New Problem To Address

[Steve]

Just had another thought and I could be totally wrong on this one. Guide dogs australia would have impeccable breeding stock, well ordered and documented training guidelines and feeding guidelines, and yet isnt their failure rate at approx 50%. So even with all these qualities there is no guarantee that the dog is going to be in pristine condition. So does it all come back down to educating the owners and making them realise the uncertainty of it all.

Probably - the animal rights have done a pretty good job on telling the public on how to find a good breeder - in fairness this has been embraced by the purebred dog world as a mantra of how they are better than any other breeder. Every where you go you see copious lists of what constitutes a good breeder and how to tell if they are ethical.

Few of those things were ever true of a good breeder but it made us all think we should do what they say in case we were judged to be lacking and we all start believing it too.

We strutt our stuff and tell everyone about how we test and how we give guarantees etc and reality is we probably asked for it.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Steve

[shortstep]

i have a brachy breed who runs like a loon, very rarely snores, has good knees, good eyes and a good heart. when i took her to my vet the day after she arrived he said to me, oh she is nice and look she has a bridge/snout.

some breeders are getting it right.

eta she has the best temperament as well

Only my guess from what I see being done, but I think pug faces will be one of the first extreme traits they go after. I did think they would go after the Bull Dog first, but now it really is looking like they will go after a trait instead and then apply the science/evidence or what have you to all breeds where it fits. There was a drawing of what they wanted the Bull Dogs head to look like. It had a substanstial nose, the eyes were deep seated as in a normal skull and the head was of normal size (much smaller than it is now). So I would guess it will be about the same for all the pug faced breeds. A real nose, eye set deep and not a large head. Not up on it but I think ther eis also some spinal condition they are looking at too that go along witht he head??

Edited to ad. Just as you told Jed about her dog, you would need to really test before you can say that hearts, hips elbows, hocks and knees are clear of disease.

Edited November 21, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i have a brachy breed who runs like a loon, very rarely snores, has good knees, good eyes and a good heart. when i took her to my vet the day after she arrived he said to me, oh she is nice and look she has a bridge/snout.

some breeders are getting it right.

eta she has the best temperament as well

Only my guess from what I see being done, but I think pug faces will be one of the first extreme traits they go after. I did think they would go after the Bull Dog first, but now it really is looking like they will go after a trait instead and then apply the science/evidence or what have you to all breeds where it fits. There was a drawing of what they wanted the Bull Dogs head to look like. It had a substanstial nose, the eyes were deep seated as in a normal skull and the head was of normal size (much smaller than it is now). So I would guess it will be about the same for all the pug faced breeds. A real nose, eye set deep and not a large head. Not up on it but I think ther eis also some spinal condition they are looking at too that go along witht he head??

Edited to ad. Just as you told Jed about her dog, you would need to really test before you can say that hearts, hips elbows, hocks and knees are clear of disease.

indeed but the HUGE difference here is i am not breeding her so therefore am not giving the public possibly dodgy progeny

[aussielover]

Just had another thought and I could be totally wrong on this one. Guide dogs australia would have impeccable breeding stock, well ordered and documented training guidelines and feeding guidelines, and yet isnt their failure rate at approx 50%. So even with all these qualities there is no guarantee that the dog is going to be in pristine condition. So does it all come back down to educating the owners and making them realise the uncertainty of it all.

Yes, but their standards are incredibly high as well!

The failure rate isn't only due to health reasons...

although there are a few dogs that don't make it due to health problems. OCD, HD and ED are major diseases that commonly rule a dog out of the program.

Just because a dog doesn't make it as a guide dog doesn't mean it won't be a terrific family pet- which many of them do turn out to be. The waiting list for a failed guide dog is 2 years +

[Sheridan]

For those of you who havent seen this - This is the document shortstep is referring to whcih is the plan for us put out by Sydney Uni.

Their website tells us that they collaborate with the ANKC ,RSPCA, AVA,GSD club and a couple of others.

Yep that is it and I already do all of the things mentioned with the expection of EBV as you need the whole community and testing and reporting to be able todo that. I do not my own limed data collection but do not get an EBV. I also donot provide life time insurance, but I do provide lifetime return and refund for any reason.

One other area I have concern over is the COI/Inbreding. I currently keep my COI below 0.5% in 6 generations, that is very low (that means good). However from what I have ben told, most breeds will get the breeding directive to lower the COI with each breeding. Once you get down to numbers like 0.5% in 6 generations it is very very difficult to reduce that number any further and you would have to select for only that one trait, this I disagree with. I think there should be a lowest acceptable % and once reaching that you do not need to keep lowering the COI each generation until you hit 0%.

That would be very difficult with some breeds given the low worldwide population and the even lower choice of breeding stock in Australia.

Well that is where importing or using other breeds come in. If you accept that lowering and keeping the COI low is important then you have to find ways to do it.

Even in breeds with larger populations there is still need to keep bringing in new dogs/genetic and to keep reducing and preventing higher COIs. The more dogs you have to select from in the breeding population the easier it is to control (or maybe contain might be a better word) disease. For example the kelpies should open their stud book to the huge population of WKC dogs. Not my breed mind so please don't argue with me about it, I am just using that as an example we can all see.

And how much change from $10,000 is there from importating a dog? If people could import more dogs, no doubt they would (I have no intention of arguing with you about your breed of dog as I don't know what breed you have ... )

[Sheridan]

Just because a dog doesn't make it as a guide dog doesn't mean it won't be a terrific family pet- which many of them do turn out to be. The waiting list for a failed guide dog is 2 years +

Same with failed Customs dogs, I believe. They have their own breeding program, too.

[Greytmate]

Just had another thought and I could be totally wrong on this one. Guide dogs australia would have impeccable breeding stock, well ordered and documented training guidelines and feeding guidelines, and yet isnt their failure rate at approx 50%. So even with all these qualities there is no guarantee that the dog is going to be in pristine condition. So does it all come back down to educating the owners and making them realise the uncertainty of it all.

Yes, but their standards are incredibly high as well!

The failure rate isn't only due to health reasons...

although there are a few dogs that don't make it due to health problems. OCD, HD and ED are major diseases that commonly rule a dog out of the program.

Just because a dog doesn't make it as a guide dog doesn't mean it won't be a terrific family pet- which many of them do turn out to be. The waiting list for a failed guide dog is 2 years +

That is what happens when your standards are high, and people view your organisation with integrity. The 'pass' standard is high but the 'fail' standard is also high.

If the wait is two years, the price is possibly too low.

[Greytmate]

And how much change from $10,000 is there from importating a dog? If people could import more dogs, no doubt they would (I have no intention of arguing with you about your breed of dog as I don't know what breed you have ... )

Cheaper to import semen.

[aussielover]

Another problem with the guide dog program is that the breeding dogs aren't always proven workers. All guide dogs (in NSW) at least are desexed as it is too inconvenient for the handler to have a dog coming into season and castrating the males removes some potential behavioural problems that may hinder working ability.

Unlike other types of working dogs, where only best workers are bred, guide dogs use parents who are known to produce good workers, but may or may not be good workers themselves- as they are untested.

[shortstep]

For those of you who havent seen this - This is the document shortstep is referring to whcih is the plan for us put out by Sydney Uni.

Their website tells us that they collaborate with the ANKC ,RSPCA, AVA,GSD club and a couple of others.

Yep that is it and I already do all of the things mentioned with the expection of EBV as you need the whole community and testing and reporting to be able todo that. I do not my own limed data collection but do not get an EBV. I also donot provide life time insurance, but I do provide lifetime return and refund for any reason.

One other area I have concern over is the COI/Inbreding. I currently keep my COI below 0.5% in 6 generations, that is very low (that means good). However from what I have ben told, most breeds will get the breeding directive to lower the COI with each breeding. Once you get down to numbers like 0.5% in 6 generations it is very very difficult to reduce that number any further and you would have to select for only that one trait, this I disagree with. I think there should be a lowest acceptable % and once reaching that you do not need to keep lowering the COI each generation until you hit 0%.

That would be very difficult with some breeds given the low worldwide population and the even lower choice of breeding stock in Australia.

Well that is where importing or using other breeds come in. If you accept that lowering and keeping the COI low is important then you have to find ways to do it.

Even in breeds with larger populations there is still need to keep bringing in new dogs/genetic and to keep reducing and preventing higher COIs. The more dogs you have to select from in the breeding population the easier it is to control (or maybe contain might be a better word) disease. For example the kelpies should open their stud book to the huge population of WKC dogs. Not my breed mind so please don't argue with me about it, I am just using that as an example we can all see.

And how much change from $10,000 is there from importating a dog? If people could import more dogs, no doubt they would (I have no intention of arguing with you about your breed of dog as I don't know what breed you have ... )

None I just did one about 6 months ago and it was over 10 and looking at doing another right now and just the shipping (for a puppy) has gone up to over $4000.00, don;t have final cost yet but looking like 12,000 for a pup that might not pass all the health tests when it grows up. Crazy thing to do.

Only for the love of dog.

[shortstep]

And how much change from $10,000 is there from importating a dog? If people could import more dogs, no doubt they would (I have no intention of arguing with you about your breed of dog as I don't know what breed you have ... )

Cheaper to import semen.

Maybe for some, it not cheap. I have a freind that has imported 3 different dogs semen at great expense, so far 2 have been used and no puppies, the last one will be tried soon. To me it is cheaper to import a dog, at least you have the dog if nothing else.

[shortstep]

i have a brachy breed who runs like a loon, very rarely snores, has good knees, good eyes and a good heart. when i took her to my vet the day after she arrived he said to me, oh she is nice and look she has a bridge/snout.

some breeders are getting it right.

eta she has the best temperament as well

Only my guess from what I see being done, but I think pug faces will be one of the first extreme traits they go after. I did think they would go after the Bull Dog first, but now it really is looking like they will go after a trait instead and then apply the science/evidence or what have you to all breeds where it fits. There was a drawing of what they wanted the Bull Dogs head to look like. It had a substanstial nose, the eyes were deep seated as in a normal skull and the head was of normal size (much smaller than it is now). So I would guess it will be about the same for all the pug faced breeds. A real nose, eye set deep and not a large head. Not up on it but I think ther eis also some spinal condition they are looking at too that go along witht he head??

Edited to ad. Just as you told Jed about her dog, you would need to really test before you can say that hearts, hips elbows, hocks and knees are clear of disease.

indeed but the HUGE difference here is i am not breeding her so therefore am not giving the public possibly dodgy progeny

You followed it by 'some breeders get it right', and I was saying that unless your dog was tested you can not claim the breeder got it right.

Maybe I am not making myself clear. If we are to accept that only tested dogs can be said to be clear of disease, it does not matter who owns them, it is the fact they have or have not been tested clear that must go along with any statement of their perfection.

So you could say my dogs seems fine though she has not been tested so I am hoping my breeder got it right.

Anyway from what I gather, they are not going to be asking you about your dog, they will be looking at the vet record on Bostons likely collected from the UK and Australia and using thsoe to decide.

Like this from the Uk

Causes of death by organ system/category for Boston Terriers

1 Old age 12 28.6 Old age

2 Cardiac 8 19.0 Heart disease unspecified; heart attack; heart failure

3 Cancer 7 16.7 Brain tumour

4 Respiratory 5 11.9 Respiratory failure; unspecified

5 Neurologic 4 9.5 Meningitis; seizures

6 Endocrine 2 4.8 Addison’s disease; Cushings or hyperadrenocorticism

Disease conditions by organ system/category for Boston Terriers

1 Ocular 10 27.0 Cataract (unspecified > congenital); corneal ulcer

2 Reproductive 9 24.3 Dystochia (uterine inertia > physical blockage); false pregnancy; prostatomegaly

3 Musculoskeletal 6 16.2 Arthritis (forelimbs); CLR; patellar luxation

4 Cardiac 4 10.8 Heart murmur (unspecified > Grade 2); collapse

5 Neurologic 3 8.1 Seizures; IVDD

6 Respiratory 3 8.1 Long soft palate

7 Gastrointestinal 1 2.7 Colitis

8 Urologic 1 2.7 Urethral obstruction

Edited November 21, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

shortstep the usa is where bostons originate and there are studies done there, why wouldn't they use them.

i am sorry but i really dont understand where you are coming from. how is this helping answer the OP?

i understand the issues bostons have, i researched them prior to purchase i knew what i was getting into

[shortstep]

shortstep the usa is where bostons originate and there are studies done there, why wouldn't they use them.

i am sorry but i really dont understand where you are coming from. how is this helping answer the OP?

i understand the issues bostons have, i researched them prior to purchase i knew what i was getting into

The US is not having vets report illness by breed by microchip to the folks who are doing this research. That started here in Australia and in the UK. So they are not going to look at breed club information from the US (at least not for their data bank of EBV), they are going to to look at the data they collect.

As I said in the beginning I have been won over to the regulation of breeding side of the argument. I can not see how I can promote all the dogs until I can show they have meet the public's expectations on health and health testing. Just like what you wanted for all cav breeders in OZ. I give up on the fight, we will take the power away from the Cav breeders and let the 'experts' decide what they can do and not do.

Normally I prefer, in fact had demanded, that breeders to police themselves and make their own decsions, to keep government out of dog breeding. But it is clear that is only prolonging this issue. We need to get this over with. What ever the results are and what ever breeds we loose. At least there would then be some hope for the breeds that fair well to come out on the other side with the seal of approval. We can then start over with a good reputation, backed up by the most progressive Uni health breeding plans in the world.

Edited November 21, 2010 by shortstep

[espinay2]

Coming in late and have just worked my way through the thread. Lots of things to think about.....

well i think some breeders dont help the bad PR situation. used to be getting a puppy from a registered breeder was enough but now some registered breeders are woeful.

Yes, some are. But are they really more woeful than they have been? Or is it that the world has changed around it? It is that the way society has viewed dogs and breeding has changed so that expectations of what you will get are different now? Are people expecting purebred dogs to be more 'perfect' rather than a tool bred fit for purpose that sometimes worked and sometimes didnt? Is that half the problem? Purebred dogs have largely been promoted as being 'better', more 'perfect' dogs and when they dont live up to expectations there is a backlash....demanding that they be made perfect. If this is the case and we are going to counteract bad press therefore, I beleive we need to make sure that a healthy dose of realism is included. Otherwise I think we may only assist the likes of the law makers and regulators who insist on perfect specimens by adding to the 'myth'. Bad press will not be counteracted by over selling the dream. At the same time admittting that purebred dogs are not perfect is not a licence to do nothing or to try and get people to expect nothing.

we need to aim for a wider audience

Yes, it needs to be 'grass roots' with popular appeal. It needs to be multi media and it has to get to the average person where they live and where they shop. To tell you the truth to be truly effective it may need to be expensive. Free to air TV on a regular basis would IMO be the prime goal. Think of the most popular and effective campaigns that have influenced peoples opinions about animals over the last decade and they have all focussed majorly on TV. It is what people do in the evenings, it is what people discuss at work and what kids discuss at school.

To me this is marketing the dogs correctly, to the people who will own them, doing what they will be doing with them. Dogs shows have nothing to do with their interest and these days is not something always associated with good thoughts.

Anyone see the insurance commercial with Brian ( wolfhound I think) in the red sports car. Who wouldn't want one. But take that same dog and show him stacked at a dog show and you changed the whole image. How about the Lab tested puppy, nobody wants a lab stack at a dog show but chasing toilet paper rolls around the house, now that is a fun dog.

How many times have people heard someone saying they want 'just a pet'. And this is why IMO the designer dogs have been so successful - because they were sold as 'just pets' without all the extra hassle and worry. To market purebred dogs effectively I agree more attention needs to be focussed on how they fit into the family home. The image of the purebred dog needs to be not one of an aloof perfectly posed show dog (something akin to a Vogue model that everyone admires but doesnt really consider to be a 'real' person that lives and functions in the real world) but of a dog that functions in the 'real' world.

Because show breeders put so much work into getting a championship naturally they are proud of that and for them this is what they need to promote and tell pet buyers about but unless they want a show puppy or one to breed show puppies people who are wanting a puppy they dont care. Breeders need to be able to say they are breeding to a standard which is good enough to get them ribbons but more they need to say they are breeding great pets ,great working dogs etc........ I have no puppies , I didnt get her name and I just may have talked her out of getting the breed. I could hear her relaxing and really enjoying the experience of speaking with me and its that feeling we need to market. I think.

Agree. Puppy buyers want to know how the dog will be with them. They generally dont care about show ring successes. How many people really buy a car based on the awards it has won? Yes, car companies do brag about it, but the campaigns that have the most effect are the ones that sell the experience. They expect the manufacturer to take care of the design details for them. And no car manufacturer will ever claim that the vehicle will be 100% perfect. That is why they provide a warranty. Instead they sell the concept that they are working to make things better but will help fix problems as they occur.

"Bad press" can be counteracted by listening to what the "bad press" is, and specifically answering those concerns. Not by blindly promoting the dogs as pets."..... There may be some truth in all the "bad press", to ignore it is dangerous.

Most definitely. Market research is a vital tool as is a good dose of honesty and reality. We have to come from the point of recognising and admitting that not everything is perfect and things could be done better. But I also agree that:

the most effective tool is to work to actively work the media to your own ends. The general public ultimately decides what is or is not PC and the governing bodies and people with the power to make changes are generally swayed by public opinion......

If the general public hears something often enough it will believe it whether it is true or not.

And that is the trick. It is about CREATING public opinion. this is generally referred to as 'spin' and is much maligned but is very very effective.

So - First, decide the image we want to promote. Second, decide what public opinion is working contrary to that goal. Third, work proactively to change that opinion and address those key issues. And fourth, be ready when contrary opinions are aired to counter straight away (the same day!) in the media with a view that supports that goal (really this means working to increase the chances that media reps come to you for an opinion before publishing any piece so that they have the reply view preferably in the same article. This can often 'damp down' media reports and head them off at the pass.)

JMHO

[MalteseLuna]

When I see pugs, they don't have any health problems per se, it's just that I feel terribly angry at whoever bred them deliberately to be the way that they are, because they want to run around and play with the other dogs, but they really can't. Within seconds they are snorting and puffing, and they just have to give up. What a frustrating life. And they need so much extra care on planes etc - I don't understand how you justify doing that to an animal.

I don't like the look of poodles, but poodles don't seem to have been bred to their disadvantage, they are great sporting dogs etc.

I actually think pugs are very cute, but I don't think that is a good enough excuse to justify breeding an animal to its detriment.

Same for shepherds with curvey backs, but you see both these days, and I love the police ones - they look fantastic and capable.

The problem is the majority of pet owners feel that breeders breed purely for looks, and although people here will jump up and down because they worry about breeding dilutes given the link to skin conditions, they seem fine with breeding for features that are also linked to much more serious conditions - curvey tails and what not.

I'm sorry but Pugs (well bred ones) are actually very active and do not have problems breathing. My parents have one (she is now 12 years old) and she was very active until now when she has had to slow down due to health complications related to a moldy sandwich she ate (nearly killed her and left her with slight ataxia). The vet has comments (when viewing X-rays) that her trachea and palate are both excellent and very well formed - he commented that she obviously came from a good breeder who knew what they were doing. Most pugs that you see at the park are from bybs and pet shops - they are poorly bred and therefore have structural issues that cause issues with breathing.

Whilst they aren't my cup of tea - there are lots of perfectly healthy and ACTIVE pugs from responsible breeders. There are even some who participate in sports such as flyball, agility etc.

Steve - I never knew there was SM in Maltese - is there anything to read on this? I'm interested!

I think the idea of getting purebred dog owners more involved in their promotion is an excellent idea! I would love to help promote Maltese - as an owner!

I think it's also important to get more young people involved - in showing, breeding, promoting purebreds. This means that people may need to be more accepting at letting people (newbies) enter the sport.

It would be a great idea to get a "famous" outspoken person to be the face of purebred dogs in the media - someone to go on shows and talk about them. Get them on the tv etc.

I would love to see more organized "dog activities" in inner city suburbs - there are lots at say Erskine Park but hardly any in the eastern suburbs etc of Sydney.

Another idea would be to hold "meet the purebred" at pet supply stores - similar to "meet the rescue" days.

I think alot of the bad press is because people see purebreds as unapproachable - all being bred for shows etc and being very $$$. I'm not quite sure why dog shows are seen in a different light to horse shows etc. I don't know why this is - but I do think it needs to be addressed. People need to see the show dogs as fantastic pets whom are shown as a hobby or way of evaluating the dog for future breeding etc. A show dog's role as a pet in their owners home is just as important as the number of wins/titles which they hold (imo).

Alot of breeders are doing their best to use health testing technologies to help breed healthy dogs - unfortunately sometimes sick dogs are born (this happens in all animals including humans) and sometimes it's not preventable.

I think one of the main draw cards for purebreds is that they are fairly consistent - you choose a small breed and you will generally get a small dog. This is increasingly important for people living in high-density housing i.e. cities. I know this is why I turned to purebreds during my search for a dog - I wanted a small, quiet, calm dog that likes people and was a good companion but that could handle living in a high rise. I came up with the Maltese - and I have to say she is exactly what I wanted! We have had no health problems yet (I was initially scared of a liver shunt but it turned out my vet was overreacting.. specialist put to rest any fears).

I'm can be quite suspicious of breeders now - after having found out that my dog's "breeder" has been exporting dogs to Hawaii, telling me incorrect information concerning parentage and failing to register my dog (breaching coe). However I know that there are people out there doing the right thing... This is one of the reasons I want to get involved in Maltese showing and breeding in the future - I want to be there to breed good healthy dogs that are excellent pets and companions (and hopefully good show dogs). I want to help promote the breed that I love and keep it alive for future generations to enjoy as I have.

[Gayle.]

If and when there's a push to promote purebred dogs as being good pets, I think there are some breeders who will seriously need to lift their game re public relations if the whole thing is to be a success.

No point promoting pedigree dogs if the people who are breeding and selling them are rude, arrogant and difficult to communicate with. And while I realise that not all breeder are like that, a few are, and ALL breeders need to understand they are the public face of the pedigree dog world and it only takes one bad experience for it to taint a lot of people.

And that goes for internet forums too. Breeders might be the only ones who can reply to posts in the breederts forum, but some forget, we can all read them.

[Sheridan]

Well said, Gayle.

I'd also like to see the friendly website promoting purebreds. We all love DOL but the main site isn't user friendly for the person looking for a dog. Most of it is about showing (not that there's anything wrong with that but as Raz said, people are just looking for a family friendly dog). Information about breeds shouldn't be about the standard. It should be about what makes a purebred a great pet.

[mushka]

What do you think of one of those breed-selector type quizzes hosted on DOL but with links to newbie-forums for each breed with breed-enthusiasts be willing to moderate newbie forums and answer questions, direct newbies to upcoming shows/trials etc...

[Steve]

Malteseluna

There is a whole lot of breeds which can and do get SM including cross bred and mixed breed dogs - Usually no one knows whether a dog has this until it shows symptoms and gives the owner and the vet reason to do tests and try to work out what is causing the problems.

It starts to get messy because the disease is said to be a genetic disorder known in the breed even if there has only ever been one case and even if the cause may be something else.

Until it becomes noticed breeders dont have a clue about it being there or knowing whether they should test their breeding animals. So theoretically it could be quite prevalent without anyone really knowing yet that more than a couple are affected. It possible that it would be un heard of in the breed and in lots of the breed almost over night.

The fact that it occurs in Cavs has been spoken about pretty loudly and because of that lots of them have been scanned and there has been a lot done with research to try to find how it is passed on through the generations and how to try and stop it. Even if by a miracle they did work out the mode of inheritance thats no guarantee that it would be the same for another breed.

Let me try and explain it this way. I am a carrier for a recessive disease and the only way I know that is because one of my kids developed symptoms and had tests done - So far 5 out of 8 have been tested and so far 4 have shown to be affected. If I had known back when I was making babies I had this genetic issue I could have made sure that the person I was mating with wasnt also a carrier and these kids wouldnt now have the rot to deal with - But its considered to be rare so even though they know about 5% of the population carries it that isnt enough reason to test everyone in case they have it. What Im trying to say as a breeder one of the things you have to work out is firstly the incidence and risk factor. Lots of different things help you to work that out so you know whether you need to test for that particular thing or not - because a dog has around 100,000 genes and you cant go mad testing every dog for everything which it may have a tiny chance of having because its known to be in the species.

Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog. You cant predict what those diseases may be so you cant possibly test for them or screen for them even if they were only recessive issues, if the dna tests are available as carriers dont show sysmptoms for the disease and polygenic ones which are caused by 100 different things acting on each other are impossible to predict. Any genetic disease can show up anywhere without warning. Purebred breeds have about 20 genetic diseases each but they are in higher incidence than in a mixed breed dog. The press has jumped on this as if its a bad thing but the reality is that because we know what diseases we have in that breed we know what we should and should not test for work toward it being eliminated altogether from the breed.

In the UK SM has been recognised as a problem in Cavs and as a natural progression cavs in this country are being sited as also having SM in a higher than average incidence than in other breeds.Some science says thats true and some are recommending that the status of dogs should be known before they are used for breeding.Some of the breeders are testing and scanning and others dont feel there is a need - time will tell.

In your case - Malts there is no reason to suggest that SM is something you as a dog owner should be worried about over any other thing that might occur and there is no reason to suggest breeders should scan their dogs before they breed them. If at any time that changes and we see a higher incidence then that will change and what to do about will be assessed and the breeders will go about working on it. So back to the question - is there anything to read on this - probably - and as you go looking relax a little as at this time the chances that your dog has this is limited.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Steve