Bad Breeding Practice Advice Required

[poshspice24]

We have an 11 month old Golden Retriever who was purchased from a registered breeder in the Perth area. Our dog has just been diagnosed with ectopic ureter and one of his kidneys has failed as a result. Our vet has informed us that his condition was a result of bad breeding practice which went either ignored or unchecked and his condition is hereditary (passed down through his family's lineage). The vet mentioned that hip dysplasia and the ectopic complaint go hand in hand. He has to go for more blood tests in the morning to determine viability of his other kidney before any procedure can be considered or performed. The procedure of attaching his ureter back to his bladder where it should be has a 50% success rate. Despite being insured, we are unsure if our dog will live to see his 1st birthday as a result of complications. We want to do the most humane thing for our dog and not to have him suffer. We are heartbroken. Our dog was simply bought to love and not to breed from.

Besides contacting the breeder has anyone any advice what to do about bad breeding practice. We were assured perfect bloodlines, good hip scores, eye scores and free from genetic conditions when we purchased him (I guess we were naive). We have since located other complaints on the net written both before and after we brought our beloved dog home. Where do we go from here?

Thanks in advance for any advice given.

Edited August 16, 2013 by poshspice24

[Salukifan]

I'm really sorry to hear about your puppy.

The first thing I would do would be to research as much as possible what you're dealing with. A cursory google threw up some interesting links including this one.

Did your vet tell you there is no genetic test for the condition affecting your pup? The mode of inheritance is not a simple one. Personally I think a conclusion of "bad breeding practices" may be a tad premature, unless this breeder has produced the condition in other litters. I gather the condition is extremely rare in males as young as your puppy.

I think the next obvious step is to contact your pup's breeder.

The second step for me, unless you already have a specialist diagnosis, would be to get a second opinion.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[RallyValley]

We have an 11 month old Golden Retriever who was purchased from a registered breeder in the Perth area. Our dog has just been diagnosed with ectopic ureter and one of his kidneys has failed as a result. Our vet has informed us that his condition was a result of bad breeding practice which went either ignored or unchecked and his condition is hereditary (passed down through his family's lineage). The vet mentioned that hip dysplasia and the ectopic complaint go hand in hand. He has to go for more blood tests in the morning to determine viability of his other kidney before any procedure can be considered or performed. The procedure of attaching his ureter back to his bladder where it should be has a 50% success rate. Despite being insured, we are unsure if our dog will live to see his 1st birthday as a result of complications. We want to do the most humane thing for our dog and not to have him suffer. We are heartbroken. Our dog was simply bought to love and not to breed from.

Besides contacting the breeder has anyone any advice what to do about bad breeding practice. We were assured perfect bloodlines, good hip scores, eye scores and free from genetic conditions when we purchased him (I guess we were naive). We have since located other complaints on the net written both before and after we brought our beloved dog home. Where do we go from here?

Thanks in advance for any advice given.

First of all I'm sorry to hear about your dog, and I've got my fingers crossed you get good test results.

However I had to point something out, there is no way in a breeder can they guarantee pups will be free from some "genetic" conditions such hip dysplasia, as they have a complicated way of inheritance and even though the sire and dam may be healthy and fully tested it can still pop up in subsequent generations.

If the response from the breeder is not satisfactory I suggest you contact Dogswest. Be careful what you post about the breeder on this forum as the forum owner may delete the thread if it becomes clear who the breeder is (although I have a strong suspicion I know who you mean).

[poshspice24]

Thank you HW for that information, more information than 2 different vets have given us. Bad breeding practice was the phrase used by the vet who conducted the ultrasound and told us to get our vet practice to write a letter to the breeder to stop further this practice, stating the breeder must have known (which has heightened our anger and upset). This is our first dog so we are very new to this. You are a better googler than us as we did not come across that article on our searches. Thanks again, we are very appreciative.

[Salukifan]

Thank you HW for that information, more information than 2 different vets have given us. Bad breeding practice was the phrase used by the vet who conducted the ultrasound and told us to get our vet practice to write a letter to the breeder to stop further this practice, stating the breeder must have known (which has heightened our anger and upset). This is our first dog so we are very new to this. You are a better googler than us as we did not come across that article on our searches. Thanks again, we are very appreciative.

Dr Karen Hedburg is a highly respected Australian vet - which is why I selected that link. That is an OLD article so perhaps there is newer research around. It might be worth contacting Dr Hedburg herself.

As I said, unless the breeder had produced such a pup before, it's really not going to be "bad breeding practices" and more a case of really shite luck that you're potentially dealing with.

If this is a first for this breeder, he/she is going to be gutted - as gutted as any decent breeder I know would be.

If the worst is what you face and this pup must be PTS, most responsible breeders would offer you a refund or a replacement pup. Hardly a wonderful outcome but the responsible thing to do.

I am so sorry that your introduction to pet ownership has brought you such heartache.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[poshspice24]

Thank you RV for your kind words and next step info. My hubbie stopped me from going on am all out rant about the breeder reminding me that we don't need litigation on our hands as well as a sick doggie who is holding out very well considering.

[poshspice24]

HW we maybe having tears but our little man has brought us so much more happiness than that. Tomorrow is another day and we will see how it goes and look after the little fella as best as we can in terms of treatment. Thanks again for your replies, time and kindness, we are very grateful.

[Jed]

Doesn't seem like "bad breeding practice" from my (recent) reading, and I think you vet needs to get his knowledge up to speed,rather than have a breeder bash.

Sorry HW can't open the link, but here is another one (I think)

http://www.labradornet.com/ectopic-ureter.html

And an extract

The Ectopic Ureter (EU) defect is believed to be a polygenetic trait requiring more than 2 genes and Dr Hedburg, whose paper on the subject is included further on, believes there may be 5 or 6 genes involved. Think of Ectopic Ureter as a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and we have one puzzle for each puppy born.

Each piece of the puzzle is a gene. The puzzle is missing 6 pieces when we put it together. Without those 6 pieces of the puzzle we don’t have wet puppies. However, if both parents put the puzzle together and each contribute the right amount of missing pieces than the puppy that ends up with all the pieces of the puzzle will exhibit the Ectopic Ureter defect.

.

.

DIAGNOSIS

Affected animals usually show up before one year of age, the majority by 6-8 weeks of age. The affected female puppies do not grow as rapidly nor are as active as other litter members, as they are very prone to bacterial infections. It is 8-9 times more common in females than in males since the prostate gland in males acts as a muscle sphincter, and therefore the dog may not have any dribbling of urine, but may show up at a later age, eg 5-6 years. Almost all females affected by ectopic ureter will show up at an early age although there have been a few cases without urinary incontinence (Osborne & Oliver, 1977; Jones 1980).

.

Click here to read more about the medical facts of Ectopic Ureter Defect: http://www.vetsurgerycentral.com/ectopic_ureter.htm

.

The polygenetic defect may go back to the 1930s or even further back and there is probably not a Golden Retriever in the world that will not have one or more of these early suspect carriers behind their pedigree.

It seems likely that a pair of dogs from the 1930s in the UK, Ch Davie of Yelme (1931 out of Gilder &

Sewardstone Tess) and Ch Dukeries Dancing Lady (1934 out of the Abbots kennels), were dominant

carriers of the EU polygenetic condition. They may not have been the originators of the defective

trait. It may go back even earlier than these two dogs. However, it gets a bit grey at this point and

I’m not comfortable going back further. One thing is for sure – without locating the DNA markers

involved and having DNA testing available we will never be able to predict the probability of the trait

appearing from a mating.

My question is: how (and when) did this polygenetic defect come into Labrador Retrievers?

The English-line Golden Retrievers have a relatively small gene pool. The breed originated in the 1860s in Scotland. From about 1825 to 1870 several breeds, amongst them Chesapeak Bay Retrievers, Flatcoat Retrievers and Golden Retrievers, have been crossed into the Labrador Retriever, also in Scotland.

At some point (after 1876) a litter with black and yellow pups would be devided into two breeds: the black ones were registered as Labradors, the yellow ones as Goldens.

In LabradorNet's databases I was able to find 21 officially interbred dogs, born between 1916 and 1933. Four of them had a Flatcoat Retriever as a parent, two of them had a Chesapeak Bay Retriever as a parent, and in fifteen of them there was a parent which breed was unknown. All I know about these fifteen dogs (part of them may have had a Golden Retriever as their parent) that seven of them were black, a fact that would automatically lead to registration as a Labrador Retriever instead of a Golden Retriever.

We know that between 1970 and 1990 several Golden Retrievers have been crossed into the Labrador Retriever, to improve the coats and the heads of certain lines, especially in Scandinavia, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. This relative distance from the 'motherland' of the Golden and Labrador Retriever might explain why Ectopic Ureter defect isn't as common in Western Europe and the United Kingdom as it is elsewhere in the world.

Could it be the result of outcross?

Another explanation might be the remoteness of certain countries. Between the 1930s and 1960s it wasn't easy to ship animals from the United Kingdom to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and America. To create a population, breeders had to inbreed heavily (nothing new there, because breeders in England did the same thing), and in some cases they crossed their breeding lines out to "domestic" dogs.

After the 1930s the Labrador breeders in the U.K. had a relatively large population to pick from. This enabled them to be more selective and to eliminate certain defects. They could afford to stop breeding with a dog who produced puppies with Ectopic Ureter and choose dogs that didn't produce this defect. In Australia, New Zealand and America the English Labradors were far more unique and less replacable, so they weren't eliminated from the breeding process as easily.

To be able to counter the problem of Ectopic Ureter we need to know which lines are responsible for passing on the defect to their progeny.

.

We received several names of affected Labradors in the Netherlands, from different breeders. 75% of these affected Labradors have the same ancestors (first connection). These are two Labradors from Scandinavia, born in the early 1990s. It's far too early to "name and shame" these Labradors; much more research is needed before we're able to say that these Labradors are the ones we should be careful with in breeding practice. 25% of the affected Labradors had another 'set' of common ancestors (second connection). These were Labradors from the United Kingdom, born in the early 1980s.

.

In both cases (first and second connection) more than twenty and thirty years have passed, so we're able to compare the offspring of these Labradors with the offspring of their litter mates and the offspring of their ancestors, to eliminate them from the investigation. In the first connection the stud dog was mated to more than 150 different bitches, while the bitch was mated to 5 different stud dogs. As far as we know now, the Ectopic Ureter Defect only occurred in the offspring of this single combination. One piece of the 1000-piece jigsawpuzzle collected, many more needed.

In the second connection the dam (with an Australian background) was mated to three different sires, all three of them popular stud dogs from the U.K., who mated many other bitches without passing on the defect, while only the litters produced by this particular bitch produced puppies who were affected by Ectopic Ureter.

As far as we know now, none of the ancestors of these particular dogs produced the Ectopic Ureter Defect in other litters than the ones mentioned above.

.

!

Jack Vanderwyk

I notice this article quotes Karen H further down ... so if it is the same article, my apologies.

My friends who breed and win with their goldies have had one wet pup, of a litter of 10, which was a second repeat mating with no problems in any other pups. The problem was surgically repaired by the vet at about 10 weeks. Not cheap, and I don't know enough about it to know whether surgical intervention would be effective with this GR.

My advice to the op is to contact the breeder - to advise him what has happened. I would also be seeking a specialist opinion.

[sandgrubber]

I would suggest changing the title of the thread; maybe by putting a ? at the end. If it's poly genetic and no one can trace the lines, the breeder is not at fault.

Edited August 16, 2013 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

in hindsight May have been a case of bad breeding more likely to be by accident but seriously the chances of a breeder knowing this was there and they may have seen this either before or after the pup was born and not doing something about it to avoid it happening and to avoid you ending up with a sick dog are remote.

To get to a place where a vet wants to accuse a breeder to a puppy buyer of making a deliberate decision to breed dogs knowing they have a problem and that it will probably show up in the puppies rather than simply making a mistake because they didn't know ,to accuse them of knowing there was something wrong and deliberately passing it onto a puppy buyer without informing them takes a whole lot of assumptions.

When you are in the middle of it all and emotions are so high even changing a single word in a conversation or an interpretation of the conversation can make a huge difference . Im happy for a vet to say the breeder should have known because in an ideal world breeders would have enough information about the dogs they are selecting and enough knowledge to use that information as it should be to know these things and ensure they breed away from them. But to say that in their opinion the breeder should have known is miles away from saying the breeder would have known. Such things are not recorded on pedigrees and unless the breeder has been given the info of where the dogs in the pedigree are which have been affected and know what to do with that info even if they have it - it really is a big ask - and it may or may not have shown up in one dog in the pedigree in many generations or not and this breeder and all other breeders would still have some level of risk that they may breed an affected puppy. There is no simple DNA test for it and if the breeder has two perfectly healthy dogs with no knowledge of it being in the family - how COULD they know ?

I have 8 kids both myself and their father had lots of living relatives and we had no knowledge what ever that some of our ancestors may have had a blood disease - nothing to worry about when we were making babies to consider except there was a high incidence of multiple births on both sides as far as we knew. Huge advantage over a breeder who cant talk with the relatives, probably will never see many of the relatives,probably will not have much contact with other people who have bred the ancestors and just as the blood disease some of my relatives must have had are not listed on a birth certificate or most family trees of the past such things have not been easy for a breeder to know. Anyway turns out 6 out of 8 of my kids and couple so far of my grandkids are affected by the blood disorder both me and their father carried. I wasnt tested for the DNA for the gene until after the kids were diagnosed because there was no reason for anyone to know about it or test for it. Now I know and know what the syptoms are and Ive done some more research I can see that if Id been looking for it I would have seen it - I should have known but for someone to accuse me of must have known or to say I would have known and deliberately had these children knowing that the mating between me and their father had a high risk of making babies with a genetic disorder which affected them as it does is just not true and the thought that there could be anyone who would think I would do that or know that and not pass it on to everyone who may need to know is very distressing. Mine is a recessive disorder and so very much easier than polygenic disorders which no one can identify or know what causes them and thats what your breeder is dealing in.

My point is when you are dealing with living things there are no guarantees - you can lower the risks and you can even eliminate the risks in something which can be tested for - the blood disease I carry does have a DNA test so we can determine who has it who carries it and if having kids with a particular person will give carriers or affected. The chances your breeder did know this and deliberately did what you think she may have is highly unlikely and she is going to be upset and feeling dreadful that she has played a part in the dog suffering and you having to deal with the loss of your dog, even if she gives you signs which make you feel she isnt

The breeder needs to be informed so they can learn from it and go to work on working out what they have to do to ensure they dont do it again and ensuring other potential breeders know and work to eliminating it but once you are where you are and you have what you believe is evidence that the breeder did this some how on purpose its easy to find things which you can say shows more and more how rotten the breeder is. I suggest that you send the MDBA a copy of your pedigree and copies of your vet reports and that will allow the information to be entered into a record system which breeders who come along will be able to use it so they do know that this has happened for generations to come and try to select away from it .

Im so very sorry that this has happened and this is something you will carry with you for ever and during this time of grieving part of it all is looking for whys and maybe someone to blame. My advice is inform the breeder and mourn your cherished dog and try to move through it knowing you have done all you could and regardless of what your vet said the breeder would have been hard pressed to be able to predict it.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Steve

[Starkehre]

As always, so well put Steve.

Posh, sorry for your situation, very sad and unfortunate.

[zenchel]

Doesn't seem like "bad breeding practice" from my (recent) reading, and I think you vet needs to get his knowledge up to speed,rather than have a breeder bash.

Sorry HW can't open the link, but here is another one (I think)

http://www.labradornet.com/ectopic-ureter.html

And an extract

The Ectopic Ureter (EU) defect is believed to be a polygenetic trait .......blah blah blah

......

.

!

Jack Vanderwyk

With no particular relevance to the OP's problem, I would just say be very careful about citing lay interpretations from the internet. The above site has no references and the author has no qualifications!! At least Karen Hedberg is a qualified veterinary practitioner - as most of what the author above writes involves Labradors, there is enough information there to convince me that he doesn't know what he's talking about. As always, on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog !! JMO.

[Weasels]

As I said, unless the breeder had produced such a pup before, it's really not going to be "bad breeding practices" and more a case of really shite luck that you're potentially dealing with.

If this is a first for this breeder, he/she is going to be gutted - as gutted as any decent breeder I know would be.:

Perth is a small town, it's very possible the vet has seen or knows of problems in other pups from this breeder.

I've heard similar stories about a certain breeder and I have nothing to do with the breed.

[Rascalmyshadow]

I have never heard of anyone else go through this problem as it is so rare in males. I feel for you and your family.

We went through exactly the same thing a bout 7 years ago with an Airedale puppy, I noticed a problem by the time he was 10 weeks old the vets thought I was imagining things, he was finally diagnosed at 4 1/2 - 5 months old.

We were also advised by a specialist that it is hereditary, our boy was also going into renal failure, one kidney was about a 3rd of the size it should of been.

We contacted the breeder and sent them all the specialist results, the offered to give us half our money back if we went ahead with surgery or a full refund if we PTS.

We ended up deciding to PTS, even if the corrective surgery worked his kidneys would likely not have coped.

Good luck I hope you have a better outcome.