# Curse of the carrier



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Why would you not buy a pup that was either an EIC or CNM carrier? If you had a deposit on a pup from a litter and had your choice between a clear or a carrier and the carrier went nuts for a clipped wing pigeon and the clear pups was afraid of it which pup would you choose?
A lot of the best dogs of all times were carriers. Carrier status has nothing to do with the dog or it's abilities. Hmmm wait a minute maybe it does, as I said a lot of the best dogs of all times were or are carriers.
I bought my female being well aware that she was a CNM carrier and I couldnt be happier. She has an awesome pedigree and is a very talented girl. Now she has a litter and these pups are awesome but all I hear is I want a clear pup. I do have a few people that dont mind and have 5 of the 7 sold but could have sold 15 if they were all clear.
I have gone to a lot of expense to have this litter (approx $4000) because I seriously believe in this particular breeding only to have people get out their holy water, wooden stakes or silver bullets when they hear the word carrier. The CNM testing alone has cost over $500 between the actuall test and the vet bill for positive id and micro chips. I did this because it is the right thing to do and the puppy buyers need to be informed of the carrier status but it bugs me to have the carriers frowned upon.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

I'm not a breeder so why would I care if my pup was a carrier? I just want a good looking, healthy pup that wins field trials.

Is that too much to ask for?


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

I for one do not agree with it, but there is a stigma. I had a litter last fall and it was a concern for many buyers when given the choice. It does limit breeding possibilities down the road, but it's a minor concern for me.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

And this is why I won't buy a carrier puppy - keep in mind I have black male labs only - you think trying to sell carrier puppies is hard, try having a stud dog that is a carrier.

If you have a female that is a carrier, you can still get a puppy by breeding to a clear male and then hope and pray you can sell the rest of the puppies, but when you own the stud dog, it is rare if someone who owns a clear female will want to use your stud dog.

A lot of people will say they have no issue buying a carrier puppy, but the reality is that is just lip service. Otherwise why the rant?  When it comes time to write the check, it is amazing how fast that tune changes!

I took a beating last year for saying I'd only buy clear, but at least I'm being honest and forth coming in my position. Black lab stud dogs are a dime a dozen, so having a carrier only kills their reputation. And yes I know there is absolutely nothing wrong with a carrier, but I've been there done that and only clear puppies for me! 

Good thing is no one has an issue with my dogs being carriers of chocolate and yellow color factor!  That's about the only good carrier status I can think of for a black dog, if you know what I mean...

Sorry Steve, I know you have a nice female...good luck with placing the puppies.

FOM


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Well one thing you have to be aware of is that just because you breed a carrier to a clear doesn't mean you are actually breeding to a clear. My friend has a dog that has a CNM clear certificate from a US testing center and a CNM carrier status from France. This is the only dog I know of that has been tested twice for either cnm or eic and he got two different results on the same dog. Turns out the US testing center made a mistake and the dog is actually a carrier. Had he breed to a carrier thinking his dog was clear then there was a chance that CNM affected dogs would have been in the litter. Test results are not perfect all the time. Humans can and do make mistakes. 
If carriers were better at FT's then we would see a larger number of carriers represnted in FC/AFC's. remarkably it seems to be a non factor. The percentages seem to be the same for dogs that have titles and dogs that do not. 
All of that being said I have no problem with people that want to breed a littler and spend all that money to test the pups. There are enough good pups out of great litters that are clear that people can and do buy only clear. If the person is never going to breed then it really should not matter to them if the pup is clear or carrier.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I recently bred my bitch. When talking to people about the litter, the first question out of everyone's mouth is, is she clear of CNM and EIC? Don't think anyone has NOT asked.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Well, from my point of view as a buyer and spending my hard earned money. I try to find a dog that will have to best chances of making a long healthy life. It would almost be like ignoring bad hips in the history. The dog maybe a world beater........................ until(maybe) the poor guy falls over dead. Who the heck wants to increase the chances/odds of that??? Just breed this mess out like you would any other genetic flaw.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Duckquilizer said:


> Well, from my point of view as a buyer and spending my hard earned money. I try to find a dog that will have to best chances of making a long healthy life. It would almost be like ignoring bad hips in the history. The dog maybe a world beater........................ until(maybe) the poor guy falls over dead. Who the heck wants to increase the chances/odds of that??? Just breed this mess out like you would any other genetic flaw.



I totally disagree that breeding a carrier to a clear is equal to ignoring bad hips.

And I'm not defending myself. My bitch is clear bred to clear.


----------



## LavenderLabs (Aug 28, 2005)

I have a Carrier pup. SHe is a female. I love her. 

But I can see where everyone is coming from.


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Duckquilizer said:


> Well, from my point of view as a buyer and spending my hard earned money. I try to find a dog that will have to best chances of making a long healthy life. It would almost be like ignoring bad hips in the history. The dog maybe a world beater........................ until(maybe) the poor guy falls over dead. Who the heck wants to increase the chances/odds of that??? Just breed this mess out like you would any other genetic flaw.


Uninformed individuals such as yourself are causing this. Just because a dog is a carrier doesn't mean at some time in its life it will fall to one of these genetic diseases. These genetic markers are basically in hibernation until mated with another dog carrying or affected. At that point affected offspring will be produced.

Nothing wrong with a carrier in my eyes. Heck, I have a very nice male that was trained all but about 4 months of its life by myself as my first competitive dog and he has gone 7 for 7 in master tests in the last year and a Qual 3rd all at 3 yrs of age. He's also an amazing house and family dog and an even better waterfowl and pheasant dog. Unfortunately breeding is almost non existent with him because of being a carrier of both EIC and CNM. Pretty good looking dog to boot.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Duckquilizer said:


> Well, from my point of view as a buyer and spending my hard earned money. I try to find a dog that will have to best chances of making a long healthy life. It would almost be like ignoring bad hips in the history. The dog maybe a world beater........................ until(maybe) the poor guy falls over dead. Who the heck wants to increase the chances/odds of that??? Just breed this mess out like you would any other genetic flaw.


And THIS would be the reason some people don't buy carriers, they simply don't understand simple genetics. A carrier is a normal dog, at least in regards to EIC or CNM, they can't just drop over dead from either one. They don't go on to develop either condition. They are just carriers of the gene and if bred to clears, cannot produce affecteds. THAT is the reason we have genetic testing. Likening it to hip dysplasia is ridiculous, you cannot predict 100% good hips from even excellent parents because all we have is a screening tool with OFA or PennHip, NOT a genetic test. You can still get hip dysplasia from OFA certified parents, you can have dysplasia show up even on an excellent dog, down the road. What you can't do, according to the science, is get an EIC or CNM affected dog from a clear parent. There is a huge difference between a screening process like OFA and a genetic test like EIC, CNM or PRA.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

TroyFeeken said:


> Heck, I have a very nice male that was trained all but about 4 months of its life by myself as my first competitive dog and he has gone 7 for 7 in master tests in the last year and a Qual 3rd all at 3 yrs of age.



Troy, I ran against you at Hennepin. You have a really fine dog there!

Dave & Mick


----------



## Janet Kimbrough (Aug 14, 2003)

I consider myself a lucky person because of those folks that "only wanted a clear" pup out of the last breeding of Roux and Tyra. Because they backed out, I got a male pup that I wouldn't have gotten. So to them I say thank you because I couldn't be happier.

Wishing you luck with your pups.

Janet


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Buzz said:


> Troy, I ran against you at Hennepin. You have a really fine dog there!
> 
> Dave & Mick


Thanks Dave. It was great meeting you and running against you that weekend. Hopefully we'll cross paths more next year. If you're interested in sending a Raven pup my way I'd be more than happy to receive one


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

FOM said:


> If you have a female that is a carrier, you can still get a puppy by breeding to a clear male and then hope and pray you can sell the rest of the puppies, but when you own the stud dog, it is rare if someone who owns a clear female will want to use your stud dog.
> 
> FOM


Eh, guess it depends on the person. I know of several breedings that were from clear bitches to carrier males. All depends on what somebody wants I guess. If my bitch proves her worth, I'll breed her to a carrier male. I'm a huge fan of the dog & I am nowhere near the only one. Sadly enough, he hasn't had his share of quality breedings. I do know he has one coming up to a proven bitch though.


----------



## Laura McCaw (Jul 28, 2010)

Rainmaker said:


> And THIS would be the reason some people don't buy carriers, they simply don't understand simple genetics. A carrier is a normal dog, at least in regards to EIC or CNM, they can't just drop over dead from either one. They don't go on to develop either condition. They are just carriers of the gene and if bred to clears, cannot produce affecteds. THAT is the reason we have genetic testing. Likening it to hip dysplasia is ridiculous, you cannot predict 100% good hips from even excellent parents because all we have is a screening tool with OFA or PennHip, NOT a genetic test. You can still get hip dysplasia from OFA certified parents, you can have dysplasia show up even on an excellent dog, down the road. What you can't do, according to the science, is get an EIC or CNM affected dog from a clear parent. There is a huge difference between a screening process like OFA and a genetic test like EIC, CNM or PRA.


Great post Kim! Very well explained.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

yes. Kim!!!!!!!!!!
Fantastic post.
Let's all hope someday there will be a blood test as well for hips and elbows.
Sue


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Steve, unfortunately ignorance is not bliss.I have no problem with owning a carrier.Work just as well,live just as long as a clear.I just wish there was testing 10 years ago.I have a 9 1/2 year old BLF that is EIC affected,by test and having gone down several times.She has Maxx as gr grand sire on both sides with 2 HOF grand parents.

Jeff G


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Eh, guess it depends on the person. I know of several breedings that were from clear bitches to carrier males. All depends on what somebody wants I guess. If my bitch proves her worth, I'll breed her to a carrier male. I'm a huge fan of the dog & I am nowhere near the only one. Sadly enough, he hasn't had his share of quality breedings. I do know he has one coming up to a proven bitch though.



I said it is RARE, it does happen, but not often. Since I own male dogs, clear status becomes important to me because I would like a puppy from my boys some day if they prove to be worthy. Right now I can't get a decent breeding on the one male that I think has something to offer because he is a carrier! I have no problem using a carrier dog, but the reality is others do...now if I had a female I wouldn't care two flips if she was a carrier other than knowing if I did breed her I would still face the uphill battle like Steve trying to place them, especially the boys.

The reality is what it is...carrier status has a stigma, it's just like a Fair rating with OFA's - the dog passed hips, but the stigma is there...

FOM


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

GSP's have the same issues with two diseases, Cone Degeneration and Lupoid Dermatosis. Both inherited the very same as EIC. Some of the most well know field bred dogs were carriers of LD, but for years no one knew how to test for it. In the case of CD it was more show lines. In both cases there was mud slinging galore. Some avoided the lines entirely, some ignored the problem saying it was not there, and some bred anyway with affected individuals occaisionally cropping up. It took some dedicated people and lots of money/time/research for them to isolate the gene(s). Personally I feel like we are LUCKY that both were isolated because one of the best known, best producing field dogs was an LD carrier. How different would our breed be if they had not been able to reproduce at all. THAT SAID the reason I so value the testing is that we can now breed, make the choices that we feel are bettering the breed, and in a few short generations we can be rid of those diseases entirely. 1...2...3... Testing... carrier... and out. We don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

A good friend of mine has had issues in the past with this when breeding his bitch. The litters have had AWESOME pedigree's. It seems the first breeding buyers were all in a knot over clear puppies. This last and final breeding nobody has cared. I was thinking the whoopla had died down.

Angie


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

It truly depends on one's market as well as one's willingness to educate. I have carrier bitches and I've bred clear bitches to carrier studs if it is what I want. My market is primarily hunter/companion owners who don't give two flips about breeding. Some HT, a couple FT homes, but like most, those performance homes are hard to come by. It's exciting when one's breeding is winning ribbons, also exciting to get updates on a great duck opener or first pheasant hunt or just hanging at the lake with the family. It's all good as long as the dog is loved and living well. So I don't have a problem breeding or selling EIC carriers (knock on wood), nor do I typically test/discount a litter based upon carrier status, though once in a while I will test for a particular reason. Of my 6 dogs currently training, all females under 3, sired by AFC Roux, FC AFC Pirate, FC AFC Rough, NAFC FC Grady, FC AFC Mad Max and one MH/QAA sired, 3 are EIC carrier, 2 clear and 1 unknown. There's just so much more to look at in a Lab than a gene that can be bred around. I sweat hips, elbows, eyes, nose, marking, drive, vocalness, trainability, temperament, looks. I don't sweat EIC or CNM.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

kzunell said:


> Well one thing you have to be aware of is that just because you breed a carrier to a clear doesn't mean you are actually breeding to a clear. My friend has a dog that has a CNM clear certificate from a US testing center and a CNM carrier status from France.


 


This is why I went with the source and sent my test to France. It is my understanding that they are the ones that discovered the gene and developed the test. I hear the US people that do the test are cheaper and I'm sure a lot less hassle to get done but I have also heard of people getting false negatives like this. I will go the extra mile and pay the extra bucks to have something done right.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Should Lottie or Lean Mac not have been bred? I would take a pup out of either one regardless of carrier status.
Take Grady for example. He is an awesome competitor and is producing well also. It would be a shame not to breed to him if he was a carrier, *which he is not.* Just didnt want someone to mis read that.
If I like a breeding I dont care about carrier status. Just drives me nuts when peoples perception of things makes something bad when its not.
Kinda like the stock market. It is all pure speculation but boy can it put things in a tail spin.


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs (Jul 28, 2010)

Steve Shaver said:


> Should Lottie or Lean Mac not have been bred? I would take a pup out of either one regardless of carrier status.
> Take Grady for example. He is an awesome competitor and is producing well also. It would be a shame not to breed to him if he was a carrier, *which he is not.* Just didnt want someone to mis read that.
> If I like a breeding I dont care about carrier status. Just drives me nuts when peoples perception of things makes something bad when its not.
> Kinda like the stock market. It is all pure speculation but boy can it put things in a tail spin.


I think the thing to keep in mind as a couple have noted earlier, they would breed to a GREAT carrier, but with black dogs there are a lot of good dogs so a genetically clean good dog is going to get more breedings then a carrier good dog.

I have nothing against carriers as it can be bred around, but like a couple people noted a Black carrier unless they are a GREAT one will get less breedings than a clean black dog.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> A good friend of mine has had issues in the past with this when breeding his bitch. The litters have had AWESOME pedigree's. It seems the first breeding buyers were all in a knot over clear puppies. This last and final breeding nobody has cared. *I was thinking the whoopla had died down*.


There are always enough ignorant people to perpetuate that carriers are going to drop dead or something-what is much more worrisome are those that are still breeding affecteds and won't test and people continue to buy from them because they may save a couple of bucks. Wait until some of the new DNA tests come out and people really paint themselves into a corner looking for all clear and breeding mediocre dogs who no one would think of breeding to unless they were clear. Talk about ruining the breed. A CNM or EIC carrier might then look real good.
Breeding to a field champion carrier today regards.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> And THIS would be the reason some people don't buy carriers, they simply don't understand simple genetics. A carrier is a normal dog, at least in regards to EIC or CNM, they can't just drop over dead from either one. They don't go on to develop either condition. They are just carriers of the gene and if bred to clears, cannot produce affecteds. THAT is the reason we have genetic testing. Likening it to hip dysplasia is ridiculous, you cannot predict 100% good hips from even excellent parents because all we have is a screening tool with OFA or PennHip, NOT a genetic test. You can still get hip dysplasia from OFA certified parents, you can have dysplasia show up even on an excellent dog, down the road. What you can't do, according to the science, is get an EIC or CNM affected dog from a clear parent. There is a huge difference between a screening process like OFA and a genetic test like EIC, CNM or PRA.



Amen! This, exactly!


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Duckquilizer said:


> Well, from my point of view as a buyer and spending my hard earned money. I try to find a dog that will have to best chances of making a long healthy life. It would almost be like ignoring bad hips in the history. The dog maybe a world beater........................ until(maybe) the poor guy falls over dead. Who the heck wants to increase the chances/odds of that??? Just breed this mess out like you would any other genetic flaw.


Two of my dogs just finished reading this quote. After careful consideration they requested that I post this message for them as neither can type:

*Good God man! Please do some research before posting!* 

signed:
AFC Roux MH (carrier and consistent sire of some damn good pups) and 
FC Piper (affected, 2 time national qualifier, and in her last 3 trials: Open win, 3rd and 4th)


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

FOM said:


> The reality is what it is...carrier status has a stigma, it's just like a Fair rating with OFA's - the dog passed hips, but the stigma is there...
> 
> FOM


different stigma, apples to oranges

if that's the way the market is if ever I have a field champion bitch and decide to breed her the clears will cost more not the carriers less


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

Bayou Magic said:


> Two of my dogs just finished reading this quote. After careful consideration they requested that I post this message for them as neither can type:
> 
> *Good God man! Please do some research before posting!*
> 
> ...


*Frank please text me and warn me next time you are going to post!!! I spit diet Mountain Dew on my Computer screen!!!

Here is my feelings........If I am buying a pup from a FC x non-titled it needs to be clear, unless I know both dogs then I would take a carrier. FC x FC or AFC I take a carrier any day. If I am buying a started dog carrier does not scare me in the slightest because that dog has shown characteristics that makes me want to buy them. A carrier is more expensive to breed as they take more tests when the pups are born. All of my males are clear and have thrown good offspring. Being clear does not make them perform better or worse on the weekends for sure!!

Got my popcorn ready regards!!

Aaron*


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2011)

Aaron Homburg said:


> *If I am buying a pup from a FC x non-titled it needs to be clear*


Why is that?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Look at how all the responsible breeding has done to eliminate bad hips. Thank god we finally got rid of that...

/Paul


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

The majority of pups that are being purchased are going to hunting or hunt test homes. The problem with the buyers of these pups is that their first thought is, I would like to breed my puppy, male or female that I am buying. And if I get a junior or a senior title on it is definitely worthy of being bred. Wrong

When you get to the FT buyers and the upper echelon of the hunt testers, their first thought is I want a dog that can compete and if that dog shows me that it has the talent and is competitive then I may possibly breed it. Most of this group I believe are practical enough to realize that even an NFC x NFC pup may not necessarily make it. Unfortunately this group by numbers is the minority.

Now I will agree the case for a male and a female are slightly different. 

Females – Simply put there are not enough Quality bitches out there that are being bred (they are mostly being competed and people don’t want to skip a national or a trial or test season to breed them). If you are lucky enough to have one of these quality females they should be bred regardless of their carrier status. That is how the breed is improved. You can’t just cast quality females out of the breeding pool simply because they are carriers.

Males –Firstly you probably need one male to every 50 to 100 females in the breeding pool. And each litter produces roughly one male to each female. So to start you have a surplus of males that will never be bred regardless of their carrier status. Second you have to get your FC, no easy feat, and then third you have to be a producer. FC males that are clear are relatively a dime a dozen. Next problem not all FC’s are consistent producers and thus suitable for breeding. Look at the classifieds and count the number of males that are being consistently bred. It is probably no more than 10 with a heavy influence on the stud du jour. So if when you are buying a puppy and your first thought is that it will likely be the next Lean Mac and you will make all this money out of the stud fees, then I have a piece of property on a star in the galaxy that I can sell you. Fact is the likelihood of your ever breeding your male pup is actually slim to none anyway, so the need for a clear pup is irrelevant anyway. Admittedly if it is a carrier the chances of it ever being bred go from that slim to none, to definitely none.

Go out there and get yourself a quality dog that you feel might be able to compete and forget about this it must be clear nonsense. Its carrier status has zero relationship to its performance ability, and its performance and pedigree are what make it suitable for the breeding pool.

What our dogs can do compared to what they did 10 or 20 years ago is a testament to our breeding practices. The carrier status has had no bearing on those accomplishments.

Mark


----------



## Jiggy (Apr 14, 2003)

I bought a couple pups out of VERY quality breedings last year because they were carriers and no one else wanted them it seems. I couldn't believe THAT is what people passed on when everything else about the pups were outstanding.

Although it is apples to oranges...I had to spay my young dog because she failed her CERF. I was upset about it at the time and bemoaned the fact I wouldn't be able to breed her down the road. My much wiser husband asked me the question "do you want a field champion or a brood bitch"?

Everyone has different priorities and I don't begrudge people their choices, but just because a dog is clear of everything under the sun doesn't mean the dog is worth breeding.

I've never had a problem selling carriers out of my EIC Carrier bitch...most people didn't care.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Well I appreciate the uneducated assault from the breeders, but I do have a simple understanding of the genetic markers. All I was saying was, why not try to breed it out if possible. One of the main points of picking a certain pairing is to improve your breeding and get a better pup. I DID NOT say the pup was going to fall dead. I'm guessing that there are probably very few dogs that have ever actually collapsed or died from EIC. Only that a guy who only owns one or two dogs, may want to give himself the best odds that he has control over. Lord knows, there is pleanty enough things you can't. Some people still think Fords are better than Chevys....


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> different stigma, apples to oranges
> 
> if that's the way the market is if ever I have a field champion bitch and decide to breed her the clears will cost more not the carriers less


Sort of apple to oranges.....but my point being that both dogs are perfectly healthy, but because there is a stigma associated with a fair rating and carrier status some people people refuse to use these dogs as studs. Yes there are a handful who don't let either of those test results influence their other criteria for choosing a stud dog, but the majority do.

I've talked to bitch owners until I'm blue in the face about carrier status vs. affected vs. clear - it is simpler for me to stick with clear puppies. I also know just cause the pup is clear doesn't mean it will be worth breeding, but if I ever get to that point I want to have the option available without the headache of beating my head against the wall with a carrier stud.

I looked for a clear quality bitch (there are plenty out there) and then looked at the sire (there are plenty of quality clear studs out there) and choose pedigree, performance results, physical soundness (hips, elbows, history of ACL surgeries, eyes) followed by genetic soundness (EIC/CNM) then add in temperament and looks...its all a gamble anyway. I'm glad I only buy a puppy every so often. 

FOM


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

Duckquilizer said:


> Well I appreciate the uneducated assault from the breeders, but I do have a simple understanding of the genetic markers. All I was saying was, why not try to breed it out if possible. One of the main points of picking a certain pairing is to improve your breeding and get a better pup. I DID NOT say the pup was going to fall dead. I'm guessing that there are probably very few dogs that have ever actually collapsed or died from EIC. Only that a guy who only owns one or two dogs, may want to give himself the best odds that he has control over. Lord knows, there is pleanty enough things you can't. Some people still think Fords are better than Chevys....


 
Once again you are implying that if the dog is a carrier of EIC then it is at a disadvantage compared to a clear dog....there is no disadvantage unless you decide to breed then one must be responsible. 

PS: Regretting that I bought that chocolate dog that's an EIC carrier, amatuer trained to HRCH at 21 months, HRC Grand Pass at 28 Months, MH title at 34 months. Probably pushing too hard


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

And before anyone notices, I do know the difference between carrier and affected. All I am saying is that, I want to give myself more options. Take a look at the 2 paths I can go down: Lowly small time guy, with clear dog that makes master if I'm lucky or lowly small time guy, with EIC carrier dog that makes MH(lucky once again). Clear dog says I get to breed to either...Affected dog says I get to breed to a smaller pool of clear dogs, because why? I ain't real good at them there genetical computations, but my math skills ain't real bad.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Dang you beat me to it...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

FOM said:


> Sort of apple to oranges.....but my point being that both dogs are perfectly healthy, but because there is a stigma associated with a fair rating and carrier status some people people refuse to use these dogs as studs.


apples to oranges, OFA Fair are statistically proven to be more likely to produce an affected (dysplastic) while carriers of an autosomal recessive gene will never produce affected offspring if bred to a non-carrier.


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

EdA said:


> apples to oranges, OFA Fair are statistically proven to be more likely to produce an affected (dysplastic) while carriers of an autosomal recessive gene will never produce affected offspring if bred to a non-carrier.


EIC = 1 gene, high heritability, no error in detection (short of reading a PCR test incorrectly). It's an on or off switch.

OFA = Quantitative 10's - 100's of genes, lots of error in detection. You are dealing with means and variances here when comparing classes of animals

Truly Apples and Oranges.

FWIW: At work we are sending in DNA samples of new corn inbreds, there will be 1250 markers/sample. What would you do with 1250 markers in a dog. It seems like the dog world is perplexed with 2 or 3 simple tests for mendelian genes. It is completely reasonable that carrier females could be super ovulated, genotyped and selected before fertilization. It just takes enough money.


Thank goodness for dominance, we would all be dead without it.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Well I appreciate the uneducated assault from the breeders, but I do have a simple understanding of the genetic markers. All I was saying was, *why not try to breed it out if possible.*


This has been discussed ad nauseum on here. Every couple of months someone comes up and decides the brilliant answer is breed it out. Do some further research on that.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I for one will only buy pups from clear-clear ,crear-clear breedings

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I for one will only buy pups from clear-clear ,crear-clear breedings
> 
> john


How often do you purchase puppies?

How many more do you anticipate purchasing in your life?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Bayou Magic said:


> Two of my dogs just finished reading this quote. After careful consideration they requested that I post this message for them as neither can type:
> 
> *Good God man! Please do some research before posting!*
> 
> ...


Amen Frank and I would take a puppy out of either. If they were mine I sure would breed them..

Angie


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Once our dogs are the only clear dogs left...we will rule the world. Oooooooooohahahaaaaaa!


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Duckquilizer said:


> One our dogs are the only clear dogs left...we will rule the world. Oooooooooohahahaaaaaa!


Yeah, that's going to happen any time soon, considering how many byb don't do any health clearances. EIC & CNM are never going to be eradicated from Labs for that reason alone, nor are many willing to throw out nice carriers in favor of inferior "clears" solely because they are clear of a particular gene. But that's okay, those making carriers cheap just afford some bargains to those of us with a broader perspective. Loving my bargain basement NAFC Grady pup, EIC carrier & all. :razz: And thinking when the next genetic test comes out and some of those "clear" dogs suddenly come up carrier with something else, well, we'll see.


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

I have to strongly agree with Steve and with the frustrations of breeding a carrier. We do not breed that often but when we do, all dogs must be at least good or excellent in hips and be EIC and CNM clear in labs and also prcd PRA clear in goldens. We have two reasons for this. One is the reasons that Steve has stated. The other reason actually being the more important reason is once a puppy leaves here, we lose all control over what that pups destination and experience in life will be. We could sell an carrier to someone who swore they would carefully breed, then down the road that dog could be sold again and again and bred to whomever. Dilution of information will most certainly occur in this type of scenario. We do not want to be ultimately responsible for mistakes of ignorance along the way. A good example is we had a pup from one of our breedings washed out of field trial and decided to sell her. On the advice of the trainer, we agreed to sell her to a particular individual who then promptly bred her before she was even 2 years old. They said they were going to keep her in training and possibly enter her in some hunt tests. I was extremely disappointed but it was out of my hands. This is the part about breeding that bothers me so I try to keep as many negative aspects out of the equation as I can. I am just stating my preferences and they only apply to me. I do not judge what others do with regard to carriers. I see no problem breeding carriers as long as one can handle the problems encountered and have a clear feeling about the possible later offspring of these carrier pups. I just happen not to want to have to deal with that. Besides we do not have any highly sought after FC's or AFC's so why add to the possible carrier population. 

Arleen


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> How often do you purchase puppies?
> 
> How many more do you anticipate purchasing in your life?



I just bought one 8 months ago . How many more depends on how long I live

Not breeding carriers would be just a little bump in the performance in the field road. In a few generations it would be as if it never happened.

john


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Troopers Mom said:


> I have to strongly agree with Steve and with the frustrations of breeding a carrier. We do not breed that often but when we do, all dogs must be at least good or excellent in hips and be EIC and CNM clear in labs and also prcd PRA clear in goldens. We have two reasons for this. One is the reasons that Steve has stated. The other reason actually being the more important reason is once a puppy leaves here, we lose all control over what that pups destination and experience in life will be. We could sell an carrier to someone who swore they would carefully breed, then down the road that dog could be sold again and again and bred to whomever. Dilution of information will most certainly occur in this type of scenario. We do not want to be ultimately responsible for mistakes of ignorance along the way. A good example is we had a pup from one of our breedings washed out of field trial and decided to sell her. On the advice of the trainer, we agreed to sell her to a particular individual who then promptly bred her before she was even 2 years old. They said they were going to keep her in training and possibly enter her in some hunt tests. I was extremely disappointed but it was out of my hands. This is the part about breeding that bothers me so I try to keep as many negative aspects out of the equation as I can. I am just stating my preferences and they only apply to me. I do not judge what others do with regard to carriers. I see no problem breeding carriers as long as one can handle the problems encountered and have a clear feeling about the possible later offspring of these carrier pups. I just happen not to want to have to deal with that. Besides we do not have any highly sought after FC's or AFC's so why add to the possible carrier population.
> 
> Arleen


Two words, Arleen, Limited Registration. Yep, breeding could still happen but pups won't be registered with AKC and if one is selling to that type of crowd, well, one has more problems than just possibly having affected grandoffspring down the road. If it is an already registered dog, spay/neuter or sell without registration until such requirements are met. Not perfect, but there are some tools for breeders to use if they want to curtail their pups being bred.


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs (Jul 28, 2010)

Rainmaker said:


> Two words, Arleen, Limited Registration. Yep, breeding could still happen but pups won't be registered with AKC and if one is selling to that type of crowd, well, one has more problems than just possibly having affected grandoffspring down the road. If it is an already registered dog, spay/neuter or sell without registration until such requirements are met. Not perfect, but there are some tools for breeders to use if they want to curtail their pups being bred.


Exactly...Many people now are selling with limited registration, and I would bet any breeder would lift that status with proof of clearances and training. Just another idea?


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

It's been said before, but this way nobody has to look it up...

The problem with "breeding it out'" is the very real possibility that somewhere in the future we will learn that some of the dogs that were EIC, CNM clear carried some other terrible problem. 

It shows up and there is no test for it. Many of the carriers of the previous problem (eic and cnm) didn't have the new unheard of problem, but they're gone, weren't bred. 

They all have something lurking underneath, be careful what you think you are eliminating...


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Bally's Gun Dogs said:


> Exactly...Many people now are selling with limited registration, and I would bet any breeder would lift that status with proof of clearances and training. Just another idea?


It can be a handy litmus test, discussing Limited Reg with buyers.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Kim, you almost got me.... I've just pulled up to train with a Grady pup she is already amazing! And wait for it........ CLEAR!


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Duckquilizer said:


> Kim, you almost got me.... I've just pulled up to train with a Grady pup she is already amazing! And wait for it........ CLEAR!


I've had two EIC clear Grady pups as well. Awfully nice dogs. But the EIC gene has nothing to do with that either way. Of course you and anyone else can make your choices based on carrier or clear status, that's fine, no different than choosing a color because you like it. But one final time, EIC or CNM or PRA for that matter, carrier doesn't mean unhealthy or less of a dog than clear. That is my only real point to you, based upon your first post on this thread, that dogs were going to keel over dead or some such foolishness, because they were carriers. Enjoy your dog regardless, that should be the ultimate factor.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

john fallon said:


> I just bought one 8 months ago . How many more depends on how long I live
> *
> Not breeding carriers would be just a little bump in the performance in the field road. In a few generations it would be as if it never happened.
> *
> john


How did you come to that conclusion?


----------



## Illini Coot Killr (Feb 21, 2011)

"Sadly enough, he hasn't had his share of quality breedings."

Me either. I must be a carrier,


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> How did you come to that conclusion?


The depth of the field Labs gene pool and the ratio of nature v nurture in a dogs success............

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> How did you come to that conclusion?


Jacob, in your time here you should have learned that Mr. Fallon is an expert about almost everything!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Jacob, in your time here you should have learned that Mr. Fallon is an expert about almost everything!


Read my signature line below........


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

I own a CNM Carrier.
When I weigh my experiences over the last 9 yrs vs lost stud fees, well, there is no comparison.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

john fallon said:


> The depth of the field Labs gene pool and the ratio of nature v nurture in a dogs success............
> 
> john


So, let's say twenty years from now, we'll have five times the number of genetic tests available now for other issues. At some point in time, there will be no such thing as a genetically "clear" dog (actually, there's probably no such thing now, with as yet unknown issues). What then? The more the gene pool narrows, the greater the likelihood of that happening even sooner.

Tests allow us to be responsible breeders. To throw out an otherwise exceptional individual because of one carrier gene, that if bred responsibly will *never* produce a pup affected with that issue, is harmful to the breed as a whole.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

I do wonder something. Has anyone here witnessed a collapse?


----------



## Terri (May 28, 2008)

Duckquilizer said:


> I do wonder something. Has anyone here witnessed a collapse?


I can say with certainty that I have never seen a EIC carrier collapse.

Hope that helps,
Terri


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs (Jul 28, 2010)

Duckquilizer said:


> I do wonder something. Has anyone here witnessed a collapse?


Yes, and it is something that I would prefer not to see again. Affected dogs can be symptomatic or never show a symptom. If you learn what triggers the collapse you can avoid the majority of the collapses. It is just one of those things where you feel helpless.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I've seen one...a Boykin.


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> Tests allow us to be responsible breeders. To throw out an otherwise exceptional individual because of one carrier gene, that if bred responsibly will *never* produce a pup affected with that issue, is harmful to the breed as a whole.


100% correct.



.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> So, let's say twenty years from now, we'll have five times the number of genetic tests available now for other issues. At some point in time, there will be no such thing as a genetically "clear" dog (actually, there's probably no such thing now, with as yet unknown issues). What then? The more the gene pool narrows, the greater the likelihood of that happening even sooner.
> 
> Tests allow us to be responsible breeders. To throw out an otherwise exceptional individual because of one carrier gene, that if bred responsibly will *never* produce a pup affected with that issue, is harmful to the breed as a whole.


Let's worry about today..........
The _popular sire syndrome is the cause of the gene pools narrowing *now* _http://www.bichonhealth.org/HealthInfo/PopularSir.asp
You see, a more varied base causes genitic health, not the other way around.

john


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

EdA said:


> Jacob, in your time here you should have learned that Mr. Fallon is an expert about almost everything!


Yes sir. You're correct. Sometimes I feel obligated to be enlightened by our very own Nostradamus. I can't fathom the possibility of him keeping all the answers to life in his head.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Terri said:


> I can say with certainty that I have never seen a EIC carrier collapse.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Terri


LOL, where is that darned "like" button on this forum.


----------



## Janet Kimbrough (Aug 14, 2003)

Duckquilizer said:


> I do wonder something. Has anyone here witnessed a collapse?


Yes I have witnessed a collapse of a very talented dog and it is not something I want to see!

What I am trying to understand is in all of your posts you keep making statements about AFFECTED dogs not carriers. A carrier bred to a clear CANNOT PRODUCE AN AFFECTED.

I did not hesitate to purchase a pup that was an EIC carrier for several reasons. #1 was the breeding was too good to pass up and #2 breeding is not my number one priority when choosing a puppy. So for me to have a carrier was no big deal because he is perfectly healthy and will be his entire life. If he ends up being the dog I hope him to be and all his other health clearances are good, I would not hesitate breeding him to a clear female because I would know that none of his pups would ever be affected and "collapse."

Janet


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

I guess that was my fault...I'm sure you haven't. Carriers don't collapse. I figured the "experts would make that a given. Ok, I'll play. Who has witnessed an "EIC Affected" dog(K-9) suffer from an episode related to being an EIC affected dog?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Yes sir. You're correct. *Sometimes I feel obligated to be enlightened *by our very own Nostradamus. I can't fathom the possibility of him keeping all the answers to life in his head.


Glad to be of service, but by all appearances you should still ask some more questions

john


----------



## fishnfetch (Jul 30, 2011)

i was going to chime in earlier but had nothing to really add that hasnt already been added. i own a 7 year old BLF out of my mh/qaa bitch and a west coast fc/afc. she is affected. she went down saturday on the opening day of pheasant season after chasing a running bird for a hundred yards or so through the woods. its not the first time she has collapsed and im sure it wont be the last. in the early season when its warm it happens more than id like. she is hands down the hardest working upland dog ive ever owned and most of the folks i hunt with have ever hunted with. 52lbs of pheasant hunting machine. on top of it all she is also the sweetest, happiest, friendliest, easy to train dog ive ever owned. 7 years ago nobody knew what it was. we thought it was something orthopedic. every time it happens i think about retiring her and if this collapse could be the last. i will tell you this, it may change your opinion of breeding to carriers or "breeding around" it if you had to deal with it on a regular basis like i do. then again, maybe it wouldnt. who knows?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Let's worry about today..........
> The _popular sire syndrome is the cause of the gene pools narrowing *now* _http://www.bichonhealth.org/HealthInfo/PopularSir.asp
> You see, a more varied base causes genitic health, not the other way around.
> 
> john



The point of being a responsible breeder is to breed for the future. To only look at today is incredibly short-sighted and irresponsible.

I'm assuming that since "popular sire syndrome" is your definition of the potential problem that your dogs are all from obscure and unpopular pedigrees?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

jksboxofchocolates said:


> Yes I have witnessed a collapse of a very talented dog and it is not something I want to see!
> 
> What I am trying to understand is in all of your posts you keep making statements about AFFECTED dogs not carriers. A carrier bred to a clear CANNOT PRODUCE AN AFFECTED.
> 
> ...


Ever noticed how many bloodlines are Lean Mac? Its almost hard to find one that is not. (This is purely an analogy, not knocking Mac's obvious greatness) At some point, if ignored, the EIC carrier may have an increasingly hard time finding a clear. Then you will be only able to breed carrier to carrier. Maybe most of us will be dead and gone by then, so who cares right?


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

One of these days we're just going to breed the "retrieve" right out of retriever.

BTW my carrier picks up all my ducks just fine. I really don't give a rat's behind if anyone wants to breed to him or not. Thier loss.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

fishnfetch said:


> i will tell you this, it may change your opinion of breeding to carriers or "breeding around" it if you had to deal with it on a regular basis like i do. then again, maybe it wouldnt. who knows?


I'm very sorry you're dealing with this with your dog. I have a good friend whose dog is affected, and I've seen the dog go down. It is tragic and hard to watch.

My program will never produce an affected puppy. Now that the EIC test is available, there is no reason for another affected dog to ever be born, if people breed responsibly....and that means not breeding carrier to carrier, or breeding affected dogs. Breeding carrier to clear means they cannot produce an affected puppy....and that allows us to keep some very good dogs and the many positive traits they carry, without worrying about producing affected dogs. That is breeding around it.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> The point of being a responsible breeder is to breed for the future. *To only look at today is incredibly short-sighted and irresponsible.*I'm assuming that since "popular sire syndrome" is your definition of the potential problem that your dogs are all from obscure and unpopular pedigrees?


To obsess about the future and some yet to be discovered problems while paying lip service to today's known ones is what ????????

john


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

i witnessed an affected dog become symptomatic of eic in a rice field. it was a serious situation in ankle deep water. if it had been in swimming water it certainly could have been deadly serious. no tests back when this happened.

i bought a pup from a fairly nice breeding last year. in my position i had a choice between one clear and one carrier female. because of distance i had no opportunity to spend any time with the litter. i told the breeder that if there was a discernable difference in the two puppies, i wanted the "best puppy". i trusted the breeder's evaluation and recomendation. i also told him that, all else being equal i would take the clear. he sent the clear(how much is truely discernable at eight weeks?) 

i am pleased that my bitch is clear. if however that carrier littermate becomes an elite all age competitor and mine..................will i possibly wish i had a carrier?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

john fallon said:


> To obsess about the future and some yet to be discovered problems while paying lip service to today's known ones is what ????????
> 
> john


Being concerned with the breed's future is not obsessing. Obsessing is a witch hunt wherein all carriers are eliminated from the gene pool. And paying lip service would be saying carriers should be eliminated while having dogs of that pedigree in one's program.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Well...on a high note. You won't have to try to figure out which pups are clear or carrier if you do end up breeding. I would think that no matter which side if the EIC fence your on, the buyer would want/need to know for thier future. I'm sure the testing adds cost to your breeding.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Duckquilizer said:


> I do wonder something. Has anyone here witnessed a collapse?


Unfortunately, I have had first hand experience of an *affected* dog having an EIC collapse. I hope never to have to experience that again.

A sweetheart of a young dog was here for waterfowl training as her owner is a guide. After her collapse, her owner agreed to have her tested for EIC. When the result was Affected, I sent her home as I did not want the liability of her collapsing while doing a water retrieve. I stressed the seriousness of her condition and pleaded with the owner to not use her as a guide dog in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. He did keep his promise to not use her in the Bay, but did use her on local ponds in his area. My heart broke when he called me to tell me that she had drowned in one of the ponds before he could get to her.

Since this collapse was with an affected dog and even though the whole experience was heartbreaking, it would not stop me from purchasing a pup that was a carrier. Would I prefer a clear pup? Sure, but if the breeding was one that I really wanted, I would purchase a carrier pup.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Duckquilizer said:


> Who has witnessed an "EIC Affected" dog(K-9) suffer from an episode related to being an EIC affected dog?


I witnessed the collapse and death of an affected. We also had another related dog collapse and die.This was during the development of the test. The second dog was able to be tested post mortem by U of M but before the test was available to the public.


----------



## tankerlab (Feb 26, 2008)

Duckquilizer said:


> Well, from my point of view as a buyer and spending my hard earned money. I try to find a dog that will have to best chances of making a long healthy life. It would almost be like ignoring bad hips in the history. The dog maybe a world beater........................ until(maybe) the poor guy falls over dead. Who the heck wants to increase the chances/odds of that??? Just breed this mess out like you would any other genetic flaw.


Research what "Carrier" means... You have the wrong impression. Carrier does not have what ever it is carring... it just has the ability to pass it on if breed with another carrier.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Keep reading...I corrected my terminology. That is where Istarted the most trouble. Well really Steve did it...I just helped.


----------



## caryalsobrook (Mar 22, 2010)

I have read this thread with interest. So many have reached a conclusion based on EIC.

I wonder how many are aware of the findings of the Diagnostic Lab of the Univ. of Minn. They have found that 4% of EIC carriers exhibit the same symptoms as those of an EIC affected dog. Furthermore, they have found that 5% of EIC CLEAR dogs eshibit the same symptoms as those of an EIC affected dog. Given that these sttistics are essentially the same for both carrier and clear dogs, they attribute these symptomes as either misdiagnosed or due to something other than the recessive gene.

Regardless of the actual reason for these symptoms in both Carrier and clear dogs, the fact remains that based on current knowledge, it is impossible to eliminate the symptoms through selective breeding. If you are a breeder and breed clear to clear, I would be extremely careful before I would guarantee that as a result, none of the puppies would exhibit the symptoms of an EIC affected dog. 

Like many things, answers are not always so simple.


----------



## tankerlab (Feb 26, 2008)

Duckquilizer said:


> And before anyone notices, I do know the difference between carrier and affected. All I am saying is that, I want to give myself more options. Take a look at the 2 paths I can go down: Lowly small time guy, with clear dog that makes master if I'm lucky or lowly small time guy, with EIC carrier dog that makes MH(lucky once again). Clear dog says I get to breed to either...Affected dog says I get to breed to a smaller pool of clear dogs, because why? I ain't real good at them there genetical computations, but my math skills ain't real bad.


I think you should quit while you are behind.... You keep posting things that make no sense. " Affected dog says I get to breed to a smaller pool?" Yea NONE! with affected... You still do not understand... A carrier dog does not have the desease... It just is able to pass it on if breed to another carrier or affected dog. You should not breed any affected dogs.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Great. Now you ruined a good Adam and Eve discussion.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Ok how is this? I want a dog that is clear. It affords me a larger pool of possible pairings. I can go clear to clear or clear to carrier. If I get a carrier, my only option as a breeder is clear. I get it and have...I appologize for mis-stepping by using the affected word. It was not what I meant obviously. And I dont have to add the costs of tests.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I think all you breeders are being very nice to test your pups and identify carriers, I don't know that this is a requirement. I think Breeders are obligated to breed sound pups, and must test parent for EIC, CNM status, and a health guarantee; however I do not necessarily think that testing puppies is a requirement. If you ensure that parents will not breed any affected offspring, and with this carrier stigmata being a determent to a lot of quality breedings, It might be better to not offer it. I don't like the idea of coupling puppies into categories based on a single gene, puppies that may in fact be much more talented but are passed over for inferior siblings just because of this status. I know that I had to do the testing on my own dog, as a owner if I choose to breed, I expect to do my own testing. I had a 50-50, but after my pup came home and began to preform I couldn't give a rats A$$ for what her status was. On the other hand, I know a couple people who have supposedly clear-clear by parentage dogs, who have had puppies come back carriers, and they were just glad they did their own testing. I doubt that when I choose to breed; if I choose to breed to a carrier or clear, that I will do the testing for the prospective owners, if this costs me client so be it. I would hope that my buyers would be a lot more interested in what the pups can do and what their parents bring to the table rather than a single gene.


----------



## tankerlab (Feb 26, 2008)

Duckquilizer said:


> Ok how is this? I want a dog that is clear. It affords me a larger pool of possible pairings. I can go clear to clear or clear to carrier. If I get a carrier, my only option as a breeder is clear. I get it and have...I appologize for mis-stepping by using the affected word. It was not what I meant obviously. And I dont have to add the costs of tests.


Now ya got it!


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

The *only *time I EIC test a litter is when I am saving something specifically for *ME* and I just happen to have two or more pups that would *fit the bill* and need to pick from them. If they are all carriers, no problem! I know how to deal with it. If all clears, GREAT! Just reach in a grab one or continue running on both or maybe even three for a couple more weeks to see if one stands out from the rest....If one is clear and the rest carriers, then I will choose the clear. Since I generally only hold back females, I only test the females in the litter, and again....ONLY those that really peak my interest and only if there is more then one doing so! 
I do this *AFTER *CERF testing the entire litter. A blind dog cannot perform the job for which it was intended/bred for. A genetic carrier CAN and so holds a lower priority for me. I steer people towards specific pups based on type and temperament of the person and the pup, and then give the person the packet of info containing the CERF papers to be sent in, and if applicable, the results of any EIC testing. I do not sell pups as breeding stock, so I do not feel the need to test each and every pup for EIC status since I know that I do not produce Affected pups. I guarantee all pups against collapse from EIC, for CNM, and in tested litters, PRA, RD/OSD (all younger dogs being tested for those before breeding). I warranty against Hip and elbow dysplasia, and CERF for eyes for 26 months. Vaccinated at 6 wks, wormed x 3, and microchipped. 
I feel (my opinion) that I have done enough in providing a pup , to the buyer, that is able to fill the need of the buyer whether it is a hunt test competitor, hunting companion, or couch potato, is healthy, and well socialized, yet at an economical price for them and without bankrupting me. I also explain what a carrier is vs affected vs clear, and give them all website information on the diseases/conditions so that they can educate themselves. 
EVERYTHING else in life is a crap shoot and some responsibility should be on the new owners hands, including getting clearances for hips, elbows, eyes, and EIC, CNM, PRA, etc..etc.. before breeding if they so choose. 
I just bought an EIC carrier pup from a great breeding. I knew going in that she was a carrier. Had a chance at buying a clear, but I wanted the most "obnoxious", get into everything, escape artist, nose to the ground exploring little demon of the bunch. I told them that carrier status and color meant nothing to me. Guess what, I got the best one of the bunch according to everyone that seen the litter. She is a little pistol, loves leaping into water and swimming for the joy of it. LOVES her pigeons (I can't catch them in the big cage so I let her fetch one for me), and in a couple of weeks we will be going for our first CERF test on her eyes since it is needed. IF it comes back all good, she will be heading to Louisiana with Dan Heard for the winter (damn lucky dogs!) for training for a possible FT career. If she doesn't pass her CERF, she will be spayed, and remain my 7 yr olds dog to help train and run in some HRC hunt tests. I will chalk it up as my kind of luck, and my responsibility as a dog owner to not breed her with bad eyes. 
So, long story short.....I think that many puppy buyers are expecting too much of the breeder in regard to GUARANTEES. Do your best, test your breeding dogs, place the pups in the appropriate temperament/type homes, and let the new owners except the responsibility of testing their own breeding dogs. 
P.S. I also sell my pups on Limited registration with AKC and as co-owner with signature needed on UKC registration until testing is done/passed and color copies of certificates are sent to me, then I change to Full registration at my expense. I do this so that more buyers actually comply with getting the testing done with OFA so that I can evaluate my breeding program since I cannot test the pups before they leave!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

caryalsobrook said:


> I have read this thread with interest. So many have reached a conclusion based on EIC.
> 
> I wonder how many are aware of the findings of the Diagnostic Lab of the Univ. of Minn. They have found that 4% of EIC carriers exhibit the same symptoms as those of an EIC affected dog. Furthermore, they have found that 5% of EIC CLEAR dogs eshibit the same symptoms as those of an EIC affected dog. Given that these sttistics are essentially the same for both carrier and clear dogs, they attribute these symptomes as either misdiagnosed or due to something other than the recessive gene.
> 
> .


I am aware that they found 5 carriers that have gone down. 4%-5% is a huge number of individuals. Hopefully Katie Minor will come on and address it.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> I am aware that they found 5 carriers that have gone down. 4%-5% is a huge number of individuals. Hopefully Katie Minor will come on and address it.


I wonder what percent of affected dogs go down?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

I hope it isn't 1% or we've wasted some of our precious life.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

tankerlab said:


> I think you should quit while you are behind.... You keep posting things that make no sense. " Affected dog says I get to breed to a smaller pool?" Yea NONE! with affected... You still do not understand... A carrier dog does not have the desease... It just is able to pass it on if breed to another carrier or affected dog. *You should not breed any affected dogs.*


Eh, I disagree. I sure am glad people with incredibly talented dogs disagree as well.


----------



## tankerlab (Feb 26, 2008)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Eh, I disagree. I sure am glad people with incredibly talented dogs disagree as well.


Didn't mean quit with the dog! I meant quit posting on this topic untill researched...


----------



## Squirm88 (Oct 30, 2008)

Steve Shaver said:


> Why would you not buy a pup that was either an EIC or CNM carrier? If you had a deposit on a pup from a litter and had your choice between a clear or a carrier and the carrier went nuts for a clipped wing pigeon and the clear pups was afraid of it which pup would you choose?
> A lot of the best dogs of all times were carriers. Carrier status has nothing to do with the dog or it's abilities. Hmmm wait a minute maybe it does, as I said a lot of the best dogs of all times were or are carriers.
> I bought my female being well aware that she was a CNM carrier and I couldnt be happier. She has an awesome pedigree and is a very talented girl. Now she has a litter and these pups are awesome but all I hear is I want a clear pup. I do have a few people that dont mind and have 5 of the 7 sold but could have sold 15 if they were all clear.
> I have gone to a lot of expense to have this litter (approx $4000) because I seriously believe in this particular breeding only to have people get out their holy water, wooden stakes or silver bullets when they hear the word carrier. *The CNM testing alone has cost over $500 between the actuall test and the vet bill for positive id and micro chips.* I did this because it is the right thing to do and the puppy buyers need to be informed of the carrier status but it bugs me to have the carriers frowned upon.


Did I read correctly that you paid $500 for a CNM test?

The test is $55 from Alfort in France. Did your vet charge you $445 to do a cheek swab and scan a chip? Most vets just charge an office visit fee or nothing at all for something so simple.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Bet there was more than one pup in the litter.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

tankerlab said:


> Didn't mean quit with the dog! I meant quit posting on this topic untill researched...


No disrespect, but you may want to take your own advice. The goal is to NOT PRODUCE affected puppies. If you breed and affected dog to a clear dog 100% of those puppies will be CARRIERS not AFFECTED.


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Squirm88 said:


> Did I read correctly that you paid $500 for a CNM test?
> 
> The test is $55 from Alfort in France. Did your vet charge you $445 to do a cheek swab and scan a chip? Most vets just charge an office visit fee or nothing at all for something so simple.


I've had two dogs tested from the place in France. One was $60 and the last one was $67. They were several years apart. This last one was pd in 2009.

Arleen


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Squirm88 said:


> Did I read correctly that you paid $500 for a CNM test?
> 
> The test is $55 from Alfort in France. Did your vet charge you $445 to do a cheek swab and scan a chip? Most vets just charge an office visit fee or nothing at all for something so simple.


 



$300 for the test plus $210 for micro chips = $510. They wont test the litter without positive ID. Alfort charges a max of $300 when doing multiple dogs or a littler of pups which is what mine was. Vet charged me nothing to do the swabs and it took way more of his time than to insert the chips. He charged $30 per chip.
Also would like to mention that this thread has developed into an EIC conversation. People seem to be way more concerned about that than CNM. Just wondering why is that?


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

I will say that there has been some interesting conversations in this thread.


----------



## Dogtrainer4God (Oct 10, 2006)

Steve Shaver said:


> People seem to be way more concerned about that than CNM. Just wondering why is that?


I will probably get hammered for this, but in looking at the half million dogs that are CNM tested and how few of them actually came back as carriers, my current feeling is that CNM is overrated, it only shows up in a certain pool of dogs, and is not the widespread and rampant affliction that it initially was made to sound like. Yes, it is a bad thing and you don't want it - but how many of us have ever SEEN it happen? How many even have carriers? Even just a couple years after the test has come out, being CNM clear is almost a given in looking for stud dogs. 

I'm not saying that having a test for CNM is a bad thing, it is a GREAT thing! Why do you think I tested my dogs for it? Just is not as big a deal as we were made to think initially.

My 2cents;-)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Dogtrainer4God said:


> I will probably get hammered for this, but in looking at the half million dogs that are CNM tested and how few of them actually came back as carriers, my current feeling is that CNM is overrated, it only shows up in a certain pool of dogs, and is not the widespread and rampant affliction that it initially was made to sound like. Yes, it is a bad thing and you don't want it - but how many of us have ever SEEN it happen? How many even have carriers? Even just a couple years after the test has come out, being CNM clear is almost a given in looking for stud dogs.
> 
> I'm not saying that having a test for CNM is a bad thing, it is a GREAT thing! Why do you think I tested my dogs for it? Just is not as big a deal as we were made to think initially.
> 
> My 2cents;-)


That's because it WAS a big deal 10-20 years old. Many studs were carriers. Knowlegible Breeders knew who the CNM carriers were because it was evident from the offspring so we bred accordingly. The stud owners did test breedings. When the test came out people pretty much bred using the test as a tool and kept clear offspring and THAT's why it doesn't seem like a big deal. This is what people don't get about EIC. The test is there as a tool for breeding and many breeders are only keeping clears already 3 years from the first public testing. For some reason a whole bunch of people are emotional about EIC. One reason is because the people that bought CNM affected pups knew there was a problem early on and the EIC affected pups people have invested more time and money in them. This too shall pass and be "no big deal" except for those that don't test. Like I said before, wait until the acl DNA test comes out, and the test is going to be here soon. That's going to shake things up a lot, especially the FC/AFC studs that everyone is flocking to that are clear, what if they are producing offspring with a genetic tendency toward ccl injuries. Which would you want to invest money in? Then EIC carriers will look pretty good.


----------



## Deb Z (Mar 18, 2008)

So here is another question for people who are breeding nice litters with multiple titled sires and dams.....

If it is more difficult to place puppies that are carriers, is this affecting your consideration for puppy placement?

And please don't throw me under a bus, I am only asking from a potential buyer prospective and for information for any future puppies that I buy. Carrier status doesn't matter to me as I do not breed, and if people are having trouble placing well bred puppies because of carrier status that is just one more reason that I do not want to breed dogs and have puppies.

But, what I see with some litters is the preference given to active FT homes. Now, before anyone starts with a lashing...I understand this. IF I bred dogs I would want to give an opportunity to showcase the combination of great lines and the ability to perform if I had those homes available that had the time, resources (land/water) etc, and the money to give the puppy every opportunity to excel.

So even though I see lines that I like (as someday I would love to have lines similar to the first dog I ever purchased), I tend not to call on or inquire about these litters since I know that I will never be a FT (however working on HT/Obedience/Agility) home and there must certainly be a list a mile long for these pups from proven producers. 

But if it seems to be harder to place carriers, is it changing the consideration list for placements that you have? Do you consider and commit to the person quicker that is willing to purchase a carrier pup as opposed to putting them on a wait and see list if you have buyers that can provide more FT resources for the puppy? 

Again, I am only asking to see if this has changed, and it might then affect who I contact in the future if I see the lines that orginally stole my heart.....

Thanks for an interesting thread....

Deb


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

For those looking for a Stud dog for a clear bitch.....There are plenty of outstanding studs out there that are clear!

john


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> Like I said before, wait until the acl DNA test comes out, and the test is going to be here soon.


Are you sure about this? Do you know this for a fact?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

john fallon said:


> For those looking for a Stud dog for a clear bitch.....There are plenty of outstanding studs out there that are clear!
> 
> john




AMEN!!! Solves the entire discussion.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

labguy said:


> Are you sure about this? Do you know this for a fact?


Yes, I know it for a fact. The dna is known-the test will follow. Obviously it will probably take as long as the EIC did from the time the genes were known with testing of dogs etc.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I have a CNM carrier female whose daughter I kept is also a carrier--descended from Storm's Riptide Star. I kept a male out of the same female from her first litter and he is CNM clear (as well as all the other stuff). I have had no problem placing pups. My pups go into companion hunting homes or hunt test homes on limited reg. 

If someone is interested in eventually breeding, I will change limited to full after the dog has had OFA, CERF and CNM test, as well as a JH. Hasn't been a stumbling block for me.

Meredith


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> Yes, I know it for a fact. The dna is known-the test will follow. Obviously it will probably take as long as the EIC did from the time the genes were known with testing of dogs etc.


Someday, no dog will be suitable for breeding...


----------



## ZEKESMAN (Mar 22, 2008)

Steve on a side note, I will take one of those evil carrier pups, at a greatly reduced rate of course.;-) But really I do not breed dogs. I leave that to much braver individuals than me. I don't care if pups are carriers or not. Vic


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Yes, I know it for a fact. The dna is known-the test will follow. Obviously it will probably take as long as the EIC did from the time the genes were known with testing of dogs etc.


Is someone now saying that a torn ACL is a disease rather than an injury, or are they saying that the injury is to a disease weakened ligament predisposed to such an injury ,and that there is a genetic marker identifying this predisposition?

john


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Is someone now saying that a torn ACL is a disease rather than an injury, or are they saying that the injury is to a disease weakened ligament predisposed to such an injury ,and that there is a genetic marker identifying this predisposition?
> 
> john


Google research at University of Wisconsin Veterinary Medicine. They are have researchers studying it from several angles, the inflammatory arthritis and gene mapping. They have been taking blood from dogs above the age of 8 without acl problems for awhile.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Re; the CCL study, there is/was one at the U of MN as well. 

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47852


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

It is sometimes said that you buy the breeding not the puppy. 
Would ou rather buy a pup that you can Not breed to 40% of the other labs or would you rather buy a pup that you could breed to any other lab? 
Would you rather have to pay to test the litter or to know the litter is clear?
People that want clear only pups will buy clear pups.
People that don't care will buy either a clear or a carrier. (Actually I shouldn't say that someone out there might want a Carrier only and would never buy a clear).


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Is someone now saying that a torn ACL is a disease rather than an injury, or are they saying that the injury is to a disease weakened ligament predisposed to such an injury ,and that there is a genetic marker identifying this predisposition?
> 
> john



I spoke with a Well known Doc about this very thing. The conclusion was that some traits are hereditary and that this issue is not a disease but a structural issue. Some dogs because of size, shape and mechanical components may be more prone to this injury.


----------



## Buck Mann (Apr 16, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Is someone now saying that a torn ACL is a disease rather than an injury, or are they saying that the injury is to a disease weakened ligament predisposed to such an injury ,and that there is a genetic marker identifying this predisposition?
> 
> john


I was talking to the orthopedic surgeon that operated on my dog last year. He said that a lot of the recent data is suggesting that CCL tears in dogs are the result an inflammatory disease involving the ligament and only rarely the direct result of an injury. Also that is is probably not the result of a structural problem in the knee.

Buck


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Steve Amrein said:


> I spoke with a Well known Doc about this very thing. The conclusion was that some traits are hereditary and that this issue is not a disease but a structural issue. Some dogs because of size, shape and mechanical components may be more prone to this injury.


That could be very likely but many ACL problems are from accidents that would affect any dog regardless of size, bone structure, etc. We have had two dogs have ACL repairs. One was an 85 lb black lab male out of Chavez who was owned by a family whose 12 year old son stupidly threw a bumper off a 12 foot drop. Fortunately only the ACL needed repair. They wouldn't do it so we took the dog and had it done after he hobbled around on it for months. Sheesh! The other was a little 55 lb golden retriever on a dead run for a retrieve and stepped in a gopher hole. 

I think when someone starts putting up red flags about ACL genetic problems, many people are going to shy away from dogs that are perfectly sound, but that an unusual incident has caused their injury. Now we are beginning to get like all the people in the early 50's who were building bomb shelters out of fear.

Arleen


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Now we are beginning to get like all the people in the early 50's who were building bomb shelters out of fear.


I think the research is meant to clarify the traumatic injuries from the inherited inflammatory problems. People have fear because they don't choose to understand that we can't eliminate carriers because some other gross genetic defect will be brought to the surface. By eliminating individuals from the breeding population, you have a chance of a disease that was a low incidence gene becoming a higher incidence gene-they just can't grasp it so they are afraid. When we have DNA tests for tricuspid dysplasia, epilepsy, possibly hip and elbow problems, the list goes on it will become very difficult to breed and we will have to weigh the risk of breeding.


----------



## mlopez (Jul 22, 2011)

kzunell said:


> It is sometimes said that you buy the breeding not the puppy.
> Would ou rather buy a pup that you can Not breed to 40% of the other labs or would you rather buy a pup that you could breed to any other lab?
> Would you rather have to pay to test the litter or to know the litter is clear?
> People that want clear only pups will buy clear pups.
> People that don't care will buy either a clear or a carrier. (Actually I shouldn't say that someone out there might want a Carrier only and would never buy a clear).


I guess the question really comes down to "do you want to breed?" Otherwise, why would it matter? I'm interested in how many people buy a pup with the intention of breeding. The majority? I don't think I will ever buy a pup with breeding in the future being in my head. Now if I go on and the dog proves to me that he/she should be bred, I would test and go from there. And if the dog was a carrier, well, all the more reason you should know you have a GREAT dog before breeding it. To the OP: are you just getting this reaction from "breeders?"


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

I was talking with my training partners when one of them said something very profound. I haven't heard anyone describe it like this, makes TOTAL sense! When we are breeding eic/ cnm carriers there is no difference between that and the color gene, for explanation purposes. You all want to match certain color genes when breeding, well why is cnm/eic any different? I notice some good stud dogs in my circuit not being bred because there a cnm/eic carrier. I see the gene pool being diluted without these studs. Just match them up like you would color genes, I don't see any difference?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

I've never heard of brown causing a collapse due to a genetic flaw....dumbness maybe.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

All things equal, yes, clear would be better. But, all things usually are not equal.

Last breeding was to a carrier. I could list all the criteria that went into that decision.
It would be a significant list. 
Carrier status was far down on that list, as the Mom was clear.

Trying to produce quality dogs is more complicated than just.....clearances


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

john fallon said:


> For those looking for a Stud dog for a clear bitch.....There are plenty of outstanding studs out there that are clear!
> 
> john


No thanks. When the known results are underwhelming, I think I'll try something that makes a lil more sense.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> All things equal, yes, clear would be better. But, all things usually are not equal.
> 
> Last breeding was to a carrier. I could list all the criteria that went into that decision.
> *It would be a significant list.
> ...


If carrier status were included with the other health clearences,
What would be your top 5 ?

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> No thanks. When the known results are underwhelming, *I think I'll try something that makes a lil more sense*.


Like what ?

john


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Troopers Mom said:


> That could be very likely but many ACL problems are from accidents that would affect any dog regardless of size, bone structure, etc. We have had two dogs have ACL repairs. One was an 85 lb black lab male out of Chavez who was owned by a family whose 12 year old son stupidly threw a bumper off a 12 foot drop. Fortunately only the ACL needed repair. They wouldn't do it so we took the dog and had it done after he hobbled around on it for months. Sheesh! The other was a little 55 lb golden retriever on a dead run for a retrieve and stepped in a gopher hole.
> 
> I think when someone starts putting up red flags about ACL genetic problems, many people are going to shy away from dogs that are perfectly sound, but that an unusual incident has caused their injury. Now we are beginning to get like all the people in the early 50's who were building bomb shelters out of fear.
> 
> Arleen


Obviously dogs can and do suffer injuries in the course of their normal work. Just like any athlete can. My understanding is the testing being talked about, and the links provided, are looking for genetic markers that may/do show a predisposition to ccl injuries. Accidents will always be a part of playing the games but it would be nice to know if the odds are stacked against you from the start via testing.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

champ said:


> I was talking with my training partners when one of them said something very profound. I haven't heard anyone describe it like this, makes TOTAL sense! When we are breeding eic/ cnm carriers there is no difference between that and the color gene, for explanation purposes. You all want to match certain color genes when breeding, well why is cnm/eic any different? I notice some good stud dogs in my circuit not being bred because there a cnm/eic carrier. I see the gene pool being diluted without these studs. Just match them up like you would color genes, I don't see any difference?


Interesting analogy, but it's really not the same thing, since colors aren't severe health concerns. Let's say a person only wants to breed black dogs. Are they going to eliminate all black dogs that are yellow and/or chocolate factored? Let's hope not.  I don't know of anyone breeding for quality performance dogs that would refuse to breed a black female to a black male that was also yellow factored just because of that one particular gene.


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Rick_C said:


> Obviously dogs can and do suffer injuries in the course of their normal work. Just like any athlete can. My understanding is the testing being talked about, and the links provided, are looking for genetic markers that may/do show a predisposition to ccl injuries. Accidents will always be a part of playing the games but it would be nice to know if the odds are stacked against you from the start via testing.


I fully agree with you but you have to understand that when people are investing money into hopefully getting a sound competitive dog and they realize that just the purchase of that dog is the smallest investment in the long run compared to all the training, entry fees, and any other unknown expense that would come up, they are going to note any form of injury and not necessarily take the added time to discover why that happened or even be able to find that information. They will simply go on to a more perfect specimen in their eyes. Many people don't have the expertise to even understand all of this or how to obtain the correct information when purchasing a pup or started dog. Also many "fire breathers" are going to be more prone to accidents regardless of what their genetic bone structure may be. I firmly believe in testing for obvious frailties and genetic dispositions but we can carry this all too far which would narrow the gene pool even more. Eliminating carriers from the gene pool would not necessarily lower the gene pool as dramatically because a certain percentage of their siblings will test clear, thus prolonging that line of genes to continue. 

Arleen


----------



## Vic Batton (Dec 15, 2008)

Jacob, talking to you about possible studs to Lacy (FC-AFC Dare to Dream X FC-AFC Tigers Goodness Gracious) is out of the question. No matter what she does on the field trial circuit. Shes a carrier.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Troopers Mom said:


> ... I firmly believe in testing for obvious frailties and genetric dispositions but we can carry this all too far which would narrow the gene pool even more. Eliminating carriers from the gene pool would not necessarily lower the gene pool as dramatically because a certain percentage of their siblings will test clear, thus prolonging that line of genes to continue.
> 
> Arleen


I agree 100%. Like CNM or EIC testing, this would just provide another tool when researching pairings for a breeding or the purchase of a puppy. I really don't understand peoples willingness to eliminate really good animals from the breeding pool in an effort to "eliminate" certain genes altogether. To me it's like cutting off ones nose to spite their face but, like with anything else, people are free to spend their money however they wish.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Interesting analogy, but it's really not the same thing, since colors aren't severe health concerns. Let's say a person only wants to breed black dogs. Are they going to eliminate all black dogs that are yellow and/or chocolate factored? Let's hope not.  I don't know of anyone breeding for quality performance dogs that would refuse to breed a black female to a black male that was also yellow factored just because of that one particular gene.


There not severe health concerns (color genes) but the analogy is one that explains the situation better for the non breeders. The way it's being explained is detrimental to the breed! This way it's easy for everyone to understand. Your thoughts,


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I have 2 males, one is eic carrier one is cnm carrier. I knew it when I bought them both. Doesn't make a hill of beans to me, no real intentions of breeding and I know exactly what I have just in case. You will never breed it out, too many back yard breeders. Just be responsible if you breed, that is all you can control. This whole argument is helpless.


----------



## mlopez (Jul 22, 2011)

cakaiser said:


> Trying to produce quality dogs is more complicated than just.....clearances


YES!!! Thank you for this.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

champ said:


> There not severe health concerns (color genes) but the analogy is one that explains the situation better for the non breeders.* The way it's being explained is detrimental to the breed! *This way it's easy for everyone to understand. Your thoughts,


What??? You explain why simple genetics is "detrimental to the breed". If a person can't understand simple genetics, they shouldn't be breeding. It's not rocket science, isn't Biology still a required subject for graduation from high school?


----------



## awolfe (Mar 2, 2011)

For reference, my son is currently studying the "box" to used to determine percentages, and common genetic theories like dominant genes, recessive genes and hybrid, plus how basic genetics "works." 

This is in the FIFTH grade (that's grade 5 at the start of the year!). Public school, nothing fancy. 
--Andrea Wolfe


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

AS an owner of a carrier black stud that has been recomended to females by knowledgable people to people that bought the female out of their kennel as a good match for the bloodline and for what you re wanting. Only to have the non-informed bitch owner decide to breed to the untested JH/CPR in their home twon rather then have to test their female (yeah you read that right, two unknowns is better then having to test cause of one known carrier) I have a pretty good idea what Beamer's carrier status has cost in terms of stud service. A dog with good looks, tons of drive, lots of natural ability both retrieving and in the upland with a beautiful point. I can see why people wouldn't knowingly buy a carrier stud if they were planning to campaign him.

For the record, I kept the clear female out of him. Her personality was best for small kids in the house, there was no reason not to keep her, though the two carrier females were spark plugs and I am sure have become nice dogs. The big benifit of having a clear, there are some awfullly nice, under used studs out there that if she proves her merit, we can use when/if I want a pup out of her.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Troopers Mom said:


> I firmly believe in testing for obvious frailties and genetic dispositions but we can carry this all too far which would narrow the gene pool even more.
> 
> 
> Eliminating carriers from the gene pool would not necessarily lower the gene pool as dramatically because a certain percentage of their siblings will test clear, thus prolonging that line of genes to continue.
> ...


Agree with the first part, but disagree with the second. Siblings don't carry the same combination of genes. That would be like saying breeding to the brother of an FC is the same as breeding to the FC. WHILE POSSIBLE the brother carries the good genes as well and is only not FC because of lack of oppritunity, it is ALSO POSSIBLE that he is no where near the natural talent thet the FC brother is. I have seen several instances where littermates have turned out all very nice, but have also seen times where a littermate or two is a dud.

I passed on a puppy out of a littermate to AMMO. The dogs only selling point on paper was she was a littermate to AMMO. And While I knew that several in that litter had turned out very nice, and he claimed she was a hell of a dog, wasn't going to pay the price he was asking just because she was a littermate to AMMO, she could have been the dud in the litter. PROVE YOUR OWN MERITS to PROVE your own genes.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I find it curious that every three months or so, one of the following threads emerges

British v. American Labs
Hunting v. HT v. FT
Golden v. Chessie v. Lab
Breeding of EIC carriers

Does this ever end?


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I find it curious that every three months or so, one of the following threads emerges
> 
> British v. American Labs
> Hunting v. HT v. FT
> ...


No. Sorry.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I find it curious that every three months or so, one of the following threads emerges
> 
> British v. American Labs
> Hunting v. HT v. FT
> ...


You've been here since (at least) 2003. 

I think you already know the answer to that. 

The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round....


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I find it curious that every three months or so, one of the following threads emerges
> 
> British v. American Labs
> Hunting v. HT v. FT
> ...


Yes on the months that the following threads appear 

judges setting up unfair tests

whose the best current stud dog

should I use a pro

should I hunt my pup


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I find it curious that every three months or so, one of the following threads emerges
> 
> British v. American Labs
> Hunting v. HT v. FT
> ...


Can you help me name my dog while I decide if I should switch dog food?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

kjrice said:


> Can you help me name my dog while I decide if I should switch dog food?


To answer your questions: No and No


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

You forgot silver Labs.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Been a while since we had an Amish thread.........


----------



## Brent McDowell (Jul 2, 2008)

The last 8 posts have been the most beneficial yet...too bad I had to read everything else up to this point.


----------



## tankerlab (Feb 26, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> Yes on the months that the following threads appear
> 
> judges setting up unfair tests
> 
> ...


Does every dog need force fetched... Who does not FF?


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

ted, tim, rick, bon, kj, brent and tanker,
in your frustration, you miss the point. the constant recycling process of rtf subject matter is necessary to identify the new "thought leaders" of dog sport. if you read this thread you know who they are!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

New thought leaders?
More like recycled thoughts.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

ok ted, i tried to justify it and you called b.s. on me. what about ol' robert milner anyway?


----------



## drakedogwaterfowl (Mar 27, 2009)

Brent McDowell said:


> The last 8 posts have been the most beneficial yet...too bad I had to read everything else up to this point.


That's why its smart to skip to the end.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Here is the reality of breeding in my opinion.

If you have a male, he better be a "Sire of the Day" to make significant money breeding him. 

If you want pups out of your sire who is not the Sire of the Day, you better raise your own bitch, especially if he is a carrier.

When the CNM and EIC tests came about it shut down popular sires as if they had the plague. 

Lean Mac and a plethora of other sires that make up our dogs today would have been crossed off the list in a minute if they were CNM or EIC carriers. Glad that didn't happen back then.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Yea, I'd much rather hear about someones _stay at home pro _ or _someones pre-national training _or that someones _dog has a hangnail_ and about every 3 years how someone _started a HT club in [email protected]# _

john


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Yes, it is funny to poke at the same old same old threads with the same boring old arguments, but there is also value in them because of the continuous influx of new members who don't know or understand some of the genetic issues like EIC or CNM or PRA. When someone makes a statement that sounds like they think carriers are falling over dead, it bears educating the uninformed that such is not the case. I do think getting the correct information out there regarding harmful genetic conditions is important. For the ones that are bored with a particular subject, just don't open the thread.


----------



## mlopez (Jul 22, 2011)

Rainmaker said:


> Yes, it is funny to poke at the same old same old threads with the same boring old arguments, but there is also value in them because of the continuous influx of new members who don't know or understand some of the genetic issues like EIC or CNM or PRA. When someone makes a statement that sounds like they think carriers are falling over dead, it bears educating the uninformed that such is not the case. I do think getting the correct information out there regarding harmful genetic conditions is important. For the ones that are bored with a particular subject, just don't open the thread.


I agree with you. All this talk of repeat threads makes me scared to ask a question for fear of repeating something! Gosh, if no one repeated, we would probably have no posts by now...


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Rainmaker said:


> Yes, it is funny to poke at the same old same old threads with the same boring old arguments, but there is also value in them because of the continuous influx of new members who don't know or understand some of the genetic issues like EIC or CNM or PRA. When someone makes a statement that sounds like they think carriers are falling over dead, it bears educating the uninformed that such is not the case. I do think getting the correct information out there regarding harmful genetic conditions is important. For the ones that are bored with a particular subject, just don't open the thread.


Rain, I regret not spending more time writing my first statment and being clear without some mistakes. I did understand the difference between carrier and affected. What I ultimately had on my mind was this: If we do not closely watch or try to step toward toning that carrier gene out, by trying to conciencely breed away from it, then it never gets better, only worse. If that latest, greatest breeding just catches your eye and you just have to have it... Or because we have spent 5 or 6 yrs of our time and hard work on a dog, we can't stand the thought of not breeding him/her. In some cases 20 or 25 yrs on breeding the "perfect" line. True that if we had culled those greats as being carriers, well frankly, it would have completly changed our dogs now for the worse. So, were I come to my point, what happens when there are only a few clears or even none. Last time I checked, when we breed, we are trying to add those good genes(natural abilities, etc.) in to the mix that we have established. I'm not saying there could not be a reason to go ahead with the breeding, but used very carefully.


----------



## docG (Mar 9, 2011)

Duckquilizer said:


> Rain, I regret not spending more time writing my first statment and being clear without some mistakes. I did understand the difference between carrier and affected. What I ultimately had on my mind was this: If we do not closely watch or try to step toward toning that carrier gene out, by trying to conciencely breed away from it, then it never gets better, only worse. If that latest, greatest breeding just catches your eye and you just have to have it... Or because we have spent 5 or 6 yrs of our time and hard work on a dog, we can't stand the thought of not breeding him/her. In some cases 20 or 25 yrs on breeding the "perfect" line. True that if we had culled those greats as being carriers, well frankly, it would have completly changed our dogs now for the worse. So, were I come to my point, what happens when there are only a few clears or even none. Last time I checked, when we breed, we are trying to add those good genes(natural abilities, etc.) in to the mix that we have established. I'm not saying there could not be a reason to go ahead with the breeding, but used very carefully.


what??????????


----------



## awolfe (Mar 2, 2011)

Duckquilizer said:


> I regret not spending more time writing my first statment and being clear without some mistakes. I did understand the difference between carrier and affected. What I ultimately had on my mind was this: If we do not closely watch or try to step toward toning that carrier gene out, by trying to conciencely breed away from it, then it never gets better, only worse.
> 
> _Carrier to clear is 50% either way produced ---even, not "worse." _
> 
> ...


Indeed. Basic genetics is no more than 5th grade math. The unknown happens when breeders specifically pinpoint efforts toward one specific gene (in your case, the elimination of such ---"just breed it out" as you stated.) It's a much more complicated issue to understand what other traits may be inadvertently changed, lost, gained, etc. The overall effect is greater reaching than "just breed it out" implies. Don't miss the forest for the trees. 

For buyers who choose a pup by clear, there are pups that are clear. For those who base the choice on other things, clear or carrier may not matter much at all. There have been a few discussions about non-expected and possibly non-proven health occurrances, however for the purpose of carriers in general----shouldn't matter for trials/tests/hunting/family/service/drug/search & rescue/etc one bit unless future breeding is in the cards. (Not at all interested in the "what if my pup becomes a FC/AFC/NAFC blah blah blah...... now we're into ?th grade probability and statistics. For those who have accomplished such things, I am in awe and enamored by your dogs and abilities. For the rest usually discussing the what if's.....zero multiplied by zero is still ____ = reality check. 

A. Wolfe


----------



## docG (Mar 9, 2011)

I am a definite carrier/affected for the a..hole gene. My wife is clear possibly a carrier ( i really like my inlaws and havent seen any signs of a..holeness) My oldest son has been married for a year now and is showing signs of possibly being AFFECTED. His wife shows no a..hole signs but comes from CLEARLY AFFECTED PARENTS. What should I do?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

You missed the tree I was pointing at in the forest....

"Last time I checked, when we breed, we are trying to add to those good genes(natural abilities, etc.) in to the mix that we have established. I'm not saying there could not be a reason to go ahead with the breeding, but used very carefully.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Doc, Your wife should have looked for a different bloodline....lol


----------



## awolfe (Mar 2, 2011)

Duckquilizer said:


> You missed the tree I was pointing at in the forest....
> 
> "Last time I checked, when we breed, we are trying to add to those good genes(natural abilities, etc.) in to the mix that we have established. I'm not saying there could not be a reason to go ahead with the breeding, but used very carefully.


No, I didn't. Careful breeding is of course fine. You're missing the point that if you just get rid of the tree in the front, you are likely to change what's happening behind it. It's not that easy.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> What I ultimately had on my mind was this: If we do not closely watch or try to step toward toning that carrier gene out, by trying to conciencely breed away from it, then it never gets better, only worse. If that latest, greatest breeding just catches your eye and you just have to have it... Or because we have spent 5 or 6 yrs of our time and hard work on a dog, we can't stand the thought of not breeding him/her. In some cases 20 or 25 yrs on breeding the "perfect" line. True that if we had culled those greats as being carriers, well frankly, it would have completly changed our dogs now for the worse. *So, were I come to my point, what happens when there are only a few clears or even none. *


You still don't GET IT. Carriers bred to a clear yield statistically 50% clear. Many breeders are saving the clears and then have a choice to breed to either clear or carrier. In one generation this is true for many breeders. Where is your thinking coming from that there will be no clears? All you are doing is shoving your foot in your mouth and showing your lack of knowledge of simple genetics. I agree with awolfe-simple 5th grade math. 
This pdf from U of M explains the inheritance and read the last paragraph.
Eliminating of the EIC gene may lead to LOSS pf performance characteristics. How much clearer do you need it to be to understand?
http://www.vdl.umn.edu/prod/groups/cvm/@pub/@cvm/@vdl/documents/asset/cvm_asset_107687.pdf


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> You still don't GET IT. Carriers bred to a clear yield statistically 50% clear. Many breeders are saving the clears and then have a choice to breed to either clear or carrier. In one generation this is true for many breeders. Where is your thinking coming from that there will be no clears? All you are doing is shoving your foot in your mouth and showing your lack of knowledge of simple genetics. I agree with awolfe-simple 5th grade math.
> This pdf from U of M explains the inheritance and read the last paragraph.
> Eliminating of the EIC gene may lead to LOSS pf performance characteristics. How much clearer do you need it to be to understand?
> http://www.vdl.umn.edu/prod/groups/cvm/@pub/@cvm/@vdl/documents/asset/cvm_asset_107687.pdf


No, you don't get it. Statistically is NOT fact. I know of a pretty darn good breeding where all but 1 puppy tested "Carrier". Looks kind of like that just threw the whole equation out of balance.


----------



## awolfe (Mar 2, 2011)

Troopers Mom said:


> No, you don't get it. Statistically is NOT fact. I know of a pretty darn good breeding where all but 1 puppy tested "Carrier". Looks kind of like that just threw the whole equation out of balance.


I think I could cuss. PLEASE draw a "GDG" box and put two alleles on each side, one side clear and one side carrier. Within the box you will find half of the offspring are clear, and half carrier. This process is recreated for EACH puppy as an individual. FACT is each puppy has a 50% chance of being clear or carrier regardless. Simple science and math, folks.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Troopers Mom said:


> No, you don't get it. Statistically is NOT fact. I know of a pretty darn good breeding where all but 1 puppy tested "Carrier". Looks kind of like that just threw the whole equation out of balance.


Yes...and the next litter may have nine clear and one carrier. It's called the law of averages. Just like there should be half males and half females in a litter, but it usually doesn't work that way....unless you average out all litters.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Troopers Mom said:


> No, you don't get it. Statistically is NOT fact. I know of a pretty darn good breeding where all but 1 puppy tested "Carrier". Looks kind of like that just threw the whole equation out of balance.


But Arleen, if you look at the stats that Katie Minor provided on EIC litter testing results, you will see, that despite the litters themselves not always being 50/50 carrier/clear, when you total the numbers, the average IS 50/50. Some litters will have more clears than carriers, it does balance out across the breed.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Here ya go, posted by Katie Minor in Feb: 

clear x carrier
1. produced: 2 carriers, 3 clear
2. produced: 2 carriers, 3 clear
3. produced: 3 carriers, 6 clear
4. produced: 2 carriers, 4 clear
5. produced: 6 carriers, 3 clear
6. produced: 2 carriers, 6 clear
7. produced: 2 carriers, 1 clear
8. produced: 2 carriers, 2 clear
9. produced: 2 carriers, 0 clear
10. produced: 1 carriers, 7 clear
11. produced: 3 carriers, 4 clear
12. produced: 3 carriers, 5 clear
13. produced: 4 carriers, 2 clear
14. produced: 4 carriers, 7 clear
15. produced: 2 carriers, 3 clear
16. produced: 5 carriers, 5 clear
17. produced: 5 carriers, 4 clear
18. produced: 4 carriers, 6 clear
19. produced: 3 carriers, 2 clear
20. produced: 4 carriers, 2 clear
21. produced: 3 carriers, 1 clear
22. produced: 7 carriers, 4 clear
23. produced: 3 carriers, 0 clear
24. produced: 2 carriers, 2 clear
25. produced: 2 carriers, 0 clear
26. produced: 1 carriers, 2 clear
27. produced: 2 carriers, 7 clear
28. produced: 2 carriers, 1 clear
29. produced: 6 carriers, 3 clear
30. produced: 2 carriers, 3 clear
And so on for 800+ pups
Total 51% carriers, 49% clear (expected 50-50%)


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Rainmaker said:


> But Arleen, if you look at the stats that Katie Minor provided on EIC litter testing results, you will see, that despite the litters themselves not always being 50/50 carrier/clear, when you total the numbers, the average IS 50/50. Some litters will have more clears than carriers, it does balance out across the breed.


Again, they are just stats. And whose to say that each of those puppies may or may not produce a majority of carriers. Stats do change with the longevity of the data period. Generally speaking, it should be 50-50. But it certainly doesn't have to be. Do we really know enough about the carrier gene to know if in some matchings it becomes the dominant gene over the clear gene. Do we even really know that yet?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Troopers Mom said:


> No, you don't get it. Statistically is NOT fact. I know of a pretty darn good breeding where all but 1 puppy tested "Carrier". Looks kind of like that just threw the whole equation out of balance.


Good grief-and that statement right there shows where the confusion lies. One of the problems is people can only accept black and white statistics. Of course every litter will be different. Take some poker chips, label one side Carrier and the other clear. Now throw them up in the air 100 times and record your findings. Have 100 children and see if you have 50% male and 50% female-so if you have one random child, can you predict the sex? When I took a statistics class I plugged in numbers from breedings and it came very close to 50/50 with a few more females, because slightly more males are defective and do not survive. In this mix I had all male litters and litters with 10 females and 1 male.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2011)

Troopers Mom said:


> Again, they are just stats.


Yes. And for over 800 puppies tested. I'm not sure what "just stats" means? Isn't that all we have to go off of?



> Generally speaking, it should be 50-50. But it certainly doesn't have to be.


Right because it averages out to approximately 50% in the long run, not in each litter.



> Do we really know enough about the carrier gene to know if in some matchings it becomes the dominant gene over the clear gene. Do we even really know that yet?


Now that's a good question. My Pilot is a Carrier for prcd-PRA and the first 8 offspring of hers tested, from different sires, all came back Carriers. What are the chances of that? Finally one tested came back Clear/Normal. But it does make you wonder...


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2011)

ErinsEdge said:


> Have 100 children


Please don't make me...


----------



## awolfe (Mar 2, 2011)

Troopers Mom said:


> Again, they are just stats. And whose to say that each of those puppies may or may not produce a majority of carriers. Stats do change with the longevity of the data period. Generally speaking, it should be 50-50. But it certainly doesn't have to be. Do we really know enough about the carrier gene to know if in some matchings it becomes the dominant gene over the clear gene. Do we even really know that yet?


That doesn't make much sense. I think that's a twisting of genetic principles. 

"Do we really know enough about the carrier gene to know if in some matchings it becomes the dominant gene over the clear gene." Dominant is what is expressed. Genes are a reflection of the topic, whether it be EIC or CNM, not carrier or clear. Just like someone would have a color gene for blue eyes or brown hair. 

----the box!!! the box!!! (To Mr. Bora----now I know how you must feel about a rope) 

--Andrea


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Lets do the math here

An Affected dog is 2 generations away from producing clear-clear pups

A Carrier is 1 generation away from clear-clear pups

No one wants an affected pup, With the test we can ensure that we don't breed affected pups. But there are a few fantastic and very highly titled Affected dogs, (who have been bred many times)and many Fantastic Carriers, (perhaps the majority of high preforming dogs at least in my experience). The test makes it safe to breed Affected and Carriers, which allows great genes and traits to carry on without producing affected dogs. It's a tool. Should we attempt to cut out the gene? Perhaps, but we are not going to lose the test so it's not essential that we do this, and we might lose a lot more if we did. It's only a matter of time before the next EIC or CNM gene pops-up, who's to say those clear-clear aren't more likely to carry or be affected with that? So much more goes into setting up a great breeding, than concern over one single gene.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> Please don't make me...


You're right-some people should not even reproduce. Think of it, 100 Felonys. Where is that bomb shelter?


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Rainmaker said:


> Here ya go, posted by Katie Minor in Feb:
> 
> clear x carrier
> 1. produced: 2 carriers, 3 clear
> ...


That is still showing a greater percentage of carriers being produced. That is 800 pups. I'd like to see what that brings after 8,000 pups or more. Seems to me your statistics would become more skewed in favor of clears only if more carriers were not bred. It also seems to me that the more carriers outnumbering the clears will eventually produce more affected because you are only answering for the well informed professional breeders. Well, there are a whole lot more of the other kind out there, so that would also have to be taken into consideration in your studies. There are just too many variables for me personally to take the chance. I plan to try to tip the scales the other way. As I stated earlier, those are my personal preferences so why try to change my thinking with your arguments.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Troopers Mom said:


> That is still showing a greater percentage of carriers being produced. That is 800 pups. I'd like to see what that brings after 8,000 pups or more. Seems to me your statistics would become more skewed in favor of clears only if more carriers were not bred. It also seems to me that the more carriers outnumbering the clears will eventually produce more affected because you are only answering for the well informed professional breeders. Well, there are a whole lot more of the other kind out there, so that would also have to be taken into consideration in your studies. There are just too many variables for me personally to take the chance. I plan to try to tip the scales the other way. As I stated earlier, those are my personal preferences so why try to change my thinking with your arguments.


I'm not trying to change your thinking, you are free to breed/buy whatever you want, just like anyone else is. All I'm doing is pointing out the science to balance your claims. BTW, did it occur to you that even if you are only breeding/selling clears, whoever buys them can still bred to carrier/affected and produce carriers? Just because you only breed clear, doesn't mean the ones buying from you will continue to do so.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The reality is for the most part this whole thread has to do with marketing, $$$, and not wanting to use limited registration for fear of not being able to sell puppies. Many of us are using the tools of EIC testing and selling on limited registration with NO problems finding buyers. As soon as you put a label on a puppy of a carrier, there is a stigma because people thing something is wrong with the puppy. Human nature, it must be bargain basement, and yet many who don't want a carrier, don't even x-ray for elbows. Everyone can buy and breed the way they want but just don't try and change science to fit the way you think things should be or like those recessives might grow up to be super dominants.


----------



## awolfe (Mar 2, 2011)

Agreed. If you want to delve into statistically significant sample sizes and p-values, we could again possibly be skirting the issue. I thought about posting the science of that, but decided against it to save us all. 

I now understand why a trainer who purchased a pup from the last litter required clear and was more than willing to pay for his own tests to find it. He said clear vs carrier held no merit whatsoever to him or his clientele. But, if he had to _explain_ it to his customers, he was wasting huge amounts of time that he'd rather be spending with the dogs. He doesn't get paid to spend his time explaining science to customers for a pup in which it won't matter. 

Just buy or raise what suits you. 

--Andrea


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs (Jul 28, 2010)

Another factor to note in the 50-50 probability is that each puppy has a 50% chance of being clear and a 50% chance of being a carrier. Or a 50% chance of being male and a 50% chance of being female. It is not that the litter should be 50-50. Each puppy has its own probability.


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs (Jul 28, 2010)

docG said:


> I am a definite carrier/affected for the a..hole gene. My wife is clear possibly a carrier ( i really like my inlaws and havent seen any signs of a..holeness) My oldest son has been married for a year now and is showing signs of possibly being AFFECTED. His wife shows no a..hole signs but comes from CLEARLY AFFECTED PARENTS. What should I do?


Now that is a pretty awesome way to put it!!!


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Clear dogs: no copies of the mutation
bred to a clear dog: 100% of pups clear
bred to a carrier: 50% of pups clear, 50% of pups carriers*
bred to an affected: 100% of pups will be carriers

Carrier dogs: one copy of the mutation
bred to a clear dog: 50% of pups clear, 50% of pups carriers*
bred to a carrier: 25% of pups clear, 50% of pups carriers, 25% of pups affected
bred to an affected: 50% of pups carriers, 50% of pups affected

Affected dogs: two copies of the mutation (breeding is not recommended)
bred to a clear dog: 100% of pups will be carriers
bred to a carrier: 50% of pups carriers, 50% of pups affected
bred to an affected: 100% of pups affected


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Every, repeat every, geneticist connected with canines says that no attempt should be made to eliminate conditions which are simple recessives. Breeders should be aware of the condition and generally should not continue the condition but they should not try to eliminate it. Malamutes and Portugese Water Dogs are two breeds for which the breeders tried to eliminate a condition and the breedings that took place concentrated genes that brought out yet another condition that previously was unheard of in the breed. The problem is, this condition was one, in both breeds, for which there was no genetic test.

The 3rd qtr numbers are out concerning the two conditions in Tollers which are closely monitored, late onset PRA and CEA. The breakdown is as follows...

Tested for PRA - 67
Normal - 33
Carrier - 33
Affected - 1

Tested for CEA/CH - 45
Normal - 27
Carrier - 18
Affected - 0

We are breeding Tollers based on the results of these tests. Note that the number of affected is far below the statistical probablilities of random selection. A carrier has the same eyes that a normal dog has. The gene for the eyes of a carrier will reproduce the condition but this gene can be bred around by knowing about it.

Eric


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2011)

Duckquilizer said:


> Clear dogs: no copies of the mutation
> bred to a clear dog: 100% of pups clear
> *bred to a carrier: 50% of pups clear, 50% of pups carriers*


You are not paying attention, are you?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

A responsible breeder should use the tools available. If there are relevant genetic tests available, the responsible breeder will use them to avoid affected pups, to limit registration, etc. I can also appreciate the desire of pup buyers prefering clear pups, notwithstanding carrier pups are just as healthy. All of the preceding said, ALL dogs are carriers (at least statistically) of approximately 30+ (or more) recessive traits even after we eliminate the known recessive traits (such as CNM, EIC, PRA, etc) through current, existing testing. So don't ever think you are actually getting a "clear" pup, for certain that pup carries a variety of recessive traits.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2011)

Granddaddy said:


> A responsible breeder should use the tools available.


What do those include?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I just wished they would figure out a test to determine if my puppy will be a future NFC or NAFC....

FOM


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

FOM said:


> I just wished they would figure out a test to determine if my puppy will be a future NFC or NAFC....
> 
> FOM


I'll letcha know in 10 years. :twisted:


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

FOM said:


> I just wished they would figure out a test to determine if my puppy will be a future NFC or NAFC....
> 
> FOM


Funny you should mention that. Just for kicks, I made a list of all NFC's and compiled what month they were born in. I got a definitive difference from month to month. I then decided to throw NAFC's into the mix. It changed a little but not significantly. That is only about 90 dogs. Not enough to prove anything. If I ever got the time and wherewithall to add in all FC's and AFC's who knows where that might lead. I just thought if a pattern developed, it might be worth looking into from a breeder's prospective when wanting to up their chances of producing a Champion. Strictly non scientific with variables of course, but not nearly as many variables as in the tests we are currently talking about.

Sorry, I just looked at it and there were 70 NFC's and 54 NAFC's for a total of 124. The two top months remained the same as the NFC's for the combined but the NAFC's changed just a little individually.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Females are known to come in season more certain months than others-you won't be proving much. Why not just use a ouija board, tarot cards, or do the draino test.


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> Females are known to come in season more certain months than others-you won't be proving much. Why not just use a ouija board, tarot cards, or do the draino test.


So therefore your theory would produce more puppies in which months? It would be interesting to see if they match up and yes then rendering my little inquiry quite useless. You first........ ;-)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Troopers Mom said:


> So therefore your theory would produce more puppies in which months? It would be interesting to see if they match up and yes then rendering my little inquiry quite useless. You first........ ;-)


There can be an influence with light so many come in heat February-March, possibly going back to wild animals having pups in the spring; however, many dogs come in heat twice a year so if spring brings them in, then 6 months later they also come in heat so September-October can have more in heat. Some come in only once a year and often come in heat in early spring. Since dogs are domesticated, they can come in any month but I remember a study showing two peaks and of course, birth is 2 months later. There are of course other variables like how many females are housed together and how they often start cycling together, weight, winter seasons.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

steve,

*DID YOU SELL THOSE PUPPIES YET?!!!!!*


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> There can be an influence with light so many come in heat February-March, possibly going back to wild animals having pups in the spring; however, many dogs come in heat twice a year so if spring brings them in, then 6 months later they also come in heat so September-October can have more in heat. Some come in only once a year and often come in heat in early spring. Since dogs are domesticated, they can come in any month but I remember a study showing two peaks and of course, birth is 2 months later. There are of course other variables like how many females are housed together and how they often start cycling together, weight, winter seasons.


Yes, I understand females tend to draw one another into heat but since our females are in and out of here, at trainers part of the time and home some of the time, their cycles are all over the place on the calendar so from personal experience I have had no clue when the majority of females hit their season. However, the silly little study that I did showed it to be a bit different. NFC's were (this is 70 dogs) 15.7% born in March and 14.3% born in July, all the way down to only 2.9% born in November.

NAFC's (54 dogs) February and March were both tied at 14.8% and December came in at 13%. January was 0% and October was 1.9%. 

Combined (124 dogs) March was the highest at 15.3% while July came in at 12.1%. 3 months were tied for lowest at 4.0% which were January, October and November.

Make what you want of this. Nothing scientific but was an interesting study. As I said, it would be interesting to see how it changes when all FC's and AFC's were part of the scenario but that would take way more time and interest than I can afford to make at this Point. 

Thank you for sharing your information though. 

Arleen


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Arleen,

Well that explains why Flash and Bullet aren't NFCs or NAFCs! Flash was born in Oct, bullet in Nov! hahahaha

Thanks for the "excuse" 

FOM


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

FOM said:


> Arleen,
> 
> Well that explains why Flash and Bullet aren't NFCs or NAFCs! Flash was born in Oct, bullet in Nov! hahahaha
> 
> ...


Hahahahahahaha, my Luna was born in February but just barely scraped by, Feb 1st, so we're gold (or shall we say blue?)!!! But damn, my Grady pup is November, might as well dump her now I guess.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Melanie Foster said:


> What do those include?


 
As I said..."...relevant genetic tests available, the responsible breeder will use them to avoid affected pups, to limit registration, etc." to which I would add, screening buyers. Should have added understanding the readily available pedigrees and pedigree analysis tools that can be used as part of the breeding selection process.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Melanie Foster said:


> You are not paying attention, are you?


Oh yes, very well. I see you ignoring the rest of the chart. Anyway...this is an impass. I fold. I do see value in your point and if everyone, at a min, would follow the 50/50 theory we'd be ok. Hopefully, there are enough of us doing clears and clear/carrier to offset the jacklegs that don't care at all. Maybe those guys are the real enemy after all??? :O


----------



## Katie Minor (Sep 19, 2005)

Buzz said:


> I wonder what percent of affected dogs go down?


From our frequently asked questions are discussions of both the clear/carriers with collapse and % of EIC affecteds that do collapse.

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

14. My dog is E/E but to my knowledge has never collapsed.

To date we have identified over 800 dogs as E/E. More than 80% of all E/E dogs that are over age 3 have been observed to collapse. The remaining E/E dogs over age 3, and in particular younger E/E dogs may not yet have been exposed to sufficient conditions to initiate a collapse.

Besides excitement and exercise intensity, other factors affecting the likelihood of an E/E dog collapsing also appear to include the level of stress experienced in training in the different lines, including the use of e-collars and the difficulty of the retrieving event. The E/E dogs most commonly seen to experience EIC episodes also seem to have a very excitable temperament and lots of drive. Click here for more information on factors contributing to collapse.

We consider all E/E dogs genetically susceptible to EIC. However, like any genetic disease, calling EIC a simple autosomal recessive disease is not completely accurate, as it is possible that some E/E dogs may never exhibit signs of EIC.

Thus being E/E does not guarantee that an individual dog will show classic signs of EIC, but dogs with classic signs of EIC are E/E. We understand that this can be confusing, and lead some to hope that there is some other cause for EIC than this DNM1 mutation. Please note however, that we have seen several examples of non-collapsing E/E dogs producing affected offspring.


*Footnote: From our recently published article "Presence and impact of the exercise-induced collapse associated DNM1 mutation in Labrador retrievers and other breeds." The collapse prevalence is >85% in Field Trial labs, closer to 60% in conformation labs. *


15. My dog collapses but is not E/E.

It is important to realize that there are many other potential causes of collapse with exercise, that are not EIC, and these disorders or events are not necessarily caused by genetics or an EIC gene. These other causes include, but are not limited to: heart disease, lung disease, heat stroke, malignant hyperthermia, myasthenia gravis; muscular diseases, including CNM; Addison’s disease, and other neurologic and metabolic diseases.

More information on differentiating EIC from:

Heat Stroke
Malignant Hyperthermia
A Mitochondrial Myopathy
Epilepsy

*Footnote: Most of these dogs have quite different clinical presentation when provided with a long form of our questionnaire.*

16. Can my E/N dog have episodes of EIC?

Our testing to date has identified more than 2,000 dogs with the E/N genotype. Approximately 96% of these dogs have no signs of EIC or any type of collapse, while approximately 4% have been reported to show some signs of collapse or intolerance associated with exercise. The vast majority of these collapses can be attributed to other medical conditions, or their signs are not consistent with the classic signs of EIC that start with wobbliness in the rear legs.

Similarly, approximately 5% of all dogs with the N/N genotype are reported by owners to show some signs of an exercise-associated weakness or collapse. Again, this is likely due to other causes and is not classic EIC. Thus, we feel there is sufficient evidence to state that carriers of the EIC gene are no more likely to show signs of a collapse than are clear dogs, and that any collapse symptoms they do have are very unlikely to be EIC.

In other words, there are many possible reasons as to why a dog can collapse during exercise, and the mutant EIC gene is present at a high frequency in the population. It appears at this time that there is no association between carrier status and EIC.

*Footnote: This is addressing the fitness of carriers vs. clear dogs.*

Katie Minor
University of Minnesota


----------



## Katie Minor (Sep 19, 2005)

Troopers Mom said:


> That is still showing a greater percentage of carriers being produced. That is 800 pups. I'd like to see what that brings after 8,000 pups or more. Seems to me your statistics would become more skewed in favor of clears only if more carriers were not bred. It also seems to me that the more carriers outnumbering the clears will eventually produce more affected because you are only answering for the well informed professional breeders. Well, there are a whole lot more of the other kind out there, so that would also have to be taken into consideration in your studies. There are just too many variables for me personally to take the chance. I plan to try to tip the scales the other way. As I stated earlier, those are my personal preferences so why try to change my thinking with your arguments.


The stats listed above were ONLY from clear x carrier breedings, so we will always expect on a large sample set to see ~50% clear and ~50% carriers being produced. The carrier rate in Labradors as a whole is 35-40%, with more than 10,000 dogs tested. 

I would expect to see a modest drop in the carrier rate as affected dogs are no longer being produced (an therefore bred). I would also suspect that there is a a larger drop with breeders selecting otherwise equal clear pups to go to breeding homes and preferentially selected clear x clear mating occurring.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Katie, you have obviously spend alot of time on this study. I appreciate your hard work in trying to save us from ourselves! Its the biggest sign of respect to the animals. Are you guys building a trend analysis too? I relieze there prob isn't enough time lapse to be accurate.


----------



## Terri (May 28, 2008)

Rainmaker said:


> Hahahahahahaha, my Luna was born in February but just barely scraped by, Feb 1st, so we're gold (or shall we say blue?)!!! But damn, my Grady pup is November, might as well dump her now I guess.


The breeder for my 3 year old had puppies born before midnight and some after midnight so he gave them all the latter day for registration. He made a mistake because he should of picked the start day that would have put the litter in March. By waiting one day he made a bunch of fools. I would not trade my April fools puppy for anything, but some of her siblings might be wishing for their rightful birthday so the stars shine brighter for them. 

My 10 month old puppy was born in December. Now I'm feeling too much pressure to run her in a derby. 


Terri


----------



## jazzypad1 (Jun 7, 2009)

Katie Minor said:


> *Footnote: From our recently published article "Presence and impact of the exercise-induced collapse associated DNM1 mutation in Labrador retrievers and other breeds." The collapse prevalence is >85% in Field Trial labs, closer to 60% in conformation labs. *


Is there any way we can access this article Katie? On "googling" it would seem that it is subscription only.


----------



## Katie Minor (Sep 19, 2005)

jazzypad1 said:


> Is there any way we can access this article Katie? On "googling" it would seem that it is subscription only.


You could try your local library.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

An interesting thing about the square is it doesn't always predict the correct ratio's. 
Globally, there are about 106 boys born for every 100 girls. This is 51.5% boys and 48.5% females The sample size is more than a billion. The US is slightly below the avarage for the world based on births between between 1946 and current. According to the Square with X and X on one side (female) and X and Y (male) on the other side we should have 50% male and 50% female born every year. However it has always been more males than females every year that they have records for. In the US there has been 91,000+ "extra" males every year for more than 60 years or an extra 5.7+ million males born in the US in that time period. 
So even though the the square says that it must be a certain percentage it doesn't always work that way in the real world.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

You are not as smart as you have convinced youself that you are, each puppy has a 50% chance not the litter as a whole. Good lord people, lets don't forget common sense here.


Troopers Mom said:


> No, you don't get it. Statistically is NOT fact. I know of a pretty darn good breeding where all but 1 puppy tested "Carrier". Looks kind of like that just threw the whole equation out of balance.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

claimsadj said:


> You are not as smart as you have convinced youself that you are, each puppy has a 50% chance not the litter as a whole. Good lord people, lets don't forget common sense here.


Amen brother...


----------



## Brent McDowell (Jul 2, 2008)

How long will it be before we have a repro vet who specializes in analyzing and de-selecting specific sperm cells from a sample based on every conceivable 'genetic abnormality'? I truly hope this doesn't give an up-and-coming vet or geneticist any ideas.

Bigger, faster, stronger regards,


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

LOL. Yes I know it is 50-50 per puppy. I probably didn't word it carefully enough for you to understand or bring my statement down to more primary level. If you had had a better attention span you might have remembered my question in a later thread (probably should have been in the same thread for you to correlate the two) I asked if certain pairings with one carrier might produce more carriers than other pairings for some yet undiscovered reason. My question was more about the reason behind some litters have fewer or more than the 50-50 and if there were possibly another reason for it. Gee this is still too confusing for you. Let's just say that we had two female carriers who say had three litters each. One bitch consistently threw predominantly clear puppies with just a few carriers. The other bitch (like Melanie reported about her bitch) threw predominantly carrier puppies. Are you with me so far? I was just asking if there was some possible yet undiscovered reason. Perhaps even subdivisions of the recessive carrier gene. Just threw that out because I have an inquiring mind. 

Oops, I messed up and forgot to quote. This is in answer to claimsadj
Arleen


----------



## Jessica Payne (Mar 19, 2011)

There is nothing wrong with carrier pups. They are not affected and if people stay responsible, there is no reason not to continue breeding. I will have a litter in a few months that will have carrier pups, but that doesn't mean they are bad dogs. I have two bad ass dogs that would produce awesome pups. Breeding carrier pups still carries out great pedigrees, but I do believe in responsible breeding. There is no sense in stopping the breeding of some great dogs just cause they are carriers of either EIC or CNM.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Is this horse dead again yet?


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

It's genetics 101 according to Hoyle!
Blackjack!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jessica Payne said:


> There is nothing wrong with carrier pups. They are not affected and *if people stay responsible*, there is no reason not to continue breeding. I will have a litter in a few months that will have carrier pups, but that doesn't mean they are bad dogs. I have two bad ass dogs that would produce awesome pups. Breeding carrier pups still carries out great pedigrees, but I do believe in responsible breeding. There is no sense in stopping the breeding of some great dogs just cause they are carriers of either EIC or CNM.


Clear to clear requires no Ifs Ands or Buts.................

john


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2011)

john fallon said:


> Clear to clear requires no Ifs Ands or Buts.................
> 
> john


Hey John,

I'm not sure you've ever explained why this topic concerns you?


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Troopers Mom said:


> Yes, I understand females tend to draw one another into heat but since our females are in and out of here, at trainers part of the time and home some of the time, their cycles are all over the place on the calendar so from personal experience I have had no clue when the majority of females hit their season. However, the silly little study that I did showed it to be a bit different. NFC's were (this is 70 dogs) 15.7% born in March and 14.3% born in July, all the way down to only 2.9% born in November.
> 
> NAFC's (54 dogs) February and March were both tied at 14.8% and December came in at 13%. January was 0% and October was 1.9%.
> 
> ...


Well there ya go! Our next NAFC is SCOUT!!!!! I always did like that little old nappy brown dog. Those useless black dogs were born in June and December


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

You are arguing against yourself with some of your ststements. I didn't mis interpret what you wrote. You stated what you presumed to be accurate when it isint. I don't stay on here and read posts all day so I have no clue what you stated in another thread. Educate yourself so you will no longer be making conflicting statements.


Troopers Mom said:


> LOL. Yes I know it is 50-50 per puppy. I probably didn't word it carefully enough for you to understand or bring my statement down to more primary level. If you had had a better attention span you might have remembered my question in a later thread (probably should have been in the same thread for you to correlate the two) I asked if certain pairings with one carrier might produce more carriers than other pairings for some yet undiscovered reason. My question was more about the reason behind some litters have fewer or more than the 50-50 and if there were possibly another reason for it. Gee this is still too confusing for you. Let's just say that we had two female carriers who say had three litters each. One bitch consistently threw predominantly clear puppies with just a few carriers. The other bitch (like Melanie reported about her bitch) threw predominantly carrier puppies. Are you with me so far? I was just asking if there was some possible yet undiscovered reason. Perhaps even subdivisions of the recessive carrier gene. Just threw that out because I have an inquiring mind.
> 
> Oops, I messed up and forgot to quote. This is in answer to claimsadj
> Arleen


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Clear to clear requires no Ifs Ands or Buts.................
> 
> john


 
Then go breed your clear to clear and it does require if ands buts hips elbow and such Butt


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jeff Huntington said:


> Then go breed your clear to clear and it does require if ands buts hips elbow and such Butt


And she is yellow, so maybe I better not breed her to a black dog if I want all yellows

john


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

FOM said:


> I just wished they would figure out a test to determine if my puppy will be a future NFC or NAFC....
> 
> FOM


We have a nice lab out of both parents that have 7 generations of titled dogs and both parent been to multiple nationals. 

We should have named him Forest

He does have quite a impressive record, He won a puppy stake and never trialed again.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

EdA said:


> Is this horse dead again yet?



Evidently not.... But is the horse affected, carrier or clear as its dead?


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

john fallon said:


> And she is yellow, so maybe I better not breed her to a black dog if I want all yellows
> 
> john


 
Oh now we are talking color....well that changes everything


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jeff Huntington said:


> Oh now we are talking color*....well that changes everything:*o


It does ?

As for ECI . is "it", (for whatever reason), less prevalent in EEBB dogs?;-)

john


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

john fallon said:


> It does ?
> 
> As for ECI . is "it", (for whatever reason), less prevalent in EEBB dogs?;-)
> 
> john


 
ECI or EIC assuming EIC, haven't tracked stats by color but considering EEBB (black) has largest population of dogs (denominator) then simple ratios would say that the percentage of EEBB compared to other colors would reflect lower.

But once again to each his own!


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Selection based on the results of just one DNA-based test is like looking at the Grand Canyon through a pinhole.

Lisa


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jeff Huntington said:


> ECI or EIC assuming EIC, haven't tracked stats by color but considering EEBB *(black)* has largest population of dogs (denominator) then simple ratios would say that the percentage of EEBB compared to other colors would reflect lower.
> 
> But once again to each his own!


Is that Black as in EEBB True Black or, Black as in EeBB carrying a gene for yellow, or is it BbEE - Black, carrying a gene for brown, or BbEe - Black, carrying a gene for brown and yellow, or the sum total of them all that would reflect a lower percentage.

Color is a hole 'nother ballgame regards

john


----------



## docG (Mar 9, 2011)

I vote john fallon and jeff huntington, the 2 smartest dog guys ever.
regards, rod gardner


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Where is the like button when you need one?


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

docG said:


> I vote john fallon and jeff huntington, the 2 smartest dog guys ever.
> regards, rod gardner


 
Can't be true.. I have a carrier dog I would like to breed one day


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jeff Huntington said:


> Can't be true.. I have a carrier dog I would like to breed one day


What color ?

john


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

john fallon said:


> What color ?
> 
> john


 
Hang on while I go look up those letter color identifier thingy things again


----------

