The problem, to be honest, is that you believe far too much of what some of these people tell you. A lot of us have presented the facts many times. Facts. Yet you are still making statements that imply the majority of breeders do this or that because these people tell you this is what they do -- with little to no evidence.
On outcrossing -- not a direction I currently support, BUT the BVA and KC themselves have already flagged that an outcrossing programme MAY be considered in cavaliers. Breeders are still not hearing that message -- that this is not just coming from what they think of as an extreme fringe
but from quite conservative organisations! Of course any such thing would require many controls and need to be well thougth out -- not least because toy sized breeds all have multiple health issues. No one here is suggesting how they would personally do this because we are not breeders so such questions are entirely misleading and steer away from the general point of this being ONE approach to dealing with serious genetic issues. There is good evidence that a longer muzzle, and less extreme features of huge eyes, might start to address the skull development issue that seems to be behind SM.
On the other hand in other breeds such as dalmations, a SINGLE breeder has shown that health can be improved for a dire genetic condition by a simple outcross -- and the KC has recgnised a dog from that outcross pool as officially, a 'dalmation'. The KC has also in the past year opened the door to more possible outcrosses as well as bringing in dogs of unknown background in pedigree but which test clear for some conditions by allowing the pedigree offspring of such dogs to gradually be brought in to the full registration system.
The exact genes for SM have not been found but a narrow and promising genetic area has been identified as has an effect that apparently gives genetic protection so that dogs with CM do not go on to develop SM. We might well have had the MVD gene by now but BREEDERS failed to support the research to do so by giving their heart results to enable this to happen. BREEDERS chose not to support such work. Go ask them why they didn't give their results when asked -- they knew full well that this was a goal with a good chance of being realised, for research begun over 5 years ago. If research starts now, it will likely be years and years before similar results might be obtained.
Some of us who you might see as anti-breeder know a lot more about the internal politics and background of these disputes and know how many breeders present themselves as caring about health when they are mainly focused on their own breeding programmes for puppy sales/show ring wins, only publish health results that show them in a good light, fail to support significant health initiatives, withhold information... we could be miles and miles further along on knowing some of the things we don't know ... but we aren't, because of direct and indirect obstruction and deception by too many breeders, some of them the ones whose propaganda you readily believe and repeat.
You are welcome to support them all you want but I am getting tired of seeing false claims from them, posted here as if they are 'facts'. Including that canard that 'many breeds have SM' -- yes there is evidence that SOME do, and almost all in very small proportions in comparison to cavaliers. SM remains primarily a CAVALIER issue.
