New Problem To Address

[asal]

shortstep the usa is where bostons originate and there are studies done there, why wouldn't they use them.

i am sorry but i really dont understand where you are coming from. how is this helping answer the OP?

i understand the issues bostons have, i researched them prior to purchase i knew what i was getting into

The US is not having vets report illness by breed by microchip to the folks who are doing this research. That started here in Australia and in the UK. So they are not going to look at breed club information from the US (at least not for their data bank of EBV), they are going to to look at the data they collect.

As I said in the beginning I have been won over to the regulation of breeding side of the argument. I can not see how I can promote all the dogs until I can show they have meet the public's expectations on health and health testing. Just like what you wanted for all cav breeders in OZ. I give up on the fight, we will take the power away from the Cav breeders and let the 'experts' decide what they can do and not do.

Normally I prefer, in fact had demanded, that breeders to police themselves and make their own decsions, to keep government out of dog breeding. But it is clear that is only prolonging this issue. We need to get this over with. What ever the results are and what ever breeds we loose. At least there would then be some hope for the breeds that fair well to come out on the other side with the seal of approval. We can then start over with a good reputation, backed up by the most progressive Uni health breeding plans in the world.

why, ho why, are you assuming governement can do a better job?

they couldnt run telstra, they sold it.

they couldnt run the commonwealth bank, they sold it.

hullo, they have sold more irrigation rights to more water than is even flowing down the murray?

they dont even want to build roads? they let companies build them and put toll ways. every single instance being sold to companies to run and you want them to take over dog breeding???????????????????????????

are you really truely serious?

it is government that drafted the law that saw Judy Guard videoed, dogs seized, facing 84 years in jail if the letter of the law they wrote was followed and you have trust and faith in the ;) 's that put the chain of events into gear?

remember the rspca's defence is judy broke the law, they had no alternative but to follow the letter of the law, only the fact that a magistrate decided to NOT follow the letter of the same law that she is not jailed for life. do you really think she wouldnt be if the rspca had been able to hand down the sentance?

take a look at the letters after the elected politicions, over 3/4 of them have law degree's, yet this dogs breakfast was drafted and passed.

remember the old joke that the camel was the result of a committee?

and you want the very people who cant even draft and understand the rammifications of what they do?

do we want camel's playing in our yards?

Edited November 21, 2010 by asal

[Staranais]

Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog.

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks.

[asal]

Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog.

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks.

i cant vouch for averages, one family at our pony club bought a delightful samoyed x labrador, being a crossbred with hybrid vigour its guaranteed to be healthier than either parent breed, her brother bought a litter mate. That is right? isnt it?

by 9 months they both were diagnosed with hip displacia.

maybe without hybrid vigor they would have been born without any hip's maybe

Edited November 21, 2010 by asal

[moosmum]

Just a few things that have been mentioned i'd like to comment on.

1st, re; life time insurance.

The way it was explained makes it a bit better than it 1st sounded,but at the same time it seems a bit of a cop out.On the part of BOTH buyer and seller.It would make the cost of a pure bred even more out of reach for many.

Addressing known and controllable problems within a breed using all available tools should be priority,but on the other hand,buyers also need to take responsibility for making educated choices.Sh*t happens.

2nd,I don't think breeders are doing as good a job these days,but before I'm shot down for that,some of the reason is beyond their controll ATM. Not so many years ago,most of the breeds were still doing jobs they were bred for,and were far more plentiful because of it.

A farmer had a rat problem,he might buy a pedigree Fox terrier .And the breeder who bred a good 'un would be recomended.

Ditto with setters,pointers,utility dogs etc.

Show wins weren't the only criteria used to judge a good dog and so the lines used were not as self limmiting.

As the working abilities became less valued,some breeders altered the dogs temperaments etc to try to find a wider market,rather than screening buyers suitability for the dogs.The buyers are also not used to idea of dogs as a working animal,and have come to see them as pets only,expecting all to be suitable for their life styles.Some of the newer breeders naturaly come from those ranks and are more easily swayed by fads and see the pedigree itself almost as the end product.Its more than just a shame so many of the more experienced breeders are giving up.

IMO getting the message across that different breeds were bred for specific purposes that they excelled at is central to promotion of pure breeds.

3rd,there was talk of the expense of importing dogs or semen to improve genric diversity.I haven't seen any one mention the idea of out crossing,yet have seen 1st hand some of the benefits with dogs being held up as good examples of a well bred dog for their "breed" with dogs N.S.W. Others doing various jobs that this breed was bred for,but experts will no longer take them on for training because they are no longer considered to have it in them.

Yes,importing would always be important,but the best qualities do not have to be lost through out crossing and can be enhanced while reducing the impact of hereditary problems.Controll groups would show viability of this option with out harming any ones sensibilities.

I will never embrace legislation to controll breeders.But I would certainly expect tightening up and change from within breed organisations.You need to be seen to have credibility to counter bad publicity.

Edited November 21, 2010 by moosmum

[shortstep]

shortstep the usa is where bostons originate and there are studies done there, why wouldn't they use them.

i am sorry but i really dont understand where you are coming from. how is this helping answer the OP?

i understand the issues bostons have, i researched them prior to purchase i knew what i was getting into

The US is not having vets report illness by breed by microchip to the folks who are doing this research. That started here in Australia and in the UK. So they are not going to look at breed club information from the US (at least not for their data bank of EBV), they are going to to look at the data they collect.

As I said in the beginning I have been won over to the regulation of breeding side of the argument. I can not see how I can promote all the dogs until I can show they have meet the public's expectations on health and health testing. Just like what you wanted for all cav breeders in OZ. I give up on the fight, we will take the power away from the Cav breeders and let the 'experts' decide what they can do and not do.

Normally I prefer, in fact had demanded, that breeders to police themselves and make their own decsions, to keep government out of dog breeding. But it is clear that is only prolonging this issue. We need to get this over with. What ever the results are and what ever breeds we loose. At least there would then be some hope for the breeds that fair well to come out on the other side with the seal of approval. We can then start over with a good reputation, backed up by the most progressive Uni health breeding plans in the world.

why, ho why, are you assuming governement can do a better job?

they couldnt run telstra, they sold it.

they couldnt run the commonwealth bank, they sold it.

hullo, they have sold more irrigation rights to more water than is even flowing down the murray?

they dont even want to build roads? they let companies build them and put toll ways. every single instance being sold to companies to run and you want them to take over dog breeding???????????????????????????

are you really truely serious?

it is government that drafted the law that saw Judy Guard videoed, dogs seized, facing 84 years in jail if the letter of the law they wrote was followed and you have trust and faith in the ;) 's that put the chain of events into gear?

remember the rspca's defence is judy broke the law, they had no alternative but to follow the letter of the law, only the fact that a magistrate decided to NOT follow the letter of the same law that she is not jailed for life. do you really think she wouldnt be if the rspca had been able to hand down the sentance?

take a look at the letters after the elected politicions, over 3/4 of them have law degree's, yet this dogs breakfast was drafted and passed.

remember the old joke that the camel was the result of a committee?

and you want the very people who cant even draft and understand the rammifications of what they do?

do we want camel's playing in our yards?

Yes I am serious and no I do not think the government can do a better job.

However I do not see any other option at this point.

[Staranais]

Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog.

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks.

i cant vouch for averages, one family at our pony club bought a delightful samoyed x labrador, being a crossbred with hybrid vigour its guaranteed to be healthier than either parent breed, her brother bought a litter mate. That is right? isnt it?

by 9 months they both were diagnosed with hip displacia.

maybe without hybrid vigor they would have been born without any hip's maybe

Yes, I've heard lots of anecdotes from people who swear that purebreds are healthier, but also heard lots from people who swear that crossbred dogs are healthier. I am hoping that perhaps Steve has some concrete evidence either way, if so that would be really interesting.

[Steve]

Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog.

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks.

Padgett - I didnt say one was more or less healthy over all than the other I said that here is less genetic diseases in purebreds than in mixed breeds.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Steve

[Staranais]

Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog.

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks.

Padgett - I didnt say one was more or less healthy over all than the other I said that here is less genetic diseases in purebreds than in mixed breeds.

Less, as in fewer types of genetic disease, or lower incidence? Will have a look at Padgett, thanks - do you have first initials or name of book/article?

[Steve]

Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog.

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks.

Padgett - I didnt say one was more or less healthy over all than the other I said that here is less genetic diseases in purebreds than in mixed breeds.

Less, as in fewer types of genetic disease, or lower incidence? Will have a look at Padgett, thanks - do you have first initials or name of book/article?

George A Padgett Control of Canine genetic Diseases - Its a book- I think Ive seen the table on line - He did a study on incidence of genetic diseases in dogs - Pure bred dogs have less types of genetic diseases in higher incidence.

Our health survey shows that each breed has certain genetic diseases - usually under 20 per breed which you would say are issues for the breed.

The cross breeds are showing less recessives but about equal numbers for polygenic and the mixed breed show lots more genetic diseases but only one or two for each one .

You can easily see whcih diseases in which breeds need to be worked on and tested for etc but with the mixed breeds almost allof the known genetic issues show in low incidence so you would have no idea on what to test them for to try to eliminate risk of it showing in later generations. So our survey backs up what Padgetts study showed.

[Jed]

i have a brachy breed who runs like a loon, very rarely snores, has good knees, good eyes and a good heart. when i took her to my vet the day after she arrived he said to me, oh she is nice and look she has a bridge/snout.

some breeders are getting it right.

eta she has the best temperament as well

Only my guess from what I see being done, but I think pug faces will be one of the first extreme traits they go after. I did think they would go after the Bull Dog first, but now it really is looking like they will go after a trait instead and then apply the science/evidence or what have you to all breeds where it fits. There was a drawing of what they wanted the Bull Dogs head to look like. It had a substanstial nose, the eyes were deep seated as in a normal skull and the head was of normal size (much smaller than it is now). So I would guess it will be about the same for all the pug faced breeds. A real nose, eye set deep and not a large head. Not up on it but I think ther eis also some spinal condition they are looking at too that go along witht he head??

Edited to ad. Just as you told Jed about her dog, you would need to really test before you can say that hearts, hips elbows, hocks and knees are clear of disease.

indeed but the HUGE difference here is i am not breeding her so therefore am not giving the public possibly dodgy progeny

My dog has been tested. I told you that. There are no syrinxes present on MRI. He is over 5, so it is unlikely he will develop syrinxes. He has no symptoms

Additionally, I do not breed him. I have nor used him myself at stud for over 2 years. Nor will I will use him again, nor will I breed Cavaliers because I will not run the risk of producing a pup with SM. MY dogs are all in the lowest risk category, my dog should be used at stud because he has no symptoms of SM, he has NO syrinxes on MRI examination (which makes him an A) and he has never thrown a pup with SM, I do not want to run the risk of breeding any pups with syringo, no matter how unlikely. Ever.

So don't label me as producing "dodgy progeny" when you have NFI

Oh and he was heart clear at 7 both his patellas and his hips are excellent.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Jed

[Jed]

Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog.

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks.

Padgett - I didnt say one was more or less healthy over all than the other I said that here is less genetic diseases in purebreds than in mixed breeds.

Less, as in fewer types of genetic disease, or lower incidence? Will have a look at Padgett, thanks - do you have first initials or name of book/article?

Oh Mita has a link to a couple of scientific studies in Finland or Norwegia or somewhere saying purebred live longer and another saying they suffer fewer diseases. She has posted the links here

[WreckitWhippet]

Well said, Gayle.

I'd also like to see the friendly website promoting purebreds. We all love DOL but the main site isn't user friendly for the person looking for a dog. Most of it is about showing (not that there's anything wrong with that but as Raz said, people are just looking for a family friendly dog). Information about breeds shouldn't be about the standard. It should be about what makes a purebred a great pet.

Crap, the vast majority of our puppy buyers have found us via the Dogz site.

Find your breed and away you go. The search function is basic and narrows down the states for you, if you'd like.

There is some basic breed information on there relating to temperament, grooming and health.

[Staranais]

George A Padgett Control of Canine genetic Diseases - Its a book- I think Ive seen the table on line - He did a study on incidence of genetic diseases in dogs - Pure bred dogs have less types of genetic diseases in higher incidence.

Thanks Steve!

[The Ark]

An opinion of someone not in the show world. I have one rescue dog and one purebred from a registered breeder.

Someone else already said this but I think there needs to be more opportunities for the public to see different breeds and meet breeders. I have an Australian Shepherd and no-one I know outside of the dog world has ever heard of them or seen them.

The people I know only know about health problems and other things they "don't like" in the usual breeds from documentaries or word of mouth or even meeting some of these dogs. They always mention pugs and cavaliers. Many mention the modern GSD's back. People say they don't like the look of poodles.

If some of these people actually met some well bred examples of these breeds with no health problems, I think that would help. I get heaps of people asking me for advice about breeds of dog that are right for them but they rarely take it because they go out and meet a "cute" oodle or other crossbreed that is healthy. What if I could say "here are some breeds you might like, and actually, you can go and meet some on x day at x time"? The general public doesn't want to go to dog shows, and often people there don't have the time of day for outsiders. Doggy events that are publicised by the local government, RSPCA, etc. are really well attended in my area, I think that we should make use of these. There were hundreds and hundreds of people at our local Dogs Day Out, there were rescue stalls, obedience demonstrations... but no stalls with friendly people and friendly dogs promoting their breed.

I think that vets can be a very important link as well. Most of the vets I know are happy for people to breed their mutts and lots even promote crossbreeds. The general public trusts vets. Why is it that most vets I've met don't even know what an Australian Shepherd is? Should they be more educated about purebred dogs as well? Our puppy school instructor correctly guessed that one of the pups was a pug x beagle yet looked at my dog with a confused look on her face... "border collie?"

What a breath of fresh air, Wuffles! I agree - the public seems to have very little idea of any except the most common of purebreds. At a show on Saturday I had 3 separate groups of people ask what crossbreeds my Aussie Shepherds were. And as a whole I do think the public view purebred dog breeders and those who show their dogs as elitist snobs! We do very little to combat that point of view when we tell people to get their kids away from the dogs at shows.

I totally agree that purebred breeders (me included!) should make more of an effort to get out to the "Doggy Day Out" type public displays. The dogs that are most likely to be on display at these events are rescued crossbred muttleys (and I rescue, so I'm not knocking them as they need the exposure too) - but that is reinforcing the availability of these pooches and their suitability as family pets, so why wouldn't a family then go out looking for such a cross? Did they pass a stand extolling the virtues of Aussie Shepherds or Havanese (for those wanting pretty, small fluffies)? No they didn't, so they are none the wiser as to the existence of perfectly suitable purebreds. At these events we could have our sociable, friendly purebreds working the crowd where (well-behaved) kids could give them a cuddle without being warned that they might mess their coat up. We need to show that we ourselves are "members of the public", and that a lot of our "elite" purebreds actually end up in pet homes because a well-conformed, sound, beautiful example of a breed can give cuddles and kisses and love as good as the next dog in a family situation.

At these events we can also present the evidence that shows our dogs are well-cared for, and that we do have health tests in place to ensure the wellbeing of any dogs that we breed. Tell people how to ensure that the breeder they choose is an ethical (not just registered) breeder - what questions do they need to ask, what do they need to see, etc, etc.

And you are also correct about (some) vets, Wuffles. Every time I take a new dog to my vet they ask "are you going to breed it?". And when I took a crossbred rescue dog to another vet - this dog is the worst put-together dog I've ever seen - the vet nurse was convinced that it was from a litter she had bred 9 years ago, and even proudly showed me photos of its possible sibling. Did she do any health tests on the mutts she put together? No. Is she communicating with pet owners on a day-to-day basis with the potential to influence their decisions to desex or not desex? Yes, she is. Scary, isn't it! And they always have "puppies for sale" notices around their front counters - usually bc x kelpies or wolfhound x mastiffs or the like. Maybe they could start refusing to put these notices up unless the parents of these litters have had health tests relevant to their breeds (even if they are crossbreeds....).

Edited November 21, 2010 by The Ark

[MalteseLuna]

George A Padgett Control of Canine genetic Diseases - Its a book- I think Ive seen the table on line - He did a study on incidence of genetic diseases in dogs - Pure bred dogs have less types of genetic diseases in higher incidence.

Thanks Steve!

oooh I have that book - sounds like it's time to read it!

@ Steve - I wasn't worried that my dog would have SM (she is perfectly healthy) - I was just interested as I had never heard that SM was present in Maltese and had never heard of a case of it.

I'm a genetics major so I understand the genetics of polygenic traits, disease genes, recessives etc.

I think it's a very interesting comment that "Pure bred dogs have less types of genetic diseases in higher incidence" - I've always been of the opinion that purebred dogs aren't sicker than crossbreds it's just that breeders, CC's record the incidences of disease in purebred dogs - however there is no similar body recording incidences of genetic diseases in mixed breed or crossbred dogs therefore it's an unknown. My vet has commented to me before that they are actually seeing alot of disease in crossbred (designer dogs) - specifically things to do with structure i.e. hips, patellas etc. But also if 2 dogs of 2 different breeds which both have incidences of a specific disease i.e. PRA are bred together the pups are just as likely to get PRA than a purebred breeding (except that a purebred breeder is likely to only cross normal to a carrier not carrier to carrier)... hope that makes sense.

I think that often people misinterpret the reports of genetic disease in purebred dogs - these reports should be used to show the public that breeders are working towards removing the disease from the population/breed instead of a warning to all puppy buyers to avoid a breed as the dogs "all carry SM/PRA/Hip Displasia" etc etc etc

Funnily enough I also think that one of the reasons deliberate crossbreds are so popular at the momment is that the public thinks they are "consistant" - you often hear people saying "I want a ?? x ?? as they are hypoallergenic, calm, happy [insert temperament or size characteristic]". What they don't understand is that actually crossbreds are very inconsistant it's basically a lottery. Purebreds on the otherhand are consistant - you want a long haired, single coated dog then a Maltese will be it, you want a large, happy, dip and dry dog then a Lab might fit the bill.

An idea might be to market the breeds to puppy owners ... drive home the fact that purebreds have been developed over hundreds of years to fulfill certain jobs, roles that humans want i.e. companion, working dog, utility dog etc etc etc. There is a breed to fit every person and job/role and home... they are just waiting to be discovered by puppy owners!

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i have a brachy breed who runs like a loon, very rarely snores, has good knees, good eyes and a good heart. when i took her to my vet the day after she arrived he said to me, oh she is nice and look she has a bridge/snout.

some breeders are getting it right.

eta she has the best temperament as well

Only my guess from what I see being done, but I think pug faces will be one of the first extreme traits they go after. I did think they would go after the Bull Dog first, but now it really is looking like they will go after a trait instead and then apply the science/evidence or what have you to all breeds where it fits. There was a drawing of what they wanted the Bull Dogs head to look like. It had a substanstial nose, the eyes were deep seated as in a normal skull and the head was of normal size (much smaller than it is now). So I would guess it will be about the same for all the pug faced breeds. A real nose, eye set deep and not a large head. Not up on it but I think ther eis also some spinal condition they are looking at too that go along witht he head??

Edited to ad. Just as you told Jed about her dog, you would need to really test before you can say that hearts, hips elbows, hocks and knees are clear of disease.

indeed but the HUGE difference here is i am not breeding her so therefore am not giving the public possibly dodgy progeny

My dog has been tested. I told you that. There are no syrinxes present on MRI. He is over 5, so it is unlikely he will develop syrinxes. He has no symptoms

Additionally, I do not breed him. I have nor used him myself at stud for over 2 years. Nor will I will use him again, nor will I breed Cavaliers because I will not run the risk of producing a pup with SM. MY dogs are all in the lowest risk category, my dog should be used at stud because he has no symptoms of SM, he has NO syrinxes on MRI examination (which makes him an A) and he has never thrown a pup with SM, I do not want to run the risk of breeding any pups with syringo, no matter how unlikely. Ever.

So don't label me as producing "dodgy progeny" when you have NFI

Oh and he was heart clear at 7 both his patellas and his hips are excellent.

i think you have misunderstood the post. i wasn't specifically talking bout you, shortstep was. all i was saying is that my dog hasn't been tested and therefore i wasn't breeding dodgy progeny

eta my dog is desexed anyway

wow for the response though :)

Edited November 21, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[Steve]

George A Padgett Control of Canine genetic Diseases - Its a book- I think Ive seen the table on line - He did a study on incidence of genetic diseases in dogs - Pure bred dogs have less types of genetic diseases in higher incidence.

Thanks Steve!

oooh I have that book - sounds like it's time to read it!

@ Steve - I wasn't worried that my dog would have SM (she is perfectly healthy) - I was just interested as I had never heard that SM was present in Maltese and had never heard of a case of it.

I'm a genetics major so I understand the genetics of polygenic traits, disease genes, recessives etc.

I think it's a very interesting comment that "Pure bred dogs have less types of genetic diseases in higher incidence" - I've always been of the opinion that purebred dogs aren't sicker than crossbreds it's just that breeders, CC's record the incidences of disease in purebred dogs - however there is no similar body recording incidences of genetic diseases in mixed breed or crossbred dogs therefore it's an unknown. My vet has commented to me before that they are actually seeing alot of disease in crossbred (designer dogs) - specifically things to do with structure i.e. hips, patellas etc. But also if 2 dogs of 2 different breeds which both have incidences of a specific disease i.e. PRA are bred together the pups are just as likely to get PRA than a purebred breeding (except that a purebred breeder is likely to only cross normal to a carrier not carrier to carrier)... hope that makes sense.

I think that often people misinterpret the reports of genetic disease in purebred dogs - these reports should be used to show the public that breeders are working towards removing the disease from the population/breed instead of a warning to all puppy buyers to avoid a breed as the dogs "all carry SM/PRA/Hip Displasia" etc etc etc

Funnily enough I also think that one of the reasons deliberate crossbreds are so popular at the momment is that the public thinks they are "consistant" - you often hear people saying "I want a ?? x ?? as they are hypoallergenic, calm, happy [insert temperament or size characteristic]". What they don't understand is that actually crossbreds are very inconsistant it's basically a lottery. Purebreds on the otherhand are consistant - you want a long haired, single coated dog then a Maltese will be it, you want a large, happy, dip and dry dog then a Lab might fit the bill.

An idea might be to market the breeds to puppy owners ... drive home the fact that purebreds have been developed over hundreds of years to fulfill certain jobs, roles that humans want i.e. companion, working dog, utility dog etc etc etc. There is a breed to fit every person and job/role and home... they are just waiting to be discovered by puppy owners!

Wish I had of known you were a genetics major I tried really hard to put that post in simple terms . I may just call on you soon to suck up a bit of info.

We have had a survey running now for over 12 months on diagnosed health issues and we included every breed ,cross bred as well as mixed breed dogs. The numbers for mixed breed answers are way higher than any one breed.

They [mixed breed] pretty well have everything known represented and cross breed have a huge incidence of allergies. PL and HD some have PRA [ unexpected as its a recessive] couple of others in there as well and from memory - last time I looked 2 have been diagnosed with SM.- one was a malt cross cav.

[shortstep]

Someone had asked about controlling costs on the ever increasing number of tests that are being asked for, some breeds now, if every condition is tested for could have well over $3-4000.00 worth of testing costs.

I just found this on an interview with the chairman of the UK Advisory Board on the Welfare issues of Dog breeding.

Sheila Crispin

I think you do and I think the other thing that I’m now increasingly aware of, of course, one of the things about the eye scheme is you tend to be really dealing with people who are pretty conscientious because they’re the ones who bring their dogs for tests and so on and so forth. They're not just getting eye tests. They're getting hips, elbows, other genetic tests possibly. And it’s actually extremely expensive for them. So the other thing I would like to see and its possibly a role for the Advisory Council is that we help in terms of saying that these are the tests that you should carry out and this is how often you should conduct them so that if you like you're coming up with things that are practical and proportionate and not hugely expensive for somebody whose trying to do all the right things.

And this comment about needed caution on breeding controls on disease

I think genetic aspects we have to be really careful because so many of them are complex. And in fact in your own breed you know the soft-tissue sarcoma in the Flat Coated Retriever at the moment we don’t know the exact mode of inheritance and it may well be that it’s a kind of multi factorial mode of

inheritance. we’ve got to be really careful on the genetic aspects because what you don’t want is to damn a breed which may have a small gene pool on the basis of one condition where you think you know the genetics but it’s actually the genetics are more complicated than you thought. And this is where the geneticist and the epidemiologists on our Advisory

Council will be absolutely crucial. I don’t pretend for a minute to be an expert.

Edited November 22, 2010 by shortstep

[moosmum]

Well that all gives a great answer to the designer dog breeders claim that their dogs are healthier...We can tell them there is a good chance dogs used to breed designer dogs were sold as pets because they were deemed unsuitable for breeding,and therefore the chances of hereditary defects could well be much higher than in dogs obtained from a registered breeder.

I think promoting the reliability of type in pedigree dogs that have been bred some times for centuries with a specific purpose in mind,along with the goal for breeders of constant improvement are your 2 key points.

How do we make places like DOL friendlier? If that could be done it would do pedigree breeders their bigest favour, it can be a great site for any one with an interest in dogs,but they are getting shot down before they can see the benefits.

[asal]

Someone had asked about cotrolling cost of the ever increasing number of tests that are being asked for, some breeds now, if every condiaiton is tested for could have well over $3000.00 worth of testing costs..

I just found this on an interview with the chariman of the UK Advisory Board on the Welfare issues of Dog breeding.

Sheila Crispin

I think you do and I think the other thing that I’m now increasingly aware of, of course, one of the things about the eye scheme is you tend to be really dealing with people who are pretty conscientious because they’re the ones who bring their dogs for tests and so on and so forth. They're not just getting eye tests. They're getting hips, elbows, other genetic tests possibly. And it’s actually extremely expensive for them. So the other thing I would like to see and its possibly a role for the Advisory Council is that we help in terms of saying that these are the tests that you should carry out and this is how often you should conduct them so that if you like you're coming up with things that are practical and proportionate and not hugely expensive for somebody whose trying to do all the right things.

And this comment about needed caution on breeding controls on disease

I think genetic aspects we have to be really careful because so many of them are complex. And in fact in your own breed you know the soft-tissue sarcoma in the Flat Coated Retriever at the moment we don’t know the exact mode of inheritance and it may well be that it’s a kind of multi factorial mode of

inheritance. we’ve got to be really careful on the genetic aspects because what you don’t want is to damn a breed which may have a small gene pool on the basis of one condition where you think you know the genetics but it’s actually the genetics are more complicated than you thought. And this is where the geneticist and the epidemiologists on our Advisory

Council will be absolutely crucial. I don’t pretend for a minute to be an expert.

AND just to add to the mix.

how many heard that cancer investigation has led to warnings not to enter your car on a hot day before opening all doors and letting the hot air, "contaminated with the plastics contained within the super heated car, are carsargenic "? ie proven to cause cancers?

considering one of my friends and her sister were two of the first women in our neighbourhood to have mobile phones and both died within 18 months of each other with what? brain cancers beside the ear they usually held their phone too i dont doubt the dangers for a minute.

the reasearch came about because someone somewhere wondered why is cancer becoming soooo common, whats changed in the last 40 years and they hit on the plastic's now so common in the modern car.

think of the thousands of dogs also along for the ride of their lives today?

Edited November 22, 2010 by asal