Pedigree Database


by Marilyn on 17 November 2020 - 05:11

Hi Hundmutter. I did the research , the breeder did the research including contacting Chris Hazell of the Breed Council to do a check on both pedigrees so I really don't think the onus is on this breeder. So obviously it appears to be further back in the pedigree.


by Hundmutter on 17 November 2020 - 11:11

Marilyn, yes I got that already; I was writing generally in my last post, as yours seemed also to be widening out to the rest of the readership. I wanted to centre on "of course its still a lottery, nothing is ever going to change that". ;-)


Speaking of lotteries (and gene mutations): although its a longshot, there is one other possiblility in the case of your own dog.  That is that something shifted in the alleles in your particular pup (whether combination/configuration, or an On/Off switch) and the epilepsy is spontaneous. Those first dogs way back had to evolve the epilepsy gene(s) from somewhere; it may just be that this has happened again now.  Its unlikely, but not impossible. 

I never say anything is impossible, because my mentor once had a haemophiliac male from a litter that had ancestry which was all HemoA tested Clear. That wasn't supposed to happen ! Was quite a 'cause celebre' in the breed here at the time.

by Marilyn on 18 November 2020 - 12:11

I have to agree with your comments Hundmutter, although I was reading an interesting thread on here regarding epilepsy from 2010 and it was trying to get breeders to open up.


by Hundmutter on 18 November 2020 - 14:11

Well in theory I support that wish; just saying that it can only be done in certain circumstances, as anyone asking for it would realise if they had seen it have results like some of the accusatory and downright insulting things that have in the past been said to the more honest breeders, on this and other websites and social media.

The trouble is, for as many as will publicly admit to having at some time made a genuine mistake, there are dozens in the shadows who won't admit they take multiple risks to ensure they keep on breeding enough pups of the 'rare' colours; or maintain a kennel line that has been particularly successful in the Show ring.

These are unlikely to have some Damascene conversion !  Ever.

by jillmissal on 19 November 2020 - 10:11

The thing is, if an honest/reputable breeder is accused of something, they'll likely have the documentation/evidence to back up their side of things. So if they really are honest and reputable, they won't be afraid to be transparent and honest.


by Hundmutter on 20 November 2020 - 03:11

And all that is much better done (preferably face-to-face) with an individual possible buyer [and, hopefully, buyer's witness] than it is through the Internet.

Or do I have to spell out the dangers of putting unredacted certificates etc into the public arena, to show the world what a responsible breeder they are ?   When there are so many cheats and fraudsters operating.

Anybody can openly claim to have done all the right research and checks and tests; gets a little more difficult when you need to publicly refute (often mischevious) e-posts by proving that you really have.  A minefield even for the wholly innocent / honest / reputable breeder. Perhaps more so for them than the scammers ! Better to be ready to show as much proof as possible in person, failing that by e mail or personal messaging; and happy to discuss the sort of knowledge & research about your lines that cannot be vouched for by paperwork. Like which dogs you didn't use.

by Marilyn on 20 November 2020 - 04:11

My reason for this post was not to vilify any breeders that private messaged me and not to pass on the information. It was purely so that I personally can put my mind at rest that the specialists did not miss anything untoward in my lad's tests. I personally don't like loose ends. This certainly was not a witch hunt and never will be on my account.


by Hundmutter on 20 November 2020 - 05:11

Can I declare that Marilyn as OP has now said several times that she isn't trying to start a witchhunt; and she has not done anything that would seem to refute that ? I believe her. I also believe she has had co-operation from her dog's breeder. And private help offered from other breeders.

I'm just pointing out, for anyone and everyone readings' benefit, that it is one thing to call for a general open and honest habit of declarations of breeding policy, but another entirely to see the various ways distress has been caused to good breeders who tried to do just that. I think these difficulties can get overlooked when we ask people to be transparent - sometimes it isn't lack of honesty (or of ability to prove), it is the sheer hassle having to deal with the less well intentioned trolls that puts some off 'going public'. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody in particular; but I do recall seeing things happen that most of us would surely rather NOT see happen.

None of this concern prevents: A) any of us 'naming & shaming' WHERE WE KNOW WE CAN PROVE (to a lawcourts standard) that a breeder has lied to us ourselves about an epileptic dog; or B) anyone can do a site search of PDB and find named dogs, named kennels, named individuals in some old posts, that will help identify fitting dogs of earlier generations that you do not want to see in the genetic background of a pup you are interested in buying. That gives the ammo to ask the breeder the right questions, and the buyer a chance to evaluate risk (why do you think some of us pound on about taking time to do proper research, rather than reaching for the phone the moment we see a classified ad we like the look of ?).


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top