Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: ACKCSC Finally Recognizes MVD As A Health Problem in Cavaliers

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orlando, Florida USA
    Posts
    1,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default ACKCSC Finally Recognizes MVD As A Health Problem in Cavaliers

    Holy cow! Has hell frozen over, or what? the AKC parent club -- American Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club (ACKCSC) -- has expanded its formerly one tiny little paragraph about mitral valve diease on its website! Good for them! See it for yourself at http://ackcsc.org/health/hearts.html

    Now, the article is a bit defensive, trying to suggest that MVD just might not be genetic in the Cavalier, and it lumps CKCSs in with unspecified "certain breeds" as having early-onset mitral valve problems. The fact is that MVD is 20 times more prevalent in the Cavalier than the average purebred. The MVD article also includes a gratuitous slap at the health of mixed breeds.

    The club does not quite endorse the MVD breeding protocol, but it comes close. Here is what it says about testing and breeding:

    "Currently, the recommended practice is to wait until a Cavalier is two years old or older before the first breeding and to know the parents and ancestorial cardiac status. Cavaliers with early onset presentations of MVD (before four years of age) should not be bred and breeders need to work with the guidance of their cardiologists."

    Now, I don't know who the ACKCSC is referring to when it says "the recommended practice", because what the club has on its website is not the recommended practice among board certified cardiologists in the USA. For that recommendation, read it at http://tinyurl.com/yj25a7g Nevertheless, the ACKCSC recommendation comes real close to the real thing.

    This ACKCSC webpage finally should eliminate any excuse for AKC breeders to claim ignorance of the need for heart testing and abstinence from breeding un-tested, underaged Cavaliers. Thank you, ACKCSC!
    --
    Rod Russell

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sion, Switzerland
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This is why CKCSC (USA) didn't want AKC recognition. The American Border Collie Association was in the same position a year before. AKC turns a blind eye on some very dubious breeding practices, in favor of getting money. The CKCSC website has had the MVD breeding protocol posted since I started researching the breed a few years ago.

    For comparison consider the wording differences in the SM sections on each site:

    CKCSC (USA):
    Syringomyelia (SM) is rapidly emerging as a severe inherited condition in our Cavaliers. It is a progressive neurological disease that varies in severity. Cavaliers unfortunately are affected by SM in larger numbers [sic] to any other breed.
    ACKCSC:
    This condition is known to affect less than 0.002 % of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels so you have a very good chance that your Cavalier will not have this condition.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    23,882
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    What planet is the ACKCSC on? They make breeders and breed clubs look totally out of touch and scrambling for excuses to breed at younger ages then recommended. Absolutely extraordinary.

    At a time when many dedicated breeders are trying to make clear their focus on health, what a total slap in the face to those efforts.

    What is most shocking is that a national breed club would out and out misrepresent (to put it politely) what cardiologists actually recommended. The breeding recommendations in the recommendations, which are quite longstanding now, are very clear: the ages are 2.5 and 5. The SM breeding recommendations are designed to dovetail with those.
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Leo Lily Tansy
    In memory: Lucy
    Cavalier SM Infosite:www.smcavaliers.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I find this completely amazing and to be honest confusing. Are the clubs not some form of "guardian" to the breed? As I see it every breed of dog has inherent health problems and some have more than others. If you are looking to buy a puppy you try and avoid puppy farms and ask that the relevant health checks are carried out and see the certificates for dam and sire. (for me now that would be MRI scan, heart certificate, luxating patella and eye information - that is also the guidelines recommended by the CKCSC NL) however, if the club is not advising people on these problems how on earth can people make an informed sensible choice and how many more puppy owners will have to help with watching their beloved animals suffer?

    When I bought Yoshi as a puppy I used the club guidelines as my bible in choosing a breeder as I had no other knowledge about Cavaliers (at the time syringomyelia was virtually unknown but it's there now), and I trusted them. I am sure others do exactly the same ... and to betray peoples trust is unacceptable. To be honest I still trust the Dutch club - but reading here I am starting to think that maybe NL is the exception not the rule

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orlando, Florida USA
    Posts
    1,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarenna View Post
    I find this completely amazing and to be honest confusing. Are the clubs not some form of "guardian" to the breed? ... if the club is not advising people on these problems how on earth can people make an informed sensible choice and how many more puppy owners will have to help with watching their beloved animals suffer?
    The AKCSC is one of the AKC's "parent clubs". There is one such parent club for each purebred breed recognized by AKC. AKCís parent clubs are charged with ďthe education of breed owners on the nuances of the breed, and overseeing the breedís health and welfare.Ē

    So, each parent club has a very important, responsible obligation to the breeders and the pet owners of its breed. The parent club website is the go-to place for the breed fanciers to find out all they should need to know about the health issues of the breed.

    For eleven years, from 1998 (when the MVD breeding protocol was introduced in the USA) until now, the ACKCSC has provided the CKCS breeders and pet owners with absolutely no education and no overseeing regarding MVD.

    Therefore, despite the laxity of its recommendations regarding heart testing and breeding, I view the new MVD webpage as progress. After eleven years of nothing, this at least is something.

    I have not yet read the ACKCS's new SM webpage carefully, but from what I have read about it in this thread, it sounds like ACKCSC still is seriously shirking its responsibilities in educating its breeders and pet owners about SM. My thought about that is that when the fanciers are educating themselves elsewhere about SM, particularly via the PDE television program, then the parent club begins to look like it is in denial, for one thing, and that it seeks to seriously mislead the webpage viewer, for another. Hopefully, ACKCSC can be shamed into getting real about SM, as it has, somewhat, about MVD.
    --
    Rod Russell

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    This condition is known to affect less than 0.002 % of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels so you have a very good chance that your Cavalier will not have this condition.
    Helping a friend look for a puppy a number of years ago (five) this was the quote we read as I remember thinking 2/10000 was such a low amount. I thought it would be doubtful it would ever be a problem that she'd ever see. We also knew about bad hearts, but had no idea there was a heart protocol of any kind . . . I'm glad at least that information has been revised.

    It is just awful this misinformation remains on the site that many buyers are sent to when researching this breed.

    This is from the AKC health survey done in 2004/5.

    http://ackcsccharitabletrust.org/CKCSFinalReport.pdf

    It shows:

    -3.9% veterinary confirmed syringomyelia - page 65
    -8.5% suspected syringomyelia - page 78
    -1 in 29 lifetime risk of syringomyelia - page 156 and 161

    and says this on page 186:
    "Neurological disorders were reported for 9.2% of CKCSs. Nearly 4% of CKCSs were diagnosed with syringomyelia which is considered extremely high compared with other dog breeds. Studies have shown that the incidence of syringomyelia was very high in certain families and lines of CKCSs which had been extensively inbred."
    What can be done to get that misleading SM article off of that site and replaced?

    Oreo
    Last edited by Oreo; 16th December 2009 at 04:22 PM. Reason: trying to fix something strange with the fonts

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    2,010
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oreo View Post
    Helping a friend look for a puppy a number of years ago (five) this was the quote we read and thought that then it would be doubtful it would ever be a problem that she'd see. We also knew about bad hearts, but had no idea there was a heart protocol of any kind . . . I'm glad at least that information has been revised.

    It is just awful this misinformation remains on the site that many buyers are sent to when researching this breed.

    This is from the AKC health survey done in 2004/5.

    http://ackcsccharitabletrust.org/CKCSFinalReport.pdf

    It shows:

    -3.9% veterinary confirmed syringomyelia - page 65
    -8.5% suspected syringomyelia - page 78
    -1 in 29 lifetime risk of syringomyelia - page 156 and 161

    and says this on page 186:
    "Neurological disorders were reported for 9.2% of CKCSs. Nearly 4% of CKCSs were diagnosed with syringomyelia which is considered extremely high compared with other dog breeds. Studies have shown that the incidence of syringomyelia was very high in certain families and lines of CKCSs which had been extensively inbred."
    What can be done to get that misleading SM article off of that site and replaced?

    Oreo
    This report was the result of a health survey. It isn't an article.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You've lost me Sandy. I mentioned I was quoting from the health survey and even linked to it.

    I was asking how to get the misleading article taken off the ACKCSC site - the one that seems to have pulled a number out of thin air to say that SM is known to affect less than .002% of Cavaliers.

    That is an article is it not?

    Do you know of a source for that number?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Chicago burbs
    Posts
    2,010
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oreo View Post
    You've lost me Sandy. I mentioned I was quoting from the health survey and even linked to it.

    I was asking how to get the misleading article taken off the ACKCSC site - the one that seems to have pulled a number out of thin air to say that SM is known to affect less than .002% of Cavaliers.

    That is an article is it not?

    Do you know of a source for that number?
    Oops, I didn't see that part-- I thought you were saying that the information given on the linked survey was an article.

    I think it MUST be a typo-- 2% would be 2 in 100,.2% would be 2 in 1000, .02% would be 2 in 10,000, .002% would be 2 in 100,000.-------------2 dogs in 100,000 wouldn't be significant.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    766
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Sandy - Oreo is talking about the misleading SM information (article) stating the "condition is known to affect less than 0.002% of Cavaliers......." not the health survey.

    I did the same thing as Oreo when I read the 0.002% figure on the ACKCSC site - I had always heard the quoted figure from the ACKCSC health survey of 4%. The 4% figure is calculated looking at pages 78 and 79 of the report:

    There were 566 Cavaliers in the survey, and owners self reported that 48 (8.5%) were "suspected of having SM." Of those 48, 23 were diagnosed by a veterinarian as having SM, which equals 4% of the total sample population. Page 79 shows additional info on the 23 Cavaliers such as symptoms, age at diagnosis, confirmed by MRI or symptoms only, surgery performed or not, etc.

    It was definitely not a math major who wrote the SM summary on the website - to put this in perspective:

    0.002% of 1,000,000 dogs is only 20 dogs
    4% of 1,000,000 dogs is 40,000 dogs

    I think this isn't even a math error but a total fabrication. There is no other explanation unless the author doesn't understand about the use of decimal points with a percentage sign and was attempting to give a figure of 2%. When you see these kinds of errors on a website, it makes you question the validity of everything else on the site!

    Frankly, I never gave much credence to the health survey anyway as it was such a small sample and all info was self-reported by owners - not particularly valid or scientific.

    Ah well, business as usual............

    Pat
    Pat B
    Atlanta, GA

Tags for this Thread

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
  •