Latest News On Syringomyelia In Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.

[shortstep]

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?

Just need to clarify what do you mean by 'affected dogs', do you mean breed only 'A' tested dogs?

sorry i should be more careful posting. i meant we should be breeding with only A tested dogs because that would ensure we were doing the best we could to halt this disease. However, until your question is answered we are flying blind.

As I tried to explain before, you will not find any genetic experts in dog breeding making that recommendation as it is clear it would wipe out the breed in short order.

So far I have looked at several countries in europe which are held to the hightest standards for breeding plans and none of them have recommended only breeding A dogs and rightly so.

Ok if that is what you believe and want for the breed, but I strongly disagree and will not support that mission.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

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?

Just need to clarify what do you mean by 'affected dogs', do you mean breed only 'A' tested dogs?

sorry i should be more careful posting. i meant we should be breeding with only A tested dogs because that would ensure we were doing the best we could to halt this disease. However, until your question is answered we are flying blind.

As I tried to explain before, you will not find any genetic experts in dog breeding making that recommendation as it is clear it would wipe out the breed in short order.

So far I have looked at several countries in europe which are held to the hightest standards for breeding plans and none of them have recommended only breeding A dogs and rightly so.

Ok if that is what you believe and want for the breed, but I strongly disagree and will not support that mission.

i agree with you that it wont work..BUT i do think we need to know whether 2 A's would produce all non-affected puppies. i see that as significant information and quite important in trying to understand this disease.

sorry for the confusion i am still trying to get my head around this and thank you all for your patience and help.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[Jed]

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.

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

i agree with you that it wont work..BUT i do think we need to know whether 2 A's would produce all non-affected puppies. i see that as significant information and quite important in trying to understand this disease.

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.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jed

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

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.

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

[Jed]

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.

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.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jed

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

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.

jed, sorry i am a bit confused with this bit in your post. you feel your boy is an A and you had him mri'd but you can't advertise him as such.

can i ask why not? did the mri match with your gut feeling?

do you know whether any of his progeny are affected by SM or are they all to young?

just trying to get a feel for what is happening

I had him mri'd for my own interest. Because I felt that he was most likely clear and I wanted to know for certain that he had no syrinxes. Just cause I am wanted to know, and yes my gut feeling was right, the vets couldn't find any syrinxes or abnormalities.

I don't stand the dogs at stud, or advertise them. He has been used by me and a few of my friends.

The scan was "read" by specialist experienced vets, but not by a specialist neuro vet who is officiallly qualified to read them. So I think I could not advertise him as an "A", but as he is not available at stud, it doesn't matter. And I only had the scan done for my own interest.

He has 1 litter of about 12 months, 2 of 18 months, all the rest of his progeny are over 2 - none of them have exhibited any symptoms at all.

I am in semi-regular contact with the people who bought my pups, and I have a few daughters. By 2 years there probably should be a good indication, although the upper age is given as 2.5.

Hope that makes sense. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my earlier post.

There is, as far as I know, no SM in his lines, and his eldest pups are 5 or 6 with no problems, and neither he nor them has any visible signs of SM either .

thank you Jed, much appreciated.

it seems that this is a very difficult issue to come to terms with.

[Jed]

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.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jed

[bet hargreaves]

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.

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.

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS

If I could answer Jed's Post,where she mentioned that the Cavalier Buying Public should not have been made aware about the Two Serious Health Problems afflicting Our Cavaliers , I think that the Folk Buying Cavaliers should be being made aware about those Problems, then it will follow on that the Question is being asked of Cavalier Breeders ,are they Health Testing and following the Cavalier Breeding Recomendations on their Cavalier Breeding Stock, and if the Cavalier Breeders are not doing this, then any-one wanting a Cavalier should go to a Cavalier Breeder who is doing this.What else can be being done at the moment.?

Bet Hargreaves

[shortstep]

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS

You are so right Bet. The breeders need to scan every dog they breed and only breed A to A dogs and the public needs to be warned!

Thanks for posting this here in Australia so everyone knows the latest news.

Edited November 16, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

Takes two sides I think - We could have said "Thanks Bet we know this and we are onto it" too.

Mistakes from both sides I think.

[LizT]

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS

You are so right Bet. The breeders need to scan every dog they breed and only breed A to A dogs and the public needs to be warned!

Thanks for posting this here in Australia so everyone knows the latest news.

And would that be A to A dogs with grade 6 heart murmers, Retinal Dysplasia, cow hocks, undershot jaws, slipping patellars and epilepsy????

Don't throw the dog out with the bath water.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS

You are so right Bet. The breeders need to scan every dog they breed and only breed A to A dogs and the public needs to be warned!

Thanks for posting this here in Australia so everyone knows the latest news.

And would that be A to A dogs with grade 6 heart murmers, Retinal Dysplasia, cow hocks, undershot jaws, slipping patellars and epilepsy????

Don't throw the dog out with the bath water.

i don't think poking fun at anyone helps.

bet has obviously felt the burden of having dogs that have this disease and that cant be easy.

this post is accessible to the public because it is in the news section so remember everyone who wants to can read this.

maybe we need to start taking this seriously and not sticking our heads in the sand.

the problem cannot be so overwhelming that nothing gets done.

[LizT]

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS

You are so right Bet. The breeders need to scan every dog they breed and only breed A to A dogs and the public needs to be warned!

Thanks for posting this here in Australia so everyone knows the latest news.

And would that be A to A dogs with grade 6 heart murmers, Retinal Dysplasia, cow hocks, undershot jaws, slipping patellars and epilepsy????

Don't throw the dog out with the bath water.

i don't think poking fun at anyone helps.

bet has obviously felt the burden of having dogs that have this disease and that cant be easy.

this post is accessible to the public because it is in the news section so remember everyone who wants to can read this.

maybe we need to start taking this seriously and not sticking our heads in the sand.

the problem cannot be so overwhelming that nothing gets done.

Who's poking fun?? I'm deadly serious.

Clearly we wouldn't want to use any animal with these defects thus depleting the gene pool even further.

SM won't be the demise of the CKCS, over reaction and an attempt to "legislate" a way out of the problem will be.

So here's a hypothetical for you.

What if...and this is a what if..

An enlarge syrinx is an anomally of the breed and peculiar to it. Somewhat like a Cavaliers blood platelet count.

You know the one where a cavalier has larger sized and smaller amount of blood platelets than other breeds.

This is an innocent anomaly for the CKCS but would be considered abnormal in other breeds.

One, not knowing this could think that the dog has thrombocytopenia, which of course it hasn't.

So what if this enlarged syrinx, on rare occassions manifests as SM, causing upteen problems in that poor individual dog, due to it's skull structure of whatever reasons cause one dog to be affected and not the next.

Cavaliers do have a number of pecularities distinct to them. They bum scoot despite not having any gland problems or worms, why? Because they do. They like high places, and enjoy perching like cats, yet they are dogs.

Clearly more research needs to be done before we start making 'rules' about which dog A, B C or D etc. can be bred with which dog A, B, C or D and who can breed with whom, regardless of any syptomatic disease in it's pedigree.

So no, I'm not poking fun.

[Are You Serious Jo]

So what if this enlarged syrinx, on rare occassions manifests as SM, causing upteen problems in that poor individual dog, due to it's skull structure of whatever reasons cause one dog to be affected and not the next.

That's what I was thinking, what if you threw out dogs who had a syrinx and it proved to be a harmless co-occurrence?

[Dellcara]

You are so right Bet. The breeders need to scan every dog they breed and only breed A to A dogs and the public needs to be warned!

Thanks for posting this here in Australia so everyone knows the latest news.

We could go round and round in circles about what should be done (in fact we already have on this topic) ....

Even the experts don't demand limiting breeding only A's to A's.

Yes, the public needs to be aware of ANY problem in a breed. In my opinion most are - by far the majority of enquiries I get are

from people who have thoroughly researched the breed.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Dellcara

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

sorry lizt the posts came across as sarcastic, my apologies.

i dont think anyone is saying to only breed 2 A's.

what i am saying is that i don't think it is good enough for breeders to say they "think" their dogs are ok and then breed from them without really knowing because we are no better off if that happens, we have learnt nothing

if there is something that can be done, even though it is flawed, the general public will feel that breeders are trying to hide something by not having the dogs scanned.

i think all dogs should be scanned but with careful breeding (not just 2 A's together) and scanning of progeny just maybe we would have enough data to figure out what is happening.

i used to be a social worker and when i talked to the community about child abuse here are the reactions i got when i asked them to help stop abuse:

1. denial (child abuse doesn't happen)

2. limited acceptance (child abuse happens but not to people i know)

3. acceptance (child abuse happens and could happen to someone i know)

4. overwhelmed (child abuse happens and happens to people i know and the problem is so big i can't do anything to help stop it happening)

5. action (child abuse happens, can happen to people i know but if we work together there are things we can do to help stop it happening)

seems to me we could exchange the words child abuse to SM and the reactions may be the same when discussing this issue

[LizT]

sorry lizt the posts came across as sarcastic, my apologies.

i dont think anyone is saying to only breed 2 A's.

what i am saying is that i don't think it is good enough for breeders to say they "think" their dogs are ok and then breed from them without really knowing because we are no better off if that happens, we have learnt nothing

if there is something that can be done, even though it is flawed, the general public will feel that breeders are trying to hide something by not having the dogs scanned.

i think all dogs should be scanned but with careful breeding (not just 2 A's together) and scanning of progeny just maybe we would have enough data to figure out what is happening.

i used to be a social worker and when i talked to the community about child abuse here are the reactions i got when i asked them to help stop abuse:

1. denial (child abuse doesn't happen)

2. limited acceptance (child abuse happens but not to people i know)

3. acceptance (child abuse happens and could happen to someone i know)

4. overwhelmed (child abuse happens and happens to people i know and the problem is so big i can't do anything to help stop it happening)

5. action (child abuse happens, can happen to people i know but if we work together there are things we can do to help stop it happening)

seems to me we could exchange the words child abuse to SM and the reactions may be the same when discussing this issue

As Dellcara says, it is a topic that goes round and round in circles, with all agreeing it is a good idea to do "something".

That we are aware of it is a start. I think careful observation (awareness) is a crucial factor in any problem. Perhaps that is where abused children are let down, no one want to 'see that it happens'. Unfortunately your analogy differs greatly in one important fact, SM isn't, (well at least we don't think it is), environmental. I believe Child abuse is.

Shortstep suggested breeding only A to A's, hence my diminishing gene pool comment.

Let's now let this sit as it is until we have more information.

Edited November 17, 2010 by LizT

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

sorry lizt the posts came across as sarcastic, my apologies.

i dont think anyone is saying to only breed 2 A's.

what i am saying is that i don't think it is good enough for breeders to say they "think" their dogs are ok and then breed from them without really knowing because we are no better off if that happens, we have learnt nothing

if there is something that can be done, even though it is flawed, the general public will feel that breeders are trying to hide something by not having the dogs scanned.

i think all dogs should be scanned but with careful breeding (not just 2 A's together) and scanning of progeny just maybe we would have enough data to figure out what is happening.

i used to be a social worker and when i talked to the community about child abuse here are the reactions i got when i asked them to help stop abuse:

1. denial (child abuse doesn't happen)

2. limited acceptance (child abuse happens but not to people i know)

3. acceptance (child abuse happens and could happen to someone i know)

4. overwhelmed (child abuse happens and happens to people i know and the problem is so big i can't do anything to help stop it happening)

5. action (child abuse happens, can happen to people i know but if we work together there are things we can do to help stop it happening)

seems to me we could exchange the words child abuse to SM and the reactions may be the same when discussing this issue

As Dellcara says, it is a topic that goes round and round in circles, with all agreeing it is a good idea to do "something".

That we are aware of it is a start. I think careful observation (awareness) is a crucial factor in any problem. Perhaps that is where abused children are let down, no one want to 'see that it happens'. Unfortunately your analogy differs greatly in one important fact, SM isn't, (well at least we don't think it is), environmental. I believe Child abuse is.

Shortstep suggested breeding only A to A's, hence my diminishing gene pool comment.

Let's now let this sit as it is until we have more information.

agreed

[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.

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.

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS

If I could answer Jed's Post,where she mentioned that the Cavalier Buying Public should not have been made aware about the Two Serious Health Problems afflicting Our Cavaliers , I think that the Folk Buying Cavaliers should be being made aware about those Problems, then it will follow on that the Question is being asked of Cavalier Breeders ,are they Health Testing and following the Cavalier Breeding Recomendations on their Cavalier Breeding Stock, and if the Cavalier Breeders are not doing this, then any-one wanting a Cavalier should go to a Cavalier Breeder who is doing this.What else can be being done at the moment.?

Bet Hargreaves

HOW DARE YOU MISQUOTE ME? CAN'T YOU READ? IF YOU THINK THAT IS WHAT I SAID, I THINK YOU NEED GO BACK TO GRADE 2 - AND LEARN COMPREHENSION.

BUT YOU DID UNDERSTAND WHAT I WROTE. YOU ARE SIMPLY CAUSING TROUBLE AGAIN.

YOU CONSTANTLY VISIT FORUMS AND LIST, MISQUOTING INFORMATION UNTIL YOU ARE BANISHED AND THEN YOU CHOOSE ANOTHER ONE.

YOUR INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT BAN THE BREEDING OF CAVALIERS, AND I REALLY DO THINK YOU MAY ACHIEVE IT.

It's always been too easy to sit on the sidelines and ridicule those doing the work, without contributing one iota to it. It's easy to criticise, Bet, but it is more difficult to do it - and do it right.

I don't see any evidence anywhere that you have done anything good for the breed at all. All you do is try to bring it down. Incidentally, you didn't answer my post, all you did s misquote me. Not good enough, try to bring a modicom of commonsense and worthwhile information to the discussion, will you?? The "latest news" is either the old news rehashed to suit your machievellian design, or more up to date news, skewed your way.

Yep, Delcara is correct, we have been around the SM mulberry bush so many times that many of us are giddy.

Bottom line is that no one has much idea why SM happens, no one has much idea how to prevent it, breeders are doing all they can to provide dogs for scanning so that the way forward may be clearer - at their expense. People like Bet Hargraves sit on the sidelines, contribute nothing, but snivel and complain.

Jaxxs Buddy

i think all dogs should be scanned but with careful breeding (not just 2 A's together) and scanning of progeny just maybe we would have enough data to figure out what is happening.

Realistically, consider the expense. Breeders in Sydney can take advantage of the scanner which the Cavalier breeders obtained so dogs in Aus could be scanned (Please note, Bet Hargraves, feel free to contribute some funds towards the purchase of the next one? They aren't cheap, and as you seem to have so much to say, I am sure you would like to help us out here. We'd all be grateful.).

However, for anyone not near Sydney, you can say min of $1500, max of $2000. Use $2000 as the figure - pretty well everyone charges about $1400, getting yourself and dog to Sydney, accommodation, blah blah. $2000. So $4000 to scan the parents. 4 pups, wait until they are 2.5 yrs, scan them, $8000. So you have coughed up $12000 just in scans. Looks good - except - if as LizT says, scans dont indicate anything. $12,000 is a lot of money to spend - and still not be able to guarantee that if you breed the parents, or the pups, they will not throw SM. You couldn't even guarantee that the pups would continue to be A past 2.5 years.

And you are currently paying to have all you dogs heart scanned annually by a specialist cardiologist. You have had the patellas of the parents checked, and x rayed if your vet wasn't 100% confident with his examination.

This is a minority disease in this country amongst registered cavaliers. Yes, it does crop up occasionally, but so does mega oesophagus, non hereditary heart murmurs, leukemia, and auto immune diseases which have no hereditary component. Now, Bet, you can scuttle whereever you wish, and tell everyone and anyone you like that I am against MRI-ing. Good luck to you.

As this was brought to the public domain, I think it is much better if "the public" and dog owners are given correct information.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

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.

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.

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS

If I could answer Jed's Post,where she mentioned that the Cavalier Buying Public should not have been made aware about the Two Serious Health Problems afflicting Our Cavaliers , I think that the Folk Buying Cavaliers should be being made aware about those Problems, then it will follow on that the Question is being asked of Cavalier Breeders ,are they Health Testing and following the Cavalier Breeding Recomendations on their Cavalier Breeding Stock, and if the Cavalier Breeders are not doing this, then any-one wanting a Cavalier should go to a Cavalier Breeder who is doing this.What else can be being done at the moment.?

Bet Hargreaves

HOW DARE YOU MISQUOTE ME? CAN'T YOU READ? IF YOU THINK THAT IS WHAT I SAID, I THINK YOU NEED GO BACK TO GRADE 2 - AND LEARN COMPREHENSION.

BUT YOU DID UNDERSTAND WHAT I WROTE. YOU ARE SIMPLY CAUSING TROUBLE AGAIN.

YOU CONSTANTLY VISIT FORUMS AND LIST, MISQUOTING INFORMATION UNTIL YOU ARE BANISHED AND THEN YOU CHOOSE ANOTHER ONE.

YOUR INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT BAN THE BREEDING OF CAVALIERS, AND I REALLY DO THINK YOU MAY ACHIEVE IT.

It's always been too easy to sit on the sidelines and ridicule those doing the work, without contributing one iota to it. It's easy to criticise, Bet, but it is more difficult to do it - and do it right.

I don't see any evidence anywhere that you have done anything good for the breed at all. All you do is try to bring it down. Incidentally, you didn't answer my post, all you did s misquote me. Not good enough, try to bring a modicom of commonsense and worthwhile information to the discussion, will you?? The "latest news" is either the old news rehashed to suit your machievellian design, or more up to date news, skewed your way.

Yep, Delcara is correct, we have been around the SM mulberry bush so many times that many of us are giddy.

Bottom line is that no one has much idea why SM happens, no one has much idea how to prevent it, breeders are doing all they can to provide dogs for scanning so that the way forward may be clearer - at their expense. People like Bet Hargraves sit on the sidelines, contribute nothing, but snivel and complain.

Jaxxs Buddy

i think all dogs should be scanned but with careful breeding (not just 2 A's together) and scanning of progeny just maybe we would have enough data to figure out what is happening.

Realistically, consider the expense. Breeders in Sydney can take advantage of the scanner which the Cavalier breeders obtained so dogs in Aus could be scanned (Please note, Bet Hargraves, feel free to contribute some funds towards the purchase of the next one? They aren't cheap, and as you seem to have so much to say, I am sure you would like to help us out here. We'd all be grateful.).

However, for anyone not near Sydney, you can say min of $1500, max of $2000. Use $2000 as the figure - pretty well everyone charges about $1400, getting yourself and dog to Sydney, accommodation, blah blah. $2000. So $4000 to scan the parents. 4 pups, wait until they are 2.5 yrs, scan them, $8000. So you have coughed up $12000 just in scans. Looks good - except - if as LizT says, scans dont indicate anything. $12,000 is a lot of money to spend - and still not be able to guarantee that if you breed the parents, or the pups, they will not throw SM. You couldn't even guarantee that the pups would continue to be A past 2.5 years.

And you are currently paying to have all you dogs heart scanned annually by a specialist cardiologist. You have had the patellas of the parents checked, and x rayed if your vet wasn't 100% confident with his examination.

This is a minority disease in this country amongst registered cavaliers. Yes, it does crop up occasionally, but so does mega oesophagus, non hereditary heart murmurs, leukemia, and auto immune diseases which have no hereditary component. Now, Bet, you can scuttle whereever you wish, and tell everyone and anyone you like that I am against MRI-ing. Good luck to you.

As this was brought to the public domain, I think it is much better if "the public" and dog owners are given correct information.

jed i find this post of yours offensive and unnecessary.