Did anyone see the BBC1 programme this evening? While I agree there are some problems with unsrupulous breeders I felt the programme did not give a balanced opinion. The rspca will find their support dropping drastically,although personally I have found them to be too politically motivated for years .
I must admit I was so disappointed that I did not watch to the end, but I know for a fact that several breeds have Health issue programmes in action already, and are making the right moves to improving and in some cases eradicating genetic problems. The Boxers have through their Breed Council a Health Committee in place which is actively working on health issues in the breed.
If you feel as I do please write to the BBC and try to get a right to reply from vets and genetisists actively involved with the Show scene as well as grass roots exhibitors like yourselves.

it wasnt balanced, but NOBODY can deny that Blood Curdling Scream of that Boxer, That CKCS woman Breeding 34 litters from her affected CKCS 24 of them after diagonsis, & the legs of those GSDs. disgusting

The vet Mark Evans really got my goat calling dog shows freak shows and the dogs mutants I bet he didn't refuse to treat the mutants when he was in a practice, in fact I bet he made a pretty penny from the freaks, but I agree the boxer screaming did bring more than a tear to my end and a lump to my throat.

Dog showing is not the root of all evil,however maybe the public will get themselves more informed about health issues in breeds they wish to own! noting gets me going more than the phase " i just want a pet", mine are show dogs, but family first! I work in a vets and trying to steer the public to proper breeders who do health checks is jolly hard! When they want a pup the want one NOW! not wanting to travel!
If anything i hope this program wakes them up !

> The vet Mark Evans really got my goat calling dog shows freak shows and the dogs mutants I bet he didn't refuse to treat the mutants when he was in a practice, in fact I bet he made a pretty penny from the freaks, but I agree the boxer screaming did bring more than a tear to my end and a lump to my throat.

Why has he even called to be on that show hes been doing cars up on the discovery channel for years,for shed loads of cash no doubt not exactly a practising vet is he

And the best of it is he owns 2 pedigree dogs himself....

Yet the general public will think "oh, RSPCA top vet, he must know what he's on about..." - like my rather slow OH (where's that rolleyes smiley when its needed?!)

I think you may find they did interview 'our' breed geneticist but they obviously didn't get the right answers
for their 'skewed' programme ;)

The program was most definitely not balanced.  That was the shocking part - especially after the statement was made that it was the result of two years of "research."  It will be a field day for the cash-hungry breeders of designer "mixes" and probably also for the non-KC pretend registries "Dog Lovers Club" or whatever.  They have set the stage for turning a bad situation worse, that's for sure.

However, I do think that breed clubs have an obligation to make sure that their breeds are healthy and that dogs with known problems are neither bred from nor shown.  Any club could well establish it's own list of approved dogs and bitches - meaning they have passed whatever health checks are available for known problems in the breed.  

The BBC got it all wrong in making the Kennel Club the guilty party.   It is the breed clubs that develop and approve the standards - and is the breed clubs that decide the rules about what dogs are eligible to show by establishing what disqualifies a dog from being shown (apart from minimum age limits) - and it is the breed club that sets guidelines for health checks.   The Kennel Club is little more than a registry. 

I agree, we certainly do have problems in our breeds, but it was very unbalanced and blamed it all on top show breeders, nothing was said about backyard breeders and puppy farmers. I am sure that if the KC insisted on health tested parents to register a litter then a lot more people would do the testing. :-(

Merely insisting on health testing is not enough in some instances. For any testing to have an impact on future generations there would have to be set guidelines with any dogs outside the guidelines not bred from. Once again KC Caroline was singing the praises of the accredited breeders scheme but it means nothing. What is the point of testing if the KC still accept registrations from affected parents. I understand that it would mean that the gene pool in many breeds would be seriously depleted in the early days if guidelines had to be adhered to but would it not be worth it in the long run to ensure the health and long term future of the affected breeds. 

i agree with lucy as the show breeders can try to improve with testing and so forthth pet breeders or byb may not want to test or dont know about testing so then breeders that work at the problem will be back to square 1

That's the point though LucyDogs, you expect a pup from a byb or puppy farmer to have issues. You DON'T expect it from a top show breeder- the cavalier breeder being one- how many other show breeders of cavaliers and other breeds know their dogs have health problems and continue to breed???? Simply because appearance wise the dog fits the standard?????

> The BBC got it all wrong in making the Kennel Club the guilty party.

The BBC transmitted the programme but all mistakes belong to Jemima Harrison :-) and yes it bugged me that they did not point out that standards are written by clubs but then again maybe they did and it did not suit the editors to put it in :-)

Yes, I suppose I do mean dogs which passed the criteria, not just 'are tested'. EG the Cavalier heart problem, the club guidelines are to breed from dogs at least 2.5 years with clear hearts that have parents at least 5 years with clear hearts. If you could not register a puppy unless it filled this criteria it would improve the chances of a healthy puppy. It doesn't guarantee it unfortunately, my boy has a slight murmur and his breeder has bred from tested heart clear stock for 20 years, but it does help your chances.

> I understand that it would mean that the gene pool in many breeds would be seriously depleted in the early days if guidelines had to be adhered to

I would be very difficult in some breeds to widen it up again.  I think the scheme has got it right.  Do the testing, which results are public and included in registration documents, but leave breeders to utilise them in the best way they can within the constraints that such openness will provide.

I personally thought that the programme was very biased. They had no evidence to support everything that they were saying. I thought it was rather disgusting when they asked the lady with the ckcs (not mentioning her name) about her dog developing syringomyelia as it was none of their business. I thought that the whole mutant thing the rspca vet was saying was cruel, offensive and untrue, and they were completely attacking the kennel club who have changed the history of breeds and without them we would not be where we are today. I also believe what the chairman of the kennel club was saying when he said "well its still progress".They don't understand that breeders are trying to breed out the genetic disorders found in dogs and that's is why many breeders breed from only tested stock. I agree that there are some breeders that don't but I personally don't know any. not all ckcs breeders scan their cavaliers for syringomyelia you saw for yourself however I do know many breeders who do and really do care for the breeds health problems and are really trying to breed it out rather than encourage it. I must admit I really was not expecting such an offensive programme to breeders and the kennel club and think that there was no justification for their behaviour and  I believe it is right to point out the health problems of our very beloved breeds,however they have taken it a step too far. I will be writing to the BBC and will be trying to get a right reply as I am quite annoyed. imagine the trouble this could cause for reputation to us breeders and not to mention us exhibitors and for no apparant reason! The reputation to a breeder or exhibitor is not the most annoying part, the most annoying part is that many inexperienced dog owners, not being educated on exhibiting and breeding will only believe the stupid information they have been fed on this programme and will think twice before even looking at another pedigree dog which for me is ridiculous. I have nothing against mongrels at all, i think they can make great pets but as far as breeding and exhibiting goes, I personally would never mix breeds or breed from a mongrel. and mongrels CAN get health problems too, i know many mongrels with health problems so im not going to go into that.And also mongrels cannot be shown, they are unpredictable how they will turn out therefore no breed standard can be made for a mongrel and too right. The rhodesian ridgebcak thing was very stupid indeed, I have never personally heard in my life, that without the ridge they are less prone to spinal disorders and I never see the vets complaining when they charge you 150 pounds just to look at your pedigree dog and tell you that there was nothing wrong with it in the beginning, if some of these stupid vets lost pedigree dogs as customers their practises would all be going into liquidation lol sorry to banter on but I was kind of cheesed off with this silly programme lol

If the producers were right the lady with a show-winning Cavalier was breeding from it repeatedly, already knowing that it was affected by syringomyelia and could pass the condition on. I can see no justification for this. I think it is the business of anyone who wishes to buy a pup and would want to know which breeders to avoid. In this instance the club appeared to collude with the breeder, since the condition of the show-winning stud dog was known to other parties within the breed.

The case of the Crufts winning Peke was another disgraceful and morally repugnant example.

I think the expose of these two examples made the programme not only worthwhile but necessary. If breeders are up in arms, sobeit. If it helps to raise standards and the standard of debate, even better.

If the producers were right the lady with a show-winning Cavalier was breeding from it repeatedly, already knowing that it was affected by syringomyelia and could pass the condition on. I can see no justification for this.

They were following the official recommendations from the breed club -recommended to them BY Clare Rusbridge who was on and said she would NOT breed from that dog. Made no sense at all....... (Clearly the dog was asymptomatic, as he LOOKED normal.)
http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/health/syringo/guide.html

MB,
Hmm. I see what you mean. The dog was asymptomatic but wouldn't his inheritance (as its called in the club document) be known? Also after 34 uses at stud, what would the chances be of producing affected offspring. High, I would imagine? If i'm totally off course here I am happy to be corrected. I have no vested interest either way. Other than to learn.

Don't get me wrong, personally I wouldn't use a dog like that (although I do not breed Cavaliers I should point out -am however an owner of the breed) -and I never want to see ANY dog used that many times. :( But there are few clear dogs so I guess some people may feel they have little choice. I don't really know how it is inherited.

I'm also very interested in this and would like to know more about the science behind it. I have read the link but will need to re read it as I'm not fully understanding it yet, will be doing my own research!

Well, I think we agree that 34 uses at stud is undesirable, any which way; in a breed with a known heritable condition it's got to be plain foolish. All this with club and KC knowledge, it would seem. So I still think it reflects badly, despite the very relevant shades of grey you have introduced.

What i can't understand is how people still breed from dogs which have inherited diseases and also those with high hip and elbow scores.
Yes the dog may be fine in every other way and some breeders may try to justify that it is a minor thing compared to what dog they have in front of them.
If any breed of dog is going to become healthier and breeders care about their breed and less about rosettes and winning then we can aim to get a healthier dog and also beauty with it.
You can have both, but it will take time and i personally think that the KC needs to implement health screens before a dog can be bred from and if the score/results are too high then their off spring can't be registered hence then not being able to be shown.
I believe that there will always be puppy farmers and BYB, but with manditory health screens and for the results to be good for the dogs to be bred from and then the pups to be registered then we will get better dogs in the long run in the breeding programme and in the ring. Those that show now and have a love for it i'm sure will be up for this otherwise they won't be able to show without a KC reg dog..

Further to this i was horrified that the breeder continued to use her dog at stud knowing it had a disease that could be passed onto its offspring, that is very irresponsible in my eyes.
I don't care that this dog was doing well in the show ring, thats fine for the owner of the dog but to then use it at stud is someone who i personally think doesn't care for the breed, more for the status and perhaps the money?? I don't know her personally but she didn't make herself look good on TV.

I watched the programme too and have read all postings on all 3 threads but I still feel as though I'm missing something.  Maybe someone can explain:

Who sets the "breed standard"?  The breed club or KC?  KC on their own?  KC in conjunction with the breed club?

If the ridge on the ridgeback is not natural to the dog, why did the original breeders keep breeding dogs until the ridge became the standard?  How, when -and more importantly why- did having a ridge become desirable - or improve the breed? 

Why didn't the KC refuse to register pups who had the unnatural ridge?  Why aren't breeders more interested in having a dog who is bred to the way nature intended ? 

Surely, any breeder who loves their breed would want a "natural" healthy dog without a ridge and not one that simply complies with the KC breed standard by having a ridge?  Especially if that standard means breeding a dog with a spinal deformity in order to have the ridge?   

Something has to change - either the breeders do it through their own breed club who would then notify the KC to change the current, unhealthy KC breed standard?

Now I'm just being nosey (!!) but..... what happens now to the Cav breeder who continued to use her stud dog despite the condition he was carrying?  Will she be "sent to Coventry" at her next show?  Prevented from registering any more pups?   Dare she show her face again at another show? Could someone who bought a pup from her take legal action against her if the pup shows syringomyelia in later years?

I'm sorry if I come across as being naïve - I will admit to knowing absolutely nought about breeding or showing.  It just seemed to me from last night's programme that it was full of pompous old f*rts, being ruled by more of the same!

Originally breed standards were drawn up by the founding breeders and the breed clubs.  Some years ago the KC decided to standardise the format of all breed standards and copyrighted them to itself.

Changes are made to standards either unilaterally by the KC or by agreement with them if the breed club request it, usually the changes are small things to clarify meaning, but occasionally more important things are changed like for example the addition of a colour in the Basenji breed standard.

I suggest anyone interested look at soem breed standards on teh KC website and pinpoint for us where the standards call for dogs to be unhealthy freaks.

Hi CathyMack

Re the Rhodesian Ridgeback - the ridge was naturally on the native Hottentot hunting dogs in Africa.  The Europeans went to Africa, with their various breeds of dog.  The European and native dogs mated - ridged individuals resulted.  The hunters found that the ridged dogs had the best hunting ability - hence the call for the ridge in the breed standard.  So the ridge was naturally there!  Rhodesian Ridgeback breeders want a natural (the ridge had occurred naturally!) healthy, ridged dog :)  No one who breeds Ridgebacks wants dermoid sinus - the clubs are funding research into this. Sadly it can occur after having generations clear of sinus - and individuals with sinus are never bred from (well, not by knowledgeable breeders!)  Dermoid sinus also occurs in ridgeless ridgebacks and in other breeds of dog - and in horses, so it isn't only linked to the ridge.

And no, most of us who breed Ridgebacks wouldn't dream of culling ridgeless puppies.

And not all of us who show are "pompous old f*rts"!!

i was under the impression the ridge was simply haird facing a different direction- if thats the case how on earth does that effect the spine? or is the spinal condition simply in the breed and little to do with the hair?

> Why aren't breeders more interested in having a dog who is bred to the way nature intended ? 

nature did not intend many dogs... the hundreds of breeds we see in the world today were deliberately bred for certain characteristics and reasons. each standard descibes the way a dog should be constructed to meet that specific purpose- even if they do not conduct that job today. my boy should be able to, if required, take down a poacher, an afghan should be able to course game, a rough collie should be able to herd etc the standard is not a description simply for beauty it denotes what is required to be 'fit for purpose'

for example, bulldogs should be brachophalic (sp?) as they previously needed this to breath while bull baiting, they should also have a large strong head to be able to do this well. while this is not done any more people like bulldogs because of the way they look and act as bred for that job, as such we maintain the standard. it is when the standard is misinterpreted that you get problems (in the case of bull dogs faces so short they can;t breath, overly massive heads etc)

> Surely, any breeder who loves their breed would want a "natural" healthy dog without a ridge and not one that simply complies with the KC breed standard by having a ridge?

yes they do- thats why millions are poured into genetic testing to choose which dogs to breed. responsible breeders don;t just throw dogs together, masses of money and research goes into each pairing to produce as healthy pups as possible.

> Could someone who bought a pup from her take legal action against her if the pup shows syringomyelia in later years?

i think so yes, and so they should, such practises are appaling

The ridge is hair growing in a different direction and it doesn't affect the spine.  The dermoid sinus is in the breed - but as I've already said, it affects other breeds too, and some horses, thoroughbreds, I think. 

> Could someone who bought a pup from her take legal action against her if the pup shows syringomyelia in later years?

I have been told that she does tell bitch owners that her dog has the malformation (but not symptoms I believe), it is then up to the bitch owner whether they care enough about the puppies to find a different dog, so it would be fairer to sue the bitch owner. However I do think it would be more responsible to withdraw him from stud. My friend withdrew her stud dog as soon as we found out his son (my boy) was a type D (malformation but no symptoms and older than 2.5 years).

thought so, so how can they possibly say that? its total rubbish! can they not be taken before some sort of standards council for that? i believe the daily mail was taken before them for making up a story about immigrants eating blackpool donkeys

I know I arrive late on this but I too was appalled by what I saw... I do believe this programme was very one sided only looking at a small part of all the breeds, only showing the shocking images and obviously showing part of the interviews they made.

I also think Culling puppies because just because they don't have a ridge is awfully wrong. Breeding an affected CKC with this horrible disease highly irresponsible. As for the epileptic Boxer I was in tears at the obvious distress of the dog (and the owner).

There's one point that sticks to my mind... one point that was made and which did ring true to me at least. Before anything Dogs should be bred to be healthy, active dogs. There's no excuse (however "beautiful" the specimen) to breed dogs which are bound to suffer from the features that are listed in their breed standards just because they're desirable. Desirable for whom? The pet owner who has to live with the affected dog, the pet who has to die early or even worse suffer from it a long time. Let's face it most dog don't show they're in pain until it becomes unbearable!!!

It is down to the judges at shows to make sure they don't reward those dogs (like the German shepherd in the video!) at shows, also I think the KC should look more closely at those breed standards to make sure they're not encouraging people to breed for "wrong" traits however desirable. When you see the pictures of dogs 100 years ago against the current dogs, it's so obvious that some of them have very little in common with their ancestors. I don't think Basset hounds could do the work they were originally bred for! So how can they be said to be close to their original standard? I'm probably naive, or plain silly but I couldn't believe how much some of the breeds have changed... I thought breed standards were there to keep the breed the way it was (not to change). It's also down to the few breeders who overlook any health testing just because their dog is "beautiful" or has got the right physical trait. I'm new to showing/ breeding but the cries of this CKC on the video will always be with me when I decide on a stud dog to use. If the idea of "beautiful" means that the dog suffers from a debilitating condition, surely breeders must react and change their view of what's desirable.

It's a shame that the programme only showed some of the breeders and do not look at the dog breeding world in its entirety as there are lots of breeders who are very caring about their dogs and will do their upmost to produce healthy happy puppies and unfortunately to the eye of the general public they've been tarred with the same brush as irresponsible breeders.
Finally I must applaud the lady who's campaigning to help with this horrible CKC condition called Syringomaelia. She's doing all this it seems on her own whilst the rest of the CKC breeders look down their noses at her because she's not a breeder? Sad times when this happens...

Anyway I was terribly saddened by this documentary :-(

If you go to the Kennel club website and look at the breed standards nown ask for features that will cause a dog to be inherently unhealthy.

Of course all those breeds with floppy ears, long coats, and al the features we like in our dogs etc are not fit to live in the wild, but certainly can live healthy lives as pets where their needs are catered for (grooming etc).

> Finally I must applaud the lady who's campaigning to help with this horrible CKC condition called Syringomaelia. She's doing all this it seems on her own whilst the rest of the CKC breeders look down their noses at her because she's not a breeder? Sad times when this happens...

She is not on her own-did you not see Margaret Carter(who is a breeder)who is heavily involved with the research into Syringomyelia. I'm hopeful of getting a puppy from MRI screened clear dogs bred by a responsible breeder & not someone out to make to make money by breeding from their pet non KC dogs. Margaret was campaiging long before the lady who lost her pet Cavalier.

Do you have Cavaliers ? do you totally health test your dogs(even if you do not have Cavaliers) If you do have Cavaliers you should have been aware of Syringomyelia as it not just happened overnight. I've spent over £750 having DNA tests done on my BC's & haven't finished with the health tests yet & I may not even breed from them. Have you done the same ?

Edited to add just noticed you have Shetland Sheepdogs I trust all yours are DNA tested for CEA & are clear or carrier status & that you only breed clear to clear or clear to carrier If not why not ?

Hi Moonmaiden,

My dogs have had their eyes tested and I will be hip scoring as well. I've not bred from my bitches yet and have always been a pet owner (poodles first and now shelties). My 2 boys will not be bred from therefore I will not DNA test them. I don't think it's necessary to test dogs you will not use for breeding however some of the conditions known in the breed need to be tested for (as you said CEA in shelties but also hip scoring).
I saw Margaret on the programme but she's the one who said that the lady was on her own... :-( It sounded like it was those two against the rest of the CKC world (which I hope is just an exageration through the film maker clever editing rather than a reality).

Thank you for your comments, I'm sure a lot of people feel like you that health testing is important and I hope more and more people will test their dogs to try to eradicate the problems.

:-)

You haven't had your bitches DNA tested ? Why not ? You are going to use them as brood bitches(or so your site says)so they should be DNA tested-eye testing is no longer enough.

> we even moved to a bigger house in January 2007, to have more space for our ******* and start our own breeding. Lizzie and Luna joined us in 2007 as our first brood bitches and we are hoping to add to our little gang of ******* in the years to come.

The Midland CKCS club funds low cost MRI scans so they are not on their own are they ? Ah but the program never mentioned that did it ??

Well if this the case and she does indeed inform the bitch's owner  and leaves the decision to them  Surely thats just another prime example of how irresponsible not only she is but also the bitch's owner is to have made an informed decision and still go ahead.
So what and why is the point of having health checks ect if this kind of practice is still taking place even with the informed knowledge.
I Think both the "dog and the bitch" owners are just as bad as one another if this is true and both are just as accountable in my opinion
Is anyone aware if the perspective owners of the puppys are given this infomation  (unlikely).
The fact that she informs the bitch owner of this fact makes her all the more worse in my opinion as she is obviously aware of what she is doing and is still prepared to run the risk as are the bitch's owner of a unhealthy litter even if its not a guarantee that any of the pups may carry or develop this condition.
Thank Goodness that she is the Exception to the Rule along with those people, and not the majority who are responsible pet owners and breeders alike.
pawsforthought.

As another poster said DNA testing is not everything, you still have to act on it. However I certainly will have the tests necessary prior to breeding my bitches and decide responsibly to go ahead and breed from them.

I did think that the programme didn't show everything and was probably very one sided but what was described in the programme happened nevertheless and all I'm saying is that it was upsetting.

Hi All Sorry but not read all of the posts but just so you are all aware Mark Evans the R.S.P.C.A. vet spokesman on the program appeared totally anti pedigree dogs has I believe two pedigree dogs of his own

ludivine my post was not directed at you it was a reply to a post from lucydogs about the women on the bbc show that continued to breed her dog and that the bitches owners may well be aware of his condition.
pawsforthought.

Mark1 just like the Dogs Today editor (think that's the magazine) slags of pedigrees, shows etc. in the magazine and she shows etc. 

There is an article by Beverly Cuddy in this weeks' Our Dogs and I think it makes a great deal of sense.  We have to stop being reactive and be pro-active.  The puppy buying public need to know that there are many superb  breeders and they have to know how to find them.  I have struggled to come to terms with last weeks programme and despite the number of words I have read on the subject the words that keep coming back to haunt  me are those of some of the breeders filmed.  I have been showing dogs for 45 years, if it has affected me this way just think of the affect it will have had on pet owners. 

Jenny

We don't know the true words that were used though do we?  Not supporting them in any way as some of them and how they are breeding is awful but most of the full facts will be on the cutting room floor.

Really need a documentary that shows how many of us actually do health test our dogs etc.

I totally agree with you... I can only imagine the effect it will have on those who do not show or breed. All I know is the effect it had on me.

"I have been told that she does tell bitch owners that her dog has the malformation (but not symptoms I believe), it is then up to the bitch owner whether they care enough about the puppies to find a different dog, so it would be fairer to sue the bitch owner. However I do think it would be more responsible to withdraw him from stud. My friend withdrew her stud dog as soon as we found out his son (my boy) was a type D (malformation but no symptoms and older than 2.5 years). "

If the dog has the malformation but not the symtoms it still has it and it should not be bred from. She should not even allow people to have the choice to use him at sutd. By all means carry on and show him but not stud him out or use him herself. I have a dog with truma induced sryingo and people who breed from dogs with it knowing they are passing it on make me very very angry and it is not untill you get a dog with it you can truly know how heartbreaking the illness is. One day i will have to make the choice to have my baby put to sleep and so will a lot of the people who have a puppy from that dog and others who are know to have it and still breeding. There are so many good people in cav's putting thosands of pounds and hundreads of hours in time to find the answers and they are the ones getting hasstle from those who want to ingnor it. We have been to Dr Rushbridge who is the leading specialist in Syringo in the UK and she is fabulous and really is stepping up for the breeds who have it yet some breed clubs give her nothing but abuse. Shame on them!! This is not just a Cav problem and is showing up in a few breeds.

Zoe xx

> They were following the official recommendations from the breed club -recommended to them BY Clare Rusbridge who was on and said she would NOT breed from that dog. Made no sense at all....... (Clearly the dog was asymptomatic, as he LOOKED normal.)

I have a dog with SM and he does not allways look like he has it. The symptoms like scrathing are not always constant and can only happen on occation if the dog is on medication for it. So just because the cav didn't show any signs on the short clip or on that day does not mean he is asymptomatic. People have dogs from him with SM so in my mind that is enough proof he should not be bred from
JMHO
ZOe x

> Well if this the case and she does indeed inform the bitch's owner  and leaves the decision to them  Surely thats just another prime example of how irresponsible not only she is but also the bitch's owner is to have made an informed decision and still go ahead.
>

I personally would go back a generation and maybe use the father if he was clear or a litter mate if he was clear. Surley this was nto the only dog of this breeding. and syringo is not worth the risk. I would avoid this boy and look for a clear relative if you really must have the pedigree.
JMHO
ZOe

> They were following the official recommendations from the breed club -recommended to them BY Clare Rusbridge who was on and said she would NOT breed from that dog

As can clearly can be seen from the Rusbridge informal guidlines, an Asymptomatic but affected dog will be classed as a D grade and can still be used at stud. The problem comes from the unbelievable likelyhood of her being able to find 25 A graded bitches...the ONLY type of brood bitch recommended by the scheme for this grade of dog. Perhaps this may explain Clare Rusbridge's dismay.

>> I personally would go back a generation and maybe use the father if he was clear or a litter mate if he was clea

The father cannot be clear as he has produced an offsrping that has SM ergo must be suspect as a carrier.The dog's sibling must also have a 50/50 chance of having SM.

TBH until we have the DNA test if a dog has been scanned & has SM it should not be bred from period

If you have a dog with SM you should be aware that none of it's immediate relatives should be bred from-even if scanned clear as they could still be carriers. This is what I was told by Geoff Syrett.

This is why I was so angry to discover that my dog's brother was being used at stud, unscreened as SM free ! he is at best a carrier as their father was PTS with SM & his brother(my dog) has asymptomatic SM. This is something the breeders of the dogs & my dogs brother's owner hate me to reveal on the internet