PDA

View Full Version : Kennel Club Says No To PDE2



Brian M
12th January 2012, 01:31 PM
Hi

Have a read its on Dogworld

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/02-Front-Cover-%281%29?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Dog+World+Newsletter+40+Jan+12&utm_content=Dog+World+Newsletter+40+Jan+12+CID_d72 5f4193a7265aa9c6e9382aada8e99&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_term=Read+more

Is it any great surprise.

Margaret C
12th January 2012, 04:16 PM
As I have said on the Dog World comments it is hard for anyone to defend the indefensible.

PDE led to three reports that found the were a great many welfare issues in pedigree dog breeding.
One of the enquiries was part funded by the Kennel Club, although they were not happy with the conclusions.

The KC has made some few changes when under great pressure to do so, but oh so very slowly and reluctantly.

The new BVA/KC CM/SM Scheme is a case in point. It was promised in the New Year. The new breeding guidelines are on Clare Rusbridge's website http://www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk/Syringomyelia/BVA-kc-2/but nothing has been announced by the KC.

Karlin
12th January 2012, 04:46 PM
Speaking as a journalist, and someone who also sits on the board of a large organisation that also regularly is in the public eye and (properly) under scrutiny (so I can view this from both sides): they should fire their external communications advisors as they are a disastrous waste of money -- and their internal communications manager as well -- and hire someone internally that can advise properly.

They have been a public relations disaster ever since PDE. Although a major part of the problem is, as Margaret says, that they continue to defend the indefensible and foot drag every inch of the way. They are not even adequately representing breeders as they have refused to show up to present the KC perspective at critical meetings and parliamentary committees (the latter is breathtaking rudeness and arrogance) that will decide on the future of dog breeding and perhaps the KC itself, which may be in for a neutering, shall we say. :rolleyes:

RodRussell
12th January 2012, 04:48 PM
... The new BVA/KC CM/SM Scheme is a case in point. It was promised in the New Year. The new breeding guidelines are on Clare Rusbridge's website http://www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk/Syringomyelia/BVA-kc-2/but nothing has been announced by the KC.

The new CM/SM breeding guidelines should not be released as presently drafted. They allow breeding cavaliers as young as 12 months, and they thereby undercut the MVD breeding guidelines. In the US, we would say that the CM/SM breeding guidelines have thrown the MVD breeding protocol under the bus.

anniemac
12th January 2012, 05:16 PM
The new CM/SM breeding guidelines should not be released as presently drafted. They allow breeding cavaliers as young as 12 months, and they thereby undercut the MVD breeding guidelines. In the US, we would say that the CM/SM breeding guidelines have thrown the MVD breeding protocol under the bus.

Wow, it even says in the guidelines for submission is one calendar year.

http://www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk/syringomyelia/docs/bva_information.pdf

Maybe I am missing something but I swear I read on an AGPAW report (or something forgive my not remembering) that the breeding recommendations was 2 years or older? I know our MVD protocol is 2.5 years but this was for all breeds. Why would they have something with one year if the other thing said 2? Did I imagine that I read it somewhere?

anniemac
12th January 2012, 05:16 PM
Let me add what I saw was not referring to the CM/SM scheme but breeding in general.

Brian M
12th January 2012, 09:39 PM
Hi

What are our Cardiologists like the Cavalier Club's Simon Swift going to say ?

Brian M
12th January 2012, 09:44 PM
Hi

Sorry another question please ,what is the resoning behind lowering the age as I thought
2 1/2 was a fudge anyway and the minimum age recommended was really three ,I am lost ?

RodRussell
13th January 2012, 12:20 AM
Hi

Sorry another question please ,what is the resoning behind lowering the age as I thought
2 1/2 was a fudge anyway and the minimum age recommended was really three ,I am lost ?

The only reasoning I've heard is:

(a) this is a scheme for more breeds than just the cavalier; an

(b) there are so few cavaliers of any age that would meet the Grade 0 or even Grade 1 standard, that breeders should say the hell with the MVD breeding protocol and let 'em die horribly painful early deaths, as long as they are less likely to have SM.

sins
13th January 2012, 01:58 AM
There seems to be an assumption that a BVA/KC SM scheme somehow supercedes the MVD guidelines.
The MVD guidelines are still in place and unchanged in the UK.
Breeders who have been scanning over the last few years and following guidelines for reducing SM have not been focusing exclusively on SM.No breeder in their right mind would have invested a fortune in expensive testing like MRI scanning,and then take their eye off the MVD ball,especially when a heart test with a cardiologist at a club day costs as little as 5.
The age for scanning has not been lowered.You could always scan your cavalier from age 12 months.It would have been graded C if no syrinx was reported.
The reason for choosing the age bands 1-3,3-5 and over 5 are explained in detail on Clare Rusbridges website.
At the age of 12 months 25% of cavaliers tested over the last two years have SM,rising to 70% at age 6.
The age at which a cavalier gets a "clear" or normal grading rises to three to reflect the progressive nature of the condition as a significant % of dogs who were graded A at 2.5 went on to develop a syrinx later.The rate of affected dogs plateaus out at age 3.
Neurologists are not cardiologists and vice versa.
I'm not aware that breeders were heavily involved in formulating those new guidelines for SM.Someone will correct me if I'm wrong anyway.
I see no reason why the two sets of guidelines should be intertwined for two unrelated medical conditions.
I also see no reason why truly health focused breeders would neglect one health issue and concentrate solely on the other.
The breeders who do not care for breeding protocols of any kind,will carry on as they always have...that won't change.
They won't be turning up at any scanning venue any time soon....nor will they wait until 2.5 years to breed from their dogs.
Sins

RodRussell
13th January 2012, 02:59 PM
There seems to be an assumption that a BVA/KC SM scheme somehow supercedes the MVD guidelines.

I am not making that assumption. But it is clear that the SM scheme is ignoring the MVD guidelines. And there was absolutely no reason to do so. Unless and until the EBVs say otherwise, no cavalier under 2.5 years of age should be bred, and even at that age, specific conditions regarding its parents apply. It is irresponsible for any veterinarian to suggest, even whisper a hint, that under these SM guidelines, a cavalier should be bred at age 2.4 years, much less at 12 months.

RodRussell
13th January 2012, 03:44 PM
Keep in mind that the most recent research of SM in cavaliers (555 cavaliers, to be precise) concludes that "the optimum age for this early MRI screening is 36 months". So, breeding any cavalier under the age of 36 months risks producing puppies with greater than a 50% likelihood of being SM-affected.

How come the new guidelines don't incorporate those findings, instead of expressly contradict it?