Pedigree Dogs Exposed

[Jed]

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/ped...ogs_exposed.pdf

It's 70 pages. The precis is below

Pedigree Dogs Exposed

09|12|2009

Ofcom has today published its adjudications about the BBC1 programme

Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

The programme - broadcast on 19 August 2008 - looked at health and welfare

problems in pedigree dogs and included criticisms of the Kennel Club, other

clubs and individual dog breeders.

Ofcom considered five complaints that the BBC programme was unfair; they

came from the Kennel Club, the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain,

the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club, Mr Michael Randall and Mrs Virginia

Barwell.

Ofcom found that there was not unfairness to the Kennel Club in the editing

of the programme and that the Kennel Club was not deceived about the purpose

of the programme.

Allegations

But it was not given a proper opportunity to respond to an allegation about

eugenics and a comparison with Hitler and the Nazi Party; or an allegation

that it covered up the nature of an operation carried out on a Crufts Best

in Show winner.

Ofcom found that, when the programme alleged that the Rhodesian Ridgeback

Club of Great Britain was not doing all it could about a condition called

Dermoid Sinus, it did not fairly represent the research on the subject. An

inaccurate description of the breed's ridge was likely to have unfairly

compounded the impression that the Club was choosing to breed deformed dogs.

Summary of findings

Finally, Ofcom found that the programme was unfair to Cavalier King Charles

Spaniel breeder Mrs Virginia Barwell, as it did not convey her explanations

for the very brief statements she was shown making in the programme.

Ofcom did not uphold the complaints from the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

Club or Mr Michael Randall.

Ofcom has directed the BBC to broadcast a summary of this adjudication.

[bet hargreaves]

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/ped...ogs_exposed.pdf

It's 70 pages. The precis is below

Pedigree Dogs Exposed

09|12|2009

Ofcom has today published its adjudications about the BBC1 programme

Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

The programme - broadcast on 19 August 2008 - looked at health and welfare

problems in pedigree dogs and included criticisms of the Kennel Club, other

clubs and individual dog breeders.

Ofcom considered five complaints that the BBC programme was unfair; they

came from the Kennel Club, the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain,

the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club, Mr Michael Randall and Mrs Virginia

Barwell.

Ofcom found that there was not unfairness to the Kennel Club in the editing

of the programme and that the Kennel Club was not deceived about the purpose

of the programme.

Allegations

But it was not given a proper opportunity to respond to an allegation about

eugenics and a comparison with Hitler and the Nazi Party; or an allegation

that it covered up the nature of an operation carried out on a Crufts Best

in Show winner.

Ofcom found that, when the programme alleged that the Rhodesian Ridgeback

Club of Great Britain was not doing all it could about a condition called

Dermoid Sinus, it did not fairly represent the research on the subject. An

inaccurate description of the breed's ridge was likely to have unfairly

compounded the impression that the Club was choosing to breed deformed dogs.

Summary of findings

Finally, Ofcom found that the programme was unfair to Cavalier King Charles

Spaniel breeder Mrs Virginia Barwell, as it did not convey her explanations

for the very brief statements she was shown making in the programme.

Ofcom did not uphold the complaints from the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

Club or Mr Michael Randall.

Ofcom has directed the BBC to broadcast a summary of this adjudication.

Could I say ,that I live in Scotland ,and have been involved with the Cavalier Breed for many years as a Cavalier Pet Owner.

I was pleased to see the UK CKCS CLUB's Complaint not upheld by Ofcom.As a result of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed TV Program, the Public have now been made aware of the Two Serious Health Diseases afflicting Cavaliers, Syringomyelia and MVD Heart Problems.

If I may mention the Syringomyelia Disease in our Cavalier Breed.Last week at a Lecture here in Britain, there were Two MRI Scans shown .

Both Cavaliers in the Two Scans had the same size of Brain, but the Cavalier with the Longer Nose and was Larger had no Syringomyelia, but the other Cavalier ,whose Brain was Housed in a Small Head ,had Syringomelia.

There are now many Cavalier King Charles Spaniels around to-day with a Smaller Skull than they had about 25 years ago, and a number of Experts are asking ,is the Smaller Head of to-day's Cavaliers, part of the Syringomyelia Problem in the Cavalier Breed.

Bet Hargreaves

[Jed]

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/ped...ogs_exposed.pdf

It's 70 pages. The precis is below

Pedigree Dogs Exposed

09|12|2009

Ofcom has today published its adjudications about the BBC1 programme

Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

The programme - broadcast on 19 August 2008 - looked at health and welfare

problems in pedigree dogs and included criticisms of the Kennel Club, other

clubs and individual dog breeders.

Ofcom considered five complaints that the BBC programme was unfair; they

came from the Kennel Club, the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain,

the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club, Mr Michael Randall and Mrs Virginia

Barwell.

Ofcom found that there was not unfairness to the Kennel Club in the editing

of the programme and that the Kennel Club was not deceived about the purpose

of the programme.

Allegations

But it was not given a proper opportunity to respond to an allegation about

eugenics and a comparison with Hitler and the Nazi Party; or an allegation

that it covered up the nature of an operation carried out on a Crufts Best

in Show winner.

Ofcom found that, when the programme alleged that the Rhodesian Ridgeback

Club of Great Britain was not doing all it could about a condition called

Dermoid Sinus, it did not fairly represent the research on the subject. An

inaccurate description of the breed's ridge was likely to have unfairly

compounded the impression that the Club was choosing to breed deformed dogs.

Summary of findings

Finally, Ofcom found that the programme was unfair to Cavalier King Charles

Spaniel breeder Mrs Virginia Barwell, as it did not convey her explanations

for the very brief statements she was shown making in the programme.

Ofcom did not uphold the complaints from the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

Club or Mr Michael Randall.

Ofcom has directed the BBC to broadcast a summary of this adjudication.

Could I say ,that I live in Scotland ,and have been involved with the Cavalier Breed for many years as a Cavalier Pet Owner.

I was pleased to see the UK CKCS CLUB's Complaint not upheld by Ofcom.As a result of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed TV Program, the Public have now been made aware of the Two Serious Health Diseases afflicting Cavaliers, Syringomyelia and MVD Heart Problems.

If I may mention the Syringomyelia Disease in our Cavalier Breed.Last week at a Lecture here in Britain, there were Two MRI Scans shown .

Both Cavaliers in the Two Scans had the same size of Brain, but the Cavalier with the Longer Nose and was Larger had no Syringomyelia, but the other Cavalier ,whose Brain was Housed in a Small Head ,had Syringomelia.

There are now many Cavalier King Charles Spaniels around to-day with a Smaller Skull than they had about 25 years ago, and a number of Experts are asking ,is the Smaller Head of to-day's Cavaliers, part of the Syringomyelia Problem in the Cavalier Breed.

Bet Hargreaves

I don't think 2 dogs are any sort of proof at all. And I haven't seen any proof that smaller skulls lead to syringo - although the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that is the case. However, we should beware of making any long ranging decisions without adequate research and statistics which prove the way we choose is the correct way. It takes a long time to rectify a mistake with a dog breed, and to make another whilst trying to rectify the first is a double disaster.

However, the fact that syringo doesn't seem to exist in the pekingese breed, which has been small and,in the past smaller than the ones now being bred, suggest that the research is probably correct. Pekingese have been bred for many centuries.

It did find the program was unfair to Virginia Barwell.

Whatever, the program has now been used for a springboard to launch further animal rights agendas which concern purebred dogs. The result will be, as it was with docking and some other moves, to further reduce the number of proper registered purebred dogs bred, so all the arguments are moot, there will be very few Cavaliers in 15 years, if any at all. In this country, at least. Thats if the government, acting on that program with the urging of animal rights, doesn't ban the breeding of them altogether in the near future.

[Zug Zug]

Do you think?

Because I couldn't help thinking that the end result may be to promote responsible breeders, get people to ask questions of the breeders they buy puppies from etc.

So I can't help thinking that maybe (just maybe) the end result may be very positive for the breeders that are working hard to improve their breeds. By pulling the rug out from under those who are being less vigilant.

Perhaps mine is a naive view...?

[Shmurps]

Do you think?

Because I couldn't help thinking that the end result may be to promote responsible breeders, get people to ask questions of the breeders they buy puppies from etc.

So I can't help thinking that maybe (just maybe) the end result may be very positive for the breeders that are working hard to improve their breeds. By pulling the rug out from under those who are being less vigilant.

Perhaps mine is a naive view...?

I agree

[Steve]

If purebred breeders are left to work on the issues as the responsible ones already were and it promotes the good ones and alerts the public to the fact there are rotten ones that would be a positive outcome. Remember that screening, and testing capabilities are a relatively new tool for breeders and used in conjuction with pedigree analysis and breeder and buyer education breeders will be able to identify the real problems and the extent of them and work on eliminating them and truly improving the breeds. However, its pretty obvious that this isnt the way its going to go down.We still face the major issue in that no one knows the prevalence of these things IN AUSTRALIAN PUREBRED DOGS. We hear all kinds of percentages quoted but in the next sentence we are told no studies exist.Cavaliers for example have been cited as having Mitrial valve disease at 60%. Our survey is showing that this is an issue in the breed but nowhere near 60% and a quick phone survey of several vets in my area says they dont believe its running at 60% and nor do the people who see more than average of the breed and live with more than average of the breed either. Syringomelia has shown up but this is negligible and its shown in F1 crosses and a couple of other breeds as well.Very few of the diseases are not in mixed bred and F1 crosses even though most are in less ratios. Obviously purebreds get higher incidence of fewer diseases,there's nothing new in this.My point is that although some diseases are in a higher incidence in certain breeds those diseases are also in mixed breeds and this fact can work in our favour.Knowing what problems are in a breed then allows us to identify the modes of inheritance and work toward eliminating them.

People who dont understand all of the things a purebred breeder has to do to try and get it right and those with expertise in other areas are yelling about what they feel is the cause of problems and how they need to be fixed.My fear is that because they have initials behind their names or because they belong to a certain group such as the RSPCA that what they think is the necassary laws and regulations will remove some of the tools a purebred breeder may need to use and muck it up for the future of our dogs and our breeds.

Every day new and wonderous things are being discovered in canine health and there are so many other things which impact on the health and happiness of a dog - many of which we are just beginning to understand and learn about.Most of which depending on what our specialty is have more than one theory or solution.Most of which the experts are not in agreement on.

So many of the big deal things we see in our dogs are of a genetic nature but are also impacted by other things and many of them we still have little knowledge of the modes of inheritance or how we can identify those which may pass it on to future generations.

Obviously some of these things are caused because of their physical characteristics unique to their breed.If it turns out that Syringomelia is caused by small heads then breeders will need to establish a breeding protocol to get it gone from the breed but

if the best and quickest way to identify the cause, the mode of inheritance and the solution is to use tight in breeding for a generation or two in an educated and controlled way and a government has taken away the right for us to use that because they have banned close in breeding its a tool we cant use. Im not saying it is but we dont know and nor do they but they do know we rarely in breed because they have done studies on it recently using our pedigrees.Bringing in laws to stop us doing it under POCTAA is not only a waste of time because we rarely in bred this closely but because it takes away a tool we may need to eliminate a disease or a trait from a breed and by the time they work out that they have created a bigger problem it will be too late.

The same potential occurs if they follow the UK recommendation of putting in a welfare group over all things dog related - to make breeders answerable to people who dont breed but who are classified qualified because their group is known to work against animal cruelty for everything we do.

O.K. We get it we have work to do but these are things we have to be able to assess , analyse , put plans in place and work on without animal rights and government intevention because at this point that would be the very worst thing that could happen to our dogs.If it turns out that eliminating Syringomelia is as simple as breeding dogs with bigger skulls [ and I dont believe it is] then I promise the minute they know this breeders world wide will go into breed only dogs with bigger skulls.Co incidentalLy in my opinion one of the quickest ways of working this out would be to inbreed and do test matings in a controlled colony.

If they allow us to concentrate our energy on working out what we need to do to ensure we breed happy and healthy purebred dogs and not have to battle to prevent laws designed to control us, based on their limited experience, [which would limit our right to make the best decsions for our breeding programs] we can get on with what needs to be done.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Steve

[bet hargreaves]

If purebred breeders are left to work on the issues as the responsible ones already were and it promotes the good ones and alerts the public to the fact there are rotten ones that would be a positive outcome. Remember that screening, and testing capabilities are a relatively new tool for breeders and used in conjuction with pedigree analysis and breeder and buyer education breeders will be able to identify the real problems and the extent of them and work on eliminating them and truly improving the breeds. However, its pretty obvious that this isnt the way its going to go down.We still face the major issue in that no one knows the prevalence of these things IN AUSTRALIAN PUREBRED DOGS. We hear all kinds of percentages quoted but in the next sentence we are told no studies exist.Cavaliers for example have been cited as having Mitrial valve disease at 60%. Our survey is showing that this is an issue in the breed but nowhere near 60% and a quick phone survey of several vets in my area says they dont believe its running at 60% and nor do the people who see more than average of the breed and live with more than average of the breed either. Syringomelia has shown up but this is negligible and its shown in F1 crosses and a couple of other breeds as well.Very few of the diseases are not in mixed bred and F1 crosses even though most are in less ratios. Obviously purebreds get higher incidence of fewer diseases,there's nothing new in this.My point is that although some diseases are in a higher incidence in certain breeds those diseases are also in mixed breeds and this fact can work in our favour.Knowing what problems are in a breed then allows us to identify the modes of inheritance and work toward eliminating them.

People who dont understand all of the things a purebred breeder has to do to try and get it right and those with expertise in other areas are yelling about what they feel is the cause of problems and how they need to be fixed.My fear is that because they have initials behind their names or because they belong to a certain group such as the RSPCA that what they think is the necassary laws and regulations will remove some of the tools a purebred breeder may need to use and muck it up for the future of our dogs and our breeds.

Every day new and wonderous things are being discovered in canine health and there are so many other things which impact on the health and happiness of a dog - many of which we are just beginning to understand and learn about.Most of which depending on what our specialty is have more than one theory or solution.Most of which the experts are not in agreement on.

So many of the big deal things we see in our dogs are of a genetic nature but are also impacted by other things and many of them we still have little knowledge of the modes of inheritance or how we can identify those which may pass it on to future generations.

Obviously some of these things are caused because of their physical characteristics unique to their breed.If it turns out that Syringomelia is caused by small heads then breeders will need to establish a breeding protocol to get it gone from the breed but

if the best and quickest way to identify the cause, the mode of inheritance and the solution is to use tight in breeding for a generation or two in an educated and controlled way and a government has taken away the right for us to use that because they have banned close in breeding its a tool we cant use. Im not saying it is but we dont know and nor do they but they do know we rarely in breed because they have done studies on it recently using our pedigrees.Bringing in laws to stop us doing it under POCTAA is not only a waste of time because we rarely in bred this closely but because it takes away a tool we may need to eliminate a disease or a trait from a breed and by the time they work out that they have created a bigger problem it will be too late.

The same potential occurs if they follow the UK recommendation of putting in a welfare group over all things dog related - to make breeders answerable to people who dont breed but who are classified qualified because their group is known to work against animal cruelty for everything we do.

O.K. We get it we have work to do but these are things we have to be able to assess , analyse , put plans in place and work on without animal rights and government intevention because at this point that would be the very worst thing that could happen to our dogs.If it turns out that eliminating Syringomelia is as simple as breeding dogs with bigger skulls [ and I dont believe it is] then I promise the minute they know this breeders world wide will go into breed only dogs with bigger skulls.Co incidentalLy in my opinion one of the quickest ways of working this out would be to inbreed and do test matings in a controlled colony.

If they allow us to concentrate our energy on working out what we need to do to ensure we breed happy and healthy purebred dogs and not have to battle to prevent laws designed to control us, based on their limited experience, [which would limit our right to make the best decsions for our breeding programs] we can get on with what needs to be done.

All I know is that the Cavalier Heads ,here in Britain are Smaller than they were 20-25 years ago. Even the Cavalier Dogs now look Effeminate.

That a Geneticist here has suggested that Cavaliers with Larger Heads be MRI Scanned against those with Smaller Heads.

There is a EBV Program soon to be started in Britain, the Question will be ,what if the the Cavaliers with Biggar Heads are suggested for Cavalier Breeding Programs, but maybe will have no chance of Winning in the Show Scene, will the Cavalier Breeders be interested.

Professor Sir P Bateson's Report will be releasd in the Middle of January,I expect there will be more information coming from it.

Bet Hargreaves

[Steve]

If purebred breeders are left to work on the issues as the responsible ones already were and it promotes the good ones and alerts the public to the fact there are rotten ones that would be a positive outcome. Remember that screening, and testing capabilities are a relatively new tool for breeders and used in conjuction with pedigree analysis and breeder and buyer education breeders will be able to identify the real problems and the extent of them and work on eliminating them and truly improving the breeds. However, its pretty obvious that this isnt the way its going to go down.We still face the major issue in that no one knows the prevalence of these things IN AUSTRALIAN PUREBRED DOGS. We hear all kinds of percentages quoted but in the next sentence we are told no studies exist.Cavaliers for example have been cited as having Mitrial valve disease at 60%. Our survey is showing that this is an issue in the breed but nowhere near 60% and a quick phone survey of several vets in my area says they dont believe its running at 60% and nor do the people who see more than average of the breed and live with more than average of the breed either. Syringomelia has shown up but this is negligible and its shown in F1 crosses and a couple of other breeds as well.Very few of the diseases are not in mixed bred and F1 crosses even though most are in less ratios. Obviously purebreds get higher incidence of fewer diseases,there's nothing new in this.My point is that although some diseases are in a higher incidence in certain breeds those diseases are also in mixed breeds and this fact can work in our favour.Knowing what problems are in a breed then allows us to identify the modes of inheritance and work toward eliminating them.

People who dont understand all of the things a purebred breeder has to do to try and get it right and those with expertise in other areas are yelling about what they feel is the cause of problems and how they need to be fixed.My fear is that because they have initials behind their names or because they belong to a certain group such as the RSPCA that what they think is the necassary laws and regulations will remove some of the tools a purebred breeder may need to use and muck it up for the future of our dogs and our breeds.

Every day new and wonderous things are being discovered in canine health and there are so many other things which impact on the health and happiness of a dog - many of which we are just beginning to understand and learn about.Most of which depending on what our specialty is have more than one theory or solution.Most of which the experts are not in agreement on.

So many of the big deal things we see in our dogs are of a genetic nature but are also impacted by other things and many of them we still have little knowledge of the modes of inheritance or how we can identify those which may pass it on to future generations.

Obviously some of these things are caused because of their physical characteristics unique to their breed.If it turns out that Syringomelia is caused by small heads then breeders will need to establish a breeding protocol to get it gone from the breed but

if the best and quickest way to identify the cause, the mode of inheritance and the solution is to use tight in breeding for a generation or two in an educated and controlled way and a government has taken away the right for us to use that because they have banned close in breeding its a tool we cant use. Im not saying it is but we dont know and nor do they but they do know we rarely in breed because they have done studies on it recently using our pedigrees.Bringing in laws to stop us doing it under POCTAA is not only a waste of time because we rarely in bred this closely but because it takes away a tool we may need to eliminate a disease or a trait from a breed and by the time they work out that they have created a bigger problem it will be too late.

The same potential occurs if they follow the UK recommendation of putting in a welfare group over all things dog related - to make breeders answerable to people who dont breed but who are classified qualified because their group is known to work against animal cruelty for everything we do.

O.K. We get it we have work to do but these are things we have to be able to assess , analyse , put plans in place and work on without animal rights and government intevention because at this point that would be the very worst thing that could happen to our dogs.If it turns out that eliminating Syringomelia is as simple as breeding dogs with bigger skulls [ and I dont believe it is] then I promise the minute they know this breeders world wide will go into breed only dogs with bigger skulls.Co incidentalLy in my opinion one of the quickest ways of working this out would be to inbreed and do test matings in a controlled colony.

If they allow us to concentrate our energy on working out what we need to do to ensure we breed happy and healthy purebred dogs and not have to battle to prevent laws designed to control us, based on their limited experience, [which would limit our right to make the best decsions for our breeding programs] we can get on with what needs to be done.

All I know is that the Cavalier Heads ,here in Britain are Smaller than they were 20-25 years ago. Even the Cavalier Dogs now look Effeminate.

That a Geneticist here has suggested that Cavaliers with Larger Heads be MRI Scanned against those with Smaller Heads.

There is a EBV Program soon to be started in Britain, the Question will be ,what if the the Cavaliers with Biggar Heads are suggested for Cavalier Breeding Programs, but maybe will have no chance of Winning in the Show Scene, will the Cavalier Breeders be interested.

Professor Sir P Bateson's Report will be releasd in the Middle of January,I expect there will be more information coming from it.

Bet Hargreaves

Well I dont know what its like in other countries and no doubt there would be some breeders who are slow to get the message but Im absolutely positive no breeder who is a member of the MDBA would consider putting a championship over the health and future of their dogs or their breeds. If it came out that a small head was in fact responsible then most breeders would breed bigger heads and thats a promise.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Steve

[Jed]

I think there are very few Cavalier breeders who would breed if they thought there was even the smallest chance of a dog they bred having syringo. Most of the people producing dogs with syringo do it accidentally - because there is NO test, but I am sure that many people breeding are not aware of health issues.

And more than half the Cavalier grand champions in this country are larger - right up on the top end of the weight standard - so if it was proven that the smaller dogs were the ones with SM, I doubt that responsible breeders would have any problem using larger dogs.

However, numerous responsible registered cavalier breeders have decided not to breed further litters, because they are concerned about syringo, because they have no idea how to prevent it, and they have decided it is all too problematic.

More sales for the puppy farms.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Jed

[Souff]

And more than half the Cavalier grand champions in this country are larger - right up on the top end of the weight standard

Yes, some are quite large toys but at least they dont have SM.

Souff

[bet hargreaves]

And more than half the Cavalier grand champions in this country are larger - right up on the top end of the weight standard

Yes, some are quite large toys but at least they dont have SM.

Souff

Yes ,but the Large Toy Breeds were not like the Cavalier Breed ,who had their Heads Altered from the Dome Shape of the King Charles Spaniels in the 1930's, to get the Flat Head Shape required for Cavaliers .

Has this Alternation any-thing to do with the Malformed Bone(CM) that many Cavaliers have to-day.?

Bet Hargreaves

[Jed]

And more than half the Cavalier grand champions in this country are larger - right up on the top end of the weight standard

Yes, some are quite large toys but at least they dont have SM.

Souff

"Lap dogs" for those with larger laps. the big ones are great, I have a couple.

Zug Zug, I believe that responsible breeders, in all breeds, are doing and were always doing their very best for the welfare of their breeds. The health clinics conducted by the clubs are always well patronised, as responsible breeders are keen to have their dogs tested. Breeders are proud of cavs which are heart clear at 10, 11, 12 +. As proud of a BOB etc at a big show, as indeed they should be.

The irresponsible will simply continue to do as they wish, and they will not wish to learn or understand, or to replace dogs with health problems with the healthy, because they do not know about problems, or they know and do not care. A small proportion of these are registered, the majority are unregistered or puppy farms.

While TV shows and the public beat up responsible breeders,they become disheartened and walk away, leaving more pup sales for the others.

[Souff]

Yes ,but the Large Toy Breeds were not like the Cavalier Breed ,who had their Heads Altered from the Dome Shape of the King Charles Spaniels in the 1930's, to get the Flat Head Shape required for Cavaliers .

Has this Alternation any-thing to do with the Malformed Bone(CM) that many Cavaliers have to-day.?

Bet Hargreaves

Oh Bet, Souff is not a Cavalier specialist ... wish that I were ... I just have the joy of caring for some from time to time. Gorgeous, happy, feathered friends of mine :D

The bigger Cavvies that I am privileged to know are very well bred and have the Flat Head shape of which you speak. True Cavvies in every sense of the word, but if you value your back, you dont try and lift them up too high! Much better to sit down and let them climb all over you

Souff

[Souff]

And more than half the Cavalier grand champions in this country are larger - right up on the top end of the weight standard

Yes, some are quite large toys :D but at least they dont have SM.

Souff

"Lap dogs" for those with larger laps. the big ones are great, I have a couple.

They certainly are great dogs and seem to be very healthy. Great dishlickers

[sandgrubber]

I think it's too bad that Cav's have gotten so much attention in the debate. Yes they are an extreme example. But other breeds have a lot of problems. I was talking with a Basset breeder who said most Bassets have to be mated AI cause the boys are too heavy for the girls, and Ceasars were more common than not. Not that Bassets should be in the spotlight: just the discussion should include breeds not under the spotlight.

It seems to me that many breeds will develop unnatural and unsound physique if hundreds of generations are put to broader, narrower, higher, heavier, lighter, or whatever in any dimension . . . with the head being perhaps the most dangerous part to breed to extremes.

[Jed]

Ah, but quite a lot of other breeds have SM as well - Pomeranians, Poodles, Chihuahuas, Maltese, King Charles Spaniels (Ronald S Bagley DVM, DipACVIM,(Neurology & Internal Medicine) Washington State University, College of Veterinary Medicine Pullman), Bustons, Griffons, Shih Tzu, cross bred dogs and people.

And I do wonder about size. Size in Cavaliers, imho, is a bit problematic. Big ones throw small ones, and vice versa. Not having had a case, or seen a case, it's difficult to say anything much about size, although the size aspect does compute

ALL dogs potentially have problems. It wont matter how many tests we do, or what DNA we find, there will ALWAYS be animals with problems. Because they are animals.

We shouldn't take this lightly, but I think anyone wanting a pet should realise that there may be problems, no matter how careful and rigorous the breeder was.

Eg - 6 month old pup, well bred, all tests fine, collapsed. Diagnosis was some problem with the spine, which could not be repaired, not hereditary, not much known about it, no treatment, pts.

Also witness Charles Wentworth's dog. Not able to utilise calcium.

Researchers discovered the gene responisble for FN in cockers, and then it was discovered that there was another disease exactly the same, with the same results, and dogs which were clear of FN were throwing the second disease.

Patellas are another - even if there is a whole line of clear patellas, there is still the possibility of a dog developing patella problems.

Personally, I wouldn't mate dogs where I could not get a natural mating, and I would not continue with a line which could not free whelp.

The results of breeders wanting to impose their vision of "perfection" on an animal are all about us - Welsh Mountain ponies with froggy foreshortened faces, bulging eyes, and the bodies of miniature thoroughbreds instead of a hardy native pony, Arabians twisted out of all recognition, with enormous jibbas, ski jumps down their faces, and flaring nostrils so wide they would inhale all the desert sand and suffocate, dogs with so many furnishing they couldn't do their jobs, some breeds now so short legged that they couldn't run a mile.

But those are the extremes, and they tend to come and go, most breeders persist to breed what is right.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Jed

[Steve]

Our health survey is showing several breeds get SM including F1 crosses. Surely if it was a simple as head size they would have worked that out by now - especially in humans.

[mita]

Ofcom could only adjudicate on what was said in the BBC1 program....not comment on what was not said.

So Ofcom didn't point to what was ignored in the program. The extent of work the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club had done....& is still doing....re any health problems in the breed.

And there's a great account of that, in the Dog Genetic Health section of the Kennel Club website.

http://www.doggenetichealth.org/cavalier_k...paniel_club.php

In a later statement, the program producer said she's gone for examples that would whip up attention. Which means this program was not a documentary....which gives wide coverage of a subject. It was narrow strike & burn for effect

Imagine how different a true documentary would have been, if a full & accurate account of events re Cavs, had been given. Just as the Cav Club Chairperson describes.

Edited January 14, 2010 by mita

[mita]

Ah, but quite a lot of other breeds have SM as well - Pomeranians, Poodles, Chihuahuas, Maltese, King Charles Spaniels (Ronald S Bagley DVM, DipACVIM,(Neurology & Internal Medicine) Washington State University, College of Veterinary Medicine Pullman), Bustons, Griffons, Shih Tzu, cross bred dogs and people.

.

I followed your reference & it was interesting. SM is not a breed specific problem., but also found in some other smaller breeds...& with more domed heads, too! And not even just a dog problem. It said in the CKCS, SM can be associated with an abnormality in the occipital bone. No mention, specifically, of head size/general conformation in making a diagnosis....but just gave details of the difference with this bone.

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:M0Bmw...p;client=safari

More evidence for how shallow & narrow that BBC program was.

Edited January 14, 2010 by mita

[Jed]

I know, Mita. SM is not a breed specific problem - although the incidence appears to be higher in CKCS. But, perhaps that is because the breeders have poured a lot of money into research, and the clubs have encouraged their members (ie, Cavalier owners and breeders) to have scans done. Whether the results are higher for CKCS, because of this, or because they do have more SM, I don't know. I'd have to say "maybe" because the research has been concentrated on Cavs. Claire Rusbridge's site features Cavs,because the Cav club has been supporting her research, but other sites in other countries seem to have a broader span of breeds

I suspect a lot of dogs are pts without a diagnosis being made. Most vets have never seen SM, and wouldn't recognize it. The only way to diagnose is via MRI, which is expensive.

That documentary was absolute (excuse me) crap. Unfortunately, people ("the public") believed it.

They seem to be more inclined to believe the doco than breeders. That's a huge worry in itself. I shouted myself hoarse here, but no one believed.

But for people like you who are prepared to do the reseach, the truth is revealed.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. After the documentary, several cav pups were put down for scratching and whining. The vets diagnosed SM at 3 and 4 months. Because they had seen the doco, and decided thes symptoms fitted. As you know, no symptoms appear until later. The breeders who bred the pups are choking! And I am sure there would be more pups which the same thing has happened to.

Unfortunately, dog owners who wouldn't know SM if it bit them are now diagnosing it in every cavalier with a back problem, or which scratches.

And a few of our most reputable cav breeders have been put off by comments from the public engendered by the doco, and wont breed any more cavs. So much damage, everywhere, and such significant damage.

Just another step on the road to the end.

*sigh*

Doco did so much damage.