to read - sorry about that - it is a totally different system than in the UK - it takes a while to get ones head around it.

kind regards,

Katherine

Alison_Leighfield
10th September 2008, 06:30 PM
Katherine,

What restrictions are there for the pet dog breeders that do not belong in clubs and the commercial breeders, (I don't know if you have Puppy Farm/Mills in Germany?) do they have any demands made upon them regarding health testing before breeding?
Unlike here in the U.K where anyone can breed regardless of following any health checks and having a club membership and then still being able to K.C register the pups giving pedigree papers.
Alot of damage gets done in this way, we need more health restrictions on these kind of breeders, the ones that breed in all ignorance for money and greed.

There are breeders that dedicate years of very hard work into their dogs and concentrate on health as foremost, the whole issue must be just exhausting.

Thank you for the posts with your information, it's very interesting.

Alison.

KR
10th September 2008, 07:58 PM
So, I think it is best if I outline as briefly as I can the different structures - with what they do regarding breeding.

FCI= we all know this one, the VDH reports to the FCI and the FCI has some loose rules on breeding which are binding to all member country organisations.

VDH = German equivalent of the Kennel Club member of FCI - it delegates the right to making breeding rules to the clubs which are part of it - but in grave cases the VDH has the right to make rules for the clubs and clubs must obey.

CCD, ICC and VK are the three clubs which are part of the VDH - for all clubs heart certificates are mandatory - for two of the clubs patella are mandatory - there are a number of other recommended tests which are more often than not done. MRI scanning has been done by about 1/4 to 1/3 of breeders in the CCD and VK - together the clubs produce approx 800 puppies per year. If mandatory health checks are not done and other breeding rules not kept to this can result in registration of puppies with a note on their pedigree bred against club rules, a ban on breeding for a kennel, a cash fine or being kicked out of the club.

"Free Clubs" these are not member of the VDH - many state they do health testing but often this is lip service. Many are fronts for puppy mills. many founded by people who have been thrown out of VDH clubs for reasons such as breeding underage dogs, not keeping to health testing rules, breeding without regard to breed protocols, poor dog keeping etc..
Some members of the VDH clubs believe a "breeder" in such a club is only there to avoid keeping to the rules of the vDH clubs. Usually this is the case. In some of these clubs there is only one cavalier breeder - the "Zuchtbuchstelle", person runnung the registration knows nothing about cavaliers and so they might have the rule you must do hip scoring, but no need to do a heart test. These clubs are also renowned for faking pedigrees.

There are also laws which apply to everyone regarding how to keep dogs, a band on docking, a ban on spaying unless for medical resopns - but not health testing.

I do not know how may puppies are produced by these free clubs as the clubs are numerous and there is of course no central register.

Cathy Moon
11th September 2008, 02:15 AM
Katherine,
Thank you for sharing this information with us. It is food for thought. :flwr:

Another question: how do cavalier pet owners learn about MVD and SM in your country? Is there a rule in your club that breeders must provide a certain amount of information to puppy buyers about these health conditions and the symptoms?

Not only in the US, but also everywhere in the world, I wonder how many cavaliers, both breeder-owned and pets have symptoms that go unnoticed. For example, if I was not an experienced dog owner, and a multiple cavalier owner, my pet cavalier, Geordie, could easily have gone undiagnosed for quite awhile. There are some pet owners in the US who don't use flea preventatives; they are used to seeing their dogs scratch and think it's normal. I use flea preventatives from the vet, have been around lots of dogs, and can compare behaviors in my 3 cavaliers; therefore I suspected Geordie had SM before it was diagnosed. I had already started giving him Omeprazole to lower his CSF pressure in an attempt to slow the progression.

I wonder how many cavaliers are not diagnosed, yet are in pain. How many dog owners know what to look for, and how many understand how subtle the symptoms actually are. Dogs try to hide their pain. By the time they are screaming in pain, they could have already been suffering for years.

Jan Bell
11th September 2008, 09:27 AM
Cathy you have said something in this post that I have been wondering about since I have been reading up about SM over the last couple of weeks.

I don't know if I am worrying about nothing or not, but I have started to have concerns about my Mum's rescue Cavalier Fern, who is about 7 years old. She isn't air scratching or doing anything very obvious, but sometimes she yelps when she is picked up and once or twice she has yelped for no particular reason.

I do all the vet stuff for my Mum and Dad, so next time she is over here I am going to run this by my vet just in case, with particulary refererence to SM. Unfortunately I am currently on crutches having had a knee operation, so can't do it for the next 6 weeks. I am concerned that what I thought was just Fern being a bit of a wimp is something more serious.

I did mention it to the vet on her last visit for innoculations, and she was checked over for anything physical but seemed ok then. But as you say, I didn't know about SM then so never considered it as a possibility.

It's really interesting to read Katherine's posts about the system in Germany. I have so much to learn about all this, and I have to confess, a lot of it I still find confusing. I'm afraid I'm one of the people who want something to happen, but am not sure what should happen. Still, with so many people discussing it now, and the Kennel Club statement from yesterday, I am hopeful for future change

KR
11th September 2008, 10:12 AM
Katherine,
Thank you for sharing this information with us. It is food for thought. :flwr:

Another question: how do cavalier pet owners learn about MVD and SM in your country? Is there a rule in your club that breeders must provide a certain amount of information to puppy buyers about these health conditions and the symptoms?

Not only in the US, but also everywhere in the world, I wonder how many cavaliers, both breeder-owned and pets have symptoms that go unnoticed. For example, if I was not an experienced dog owner, and a multiple cavalier owner, my pet cavalier, Geordie, could easily have gone undiagnosed for quite awhile. There are some pet owners in the US who don't use flea preventatives; they are used to seeing their dogs scratch and think it's normal. I use flea preventatives from the vet, have been around lots of dogs, and can compare behaviors in my 3 cavaliers; therefore I suspected Geordie had SM before it was diagnosed. I had already started giving him Omeprazole to lower his CSF pressure in an attempt to slow the progression.

I wonder how many cavaliers are not diagnosed, yet are in pain. How many dog owners know what to look for, and how many understand how subtle the symptoms actually are. Dogs try to hide their pain. By the time they are screaming in pain, they could have already been suffering for years.

Hi,

when a puppy buyer buys a puppy from a breeder from our club (VK) the pedigree is actually a book - in the book there is the pedigree and a detailed description of SM and MVD - including what to do if you suspect and a request to report all diagnosis to "Zuchtbuch" (studbook). This way even if a breeder were reluctant to discuss these illnesses with a puppy buyer - they would at least get detailed written information. It is not possible to remove the pedigree from the book (if one wanted to avoid giving the information to the puppy buyer) as this would destroy it.

I had my forst litter this year and I explaiend the illnesses personally to each puppy buyer and showed them also the health certificates of the parents.

kind regards,

Katherine

Brian M
11th September 2008, 11:36 AM
Hi

I apologize if these articles have been posted prior ,they are two items referring to the ongoing debate and for me made interesting reading both are from the K9 magazine and i hope its OK to post links as below ,naturally if not will one of the moderators pls delete accordingly.

http://www.k9magazine.com/viewarticle.php?sid=15&aid=2294&vid=0&npage=


http://www.k9magazine.com/viewarticle.php?sid=15&aid=2292&vid=0&npage=


Tks

Brian

sins
11th September 2008, 11:53 AM
I see according to Dogworld that a follow up programme to pedigree dogs exposed is in the pipeline.
On a tangent I also note the same article carries the claim that

"in the wake of the programme a club is making moves to oust one of its members. Cavalier breeder and syringomyelia (SM) campaigner Margaret Carter, appeared in the film speaking about the condition and suggesting that not enough steps were being made within the breed to prevent it spreading.
It is understood that, after receiving a petition from its members, the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club is to hold an SGM to expel Mrs Carter on the grounds that she broke the club’s confidentiality rule. This has not been confirmed. Chairman Lesley Jupp said this week: “A petition was received and the SGM is being arranged.”

All I can say is take a look at the article, there's so much more in there that just leaves me feeling totally deflated.Is this being done in the interest of the cavalier breed or just to quench a thirst for vengeance?
The eyes of the cavalier world are watching!

Alison_Leighfield
11th September 2008, 11:57 AM
KR,

Sounds like a good system for the buyer, information as well as somewhere to go to report a problem if seen. Obviously the VK feels a responsibility to good health and maintaining standards with its breeders.

Alison.

KR
11th September 2008, 12:27 PM
The VK sees itself as responsible for breeding healthy dogs - and actually takes that responsiblity away from the breeder. In the event of a legal dispute regarding health the VK would go to court for the rbeeder.

The VK represents a number of toy breeds, there are different health rules for each according to the breed and the population being bred with. The rules are constantly under review.

As a breeder some of the rules are quite uncomfortable - for example I had to have DNA profiles made for every puppy, this is quite expensive.

Margaret C
11th September 2008, 12:33 PM
I see according to Dogworld that a follow up programme to pedigree dogs exposed is in the pipeline.
On a tangent I also note the same article carries the claim that

"in the wake of the programme a club is making moves to oust one of its members. Cavalier breeder and syringomyelia (SM) campaigner Margaret Carter, appeared in the film speaking about the condition and suggesting that not enough steps were being made within the breed to prevent it spreading.
It is understood that, after receiving a petition from its members, the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club is to hold an SGM to expel Mrs Carter on the grounds that she broke the club’s confidentiality rule. This has not been confirmed. Chairman Lesley Jupp said this week: “A petition was received and the SGM is being arranged.”

All I can say is take a look at the article, there's so much more in there that just leaves me feeling totally deflated.Is this being done in the interest of the cavalier breed or just to quench a thirst for vengeance?
The eyes of the cavalier world are watching!

Well, I received a formal notice that arrangements have been made for a Special General Meeting at 12 noon, Sunday, 5th October at Yew Lodge Hotel Kegworth.
The proposal is to remove me from the committee of the Cavalier Club for breaking part of the Code of Ethics.

Now, having read the Rule Book 2005 & the amendments in the 2006 AGM Minutes, I do not think that the Cavalier Club has followed its own stated procedures.

I need some expert legal advice. Does anyone out there have any suggestions?

Margaret C

Jan Bell
11th September 2008, 12:34 PM
I wrote to the CKCS club (non-breeding, non-showing member) in support of Margaret. Not yet received a reply.

Depressing that they are still looking to kick out the person who is trying to help Cavalier health rather that tackling the problem.

sins
11th September 2008, 12:43 PM
Well, I received a formal notice that arrangements have been made for a Special General Meeting at 12 noon, Sunday, 5th October at Yew Lodge Hotel Kegworth.
The proposal is to remove me from the committee of the Cavalier Club for breaking part of the Code of Ethics.


Are you required to attend in person or have you been given that option?
Sinead.

Cleo's Person
11th September 2008, 01:22 PM
Now, having read the Rule Book 2005 & the amendments in the 2006 AGM Minutes, I do not think that the Cavalier Club has followed its own stated procedures.

I need some expert legal advice. Does anyone out there have any suggestions?

Margaret C

Margaret, firstly can I just say that I think the vilification you have received over the past few weeks is astounding. While I understand that your point of view, particularly when so articulately expressed on a tv show, may make others within the breed who do not share your perspective uncomfortable, especially if they felt that the show was attacking those who agree with their view. Nonetheless I do feel that perhaps you are being made into a sacrificial lamb, as if removing you from the Club will somehow solve the problem, or at any rate remove the source of discomfort.

That said, if they continue to try to remove you from the board of the club, they will have to be very careful to ensure that they follow the exact procedures as outlined in their Club rules precisely, otherwise you are within your rights to bring an action seeking, redress and re-instatement. I am not familiar with the legal status of the Club, whether it is organised as a Company, a Trust, or an Unincorporated Association. The exact legal route open to you may be different depending on this information. You will have to speak to a solicitor in the UK. Preferably one who specialises in whatever area of law is engaged, although you may have to start off with a really good general solicitor who has a leaning towards this type of area, to identify a solicitor.

Sorry that's probably not much help. I'm not a solicitor, and am based in Ireland so don't know who would be the best person to approach in the UK.

Karlin
11th September 2008, 01:40 PM
On your behalf, Margaret, I have taken some legal advice from a prominent solicitor familiar with such things who states very clearly that a motion cannot proceed based on the club's own rules from the 2006 AGM. Indeed he believes that because the motion was incorrectly adopted already in contravention of the Club's own procedural rules, the whole motion must be dropped and cannot be reintroduced, but even so, the rules clearly state that a person cannot be removed on the basis on which the Club has taken initial action. Members can file a complaint, but under their own club rules, they cannot call an SGM to act on that complaint. And there must be a succession of different complaints before removal from the club could be considered.

I am surprised the Club has not consulted with the Kennel Club over the legality of proceeding as it has done.

It seems extraordinary that the Club would also wish to draw down upon itself the sort of public anger that will result from a move like this. I would think very few pet buyers will be approaching club breeders for puppies as a result, but maybe they will all just sell their excess litters to each other. The Club would do well to take some professional advice from the Kennel Club's media advisers if it doesn't want to be the laughing stock of the nation and cause further damage to the breed's profile.

Margaret C
11th September 2008, 01:48 PM
Are you required to attend in person or have you been given that option?
Sinead.

I have just been told that is the day. I don't know what happens if I can't make it.
As it happens it is my 45th wedding Anniversary & we were intending to go away.

I have been trying to make contact with officers of the Club since Sunday evening, but have had no answer.

I needed a copy of the petition to know for sure what the wording was and had been told I could have one.
I have now been informed "the Kennel Club has advised that there is no KC regulation requiring a club to provide this information"

Doesn't seem to be a lot of natural justice around at the moment

Margaret C

Cathy Moon
11th September 2008, 01:49 PM
I find it totally sickening and absolutely ridiculous how the UK CKCS breed club would rather enforce the breeder code of silence in their code of ethics than enforce this:

Quote:
"PART C: DOGS TO BE USED AT STUD.
No dog which has a known physical defect that could be detrimental to the health and well being of the offspring or the breed in general should be used at stud. By way of guidance, dogs under five years of age should hold a current clear heart certificate. A current clear eye certificate is strongly recommended. More specific guideline's apply to MVD (see Appendix c)"

Shame on the club if the members allow this to happen. Shame on the breeders who chose unethical behavior, which was exposed on the BBC show. If they had made the right choices to begin with, the BBC show would have been very different.

If the CKCS club would go after the breeders causing harm to the breed, the public's opinion of the club would actually improve!

The current actions will be very detrimental to the club. No one in the cavalier world who knows will forget about this; it will be an ugly blemish in cavalier history.

Karlin
11th September 2008, 01:58 PM
I tried to warn you that Norma was a class act. She is top notch. She has no reason to hide anything.
She doesn't know me and I've never gotten in touch with her. I have nothing to gain by telling you this.
__________________Sandy, I am afraid that she has used Beauella Radzinski three times and sold one champion dog by him into Canada. The first mating produced no puppies; the second two did and were bred by him after he had been scanned.

The information is available from the puppy gazettes and the KC's own information (the online databases do not contain info on every litter bred; only what someone has entered into a database). It is appalling for Norma Inglis to write as if from a neutral position defending a breeder, without disclosing her own personal and financial connection to the breeder and the benefit to herself of having questions remain over the status of the dog. This ethical conflict on writing about the dog and breeder should have been disclosed to her editors (who should themselves have asked if such a conflict existed in the first place) and either a disclaimer should have been on the piece or it should have been written to make clear she was taking a personal stance to defend a breeder as she had used the dog in question. I wonder why she failed to tell people she had used him herself three times? Surely this personal endorsement of the dog at stake would have been of more help to her breeder friend in some people's eyes? Or to look at it another way, if the breeder is unfairly being criticised and the dog is fine, why NOT broadcast that you are so sure he is fine that you used him to produce litters even after he had been scanned? icon_nwunsure

KR
11th September 2008, 03:18 PM
So, it is alleged that a breeder who has bred the breed for over 30 years has used a stud dog three times, one mating of which produced no puppies. I fail to see a financial or professional conflict as I am sure that a breeder who has been breeding for such a long period time has produced a great many more puppies than two litters and used a great many more than 1 stud dog in their career. Why there should be a particular financial interest contrasted against the rest of the breeding activity of 30 years I can not fathom, and it is of no interest to me.

Why is it necessary to launch personal attacks in either direction? The world is not black and white. It is also new to me that the internet is a stockade to throw tomatoes at people - including throwing them at Margaret.

I will state once more - the SM protocol is not the law - it is fair to say it is an experiment! The same as other models being used to combat SM. Criticism of all models must be allowed. It does no breed any good to follow a model for an illness for 10 years only to find it is wrong. One example of this can be seen to be HD in German Shepherds. Criticism and discussion of approaches must be allowed as they are constructive. Comdemnation of individuals is in my experience not constructive.

Everybody has an opinion in the same way everybody has a nose. Even Mr Ingpen is entitled to an opinion - and the fact that he is not Mr Skerrit does not mean he is not allowed to voice it.
I would find it a great deal more constructive to focus on the issues at hand - rather than on personal attacks. I am interested in Cavaliers not in who is married to whom.

As for the breed - it was as ill/healthy on the 16th August as it was on the 18th. Nothing has changed except for humans watching a TV program and attacking themselves about it.

frecklesmom
11th September 2008, 05:30 PM
There is power in the written word and although there is no petition but many individual voices on this forum who can type and demonstrate clear thinking so that a written campaign to the UK CKCS Club in defense of Margaret C.'s accomplishment for our Cavaliers is needed and justifiable.

[email address deleted by admin] (secretary) seems as good place to start and this needs to be timely with the meeting scheduled for Oct.5.
:xfngr: That we have good numbers writing their thoughts. Paraphrase-wrong continues when good people do nothing

[Admin note -- writing the secretary is definitely not the place to send letters. Write the club chair, Lesley Jupp. Anyone who wishes her address can PM me -- Karlin]

KR
11th September 2008, 05:41 PM
I think it might be good to ask Margaret if she feels that is the sort of help she wants.

It is always possible that good intentions can be perceived differently than we intend them to.

frecklesmom
11th September 2008, 06:41 PM
I have emailed Margaret.

Jan Bell
11th September 2008, 07:41 PM
Please see Margaret's post under the UK Kennel Club Issues Statement thread. I don't know how to get that post on this thread, but it relates to the above.

frecklesmom
11th September 2008, 09:52 PM
This is the quote from Margaret that was on the other thread-completely missed it and now we have it twice . This is in response to Jan's question


Jan,

Please do write, and there is something else everyone that is a member of the Cavalier Club can do, if this meeting goes ahead.

Please come to the meeting if at all possible and make your opinion count.
Talk to anybody else that you know who is a Cavalier Club member.

Only members who are actually there will be able to take part in the secret ballot, and I hear that the organisers of the petition are arranging coaches to bring in their friends.

There is going to be a lot of media interest in what is happening. It would be good if the many decent people in the Club managed to make their voice heard, both by those that run the Club, and by those that are looking on.

Just consider what happens if these people win. They will be able to continue to ignore all recommendations, guidelines, and protocols on health. They will continue to just breed for beauty while selling most of their puppies as family pets.

After what has happened to me health testing in Cavaliers will not stand a chance. Nobody, but nobody, will dare try to bring up the subject again.

The people who organised the petition will need two thirds of the votes to get rid of me, the person who administered the Cavalier Cub Lub Dub Fund ( for MVD ) & then, for the last five years, has worked to get SM recognised as a serious threat.

If enough people will give up their day & make the journey we could send a different, more caring, message about cavalier breeders, club members and owners to the watching world.

Margaret CSO, there it is for all of us and lets keep our fingers :xfngr:, after we write, that the CKCS Club,UK has ears to hear. This is so horrible and serious.

*Pauline*
11th September 2008, 11:38 PM
Sandy, I am afraid that she has used Beauella Radzinski three times and sold one champion dog by him into Canada. The first mating produced no puppies; the second two did and were bred by him after he had been scanned.

The whole thing Norma wrote on Dogworld plus all the comments have been deleted. I certainly didn't ask for them to be removed and no one emailed me about it, they have my contact details. icon_nwunsure

Karlin
12th September 2008, 12:36 AM
So, it is alleged that a breeder who has bred the breed for over 30 years has used a stud dog three times, one mating of which produced no puppies. I fail to see a financial or professional conflict as I am sure that a breederIt is not ALLEGED. It is easily verifiable FACT. To go ahead and breed that dog, starting at 9 months, nearly 2 years before the MVD protocol, and continue after being advised by one of the foremost experts on SM in cavaliers, particularly if she did not inform the owners of the bitches, is a direct violation of kennel club ethics. If other breeders took their bitches to him and were told his scan results and Mr Skerritt's statements about his condition, they too are in breach of kennel club ethics. If they weren't told, the owner of that dog is in direct violation of KC ethics. For a breeder to dismiss the complaint against a fellow breeder when she herself accounts for three of the matings to that controversial dog, without identifying she has this very direct personal interest, would in most publications result in a writer being fired for failing to reveal a central conflict of interest. She of course has a financial and personal interest -- there are two litters of puppies sold by her to people who may now wish to know whether she herself was informed about Beauella Radzinksi's status. The bitch owners benefit from having any worrisome health information about the dog suppressed.

That Norma Inglis chose to use that dog after the owner had scanned the dog raises the issue of whether she in turn was told about his status and chose to breed him anyway, or whether she wasn't told either of which which would be a direct violation of kennel club ethics and those breeders know it. This particular issue is black and white, as is implying one speaks from a neutral standpoint when in fact a personal issue is at the very heart of this matter. All these matings are a matter of public record (the club's OWN public record in fact!), and they are facts to be openly discussed, with all the implications of the decisions behind those decisions. If Norma Inglis feels the dog is being unjustly maligned, then what better way to prove it than 1) asking for a neutral panel to review the dog's MRI as Dr Ingpen has himself requested in a public post and 2) by declaring that her trust in Beverly Costello and her truthfulness about this dog extends to using him three times herself, twice after the scan.

All of those are very definitely black and white issues. Any editor or publisher will agree there are no shades of grey to declaring personal interest IF you choose to publicly make a statement as a columnist in a widely read publication.

The argument with Dr Ingpen is absolutely valid as he has implied a specialist doesn't know his business. That is potentially defamation, and he needs to be able to prove it -- as his statements have been widely circulated on the internet he could be taken to court in numerous jurisdictions, thanks to the breeders who have forwarded his comments all over the place (really, some list owners need to understand their own liability in even allowing such things to be posted in the first place. Maybe they should read my helpful link on what constitutes defamation (http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php)). He is entitled to an opinion, of course, but not necessarily to express it publicly:


Material may have the potential to defame someone if:


The statement made would make an ordinary person modify their opinions of a person as a result of hearing or reading the statement.

Under UK law it is possible to defame corporations as well as individuals.
Defamation actions in relation to the Internet have so far involved libel. Libel must be widely 'published'. You could libel someone using electronic networks by:


Sending an email, or an email attachment, where that email is widely posted or forwarded;
Making material available via a web page;
Posting to an email list or newsgroup; or
Streaming audio or video via the Net.

Anyone who actively transmits defamatory material is liable as part of any legal action. Most standard contracts for Internet services include conditions relating to defamation.In addition several breeders have implied his remarks declare that Beauella Radzinski did not have a syrinx. Dr Ingpen himself has stated he did NOT say this -- indeed he will not state whether he thinks the dog has one or not -- just that he couldn't see one. Nonetheless he does call into question Mr Skerritt's professional ability. That may be his opinion but legally you are not allowed to state it in a public forum, much less print it, as Norma Inglis has done in her column, unless you wish to risk defending a lawsuit. Any professional journalist is well aware of this.

But there is a very easy way for Beverly Costello to settle these questions. Allow Geoff Skerritt to state what he said to her, and allow a neutral panel of neurologists to examine the MRI. Are the breeders who have become involved in this issue afraid of what either of these steps will reveal? If not, and if they trust that Mr Skerritt never gave such advice, and that the MRI shows no SM, then simply prove it. Just bring forth the MRI and perhaps have the club chairwoman speak directly to Mr Skerritt.

Anyone who has been on this site for a long time knows how strictly I control any potential defamation on this site. I only allow to remain online what I know to be true. If that makes breeders unhappy, I am sorry -- I didn't set up this site for breeders, I set it up for the breed and to promote healthy cavaliers and primarily for pet owners, which suits some breeders. Not all -- but I am not looking for all (indeed I stated a short time ago (http://board.cavaliertalk.com/showpost.php?p=278257&postcount=2) that I was not allowing further breeder memberships except in limited circumstances). There are many other places to go if this discussion makes people unhappy.


As for the breed - it was as ill/healthy on the 16th August as it was on the 18th. Nothing has changed except for humans watching a TV program and attacking themselves about it.No, the difference is that on the 16th of August, people had no idea how disgusting some approaches to breeding are. On the 18th, a nation that cares about dogs was absolutely outraged. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go have a hard look at how the KC has already radically changed the tune it was singing -- because any idiot could tell them they were damaging themselves and breeders further by pretending that lalalala nothing happened lalalala. I can guarantee you, as a professional journalist who covers both business and a fair bit of politics, that the KC got an earful about that approach from whoever they hired as their media consultants and have changed tack.

And humans aren't attacking themselves about it -- people who care are furious that breeds they love are in this horrendous situation and that many continue to breed regardless of whether they know they are causing potential harm or not. If that makes you uncomfortable, then you definitely would be better off on a breeder list and accordingly I will close your registration here.

frecklesmom
12th September 2008, 01:14 AM
What do you think happened, Pauline? Pressure from the Kennel Club? I imagine they can create havoc by getting ads pulled as they did to Dogs Today. I didn't know comments could all be just erased. I did email them and asked why they did this-see if they answer. :confused:

Cathy Moon
12th September 2008, 01:23 AM
There is power in the written word and although there is no petition but many individual voices on this forum who can type and demonstrate clear thinking so that a written campaign to the UK CKCS Club in defense of Margaret C.'s accomplishment for our Cavaliers is needed and justifiable.

(secretary) seems as good place to start and this needs to be timely with the meeting scheduled for Oct.5.
:xfngr: That we have good numbers writing their thoughts. Paraphrase-wrong continues when good people do nothing
Is there someone else we can write to in addition to this person? It is my opinion that our emails might not see the light of day.:(

*Pauline*
12th September 2008, 01:24 AM
What do you think happened, Pauline? Pressure from the Kennel Club? I imagine they can create havoc by getting ads pulled as they did to Dogs Today. I didn't know comments could all be just erased. I did email them and asked why they did this-see if they answer. :confused:

Well I think Karlin's post answers that, she could be in trouble for posting Dr Ingpen's letter. Dogworld isn't the only place I've seen this letter though.

sins
12th September 2008, 01:27 AM
Who knows? Perhaps they didn't want open warfare. I checked earlier and a poster was referring to the cavalier club articles which Margaret has apparently breached.
I expected the comments to be deleted,but was surprised to see the entire article pulled.

*Pauline*
12th September 2008, 01:27 AM
Is there someone else we can write to in addition to this person? It is my opinion that our emails might not see the light of day.:(

I always say emails can be kept private, ignored, deleted, a letter on paper has to be kept in a file and others can see it. Good old paper and pen ;)

Karlin
12th September 2008, 01:35 AM
There was an additional comment that was potentially defamatory and I believe the editors were informed that this was the case and pulled the thread. Note: not defamatory towards the breeders. :rolleyes:

Letters should go directly to the Club chair. If people want to PM me I will send her address -- I do not wish to post it publicly.

Cathy Moon
12th September 2008, 01:54 AM
Letters should go directly to the Club chair. If people want to PM me I will send her address -- I do not wish to post it publicly.

Yes, do not waste your time emailing - send a letter.

US members, take the letter to the post office and get it weighed in order to pay the postage.

Edited to add: we checked the US Postal Service website - it costs $ .94 to send a letter that weighs up to one ounce.

Alison_Leighfield
12th September 2008, 07:38 AM
When sending an important letter I find it a good idea to send by registered post, the person at the other end has to stop and sign for it and that way they tend to remember it :) it kind of stands out! you will also get a receipt of time and place when sent as well.
Only costs a few pence more.

Alison.

Jan Bell
12th September 2008, 03:08 PM
Just received a letter from the CKCS club acknowledging my letter and saying that it will be brought to the attention of the committee at the next meeting.

Having never attended a meeting I don't know what this actually means, whether they just say they have received it or if iit is read and a reply drafted to my points.

I am in the process of writing another one with regard to the meeting about Margaret C to add to their pile.

frecklesmom
12th September 2008, 04:25 PM
Dog World Breed Notes now has Sept 5 again but with 0 comments. A new article,again by Norma Ingliis, for today with errors in my opinion.

*Pauline*
12th September 2008, 06:26 PM
I have written a letter of complaint to Dogworld and have pointed out the issues of defamation.

The web site has a glitch and logs me out and in and out again as I browse and each time I come to the breed notes 5th September, I am logged out and unable to post.

frecklesmom
12th September 2008, 06:59 PM
In contrast to Dogs World, Dogs Today has a good article up titled
Unhealthy Attitudes at Cavalier Club this is second article down

Also, first article is a petition to Kennel Club

http://www.coldwetnose.blogspot.com/

frecklesmom
12th September 2008, 07:45 PM
This is from Margaret re: letters


I would really appreciate members writing a polite & reasoned letter to the Chairman:-

Mrs L Jupp,
60 Roundway,
Camberley,
Surrey, GU15 1NU

I think that the Cavalier Club committee need to hear what ordinary cavalier owners think, not just the vocal group of show breeders who do not want to let anything stop them planning matings with only success in the show ring in their minds.

Thank you for all your support, I really appreciate it.

Margaret

wotton12000
12th September 2008, 08:10 PM
Hi Jan

The minutes of the Cavalier Club Committee Meetings are not available to ordinary members, so you never know if your letter has been brought to their attention or not.

I've done the same thing (on other issues in the past) and I don't know if the letter was ever read out to the committee.

Doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep writing though.

Carol

*Pauline*
12th September 2008, 09:52 PM
I finally managed to get a reply on Dogworld. I changed my original post slightly at the beginning as Norma Inglis criticised me in one of the posts that was deleted for not giving my surname and not saying who I was (of course I don't want to put my surname out on the internet) and at the end I added something too.;)

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/36-CAV-(1)

Karlin
12th September 2008, 10:57 PM
One of the surprising quotes in Dr Ingpen's letter, so eagerly seized upon by Norma Inglis, Veronica Hull and others, is this:


“1 The clinical research published is seriously flawed and the figures are simply unacceptable. The basis of any study such as this has to be developed from a sound population sample rather than a selected group, which will provide a massive bias rendering it from an epidemiological point of view useless. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon in scientific studies when the opinion of the researcher is clear almost before the study starts.

Let's dissect it. ALL the research published is clinically flawed? Really?! There are now studies from several continents, all of which have had approximately the same incidence of malformation and SM: UK, Holland, France, South Africa, several in the US and one currently underway in Canada. All of these were conducted by completely different groups of researchers with different academic or other professional associations. One significant study -- FUNDED BY THE US CLUB, THE ACKCSC -- had over 30% with SM, and this sample was all relatively young dogs (eg under 5). In a progressive disease, one assumes the younger the sample, the lower the level of incidence, as with MVD in cavaliers:


MRI images were obtained in 11 clinically affected and 48 unaffected CKCS, and in 5 control dogs of different breeds using a Siemens AG 1.5 T MRI. Ages ranged from 1 to 5 years

The results? And remember, this is a study that was undertaken on behalf of, and funded by, the breed club itself! NB: SHM is SM,


Fifty-one of the CKCS were classified as morphologically abnormal; 22 of these had SHM. Thirteen dogs with SHM did not have clinical signs; 2 dogs with clinical signs did not have SHM. Observed morphologic abnormalities included mild to marked cerebellar herniation and occipital dysplasia (50/59), medullary kinking (39/59), cerebellar crowding and indentation (55/59) and a dorsal compressive lesion at the level of the first and second cervical vertebral junction (12/59). The dorsal compressive lesion lay immediately cranial to the syrinx in several cases. Clinically affected dogs were more likely to have SHM than unaffected dogs, and the ratio of the caudal fossa volume to the total brain volume was significantly smaller in affected dogs...

In conclusion, the incidence of caudal fossa and cervical spinal abnormalities is high in CKCS showing clinical signs of Chiari malformation and in unaffected CKCS.

Read the full results here: http://ackcsccharitabletrust.org/ncsureport.htm

So Dr Ingpen is saying a dozen different international researchers all started with opinions they planned to have confirmed in their studies? Even the team hand chosen by the largest US club? Goodness, it is a virtual conspiracy of respected scientists! Given that the vast majority of dogs in every single study were brought by breeders -- not pet owners --who presumably believed the dogs were unaffected as they were showing no clinical signs (this has been confirmed by researchers themselves in several presentations), it seems extraordinary that all these samples could keep aligning at the same general levels of incidence.

Would it not be more likely then that perhaps a doctor in a different field of medicine for an entirely different species of animal, humans, and married to a cavalier breeder and friendly enough with the Malvern dog breeder to personally visit her home on a visit to the UK from Australia, to read her dog's scan (as she insists he did), might instead be the one with an opinion that was clear even before the reading started? icon_nwunsure

In summary, we have:

* a dozen researchers all with the same general results on SM incidence, across several continents, at independent institutions, some professional rivals with each other and no predisposition to confirm each others' studies

versus

* one human doctor married to a cavalier breeder friendly with the breeder in question

*Pauline*
13th September 2008, 12:36 AM
:xctly:

Jan Bell
13th September 2008, 10:07 AM
Well done Pauline. And thanks Karlin for all the information you post - being very concise, I tend to crib bits and pieces for the letters I have been writing.

Very good comments from Beverly Cuddy on the Cold Wet Nose Blog about "Saint Margaret" this morning. Hope that the CKCS club are snowed under with post. Whatever happens at this meeting (if it takes place) they have totally destroyed any credibility as an association that cares about their Cavaliers.

Susannon
13th September 2008, 01:54 PM
Thank you Karlin and all you responsible cavalier owners for this site which I found by accident a few days ago. It is so wonderful to find a forum of sensible people, who know that the most important thing is the health of their dogs, and who don't try and find some ridiculous reason for SM other than that shown by the research. I am horrified by the way that Margaret C has been treated, and I also received a letter from the club about the meeting but cannot go. I shall write a letter however. I could understand if it was a person who had deliberately bred a dog they knew had SM that was being castigated, but to treat the person who has only the health of puppies as her focus in this way is truly ridiculous. Unless the club comes up with some answers to all this, I shall not be renewing my membership next year.

I breed cavaliers in a very small way, having only two breeding bitches who live with us in the house, and have had 28 puppies, none of which have had MVD or any heart problem, either as puppies or as grown dogs. People find out very quickly that it is health and not showing that is a person's main focus in breeding and I get at least one call a week for people wanting a puppy.

However, I have heard from a good friend who had one of my puppies that the dog has been diagnosed with SM and I am devastated. My first reaction was that I would give up breeding, and I spoke to my vet who is very supportive of my 'I don't breed for show, just for health and companionship' policy.

He was also very worried and we talked through the whole thing. He would really like to see a new society for dog breeding in this country, where pedigree dogs are bred according to the outline on the petition which has been mentioned before on this site. No dog should be able to be bred or shown who is in any way suffering due to the disease or deformity inherent in the breed. There needs to be a completely radical rethink around dog breeding and showing.

(I used to show cats, and have won shows that I would never have won with a dog, as championship cat shows are set up so the cats are completely anonymous and judged just for themselves. This applies to the blankets in the cage - must be plain white with no distinguishing marks - and the identification of the cats - white ribbon round the necks with a number attached. Disqualification applies when any flouting of the anonymity rule is tried. It would be interesting to see what would happen if some method of anonymity was applied to dog shows!)

I have two puppies that I am bringing on to breed from in the future, having now retired my two elderly girls, and I have decided that I will follow the protocols as strictly for SM as I did for MVD, and also carry on the protocols for MVD. I will not breed until they are 2.5 years old, and with A scans, and will only breed to an A dog, with no murmur and with cardiologist reports of clear hearts.

What I would like to know is this. Is there any point in having the puppies (5 months old at present) scanned before they are two and a half? Will SM show as clearly now as it would as adult dogs? Can the disease show itself as clear as a puppy and then be seen as an adult?

Thank you again for this marvellous site.:thmbsup:

Sue

Evelyn
13th September 2008, 02:22 PM
I think it is possible to have a good scan and later SM show up hence the recomendation to rescan at 2.5 years old. An early scan just eliminates the worst affected I think.More information from those who have done rescans would be interesting.
Evelyn

Karlin
13th September 2008, 02:42 PM
Welcome to the board, Sue. It is a progressive condition and dogs need to be at least 2.5 to be given a grade on the grading programme. While an early scan gives a good indication for many dogs of where they might be heading, it won't guarantee an A dog, for example. Most neurologists familiar with scanning over time will be pretty good at estimating whether a scan shows reason to be concerned or not, on a dog under the grading age. Most in my experience will give some sort of general prognosis. AxA matings won;t guarantee clear dogs either, though the statistics are considerably higher. Non A dogs in matings have as far as I know yet to produce a single A offspring. But A to D produces very good results, too and for genetic diversity and to retain other good genes, breeders will need to use Ds too. Ideally more dogs will be scanned so more breeders will know of more A options.

The older the dog at the time of scan and breeding, the better with progressive conditions.

I recently had all four of my dogs scanned -- two are rescans of dogs first done at just over a year, which are now about to turn 5.

I haven't yet had time to post on my experience because I wanted to get pictures that I can post, so that people can see the scans and what they mean.

On his original scan in 2005, Leo, my dog with SM, was showing herniation, dilated ventricles, a kinked spinal cord and a small syrinx when totally asymptomatic at age 1 year 5 months. He was symptomatic, mildly, by age 2.5. Now he is moderately symptomatic, scratching and some tenderness on and off. His rescan showed his syrinx had not grown in length (it is quite short) but has widened quite a bit (width is the predictor of pain) and is now graded large. His ventricles remained the same. Jaspar, who was clear then for everything except perhaps some hind brain compression in 2005, remains without a syrinx and is confirmed as an A graded dog now that he is over 2.5. He has slightly enlarged ventricles now (the meaning of enlarged ventricles remains unknown -- some breeds naturally have very large ventricles -- but the size is recorded for scans).

Of my other two, Lily my rescue scanned with SM as I had expected -- the reason I never homed her (I run a rescue) was because she already had some suspicious scratching when she came in. If you have had a dog with SM and seen the difference in scratching you tend to know when it is a bit less likely to be 'normal scratching'. On the plus side, her scan was much better than I had guessed it would be (I stress again I was expecting this result; my concern was not that it would show SM but what the scan would show overall as to where she is now). Her syrinx is tiny and as she is three or four I wouldn't expect it to get a lot worse. :xfngr: It is important to stress that many of our dogs live with syrinxes all their lives and are easily managed; many will never require any treatment and we won't even know they have a problem because most of us do not scan our pet cavaliers. But breeding unscanned asymptomatic dogs is in my opinion another issue -- if my breeder had his original choice, Leo would have been bred at the time he was asymptomatic and if I hadn't scanned I'd never have known the difference. I also think his symptoms would not have been seen as a kennel dog in a breeding programme or even if he had been shown or lived indoors with a group of dogs by someone not looking for signs, probably til he was closer to 4-5).

Lucy, I am delighted to say, a 9 year old dog bred by Laura Lang of Roycroft Cavaliers in the US, had a superb scan -- clear of everything! Interestingly this result was predicted by some researchers, and I know confirms Laura's own theories about lines and selecting certain lines for health and she is a real tribute to her breeding programme in both health and personality. Lucy's scan was valuable for researchers who have few scans on older dogs. Lucy was totally clear for PSOM too. :)

I hope those details may give some insight.

When I get a chance I will do a detailed post on my trip and get up some images of the scans.

Cathy Moon
13th September 2008, 03:08 PM
Lucy, I am delighted to say, a 9 year old dog bred by Laura Lang of Roycroft Cavaliers in the US, had a superb scan -- clear of everything! Interestingly this result was predicted by some researchers, and I know confirms Laura's own theories about lines and selecting certain lines for health and she is a real tribute to her breeding programme in both health and personality. Lucy's scan was valuable for researchers who have few scans on older dogs. Lucy was totally clear for PSOM too. :)
Thank you for posting this Karlin. :flwr:
Thank you Laura for renewing our hope. :flwr:

*Pauline*
13th September 2008, 03:18 PM
Great news about Lucy isn't it, you deserve one less thing to worry about Karlin, I bet you are glad you got her scanned. :D

Alison_Leighfield
13th September 2008, 08:05 PM
Fantastic and wonderful news about Lucy :) :) :) what a star you are Lucy! a totally clear scan.

My late Honey was a clear old, old, old girl as well, clear of everything. The difference on an MRI is just amazing.

Karlin can I ask is Jasper symtomatic at all, has the new dilation in the ventricles given him any symptoms? do you notice a change at all? I would be interested in this.

Lucy I'm sending you a HUGE hug, and a gentle one for little Lily, Leo and Jasper.

Alison.

Lisa_T
13th September 2008, 10:10 PM
Wow, that is really impressive, Karlin! Two dogs out of four effectively scanning more or less clear. I have to ask: does anyone know if any breeders in the UK use Roycroft at all? It sounds like the genetics there would be a superb addition to a UK Cav breeding programme.

Karlin
14th September 2008, 12:32 AM
Karlin can I ask is Jasper symtomatic at all, has the new dilation in the ventricles given him any symptoms? do you notice a change at all? I would be interested in this.
No, why would he be symptomatic with anything? Jaspar remains a clear dog and is an A grade. He has a nice straight spinal cord, no syrinxes, and space around his brain on his scan.

Dilated ventricles are not known to mean much of anything (except when very large and indicating hydrocephalus of course) -- and a 1.5x enlargement is very little. The neurologists at the London conference noted this -- they said they record ventricle size because it is an obvious measurement but it has no 'use' at this point. Leo's ventricles haven't changed in nearly four years but he has gradually increased in symptoms. Leo has far more obvious symptoms than Lily but Lily has 3x ventricles and Leo's have never changed from 1.5x in Feb 2005. I know some other breeds have massive ventricles as well and there are likely to be familiy variations within a breed too. Leo and Jaspar are closely related and hence that may be why they have the exact same ventricle size despite one dog having SM and one being clear.

Karlin
14th September 2008, 12:42 AM
On Roycroft: Lucy goes almost immediately back to old UK dogs. So the issue is broader, of finding other clear dogs, through MRIing. Laura clearly has some excellent lines and she has been MRIing for some time and considering many aspects of breeding around SM and reducing MVD incidence too. :) Getting information on an older dog helps any breeder know how their lines do as they age and this is really helpful with progressive conditions like MVD and SM. For SM, knowing lines helps -- because clear dogs almost always have other clear dogs immediately around them -- which in turn is good evidence that clear dogs tend to produce far more clear dogs than any other option. I know Laura routinely also has dogs living til 14-15 and I certainly hope Lucy will be no exception.

There are definitely many clear dogs out there -- clear for SM that is, as almost all have the malformation -- but I mean also clear in the sense of a scan like Lucy's or Jaspar's where there aren't the additional features that might cause potential concern, like the cerebellum pushing well down into the spinal cord, or the kink in the spinal cord, or a lot of hindbrain crowding at the lower back of the skull where the brain can be really squished down (in some cavaliers the brain is so squashed it looks more like a ball shape :( ). I know of a good number of breeders with clear dogs and the more that are MRId, the more keep emerging. This is important as it gives breeders more choice too. A big problem is that this information doesn't get around so people may feel they have very narrow choices.

People can see a an explanation of MRIs in cavaliers and see links to a number of cavalier MRI images here (http://sm.cavaliertalk.com/diagnosing/mris/mris.html).

diddy
14th September 2008, 01:33 PM
Yes, as you say the information doesnt get around. Thats the problem!!

Karlin
17th September 2008, 10:58 AM
I'm closing this thread due to length and I've split off the next group of posts to start a part four of this discussion which can be found here:

http://board.cavaliertalk.com/showthread.php?t=26913

See Part one (http://board.cavaliertalk.com/showthread.php?t=26361)to start at the very beginning of the thread.