• If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.

Any news from the SGM?

I don't know where all this talk about heckling is coming from. I attended the meeting and there was no heckling. Margaret did speak and 1 man did shout something but no one else did. Personally I thought it was a very sad day for our lovely breed to come to this and many others thought the same. There are a lot of us breeders who only breed when we want something for the ring and do ensure we abide by all the health testing.
Lesley
 
sgm

What I would like to know is what the CKCS Club is going to do about Beverley Costello
Is she going to be removed as a member,banned from breeding and from the show ring?
If she had not been exposed as she was ,she would have gone on using her dog at stud .
Its time she was dealt with ,never mind Margaret Carter,who has done nothing wrong as far as I can see.
Oh boy am I angry!
Ross
 
Kate, it is definitely not a proper scan for diagnostic work -- for surgery or further advice on treatment, you'd need to pay for a full consult and for surgery, get a full MRI. I know Geoff and just had four dogs scanned by him, having had two already scanned by him 3 years ago.

Geoff himself will confirm this. He goes through the scan and makes suggestions for initial approaches but this is not in any way a proper neurology consult. Also -- Geoff does not give grading certs so it is important for any breeder to have those MRIs reinterpreted for a grade.

Some clubs are better than others at getting people to scanning days. I wonder what the club's take now will be, given that key members of some committees are the ones who posted letters attacking Geoff's abilities as a neurologist? The very fact that he even continues to do low cost clinics at all testifies to his dedication to the breed as I know he was very hurt that those letters were posted and commented upon by people whose clubs -- even whom he has individually -- helped. Interestingly some who eagerly promoted the letter are also those who tout their own 'grades' based on Geoff's scans!! It seems Geoff's skills are in no doubt when they have a good result or wish to get inexpensive scans, but he can be publicly humiliated with their complicity if they wish to protect their own. Some have certainly underestimated how hurt he was by their actions.

the low price is simply because the Club is able to fill 3 days just with Cavaliers being scanned for SM, which reduces running costs for the hospital (and gives Geoff a lot more data for his research, because he mostly sees known SM positive dogs with symptoms).
Click to expand...
No, this is not necessarily the case for either point. He offers the low cost scans because he hopes to benefit the breed and breeders by giving breeders information and advice they can use for planning health-focused breeding programmes. Sadly, many ignore his direct advice, as was seen on national television. He was giving low cost scans long before he was doing club days. He also does a lot of scans generally. But doing a club day encourages more to scan.

And I also don't believe from talks with him that he mostly see dogs with symptoms. Because he does so many group scans for breeders and for pet owners (he has done 6 scans now for me, mostly on asymtpomatic dogs) I'd say the split is pretty equal if not largely outweighed now by asymptomatic dogs. On the other hand -- what owners see as symptomatic and a neurologist sees as symptomatic can be two enormously different things. Again this is why a full appointment is really needed by anyone who thinks they have an affected dog. Geoff and other neuros are NOT doing clinical exams along with the abbreviated scans. So owners have no idea about whether the dog is showing clinical signs and therefore may be deteriorating in ways the owner doesn't see.
 
A man shouting is heckling. I understand he had to be asked to be quiet by the meeting chair (who was not from the dog world at all).
 
I too have just read the link and am angry.My husband has gone to put the kettle on.He always makes tea when I am mad.I feel so sad for margaret and wish her well in the future and request please do not give up your health concerns for our lovely dogs.

eve & a happy healthy smudge
 
OK went back and checked on attendees to the two club-co-sponsored international SM conferences. I stress these were well advertised, club supported and financed (including that club members got discount or free tickets).

These were not simply local breed club talks such as those by Geoff Skerritt or Clare Rusbridge -- they were conferences with a panel of the leading international canine SM researchers on cavaliers presenting latest research results and breeding guidance and answering questions directly from breeders -- someone from nearly every leading international research team over the two events. Both events were advertised months in advance.

Seems to be at most two dozen breeders-- if that -- that attended between both meetings. Of those, I know that seven are directly involved in health issues -- two came from abroad, another being Margaret herself and some others that are small scale breeders very involved in scanning and very interested in research. Much of the audience -- most of it I think -- were human SM experts there at the main conference but interested in the cavalier research!

That leaves at most 17 of the remaining UK breeders -- by my count, only 8 or 9 -- but I am hoping there are more whose names I didn't recognise -- that attended either conference -- out of hundreds of breeder members. The club and KC are promoting this now as one of their big contributions to health. Yet not even a few members from each club committee attended. At at least one of these events, not even 10 breeders -- TEN!! -- could attend these international meetings outside the usual small circle, but 200 could travel to vote at the SGM? Those must be two of the most expensive health initiatives ever for the club in context of value for money as so many breeders clearly had NO interest in SM, NO interest in the latest research, NO interest in a discussion on breeding... and NO interest in attending, though lots seem to have interest in silencing the one person who has always lobbied for health initiatives in this area. I made CDs of the talks with income going to the genome scan research, and almost all those sales went to US, Canadian and Australian breeders. Not more than 5 sets went to the UK. So almost no UK breeders cared enough to hear the people doing research on the breed's behalf. There were close to a dozen pet owners there though. So nearly as many pet owners attended even though we are not breeding our dogs.

Going by the posts I have read recently during this controversy on the L-list and other lists and websites, the level of knowledge about SM -- just basic knowledge -- is shockingly low in people who are actually breeding and selling cavaliers. Some of the most misinformed posts come from those most critical toward Margaret, many of them very dismissive of SM as well -- yet they cannot even get their basic SM facts and research facts right. Apparently they haven't even read their own breed club sites as some of this information has been up there for a long, long time.

Just again for those who keep missing this point -- Sarah Blott is NOT looking for genetic markers for SM. Clare Rusbridge, Penny Knowler, Guy Rouleau and others on the Canadian team are involved directly with the project looking for genetic markers. That research is already well underway, as has been reported before on several of the club sites, but no one seems to actually read any of the health info that gets posted.... Sarah Blott will use those markers, presuming they can be found, to produce more accurate estimated breeding values. But she herself is not the person doing that research. She just hopes to USE the research being done by Rusbridge et al. This is very clearly stated in an explanatory document on the UK CKCS site).
 
There are a lot of us breeders who only breed when we want something for the ring and do ensure we abide by all the health testing.
Click to expand...

Lesley,

I am glad to hear this and have always believed it to be the case, but it doesn't alter the fact that so many breeders don't. The less somebody knows about Cavaliers the easier it is for them to assume that whatever they are being told is true, simply because they are being told by a CKCS Club/Kennel Club listed breeder.

When I phoned Kennel Club listed Cavalier breeders 18 months ago I didn't know much about SM, but did know about heart problems. I had a naive faith that breeders would be acting in the best interests of their dogs, but found that there were several who were not happy with me asking about heart certificates. Nobody mentioned SM to me at all.

I blame myself for not reading up more about SM (I vaguely knew about it from CKCS club letters, but still thought that MVD was the main problem) so I have now been making up for this by reading everything I can. Next time I want a puppy I will know which question to ask, but not everybody does.

I've recently read a post which I have mentioned on this site before, where Gordon Inglis says:

"The TV programme was called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. But, in respect of Cavaliers, how can you expose something that was already apparent. The conditions MVD and SM were already extensively documented and Cavalier enthusiasts were neither hiding nor ignoring these conditions, as has been suggested."

Actually, SM in particular was being exposed to the general public. The Cavalier community might have known about it, but the breeders I spoke to weren't keen to share this information.

Also:

"....while the UK and indeed the EU continue to preserve the principles of freedom of choice and views, surely those who consider this research as ongoing and, as yet, inconclusive, should be permitted to act as they consider appropriate without being verbally attacked and vilified by those who take a different view"

Gordon Inglis is a CKCS Club member who, as can be seen from this quote, supports ignoring the recommendations the Club makes. He may choose to do this, but should then stay a member of the Club? Also, if he is asserting his right to breed as he chooses, should he not also take responsibilty for his choices and inform any prospective puppy buyer that he is not following the protocols recommended to the Club he belongs to (which is often seem as a recommendation by buyers)?

I am getting a bit fed up of these 'it's not conclusive' comments. Research takes time and is often not conclusive, but can point strongly to a certain course of action, as it has done with SM. No one is pretending the problem will be cured overnight, but while breeders decide that they are better judges of the matter than the researchers there's not much hope of improvement.

It is a pity to have to look for legislation to regulate breeders, but voluntary breeding protocols don't seem to be working, particulary as breed clubs are not tracking or trying to enforce them.

I note that Clare Rusbridge has signed the petition to introduce legislation to dog breeding. Must be frustrating to do all that work and still have breeders ignoring it
 
My husband has gone to put the kettle on.He always makes tea when I am mad
Click to expand...

Just had to add a comment to this, as my husband does too! In any crisis, put the kettle on. Is this an English thing?
 
The conditions MVD and SM were already extensively documented and Cavalier enthusiasts were neither hiding nor ignoring these conditions, as has been suggested."
Click to expand...

:sl*p:

Not mentioning that you have used a dog that was widely known to have SM and defending the dog's breeder for also 'doing nothing wrong' in breeding that dog two dozen times after the diagnosis in a national publication constitutes NOT hiding or ignoring these conditions?

And breeders telling people (and I have the direct evidence) they have NEVER seen SM in their lines or NEVER heard back from owners of affected offspring, when they have and they KNOW they have, are not hiding or ignoring these conditions? This is what is so two-faced about these pleas for 'tolerance'.


while the UK and indeed the EU continue to preserve the principles of freedom of choice and views, surely those who consider this research as ongoing and, as yet, inconclusive, should be permitted to act as they consider appropriate without being verbally attacked and vilified by those who take a different view"
Click to expand...

Actually if you read any of the now-breeder dominated lists, there are very few vilifications and attacks coming from those who suggest more control of breeding is needed. The attacks are coming from the breeders who keep insisting that SM isn't a problem -- many of them the same breeders who are not publicly revealing they have dogs producing this problem and they knowingly choose to use dogs with the condition at stud and breed their own dogs way outside the MVD protocol too -- as Rollo (Beauella Radzinski) was, starting his life at stud at NINE MONTHS OLD. Nearly two YEARS before he should have been bred.

So: if most puppy buyers do not know what health problems to ask about in the first place, how many breeders explain them? How many explain whether they followed the heart protocol -- not just for the current litter but for whenever the parents were first bred? I know from talking to hundreds of pet owners that almost zero do. I know that it seems more backyard breeders and puppy mills are likely to volunteer (though it is false or incomplete) information about hearts and testing than the club affiliated breeders. I know from doing simple reverse pedigree checks on publicly available pedigree info online, and looking at puppy gazettes, that many if not most breeders are busy breeding dogs, especially studs whose genes so deeply influence the future of the breed as they produce so many puppies, way before the MVD protocol kicks in.

The fact that it gets easier and easier for us, the general public, to SEE what is going on does mean this information is harder and harder to deliberately hide. But why, when some reveal FACTS, is that then an 'attack'? And why is it moral to breed sick dogs, and immoral to expose that people have done so?

Why does the club and KC post all this information about health programmes and protocols as if they are making major contributions to the betterment of the breed, when they know that few follow them or care about them (otherwise I'd have seen more than 10 breeders at the international conferences in the UK, SURELY?!)? That is what is making people angry -- that and the fact that we end up with the vast majority of those sick dogs because the breeders of course mostly only keep the ones they will breed and show.

Thanks goodness for the truly health focused breeders who do care, but they are hard for pet buyers to find.
 
On deleting posts and what people can post -- if people do not like the perspective of this board, there are other places to go. I make no apologies for giving free space to talk to people who feel it difficult to impossible to post in many other forums. Likewise as I have always said, this is my forum, my personal site, and my money running it. No member pays to be here; no one has a 'right' to be here -- but I have always had an open door to pet owners and to many breeders. I am sorry things have reached a point where many breeders feel they don't care to be here or don't get to say what they want but on this particular issue -- I simply do not care. Every other list and board I know of sans one has a strong breeder membership or board ownership and discussion as a result is truncated on the topics I allow to be freely discussed here from the opposite perspective. Also, anyone can go set up a forum of their own where they too can make up the rules.

As for deleting posts -- I am very clear about why I delete some; but someone needs to ask Norma Inglis the same question about all the posts that endlessly vanish from the comments on her column perhaps, for which there's no explanation?

And as I have said before -- the breed clubs unfortunately seem more about breedERS, not the breed. It is indeed a sad day when someone has to expose shoddy breeding on national television because breeders themselves not only failed to shame the person out of breeding but continued to use the dog when at least some must have known his status. The funny thing is, a lot of those now saying *Margaret* 'exposed' the confidences around this dog are the same who passed around news of his SM status themselves a long while ago and have now conveniently forgotten this and how many others knew. I find it hard to believe that *I* could have known about him ages ago-- and NOT from Margaret! -- yet some breeders who used him at stud did not?

There are others who know Margaret was not breaking any confidences, but they remain silent. The agenda was indeed protecting the club, not the breed. Though by its very actions I would guess that vote is probably the single most damaging thing the club will ever have done to itself in its history. Watch and see.

And there is ONE person who could conclusively prove the scan and the advice she received were not as has been stated. The breeder of Beauella Radzinski has merely to ask Geoff Skerritt to reveal what was said and will be on the dog's record; or to ask Geoff Skerritt to give the scan to an independent panel. If as has been said, no one is hiding anything, then why has this not been done to resolve the questions of several reputations?

If nothing is being hidden, then there is no reason not to openly discuss that scan!

I do recognise that, depending on the scan results, and advice given at the time, and who knew what, when, that there might be legal implications...
 
Words fail me! Disgusting! someone who tries to help our breed of dogs! and cos telling the truth they are voted off!!!! Truth!!!!! what would happen in a court of law!!
 
Breeders Web Site

Has anyone looked at the web site reccomended by the editor of Dogs Today magazine you can find it via the editors blog
It's a lovely web site and an example of what all breeders should be doing, lovely photos and information about their health testing efforts including MRI scan results
Hats off to them I say(y)
Ross
 
Just in case anyone missed it, the Kennel Club has criticised the CKCS Club vote at the SGM and come out in support of Margaret.

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives...ut-at-cavalier-club-supports-margaret-carter/

Kennel Club Hits Out at Cavalier Club; Supports Margaret Carter
Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 7/10 Posted Under: Animal Welfare

The Kennel Club has spoken to K9 Magazine about its concern following the decision of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel club to vote out one of its committee members, Margaret Carter, who spoke out about breed health on the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

The Kennel Club told us:
The Kennel Club is concerned about the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club’s decision to remove breeder, Margaret Carter, from its committee.
Mrs Carter appeared to speak for those very aims that the Kennel Club and the Cavalier King Charles Club itself supports, which is reflected in the vast amount of effort that the breed club has put into ensuring that the health of the breed is progressed. Mrs Carter’s intentions appeared to be honourable and her will to ensure that the health of the breed is maintained, through responsible breeding practices, is one that the Kennel Club fully supports.

The Kennel Club has also issued news today that it is put the health of all of its 209 recognised breeds under review, due to be completed early next year.
Dog lovers all over the country will be heartened to see the Kennel Club taking a positive stand on these issues and the organisation should be resoundingly praised for their support of Margaret Carter on this issue.
The Kennel Club is correct. The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel club is out of step with the opinions of health conscious, right minded dog lovers and they should be ashamed of their actions.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top