Hi, Dave,
Nice to hear from you on this.
Dave Wagner wrote:
>
> I don't think that is what she is saying at all, that you can solve all
> problems and breeding decisions by making some testing mandatory. It would
> solve none of these other decisions in the tree of evaluation prior to
> breeding as you noted.
OK..........I'm with you so far. You think that some testing should be
mandatory.
>
> Start with the worst of the physical ailments. MVD. I think everyone would
> agree thats #1 on the hit list.
I agree that today MVD is a huge problem in our breed. However, it
could easily be something different and worse in the coming years if we
breed with only MVD in mind. It could easily be something different and
worse if we breed with four things only in mind. There just isn't a set
formula for how and when to breed healthy Cavaliers. This is my
difficulty (and Laura's I think) with the focus on mandatory testing.
The question isn't really about whether we should test dogs for MVD; I
think all reputable breeders agree with that premise. And, by the way, I
ask my pet owners to test their dogs.....all should be testing in case
they need treatment and to add data to the breeder's program for what it
may be worth in the future. The question is what to do with that data.
Mandatory testing would lead to something like mandatory elimination of
certain dogs.....and therein lies the crux of the problem; each specific
instance of breeding is so unique that there isn't one or even ten
parameters to set in order to breed a healthy dog. If there
were......we would all being so doing, yes? If it were easy to set
criteria for eliminating MVD then we would all rush to get in line.
But, really we have ONE speculative (non longitudinal) study which only
suggests a reasonable method of delaying onset. Maybe. We aren't even
at the point where we can see a population on which this has worked. If
we were at that point, then perhaps I could see some merit to this
arguement. However, I still would want some latitude in breeding so as
to keep the diversity that Laura mentions and avoid the dangers of
intensifying other problems.
> It would place one more obstacle to those who either disregard testing of
> hearts by a certified cardiologist or knowingly breed dogs who fail such
> test.
OK.......let's assume we put a test in place. What does "fail" mean?
Where are the controls for the testing? Color doppler read by the same
cardiologist for the whole breed? Ascultation by a number of
cardiologists? I know and have seen a cardiologist up here who believes
that EVERY Cavalier has at least a minimal increment of murmur and notes
on his testing results (all done by doppler) that there is a 1/8, 1/4 or
1/2 degree murmur. He feels that these dogs are fine to breed. What do
I do with THIS data? Incidentally, this cardiologist owns Cavaliers and
is particularly interested in the breed; he breeds his own and is the
doctor who I would most likely use if I had a dog with MVD. But, as to
his data-that is confusing and I am not sure where the line is then to
be drawn.
The head of cardilogy (a different cardiologist than above) at Tufts has
another theory which has to do with blood flow through the jugular vein
when compressing the stomach. He is working up some data on that in
correlation with his ascultation. Some feel it has merit; other think
it wishful thinking.
Sure people will find a way to beat the system but some percentage
> won't bother and a certain percentage of dogs with propensity to pass on MVD
> that would have been bred will not be bred. Add to that the increase in
> available information not only on what has passed but what has failed (as I
> say make it public either way) and the increase in ability to make decisions
> based on increased availability of genetic information in those pedigrees
> goes up again. I always here of those that pass but seem to have a hard time
> finding the public information on those that fail.
Agreed. We will always have bad breeding, dishonest people and greed.
I don't think that the legal system has been able to deal with that for
centuries, nor do I think one can legislate morality. But again, "pass"
and "fail" aren't always right or clear.
>
> Does it solve all the problems and decisions a breeder must make. Heck no.
I think it would confuse the situation and not help it.
>
> Would it be a step in the right direction with far more benefit then
> detriment. I surely think so.
Only if there was some sort of really solid research that gave us
specific parameters and even more specific tests. Right now we have an
interpretive test that isn't consistant from one cardiologist to
another. The best I can suggest for gathering data is to find a
cardiologist one likes and stay with that person. At least you will
have the same person interpretting data who appreciates any problems.
Otherwise, it is much like getting multiple opinions from doctors on any
area of medicine. They will vary enormously and one comes down to a
"gut" feeling on which one is correct.
We just aren't anywhere near ready to design and implement a test that
is universal enough that I would understand data from, say, Laura's
cardiologist.
My own son was born nine weeks premature with a murmur. At one of the
top hospitals in Boston he was first diagnosed with a PDA murmur. On
second consultation at another top hospital he was diagnosed with aortic
stenosis. In hysteria, I took him to Children's hospital for a team
opinon there. He was diagnosed (accurately) by the team with pulmonic
stenosis. These were all top doctors in their field and all used color
doppler. THREE different diagnosis from three top cardiologits. I am
hyper aware of how easy it is to not get a doppler reading
correctly.....never mind the far more empirical data from an
asculation.
Sometimes the data is very obvious.......but other times not at all.
The best thing for which we can hope is to capture the interest of
researchers and fund more studies. And, yes, keep on testing and adding
to the data and hoping for some breakthrough in a correlative indicator
such as size of platelets or something else on which to hang our hats.
And then you get into data on retinal folds and I am sure that others
here have had difficulties with a "fold" turning out not to be a fold,
but a fatty desposit or another artifact. Or maybe not..........again
this is a matter of finding a specialist in whom one trusts.
Many breeders go to shows and have hearts and eyes done by different
doctors each time. It is considerably cheaper but there is no
consistancy as each "sees" and "hears" differently.
We have a long way to go before testing is really accurate enough to
make clear decisions based on one test. I wouldn't want a "pass or
fail" system here, any more than I would want my father to undergo
surgery with only one opinion. A lot of art and not yet a lot of
science..........
Just my opinion,
Suze
--
Suze at Llawen Cavaliers
"...I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough for a man
to depend simply upon himself." -Isna Ia-wica
"Thought comes before speech" Luther Standing Bear
=========================================================
"Magic Commands":
to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
to start it up gain click here:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
