This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Abby Normal on 08 December 2010 - 17:12
Hi Carole
That is a very good point about puppy owners potentially suing breeders, and one that had not even crossed my radar.
That is a very good point about puppy owners potentially suing breeders, and one that had not even crossed my radar.
by DotA on 08 December 2010 - 18:12
When sue says PI and Epi effect health & welfare of actual animal, months or years later down line, whereas PD and Heamo only effect future generations, what's thoughts on statement by J Walker then?
Copy & pasted from jacuenetta website
The other side of the problem lies in the evidence that the apparently normal looking carriers may, in fact, have abnormal hormone balances. They may not be normal fully functioning animals but animals which function under physiological/biochemical stress. In consequence these animals be less viable than truly normal animals and will show tendencies arising from physiological stress; typically a predisposition for infection, deficiency diseases, and reduced fertility and libido as well as possible character and temperament problems, which we can all do without. In other words, they may well be costing more than average in veterinary services.
Copy & pasted from jacuenetta website
The other side of the problem lies in the evidence that the apparently normal looking carriers may, in fact, have abnormal hormone balances. They may not be normal fully functioning animals but animals which function under physiological/biochemical stress. In consequence these animals be less viable than truly normal animals and will show tendencies arising from physiological stress; typically a predisposition for infection, deficiency diseases, and reduced fertility and libido as well as possible character and temperament problems, which we can all do without. In other words, they may well be costing more than average in veterinary services.
by Wildmoor on 08 December 2010 - 18:12
The above post from DotA sounds very much like the male I had that was put to sleep Boxing Day 09.
The test as been around for a while now, no doubt in time as more purchasers are requesting dogs from clear lines more breeders will test, and if breeders continue to breed clear to clear over time there will no longer be the need to test. Same as the AF test, from Finland, hopefully in the future breeders of suspect lines will use this to eradicate this awful condition from the breed.
You only have to look at elbow scoring which as been around since 1998 it is only the last couple of years that the majority of breeders are now doing.
The test as been around for a while now, no doubt in time as more purchasers are requesting dogs from clear lines more breeders will test, and if breeders continue to breed clear to clear over time there will no longer be the need to test. Same as the AF test, from Finland, hopefully in the future breeders of suspect lines will use this to eradicate this awful condition from the breed.
You only have to look at elbow scoring which as been around since 1998 it is only the last couple of years that the majority of breeders are now doing.
by Abby Normal on 08 December 2010 - 18:12
Carole, to pick up a point you made earlier about who would bear the cost for testing a puppy you may want to buy from a clear X carrier litter. The easiest answer is to buy from a clear X clear mating. As this gains momentum, there will be plenty of clear x clear breedings taking place I am sure. Other breeders who may wish to do a carrier X clear mating may make some arrangement. Hard to know just now. I know who I would recommend though!
Also a good point DotA.
In any case, I can't understand a mentality that looks only at the dog in front of it and not have the compassion or responsibility to be concerned as to what it may bring to future generations.
PD & Heamo ONLY effect future generations this particular animal MAY produce
by Sue B on 08 December 2010 - 18:12
Abby first of all I apologise if you read my posts as aggressive, that was not my intention, though I see you make no apologies for the assumptions you make about breeders.
Hi Carole, Let me assure you that you would not be taken to court for not doing a test on a puppy that can do no harm to the breed or anyone else unless its irresponsible owner breeds from it without doing the appropriate tests. There is nothing in UK law that states we are responsible for the acts of others, unless of course we insight them to do those acts. When I sell my pups they sign to say they are sold solely as Pet/Companions with PNTBR and NFE endorsement on their KC registrations. These will only be lifted providing the appropriate / advised health tests have been performed with suitable / pass results, and as said previously I believe these tests should be performed by the owner. I believe I am responsible for the pup I create but I do not believe I am responsible for the dogs other people create as I have no control over what other people do, beyond that of which I can prevent via Registration Endorsements of.
I also believe that if everyone concentrated more of their efforts into ensuring all breeding stock passed a Breed Survey before being bred from and that all the progeny they produced carried endorsements on their Registrations to stop them being bred from until they passed a Breed Survey, then the breed itself would be in a far better state.
One thing I do know for certain is that Malcolm Willis would laugh at all of you who think every pup should be tested for all these different things and that every pup who is found to be a carrier should be totally eliminated from the gene pool. OMG as if the gene pool isnt in enough of a bottleneck without the likes of you lot suggesting ways to reduce it further.
I personally have never produced a Dwarf, not unless it died within days of birth that is, and if that is so and that is the only dwarf/s I have produced then they have caused no problem to the breed or anyone else. I certainly have not produced one that has lived passed 3 days and I know that for an absolute fact.
Then again, I have never knowingly used a dog that had produced dwarfs but if I had then I would definately test those animals before I used them to make sure I was not going to reproduce the problem by doubling up on it. We have people on this thread stating they do all the testing, yet they have previously produced dwarfs and have and/or are breeding from animals that are from dogs that they know produced dwarfs, yet the names of those animals are not up on the Jaquenetta site. How I wish some breeders would stop all the sanctimonious BS, no-one tests every animal for everything, so I just wish they would stop trying to make out that they do, as that is what I call DISHONEST.
Regards
Sue
Hi Carole, Let me assure you that you would not be taken to court for not doing a test on a puppy that can do no harm to the breed or anyone else unless its irresponsible owner breeds from it without doing the appropriate tests. There is nothing in UK law that states we are responsible for the acts of others, unless of course we insight them to do those acts. When I sell my pups they sign to say they are sold solely as Pet/Companions with PNTBR and NFE endorsement on their KC registrations. These will only be lifted providing the appropriate / advised health tests have been performed with suitable / pass results, and as said previously I believe these tests should be performed by the owner. I believe I am responsible for the pup I create but I do not believe I am responsible for the dogs other people create as I have no control over what other people do, beyond that of which I can prevent via Registration Endorsements of.
I also believe that if everyone concentrated more of their efforts into ensuring all breeding stock passed a Breed Survey before being bred from and that all the progeny they produced carried endorsements on their Registrations to stop them being bred from until they passed a Breed Survey, then the breed itself would be in a far better state.
One thing I do know for certain is that Malcolm Willis would laugh at all of you who think every pup should be tested for all these different things and that every pup who is found to be a carrier should be totally eliminated from the gene pool. OMG as if the gene pool isnt in enough of a bottleneck without the likes of you lot suggesting ways to reduce it further.
I personally have never produced a Dwarf, not unless it died within days of birth that is, and if that is so and that is the only dwarf/s I have produced then they have caused no problem to the breed or anyone else. I certainly have not produced one that has lived passed 3 days and I know that for an absolute fact.
Then again, I have never knowingly used a dog that had produced dwarfs but if I had then I would definately test those animals before I used them to make sure I was not going to reproduce the problem by doubling up on it. We have people on this thread stating they do all the testing, yet they have previously produced dwarfs and have and/or are breeding from animals that are from dogs that they know produced dwarfs, yet the names of those animals are not up on the Jaquenetta site. How I wish some breeders would stop all the sanctimonious BS, no-one tests every animal for everything, so I just wish they would stop trying to make out that they do, as that is what I call DISHONEST.
Regards
Sue
by hutch on 08 December 2010 - 20:12
Who should pay for the test?
It seems to me that this is like any of the other tests - the owner who intends to breed from the dog.
Test all? I can't see where this is being suggested - test all potential breeding animals - definately, but why test one that is not going to be bred from?
Remove all carriers - this is certainly not the advice that I have read - I understand that the advice is only mate carriers to clear animals. If an animal has lots of other positive attributes then at least mating a carrier to a clear dog will mean no dwarves.
DotA - I have read J Walker's statement and suspect there is some truth in it but I have avoided mentioning it because I am not sure what scientific evidence there is and also because if carriers are felt to be "sub-standard" then the test results are more likely to be hidden.
It seems to me that this is like any of the other tests - the owner who intends to breed from the dog.
Test all? I can't see where this is being suggested - test all potential breeding animals - definately, but why test one that is not going to be bred from?
Remove all carriers - this is certainly not the advice that I have read - I understand that the advice is only mate carriers to clear animals. If an animal has lots of other positive attributes then at least mating a carrier to a clear dog will mean no dwarves.
DotA - I have read J Walker's statement and suspect there is some truth in it but I have avoided mentioning it because I am not sure what scientific evidence there is and also because if carriers are felt to be "sub-standard" then the test results are more likely to be hidden.
by Abby Normal on 08 December 2010 - 21:12
SueB
I cannot see what assumptions I have made about breeders that require any apology. Some will test, some won't test, and some will not reveal tests. I know each of these for a fact in different instances. You seemed to be incensed at my use of the word breeder, instead of stud dog owner. I believe both bitches and studs should be tested if they are breeding stock, so I can't apologise for an accurate description. If you want to point out what I have said that requires apology, please do, and if I believe an apology is on order I will happily offer one.
I personally wouldn't be so quick to reassure Carole that a 'situation' couldn't arise
'unless its irresponsible owner breeds from it without doing the appropriate tests'. A hypothetical scenario - they are buying a puppy as a breeding prospect, your dog has not been tested and neither has the stud dog you used. Their dog, bought from you, goes on to produce dwarfs when they use it in a breeding programme. Could not that person have redress on the basis that the animal they were sold was not fit for purpose, particularly when a test to detect it was available but you chose not to use it?
In your puppy contract would you list PD as a test required to lift the endorsement? If you didn't insist on a test for PD to lift the endorsement and dwarfs are produced, same situation surely applies, as it could be said that the dog was not fit for purpose (breeding).
Malcolm Willis stated that 'this defect will increase over the next 10 years'. I don't think that anyone actually said that every affected dog should be immediately withdrawn from the breeding programme, although some believe they should if it were feasible. If you don't know the size of the problem, you don't know whether this is a viable option or not.
I personally have never produced a Dwarf, not unless it died within days of birth that is, and if that is so and that is the only dwarf/s I have produced then they have caused no problem to the breed or anyone else. A feature of PD is that many puppies are stillborn or 'fade'. The surviving littermates had a good chance of being carriers that have been passed out into the gene pool, so I don't think you can say they caused no problem to the breed or anyone else, you simply can't know....That is the whole point, the test gives breeders the opportunity to 'know' for sure.
I can't comment on your last statement about breeders, as I don't breed. All I will say is that it will be clear enough which dogs have been tested and which haven't.
I regret that this thread, which was actually very positive, has degenerated to some degree.
I cannot see what assumptions I have made about breeders that require any apology. Some will test, some won't test, and some will not reveal tests. I know each of these for a fact in different instances. You seemed to be incensed at my use of the word breeder, instead of stud dog owner. I believe both bitches and studs should be tested if they are breeding stock, so I can't apologise for an accurate description. If you want to point out what I have said that requires apology, please do, and if I believe an apology is on order I will happily offer one.
I personally wouldn't be so quick to reassure Carole that a 'situation' couldn't arise
'unless its irresponsible owner breeds from it without doing the appropriate tests'. A hypothetical scenario - they are buying a puppy as a breeding prospect, your dog has not been tested and neither has the stud dog you used. Their dog, bought from you, goes on to produce dwarfs when they use it in a breeding programme. Could not that person have redress on the basis that the animal they were sold was not fit for purpose, particularly when a test to detect it was available but you chose not to use it?
In your puppy contract would you list PD as a test required to lift the endorsement? If you didn't insist on a test for PD to lift the endorsement and dwarfs are produced, same situation surely applies, as it could be said that the dog was not fit for purpose (breeding).
Malcolm Willis stated that 'this defect will increase over the next 10 years'. I don't think that anyone actually said that every affected dog should be immediately withdrawn from the breeding programme, although some believe they should if it were feasible. If you don't know the size of the problem, you don't know whether this is a viable option or not.
I personally have never produced a Dwarf, not unless it died within days of birth that is, and if that is so and that is the only dwarf/s I have produced then they have caused no problem to the breed or anyone else. A feature of PD is that many puppies are stillborn or 'fade'. The surviving littermates had a good chance of being carriers that have been passed out into the gene pool, so I don't think you can say they caused no problem to the breed or anyone else, you simply can't know....That is the whole point, the test gives breeders the opportunity to 'know' for sure.
I can't comment on your last statement about breeders, as I don't breed. All I will say is that it will be clear enough which dogs have been tested and which haven't.
I regret that this thread, which was actually very positive, has degenerated to some degree.
by DotA on 08 December 2010 - 22:12
I don't know what scientific evidence there is either Hutch, bit of catch 22, do we mention it or do we not. I suppose I think it might make any caring breeder recognise how serious this problem could be but I don't think about indiviual dogs, i think about overall population. Whatever, there will be carriers, maybe more than we realise. That is no shame, but if there is some truth in statement, isn't it another reason to use testing to breed knowledgably? To get problem under control and eventually eliminate it collectively without limiting gene pool but aim for healthier gene pool for all. So gene pool is in better position to deal with other problems such as AF, epilespy, epi and all when tests become available. I don't think anyone knows extent of problem, we can suspect, but to go back to Sue's post, I don't think anyone is saying that every pup should be tested for loads of things and carriers should be eliminated from gene pool. if bigger problem than gene pool can take, carrier can still be bred by being mated to clear so worst produced is some carrier, some clear but no effected, bring clear forward in next generation without limiting gene pool. I don't understand reluctance in GS breed to take care of gene pool for future of breed.
by Videx on 09 December 2010 - 10:12
A single GSD's gene pool is NOT that which it passes onto ONE selected puppy. A single dog, male or female can only pass on 50% of its genes to any single puppy. We need to retain as much of the 100% as we can, in order to maintain our breeds genetic diversity. Far more attention and far greater care and far greater intelligent decisions need to taken when it comes to DNA disease information and our breeds future genetic diversity. Simplistic opinions will certainly lead to our breeds progressive demise no matter how slowly or how long that demise occurs. Disease information gleaned through DNA tests can certainly be very useful, however it can also lead to very serious consequences if it is not considered very carefully and very intelligently. The identification of carriers and clears of any disease is only a single and relatively simply step in the process of breeding. The really important steps follow on from that. To simply all exclude carriers from breeding could be a path to even greater and far more serious problems for our breeds long term future. I applaud debate on these issues, however I have considerable concern regarding uninformed and simplistic solutions. If we applied genetic disease tests and consequential simplistic solutions to the breeding of us humans, there would be very serious hell to play and many very serious consequences.
by Abby Normal on 09 December 2010 - 12:12
@ Videx
I would like to think that breeders can and will be able to use this information intelligently. As repeated in previous posts, no-one has suggested that all carriers should be removed from the gene pool at this stage. This is the whole point - without testing we cannot know what is and has been happening, and what strategy can appropriately be used to address it.
If all breeding stock were tested, we would at least be informed as to the current prevalence of this defect. Surely then, and only then, informed breeding decisions can be made. If status is not known, how can appropriate action be taken?
Quote:
The gene discoveries enable the development of DNA tests to systematically eradicate and fight against the diseases while maintaining the genetic diversity of the breeds.
Potential gene discoveries will help us to devise DNA markers and tests, which can be used to reliably distinct affected, carrier and healthy dogs. This will help the breed clubs to redesign the breeding programs to start systemically to prevent or eradicate the disease in the breed. This is important since it allows us to keep also the carrier dogs in the population and develop the breed in a more controlled way.
University of Helsinki and Folkhälsan Institute of Genetics
Quote:
If all breeding animals were tested (only once), and a correct breeding policy would be implemented, this severe illness could be completely eradicated.
Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals
Now is probably a good time to ask are the breed council/league currently obtaining any advice on genetics/breeding strategy? especially in light of new developments in genetics which are taking place, and which can be used for improvement in health?
So I presume you would agree that all breeding stock should at least be tested, so that a knowledge base (starting point) is created, is that the case?
BTW I think you will find that genetic testing, and potential avoidance (by choice) of parents who suffer with genetic defects producing children, is already taking place.
I would like to think that breeders can and will be able to use this information intelligently. As repeated in previous posts, no-one has suggested that all carriers should be removed from the gene pool at this stage. This is the whole point - without testing we cannot know what is and has been happening, and what strategy can appropriately be used to address it.
If all breeding stock were tested, we would at least be informed as to the current prevalence of this defect. Surely then, and only then, informed breeding decisions can be made. If status is not known, how can appropriate action be taken?
Quote:
The gene discoveries enable the development of DNA tests to systematically eradicate and fight against the diseases while maintaining the genetic diversity of the breeds.
Potential gene discoveries will help us to devise DNA markers and tests, which can be used to reliably distinct affected, carrier and healthy dogs. This will help the breed clubs to redesign the breeding programs to start systemically to prevent or eradicate the disease in the breed. This is important since it allows us to keep also the carrier dogs in the population and develop the breed in a more controlled way.
University of Helsinki and Folkhälsan Institute of Genetics
Quote:
If all breeding animals were tested (only once), and a correct breeding policy would be implemented, this severe illness could be completely eradicated.
Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals
Now is probably a good time to ask are the breed council/league currently obtaining any advice on genetics/breeding strategy? especially in light of new developments in genetics which are taking place, and which can be used for improvement in health?
So I presume you would agree that all breeding stock should at least be tested, so that a knowledge base (starting point) is created, is that the case?
BTW I think you will find that genetic testing, and potential avoidance (by choice) of parents who suffer with genetic defects producing children, is already taking place.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
