Pedigree Dog Segment On The 7pm Project

[toy dog]

I have taken the list of disease from the Uni of Sydney LIDA, for the Chi.

http://sydney.edu.au...ed/44/Chihuahua

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA.

Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database.

There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting.

I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database.

I also find it interesting that they specifically list X-Linked PRA for the breed when there is currently no genetic data available on PRA on the Pyrenean, with the exception of a genetic marker for CMR.

so we don't even know if they are purebred and could infact have another breed in them only taking the word of the owner of the dog??????? if they were testing gene pools in registered chihuahuas with breeders i might be inclined to not question. looking up PRA the papillon can be affected with PRA as well as collies no mention of sheltie though, x-linked is only in the husky and bullmastiff.

oh dear.

Look if you are sure that your breed does not have this

here is the link to check it again

http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/disorder/256/Progressive%20Retinal%20Atrophy%20(PRA)%20(X-linked)]

Then email them with your evidence and if you are right then they will remove it.

How about glacoma, do Chi not get that either?

There are several eye disorders listed for chi and in the US and the UK the parent clubs recommend eye certs yearly for breeding chi dogs. So they must think there is something there.

what sort of evidence do you need to have?

[toy dog]

I have taken the list of disease from the Uni of Sydney LIDA, for the Chi.

http://sydney.edu.au...ed/44/Chihuahua

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA.

Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database.

There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting.

I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database.

I also find it interesting that they specifically list X-Linked PRA for the breed when there is currently no genetic data available on PRA on the Pyrenean, with the exception of a genetic marker for CMR.

so we don't even know if they are purebred and could infact have another breed in them only taking the word of the owner of the dog??????? if they were testing gene pools in registered chihuahuas with breeders i might be inclined to not question. looking up PRA the papillon can be affected with PRA as well as collies no mention of sheltie though, x-linked is only in the husky and bullmastiff.

oh dear.

Look if you are sure that your breed does not have this

here is the link to check it again

http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/disorder/256/Progressive%20Retinal%20Atrophy%20(PRA)%20(X-linked)]

Then email them with your evidence and if you are right then they will remove it.

How about glacoma, do Chi not get that either?

There are several eye disorders listed for chi and in the US and the UK the parent clubs recommend eye certs yearly for breeding chi dogs. So they must think there is something there.

never seen that either here it could vary from country to country, the US club are also saying that SM is coming up in some of their show lines.

Yes well it may be yet another case of a dog breed in Australia not haveing the diseaes normally found in the breed in the rest of the world.

So breeders are not doing any eye exams/certs because the chi have no known eye diseases in Australia? Biot putting words in yor mouth, just trying to sort it all out.

to my knowledge no they are not. to my knowledge and all the people i know. WA chi club did recommend this some years ago, now its not on the site. whether some breeders took notice and did this i don't know, they have a vet that is on committee there.

[toy dog]

house is still not being vaccumed !!!!!!!

[Bullbreedlover]

Couteulx Hounds. Part 3

General Appearance

1. The Head should be large, the skull narrow but of good length, the peak well-developed. The muzzle should be strong, and the jaws long and powerful ; a snipy muzzle and weakness of jaw are objectionable. The eyes should be dark and not prominent. The ears should be set on low, of good length and fine texture.

2. The Neck should be strong, of good length and muscular, set on sloping shoulders.

3. The Body should be massive, of good length, and well ribbed up, any weakness or slackness of loin being a bad fault. The chest should be large and very deep, the sternum prominent.

4. The Fore Legs should be short and very powerful, very heavy in bone, either half crooked or nearly straight. The elbows should lie against the side of the chest, and should not turn out.

5. Hindquarters should be powerful and muscular; the hind legs should be rather longer than the fore legs, and should be well bent at the stifles.

6. Stern. - Of moderate length and carried gaily ; should be set on high.

7. Coat. - An extremely important point. It should be profuse, thick and harsh to the touch, with a dense undercoat. The coat may be wavy.

8. Colour. - Any recognised hound colour.

9. Weight. - Dogs from 401b. to 5olb., bitches rather less.

The Rough Basset should appear a very powerful hound for his size, on short, strong legs. Body massive and good length, without slackness of loin. The feet should be thick, well padded, and not open. The expression should be kindly and intelligent. Any unsoundness should disqualify the hound.

And this is the ANKC standard for the Basset Hound today.

Group: Group 4 (Hounds)

History:

General Appearance: Short legged hound of considerable substance, well balanced, full of quality. It is important to bear in mind that this is a working hound and must be fit for purpose, therefore should be strong, active and capable of great endurance in the field.

Characteristics: A tenacious hound of ancient lineage, which hunts by scent, possessing a pack instinct and a deep, melodious voice.

Temperament: Placid, never aggressive or timid. Affectionate.

Head And Skull: Domed with some stop and occipital bone prominent; of medium width at brow and tapering slightly to muzzle; general appearance of foreface lean but not snipy. Top of muzzle nearly parallel with line from stop to occiput and not much longer than head from stop to occiput. There may be a small amount of wrinkle at brow and beside eyes. In any event skin of head supple enough as to wrinkle slightly when drawn forward or when head is lowered. Flews of upper lip overlap lower substantially. Nose entirely black except in light coloured hounds when it may be brown or liver. Large and well-opened nostrils may protrude a little beyond lips.

Eyes: Lozenge shaped neither prominent nor deep set, dark but may shade to mid-brown in light coloured hounds. Expression calm and serious. Light or yellow eye highly undesirable.

Ears: Set on low, just below line of eye. Long, reaching only slightly beyond end of muzzle of correct length, but not excessively so. Narrow throughout their length and curling well inwards; very supple, fine and velvety in texture.

Mouth: Jaws strong, with a perfect, regular and complete scissor bite, i.e. the upper teeth closely overlapping the lower teeth and set square to the jaws.

Neck: Muscular, well arched and fairly long with pronounced but not exaggerated dewlap.

Forequarters: Shoulder blades well laid back; shoulders not heavy. Forelegs short, powerful and with great bone; elbows turning neither in nor out but fitting neatly against side. Upper forearm inclined slightly inwards, but not to such an extent as to prevent free action or to result in legs touching each other when standing or in action; forechest fitting neatly into crook when viewed from front. Knuckling over highly undesirable. Some wrinkles of skin may appear on lower legs, but this must on no account be excessive.

Body: Long and deep throughout length, breast bone prominent but chest neither narrow nor unduly deep. There should be adequate clearance between the lower part of the chest and the ground to allow the hound to move freely over all types of terrain. Ribs well rounded and sprung, without flange, extending well back. Back rather broad; withers and quarters of approximate same height, though loins may arch slightly. Back from withers to inset of quarters not unduly long.

Hindquarters: Full of muscle and standing out well, giving an almost spherical effect when viewed from rear. Stifles well bent. Hocks well let down and slightly bent under but turn neither in nor out and just under body when standing naturally. Some wrinkles of skin may appear between hock and foot, and at rear of joint a slight pouch of skin may be present, but on no account should any of these be excessive.

Feet: Large, well knuckled up and padded. Forefeet may point straight ahead or be turned slightly outwards but in every case hound always stands perfectly true, weight being born equally by toes with pads together so that feet would leave an imprint of a large hound and no unpadded areas in contact with ground.

Tail: (Stern) well set on, rather long, strong at base, tapering, with moderate amount of coarse hair underneath. When moving, stern carried well up and curving gently, sabre-fashion, never curling or gay.

Gait/Movement: Most important to ensure that the hound is fit for purpose. Smooth, powerful and effortless action with the forelegs reaching well forward and hind legs showing powerful thrust, hound moving true both front and rear. Hocks and stifles never stiff in movement, nor must any toes be dragged.

Coat: Smooth, short and close without being too fine. Whole outline clean and free from feathering. Long haired, soft coat with feather highly undesirable.

Colour: Generally black, white and tan (tri-colour); lemon and white (bi-colour); but any recognised hound colour acceptable.

Sizes: Height: 33-38 cms (13-15 ins) at withers

Faults: Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog.

Notes: Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum.

Last Updated: 22 May 2009

Edited July 10, 2011 by Bullbreedlover

[shortstep]

I have taken the list of disease from the Uni of Sydney LIDA, for the Chi.

http://sydney.edu.au...ed/44/Chihuahua

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA.

Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database.

There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting.

I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database.

I also find it interesting that they specifically list X-Linked PRA for the breed when there is currently no genetic data available on PRA on the Pyrenean, with the exception of a genetic marker for CMR.

so we don't even know if they are purebred and could infact have another breed in them only taking the word of the owner of the dog??????? if they were testing gene pools in registered chihuahuas with breeders i might be inclined to not question. looking up PRA the papillon can be affected with PRA as well as collies no mention of sheltie though, x-linked is only in the husky and bullmastiff.

oh dear.

Look if you are sure that your breed does not have this

here is the link to check it again

http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/disorder/256/Progressive%20Retinal%20Atrophy%20(PRA)%20(X-linked)]

Then email them with your evidence and if you are right then they will remove it.

How about glacoma, do Chi not get that either?

There are several eye disorders listed for chi and in the US and the UK the parent clubs recommend eye certs yearly for breeding chi dogs. So they must think there is something there.

what sort of evidence do you need to have?

Me I do not require any evidence. I think you make a clear case that no evidence is needed as the breeders are not testing for PRA, Glacoma or Lens disorders as these diseases do not happen in chi in Australia.

Please be sure to pass this on information to the Uni, as I know from personal experience they will remove a disease listed if you can show them othewise why it should not be listed. (I presented a breed club mulit year study of 7-9000 some odd dogs tested and no dogs were found with the disease).

There will be lots of decisions in the future based at least in part on this uni list, so no point complaining about the list if you do not do your part to help to make it accurate.

[Steve]

The list was taken from an American animal rights data base and the gaping big hole in all of this is that even they admit no one has a clue about how prevalent they are or if its even in the purbred population any where let alone Australia.

Whats more the way they intend to proceeed to collect that data it wont tell us jack shit about our purebred dogs anyway.

[shortstep]

The list was taken from an American animal rights data base and the gaping big hole in all of this is that even they admit no one has a clue about how prevalent they are or if its even in the purbred population any where let alone Australia.

Whats more the way they intend to proceeed to collect that data it wont tell us jack shit about our purebred dogs anyway.

Well all I know is about a year ago, they had a disease listed for my breed that had been studied and was not in the breed, I sent the informaion and it was removed.

I notice today, that they have also removed another disease that was found in a very limited number of dogs which I think was a good choice to remove it.

Today I also notice it is missing one disease ( I am sure it was listed before) that is well known in the breed, which I will send them an email about now and ask them to add it.

Other than that one missing disease, I think my breed looks just about right.

Edited July 10, 2011 by shortstep

[Are You Serious Jo]

I have taken the list of disease from the Uni of Sydney LIDA, for the Chi.

http://sydney.edu.au...ed/44/Chihuahua

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA.

Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database.

There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting.

I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database.

All you need to do is send your evidence that the disease listed is not present in your breed and they will remove it, I know this because I have done it.

So basically, they just list diseases for a breed with no proof If what you said is true and they'll remove a disease from a breed list if you show evidence it isn't present then what are they using for proof it is present in the first place? If they are using data from vets and the owner is the one reporting breed then that is very scary because a lot of people report their crossbred is a purebred or it is from a farm or BYBer who doesn't care about health. Surely you can see why this data you are relying on is suspect.

[Steve]

I have taken the list of disease from the Uni of Sydney LIDA, for the Chi.

http://sydney.edu.au...ed/44/Chihuahua

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA.

Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database.

There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting.

I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database.

All you need to do is send your evidence that the disease listed is not present in your breed and they will remove it, I know this because I have done it.

So basically, they just list diseases for a breed with no proof If what you said is true and they'll remove a disease from a breed list if you show evidence it isn't present then what are they using for proof it is present in the first place? If they are using data from vets and the owner is the one reporting breed then that is very scary because a lot of people report their crossbred is a purebred or it is from a farm or BYBer who doesn't care about health. Surely you can see why this data you are relying on is suspect.

Yep and why its such a disgrace that the purebred dog group Dogs NSW gave them 30,000 bucks with no sign what ever that it will do purebred dogs a scrap of good while ever its up to a vet to describe the breed and and who bred them is never part of the data.

[Are You Serious Jo]

and the reason I'm giving up, there is too much ignorance and bad science to combat.

[Steve]

Its not just supsect data it gives a perception that purebred dog breeds are much less healthy with many more diseases than they actually have . Guilty until proven innocent so to speak. Good enough to get a good PDE show though and funding for a mickey mouse data base.

[Steve]

and the reason I'm giving up, there is too much ignorance and bad science to combat.

Yep yep yep.

[shortstep]

I have taken the list of disease from the Uni of Sydney LIDA, for the Chi.

http://sydney.edu.au...ed/44/Chihuahua

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA.

Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database.

There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting.

I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database.

All you need to do is send your evidence that the disease listed is not present in your breed and they will remove it, I know this because I have done it.

So basically, they just list diseases for a breed with no proof If what you said is true and they'll remove a disease from a breed list if you show evidence it isn't present then what are they using for proof it is present in the first place? If they are using data from vets and the owner is the one reporting breed then that is very scary because a lot of people report their crossbred is a purebred or it is from a farm or BYBer who doesn't care about health. Surely you can see why this data you are relying on is suspect.

I'll say it again, you must have missed it, It was basically accurte for my breed, I am sorry if it is really misleading for your breed. It seems that any thing that was not accurate was corrected. I sugest if your breed has information you disagree with that you contact them directly and have it fixed.

Also incase you thought that I sugested this system to the Uni, I had nothing to do with.

But since they are now using it and most vets in the country will soon if not already be downloading in to it and it will be used in part fo EBV which could directly affect the choice of breeding pairs, and other issued concerning disease in pedigree dogs, I think it is is every breeders best interest to not just complain about it but work to make it accurate. But certainly others can have their own opinion on how best to deal with this database.

[shortstep]

Its not just supsect data it gives a perception that purebred dog breeds are much less healthy with many more diseases than they actually have . Guilty until proven innocent so to speak. Good enough to get a good PDE show though and funding for a mickey mouse data base.

In my breed all diseases it is accused of having it does have. We also as a breed have a very good history of testing for disease and doing research. both inside the kennel clubs and outside of the kennel clubs.

[Steve]

I have taken the list of disease from the Uni of Sydney LIDA, for the Chi.

http://sydney.edu.au...ed/44/Chihuahua

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA.

Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database.

There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting.

I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database.

All you need to do is send your evidence that the disease listed is not present in your breed and they will remove it, I know this because I have done it.

So basically, they just list diseases for a breed with no proof If what you said is true and they'll remove a disease from a breed list if you show evidence it isn't present then what are they using for proof it is present in the first place? If they are using data from vets and the owner is the one reporting breed then that is very scary because a lot of people report their crossbred is a purebred or it is from a farm or BYBer who doesn't care about health. Surely you can see why this data you are relying on is suspect.

I'll say it again, you must have missed it, It was basically accurte for my breed, I am sorry if it is really misleading for your breed. It seems that any thing that was not accurate was corrected. I sugest if your breed has information you disagree with that you contact them directly and have it fixed.

Also incase you thought that I sugested this system to the Uni, I had nothing to do with.

But since they are now using it and most vets in the country will soon if not already be downloading in to it and it will be used in part fo EBV which could directly affect the choice of breeding pairs, and other issued concerning disease in pedigree dogs, I think it is is every breeders best interest to not just complain about it but work to make it accurate. But certainly others can have their own opinion on how best to deal with this database.

Crap how can we work to make it accurate when the data collected is on any dog that looks like our breeds and regardless of how or who they are bred.

Forget purebred breeders working to make it accurate they should be yelling their bloody heads off about any of it being used to judge our breeds and what we do.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Might be accurate for your breed, but what about the other breeds? We've already seen that you quoted inaccurate data for chi's, and if they are relying on owner reporting for breed then the whole database is suspect. The problem is people are too quick to trust scientists and think the sun shines out of their bottoms. You are proof of that SS because you keep posting links without thinking about the content critically. The decision makers are doing the same, guilty until proven innocent is right, doesn't matter that there is no credible data to back up their ideas, they are just jumping on the anti breeder bandwagon.

[Steve]

Its not just supsect data it gives a perception that purebred dog breeds are much less healthy with many more diseases than they actually have . Guilty until proven innocent so to speak. Good enough to get a good PDE show though and funding for a mickey mouse data base.

In my breed all diseases it is accused of having it does have. We also as a breed have a very good history of testing for disease and doing research. both inside the kennel clubs and outside of the kennel clubs.

Even though it took you to tell them to remove some?

[Steve]

Might be accurate for your breed, but what about the other breeds? We've already seen that you quoted inaccurate data for chi's, and if they are relying on owner reporting for breed then the whole database is suspect. The problem is people are too quick to trust scientists and think the sun shines out of their bottoms. You are proof of that SS because you keep posting links without thinking about the content critically. The decision makers are doing the same, guilty until proven innocent is right, doesn't matter that there is no credible data to back up their ideas, they are just jumping on the anti breeder bandwagon.

An anti breeder bandwagon instigated by them. The author of the most quoted article on anti purebreds and how cross breeds are MORE predictible is behind this data base.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Oh don't get me started on him prime example of how to do bad science and promote your bad science ideas to push your own agenda.

[Steve]

Again.

Forget purebred breeders working to make it accurate they should be yelling their bloody heads off about any of it being used to judge our breeds and what we do.

We only breed 8 and a half thousand dogs a year australia wide and everyone else breeds a couple of hundred thousand how is the stats they collect on any dog that looks like our breeds going to help us and why should we have to make decisions in our breed based on what is happening outside of what we are doing?

However, not much bloody chance of that when the ANKC gave em 30,000 bucks to fund it. Before you know it we will be told there is a prevalence of 10,000 and we only bred 1000