The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

Thread: Chesapeak Bay Retriever--the real deal

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern Florida near GA.
    Posts
    248

    Default

    I am far from a cheesie person . But if I was going to purchase a cheesie I would start with Sandy Dollar. Education and integrity would take me in that direction. Sandy is a straight up lady that will tell it like it is. She has my respect.
    Ed Wojciechowski

    "GUNNER" MH
    "DASH" MH
    "TAZ" HRCH,RN,MH,MNH
    "Duffy" HRCH,UH, MH, HRC 500 points RIP
    "Kodi" SH, WCX- HRCH 6th Std Poodle
    "GINA" JH STD Poodle
    "Heather" HRCH, SH
    "CHIEF" JH,WCX,RN,SHR STD Poodle

  2. #42
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by classact2731 View Post
    Last year everyone was arguing that a carrier could not become affected, now we have at least one. The bottom line is we need more research on this because with the fact that a carrier can also be affected it leaves a very small number of breed able stock if you want to be sure you are not adding affected dogs (only breeding clear x clear). Who knows maybe next year someone will have a clear also confirmed affected, the point being is the test leaves a lot to be desired and the ones who think it is the end all test are as bad as the ones who ignore it.
    The dog that was a carrier that became affected, along with dog(s) of another breed that were carriers and were diagnosed with DM post-mortem, got a mutation of the disease that is extremely rare and not the textbook cases that responsible breeders are trying to avoid. In point of fact, Im far from the DM police and can even see the case being made for a special breeding that might produce DM *IF* both parents were outstanding specimens of the breed and of a bloodline not readily available elsewhere. However, the guilty parties who breed multiple litters knowingly producing dogs that are at risk, not just one litter but multiple litters, are the ones with the substandard dogs and ethics. Once, for a special breeding, maybe; otherwise it's unethical and hateful--to the breed and the poor unsuspecting owners that have been huckstered into buying the dogs.
    Julie R., Hope Springs Farm
    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers since 1981

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fall City, WA
    Posts
    4,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by classact2731 View Post
    Last year everyone was arguing that a carrier could not become affected, now we have at least one. The bottom line is we need more research on this because with the fact that a carrier can also be affected it leaves a very small number of breed able stock if you want to be sure you are not adding affected dogs (only breeding clear x clear). Who knows maybe next year someone will have a clear also confirmed affected, the point being is the test leaves a lot to be desired and the ones who think it is the end all test are as bad as the ones who ignore it.
    I don't know anyone who would condemn a highly experienced trainer and breeder who bred a winning, titled exception affected dog responsibly. Condemnation comes with breeding average to below average untitled, untested dogs repeatedly.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Sharon Potter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Posts
    2,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wojo View Post
    I am far from a cheesie person .
    LOL, Ed....you sound plenty "cheesie" to me!
    Sharon Potter

    www.redbranchkennels.net

    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers...too many to list.

    Team Huntsmith

  5. #45
    Senior Member classact2731's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gwynn's Island Va
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie R. View Post
    The dog that was a carrier that became affected, along with dog(s) of another breed that were carriers and were diagnosed with DM post-mortem, got a mutation of the disease that is extremely rare and not the textbook cases that responsible breeders are trying to avoid. In point of fact, Im far from the DM police and can even see the case being made for a special breeding that might produce DM *IF* both parents were outstanding specimens of the breed and of a bloodline not readily available elsewhere. However, the guilty parties who breed multiple litters knowingly producing dogs that are at risk, not just one litter but multiple litters, are the ones with the substandard dogs and ethics. Once, for a special breeding, maybe; otherwise it's unethical and hateful--to the breed and the poor unsuspecting owners that have been huckstered into buying the dogs.
    Can you please refer me to where I can find this info? In any case carrier can be affected there is no known percentage of at risk that become affected and not all do so is it any different to produce carriers if you think there is a chance that they may become affected or is that ok. I keep hearing in all these discussions the same theme, that people would never produce a breeding that might produce a puppy that could have a chance of becoming affected. Well that chance is there with carriers too so by most people that should be out also. That does not leave much to work with We need to work toward better tests and less speculation.
    Scott

  6. #46
    Senior Member classact2731's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gwynn's Island Va
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul "Happy" Gilmore View Post
    I don't know anyone who would condemn a highly experienced trainer and breeder who bred a winning, titled exception affected dog responsibly. Condemnation comes with breeding average to below average untitled, untested dogs repeatedly.
    It is either wrong or right can't be both. I have seen dogs running field trials that I would love to own and some I would not. The same for hunting dogs and I would bet some that I like you would not and vise versa, so who will decide which ones don't have to abide by the no At risk policy? I just think we need more research before we condone or condemn either side.
    Scott

  7. #47
    Senior Member afdahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul "Happy" Gilmore View Post
    Well, I personally know Tim Lockard who had the one Chesapeake known to have tested as a carrier and then become affected. What are the odds of that? Anyone good with math?
    I'm very good at math, but you can't calculate a probability from a single instance. At this point the instance of carriers with clinical DM appears low; I don't see it as a reason to avoid producing carriers.

    Your dismissal of the advice against overuse of a few sires is speculative, unfounded, and in my opinion, destructive. It is the nature of scientific study to be aware of the assumptions that bear on the applicability of a model. I've followed Dr. Bell's writing for years. Population genetics of purebred dogs is his specialty, not livestock or anything else. And while Labs dominate the retriever world, there's no reason to assume they dominate the dog genetics world. They are just one breed among many.

    Your contentions that Chesapeake bitches represent great genetic diversity and that our breed is not subject to loss of diversity from popular sire syndrome are both incorrect. It wouldn't matter and I'd be happy to "respect everyone's opinion," except that it's potentially harmful. The more people discount population genetics, the faster our breed will descend into being an inbred mess with problems we are unable to breed away from.

    Amy Dahl

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fall City, WA
    Posts
    4,622

    Default

    Yes, and your following of one persons writings and not another's is also speculative and something which you've chosen to side with your personal opinion on the matter. How many affected bitches are currently carrying field trial titles?

  9. #49
    Senior Member j towne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul "Happy" Gilmore View Post
    Yes, and your following of one persons writings and not another's is also speculative and something which you've chosen to side with your personal opinion on the matter. How many affected bitches are currently carrying field trial titles?
    How many chessie's currently have a field trial titles? I can only name 3. I might be missing some.

  10. #50
    Senior Member afdahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul "Happy" Gilmore View Post
    Yes, and your following of one persons writings and not another's is also speculative and something which you've chosen to side with your personal opinion on the matter. How many affected bitches are currently carrying field trial titles?
    Rather than take the misunderstandings in this point by point, I'll try to restate my point in different words.

    For those of us not well-versed in population genetics, the dog genetics researchers we've chosen to advise us (Dr. Long and Dr. Bell) are our most authoritative source. Based on my background in science, I assure you that while individual scientists may or may not be likable or even ethical in their personal lives, they are scrupulously responsible in dealing with information. As professionals in handling information, they can be counted on to be careful about the premises that underlie their recommendations, and not to "talk through their hats." In addition to this general endorsement, I happen to be familiar with the work of one of them (Dr. Bell), who has for many years helped interpret genetics for dog breeders and distill new findings into recommendations for good breeding practices. I am familiar with him because he has published a lot of articles in the AKC Gazette and other dog publications. I have read some of Dr. Long's work but am less familiar with him as an interpreter of science for the layperson.

    When consultants of the stature of Dr. Bell and Dr. Long tell us that the popular sire syndrome is the greatest threat to diversity in dog breeding, I take that seriously and use it as a factor in breeding decisions. I encourage others to do so as well. I urge anyone who wants to pit speculation against the advice of our knowledgeable consultants to be aware of the possible detrimental effect of careless talk on the breed, and to restrain or qualify their public comments.

    Please do not take anything I have said as trying to pit Dr. Bell against Dr. Long or to impugn the qualifications of either.

    Can't tell you the DM status of titled bitches in the breed, a fact which has no bearing on the above.

    Amy Dahl

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •