The cavalier breed at a cross-road

[Margaret C]

Margaret,

The person with the 2 severe SM cavaliers and 1 A, were they from 3 different breeders or the same one? Did she have all 3 at once when she found out 2 had SM? Were the ones that were severe from show breeders or recognizable names?

The reason I'm asking is because after having a cavalier with severe SM, I would definately want my puppy from a breeder following the SM protocol. So I was curious if this is how she got the A etc.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Sorry I missed this.

The owner told me she had two dogs, one had needed an operation because of severe SM. The other was scanned and had no SM.

She sent me the pedigree of the Grade A dog, non-show lines, breeder was not a cavalier club member.

I doubt whether the breeder would have even known about SM four years ago. This was a lucky dog that inherited good genes from ancestors that were not from show lines.

I do not know the breeding of the affected dog.

[RodRussell]

Rod,

I agree with being open but not at the risk of overall health. No question about underage, popular sire, etc. There are some breeders that have worked very hard for years in regards to hearts. You know them. Would those lines be sacrificed or should it be what you mentioned from Dr. Bell's article, and part of why a D CAN be breed to an older A. I'm talking of older not young A's etc.

Don't we want good and bad results posted? That's part of being open and can't be used to single out bad results.

Anne, you are way over my head. I must have missed a few posts, because I don't understand what you mean.

[RodRussell]

...Rod has documented how the USA Cavalier Club has rewritten the MVD guidelines.
What was their justification?
Did they have any cardiology research to show that the old guidelines did not improve the problem when properly followed?
Had a leading cardiologist advised that less stringent criteria would achieve the same results?
Whose interests were they considering when they made that decision?

It shows an enormous arrogance when expert advice is rewritten by those with no relevant knowledge or training.

Just for the record, since you phrased your statements as questions: This is what the CKCSC,USA board recommended in April 2010: "the dog have a clear rating at two years of age from an auscultation by a board certified veterinary cardiologist". In October, after a major uproar from cavalier pet owners, they changed "two years" to "2.5 years".

The CKCSC,USA had no cardiology research to support its decision to water-down the MVD breeding protocol. In fact, at about the same time, Dr. Kvart issued a report showing that Sweden's watered-down version had failed to work.

So, the CKCSC,USA obviously had (and has) no cardiologist advising it.

Whose interests would benefit? I think at the time of the decision, back in April 2010, the board had forgotten that its 1998 predecessor had endorsed the real MVD protocol, and it thought that it was breaking new ground when it issued its "recommendation". The board claimed that the club had never made any such recommendation before. So, to that extent, it was acting out of sheer ignorance, even though one of its members had also been a member of the 1998 board which had unanimously endorsed the protocol.

Considering the fanfare with which the April 2010 board announced its recommendation, I think it was a band-aid attempt to appease the pro-PDE crowd. The board's "recommendation", as pathetically weak as it is, is not mandatory and is not enforceable in any way.

[Karlin]

I will say again.........
The efforts of those that do everything are not good enough to outweigh the relentless production of puppies from non-scanned underage cavalier parents owned and bred by other Cavalier Club members.

It is time that the ordinary members demanded that the Cavalier Club toughened up on those that break the breeding guidelines and put the dogs, rather than a few commercially minded breeders, first.

Yes: this is reality. Pretending the problem is not massive and does not require breeders who FULLY follow protocol and do health testing, or wishing to ignore the hard facts that the serious threat to this breed goes way beyond the efforts of the current group of dedicated, health testing breeders (which as Margaret truthfully says -- is tiny in the scheme of things)-- or even of the clubs or KC -- means breeders need to be encouraging many hundreds of others to step up and test and follow protocols. I think the ONLY way this will ever happen, TBH, is if there are hard requirements for registration from international clubs and KCs, and backing that up, national legislation that gives consumer protection and breeder liability if they breed affected dogs and did NOT test (as we must recognise the genetic reality that even with the best and healthiest dogs, these genes are now so endemic that the goal is more to reduce incidence and severity of MVD and SM, not eliminate either anywhere in the foreseeable future).

Personally I can think of several situations where breeders who are health focused have almost ALL made exceptions: bred dogs under 2.5, bred when they didn't MRI at or after 2.5, but only as puppies; bred without knowing full heart info on the breeding dog and both parents of each dog, bred by breeders who never had a specialist read the MRI and assign a grade but decided their dog was an A (especially in the US: be VERY careful of claims by breeders that they have A dogs in the US! Unless Dominic Marino or another participating specialist has given an actual grade on the cert. Personally there is only one breeder I would trust to be able to read her own certs and assign a grade, and it is not many of the ones currently claiming clear A dogs -- I'd like to see the actual grading certs for those claims). Shortcuts and exceptions are made ALL THE TIME even occasionally by many of the health focused breeders. I also wonder how many breeders who breed an A dog at 2.5 go inform their puppy buyers (pet or breeder) if that dog then comes down with symptomatic SM, not least in order to prevent those offspring other breeders bought from being used or highlighting they need to be tested, etc. Too many breeders sell dogs with out limited registration so pet owners can breed. Few in the UK have neuter contracts.

The temptation for even good dedicated breeders to fudge the protocols can be very high due to a range of factors and pressures -- even some of those seen as leading in the health area. For that reason too, Margaret is right to challenge all breeders to be sure they are REALLY doing *all the time* what they should be doing or say they are doing (and whether this is not what is affecting some of their results) -- and to say to them, only you can decide who runs the clubs and what message goes out to the broader breeder world. Right now much of that public challenge is left to a tiny handful of individuals some of them not involved in the clubs, some of them people forced out or effectively removed from club positions and roles in which they tried to change things. It takes bravery to speak out from within the club but the dogs will not have a chance if more health-testers do not become their vocal advocates.

The majority of the existing health testing crowd failed to adequately support the only prominent spokespeople for health they had. Some did -- but not enough. As a result, the same small group voted and the committees are now full of people well known as the deniers of any significant problems in the breed, who have fought to keep health results hidden and private.

I have not seen the knowledge of the daunting nature of these health issues in the breed cause donations to researchers or support for testing breeders decline. Exactly the opposite: as the true catastrophe of the situation has emerged, donations have massively increased as has scanning by breeders, many of them people who doubted there was a serious problem only a few years ago. More breeders who used to fudge with some dogs, won't do so anymore. And more and more puppy buyers are acting by only working with breeders who test and follow protocols. And more breeders are working together, scanning, talking. But the pace is currently far too slow to save this breed, as I think almost any researcher anywhere in the world will agree right now.

The problems are very serious. Downplaying them will make the problem worse, as buyers and breeders convince themselves it doesn't really matter that much of they don't stick to protocols, don't test this time around, take the word of another breeder rather than ask for certs, etc.

[anniemac]

Anne, you are way over my head. I must have missed a few posts, because I don't understand what you mean.

I have no idea what I meant. I deleted my post because I thought about it and not important. Karlin post should have been last one

[Pat]

Actually, Anne, I thought you had made some good points!

Pat

[anniemac]

Coming from you Pat, that means a lot. I can't remember exactly what I said but here goes. I think it’s important to look at overall health. Of course CM/SM is a major issue but so are other health conditions and by looking to puppy farms for “fresh” genes but may risk more MVD, luxating patellas, eyes, and hips would be doing harm. These can also cause extreme pain.

Margaret said


“Overall there probably will be more MVD in non-club member dogs as less knowledge of heart problems will mean more young stock with heart murmurs will have been bred, and there is probably going to be more eye, hip and patella problems, but will they be so badly affected with Chiari Malformation and SM?”

We don’t know the answer to the question of if they will be more or less affected with CM/SM. I know some that come from puppy farms and others responsible breeders. I do know there are tests a breeder can do to help reduce these other conditions.

I would want a puppy that the breeder did not focus on just one thing but would look at all the genetic problems. Downplaying these in order to solve the problem with CM/SM, is not a solution. Sure it will be hard to find an A to A scanned, great heart lines, patella, hip, eyes, EF DE/CC but that is why I would consider a puppy from one that is a D with excellent heart lines, etc. but with an older scanned A cavalier.
There are some great breeders that have been working to reduce MVD in their lines and it would do harm to remove them just because they were not “clear”. They could still follow the SM protocol as mentioned above.


Symptomatic CM/SM can be extremely hard to deal with but I was lucky to not experience early onset MVD, patella problems, eyes, etc.

In Laura Lang’s new book she stated that it is estimated that 75% of poorly bred cavaliers have luxating patella’s. The number is drastically reduced to very few from breeders that are responsible and testing. In the USA, these tests are much less expensive than the UK, but still if there was a test to help prevent passing on a health condition, why would one ignore it? I see Cavaliers in rescue with this problem because surgery can cost a lot and it is painful.

If you pull up Rod’s site, www.cavalierhealth.org the opening states Hip Displasia can effect up to 1 out of 3 CKCS.

As far as Dr. Bell’s articles, I think this quote sums up what I think is important and why only breeding “clear” Cavaliers is not a solution.

http://www.tualatinkc.org/pdf/Respon...%20Disease.pdf

“Without genetic tests, the effect on selection on the gene pool is minimal. With genetic tests, if
everyone decides not to breed carriers, it can have a significant limiting effect on the gene pool.
“Do not throw the baby out with the bath water” BREED TO A NORMAL
Breeders must consider all aspects such as health, temperament, etch
Without test:
Breed higher risk individuals to lower risk individuals. Replace the higher risk individual with
its lower risk offspring. Repeat until the risk is minimal.”

[RodRussell]

... If you pull up www.cavalierhealth.org the opening page has in big print Hip Displasia affects 1 out of 3 CKCS.

Not quite. It says "Hip dysplasia reportedly afflicts up to one out of every three cavalier King Charles spaniels." That makes a big difference, due to how those statistics are kept.

[anniemac]

Not quite. It says "Hip dysplasia reportedly afflicts up to one out of every three cavalier King Charles spaniels." That makes a big difference, due to how those statistics are kept.

Sorry. It still is something that can be screened for. I am not a breeder so I don't make the decisions on how to handle genetic conditions, but if there are tools to help, then I would want a puppy from a breeder that uses them.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[RodRussell]

...In Laura Lang’s new book she stated that it is estimated that 75% of poorly bred cavaliers have luxating patella’s. The number is drastically reduced to very few from breeders that are responsible and testing. In the USA, these tests are much less expensive than the UK, but still if there was a test to help prevent passing on a health condition, why would one ignore it? ...

Here is a scenario: The bitch has a grade 2 or 3 (out of 4) luxating patella. She also meets the MVD breeding protocol and is an "A" under the SM breeding protocol. What to do, Anne?

My guess is the breeder would look for a stud with good patellas and mate them.