Stay Signed In
Do you want to access your site more quickly on this computer? Check this box, and your username and password will be remembered for two weeks. Click logout to turn this off.
Stay Safe
Do not check this box if you are using a public computer. You don't want anyone seeing your personal info or messing with your site.
Breeds and Conditions Certified (on Schedule A) under the BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme - January 2006
14-Jun-06
Results of examinations for conditions on Schedule A are recorded on the Kennel Club registration database. Results are also published in the KC Breed Records Supplement and appear on registration documents. The exception to this is MRD affected results (apart from Rottweilers and Hungarian Pulis which will list unaffected as well as affected as this is the only eye condition which these breeds are examined for under the scheme) which are maintained on an ‘Open Register’; copies of which are available free of charge upon request.
KEY: CEA Collie eye anomaly, CHC Congenital hereditary cataract, CPRA Central progressive retinal atrophy, G Goniodysgenesis/primary glaucoma, GPRA generalised progressive retinal atrophy, HC Hereditary cataract, MRD Multifocal retinal dysplasia, PHPV Persistent hyperplastic primary vitreous, PLL Primary lens luxation, PPM Persistent pupillary membrane, TRD Total retinal dysplasia
BREED
CONDITION(S) CERTIFIED
Alaskan Malamute
HC
Australian Cattle Dog
GPRA
Basenji
PPM
Basset Hound
G
Bedlington Terrier
TRD
Belgian Shepherd (all varieties)
HC
Border Collie
CEA, CPRA, PLL
Boston Terrier
HC (two forms)
Briard
CPRA
Bull Terrier (Miniature)
PLL
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
MRD, HC
Collie (Rough)
CEA, GPRA, CPRA
Collie (Smooth)
CEA, CPRA
Dachshund (Miniature Long-Haired)
GPRA
Dobermann
PHPV
Finnish Lapphund
GPRA
Fox Terrier (Smooth)
PLL
Fox Terrier (Wire)
PLL
German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian)
HC
Giant Schnauzer
HC
Glen of Imaal Terrier GPRA
Hungarian Puli
MRD
Irish Red and White Setter
HC
Irish Setter
GPRA (DNA test available)
Irish Wolfhound
GPRA
Lancashire Heeler
CEA, PLL
Large Munsterlander
HC
Leonberger
HC
Lhasa Apso
GPRA
Miniature Schnauzer
CHC, GPRA, HC
Norwegian Buhund
HC
Norwegian Elkhound
GPRA
Old English Sheepdog
HC
Parson Russell Terrier
PLL
Poodle (Miniature)
GPRA
Poodle (Standard)
HC
Poodle (Toy)
GPRA
Retriever (Chesapeake Bay)
GPRA, HC
Retriever (Flat Coated)
G
Retriever (Golden)
CPRA, HC, GPRA, MRD
Retriever (Labrador)
TRD, GPRA, CPRA, HC, MRD
Retriever (Nova Scotia Duck Tolling)
PRA
Rottweiler
MRD
Sealyham Terrier
PLL, TRD
Shetland Sheepdog
CEA, CPRA
Siberian Husky
HC, G
Spaniel (American Cocker)
MRD, GPRA, HC, G
Spaniel (Cocker)
GPRA, CPRA, G
Spaniel (English Springer)
GPRA, CPRA, MRD
Spaniel (Welsh Springer)
HC, G
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
PHPV, HC
Tibetan Spaniel
GPRA
Tibetan Terrier
GPRA, PLL
Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)
GPRA (DNA test available), CPRA
Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA)
Progressive retinal atrophy (PRA) refers to a group of diseases affecting the retina at the back of the eye. These diseases cause the cells of the retina, which initially look and function normally, to become increasingly abnormal over time. In most cases, given a long life, the eventual outcome is blindness. Some form of PRA has been recognized in over 100 canine purebreds, and at present there are 7 different genetic types of PRA described.
PRA is inherited, meaning the disease genes that cause PRA are passed from generation to generation. In Toy and Miniature Poodles one specific type of recessively inherited PRA predominates, although there are clues indicating at least one more type is present at a low frequency in the breed. This predominant form of PRA in Toys and Miniatures is the progressive rod-cone degeneration (prcd) form of PRA. Rod cells in the retina slowly lose normal function, resulting in diminished vision in dim light situations and diminished field of vision. Subsequently, cone cells in the retina lose normal function, resulting in diminished vision in daylight situations and eventual total blindness. The age of onset and the rate of disease progression are variable among different breeds, within the same breed and within the same litter. In general for Toys and Miniatures, diagnosis of prcd-PRA made around 3 years of age, based on an eye exam by a veterinary ophthalmologist. Some prcd-PRA affected dogs retain some useful vision throughout their life, while others progress to blindness in mid-life. Unfortunately there is no treatment or cure for PRA.
Not all retinal disease is PRA and not all PRA is the form currently detectable in your breed. Accurate diagnosis is essential. A dog can test as normal or carrier, yet be affected by a different type of PRA. Although more than one type of retinal degeneration probably occurs in every breed, by far the most common type of PRA for Toys and Miniatures is prcd-PRA.
Yearly eye examinations for general eye health should be done on breeding dogs by a veterinary ophthalmologist
This is a big dog dish?
Please click here
<
for details of KC requirements for breed health testing.
As this list is for the Acredited Breeder scheme, this should be the Minimum any breeder aspires to.
Please click here
v
for conditions that are affecting poodles worldwide
VACCINATION
Read and Think .........
Veterinary Times, UK - at the end of January 2004. In the world of science, ten years is a very short time in which to expect a sea change.
We and others whose dogs have suffered vaccine reactions; we whose beloved friends have died and suffered unnecessarily, have been pilloried and castigated for speaking the truth for long enough now.
Time to take this letter to your vet; time to post it to other vets in your neighbourhood; time to show this letter to all the dog lovers you meet in the park or at
classes.
Time to get the truth out there once and for all.
Time to stop our beloved animals suffering.
Time to say 'YES!' - but not yet time to stop the campaign.
We shall not be finished until annual vaccination is a thing of the past.
I dedicate this post to my own dear friends who had to die for this letter to appear in Veterinary Times: Oliver,Prudence and Samson, and to the thousands, or even millions, of animals and children whose lives have been terminated because people in scientific and veterinary communities saw a way to make a quick annual buck.
My respect and gratitude go to the courageous veterinarians who have signed the letter below.
Catherine O'Driscoll
Please feel free to cross post far and wide:
Dear Editor
We, the undersigned, would like to bring to your attention our concerns in the light of recent new evidence regarding vaccination protocol.
The American Veterinary Medical Association Committee report this year states that 'the one year revaccination recommendation frequently found on many vaccination
labels is based on historical precedent, not scientific data'.
In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes that 'there is evidence that some vaccines provide immunity beyond one year.
In fact, according to research there is no proof that many of the yearly vaccinations are necessary and that protection in many instances may be life long'; also,
'Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with both benefits and risks for the patient'; further that, 'Revaccination of patients with sufficient immunity does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'
Finally, he states that: 'Adverse events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative or combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to immunise, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections and/or long-term infected carrier states.'
The report of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April 2003) is also interesting reading:
'Current knowledgte supports the statement that no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always protective and no vaccine is always indicated';
'Misunderstanding, misinformation and the conservative nature of our profession have largely slowed
adoption of protocols advocating decreased frequency of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory provides durations of immunity for core infectious diseases that far exceed the traditional recommendations for annual vaccination. This is supported by a growing body of veterinary information as well as well-developed epidemiological
vigilance in human medicine that indicates immunity induced by vaccination is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, lifelong.'
Further, the evidence shows that the duration of immunity for rabies vaccine, canine distemper vaccine, canine parvovirus vaccine, feline panleukopaenia vaccine, feline rhinotracheitis and feline calicivurus have all been demonstrated to be a minimum of seven years, by serology for rabies and challenge studies for all others.
The veterinary surgeons below fully accept that no single achievement has had greater impact on the lives and well-being of our patients, our clients and our ability to
prevent infectious diseases than the developments in annual vaccines. We, however, fully support the recommendations and guidelines of the American Animal Hospitals Association Taskforce, to reduce vaccine protocols for dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations are only given every three years, and only for core vaccines
unless otherwise scientifically justified.
We further suggest that the evidence currently available will soon lead to the following facts being accepted:
* The immune systems of dogs and cats mature fully at six months and any modified live virus (MLV) vaccine given after that age produces immunity that is good for the life of that pet.
* If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens from the subsequent so there is little or no effect; the pet is
not 'boosted', nor are more memory cells induced.
* Not only are annual boosters for canine parvovirus and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated
haemolytic anaemia.
* There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines.
* Puppies and kittens receive antibodies through their mothers' milk. This natural protection can last eight to 14 weeks.
* Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at less than eight weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralise the vaccine and little protection will be produced.
* Vaccination at six weeks will, however, DELAY the timing of the first effective vaccine.
* Vaccines given two weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than stimulate the immune system.
This would give possible new guidelines as follows:
1. A series of vaccinations is given starting at eight weeks of age (or preferably later) and given three to four weeks apart, up to 16 weeks of age.
2. One further booster is given sometime after six months of age and will then provide life-long immunity.
In light of data now available showing the needless use and potential harm of annual vaccination, we call on our
profession to cease the policy of annual vaccination.
Can we wonder that clients are losing faith in vaccination and researching the issue themselves? We think they
are right to do so. Politics, tradition or the economic well-being of veterinary surgeons and pharmaceutical
companies should not be a factor in making medical decisions.
It is accepted that the annual examination of a pet is advisable. We undervalue ourselves, however, if we hang
this essential service on the back of vaccination and will ultimately suffer the consequences. Do we need to
wait until we see actions against vets, such as those launched in the state of Texas by Dr Robert Rogers? He
asserts that the present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by
misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception.
The oath we take as newly-qualified veterinary surgeons is 'to help, or at least do no harm'. We wish to
maintain our position within society, and be deserving of the trust placed in us as a profession. It is therefore
our contention that those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light of new evidence may well be
acting contrary to the wefare of the animals committed to their care.
Yours faithfully
Richard Allport, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sue Armstrong, MA BVetMed, MRCVS
Mark Carpenter, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sarah Fox-Chapman, MS, DVM, MRCVS
Nichola Cornish, BVetMed, MRCVS
Tim Couzens, BVetMed, MRCVS
Chris Day, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Claire Davies, BVSc, MRCVS
Mark Elliott, BVSc, MRCVS
Peter Gregory, BVSc, MRCVS
Lise Hansen, DVM, MRCVS
John Hoare, BVSc, MRCVS
Graham Hines, BVSc, MRCVS
Megan Kearney, BVSc, MRCVS
Michelle L'oste Brown, BVetMed, MRCVS
Suzi McIntyre, BVSc, MRCVS
Siobhan Menzies, BVM&S, MRCVS
Nazrene Moosa, BVSc, MRCVS
Mike Nolan, BVSc, MRCVS
Ilse Pedler, MA, VetMB, BSc, MRCVS
John Saxton, BVetMed, MRCVS
Cheryl Sears, MVB, MRCVS
Jane Seymour, BVSc, MRCVS
Christine Shields, BVSc, MRCVS
Suzannah Stacey, BVSc, MRCVS
Phillip Stimpson, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Nick Thompson, BSc, BVM&S, MRCVS
Lyn Thompson, BVSc, MRCVS
Wendy Vere, VetMB, MA, MRCVS
Anuska Viljoen, BVSc, MRCVS, and
Wendy Vink, BVSc, MRCVS
Research, reports etc are at CHC's web site:
http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/
