What's your opinion on DM carriers - Page 5

Blitzen, your post is logical and sound. To answer your last question, "What's the difference?" The difference is that people breeding dogs with temperament issues, such as weak nerves, noise sensitivity, environmental unsoundness, etc. are doing the breed harm. Matching up according DNA results can cause people to use dogs which have the test results sought after but the temperament may be less than desirable. I have actually heard people say they are looking for a DM clear dog to use with their female.....no other criteria mentioned.

IMO, test before breeding, and breed only G/G to A/G and A/A.......
If the test is deemed unreliable, at least everything was done to avoid DM.
Better to err on the side of caution.

Re:  HD:  I am talking 30 and 40 years ago;  I know people that did use dogs with HD;  swore not and look where that got us.  So since we are ALL not sure about the test validity for DM why not aire on the side of caution;  test your dogs;  if you are unsure even with a test sent to OFA use another lab and get a 2nd opinion on results.  That is as valid as it can get at this time until more studies have been done.  Not sure if we are going to see positively one way or the other whether the test will ever be accurate enough to eliminate a breeding animal from the gene pool. 

 

DM definitely affects the health of the animal without question.   

 

Eyes are another subject of denial particularly in the GSD world.  You do not just test once you continue testing for the 8 year duration or the first 8 years of their lives and if they are still clear at 8 ACVO gives a lifetime clearance.  Puppies should be tested prior to going to their new forever homes.  Do you know anyone that does that??  Exactly...  Great days everyone  Nan

Does anybody know about the percentages of the tested dogs?

At risk
Carrier
Free ?

Right now I´d test prior to breeding, and I would not breed a dog at risk, and most probably not even a carrier / waiting for the percentages to be sure about that...) But I wouldn´t breed a HD "noch zugelassen" and I wouldn´t breed a ED "noch zugelassen", too.

This test is new, it´s still in development, vets are searching, but without support of the breeders ( even by "testing only" no success).

There is no shortage of German Shepherds, not even of good German Shepherds. For one dog "not breedworthy" there are born enough new puppies day after day...

I guess we all have our preferences when it comes down to selecting breeding stock. I'd never use a fast normal let alone an NZ. For sure if a breeder doesn't test for DM, they don't have a clue if they are producing more at risks or not. Since only around 10% of at risk GSD's ever even develop the disease, most don't live long enough for one reason, the DM test should never be used to elminate any good dogs from the breeding pool IMO. No reason why a carrier or an at risk cannot be used wisely, but it does take a breeder who is willing to follow through on the puppies and how they are handled.

I don't see this disease ever being eliminated in the breed. Too many BYB's who will never test; too many commercial breeders who will never test; too many brokers selling dogs to the US out of untested parents and so forth. The wrong thing is breeding untested dogs. IMO that's a lot worse than using carriers or at risks. There might be plenty of breed worthy dogs in Germany, but I don't see that many in the US from show lines.

If I bred several generations of accomplished dogs (by my standard)  I'll  be damned if I'd withhold from breeding the best dog from the next generation only because it was a carrier or at risk for DM.  I'd breed it to a clear, DNA the puppies at 4 weeks, keep the best, place the rest accordingly.

 

Blitzen, take a look at the Regional and National events, there are lots of good German Shepherds ( most of them bred in the USA or in Canada ), but they are lost, because the owners don´t show them in the higher classes, because they don´t train and title them.

I have seen hundreds of promising green dogs in your country, they are as good as ours - it´s a shame.

If I bred, Susie, I would want a dog that could be competitive in the AKC show ring and earn a BH, AD and some OB titles. I'd want that dog to have the genetic make up to produce the same in his or her progeny. Not typically what most ASL or GSL breeders strive for. not easy to find in the US.  I would also like to breed a dog that could earn at least an IPO1. If I managed to attain that in a few generations of selective breeding and if the best dog in the current generation turned out to be a carrier, there is absolutely no way I'd go back to square one. I'd breed that dog, no question in my mind about that.

I come from a breed that was almost decimated when it lost many of its best contributors to a condition that was a simple recessive. Some lines were completely gone forever because breeders were pressured into withholding their carriers from breeding instead of breeding them to known clears. There was no DNA to identify carriers, they were identified when they produced an effected in open breeding and later when they produced one when test bred.. As it t urned out many of the best dogs were eliminated from breeding when they proved to carry that simple recessive gene.  Now the gene pool is suffering. I would never want to see that happen with GSD's. I think it would be a terrible decision to not use a quality carrier or at risk for breeding, especially with generations of known and proven high quality dogs in the pedigree.

"...especially with generations of known and proven high quality dogs in the pedigree."
There are more than enough out there.
I still would like to know about the percentages of the tested dogs. In case only 10% or less are affected, there is absolutely no reason to breed these dogs.
In case 50% or more are affected we have to think about the breed, and we have to breed carriers.
Do you know about any numbers?

I'll look up the percentages of clear vs carrier vs at risk on the OFA site, but that's not going to be representative of all GSD test results. Many breeders are using the other lab and they have no searchable database. What do you mean by effected? Dog that actually have DM or dogs that might get it if they live long enough? And compared to the number of GSD's used for breeding, the percentage of those that have been tested is probably very small. ASL breeders seem to me to be especially reluctant to test their dogs and I don't recall  seeing many workling lines on the OFA database either. I'll look to be sure.

I guess we should agree to disagree on using carriers and at risks.

 

As close as I can tell from the OFA data base about 3,800 GSD's have been DNA tested for DM. Of those 2300 are clear, 670 carriers, 480 at risk and about 400 results are not reported. The not reported would probably be carriers or at risks since the owners needs to agree to release those results for the database. Assuming half of the not reported are carriers, the other half at risk,  that would mean roughly 23 % percent of those GSD's tested are carriers; 18% at risks; 60% clear. So if these stats are typical, eliminating carriers and at risks would take out about 40% of our current gene pool. You be the judge on how much that would effect the breed as a whole.

I took a quick look at some of the names, many are only identified with call names, no kennel name. I didn't have time to take a really good look at more that a few pages, but anyone who is interested can log on to that site and do a DM results search for GSD's. Last time I really looked at the list, there were some names I recognized. I do know a few of the dogs who tested at risk that have since died from what was assumed to be DM, no autopsies.  2 of those dogs had the same German imported sire. Interesting database..........