Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Craigowl and other breeders who refuse to MRI scan

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    24,055
    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
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    24,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    "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?"
    Sigh.

    Because some other breeders have publicly denied ever "knowing" they have bred an affected dog, I strongly encourage anyone who gets an SM diagnosis to send a copy of the neurologist's report and a letter *registered post* to the breeder and also keep a copy of course for your own files.


    It saddens me to even have to suggest this as there are some great breeders who have truly stood by pet owners who get this diagnosis and/or are determined to make sure this disease isn't hidden away and denied, as happened for years with MVD and still happens (have a look at the puppy gazettes from the clubs and how many dams and sires are not only under 2.5 years old, the MVD protocol age, but even under 18 months and for that matter -- 12 months. Including dogs used by senior committee members on the clubs, some of whom pay lip service to the MVD protocol. It is easy to compile such a list. And to publish it!).

    Whatever some of these breeders say, they forget that in an age of easy internet communication and emails that what they say -- or their refusal to reply to the dog owners that contact them, upset about a diagnosis -- does get passed along. There's quite a list now of breeders who are publicly saying they have 'never personally seen SM in their lines'; 'never been contacted by any owner of one of their dogs about SM', 'never had a scanned dog show SM' blah blah blah -- where I know this is a blatant lie. And this includes some senior people in clubs and on committees who make regular posts to this affect, forgetting that they do not control the information other people get when they scan their pets.

    I have found that it is some of the most vociferous opponents of scanning and big-mouthed critics of the researchers who are amongst those who KNOW they have had some severe SM cases in their lines (ladies and gents who sneak on here regularly to read the board, you KNOW who you are! And I have the mails and information to prove it!).

    Some of these dogs have been hastily exported to where these breeders obviously hope other foolish individuals are willing to use them at stud in order to acquire their lineage in their US/Canadian/whatever lines... absolutely disgusting.

    This WILLFUL breeding of KNOWN SM producers, whether sire or dam, simply has to stop. How can people be so craven and cruel as to sell on such dogs, pass on these genes, and inflict the pain of this diagnosis onto some poor cavalier in the future and the heartache and sheer cost of dealing effectively with that pain, to some sad family?

    How these people can live with themselves is beyond me.

    I am so grateful for the dedicated breeders who try and do what they can rather than hiding past results and knowingly selling dogs that they know full well may go on producing SM affected offspring. And I fully understand the difficulty for breeders in locations where MRIs remain very expensive to MRi dogs -- though surely, at least every stud dog should be MRId because a sire will produce so many more puppies, and spread its genes far wider, than a dam? But to hold up your refusal to MRI as some badge of honour -- well, you can see why the CKCS Club feels it might need to spend 8,000 on PR help because boy, does it need some basic lessons in communications.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Surrey UK
    Posts
    469
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Just read a post from Barbara Reece on the Dog World thread - no idea who she is, but I am grateful that she posted.

    She confirms what I have heard from other sources that not only do certain breeders refuse to scan their own dogs, they close ranks against anyone who disagrees with them and are as unpleasant as possible.

    So not only do they do nothing to help the research, they actively sabotage it. Something to think about.
    Jan
    Owned by Rufus (B&T) and Piper (Border Terrier) and in loving memory of 12 years of Toby joy (Tri cavalier) - waiting at the rainbow bridge.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Manchester
    Posts
    531
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Barbara Reese is a member of this board and although I am sure she can speak for herself, she is a totally committed, health focused keeper of Cavaliers. She runs a website on Episodic Falling in Cavaliers and has to deal with the fallout when owners of Cavaliers contact her with health problems. I know that many a night her entire evening is spent talking to distressed owners or dealing with emails. Not all owners have purchased from Puppy farmers, as we all know on here many of the dogs owned by Cavalier Talk members have been purchased from some of the so called BIG NAMES.

    Nanette
    HollyDolly

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    24,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Trying to divert focus to puppy farming is the latest red herring from certain breeders. Puppy farming is an important issue in its own right -- but is not more important than health issues and focusing on health does not impede anyone from ALSO working on the puppy farm issue. I've done both, for years, in Ireland.

    One might even ask what breed clubs and the CKCS Club and KC in the UK are doing themselves, actively, about puppy farming? Because only recently, the national CKCS club has allowed back as a JUDGE a breeder who was convicted on dozens and dozens of counts of animal cruelty TO CAVALIERS for keeping masses of them in appalling conditions -- indeed, read the press coverage at the time (it remains one of the largest cases with the largest number of individual counts of animal cruelty in the UK, ever) or talk to many breeders and they will confirm that the club and breeders closed ranks to PROTECT this woman! And after a little while of politely being kept outside the club, she is now right back in its heart and acting as a judge. So how, exactly, do the breed club and the breeders suddenly so concerned about puppy farming, define puppy farming? Could it be, mass breeding cavaliers in revolting conditions for a pet market? Resulting in a cruelty prosecution and conviction?

    Could I just point out too that several of the cavalier club breed rescue groups in the UK will not even accept cavaliers without a pedigree into rescue??!! Maybe they need to show their sudden devotion to the scourge of puppy farming by actually helping some needy cavaliers from this background directly, instead of leaving it to the general rescues and independent breed rescues to sort these poor dogs.

    A little more actual action on puppy farms, and a little less grandstanding to deflect attention away from syringomyelia, would help the breed in several ways.

    Incidentally one of the gobbier US women who posts most regularly on this issue in various places began her cavalier career with a BYB website (as discussed extensively when she made her debut on one of the breeder sites a few years back). So the high moral ground of some of these people is pretty darn subterranean...
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Lily Tansy Libby Mindy
    In memory: Lucy Leo
    Cavalier SM Information site:www.smcavaliers.com

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
  •