Jed

Trying to understand syringo makes my brain hurt. I have read heaps of stuff, from Rusbridge, from Purdue, Irish Veterinary College, and now from Finland (spanks, Shortstep) and none of it particularly agrees with anything else. I honestly feel that this should never have been put in the public arena. It's a difficult issue to understand, and people with no dog knowledge have no hope at all, unless they are neurologists. All putting the syringo issue in the public domain has done is made people fearful. Breeders who know about syringo will tell puppy buyers. Breeders who don't know or care wont tell buyers and never will. As they will not tell about MVD. The website of every Cav club website, pretty well every ethical breeders' site (and many unethical ones) gives info on SM and MVD - so any buyer who didn't make a snap decision to buy a cav pup from the pet shop should have that information. And a lot of what is in the public arena is untrue. Nothing that has been done so far has reduced the incidence of SM as far as I can see. People are blaming breeders for SM - because they don't understand the problem, which is incredibly complex. I often wonder whether the researchers understand it. They certainly don't agree with each other on it. :D And despite REPUTABLE breeders only using heart clear dogs for the past umpteen years, I understand from Bet that the incidence of MVD has not reduced in 30 years. I wonder whether the dogs scanned are only properly bred pups from tested parents, or pups from every old second rate puppy farmer who never tests? I have no idea, I haven't even seen the figures quoted, but have to wonder which dogs were giving these results. Cavaliers are beloved of shonky breeders and puppy farms. Easy to keep, very easy to sell, small, don't need a lot of grooming, and don't protest if locked up in airline crates 24/7. and I do wonder whether the figures are skewed. You know my best and favourite breed is the boxer? Boxers are not hugely popular in Aus, and although they are bred by byb quite a bit, it is more a litter here and a litter there. And quite a few byb get ironed out and go to registered dogs, or drop out of breeding. And the breed is not favoured by puppy farms at all. Boxers have no particular issues - can have cancer (which I don't believe is hereditary), some may have skin issues, and cardiac myopathy can be an issue, but not a huge one. Most of the breeders are pretty switched on and do care. You rarely hear of an unhealthy boxer In the Us, where there are many byb and puppy farms (many more than AKC registered breeders, as with many breeds here and ANKC breeders), and boxers are, I think No 6 in the popularity chart, they seem to suffer from CM and just about everything else 10 times more than boxers in Aust. And diseases I have never heard of a boxer having. I have concluded from that with pf and lots of byb, comes problems which properly bred dogs do not have. Just an opinion, but based on experience and observation. Maybe the first and second generations away from pedigree are healthy - but then breeding continues to the 5 th and 6th generation by people who do not understand the breed, know very little about it, don't care about conformation or health, and just chuck 2 dogs together. Neither knowing or caring, except that they will produce a saleable product. Until we differetiate pf and unreg from reg dogs, we are not going to get ahead on any diseases which do not have a readily obvious DNA marker. Until the public learns to differentiate between registered and not, registered breeders are on a hiding to hell. I don't jump up and down about pf and DD - not my problem, and if that's what people want, so be it. The only issue I have with pf is the way the dogs are kept and i have huge issues with that. I think people should consider the comparison I have made above - and the situation with both classes of dogs. And I think that should be factored into any health discussion. And this is not a criticism of Bet Hargraves, but a general observation, partricularly on Aust conditions.

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 very likely to be clear and I wanted to know for certain that he had no syrinxes. Because he might not have shown any symptoms, but still may have had syrinxes. Just cause I am wanted to know, and yes my gut feeling was right, the vets couldn't find any syrinxes or abnormalities ar all. Even though those results are not official, I am happy with them 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 ethically advertise him as an "A", but as he is not available at stud, it is a moot point. You can't put something in an ad you don't run, can you?? 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. His oldest progeny are about 6. By 2 years there probably should be a good indication, although the upper age is given as 2.5 in the protocol. 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. I wanted to confirm what I thought. I'll bet all his daughters are A too.

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? Jaxx's Buddy Not as I understand it. A to A = 75% unaffected, 25% affected. With the dogs tested and used so far. These are the RECOMMENDED protocols, not the cure. I don't know that anyone presumes to understand this problem. As far as we know, it is not a disease, but we don't know very much. Unfortunately, on all counts, there is no proof that Aus & NZ dogs can offer or not offer anything. Researchers think it is possible that Aus & NZ lines may offer something, because the incidence is lower. There is no way of knowing anything much. Any discussion is speculation only. Any testing is not offering a cure, or really, any way of positively reducing SM. What is being done is being done in the hope of reducing SM, with hope being the most important word. All I know is that the incidence of SM is lower in this country. We don't have subsidised testing centres all over the country, as the UK does, fewer dogs are tested, so we do not have proof. Most Cav breeders believe that, because we talk to each other. The cavs who are mri'd here are mostly done because they are from lines suspected of carrying SM, or because the dog has exhibited symptoms. Not all. Obviously the stats are going to be higher if ALL cavaliers were scanned. For all we know the incidence could be lower here because the weather is warmer, or the moon shines for a shorter time .... or anything really. And don't think I am being flippant, that is exactly how it is. There is still no known mode of inheritance for MVD - there are only recommendations and the latest research in UK shows the incidence of MVD is the same as it was xx?? years ago. Either the recommendations we have been following are incorrect, or the dogs recently tested were not bred according to recommendations. I have no idea which, and I suspect, neither do the researchers, or other breeders.

The longer you breed, the more snafus you see, and the more prepared for them you are. I've bred heaps of litters where no buyer wanted or needed anything. I could have gone to the moon. I wouldn't, but if you had bred 3 litters and no one had a problem, you'd figure that the 4th would be safe and no one would call you. Additionally, if you didn't hear anything for the first week after sale, you would figure all was well. Plus, if you had a few grand from your pups,and were longing for the bright lights of Surfers, you would probably jump the first jet and do it!! People forget to pay their membership, and we get so little from the CCs that a lot of people don't pay their membership until they have to registerer pups. It all comes back to communication, and it is the role of the breeder to lead the way in this. But not all them realise that.

You are correct I should have said "show no signs of SM". Of course, they may all have had SM. Dogs with syrinxes don't always show signs, incidentally. Technically, they have signs of SM, practically, they don't. In my opinion, if the dog is a pet, showing no signs of SM is sufficient.

Shortstep I only know one breeder personally whose dog has produced 1 sm offspring. Dog probably has sired 300+ if not more pups, though. Well known show dog. No one else I know is admitting to any. Some people I believe, some I don't know well enough to believe. The "old" retired breeder I am in contact with - highly respected, and very well known, showed, imported some very well known, well bred dogs has never seen SM. Has heard about a few dogs with sm over the years. Not many. This breeder travelled interstate to show, so would have had a good idea. Breeder is not lying - just passing the truth to someone who is interested. My old stud dog didn't throw any SM affected pups. The current dog who is 7 or 8 has probably thrown 100+ pups approx. The youngest of these are 12 months old (not bred by me). My dog is the product of champions and g/champions from "old" lines. I bought him because I like his parents and his dual grandfather and I liked that they all died of "old age", and his parents are heart clear over 10. Unfortunately, he was a bit too big to show. Luckily, he throws lovely pups, to the standard size wise,and has had quite a lot of use by others who have seen his progeny. He is also heart clear, and his patellas cause vets to swoon with delight. Most of this breeding was done before anyone much was worrying about SM, so he was not scanned. At the time I was concerned about not introducing LP or MVD into my clear lines. Last year I decided he was probably an "A" - for no good reason except that I think so. I had him mri'd earlier this year. The scans have not been read by a specialist neurologist vet who is familiar with SM, so I don't have a definitive answer. However, they have been checked out by specialists, who think he is free from any signs of anything to do with SM - in other words, an "A", but obviously I can't advertise him as such. There is no sign of syrinxes. The mri encompassed quite a lot of the spine, not just the head. I don't advertise anyhow, and I do not stand my dogs at public stud, so that's not important. I probably wont bother having the scan officially read either. My curiosity is satisfied. Problem with 1 in 4 pups having SM is that you can breed 400 clear and the next 100 all have sm!! This will probably earn me some abuse, but having commenced breeding long before there were tests for anything, I am inclined to go with the pedigree, how visible the ancestors were, how they were perceived, how they fared health wise, as well as the integrity of the breeder, and use the various tests for back up. I don't think we should be using sires simply because they are rated "A". I think there is a lot more to SM than we know - have no idea what, I am not that clever Unfortunately, many breeders are walking away because of the uncertainty, and the cost of testing which doesn't give a definitive guide. I breed cockers too - they can be afflicted by FN (fatal) - however, a test was developed a few years ago, which takes the worry out of it. The dog is either clear, carrier or affected, so you can choose from available studs, knowing their status, and knowing EXACTLY what the status of the pups will be. Obviously, you aim to breed pups which are not affected. This is what breeders ask of SM researchers, and until that becomes available - if ever (remember, they haven't found a mode of inheritance for MVD yet) breeders need to use every tool at their disposal to attempt to produce pups which do not have SM.

Watching that video brought home to me the irresponsibility of owners leading to the dogs losing their lives. There was no means of containing the dogs; no body cared enough about the dogs to keep them inside the yard, so they couldn't get out, and for whatever reason - bite someone - and be destroyed. And undeserved hell rains down on every other dog owner. I despair sometimes of us ever learning how to keep and care for dogs as we should.

Half of these problems are caused by lack of communication. The puppy buyer is probably doing it for the first time - the breeder for the umpteenth time --- the breeder needs to give the buyer ALL the relevant information. Give the breeder the benefit of the doubt. She was probably resting up after rearing all those Dogue pups - she probably needed to - and there are breeders who do not pay membership until they have a litter. Particularly those who do not breed a lot, or who actually have a life. The difference between a good breeder and a top one - as the one labsrule talks about - is that things like this don't happen. They have the experience to know what they have to say to buyers. I have purchased from a few breeders such as the one labsrule is talking about -- never any dramas ... problem is if it is your first registered dog, you can't tell who is a "top" breeder and who isn't. Of course, with those breeders, the waiting list is so long you are the breeder's best friend by the time you get to the top of the list :D posshut I agree, I think we could do without some of the defensive posts. However, in 75% of complaints like this there was nothing wrong, except the buyer got bit panicky, and experienced forum members know that. Most of these problems are lack of communication. Enjoy your new pup!! Dogues are great.

Unlikely to be a tumour - bitch is young, season etc. More likely to be cyst, or what others have suggested. It should be possible to remove the lump and not the teat and that is what I would do, and have a biopsy done. dancinbcs post is worth noting - but that is very uncommon.

Shortstep, here is the recommended sm breeding protocol from the Cavalier Club UK's website. This is a revised protocol following an international conference on sm. http://thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html A to A has not produced 100% clear unfortunately.

Gorgeous photos, thanks for posting. Me too dogmad if you don't mind - my usual method isn't working.

Hoffpig Our top flight surgeons seem to work miracles because they do a 5 year course, followed by an internship and a residency. During both those periods, they observe operations, deal with the simpler matters pertaining to operations, and go on to do fully supervised operations on the patients - beginning with very simple ones, working up to complex ones during that period. They are never unsupervised. This happens in large hospitals with quite a few staff. Totally different system. The interns are learning on people - supervised by a resident, or a surgeon. The new grad is learning on your dog or cat - probably supervised by no one. Vets have 5 years to learn about ALL animals, not just one type. There is no public hospital system, there are only private pratices. A senior vet may supervise operations. And if the new grad has no experience with living tissue, and kills YOUR pet, no one except you notices. The vet probably feels bad, but fact is, no one is going to supervise 24/7, so the more experience the new grad has prior to working, the better. Mita and I have both explained about the "food trials" - which do not involve force feeding, they involve weighing and noting, and there are good homes at the end of it.

Don't worry about it Bet, you've pretty well scared everyone away LATEST NEWS SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 3000 REGISTERED CAVALIERS BRED AUSTRALIA WIDE IN 2010 21 million people 63% dog owners Approximately 30,000 cavaliers are being sold by those who do not register and do no health testing. Bet Hargreaves 30,000 puppy buyers will be told no testing is done. What are you going to do about that? I think you should try petlink or gumtree, spread the message there

I have to disagree about the obedience. I trained several pekes up to trialing standard when I was breeding them in the 80's-90's. They were very easy to train & eager to work. Sadly, divorce stopped me from trialing them but I think that they would have got their titles easily. Several have got their obedience titles in Australia & I know of one in America that went through to UD. The biggest problem I had was the inability of the older peke breeders in Victoria being unable to accept that they could be trained for anything but showing. http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/profile.asp?dog=43981 http://www.thepekingeseclubofamerica.com/p...t%20a%20toy.htm How marvellous. Fair brings tears to my eyes!!

Jessie Interesting. I noticed that you have been a member for a long time. You haven't posted much. I don't suppose being on here a long time or a short time makes you more or less experienced, and I don't much care that you have been breeding cavs longer than I have, if indeed you have. Half the world has been breeding cavs longer than I have. I don't actually see that as important, but you will not have been breeding dogs longer than I have. If you actually do breed cavs, I do hope that you have more knowledge than comes across in your posts. Perhaps it is simply your turn of phrase? Quite a few dogs have been scanned. There is a list of Aust dogs on the UK Cavalier club's website, but you no doubt knew that. So you can just phone up the owners and ask them. Internet forums are fabulous, you can write anything you like, impersonate the Queen of Sheba if you like, and sometimes, people believe you.

I don't know about greyhounds generally, but the greyhounds in the vet school at UQ are afforded a lot of respect. There is also the possibility that one will catch the eye of a student ............... not always. Our opinions on surgeries on pound dogs, and experience with greyhounds are coloured by our experiences. I have seen the pound dogs a UQ out on the lawns, playing with students, getting treats, or going for a walk. Students would probably prefer to do recovery surgery but whatever, they are grateful to the dogs, and endeavour to make life as good as possible, and they do realise the necessity of what is happening to make them better vets.

I am so sorry Moselle. Sophie, now pain free and waiting over the bridge for you. Tumours are a cow - everything looks ok, and by the time there are symptoms, it is too late to do anything.

I am not interested in responding to idiots and animal rights loonies who do not understand the written word, and answer with abuse based on what they thought they saw. And who are too above skanky breeders they couldn't be bothered responding to questions put to them several times. Go outside and continue singing to the burrs, I think, that is more use than what you are trying to do here. Good luck, the Noogooras are the bigger ones, by the way. Have a good day

This post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Every sentence contradicts another. That's totallly nonsensical. You have NFI. If you look like animal rights, write like animal rights, jump up and down like animal rights, you are animal rights. I agree with Shortstep, who in my opinion is right a lot more often than wrong.

Shortstep, this is for you. Firstly, what are these "dinos" you are breeding? Can I buy one?? Different gene pool here to the UK. Lots of breeders have never seen SM. And that is quite genuine. I haven't seen it, but I am not a big time or famous breeder, so I don't count. But people tell me stuff. I was fortunate enough to be given a lot of notes by one of our "older" breeders - and they were illuminating. I wonder if the "answer" will be found in Cavaliers in this country and in NZ. Maybe. Breeders are working hard to eradicate MVD and SM. People like Bet who intimate that it is all the fault of breeders are not doing the breed any favours. Witness the semi hysterical posts by Jessie as proof. What Bet is doing is helping the government to make up it's mind to ban the breeding of Cavaliers. The information she is disseminating supposedly for puppy buyers is not easily understood, and abridged and easy to understand versions of it (including the truth) are on every Cav club website in Aust. And people who do not look at the Cav Clubs websites before buying are not likely to be reading here. Who is reading here is animal rights (Jessie?) governments, councils, and those with a vested interest in getting rid of dogs. Including Bet Hargraves. No one has any problem with posters coming here with THE TRUTH. If people assumed that either Delcara or I were advocating not doing our best for our breed, in every way possible, they do need comprehension lessons.

So, you keep all pups until minumum of 6 months, max of approximately 2.5 years, and knock off any which are not "A"? Wouldn't you keep your pick of the litter, send the others to pet homes desexed (so no chance of passing SM on if they are affected) then have the dog you kept scanned if you wish to use that dog in your breeding program? If this dog is not an 'A' then it is desexed as per the breeding protocol guidelines of not breeding with anything other than an 'A'. And what to you say to the owner of the 25% affected by syringo, when the owner phones you to ask why the dog is airscratching and bunny hopping? You have to tell them that even though you tested, and the dogs you bred with were graded A the dog they own may have syringo. It is going to cost a minimum of $1000 to have him diagnosed. The prognosis is going to be that he is on gabapentin for life, has an operation, or is put down. You cannot offer to replace their dog with a syringo free pup because YOU CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT. And that, my dear, is why so many breeders no longer breed. There is NO definitive test. NONE AT ALL. EVEN BREEDING DOGS GRADED A DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT NO PUPS WILL HAVE SM. But won't it reduce the number of affected pups if only 'A' dogs are bred with? Doesn't it make sense if the research so far suggests that breeding only 'A' produces 1 in 4 affected and breeding with anything else produces more than 1 in 4, then wouldn't any decent breeder want to go with the best odds? If the only test available, even if not definitive, is to MRI breeding stock then shouldn't that at least be tried? Yet people like Bet Hargraves make it seem that breeders must test - and that will guarantee pups unaffected by SM. I'm not trying to shit stir, it just seems to me from a pet owners perspective that if the 'medical experts' who are the ones doing the studies suggest that breeding with only 'A' graded dogs will get the least number of pups affected then why would breeders not be all for scanning their breeding stock and only using 'A'dogs? edit - oops didn't mean to have size so big like I was shouting Holly Milo, no one has said that breeders were not all for scanning their breeding stock. Jessie said that, no one else. You have the wrong impression I think. Please see my answer above.

I would agree with everyone who has posted on how these dogs are treated. They are fussed over, taken for walks, treated like princes, because the students really really appreciate what the dogs are doing for them, even though the inevitable would happen no matter where they dogs were ... and the students all like dogs. The problem with new grads is that most of them go into private practice. The grads are not expected to function as specialists, but the are expected to be cost effective. If they have had nil experience with any living animal, it is harder for them. Their practice might accept them taking 3/4 hour to spey A cat, but if they are still taking 3/4 hour after 4 months, they wont keep their job long. .... and this applies to any type of surgery. New grads begin on the easy stuff, once they can do that, the practice will allow them to do more difficult stuff. It is pretty demoralising to have studied for 5 years, and to be sacked from your first job because you are inept. The clients would not be impressed if the operation took so long the animal died, or if the speying took so long, the animal was terribly bruised and sore for a week. Maybe we should get up another petition in opposition to that one??

It is incredulous that you pretend not to know the obvious answer As any breeder with a whit of knowledge would know you plainly ensure that you never breed from a dog which is not an 'a' which is produced Smoke and mirrors or is it ignorance? Additionally those of you who attack Bet have the whole world laughing at you as they watch you fumble through excuses as to why you continue to breed with dogs which are like rent a bomb for the breed.Flagellation of those who are telling you what needs to be done continues to place attention on the fundamental cruelty by purebred breeders who think they are exempt because they exhibit their animals in beauty contests.It is not Bet Hargraves who is responsible for the breed’s demise it is instead those breeders who hang onto megalomania born in the last century There is no hope for the breed while dinosaurs who account themselves as breeders appallingly behave as bullies rather than as guardians of the breed I don't think you actually read my posts - if you are speaking to me. And I don't read where ANYONE was justifying not testing. Me included. Some breeders have decided to not breed until there are some answers about SM, because they will not risk breeding a SM affected pup. Jessie So, you keep all pups until minumum of 6 months, max of approximately 2.5 years, and knock off any which are not "A"? And that, my dear, is why so many breeders no longer breed. There is NO definitive test. NONE AT ALL. EVEN BREEDING DOGS GRADED A DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT NO PUPS WILL HAVE SM. Yet people like Bet Hargraves make it seem that breeders must test - and that will guarantee pups unaffected by SM. What rot. Jessie, please do read all the posts before posting again. Shortstep, usual cost for the MRI scans at specialist vets, unis etc is around $1400 - depending on what they want to charge, there are other costs associated with it. For myself, I allowed $2000 per scan per dog, because taking them i/state to "our" scanner would rack up the costs too in travel, accommodation. Wonder if Jessie came direct from forums on UK to back her friend Bet? Or, animal rights? And it is rather a shame when we have these breeder bashing threads that none of the bashers (including Jessie) acknowledges that it was BREEDERS who provided funds for testing for SM and who continue to provide funds. It is breeders who provide their dogs - even ones past breeding - at expense to themselves, to have them scanned to add to the pool of knowledge and they continue to provide them. Is it not so that breeders world wide provided sufficient funds and dogs for Claire Rusbridge to gain her PhD - subject syringomyelia? Don't rabbit on about breeders NOT testing. Breeders have done ALL the hard yards so far. And will continue to do the hard yards until people like Bet convince the government to ban the breed. When you return, you might tell us what YOU have done to help with syringomyelia.

The cost has nothing to do with anything. Fact is unless you live in NSW, the cost of scanning is around $2000 per dog, all up. Problem is, even if all your dogs are A, they are still going to produce 25% of pups with SM. However, it has nothing to do with costs. Ethical breeders DO NOT WANT TO BREED PUPS WITH SM. So they simply are not breeding. It's not about buyers suing them, it is about not wanting to breed pups which will grow into dogs which will suffer. It's about tests which give no guarantees. Phone up some of the established breeders on DOL. You will be lucky to find a pup available. They aren't going to say they have no pups, they will say "none at present". Meanwhile, it is believed that the rate of SM is much lower in Aust and NZ because of the early dogs imported here. This is why many breeders have never seen SM. Some who say they have never seen it may be lying - but I don't think they all are. So, whether the cause of SM is discovered or not, it is likely that a way out of, or around the problem may come from Aust or NZ, or both. However, if there are no dogs being bred, forget that. The worrisome thing is that the likely lines to breed away from or around SM are here, but they are not being perpetuated. They are sitting in breeders' yards, going to shows, but not breeding. Bet is rabbiting on about the % of dogs scanned in Aus who were positive. It hasn't occurred to her that the dogs scanned would have been a high propoertion of dogs from lines where SM is suspected, and dogs like Sunnyflowers, who were advised to have a dog scanned because of possible SM. That woud skew the figures but she doesn't seem to understand that. Or maybe she does. She certainly paints a skewed picture. Reading her posts, buyers probably think is the dogs have had an MRI, and they can see the results, the pup they buy will be clear of SM. Not so, the MRI guarantees nothing, except that there is a picture of the dog's brain to look at.

Well, I would like to know what you suggest? It's not my suggestions. If is the fact that black and gloomy posts such as yours make the people who should be breeding stop. The greater majority of Cavaliers in this country show absolutely no signs of SM. 50% may well prove to have syrinxes on MRI, but if they have no symptoms, what's the problem? MVD is not a particular problem with registered dogs, but the vast majority are unregistered. Personally, I don't think doing the scans will lead anywhere. The fact that SM can spontaneously regress is a factor which everyone knows, and ignores. I suppose that is because scanning is the only way forward they see. SM is not the problem it is in the UK. You have no idea of the difficulty of having any dogs scanned here. You have no idea of the distances either. There is ONE subsidised scanner in the country, and there is no helpful club offering reduced price scans to dogs over 6 - because there are insufficient registered breeders to support anything like that, although they work damned hard to do as much as they can, It is a toss up whether the puppy numbers reach zero first, or the Government bans the breed. Just 3,186 registered Cavalier King Charles Spaniels were bred in 2009. That was an increase of over 1,000 since 1986, but when you consider the population of the country has doubled, (about 21million, I think) and 63% own a pet, the numbers bred are absymal, and dropping fast. According to my rough calculations, approximately 1,000 or more of those 3,186 pups are shipped out of Australia to a pet onshipping company in Hawaii. for delivery to pet shops in Asia. I would make an educated guess that 20,000 + Cavaliers are bred in Australia annually. if only 3,186 are registered and likely to be health tested, I suggest you buy a bell and ring it on the street corner to get your message to the would be buyers of those 16,000+ cavaliers. Because they are in the majority There are no where near enough registered dogs being bred to fill demand, the majority are unregistered from puppy factories. These people neither know nor care about SM - how do I know? Because I used to rescue them. This country is nothing like UK, and you are doing a great deal of damage I didn't see the pet owners raising money and donating privately to Claire Rusbridge to get this research started either. i saw Breeders doing all that. I saw breeders taking dogs to be scanned to try to establish some points of reference, good or bad. And the very worst thing is that I see breeders downing tools and walking away, or reducing their litters still further to reduce the possibility of sm. And sorry, you are totally unthinking, and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are not reducing SM, you are reducing the number of decent dogs bred. LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS Jed, my Patience with you has finally Snapped. To say that even if Cavaliers have been MRI Scanned and have Syrinxes ,but no Symptoms ,What's the Problem. Do you not understand what the Problem is , a Syrinx Denotes SM. Oh yes I know what I am talking about , but it is you who is doing Damage to our Cavaliers with your Ignorant Claims. Bet Hargreaves You have absolutely no idea. I know what a problem is.