Jaxx'sBuddy

Its unlikey that anyone is going to ever be thrown in jail for breeding a dog with hip displasia this is a polygenic disorder - however it is most definitely possible that breeders could be thrown in jail in Victoria for breeding a dog affected by PRA. And I can understand why someone who doesnt breed purebred dogs would think that wanting to fight having a governing body setting guidelines - because if thats all they are - guidelines no one will follow them anyway if they dont want to. My concerns are who will determine who is an expert and independent person to particpate in this and when the guidlines turn into laws and not guidelines .So far we have seen people considered to be independent and expert set up mandatory codes which leave gaping holes in what is best for the species and every breeder knows that . I dont think the MDBA has ever dismissed community concerns. I'm happy to be corrected and I have seen some breeders who have not only dismissed community concerns but in my opinion aggrevated them. Im not worried about publicity for our members or our dogs because they all do what the experts would have them do and then some anyway. My concern is for the future of the breeds when people who are not breeders start telling breeders how to breed dogs. totally agree with this. i was appalled at some of the breeders answers in the SM cav thread and that thread can be viewed by anyone who is on the net

well i think some breeders dont help the bad PR situation. used to be getting a puppy from a registered breeder was enough but now some registered breeders are woeful. maybe we need to start being honest about the issues with certain breeds and breeders need to be seen to address the issues.

I didn't see it that way. If I were a lay person who wasn't as involved as I am and was as aware as I am of the bullying and unfair tactics the RSPCA tries on (many times successfully), I think my attitude to the petition would be "what harm could the petition do?". After all, all it is asking for is for an independent body to which the RSPCA would be made to be accountable to, rather than being accountable to no-one. If there is no corruption within the RSPCA *cough* then neither the RSPCA nor any of its loyal supporters who are innocent to the knowledge of what we might have should have any qualms with the petition being successful. If the RSPCA doesn't do anything to which it needs to account for, then what difference to how things are now? To me, the petition is reasonably benign. It's just calling for accountability and I think many people would see no harm in that. i see it the same way

Lol I think educating the public is a far more difficult and challenging task than getting them to bully the government into taking on the role but hey go for your life why do you see anything in this petition as bullying, i am astounded

most charities also don't have policing powers and the powers to prosecute people. we will have to agree to disagree, i have worked in government and all i know is that new responsibilities take years to be put into place. the request in this petition wont take years. is it so bad to ask the rspca to be accountable for what they do and to give people the right to appeal their decisions. It's not bad, I just don't see it gaining wholesale support. There are already government departments which deal with animal welfare inspections and enforcement their role would need to be expanded but that's about it most of it is already in place, they just let the RSPCA do the legwork because it's been convenient. very true and also the reason i don't think there is the impetus to change the arrangement. i think there might be a shot with this petition at least educating the public and achieving some change or at least letting people know there are issues

most charities also don't have policing powers and the powers to prosecute people. we will have to agree to disagree, i have worked in government and all i know is that new responsibilities take years to be put into place. the request in this petition wont take years. is it so bad to ask the rspca to be accountable for what they do and to give people the right to appeal their decisions.

i believe with the amount of public and private monies going to the rspca, a private entity, that the general public would be astonished to know there is no external watchdog. they all assume there IS someone to complain to if things go wrong. in just about every state there is cost cutting in government. this request would not cost much to implement and wouldn't change too much but would protect the public from an errant rspca administration should that ever arise ETA this petition does NOT say the rspca is corrupt, it is simply saying that if they have the powers to police that any person caught in their processes should have an avenue of appeal

i dont believe that it is possible to get government to take on this responsibility as it is not in their interests to do so. however, if the rspca has an external appeals process then they will be more accountable and at least people would be able to appeal against any rspca processes which cannot effectively be done at the moment. goodness even the police have an external appeals process and they need a signed warrant before they can enter your premises

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS If I could answer Jed's Post,where she mentioned that the Cavalier Buying Public should not have been made aware about the Two Serious Health Problems afflicting Our Cavaliers , I think that the Folk Buying Cavaliers should be being made aware about those Problems, then it will follow on that the Question is being asked of Cavalier Breeders ,are they Health Testing and following the Cavalier Breeding Recomendations on their Cavalier Breeding Stock, and if the Cavalier Breeders are not doing this, then any-one wanting a Cavalier should go to a Cavalier Breeder who is doing this.What else can be being done at the moment.? Bet Hargreaves HOW DARE YOU MISQUOTE ME? CAN'T YOU READ? IF YOU THINK THAT IS WHAT I SAID, I THINK YOU NEED GO BACK TO GRADE 2 - AND LEARN COMPREHENSION. BUT YOU DID UNDERSTAND WHAT I WROTE. YOU ARE SIMPLY CAUSING TROUBLE AGAIN. YOU CONSTANTLY VISIT FORUMS AND LIST, MISQUOTING INFORMATION UNTIL YOU ARE BANISHED AND THEN YOU CHOOSE ANOTHER ONE. YOUR INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT BAN THE BREEDING OF CAVALIERS, AND I REALLY DO THINK YOU MAY ACHIEVE IT. It's always been too easy to sit on the sidelines and ridicule those doing the work, without contributing one iota to it. It's easy to criticise, Bet, but it is more difficult to do it - and do it right. I don't see any evidence anywhere that you have done anything good for the breed at all. All you do is try to bring it down. Incidentally, you didn't answer my post, all you did s misquote me. Not good enough, try to bring a modicom of commonsense and worthwhile information to the discussion, will you?? The "latest news" is either the old news rehashed to suit your machievellian design, or more up to date news, skewed your way. Yep, Delcara is correct, we have been around the SM mulberry bush so many times that many of us are giddy. Bottom line is that no one has much idea why SM happens, no one has much idea how to prevent it, breeders are doing all they can to provide dogs for scanning so that the way forward may be clearer - at their expense. People like Bet Hargraves sit on the sidelines, contribute nothing, but snivel and complain. Jaxxs Buddy Realistically, consider the expense. Breeders in Sydney can take advantage of the scanner which the Cavalier breeders obtained so dogs in Aus could be scanned (Please note, Bet Hargraves, feel free to contribute some funds towards the purchase of the next one? They aren't cheap, and as you seem to have so much to say, I am sure you would like to help us out here. We'd all be grateful.). However, for anyone not near Sydney, you can say min of $1500, max of $2000. Use $2000 as the figure - pretty well everyone charges about $1400, getting yourself and dog to Sydney, accommodation, blah blah. $2000. So $4000 to scan the parents. 4 pups, wait until they are 2.5 yrs, scan them, $8000. So you have coughed up $12000 just in scans. Looks good - except - if as LizT says, scans dont indicate anything. $12,000 is a lot of money to spend - and still not be able to guarantee that if you breed the parents, or the pups, they will not throw SM. You couldn't even guarantee that the pups would continue to be A past 2.5 years. And you are currently paying to have all you dogs heart scanned annually by a specialist cardiologist. You have had the patellas of the parents checked, and x rayed if your vet wasn't 100% confident with his examination. This is a minority disease in this country amongst registered cavaliers. Yes, it does crop up occasionally, but so does mega oesophagus, non hereditary heart murmurs, leukemia, and auto immune diseases which have no hereditary component. Now, Bet, you can scuttle whereever you wish, and tell everyone and anyone you like that I am against MRI-ing. Good luck to you. As this was brought to the public domain, I think it is much better if "the public" and dog owners are given correct information. jed i find this post of yours offensive and unnecessary.

perhaps working with pet shops which sell puppies could mean that the puppies would be looked after appropriately taking into account their developmental requirements. if the puppies were looked after better and they were good quality pups, would there still be an issues?

As Dellcara says, it is a topic that goes round and round in circles, with all agreeing it is a good idea to do "something". That we are aware of it is a start. I think careful observation (awareness) is a crucial factor in any problem. Perhaps that is where abused children are let down, no one want to 'see that it happens'. Unfortunately your analogy differs greatly in one important fact, SM isn't, (well at least we don't think it is), environmental. I believe Child abuse is. Shortstep suggested breeding only A to A's, hence my diminishing gene pool comment. Let's now let this sit as it is until we have more information. agreed

sorry lizt the posts came across as sarcastic, my apologies. i dont think anyone is saying to only breed 2 A's. what i am saying is that i don't think it is good enough for breeders to say they "think" their dogs are ok and then breed from them without really knowing because we are no better off if that happens, we have learnt nothing if there is something that can be done, even though it is flawed, the general public will feel that breeders are trying to hide something by not having the dogs scanned. i think all dogs should be scanned but with careful breeding (not just 2 A's together) and scanning of progeny just maybe we would have enough data to figure out what is happening. i used to be a social worker and when i talked to the community about child abuse here are the reactions i got when i asked them to help stop abuse: 1. denial (child abuse doesn't happen) 2. limited acceptance (child abuse happens but not to people i know) 3. acceptance (child abuse happens and could happen to someone i know) 4. overwhelmed (child abuse happens and happens to people i know and the problem is so big i can't do anything to help stop it happening) 5. action (child abuse happens, can happen to people i know but if we work together there are things we can do to help stop it happening) seems to me we could exchange the words child abuse to SM and the reactions may be the same when discussing this issue

And would that be A to A dogs with grade 6 heart murmers, Retinal Dysplasia, cow hocks, undershot jaws, slipping patellars and epilepsy???? Don't throw the dog out with the bath water. i don't think poking fun at anyone helps. bet has obviously felt the burden of having dogs that have this disease and that cant be easy. this post is accessible to the public because it is in the news section so remember everyone who wants to can read this. maybe we need to start taking this seriously and not sticking our heads in the sand. the problem cannot be so overwhelming that nothing gets done.

laws wont change this because how can you tell someone who has an investment how to use it, makes no sense. they will find other ways to get control back and some may even sell the investment property creating another problem. attitudes need to change and we need to help landlords see that people with pets have attributes that they want.

i do not think banning pet shop sales is the answer and we don't need more laws. how do we know that some registered breeders aren't supplying pet shops? i would prefer a closer liaison between the public, the authorities and breeders so the standard of puppies being sold was higher and their welfare was at the forefront for the life of the dog

I agree. Besides,divide and conquer is working too well for those who want to impose ever more legislation. x3

jed, sorry i am a bit confused with this bit in your post. you feel your boy is an A and you had him mri'd but you can't advertise him as such. can i ask why not? did the mri match with your gut feeling? do you know whether any of his progeny are affected by SM or are they all to young? just trying to get a feel for what is happening I had him mri'd for my own interest. Because I felt that he was most likely clear and I wanted to know for certain that he had no syrinxes. Just cause I am wanted to know, and yes my gut feeling was right, the vets couldn't find any syrinxes or abnormalities. I don't stand the dogs at stud, or advertise them. He has been used by me and a few of my friends. The scan was "read" by specialist experienced vets, but not by a specialist neuro vet who is officiallly qualified to read them. So I think I could not advertise him as an "A", but as he is not available at stud, it doesn't matter. And I only had the scan done for my own interest. He has 1 litter of about 12 months, 2 of 18 months, all the rest of his progeny are over 2 - none of them have exhibited any symptoms at all. I am in semi-regular contact with the people who bought my pups, and I have a few daughters. By 2 years there probably should be a good indication, although the upper age is given as 2.5. Hope that makes sense. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my earlier post. There is, as far as I know, no SM in his lines, and his eldest pups are 5 or 6 with no problems, and neither he nor them has any visible signs of SM either . thank you Jed, much appreciated. it seems that this is a very difficult issue to come to terms with.

jed, sorry i am a bit confused with this bit in your post. you feel your boy is an A and you had him mri'd but you can't advertise him as such. can i ask why not? did the mri match with your gut feeling? do you know whether any of his progeny are affected by SM or are they all to young? just trying to get a feel for what is happening

Just need to clarify what do you mean by 'affected dogs', do you mean breed only 'A' tested dogs? sorry i should be more careful posting. i meant we should be breeding with only A tested dogs because that would ensure we were doing the best we could to halt this disease. However, until your question is answered we are flying blind. As I tried to explain before, you will not find any genetic experts in dog breeding making that recommendation as it is clear it would wipe out the breed in short order. So far I have looked at several countries in europe which are held to the hightest standards for breeding plans and none of them have recommended only breeding A dogs and rightly so. Ok if that is what you believe and want for the breed, but I strongly disagree and will not support that mission. i agree with you that it wont work..BUT i do think we need to know whether 2 A's would produce all non-affected puppies. i see that as significant information and quite important in trying to understand this disease. sorry for the confusion i am still trying to get my head around this and thank you all for your patience and help.

in an "ideal world" yes ..... but it's not an "ideal world" .... hence the following statement in the current protocol; "As the incidence of syringomyelia is so high in the breed there will be severe depletion of the gene pool if only clear dogs are used (i.e. other problems will develop). Therefore until the genetic defect is determined it is recommended that dogs with syringomyelia be used if they are valuable in another genetic sense e.g. good heart. " i understand, it is an unfortunate situation for all and i think shortstep's question is important to answer quote shortstep: Hi Jed, what I meant was has there never been an A dog that has had all normal pups? For example has every stud dog you know produced an affected puppy? Just becasue they say that A to A litters still produce 25% affected pups, that may not mean every single last A dog on earth has produced an affected pup, at least I am hopeing it does not mean that. end quote screening will help us make informed decisions eta i know there is anecdotal information but we need accurate statistics to move forward in the best way IMO

Just need to clarify what do you mean by 'affected dogs', do you mean breed only 'A' tested dogs? sorry i should be more careful posting. i meant we should be breeding with only A tested dogs because that would ensure we were doing the best we could to halt this disease. However, until your question is answered we are flying blind.

thanks Jed for clearing that up. yes i think if the dog is not affected and is a pet that is a good outcome. i think we just need to make sure that we don't breed with affected dogs because otherwise i think eventually the breed may die out, or am i being too dramatic? if we could try to stop this now before it becomes too big to stop then i think this would be good also, what if we do have something here in oz that we can offer the cav gene pool in other countries, shouldn't we try to help?

Jed how do you know the dogs don't have SM if they aren't scanned? i think we need to be very careful about saying dogs are clear if we have no proof

That would be lovely, but I doubt it would affect dumpage rate. There are plenty of cities around the world with a low dumpage rate where there is very little open space. I think it encourages the myth that all dogs need open space to be happy. They don't all need it, many dogs can be exercised on lead, they can be mentally stimulated and trained in a small area. Besides that, many people are happy to drive their dog to a park the same as they are happy to drive to the shop to get a bottle of milk. It isn't a big disincentive. I would rather the council put more money into educating people on right choice of dog for various lifestyles than purchase more space as a strategy against dumping. hmm true, ok scrap that idea

No new laws. Are we allowing better enforcement of existing laws eg microchipping. Hard not to be accountable when your name and current address is on the chip. that's what i was thinking about the situation Monah described but the people who dump in the bush wouldn't have their pets microchipped anyway so it wouldn't help stop that the only people who would microchip would be the responsible breeders unless the public were educated to the implications of having a dog that wasn't microchipped and this was policed properly.