[kimsmith]

I've got one that sleeps with me every night. She doesn't put up with my labs and she let them know it. Its funny watching a 5 pound dog take on a 70 pound lab. They love to make her mad and then use their paws to keep her from biting them.

 

[ErinsEdge]

Your reasons for not having a separate data base are not very strong.

Look at this thread-people threatening, rumors, and the University says they will not be keepers of a database, and I certainly can see why.

 

[Katie Minor]

For me it's nice to do "one stop shopping" on the OFA website. If I can find the majority of the info there then it saves me time. If I need to go to another site(s) to check on results it takes loads more time waiting on the computer, finding the sites, making sure that I have the dog's name spelled right, having to record fifty different numbers for different tests with the chance of transposing numbers..... Keep up the good work Katie.

That's to beauty of the web site. It has all health clearance as an option to list in one place. And you can see info about the sire and dam, sibs and offspring.

It's looks like about 25% of clear dogs that are registered with the AKC or CKC and aren't still very young pups are on there.

 

[Katie Minor]

Look at this thread-people threatening, rumors, and the University says they will not be keepers of a database, and I certainly can see why.

Worse, the University doesn't hold the rights to the test. That would be us four patent holders taking liability for the database. Quite frankly, the thought is terrifying.

 

[Mike Peters-labguy23]

Worse, the University doesn't hold the rights to the test. That would be us four patent holders taking liability for the database. Quite frankly, the thought is terrifying.

How does CNM and OFA do it without it being as you said "terrifying"?

Until the people at EIC recognize that the only documents sent out are suspect to alteration there will always be a hint of uncertainty.

 

[kimsmith]

Y'all must be looking at something I'm not and I work on computers for a living. Thank you for posting the link and I went to the database. I sorted by EIC# and only a few come up affected, so I guess most elected not to post there results if they had affected pups. If someone with no computer skills at all was trying to search the EIC database on EIC they would get lost. I would have figured it out, but you made it easier for me. It would be nice to have a database with the affected, carriers and clear dogs but I guess there would be legal issues.

Man what kind of legal issues would there be if someone did send in altered forms. Like someone said above that would be crazy.

 

[ErinsEdge]

Until the people at EIC recognize that the only documents sent out are suspect to alteration there will always be a hint of uncertainty.

Read...post #273

 

[Granddaddy]

We are still committed to the ideal that an Open Database that includes all result types is the best for all....

I will say first I am thrilled there is a test & congratulations to those responsible. You have done a great service for the Labrador Retriever.

Unfortunately selecting OFA is about as far as you might get from an open database and still have any public availability of results (i.e., a near opposite for open database). At best you might see 10-15% of clear results on the OFA website with virtually none otherwise. You doomed the idea of public results by using OFA which requires the dog owner to pay to list results. And BTW, none of the fee to list results will go directly to any DNA research, it goes for "administration".

...I realize its an added expense and step, but ultimately the database created via OFA will be far greater than any we could possibly keep (for the breath and depth of information), and probably at the same added expense for server space and maintenance of the database.

On a final note, OFA is a non-profit organization. Listing fees help fund research that allows for the development of DNA tests among many other health issues.

Using OFA, in this instance will not add breath & depth when it concerns EIC data because most who test their dogs won't pay to list results. And in regards to your later post about liability, surely your attorneys have told you there is no way using OFA can remove you as a target of litigation. Even with guarantees to be responsible, OFA could only guarantee monetary damages against you (& only those to the extent of being able to pay), any other liabilities that might be associated with the test will always be yours - as long as you offer the test & represent its results as valid. Much like environmental law, it is near impossible to completely eliminate the potential for liability with a test of this type - and using OFA to post results certainly won't do that.

Why not give us real access to results, a complete white list that lists all clear dogs as a minimum so that the testing will benefit the Labrador retriever as it could? BTW, I would guess there are more EIC test results listed here on RTF than on the OFA site......just an observation.

 

[Katie Minor]

I knew I would get flack for bring OFA up. But, felt it was worth bring up one more time. Especially in regard to posting of affected results.

Please know that are decision regarding listing test results was not arrived at lightly or without much discussion.

 

[Granddaddy]

...Please know that are decision regarding listing test results was not arrived at lightly or without much discussion.

Even much consideration & discussion does not always guarantee the proper decision - in this case, for the breed. That said, your decision likely seemed in the best interest of the 4 test owners when it was made. With the lack of reporting to & by OFA, maybe you might reconsider your decision in the future - for the benefit of the Labrador Retriever breed. If, in fact, OFA might actually use the EIC testing data, great - provide it to them. But if you want to help the Labrador Retriever breeders, pup buyers and those who might potentially be in one of those categories - publish a white list of all dogs testing clear (at least until you can manage an open database which I too would like to see).

 

[Cedarswamp]

A whitelist like CNM would be nice. What would be really sweet would be a upload like CERF does with OFA where all clear dogs with entries with OFA could be automatically uploaded, with the carrier and affected being owner's option to send in like CERF offers. It's not a perfect solution, but we could at least see the clears either way.

 

[Katie Minor]

Since this thread is getting so many hits, I thought I would mention here as well that the VDL is now able to accept cheek swabs due to some technology upgrades.

http://www.vdl.umn.edu/vdl/ourservices/canineneuromuscular/home.html