The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Hip Dysplasia Question

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    892

    Default

    Swack/Last Frontier Labs great points and others. As a self described "Health Dictator" due to witnessing and owning a few badly bred Lab dogs I would like to add another troubling issue. We have a closed registry and unless someone snuck in ringers before or during tattoo/microchip/DNA identification we have what we have. Do we throw out animals for breeding who have genetic issues? Do we do what others w/less available hard science did -spay/neuter or put down. Super Powder had one dysplastic hip but is a foundation sire. Super Tanker , Rascal have their issues. My two dogs which had dysplasia and retinal issues I spayed/neutered before sending them to non FT homes. They were never bred. I have no total answer but any who breed should remember you are contributing to the future stock.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Last Frontier Labs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    North Pole, Alaska
    Posts
    1,198

    Default

    Swliszka, the labrador gene pool has so much more depth to it now than back in those days. When EIC, first came out, folks were so worried about using carriers. I think we have seen so many more clear to clear breedings as people gradually remove those genes from their breeding dogs. Hip health has improved too, but still has a long way to go due to it being more complicated than a singular recessive gene. I still believe breeders can do a better job.
    Sherri Young

    "It's the journey that's important, with experience and knowledge to be gained along the way, in the company of our faithful dogs and our good friends."
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  3. #23
    Senior Member Swack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Frontier Labs View Post
    Swliszka, the Labrador gene pool has so much more depth to it now than back in those days. When EIC, first came out, folks were so worried about using carriers. I think we have seen so many more clear to clear breedings as people gradually remove those genes from their breeding dogs. Hip health has improved too, but still has a long way to go due to it being more complicated than a singular recessive gene. I still believe breeders can do a better job.
    I just watched a webinar that said researchers have identified approximately 600,000 genes within the canine genome, yet there are fewer than 100 genetic tests available for autosomal recessive diseases in all dog breeds and only about a half dozen for the Labrador retriever. We must be careful in selecting breeding stock to insure that by vigorously pursuing clear status in those few genes for which we have a test we don't reduce the genetic diversity of the breed.

    At the risk of beating a dead horse, as this point has been made many times here, there is nothing wrong with breeding a clear to a carrier; all of the offspring will be unaffected by the disease. By eliminating all carriers and affected animals from the gene pool we will create a genetic bottleneck and reduce the genetic diversity of the breed. This will make it harder for us to steer away from future problems that may arise.

    Breeders select mating pairs based on their own goals and priorities. We won't all agree on what those objectives should be or in what order of priority traits should be placed. It's up to each breeder to follow his heart (while using his head) and for buyers to find the breeder who shares their own vision.

    Swack
    Jeff Swackhamer

  4. #24
    Senior Member suepuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Central Virginia
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swack View Post
    At the risk of beating a dead horse, as this point has been made many times here, there is nothing wrong with breeding a clear to a carrier; all of the offspring will be unaffected by the disease. By eliminating all carriers and affected animals from the gene pool we will create a genetic bottleneck and reduce the genetic diversity of the breed. This will make it harder for us to steer away from future problems that may arise.
    THIS ^^^^ It's happened in other breeds and in other species. We're dealing with it in production animals and it's a killer. Throwing away the carriers is throwing away a lot of good things too. Swack, I think we're taking the same genetics classes. It's been a great refresher and it's scary to see see how most choose.

    Sue
    Sue Puffenbarger
    Wirtz, VA
    www.boynelabradors.com

  5. #25
    Senior Member Last Frontier Labs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    North Pole, Alaska
    Posts
    1,198

    Default

    There is where you misunderstand me. I have nooo problem breeding carrier to clear, BUT the breeder should bear responsibility for testing the pups to identify carriers or sell the litter on limited registration until the buyer tests the pup and is educated if their pup is a carrier. That is the only way to prevent affecteds from being produced and THAT is what I have a problem with.
    Sherri Young

    "It's the journey that's important, with experience and knowledge to be gained along the way, in the company of our faithful dogs and our good friends."
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  6. #26
    Senior Member Swack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Frontier Labs View Post
    There is where you misunderstand me. I have nooo problem breeding carrier to clear, BUT the breeder should bear responsibility for testing the pups to identify carriers or sell the litter on limited registration until the buyer tests the pup and is educated if their pup is a carrier. That is the only way to prevent affecteds from being produced and THAT is what I have a problem with.
    I understand your concern about the possibility of producing dogs affected with a genetic disease. Let me pose a question. What if there was a dog that perfectly fulfilled your image of the ideal Labrador in every way except she was EIC affected. Perhaps as she aged you both had learned to manage the condition and she was able to hunt and had proved herself a remarkable hunting retriever and companion. And what if you decided to bred her to a EIC clear stud. All of the resulting puppies would be EIC carriers, but unaffected by the disease. Would you sell these puppies on a limited registration because they were EIC carriers? Wouldn't it be sufficient to inform the puppy buyer of their status and allow them the option of deciding whether they should breed their pups in the future?

    In the case of Clear bred to Carrier is it the breeder's obligation to test the puppies? They would all be unaffected. If the breeder didn't test, wouldn't the buyer be obligated to have their dog tested before they bred it? Where does one person's responsibility end and the next person's begin? I'm not stating an opinion, just asking the question. There's no reason for a puppy to ever be born with one of the genetic diseases for which there is a test if the person breeding that litter does their homework and no reason for a buyer to ever buy an affected puppy if they do their homework.

    It seems to me that education is the answer to the problem. EIC, CNM, prcd-PRA, RD-OSD, and other genetic disease for which there are genetic tests should be the least of our breeding concerns these days. We should be able to focus on the more difficult issues of hips, elbows, talent, temperament, ruptured ACL's, correct coat, and proper conformation (not to be confused with the show ring; think "The Standard") now that we have the tools to avoid producing dogs who are affected with the genetic afflictions listed above.

    Swack
    Last edited by Swack; 08-13-2014 at 10:57 AM.
    Jeff Swackhamer

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    892

    Default

    Swack -Post # 26 right on target !

  8. #28
    Senior Member Last Frontier Labs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    North Pole, Alaska
    Posts
    1,198

    Default

    Swack, great post! I usually sell all pups on Limited and then tell buyers to call me if they decide they want to breed. Usually, they decide against it when I tell them all the testing that needs to be done before I give them the full registration. Made the mistake of giving full registration to a lawyer who badgered me for it. He told me he had done the testing and had not. He also picked a stud dog that I had told him he shouldn't use. You can guess the outcome. Made me sick. It is too easy to breed dogs without testing. My way forces the owners to make responsible choices. I am a small time breeder and keep good records, so it is easy for me to change the papers from Limited to Full. But you know what? Both person who asked decided that doing all the testing was really more work than they were prepared for and decided to leave breeding to someone who knew what they were doing.
    So, while I agree about focusing on all the things you mentioned, I feel that the pups I produce are my responsibility for the long haul.
    Sherri Young

    "It's the journey that's important, with experience and knowledge to be gained along the way, in the company of our faithful dogs and our good friends."
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  9. #29
    Senior Member Swack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Last Frontier Labs View Post
    Swack, great post! I usually sell all pups on Limited and then tell buyers to call me if they decide they want to breed. Usually, they decide against it when I tell them all the testing that needs to be done before I give them the full registration. Made the mistake of giving full registration to a lawyer who badgered me for it. He told me he had done the testing and had not. He also picked a stud dog that I had told him he shouldn't use. You can guess the outcome. Made me sick. It is too easy to breed dogs without testing. My way forces the owners to make responsible choices. I am a small time breeder and keep good records, so it is easy for me to change the papers from Limited to Full. But you know what? Both person who asked decided that doing all the testing was really more work than they were prepared for and decided to leave breeding to someone who knew what they were doing.
    So, while I agree about focusing on all the things you mentioned, I feel that the pups I produce are my responsibility for the long haul.
    Sherri,

    I understand and support your position. Breeding dogs entails much more than most non-breeders understand and most folks aren't willing to make the commitment. It's a steep learning curve and I'm sure the learning never stops. I'd wager there's more than one good breeder who started with a litter that wouldn't meet their current standards. It's a learning process. A good mentor is invaluable to a new breeder and it sounds like you're willing to step up to insure that if your puppies are bred they're owners meet some level of accountability to you and the breed. However, it can be hard to convince some that a limited registration is in their best interest and that of the breed. I'm sure you may have seen the tenor of some of those discussions here on RTF. As a person who leans toward a libertarian view of things, I'd prefer people take personal responsibility whether they're the breeder or the buyer. If all buyers were educated there would be little market for pups without adequate health clearances. I know that's probably an unreasonable expectation, but a guy can dream . . .

    Swack
    Jeff Swackhamer

Posting Permissions

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