Guess they decided that totally ignoring cavaliers in their statements about efforts made towards dealing with breed health issues, which mentioned how breeders of ALL the other breeds in Pedigree Dogs Exposed had better get serious about health, had a glaring hole -- the main breed discussed on the programme! Now they have issued this joint statement:
As a journalist who also writes the odd press release from time to time, let me pick part the media strategy and spin here:
It is only in dispute amongst some breeders and the KC. It is not and never has been in dispute amongst any of the researchers directly working with this breed. Who has the strongest vested interest here? Especially given the paucity of serious funding to look at SM. The initial genome research and almost all the work by Rusbridge and Knowler was funded and supported by inidividual breeders and pet owners, using tiny amounts of cash, not bigger university and research grants. Geoff Skerritt's vast record of over 1000 CKCS scans has not been funded by anyone except clubs giving their own breeders some small subsidy and pet owners paying themselves. Board members here and on Cavalier Connection raised the funds for a key MRI needed in the US for the genome research, for example! Not the clubs, NOT university funding. On the other side are breeders whose incomes for showing dogs depends on selling puppies. So, follow the money... in whose interest is it to refuse to believe several international research studies including one funded directly by the US club, the ACKCSC?
In addition, though tons of research now exists on MVD, the breed clubs in the US and UK still do not require any heart testing before giving registration and it is quite easy to show that a good number of prominent UK breeders totally ignore the MVD protocol. What the hell good is research f no one uses it? The Malvern dog, Beauella Radzinksi, was bred at NINE MONTHS OLD, and more than half a dozen times before he even reached ONE when the MVD protocol states it should be 2.5. The research and recommendations are all there -- yet champion dogs are obviously used at stud or litters bred from, without any regard whatsoever for the MVD protocol and themselves come from dogs also bred with no regard for the mvd protocol. What use the research, time and money if no one uses it to benefit the dogs?
I welcome the statement that the clubs are promoting -- at LAST!!! -- MRIing of breeding stock and effective cardiac screening. But only 'promoting' has done zilch to benefit the breed on the cardiac side as Simon Swift, the UK club's own cardiologist, has said several times now.
She cannot be serious.
Which 'vast majority' is that? And what, exactly, are they doing? I'd like some concrete examples and some evidence to prove the 'vast majority' of club breeders are doing anything at all. On the contrary, a brief examination of reverse pedigrees for dogs from the VAST majority of UK breeders attending shows and breeding will easily show they regularly breed outside the MVD protocol. Most Uk breeders only vet, not cardiologist, test their dogs, even though their own research has shown that this means any dog has a 50/50 chance of being diagnosed without a murmur as with. So half of all 'heart cleared' breeding dogs from vets may actually likely to have a murmur. I also have direct evidence in emails that leading members of one breed club are saying one thing -- that puppy buyers must only buy from breeders using the MVD protocol -- then doing the opposite -- encouraging them to buy puppies from people who do not follow the protocol at all.
Hooray! I totally agree with Lesley Jupp and hope other breeders will not just support the research but also actually use the EBVs as they become available -- and I hope the club and breeders will also strongly support the genome research in Canada which remains a central part of the gEBVs.
As a journalist who also writes the odd press release from time to time, let me pick part the media strategy and spin here:
It is only in dispute amongst some breeders and the KC. It is not and never has been in dispute amongst any of the researchers directly working with this breed. Who has the strongest vested interest here? Especially given the paucity of serious funding to look at SM. The initial genome research and almost all the work by Rusbridge and Knowler was funded and supported by inidividual breeders and pet owners, using tiny amounts of cash, not bigger university and research grants. Geoff Skerritt's vast record of over 1000 CKCS scans has not been funded by anyone except clubs giving their own breeders some small subsidy and pet owners paying themselves. Board members here and on Cavalier Connection raised the funds for a key MRI needed in the US for the genome research, for example! Not the clubs, NOT university funding. On the other side are breeders whose incomes for showing dogs depends on selling puppies. So, follow the money... in whose interest is it to refuse to believe several international research studies including one funded directly by the US club, the ACKCSC?
Only one project has received really significant funding in ordinary research terms and that is the EBV research. The EBV research is heavily dependent on the genome research or will never be highly accurate. The genome research only finally has the support of grants from the US; one is assured, not sure about the second as no announcement has been made yet, months after the application. This continues to leave teams of researchers in the dark about critical research for the breed.
In addition, though tons of research now exists on MVD, the breed clubs in the US and UK still do not require any heart testing before giving registration and it is quite easy to show that a good number of prominent UK breeders totally ignore the MVD protocol. What the hell good is research f no one uses it? The Malvern dog, Beauella Radzinksi, was bred at NINE MONTHS OLD, and more than half a dozen times before he even reached ONE when the MVD protocol states it should be 2.5. The research and recommendations are all there -- yet champion dogs are obviously used at stud or litters bred from, without any regard whatsoever for the MVD protocol and themselves come from dogs also bred with no regard for the mvd protocol. What use the research, time and money if no one uses it to benefit the dogs?
I welcome the statement that the clubs are promoting -- at LAST!!! -- MRIing of breeding stock and effective cardiac screening. But only 'promoting' has done zilch to benefit the breed on the cardiac side as Simon Swift, the UK club's own cardiologist, has said several times now.
She cannot be serious.
Which 'vast majority' is that? And what, exactly, are they doing? I'd like some concrete examples and some evidence to prove the 'vast majority' of club breeders are doing anything at all. On the contrary, a brief examination of reverse pedigrees for dogs from the VAST majority of UK breeders attending shows and breeding will easily show they regularly breed outside the MVD protocol. Most Uk breeders only vet, not cardiologist, test their dogs, even though their own research has shown that this means any dog has a 50/50 chance of being diagnosed without a murmur as with. So half of all 'heart cleared' breeding dogs from vets may actually likely to have a murmur. I also have direct evidence in emails that leading members of one breed club are saying one thing -- that puppy buyers must only buy from breeders using the MVD protocol -- then doing the opposite -- encouraging them to buy puppies from people who do not follow the protocol at all. Hooray! I totally agree with Lesley Jupp
and hope other breeders will not just support the research but also actually use the EBVs as they become available -- and I hope the club and breeders will also strongly support the genome research in Canada which remains a central part of the gEBVs.
