Pedigree Dogs Exposed: part two

[Maxxs_Mummy]

Trying to talk to the K.C is a total waste of time from my own experience. I can't see that they care about animal welfare at all, it's all about the money.

They revoked a breeders Accredited status last year under much pressure due to complaints regarding the awful conditions from where I picked up an older throw out from. Believe me this place was a hell hole for those dogs, Cavaliers and Shelties together, a filthy stinking place. Unbelievable outdoor living conditions.

Yesterday I notice they have her yet again selling more Cavalier pups on the K.C puppy list just without the Accredited Breeders status. I talk to them and they inform me that they are "A Registration Agency" she is able to use them regardless of whats happened it's just useless.

Those poor dogs. I'm furious they allow this to continue.

Alison.

It just saddnes me that we were only able to get Lucy out. I know we both had many sleepless nights about the rest of the little darlings in there. I am working on a plan at the moment but will discuss more off list - ears have walls etc. Will ring you tomorrow.

I have been counting the litters advertised though and keeping tabs on the ***** of a woman! x

Maxx and Charlie send xxx's to the girlies xxx

 

[Phoebe]

Hi Margaret, I would also like to add my thanks for your hard work and efforts regarding the future health of this beautiful breed. You and Carol have shown great determination, commitment and courage and like many on this board, I thank you and admire you

 

[ross]

Margaret C

Hi Margaret I heard about the petition being passed around last weekend at Birmingham Show .A friend of a friend of mine was asked to sign it and refused.I know of others who have done likewise.
I am sure you have support out there from members and none members alike for all you are trying to do for cavaliers
If this programe had not been shown we would never have known what has been going on
I cannot believe that anyone could be supporting the owner of the Malvern BIS winner after the damage she has probably done to the breed I don't think she will be the only one.

Good luck Margaret

 

[Daisy's Mom]

Maxx's Mummy -- Whatever your plan is -- good luck with it!

I wish there was some way to put these awful people out of business for good. It's very hard for me to retain my composure thinking about these horrible people who are absolutely indifferent to the suffering of animals and see them purely as profit. As I've said before, I hope some of these people come back as their own dog! (But I'd rather there were NO puppy mills like this in the future, so that's not exactly accurate.)

And Margaret, you have my utter respect for putting your neck out for these wonderful dogs. That Malvern lady is just unbelievable. If I were a member of the KC or whatever the appropriate group is, I would start a petition circulating against HER being allowed to breed or show Cavaliers in the future. I'm a member of the Cavalier Club in the U.S., but I assume that's a different group than the one circulating the petition now?

If she has a conscience at all, she should be very ashamed. I've said this before, but seriously, if I were outed as that kind of person on TV, I don't think I could ever leave the house again. Anyone who would buy a dog from her, use her stud dogs, or support her "business" in any way is contributing to the problem. I sure hope no one will. I would assume her lines would be viewed as tainted at this point by ethical breeders?

 

[Halina]

I was told by a local rescue group that they too believed that the AKC was totally in it for the money. She had witnessed at puppy mill auctions AKC officials giving AKC registration papers for those dogs. I know that when I was looking for a cavalier after talking with some breeders in the cavalier assoc. some of them did not follow their own rules. I know of two that were breeding their 1 year old pups and not giving out AKC papers. They boasted having bitches tested but did not wait the full 3 years. One also told me "they ALL will have MV by the time they are 5 years old.

I believe that if a dog developes these genetic diseases it is the responsability of the AKC to NOT ISSUE AKC PAPERS. I think owners should contact them and let them know what the problems are. Seems like some people hide their problems boasting AKC status.

 

[KR]

I would assume her lines would be viewed as tainted at this point by ethical breeders?

Hello, I am convinced that to be an ethical breeder one needs first to be an ethical person. Condemning the products of a kennel as tainted, is in my eyes no more productive than assuming that the products of another kennel are wholly untainted and certainly not fair on the dogs in question.

 

[Daisy's Mom]

I am not a breeder, nor do I know that much about breeding, and that's why I phrased my comment as a question. But just intuitively, I would assume that if you KNEW for a fact that a dog's parent or grandparent was definitively diagnosed with SM, you would avoid breeding that dog or its offspring?

I'd rather have people selectively breed SM-clear dogs that weren't quite as perfect in conformation (looks-wise that is, not structure or movement) than breed dogs who will suffer, and pass on suffering to their offspring, just because they look good on the surface. Give me a little bit bigger dog, or one with a bigger head, or one with imperfect markings any day who does not have SM, rather than a beautiful, tinier one who does. One of the most beautifully clear logical things I have read on this issue was posted on this board several days ago as a quote from a vet being interviewed on this issue. (I would look it up, but I'm kind of in a rush.) He/she said we routinely select out many, many dogs all the time for cosmetic reasons, so why would it be so illogical or impossible to do the same for SM? Maybe the health issues should take priority over the beauty issues for once. Maybe there should be some sort of minimum health standards/test that dogs should have to pass to even show for conformation? I don't know the answer, but I think it's clear there is a definite problem.

One of the things from the program that sticks with me were the German Shepherds with those awful back legs so crooked and bent under that they could hardly walk, but yet they placed well in the show ring. That's just wrong to deliberately breed dogs that can barely walk because you are trying to get such an exaggerated look for showing. Something's wrong there.


And I'm not sure why it wouldn't be fair to the dogs? Could you clarify?

 

[WoodHaven]

I am not a breeder, nor do I know that much about breeding, and that's why I phrased my comment as a question. But just intuitively, I would assume that if you KNEW for a fact that a dog's parent or grandparent was definitively diagnosed with SM, you would avoid breeding that dog or its offspring?

So you don't thinks the SM protocol is any good???

 

[Cathy T]

I think what Daisy's mom says makes sense.....coming from a non-breeder. I don't think she's saying the SM protocol is wrong (it's not something I am intimately familiar with) but rather if a dog's parent or grandparent is SM positive you wouldn't breed that dog. Wouldn't that be the case? I'm not asking sarcastically or snidely....I honestly want to know if this is logical thinking.

Maybe there should be some sort of minimum health standards/test that dogs should have to pass to even show for conformation? I don't know the answer, but I think it's clear there is a definite problem.

Yes, I see that point. I would figure a dog who is beautiful on the outside but sick on the inside isn't really the perfect representation of the breed. Can any of our breeders give me some input on this? Would this be a logical thing to have?

 

[WoodHaven]

It gets very complicated. You can breed two clears and get SM and clears-- do you not use the clears from that litter because the sibling has SM?
Some dogs with minimal SM can actually be graded an A-- do you not use them (if they are an asset to the breed in other ways)?

I agree that no one should breed a dog if they have SM symptoms.

IF this disease was MVD-- could you see not breeding ANY that have grandparents or parents etc.. with MVD?

 

[Alison_Leighfield]

If a clear dog wasn't bred from because a parent or a gd parent were affected then wouldn't breeding nearly stop? I would think there are many Cavaliers with this known status.

Clear MRI scanned dogs with an affected parent or gd parent are used in breeding, it's the status of the dog itself in question that matters. It's the breeding of the clears together that counts.

Alison.

 

[Cathy Moon]

Isn't the SM protocol a little more lenient than the MVD protocol?

I would want to see both protocols followed in detail in order for cavalier breeders to register their puppies.

Regarding SM, I would want to see all cavaliers used for breeding MRI'd at age 2.5 and annually to find out which are 'A', which are 'D', etc.

The point of scanning the dogs (male and female) would be to ascertain their health status at certain ages/before breeding - isn't that the same as what heart auscultation by a cardiologist is supposed to determine?

I keep reading the argument "they could develop a syrinx the day after they are scanned", yet couldn't a dog develop a slight murmur the day after auscultation? That argument against scanning makes no logical sense to me.

I also read the argument "it's dangerous to use general anesthetic on dogs", yet Karlin said Mr. Skerritt (I hope I spelled his name correctly) sedates dogs for scanning.

I also read the argument "it's too expensive", yet the families who buy many of these puppies from sires and dams of unknown SM status (who are most likely at a higher risk of developing SM than ones who have scanned clear) face rising insurance premiums each year as their dogs age -or- they finance the MRI scans themselves -or- their dogs suffer undiagnosed. It's less expensive in the long run to MRI the parents and try to breed healthier dogs than to totally burden a growing percentage of puppy buyers with the cost.

It is better to do something sensible than to do nothing in regards to SM. There is at least one ethical, health focused breeder in the US who thinks this way. To me, it's a no-brainer. Nothing changes unless something changes.

 

[Karlin]

Families are important. Think of it in human terms -- if you come from a family that has a history of heart disease on your father's side, just because your father doesn't have it doesn't mean you don't have an increased risk. What you really want are families of dogs that MRI well. Most A dogs have other As amongst close relatives however. Keep in mind an A dog is not 'clear' as in 'clear of SM'. An A dog can have a syrinx. Clear of SM dogs are rarer (no syrinx at time of MRI). And very rare are no malformation, no syrinx.

Doing only AxA crossings would risk introducing other problems very quickly -- there isn't enough genetic diversity. An AxA puppy from dogs with poor heart histories that ends up having a short life due to MVD is no improvement for the breed or for that individual dog. Having discussed this recently with researchers, what they say is that AxD crossings are very good -- a lot of good offspring come from that mix. As long as one dog is an A it seems to give a quite good result in puppies.

Additional complications are the fact that dogs that start as As do not necessarily remain as As -- which is why the later the dog is bred and the later the MRI, the better (just as with MVD). Also, some dogs have in past been given A grades that are not A dogs. This has been a consistent concern and the panel that the UK CKCS CLub recently decided to support and set up to determine a standard and to adjudicate on disputed MRIs is a direct response to this issue.

Hopefully the genetic EBVs will help address a lot of the breeding questions assuming the Canadian genome scan project is successful. The gEBVs should give a pretty good indication of heart health too although Sarah Blott badly needs heart information from breeders I believe; many who have submitted scans to the database did not also submit heart info but if she has both, then MVD can be plotted into the EBVs and then the gEBVs. If anyone has this type of info it is very worthwhile contacting Sarah Blott directly -- her contact info is available from the UK CKCS Club site.

 

[WoodHaven]

Isn't the SM protocol a little more lenient than the MVD protocol?

I would want to see both protocols followed in detail in order for cavalier breeders to register their puppies.

Regarding SM, I would want to see all cavaliers used for breeding MRI'd at age 2.5 and annually to find out which are 'A', which are 'D', etc.

The point of scanning the dogs (male and female) would be to ascertain their health status at certain ages/before breeding - isn't that the same as what heart auscultation by a cardiologist is supposed to determine?

I keep reading the argument "they could develop a syrinx the day after they are scanned", yet couldn't a dog develop a slight murmur the day after auscultation? That argument against scanning makes no logical sense to me.

I also read the argument "it's dangerous to use general anesthetic on dogs", yet Karlin said Mr. Skerritt (I hope I spelled his name correctly) sedates dogs for scanning.

I also read the argument "it's too expensive", yet the families who buy many of these puppies from sires and dams of unknown SM status (who are most likely at a higher risk of developing SM than ones who have scanned clear) face rising insurance premiums each year as their dogs age -or- they finance the MRI scans themselves -or- their dogs suffer undiagnosed. It's less expensive in the long run to MRI the parents and try to breed healthier dogs than to totally burden a growing percentage of puppy buyers with the cost.

It is better to do something sensible than to do nothing in regards to SM. There is at least one ethical, health focused breeder in the US who thinks this way. To me, it's a no-brainer. Nothing changes unless something changes.

My comments pertained to Daisy's mom's comments about not breeding,"/dog's parent or grandparent was definitively diagnosed with SM, you would avoid breeding that dog or its offspring?". Thus being much more stringent that the MVD protocol.

If you make MRI's mandatory for registration, many good breeders will quit breeding and bad breeders will just not register. Now, if that is what you think must happen-- we can just make cavalier extinct.

Many have stated to get a true picture of SM health, you must do the whole spinal MRI, not a modified one. Syrinxes could be hidden in the lower back. The cost was over 2500.00 for the last one I did-- three years ago.

No dog has died from auscultation -- can't say that about GA.

When we heart test, we are clearing the dog for a period of time. Most breeders realize many toy dogs usually get MVD at some time. The idea to clear the dogs before breeding is to reduce the number of dogs getting early onset mitral valve disease. Not to do a heart test once at two and a half and say "we are clear''.

I don't know any neurologist that would do an MRI (which is lengthy, especially full length) without general anesthesia. I know of humans that had to be sedated. It isn't easy to sit perfectly still.

I believe that all cavaliers are carriers of some degree. Too many clear dogs have produced SM dogs for a MRI to be the thing we rely on entirely. I still would rather use a 8-10 year old sire, that is healthy and active (who has had pups and grand pups to be observed) than to use another dog that was MRI cleared at 2 1/2. fwiw

 

[Karlin]

Assuming Sarah Blott's work is successful, the argument about not doing MRIs due to cost actually will be moot. Already, there are estimated breeding values for every cavalier with a pedigree in the UK. It would not be difficult to do them for every US/Canadian cavalier with the funding, maybe in a coordinated project. Once those are linked to the genome project, the results should be very accurate for predicting risk for SM and MVD in any given dog. Some MRIs will still need to be done and some always will be for diagnostic purposes etc anyway. But breeders should have the info they need from the gEBVs.

There is actually very little evidence that full spinal MRIs are needed for a basic diagnostic MRI for breeding purposes -- several of the neurologists who have done hundreds of MRIs say syrinxes that appear only at the end of the spine and not at the neck are rare. For a basic breeding evaluation and even for a basic SM diagnosis a neck MRI is very good. It also allows lower cost MRIs to be done. In the UK they are extremely low priced though club events -- as low as £100 per dog for breeders which at the moment is I believe around $150?

 

[Cathy Moon]

When we heart test, we are clearing the dog for a period of time. Most breeders realize many toy dogs usually get MVD at some time. The idea to clear the dogs before breeding is to reduce the number of dogs getting early onset mitral valve disease. Not to do a heart test once at two and a half and say "we are clear''.
...

I believe that all cavaliers are carriers of some degree. Too many clear dogs have produced SM dogs for a MRI to be the thing we rely on entirely. I still would rather use a 8-10 year old sire, that is healthy and active (who has had pups and grand pups to be observed) than to use another dog that was MRI cleared at 2 1/2. fwiw

What I am saying is:
Ideally the dogs who are MVD cleared before breeding would also include one in each breeding pair who is scanned cleared as an 'A' for SM.

I would like to see your healthy and active 8-10 year old sire bred with an 'A' scanned bitch, since his SM status is 'D' if not scanned. Better yet, what about a sire graded 'A' at age 5 and healthy and active at 8-10 years of age.

These two scenarios could help in a huge way if more breeders would care enough.

 

[WoodHaven]

Specialist argue among themselves about the best way to position the head and neck, the length of MRI needed-- even the Tesla units (.5 to 3)of the machines can expose or hide issues.

 

[Cathy Moon]

I would want a full length MRI; why bother with just the head and neck? Also, Rod Russell just posted last night about MRI standards. Did you look at his post?

Whoops, just went back to read Karlin's post #180 in this thread:

There is actually very little evidence that full spinal MRIs are needed for a basic diagnostic MRI for breeding purposes -- several of the neurologists who have done hundreds of MRIs say syrinxes that appear only at the end of the spine and not at the neck are rare. For a basic breeding evaluation and even for a basic SM diagnosis a neck MRI is very good. It also allows lower cost MRIs to be done. In the UK they are extremely low priced though club events -- as low as £100 per dog for breeders which at the moment is I believe around $150?

 

[WoodHaven]

What I am saying is:
Ideally the dogs who are MVD cleared before breeding would also include one in each breeding pair who is scanned cleared as an 'A' for SM.

I would like to see your healthy and active 8-10 year old sire bred with an 'A' scanned bitch, since his SM status is 'D' if not scanned. Better yet, what about a sire graded 'A' at age 5 and healthy and active at 8-10 years of age.

These two scenarios could help in a huge way if more breeders would care enough.

The breeding I did last year was to an almost 9 (heart clear past 8) MRI grade A Sire to my MRI grade A 3 year old (heart, CERF, patella, prelimed hip good) bitch . I drove over 700 miles, had high hopes and NO PUPPIES.
Please, if anyone knows how to do a better job of trying to make healthy pups-- do it.
This "hobby" is one of the most expensive, gut wrenching, disappointing activities one could ever embark upon. For every beautiful moment you get, there can be a devastating one. -- don't worry, I'll shut up now-- too many bad memories surfacing.

 

[Cathy Moon]

The breeding I did last year was to an almost 9 (heart clear past 8) MRI grade A Sire to my MRI grade A 3 year old (heart, CERF, patella, prelimed hip good) bitch . I drove over 700 miles, had high hopes and NO PUPPIES.
Please, if anyone knows how to do a better job of trying to make healthy pups-- do it.
This "hobby" is one of the most expensive, gut wrenching, disappointing activities one could ever embark upon. For every beautiful moment you get, there can be a devastating one. -- don't worry, I'll shut up now-- too many bad memories surfacing.

Sandy, I think you are WONDERFUL!!!! I actually have tears in my eyes to know you tried so hard. :hug::flwr::flwr::flwr: I am so sorry you had no puppies from that breeding.