shortstep

Ok from a different perpective. For 200 years people have been breeding working dogs in Australia, Uk, Europe or the frozen north, the dogs have done their jobs well and this was and is in some cases still how they are still bred and live today. Why do these folks have to health test their dogs? Sorry but blanket health testing for every pup born does not make someone an ethcial breeder. I would also argue that it will not make for over all healthy dogs either, just dogs that are free of the few simple recessive diseases they can be tested for. There is far more to breeding healty dogs than maditory health testing. Sooner people stop acting like a few health tests is a badge of honor the sooner we might start to make progress in breeding healthy dogs. Wow did I say that on DOL...LOL Has anyone shown the Siberians the FCI breed standard? I think not. So you think Siberians should stop breeding Siberians the way they have always bred them and instead study the FCI breed standard that was written in the US or was it Canada, taken form a a couple of dogs (was it 3 maybe 5 dogs?) that founded all the rest of KC Siberian dogs in the KC world now. Besides the FCI and KC have said that Siberians from Siberia are not Siberians. Please remember that not everyone thinks standards are the be all and end all of dog breeding. How about ISDS founding registry of the breed, 104 years of border collies and not a physical standard to be seen, are they really damaging the breed and should be stopped and made to breed to a show standard?? BTW the number of working bred border collie owners far out number the KC border collies in the world. Maybe there should be a vote, no better not do that, as breeding to a show standard will loose. However, uneducated breeders doing bad things which hurt their dogs, that is a different matter and needs to be delt with on an individual basis, as with all people who commit crimes.

Can't agree - different can be bad though it isn't necessarily so. I will NEVER stop standing up for those dogs who are mistreated in the name of breeding. And that includes the dogs that are born with health issues due to ignorant dog pimps. I understand the point that there are some differences that are based on subjective feelings only (like only breeding with show champions) and these should not be used to call other breeders unethical or whatever. But you can't just blanket say, all breeders are doing ok and should be supported. Ok I think we are mixing up people who abuse animals and breeders calling another breeder who does something different as 'bad' Ok you have a breeder who does not show. You have a breeder who does not test for performance. Who is the most ethical? Yoou have breeder who believe the physical form will follow function, you have a breeder who believe form must lead function? Who is unethcial? You have a breeder who wants to breed cross breed, you have a breeder who want to breed purebreds, Who is more ethical? None of these actitives in themselves make the person unethical, they are simply different ways at looking at dog breeding. However there are a lot of people out there who will call any of these folks unethcial because they have an opposing point of view. Does that make sence?

the quote that I posted in response to Julie's post outlines where it says dog abusers are okay. It implies that as long as someone breeds nice dogs and gives them good homes then everything else is "none of your business". So that leaves out the welfare of their dogs, follow-up support of homes etc. Breeders that I know personally who don't health test, easy! 1. The puppy farm (Freedom Kennels) that I got my boy from (I didn't really know about puppy farms then). 2. The ex puppy farm breeding bitch that I got via breed rescue. The puppy farmer hadn't ever taken her to the vet, never mind actually health tested her. Poor mite didn't even have a name. You'll find out more about her in next week when she celebrates two years of freedom (I'm going to do a big post with lots of pics ). 3. Read the DOL puppy pages. I suggest starting with the rare blue stafford. I've rung up a few out of interest and most that I spoke to didn't do any health testing. 4. The registered toy poodle breeder who advertises on gum tree a lot selling her "really, really, really tiny" toy poodles (anyone say "teacup"?). It sounds like you got a very sick dog from a very bad place and I am very sorry that happened. Freedom farms really is a large scale commercial buiness (known as a puppy farm). That is not the the same stiuation as the writer was talking about. They were talking about one breeder calling another breeder a puppy farm because they had more dogs then they thought was ok, or they did not show their dogs, or they made different breeding choices. We see it on here at times. For example an 'offender' is called a BYB and puppy farmer simply because they breed and no not show their dogs. BTW this does not even need to be a real person, it would apply to any person who did not want to show dogs. Take it a step further and it could apply to people who want to breed show dogs vs people who want to breed dogs for performance. So and so on. This is what the writer is talking about, not the practices of places like Freedom farms. It is important to understand this difference in intent.

Any sweeping generalisation is bound to be inaccurate. I think the author has it completely arse about and has adopted a common, but erroneous view. Who determines the quality of the breeder? The BUYERS. It's not breeders ripping each other apart that's pushing purebreds to the wall. Its breeders breeding unhealthy pups, working on the "more is more" approach to features and playing right into the hands and the agendas of the animal rights movement. Acknowledge that truth and we may start to get somewhere. Anyone who isn't a breeder that questions the extremes of some breed standards is none too politely told they have no idea what they're talking about. Usual story, if you're so close to an issue you can't see that there are problems then you are part of the problem. I could cite some breeds in particular but I don't need to. The BBC has already been there. And we are judged on the lowest rank of our peers. Until the CC's start to enforce their own codes of conduct and a few hard truth's are acknowledged then the BUYERS will continue to judge us that way too. This is such a great topic to hash out as there are such strong feeling about it! I agree with almost everything you have said and I think for the same reasons. However I think one of the driving forces is the pitting of one group against the other, both outside or within the groups. We see it on here all the time. It starts witht he breeders. The animal rights groups pick up on this and use it. The end result right now is that purebred dogs are being actively taken down, all the purebred dog people do for the most part is blame the dog breeders who are ot just like them and in the end everyone will loose out. We have to stop the cycle, stop the name calling, stop blaming other breeders and stop creating tension and driving division between groups of dogs breeders. You know I have some pretty strong personal opinions on how I want to breed my dogs, but I do think for the most part I try not to say or imply that anyone doing otherwise is wrong or a bad breeder. I try to remember that in the bigger picture all dog breeders are important and all make their contribution. I have also found that I usually have the very best of conversations and communication with breeders who are very good at what they do even when it is very unlike what I do. I appreciate their skill and I believe they appreciate mine. Different is not bad.

Good answer! I agree. Where did it say that breeders who abuse their dogs dogs are to be supported? Please give an example of a group of breeders that you personally know for a fact do not ever health test, do not provide a good home nor ever support their buyers?

Megan this is exactly what it is all about. Ok lets take some time and some examples and work through a few examples, Someone breeds outside the ANKC or Kennel club, are they ethical or not? Someone is breeding purebreds to cross breds, are they unethcial?

LOL off to a good start. Ok so please tell us exactly where the writer has gone wrong, what exacty do you disagree with?

http://endangeredowner.blogspot.com/2011/0...l-pasttime.html Breeder Bashing: A National Pasttime Breeder-bashing isn't a new concept. However, with our rights to breed dogs under constant attack from the animal rights terrorists, led by none other than The Humane Society of The United States (which is in no way, shape or form a "real humane society", but rather an extreme animal rights organization), one would think that dog breeders could find some common ground, stick together, and dispense with the superiority complexes. No such luck. One would think that since dog breeding is being compared to drug-dealing, that we could learn to play nice. Visit one of those damnable online "dog forums" sometime and you will see what I mean. We seem to forget (or do we?), that many members of the pet buying public go to these message boards to 'learn'. What are we teaching them? Just for fun visit one of your breed's message boards. Or better yet, Google your kennel name, or your dogs' names. You may be shocked at what "fellow breed enthusiasts" have to say. "I would NEVER do that, and any breeder that DOES is......" Fill in the blank; "back-yard breeder" (or "BYB"), "puppymill" (a phrase coined by the animal rights terrorists to divide and conquer us...it's working, by the way), or a modification, such as "showmiller". Simply put, if WE don't like a certain breeder, or said certain breeder does not DO what WE do, or WOULD DO, then they are less than human and should be banished to the deepest pits of hell. Nothing a dog breeder does is EVER good enough; everyone that owns dogs, or breeds, has their own "ideas" of "what a breeder should do or be". No topic is off limits, every action --or inaction-- is subject to being bashed by those that need to feel superior by being self-proclaimed experts while hiding behind a computer keyboard. Newsflash: such "superior" beings are NOT helping when it comes to winning the war for our rights to breed and even OWN dogs. My advice, if one needs help improving self-esteem, read one of those self-help books, or see a shrink. One topic pounced upon by breeder-bashers is "NO one should own more than--insert number here- dogs!" Really? Just who are you exactly to dictate to anyone how many dogs a person should have the right to own? Of course, this same sentiment does not apply to rescues or fosters because they are "doing good", any other poor schmuck that chooses to have 10, 5, 20 dogs are "evil greedy breeders that should be sent to the deepest pits of hell" . Another topic: "Anyone who breeds MORE THAN ---fill-in the blank time again---litters per year is a ....." Interesting. So, according to the "experts" no one can be a good breeder if they breed 2,3, or whatever-arbitrary-number of litters per year? As long as the puppies they produce are healthy, are good specimens of their chosen breed (which is subjective to each individual), and they sell them to good homes, what business is it of ours? Can you say, "NUNYA". And then there is the ever popular, "if a breeder is testing at such a young age, they must have something to be afraid of!" Really??? Isn't the entire point of health testing what we produce (and their parents) is to make sure that we are doing everything we can to make sure those animals are as healthy as possible and to make sure that our puppy buyers know what they can/can't expect? This seems to be a bashing point done by those that don't do ---for example---eye CERFS on young puppies in a breed where CERFing at a young age isn't the "norm". We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Remember that saying about glass houses and stones..... Before all you "breeding experts" run off to educate the public on what a "good" breeder is, don't do the rest of us any favors by preaching what your "beliefs" are as being "my way or it's wrong". We dog breeders seem to forget that WE created the anti-breeder sentiment in this country by bashing those that we didn't agree with or by bashing those that did things differently than us. And look where we are now....the animal rights terrorists and the bunny-hugger followers have taken our "ideas" and are introducing them as legislation faster than a dandelion growing in summertime. Yes, WE DID THIS TO OURSELVES. We created the "breeders are bad" sentiment by expecting all breeders to do as WE DO, or else they are "bad" if they do not. We have "taught" the public this; we have "created" the monster. I've said it before and I'll say it again, be careful of throwing those stones; you never know where they will land. Or how they will come back to haunt you.

Westminster Show ... White Working Men in Suits group and more...

Thanks fpr posting this, great news!

It's Greek, Crypt means hidden Orchid means testicle Hidden testicle or in reality undescended or retained testicle/s. It can mean one or both, but the term Monorchid (mon means one) is often used to describe one descended and the other retained. The testis are present, however if both are retained they are usually very small and they do not function, the dog cannot sire offspring. If one is descended then it will usually function normally and the dog can sire offspring. Any undescended testis should be removed as they have a high rate of testicular cancer. Almost all breeds of dogs and mix breeds will have some amount of cryptochidisum, some breeds have more than others. This is a very ancient genetic defect and was believed to be simple recessive. However, it is certainly not always complete in it's expression, meaning that there are different degrees of being affected, from late dropping all the way to neither testis descending. Most feel that a dog that has late descending testicles is also affected, even if both do eventually descend. It is also often believed that females can carry the gene/s. After 100 years of trying to eliminate this problem it still occurs and in reality very little is known about it how it is passed on through the generations, nor how to eliminate it from a breed. It is normaly felt that dogs with a retained testicle should never be bred from. However there is disagreement about using late descenders or siblings of cryptorchids, also about using dogs or bitches again that have produced an affected pup. Today many feel that since the mutation/defect is not life threatening, the dog can be neutered and live a normal life, that the risk of crytporchidium should not be cause for immediate removal of all suspected carriers or related dogs. Another words the diversity of their other genes is of more value to the future of the breed than the risk of them carrying a gene for crytporchid forward. This makes good sense when it is understood that after more than 100 years of trying to eliminate this mutation by culling all potential affected or potential carrier dogs and dogs and bitches that have produced, it still remains in the populations. There will in most cases also be normal male dogs in the litters and often there can be several generations of all normal dogs when it may or may not suddenly rear it's head again. Females may or may not produce it, and their pups, grand pups and great grand pups may go on to never have an affected dog pup. Some may disagree with all of the above and still remove all dogs that are related to an affected dog from any breeding programs. The hunt for the gene/s goes on. From the sound of this study, that litter size is increased and more males than females are born, it does sound like there might be more than one gene involved or the mutation is somehow affecting the whole litter, causing the increase number of pups and the increased number of males. It really is a very interesting finding. What also came to my mind when reading this is that increase litter size may not always be related to low levels of inbreeding causing imporved vigor and health. Something to keep in mind if the time ever comes that there is a outside push (say EBVs) which select for increase litter size.

love the audi ad! LOL I agree Audi is great. This is my fav recent pedigree dog commercial Go pugs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjaOUjUPUc...feature=related

The RSPCA do not make the laws.....no they enforce the laws and lobby hard to get the laws they want, by introducing bill, backing legislation and more, they are hardly innocent in this area. The RSPCA do not approve puppy farms, who said they did? this has nothing to do with anything we are talking about, but I am glad you found something you admire in the RSPCA. The RSPCA support purchasing from reputable breeders, Ok I'll play what is a reputable breeders and please use RSPCA links to support what you say, would like to see them say they support ANKC purebred dogs breeders. Long hair, did you even look at the link I gave for what the native afghan dogs look like, they do not have what...8" long hair, the dogs in aphgan have hair about 2-3" long and they are smooth coated on much larger areas of their bodies. Then read the whole link below and their remarks about breeding for extremes. The RSPCA UK pedigree dog welfare a 76 page report on the subject of welfare concerns in only the population of dogs bred by pedigree dogs breeders, and then come back and tell me that very long hair on an afghan is not what they are talking about. Read about pedigree dogs are not healthy, that they are highly inbreed and that they do not support the breeding of of dogs in closed stud books and so on and so on all presented as if it is a crime and no mention that tyou can find this or worse in any other groups of dog breeders, yet the only grouped of named as bad dog breeders are those breeding pedigree dogs. Please take some time to read and then ask yourself why they want to use dramtic dos like the afghan if they really believe it is cruel to produce that dog under the pedigree format in the first place. http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?...application/pdf

The unis may not have anything to do directly with this test, however, they have been and are preaching the bennfits of diversity and I have read more than a few 'genetic experts' in the field say that COI is only a guess based on proablities, where as a test that actually measurses the real diversity between the two parent dogs would be much more accurate. I am trying to educate myself andnot geting too far as most of this is above my level of education. However I did find this today, Sandgruber or others, so you have any comments on this and how it would apply to this test. http://desertwindhounds.blogspot.com/2010/...dbasket-to.html

Whippets, I am sorry that reading the short bit about Cryptorchid took 5 mins of your time you will never get back. Besides wasiting your time, did you find it interesting? I did and have some thoughts about it. For example, if a time were to come when breeders are pushed to deomonstrate vigor by increasing litter size, could this accidently result in an increase in crytp with in the breed?

LOL

Not brand new study, but first time I had seen it. 2009 Jul;113(1-4):187-95. Epub 2008 Jul 8. Relationship of cryptorchidism with sex ratios and litter sizes in 12 dog breeds. Gubbels EJ, Scholten J, Janss L, Rothuizen J. Genetic Counselling Services, Eijkerstraat 42, 6269 BN Margraten, The Netherlands. [email protected] Abstract The aim of this study was to identify the influence of genetic carriership for cryptorchidism on litter sizes and sex ratios in the offspring. Weaning data of 11,230 litters in 12 purebred dog breeds were evaluated. Parents were classified as cryptorchidism 'carriers' © when at least one of their offspring was found cryptorchid. Subsequently the effects of 'carrier' and 'non-carrier' (NC) parents on their litters were studied. In litters from C x C parents we found an increased number of males per litter in all breeds, a reduced number of females per litter in 8 breeds and an increased litter size in 11 breeds in comparison with litters from NC x NC parents. Over all breeds the effects on litter size, on number of males per litter and on sex ratio were highly significant. Mixed litters from C x NC and NC x C did not show these effects and were not significantly different from the NC x NC offspring. Our results suggest a general mechanism in the dog species which causes cryptorchidism as well as increased male/female ratios and increased litter sizes. A consequence of such a mechanism is that selection in favor of increasing reproduction output frustrates selective efforts to eliminate cryptorchidism. For full report (Pdf) http://www6.svsu.edu/~gmlange/461LC4.pdf BTW I just added 'Horrid Shocking' as I wanted to see if more people looked at the post with those word in the title. I am doing a study on the topic.

If RSPCA was to stand behind what they preach about welfare in dog breeding, they should have used afghans that have not been part of the pedigree dogs, have not been part of a closed stud book, have not bred to have physical extremes (like very long hair), and have not been bred to a show standard... Then they should have used one of these dogs. http://desertwindhounds.blogspot.com/2009/...fghanistan.html (BTW I think the dogs on the link are just fantastic and I would love to have one!) The type of dog they used in their ad (a pedigree dog) is the very type of dog they want the government to make laws about to prevent dog breeders from produceing them, yet they are the very type of dog they want to use when trying to promote themselves to the public.

Thing is though, some absolutely gorgeous dogs come through pounds and shelters. Not necessarily purebreeds and obviously 'one-offs', but gorgeous none-the-less. I know that over the time I've been on the rescue forum I've seen some astoundingly attractive crossbreeds who'd make great advertising material. However, I actually think the ad is really clever and I love the idea. Think about it; singles sights don't advertise themselves with pictures of ordinary people carrying a bit of a extra weight, wrinkles and grey hair do they? They use pretty, young people to grab your attention; sensible people already know that their match is probably going to be about as ordinary looking as they are, but that bit of glamour draws you in. That's marketing 101 and it works. No-one wants a relationship with someone pathetic for no reason other than they've had a hard life and deserve some attention and if you've ever had that kind of relationship I'll guarantee you don't look back on it with much joy. As a rescuer, I don't want people adopting our dogs because they feel sorry for them; I want them to look at our dogs and go, "hey, that's a great dog who is exactly what we need for our home". I don't put sad stories about past lives onto our profiles, because I want our dogs to be adopted because they are great dogs who will make excellent companions. I don't want them defined by "sad rescue dog who needs a home because I feel sorry for it"; I want them to be seen as "cute, loving, happy dog who I really want to take home and incidentally I can feel good because I adopted a rescue dog". And just as an aside, I assume that apart from the glamour factor, they used the Afghan because the narrow head shape and long hair made that first visual joke possible ... I can't see it working with your average staffie x! Using your words, The thing is though, they have used pedigreed dogs which they find no end of bad things to say about and that they say are a welfare concern at all other times. You are correct there are good looking cross breeds and they should have found one of them to use. Or they can retract all the nasty things they say about purebred dogs and their breeders if they want to use their pedigree beauty and pedigree athleticism to advertize for the RSPCA. Read this link and then ask yourself why they want to use a pedigreed dog breed when it is such a welfare concern? http://www.rspca.org.au/how-you-can-help/c...-questions.html It is not Ok for the RSPCA to use the extreme feature of long hair of an afghan indicating to the public this is the type of dog they can have if the owners wants a sexy dog. Nor is it ok to use the pug face of a boxer as a good choice of dog to find at the RSPCA for an active home (as they do say that pug faced breeds cannot breath correctly). Either pedigreed dogs are a welfare issue or they are not, they cannot have it both ways depending on what suits them at the moment. If they are a welfare organization and they really think pedigree dogs are a welfare concern, then they should not be suing their beauty and athleticism to promote their organization. It would be no different to using caged chicken eggs in an omelet sale to promote the RSPCA.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?act=...w_post&f=63 Identification of glaucoma gene paves way for future therapies Published: Friday, Feb 18, 2011, 20:30 IST Place: Washington, DC | Agency: ANI Researchers have identified a new candidate gene for the most common form of glaucoma, primary open angle glaucoma (POAG). The findings offer novel insights into glaucoma pathology and could lead to targeted treatment strategies. Glaucoma - a leading cause of vision loss and blindness worldwide - runs in families. So far, three genes have been associated with human glaucoma, but they account for only a small fraction of cases and have not shed much light on the disease process. A team of investigators from Vanderbilt University and the University of Florida turned to a model with simpler genetics—a canine model of the disease. Forty years ago, Kirk Gelatt, from the UF College of Veterinary Medicine, came across a litter of beagles that had a high incidence of glaucoma. The finding suggested to Gelatt that the disease was inherited, and he established a colony of POAG-affected beagles to study treatments for the disease. In affected beagles, intraocular pressure begins to increase at 8 to 16 months of age, due to increased resistance to aqueous humor outflow. The clinical course of the disease “absolutely resembles human glaucoma,” said Rachel Kuchtey, principal investigator of the study. The researchers used blood samples to search for genes associated with POAG. They first narrowed in on a certain spot (locus) on canine chromosome 20, which matched part of human chromosome 19. Previous studies had associated the human region with intraocular pressure, a good sign that they were on the right track, said John Kuchtey, first author of the study. Sequencing of the entire canine locus revealed that a gene called ADAMTS10 was the strongest disease-associated candidate. POAG-affected dogs have a single mutation in the gene, which encodes a protein involved in processing the extracellular matrix (ECM), the connective and structural support tissue around cells. "There is a lot of evidence that proteoglycans (molecules in the ECM) and matrix remodeling might have something to do with aqueous outflow resistance, and so this gene supports that line of investigation," said John. The researchers also demonstrated that the gene is highly expressed in the trabecular meshwork—the specialized filtration tissue through which aqueous humor passes, another supportive piece of evidence that it may have a role in regulating aqueous humor outflow. The findings have been reported in the journal PLoS Genetics.

This whole thing is just a knee jerk reaction to the animal rights peoples attack on show pedigreed dogs. Nothing, and I mean nothing will make those people happy, unless you end the kennel club. Most of them will not be happy until there are no dog breeders of any kind. There is nothing you can do that will make the animal rights people happy with ANKC breeders except for them to all (and that means all) stop breeding dogs. Instead of dealing with he reality of the situation, we now have a 2 level system. Where we have the accredited breeder and not accredited breeder. Making the not accredited look inferior because of nothing more meaningful than the creation of the system in the first place. However, beware. The animal rights folks will go after the accredited breeders first, just to prove that even the 'better' ANKC dog breeder is still a very bad breeder. Then they will say if the "better" accredited breeders are this bad, then just how bad are the 'not better' not accredited breeders, followed by ANKC breeders need to be under close government control to protect their dogs. It is a loose loose proposition for all ANKC breeders and a win win proposition for animal rights. Meanwhile the ANKC breeders all turn on themselves. It is total lunacy.

Why do they use so many obviously purebred dogs in their ads? They are even using purebred dogs with extreme anatomical features??? Maybe they need to review their own statements about 'responsibility' and purebreds, then ask themselves why they 'use' purebred dogs with anatomical extreme features to promote the RSPCA. http://www.rspca.org.au/how-you-can-help/c...-questions.html

I think you are right on taget. Just look at many of the the breeding programs going on in the FCI in Europe. Breed wardens inspecting parents and pups in the home of the breeder to make sure they meet the the breeder is meeting all the rules and laws. COI of litters controlled. (even saw some outrossing being done that seems to be mostly driven by animal rights and the kennel club (not the bred club) to address very high COI's.) contolling and limiting the number of litters a stud dog can have, which by the way is leading to a lot of diffculty finding any available studs as most breeders want to keep the few stud services the dog will be allowed to have to themselves. Maditory reporting of vet care into a database which is reviewed but the panel that makes all the decsions for that breed, of whihc there is on breeder and the rest are animal rights, lawyers, vets, scientiest and so forth. Pretty much the kennel club breeder is becoming a governement regulated and controlled activity where the breeder has less and less personal freedom bu taking away their right to make many decsions. BTW I cannot find the same things going on for the breed clubs outside the kennel clubs in these countires, which are mostly working dog registries, like service dogs, police dogs herding dog and so forth, but perhaps it is affecting them too/. Nor can I fInd it affecting cross breeders, but again it is hard to track down. I am assuming that they are exempt?? because they either do not breed for show ring or they are not breeding purebreds?? Just a guess.

I am very sure that many many people will use this test, and you will soon be able to select a pup for a litter bred this way. In fact on another list people were already saying they were going to use it for the next litter and really excited at the prospect. They also felt that it was good to have as many different genes as possible. I am not sure they really understood it, some even admitted that, but they seem to not care as this was the what they had been told would help them breed better dogs. I never said that you would throw out other selection processes, nor did I want to indicate that money would rule my decision in fact I went out of my way to say that I would use any test PROVEN to work. What I meant to imply is that I am not sure I want to do my best to have as many different genes in the parents dogs as possible. For example right now I do not have a gene for CEA, I want to keep two identical normal genes and would not want the different defective gene hunted out by a diversity finder. Now I know this gene we can chase around by DNA testing for it, but what about all the other simple recessives that can not yet be tested for? Seem silly to go looking for them. Right now I have 5 generations without HD, they say that this is going to be as many 6 genes and also some genes that are for traits that just increase risk and tip the dog over the edge. Why would I want to change what I have now and go looking for different genes? It also took 200 years to build a sheepdog to work the way my breed does, for the breed to basically all have the same working style and traits. Why on earth would I want to now try to breed out those traits by deliberately looking for different working genes that are not the ones normally found in my breed for their working style and behaviors? Nobody has any idea how these working traits are inherited or how many there are, this is playing a dangerous game with the very soul of the breed and once these traits are lost they may never be able to be replaced and you would have lost the breed. You also have to remember that not all breeds are so sickly (in fact most are not), working dogs for the most part are pretty healthy and my breed already has a very low COI across the breed. This is not in response to a new fad in dog breeding, it is the old fashion method of repeating what works from practical experience. Show me proof this works and show me proof that this will not take away my dogs soul. Anyway, it may become mandatory in the next years of the UNI has anything to do with it. I was told that EBV using vet records and health testing combined with this sort of DNA diversity testing will be required and used to set the price for the insurance that must come with every pup sold. Will the 10 point plan become law? Can't say, but if it does then this sort of test will be part of being an ANKC breeder. If nothing else the uni can make a great big experiment using this sort of breeding plan on our dogs and we can all see what happens. It is a very good topic to discuss and thanks for doing that! Just wanted to add. I got the impression that you thought this test would tell you if the parents carried a gene for a disease. I do not think that is the case. First off each breed has different diseases and different genes that cause those diseases, even same disease can have different genes in different breeds. Also if this test did that, sign me up, I would get all the disease genes found in one swoop at a fraction of the cost of DNA testing for each one. And that would be violating heaps of patents!!! ...and would not happen even if they could do it.

HI Max I look at this way, Right now this is the latest craze, big $$ and a great temptation for breeders with sick dogs to jump on the band wagon before we have any real facts. Yes we want to know as much as possible about what each gene does and then use this information to avoid breeding a pup with an active disease, to avoid crosses that will lacking vigor and also to avoid changing the offspring into pups we do not recognize. If the goal is to have the max amount of different genes than yes test a bunch of dogs, from as many different breeds and cross breeds that you can find, pay a lot of $ to a lab, and pick the dog that is the least like your dog of the lot. What will you get? Anybodie's guess but it will be the most least like the dog you started with as was possible. I don't want a mystery anybody's guess litter. I would also point out that one litter I noticed bred by someone who preaches the glory of cross breeding and increasing genetic diversity to increase vigor, got 2 puppies in their litter from 2 breeds that normally have pretty good sized litters. I thought small litters was a sign of lack of genetic diversity?? We need to know a lot more. Now, give me a test that will for sure prevent me from breeding pup with a disease I am there. Give me a test that makes my pups have real documented improved vigor by making sure certain genes are in play (genes we do not even know about yet), or longer life genes, or take away that last gene that tips a dog over into HD symptoms and so forth. Yes I am there, bring it on! But we are not there yet, not even close in most cases. The tests we do have for certain disease genes I am already using. This test is working on one assumption and that is, in general a population that has greater genetic diversity will have less disease as compared to one with a less genetic diversity. Taking a big 'in general' concept like that about populations and placing it on to breeding of a single litter (where any number of breed special genes and diseases can be in play) is not exactly the same in my opinion. However I am still listening to some of the biggest experts on genetics and if they have things to say to make me come around I will say so. I would like to see some evidence too. Show me some breedings in a study context, with controls, not sure how you would measure this in success or failure, but it would take years to know the real outcomes of using this test to breed dogs. And also consider we do not really have a baseline of normal breedings to start with, eh. Some words I heard yesterday on the topic of how to breed better dogs went along these lines... Look at pedigrees (COI, different ancestors, health tests and so forth), but in the end you should always breed dogs and never breed paper. Words to live by.