Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Craigowl and other breeders who refuse to MRI scan

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    24,067
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default Craigowl and other breeders who refuse to MRI scan

    This really tops it all for the ridiculous stuff that appears on the DogWorld website sometimes.

    Craigowl breeder Norma Inglis in the UK, who one would have hoped would be setting an example for other breeders as breed notes writer and a longtime cavalier breeder, has cheerfully announced that she refuses to MRI scan her dogs! As if this is a credit to... well, you fill in the blank.

    This despite the fact that she has publicly made a big deal of "supporting" researcher Sarah Blott -- who SPECIFICALLY has requested that breeders MRI scan and pass the results along to her as this is ESSENTIAL for accurate Estimated Breeding Values to be produced for the use of the breeders!

    You would think a breeder -- especially a longtime breeder whose lines have merged with many others and form the basis for others -- would at least consider MRI scanning some dogs an important step towards greater knowledge about one's own influential lines, given that so many responsible breeders will have at least some concern as to how prevalent the disease might be in one's lines.

    But in the bigger picture -- eg the future survival and health of the breed overall -- it is just so sad -- no, sorry, pathetic -- that breeders of high profile will not lead by example rather than writing silly pieces like this and only offering limp lip service to what researchers like Sarah are doing. How many breeders -- who in the UK can avail of club-supported, extremely low cost £100 scans?! -- will not bother to do their own while demanding access to EBVs based entirely on scans done by other breeders and pet owners?

    It is worth pointing out that a whopping 80% of the DNA and MRI information being used in the CKCS genome scan project in Montreal, which will become the basis of Sarah Blott's gEBVs that will benefit cavalier breeders internationally -- came from (and was entirely paid out of their own pocket) DUTCH CKCS BREEDERS and international BRUSSELS GRIFFON BREEDERS.

    Norma Inglis's column:

    http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/1-CAV-(1).aspx

    Margaret Carter has made this excellent reply:

    Norma, Thank you again for keeping the SM debate going. Do you not feel that leading breeders should support Sarah Blott's research, as requested by all the UK Cavalier Clubs?. She specifically asks for scan information. Even if you really believe that MRI tests are less conclusive than heart tests, then surely £100 per dog is not a lot to help with such much needed research, and it would also enable you to identify any early onset SM dogs in your kennel. You and I both know what it is to breed & sell a cavalier that develops SM to a pet owner that will, and often does, pay a small fortune to buy pain killing drugs for their beloved pet. Surely we must all want to bring an end to this heartbreak?
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Lily Tansy Libby Mindy
    In memory: Lucy Leo
    Cavalier SM Information site:www.smcavaliers.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rayleigh, Southend-On-Sea, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,136
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    "Heartache" indeed as Margaret put it. I can't reply for tears, it's unbearably frustrating.
    ....
    Dylan, Poppy & Kipling's
    *''' ' "*Mummy`` "*'
    ,'*" "*'

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    2,614
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It makes you wonder what these people got to hide? If they love the breed that much what would it hurt to have your dogs MRI Scanned for a £100 and stop the stupid arguements. Surely any decent breeder would want to know if their dogs are ok. Or are they to scared what they might find? They talk about how much they love their dogs, and yes we do live in sad times when ignorance is bliss. Saying that the Program should show the puppy farms, yes I agree there should be a program about puppy farms. But surly any breeder knowingly breeding with an infected dog is not much better then a puppy farmer. Funny enough nobody ever mentions that.
    Sad times indeed.
    Sabby
    Rosie-06/06 - Ebony-01/07 Harley-08/08
    " My sunshine doesn't come from the skies, it comes from the love in my dogs eyes "

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    N.W.Iowa
    Posts
    1,324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    What is most annoying is that she acts as if she's taking some self-righteous high road and I think she's just really concerned that her dogs won't all be clear and can't cope with that thought. Ignore the science, ignore the suffering dogs and owners as if that is beneath the "breeder". Hogwash! it's the same mental process that keeps some from entering into the digital age-afraid of failure. Where's a "thumbs down" icon when you need one.
    frecklesmom
    Learning new things everyday

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Manchester
    Posts
    531
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I am extremely suprised that Dog World have allowed Norma Inglis to use the breed note column as a show case on how her dogs are raised, live, loved and cared for. I wonder why she feels the need to defend her hobby, to defend how her dogs live. Does she say her dogs live with her, no what she says is that her home is arranged for the comfort of her dogs to me there is a difference. She says she loves them, why sell them then when they are older? Not in it for the money, again why sell them when they are older?
    With refernce to the litter from a puppy farmer, yes I too hate them but my grievance has always been with the Best in Show winner who knowingly used her SM affected dog at stud and with all those breeders who also used him, Norma Inglis being one of them. There is little point in having Club guidlines when they are totally ignored. I would love to see a ban on all puppy farmers but likewise want to see a ban imposed on these breeders mentioned above.

    A post from the Dog World website:-

    "I am sad and discouraged to read Norma, that you have chosen not to MRI scan your dogs for a disease as devastating as SM. By sending a registered letter to you some time back with regard to the SM status of my two Craigowl offspring, I was hoping that an influential breeder like yourself, an advocate and guardian of the breed would understand the importance of MRI scans and encourage the cooperation of all breeders for the gene research. I see no other way to reduce the suffering of dogs such as Ollie and Maggie (For the Love of Ollie) SM has touched your household Norma and that of most other breeders. How are you addressing it reducing severity and incidence without an MRI?"

    Nanette
    HollyDolly

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Staffordshire, uk
    Posts
    27
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I don't understand why they are allowed to breed without providing proof that they have done all the necessary checks, surely its a simple thing for them to do before the KC allow them to register their litters. Why aren't they doing anything to prevent people like that breeding, they need to start doing something now, not just talking about it. It makes me so angry why should animals suffer because of someones greed

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,165
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karlin View Post
    But in the bigger picture -- eg the future survival and health of the breed overall -- it is just so sad -- no, sorry, pathetic -- that breeders of high profile will not lead by example rather than writing silly pieces like this and only offering limp lip service to what researchers like Sarah are doing. How many breeders -- who in the UK can avail of club-supported, extremely low cost £100 scans?! -- will not bother to do their own while demanding access to EBVs based entirely on scans done by breeders and pet owners who DO care about the breed?
    Pathetic is the right word.

    Thank goodness there are intelligent, caring people who take the time to post well-reasoned responses to her ridiculous breed notes.

    Like Pauline, I often feel so upset by Norma's (and her sidekick's) flippant attitudes that I can't post a response because my hands start shaking.
    Last edited by Cathy Moon; 4th January 2009 at 12:26 AM. Reason: added text to last sentence
    Cathy Moon
    India(tri-F) Geordie(blen-M)Chocolate(b&t-F)Charlie(at the bridge)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •