PDA

View Full Version : Scanning



honeymonster
25th August 2009, 05:32 PM
I am not a breeder but was in conversation on the phone recently to a breeder whose name I was given as responsible and health conscious. She told me she was rather disillusioned with scanning at the moment and the results and was unsure what to do next. One of her bitches was pts with late onset SM but when younger had been clear and produced a litter. The sire of the litter was scanned on the bitches death and seen to be one of the worst cases of SM the Neurologist had ever seen. The litter produced, now over 2.5 years, have been scanned and are all clear. This must be a terrible dilemma for breeders to face if they have clear stock ready for mating but fearful that their scanning clear may be a smoke screen. 2 bad cases producing a clear litter. To breed or not? Can I ask what should they do? Bet, Karlin, BrianM. I ask you because you are knowledgeable people with an opinion.

Bet
25th August 2009, 06:36 PM
honeymaster,

I have been checking up on what Dr C Rusbridge mentions about different circumstances producing SM ,hope somebody else will add to what I am mentioning.

Having read your Post ,it looks as if the Cavalier Bitch in question developed SM later on ,but had been mated to Cavalier Dog who was suffering from SM.

The subsequent Litter had resulted in all clear Cavaliers with no sign of SM at 2.5 years, why does'nt the Cavalier Breeder mentioned , get in touch with Dr C Rusbridge,the Neurologist who is involved with the Research SM Problem in our Cavalier Breed for her advice about this situation.

For me ,if I was the Breeder I might be a bit concerned in-case some of the Litter could be Carriers of the SM Gene/Genes.

This is why it's so important that the SM Genome Research succeeds in Canada.

I would also sugest that the Cavalier Breeder reads Dr C Rusbridge's New Web site,

www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk

Bet(Hargreaves)

WoodHaven
25th August 2009, 06:42 PM
honeymaster,

i have been checking up on what dr c rusbridge mentions about different circumstances producing sm ,hope somebody else will add to what i am mentioning.

Having read your post ,it looks as if the cavalier bitch in question developed sm later on ,but had been mated to cavalier dog who was suffering from sm.

The subsequent litter had resulted in all clear cavaliers with no sign of sm at 2.5 years, why does'nt the cavalier breeder mentioned , get in touch with dr c rusbridge,the neurologist who is involved with the research sm problem in our cavalier breed for her advice about this situation.


For me ,if i was the breeder i might be a bit concerned in-case some of the litter could be carriers of the sm gene/genes.

This is why it's so important that the sm genome research succeeds in canada.

I would also sugest that the cavalier breeder reads dr c rusbridge's new web site,

www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk (http://www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk)

bet(hargreaves)


who would breed a dog that was symptomatic (suffering) from sm???

Bet
25th August 2009, 07:07 PM
I think the question asked ,was whether any of the SM clear Litter should be being Bred from , I only mentioned ,that perhaps they could be SM Carriers, and this will never be discovered until the SM Gene/Genes are discovered.

Bet(Hargreaves)

WoodHaven
25th August 2009, 07:15 PM
I think the question asked ,was whether any of the SM clear Litter should be being Bred from , I only mentioned ,that perhaps they could be SM Carriers, and this will never be discovered until the SM Gene/Genes are discovered.

Bet(Hargreaves)

No -- You said, "but had been mated to cavalier dog who was suffering from sm". Which would be unconscionable.

(they could be SM Carriers, and this will never be discovered until the SM Gene/Genes are discovered) AND yes, that is why some breeders don't want to bet everything on a clear scan.

I have 7 in my breeding program scanned and info sent on to research. But a scan isn't the whole picture and shouldn't be thought of as such.

sins
25th August 2009, 07:34 PM
The litter produced, now over 2.5 years, have been scanned and are all clear.
Wow, Has this breeder been able to hold back an entire litter until the age of 2.5 years?
Regardless of their Mri status, surely not all of them are suitable for breeding anyway. Have some been placed in pet homes?

Sins

honeymonster
25th August 2009, 10:03 PM
I think there were only 2 in the litter.

WoodHaven
25th August 2009, 10:49 PM
Wow, Has this breeder been able to hold back an entire litter until the age of 2.5 years?
Regardless of their Mri status, surely not all of them are suitable for breeding anyway. Have some been placed in pet homes?

Sins
ROUGHLY
An average litter of cavaliers is about 3.7 (per statistics obtained from CKCSC,USA over about a year). Carefully placed, that wouldn't be too hard to follow.

Bet
26th August 2009, 10:19 AM
Does it not mean ,if a Cavalier has a Syrinx, this denotes SM , so shouldn't be Bred From, the same as with the Cavalier MVD Problem, if the Sire or Dam has a Heart Condition , then they should not be being used for Breeding.

Maybe I should'nt be quoting this, but on another List , it's been mentioned, that it's because Cavalier Pet Owners let their Cavaliers get over -weight ,that's how they have Heart Trouble, yes ,if a Cavalier is over- weight and has a Heart Condition ,that sure can be a problem, but I have known Cavaliers who were a normal weight ,and still had MVD.

Back to the Breeder mentioned by Honeymonster, why did she not ask to see the Sire's MRI Scan ,since her Bitch had been MRI Scanned.

Bet( Hargreaves )

sins
26th August 2009, 10:54 AM
"but had been mated to cavalier dog who was suffering from sm". Which would be unconscionable

But if he was one of the worst cases of SM ever seen by a neurologist,surely he would be symptomatic????and yes breeding from him would be unconscionable!!
Did the breeder own both sire and dam?
It also strikes me as strange that a bitch who was scanned clear and bred from, just over 2.5 years ago went from clear MRI to dead in approx 3 years......:eek:
Why was the sire scanned following the bitch's death if the pups were healthy?
Would it not have been better to scan him before mating the pair rather than waiting until his mate was dead and then scanning him!
This all sounds very illogical to me.
Sins

Bet
26th August 2009, 11:27 AM
Mmmmmmm...............

Bet( Hargreaves)

honeymonster
26th August 2009, 12:11 PM
But if he was one of the worst cases of SM ever seen by a neurologist,surely he would be symptomatic????and yes breeding from him would be unconscionable!!
Did the breeder own both sire and dam?
It also strikes me as strange that a bitch who was scanned clear and bred from, just over 2.5 years ago went from clear MRI to dead in approx 3 years......:eek:
Why was the sire scanned following the bitch's death if the pups were healthy?
Would it not have been better to scan him before mating the pair rather than waiting until his mate was dead and then scanning him!
This all sounds very illogical to me.
Sins


The point is, the male was not showing any symptoms! And I think the Neurologist was amazed he wasn't due to so many syrinxes. The breeder owned the bitch and used the dog who she also bred but it lived with someone else. The dog was scanned because he had been party to a mating to a bitch who produced 2 puppies, and she subsequently was pts as she was screaming in pain. I think the mating took place before scanning was considered desireable. Not sure how old she was when she developed signs and was pts.

sins
26th August 2009, 01:14 PM
I'm not a breeder either Honeymonster so it's hard for two "laypersons" to say what she should or shouldn't do,but I'm sure it's ok to offer a hypothetical response
so to recap...
This breeder has bred two unaffected cavalier pups from affected parents due to the scan missing out on a late onset severe syrinx in the dam who had been mated to an unscanned affected male.
She questions the usefulness of scanning as a tool because two clinically diagnosed dogs have produced unaffected offspring coupled with the fact it failed to screen her bitch as being affected.
So she has choices.
(1) Knowing the family history,she can disregard scanning as a tool for her breeding programme and breed without considering the MRi status of potential mates.
(2) She may decide not to breed at all.
(3) She might decide that mri scanning while not offering a definitive answer, can be used to find the best possible mate for her cavaliers and hope to breed away from the condition over successive generations.
she might choose
(a) a cavalier with herniation but no syrinx
(b)a cavalier with no herniation and no syrinx
(c) a cavalier with no malformation,herniation or syrinx.(Good luck with that one)
(4) She could submit scans to the AHT for use in the EBV programme
(5) she might want to hold tough for the EBV scheme to become available.
(6) She might want to talk with breeders who have been scanning over several generations and see how their programme is doing.

Best of luck to her with whatever she chooses.
Sins

WoodHaven
26th August 2009, 01:44 PM
Does it not mean ,if a Cavalier has a Syrinx, this denotes SM , so shouldn't be Bred From, the same as with the Cavalier MVD Problem, if the Sire or Dam has a Heart Condition , then they should not be being used for Breeding.

Maybe I should'nt be quoting this, but on another List , it's been mentioned, that it's because Cavalier Pet Owners let their Cavaliers get over -weight ,that's how they have Heart Trouble, yes ,if a Cavalier is over- weight and has a Heart Condition ,that sure can be a problem, but I have known Cavaliers who were a normal weight ,and still had MVD.

Back to the Breeder mentioned by Honeymonster, why did she not ask to see the Sire's MRI Scan ,since her Bitch had been MRI Scanned.

Bet( Hargreaves )

NO where on the SM protocol do the experts state that a dog with SM on MRI shouldn't be bred. This is the difference between a D rating and a F rating.

WoodHaven
26th August 2009, 01:49 PM
But if he was one of the worst cases of SM ever seen by a neurologist,surely he would be symptomatic????and yes breeding from him would be unconscionable!!
Did the breeder own both sire and dam?
It also strikes me as strange that a bitch who was scanned clear and bred from, just over 2.5 years ago went from clear MRI to dead in approx 3 years......:eek:
Why was the sire scanned following the bitch's death if the pups were healthy?
Would it not have been better to scan him before mating the pair rather than waiting until his mate was dead and then scanning him!
This all sounds very illogical to me.
Sins

Not necessarily, some nasty looking MRI's can have few is any symptoms and some cavaliers are showing "sm like'' symptoms that have clear MRI's.
My dogs were given a exam by a neurologist looking for signs of weakness and pain before all the MRI's.
I don't know of one breeder that would breed a dog 'showing' symptoms.

Karlin
27th August 2009, 12:58 AM
Yes, agree, lots here just doesn't sound right... icon_nwunsure

Scanning clear -- what does that mean? Absolutely no syrinxes? A malformation? No malformation, no syrinxes (this would be so rare as to make these two unusual offspring highly desireable for researchers on the genome scan)? A lot of people use the term 'clear' to mean any of a range of things. And who rated the dogs 'clear'? Any of the neurologists involved with the actual grading scheme? There's an awful lot of self-grading going on. This is the equivalent of breeders listening to their cavaliers, doing their own auscultations and announcing murmur grades then assuming them to be correct enough to submit to OFA, which no intelligent breeder would do. Though many are fairly clear to understand in general terms, reading MRIs remains a specialist skill, and there also are only a handful of neurologists participating on the grading scheme. A grade is only a grade if verified by one of those who are.

But really -- this 'case' is a red herring and pretty meaningless, both statistically and because the offspring are still too young for them to be proclaimed two 'clear' dogs from two affected parents. Consider a similar, progressive condition: MVD. No one would think it at all unusual for two dogs that acquire early or late onset severe MVD to have offspring heart testing clear at only 2.5 years old. SM like MVD is a progressive condition. I'd not breed the offspring with this background. Those offspring should be neutered.

Possible cases like this are why researchers are currently so eager to get the results of scanned cavaliers that are older than 5. It is only the older dogs who will help fill in the picture and provide answers on progression and also: give a better picture of the rate of affectedness in the whole population as to date, the percentages are calculated off mostly dogs under 5 (for a progressive condition, that is obviously going to give results skewed to look more positive than they actually are). The UK Club has a request for such scans to be done on its webpages at the moment. The reason I scanned my 10 year old dog was for this research. :thmbsup:

If people want answers to questions about likelihood of inheritance they need to be 1) doing MRIs on their own dogs; 2) taking those MRI scans, & submitting them to Sarah Blott for analysis of inheritance; 3) pushing for more funded research; 4) supporting the genome scan. :)

Karlin
27th August 2009, 01:03 AM
why did she not ask to see the Sire's MRI Scan ,since her Bitch had been MRI Scanned.

And yes, this certainly seems very odd for a 'health conscious breeder'. :rolleyes: As I said: this post just seems a little bit odd from beginning to end. Maybe tell the 'health conscious breeder' to talk to Sarah Blott and Clare Rusbridge. I hope she has submitted all these important and useful scans too with the full story as it would be so helpful for research and for the breed :).

Kate H
27th August 2009, 10:58 AM
Karlin wrote: It is only the older dogs who will help fill in the picture and provide answers on progression.

Talking to Nick Jefferey of Cambridge at the Cavalier Club Ch show last March, he said how little they know about what is happening with older dogs - once they are scanned and found to have SM, they don't get scanned again, just treated for the symptoms if and when they occur. This encouraged me to have Oliver scanned again under the Midland Club scheme (which is why I had asked Nick's opinion). He was scanned two years ago at 6 and had a very small syrinx but no symptoms. Scanned again this May at 8, the syrinx had doubled in size (still small, though) but still no symptoms. Two months later the first symptom appeared - mild paralysis of his right front leg, but so far he seems to have no real pain (but everything complicated by spondylosis in three spinal vertebrae close to his syrinx, which makes it difficult to know which is causing what).

As Karlin said, it is important to scan older dogs - especially if they have produced puppies (Oliver hadn't - I was just nosey!). Sarah Blott said at her Midland Club talk that if money is tight, scan your older dogs rather than your younger ones (unless the younger ones have symptoms, of course), as the older ones contribute more to research - and also give you information about whether their descendants may be at risk and themselves need to be scanned before breeding.

Kate, Oliver (cheerful as ever) and Aled (scanned clear at 2)

Karen and Ruby
27th August 2009, 03:42 PM
NO where on the SM protocol do the experts state that a dog with SM on MRI shouldn't be bred. This is the difference between a D rating and a F rating.

I think it SHOULD say so. Even though right now the guidelines that are set out is all we have I think that the responsible thing to do would be to scan all breeding stock and scan subsequent generations and if SM is present to not breed at all. I appreciate that to find a dog with no CM or herniation is darn right impossible as the CKCS are too far gone for that -

I also think that any breeder that truely cares about CKCS would be doing EVERYTHING they can to prevent incidences of SM in their lines and if that means volunteering information to help develop the EBVs then thats what they should do. Im not a breeder nor would I want to be - I would hate to have that responsiblity on my shoulders but I cetainly make sure I contribute in other ways through money donations- rubys DNA and scan information has been forwarded to the AHT and i cant say for definate but I am seriously considering donating Ruby when the time comes to Clare for research also. Clare is our neurologist and knows Ruby well- I wouldnt trust her with anyone else but like I said I wont really know how I feel about that until it happens- but I do like to think that I can make Ruby proud and be as brave as she is being through coping with this horiffic ordeal!!

Karen and Ruby

WoodHaven
27th August 2009, 04:23 PM
I think it SHOULD say so. Even though right now the guidelines that are set out is all we have I think that the responsible thing to do would be to scan all breeding stock and scan subsequent generations and if SM is present to not breed at all. I appreciate that to find a dog with no CM or herniation is darn right impossible as the CKCS are too far gone for that -

I also think that any breeder that truely cares about CKCS would be doing EVERYTHING they can to prevent incidences of SM in their lines and if that means volunteering information to help develop the EBVs then thats what they should do. Im not a breeder nor would I want to be - I would hate to have that responsiblity on my shoulders but I cetainly make sure I contribute in other ways through money donations- rubys DNA and scan information has been forwarded to the AHT and i cant say for definate but I am seriously considering donating Ruby when the time comes to Clare for research also. Clare is our neurologist and knows Ruby well- I wouldnt trust her with anyone else but like I said I wont really know how I feel about that until it happens- but I do like to think that I can make Ruby proud and be as brave as she is being through coping with this horiffic ordeal!!

Karen and Ruby

There are other ramifications of taking out too much in a breeding pool. Ask any geneticist. This is a major problem for dog breeders. An MRI is not non invasive-- It is a picture in time of how the brain and spine look. A clear MRI could give a false sense of security and you could have a majorly overused sire that could crop up other nasty issues like epilepsy etc..


Without people willing to walk the fine line of dog breeding -- there would be no more cavaliers. I don't know about you, but I never want to be without one.

There have been a few cavaliers that have a "normal" skull and brain formation.

The fact that you think you know better than:
Breeders who have been doing this for DECADES
Geneticists
Reproduction experts
and Neurologists

What are your qualifications??
In nature, nothing is clear, nothing is easy. IF it was, we would have cured a lot of human ills that cause human suffering.
Opinions are like bums, everyone has one.

sins
27th August 2009, 05:12 PM
Opinions are like bums, everyone has one.
And as such is fully entitled to one without being confronted by demands to know about their qualifications by you or anyone else.
There is no minimum academic requirement for admission to this board that I am aware of, just like there is no formal qualifications required to breed dogs.
Any owner who is dealing with a dog who is being treated for SM and who pays their veterinary bills is more than adequately qualified to offer their opinion.
And as for neurologists and geneticists, I'm sick to the back teeth of reading about their competence being questioned and seeing their reputations being undermined.
At this stage many breeders have gone a long way to demonstrate their committment to the health of their dogs,but that too is being undermined by a determined core group of hotheads(some aren't even breeders) who seem to enjoy harrassing vulnerable pet owners who dare to express an opinion.
If breeders cannot show some solidarity and display even a little empathy with the pet owners who keep the faith and continue to buy from a compromised breed,then perhaps they should tackle the elements within their own peer group who continue to give two fingers to the Clubs and researchers and their fellow breeders who actually do give a damn.
Sins

WoodHaven
27th August 2009, 05:27 PM
And as such is fully entitled to one without being confronted by demands to know about their qualifications by you or anyone else.
There is no minimum academic requirement for admission to this board that I am aware of, just like there is no formal qualifications required to breed dogs.
Any owner who is dealing with a dog who is being treated for SM and who pays their veterinary bills is more than adequately qualified to offer their opinion.
And as for neurologists and geneticists, I'm sick to the back teeth of reading about their competence being questioned and seeing their reputations being undermined.
At this stage many breeders have gone a long way to demonstrate their committment to the health of their dogs,but that too is being undermined by a determined core group of hotheads(some aren't even breeders) who seem to enjoy harrassing vulnerable pet owners who dare to express an opinion.
If breeders cannot show some solidarity and display even a little empathy with the pet owners who keep the faith and continue to buy from a compromised breed,then perhaps they should tackle the elements within their own peer group who continue to give two fingers to the Clubs and researchers and their fellow breeders who actually do give a damn.
Sins

So VERY true, but I didn't demand didley-- I asked (I did use the word qualification tho) from where she got this very stringent opinion-- what does she have that gives her INSIGHT that neither experience or expertise grant. Ya never know-- maybe she will change MY mind.

I never question the competency of any neuro, geneticists or cardio experts-- DID We read the same post?? Tho getting any of the to agree on much very difficult.

If vets/ and specialists don't agree, why would you expect breeders to?

AND I have NO idea what you are talking about/referring to about hotheads who aren't even breeders etc.. etc... But truly it seem to set you OFF.

sins
27th August 2009, 05:59 PM
what does she have that gives her INSIGHT that neither experience or expertise grant
Surely the experience of having a dog with SM would give plenty of insight?
What do you expect the"pet crowd" to do? Just shut up about SM because they aren't qualified?? Can you perhaps specify what you condider an appropriate qualification to discuss SM and cavalier breeding?
Let's face facts, there will always be dogs produced who have SM and will invariably end up in the homes of people who will be responsible for their care.What does their qualifications have to do with it?
Although I suppose we could all be taken for fools seeing as we extended the courtesy of a response to an individual who started this thread with some contrived cock and bull story about a fictitious breeder.
You mean you haven't figured out who it is Sandy?
Sins

WoodHaven
27th August 2009, 06:11 PM
Surely the experience of having a dog with SM would give plenty of insight? Well, I have two with SM.. Following the blessed protocol and all.
What do you expect the"pet crowd" to do? Just shut up about SM because they aren't qualified?? Can you perhaps specify what you condider an appropriate qualification to discuss SM and cavalier breeding?Having a background in genetics, or at least biology would help. Notice that most of the experts aren't telling breeders how to fix the problem(or that it can be fixed), just how we 'might' make it better. Isn't that worth noting?? IF the experts aren't sure, it seems odd (to me at least) that some pet owners KNOW how.
Let's face facts, there will always be dogs produced who have SM and will invariably end up in the homes of people who will be responsible for their care.What does their qualifications have to do with it? NOT really following this at all-- my questioning her qualifications of changing the protocol (which was devised by neuros) has what to do with this?
Although I suppose we could all be taken for fools seeing as we extended the courtesy of a response to an individual who started this thread with some contrived cock and bull story about a fictitious breeder.
You mean you haven't figured out who it is Sandy? No, but everyone who knows me, KNOWS I am very straightforward, blunt if you will, and I really don't delve into subterfuge.
Sins

Karen and Ruby
27th August 2009, 09:31 PM
There are other ramifications of taking out too much in a breeding pool. Ask any geneticist. This is a major problem for dog breeders. An MRI is not non invasive-- It is a picture in time of how the brain and spine look. A clear MRI could give a false sense of security and you could have a majorly overused sire that could crop up other nasty issues like epilepsy etc..


Without people willing to walk the fine line of dog breeding -- there would be no more cavaliers. I don't know about you, but I never want to be without one.

There have been a few cavaliers that have a "normal" skull and brain formation.

The fact that you think you know better than:
Breeders who have been doing this for DECADES
Geneticists
Reproduction experts
and Neurologists

What are your qualifications??
In nature, nothing is clear, nothing is easy. IF it was, we would have cured a lot of human ills that cause human suffering.
Opinions are like bums, everyone has one.

Well well well... who would have thought that a tiny opinion could open such a can of worms. You may well have been breeding cavs for YEARS as you put it. but Ive been looking back over posts on this board and it seems that most of the times someone poses anything questionable about breeding on this forum you are the 1st one to pop out and start ranting.
No I dont think I know more than genetists and neurologists and experts I simply dont understtand why when SM was discovered over 10 years ago that its been left in the cuboard this long. Well its certain people in certain clubs that have let it get to this stage through not being willing to a) admit there was a problem and b) not making an effort to change

Yes nature is very complex but if left alone we wouldnt be in this situation in the 1st place would we and i wouldnt have to watch my poor girl suffer EVERY GOD DAMN DAY so YES i am entitled to an opinion and YES im entitled to voice it on this forum the same way as you can and i should be able to with out having 20 questions from a breeder living 1000s of miles away.

WoodHaven
27th August 2009, 09:47 PM
Well well well... who would have thought that a tiny opinion could open such a can of worms. You may well have been breeding cavs for YEARS as you put it. but Ive been looking back over posts on this board and it seems that most of the times someone poses anything questionable about breeding on this forum you are the 1st one to pop out and start ranting.
No I dont think I know more than genetists and neurologists and experts I simply dont understtand why when SM was discovered over 10 years ago that its been left in the cuboard this long. Well its certain people in certain clubs that have let it get to this stage through not being willing to a) admit there was a problem and b) not making an effort to change

Yes nature is very complex but if left alone we wouldnt be in this situation in the 1st place would we and i wouldnt have to watch my poor girl suffer EVERY GOD DAMN DAY so YES i am entitled to an opinion and YES im entitled to voice it on this forum the same way as you can and i should be able to with out having 20 questions from a breeder living 1000s of miles away.

This is turning into a bad Springer episode-- do I hear "you don't know me"!!
I never said I'd been breeding anything for any time.

I don't rant, I do defend, and I don't attack unless attacked.
I doubted your credentials to change the protocol? That was all I did to "you".
You've been on cavalier talk since WHEN?? the middle of June 2009-- I've been here since Nov. 2005. I've put in a lot more 'dues' than you have. IMNSHO

Karlin
27th August 2009, 10:14 PM
I can vouch that Sandy has put a lot of time and thought into her breeding programme and she expresses many of the difficult choices breeders face. I value that input.

I think some folks are misreading posts though and thinking they are being targetted when they are not, and when comments are actually being directed at third parties. This curious and theoretical case doesn't need to be made personal. :thmbsup:

Back to whether this 'case' actually exists? I have my doubts and have good evidence for doubting it. If, however, it does, then it would be a sad and shocking example of how breeders who could make major contributions to finding solutions to this horrific breed health problem by working with researchers with these dogs' MRIs and pedigrees, instead are willing to block progression and find reasons why they and others won't do anything at all. That, if it were to be the case, is disgusting.

Sarah Blott's work addresses quite thoroughly the issue of diversity and retaining as broad a working gene pool as possible -- and she believes it IS quite broad. If there's a lack of understanding of this point, maybe the US Clubs need to get her over to speak to groups and post detailed information about her research and EBVs and what is needed from breeders for these to work -- because she has discussed all these issues, she has explained that breeding with EBVs helps breeders avoid other bottlenecks, and so on. Maybe the international clubs really should start working *together* on this issue?

An MRI is indeed a snapshot in time but a heck of a lot can be seen and predicted in such a snapshot. An auscultation is also only 'a snapshot in time' yet I have never heard breeders who are working to minimise MVD say there's no point in auscultations as things could change in future.

Statistically there's always a possibility that two badly affected parents could produce perfectly clear offspring. But statistically the odds are far more likely that these two dogs will develop syrinxes over time and perhaps, like the parents, have a form of SM that progresses slowly at first then becomes devastatingly bad.

More MRIs of older dogs would help researchers to better understand progression and answer some of these questions.

At the same time, if breeding cavaliers to minimise SM only brings out other problems, then truly the viability of the breed must then be questioned. There is no justification to continue breeding just in the hopes that some dogs won't have such problems and allow serious heath problems to be 'just a cavalier thing' that means dogs suffer and die.

but going back to Sarah Blott -- these are ALL issues she addresses and she is optimistic about maintaining diversity and addressing these health problems. But breeders will have to be a key part of getting that information in to the researchers that enables these projects to succeed. Hoping everyone else will do the work and submit the information -- or worse, hiding bad scan results in the hopes that one can prop one's own lines while as a consequence allowing SM to expand even further -- is morally and ethically bankrupt.

Karlin
27th August 2009, 10:55 PM
This article by Sarah Blott, Tom Lewis and Carol Fowler is invaluable for better understanding why breeding away from SM does not mean having to dangerously foreclose the gene pool and could address all heritable diseases. Maybe this link should be circulated more widely via the clubs so breeders would better understand this complicated area.

http://www.cavaliercampaign.com/ebv.htm

Bet
28th August 2009, 10:38 AM
I just can't understand why this excellant Article is not on the UK CKCS CLUB WEB SITE.

It is much easier to follow than what is on the CKCS CLUB Web SITE at the moment.

Infact I believe it should be being Mailed to all Club Members,.

This is such important information.

Maybe I am being a bit snide here, but on the Club Web Site ,great mention is being made of a Cavalier Rally at Blenheim next year, but surely this easy to follow Article ,and could get more Cavalier Owners to be giving Dr S Blott the information she needs for her Research,should also be on the Club Web Site .

Bet(Hargreaves)

Kate H
28th August 2009, 12:29 PM
I know the webmaster for the Cavalier Club site, so I'll ask him if he could put the article on - presumably he'll need copyright permission from Dog World (as I suppose Carol had to get for her website).

Kate, Oliver and Aled

Oops - have just checked the article itself and realised we could (with her permission, of course) lift it straight from Carol's website - the version in Dog World was a shortened one, minus the diagrams.