syringomyelia question

[Rosie]

But the issue is that it WOULD mean not breeding, as bitches need to be bred well before they are old enough to be tested. How do we overcome that?

[Lucy]

Rosie I'm not claiming I have all the answers, and even though I do not currently show/ breed I am just as devastated about this and hoping to find a way that this can be handled correctly.

As I said before, DNA testing is the only way to be sure as bitches must be bred before 2 1/2, however, until a DNA test is available, MRI scanning should happen. For someone to say they aren't going to test just because there's a chance the dog could be clear but a carrier is ridiculous. What if someone decides not to scan for this reason, goes ahead and breeds and then a few years down the line finds out the dog DOES have SM.

Also, as I said earlier, surely if we know which dogs do have it some sort of database can be made up to keep track and then see which dogs are more likely to have it.

This is not going to be solved overnight but surely being pro-active by taking the steps that are available now is better than doing nothing and waiting for a DNA test that could possibly take years, by which time we could be well on our way to the same situation as the cavs.

I know it's an expensive process but some centres do offer discounts for dogs that are intended for breeding purposes and with the cost of a puppy these days, I find it hard to believe that some people can't afford it. Even if they spread it out and do one or two dogs every few months.
I just have a feeling many don't want to do it because they're worried if their dogs test positive what it will mean for their name, their reputation. I truly hope it's not the case as that would mean that they're putting that above the health of the breed.

And none of this is intended as a slight towards anyone. It's just my opinion.

[Rosie]

I do get what you mean about taking the steps available, but it's looking at how effective those steps would actually be, you're only covering one area of many possible areas - yes you can see if the dog has it, but you can't see if he's a carrier, you can't see if the bitch has it and you can't see if the bitch is a carrier, so actually you are not narrowing the odds all that much.

I would like to say that I'm kind of in two minds myself on this. I haven't lent Alfie out to stud yet so it's not an immediate issue for me, I have thought about scanning him and am still considering it, but I can't say for certain what i will decide to do because I just don't think we have enough to go on at the moment.

My initial reaction was one of 'OMG this is bad!' but having had time to think I now feel that with only one breeder admitting to any effected dogs it's very hard to know how widespread this issue is, and we surely can't base our whole modus operandi on one person publishing an article in a breed club newsletter. I would love for the KC or the big breed clubs to look into this further and come up with a clear plan, and until that happens I think you can't really blame people for carrying on as before.

[Lucy]

Sorry, I have to disagree. I'm not really saying about dogs/bitches under two, that obviously is pointless, but more for the older generations. I think it would be narrowing the odds. If, just as an example, Rogues great grand sire was tested and showed that he had SM, that would mean there's a higher chance of all his progeny at the very least, being carriers, so of course you're narrowing the odds, especially when so many are line bred.

I won't go on any more because I'm just repeating myself and probably sounding like a bitch lol and I really don't mean to.

I just feel that if enough people tested, some sort of database could be established to know who has it and who doesn't and which of the rest are likely to be carriers.
In the case of bitches, ok it's pointless scanning before breeding. But if you have a dog and he's of an age where an MRI would be more effective, I just can't understand why anyone wouldn't. YES there's a chance that dog is clear but a carrier and yes there's a chance he doesn't have it at all. But there's also a chance he does have it and not showing any symptoms. That's what worries me.

I do apologising if I sound a bit heated, I'm really don't mean to.

[Lucy]

And from my spelling and grammar you can also see that I'm tired lol

[zaccodi]

When I went to Stone Lion Vets a month ago to have three of mine scanned after Graham Foote's article, I was given some advice regarding my younger dogs. If a dog is scanned at one year old and shows signs of CM/SM, then they are likely to be badly affected later on and the current advice from Clare Rusbridge is NEVER to breed from them. A scan from 3-5 showing negative, the advice is to breed only to a dog who is completely clear who has been scanned over 5 years old. There is still a possibility of it showing up later in life, but the likelihood is that it will not become severe. I am today having a one year old bitch and two year old male scanned as I am (was) intending to breed from the bitch later this year. My dogs will all need to be re-scanned later on, but at least it gives some indication of the severity of the disease.

[Lowenchi]

so far these are the figure's i know 24 dogs tested, 1 clear, 11 have CM and 12 have CM & SM. and only 2 of them show any symptoms.
so if the whole breed is this way then how small will the gene pool be if we dont use affected dogs? we will end up with other problems popping up like PRA ect ect this is what has happened to the cavs. and as for breeding there is no SM free stud dog available and if there was who is to say he is the right dog for the bitch. he could have PL, a bad bite, one testicle, crap head. we will soon end up with a tiny gene pool of dogs that have other issues. i don't think we know enough about it to move forward yet, its all based on one report from one person if it was that bad we would have known about it years ago.

[Sarah]

I also think that the specialists are grading us the same way they do the CKCS. CM is NOT always related to SM and that comes from a neurologists mouth.. Chihuahuas seem to be less symptomatic than CKCS from the limited information we have.

I honestly think a DNA test is THE only way to breed this out.. it makes it easy to breed out with a dna test but for some reason they still havent developed one.

I think its irresponsible not to scan if you think that it could be in your lines.. Bitches its a bit more awkward.. I cant afford to scan a bitch every year... i havent made any profit from my first litter, not even broken even (happy to show details of cost if people want to know), i can scan my bitches (after saving!) but ok so lotus is 2 next week, i scan her now shes clear... waht if she shows signs in 3 years time and is then re scanned and has SM and shes been bred 3-4 times in that period and theres progeny everywhere!!! Same goes for boys... its just not good enough imo we need something solid... scanning and the dogs being clear is all well and good and totally fantastic but then ok so say lotus carrys it.. lotus is related to Ballybroke Harry so there could be a connection there.. say she carries it.. is bred to someone else who also carries it and bam 1:4 chance that i breed a pup with SM.

I think we need to look at the bigger picture.
My other big issue is that in the UK chihuahua breeers are not very forthcoming in health testing.. they dont eye test, heart sound or knee score.. The BCC are implementing knees after all this time... so why would people scan for SM? Its not right by any means but do you see my point?