• 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.

Is there something wrong with the Cavalier Chat forum?

Is There Something Wrong with Cavalier Chat Forum?

Margaret,

That I think would be a good idea.

There seems to be quite a number of Folk who are not aware to all that is happening to-day.

Bet(Hargreaves)
 
I guess I've been here some time before PDE and followed the entire saga, but I would love to hear Monty's story before continuing onto the political upheaval of last year.
Sins
 
i only know part of the story and heard so much from other people which may or may not be true, so yes i would be very interested. di
 
MC- I don't think anything will be gained by presenting the entire story again. For those who are interested, do a search for PDE on this forum and look at the threads from last summer. Just MHO!

I feel that, in general, it has been a wake up call for some of the breeders that were in denial about SM in their lines and has prompted many more to now scan their breeding stock. In addition, we have (at least in the US) seen many more puppy mills closing down for various reasons which is a GREAT THING!!!! Television shows like PDE (which most people in the US know nothing about) and Oprah's special on puppy mills has helped enlighten the public to the "behind the scenes" of both large-scale and hobby-scale breeding practices.

Bottom line; puppy mills are going out of business, and breeders that were not health-focused are now being forced to be. Lots of mud slinging & name calling unfortunately took place in the process, and relationships have been forever severed as a result.

The worst repercusion (spelling?) of the events is that a good number of breeders (both US & UK) who have the *power* to change the breed forever (for the good!) feel that confidentiality was breached by some researchers and are now "boycotting" very important research projects. This is an absolute tragedy.
 
Be very cautious about judging people on whether they appear to be 'nice' and 'very helpful' and 'well informed'.

Some work very hard to appear this way, especially on the public lists and boards (you should have a read of the things they say on Allaboutcavaliers, their private list :rolleyes:), because it is to their benefit to sow FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about the actual situation regarding health issues. Some of the posts here indicate how successful they occasionally are at doing so.

Some of those who try very very hard to be sugary sweet-nice (though the mask does fall in some of the free-for-alls!) are those who have the greatest interest in keeping the breeding situation as it is. Some have lines that have serious problems which *will* emerge over time to other breeders (at least, those that care) as they seek EBVs for prospective studs or dams -- and these people know they have these problems, know they have been told of affected dogs from their lines, and in several cases, publicly lie about it (I have the evidence, 1st hand, not second hand or third hand like some of the gossip that gets circulated about on this dog or that by these same 'nice' breeders)... but as I have said before, they are also amongst those that have knowingly turned a blind eye to known, affected dogs and either put them to stud despite knowing they are throwing SM offspring, sold the affected dogs on outside their home markets to unsuspecting buyers who then put them to stud abroad, allowed people they KNOW are correct on key health issues and KNOW have given fully truthful accounts of their actions to be put under attack, and in other ways I have recounted to some privately, with evidence to fully back my claims, regularly adopt a 'do as a say, not as a do' approach to health and to advising pet buyers on how to choose a health-focused breeder.

To no great surprise many of these people initially support the latest vet specialist who is doing this research or that, but as soon as it becomes clear that truth about given lines is going to emerge, or a need for far more restrictive, controlled breeding practice than is now being done, then the researcher is suddenly rejected (either publicly as some can see by what is now being said about EBVs by some initially supportive breeders, or privately, as they know they continue to breed as they wish beyond public scrutiny... for now. Not, I believe, for too much longer).

Personally, I've always been a great fan of CavalierChat :) because when the mask slips, as it regularly does for several of the 'nice' breeders, you see many of these people for what they are truly like; and also, it has supplied so much extremely useful evidence for past parliamentary enquiries into dog breeding, breed health, etc.

Because of that, the site (ironically) makes several aspects of working toward actual breed health much easier though they may not be obvious.

There are some great breeders out there all right, and many want the system to change. Many of these people are appalled by the 'nice' breeders and what they do.

I'd go by actual actions rather than whether people appear nice or seem to say the right things. Believe me, there is a great chasm between what some say, and what they actually think and do.

Never forget that some of the 'nicest' breeders out there -- as many on this board can testify -- are the worst commercial breeders with their friendly websites and slightly cheaper dogs, because they know that many show breeders can be difficult to approach and are intimidating. It pays -- literally -- to appear to be nice, for some. Look for what people are actually doing, ask for the actual CURRENT health certs; look up the breeding *history* for a dog, not just the current litter (as the dog may now be of the right age for the health protocols but may have been bred many, many times outside of it previously). (y)
 
The worst repercusion (spelling?) of the events is that a good number of breeders (both US & UK) who have the *power* to change the breed forever (for the good!) feel that confidentiality was breached by some researchers and are now "boycotting" very important research projects. This is an absolute tragedy.

This is a statement that really intrigues me.

Can you give a few more details. What reasons do these breeders give when they say confidentiality was breached by researchers?
 
a good number of breeders (both US & UK) who have the *power* to change the breed forever (for the good!) feel that confidentiality was breached by some researchers and are now "boycotting" very important research projects

Then it's very sad indeed that these people have any power at all isn't it?
Their behaviour and attitude amounts to a shocking abuse of *power*.
Any breeder who cares for the future of the little dogs that they breed,should replace the word power with responsibility and step up to the plate and do their duty and work with researchers who in many cases have dedicated and even staked their careers on finding the root causes of SM and MVD.
This charge of researchers breaching confidentiality is simply an allegation with no substance to back it up. If there is proof of this then let's have it?
Sins
 
Is There Something Wrong with Cavalier Chat Forum ?

You are so right Sins,

If it can't be backed up with evidence ,then for me it's just Malicious Gossip coming from some Cavalier Folk with a Chip on their Shoulder.

What harm this is doing our Breed.

I know I helped the research into the SM Pedigrees of Cavaliers in the early days, and believe you me, NOTHING was ever told me by the Researchers, I was quizzed by some Cavalier Breeders World WIDE about the Famous 4 Cavaliers asto who they were, but I did'nt have a clue.

So I really do think that nobody can claim to have confidential information about Cavaliers.

So to Chloe , you are maybe going down a dangerous route.

Bet(Hargreaves)
 
I don't think it's any secret that some breeders were upset at what Clare Rusbridge and Simon Swift said on PDE. I don't see how what I've said is any surprise? It's already been mentioned in this thread about some breeders not contributing to the EBV research. Although many more breeders are now scanning, I don't think all of those scans are being contributed to research and that's a shame. When I say *power*~ I mean any breeder who is scanning has the power to help with positive change in the breed~ and I DO feel it is a responsibility to the future of the Cavalier.
 
When I say *power*~ I mean any breeder who is scanning has the power to help with positive change in the breed~ and I DO feel it is a responsibility to the future of the Cavalier.

Absolutely.

The complex inheritance is only going to be untangled by having the results of as wide a range of scans as possible. Also, for many breeders they will find the more scans are submitted, the more options they will have with their own dogs/lines -- because minimal information is a lot more likely to weigh against them than for them! It will be likely that all breeders will have a range of good options for matings but this will only emerge from having a wide range of scans. Not contributing to a project that many breeders ARE going to use -- and where many breeders will be talking amongst each other about the results they get back on some dogs of their own and others' breeding -- means ending up with weak data that is far more likely to obscure the potential strengths within their lines.

Whatever about accusing researchers of 'breaching confidentiality' (which is a serious professional accusation and potentially defamatory) there are definitely breeders who will talk about others' dogs, and information on lines, good or bad, is unlikely to stay hidden. Contributing to Sarah Blott's research is therefore one of the best ways of making sure the gossip isn't only negative and that results are more nuanced. A lot of scans going to Sarah Blott are coming from affected dogs don't forget -- if breeders are (hopefully!) getting all the good scans they are stating on their private and public discussion lists then they need to be putting this information towards research. If they are getting poor scans it may be the choice of matings and that information is also critical. If anyone cares about the breed rather than just their egos then all scans need to be going to research. The EBVs combined with the genome work is going to be the best and very likely, the ONLY shot at saving this breed from oblivion in the longer term but more important -- relieving and reducing the pain suffered by so many dogs in this breed in the shorter term.
 
I don't think it's any secret that some breeders were upset at what Clare Rusbridge and Simon Swift said on PDE. I don't see how what I've said is any surprise? It's already been mentioned in this thread about some breeders not contributing to the EBV research. Although many more breeders are now scanning, I don't think all of those scans are being contributed to research and that's a shame. When I say *power*~ I mean any breeder who is scanning has the power to help with positive change in the breed~ and I DO feel it is a responsibility to the future of the Cavalier.

I know that one breeder has written that these specialists "stabbed us in the back" because when interviewed on the documentary they confirmed that cavaliers have health problems. Should researchers study the health of cavaliers but keep their conclusions a closely guarded secret?

Health Representatives demanding that researchers should conceal their findings, so they do not upset breeders, seems to suggest some very warped thinking and a sorry outlook for cavalier health research.

The other scenario, where confidentiality is cited as an issue, is in connection with my appearance on the film. I confirmed that someone's popular and successful stud dog had a MRI scanned diagnosis of SM, and that all the top breeders knew it.

However my action is viewed, I cannot see how it can be used as a justification for boycotting important research studies.
 
However my action is viewed, I cannot see how it can be used as a justification for boycotting important research studies.

Some also said that a researcher revealed the results of the scan (for the programme). Then how to explain that I had heard the full story of this dog via other breeders well before Pedigree Dogs Exposed and when I barely knew who Margaret Carter was. But the people who told me -- and I heard this from more than one breeder -- were aware the breeder in question had been showing the scans around at a show and telling people of the results and thus his status was widely known and had since been gossiped about relentlessly. For breeders then to refuse to get involved with or even give any support to research on the basis that 'researchers' (or Margaret) revealed confidential scans is -- as I know many in the UK club know well, and at the very highest levels of the regional and national clubs -- using a known falsehood to suppress further research, or deliberately confuse and sow uncertainty, or undermine some researchers.

Many people working for the breed were shockingly treated to back up the agenda of some people. Some breeders put a key and very dedicated and helpful, club-supportive researcher into a horrible position by advocating the views of Dr Ingpen -- their much-trumpeted 'neutral authority' who was, as I found through a few moments of basic googling :rolleyes: -- the husband of a key person in the Australian cavalier club, and friends of the breeder who owned the dog in the film. And as a couple of human medics have confirmed, not of a background that would be terribly informed on reading and analyzing dog MRIs either as reading dog MRIs has differences to reading human MRIs. Not that his opinion was necessarily to be dismissed out of hand but his views were put forward when some doing so would have known the true story about the scans and his views were based on small images of a scan, not the digital originals. And those views also questioned the ability of a dedicated researcher in a public forum -- as if that researcher couldn't know a syrinx when he sees a syrinx, having read over a thousand cavalier MRIs and authored the main text on canine MRI.

Nonetheless the researcher, due to his own dedication to the breed and helping some of the breeders who have used him most shamefully, continues to support them and their scanning programmes generously with his time and effort.

These are the people these breeders claim violate confidentiality.

Those who actually care about the breed -- rather than their show social lives and shelf of ribbons and trophies and puppy income -- can be very thankful the researchers generally ignore these sad people and continue to work on behalf of the breed.
 
Back
Top