zenchel

Discovered yesterday that Rob Rawlinson is prepared to privately score xrays. He is a member of the AVA Radiology Chapter. Dr R J Rawlinson BVSc DVR(Lond.) MACVSc FACVSC PO Box 1626 Mt. Barker SA 5251 [email protected] Hips $64 Elbows $9 Email him to obtain a form to accompany your xrays. Sylvia

Absolutely - the problem with getting a handle on EIC in Labs is that so many dogs that are EIC DNA affected never collapse - the reason being (in my experience) they don't push themselves hard enough. I have several DNA affecteds that have never collapsed - maybe they're too laid back? Those of mine that have collapsed are really driven. Also, I think maybe they learn to self regulate once they've collapsed a couple of times. I also have a couple of dogs that I'm sure would collapse if they had a double dose of the mutation to do it, but they don't (thankfully!!).

This morning I received an email from Katie Minor at the University of Minnesota with a link to the information page re EIC in Border Collies and also information about a shipping point in Australia for anyone interested in participating. UMinn Border Collie EIC On the right hand side of the front page are details about sending samples from Australia. Out of interest, the symptoms before and during collapse look nothing like those that occur in EIC in Labradors. Sylvia

Roger does digital..... (which is nothing like Debbie Does Dallas Sorry, just sounded funny at the time :D

There have been many enquiries as to alternatives for hip and elbow scoring following Dr Wyburn's unfortunate illness. Apart from the ANKC/AVA scheme, which your vet will know about (hopefully!) there are two private options, Dr Roger Lavelle and Drs Graeme Allan and Robert Nicoll. Dr Roger Lavelle Lavelles Diagnostic Imaging 80 Ashworths Road Lancefield Vic 3435 Requirements: Photocopy of dog’s registration certificate with details correct particularly owners details and the need for microchip information to be embossed permanently on the radiographs . Cost $80 Hips and Elbows $63.00 Hips Only $17 Elbows only 10 working days for results. Drs Graeme Allan and Robert Nicoll Veterinary Imaging Associates http://www.online-vets.com/ Readers MUST be members of the Radiology Chapter of the AVA; some names mentioned on this forum as being able to score xrays aren't. Sylvia

Maybe my age brings on cynicism rather than hormonal tsunamis, but I was really not happy with the Lab's treatment. I thought the cat story was wonderful, however imo the Lab was destined for many more years of pain - his left elbow was a disaster (arthrosis the size of a tennis ball) and I believe his hips were also cactus - severe muscle wastage. I got very tired of hearing the vet say "this is the first time in the world this has been done". The areas on the dog's hips may have been evidence of pain relief patches, don't know. There are similarly passionate specialist vets here in Melbourne - one who shall be nameless with an ego so big that it's difficult to fit him, yourself and your dog in the consulting room, and then there's Sam Snelling - he actually rang me up while my dog was on the table to tell me he thought he couldn't help her - so many others would think of the $3K that he would make if he did the op, but he knew that the best thing was for her to have peace - that to me is "hot" ;)

Sam Snelling Advanced Vetcare 26 Robertson Street Kensington (03) 9092 0400

You can do it easily then - just go back and start with the dogs that have test results, profile them and do CBP down the generations. Sylvia

This is a really important topic and there are several facets to it. This whole DNA testing thing is a brave new world, which in a way has gotten away from us and I'm not sure whether we will ever be able to catch up with it and get it back under our control. As soon as we think we may have it under control, the goal posts get shifted or the technology changes or one of the testing companies goes feral and we're back to square one Firstly, the ANKC Conference in October passed a set of Protocols for the use of DNA disease testing: ANKC Regulations Part 6 The Register and Registration ANKC Protocols for DNA-based Disease Testing (Added 10/10, 6.7.1) The DNA Program 2.10 The program focuses on DNA testing to determine genetic status of breeding stock. It is vital that ANKC confirms effective protocols to ensure that: a) There is scientific validity and accuracy in test results: the test must be published and/or peer reviewed; there must be no room for fraud on the part of owners; there must be no room for unknown/accidental matings. b) Breed councils and clubs are aware of the requirements should they wish to introduce Litter Registration Limitations. The Protocols 2.11 DNA collection DNA collection is by approved, independent, trained collectors, including veterinarians. Owners/breeders cannot collect from their own dogs. Approved collectors would be those accepted by State CC’s or nominated by breed clubs. 2.12 Positive identification Identification of the dog by microchip or unique (as part of a recognised Australia wide based tattoo system) tattoo is required, it must be verified by the collector at the time of DNA collection and recorded on the form. 2.13 Collection method DNA sample collection is via non-intrusive buccal swab, or blood collection. Blood samples if required, should be collected by a registered veterinarian. 2.14 Parentage testing For verification of parentage, both parents and the offspring concerned must have DNA profiles. 2.15 Clear by parentage (CBP) for a Specific Disease Where both parents are clear for a specific disease-causing gene, their offspring may be assumed to be clear of that disease. Where specific LRLs are in place, those offspring that go on to become breeding stock, parentage must be confirmed either by parentage test or disease test prior to breeding. Where litter registration limitations in a breed require disease testing of breeding stock, after a number of generations with no reported cases of the disease, the breed council (or in the absence of a council, the majority of breed clubs) may declare the Australian population of the breed to be clear of the disease. The litter registration limitations may then be altered to require only imported animals, imported semen and stored frozen semen to be tested. [The number of generations would be decided in conference with the relevant breed club(s) and the CHWC. Additional advice to be sought from geneticists/advisory breed council.] So, basically, the ANKC recognises Clear By Parentage for the purposes of Litter Registration Limitations, as long as the protocols are followed. That sounds really easy, however when you consider the Border Collie situation, things take a turn for the worse The Border Collie community chose to introduce LRLs for three diseases, CL, CEA and TNS. These LRLs are supposed to take effect on Jan 1 2011. However they don't conform to the requirements of the ANKC DNA protocols. The TNS test has never been published or peer reviewed, so it can't be put in an LRL. That doesn't say that you can't keep using the test. The LRLs that were agreed to also don't conform to the Clear By Parentage protocols. Parentage must be proven to claim Clear By Parentage. I know there are many BC people that have three or four generations of clear by parentage, however most, if not all, haven't done the profiling to prove parentage. Some have tested CL with Alan Wilton, some with GTG. Alan Wilton's markers for parentage don't match GTG's - it's a minefield!! And to really put the icing on the cake, GTG have now decided they won't do more than one generation Clear By Parentage !!!!!! Bloody hell....... The Litter Registration Limitations that were voted on can't be put into practice on January 1st, 2011. The new company that's doing DNA testing, ASAP Laboratories, will do Clear By Parentage for as many generations as you like, however they can't do the CEA test, as GTG has the licence from Optigen. They will recognise results from other laboratories, which GTG won't! I don't know what the answer to all of this is; as I said above I think we've lost control of DNA testing If anybody has any real concerns about all of this, I'd be happy to talk to them about it. Cheers, Sylvia Power Chair, Dogs Vic CHC

There are a couple of things that need clarifying here - firstly both the new ANKC regulations specifically state first degree matings (father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister). So half brother/sister matings do not fall under the rule changes. It is really not very helpful to post generalised statements like "it is against ANKC regs to breed close relaives and progeny wont be registered" without quoting the exact regulation so everybody will know exactly what is being proposed. Secondly, if you read them carefully, the two new regs actually contradict each other . Dogs Vic Canine Health Committee have asked that the two new regs be reviewed for the purpose of clarifying the situation. 1.16 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.3 - Registration of Progeny of Close Matings It was resolved that ANKC Member Bodies will not register the progeny of first degree matings (father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister) on the Main Register. The only exceptions to this would be where application was made to the Controlling Body prior to the mating on the basis of health or genetic reasons to the benefit of the breed. 1.17 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.4 - Close Matings It was resolved that the ANKC introduce the following regulations pertaining to Close Matings from 1 July 2011. “I shall not mate my bitch or dog to a close relative ie mother / son, father / daughter or brother / sister and I am fully aware that puppies as a result of these matings will not be registered without first gaining pre-approval from the Member Body for the mating for scientifically proven welfare or veterinary reasons.” Sylvia Power Chair Dogs Vic Canine Health Committee

Aint that the truth - a great pity that a hell of a lot of thought didn't take place before the creation of this mutt and the shameless marketing gimmick to get them into the Press Hang your head in shame Wally that you have singlehandedly caused the massive exploitation of two wonderful and very popular breeds in appalling conditions by puppyfarmers and byb's . You worked daily with my beloved breed who have done so much for the Blind community and as service dogs in general and I don't know how you sleep at night with the irrepairable harm you have done to not only my beloved breed but the lovely Poodle and all the other poor breeds have been swept up in the designer craze What a load of rubbish - before you take aim at anybody, try considering the reasons why Wally did the cross, his motivation and reward and what has happened since. What in the hell has Wally got to do with the conditions in puppy farms? "Singlehandedly caused massive exploitation" ???? A great proportion of what your (and my) beloved breed has done for the blind community in Australia is thanks to Wally Conron. If you want to hurl insults at somebody, try the Gardener - your phrases "shameless marketing gimmick" and "designer craze" sit much more appropriately there.

The wide variety of opinions and experiences being expressed here indicate how difficult (impossible??) it is to come up with a black and white regulation to cover this situation. Just a reminder that the whole subject came into focus because an exhibitor chose to run their bitch in an agility trial in the bitch's last week of pregnancy - most would agree that this was inappropriate. If I were allowed to have a personal opinion, it would be that the whole subject is better covered under the "bringing Dogs Victoria into disrepute" regulation, however with people being so litigious these days, it would probably never stick and the only winners would be the lawyers. Canine Health Committee has submitted another set of guidelines; we are coming from the common sense, concern for the welfare of the bitch angle; however our submissions are probably too airy fairy and indistinct for the more legalistic approach of the Constitution, Rules and Regulations Committee. Hopefully we will eventually come up with a compromise that will be acceptable to most members. I've posted this message to hopefully make it easier for people to understand the process and the different agendas that come into play when drafting regulations. Sylvia Power Canine Health Committee Dogs Victoria

Just to let people know that sadly Barry Henry (husband of Betty, Quaylbeau Cavaliers and Labradors) passed away on Friday. The funeral will be in Swan Hill on Wednesday; details in the papers. Difficult to get the word around over this long weekend, please pass on the sad news to anyone who knew Barry. Sylvia

Thanks MM - interesting that two different vets decided not to risk an anaesthetic on a pregnant bitch - also spoke to another vet yesterday who wouldn't have done it that way - anyway, it's all over and we've got babies coming :rolleyes: Your girl was very lucky!

OK, I'm obviously on a different planet and certainly not expressing myself clearly. I hoped there may be someone on here that was able to say, with knowledge and experience, either "she and her pups will be fine - anaesthetics these days are safe for pups in utero" or "gee, what an idiot vet, he never should have put those pups under that sort of risk". What I would have preferred was for the vet to contact me to tell me that yes, she was in pup and her tooth was a real mess and she and her pups would be far better off if the tooth was removed immediately, with all due care taken for the pups. I have spoken to both the vet and the practice owner this morning - we have agreed that it was best for all concerned to remove the tooth, the pups are safe (confirmed by ultrasound) and that it would have been far preferable if the vet had contacted me immediately he had found that she was pregnant. He apologised most sincerely, for which I was grateful. We are all friends again and I now need to reorganise my life for the next few weeks to accommodate a litter RSG, I don't understand why you regard a trip in the car and being given some treats at the vet would raise her stress levels? She loves going out and would be more stressed if I locked her away for the next twelve weeks. Anyway, it's all sorted now.

Yes, I accept that was my mistake, however I hadn't gone there with the intention of checking for pregnancy because I assumed she wasn't. I wasn't quick enough to shift my focus from sorting out her discomfort to considering the possibility of her having pups. I'm surprised that nobody seems to think there's a problem for a vet to perform surgery on a pregnant bitch without the owner's consent. That is at the heart of my concern. The bad teeth is a whole separate issue which I have investigated and dealt with previously. Having her ultrasounded today at a different practice, so at least I know where she's at now - how she will go in the next few days remains to be seen. Thx.

I'm really anxious and angry at the moment - hoping someone with knowledge and experience can allay my fears. Took one of my girls to the vet this morning (my usual vet is away, so saw another in the practice) as she was obviously unhappy - thought maybe a crook ear or a crook tooth (which she has had before). Yes, sure enough one of her molars is a real mess. I told the vet that she should be six weeks in whelp, but there was no sign of her being pregnant (except that her vulva didn't return to normal after the mating, however she didn't go on with any other signs). He said her belly felt a bit doughy and said he would ultrasound her to confirm the situation and remove the bad tooth. I guess I didn't say so in so many words, but I thought he would let me know if she was in whelp prior to doing anything else. Well, he has just rung to say "she's fine - the tooth was hideous but all gone now - by the way she was pregnant (yes, he used the past tense) but I gave her plenty of fluids and acted as quickly as possible, so the pups should be alright." I was speechless at this stage - I couldn't believe she had more than one pup (hard to believe any at all really) and FFS why didn't he let me know before he performed surgery on her? He went on to say that the bacteria from the rotten tooth could cause issues with the unborn pups - is this valid or is he just covering his arse? Over all these yeasr I've never had experience with necessary surgery on a pregnant bitch - I'm sure it happens but was it necessary in this case and even if it was, shouldn't he have asked me first??? I need to get my brain together before I go and pick her up - at least surely he should have let me know she was pregnant before he went ahead with the surgery, yes? Sylvia

Thanks Sway for doing that. Yes, our Breeder Forums have been compulsory for about six years, however since the growth of Dogzonline as a puppy sales resource the attendance at our Breeder Forums has substantially reduced This is also an excuse to bump this up and remind anybody that uses DNA testing that both testing companies in Victoria (options - how lucky are we ) will have a speaker at the Forum. Cheers, Sylvia

Some brief bits of this are breed specific, but generally it will be of interest to novice breeders and also anybody that uses DNA disease testing or profiling, as we have speakers from both companies in Victoria that offer DNA services: Animal Network and ASAP Laboratory Happy to answer any enquiries. Sylvia Breeder_Forum_2010.doc

Hi Ellz, Yes it is clear that Ollie did not come clean on her first posts, she was fishing, but instead of getting answers she needed to help get to the bottom of her problem, she just got a lot of advise that really did not help her. I am sure that Ollie is very upset that her pup has these problems, who would not be. If (and we need to know exactly what kind of dwarfism) this dog does have the kind of dwarfism that is associated with labs, then we know this could have been prevented by a DNA test. However, how often labs have this disease (how rare is this? ) and if most registered breeders are DNA testing for it or should be DNA testing for this disease, I do not know. Unfortunately no Lab breeders have entered in to help clarify the situation for her and us. I do know that one thing registered breeders can do to be clearly different and stand out for Ollie, is to be professional and try to help her understand what has happened. Dismissing it as bad luck is not helping her. I know she expressed unfairness of the breeder wanting the dog back if she was to get a refund, but I do not think if the breeder had said keep the dog and here is your money back that she would have walked away happy. Yes I am sure she has an axe to grind but so far I am unclear what exactly is wrong with her dog and have even less idea about what if anything the registered breeder could have or should have done to prevent it. It is a reasonable question, what makes an ANKC breeder different in relationship to what has happened to her in this case. So far I do not think we have answered that question. I am aware of this case and I have read the veterinary report on the OP's dog - the OP made it available when attempting to have the breeder sanctioned. I haven't and have no intention of identifying the breeder and I would strongly advise the OP not to also. I've responded to this thread in order to clarify some misrepresentations, as the breeder isn't in a position to do so. It is most unfortunate when these problems arise and in the majority of cases no amount of money refunded is going to make up for the physical issues that the dog faces and the emotional issues that the owner and breeder face. In my experience what counts most is the ability and willingness of the breeder to indicate their desire to understand the dog's and owner's problems and be able to explain to the owner what has gone wrong and what can be done in the best interests of all involved, of course accompanied by professional and empathetic veterinary advice. This dog was diagnosed with osteochondrosis dissecans as a result of an inconsistency of growth rate between the ulna and the radius. The dog was not diagnosed with dwarfism, either achondroplasia or as a secondary issue to oculo-skeletal dysplasia. Both parents were hip and elbow xrayed, obviously as the pup is registered. The breeder initially offered to refund the purchase price on return of the pup however I don't believe that there was any further direct communication between the parties. From the correspondence that I read, I believe the OP was somewhat confused about the dog's diagnosis and also regarding what forms of testing are appropriate when breeding Labradors. This could have been handled better, however I don't think the OP really wanted to hear the facts. Unfortunately, sometimes there is such a chasm between breeder and purchaser that no end of talking can help either party. I don't believe the breeder could or should have done anything that would have prevented the disease; selling the puppy on a legally drawn up sales contract would have helped avoid the situation that eventually arose. I find discussing possible remedies before things actually go wrong is a huge help. Sylvia

Harry, a Lab that I bred and his Airedale mate Lucy have moved to Sydney (Randwick). Their owners are looking for recommendations for a boarding kennel just like mine here in Melbourne :p Eastern/Southern suburbs, for easy access to the airport; NOT your Mirage Port Douglas type establishment; small size to ensure individual attention and plenty of room for the dogs to move around - Harry and Lucy used to spend all day out in the paddock with my Labs. Lucy can be a bit firey, but as long as her companions don't dare to question her dominance all is OK. Thanks for any recommendations. I thought there was already a thread on this topic, but I'm obviously not much good at the search function. Sylvia

WorkingInWhelpBitches.doc I shall expect them to account for themselves at the AGM at a minimum. I only found out it came from that sub-committee when someone posted yesterday.CC Why wait 'til the AGM - we can account for ourselves now In Sep '09 the Canine Health Committee received a request from Dogs Vic - quote: "As a result of an investigation undertaken by the Investigations Committee concerning a complaint against a member who had trialled a bitch close to the time of whelping, the Management Committee has request as a matter of urgency, that the Canine Health Committee develop guidelines regarding the welfare of bitches in whelp and their participation in sporting activities." On behalf of CHC, Dr Ros Atyeo BVSc wrote the attached article. She and the entire CHC were under the impression the information would be used to establish guidelines - regulations were never mentioned. The eventual regulation which now exists was never referred back to CHC, nor is it endorsed by CHC. I would have liked to have been able to put the document plus these comments on the Dogs Vic Facebook site - I think it's a great idea and should be the place to go for discussions like these, but I'm fairly remedial at FB so couldn't figure out how to do it - sorry. Sylvia Power Chair, Canine Health Committee

Yep, this is the same situation in several breeds and several diseases. Simply because there is a DNA test available doesn't mean the disease exists in that breed in this country. In Dr Tate's defence, he stated at the Dogs Vic seminar on the Code of Practice that each breed/disease needs to be examined on its own merits to establish where the breed is at and each breed community needs to figure out a breeding program that is in the best interests of the breed. S.

the bill wasn't going to include registered breeders and the goverment was completely by-passing us all, so the VCA set up a govt liaising area/department or whatever you want to call it to be up with all government policies and bills so we get included in on current laws being written and being in the loop. no the bill wasn't stopped but it was modified to include us. yeah it included you alright! it was modified to recognise a registered breeder and exclude a registered breeder rather from puppy farmers or people trying to sell pups for a quick buck and knowingly selling a dog with a disease. it was a while ago now a bit hazy but we were all going to be lumped in with puppy farmers or large puppy businesses. you know what went on then Steve??? surely you know what i mean??? I seem to be digging a deeper hole for myself here. im not explaining it well becasue it was a while ago now and alots happened to me since im afraid! we all wrote in and complained to the MP's when they were going to put the bill to the senate in. i think it may have only been in Victoria i can't remember, help me out??? well it looks like no one is going to help me out, but i can get the file when i go home tonight and i will tell you exactly. its like as though it didn't exist what happened but im pretty sure the reason why we were all up in arms was becuse they didn't mention registered breeders and considered them at all, they were going to lump us on in with the breeders of big puppy businesses i.e. puppy farms and backyard operations. There seems to be some confusion about the chain of events that led to the establishment of the Victorian POCTA Heritable Defects Code of Practice. The legislation was foreshadowed sometime in 2007 (maybe even the year before, can't quite remember). The fact that there was going to be some legislation of this type was fairly common knowledge; I was told about it in 2007 and thought "omigod no, they can't do this!" The VCA Management was also made aware of it, however they obviously thought the same as I did and hoped it would all go away. Well, it didn't - the dog community in Vic found out about the legislation when it went into the House for its second reading and all hell broke loose. The legislation was passed with the addition of a Code of Practice which was drawn up with the assistance of Dr Bruce Robertson (ACES Chief Panellist), Dr Karen Hedberg (Vet and Chair of ANKC Canine Health), Dr Steve Tait (Bureau of Animal Welfare, DPI), George Sofronidis from GTG and various other interested parties including RSPCA and a working party from the VCA, who had precious little input, not through lack of trying. The Code of Practice sets out to clarify what is legal or not legal in the implementation of the law covering the five diseases mentioned - PRA, vWD, HC, NCL and CEA, all of which have a DNA test available. It all became incredibly confusing and convoluted, which imo it still is. The CoP doesn't do registered breeders any favours, it simply allows certain mating combinations under breeding programs set up through an "approved organisation", in this case Dogs Victoria. This is why all the breed clubs have been asked by Dogs Vic to submit any breeding programs that they have operating and breed clubs have been working hard to set up programs that cover their members under the Code of Practice. Not only does the legislation do us no favours, it actively discriminates against us. The problem is that it relies on proof of parentage and testing, due to the fact that it covers diseases that have DNA tests. With puppy farms and dogs obtained through pet shops, there is no way to prove who those pups' parents are and therefore if they've been tested for whatever disease it is. Hence the importance of making microchipping at point of breeding rather than point of sale mandatory and also requiring all sellers of puppies to declare where the puppy was bred. Out of interest, at a final meeting with Minister Helper before the Code was accepted, the Dogs Vic and the RSPCA representatives were in furious agreement that in its present state, the Code is useless against puppy farmers Code of Practice Hope this helps, Sylvia Power Chair Canine Health Committee Dogs Victoria

I am sorry that you feel I am being aggressive; my intention was to discover if there was any published data confirming that long term use of Cartrophen causes kidney and/or liver failure. The benefits of Cartrophen and lack of side effects make it such an important drug to our beloved dogs that it would be a real worry if there was a problem with its use. The relating of experiences is quite different to claiming long term side effects of a drug without documentation. I'm very sorry that you lost your dog after a long battle and am pleased to hear that the Cartrophen was such a help, however I am still sceptical of the idea that its long term use caused kidney failure. I'm sorry that you regard my wanting to clarify an issue as "attitude" and also that you regard this group as having painful memories for you. I hope that time can help heal your sadness over losing your special friend. Sylvia