PDA

View Full Version : ACKCSC Finally Recognizes MVD As A Health Problem in Cavaliers



RodRussell
16th December 2009, 02:20 AM
Holy cow! Has hell frozen over, or what? the AKC parent club -- American Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club (ACKCSC) -- has expanded its formerly one tiny little paragraph about mitral valve diease on its website! Good for them! See it for yourself at http://ackcsc.org/health/hearts.html

Now, the article is a bit defensive, trying to suggest that MVD just might not be genetic in the Cavalier, and it lumps CKCSs in with unspecified "certain breeds" as having early-onset mitral valve problems. The fact is that MVD is 20 times more prevalent in the Cavalier than the average purebred. The MVD article also includes a gratuitous slap at the health of mixed breeds.

The club does not quite endorse the MVD breeding protocol, but it comes close. Here is what it says about testing and breeding:

"Currently, the recommended practice is to wait until a Cavalier is two years old or older before the first breeding and to know the parents and ancestorial cardiac status. Cavaliers with early onset presentations of MVD (before four years of age) should not be bred and breeders need to work with the guidance of their cardiologists."

Now, I don't know who the ACKCSC is referring to when it says "the recommended practice", because what the club has on its website is not the recommended practice among board certified cardiologists in the USA. For that recommendation, read it at http://tinyurl.com/yj25a7g Nevertheless, the ACKCSC recommendation comes real close to the real thing.

This ACKCSC webpage finally should eliminate any excuse for AKC breeders to claim ignorance of the need for heart testing and abstinence from breeding un-tested, underaged Cavaliers. Thank you, ACKCSC!
--
Rod Russell

Soushiruiuma
16th December 2009, 03:38 AM
This is why CKCSC (USA) didn't want AKC recognition. The American Border Collie Association was in the same position a year before. AKC turns a blind eye on some very dubious breeding practices, in favor of getting money. The CKCSC website has had the MVD breeding protocol posted since I started researching the breed a few years ago.

For comparison consider the wording differences in the SM sections on each site:



CKCSC (USA):
Syringomyelia (SM) is rapidly emerging as a severe inherited condition in our Cavaliers. It is a progressive neurological disease that varies in severity. Cavaliers unfortunately are affected by SM in larger numbers [sic] to any other breed.




ACKCSC:
This condition is known to affect less than 0.002 % of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels so you have a very good chance that your Cavalier will not have this condition.

Karlin
16th December 2009, 10:53 AM
:eek: What planet is the ACKCSC on? They make breeders and breed clubs look totally out of touch and scrambling for excuses to breed at younger ages then recommended. Absolutely extraordinary.

At a time when many dedicated breeders are trying to make clear their focus on health, what a total slap in the face to those efforts.

What is most shocking is that a national breed club would out and out misrepresent (to put it politely) what cardiologists actually recommended. The breeding recommendations in the recommendations, which are quite longstanding now, are very clear: the ages are 2.5 and 5. The SM breeding recommendations are designed to dovetail with those.

Sarenna
16th December 2009, 12:15 PM
I find this completely amazing and to be honest confusing. Are the clubs not some form of "guardian" to the breed? As I see it every breed of dog has inherent health problems and some have more than others. If you are looking to buy a puppy you try and avoid puppy farms and ask that the relevant health checks are carried out and see the certificates for dam and sire. (for me now that would be MRI scan, heart certificate, luxating patella and eye information - that is also the guidelines recommended by the CKCSC NL) however, if the club is not advising people on these problems how on earth can people make an informed sensible choice and how many more puppy owners will have to help with watching their beloved animals suffer?

When I bought Yoshi as a puppy I used the club guidelines as my bible in choosing a breeder as I had no other knowledge about Cavaliers (at the time syringomyelia was virtually unknown but it's there now), and I trusted them. I am sure others do exactly the same ... and to betray peoples trust is unacceptable. To be honest I still trust the Dutch club - but reading here I am starting to think that maybe NL is the exception not the rule :(

RodRussell
16th December 2009, 01:15 PM
I find this completely amazing and to be honest confusing. Are the clubs not some form of "guardian" to the breed? ... if the club is not advising people on these problems how on earth can people make an informed sensible choice and how many more puppy owners will have to help with watching their beloved animals suffer?

The AKCSC is one of the AKC's "parent clubs". There is one such parent club for each purebred breed recognized by AKC. AKCís parent clubs are charged with ďthe education of breed owners on the nuances of the breed, and overseeing the breedís health and welfare.Ē

So, each parent club has a very important, responsible obligation to the breeders and the pet owners of its breed. The parent club website is the go-to place for the breed fanciers to find out all they should need to know about the health issues of the breed.

For eleven years, from 1998 (when the MVD breeding protocol was introduced in the USA) until now, the ACKCSC has provided the CKCS breeders and pet owners with absolutely no education and no overseeing regarding MVD.

Therefore, despite the laxity of its recommendations regarding heart testing and breeding, I view the new MVD webpage as progress. After eleven years of nothing, this at least is something.

I have not yet read the ACKCS's new SM webpage carefully, but from what I have read about it in this thread, it sounds like ACKCSC still is seriously shirking its responsibilities in educating its breeders and pet owners about SM. My thought about that is that when the fanciers are educating themselves elsewhere about SM, particularly via the PDE television program, then the parent club begins to look like it is in denial, for one thing, and that it seeks to seriously mislead the webpage viewer, for another. Hopefully, ACKCSC can be shamed into getting real about SM, as it has, somewhat, about MVD.
--
Rod Russell

Oreo
16th December 2009, 04:14 PM
This condition is known to affect less than 0.002 % of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels so you have a very good chance that your Cavalier will not have this condition.

Helping a friend look for a puppy a number of years ago (five) this was the quote we read as I remember thinking 2/10000 was such a low amount. I thought it would be doubtful it would ever be a problem that she'd ever see. We also knew about bad hearts, but had no idea there was a heart protocol of any kind . . . I'm glad at least that information has been revised.

It is just awful this misinformation remains on the site that many buyers are sent to when researching this breed.:mad:

This is from the AKC health survey done in 2004/5.

http://ackcsccharitabletrust.org/CKCSFinalReport.pdf

It shows:

-3.9% veterinary confirmed syringomyelia - page 65
-8.5% suspected syringomyelia - page 78
-1 in 29 lifetime risk of syringomyelia - page 156 and 161

and says this on page 186:

"Neurological disorders were reported for 9.2% of CKCSs. Nearly 4% of CKCSs were diagnosed with syringomyelia which is considered extremely high compared with other dog breeds. Studies have shown that the incidence of syringomyelia was very high in certain families and lines of CKCSs which had been extensively inbred."
What can be done to get that misleading SM article off of that site and replaced?

Oreo

WoodHaven
16th December 2009, 04:22 PM
Helping a friend look for a puppy a number of years ago (five) this was the quote we read and thought that then it would be doubtful it would ever be a problem that she'd see. We also knew about bad hearts, but had no idea there was a heart protocol of any kind . . . I'm glad at least that information has been revised.

It is just awful this misinformation remains on the site that many buyers are sent to when researching this breed.:mad:

This is from the AKC health survey done in 2004/5.

http://ackcsccharitabletrust.org/CKCSFinalReport.pdf

It shows:

-3.9% veterinary confirmed syringomyelia - page 65
-8.5% suspected syringomyelia - page 78
-1 in 29 lifetime risk of syringomyelia - page 156 and 161

and says this on page 186:
"Neurological disorders were reported for 9.2% of CKCSs. Nearly 4% of CKCSs were diagnosed with syringomyelia which is considered extremely high compared with other dog breeds. Studies have shown that the incidence of syringomyelia was very high in certain families and lines of CKCSs which had been extensively inbred."
What can be done to get that misleading SM article off of that site and replaced?

Oreo

This report was the result of a health survey. It isn't an article.

Oreo
16th December 2009, 04:59 PM
You've lost me Sandy. I mentioned I was quoting from the health survey and even linked to it.

I was asking how to get the misleading article taken off the ACKCSC site - the one that seems to have pulled a number out of thin air to say that SM is known to affect less than .002% of Cavaliers.

That is an article is it not?

Do you know of a source for that number? :confused:

WoodHaven
16th December 2009, 05:10 PM
You've lost me Sandy. I mentioned I was quoting from the health survey and even linked to it.

I was asking how to get the misleading article taken off the ACKCSC site - the one that seems to have pulled a number out of thin air to say that SM is known to affect less than .002% of Cavaliers.

That is an article is it not?

Do you know of a source for that number? :confused:

Oops, I didn't see that part-- I thought you were saying that the information given on the linked survey was an article.

I think it MUST be a typo-- 2% would be 2 in 100,.2% would be 2 in 1000, .02% would be 2 in 10,000, .002% would be 2 in 100,000.-------------2 dogs in 100,000 wouldn't be significant.

Pat
16th December 2009, 05:14 PM
Sandy - Oreo is talking about the misleading SM information (article) stating the "condition is known to affect less than 0.002% of Cavaliers......." not the health survey.

I did the same thing as Oreo when I read the 0.002% figure on the ACKCSC site - I had always heard the quoted figure from the ACKCSC health survey of 4%. The 4% figure is calculated looking at pages 78 and 79 of the report:

There were 566 Cavaliers in the survey, and owners self reported that 48 (8.5%) were "suspected of having SM." Of those 48, 23 were diagnosed by a veterinarian as having SM, which equals 4% of the total sample population. Page 79 shows additional info on the 23 Cavaliers such as symptoms, age at diagnosis, confirmed by MRI or symptoms only, surgery performed or not, etc.

It was definitely not a math major who wrote the SM summary on the website - to put this in perspective:

0.002% of 1,000,000 dogs is only 20 dogs
4% of 1,000,000 dogs is 40,000 dogs

I think this isn't even a math error but a total fabrication. There is no other explanation unless the author doesn't understand about the use of decimal points with a percentage sign and was attempting to give a figure of 2%. When you see these kinds of errors on a website, it makes you question the validity of everything else on the site!

Frankly, I never gave much credence to the health survey anyway as it was such a small sample and all info was self-reported by owners - not particularly valid or scientific.

Ah well, business as usual............

Pat

WoodHaven
16th December 2009, 05:23 PM
Sandy - Oreo is talking about the misleading SM information (article) stating the "condition is known to affect less than 0.002% of Cavaliers......." not the health survey.

I did the same thing as Oreo when I read the 0.002% figure on the ACKCSC site - I had always heard the quoted figure from the ACKCSC health survey of 4%. The 4% figure is calculated looking at pages 78 and 79 of the report:

There were 566 Cavaliers in the survey, and owners self reported that 48 (8.5%) were "suspected of having SM." Of those 48, 23 were diagnosed by a veterinarian as having SM, which equals 4% of the total sample population. Page 79 shows additional info on the 23 Cavaliers such as symptoms, age at diagnosis, confirmed by MRI or symptoms only, surgery performed or not, etc.

It was definitely not a math major who wrote the SM summary on the website - to put this in perspective:

0.002% of 1,000,000 dogs is only 20 dogs
4% of 1,000,000 dogs is 40,000 dogs

I think this isn't even a math error but a total fabrication. There is no other explanation unless the author doesn't understand about the use of decimal points with a percentage sign and was attempting to give a figure of 2%. When you see these kinds of errors on a website, it makes you question the validity of everything else on the site!

Frankly, I never gave much credence to the health survey anyway as it was such a small sample and all info was self-reported by owners - not particularly valid or scientific.

Ah well, business as usual............

Pat

I filled out my survey with 100% honesty. I don't know if it was intentional. I know a lot of people that don't understand much about percentages. I had one person write that she owed me .50cents-- she meant .50 dollars or 50 cents.

Bet
16th December 2009, 06:19 PM
Since this Thread has strayed onto SM, could I mention I have just read the Complaint from the UK CKCS CLUB against the Pedigree Dogs Exposed TV Film, which was not upheld by Ofcom ,it's well worth a read , .

The subject of the number of Cavaliers suffering from SM is mentioned.

RodRussell
16th December 2009, 06:27 PM
... I was asking how to get the misleading article taken off the ACKCSC site - the one that seems to have pulled a number out of thin air to say that SM is known to affect less than .002% of Cavaliers.

...Do you know of a source for that number?

I think I have found the source. Notice that at the bottom of the ACKCSC's SM page -- http://www.ackcsc.org/health/sm.html -- it credits "Anne Marie Rassmussen, SM in Dogs: Implications for the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel-permission granted".

Well, if you go to her website, you will find an article on SM, titled "Syringohydromyelia in Dogs: Implications for the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel", with a copyright date of 2000, which includes the following statement:

"This particular condition is known to affect less than 0.002% of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels so odds are very much in your favour that your dog would not have this condition. If your dog is scratching or displaying some of the other symptoms more than likely it is due to another cause such as allergies which is a common condition in dogs. If concerned see a veterinarian for evaluation."

See http://www.rhiannon-cavaliers.com/syringohydromyelia.htm

So, apparently Anne Marie is the source. Where she got the percentage is anybody's guess, but if it really dates back to 2000, who then knew anything about percentages in the CKCS?

What all of this tells us about ACKCSC, however, is that it either doesn't have a clue about SM's current research, or it wants to mislead the viewer. It does not even list Dr. Rusbridge as a source for any of the SM information on that page. I do not know how anyone can intelligently discuss SM today and not at least attribute some information to her.
--
Rod Russell

Soushiruiuma
16th December 2009, 09:39 PM
It is a shame the "parent club" has so little concern for the breed's health and welfare that they can't be bothered with making correct information available for either MVD or SM.

Bet
17th December 2009, 09:31 AM
Rod,

Just maybe it's those who bury their Heads in the Sand about the Health Problems in our Cavalier Breed ,who are harming Cavaliers.

The Cavalier Folk who know that the Cavalier Breed is Afflicted with the TWO most Serious Health Problems of SM and MVD, WILL believe what is being told to them by the Researches, they are the only ones who know what they are talking about.

Some of us who quote what Researches say, are being Sneered at, but so be it, the Researchers are the only Folk who know what they are finding out about the Cavalier Health Problems.

2009 , has been such a beneficial year for the Cavalier Breed , thanks to Jemima Harrison and her Pedigree Dogs Exposed TV FILM being shown in different Countries as a result,the Report from APGAW, Professor Sir P Bateson's Report due out next month, and last but not least, Prospective Cavalier Buyers , because of the PDE TV FILM, been made aware to ask for a Health Certificate from the Cavalier Breeder ,to show that they have Health Tested their Cavalier Breeding Stock,.

Would members of the Public have known about SM and MVD in the Cavalier Breed without the information from the PDE TV FILM, .?

I Don't Think So.!!

I will say again ,how much , we who love and have loved our Cherished Cavaliers, have to Thank, Margaret, Carol , Karlin, and Jemima for.