PDA

View Full Version : Craigowl and other breeders who refuse to MRI scan



Karlin
2nd January 2009, 05:24 PM
This really tops it all for the ridiculous stuff that appears on the DogWorld website sometimes.

Craigowl breeder Norma Inglis in the UK, who one would have hoped would be setting an example for other breeders as breed notes writer and a longtime cavalier breeder, has cheerfully announced that she refuses to MRI scan her dogs! As if this is a credit to... well, you fill in the blank. :mad:

This despite the fact that she has publicly made a big deal of "supporting" :rolleyes: researcher Sarah Blott -- who SPECIFICALLY has requested that breeders MRI scan and pass the results along to her as this is ESSENTIAL for accurate Estimated Breeding Values to be produced for the use of the breeders!

You would think a breeder -- especially a longtime breeder whose lines have merged with many others and form the basis for others -- would at least consider MRI scanning some dogs an important step towards greater knowledge about one's own influential lines, given that so many responsible breeders will have at least some concern as to how prevalent the disease might be in one's lines.

But in the bigger picture -- eg the future survival and health of the breed overall -- it is just so sad -- no, sorry, pathetic -- that breeders of high profile will not lead by example rather than writing silly pieces like this and only offering limp lip service to what researchers like Sarah are doing. How many breeders -- who in the UK can avail of club-supported, extremely low cost £100 scans?! -- will not bother to do their own while demanding access to EBVs based entirely on scans done by other breeders and pet owners?

It is worth pointing out that a whopping 80% of the DNA and MRI information being used in the CKCS genome scan project in Montreal, which will become the basis of Sarah Blott's gEBVs that will benefit cavalier breeders internationally -- came from (and was entirely paid out of their own pocket) DUTCH CKCS BREEDERS and international BRUSSELS GRIFFON BREEDERS.

Norma Inglis's column:

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/1-CAV-(1).aspx (http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/1-CAV-%281%29.aspx)

Margaret Carter has made this excellent reply:


Norma, Thank you again for keeping the SM debate going. Do you not feel that leading breeders should support Sarah Blott's research, as requested by all the UK Cavalier Clubs?. She specifically asks for scan information. Even if you really believe that MRI tests are less conclusive than heart tests, then surely £100 per dog is not a lot to help with such much needed research, and it would also enable you to identify any early onset SM dogs in your kennel. You and I both know what it is to breed & sell a cavalier that develops SM to a pet owner that will, and often does, pay a small fortune to buy pain killing drugs for their beloved pet. Surely we must all want to bring an end to this heartbreak?

*Pauline*
2nd January 2009, 06:15 PM
"Heartache" indeed as Margaret put it. I can't reply for tears, it's unbearably frustrating.

Sabby
2nd January 2009, 08:51 PM
It makes you wonder what these people got to hide? If they love the breed that much what would it hurt to have your dogs MRI Scanned for a £100 and stop the stupid arguements. Surely any decent breeder would want to know if their dogs are ok. Or are they to scared what they might find? They talk about how much they love their dogs, and yes we do live in sad times when ignorance is bliss. Saying that the Program should show the puppy farms, yes I agree there should be a program about puppy farms. But surly any breeder knowingly breeding with an infected dog is not much better then a puppy farmer. Funny enough nobody ever mentions that.
Sad times indeed.:(

frecklesmom
2nd January 2009, 09:55 PM
What is most annoying is that she acts as if she's taking some self-righteous high road and I think she's just really concerned that her dogs won't all be clear and can't cope with that thought. Ignore the science, ignore the suffering dogs and owners as if that is beneath the "breeder". Hogwash! it's the same mental process that keeps some from entering into the digital age-afraid of failure. Where's a "thumbs down" icon when you need one.

HollyDolly
2nd January 2009, 10:43 PM
I am extremely suprised that Dog World have allowed Norma Inglis to use the breed note column as a show case on how her dogs are raised, live, loved and cared for. I wonder why she feels the need to defend her hobby, to defend how her dogs live. Does she say her dogs live with her, no what she says is that her home is arranged for the comfort of her dogs to me there is a difference. She says she loves them, why sell them then when they are older? Not in it for the money, again why sell them when they are older?
With refernce to the litter from a puppy farmer, yes I too hate them but my grievance has always been with the Best in Show winner who knowingly used her SM affected dog at stud and with all those breeders who also used him, Norma Inglis being one of them. There is little point in having Club guidlines when they are totally ignored. I would love to see a ban on all puppy farmers but likewise want to see a ban imposed on these breeders mentioned above.

A post from the Dog World website:-

"I am sad and discouraged to read Norma, that you have chosen not to MRI scan your dogs for a disease as devastating as SM. By sending a registered letter to you some time back with regard to the SM status of my two Craigowl offspring, I was hoping that an influential breeder like yourself, an advocate and guardian of the breed would understand the importance of MRI scans and encourage the cooperation of all breeders for the gene research. I see no other way to reduce the suffering of dogs such as Ollie and Maggie (For the Love of Ollie) SM has touched your household Norma and that of most other breeders. How are you addressing it reducing severity and incidence without an MRI?"

Nanette

Manda74
3rd January 2009, 12:30 AM
I don't understand why they are allowed to breed without providing proof that they have done all the necessary checks, surely its a simple thing for them to do before the KC allow them to register their litters. Why aren't they doing anything to prevent people like that breeding, they need to start doing something now, not just talking about it. It makes me so angry:mad: why should animals suffer because of someones greed:(

Karlin
3rd January 2009, 11:14 AM
"I am sad and discouraged to read Norma, that you have chosen not to MRI scan your dogs for a disease as devastating as SM. By sending a registered letter to you some time back with regard to the SM status of my two Craigowl offspring, I was hoping that an influential breeder like yourself, an advocate and guardian of the breed would understand the importance of MRI scans and encourage the cooperation of all breeders for the gene research. I see no other way to reduce the suffering of dogs such as Ollie and Maggie (For the Love of Ollie) SM has touched your household Norma and that of most other breeders. How are you addressing it reducing severity and incidence without an MRI?"

Sigh.

Because some other breeders have publicly denied ever "knowing" they have bred an affected dog, I strongly encourage anyone who gets an SM diagnosis to send a copy of the neurologist's report and a letter *registered post* to the breeder and also keep a copy of course for your own files.


It saddens me to even have to suggest this as there are some great breeders who have truly stood by pet owners who get this diagnosis and/or are determined to make sure this disease isn't hidden away and denied, as happened for years with MVD and still happens (have a look at the puppy gazettes from the clubs and how many dams and sires are not only under 2.5 years old, the MVD protocol age, but even under 18 months and for that matter -- 12 months. Including dogs used by senior committee members on the clubs, some of whom pay lip service to the MVD protocol. :sl*p: It is easy to compile such a list. And to publish it!).

Whatever some of these breeders say, they forget that in an age of easy internet communication and emails that what they say -- or their refusal to reply to the dog owners that contact them, upset about a diagnosis -- does get passed along. There's quite a list now of breeders who are publicly saying they have 'never personally seen SM in their lines'; 'never been contacted by any owner of one of their dogs about SM', 'never had a scanned dog show SM' blah blah blah -- where I know this is a blatant lie. And this includes some senior people in clubs and on committees who make regular posts to this affect, forgetting that they do not control the information other people get when they scan their pets.

I have found that it is some of the most vociferous opponents of scanning and big-mouthed critics of the researchers who are amongst those who KNOW they have had some severe SM cases in their lines (ladies and gents who sneak on here regularly to read the board, you KNOW who you are! And I have the mails and information to prove it!).

Some of these dogs have been hastily exported to where these breeders obviously hope other foolish individuals are willing to use them at stud in order to acquire their lineage in their US/Canadian/whatever lines... absolutely disgusting.

This WILLFUL breeding of KNOWN SM producers, whether sire or dam, simply has to stop. How can people be so craven and cruel as to sell on such dogs, pass on these genes, and inflict the pain of this diagnosis onto some poor cavalier in the future and the heartache and sheer cost of dealing effectively with that pain, to some sad family?

How these people can live with themselves is beyond me.

I am so grateful for the dedicated breeders who try and do what they can rather than hiding past results and knowingly selling dogs that they know full well may go on producing SM affected offspring. And I fully understand the difficulty for breeders in locations where MRIs remain very expensive to MRi dogs -- though surely, at least every stud dog should be MRId because a sire will produce so many more puppies, and spread its genes far wider, than a dam? But to hold up your refusal to MRI as some badge of honour -- well, you can see why the CKCS Club feels it might need to spend 8,000 on PR help because boy, does it need some basic lessons in communications. :rolleyes:

Jan Bell
3rd January 2009, 02:42 PM
Just read a post from Barbara Reece on the Dog World thread - no idea who she is, but I am grateful that she posted.

She confirms what I have heard from other sources that not only do certain breeders refuse to scan their own dogs, they close ranks against anyone who disagrees with them and are as unpleasant as possible.

So not only do they do nothing to help the research, they actively sabotage it. Something to think about.

HollyDolly
3rd January 2009, 04:36 PM
Barbara Reese is a member of this board and although I am sure she can speak for herself, she is a totally committed, health focused keeper of Cavaliers. She runs a website on Episodic Falling in Cavaliers and has to deal with the fallout when owners of Cavaliers contact her with health problems. I know that many a night her entire evening is spent talking to distressed owners or dealing with emails. Not all owners have purchased from Puppy farmers, as we all know on here many of the dogs owned by Cavalier Talk members have been purchased from some of the so called BIG NAMES.

Nanette

Karlin
3rd January 2009, 05:35 PM
Trying to divert focus to puppy farming is the latest red herring from certain breeders. Puppy farming is an important issue in its own right -- but is not more important than health issues and focusing on health does not impede anyone from ALSO working on the puppy farm issue. I've done both, for years, in Ireland.

One might even ask what breed clubs and the CKCS Club and KC in the UK are doing themselves, actively, about puppy farming? icon_nwunsureBecause only recently, the national CKCS club has allowed back as a JUDGE a breeder who was convicted on dozens and dozens of counts of animal cruelty TO CAVALIERS for keeping masses of them in appalling conditions -- indeed, read the press coverage at the time (it remains one of the largest cases with the largest number of individual counts of animal cruelty in the UK, ever) or talk to many breeders and they will confirm that the club and breeders closed ranks to PROTECT this woman! And after a little while of politely being kept outside the club, she is now right back in its heart and acting as a judge. :eek: So how, exactly, do the breed club and the breeders suddenly so concerned about puppy farming, define puppy farming? Could it be, mass breeding cavaliers in revolting conditions for a pet market? Resulting in a cruelty prosecution and conviction?

Could I just point out too that several of the cavalier club breed rescue groups in the UK will not even accept cavaliers without a pedigree into rescue??!! Maybe they need to show their sudden devotion to the scourge of puppy farming by actually helping some needy cavaliers from this background directly, instead of leaving it to the general rescues and independent breed rescues to sort these poor dogs.

A little more actual action on puppy farms, and a little less grandstanding to deflect attention away from syringomyelia, would help the breed in several ways.

Incidentally one of the gobbier US women who posts most regularly on this issue in various places began her cavalier career with a BYB website (as discussed extensively when she made her debut on one of the breeder sites a few years back). So the high moral ground of some of these people is pretty darn subterranean... :rolleyes:

Aileen
3rd January 2009, 08:47 PM
I know of one breeder that knowing sold a puppy who never had a chance of an health life not from SM but from MVD this person is now a judge of cavaliers and I will never every get a dog /puppy from her again
----Aileen and the gang (Barney----Jazzie---Jake)

Barbara
3rd January 2009, 11:23 PM
Just read a post from Barbara Reece on the Dog World thread - no idea who she is,

Hello Jan

I have been a member of this board for a long time but I don't post very often so I thought i would re introduce myself so you all know who I am. I have owned, bred & shown cavaliers since 1972 but don't show now and my last litter was 6 years ago. I am currently President and Health Rep for the South and West Wales CKCS Club and have served the club in various capacities (including Secretary) for 28 years. I have been involved with research into Episodic Falling for 30 years which basically means i've been banging my head on a brick wall for all those years !!!!!!

The health and welfare of this breed are paramount to me. I only have two cavaliers now, Cleo 11 this week and her son Beano 6 in May. They have both been scanned and Cleo is affected but shows no symptoms and this is the worrying part for me. I don't understand the breeders who don't scan because their dogs are asymptomatic, it means absolutely nothing.

Sadly in the dog world change comes about very, very slowly but there are some good, caring breeders who are doing their best.I know I am not the most popular person in the cavalier world because I am too outspoken on health issues but that doesn't matter. I just wish some of the doubters could sit at my computer or answer my phone for one day and they would soon change their minds as to how big a problem this breed has.

Cathy Moon
4th January 2009, 12:16 AM
But in the bigger picture -- eg the future survival and health of the breed overall -- it is just so sad -- no, sorry, pathetic -- that breeders of high profile will not lead by example rather than writing silly pieces like this and only offering limp lip service to what researchers like Sarah are doing. How many breeders -- who in the UK can avail of club-supported, extremely low cost £100 scans?! -- will not bother to do their own while demanding access to EBVs based entirely on scans done by breeders and pet owners who DO care about the breed?

Pathetic is the right word.

Thank goodness there are intelligent, caring people who take the time to post well-reasoned responses to her ridiculous breed notes.

Like Pauline, I often feel so upset by Norma's (and her sidekick's) flippant attitudes that I can't post a response because my hands start shaking.

lady and amber
4th January 2009, 12:23 AM
Barbara Reese is a member of this board and although I am sure she can speak for herself, she is a totally committed, health focused keeper of Cavaliers. She runs a website on Episodic Falling in Cavaliers and has to deal with the fallout when owners of Cavaliers contact her with health problems. I know that many a night her entire evening is spent talking to distressed owners or dealing with emails. Not all owners have purchased from Puppy farmers, as we all know on here many of the dogs owned by Cavalier Talk members have been purchased from some of the so called BIG NAMES.

Nanette

Barbara helped me about three years ago when I found out what the problem Amber has, Amber has E/F, I sent my dogs breeder the information I had found as she said she had never heard of E/F and no way could she have bred any puppy with health problems. she then phoned Barbara giving her abuse, I wish there were more people like Barbara that pet owners like myself can turn to for advise. Bless you Barbara.

babs
4th January 2009, 02:16 AM
Alex,my little 16mth old blenheim,is the limelight of our family.He is little sister and a little brother to our children.Thankfully he is healthy for now,I dont know an awful lot about SM but I know the symptoms and it scares me to think that he could eventually develop SM.It's not something I fed him,gave him something to drink or something he picked up whilst out for a walk.No it certainly aint,its something that has being passed down from generations,probably from sisters,mothers,aunts,anyone really.How can breeders be allowed to breed from same generations knowing the obvious horrible diseases that this can cause.Wierd!There must be a way of stopping these horrid,inhumane people.Smile,it's okay and I'll be a judge again,that is not right,their heart is in their wallet and nowhere else.They couldnt give a damn about the welfare of our pets.They should be legally banned from interbred breeding,if there is a legal statue,if not bring 1 on.

Jan Bell
4th January 2009, 09:46 AM
Hello Barbara,

I am pleased to know you are on this board - I like to know who the "good guys" are!:thmbsup:

:crash: I've just read the Dog World posts and have had to make a response - I try not to get involved in these, but sometimes......

I've just had a letter from the CKCS Club in response to it's attitude to those breeders who do not follow the health recommedations that the club purports to support.:


"it is unable to enforce its Code of Ethics. Our only way forward, as with any other breed club, is to encourge, persuade and educate our members".

:confused: I am rather puzzled by this reply, as they seemed to be able to enforce the CoE in removing MC from the Committee!!! Suppose it depends on which particular "ethic" is in issue.

Still, I am grateful to those who continue to support the research and hope that 2009 sees some progress.

Best wishes,

Barbara
4th January 2009, 01:49 PM
Hi Jan

I have read your excellent post on dog world, I try to stay out of it too but sometimes you just can't sit on your hands any longer !!

Regarding the code of ethics--- well it really is just a guideline, legally it isn't worth the paper it's written on. The club's hope that breeders will take notice of it but they cannot enforce it. The problem that Margaret faced was not to do with the COE at all .The special general meeting was called because certain members said she had broken the committee rules of confidentiallity. The club has to hold this meeting whether it wants to or not because it is in the club rules. I personally thnk it was a travesty of justice and showed these members in their true colours.Confidentiallity is the biggest hurdle that this breed has. If everyone was open and honest there would be no stigma attached to SM and research would progress a lot faster.

My two were scanned over 4 years ago when all of this was just really beginning. I took them for three reasons 1) I needed to know their status 2) to help the research and 3) because as the clubs health rep I felt I couldn't ask others to do something I hadn't done myself. I was told I was insane to take two healthy dogs to be scanned (amongst other things !) However it proved to me that they don't have to show symptoms to be affected and this is what I and others have been trying to get through to these breeders who are still refusing to scan. Cleo's breeder hasn't spoken to me since I displayed the scans at our club shows in an attempt to raise more awareness. I couldn't see anything wrong in doing this. I wasn't blaming her for anything, it wasn't her fault but there you go. I have a maxim which is: there is no shame in producing an animal with an hereditary defect because it can happen to anyone out of the blue. What is shameful is when that defect is covered up and the animal knowingly bred from.
You just cannot improve a problem if you don't know the status of the dogs you are breeding from.MRI scans will not give any gaurantees but they will help to reduce the incidence of severe cases. It can be done if the breeders and researchers would only work together.
I'll get off my soapbox now !!!!!

Barbara
4th January 2009, 01:53 PM
Thank you Lynne (and Holly Dolly). How is Amber getting on these days??

*Pauline*
4th January 2009, 01:56 PM
If the Kennel Club didn't register puppies unless the breeder could prove they did the health tests and didn't register puppies when the sires were less than 2 1/2 to fit in with the required breeding protocol things would move forward. With KC registered pups, many puppy buyers assume this gives some kind of guarantee of quality, it doesn't. The Kennel Club should do something to police this situation. You can't make breeders health check but you don't have to give a certificate to them if they do nothing to prevent passing on genetic defects.

AT
4th January 2009, 02:19 PM
One might even ask what breed clubs and the CKCS Club and KC in the UK are doing themselves, actively, about puppy farming? icon_nwunsure[I]Because only recently, the national CKCS club has allowed back as a JUDGE a breeder who was convicted on dozens and dozens of counts of animal cruelty TO CAVALIERS for keeping masses of them in appalling conditions -- indeed, read the press coverage at the time (it remains one of the largest cases with the largest number of individual counts of animal cruelty in the UK, ever) or talk to many breeders and they will confirm that the club and breeders closed ranks to PROTECT this woman![/



I've just come in from a walk fuming over this , I met a woman with a cavalier & she got round to talking about buying puppies & how she had asked this person for advice on something. & added how it was a travesty that said person was prosecuted as she " took very good care of her dogs"

I bit my tongue but it wasn't easy

Phoebe
4th January 2009, 02:55 PM
I absolutely agree with Pauline's points, the Kennel Club should police this issue by refusing to certificate dogs if health tests and breeding protocol are not strictly adhered to by breeders. I would imagine that there must be others here like myself who rather stupidly thought that registration with the KC offered some guarantee of quality.
There must also be others here who wonder what the future holds for their beloved pets. How many of us fear that our little ones are potential time bombs regarding SM. I've even started to scrutinise my little girls behaviour and worry if she scratches for too long or rubs her face on the rug for more than a few seconds. Like many others, I should be just simply enjoying every minute with my little one, not fearing the worst and being fearful for her future.
My heart goes out to every owner who is dealing with this horrible illness.

lady and amber
4th January 2009, 03:47 PM
Thank you Lynne (and Holly Dolly). How is Amber getting on these days??


Thanks Barbara,
Amber is doing well, but any stress like visits to the vets or walks still brings on an episode so she is limited to play in the garden, sad really as I love walks with Lady just wish Amber could join us too.

Cathy Moon
4th January 2009, 04:04 PM
Trying to divert focus to puppy farming is the latest red herring from certain breeders.

I've noticed the same thing lately. Yet even if the pedigrees of our SM-affected cavaliers were posted publicly, we'd get the "it takes two to tango" excuse/argument being used to deflect responsibility amongst the club breeders. Certain breeders will go to any lengths to avoid being a part of the solution.

Another new diversion is the topic of full length scans versus mini scans - a new criticism of the current research and a future excuse to ignore the results.

sins
4th January 2009, 04:43 PM
Another new diversion is the topic of full length scans versus mini scans - a new criticism of the current research and a future excuse to ignore the results.

All these tactics are clear to see in print.
My absolute favourite is in cavalierhealth forum where the question is raised: "Is longterm damage being done to some cavaliers by MRi scans has any research been done"...?
If this is the line persistently taken to undermine the credibility of screening programmes and the dedicated work of researchers it'll take a heck of a lot more than £8,000 invested in PR to turn around the image of cavalier breeders.

Jan Bell
4th January 2009, 04:56 PM
If this is the line persistently taken to undermine the credibility of screening programmes and the dedicated work of researchers it'll take a heck of a lot more than £8,000 invested in PR to turn around the image of cavalier breeders.


I just can't believe how these people can behave so disgracefully. Some of the posts on Dog World are stunningly rude, arrogant and ill informed. Not to mention attacking the researchers trying to discredit their research. What a shabby way to treat those who are really doing their best to help the breed.
Do they not see how they look to the outside world?:sl*p:

One post did lighten my mood though, from Chloe92us:



Reading this banter is very addicting, I must say. It's like watching a circus act. On the outer ring we have Quincy and Rod, dressed in suits and ties, holding a long stick with a bone tied to a string. On the inner ring we have Bet- the pink poodle doing flips and jumping around on her back legs trying to catch the bone.:fool:


What a lovely visual image!

chloe92us
4th January 2009, 08:23 PM
Honestly, if she were to stop posting, the reading would be much more educational. So many times the same rants are tossed out that it sidetracks the thread.

HollyDolly
4th January 2009, 09:51 PM
Yes that made me smile too. Bet Hargreaves has made so many references too Exploding Brains, one would think she would shut up about it as she is so against the press printing this.
The more I read Norma's breed notes the more incensed I become, I realy should stop as it only serves to get me going.I have to smile at the comment she makes about being on first name terms with her vet, well whoopi woo.

Nanette
PS Another post on the Dog World website:-"Ollie and Maggie's Craigowl pedigree is not a secret, though I have kept it so for over 6 years. In the past several months in reading many of Normas breed notes and hearing that she has so many healthy, happy Cavaliers i have to set the record straight as that is so misleading to puppy buyers and other breeders. It would have been considerate at the very least if Norma over the past six years that I have had two severally affected Craigowls, would have offered a word of support, a little concern and an all out effort to do everything possible to reduce the chances of it happening again. An MRI may not be the perfect solution, but it lowers the risk, it contributes to valuable research and at the moment it is all we have. That is all I would be asking for."

Karlin
4th January 2009, 10:24 PM
Ollie and Maggie's Craigowl pedigree is not a secret, though I have kept it so for over 6 years. In the past several months in reading many of Normas breed notes and hearing that she has so many healthy, happy Cavaliers i have to set the record straight as that is so misleading to puppy buyers and other breeders. It would have been considerate at the very least if Norma over the past six years that I have had two severally affected Craigowls, would have offered a word of support, a little concern and an all out effort to do everything possible to reduce the chances of it happening again. An MRI may not be the perfect solution, but it lowers the risk, it contributes to valuable research and at the moment it is all we have. That is all I would be asking for. Regards, Sandy Smith

Yes, that is Sandy Smith. I have known of Sandy, and known of her affected cavaliers for about 5 years now -- from participation on some of the very early lists -- and despite having met her twice now, and being in occasional email contact, I was not aware until very recently that both her affected dogs were of Craigowl breeding. So it is a bit laughable that someone has posted on the comments that she has posted this 'everywhere' as so many of us who actually knew her and are on all those same lists never have read this before and didn't know. Her post above was a reply to that person's inaccurate statement.

Elsewhere in the Dog World comments someone stated that it should be Norma's own business whether she MRIs. But alas, she chose to make this the central topic of a public column on the cavalier breed, thus opening up her policies to scrutiny and comment. Given her profile, and supposed support for people like Sarah Blott who has said over and over that she needs breeders to keep on MRIing (a point that a few other Sarah Blott supporters keep missing! As well as the point that her work so far is based primarily on the initial work by Penny Knowler and Clare Rusbridge and the scans given to them by the vast majority of people, not the little group of some breeders who have decided to withhold them) -- saying that you won't MRI is very controversial and slap in the face to Dr Blott.

I will make a prediction right now that Sarah Blott also will quickly fall the way of ALL researchers so far, and become suddenly a lot less popular, as soon as the true implication of EBVs sinks into some breeders' heads. Many don't yet seem to register that they cannot hide the risk of their lines passing along CM/SM -- the EBVs already indicate incidence because they are based on so many of us already submitting scan results, and on the huge number already held by Penny and Clare, and as more are submitted, the finer tuned the EBVs will become.

That is why ALL owners of a scanned cavalier (or heart tested or eye tested) with a pedigree should please, please submit the information to Dr Blott for inclusion in the EBVs. A lot of breeders will find that just because they do not scan, doesn't mean many others haven't submitted information on their lines, or on dogs in which their lines feature in the near past, thus influencing their own dogs' EBVs.

Ultimately the greater the pool of data, the more precise the EBV, and the genome scan, assuming it is successful , will make the EBVs very precise indeed for risk of inheritance. Submitting test information to Sarah will help the breed and insure that no one can hide behind a 'don't ask, don't tell' no testing policy.

On the full length vs mini scan debate -- all the researchers have noted that almost all dogs with syrinxes have them at the neck, and almost none scan with syrinxes only at the base of the spine. So unless one is MRIing for a full diagnosis and to consider decompression surgery for an affected dog, there really is no reason to do full body scans to get statistically significant information. The funny thing is, the breeders most worried about 'needing' a full scan are typically those who don't MRI to begin with, and complain at paying even as little as £100 for a scan as is. For a full body scan, the cost would have to be significantly more as the full scan takes far more time and resources.

klh813
13th March 2014, 03:32 AM
Here is a list of Breeders in the UK that test: http://www.champdogs.co.uk/breeds/cavalier-king-charles-spaniel/breeders?ct=England

Kate H
13th March 2014, 12:08 PM
What always surprises me is that the breeders in denial about CM/SM don't realise that people will draw their own conclusions even from their silence. For example, in last year's Cavalier Club Year Book, Norma Inglis had a two-page advert. Not a word about her own winning dogs and their winning offspring, just a two-page spread about her new US import. My thought on seeing it (being a cynical old lady with two SM Cavaliers): 'Is she trying a new line in order to get away from SM in her own breeding? Why no mention of her own dogs?' I may be getting it wrong - but it's difficult not to be cynical about what breeders DON'T say in their adverts. Silence doesn't hide anything - it just encourages people to guess what's behind the silence.

The same with the EBV scheme. Some breeders may refuse to give information on their dogs, but if others do, then the information is out in the world anyway. For example, Oliver's father was never scanned and as far as I know is not on the EBV. But Oliver is, with the information that he has CM/SM; so clearly his father had a good chance of either having CM/SM himself, or being a carrier (as we don't know the mode of inheritance). And if anyone wanted to line-breed back to him, his EBV would include having produced at least one offspring with CM/SM (actually I know of two) - not to mention being the son and grandson of champion dogs (and widely-used sires) with CM/SM. So not putting him on the database actually doesn't conceal anything. Fortunately, although he was BIS at the club championship show, he was never a very popular sire, so his influence was limited.

Living with two dogs with CM/SM, I'm constantly learning to recognise new signs of pain. I'm not sure that there is any such thing as asymptomatic CM/SM - just CM/SM with subtle signs of pain that we don't pick up. What chance does a kennelled dog have of having such signs picked up, when dogs who are with their owners 24/7 still get their symptoms missed?

And on puppy farming: a friend of mine went to buy a puppy from one of the most successful breeders, who told him that at any one time she had 50 puppies in her kennels. What's that but puppy farming?

Kate, Oliver and Aled

Margaret C
16th March 2014, 01:46 AM
Here is a list of Breeders in the UK that test: http://www.champdogs.co.uk/breeds/cavalier-king-charles-spaniel/breeders?ct=England

These lists can be very deceptive. The term " Health Tested" is too often used to give credibility to cavaliers and their owners when minimum checks are performed ( and of course the term does not guarantee that the results of the test was good )

If you look at the individual entries in the Champdogs list some of them are very vague about actually what health testing they do. Others only list the cheapest and easiest tests.

I give advice to buyers and non-show breeders. So often they report back that breeders advertising their dogs in Cavalier Club Yearbooks and on Breeders lists are unable to produce the advertised health certificates when asked.

Interesting to see this thread revived and to read what was written.........Karlin was right about Sarah Blott falling out of favour. The same happened with Dr Imelda Mcgonnell and her Foetal Tissue Research when her studies showed there were serious problems in skull bone growth in foetal cavaliers.

Five years on but still very few breeders actually MRI scanning older dogs, in fact there is very little evidence that top breeders are scanning at all. What is happening is more and more young cavaliers are being diagnosed with painful SM, not surprising as the majority of breeders are still breeding from unscanned ( probably affected ) cavaliers.

Some of the breeders named above are not only ignoring the rise in the incidence of SM but they are knowingly taking the risk of introducing more health problems by breeding from young dogs with a family history of renal disease............... I thought I had heard it all but breeding from a two year old dog undergoing weekly dialysis for kidney disease strikes me as extraordinarily irresponsible and callous.

Karlin
18th March 2014, 11:51 PM
I have to agree that unfortunately, "health tested" is the most deceptive and misused of phrases and going on adverts on those dog breeder sites, almost always means the most inexpensive and lower-level tests, not the ones that are most important: buyers want to start with seeing a breeder MRIs and cardiologist tests, going hand-in-hand with following breeding protocols for both CM/SM and hearts, for BOTH sire and dam -- then lots of others of course too but these two are really paramount as a *starting* point :thmbsup:. "Health tested" too often means the breeder simply had her vet give her dogs and/or puppies a once-over, or only tested eyes etc as Margaret notes -- just ludicrously inadequate and meaningless these days, for cavaliers.

I would not advise using the Champdogs list as anything more than the most basic of starting points -- same as using a list from a breed club, one of the breed publications, or a recommendation from someone with a cavalier. But most buyers do need a starting point. :)


How eye opening to see this thread again and read what people were encountering and thinking half a decade ago. Too many of the predictions have come true and too little has changed.

Breeding from a dog on dialysis? How can doing something like that not be an automatic expulsion from a club? Who continues to tolerate this kind of thing -- surely others in the persons breed club must be aware? That's omert -- the breeder code of silence --at its most disgusting.

Pat
19th March 2014, 10:24 PM
Breeding from a dog on dialysis? How can doing something like that not be an automatic expulsion from a club? Who continues to tolerate this kind of thing -- surely others in the persons breed club must be aware? That's omert -- the breeder code of silence --at its most disgusting.


I thought I had heard it all but breeding from a two year old dog undergoing weekly dialysis for kidney disease strikes me as extraordinarily irresponsible and callous.

I dont know the source of the story of a two-year old Cavalier dog on weekly dialysis being used for stud, but this cannot possibly be true.

There are only a handful of places in the US that do dialysis for animals. Dialysis would have to be done about three times a week in order to keep an animal alive, not weekly. A dog undergoing dialysis would have a permanent catheter in place (changed at regular intervals) so you could not hide this. The cost would be extraordinary; I cant imagine that the value of a stud dogs offspring would warrant such an expense:

http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?A=1749

Our standard dialysis estimate is $3500-$4000 for the first 2-3 treatments and $600-$700 per treatment thereafter.

Heres another estimate The average estimate for the care of a hemodialysis patient is $20,000-25,000 for the first 2-3 weeks.

http://www.amcny.org/dialysis

I can only find one facility in the UK that offers dialysis Queen Mother Animal Hospital - and they are only using it for dogs with a problem that is curable, such as poison or bacterial infection; they arent using this for dogs with chronic kidney failure or JRD.

http://www.vetsonline.com/publications/vn-times/archives/n-13-10/hospital-leads-breakthrough-in-dialysis-for-cats-and-dogs.html

What is the origin of this story and what evidence is there to back up the story?

Pat

Margaret C
19th March 2014, 11:49 PM
One of the owners talked openly about the dog's illness when he had been drinking. This was at a cavalier gathering.

I don't know much about kidney disease but the treatment was described as dialysis and was done at a Veterinary Centre. I had a look at your last link and it says "Most cases use intermittent haemodialysis (IHD), which, like the human treatment, involves regular short, sharp treatment sessions." So perhaps that was what was being described?

The treatment you describe at the RVC seems to be a new technology, called CRRT, which is why the RVC is the only facility offering it.

Pat
20th March 2014, 12:22 AM
Sorry, but IHD still requires dialysis equipment which is only found at these very few veterinary centers (in the US); there is still only one center in the UK offering any kind of dialysis unless you can find others; this still requires a great deal of expense, a permanent catheter, and treatment about three times a week to sustain life. This is something that could not be hidden at all from the owner of the bitch. And a dog that is so sick that it required this kind of treatment would be in such poor condition that it could not be shown or passed off as a healthy dog during a breeding.

You know how I feel about Cavaliers, their health problems, testing of breeding stock, etc. Despite having 12 Cavaliers over 25 years and loving the breed, I'll not own another one after my current two are gone. Nevertheless, when I see a statement that is so crazy that it cannot be possible, I feel obligated to comment.

I know just about everything there is to know about kidney disease in dogs and the treatment options. I've studied this subject in depth for over ten years; I've attended over 20 AVMA continuing education sessions (on types of kidney disease and treatments) taught by specialists to general practice vets; I've read extensively; I've been a moderator in a yahoo canine kidney group. This is my passion, in addition to canine cardiology.

A two year old dog with chronic kidney disease would almost certainly have juvenile renal dysplasia (JRD). This is a problem in the shih tzu breed, and there is now genetic testing for it. Keeping a dog with kidney disease alive requires a lot of effort and expense, including special diet, frequent veterinary visits and tests, multiple medications, and daily subcutaneous fluid administration (done at home). I am extremely familiar with this situation, as I’ve cared for a number of dogs with kidney disease (both chronic and acute). I currently have a 13 year old shih tzu with both heart and kidney disease (not JRD, but chronic kidney disease found in geriatric dogs). It is a great deal of work and expense to manage this disease; most breeders and pet owners will euthanize a dog with chronic or acute kidney disease, especially if they and their vets aren’t very knowledgeable about treatment. (There is nothing wrong with the decision to not treat; it’s an individual choice.)

An intravenous fluid infusion (flush) is often done at a vet hospital in order to bring high kidney values down; this can be done at almost every vet office. This is NOT dialysis. This would not be done on a weekly basis but would rather be something done for several days when kidney disease is first diagnosed in order to improve an acute situation. Doing this once a week would be expensive and would have little value in managing chronic disease. UK vets generally don’t believe in clients doing subcutaneous fluids at home for their pets, while US vets generally encourage this option as it is cheap and often quite effective in maintaining quality of life. A UK vet might do subcutaneous fluids at his/her office since they won't let clients do this at home. Again, to be effective, subq fluids would need to be done more than once a week. Perhaps this person was referring to subq fluids administered at a vet's office.

Any pet owner or breeder who decides to treat a dog with kidney disease will only do so because she/he loves the dog and hopes that the dog’s quality of life can be maintained in exchange for the expense and work involved. No one would make this decision in order to produce puppies to sell because the value of the “input” is far greater than the value of the “output.” Also, a dog with more than mild JRD (requiring no treatment) would not be a dog suitable for the show ring because of size and condition, etc.

The problem in the shih tzu breed with sires and dams passing along the gene for JRD is when the dogs are bred at a young age before there are obvious symptoms of kidney disease and treatment is necessary. This is similar to the problem of SM in Cavaliers. Now that there is a genetic test for JRD, the disease could be eradicated in the shih tzu breed.

This story just doesn't make any sense at all. If a dog with kidney disease is sick enough to require treatment, it would be exceedingly difficult to hide. And what would be the purpose of breeding such a dog?

Pat

Pat
20th March 2014, 01:15 AM
I suppose that this person, if the reported story is accurate, could be describing a dog that he/she is taking to a GP vet weekly for subcutaneous fluids. If that is the case and the person thinks that this is "dialysis," then he/she is a f@#king idiot as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt (with an additional alcohol problem). And if the person is not doing additional treatment for JRD such as special diet, medications for symptoms such as nausea, anorexia, elevated phosphorus, etc., as well as more frequent subq fluid administration, then the dog is going to have a shorter lifespan and poorer quality of life.

I've known of many situations where dogs with undiagnosed JRD have been bred, but I still cannot imagine anyone (even the most unethical of breeders) breeding a dog with diagnosed kidney disease. (JRD can be diagnosed with ultrasound.) That would be like breeding a Cavalier on heart medications or a Cavalier on SM medications. I just cannot imagine such an action.

Pat