RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Health certifications Gone too far?

13K views 57 replies 29 participants last post by  Scott Adams 
#1 ·
I am sure this will be responded to with a fair amount of righteous indignation, but Archer’s question about line breeding and in breeding got me to thinking if we may have gone too far on the insistence of OFA certified joints and CERF certifications on eyes.
If a potential stud or dam exhibits great traits such as marking, water attitude, tractability but has a minor genetic defect, it seems that dog is avoided like the plague for breeding purposes. What about a dog with a minor joint or eye issue that was HT titled at a young age, is a consistent performer with a high pass rate % but has a hip that may be OFA fair or mildly dysplastic. Dog has a great personality, high intelligence, great training attitude, etc. and all the things that a trainer or handler would look for but he/she may not be bred for the above stated reasons. Let’s assume the dog lives to 10+ years old with no obvious physical problems. Just the usual stiffness and aches and pains associated with old age in dogs and people for that matter? Have we done the breed a service or not?
One of the very best hunting dogs I have ever trained, I got as a washout for a very low $ because he had a retinal fold. He consistently retrieved thousands of ducks and geese for several years with a large commercial outfitter in N. Alberta and I personally saw him on several occasions mark sailers that went at least 300 yards in large flat grain fields. He could see very well, retinal fold or not. He could run very long blinds and we very rarely lost a bird. He was a beautiful dog, wonderful with the hunters and also with other dogs. He had an outstanding competitive pedigree but was never bred.
Are we really doing the breeds a justice by not breeding these type of dogs?
Just being a devil’s advocate for discussion purposes.
MP
 
See less See more
#37 ·
I just have to add that I know of one breeder who has quite a following, actually a cult following. Said breeder has quite a website and makes many claims about healthy dogs and multipurpose dogs. Observation of dogs reveals a temperament problem, actually aggression.

Health clearances are good.

I will leave it at that. I won't even mention the breed.
 
#38 ·
My comments ARE NOT directed at anyone . It is simply my opinion. I am NOT a member of GRCA so I did NOT read any such article. I simply stated my own opinion as I see it from hearing/reading gossip over the past 25+ yrs. in Goldens.
Sue
 
#40 ·
I do not breed. I do own a breed that has it's fair share of avoidable problems.

I feel you cannot have too many tests for genetic problems. Each new discovery allows those who do breed many more choices to make sound decisions on a case by case basis. By having all of this data at ther disposal, they can work around known defects, minimizing the risk of passing them on. In the end, it is all on the breeder and choosing wisely.
 
#41 ·
I too despise the phrase "bettering the breed" and dislike seeing it used for marketing especially. My breed is Labrador and I don't think it needs any bettering, I think it is a pretty danged fine animal. So fine, in fact, that it has been split into a variety of branches, field, bench, "British", pointing, etc. Everyone who breeds a litter of Labs does so for their own specific purpose and desire. As long as they aren't hurting the dogs (or slamming mine ;-) ) , I don't care much, to each their own.

Just addressing the common, normal clearances for Labs: No point in discussing breeding EIC/CNM/PRA, those are easy as simple math to breed around to not produced affected dogs. If one chooses to produce potentially affected dogs from these, then I think it is on that person to test those pups and keep the affected ones to deal with responsibly. If they have the stomach to cull in order to breed something they absolutely have to have, then that's on them, no one else should have to deal with affected offspring unless they choose to. Carriers and clears are not affected, a simple, cheap test identifies the genetics, end of story.

Eyes have their own issues, cataracts, folds, entropion, ectropion etc. Yes, some seem kind of pointless to fail CERF for, folds being a particular point of contention, but overall, less problematic than hips/elbows, in my experience anyway.

Breeding around hip and elbow dysplasia is not black and white. There is no simple mode of inheritance. Radiographs are all we have to screen with, OFA and PennHip, and there are problems with both, even more so with elbows & OFA, in my opinion. It is very difficult to get an accurate representation of a history of hips and elbows on OFA. Much that fails doesn't get published. Some spend time filling in the blanks, researching close relatives of the dogs, listen to the gossip of who is out with what injury/surgery, and try to form a pattern of what "lines" (to oversimplify) might be trending with bad wheels, (including CCL ruptures for me). Age also plays a part, when did the dog start having problems? Add in environmental and it becomes even more muddied. I don't think all dysplasia is created equally, particularly elbows, I think there's more to it and the individual needs to be considered. But, to take the risk of breeding to a known dysplastic, or even a normal dog with more than the average percentage of offspring with issues, well, I'm not that big of a gambler, personally, but, that is my choice, others will make different ones.

I've had dysplastic dogs live normal, active lives. It's easy to say what's the big deal sometimes. Usually, that sometimes is when someone has a nice dog that they've put some time and money into and really wants to breed it and needs to find that justification to do so. Other times, it is knowledgeable breeders making an informed decision. We can go too far in expecting perfection, yes, but how much risk is justified in a breed with the depth and width of Labradors that a dog with failed clearances needs to be bred? That's up to the breeder. It's bad enough when things go wrong even when all the clearances are there. How do I explain and justify to the sobbing, frustrated owner that I deliberately bred to a higher risk? That's what I have to weigh.
 
#43 ·
How do I explain and justify to the sobbing, frustrated owner that I deliberately bred to a higher risk? That's what I have to weigh.
X 2 that hits the nail on the head.
 
#45 ·
Perhaps of interest... this from the UMinn web site concerning EIC:
Lastly, and very importantly, we do not recommend selecting dogs for breeding based solely on their both being N/N for the DNM1 gene. Such a drastic strategy, although more quickly eliminating the possibility of producing E/E genotypes and EIC affected dogs, also has the undesired result of losing many of the outstanding exercise and performance traits expected of many lines of Labrador Retrievers. A better approach would enable the continued use of some of the many excellent E/N and E/E dogs by mating them to N/N dogs. This would produce litters without EIC and a choice of dogs to progressively decrease the frequency of the E form of the DNM1 gene by future matings to N/N dogs.

http://www.vdl.umn.edu/prod/groups/cvm/@pub/@cvm/@vdl/documents/asset/cvm_asset_107687.pdf
 
#47 · (Edited)
Of the Big three breeding wise I don't think you can compare, the Goldens & Chessies to Labs @ all. Both breeds have their own issues and not near the gene pool to pull from. In many cases it would be a extreme hindrance to blatantly drop worthy individuals, out of the gene pool because they carry a certain undesirable trait. It could in fact be dangerous to eliminate sires and dams that way as all it does is create an even smaller gene pool, adding together all those recessives just waiting to drop another perhaps worst genetic condition with no variety to pull from to solve it later. With that type of gene pool it is more worth while to balance negative and positive and breed dogs by trying to push the entire population away from the disease over time, still keeping as much variety as possible. Rather than using single lacking traits as elimination criteria.

EX; A Good field Golden, who perhaps has a moderate hip/elbow problem, but comes from a line of dogs that have fair-good hips/elbows, but have all died @ 12-16 yrs. with no trace of cancer in their lines, might be considered a very good breeding candidate, to someone who has dogs with excellent hips/elbows but incidences of cancer @ 5-7 yrs.

I would not consider breeding a Lab with the same lack, one can pick and choose labs, it's easy to find lines and individuals with everything, the other breeds not so much.
 
#49 ·
Maybe I better just stick to labradors..... ;)
 
#52 ·
I have done every available test on my dog, and will continue to do so as new ones become available.
While he still may produce an unhealthy puppy or two at some point, at least I will know it was not because I failed to make use of simple testing that is available. I would be horrified to find out a "defective puppy" could have been prevented if I had only bothered to do a simple blood test.
JMO.
 
#57 ·
Well said! You owe it to your breed to do as much health testing as is available. Especially if you are going to breed. At least then you are armed with as much information as possible. AND, posting the test results to an OPEN public health database like OFA, regardless of outcome, is the right thing to do.
 
#53 ·
This thought has crossed my old and feble mind--- If we, as humans were as careful when we breed ourselves as we are when we breed our animals, there would not be a problem with overpopulation in this world and maybe we would have a more inteligent group sitting in our Capitol. Just a thought from an 83 year old, no longer in the "stud" pool. Bill
 
#54 ·
Amen to that! My husband shakes his head whenever I threaten to get a t-shirt made that says "Spay and Neuter...It's not just for pets" ;)

On a serious note, common sense on the part of the breeder and the dog owners has to come into play. There is a big difference between a dog that carries a particular gene and one that is affected by that genetic trait. Education needs to go hand in hand with the genetic testing.
 
#55 ·
Back the original post, some great links always come to my mind when thinking about dysplasia (or any polygenetic issue really-- I think allergies could be included here).
http://www.offa.org/ed_faqs.html This one is about elbows and how the incidence *and* severity of the issue is often increased in the progeny if breeding one parent w/ Grade 1 elbows.
http://www.britlabs.com/mating.htm This one (scroll to bottom of page) shows Labrador breeding pairs by OFA ratings.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top