# Another disaster for pedigree dogs ?



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

Why I Spoke Out About Cavaliers by Margaret Carter

Very Very Sad


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

wat i dont understand is why are they not siding wiv her??? its to help the breed at the end of the day?? wats their point of not helping her?? its madness.


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

I read this and thought How Sad for Margaret. She has done a lot of research etc for the Breed. Its Beverely that should be ousted imo. The breed club members are not doing themselves any favours by voting like this


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

clueless said:


> I read this and thought How Sad for Margaret. She has done a lot of research etc for the Breed. Its Beverely that should be ousted imo. The breed club members are not doing themselves any favours by voting like this


or the poor dogs


----------



## marlynaveve (Aug 13, 2008)

The treatment by club members of Margaret Carter is unbelievable.
and does immense harm to the credibility of ALL pedigree dog breeders in the eyes of the general public. Its scandalous
Mary
c


----------



## staflove (Sep 4, 2008)

Thats very sad poor margret, it make me think there not bothered about the dogs just themselfs


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

but can i ask...why didnt they agree wiv her??? is there a reason why they didnt agree wiv her??? i dont get why they wasnt all for margret.


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

Eolabeo said:


> wat i dont understand is why are they not siding wiv her??? its to help the breed at the end of the day?? wats their point of not helping her?? its madness.


Why, because they do NOT care.

I am absolutely appalled by this verdict, in fact words fail me and thank you Sallyanne for sharing this with us.

Having owned a Cavalier some years previously, we discovered very quickly about the heart problems and blocked anal glands, but until I saw the recent BBC programme on the KC, had no idea of the true extent of health problems this beautiful little breed suffered.

What alarmed me even more, was the Cavalier who had been diagnosed with the brain disorder, known by the KC, STILL went on to win at Crufts.

People wonder why I have no time for the kennel Club.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

The world has gone mad, poor Margaret, she only did what any self repecting person would do.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> Why, because they do NOT care.
> 
> I am absolutely appalled by this verdict, in fact words fail me and thank you Sallyanne for sharing this with us.
> 
> ...


I am gobsmacked to be honest,a very sad day for that breed.

I have no problem with the dog been shown,I do however have a major problem with this particular dog been bred from.
I don't blame the KC I blame the Breeder of this dog and the Owners/Breeders of Bitches who have used this dog at stud knowing full well that he has SM,I don't think you can hold the KC Responsible,they didn't breed him.It is the Breeder's and Owners responsibilty to do right for the well being of their dogs and the health welfare and future of the breed.If this particular owner had any thought for the future of this breed this dog would have been withdrawn/retired from stud services.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

sallyanne said:


> I am gobsmacked to be honest,a very sad day for that breed.
> 
> I have no problem with the dog been shown,I do however have a major problem with this particular dog been bred from.
> I don't blame the KC I blame the Breeder of this dog and the Owners/Breeders of Bitches who have used this dog at stud knowing full well that he has SM,I don't think you can hold the KC Responsible,they didn't breed him.It is the Breeder's and Owners responsibilty to do right for the well being of their dogs and the health welfare and future of the breed.If this particular owner had any thought for the future of this breed this dog would have been withdrawn/retired from stud services.


but surely the kc should step in knowing a champion show cav is being bred from wiv sm???

i think they should not alow this dog to be shown if hes being bred from wiv that wrong wiv him...actually i think he shouldnt be shown at all...co he has something wrong wiv him....a good show dog should be tip top shape wiv nothing wrong wiv him fall stop..and he has sm...i dont understand.

the kc can do alot more...actually, a hell of alot more.


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

sallyanne said:


> I have no problem with the dog been shown
> I don't blame the KC I blame the Breeder of this dog .


You see this is what I find astonishing Sallyanne  By allowing a dog with a debilitating illness to be shown in this manner, they must be culpable.

I think the majority of animal lovers would be united in saying, that the health and wellbeing of a dog, should undoubtedly override beauty and appearance.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

I understand what your saying Loe,but in some breeds maybe even this one you can't actually see what diseases are present without knowing the vets and results,judges don't even known what the dogs names are or have access to the catalogue before a show.

Take for example the SBT,you have your final line up,how would you know in that line up which dogs are Carriers ?
You wouldn't.Therefore it is the Breeders responsilbity to do what they consider to be correct for their dog and breed.Sadly as highlighted here not all Breeders do the correct thing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> You see this is what I find astonishing Sallyanne  By allowing a dog with a debilitating illness to be shown in this manner, they must be culpable.
> 
> I think the majority of animal lovers would be united in saying, that the health and wellbeing of a dog, should undoubtedly override beauty and appearance.


Nina see the post above,I don't see how you can hold a registry responsible when ultimatly it comes down to the responsilbilty of the Breeder.The KC Do not breed them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

sallyanne said:


> I understand what your saying Loe,but in some breeds maybe even this one you can't actually see what diseases are present without knowing the vets and results,judges don't even known what the dogs names are or have access to the catalogue before a show.
> 
> Take for example the SBT,you have your final line up,how would you know in that line up which dogs are Carriers ?
> You wouldn't.Therefore it is the Breeders responsilbity to do what they consider to be correct for their dog and breed.Sadly as highlighted here not all Breeders do the correct thing.


true.

but as said so many time...kc should make show, and breeding dogs and bitches ( breeding show dogs or not ) be health tested...if the owners dont choose to abide by that , then simply dont let them show their dogs...or register a litter unless both parents are health tested.

as nina said... the dogs should be healthy aswell as upto standered....i find it discusting that dogs are aloud to be shown wiv these diseases (sp)


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

sallyanne said:


> Nina see the post above,I don't see how you can hold a registry responsible when ultimatly it comes down to the responsilbilty of the Breeder.The KC Do not breed them.


I understand that Sallyanne, but how can a judge have awarded this dog first place knowing that it had such a debilitating illness and say with a clear conscience that it was worthy! In my book this is morally corrupt.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> I understand that Sallyanne, but how can a judge have awarded this dog first place knowing that it had such a debilitating illness and say with a clear conscience that it was worthy! In my book this is morally corrupt.


Of course I can see your point,however from an exhibitor's point of view I can see the other side too.
I do show my dogs as you know, I would be furious if someone told me I wasn't allowed to show him because he was a carrier and stopped us from doing something which I and my dog both enjoyed,whether that be a breed CH show,Open show or Crufts.
As long as the dog in question is NEVER bred from I don't have a problem.

Can I ask you how do you know that the judge who awarded this dog first place knew that this dog was sufferering with SM if it was showing no symptoms during the show and the judge didn't have access to the catalogue or medical records ?


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

sallyanne said:


> Can I ask you how do you know that the judge who awarded this dog first place knew that this dog was sufferering with SM if it was showing no symptoms during the show and the judge didn't have access to the catalogue or medical records ?


I am referring to the programme (Panarama), I believe, where the actual judge was interviewed and asked why the dog was awarded first place when they knew it had SM. They immediately replied by saying 'no comment' and putting their hand up to the camera.

You seem very defensive Sallyanne, but please be assured that I am in no way tarring all breeders with the same brush. I live opposite an extremely responsible breeder, who feels exactly the same way as I do. She openly welcomed the programme in question, stating that it was long overdue. A nicer lady you could not wish to meet and she is passionate about her breed.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Why on earth shouldn't this dog be shown ? Can I ask if any of you have seen him? Watched him move ? No ? Well let me tell you this dog is in tip top condition, and Asystomatic, and will probably (hopefully) live a pain free life !

The problem the club members have with Margaret Carter is that she broke confidentiality, and I believe there is a part in the ethics that says "not to bring the club into disripute" NOT the work she has done 

I typed a long post in PDE thread I have pasted it below 

Would like to comment on the CKCS, The lady filmed has been very open open her dogs MRI scan when used at stud, she lives the other end of the country from me and I have no interest in her dog, but I knew the results of his MRI scan. Wether you think its right or wrong, the dog is Asystomatic and as part of a breeding plan set up by International Syringomyelia Conference in Nov 2006 a dog that has shown the malformation on an MRI scan (Grade D) can still be mated to a dog that has an A clear scan, were all the bitches he was used on A clear ? Well I don't know that 

Also a dog that is used for breeding and hasn't been MRI scanned, is to be classed as a D scan (fail) and is only to be mated to a dog with an A scan, which is no different to the dog that was filmed, so unless you have a clear scan for your dog and only mate with other dogs with an A scan, you are doing exactly the same as the lady filmed

Nothing was mentioned about the CKCS Clubs funding MRI scans, nothing was mentioned about the breeding guidelines, nothing was mentioned about the way the Specialists keep moving the goal posts, the Malformation is now thought to be "normal" in Cavaliers and not an indicator of Syringomyelia, and this is why a lot of breeders have stopped MRI scanning, until they find a DNA test, we can only do our best 

I have heard a few rumours about the Cavaliers filmed, one being that medication was withdrawn for filming, then the dog was PTS straight after the programme, the other that the collar and lead were left on the dog to cause that reaction, I have no idea if they are true

Lastly, nobody in Cavaliers can say they have healthy dogs as far as SM goes, nobody knows if there dog is a carrier, nobody knows when SM will rear its ugly head.....There for the grace of god go I


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Would also like to add that two A clear dogs have produced effected puppies and dogs that have later failed an MRI have produced A clear dogs....what are we supposed to do ?


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> I am referring to the programme (Panarama), I believe, where the actual judge was interviewed and asked why the dog was awarded first place when they knew it had SM. They immediately replied by saying 'no comment' and putting their hand up to the camera.
> 
> You seem very defensive Sallyanne, but please be assured that I am in no way tarring all breeders with the same brush. I live opposite an extremely responsible breeder, who feels exactly the same way as I do. She openly welcomed the programme in question, stating that it was long overdue. A nicer lady you could not wish to meet and she is passionate about her breed.


I am in noway been defensive but realistic,that programme was biased and based on lies and misconceptions.How did the production team know that the judge knew the dog in question had SM ?
Maybe they didn't know and assumed,they made an awful lot of assumptions throughout that 1 hour programme which took two yrs to make ?
Why so long if the world of pedigree dogs is so bad,afterall there are shows every weekend in the uk for different breeds,where were the responsible breeders in this programme those that do everything by the book ?Nowhere to be seen,why do you suppose that was ?


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

Oh dear, here we go again.

I have stated what I saw and how I feel about this Sallyanne. I have made my points on several threads and since we will only go around in circles on this topic, I will once again bow out.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

I agree this is just ridiculous, we all have our own views but can I suggest to those that have strong views to go on the cavalier web site and read the many reports on SM, read the breeding guidelines, find out why the meeting was held - then maybe you will be entitled to criticise

I think the results speak for themselves


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

I don't understand, if there are problem with the breed why not sort the problems out by selective breeding programs, which was the way I assumed any hereditary problem was dealt with.

By kicking someone of a committee doesn't resolve a problem it just sweeps it under the carpet, and does nothing to promote or improve the breed.

Sue


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

We aren't sweeping anything under the carpet at all, we have breeding guidelines and most are using them
MC was removed from the committee by an overwhelming vote for breaking confidentiality, research will still carry on with or without MC, like I said please read the Cavalier club website, you will find all the info you need there


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

Rach said:


> We aren't sweeping anything under the carpet at all, we have breeding guidelines and most are using them
> MC was removed from the committee by an overwhelming vote for breaking confidentiality, research will still carry on with or without MC, like I said please read the Cavalier club website, you will find all the info you need there


I'm been a bit thick tonight 
Point me in the right direction Rach I can't find the info


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club - Front Page

Go to "Cavalier health"


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)




----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

From, what little I know, the MRI scans for SM aren't conclusive and the Cav club are trying to accumulate DNA evidence in conjunction with the scans, so a DNA tests for SM becomes available, and dogs can be named as either carrier, clear or affected. 

Also, from what I can gather, if the Cav mentioned to have SM in PDE is bred to dogs tested and thought to be clear, then the offspring produced cannot be affected, only carriers. So, what is the difference between breeding them, and, for example, a Staff that is affected to a non carrier, or a carrier to a non carrier? The resulting offspring will not be symtomatic, and if careful breeding is implimented, then eventually SM would become non existant in cavs. 

Considering the other inaccuracies in this programme, I fail to believe they were entirely honest in this part of the programme either.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

jackson said:


> From, what little I know, the MRI scans for SM aren't conclusive and the Cav club are trying to accumulate DNA evidence in conjunction with the scans, so a DNA tests for SM becomes available, and dogs can be named as either carrier, clear or affected.
> 
> Also, from what I can gather, if the Cav mentioned to have SM in PDE is bred to dogs tested and thought to be clear, then the offspring produced cannot be affected, only carriers. So, what is the difference between breeding them, and, for example, a Staff that is affected to a non carrier, or a carrier to a non carrier? The resulting offspring will not be symtomatic, and if careful breeding is implimented, then eventually SM would become non existant in cavs.
> 
> Considering the other inaccuracies in this programme, I fail to believe they were entirely honest in this part of the programme either.


Spot on


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

jackson said:


> From, what little I know, the MRI scans for SM aren't conclusive and the Cav club are trying to accumulate DNA evidence in conjunction with the scans, so a DNA tests for SM becomes available, and dogs can be named as either carrier, clear or affected.
> 
> Also, from what I can gather, if the Cav mentioned to have SM in PDE is bred to dogs tested and thought to be clear, then the offspring produced cannot be affected, only carriers. So, what is the difference between breeding them, and, for example, a Staff that is affected to a non carrier, or a carrier to a non carrier? The resulting offspring will not be symtomatic, and if careful breeding is implimented, then eventually SM would become non existant in cavs.
> 
> Considering the other inaccuracies in this programme, I fail to believe they were entirely honest in this part of the programme either.


Good post,
So in summary then 
Clear to Clear will Produce only Clear's
Clear to Carrier will produce a percentage of both Clear and Carrier.
Carrier to Carrier will Produce Affected's, Carrier's and Clear.
Affected to Clear will produce ALL Carriers.
Affected to Carrier will produce Carrier and Affected.
Affected to Affected will produce ALL Affected.

So the mating's to be avoided would be:
Affected To Affected,
Affected To Carrier,
Carrier To Carrier,
And where possible only do Clear to Clear or Clear to Carrier matings,unless the gene pool is very small that you need to use an affected dog to a clear.
I stand to be corrected if I've got this slightly muddled up.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Well yes, but at the moment we have no DNA testing available, but with or without MC the research into this will carry on, until then, we can only do our best


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

Rach said:


> Well yes, but at the moment we have no DNA testing available, but with or without MC the research into this will carry on, until then, we can only do our best


Fingers crossed you can get a break through with a DNA test,it will make breeding out SM so much easier.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

It will yes, at the moment all we can do is go by scan results, a scanned A clear to a scan D is almost the same as effected to clear, as long as the grade D is asystomatic


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

A quick question then for those who are supporting the actions of the Cavalier club.

Are the Kennel Club wrong to have come down firmly in support of Margaret Carter?

Because from where I'm looking, it seems the Cavalier club is now looking even more isolated from the real world, even its own world, than ever before. If the KC don't support the decision, how can the members?


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> A quick question then for those who are supporting the actions of the Cavalier club.
> 
> Are the Kennel Club wrong to have come down firmly in support of Margaret Carter?
> 
> Because from where I'm looking, it seems the Cavalier club is now looking even more isolated from the real world, even its own world, than ever before. If the KC don't support the decision, how can the members?


It's clear cut in my opinion. She belonged to a club and was in a position of trust where she was privy to confidential information. She betrayed that position of trust and gave confidential information to the press. The club have every right to dismiss her. It is a club matter and has nothing at all to do with the KC.

Imagine this scenario. Passionate Productions decide that their next "shock horror" hatchet job is going to be on internet magazines - for no other reason than it will draw lots of viewers. They decide that as part of this they want to discredit K9 and you personally - again, for no reason other than people like to believe the worst about anyone. They speak to an employee of your bank to try to dredge up information on you and this employee gives them confidential information about you. Do you not think that the employee should be dismissed?


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

If someone did a documentary on my company and one of my employees was speaking up about deficiencies/problems in my company and was also able to demonstrate how she has made me aware of those deficiencies privately, the absolute last thing I'd do is then seek to remove her. It would simply compound and prove the allegations the employee was making and would make my company appear totally insular and acting like a closed shop with something to hide. The real question is, why on earth does the Cavalier club believe the health problems Margaret revealed should be kept confidential? Surely the dog buying public has every right - and indeed need - to know about those issues affecting this popular breed of dog?


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Well rumor has it that the producer was visiting dog forums to help with the research of the PDE programme,I found evidence of this myself.
They are also planning on doing a follow up to see what improvements regarding health has been done,according to the dog press.


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

ryanK9 said:


> If someone did a documentary on my company and one of my employees was speaking up about deficiencies/problems in my company and was also able to demonstrate how she has made me aware of those deficiencies privately, the absolute last thing I'd do is then seek to remove her. It would simply compound and prove the allegations the employee was making and would make my company appear totally insular and acting like a closed shop with something to hide. The real question is, why on earth does the Cavalier club believe the health problems Margaret revealed should be kept confidential? Surely the dog buying public has every right - and indeed need - to know about those issues affecting this popular breed of dog?


How very true Ryan. A GREAT post


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> If someone did a documentary on my company and one of my employees was speaking up about deficiencies/problems in my company and was also able to demonstrate how she has made me aware of those deficiencies privately, the absolute last thing I'd do is then seek to remove her. It would simply compound and prove the allegations the employee was making and would make my company appear totally insular and acting like a closed shop with something to hide. The real question is, why on earth does the Cavalier club believe the health problems Margaret revealed should be kept confidential? Surely the dog buying public has every right - and indeed need - to know about those issues affecting this popular breed of dog?


We had a member of staff who disclosed confidential information about another member of staff to a client,our boss heard her and she was sacked on the spot.
If it's confidential info it should not be disclosed end of!


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

sallyanne said:


> We had a member of staff who disclosed confidential information about another member of staff to a client,our boss heard her and she was sacked on the spot.
> If it's confidential info it should not be disclosed end of!


Absolutely, Sally. Excellent post. I work in the NHS where, of course, confidentiality is paramount. Anyone who breaches confidentiality is dismissed immediately under gross misconduct.

If someone who is privy to confidential information discloses that information to anyone, then that person is obviously not trustworthy - so why would anyone believe what they say anyway?


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

I was unaware Margaret was EMPLOYED by the club and was drawing a salary which was tied to a contract demanding she must not speak out about health problems within the breed.

However, I don't disagree with the fact that the club can do as it pleases. It has. The reality is, they obviously have no concern for the fact that they are so clearly out of step with the thinking of the Kennel Club and the dog owning public at large. That is, again, totally up to them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> I was unaware Margaret was EMPLOYED by the club and was drawing a salary which was tied to a contract demanding she must not speak out about health problems within the breed.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> No-one has said anywhere that she was. However, she was a member of the club and hence was bound by its rules, which she broke. So she was dismissed form the club - and deservedly so, in my opinion.


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

The breeder who she exposed in the documentary as having knowingly competed with a dog suffering with syringomyelia, is she still a member?

Did she get expelled from any breed clubs for breaking rules?


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

MC is still on a member of the club, she was removed as a committee member, nothing else. The CKCS club has no problem admitting our health problems, look on any of their website and the information is there, in full !

The MEMBERS of the CKCS club DID have a problem with MC going on national TV and divulging personal information


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> The breeder who she exposed in the documentary as having knowingly competed with a dog suffering with syringomyelia, is she still a member?
> 
> Did she get expelled from any breed clubs for breaking rules?


No she hasn't, yet again I will say please go and read the breeding guidelines set by the International Syringomyelia Conference in 2006

She has NOT broken any rules !


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> The breeder who she exposed in the documentary as having knowingly competed with a dog suffering with syringomyelia, is she still a member?
> 
> Did she get expelled from any breed clubs for breaking rules?


First of all, get your facts right. The dog is not suffering from syringomyelia, he is a carrier. If he were suffering from the disease, he would have been unable to walk on a lead let alone compete in a show ring.

Re your question - I have no idea. I don't know if it is against the rules of the CKC Club to compete with a dog who is a carrier of syringomyelia. I doubt that it is - why would it be? But if the exhibitor did break club rules, then I'm sure she will be disciplined under those rules.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> First of all, get your facts right. The dog is not suffering from syringomyelia, he is a carrier. If he were suffering from the disease, he would have been unable to walk on a lead let alone compete in a show ring.
> 
> Re your question - I have no idea. I don't know if it is against the rules of the CKC Club to compete with a dog who is a carrier of syringomyelia. I doubt that it is - why would it be? But if the exhibitor did break club rules, then I'm sure she will be disciplined under those rules.


As far as I'm aware he has the malformation but is Asystomatic, to watch him move is a pleasure


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Rach said:


> As far as I'm aware he has the malformation but is Asystomatic, to watch him move is a pleasure


I don't know about you Rach, but I'm totally fed up with these people who are just trying to make trouble where there is none. I don't have CKCs as you know, and know very little about them, but I just can't stand by and let people like this try to pretend things are other than they really are, just for the sake of sensationalism. I keep thinking - today this breed, tomorrow it might be my breed. The bergamasco is so safe as a breed that it is bomb proof, but according to people at shows and on other forums, border collies are coming under attack.

It's a pity that these people who feel a need to campaign can't focus their attention where there is a real need for action - such as puppy farming, or the RSPCA - instead of trying to bring down an organisation that does more for dogs than any other.

Ok - mini rant over!


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Everywhere we go it's the same, people that do not know the facts jump on the band wagon
I will always have Cavaliers, I will continue to breed, I will continue to show, I will contine to health test and make my decision on the results with the help of the guidelines set out by the club

What else can we do? If any of you that think you know better have any ideas, then please let me know !


Going out now but will be back later if anyone else has any questions on my wonderful, healthy breed 

Youngest of which are Heart and Eye clear (Will be MRI'd when old enough)
Oldest, Heart, Eye and with a clear MRI scan !!


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> I don't know about you Rach, but I'm totally fed up with these people who are just trying to make trouble where there is none. I don't have CKCs as you know, and know very little about them, but I just can't stand by and let people like this try to pretend things are other than they really are, just for the sake of sensationalism. I keep thinking - today this breed, tomorrow it might be my breed. The bergamasco is so safe as a breed that it is bomb proof, but according to people at shows and on other forums, border collies are coming under attack.
> 
> It's a pity that these people who feel a need to campaign can't focus their attention where there is a real need for action - such as puppy farming, or the RSPCA - instead of trying to bring down an organisation that does more for dogs than any other.
> 
> Ok - mini rant over!


Yep Rotties, Staffs they have all had their day makes you wonder who's next

At least while they are trying to rip our breed apart they are leaving others alone


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

> I have no idea. I don't know if it is against the rules of the CKC Club to compete with a dog who is a carrier of syringomyelia. I doubt that it is - why would it be?


This dog has sired puppies even though its owner knew it was a carrier.

Do you think that is ethical?

Would you use a stud dog who was a known carrier?


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> This dog has sired puppies even though its owner knew it was a carrier.
> 
> Do you think that is ethical?
> 
> Would you use a stud dog who was a known carrier?


Some Breeders will use a carrier to retain bloodlines,they can produce Clear puppies when used on a clear bitch.
It's been done in my breed.I personally wouldn't use a carrier but different breeders have different reasons for doing so.


----------



## marlynaveve (Aug 13, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> This dog has sired puppies even though its owner knew it was a carrier.
> 
> Do you think that is ethical?
> 
> Would you use a stud dog who was a known carrier?


No it isn't. His owner should certainly NOT had this dog at stud knowing he was a carrier, he should have been neutered.
But I see no ethical reason why he should not be shown if he is of otherwise show quality.
I have always said that the KC should have neuter classes at shows like the GCCF in cats.That way dogs that are known to be carriers of hidden defects but otherwise conform to the standard for the breed could still be shown.
Also not everyone that gets pleasure from showing wants to breed so, again like the cat fancy, they could still show but with a neuter.
Mary
x


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

> I personally wouldn't use a carrier but different breeders have different reasons for doing so.


What would be the reasons you wouldn't do it?

Seems to me that a carrier, even when mated to a clear dam, will still have an increased chance of passing on the gene.

Bloodlines surely can't be worth risking passing this condition on, under any circumstances?


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Ryan, I think you are missing the point. An MRI scan for SM isn't conclusive, some dogs (like the one shown in the programme) are shown to look like they have it on the scan, but never show any symptoms. That is why the breed club etc are trying to pinpoint a DNA test for SM, so not only can it be 100% confirmed if the dog has it, but also whether they are a sufferer (have two copies of the gene needed, as it is recessive and you need two copies to show symptoms) a carrier (has one copy but no symptoms) or are clear. (no copies of the gene) 

If you mate a carrier to a clear dog, then each offspring in the litter has a 50% chance of being a carrier themselves, but will never be a sufferer or show symptoms. However, the whole litter may be carriers, or the whole litter may be clear. 

Now, obviously the best way to eradicate SM is to only breed clear to clear, but there may be some outstanding examples of the breed with valuble bloodlines etc who are carriers, so if care is taken to only mate outstanding dogs who are carriers, and only to clear dogs, then eventually the condition would still be eradicated, it would just take longer. 

As long as carriers are never bre dot carriers, and (god forbid!) sufferers aren't mated with sufferers) then symptomatic dogs will never be produced.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> This dog has sired puppies even though its owner knew it was a carrier.
> 
> Do you think that is ethical?
> 
> Would you use a stud dog who was a known carrier?





ryanK9 said:


> Seems to me that a carrier, even when mated to a clear dam, will still have an increased chance of passing on the gene.
> 
> Bloodlines surely can't be worth risking passing this condition on, under any circumstances?


Yes, in some cases it is ethical to breed from carriers of recessive genes. Yes, in certain circumstances I would use a stud dog who is a known carrier. Again, I would urge you to get your facts right instead of assuming. I'll give you an example of why it can be ethical to breed from carriers of genetic illness and I'll try to put it into layman's language for you because it's clear from your reply that you don't really understand genetics.

I don't know enough to base an answer on the genetics involved in syringomyelia, so I'm basing the following example on TNS in border collies, because this is something I do know about.

The TNS gene is a recessive gene. Dogs who are carriers will never develop the illness. The only way for a pup to have the illness is to be progeny of a mating between two carriers.

If you mate carrier to carrier, the pups will have TNS and won't survive. This is obviously a no-no.

If you mate carrier to non carrier, no pups will have the disease. Each pup will have a 50% chance of being a carrier - but remember, carriers are not ill and will never develop the disease.

If you have a dog or a bitch who is a carrier, but everything else about them is absolutely perfect - healthwise, conformation, temperament - there is no reason why you should not breed to a non-carrier. You are not taking a chance of breeding ill pups. The worst that can happen is that the pups will be carriers - and remember, carriers are not ill and will never develop the disease.

From a litter of pups from a carrier/non-carrier mating, each pup will have a 50% chance of not being a carrier. Any pups that aren't carriers have continued the excellent line that would otherwise have died out. If you endorse any pups that are carriers so that they cannot be bred from, you can control the possibility of them being bred to other carriers and producing ill pups.

So, if mating a carrier to a non-carrier can produce healthy pups that will continue an excellent line, and has no chance of producing pups who are ill, why on earth is it unethical?


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> What would be the reasons you wouldn't do it?
> 
> Seems to me that a carrier, even when mated to a clear dam, will still have an increased chance of passing on the gene.
> 
> Bloodlines surely can't be worth risking passing this condition on, under any circumstances?


I wouldn't do it purely because our gene pool isn't that small,if I wanted to retain certain lines then chances are I would find a clear dog with those lines in my breed.
Carriers will never produce affected pups unless they are mated to another Carrier,or to an affected dog.


jackson said:


> Ryan, I think you are missing the point. An MRI scan for SM isn't conclusive, some dogs (like the one shown in the programme) are shown to look like they have it on the scan, but never show any symptoms. That is why the breed club etc are trying to pinpoint a DNA test for SM, so not only can it be 100% confirmed if the dog has it, but also whether they are a sufferer (have two copies of the gene needed, as it is recessive and you need two copies to show symptoms) a carrier (has one copy but no symptoms) or are clear. (no copies of the gene)
> 
> If you mate a carrier to a clear dog, then each offspring in the litter has a 50% chance of being a carrier themselves, but will never be a sufferer or show symptoms. However, the whole litter may be carriers, or the whole litter may be clear.
> 
> ...


Good Post!


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

a few questions from my side as i find this really interesting.

If u mate a carrier to a non carrier, of course ur not going to keep all the pups. 
If u sell them do u put in the contract that the pup might be a carrier?
Can u ensure that the new buyer will not mate the dog with another carrier in future?


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

Natik said:


> a few questions from my side as i find this really interesting.
> 
> If u mate a carrier to a non carrier, of course ur not going to keep all the pups.
> If u sell them do u put in the contract that the pup might be a carrier?
> Can u ensure that the new buyer will not mate the dog with another carrier in future?


Theoretically yes by endorsing the paperwork meaning the pup is not able to have any offspring registered with the KC. The reality is some people will do it anyway, putting the dog with another dog that is possibly unsuitable for breeding as a registered stud or bitch owner would never allow the mating. Then you have your unregistered, pups from un healthchecked parents, quite possibly passing on something undesirable and the only reliable outlet for these pups is often to pet shops or people who have made an impulse decision without going through a breed club recommendation or taking references and may well live to regret it 
This is why stickies like the puppy farming one, and buyer education are so very important. Pedigrees are not about snob value, in the hands of an experienced breeder they are a health record that could go back 4 or 5 generations and can be checked back even further.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Natik said:


> a few questions from my side as i find this really interesting.
> 
> If u mate a carrier to a non carrier, of course ur not going to keep all the pups.
> If u sell them do u put in the contract that the pup might be a carrier?
> Can u ensure that the new buyer will not mate the dog with another carrier in future?


Of course it would be impossible to keep all pups from a litter,Mine would all be tested and I would know which puppies were indeed Carriers before going to on to their new homes,it would be stated in a contract that the dog/bitch would have endorsements, and under no circumstance will they be lifted as they are a Carrier for whatever condition,I would also state that the dog/bitch should NEVER be bred from and spayed or castrated when they reach maturity.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Natik said:


> a few questions from my side as i find this really interesting.
> 
> If u mate a carrier to a non carrier, of course ur not going to keep all the pups.
> If u sell them do u put in the contract that the pup might be a carrier?
> Can u ensure that the new buyer will not mate the dog with another carrier in future?


Again, I'm talking about TNS because that's what I know about. You can endorse progeny not for registration, and explain to the buyer why you have done this and that if they breed to a carrier then the pups will die within the first couple of weeks. Even if you have totally misread you buyer, and the buyer means to breed and not register pups, the fact that pups won't survive with TNS for long enough for he/she to sell them probably means that no puppy farmer will even try it.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

But that isnt a guarantee that the new owner will not breed from this dog.
IMO to produce carrier pups and the risk they might be bred from in future and probably affect the next litter which would end up suffering from the disease would be more concerning to me than keeping the bloodline. 
But thats just how i feel about it and i personally wouldnt take the risk.


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

Natik said:


> But that isnt a guarantee that the new owner will not breed from this dog.
> IMO to produce carrier pups and the risk they might be bred from in future and probably affect the next litter which would end up suffering from the disease would be more concerning to me than keeping the bloodline.
> But thats just how i feel about it and i personally wouldnt take the risk.


It's far more complicated than that though, genetics is a vast and inexact science. By refusing to use any carrier dogs in a mating programme you run the risk of something as bad or even worse emerging because you are reducing the available gene pool even further. 
Early neutering is becoming more popular as a means of preventing unauthorised breeding in the cat world, but that would not work for pups. Education and buyer awareness is what will make the difference. If people only bought pups from responsible breeders instead of going to bybs and buying Lord knows what, the problem would be controlled instantly as no pups from unsuitable parents would be born if no one was buying them.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Leah100 said:


> It's far more complicated than that though, genetics is a vast and inexact science. By refusing to use any carrier dogs in a mating programme you run the risk of something as bad or even worse emerging because you are reducing the available gene pool even further.
> Early neutering is becoming more popular as a means of preventing unauthorised breeding in the cat world, but that would not work for pups. Education and buyer awareness is what will make the difference. If people only bought pups from responsible breeders instead of going to bybs and buying Lord knows what, the problem would be controlled instantly as no pups from unsuitable parents would be born if no one was buying them.


Why would u run the risk of something even worse?
Surely u wouldnt mate a dog with other issues only for the reason to mate it? 
I only talk from my point of view and if i wouldnt be able to find a matching dog/bitch for mating with mine then i simply wouldnt mate that dog at all.


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

sallyanne said:


> We had a member of staff who disclosed confidential information about another member of staff to a client,our boss heard her and she was sacked on the spot.
> If it's confidential info it should not be disclosed end of!


While I agree in principle, we are talking about animal welfare here, which I think must take preference.

This woman should be applauded for bringing this to the media's attention. End of.


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

> Yes, in some cases it is ethical to breed from carriers of recessive genes. Yes, in certain circumstances I would use a stud dog who is a known carrier. Again, I would urge you to get your facts right instead of assuming.




For clarity, I must stress something. I ask these questions not because I don't know the answers myself. You have assumed what I do or don't know about canine genetics. Having written on the subject and having had many, many long hours of conversations with genetic experts in the fields of canine cancer and hereditary disease, I'd hazard to say I may well know a tad more about this field than your good self.

So from your post I got the answer I was seeking. You, as a Cavalier breeder, would mate a carrier of SM. That's all I wanted to know.

So, if we were to extend this discussion. A Labrador can have a monumentally high hip score, say above 25 on each hip yet the dog itself shows no signs of hip problems or dysplasia. Should that dog be bred from on the basis that it is outwardly fine itself?

What about dogs who carry the leukemia gene but who don't have the condition themselves? They should be bred from too?


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

Natik said:


> Why would u run the risk of something even worse?
> Surely u wouldnt mate a dog with other issues only for the reason to mate it?
> I only talk from my point of view and if i wouldnt be able to find a matching dog/bitch for mating with mine then i simply wouldnt mate that dog at all.


Only because until completely exhaustive dna tests are available for every single inheritable condition, it's not possible to know whether by restricting the gene pool even further you could be bringing a hidden recessive trait to the fore. Don't misunderstand me, I look forward to the day when they have identified markers for all avoidable conditions.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Leah100 said:


> Only because until completely exhaustive dna tests are available for every single inheritable condition, it's not possible to know whether by restricting the gene pool even further you could be bringing a hidden recessive trait to the fore. Don't misunderstand me, I look forward to the day when they have identified markers for all avoidable conditions.


but if u mate a carrier it can have a inheritable condition too which u will not know without the dna testing. So restricted gene pool or not, doesnt matter i think. 
Sorry, I must come across pretty annoying but i grew up questioning the world hehe


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Natik said:


> but if u mate a carrier it can have a inheritable condition too which u will not know without the dna testing. So restricted gene pool or not, doesnt matter i think.
> Sorry, I must come across pretty annoying but i grew up questioning the world hehe


you and me both.but i'll just watch and read on this one


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> So from your post I got the answer I was seeking. You, as a Cavalier breeder, would mate a carrier of SM. That's all I wanted to know.


This answer shows perfectly how magazines such as yours (and programs like PDE) twist what is written or said, put a different spin on it, and present it as truth. I think my post and your reply is deserving of going in the dog press (the real dog press, not K9) just to show how people like you operate.

I am not a cavalier breeder (show me anywhere in the post where I say I was - you can't, can you?) and I categorically state that I cannot speak about SM because I don't know enough about it. For you then to decide that I am a cavalier breeder and would breed from a carrier of SM is more than wrong, more than ridiculous - it is a prime example of journalism at its worst.

Any credibility you may have thought you had has now been shot to pieces by yourself.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Natik said:


> but if u mate a carrier it can have a inheritable condition too which u will not know without the dna testing. So restricted gene pool or not, doesnt matter i think.
> Sorry, I must come across pretty annoying but i grew up questioning the world hehe


This why dog breeding is best left to those who know what there doing.
By restricting the gene pool,you are increasing the amount of Inbreeding and Line breeding,therefore you could possibly be doubling up on faulty gene's creating more problems for the breed.This is why DNA testing is very important,but some breeds such as the CKCS do not have those tests available as yet.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> So, if we were to extend this discussion. A Labrador can have a monumentally high hip score, say above 25 on each hip yet the dog itself shows no signs of hip problems or dysplasia. Should that dog be bred from on the basis that it is outwardly fine itself


You may know something about genetics (although I have my doubts as to whether or not you know as much as you think you do) but you certainly know nothing about logical argument.

A dog with a high hip score, even if he is showing no sign of the disease, has the disease and is capable of passing a painful disease onto his offspring.

A carrier of TNS mated to a non-carrier does not have the disease and is not capable of passing on a painful disease to his offspring.

Your argument is fallacious.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

sallyanne said:


> This why dog breeding is best left to those who know what there doing.
> By restricting the gene pool,you are increasing the amount of Inbreeding and Line breeding,therefore you could possibly be doubling up on faulty gene's creating more problems for the breed.This is why DNA testing is very important,but some breeds such as the CKCS do not have those tests available as yet.


But then u shouldnt breed that dog, but like i said, its my opinion. 
Breeding should eliminate health risks and not producing carriers which are beeing sold with the risk of being bred from in future producing even more carriers or even affected pups.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Natik said:


> But then u shouldnt breed that dog, but like i said, its my opinion.
> Breeding should eliminate health risks and not producing carriers which are beeing sold with the risk of being bred from in future producing even more carriers or even affected pups.


Most good Breeders will insist on the dogs been neutered and will follow it up.
You can't just eliminate all Carriers in one fowl swoop from a breeding programme.

Taken from the AHT 
Because of the very high frequency of the cord1 mutation, we would advise breeders to take a gradual approach to eliminating the mutation from their stock to avoid restricting the gene pool available. Both carriers and affected dogs can be used to breed - but only when crossed with DNA tested clear dogs. For carrier x clear crosses, half the offspring (on average) will be clear and half will be carriers. Litters from these crosses should be DNA tested to distinguish clears from carriers. Genetically-affected x clear crosses will only produce carriers; there is therefore no need to DNA test these litters.
Animal Welfare, Cat, Dog, Horse, Charity, Donations, Animal Health Trust


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Ryan, do you know that an "A" scanned dog mated to an "A" scanned bitch HAVE produced Syringomyelia ???
Do you know that 2 dogs who later went on to fail scans have produced "A" scanned puppies ???

What do YOU propose we do, seeing as you know so much ? 
Are you one of the lobby that thinks the Cavalier breed should die out ? Never going to happen mate
Until we have a DNA test there is NOTHING else we can do, when are the general public going to understand this ?
Please if you are going to have such a strong opinion on Cavaliers do your homework first, then maybe we can debate !

The main cause of death in Cavaliers is MVD to eradicate all the "failed" MRI dogs out of our breeding pool would have serious effects to the breed
Our specialists are now saying the malformation is "normal"


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

> Any credibility you may have thought you had has now been shot to pieces by yourself.


I'll survive 

I'm not the one who said I'd mate a SM carrier. You said:



> Yes, in certain circumstances I would use a stud dog who is a known carrier


In response to my post:



> This dog has sired puppies even though its owner knew it was a carrier.
> 
> Do you think that is ethical?
> 
> ...


If you think you've been misrepresented, I disagree. I was clearly basing my line of questioning on SM in cavaliers as per the thread and you chose to answer.

I didn't ask about recessive genes, I asked about SM and whether it was ethical of this breeder to use a stud dog which was a carrier. The above was your response.

If you still feel misrepresented then I can ask the question again and you can feel free to give a yes/no or no answer at all.

If you owned a stud dog that you knew was a carrier of SM would you use it at stud?


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

> Ryan, do you know that an "A" scanned dog mated to an "A" scanned bitch HAVE produced Syringomyelia ???


So? What's that got to do with this argument?



> What do YOU propose we do, seeing as you know so much ?


You don't mate known carriers of SM or put them up for stud knowing they are carriers.

Not rocket science. Not rocket science at all. However, you clearly disagree - as do others - and dogs are in a mess as a result of such ill informed, misguided decisions.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> So? What's that got to do with this argument?
> 
> You don't mate known carriers of SM or put them up for stud knowing they are carriers.
> 
> Not rocket science. Not rocket science at all. However, you clearly disagree - as do others - and dogs are in a mess as a result of such ill informed, misguided decisions.


I really take offence at that, I am far from ill informed or misguided !!
I have read every document there is on Syringomyelia, have you ?

If 2 clear dogs can produce Syringomyelia what is the way forward ???

Two failed scanned dogs produce clear dogs, rocket science doesn't come into it, I am afraid you are the one ill informed

Until we have a DNA test there is no more that can be done !


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

On the basis of my above post then yes I would use a dog who was a known carrier of SM, as long as other criterias are met, and as long as my own dogs were clear
In fact my own stud dog was used on a dog that isn't a grade A, but as my dog IS a grade A I allowed him to be used


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> I'll survive
> 
> I'm not the one who said I'd mate a SM carrier. You said:
> 
> ...


And yet again you show your propensity for twisting things to what you want them to say. If you are doing it deliberately, you can stop, because you are fooling no-one. The posts are there for all to see. If you are not doing it deliberately, may I tactfully suggest reading lessons?

And now for the truth. Whatever you think you asked, what you actually wrote was:



ryanK9 said:


> Seems to me that a carrier, even when mated to a clear dam, will still have an increased chance of passing on the gene.
> 
> Bloodlines surely can't be worth risking passing this condition on, under any circumstances?


And I answered


spellweaver said:


> Yes, in some cases it is ethical to breed from carriers of recessive genes. Yes, in certain circumstances I would use a stud dog who is a known carrier.
> 
> I don't know enough to base an answer on the genetics involved in syringomyelia, so I'm basing the following example on TNS in border collies, because this is something I do know about.
> 
> ...


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> What would be the reasons you wouldn't do it?
> 
> *Seems to me that a carrier, even when mated to a clear dam, will still have an increased chance of passing on the gene. *
> Bloodlines surely can't be worth risking passing this condition on, under any circumstances?


Just to clarify, it is the line in bold above which gives the impression that you do not know what you are talking about. Also your later comment that you were not talking about recessive genes.

SM IS a recessive condition. For your benefit, and those who are reading this and may not know, in _very_ basic form. Our genes come in pairs. One of each pair from each parent. SM is the same. It is a recessive gene, which means that it has to inherit one copy of the gene from each parent, in other words, the puppy has to have a pair of the genes for SM to actually be affected by SM. To have symptoms.

If a puppy has one half of the pair, it is then a carrier and will not be ill and never show symptoms.

So, for a puppy to have any chance whatsoever of being ill, (showing symptoms of SM) both parents have to either be a sufferer of SM (complete pair of genes) or be carriers. (one half of the pair) If you mate a carrier to a clear dog, or a sufferer to clear dog, then there is NO CHANCE at all of the puppies produced in that litter being ill.

I know some people are getting this, but I think some aren't.

Depending on how widespread SM is, then simply not breeding from any sufferers or carriers would mean the gene pool was decreased hugely, which in turn could mean that any other illnesses with recessive traits could become apparent.

Obviously no-one with any sense wants to breed a sick puppy. However, in order to rule ilnesses and geneti cconditions out, we have to start somewhere and do thinsg snesibly. I have no idea what the first hip scores for Golden Retrievers, for example were, but I bet they were well over 25, the figure at over which dogs are thought to be dysplasic. A dog with a higher score than that generally would be bred from now, but if the breed mean score was once over 25 and no-one bred, then it wouldn't have come doen and the breed wouldn't exist as it is today.


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

ryanK9 said:


> For clarity, I must stress something. I ask these questions not because I don't know the answers myself. You have assumed what I do or don't know about canine genetics. Having written on the subject and having had many, many long hours of conversations with genetic experts in the fields of canine cancer and hereditary disease, I'd hazard to say I may well know a tad more about this field than your good self.
> 
> So from your post I got the answer I was seeking. You, as a Cavalier breeder, would mate a carrier of SM. That's all I wanted to know.
> 
> ...


Ryan, you could be the worlds best expert on K9 genetics, and some people on this forum would disagree. It's rather like banging your head on a brick wall


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

> On the basis of my above post then yes I would use a dog who was a known carrier of SM


Well there seems to be some confusion.

We have one person who would use a dog that was an SM carrier and others who would definitely not and others who don't know.

I have only asked a very simple question - would you use an SM carrier at stud. And have seen varying answers and one hell of a lot of defensiveness, which is something I've seen a lot of in the last month or so.

And going back to where I came in, the Cavalier Club is entitled to do whatever it pleases regarding its membership and committee and those here who have defended them are perfectly entitled to do so too. But they have to realise just how out of step they are when even the Kennel Club have hit out what they've done let alone how they are now viewed by most dog enthusiasts looking in. It does not need to be 'twisted' to simply state that even people who agree that Margaret Carter should have been removed can't agree between each other on whether or not they'd use a stud dog carrier of SM. Which is certainly interesting.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> Ryan, you could be the worlds best expert on K9 genetics, and some people on this forum would disagree. It's rather like banging your head on a brick wall










lol .


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> Ryan, you could be the worlds best expert on K9 genetics, and some people on this forum would disagree. It's rather like banging your head on a brick wall


That is not the case at all.

Tay-sachs ( a very serious disease which causes death) is a recessive trait in humans. Just like SM is in Cavs. Are you suggesting that if one of a human couple is a carrier for tay-sachs they shouldn't breed, as their child might be a carrier?

Some Info on inheritance of recessive traits here, with diagrams, just in case!

Modes of Inheritance


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> Ryan, you could be the worlds best expert on K9 genetics, and some people on this forum would disagree. It's rather like banging your head on a brick wall


From this post then Nina I take it you know about genetics in the dog world,would you care to enlighten us?


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

ryanK9 said:


> I have only asked a very simple question - would you use an SM carrier at stud. And have seen varying answers and one hell of a lot of defensiveness, which is something I've seen a lot of in the last month or so.
> 
> And going back to where I came in, the Cavalier Club is entitled to do whatever it pleases regarding its membership and committee and those here who have defended them are perfectly entitled to do so too. But they have to realise just how out of step they are when even the Kennel Club have hit out what they've done let alone how they are now viewed by most dog enthusiasts looking in. It does not need to be 'twisted' to simply state that even people who agree that Margaret Carter should have been removed can't agree between each other on whether or not they'd use a stud dog carrier of SM. Which is certainly interesting.


Once again you are echoing my posts exactly. As I said previously, it is like banging your head on a brick wall and going around in circles. People see what they want to see, and nothing else.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> Well there seems to be some confusion.
> 
> I have only asked a very simple question - would you use an SM carrier at stud. And have seen varying answers and one hell of a lot of defensiveness, which is something I've seen a lot of in the last month or so.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> As I said previously, it is like banging your head on a brick wall and going around in circles. People see what they want to see, and nothing else.


You may have a valid point Nina,even when the AHT advises breeders not to eliminate all the carriers from a breeding programme people still refuse to believe it. Perhaps they got it wrong too


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

sallyanne said:


> From this post then Nina I take it you know about genetics in the dog world,would you care to enlighten us?


I do not profess to be expert in something I know nothing about, but I am entitled to express my opinion. Hence I feel that a dogs health should take priority over beauty and pageantry.

Correct me if I am wrong Sallyanne, but I was under the impression that the main competitive reason for winning at a major exemption show is that your dog will command high stud fees, and that the pups will command high prices.

The Cavalier winner in question, was exstatic since she could see the cash register ringing away for the foreseeable future, yet her dog was passing on its hereditary disorder to every pup - of which she was well aware. 
However, to her, it was of little consequence, not even worthy of consideration.

It would appear to me that the main issue with so many of these people is the living they make from their dogs. Opposing change only because they fear the possibility of loosing their income.


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

> The confusion and defensiveness have all been engineered deliberately by yourself. Your replies to Rach, Jackson and myself clearly show you don't know much about genetics, even though you state you do.


And you keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. You are entitled to whatever view you wish to hold.



> We have done nothing but answer your questions, and you have twisted those replies around until you could come up with an answer like this.


Again, your opinion. I'm quite happy that the responses are all there for anyone to make their own mind up.



> What are you going to do now - write an article for K9 on how members of pertforums are defensive when asked about genetics?




Don't flatter yourself. Members of pet forums are hardly quality material for articles - opinions are just that, opinions. Some have opinions which are important and others don't. We tend to cover those whose opinions carry weight.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

jackson said:


> Just to clarify, it is the line in bold above which gives the impression that you do not know what you are talking about. Also your later comment that you were not talking about recessive genes.
> 
> SM IS a recessive condition. For your benefit, and those who are reading this and may not know, in _very_ basic form. Our genes come in pairs. One of each pair from each parent. SM is the same. It is a recessive gene, which means that it has to inherit one copy of the gene from each parent, in other words, the puppy has to have a pair of the genes for SM to actually be affected by SM. To have symptoms.
> 
> ...


Excellent post, Jackson. But he's not interested in facts or the truth, he started with an agenda and has twisted our words around to make it seem as if we were defensive because of what we believe in. The simple truth is that he attacked, we defended - and because we defended well and our answers stumped him, he turned it into this farce.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> Don't flatter yourself. Members of pet forums are hardly quality material for articles - opinions are just that, opinions. Some have opinions which are important and others don't. We tend to cover those whose opinions carry weight.


Sorry - thought you were editor in chief of of K9 magazine - you know, that internet rag held in scorn by the *real *press and justly ridiculed by the editor of "Our Dogs" a week or so ago. My apologies - which publication do you work for?


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Time to bow out I think
Just wasting my time
Good luck spellweaver and Jackson, I feel it's all falling on deaf ears


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

spellweaver said:


> Excellent post, Jackson. But he's not interested in facts or the truth, he started with an agenda and has twisted our words around to make it seem as if we were defensive because of what we believe in. The simple truth is that he attacked, we defended - and because we defended well and our answers stumped him, he turned it into this farce.


Actually, to a lot of people, it would appear be the other way around. Unless people do not agree with you, they are the stupid ones  At times its almost like being back at school.

This is a forum, where people should be free to express their opinions without making it personal and being attacked for doing so.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> The Cavalier winner in question, was exstatic since she could see the cash register ringing away for the foreseeable future.


Almost slanderous, I take it you don't know Beverly Costello ?
You should be ashamed of yourself


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

Rach said:


> Almost slanderous, I take it you don't know Beverly Costello ?
> You should be ashamed of yourself


I do not know the woman personally, but am only echoing what thousands of other people have said since the programme.

I had mistakenly thought the dog in question was actually put to stud, so my SINCERE apologies to the lady in question. At least I am prepared to offer an apology when I am wrong.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> I do not know the woman personally, but am only echoing what thousands of other people have said since the programme.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

Like I said, I mistakenly thought that the dog in question, was used for stud ,and will once again apologise if this is in fact incorrect. 

At least I have the good grace to admit when I am wrong, or has my apology also caused offense.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> I do not profess to be expert in something I know nothing about, but I am entitled to express my opinion. Hence I feel that a dogs health should take priority over beauty and pageantry.


Construction and the way a dog moves etc are also judged in the ring,it's not just about beauty.



Nina Cole said:


> Correct me if I am wrong Sallyanne, but I was under the impression that the main competitive reason for winning at a major exemption show is that your dog will command high stud fees, and that the pups will command high prices.


Yes you are wrong,an exemption show isn't a major show win,a CH show is what I class as a Major win,as for extortionate stud fees,do you know alot of off stud/ bitch owners then ?



Nina Cole said:


> The Cavalier winner in question, was exstatic since she could see the cash register ringing away for the foreseeable future, yet her dog was passing on its hereditary disorder to every pup - of which she was well aware.
> However, to her, it was of little consequence, not even worthy of consideration.


As far as I'm aware he was a carrier for SM and therefore can't develop SM or pass the disease on to off spring unless he was mated to an Affected bitch or another Carrier.
Have you spoken to the owner concerned,again you've made another assumption that she was doing it purely for fiancial gain.Are you aware that if any profit is made from breeding you are liable for tax ?



Nina Cole said:


> It would appear to me that the main issue with so many of these people is the living they make from their dogs. Opposing change only because they fear the possibility of loosing their income.


I seriously doubt it,not many if any good breeders make a profit or income by breeding,only BYB's and PF's.


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> Sorry - thought you were editor in chief of of K9 magazine - you know, that internet rag held in scorn by the *real *press and justly ridiculed by the editor of "Our Dogs" a week or so ago. My apologies - which publication do you work for?




It's the 'real' press because YOU say so?

Answer me this then, just for the record.

Why did OUR DOGS steal two articles from K9 Magazine and have to publicly apologise for it both times?

They steal from us, not the other way round as people will see if they want to read the full story rather than the one you're giving.

Our Dogs Newspaper Responds to K9 Magazine


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> I do not know the woman personally, but am only echoing what thousands of other people have said since the programme.
> 
> I had mistakenly thought the dog in question was actually put to stud, so my SINCERE apologies to the lady in question.


Seems you're mistaken about a few other things as well Nina. First of all there are no such things as exemption shows - they are now called companion shows. These are the shows where the classes are "waggiest tail", "prettiest bitch" etc etc. and are for non-pedigrees. The winners of these are hardly likely to claim high stud fees!  What you really mean is Championship Shows - this shows you have absolutely no knowledge of what the show scene entails, yet you expect people to accept your opinion is valid. Secondly, you have refered several times in various threads about a _Panorama_ program - by doing this you are giving the prgram by the virtually unknown _Passionate Productions_ more kudos than it merits.

With all these things you are mistaken about, do you wonder that people correct your "opinions"?


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

The dog has been used at stud, but to say "The Cavalier winner in question, was exstatic since she could see the cash register ringing away for the foreseeable future." is almost slanderous !

Beverly can hold her head high with a lot of support with people that understand Syringomyelia as can the bitches he was used on, the tests available are not conclusive, so you and whoever else can think what you want, I'm tired of it, not going to try defending my breed or fellow exhibitor/s anymore, think what you like

Bowing out now


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Rach said:


> The dog has been used at stud, but to say "The Cavalier winner in question, was exstatic since she could see the cash register ringing away for the foreseeable future." is almost slanderous !
> 
> Beverly can hold her head high with a lot of support with people that understand Syringomyelia as can the bitches he was used on, the tests available are not conclusive, so you and whoever else can think what you want, I'm tired of it, not going to try defending my breed or fellow exhibitor/s anymore, think what you like
> 
> Bowing out now


Thanks for your input Rach!


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> It's the 'real' press because YOU say so?
> 
> Answer me this then, just for the record.
> 
> ...


No, it's the real press because it's been established for many years, is staffed by professional journalists who can write proper, unbiased, informed articles, and is read by more people than you could even imagine, let along wish would click on your mag.

I shan't be following your link - why would I? I've read the true story in the* real *press.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

sallyanne said:


> Thanks for your input Rach!


You're very welcome, if anyone is really interested in any info on Syringomyelia you can PM me and I will give you links and help out as best I can


----------



## MissG (Apr 18, 2008)

This has been the only thread on this whole forum have have red every single post on.

Some really interesting arguments from both sides.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

MissG said:


> This has been the only thread on this whole forum have have red every single post on.
> 
> Some really interesting arguments from both sides.


 we aim to please!


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

Sallyanne, you seem to enjoy making personal remarks about myself and certain other people on the forum that do not share your views, which I believe is extremely sad.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and without them there would be no forum such as these. 

To outsiders this forum is becoming a place of hostility which is a real shame. I must take a certain amount of responsibility for rising to the bait. Since people know my views I see no further need to continue with this subject.

The floor is yours.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> Sallyanne, you seem to enjoy making personal remarks about myself and certain other people on the forum that do not share your views, which I believe is extremely sad.
> 
> I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and without them there would be no forum such as these.
> 
> ...


Nina, why do you seem to feel that you are allowed to make personal remarks about either Sally or myself, and others on this forum, but that we must not do the same to you? Your attitude makes me so angry, that I think it best to put you on my ignore list. Cogratulations - you are the first poster ever to be on there.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

Nina Cole said:


> Sallyanne, you seem to enjoy making personal remarks about myself and certain other people on the forum that do not share your views, which I believe is extremely sad.


Please point me in the direction of the posts or threads where I have made personal remarks.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

I have to admit that I have read through them and do not see anything that looks personal and I do agree with what spellweaver, sallyanne, jackson and rach have said


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> No, it's the real press because it's been established for many years, is staffed by professional journalists who can write proper, unbiased, informed articles, and is read by more people than you could even imagine, let along wish would click on your mag.
> 
> I shan't be following your link - why would I? I've read the true story in the* real *press.


Really? Wow, you seem to think you know a lot but in reality - very, very different.

So, because something has been around a long time it's better? Odd logic, but there you go.

Now - in terms of readership. Do you want me to embarrass you now or shall I give you a chance to retract your statement?

I'll help you out.

K9 Magazine has two websites Dog Magazine dot net - free online dog magazine and K9 Magazine - The Dog Lifestyle Magazine for Modern Dog Lovers - and the actual physical magazine. If you search google for the term 'dog magazine' you'll see both. Now in terms of the physical magazine - we print 60,000 copies per issue. And, as you seem to be in the know, how many does Our Dogs print? I can let you know if the number has slipped your attention.

This is two websites, both prominent and the physical magazine. We have a LOT more readers and that's not a claim, its a fact.

Thats before we even get in to all the other sites my company owns but if you're interested - there are 40 of them. And of that 40 we reach 8m pet owners worldwide.

So you can either stick to your guns (and look rather silly) or you can accept the fact that on this one, you're so wrong it's not even a close call.

For the record
Pet Publications - Pet Websites and Web Publications these are just some of the sites we own.

However, you can stick with your opinions and can keep stating them as fact. It says an awful lot about you that you would do that. But, as I said before, if it makes you feel better then all good.


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

> Correct me if I am wrong Sallyanne, but I was under the impression that the main competitive reason for winning at a major exemption show is that your dog will command high stud fees, and that the pups will command high prices.
> 
> 
> > Your impression is so wrong and I believe by stating above you are classing all Show People the same. How Wrong you are Nina. I am very annoyed by your post.
> > If you decide to be under the impression again I think you should refrain from classing everyone the same. Nasty post indeed


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> Really? Wow, you seem to think you know a lot but in reality - very, very different.
> 
> So, because something has been around a long time it's better? Odd logic, but there you go.
> 
> ...


All your posturing and your patronising attitude and your quoting figures don't mean anything - the fact that you feel you need to do it says an awful lot about you and the way you operate. Stop trying to bully me; it won't work. I can see straight through you. If you are as accurate on this as you are on the things you've posted on here, and the articles you've written in K9, then these figures need to be taken with a pinch of salt anyway. Still, if this "empire" makes you feel important, well, good for you!

Still doesn't alter the fact that the *real* press has been established for many years, is staffed by professional journalists who can write proper, unbiased, informed articles, and is read by more people than you could even imagine, let along wish would click on your mag.


----------



## ryanK9 (Mar 13, 2008)

> All your posturing and your patronising attitude and your quoting figures don't mean anything - the fact that you feel you need to do it says an awful lot about you and the way you operate. Stop trying to bully me; it won't work. I can see straight through you. If you are as accurate on this as you are on the things you've posted on here, and the articles you've written in K9, then these figures need to be taken with a pinch of salt anyway. Still, if this "empire" makes you feel important, well, good for you!
> 
> Still doesn't alter the fact that the real press has been established for many years, is staffed by professional journalists who can write proper, unbiased, informed articles, and is read by more people than you could even imagine, let along wish would click on your mag.


Excuse me?

Let's get this straight shall we. You made a claim about my magazine, my business - and it is WRONG. I can prove that it is wrong should you be interested. But you're not, you're interested in having your say and nobody coming back to you. So how, exactly, is my refuting your WRONG post about my company 'bullying' - if you believe that having facts pointed out to you is bullying, then you have some issues you need to work on.

You launched a personal attack on my magazine talking about 'professional writers' and other such accusations. You literally have no idea whatsoever about who does or doesn't write for my magazine so again you've revealed just how defensive you are with your sweeping, misinformed statement. I understand why you are defensive - because things are happening in the dog world which threaten you and certain folks are getting hot under the collar about it. Change is happening. The old is not necessarily 'the right'. Far from it. Outdated views and opinions are being exposed for what they are.

So if you intend to make claims you had better be quite sure you are correct otherwise you will, at the very least, have your claims refuted publicly. I can see your not big enough to apologise for making your original erroneous claim. Fine. That's pretty much as I'd expect and as I've said already it says a deal about you. So I will say again - your claim is wrong and I would make sure you don't continue to pass off your opinion as fact when you have been corrected on the matter and I've let you know that proof exists which refutes your claim.

I will now leave you to it to continue with your own reality. I've corrected you and I'm happy to leave it at that provided you understand how important it is to be sure of your facts if you are going to make public claims which you can't support.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

ryanK9 said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> Let's get this straight shall we. You made a claim about my magazine, my business - and it is WRONG. I can prove that it is wrong should you be interested. But you're not, you're interested in having your say and nobody coming back to you. So how, exactly, is my refuting your WRONG post about my company 'bullying' - if you believe that having facts pointed out to you is bullying, then you have some issues you need to work on.
> 
> ...


Oh pack it in Ryan. I'm not interested in either you or your opinions. *You've *corrected* me?* No you haven't - all you've done is poured a tirade of bullying over me becaue I refuse to bow to your inflated opinion of yourself.

You've shot your mouth off on this thread all day, showing how little you know about the world of dogs and genetics. You have been unable to convince anyone that you knew what you were talking about; you've ridiculed the people who do have the knowledge you would like to think you have and you've ignored all the questions people have put to you and twisted it around to fit what you wanted it to say. In addition, you've then turned it into this kind of attack because someone dared to say the established press were more accurate and more widely read than the magazines in your empire.

Now you feel your "empire" is under attack - and wow, who's getting defensive now?

I don't believe a word you say - and the fault for that lies solely with you and the way you have conducted yourself on this forum. And no matter how much you try to bully me into submission, no matter what "proof" you furnish, you will never earn the respect from me that I have for the journalists of such newspapers as Our Dogs and Dog World.

And that, Ryan, is reality.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

well i for one am finding all this very interesting.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> well io for one am findiong all this very interesting.


Good!!! 
It's been a good thread I think with some great info


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> well i for one am finding all this very interesting.


Me too I'm sat here watching with my mouth wide open


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

I just wish i wasnt so busy with other things and could take part in it proper


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

tashi said:


> I just wish i wasnt so busy with other things and could take part in it proper


aw.Tashi time to put ya feet up girl and have 5 mins to yaself


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)




----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

your entitled to your oppion, and i have no problem with that..as you can probably tell i love my poodles...and no i didnt take offence when you said they are poncy dogs..as for your choice of breed, i've NEVER said a bad word against them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

So as far as I can see it, as someone who knows very little about showing, genetics OR cavaliers lol I can see the following main arguement:-

Ryan & Nina think that carrying cavs should no longer be bred from at all in order to completely wipe out syg... (cant spell) and think that people that are continuing to breed are ignoring this in order to win shows and/or make money from pups that will also be carriers

SallyAnne & Jackson are firstly offended at the suggestion that competing is primarily a money-making scheme as they have much enjoyment from showing and dont see it as this at all. In regards to syg... their argument is that carriers _can_ and _should_ be bred from, however only to clear mates, as yes this will produce carrying pups but the pups will not be ill they will just carry the gene, and if we were to only breed from non-carriers the gene pool would be so small it creates higher risk of other diseases

??


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> your entitled to your oppion, and i have no problem with that..as you can probably tell i love my poodles...and no i didnt take offence when you said they are poncy dogs..as for your choice of breed, i've NEVER said a bad word against them.


huh have I missed something?


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

louise5031 said:


> huh have I missed something?


mods were very quick to remove a post that wasnt very nice


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

sorry folks but it had to go and quickly too


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> your entitled to your oppion, and i have no problem with that..as you can probably tell i love my poodles...and no i didnt take offence when you said they are poncy dogs..as for your choice of breed, i've NEVER said a bad word against them.


What plonker said that???


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

but janice you never said anything only that you were enjoying the debate... why would someone start slating your breed?!??!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

clueless said:


> What plonker said that???


pmsl.i was'nt that botherd so i lit up a ***


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

louise5031 said:


> So as far as I can see it, as someone who knows very little about showing, genetics OR cavaliers lol I can see the following main arguement:-
> 
> Ryan & Nina think that carrying cavs should no longer be bred from at all in order to completely wipe out syg... (cant spell) and think that people that are continuing to breed are ignoring this in order to win shows and/or make money from pups that will also be carriers
> 
> Yes and just think if it was her breed she would not have her dog now if that is what she is suggesting(rolleyes as smilies still not working)


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> pmsl.i was'nt that botherd so i lit up a ***


Aha Heads for **** Thanks Janice LOL


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

clueless said:


> louise5031 said:
> 
> 
> > So as far as I can see it, as someone who knows very little about showing, genetics OR cavaliers lol I can see the following main arguement:-
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

clueless said:


> louise5031 said:
> 
> 
> > So as far as I can see it, as someone who knows very little about showing, genetics OR cavaliers lol I can see the following main arguement:-
> ...


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Basically Louise what we have is people with very strong views who don't know the first thing about genetics, syringomyelia or Cavaliers, but think they are right, that's the most annoying thing about all this

If we stopped using effected but asystomatic dogs, we would be is serious jeopardy of ruining all the hard work that we have put into MVD and Retinal Folds


----------



## spoodlemum (Oct 3, 2008)

I do not claim to know anything about the genetics of breeding and will leave that to the experts. However, having worked for solicitors for more years than I care to remember I know the importance of confidentiality. It is extremely important BUT the welfare of the animals must come first. Whether this lady was right or wrong if her concern was for the welfare of animals I think she should be applauded for what she did.


Even if she was wrong in her opinion if she made it public for the right reason she should not have been 'removed'. At least we are now discussing it.

Jane


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

We have been talking about it for years, nothing was mentioned on that programme that the club or members do not already know, the information is on the main club website for all to read and has been for years


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

tashi said:


> sorry folks but it had to go and quickly too


Did the member who posted it go quickly too lol


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

louise5031 said:


> clueless said:
> 
> 
> > eh? sorry didnt quite get that, me gettin blonder by the day...
> ...


----------



## Katherna (Feb 20, 2008)

Okay a syou guys know I know nothing about breeding - you could write it on the back of a stamp what I know, but to condense everything - (takes a deep breath ... )

- affected x affected = full litter of affected puppies
- carrier x carrier = full litter of affected puppies
- carrier x clear = 50/50 chance of being a carrier
- clear x clear = clear puppies

Now have I got the gist of it or not, I understand that some breeds have a very large genetic pool and some have a very very small pool. So if theres a large pool then the chances of finding the right bloodlines with clear dogs is a lot easier than with a small pool, so by mating a carrier to a clear you would get some clear pups and extend the gene pool? 

If I've got it totally wrong let me know, like I said I know nothing about breeding dogs. I'm assuming that the genetics in the dog world work the same as in humans where if one parent is a carier of a heriditary disease and one parent isn't then the child shouldn't get the disease but if both parents are carriers then it's a percentage chance that the child will get the disease such as CF (1 in 4 chance of the child being born with it, and other children would be carriers of the faulty gene).


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2008)

Katherna said:


> Okay a syou guys know I know nothing about breeding - you could write it on the back of a stamp what I know, but to condense everything - (takes a deep breath ... )
> 
> - affected x affected = full litter of affected puppies
> - carrier x carrier = full litter of affected puppies
> ...


Yes you've got it 
In breeds where the genepool is small you would need to use Carriers,by keeping clear pups from the mating you can then further the breed by breeding clears and eliminating Carriers and Affected dogs,therefore the condition will then be eliminated from certain breeds.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

sallyanne said:


> Yes you've got it
> In breeds where the genepool is small you would need to use Carriers,by keeping clear pups from the mating you can then further the breed by breeding clears and eliminating Carriers and Affected dogs,therefore the condition will then be eliminated from certain breeds.


No she hasn't. 

Carrier to carrier _could _ produce a full litter of clear puppies, but each puppy will have a 75% chance of being affected.

However, the point is, there is no need or excuse at all to risk even once puppy being affected. So a carrier to carrier mating should not be done.

It's early and I am late for school, so must run!


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2008)

jackson said:


> No she hasn't.
> 
> Carrier to carrier _could _ produce a full litter of clear puppies, but each puppy will have a 75% chance of being affected.
> 
> ...


That's probably why I got my post all muddled up lol 
Trying to sort out kids while your thinking,I did explain it though in this post,


sallyanne said:


> So in summary then
> Clear to Clear will Produce only Clear's
> Clear to Carrier will produce a percentage of both Clear and Carrier.
> Carrier to Carrier will Produce Affected's, Carrier's and Clear.
> ...


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Without DNA testing for syringmyelia this is the breeding guidelines we have

CODE A
OVER 2.5 Absent or less than 2mm central canal dilatation in the C2-C4 region only
BE BRED TO A,C OR D


CODE C
UNDER 2.5 ABESENT
BRED TO A AND RESCAN OVER 2.5

CODE D
OVER 2.5 PRESENT BUT ASYSTOMATIC
BREED TO A

CODE E
UNDER 2.5
PRESENT BUT ASYSTOMATIC
SHOULD NOT BE BRED FROM

CODE F
PRESENT SYSTOMATIC
SHOULD NOT BE BRED FROM


The age cut off at 2.5 years has been decided so as to tie in with MVD recommendations and because most dogs with symptomatic SM will show signs before 3 years of age.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

i realy carnt believe this threadim fuming
i will always own this breed for god sake we are trying our best..please stop poking the finger


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

I totally agree. Cavaliers are a fantastic breed. We had a beauty, sadly however, he only lived to 6 years of age because of his heart.

A kinder more loving little dog you would never meet


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

cavrooney said:


> i realy carnt believe this threadim fuming
> i will always own this breed for god sake we are trying our best..please stop poking the finger


Let it go over your head mate...soon it will be another breed.possably poodles chin up girl.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2008)

I know this is off track but I think cavs are possibly the cutest little dogs ever. They look so sweet and cuddley. Will hopefully be getting mum one of them or a bichon when she retires


----------



## marlynaveve (Aug 13, 2008)

cavrooney said:


> i realy carnt believe this threadim fuming
> i will always own this breed for god sake we are trying our best..please stop poking the finger


Please dont get upset about this, the laws of genetics applies to all breeds not just Cavies. And what is being explained her is something all breeders should take on board whatever breed they are in
Try not to take it as aimed at just your lovely dogs, as I'm sure it isn't
Mary
x


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

Cav, I know you don't show so are probably not as hardy as me dealing with this sort of thing, I face it every single week at the shows, smile, carry on health testing, and as long as you can hold your head up high you have nothing to worry about


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2008)

Rach said:


> Cav, I know you don't show so are probably not as hardy as me dealing with this sort of thing, I face it every single week at the shows, smile, carry on health testing, and as long as you can hold your head up high you have nothing to worry about


You're right, Rach. it's the only way to deal with these kinds of attacks from people who think that, just because they watched that programme, they now know everything about genetics and Cavs (or any pedigree breed come to that because as I said in an earlier post, no breed is safe from these self-appointed "experts" ).

Could I just add that despite the kinds of people mentioned above, we should take heart from the fact that there are people who have posted on this thread who have been open minded enough to find the discussion interesting, and who have posted that they have learned something.


----------



## Rach (Sep 4, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> Could I just add that despite the kinds of people mentioned above, we should take heart from the fact that there are people who have posted on this thread who have been open minded enough to find the discussion interesting, and who have posted that they have learned something.


Which is why we carry on, ploughing the "experts" hoping that someone will actually read what we say/type and learn from it, or at least see both side of arguement


----------



## Katherna (Feb 20, 2008)

Cavaroony don't let them upset you. You are definately a responsible breeder as you had your dog mri scanned to check. I personally have learnt a lot from reading this discussion, and if I was looking for a cav puppy I would contact either yourself or Rach in the very first instance as I would know that you'd done everything possible to minimise any problems. Keep it up the both of you


----------



## Sgurr (Aug 24, 2008)

I've read through the whole thread tonight (sorry been away for a few days) and I'd like to make a few points.

First, Margaret Carter was removed on a point of confidentiality - but I remember Rach posting on PDE a while ago that many people knew the status of the dog re SM - so how was this information suddenly confidential? In my view MC did nothing to defame the Breed Club or the Breed, she was willing to acknowledge her own problems as a breeder and trying to ensure that no more affected dogs were bred. She pointed out that although there were guidelines in place it was mainly the hobby breeders who were adhering to them and not the main show kennels.

So for Cavrooney and others like her across all the pedigree breeds, well done, this is the groundswell and eventually we will get there, step by slow step.

On the genetics issues, quite a lot of misinformation floating around. In summary,_ in simple terms,_ Affected being recessive
Affected x Affected - all Affected
Affected x Clear - all Carrier
Clear x Clear - all Clear
Clear x Carrier - 50% Clear 50% Carrier
Carrier x Carrier - 25% Clear 50% Carrier 25% Affected
Carrier x Affected - 50% Affected 50% Carrier

BUT there is a natural mutation rate so it is possible, very, very rarely, even with a condition related to a single gene, that Clear x Clear could produce a Carrier due to natural mutation. And, getting into chances of winning the lottery, Clear x Clear could produce Affected every thousand years and millions of matings or so. Just ignore this para if you are not happy with it.

Should one breed Carriers? If the Carrier dog/bitch has outstanding qualities then yes breed but only to Clears - easy when there is a genetic test available. but no dna test as yet for SM in CKC so hence the Breed Club breeding strategy.

The whole issue comes down to honesty and integrity. I have a heath checked breeding pair of ESS but one of their pups was born with a stunted tail - you cannot control the genes and every pup is an individual. This pup (now two) could pass as a short docked ESS but I show her to everyone coming to buy a pup from me as proof that no matter how many checks are undertaken, there are no guarantees. She is a happy, healthy, intelligent bitch but not breed standard. Before I bred I made a commitment to care lifelong if necessary for every pup I bred, so she stays with me, a daily joy, a loved and loving companion.

Where there is a health check available, breeders should use it - simple as that.
And where there is not, then knowing the lines and their health issues etc through pedigrees is going to be the best information that dedicated breeders can have.

Sgurr


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sgurr, I believe your post is spot on. 

I did want to add that another reason that two "A" grade parents can produce an affected offspring is because SM is thought to be incompletely penetrant. It is also known to be often late onset. Grades are often given at less than three years of age. That "A" grade dog can then go on to develop a syrinx.

From all I have read CM/SM is thought to be recessive, polygenetic and incompletely penetrant - making it an extremely difficult condition to eradicate without gene tests as a dog that appears perfectly well can have all the wrong genes . . . therefore very frustrating for breeders.


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

I certainly have not attacked Cavaliers, so I am unsure where the last remarks are heading 

Cavaliers are one of the nicest breeds and make wonderful family dogs and companions. I also know that the decent caring breeders are doing all in their power to strengthen the breed and I have pmed Cavroony to offer my support.


----------



## jigsawx (Apr 29, 2012)

i know this is many years later, but please could anyone who sees this and can help reply. i bought a dog off Beverly Costello in 2006 or 2005, and the show name is under the name "bouella" said bowella, not sure how to spell it. she told us history of the dogs which were bred was fine and there were no heart problems, after reading about her being banned from the kennel club for breeding a dog with SM you can imagine how sickened we felt. Does anyone have any information on which dog it was that had the disease, and if it is likely that our dog has it? as we have had many problems with the dog, and at the moment she is very ill and the vets are putting it down to heart problems, now i'm thinking it is SM, please can anyone help? And if anyone has her contact number i would like it too, absolutley furious with her, trying to make us breed the dog which we bought from her too, charging extortionate prices just to use a stud dog of hers. thank you anyone


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

jigsawx said:


> i know this is many years later, but please could anyone who sees this and can help reply. i bought a dog off Beverly Costello in 2006 or 2005, and the show name is under the name "bouella" said bowella, not sure how to spell it. she told us history of the dogs which were bred was fine and there were no heart problems, after reading about her being banned from the kennel club for breeding a dog with SM you can imagine how sickened we felt. Does anyone have any information on which dog it was that had the disease, and if it is likely that our dog has it? as we have had many problems with the dog, and at the moment she is very ill and the vets are putting it down to heart problems, now i'm thinking it is SM, please can anyone help? And if anyone has her contact number i would like it too, absolutley furious with her, trying to make us breed the dog which we bought from her too, charging extortionate prices just to use a stud dog of hers. thank you anyone


Ask your vet to check for SM?


----------



## jigsawx (Apr 29, 2012)

Werehorse said:


> Ask your vet to check for SM?


i think it's very likely she has it, read over the symptoms and she has them all. But i think i will anyway, i would just like to contact her, she sold her to us when i was only ten years old, so manipulative.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Beauella radzinski is the dog that had SM I believe.

It's not quite as simple as people have made out though.

If your dog is showing symptoms then get an MRI scan, I'm really sorry if it is SM


----------



## jigsawx (Apr 29, 2012)

thank you, i will do i pray she doesn't have it she is such a lovely dog and doesn't deserve it


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

jigsawx said:


> i think it's very likely she has it, read over the symptoms and she has them all. But i think i will anyway, i would just like to contact her, she sold her to us when i was only ten years old, so manipulative.


Her details are very easy to find via Google search


----------



## jigsawx (Apr 29, 2012)

rona said:


> Her details are very easy to find via Google search


i can't find any!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

jigsawx said:


> i know this is many years later, but please could anyone who sees this and can help reply. i bought a dog off Beverly Costello in 2006 or 2005, and the show name is under the name "bouella" said bowella, not sure how to spell it. she told us history of the dogs which were bred was fine and there were no heart problems, after reading about her being banned from the kennel club for breeding a dog with SM you can imagine how sickened we felt. Does anyone have any information on which dog it was that had the disease, and if it is likely that our dog has it? as we have had many problems with the dog, and at the moment she is very ill and the vets are putting it down to heart problems, now i'm thinking it is SM, please can anyone help? And if anyone has her contact number i would like it too, absolutley furious with her, trying to make us breed the dog which we bought from her too, charging extortionate prices just to use a stud dog of hers. thank you anyone


Ch Beauella Radzinski is the name of the dog - b. Oct 23, 2003. His MRI was done at 16 months of age. He has sired 140 pups over 40 litters according the KC database. More were sent around the world (I know we have some here in North America). HIS sire is Ch Pascavale Enchanted, and his dam Saleden Spice.

Beverly Costello can no longer breed under the affix name - as she refused to answer questions from the KC about the aforementioned MRI and her dog. I believe she can no longer judge either, but I'm not sure.

A quick google search just now brought me to this for her contact - 
What kennel name does beverley costello use to breed cavalier king charles spaniels under?

Please keep in mind that she was being mentored by some very reveered and influential people in the Cavalier breed who were in denial about SM being heritable and, from reading her initial response to the situation, truly did not understand the risk that her dog posed to the breed. Some of his pups have had grade A MRIs. Unfortunately others have been much less lucky.

CC


----------



## jigsawx (Apr 29, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> Ch Beauella Radzinski is the name of the dog - b. Oct 23, 2003. His MRI was done at 16 months of age. He has sired 140 pups over 40 litters according the KC database. More were sent around the world (I know we have some here in North America).
> 
> Beverly Costello can no longer breed under the affix name - as she refused to answer questions from the KC about the aforementioned MRI and her dog. I believe she can no longer judge either, but I'm not sure.
> 
> ...


thanks, that has a lot of useful information! 
The vets wont do an MRI on my dog due to her bad heart murmur, so i guess what she has is what she has, just very disappointed how money comes before a dogs well being when the stakes are so high these days.


----------

