shortstep

Well all I can say is close to a million working border collie dog owners and breeders disagree with you. Get my drift yet? That seems like such a not nice thing to say to someone.

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread. I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar. In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring. Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy. I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority? Surely a free whelping bitch is better for the breed. Maybe I have misunderstood but are you saying free whelping bitches are not a priority in a breed? I find it very concerning that some breeds need human intervention in order to procreate. that means if humans are not around the breed becomes extinct and I also think this gives animal rights people ammunition/ British Bulldogs today look a lot different than when the breed was first around so who is to say this modern shape is better for the breed than the original shape? I do not want to talk about a breed I know little about. But any breed of dog or any animal for that matter, that can not free whelp due to anotomical extremes is not fit for function and this needs to be change. If these anotomical extremes are what makes the dogs look like that breed, then a total reshuffle of this breed needs to happen, something has gone very far off track.

Big list of complaits about breeders not living up to your standards. I am sad you think so poorly of close to a million working border collies, their owners and breeders world wide, who do not breed to a physical show standard. The standard for these dogs is the work. I am sorry that you can not accept that different people have different dog breeding beliefs, and that does not make them or their dogs of lessor value. Please know that if 'they' come to shut down show breeders, I will be fighting for your rights to breed your dogs the way you want to breed them, even though you do not give others that same respect.

Why don't you ever see really tall old people? http://www.strangequestions.com/question/5...l#ixzz1FcEQCye3 Really tall old people exist and there’s no incredibly strange reason why you don’t see them that often. The fact of the matter is that it is simply due to numbers. The numbers combine with the fact that younger people are more in the spotlight than older people. For instance, we can see really tall young to middle-aged men simply by turning the TV to a basketball game. There are few, if any, basketball games played by old people, and, if there are, they aren’t nationally televised. Old people tend to stay indoors more than young people. Also, many old people have problems walking and you tend to see old people in sitting positions more often than standing positions. Freakishly, Guinness Book and circus, tall people are usually tall because they have a medical problem. The same condition that made them freakishly tall causes complications that often end their lives early. In many cases, their bones degenerate and cause problems with their immune system. I can assure you, however, that tall people do exist, but just as all other groups of people, their numbers thin out the older they get. According to a report by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics from 1994, only 2.1% of American males in their 20s were over 6’ 3”. The percentage of American males in their 30s was 1.9%. For men in their 40s the percent jumps to 2.8%, but then drops back down for men in their 50s to 1.8%. For the following ages, the numbers dramatically decrease to .5% in their 60s, .1% in their 70s, and .2% of men 80 or older. So, while tall people are not as common when they are older, they are still here.

I read on study today on inbreeding and longevity in Dobs, cannot find the orignal study but it is copied on this chat group http://www.dobermann-review.com/phpBB/view...e119595299abd9f From what I could make out (print is so small I had trouble reading it, dobs are experiencing decreasing lenght of life and this study claims there is relationship to increasing COI. I found this one interesting, smooth and long coated Dachshound, Life Span, Inbreeding and sex http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume8/issue4/art-71.html

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker. Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this. Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively. On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered. However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want. Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents. None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated. Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders. Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs. Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff. If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came. It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm. Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed. Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals. Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs. Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly. Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt. Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better. :D Did not see your post until now Steve... Agree excellent post and to the point!

I think the purpose of breeding for longevity is potentially 2 fold, or perhaps you could say that the benefits could flow in 2 directions. One is to breed for better overall health and this would directly involve the quality of life through out the life of the dog. If family longevity does improve the chances of the dog not getting a disease which shortens it's life, then this is certainly also improving the quality of it's life. For example a dog with crippling HD will live a shorter life and it will also be a short and painful life. A dog with heart disease will live a shorted life, and also a life that is not as active as it might have been and so on. The second reason to breed for longevity is to improve expected lifespan. But this would be a secondary effect from preventing the causes that shortened life spans in that breed. Using the examples above, some of the large breed dogs die of cancer which ends their life prematurely. If breeding for longevity improves the chances of the dogs not getting that cancer or getting that cancer later in life, then it will increase the life span of the dog, as well as improve it's quality of life.

And totally different video, but great. Mealy Bug finder!

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3154393.htm Video to watch and transcrpts

But that is not a reason to abandon the idea, it is one area of weakness. Which is why the multigenerational pattern of old age behind the bitch is so important. If the bitch in question has generations of dogs that did not live to old age, perhaps we might decide that she must only be bred to a male that has exceptional longevity for several generations, he himself is already older and also does not have any family history of what ever caused the early deaths behind that bitch. The fact that you cannot wait to breed a bitch until she has reached old age, it still leaves lots of room for useful work regarding longevity. You can wait to use male dogs until the are older.

Actually the most common thinking in the scientific community today is moving in the opposite direction. This is because we have no way to prevent most genetic disease and it will likely be many many human lifetimes before we are able to do more than chase genetic diseases down, rather then design genetic health from the onset. Instead of trying to chase what is already there and then try to take it out, or placing so much emphasis in slection of what dogs to breed by the use of tests which we already know can prevent those diseases, so those disease should be taken off the priority list of concerns and yes Sheridan I do mean to do those tests if warranted. Also if finding each disease's DNA error and making a test is to be the answer to controlling disease in dogs, then how many tests can we do on a dog we might want to breed? Dogs have over 300 genetic diseases! So it makes sense that we have to look at this from a different angle if we ever want to have a real impact. Instead work from the other direction. Seek out dogs that have long lives, low incidences of needing vet care, don't need medications, have longevity in their work such as a sheep dog that work well into later life, or a professional lap warmer that can still find it's way to your lap unassisted at 14 years of age, there are heaps more indicators that could be used. All of these things would help point to dogs that already have what was needed to live a long high quality lives. At least that is the thinking, I am not saying it works, but it does sound logical to me and I feel worth exploring.

Yes I can see what you mean. Dogs can die from all sorts of reasons, even reasons that have nothing to do with health such as being hit by a car. I think as with everything in dog breeding, you have to take it all into consideration. I am not sure I would be quick to excuse a dog that dies early and the cause is blamed on cheap dog food or their was air pollution or so forth. These days that is in many cases a part of life, and dogs can do live to rip old age under those conditions. Some dogs may have genes that allow them to cope better with less than perfect conditions and in fact that could be something that we want to select for over the long term in a breed. Lots to think about eh? However if you find that a dog has multiple generations that are living to rip old age for their breed, and for some breeds this could 15 years or more. Then what you can conclude is nothing killed this dog before rip old age. That has to be a general positive for the dog, and when you can see that several generations lived to rip old age, then in my mind it is showing a trend towards long lived dogs that did not die early in life. I think looking at the common causes of death in a breeds would also make this more useful. For example in a breed that may die of cancers in mid life, then seeing a pedigree with many ancestors that did not die in mid life, is a positive for the dog. They may still have died of cancer but at least the lived past the most common age of onset and death, or it could also indicated that they did not get cancer at all. I did notice with this program that when a dog dies you can send in the date/age and the cause of death. This would really be useful for understanding exactly what was going on and to pick up on trends. What would be even more useful is if you can find siblings of the dogs you are looking at and get their information to build lateral pedigrees for longevity. Eh? That sounds really good!

Longevity is a subject that keeps popping up as it relates to breeding and selection. We will often hear that inbreeding affects longevity in negative ways. I am trying to form an opinion on that subject, so when reading some studies on inbreeding and longevity this morning, I bumped into this. Doberman Pinscher Club of America Longevity Program http://www.dpca.org/Longevty/longevity/index.html This is an open health databank registry of sorts, dogs can be listed if they lived to 10 years of age, or they have parents that lived to 10 years of age. You can track them by having generations of long lived dogs too, 1 2 or 3. Meaning that if the dog had 1 or 2 or 3 generations of dogs that lived to age 10 or older you sort them out of the data. Dogs have owners and ID info. I need to read more about this and what else if anything they are doing with this information. But I would also assume that this information can be entered into an EBV program for the breed and used as part of an over all system to help make breeding selection choices. Any comments on this? Would you in general like to see something like for most breeds? As a pet owner, would you be interested in obtaining your pet from a breeder that was making an effort to breed longer lived dogs and possibly using a system like this that you could review on your pup? As a breeder, would breeding for longer lived dogs be something that takes a high priority place in your selection process? Would a system like this be helpful to you? (I did note that you can list Australian dogs on this one, but did not see a search that would allow you to only pull out OZ dogs, not sureif anyone from OZ is using it). Do you think the whole thing is just rubbish?

Why was there decimation/lines gone forever (I am assuming rigorose culling of lines that were known to have produced an affected dog?)? What exact method/s were used to select the dogs to cull or other methods used in attempting to control the disease prior to the DNA test? Has anyone figured out what % of the lines and or the % of total dogs that were removed from the gene pool? How did those number reflect/compare to the actual carrier rate of the disease once the test was found? Once lines thought to carry the disease were removed , later were did more different lines produce the disease (which might be known by the # of carriers in different lines that were not being culled but now found with DNA tests for example). BTW I am not asking you to answer these questions, they are ideas coming to mind. However, I would like to know if you think there would be a way to get or estimate these numbers now from records/pedigree/limited registration records and so forth? This might make a very good study, as we can look back on how we (breeders) attempted to control a disease, how effective it actually was and compare this to the long lasting affects those actions had on the breed as a whole. You could also look forward and see how long it takes for any areas of changes that have been noted (such as structure changes as you noted above, loss of bloodlines as you noted, decreased breed COI and what have you) to correct if at all. Might be very interesting.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker. I don't argue with with any of that,but you are missing my point about labels.They work against us all. Joe public doesn't see this.They go by experience and heresay.EACH of the groups being discussed have genuine,legitamate complaints against them.And laws are being made because people with out intimate,experienced knowledge in their field are demanding blanket solutions. We ask for legislation to curb puppy farmers and numbers of dogs owned/bred is limited.We have inspectors to see conditions before dogs can be bred,policing of practices and care to standards laid down by out siders who have no idea how their legislation affects people in other areas. Dogs being bred in dirty,unhygenic conditions? Make a law that says concrete floors that can be hosed down 2x a day. No veterinary care? Make a law that says all dogs must see a vet 2x a year. Must be vaccinated to prevent disease X times and have a health check before being bred at this age. Kept in tiny cages with no excersize? We will fix that with a law to say dogs at all times must have room to streach out 2X their length and a run in an area no smaller than X 2X a day. Backyard breeders churning out unwanted and un planned for litters? New law.Thou shalt not breed any dog with out a permitt obtained after council approval and inspection of premises and a bussiness plan.All progeny to be desexed. Dogs being bought on the spur of the moment with no foresight? Puppies not to be displayed in public,taken to markets or sold via the internet. Pedigree dogs being bred to standards that affect their health? Thou shalt not breed a dog with a known health issue and if we think a long coat is too hot, that will be out too. Irresponsible owners are letting their dogs be a nuisance? Keep them out of sight and silent. You can add to this list endlessly because there will always be those who will do the wrong thing,out of apathy or ignorance,and with the present mentality laws will be made to counter act . Murder is illegal with harsh penalties but it still happens. If you think these laws are good because they are only aimed at the relevant groups,think again.They can be and will be used against each and every one who owns a dog,more and more often as they are accepted by Joe public as the way its suposed to be. Laws are being abused now to suit the agendas of various groups. These laws play directly into the hands of the puppy farmers you abhorre,because they have the money and profit potential to ensure they are the ones left standing at the end of the day,when dogs are such a rare "commodity" they can charge what they like. Surely, whats realy important is that dogs are not seen as the newest accessory,but are recognised as thinking,feeling beings that we choose to be responsible for,or not. An individual choice made with fore thought, acceptance of the responsibilities and understanding of the price paid for the privilege. If you choose to breed,you bear some responsibility for each and every life brought into the world and how that life is lived.Regardless of weather you make a profit or not.Regardless of weather the dog is pedigree or not. The ideal can't be legislated,but it can exsist accross the board and it can be taught,but not if dog ownership becomes so expensive and difficult Joe Public is never exposed to dogs .They will understand dogs and their care as much as they understand alligators. Wow an epic,I have to go and will polish and complete this soon Thanks for that, was really well said and inspiring. Your last paragraphs are what I believe we all need to aspire to. Understanding the great privilege and the responsibility of owning dogs and breeding dogs. It should not be a war zone. Breeders should, more than anyone else, be able to understand, help and support other breeders. It is a real shame we have let it get to the state it is now. But we can regain control over ourselves and stop these habitual negative behaviors that are so destructive to everyone who loves and owns dogs.

Jed, I have read your comments again and I am still confused why you keep talking about breeding carriers to carriers. It must be something I am saying which is being misunderstood to mean that I am saying to do that, I am not. Or we are saying the same thing and I just can't figure it out. Mathematically (and do not ask me to prove this but all the experts say this is true) if you use only one rule, always make sure there is at least one DNA normal dog in every breeding, and the population is then all bred at random using the whole population, you will not have any affected pups and you will over time reduce the carrier rate. Remember that in populations there are also normal dogs that are also being bred to each other. So the use of a smaller number of affected dogs to normals does not cause an increase in carriers dogs over the progression of many generations of breedings the total population. I believe this even true when you look at populations where the number of affected and carrier dogs is very high to start with. Where ther might be cause to do carrier to carrier breedings. This is from the CEA web site... Understandably, genetic testing will be a difficult tool to use for some breeders of “standard” collies (i.e., Rough, Smooth, Show, Standard) where the disease is very common. In some circumstances, genetically normal – homozygous normal – collies could be difficult to find and it may not be practical for the breeder to plan matings that include one normal dog. And, it may not be reasonable to expect complete avoidance of CEA/CH in one generation. All the same, genetic testing is a sure-fire tool to move toward elimination of the disease. To start, breeding a carrier to a carrier will produce an average of 25% normals, 50% carriers and 25% affecteds. With genetic testing at each subsequent generation, and with a goal of breeding normal by carrier or normal by affected, the frequency of disease will drop and frequency of normals will increase without loss of other desirable traits valued in collies. Now back to the border collie example of NOT breeding carriers to carriers, but using Clear to Clear, Clear to Carrier, and Clear to Affected. In border collies there are only 2.5% or less than 3 dogs per 100 that are affected and this was prior to any DNA testing, this number is now close to zero affected and will remain at zero as long as people use at least one DNA normal parent. So the primary goal has already been reached, breeders now can breed without producing affected dogs. Now the second goal, to keep as many dogs as possible in the gene pool. Back to the use of affecteds topic, even if you used that 2.5% of affected dogs, and bred them to normals, the small number of carriers they would have added to the population would not over time cause the % of carriers to increase. In fact if you always use one normal dog in every breeding, the number of affecteds will drop to zero in the first generation and the number of carriers will drop slowly over time, without any other intervention. At the time the test came out is was around 25% carriers. Affected have all disappeared (or getting very old now). What is not so good, which I think I heard but cannot find any link to this now, was that the carrier rate is now falling way way too fast. Meaning way too many dogs are being culled from the population for no other reason other than to remove CEA carriers. This is not in the best interest of the breed because there are many far worse diseases that we have no control over and that are far more complicated genetically than CEA. The very dogs being thrown out because they are CEA carriers might be the only dogs that do not have genes for these other diseases. We could be dooming our dogs to have very high affected rates of some other much more nasty diseases. This might come on very suddenly as the population diversity is reduced so quickly, which will concentrate any diseases in that now smaller genetic population. New diseases can rear their heads very quickly in closed populations where culling* large numbers of dogs is done. In effect we could be culling about 27% of the total population of border collies in a single generation, and all to remove a gene for a disease we have total control over! Not good at all. * cull means to remove from the breeding population, that is all the word means when used way. So now we come full circle again and back to the topic of this post. The concept of not selecting the next generation by automatically culling all affecteds and carriers can be very hard to get some breeders to accept, even harder to get them to practice. Many breeders believe they need to have "all dogs in my kennel are genetically Clear for...." as proof of their being a 'reputable' breeder. This belief can come about from the constant pressure on breeders by those who are really not educated in breeding genetics, constantly setting all these so called standards that a reputable breeder has to meet. These very folks who want to be saving dogs from 'bad' breeders by forcing their message on to what a good breeder should be doing, are actually pushing some and often many of the 'good' breeders to make some very poor breeding decisions, against what is the best advise in genetics and science, so they can conform and avoid the labeling and bashing. Further, you suggest that this might be happening and it will set off a flurry of bashing to get this heretic under control...LOL Further what will happend if you say this.... I am breeding an affected CEA dog, fantastic animal, one of the best I have ever known and I very excieted about the pups!

Ok lets clear this up quickly. I did not say that anyone breeds carrier to carrier, I said I did not know if the collie folks do, but the border collie folks do not breed carriers to carriers. However to be correct, a carrier to a carrier will produce 1/4 normals, 1/4 affecteds and 1/2 carriers, so only 1 out of 4 would be affected. Well there are thousands of colies that do have more severe problems, it also affects several other breeds, all of which would be better off if they did not have CEA. That is now possible for all of the breeds, to not have CEA affected dogs. That is wonderful. Yes carriers can and should be bred with in almost all simple recessive diseases. You use the DNA tests to control disease, not to take out your breed by eliminating dogs from breeding. think of DNA testing as something that assists the breeder by allowing them many more options in breeding that will all end with no affected puppies. The goal in any breeding program is to control disease and keep as many dogs in the breeding population as possible. If we take your view that breeding carriers is wrong and I will say you think breeding affecteds even worse, then you have just signed the death warrent of the collie. There is no need to do that, the collies will be fine. Over the next years there will be less and less affected dogs and less and less carriers and more and more normals. Over the years this will become a distant problem, but it takes time and every body has to back off and let the breeders with the help of science get on with it. They ( as with all breeders) need our support not our judgement. This is exaclty why people need to stop making statements they think can apply to everyone and anyone not meeting their expectations should be bashed. 'Every breeder should health test' becomes rather meaningless when you apply the reality of each breed to that statement.

Pardon? Not sure what your question is exactly, so guessing it is the use of an affected dog? Or the use of the word Homozygous or you could also call them homozygous recessives meaning affected? Yes it can be correct to use affected dogs, in certain cases. For example a disease may not be very disabling to the dog, meaning that the dog is still very functional. CEA in border collies is an example. I believe there have only been a handful of affected dogs that had any real vision loss and they almost all have only the least damaging expression of the disease. So the ethics of using the dog (from the dogs point of view) is OK. Next to consider is that in this breed the rate of affected dogs and carriers is not that high and can easily be controlled with DNA testing, so no future dog is born with the disease. With just testing and preventing more affected dogs the rate of carriers will drop over time. In this particular case, of this disease in this breed, it is acceptable in most genetic experts opinion to used affected dogs, of course all other things would have to be considered. In other words this disease is mild and well controlled with DNA testing, therefore keeping as many dogs as possible in the gene pool should be the priority when considering this disease. Another example would be collies and CEA. I hope I am correct with this as it is not my area. I believe that the carrier and affected rate for CEA is much higher, they do not have a lot of dogs that are not affected or carriers. They also have more dogs that have the severe forms. (those modifying genes again at play making each breed have a different level of disease severity expression). http://www.optigen.com/opt9_test_cea_ch.html The frequency of the CEA/CH gene mutation in U.S. Rough and Smooth Collies appears to be extremely high. In general, the frequency of affecteds in Rough and Smooth Collies is well over 50%, and in some populations has been observed to be as high as 85-90% of dogs examined. Of the remaining, most are carriers. They in effect have no choice but use some affected dogs, as if they eliminated all of them, it would put terrible stressors on the future of the breed. I believe they try to use less severely affected dogs to normal dogs. With affected to normal there are no dogs born with the disease. I am not sure if they breed carriers to carriers. At any rate the reasons they use affected dogs in their breeding program is different to the border collie but still in the best interest of the future of their breed and is the most common opinion of genetic experts on how to proceed. Last part of the above statment no testing is required, all affected to normal offspring will be carriers, that is correct. The affected dog can only give an affected gene and the same for the normal dog it can only give a normal gene. Am I on track with my answer?

I bet you can now appreciate my concern (after looking at that long list) of the blanket idea that to be a reputable breeders you must do 'health testing". Very easy to get accused of not doing test x or test y. I believe you care about your dogs, will seek good advice and will do your best. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

BREEDING HEALTHY DOGS – A BREEDERS PERSPECTIVE http://www.fecava.org/files/ejcap/256.pdf Knowledge, education, honesty and cooperation are keys to achieve this goal. There must be cooperation between breeders of a specific breed, breeders of different breeds and between breeders and scientists – both on a national and an international level. under FUNCTIONALLY HEALTHY DOGS Thus, the overall breeding programme should not exclude more than 50% of the breed population in a country. Are 50% of the dogs we produce in ANKC going back into the gene pool? Under SCREENING PROGRAMMES One problem with breeding programmes based on screening results, is that there is too much focus on one or a few selected diseases and too little on other problems that may have more harmful impact on the dogs’ health and welfare. Hum isn't that just what I was talking about. under DO SCREENING PROGRAMMES MAKE THE DOGS MORE “DISEASED”? Statistics based on screening are often used by the media and others to determine if a breed is “healthy” or “diseased”. This is a problem; it can encourage the breeders and the owners not to register the results from dogs with diseases such as HD, elbow dysplasia, spondylosis etc. because positive diagnoses may give a bad impression of the breed. As breeders we repeatedly hear that mixed breeds are far healthier than purebred dogs. This misconception may be due to the fact that there are no screening programmes for mixed breeds; they are only examined if they have a clinical problem. under DNA-TESTS The development of DNA-tests for inherited diseases will play a major role in future dog breeding. Some tests are available today, and many more are expected in the near future. These are excellent tools for dog breeders. The results of the tests can tell us if a dog is a homozygote for a specific disease and will develop the disease, if it is a heterozygote carrier that will give diseased offspring if mated to another carrier, or if the dog is free of the defective gene. But how do we use the results of a DNA-test in breeding? Based on these tests we can eradicate the gene responsible for the disease from the population after very few generations. However, for most diseases a control programme will be far more beneficial to the breed, because it would not necessarily exclude otherwise excellent animals from breeding. With reliable tests we can control a recessively inherited disease in a population so that all offspring will be unaffected by the disease although the disease gene still exists in the population in heterozygous animals. They will not be “genetically healthy”, but they will be functionally healthy dogs. The basic ethical rule is that only functionally healthy animals should be used for breeding. Therefore homozygotes for the disease should not be bred. But the goal is functionally healthy offspring, and some genes cause disease later in the dogs’ life. In some few cases it might be beneficial for the breed to use these homozygotes for breeding. Given they are mated to dogs that do not carry the disease gene, none of the offspring will get the disease. Testing is not necessary; they will all be carriers. Heterozygote dogs can be used for breeding if bred to a dog that is not carrying the disease gene. All the offspring will have to be tested, and approximately 50% will be carriers. If two dogs free of the gene are mated, the offspring do not have to be tested; all will be genetically normal for the specific disease. Thus, reliable DNA-tests will make it possible to control the disease in the population without excluding excellent dogs from breeding. Heaps more from one of the most repsected kennel clubs in the world.

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups. Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases. If the mode of inheritence is unknown then you will not have a DNA test for it, ar at least not a test that tells you for sure how to use the results. In most cases DNA tests we can use now are for simple recessive diseases and in those a carrier can be bred to a normal and offspring will be either a carrier or normal, but in either case will not have the disease. However, what is happening in some diseases is that they are thought to have other genes that can turn them on or off, or control the severity of the disease. (look at Cryptorchid in the News section, I tried to get some interest on a study about this defect. It is clearly being controlled by some genes that not only affect the severity of symptoms but also genes affecting the very processes for the litter formation affecting number and sex of the pups, a very good read on this subject.) It may well be that the tests we are using now for these more complex inheritence patterns will be thrown out and replaced by other tests once they ahve found these other genes. In some cases this lack of total control is not really a problem in using the test. another example in one breed there were far more carries then there were the real number of affected dogs, so there must have been a gene stopping some of the carrier genes from being passed on. However the test was very accrate for finding carriers and normals and affected, so it is a very accurate test to use. I was reading about this today, if anyone is interested in it, PM me and I can send you the links I was reading today about epigentics, sort of a round about to the subject. Another problem facing breeders right now, is politics and money in genetic reserch. Some Unis are refusing to publish their work for peer review, yet they are releasing tests for sale to the public. We have only their word for it these tests are accurate. The reason there is peer review is to help catch un intended or intended mistakes, and from what I have been told a lot of mistake are found on a regular basis in the review process. So breeders need to careful in using these tests, make sure they are staying up to date and do not be afraid to question if things are not making sense.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article. still standing by your statement ML? Did I not get something? If I didn't, it's because I wasn't really that into it. I did skim it. Bad me. Back to your other post that I repsonded to, I am so sorry. I was in a big hurry to get out the door and your post was the last one and I accidently clicked on it, I meant to post in general to every one. Please accept my appolgy. And again..the rest of this post is not directed at you what so ever, I am repsonding in general to everyone. Ok lets start again. Standard acceptable statement if you want to be called a reputable breeders. I health test the parents of all my litters, this includes 1 DNA test for XYZ and one heart echo test (or fill in the blanks as you wish). I do this to assure that I have done everything I can to breed healthy dogs. Sound familiar? To really address health in breeding is far more complex and involved than doing a few health tests. Not yelling but want everyone to see YES DO THOSE TESTS. However now the more difficult process begins. For each breed it is going to be different and require different areas of knowledge and advice. So I say again, do not look for a breeder who is doing 'health testing', look for a breeder that is attempting to optimize the health in their puppies. Caps again not yelling BESIDES DOING THE NORMAL TESTS FOR THE BREED, this might also include attempting to optimize longevity perhaps by using older sires and dams from older parents that have many older pups and a family history of longevity. Perhaps giving high rankings to dog families that have not died of cancer or relatively free of CA for that breed. Perhaps extensive family screening for orthopedic problem such as HD or ED (meaning looking at everybody, all the brothers and sisters, half siblings for several generations) and so on. Much will depend on the breed, the breeders abilities and access to information. These are not cut and dry do a test and problem is solved type of breeding plans. Solving these problems may not be easy and may take many generations and many breeders efforts along with science, but at least we can broaden our ideas about what might be possible and make the effort in our breeding choices and try. Now I am not going to back over this looking for all the possible ways people can attack what I said to try to make me look like a bad breeders. Have at it, I am not going to respond to that type of behavior.

In my mind this statement would have room to include health testing. Doesn't optimizing chances of good health mean..."I've done all that I can". Which would mean..."I have health tested"? Or is that just me? It's all getting way too complicated for me. I read the article to mean people of equal values, bagging on others of equal values. ie. Registered Breeders doing the right thing, bagging on other registered breeders doing the right thing. It never entered my head to include puppy mills into the mix. But then I've had personal experiences of breeders who are all doing the right things, slagging off another breeder/dog based on heresy or personal opinion. And not on the facts of the matter. Very interesting knowing two breeders at loggerheads, both doing the right thing, but neither one willing to concede it. So I would assume that is way my head went that way with the article. And I would have to agree. Breeders really need to start standing on a united front. Not telling anyone who stands still long enough what the other breeder is doing all wrong. Educate the public on the right way of doing things without using other breeders as test cases. And then let them make up their minds who they are comfortable buying a dog from. !, no where did I say not to do recommend health testing, what I said was that was ot enough, meaning there was more that should be done. I am not going to talk about this now as have to go somewhere. 2, What is more important is how what I said was used and I mean used. There was no reason to assume I meant to not do health testing, but if you had to assume anything, why would you assume that? Why not assume I meant to do health testing as well as other things and calrifiy that thought. But no, the assumption is always to the negative, always to make the other person look bad and and always meant to bash the other while building yourself up. What kind of way is this for breeders to be treating each and for not justafiable reason. Exactly a perfect example of what this thread it about. Now your move, bash some more eh? I am sure you can think of something.

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time. Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs. You know...I never said not to do health testing, please read it again.

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be. I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not. I agree. Many of the best recipes call for the pot to be stirred, it prevents everything settling to the bottom of the pot and setting up like concrete. Never hurts to stretch your comfort zone, at least for most people. I agree and my comfort zone was stretched when I saw ANKC breeders having a public go at other ANKC breeders when the other breeders had done nothing wrong according to the kennel clubs and the law. So what I had to do was challenge my own assumptions and rethink what I believed was a good breeder. There are still some areas that I don't have a firm opinion on but I am working through those One unsolicted sugestion. Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests. Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL