Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: More points raised by PDE2

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    34
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default More points raised by PDE2

    People may be interested in reading the following link

    http://www.cawc.org.uk/sites/default...I 28 02 12.pdf

    The last paragraph is particularly interesting.

    Also another link that may be of interest.

    http://www.bva.co.uk/news/2726.aspx
    all the best
    Sue





    Sue Newnes
    Penquite Cavaliers

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    23,879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Thanks for those!

    I thought this was a good observation from CAWC -- pointing out that while there is a breeder role that is absolutely central to dog breed health, so too, there is a BUYER role. Too many people still do not know enough about what to look for and what to avoid when seeking a puppy of a particular breed (hence better education is needed -- many people unknowingly make the wrong decision by trusting the wrong people), but in too many cases still -- they do know, but prioritise selfish reasons such as cost and impatience (eg the desire to get a puppy right away) to argue they have a right to buy from a substandard breeder/petshop etc.

    CAWC recognises that despite promising initiatives, a culture shift amongst many dog breeders themselves still needs to occur to ensure that welfare problems associated with breeding are recognised and that there is a willingness to solve them. CAWC believes that alongside this commitment from breeders and breed societies, better awareness amongst buyers of puppies and dogs has significant potential to bring about improvements. If only healthy dogs are bought, then only healthy dogs will be bred. This will require further educational campaigns to ensure that the beneficial influence of informed consumers in improving dog welfare can be realised.
    The whole breeding scene would change swiftly if only buyers just refused to buy from any but health testing breeders. It is not just breeders, whether show or backyard or puppy farmers, who make critical choices and can destroy a breed. We make them too when we decided to buy a dog, and we need to make the right decisions, doing the research & ensuring our money backs only health focused, testing breeders .
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Leo Lily Tansy
    In memory: Lucy
    Cavalier SM Infosite:www.smcavaliers.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    A complete ban on the breeding of brachycephalics for breathing problems is not the answer even if it were possible, but the success of outbreeding to produce much healthier alternatives is a practical way forward. This was well illustrated by the example in the programme of the Dalmatian and it was encouraging that the Kennel Club recognised this dog which had been outcrossed with an English pointer to introduce a new gene to eliminate an inherited disease.
    When PDE2 said that Cavaliers are doomed, I was rather upset. I myself thought outcrossing could save the breed.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    23,879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Outcrossing can be very difficult and is never an easy fix -- especially for cavaliers because SM is not going to be easy to remove as a gene -- much easier to reinstate the gene the dalmations needed from a single outcross. It may be that the whole breed needs to be reconstructed. It may be that (as some researchers feel) IF breeders tested and followed protocols they would see significant changes within a few generations, without any need to outcross. But without a law that compels a certain approach to breeding, little will happen. Even with dalmations -- there may be a potential solution there to a serious breed issue, but the vast majority are bred still from existing stock, not the outcross version.

    I do think there's no future for cavaliers unless there is a governing body that can demand certain approaches to breeding and it needs to bring in puppy farmers and the person down the street who decides to breed a litter or two. I feel a consumer rights bill dovetailed with a mandated testing and breeding approach by breed (and include crosses, which can just have all the health issues of both parent breeds -- there are cavalier crosses with SM)) would also hasten improvement.

    As it is lots of the possible proposed breeds for outcrossing have their own serious breed issues.
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Leo Lily Tansy
    In memory: Lucy
    Cavalier SM Infosite:www.smcavaliers.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hatfield, Herts, UK
    Posts
    2,696
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MishathePooh View Post
    When PDE2 said that Cavaliers are doomed, I was rather upset. I myself thought outcrossing could save the breed.
    Yes, but breeders have got to agree to incorporate what they consider a mongrel into their breeding.

    I believe it took over thirty years for the line of outcrossed Dalmations to be accepted despite the fact it was just one Pointer that was used back in the 1970s.

    Breeders do have hang ups about the 'purity' of their chosen breed.
    Margaret C

    Cavaliers......Faith, The Ginger Tank and Woody.
    Japanese Chins.... Dandy, Benny, Bridgette and Hana.
    Remembered with love......... Tommy Tuppence and Fonzi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Karlin, even if you got laws in place in the UK, people might sidestep them by importing US dogs. And as laws are different state-by-state, I can't see any such thing being implemented here. Truly depressing. I think they should do the ferret thing and have strict screening for breeders, and anyone who does not have a breeding license cannot have an intact animal. Would be impossible to enforce with current conditions though.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    23,879
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    I don't think importing dogs would make much difference myself as they'd just fall under the same system once imported, but enforcement would be the challenge. That's why any scheme would have to be tied to 1) ability to show and win championships; 2) KC registration and 3) a consumer law that would require breeders to have significant liability if a puppy they sold goes on to develop a known breed condition where they cannot provide proof that they tested both parents and did their best to breed for health.

    At the moment I find it increasingly extraordinary that cavalier breeders can fail to scan, yet continue to breed, fail to cardiologist test, and ignore breeding protocols.
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Leo Lily Tansy
    In memory: Lucy
    Cavalier SM Infosite:www.smcavaliers.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winchester, UK
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karlin View Post

    At the moment I find it increasingly extraordinary that cavalier breeders can fail to scan, yet continue to breed, fail to cardiologist test, and ignore breeding protocols.
    To be fair, many breeders DO health test - but as results are not published this cannot be determined without asking the breeder directly.
    Having no published results also allows some breeders not testing to claim that they do, or they test only when young - when this breed has LATE ONSET diseases.

    Until the BVA schemes for CM/SM and hearts publish all the health test results, this situation remains. When ALL results are publicly available buyers will be able to see for themselves where to go to buy a puppy with the best chance of a healthy future.

    In order to stop puppy farmers churning out puppies with no parents' health tests at all, there has to be a mechanism whereby ALL breeders can publicly demonstrate that they have health tested and at what ages.
    This of course, applies to all breeds, not just Cavaliers.

    Maggie

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I am new to this Forum and have been reading all these posts with interest. I saw this on Facebook today and feel more confused than ever.



    As the individual who originally proposed at the CKCS Club AGM 10 years ago that the “Club liaise with Dr Rusbridge in order to discover the extent to which the condition (now) known as SM affected our breed” A task which fell to the then Health Liaison officer Mrs Margaret Carter. I feel responsible for the situation which has developed and would therefore like the “right to reply”

    The program cited that 70% of all Cavaliers over 6 years of age will have asymptomatic SM based on a study of 555 Cavaliers. This study does not clarify how many of the representative sample were of this age. With an estimated population of 100,000 dogs , 555 dogs are a mere drop in the ocean. My own personal experience disputes this claim. I have had five dogs scanned over 5 years of age only, one (20%) has central canal dilation of 2mm (a syrinx) she is asymptomatic.

    We have been told that this condition is progressive and degenerative based on a sample of just 12 dogs. Again my own experience disputes this statement.
    Of my five dogs scanned over 5 years of age, four of which have been rescanned - one (25%) has been progressive and degenerative, one (25%) has remained static and two (50%) have improved, central canal dilation, present on their original scans was absent on their later ones.

    When this matter was raised at a meeting in October 2010 the explanation given was a “difference in interpretation.” Acceptable in the case of one dog whose scans were reviewed by different individuals but, illogical in the case where it was reviewed by the same person.

    We are told that of 564 dogs scanned, only 6 would be graded as CM grade 1. Yet dogs in the UK, Canada and the USA with this mild form of CM and graded clear of all forms of SM no oedema, no presyrinx, no central canal dilation, present with symptoms associated with SM a condition they don’t have. The explanation given for these symptoms is that CM alone can cause pain. So if mild CM causes symptoms why are the 558 remaining dogs not all scratching as well? Again illogical. As one of the owners of these dogs explains, to not know why she is suffering is unbearable.

    We are told this breed is stoic yet another statement I dispute - if you had heard the fuss my young dog made when he recently broke a nail most would described this breed as “whimpy” almost bordering on pathetic. Yet we are suppose to believe they are suffering in silence!

    As recently as August 2011 there was a study to establish the correct head position for scanning they have found the degree of cerebellar herniation was significantly worse in dogs with a flexed compared to an extended head position. As someone who has spent hundreds if not thousands of ’s scanning my dog. I ask do we now definitively have the correct scanning position?

    It will be assumed that breeding the equivalent A to A dogs will eradicate this condition from the breed explain that to the breeder who has done this for several generation yet her young dog has just been scanned with 3.5 mm of CCD or the breeders who get completely clear dogs from two D parents. Health schemes are suppose to prevent “affected” dogs from being produced. If following the breeding protocols can’t achieve this, many ask if the science is correct?

    Less than ten males over 6 have scanned clear of SM. Far too small a sample for a healthy gene pool. Publication of results will encourage the use of these animals. Many ask what if the science is wrong and this animals although scanned clear become or are symptomatic ? We are being told that genetic diversity needs to be maintained why would we support a scheme that would encourage the exact opposite and support the popular sire syndrome (by scan results rather than show ring success)

    At the time of the airing of PDE2 Cavalier breeders are being expected to embrace a scheme whole-heartedly which still has no published explanation notes, no adequate appeals procedure and fails to give a logical scientific answer to the points I have raised. Many ask why we are expected to adopt a scheme in black and white for a condition which has obvious shades of grey ?
    I am not saying that we should not scan, as a diagnostic tool, the scheme does have merit, it can not be right that dogs have fluid filled cavities within their spinal column. However, it is the dogs which are symptomatic, in distress and upsetting for their owners which need to be removed from this breed IRRESPECTIVE of how well they scan

    As much as PDE has for some people given relief to those whose dogs present with symptoms and they finally feel they have an answer to their condition. It has caused the premature deaths of many others, For example the young bitch who 8 days after been diagnosed with SM died in agony from a undiagnosed diaphragmatic hernia or 10 month puppy who at my instantaneous had a full body scan and was finally and too late treated for the meningitis which was the cause of his pain.

    To date less than 15% of the Cavaliers bred by me have not reached beyond double figures through accident or ill health, of the 80 + Cavaliers I have bred over 20 years I have lost contact with five. Most I have seen at various intervals throughout their lifetime. Therefore in common with many breeders who have never seen any dog bred by them show the symptoms being described as CM/SM. I find it impossible to comprehend that our breed is “riddled” with this condition. Bridgette Evans

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hatfield, Herts, UK
    Posts
    2,696
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Yes, I was the Cavalier Health Representative at the time and I remember asking Bridgette if she would put this question at the AGM as it would look better if the proposal came from the floor of the meeting.

    It appears from the concerns expressed that the writer is worried that people will breed from cavaliers in pain because they have scans that show no SM.

    Possibly the writer is not aware of Clare Rusbridge's CM/SM breeding guideline summary for all relevant toy breeds: http://www.veterinary-neurologist.co...y_download.pdf
    This guideline clearly shows that dogs that are symptomatic, with clinical signs of CM and/or SM, are in the red 'Do Not Breed' section.

    In fact the advice from Specialists has always been that no symptomatic dog should be used for breeding irrespective of how well they scan.

    I find it interesting that a study of 500+ asymptomatic cavaliers can be dismissed as a mere drop in the ocean in one sentence but in the next her personal experience, based on a very small number of mostly unscanned dogs, are used to argue against a carefully thought out BVA/KC Scheme.
    Margaret C

    Cavaliers......Faith, The Ginger Tank and Woody.
    Japanese Chins.... Dandy, Benny, Bridgette and Hana.
    Remembered with love......... Tommy Tuppence and Fonzi

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
  •