Latest News On Syringomyelia In Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.

[JESSIE]

So if 1 in 4 pups will have SM from 'A' parents, do you then stop breeding the parents when they have their statistical 4th pup that has SM?

If this is the case then there would be no dogs left to breed once they all had their 4th affected pup correct? (Ok there might be the odd dog that never produces it but you can substain a breed with a few odd dogs).

Do I understand the prognosis correctly?

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' You take the one pup out of 4 which is not an 'a' and cull it (not the parents)and only breed on with any '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

[shortstep]

So if 1 in 4 pups will have SM from 'A' parents, do you then stop breeding the parents when they have their statistical 4th pup that has SM?

If this is the case then there would be no dogs left to breed once they all had their 4th affected pup correct? (Ok there might be the odd dog that never produces it but you can substain a breed with a few odd dogs).

Do I understand the prognosis correctly?

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' You take the one pup out of 4 which is not an 'a' and cull it (not the parents)and only breed on with any '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

Wow! I guess you told me off and what a told off it is! You must feel much better now.

You know I asked this same question right off and Bet never answered it. Guess she thought it was too incredulous to answer too.

I do not breed Cavs, never owned one and am no expert on the breed. So yes the world can have a good laugh at me trying to figure out if 1 in 4 affected pups is an acceptable breeding plan. BTW I also do not know what folks in the UK think is the right thing to do as far as breeding parents you know produce the disease. So with your kind and educational words I now know that is in fact recommend to keep breeding 'A' cavs that have produced SM. Yes I can see why you think people are laughing at me for asking such a silly question.

However, I would not be able to breed a litter if I thought 1 in 4 were going to be affected.

Even if I knew you and the whole world were laughing at me, I would just not be able to bring myself to breed the parents again if they had produced it. Good thing I am not a cav breeder, eh.

BTW are you a breeder of 'A' Cavs producing 1 in 4 affected pups with SM?

PS I have never shown a dog in my life and never will, so not sure why you are chastising me for that. But I will hang my head in shame away.

Have a nice evening. Ta

Edited November 13, 2010 by shortstep

[Dellcara]

Scan your dogs or stop breeding them.These excuses and ill informed remarks disgust me and it is diabolical that you pretend to care.

WOW !!! so the majority of all Cavalier breeders in Australia should stop breeding immediately?

What breed do you have?

[JESSIE]

Shortstep Your assertion that you would find breeding dogs @ 1 in 4 which may be affected unacceptable but justifying why a breeder is not testing and possibly breeding every one affected is unfathomable.

Rather than embrace this breeders tender exculpation and make statements publicly which pretend to give alibi for breeding with dogs which are not MRI scanned because it is difficult to get them to the machine, it costs too much money it is not in their lines they have never seen it Australia is not the United Kingdom and is different and there is no point because 1 in 4 will still be affected Nothing more than transparent futile exercises in self justification and the world can see itThey make purebred breeders look like simpletons needing legislation

Dogs in this country are affected and they are being bred with and if the purebred dog world is in trouble the breeders who participate in this dictatorial scandalisation expose themselves but they bring the entire purebred dog fraternity into disrepute

Dellcara There is no credible excuse The breed is in trouble and science is giving us a way forward to lessen the numbers of miserable lives Scan the dogs only breed A or don’t breed themIt is what people have expected from you all in accordance with the crescendo and chant of betterment of the breed

[centitout]

Jessie,just because you know how to use a lot of big words which you can express so eloquently(as do I-Dux of my school!!) it doesnt mean you know what the hell you are talking about.When you have been a breeder for a few years,then maybe you can express your opinion .

NO ONE is denying health problems that cavs have,but testing alone will NOT guarantee the problem can be obliterated,that is what Jed and Dellcara are trying to get across to the people who are not breeders themselves.

If testing alone were all that was necessary to eliminate diseases,HD as an example wouldnt be expressed in a dog that is bred from parents,grandparents etc that are all tested.0:0 to 0:0 doesnt guarantee a pup wont one day be affected.

Sometimes,a breeder of many years experience that knows their lines inside out and back to front,keeps track of health in the puppies they breed,are as ethical as they come(JED )are of more use to a breed,and have more knowledge in their little finger,than most people have on this entire forum and you want them to stop breeding because they question the use of being told who to mate their dog to, to reduce(although from the results,1 in 4 pups would still be affected anyway)SM?

That shows how much you DONT know about dog breeding.

No one except the puppy farmers would want to breed this breed anymore,and according to the vitriolic outbursts on here ,I dont blame them.Goodbye Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.

[Dellcara]

Scan the dogs only breed A or don’t breed

Even the 'experts" don't propose such a dramatic stance.

[JESSIE]

Scan the dogs only breed A or don’t breed

Even the 'experts" don't propose such a dramatic stance.

As a breeder what is your plan to eradicate this lamentable wretched disease from your breed?

[Dellcara]

Scan the dogs only breed A or don’t breed

Even the 'experts" don't propose such a dramatic stance.

As a breeder what is your plan to eradicate this lamentable wretched disease from your breed?

if you have read this entire thread you will know what I said very early on ...

"There is no denying there is a problem in the breed - we can only do as we have always done and that is

to use the tools available to us if possible."

[shortstep]

Shortstep Your assertion that you would find breeding dogs @ 1 in 4 which may be affected unacceptable but justifying why a breeder is not testing and possibly breeding every one affected is unfathomable.

Rather than embrace this breeders tender exculpation and make statements publicly which pretend to give alibi for breeding with dogs which are not MRI scanned because it is difficult to get them to the machine, it costs too much money it is not in their lines they have never seen it Australia is not the United Kingdom and is different and there is no point because 1 in 4 will still be affected Nothing more than transparent futile exercises in self justification and the world can see itThey make purebred breeders look like simpletons needing legislation

Dogs in this country are affected and they are being bred with and if the purebred dog world is in trouble the breeders who participate in this dictatorial scandalisation expose themselves but they bring the entire purebred dog fraternity into disrepute

You love to attack, but fail again to deal in reality. Don't you feel even a bit silly for your first attack on me which was all assumption on your part and all wrong?

So here you go again and you are wrong again.

Read this..... I have never said that breeders should not test, nor ever questioned if testing should be done. You are yet again accusing me of things that are in your mind only and not real. So lets see if you can apologies this time for attacking me for something I have not said.

Now if we can be in real world for a few seconds and get out of Pedigree Dogs Exposed Relived.

I notice you did not answer if you are a breeder of Cavs or any breed or even own this breed?

If you really are breeding Cavs,

You said that the offspring should be screened and cull the affected 1 in 4 offspring.

When do you screen all your pups you produce?

How old are the pups when you do this/what is the youngest age they can be screened?

Do you do this prior to placing them so the owners know their pup is not affected?

What is it costing you to do this per pup?

Are in fact 1 in 4 of your puppies affected?

Is this 1 in 4 rate consistent across all of your bloodlines, another words do you have any line that has not produced at the 1 in 4 rate?

These are questions that deserve answers if you expect anyone to listen to you about how to breed cavs.

Edited November 13, 2010 by shortstep

[JESSIE]

Shortstep Your assertion that you would find breeding dogs @ 1 in 4 which may be affected unacceptable but justifying why a breeder is not testing and possibly breeding every one affected is unfathomable.

Rather than embrace this breeders tender exculpation and make statements publicly which pretend to give alibi for breeding with dogs which are not MRI scanned because it is difficult to get them to the machine, it costs too much money it is not in their lines they have never seen it Australia is not the United Kingdom and is different and there is no point because 1 in 4 will still be affected Nothing more than transparent futile exercises in self justification and the world can see itThey make purebred breeders look like simpletons needing legislation

Dogs in this country are affected and they are being bred with and if the purebred dog world is in trouble the breeders who participate in this dictatorial scandalisation expose themselves but they bring the entire purebred dog fraternity into disrepute

You love to attack, but fail again to deal in reality. Don't you feel even a bit silly for your first attack on me which was all assumption on your part and all wrong?

So here you go again and you are wrong again.

Read this..... I have never said that breeders should not test, nor ever questioned if testing should be done. You are yet again accusing me of things that are in your mind only and not real. So lets see if you can apologies this time for attacking me for something I have not said.

Now if we can be in real world for a few seconds and get out of Pedigree Dogs Exposed Relived.

I notice you did not answer if you are a breeder of Cavs or any breed or even own this breed?

If you really are breeding Cavs,

You said that the offspring should be screened and cull the affected 1 in 4 offspring.

When do you screen all your pups you produce?

How old are the pups when you do this/what is the youngest age they can be screened?

Do you do this prior to placing them so the owners know their pup is not affected?

What is it costing you to do this per pup?

Are in fact 1 in 4 of your puppies affected?

Is this 1 in 4 rate consistent across all of your bloodlines, another words do you have any line that has not produced at the 1 in 4 rate?

These are questions that deserve answers if you expect anyone to listen to you about how to breed cavs.

[JESSIE]

Shortstep Your assertion that you would find breeding dogs @ 1 in 4 which may be affected unacceptable but justifying why a breeder is not testing and possibly breeding every one affected is unfathomable.

Rather than embrace this breeders tender exculpation and make statements publicly which pretend to give alibi for breeding with dogs which are not MRI scanned because it is difficult to get them to the machine, it costs too much money it is not in their lines they have never seen it Australia is not the United Kingdom and is different and there is no point because 1 in 4 will still be affected Nothing more than transparent futile exercises in self justification and the world can see itThey make purebred breeders look like simpletons needing legislation

Dogs in this country are affected and they are being bred with and if the purebred dog world is in trouble the breeders who participate in this dictatorial scandalisation expose themselves but they bring the entire purebred dog fraternity into disrepute

You love to attack, but fail again to deal in reality. Don't you feel even a bit silly for your first attack on me which was all assumption on your part and all wrong?

So here you go again and you are wrong again.

Read this..... I have never said that breeders should not test, nor ever questioned if testing should be done. You are yet again accusing me of things that are in your mind only and not real. So lets see if you can apologies this time for attacking me for something I have not said.

Now if we can be in real world for a few seconds and get out of Pedigree Dogs Exposed Relived.

I notice you did not answer if you are a breeder of Cavs or any breed or even own this breed?

If you really are breeding Cavs,

You said that the offspring should be screened and cull the affected 1 in 4 offspring.

When do you screen all your pups you produce?

How old are the pups when you do this/what is the youngest age they can be screened?

Do you do this prior to placing them so the owners know their pup is not affected?

What is it costing you to do this per pup?

Are in fact 1 in 4 of your puppies affected?

Is this 1 in 4 rate consistent across all of your bloodlines, another words do you have any line that has not produced at the 1 in 4 rate?

These are questions that deserve answers if you expect anyone to listen to you about how to breed cavs.

Shortstep if this is a serious question the answer obviously is that You scan dogs which you have selected for breeding prior to breeding and if they are not A discard them If breeders are only breeding certified A then there is a 75 percent chance that the dog you have selected from these matings is an A as it comes from two A parents. Some will need to be culled and disappoint which were considered but a minority only Without reservation this is preferable to potluck

[JESSIE]

Scan the dogs only breed A or don’t breed

Even the 'experts" don't propose such a dramatic stance.

As a breeder what is your plan to eradicate this lamentable wretched disease from your breed?

if you have read this entire thread you will know what I said very early on ...

"There is no denying there is a problem in the breed - we can only do as we have always done and that is

to use the tools available to us if possible."

Exceptionally though breeders do not want to utilise or advocate the use of the one new tool which is available (albeit challenging to get to and pay for) The researchers and scientists advocate this to be the most important advance so far in how to remedy the problem with published protocol recommendations As you have always done has produced a breed on the edge of extinction You are mistaken if you scan and only breed with A There is hope there is no sense in research and recommendations if breeders use their delusions of grandeur to avoid having to be inconvenienced or accountable

[Jed]

So if 1 in 4 pups will have SM from 'A' parents, do you then stop breeding the parents when they have their statistical 4th pup that has SM?

If this is the case then there would be no dogs left to breed once they all had their 4th affected pup correct? (Ok there might be the odd dog that never produces it but you can substain a breed with a few odd dogs).

Do I understand the prognosis correctly?

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

You take the one pup out of 4 which is not an 'a' and cull it (not the parents)and only breed on with any 'a'

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.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Jed

[shortstep]

Shortstep if this is a serious question the answer obviously is that You scan dogs which you have selected for breeding prior to breeding and if they are not A discard them If breeders are only breeding certified A then there is a 75 percent chance that the dog you have selected from these matings is an A as it comes from two A parents. Some will need to be culled and disappoint which were considered but a minority only Without reservation this is preferable to potluck

Last chance to answer my question. You do not answer it this time, then I will 'assume' you are an animal rights activist and are here to cause harm to purebred dog breeds and their breeders.

Do you breed Cavs?

BTW you seem to have a comprehension problem (which might be due to agitatited state you are in).

I was not asking about selecting parents, which you have already instructed me on and I already understood.

I was asking about offspring. Your statement that they are screened and the affected pups are culled.

See that is the reality of breeding dogs, if you are really a dog breeder you would also be dealing with the need to prevent placing an affected pup into a new home. This is just one part of the reality of dog breeding and has nothing to do with the reality of an animal rights activist going off on a breeder bashing frenzy.

I also note that you can dish it out but you never admit when you are wrong.

As a long term breeder, I would warn others. You are not a person I would want guiding me on important dog breeding decisions. I want the information I am given to be corrected if need be. People who can not admit they messed up and made a bunch of assumptions that were wrong, is a potentially very dangerous person to listen to when making important decisions.

Edited November 14, 2010 by shortstep

[shortstep]

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 would rack up the costs too.

Wonder if Jessie came direct from forums un UK to back her friend Bet?

Thanks Jed, nice to get a simple calm clear asnwer. Yours is the voice of reason and experience!

[Rebanne]

Shortstep Your assertion that you would find breeding dogs @ 1 in 4 which may be affected unacceptable but justifying why a breeder is not testing and possibly breeding every one affected is unfathomable.

Rather than embrace this breeders tender exculpation and make statements publicly which pretend to give alibi for breeding with dogs which are not MRI scanned because it is difficult to get them to the machine, it costs too much money it is not in their lines they have never seen it Australia is not the United Kingdom and is different and there is no point because 1 in 4 will still be affected Nothing more than transparent futile exercises in self justification and the world can see itThey make purebred breeders look like simpletons needing legislation

Dogs in this country are affected and they are being bred with and if the purebred dog world is in trouble the breeders who participate in this dictatorial scandalisation expose themselves but they bring the entire purebred dog fraternity into disrepute

You love to attack, but fail again to deal in reality. Don't you feel even a bit silly for your first attack on me which was all assumption on your part and all wrong?

So here you go again and you are wrong again.

Read this..... I have never said that breeders should not test, nor ever questioned if testing should be done. You are yet again accusing me of things that are in your mind only and not real. So lets see if you can apologies this time for attacking me for something I have not said.

Now if we can be in real world for a few seconds and get out of Pedigree Dogs Exposed Relived.

I notice you did not answer if you are a breeder of Cavs or any breed or even own this breed?

If you really are breeding Cavs,

You said that the offspring should be screened and cull the affected 1 in 4 offspring.

When do you screen all your pups you produce?

How old are the pups when you do this/what is the youngest age they can be screened?

Do you do this prior to placing them so the owners know their pup is not affected?

What is it costing you to do this per pup?

Are in fact 1 in 4 of your puppies affected?

Is this 1 in 4 rate consistent across all of your bloodlines, another words do you have any line that has not produced at the 1 in 4 rate?

These are questions that deserve answers if you expect anyone to listen to you about how to breed cavs.

Shortstep if this is a serious question the answer obviously is that You scan dogs which you have selected for breeding prior to breeding and if they are not A discard them If breeders are only breeding certified A then there is a 75 percent chance that the dog you have selected from these matings is an A as it comes from two A parents. Some will need to be culled and disappoint which were considered but a minority only Without reservation this is preferable to potluck

Jessie it would be very nice if you could actually answer the questions shortstop has asked. What age do you test the puppies, do you keep them all until after the have tested clear or do you sell them to families prior to testing? What compensation do you give to familes if their pup is the 1 in 4?

[HollyMilo]

Jessie

You take the one pup out of 4 which is not an 'a' and cull it (not the parents)and only breed on with any 'a'

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 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

Edited November 14, 2010 by HollyMilo

[shortstep]

Speaking of making assumptions and then finding your were wrong.

For some time, when people said this is Australia and things are different here, I used think that was just an excuse (as mentioned by Jessie), not sure if I ever said how I felt. But at any rate it come to mind again now and is time to clear this up.

Over the last couple of years I have found a couple of cases where there is clear evidence that isolated gene pools (in Australia) are different to other gene pools.

In one case enough genetically different from northern hemi gene pool as to be notable.

In another case a disease present in one geographical group of dogs and can not be found in the other group (with DNA testing).

So yes it can be very different situation in isolated gene pools of dogs around the world.

It is too bad there is not more listening going on instead of attacking.

It certainly could be that the OZ cavs have a lower rate of carriers or even a different expression pattern of this disease, in either case this could be very helpful in fighting the disease. Could it be that the way to improve cavs in right here in OZ?

Oh that right I forgot, I am just some nasty uncaring dino dog breeder, so take it for what it is worth.

[JESSIE]

Jessie

You take the one pup out of 4 which is not an 'a' and cull it (not the parents)and only breed on with any 'a'

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 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

[shortstep]

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?

Can either of you not shit stirrers show me where someone said that they refuse to test their dogs or that they are breeding dogs with scores lower than 'A".

The only place I have seen that said is by the not shit stirrers.