PDA

View Full Version : Bits from Bateson



Margaret C
16th January 2010, 08:05 PM
As this report is so crucial for the welfare of all dogs I thought I would post some of the recommendations for discussion.

This is the recommendation for a group to oversee the changes............

"A non-statutory Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be established. The key role of the Council should be to develop evidence-based breeding strategies that address the issues of poor conformation, inherited disease and inbreeding as appropriate to the specific breed and to provide advice on the priorities for research and development in these areas. I recommend that the Advisory Council members and Chairman should be appointed by open competition according to Nolan Principles. Defra should manage the selection process, drawing appropriately upon the advice of the devolved authorities and experts. Members should be selected on the basis of their personal expertise and not with regard to any personal affiliation or membership"


The Nolan Principles ensure that positions are given to truly independent candidates and this may become very important as the KC seems to be suggesting that their newly set up health group could do the job :mad:

Sabby
16th January 2010, 08:51 PM
The Nolan Principles ensure that positions are given to truly independent candidates and this may become very important as the KC seems to be suggesting that their newly set up health group could do the job :mad:

Totally agree that we need independent people to do that job.
KC just going to make it sound good and nothing will really happen.

EddyAnne
17th January 2010, 09:49 AM
The Nolan Principles ensure that positions are given to truly independent candidates and this may become very important as the KC seems to be suggesting that their newly set up health group could do the job :mad:

Yes the KC certainly would want their Health Group to do the job. An Advisory Council would be in a strong advisary capacity to DEFRA. Notice there was recommendations of replacing the various Breeding and Sales of Dogs Acts and amending the Animal Welfare Act, and also notice the following recommendation from Bateson and I think stay tuned some time after the politicians have settled in after the elections.

8.9 Defra should implement a statutory Code of Practice on the Breeding of Dogs under Section 14 of the Act. The Code should encompass such issues as:

a. The health and welfare of the parent dogs.

b. The appropriate screening and testing of parents for breed specific disorders, as laid down in the relevant breeding strategy for the breed (or breeds) concerned.

c. In selection of parents, due consideration being given to compliance with such elements of a breed standard as are intended to avoid extremes of conformation that create welfare problems.

d. The health, welfare and appropriate socialisation of litters of puppies, in order to fit them for their future function.

e. Mechanisms for the sale of the puppies.

f. When UKAS accredited quality assurance schemes address all the issues covered by the code, the Code should recommend membership of such an accreditation scheme.
.

Bet
17th January 2010, 11:18 AM
Since the Bateson Report commented on the SM Problem in our Cavaliers , mentioning that this is caused when the Brain continues to grow after the Skull has Formed..

This Statement has been confirmed by the Neurologists Researching the Cavaliers' SM Problem.

In other words as APGAW said in their Report,and was mentioned in the Press and on TV after the Publishing of the Bateson Report ,that Cavaliers' Heads are too Small for their Brains ,is this not what it boils down to.

The Cerebro Spinal Fluid is jammed because of this.

Was this caused by Faulty Genes back in the Mists of Time in the 1920's when certain Dogs were being used as the Foundation Stock for the Cavalier Breed, or when the Heads of Cavaliers were being altered in the 1930's from the Dome Shape of the King Charles Spaniel to get the the Flat Shape of Head required for the Cavaliers, or even when the Cavalier Heads were altering in the 1980's, did some-thing happen and those Faulty Genes came to -gether and caused our Cavaliers Brains to get Bigger after their Skulls had Hardened.

I don't think this will ever be found out

Will all the discussions that are to take place between the Kennel Club and Cavalier Breeders ,Advisory Bodies,etc, have an answer to this, when it's recognized that Cavaliers' Brains are too Large for their Heads and causing their SM Problem?

It could be quite a long time in the Future for those Faulty Genes that are giving this problem to our Cavalier are found, since the reason has now been given for the Cavaliers' SM Problem.

Is not the only thing to be being discussed by the Advisory Bodies ,the Kennel Club and Cavalier Breeders, to save the Cavalier Breed and try to contain this appalling disease, since I believe ,that the Breeding Guide -lines for the Cavaliers SM Problem which are to be
being discussed at the forth-coming UK CKCS CLUB'S AGM be made compulsory ,not to Breed from a Cavalier before 2.5 years of age,and ALL Cavalier Breeding Stock to be MRI Scanned .

Why waste time when the facts are now known to be causing the SM suffering in the Cavalier Breed,but do what needs to be being done.

Bet
17th January 2010, 01:58 PM
I see I have been contradicted on the CC List ,but I feel I must repeat what Professor Sir P Bateson said in his Report Published on Thursday,exact words,from Page 32

"Prominence has been rightly given to Syringomyelia in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels .

In this case the Brain Continues to Grow after the Skull has Ossified with the Result that the Canal between the Ventricles of the Brain and the Spinal Cord is Occluded. "

Professor Sir P Bateson had his Report Independantly Reviewed ,so he must be right in what he has said.

I know no more than what was said in his Report , if it is wrong perhaps he should be contacted about his comments.

Margaret C
17th January 2010, 03:24 PM
This echoes something that Karlin wrote on an earlier thread............

"How many people who have bought puppies have stopped to consider the impact of their purchasing decisions? If the Public only bought puppies from health screened parents, if everybody refused to buy a puppy until they had seen its mother and satisfied themselves that the conditions under which it was reared were safe, healthy and provided a life worth living for parent and puppy, if everybody took the sensible step of finding the breed that would best suit their family and their living conditions, then poor breeders would be out of business and far fewer dogs would require re-homing."

One of the recommendations....................

Addressing inadequacies in the way dogs are bought and sold

8.12 Complementing all existing schemes, a public awareness and education campaign should be designed by expert practitioners, in order to persuade members of the general dog-buying public to change their behaviour in specific key respects and to provide readily comprehensible information on what questions to ask and what to look for when buying a dog. This should be supported and run by as many as possible of the dog and animal welfare organisations, acting jointly and in unanimity.

It is suggested that the animal charities, RSPCA, PDSA, Blue Cross, Dog Trust etc as well as the Kennel Club and breed clubs should be involved in this drive to educate puppy buyers.
I have dreams of adverts on the sides of buses, and on hoardings by the roadside

Professor Bateson believes that there should be an accredited breeders scheme that puppy buyers should be directed to, but he feels that the rules governing such a scheme should be tightened up, with inspection of breeders facilities and a requirement that breeders not only health test, but they do not breed from dogs that fail such tests ( something that they can do at the moment)

If the KC does not respond quickly and improve their ABS ( they are saying they want data, conclusively proving there is a problem, collected first.....typical KC foot dragging ) then Prof Bateson suggests an alternative body could provide the accredited breeders scheme

Bet
17th January 2010, 07:41 PM
Could I just mention that in my previous Post I had quoted from the Bateson Report ,that it was said that in the case of Cavaliers and their SM Problem ,their Brain continues to grow after the Skull has Ossified .

I would think what Dr. McGonnell says,means much the same thing ,that Cavaliers' Brain and Bone are not able to communicate with each other .This relationship is lost in the Cavalier Breed.I don't know ,but it looks as if the two Statements mean much the same.

I know that in the Bateson Report it was mentioned that Dr C. Rusbridge, the Neurologist , who is also involved in the Cavalier Research into SM, had given evidence to Professor Sir P. Bateson.

So as Dr McGonnell has said, the Cavaliers' Brain seems to be growing too much and the Bone is not keeping up with the Brain.

Is this due to a Faulty Gene or Genes?

What-ever is happening , these comments are now starting to make sense about this dreadfull Disease afflicting our Cavaliers.

Ruth
17th January 2010, 08:47 PM
.......with Bateson ...... http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com

Margaret C
18th January 2010, 12:11 AM
http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com

I can understand why Beverley Cuddy was disappointed. The Times-online article hinted at so much more.

Having read the report, I was impressed by Professor Bateson's thoroughness, and I am still heartened by the recommendations.

This is one of his comments on line breeding................

"Some breeders will tell you that they are not inbreeding, they are ‘line breeding’. What is meant by this is that the breeder is carefully selecting mates on the basis of a detailed knowledge of their genealogy and their family’s breeding history. Sometimes this is done to avoid perpetuating a recognisable inherited disease. More usually they are choosing mates carefully to generate, it is hoped, prize-winning characteristics. I shall have more to say about both these actions by breeders in Chapter 6, but either way, if the breeder mates, say, grandfather with granddaughter, he or she is inbreeding and doing so to a marked extent"

MARK MARSHALL
18th January 2010, 12:45 AM
It seems to me, that as Cavaliers all seemingly originate from so few dogs.

Today - you cannot truely go 'out' before doing a 'U' turn and coming back onto oneself ?

I have been told on many occasions that GF to GD is a good mating and of course the opposite GM to GS.

If it's healthy, scanned clear to scanned clear dogs with great hearts, joints and eyes - WHO is actually saying this is wrong ?

I need the answer to be able to pass the info on ?

Why is such a mating not better than mating a clear 'A' dog to an unscanned dog, allowed to be called a 'D' ?

Mark.

Regards Mark.

Oreo
18th January 2010, 01:01 AM
.......with Bateson ...... http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com

I read another blogger's post about the report, and it spoke to the idea of "why shout when you can whisper and get so much more accomplished ".

. . . been mulling that over.

Oreo

Margaret C
19th January 2010, 01:46 AM
It seems to me, that as Cavaliers all seemingly originate from so few dogs.

Today - you cannot truely go 'out' before doing a 'U' turn and coming back onto oneself ?.

I think that breeders just will not let themselves think of the health implications that will arise by breeding cavaliers too closely.


I have been told on many occasions that GF to GD is a good mating and of course the opposite GM to GS.

If it's healthy, scanned clear to scanned clear dogs with great hearts, joints and eyes - WHO is actually saying this is wrong ?.


Why do people instinctively feel that such close pairings are unhealthy in humans?

Why did the KC Chairman recoil at the thought of mating with his daughter but feel that there is no harm if it is done when breeding dogs?

All inbreeding ( and that includes linebreeding ) is harmful.........
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_15-8-2008-12-22-2?newsid=42674

One of the authors of this study is the Kennel Club's Jeff Sampson


Why is such a mating not better than mating a clear 'A' dog to an unscanned dog, allowed to be called a 'D' ?.

The result of a inbred mating MAY on some occasions seem better than a mating in accordance with suggested breeding guidelines.
Even mating two young dogs with heart murmurs MAY give you a dog that lives to 12 with no MVD murmur.
But such matings will end up putting even more health compromised cavaliers into the diminishing gene pool.

Margaret C
23rd January 2010, 04:01 PM
As this is a hot issue at the moment, here is a couple more 'bits', this time from the executive summary of the report.





Animals that are inbred are less likely than optimally outbred animals to survive and less likely to reproduce. Inbreeding can result in reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability, developmental disruption, lower birth rate, higher infant mortality, shorter life span, reduction of immune system function, and increased frequency of genetic disorders..



Many breeders exercise the highest standards of welfare, are passionate about caring for their dogs properly and take great trouble to ensure that their puppies go to good homes. Nevertheless, current dog breeding practices do in many cases impose welfare costs on individual dogs from a variety of causes including the following: negligent or incompetent management with a particular impact on breeding bitches but also including failure to socialise puppies appropriately; use of closely related breeding pairs such that already high levels of inbreeding are worsened; use of breeding pairs carrying inherited disorders such that inherited disease is transmitted to offspring

Breeders that closely line breed ( a less intense but still deleterious form of inbreeding ) may still be trying to excuse their actions by quoting from books written by other breeders, but this thinking is outmoded and now smacks of defending the indefensible.

Mating grandparent to grandchild has been a 'classic' pairing for breeders, but when you are closely mating dogs that are already related many times, & in many ways, it is now known to be downright dangerous for the breed.
If breeders do not recognise the fact they are both blind and foolish.

Cavaliers started with a very few founder dogs & they were closely linebred and inbred to establish the breed. It is not possible to truly outcross within cavaliers, all are related many times to each other.

Some lines have consistently been very tightly bred. One dog sent to Australia had a mother who was also his great grandmother, the mother's full sister being his other great grandmother.
Another dog exported to America, and becoming a top producer, had 7 out of his 8 grandparents that were offspring, or descendants, of just one bitch. This dog and his UK sire produced a lot of cases of SM.

Another line has a dog who has every grandparent going back to a known SM dog ( mine ) and the breeder knew about the diagnosis when that mating was done.
Probably a good test mating for SM and other health problems, but unfortunate for the people who bought the dog's siblings or puppies sired by him. Even more unfortunate for the dogs.

Some breeders will argue that testing for health in each generation before close breeding is the key, as recessive genes both good and bad will show up, but this will only work if ALL the puppies that are produced are kept by the breeder, or at least closely monitored for their lifetieme.

What does happen when these closely line bred dogs are affected by the bad genes later in life?
Unfortunately there is no evidence that any breeder of these cavaliers have welcomed feedback about health problems from their buyers, in fact the evidence shows quite the opposite.

Bet
23rd January 2010, 07:40 PM
Following onfrom Margaret's Post,if I could give an Example of the In-Breeding that had been carried out in the Cavalier Breed in the Earlier Days.

This Litter of Cavaliers

Parents were FULL Brother and Sister

Their Parents were Half Brother and Sister

Then in turn their Parents were Half Brother and Sister.

Then we come to the Great- Great- Grand-Parents,who were also Half -Brother and Half Sister Matings.

Then you have the Repeat matings of Cavaliers .

One Cavalier Bitch had 7 Litters ,totalling 39 Puppies ,from the same Dog,who was her own Son

Another Cavalier Dog had two Litters ,totalling 13 Puppies from his own Daughter.

Mrs Pitt ,the Founder of the Cavalier Breed , had written ,an Article in 1957, saying that when the Second World War was over ,she started to look around for the Dog that she wanted to lead her TTIWEH Kennel ,but most of them had been so In- Bred on Both Sides to Two Particular Cavalier Dogs ,that they were of Little use to Her.

Both those those Sires were Influential in the Cavalier Breed,but were used to every Bitch .

As a Result the The Cavaliers were left very In-Bred

I am no Geneticist ,but I really do feel that any Geneticist seeing this information ,his mind would be having second thoughts on the information that he would be be giving Cavalier Breeders.

Bet
23rd January 2010, 07:58 PM
Just had to mention ,I have had a lot of Contact with Dr M Willis, Geneticist, over the years, the last I'd heard when I had sent him my Best Wishes, was he was not very well and in Hospital.

Oreo
24th January 2010, 02:13 AM
Just to follow up some points made by Margaret, I thought I'd post a couple of links and excerpts.

"Pedigree Dog Breeding in the UK: A Major Welfare Concern." It has a full section (4.2) devoted to the link between inbreeding and disease. Rooney, Nicola; Sargan, David (February 2009).

http://www.terrierman.com/PDE-RSPCA-FULL.pdf

"The link between inbreeding and increased disease risks in purebred dogs has been noted by many authors and comprehensively reviewed ...."

"This causal relationship is also supported by studies such as that of the Bouvier Belge des Flandres in France (Ubbink et al 1992). Dogs being treated for numerous ailments (osteochondrosis, food allergy, autoimmune disease, neoplasm, or hypoplastic trachea: see glossary) were seen on average to have higher coefficients of inbreeding than a control population of healthy dogs. Syringomyelia (sections 3.3 and 4.3) was first reported in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels in 1997(Rusbridge et al 2000). A genetic analysis showed that six of eight grandparents of all affected dogs in a study could be traced back to two female ancestors and the condition showed increased severity and an earlier age of onset with increased levels of inbreeding (Rusbridge and Knowler 2004). There are many other examples in the canine literature that highlight the risks of small founder numbers and high levels of inbreeding."
There is much more . . . .

Another link: "Canine Population Genetics in Practice: Principles for the Breeder."

http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=shared:populationgeneticspractice

"Many popular writers, of whom Dr. Malcolm Willis is probably the best known, speak as apologists for inbreeding at one moment, at the next moment attempting to assure us that the average COI in most breeds is quite low. That is simply not the case . . . ".

...."Authors such as Malcolm Willis and Jerold Bell insist that outbreeding “covers up” recessive defects. Indeed it does and indeed it should! That is exactly what nature itself does, and no one criticises natural evolutionary processes or recommends that natural populations should be inbred instead of mated naturally. The fact that inbreeding “exposes” recessives is not necessarily helpful, because in most cases it is impractical to remove or “eliminate” the “defect” genes. Rather, breeding should be guided in such a way as to avoid reinforcement of known recessives whilst maintaining genetic diversity in the population.

Screening and selection can never succeed as a strategy for the “elimination” of genetic disease. As one defect is eliminated, others will be reinforced, and the latter state of the breed will be worse than the former. The genetic load must be known, tolerated and managed; to obsess about its elimination will lead only to disaster."

. . . "It is up to breeders to have the common sense to realise that what is being proposed is a losing game, that already depauperate purebred breed genomes will not support further massive artificial selection and the consequent wholesale elimination of yet more genetic diversity. The “defect” genes cannot be excised with a scalpel; many other genes that happen to reside on the same chromosomes will go right along with the defects, with totally unforeseeable consequences."
Again, at that link, there is sooo much more . . . .

And then this one. "The Downside of Inbreeding: It's Time for a New Approach"

http://www.jabed.com/inx.htm

"It is becoming more and more apparent that the short-term gains of inbreeding are outweighed by its long-term costs. Present-day breeders need to re-think their strategy. Assortative mating-the mating of phenotypically similar but unrelated or less-related individuals-will allow breeders to reach their breeding goals while reducing the loss of alleles in the over-all population. To accomplish this it is vital that each breeder has a thorough knowledge of breed pedigrees. The typical three to five generation pedigree may indicate few, if any, common ancestors. But what happens if the pedigree is extended a few more generations? If two dogs share no ancestors for four generations, but share many in the 5th, 6th and so on, breeding them would be inbreeding."
There is much, much more from C.A. Sharp, Dr. Hellmuth Wachtell, Dr. John Burchard, Dr. James Seltzer, and many others.

Oreo

Bet
24th January 2010, 12:43 PM
Thanks Oreo, fot your Post and giving the Links.

In a News- Paper here in Britain yesterday , the Daily Express ,it was again mentioned , about thr Cavaliers' Brains being too Big for their Skull.

This is what the Press and Media are concentrating on.

The Article's Head-Lines are

BETRAYAL of OUR PEDIGREE CHUMS.

Concludes with

Dogs are Totally Dependant on us for Their Welfare .

TRADITIONALLY, THEY HAVE BEEN OUR BEST FRIEND,

NOW IT'S OUR TURN TO BE THEIRS.

I think this is the Reason why I am able to with-stand all the Abuse that has been Hurled at Me Recently.!!!

Murphy
24th January 2010, 12:56 PM
I read another blogger's post about the report, and it spoke to the idea of "why shout when you can whisper and get so much more accomplished ".

. . . been mulling that over.

Oreo


" Amen" to that.
Elspeth

Margaret C
24th January 2010, 03:12 PM
"The Downside of Inbreeding: It's Time for a New Approach"

http://www.jabed.com/inx.htm

"It is becoming more and more apparent that the short-term gains of inbreeding are outweighed by its long-term costs. Present-day breeders need to re-think their strategy. Assortative mating-the mating of phenotypically similar but unrelated or less-related individuals-will allow breeders to reach their breeding goals while reducing the loss of alleles in the over-all population. To accomplish this it is vital that each breeder has a thorough knowledge of breed pedigrees. The typical three to five generation pedigree may indicate few, if any, common ancestors. But what happens if the pedigree is extended a few more generations? If two dogs share no ancestors for four generations, but share many in the 5th, 6th and so on, breeding them would be inbreeding."
There is much, much more from C.A. Sharp, Dr. Hellmuth Wachtell, Dr. John Burchard, Dr. James Seltzer, and many others.

Oreo

There is an interesting book, published by the Kennel Club in 2006, called 'Dogs, Dog Breeding and the Control of Inherited Disease in the Dog'

inside it says "The text was written by Mr Ronnie Irving, Dr Jeff Sampson and Dr Malcolm Willis"

Using Schipperkes as an example they write.........
"In an attempt to produce show winning dogs generation after generation, breeders develop breeding programmes that attempt to drive these other genes, those that determine the perceived 'quality' of the Schipperke, to homozygosity. This is why 'popular sires' become popular sires; because they are successful in the show ring, they are believed to have a good combination of alleles and breeders want to introduce them into their own lines.
Linebreeding to one of these popular sires then makes these genes more and more homozygous in future generations. Along the way very large numbers of dogs that are born and registered, are discarded from the breeding pool, never to become parents in their own right, and their own unique versions of these 'quality' genes are lost forever. So, the whole process of modern day dog breeding is designed ( albeit unconsciously) to drive more and more of those 30,000 genes to homozygosity, with a consequent erosion of genetic variation within a breed.



Hidden within the genes of all dogs will be recessive versions which, if they become homozygous, could have a deleterious effect on the dog. As we will see later, the vast majority of inherited disease in the dog results from recessive versions of genes. Although we don't know precisely, every dog will be a carrier of a number of these deleterious recessive genes, and these breeding practices will increase the possibility that they will become homozygous and result in inherited disease, particularly if that popular sire was a carrier! .

There are lots more interesting quotes from a book written by the KC Chairman who famously declared "No scientist is going to tell me how to breed", the KC genetics advisor, and a well known dog breeding geneticist.

Bet
24th January 2010, 06:12 PM
Could I mention the Name of Dr Hellmuth Wachtell ,who was mentioned in the two Previous Posts along with other Geneticists.

A few years ago ,I was involved with Dr Wachtell and other Researchers in Austria, who were Researching the MVD Problem in Our Cavalier Breed.

They wanted the Pedigrees of the Cavaliers with Heart Trouble that I had collected of Cavaliers from here in Britain.

This was to compare them with the Pedigrees of Cavaliers with MVD in Austria.

When he got back to me about this , he said that he was convinced the Heart Problem in Cavaliers was caused by In-Breeding.

frecklesmom
24th January 2010, 09:01 PM
This article talks about the inbreeding of wolves on Isle Royale and the resulting problems. These wolves do not have a chance on their own to stop the progression of genetic errors. The wolves arrived on Isle Royale and since that arrival there has not been any "new" wolves joining them.

Title:
Bone Deformities Linked To Inbreeding In Isle Royale Wolves

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402171440.htm

Karlin
25th January 2010, 12:00 AM
I was reading an article that is very interesting by Amice Pitt (one of the founding breeders) in which she notes how narrow the gene pool was in the foundation of the breed, that the fourth generation of Cavaliers were all bred to only two dogs, who were father and son :eek: -- after the war when so many dogs had been destroyed from the large breeding kennels. She says:

"Unfortunately in the next generation the lines were all brought in and this good Black and Tan was used all the time and no outside blood used, so that in the following generation everything was sired either by Plantation Banjo or his son, Cannonhill Ritchey. This has been a misfortune to the breed as after the war there was no choice of stock for a breeding plan and the only possible course was to jump back to the source and get as near to Ann's Son as possible."

She also notes that the sire of Ann's Son (one of the founding dogs of the breed) was probably a Papillon!

This certainly is full of premonition and has come back to haunt the breed:

"In most breeds the different breeders have their own strains with different ancestors and much work can be done by studying these strains and inbreeding or outbreeding for the different family points, but we have not got the benefit of changes of blood -- we can wander a little to the right or left, but every time we get back to Ann's Son..."

She then talks about the possibility (she argues the need) of the Kennel Club changing its rules to allow for outbreeding again, I presume she is arguing to King Charles spaniels. She says:

"In the beginning it was to our advantage that the two registrations were separated. We cavalier breeders could not get on in the show ring or anywhere else until we got independence, but from a breeding point of view it was too soon and cramped our efforts, all the more so as during the war years Plantation Banjo and his son Cannonhill Ritchey were used without thought for the future.

"It would be possible to outcross to the Papillon who is a Toy Spaniel, but these experiments are very long-term, cost a lot of money and mean keeping more dogs than one wants in the kennel, which in these days of high costs is rather daunting. Even in the old days when things were much cheaper the big experimental kennel cost a lot of money, apart from the labor and time involved, and the fact that the first experiments might be a failure. The right dogs have to be found and tried out on the same nucleus of bitches before one can decide whether the individual will be the right stud dog for the job, and will not be too dominant for introduction into a breed which already is far from complete standardization. Perhaps there are some fanatical breeders among our members? I'd like to think they might take this idea up as a challenge to their perseverance and ability."

Interestingly, she wrote this for the CKCSC bulletin in 1962!! So almost 50 years ago, one of the most important founder breeders already felt there were dangers due to very close inbreeding within the breed, and that was never addressed from then to now. Then you get some breeders posting elsewhere, and the head of the KC's comments about healthy dogs from inbreeding and how you just watch the pedigrees and that grandparent to grandchild meetings are fine. But you talk to researchers who have looked at generations of pedigrees and they will note that even a 10 generation pedigree does not indicate how inbred all the dogs are in that they all keep returning to the same dogs over and over and over -- that actually, breeding cousins may be a closer level of inbreeding then closer matings might seem to be.

As an aside, Mrs Pitt makes an amazing remark about how one of the very early dogs was always unfortunate in his owners because he was always kept in poor conditions and often had sarcoptic mange!

RodRussell
25th January 2010, 02:35 AM
I was reading an article that is very interesting by Amice Pitt (one of the founding breeders) in which she notes how narrow the gene pool was in the foundation of the breed, that the fourth generation of Cavaliers were all bred to only two dogs, who were father and son :eek: -- after the war when so many dogs had been destroyed from the large breeding kennels. ...

Karlin: I think this article by Mrs. Pitt is a very important find. I recall that within just the past week or so, on another Cavalier board, some poster stated that Mrs. Pitt must be twirling in her grave over the comments made on this board about inbreeding.

Could you tell us where we may find this article, if it is on the Internet, and if it isn't, could you scan and post it somewhere where we may retrieve it?
--
Rod Russell

Bet
25th January 2010, 11:17 AM
Karlin ,

Thank you for your Post ,I did'nt know whether I could mention the name of the Cavalier Bitch I had Posted about who had 7 Litters to her Son in the 1940's ,I saw you had mentioned her

She was

FRECKLES OF TTIWEH

and her Son

PLANTATION BANJO.





CANNONHILLHILL RICHEY

Who was the SON

Of PLANTANTATION BANJO

Was the Result of a Half Brother ,Half Sister Mating.

Plantation Banjo mated to Plantation Dusky

Plantation Banjo

his Sire

Plantation Robert

Dam Plantation Twinkles


Plantation Dusky her Sire

Plantation Robert

Dam RANGERS NICKY PICKY.who is a Mystery to us Lovers of Cavalier History .

Her Pedigree was never known about , until recently ,it was discovered her Sire was

HENTZAU BUCKS HUSSAR.

Her Dam is still unknown

If I could go on further with Plantantion Banjo and Cannonhill Richey's Pedigrees

Plantation Robert ,is the result of Mating ,between

Rangers Bimbo and Plantation Pixie.

Rangers Bimbo sire was

Peter of Ttiweh mated to Avocat Amla

Plantation Pixie 's Sire was

MARK of Ttiweh , was the Son of Peter of Ttiweh

Her dam was Blenheim Palace Palace Poppet

When I read the comments being Posted on other Lists by some Cavalier Breeders,(who claim that they know all about Cavalier Pedigrees) about the In-Breeding Discussions taking place just, I really do think that they are showing their Total Ignorance of the early In-Breeding that had happened in early days of getting our Cavalier Breed Estabished.

Finally Karlin mentioned about one of the early Cavalier Stud Dogs who had SARCOPTIC MANGE .

He was

WIZBANG TIMOTHY ,FULL LITTER BROTHER TO ANN'S SON.

Finally ,Finally, since I am still getting some Insulting Personal E-Mails from some Cavalier Breeders ,with what I have just mentioned about the Early Pedigrees of our Beloved Cavalier Breed.

I don't think I need to be Taking Any Lectures from those Breeders!!!!

Bet
25th January 2010, 11:37 AM
Forgot to say ,I have all this Cavalier Pedigree Information from 1928 -1949 that I wrote out in 5 Generation Pedigrees ,plus other 5 Generation
Cavalier Pedigrees from that time,.

This is held at the Kennel Club Library in London.

It is under my Bet Hargreaves ...Name-Plate.

Kate H
25th January 2010, 11:58 AM
I sometimes wonder what other people do in the long winter evenings - I've enjoyed doing 10-generation pedigrees for the three Cavaliers I've had with pedigrees, and by the time you get back 6 or 7 generations, the inbreeding in the early days is glaringly obvious. I remember reading somewhere that our early onset MVD can be traced back to one bitch (the name wasn't given, but perhaps the one that Bet mentions).

Kate, Oliver and Aled

Bet
25th January 2010, 12:43 PM
I think I can mention this Cavalier Bitch's Name because her Owner has said in Cavalier Magazine that she died at 8 years of Age from Heart Trouble
Her name is Belinda of Saxham.


I think though, the most worrying thing for the Cavalier Breed in those early days , was the use of Cavalier Dogs at Stud when their Owners knew they were suffering from Heart Trouble. They had died at around 7-8 years because of Heart Trouble.

I have sent this information to the Cardiologists Reseaching MVD in our Cavaliers.

Yes Kate H when you see the extent of the Inbreeding in Cavaliers in those early days , it was horrendous.

Remember though ,in the 50's- 60's -70's and even in the 1980's the was still half brother to half sister Matings going on, even closer than that in the 70's,and as the Experts now say Grand-Mother to Grand son and Grand Father to Grand - Daughter has been carried out by Cavalier Breeders is IN -Breeding ,the Mind Boggles!

Yorkysue
25th January 2010, 01:44 PM
I try not to get involved in some of the more contentious posts on this forum; but I would like to point out that any Cavalier enthusiast/exhibitor/breeder worth their salt, will know the breed history intimately. Some individuals are still around who actually knew Amice Pitt. Anything written by her and any other stalwart from the early days will have been read discussed and inwardly digested.

To try and suggest that cavalier people do not know their breed's history or how narrow a gene pool Cavaliers came from, and the problems that have developed because of this, is ridiculous.
Among many more interesting facts, it is well known that the sire of Ann's son was Papillon, and his full brother, Wizbang Timothy, was also a good stud dog, but was kept in poor condition.
Cavalier breeder enthusiasts who are trying to improve the breed and who health test their stock, also know their lines intimately. They are not saying "All my dogs are free from problems, and what is more I am burying my head in the sand" They know it is an uphill struggle, but at least they are trying. It's not going to happen overnight, so stop knocking them and trying to portray them as fools!

Murphy
25th January 2010, 02:17 PM
Sue,
You are right to say that we breeders are very aware of the early close matings in the breed.
I have wholecolours, which, because of their numbers have, even in modern times, always had less diversity than the Particolours, so I have to be even more vigilant re hearts.
My vigilance must have borne some fruit, since, I had a call from Anne French today, who wishes to come to my house and take DNA from my 3 elderly bitches who will be 12 years old on 3rd March(2 sisters) and 28th March respectively.

Anne is presently employed at the University of Edinburgh as a Cardiologist.
These bitches, whom she tested in October, are of interest to her current research programme because of the excellence of their hearts.
They also form the basis of my breeding stock.
Elspeth Glen, Sandbrae Cavaliers, Scotland

Bet
25th January 2010, 03:05 PM
OK Yorhiesue,

Why was it said that the last UK CKCS CLUB AGM, by the Cardiologist, that 50 % of Cavaliers will have a Heart Murmur at 5 years of age , and that this is no better than it was 18 years ago, so what have some Cavalier Breeders been doing all this time. ?

I wonder how many Cavaliers will have died at an Early Age in that time.

Please don't quote to me the Excuse some Cavalier Breeders keep using ,that it those Cavaliers from Puppy Farms and BYB's that have the Health Problems.

If some Cavalier Breeders knew about the IN-Breeding in the Cavalier Breed in the Early Days, why did they persist in carrying on doing it.

Did they have all the Cavalier Breed Supplements that this information would come from?

Are you saying that there was no In- Breeding ,such as has been mentioned, I would gently suggest to you that you study all those Pedigress from the days when the Cavalier Breed originated.

Are you even suggesting Mrs A .Pitt ,the Founder of our Cavalier Breed was wrong in her Comments. ?

Surely Not.


Perhaps they should have taken heed of the warning they were being given about 20 years ago by the Cardiologists about the Serious MVD Heart Problem in Cavaliers.


Onto another matter ,it was great that Anne French is interested in Murphy's Cavaliers, to help with the Cavalier MVD Research.

Yorkysue
25th January 2010, 03:55 PM
[QUOTE=Bet;350990]OK Yorhiesue,

Why was it said that the last UK CKCS CLUB AGM, by the Cardiologist, that 50 % of Cavaliers will have a Heart Murmur at 5 years of age , and that this is no better than it was 18 years ago, so what have some Cavalier Breeders been doing all this time. ? [QUOTE]

A: I do not know the answer to this, except that the mode of inheritance for this disease is very complex, it is not a straight forward recessive gene. There are many breeders/exhibitors who do have long-lived lines and have strived over many years to lessen the incidence of MVD in their 'kennel'.

[QUOTE] Please don't quote to me the Excuse some Cavalier Breeders keep using ,that it those Cavaliers from Puppy Farms and BYB's that have the Health Problems.[QUOTE]

A: I will not mention Puppy Farms BYB if you do not wish me to do so, of course we all know they have nothing to do with poor health in cavaliers and breed wonderful specimens!

[QUOTE] If some Cavalier Breeders knew about the IN-Breeding in the Cavalier Breed in the Early Days, why did they persist in carrying on doing it.[QUOTE]

A: Bet, do you really think that ONLY SOME breeders knew about the IN-BREEDING? Please read my previous post properly. I stated that all enthusiast breeders know the history of cavaliers intimately.
ERGO:
If all Cavaliers come from a very tiny gene pool, then that is the sum total of what we have to work with now. Whatever any breeder does is still technically 'in-breeding'. You can't bring new genes into the pool because the just aren't there! All that can be done is to try and use the healthiest stock and breed to the healthiest. Until the genes that cause these health problems are found that is all anyone can do. If, and once the genes are found, breeding stock can be DNA tested to find if they carry the genes that cause the various health problems. It might be that all Cavaliers have these genes to a lesser or greater extent?? no-one knows.


[QUOTE]Are you saying that there was no In- Breeding ,such as has been mentioned, I would gently suggest to you that you study all those Pedigress from the days when the Cavalier Breed originated.[QUOTE]

A: Please refer to my earlier post, and the reply above. Where have I or anyone else said there was no in-breeding in the past? I am au-fait with many of the old cavlier pedigrees, and many recent ones.

[QUOTE]Are you even suggesting Mrs A .Pitt ,the Founder of our Cavalier Breed was wrong in her Comments. ?[QUOTE]

A: Where do you get the idea that I think that Amice Pitt was wrong in her comments????

She was stating exactly what had happened before,during and after the war, and what resulted from it. None of this information is new to the cavalier enthusiast, even if it is new to you and Karlin.


[QUOTE]Perhaps they should have taken heed of the warning they were being given about 20 years ago by the Cardiologists about the Serious MVD Heart Problem in Cavaliers. [QUOTE]

A: I think many people did. Unfortunately MVD is a very difficult disease to eradicate. I know you really have difficulty believing that, but it is true. It isn't because horrible breeders make a point of breeding unhealthy stock together to produce unhealthy puppies, just to annoy you and give you something to write about.:)

Karlin
25th January 2010, 05:54 PM
YorkieSue, there is the version of events many breeders give on their discussion lists, and there is the truth. You, as well as other breeders who comment here and elsewhere, know how far these two regularly diverge. You seem determined to never get the point that no one is blaming ALL breeders but pointing out the problems with MANY breeders. Maybe if you took more time to read the actual posts of others and not add in your own additional assumptions, this would be clearer?

I also would gather these comments from Amice Pitt will come as an enormous surprise to many breeders -- as already I have had requests for where the full document can be found. As it was last published over a decade ago perhaps those not quite of your level of enthusiasm, and those who are younger than many in the breed, are not actually as 'au fait' with some basic breed history as you? I note in particular that recent comments from well known breeders have suggested that if only people were more familiar with Amice Pitt's views on inbreeding, it would not even be an issue. The truth is far different, as Mrs Pitt's own comments obviously indicate. She also states in this article that the surprisingly good health of the breed back in the 1960s seemed to be despite the horrible inbreeding and lack of diversity in the early breed. She also clearly argues for outcrossing, something others have been belittled about by the same breeders who supposedly know so much about Amice Pitt's opinions. :rolleyes:

And while inheritance may be complex,there are clear guidelines, and have been for over a decade, on how to reduce incidence IF FOLLOWED. Those that do breed carefully in this regard definitely reap the rewards of healthier hearts, and hats off to them. :)

However, it surprises me that you are so baffled and confused as to the reasons why Simon Swift, club cardiologist, noted there has been no improvement in 18 years in the incidence of heart disease in UK Club-bred cavaliers (let's set side your favourite red herring of blaming everything on puppy farm dogs, as this is a common Kennel Club tactic too and has no bearing on what club breeders should be doing or don't do. They are just another way in which the breed is slowly destroyed by careless breeding -- it is the same problem whether on puppy farms or in a house lined with ribbons and trophies). Allow me to have your own club chairwoman explain:


"There are many members who are still not prepared to health check their breeding stock, and of those who do, it would appear that many would not hesitate to breed from affected animals. I have tried my utmost to defend and support the breed and the club. This weekend was proof, if proof is needed, that there is no point in deluding myself, or others, that self-regulation is possible.”

How appropriate her comments from March 2009 are to a discussion of Bateson and APGAW proposals that regulation be brought in and expanded if little change occurs.

You can easily have direct evidence that many if not most club breeders have consistently bred outside the MVD guidelines when they first start breeding a dog (and this includes the prominent show name breeders). All you need to do is go look at the dates of birth of the sire/dam and the puppies on all those pedigrees you know well. :) . Over and over, stud dogs are often bred at under 1 (much less under 2.5) and dams also are regularly bred at under 2.5, all through the years in which the MVD protocol has been in place.

Your own club chairwoman makes the reality of the situation pretty darn clear, don't you think?

Instead of arguing on further here, I will encourage you to be more productive and go argue with those breeders who are destroying this breed, their clubs, and the reputation of all breeders through their actions. As for puppy farms: one club brought back in one of your own CONVICTED show breeder puppy farmers to return to the fold as a judge in cavalier shows! So do not talk to me or other pet owners about the horrors of puppy farms as breeders themselves came out in droves to defend the woman at her trial and were quick to bring her back at the highest level. As so many of these people demonstrate, your average high school student has a better understanding of genetics and ethics than many club breeders around the world.

Anyway: I have reached the end of my tolerance level for breeders on the board, as I never set this board up for your discussions in the first place and evidence over recent years has shown that once large numbers of breeders decided to jump onto the existing pet-focused boards and discussion lists, the whole tenor of such groups changed and not usually for the better. Most of you never joined such groups, offered advice, or supported pet owners until there was an agenda to defend (with two exceptions). Some of you, since removed, were the silent club here, joining but never being a part of the community or helping people - so please don't rewrite your history elsewhere, lamenting that I don't allow most breeders on this board as you all wish to be so helpful to pet owners... yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Anyway: YorkySue, you should never have been let on as a member to begin with. Later on I decided to leave the account and see where it would go -- and it has now gone. For others: you are members of most other boards so there are many other venues in which you can participate. Two of you have made public, personal comments about this site elsewhere over many months which I had chosen to ignore and allow you to stay on here. But I no longer want you to feel you have to suffer in tolerance of a community you don't particularly seem to like. So I have decommissioned your registrations and wish you all the best in your breeding as you go forward, as I know you are people who do care about the breed. :thmbsup:

Bet
25th January 2010, 07:34 PM
Karlin ,

Can I thank you for your Post.

I don't have a way with words, but I have always tried to get my Point across when I have been sticking up for the Cavalier Breed.

Unfortunately there are some Cavalier Breeders and only them, who think it's their God Given Right to know about the Back-Gound of our Beloved Cavalier Breed, but that's not the Case.

We Pet Folk have have now found out things about their History ,and I really do think that the In-Breeding in the Early Days maybe will have a Part to Play in the Health Problems of To-Days Cavaliers.

I have just contacted Dr S Blott, she maybe knows all about the Cavalier Pedigrees from the 1930's etc, and the In-Breeding that was taking place , I don't know ,but I believe her Pedigree Research is only involved from Kennel Club Breed Supplements from 1980.

What has made me see Red ,is the accusations that it's us Cavalier Pet Folk who are damaging the Breed.

It was said that other Breeds have Health Problem ,and their Pet Owners don't go on and on about them like what we Cavalier Pet Owners do about the Cavalier Breed

Well all I can say to that comment is, no other Breed has the Health Problems that our Cavaliers are at the Moment.

The SM Problem in Cavaliers has now been said by Professor Sir .P Bateson,Dr C Rusbridge and Others in their Recent Veterinary Paper, and Dr McMonnell ,that their Brains are too Large for their Skulls ,because of Premature Closure of their Skull,this Problem is not affecting other Dog Breeds, only the Cavalier Breed.

I have never read that 50 % of any other Breed of Dog has a Heart Murmur at 5 Years of Age.

The Data for this comes from Veterinary Cardiologists ,who over the years have been compiling Statistics on Cavaliers with MVD Murmurs of many Thousands of Cavaliers at Health Clinics held by CKCS Breed Clubs in Britain,Canada, the USA and elsewhere

From this Data they have compiled ,they have found out that the Percentage of Cavaliers which developes MVD increases at a RATE of about 10% per year .

So roughly 10% of Cavaliers by the age of 1 year have MVD MURMURS ,and 20% aged between One and Two years have Murmurs ,and so on for each age LEVEL

Specifically ,the Statistics Show that more than 50% of all Cavaliers have Murmurs ,and it is a very rare Cavalier at 10 who does not have ,at the very least ,a low Grade Heart Murmur

These MVD Figures have come from Data from CKCS Breed Club Health Clinics , they won't ,I think be any Puppy Farm Cavaliers included.

Why do some Cavalier Breeders want us Cavalier Pet Owners Gagged about the Cavalier Health Problems, what are they Scared of.

Karlin
25th January 2010, 09:03 PM
Subject closed on specific breeders on the board please. I also do not care to have messages crossposted from elsewhere to here (funny how the same people didn't crosspost their opinions about this board in the past from other sites where they made them, to share with all. :rolleyes:

The breeders involved are on other sites and lists and will easily remain a part of other discussions if people are interested in engaging with them there. :thmbsup:

Margaret C
26th January 2010, 07:25 PM
Not really a Bit of Bateson, but relevant to the inbreeding/linebreeding debate, a part of an article by C A Sharp.


The Price of Popularity: Popular Sires and Population Genetics
First published in Double Helix Network News, Summer 1998

by C.A. Sharp

Consider the hypothetical case of Old Blue, Malthound extraordinaire. Blue was perfect: Sound, healthy and smart. On week days he retrieved malt balls from dawn to dusk. On weekends he sparkled in malt field and obedience trials as well as conformation shows, where he baited to--you guessed it--malt balls.

Everybody had a good reason to breed to Blue, so everybody did. His descendants trotted in his paw-prints on down through their generations. Blue died full of years and full of honor. But what people didn't know was that Old Blue, good as he was, carried a few bad genes. They didn't affect him, nor the vast majority of his immediate descendants. To complicate the matter further, some of those bad genes were linked to genes for important Malthound traits.

A few Malthounds with problems started showing up. They seemed isolated, so everyone assumed it was 'just one of those things.' A few declared them 'no big deal.' Those individuals usually had affected dogs. All in all, folks carried on as usual.

Time passed. More problem dogs turned up. People made a point not to mention the problems to others because everyone knows the stud owner always blames the bitch for the bad things and takes credit for the good. Stud owners knew it best to keep quiet so as not to borrow trouble. Overall, nobody did anything to get to the bottom of the problems, because if they were really significant, everybody would be talking about it, right?

Years passed. Old Blue had long since moldered in his grave. By now, everyone was having problems, from big ones like cataracts, epilepsy or thyroid disease to less specific things like poor keepers, lack of mothering ability and short life-span. 'Where can I go to get away from this?' breeders wondered. The answer was nowhere.

People became angry. 'The responsible parties should be punished!' Breeders who felt their programs might be implicated stonewalled. Some quietly decided to shoot, shovel and shut up. A few brave souls stood up and admitted their dogs had a problem and were hounded out of the breed.

The war raged on, with owners, breeders and rescue workers flinging accusations at each other. Meanwhile everybody carried on as always. After another decade or two the entire Malthound breed collapsed under the weight of its accumulated genetic debris and went extinct.

This drastic little fable is an exaggeration--but not much of one.............

Margaret C
14th February 2010, 03:47 PM
Not a quote from the Bateson Report but an article from a columnist in this week's Dog World paper entitled " Where are the fault lines now?"

In it the writer says......

"We seem almost to take it as read that the long standing charges made by our critics have been proved to be well founded. Of course most people would use language rather more diplomatic than mine but the fact remains that the dog world has, pretty much, been found guilty as charged"


http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Features/06-Colwill.aspx?year=2010&month=02

Well worth a read.