# Breeding the dysplastic high performers



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

To continue on the Risky Business Ruby Thread.

When you look at the basics it becomes clear that breeding is a risk-reward relationshhip. Breeding dogs like Corky (known dysplastic) the reward was a top performing dog while the risk was a dysplastic dog. The number of Corky offspring becoming top performers made the rewards worth the risks.

As time progressed breeders became aware that OFA and other tests could reduce the risks of producing dysplastic dogs. However, total removal is not the rule but the generally approved practice. Occasionally a top performing individual is identified that carries a genetic defect. Removing these individuals from the breeding population might have an adverse effect of the overall population.

I advocate testing the breeding population, but not total removal of these animals. Each breeder must measure the risks, but for most there are dogs in the population that don't carry the risks.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> To continue on the Risky Business Ruby Thread.
> 
> When you look at the basics it becomes clear that breeding is a risk-reward relationshhip. Breeding dogs like Corky (known dysplastic) the reward was a top performing dog while the risk was a dysplastic dog. The number of Corky offspring becoming top performers made the rewards worth the risks.
> 
> ...


Just don't plan on advertising that breeding here, no matter how good it is. :wink:


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

We don't at present have an individual pesent that is producing at a level to take the Risk, but if the rewards were so high breeders wouldn't pass the chance. Imagine a stud so great that a large percent became FC's that dog would be in demand regardless of genetic problems.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

But is this practice really good for the overall health of the breed???
Yes, you will see alot of talented dogs produced, but in return, you will also see large numbers of puppies with whatever ailed the dogs that were bred.
The majority of labrador owners do not have the funds for hip/elbow/ccl surgeries. So what happens to these dogs???
Additionally, what if these progeny are bred without regard to their health issues?
I'm not saying that there isn't a certain amount of risk taken with each breeding, but who is responsible when known risks are taken. It just seems unfair to the dogs.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

Richard Halstead said:


> To continue on the Risky Business Ruby Thread.
> 
> When you look at the basics it becomes clear that breeding is a risk-reward relationshhip. Breeding dogs like Corky (known dysplastic) the reward was a top performing dog while the risk was a dysplastic dog. The number of Corky offspring becoming top performers made the rewards worth the risks.
> 
> ...


Nicley put Richard.
Somebody said something like this on a CNM carrier thread last week and was crucified.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

a talented dysplastic dog.......

who really wants to watch such a dog struggle through his/her geriatric years?  

been there;done that; got the tear-stained tee shirt regards......-paul


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Might be interesting to see a list of all the titled dogs(ones that are bred regularly today) that wouldn't be here if those known HD dogs had not been bred back in the day?


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

> The number of Corky offspring becoming top performers made the rewards worth the risks.


Define risk. The only risk I see is a money related and not breed integrity.



> Occasionally a top performing individual is identified that carries a genetic defect. Removing these individuals from the breeding population might have an adverse effect of the overall population.


Adverse? Define adverse. I think there are plenty of other options to carry on desired genetic traits. The "best" dog doesn't mean it went to a working home. Also, it doesn't mean that the "best" dog recieved the best training. So a "high performer" is the one with the best trained performance (yes genetics are invovled)?


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> But is this practice really good for the overall health of the breed???
> Yes, you will see alot of talented dogs produced, but in return, you will also see large numbers of puppies with whatever ailed the dogs that were bred.
> The majority of labrador owners do not have the funds for hip/elbow/ccl surgeries. So what happens to these dogs???
> Additionally, what if these progeny are bred without regard to their health issues?
> I'm not saying that there isn't a certain amount of risk taken with each breeding, but who is responsible when known risks are taken. It just seems unfair to the dogs.


These are not the dogs I am talking about, but the owners of females that just want a litter. I am talking about hypothetical unique performer-producers. I am not aware of any now that are genetically callenged. Besure if an animal of the quality previously mentioned there will be a large demand to breed.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> These are not the dogs I am talking about, but the owners of females that just want a litter.


Do you really believe that? Suppose a very talented stud with some genetic deficiency lived today... Do you really think the owner would be selective in the bitches he chose to breed to???

In 2 generations, those genes could be in the "pet lab" population. It happens all the time.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> In 2 generations, those genes could be in the "pet lab" population. It happens all the time.


Just out of curiousity, is a "good" from a dysplastic parent have a higher chance of throwing HD than a "good" from "good" parents? Is there some research on that because all I've ever seen is in regards to the single generation parentage.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> Breeding dogs like Corky (known dysplastic) the reward was a top performing dog while the risk was a dysplastic dog.


As Cai Trzepacz and Joe Pilar explained to me, it was a different mentality back then about HD. It was believed to be treatable by severing that muscle (I forget the name).

When we talk about Ruby and all the historical dogs we have to keep their era in mind. The game was different. The training was different. The food was different. The ways of thinking were different. About the only thing that stayed the same were the animals themselves. :wink: 

I don't think we need to currently breed dogs with HD no matter how talented they are. I am of the opinion we already have so many great ones to choose from without HD.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I am of the opinion we already have so many great ones to choose from without HD.


I'm not doubting you Kevin, but..... if we have so many great ones to choose between how come the wash out rate is so high?

If I had a displastic bitch who was a national champ and multitime finalist, I'd breed her. I'd hope the washout % on her pups would be less than that for good papered but less accomlished bitches, but you never know.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

Howard N said:


> > I am of the opinion we already have so many great ones to choose from without HD.
> 
> 
> I'm not doubting you Kevin, but..... if we have so many great ones to choose between how come the wash out rate is so high?
> ...


I agree with you Howard.


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

If I owned the National Champion, and knew she was dysplastic, I would not breed her.
Breed to improve the breed!  

Putting out more dysplastic dogs, regardless of talent, is NOT in the best interest of the breed.  

How would you like to explain to a young child why their dog has dysplasia?


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

lablover said:


> If I owned the National Champion, and knew she was dysplastic, I would not breed her.
> Breed to improve the breed!
> 
> Putting out more dysplastic dogs, regardless of talent, is NOT in the best interest of the breed.
> ...


If I thought that a dysplastic bitch dog of mine would produce the next National, then I would let someone decide if they wanted to take that chance or not.
I have neutered my mildly dysplastic male. I did not think he would help the breed.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

pafromga said:


> lablover said:
> 
> 
> > If I owned the National Champion, and knew she was dysplastic, I would not breed her.
> ...


How does a dog with a nice title and dysplastic help the breed? There would be a few other finalists of sound health that didn't win that day. Then you would let someone else make a decision about your dog. You've already made the decision based on your stance.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

kjrice said:


> pafromga said:
> 
> 
> > lablover said:
> ...


I guess the question is what we are trying to get. I was breeding for performance.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

pafromga said:


> kjrice said:
> 
> 
> > pafromga said:
> ...


Correct, but I do not see it as helping the breed rather self-serving.


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

All I have been saying if there was a dog that produced a high % of titled dogs people would still breed to him


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Look at Lottie. From what I understand she was bred only five times, yet she turned out like 22 Field champs. That is phenomenal! However, she was a CNM carrier. 22 out of 40 pups. I think we would have really missed out without her. I know I have a little bitch that is great and she is Lotties great grandaughter.

tt


----------



## okvet (Jun 20, 2006)

Richard Halstead said:


> All I have been saying if there was a dog that produced a high % of titled dogs people would still breed to him


I'm sure there would be plenty of people to breed. 

What I would want to see more than anything is the OFA results of litter mates of the dysplastic dog. If there were several in the litter that were graded to by dysplastic then I would run away from the breeding--no matter how great the dog was and how great his/her siblings were.

This is a lot different than a CNM carrier. These dogs are completely healthy and have no health issues associated with carrying the gene. There are also different grades of dysplasia. I've had dogs grade with mild dysplasia for the only reason of being slightly subluxated but showed no radiographic signs of arthritic/degenerative changes. This is a dog--if very talented--could possibly be included in the gene pool (especially if all the other litter mates OFA'd ok. Whether or not it will pass this on--I don't know.


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Yes Doc, it is different, but there are never the less, people that say we should never breed a CNM carrier either. I used Lottie because she is a prime example where the risks of passing on a genetic problem were outweighed by the benefit. I have seen dysplastic dogs, and it is terribly sad. But the question remains, where are the lines to be drawn? There are many if not most that would never breed to a dog that was OFA Fair. This dog is called "Okay", but is shunned because it wasn't good. What about an OFA poor and an Excellent? Sometimes two excellents throw a dysplastic dog. Is there a nutrition factor? Or is there an environmental factor? Perhaps a gene will be discovered that more clearly shows what dogs will produce pups who are affected by dysplasia. 

tt


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Think about how the dogs would be different today if Lean Mac had bad hips? Considering he's been the top producing sire of National caliber dogs for god only knows how many years now, and not be a little by a landslide. What if.....?


/Paul


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

okvet said:


> Richard Halstead said:
> 
> 
> > All I have been saying if there was a dog that produced a high % of titled dogs people would still breed to him
> ...


I agree. 

Another reason why I Penn hip early. If the pup scores are not good, I would not keep the youngster. 

I shake my head in wonder when owners mention, with dyplastic pups, but but but but their sire and dam scored/graded well. Unfortunately hip/elbow dysplasia is not simple recessive.


----------



## M Remington (Feb 16, 2006)

> Yes Doc, it is different, but there are never the less, people that say we should never breed a CNM carrier either. I used Lottie because she is a prime example where the risks of passing on a genetic problem were outweighed by the benefit. I have seen dysplastic dogs, and it is terribly sad. But the question remains, where are the lines to be drawn? There are many if not most that would never breed to a dog that was OFA Fair. This dog is called "Okay", but is shunned because it wasn't good. What about an OFA poor and an Excellent? Sometimes two excellents throw a dysplastic dog. Is there a nutrition factor? Or is there an environmental factor? Perhaps a gene will be discovered that more clearly shows what dogs will produce pups who are affected by dysplasia.


You're trying to justify a breeding using borderline/inferior parents. There are plenty of outstanding dogs with outstanding clearances. Why risk it? To me justifications equal breeding for profit.


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

I'm not trying to justify anything. I asked a few questions, and tried to provoke discussion. I know what I am doing, you don't need to tell me what I am trying.


----------



## lab-a-holic (Sep 18, 2006)

"If I had a displastic bitch who was a national champ and multitime finalist, I'd breed her. "

Anything for a title eh? What about the puppies who will have pain their entire lives - yes even with surgery? What about the people who purchase these puppies - what about their heartbreak? Is that title really worth all that? I have lived with a little girl for the last 11 years - bilateral OCD both hocks - fragmented coronoid both elbows - it costs about $10,000 per year just to keep her mobile and relatively out of pain. Is that title really worth that? I just don't get it.


----------



## pupaloo (Jan 6, 2006)

Anyone know a person who has arthritis that says "it doesn't hurt?" Dogs do not show pain the same way as people. You can't tell if your dog hurts a little because he can't tell you. By the time a dog is limping, it hurts BAD.

Take a title over a pain free dog? Never. And I feel sorry for the dogs whose owners don't feel that way.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

achiro said:


> Might be interesting to see a list of all the titled dogs(ones that are bred regularly today) that wouldn't be here if those known HD dogs had not been bred back in the day?


Seriously, anyone want to take a crack at this? I wonder how many of you have dogs now that woldn't be around if these dogs had been eliminated from the gene pool? 
To start with, nobidy is saying that the breeder should keep it a secret so those of you that are making it sound unfair to the puppy buyer, just remember, the buyer in this case would go in knowing the chances. 
Lab-a-holic, did the parents of your pup have HD or not? If they did, did you go in knowing that? Did you get lied to? My point his, if the parents were clear and you just got unlucky then that kind of proves a point I am trying to make.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating throwing out OFA, I am not even saying that HD dogs should be bred. I do know enough about genetics to know that having an HD parent only increases the chance, it does not make it a certainty. I know someone here has a link to that study that shows the percentages by parentage, I would post it but can't find it.


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

achiro said:


> achiro said:
> 
> 
> > Might be interesting to see a list of all the titled dogs(ones that are bred regularly today) that wouldn't be here if those known HD dogs had not been bred back in the day?
> ...


a sample If all dysplatic dogs were elimited from breeding:

Ruby wouldnt have been bred to Honcho and that would eliminate Trumarc's Hot Pursuit and the 36 titled dogs sired by him.

Super Powder wouldn't have been bred so no Ruby the 39 titled dogs he sired or nearly 100 grandoffsping. There wouldn't be Carbon , Road Warrior, Piper's Pacer, Hiwood Clincher, and any others that descended from Super Powder. That would eliminate a large number of National Champions.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

*Conscience money*

Without being preachy I'll tell you what I did in similar circumstances and why.

I owned an ESS dog whose sire was the UK Championship winner. I never trialled him, but he was the best dog I (and many others) had seen; big, bold, strong and full of fire. I was offered the equivalent of $5000 for him at age four. A few months later he was diagnosed with HD.

I also owned a cracking little bitch I wanted to breed from; she had done good things in Trials. I did not put her to the dog, but chose a much less distinguished sire whose services I paid for.

HD is in part genetic. Part of the paperwork I present with pups says "Your puppy will come to you free of any physical defects, strong and confident".

How could I with a clear conscience sell pups that might be cripples?

Not my scene folks. 

Regards
Eug


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

Richard Halstead said:


> a sample If all dysplatic dogs were elimited from breeding:
> 
> Ruby wouldnt have been bred to Honcho and that would eliminate Trumarc's Hot Pursuit and the 36 titled dogs sired by him.
> 
> Super Powder wouldn't have been bred so no Ruby the 39 titled dogs he sired or nearly 100 grandoffsping. There wouldn't be Carbon , Road Warrior, Piper's Pacer, Hiwood Clincher, and any others that descended from Super Powder. That would eliminate a large number of National Champions.


There would be just as many National Champions today if those dogs were not bred. There would also be a similar number of titled dogs. The names and owners may be different, but the titles would still be there.


----------



## shootem (Apr 25, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> achiro said:
> 
> 
> > achiro said:
> ...


 Do you mis something you have never had???


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

I can see that some posters don't remember what was said earlier. I don't propose breeding dysplastic dogs.


----------



## shootem (Apr 25, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> I can see that some posters don't remember what was said earlier. I don't propose breeding dysplastic dogs.


 It was a question asked to every one on this forum.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

shootem said:


> Richard Halstead said:
> 
> 
> > I can see that some posters don't remember what was said earlier. I don't propose breeding dysplastic dogs.
> ...


No---he stated an opinion. Richard didn't even state that he would breed a displastic dog. (I did however.) You can agree with me or not. Of course, you could not buy one of the puppies from a dog without both parents being OFA'ed.
The breeding police jump on displastic breeding and CNM carriers but nobody says anything about all the brood bitches and well bred pets out there producing our next wash-outs that have all the clearances.

Hey--I am being a devil's advocate. I did neuter my displastic male. He wouldn't have helped the breed. He also wasn't off a National nor has the realistic hopes of being one.


----------



## M Remington (Feb 16, 2006)

> There would be just as many National Champions today if those dogs were not bred. There would also be a similar number of titled dogs. The names and owners may be different, but the titles would still be there.


Amen--hit the nail on the head!


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Now that is certainly food for thought.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

M Remington said:


> > There would be just as many National Champions today if those dogs were not bred. There would also be a similar number of titled dogs. The names and owners may be different, but the titles would still be there.
> 
> 
> Amen--hit the nail on the head!


Do you think that we would be in the same place dog and/or competition wise without those dogs mentioned above(plus many more)? At what point does breeding based only on health clearances produce sub-par animals and competition?


----------



## okvet (Jun 20, 2006)

achiro said:


> M Remington said:
> 
> 
> > > There would be just as many National Champions today if those dogs were not bred. There would also be a similar number of titled dogs. The names and owners may be different, but the titles would still be there.
> ...


but would we know the difference? If those great dogs were not around, we would have not experienced their greatness--so therefore we wouldn't know the difference??????? Just something to think about.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Wouldn't some other dog have risen to greatness? after all there were other dogs that placed 2nd for every dog that won a trial.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Wouldn't some other dog have risen to greatness? .


No because the truly great ones are few and far between

some other dog might have won, might have been in the breeding pool, but that does not/would not make them "great dogs"


----------



## M Remington (Feb 16, 2006)

Or, we could say that other puppies placed in the hands of obviously superior trainers would have risen to/or exceeded that level.

We certainly can't predict if replacement puppies would have been inferior or superior. But we do know that HD, CNM, etc. are hereditary and physically weaken a breed.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

M Remington said:


> But we do know that HD, CNM, etc. are hereditary and *physically weaken a breed.*


This would only be true if said breedings produced 100% affected puppies.


----------



## wesley hamm (Feb 20, 2004)

I have a question.

Is there any difference (physically and ethically) in breeding a dog with HD versus breeding a dog with a good rating but they have a littermate who has HD?



wesley


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

If you're gonna breed "the great ones" anyway, hip scores and CNM tests and CERF's be d*#@&#d, then why bother with screenings?

Just curious - playing devil's advocate here. I'm not a breeder.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

wesley hamm said:


> I have a question.
> 
> Is there any difference (physically and ethically) in breeding a dog with HD versus breeding a dog with a good rating but they have a littermate who has HD?
> 
> ...


Fair question. I think that we naturally pay most attention to the things that are easiest to measure, whether or not they are the most important. Once we do that, we also pay less attention to other characteristics that are possibly of equal or greater importance. It is likely that at least many forms of cancer, tendencies towards back problems, tendencies to be subject to ligament problems, etc., are all genetically related. However, there are no easy ways to screen breeding stock for these issues so we pay less attention. 

Even with dysplasia, we are talking about something that increases the risk to progeny at the margin. However, even with clear histories, the risk of dysplastic pups is significant. The risk when breeding two dysplastic animals is much greater, but the risk of breeding a dysplatic animal with no dysplastic syblings to a dog that is clear and has a clear family history may not be much greater than the risk of two "clean" animals.

In planning a breeding, it is important to take a broad view of objectives, looking at performance, personality, and physical characteristics.


----------



## ChrisRobt (Apr 5, 2005)

My CH/MH IWS bitch is dysplastic in one hip; she was lame at 8 months of age. Two littermates out of a litter of six were also dysplastic and one was never x-rayed. One bitch in the litter passed OFA "good".

Both sire and dam were OFA "good"; a closely related litter (littermates of these two dogs) had the same problems.

It was a heartbreaking decision for me to spay my bitch after she finished her breed championship; we do not have a large gene pool as you folks do in Labs, and I was removing an outstanding bitch (only 4 IWS have ever gotten a MH). Still, with a small gene pool, we can't afford to breed to dogs with obvious genetic problems.

Nike has been on Adequan injections for about 5 years and has not showed signs of lameness in that period of time (expect for when her stupid owner forgot her shot for two months and she was obviously hurting).

In a breed like Labs where there is an enormous gene pool, I wonder why anyone would think of breeding a dog with a genetic problem such as HD. There are so many talented dogs to choose from...

BTW, I wouldn't breed that bitch in Nike's litter with the OFA "good" as I'm betting she silently carries a significant number of "dysplasia" genes

Donning my fireproof togs (camo of course)


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

There are an awful lot of good questions here that truly illustrate that (for the time being) clearances and ratings are not an exact science.

However the way I see it, out of respect and appreciation for the animals, we are supposed to do what we can. We don't breed dogs who fail clearances or ratings. Period. We will hunt them, we will train them, we will run them, we will do everything in our power to help them live life to its fullest. But they will never be bred.

We are their stewards, they are counting on us. And we endeavor to give back as good as we get.


----------



## lab-a-holic (Sep 18, 2006)

"Lab-a-holic, did the parents of your pup have HD or not? If they did, did you go in knowing that?"

No - parents checked out fine - but - that is exactly my point - while there are no 100% guarantees that a pup will be healthy - why in the world would you breed when "you know" that some of the puppies will end up with problems and pain throughout their lives. It is just plain selfish to bred these dogs with absolutely no regard for the suffering you are responsible for.


----------



## A_Fever (Feb 24, 2007)

I am new to retrievers but have some experience with a breeding program that has successfully handled HD dogs. The system I speak of is the German breeding clubs for German Shorthairs or Wirehairs (DKV and JGHV). They use a similar screening process as we do using radiographs to rate hips and today HD dogs are virtually gone. This is a genetically linked condition that can be erased completely through selective breeding. Plain and simple.

The difference in Germany is breeders participate in a program and its checks and balances. If a breeder had a fantastic field dog with bad hips he could not breed the dog and get papers. If a dog with good hips showed a few litters with bad hips no one would breed the dog anymore because no one would want the puppies. Follow that program and dysplasia goes away. The overall health of their breed is very important to them and breeders want successful lines as much as successful dogs.

In my opinion you breed the best to the best. If every lab breeder and owner decided to erase HD it could be done and 30 years from now it would be a non-issue. It is completely false that HD is a fact of life. It has nothing to do with your dog food or your environment. It is genetic. If we have known the cause and had an OFA system in place for 40 years why is HD still a problem?


----------



## choclabs (Sep 7, 2005)

HD can be caused by human or canine behavior. A puppy can be born with a pair of great ball and socket joints. If allowed to jump off of the couch or off the tailgate of a pick up truck or whatever, often enough, then the joint can become "wallowed out" and get loosened up to the point that it will likely develop HD. Or a puppy may be unfortunate enough to be out with another mature dog that takes a swat at the little one and dislocates the hip. Or.....what ever scenario that you may have witnessed.

I only post this reply because it is a fact that 2 OFA excellent dogs can produce an HD puppy. AND a hip or 2 can become damaged prior to 24 months.

For what it is worth, those purists who put so much scientifically unwarranted faith in the ability of using OFA tests to rid the breed of HD, should do more home work and take a look at what the Penn-Hip testing program has to offer the gene pool. 

BTW - Both tests are SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS. And neither tests guarantees that 2 non dysplastic dogs when bred together will not produce a dysplastic puppy.

I am SURE that very many of you have heard the story of the young dog owner "shopping" for a set of OFA good x-rays to send in from a marginal dysplastic dog.

Question: How many Labrador owners that you know perform both an OFA and Penn-Hip evaluation on their dogs?

http://www.pennhip.org/

Respectfully,
Michael Watson


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> HD can be caused by human or canine behavior.


I'm sorry but I just don't buy this other than the possible injury part. When this is the mantra it usually involves history that may be known or unknown such as grandparents producing individuals with HD that aren't bred and OFA excellents that are bred in the same litter and the genes are still carried. Usually jumping down and bashing during airing causes shoulder problems. HD is genetic but the environment CAN have an impact on the outcome. The reason HD can't be easily eliminated is it is thought to be polygenic or multiple gene caused in Labradors. Yes, OFA excellent to OFA excellent can produce a certain proportion of HD, but if you look at the genetics of the individual, parents littermates, grandparents and sibling ratings, you can decrease the risk of producing it. Call me lucky, but I have 5 generations where excellents have produced excellents by OFA and many of those individuals have jumped all day on concrete if put in a run. However, I have had more than my fair share of pups that have been malpositioned and called dysplastic, and when repeated by a highly experienced vet have gotten either a good or excellent. There are no guarantees because in back of many of these fine dogs we have dysplastic individuals, Super Powder, Corky, Ruby and a few others so the genetics are still there, and that's why you look for a breeder with a written guarantee. I personally would not breed a dysplastic dog but if another Lottie or Lean Mac came along that was mildly dysplastic I would not condemn a person for breeding as long as all buyers went in with their eyes open.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Great discussion. As Richard stated at the start this is all about weighing risks and reward in decision making. What concerns me here is the comparison of HD to CNM and inconsistent views.

For 30+ years the working retriever community overall has maintained a standard with few exceptions that no dogs with HD will be bred. I would also go so far to say that dogs with OFA "fair" ratings have virtually been eliminated from the gene pool too because they do not seem to be bred as much as goods or excellents. Maintaining this standard has, without a doubt, eliminated thousands of dogs from the gene pool. It is very probable that some of these were "great" dogs. This standard has been maintained despite the fact that it has done little to reduce the incidence of HD in field labradors in 30 years (see OFA data) and the test is subjective. Today, just as 30 years ago, you can breed two dysplastic dogs and get no HD in their progeny and you could breed two OFA excellent or good dogs and get half a litter with HD (trust me, I know). It seems like maintaining this standard for HD has potentially come at a great cost with little to show for it, yet this is a well accepted standard. If we were really serious about reducing the incidence of HD wouldn't we collectively use PennHip which has been proven superior to OFA and demand that all progeny be tested and get cleared before they could be bred.

When it comes to CNM many think a different standard is needed or the breed will damaged. The most frequently given argument for breeding carriers is "the breed would not be the same without dog H, L, or T, etc?". The truth is, we really do not know. Is the breed better off, probably. Many dogs have been and are eliminated from the gene pool for many different reasons and the breed still seems to be doing quite well. The other truth is that this argument is mute now that we have a CNM test. So lets move on. The question really should be "what do we do with progeny that are carriers?".
If a "great" dog carries CNM today, individuals could choose to only keep their clear progeny in the gene pool. This standard would keep that dog's lineage in the gene pool and could eliminate an inherited disease in just a generation.
This is all about risks and rewards. It is interesting that we seem very willing to use OFA to select against HD with little apparent reward yet there are different opinions about whether the risks outweigh the rewards when it comes to selecting against CNM. To each his own.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> This standard has been maintained despite the fact that it has done little to reduce the incidence of HD in field labradors in 30 years (see OFA data) and the test is subjective.


Henry, I propose no one knows what the real percent of HD is since most of the bad films in the past or now are never turned in to OFA whether prelim or final. Perhaps there is a more constant % of vets that always turn in all the OFA hips they take because they never read the xrays. 

As far as Penn Hip goes, at what % do people not breed their dogs? We know not to breed dysplastic and many won't breed fair, but what is the no breed zone for Penn Hip and is it adhered to by the ones that do it? I HAVE seen Penn Hip scores manipulated for sales when they fail OFA.


----------



## A_Fever (Feb 24, 2007)

I read it over and over and it is really sad to me that the attitude towards HD is so short sighted. If we take the position “Breeding two excellent dogs can still give me a HD pups so what’s the difference” of course the problem will persist. It is not about “your” puppies now; it is about your puppies’ puppies and those after that. 

The OFA is far from perfect but it has lessened the incidence of HD. Of course not as successfully in labs but there are a lot of other factors contributing to that (popularity the biggest). While Penn-Hip is a better screening process participation is still the missing ingredient. 

If I were going to offer a solution that I felt might help lessen the incidence of HD it would be mandatory testing regardless of intent to breed. If all puppies were tested and reported you would see the incidence much clearer. Two excellent dogs may throw half a litter of HD dogs but if the only two dogs that were ever x-rayed were excellent rated FC’s the problem would persist. If a popular stud had throws 1000 puppies how many actually end up being screened? I don’t know but my guess is it is a pretty small percent.


----------



## duckhunterdfw (Jun 24, 2007)

it can be caused by jumping off tailgate and couches but what about all the pro who have dog boxes they jump out of?Do most people just hold there dog and place it on he ground?I let me dogs jump from the box but will stop if it might cause my dogs to injure there hips.Thanks


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

okvet said:


> achiro said:
> 
> 
> > M Remington said:
> ...


But we do know the difference and our sport and level of competition has benefited from those dogs.
I am for testing hips, eye's, and knowing if a dog is a CNM carrier. I think it should be used as guide for breeding not to exclude a dog from being bred.
Hips, CNM, cerf. What about elbows? Many of the good performance dogs have bad elbows but should those dogs have been excluded? 
Where do we stop? If we don't watch out, we will end excluding most of the best dogs.


----------



## okvet (Jun 20, 2006)

> If we don't watch out, we will end excluding most of the best dogs.


I don't think that will happen--most of your top dogs now have all the clearences.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Nancy,
I totally agree with you on OFA. The incidence of HD in labradors is reported by OFA to be 12.2%. As you point out this is an underestimate because good xrays are much more likely to be sent in for evaluation than "bad" xrays. We can only speculate what the true rate is but do know for sure that it is higher than 12.2%. We also know that a percentage of dogs that fail OFA never have an symptoms of HD. I wonder what the PennHip on those dogs would have been. 
On PennHip, I do not know what the answer is. Perhaps it is another situation where folks should just make sure they get the evaluation and then let buyers know. I think using PennHip and their 50% criteria would eliminate a lot of dogs. Making sure that dogs in the lower end are only bred to dogs in the upper percentiles would still allow breeding and reduce risks. Is that an option that would work?

A-Fever,
You are reading in "attitude" in my last post. Everything I stated is based on facts regarding HD and OFA testing. FYI - I fully support testing and the current standard but let's face the facts as published by OFA. The incidence of HD has been reduced very little despite very selective breeding against it using the OFA based approach for 30 years (eliminating many dogs from the gene pool for 5+ generations). I was simply trying to point out that we seem to readily except this risk/reward situation for HD (heaven forbid we should question it) yet when we could virtually eliminate the CNM gene from the gene pool in a generation or two there are differing views which, in my opinion, conflict with the standard approach toward OFA and HD.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I think using PennHip and their 50% criteria would eliminate a lot of dogs. Making sure that dogs in the lower end are only bred to dogs in the upper percentiles would still allow breeding and reduce risks. Is that an option that would work?


Well, maybe people would justify breeding a 45 percentile to a 95 percentile but we know doing that doesn't equal 70% pups but probably some 45%, and some 95% but they could have the tendency to produce 45% in the next generation. That would be like breeding an OFA Excellent to an OFA Fair and say the pups would be Good. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

What does PennHip's study results show regarding this issue? I know their methods demonstrate significantly more heritability than OFA results but have not researched beyond this.
If you do PennHip you have a 50% chance of being above or below the median. If the median (50th percentile) is the suggested criteria for breeding then half the dogs out there will not make the grade. The effects of this selection on the gene pool certainly is something to think about.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Henry V said:


> What does PennHip's study results show regarding this issue? I know their methods demonstrate significantly more heritability than OFA results but have not researched beyond this.
> If you do PennHip you have a 50% chance of being above or below the median. If the median (50th percentile) is the suggested criteria for breeding then half the dogs out there will not make the grade. The effects of this selection on the gene pool certainly is something to think about.


Given the number of pups produced by a single breeder, and the size of the Labrador gene pool, it seems to me we would be better off if only the top 10-20% of Labradors were ever considered suitable for breeding. The problem is that there is no simple measure of "goodness". However, unless there are characteristics that are much, much better than average about a dog, there doesn't seem to be any very good reason to breed an animal that is average or below average in soundness whether or not it is actually dysplastic.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> Henry V said:
> 
> 
> > What does PennHip's study results show regarding this issue? I know their methods demonstrate significantly more heritability than OFA results but have not researched beyond this.
> ...


So what would happen if only 1 field lab made it into that top 10-20%? What if that dog could only get a JH? Tell me that your breeding thoughts wouldn't effect the quality of performance dogs.


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

In the 70’s a study was done and published in a vet. journal showing that 70% of California field trial retrievers carried a recessive gene for retinal dysplasia. If we added the HD affected, CNM carriers, and other genetic defects we would have retained around 20% or less of the field trial retrievers. Now the problem becomes what would happen to the Labrador population?

In population genetics the Hardy-Weinberg principle shows as we make selective breedings or by eliminating individuals in the population the overall population shifts from the original. In later generations the population becomes what we selected to breed.

Imagine if the defective genes were closely associated with the performance genes we would be selectively eliminating the performance individuals. As the genetic drift takes place we could be losing our performance lines. If breeders in the 60's-70's had religously culled there breeding stock we could have fewer diseases but possibly lost the performers.

Again, I don’t advocate breeding affected individuals.


----------



## okvet (Jun 20, 2006)

[quote="YardleyLabs it seems to me we would be better off if only the top 10-20% of Labradors were ever considered suitable for breeding. [/quote]

This is kind of fun!

Your talking about the top 10 to 20% in Penn Hip?


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

achiro said:


> Tell me that your breeding thoughts wouldn't effect the quality of performance dogs.


My breeding thoughts won't effect the quality of performance dogs :lol: Will yours?:shock: 

For that matter, neither will anything that I do. If someone out there wants to only breed FC-AFCs with good dispositions and all the clearances they should do so and should not be criticized for overlooking dogs without clearances. Seems like everyone else could be criticized for not truly breeding to "improve the breed".


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

okvet said:


> YardleyLabs said:
> 
> 
> > it seems to me we would be better off if only the top 10-20% of Labradors were ever considered suitable for breeding.
> ...


No. I think you need to consider the whole dog: physical health, personality, and performance. The minute you focus on only one trait to the exclusion of others, you begin to distort things. The problem with the tests that we have is that they only address a few of the important factors in a breeding. It's sort of like all the posts asking for the perfect stud without considering the traits of the female.


----------



## okvet (Jun 20, 2006)

YardleyLabs said:


> okvet said:
> 
> 
> > YardleyLabs said:
> ...


So how does someone decide what dogs are in the top 20% in performance? Top 20% in FT? Top 20% in HT? Then you've got the hunter that doesn't run trials/tests who swears he's got the best gun dog in the county. Then you could take the entire population of AKC registered labs and if you base on performance then the dog with a JR title is better in performance than 90% of the labs in the U.S. Personality is also so subjective also. Just couldn't be done IMO.



> The problem with the tests that we have is that they only address a few of the important factors in a breeding. It's sort of like all the posts asking for the perfect stud without considering the traits of the female.


I couldn't agree more with that statement. However--we can only work with what we have. I have only been in the lab game now for a little over 2 years and I'll tell you--with all the breeders/pet owners I deal with Field Trial/Hunt Test lab breeders/trainers/handlers are probably some of the most responsible pet owners/breeders out there. Before I started playing with labs and played around training pointers--let me tell you there is a world of difference.

I have clients that breed all different types of dogs. I have one breeder that breeds Sharpei's. She sells these dogs for 1000 to 1500 bucks with no guarantees. These dogs have no clearences at all and here are these lab people that breed high quality field proven dogs with all their clearences for around $800 and then offer a guarantee. We'll never agree on everything but trust me when I say the Field Trial/Hunt Test lab breeders are way above all other breeders in the U.S.

todd


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

The biggest problem I see if it were limited to the top 20 % for breeding is that you are limited by the breeders vision of the breed. Maybe the people breeding want a more agile lighter dog while the hunter might like a larger dog to retain body heat. 

What if current trends breed away from the desired trend?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Richard Halstead said:


> The biggest problem I see if it were limited to the top 20 % for breeding is that you are limited by the breeders vision of the breed. Maybe the people breeding want a more agile lighter dog while the hunter might like a larger dog to retain body heat.
> 
> What if current trends breed away from the desired trend?


I think the whole point is that there is no way to identify the "top 20" except through the breeder's vision. 

However, my thought was to change the focus to be one of asking (and answering) the question "What makes this breeding special?" 

To answer the question, you clearly have to begin with with a notion of your target market: field trial champion, family pet, service dog, show dog, etc. Even breeding with the notion of creating the next chocolate FC is a fair target (I know I would like one). 

Next you have to balance a bunch of different factors with only incomplete and often subjective information to guide you and genetic relationships that are seldom as straightforward as the simple math of CNM. But the point is that we should not arguing about minimum standards to breed , but how to balance above average characteristics in a way that may produce pups that are significantly better than the average in the target arena.

I'm not saying this as a criticism. I agree with okvet that breeders of FT/HT retrievers are among the most responsible around -- maybe because the cost of training is so much greater than the cost of the dogs and the dogs have to be durable to have a chance of being productive. I know that one of the factors I look for in selecting a stud or picking a line is for dogs that were able to remain competitive until they were 9-10 years old as a proof of durability. If I had that information as readily available to me as OFA data, I would place more weight on that measure of durability than on OFA ratings.

EDIT: As an aside, Richard, I want to thank you for the enormous contributions you have made in helping to give all of us "newbies" access to better information about the dogs we love. Every time I go to research a pedigree I am using data that you have helped to collect and verify.


----------



## Waterfowl Retrievers (Jun 20, 2004)

Maybe this is the best question for everyone to ask themselves...

If YOU owned River Oaks Corky, 5 x National Champion and highest point dog ever, would you breed him knowing he is dysplastic if you have people throwing $2000 at you today for his semen?? They are willing to take a chance on his offspring being unaffected...so you make the call. 

Yes or No?
Paul


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

The question is how dysplstic was he? Apparently he was able to compete without physical pain and doesn't equate with crippled. This is where the risk reward comes into the equation. Apparently his physical abilities attracted many wanting to breed.


----------



## Waterfowl Retrievers (Jun 20, 2004)

Richard was he diagnosed with an x-ray at some point due to being symptomatic? I don't really know the history with Corky's condition. It obviously was not debilitating. Paul


----------



## A_Fever (Feb 24, 2007)

Henry V:
I was not attaching attitude to you specifically rather stating it is an argument you read a lot. I was trying to disagree with the "it is inevitable" rationale. My point in bringing up the Germans and their breeding system is using a subjective screening process like the OFA they have been very successful in pretty much eliminating HD. I think the fact that HD is still prevalent today has more to do with a lack of information and good breeding practice rather than a problem with the screening system.

I am NOT disagreeing with Okvet. There are tons of very responsible and forward thinking breeders today that produce excellent healthy dogs and they should be commended. The problem might be there is no system to identify the dogs or lines that keep HD in the gene pool.

If I owned River Oaks Corky his hips would have been screened at two years old and depending on how bad they were I would have made the decision then, before he was a 5 time FC.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

I'm just glad Corky got bred as ge is in all of my dogs pedigree


----------



## LuvMyLab (Dec 4, 2006)

I could be wrong but I was told that dysplastic in a line doesn't get better it only gets worse. 

So with that said if a dog is dysplastic and you knowingly breed it. To a good line. 

Aren't basically helping to sabatoge the breed. 

Why would ever knowingly breed a dysplastic dog or a dog that has that in it's line. It could skip a generation or to then show up worse than ever. 

Secondly, 

If your breeding pups to sell. Are you going to be forward with your customers and tell them the thier pup comes from a line with this problem. 

Personally I think it's bad medince & unethical breeding habits.

Just my 2-cents


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> If your breeding pups to sell. Are you going to be forward with your customers and tell them the thier pup comes from a line with this problem.


Most field dogs go back to the same handful of dogs in history and very few field dogs have "lines" like conformation dogs do, unless you consider 2-3 generations a "line". Go back far enough and there are problems in every pedigree and many of the dogs like Super Chief were tightly inbred and then linebred. Every breeding is a crapshoot as to what will nick and what will produce problems. I just had someone tell me his dogs had no genetic defects because they came from a certain line. That is marketing at best, most likely naivety, and ignorance at worst.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

> I just had someone tell me his dogs had no genetic defects because they came from a certain line.


I always love hearing this one, especially when someone says they have never produced a pup with HD. When I hear this I go the OFA website and check to see how many progeny from their females have dogs that have OFAd. Funny thing is that usually very few, if any, are on the website. It is easy to claim you have "no problems" when folks usually do not look for them. Many buyers seems to believe that a "guarantee" and 3 or 4 generations of OFA'd dogs in a pedigree means that you can't have a problem and thus never check. Polygenic traits like HD are the really tough ones to get away from. I have a female that had no issues with three litters despite quite a bit of testing. I had another breeding to a popular FC/AFC and bam... at least 4 in a litter that would not OFA.

Paul, I think the question is "If Corky was around today how many wouldn't take the risk and have a dog bred to him?" We have a club member who had his own dysplastic FC in that era and judged quite a bit. Today, he still talks about Corky being the best marker he has ever seen.


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

It is pretty obvious by looking at the breedings and studs of today that people are more aware of what they are breeding and what they are buying. I would never breed a dog knowing it has a health issue that could be past to it's offspring. Dogs are still produced with health problems as it is with parent that are tested. Their is no reason to magnify it by breeding. The great dogs of the past are just that great dogs with health issues. You don't see to many breeders advertising puppies with dysplatic parents and very few people are going to waist their money on a pup that is prelimed dysplatic knowing he might become lame after you have invested so much in him already.


----------



## dreamer2385 (Jan 21, 2007)

I probably wouldnt bred myself ..But I know that someone would or should have complete litter information. All of the siblings ofa'd. or checked at least. If one has bad hips out of a litter of say 10 good or excellents, maybe.. But if the litter had maybe five with bad hips,, well, it may be a different story.. What about half siblings?? Parents with excellent, you really have to look at the whole gene pool, and only, only,very experienced lab breeders who know pedigrees inside/out should even think about it,, and i said Think!!! just my humble opinion.. maria


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

MRGD said:


> Yes Doc, it is different, but there are never the less, people that say we should never breed a CNM carrier either. I used Lottie because she is a prime example where the risks of passing on a genetic problem were outweighed by the benefit. I have seen dysplastic dogs, and it is terribly sad. But the question remains, *where are the lines to be drawn? *tt


I haven't read this entire subject but ...the line is drawn by the moral character of the dog's owner. 

If winning is all important with no regard except for that one possible good pup that might be produced and no regard for the long term effects, then the breeding takes place.

If the overall well being of the breed is of importance, then that owner might recognize that his dog is not the only excellent specimen in the gene pool, he forgets his ego and resists breeding and introducing a problem that keeps any dog affected from leading a normal life.

And finally, if you had this super dog, how would you know that it would produce more pups that were images of it's superior parent? Perhaps, all that would be produced is the negative characteristics and not the positive. Perhaps, even if no bad characteristics are produced but only pups like the mate chosen(less spectacular than your dog) were produced. And finally, if the mate chosen was equally wonderful, then why breed a genetically inferior specimen at all?

Selecting a mate for a dog with talent and seemingly normal genetic traits is difficult. Why would you want to risk a breeding with animals that are not the best that you can find in both regards? There is always a risk of a problem. Why would you want to negatively change your odds of having a nice litter?

And finally, who would buy the rest of the litter. Knowingly, not me...I've been there and done that. I guess it would be the person who intends to only have a national champion and if the pup doesn't work out, get rid of it...the throw away retriever...


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> I'm just glad Corky got bred as ge is in all of my dogs pedigree


I am not glad because I had a dog with the worst class of hips and guess who was in his pedigree? My dog couldn't take a walk in the neighborhood.

How does anyone know that the great traits came from that dog? How do I know that the bad hips my dog had also came from that dog? The point is that neither of us know for sure where the traits came from...


----------



## M Remington (Feb 16, 2006)

> If YOU owned River Oaks Corky, 5 x National Champion and highest point dog ever, would you breed him knowing he is dysplastic if you have people throwing $2000 at you today for his semen??


That's the reason why people breed dogs with HD. . .

That's the reason why people breed bitches every time they come into season. . .

That's the reason why people try to justify breeding dogs with other imperfections. . .

Plenty of great dogs have great clearances. For every outstanding dog with HD, or a CNM carrier, or some other provable physical imperfection (or a carrier of such), I'll show you 5 that are clear for all of these!!!


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

> If YOU owned River Oaks Corky, 5 x National Champion and highest point dog ever, would you breed him knowing he is dysplastic if you have people throwing $2000 at you today for his semen??



Hypothetically, if competition was my game and winning was everything here is my take. I would not breed the dog for profit but I would damned sure have some private litters….but you know if such an animal existed today people would breed to him…THAT I have no doubt.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> For every outstanding dog with HD, or a CNM carrier, or some other provable physical imperfection (or a carrier of such), I'll show you 5 that are clear for all of these!!!


I didn't realize there were 5 other CNM clear, OFA, CERF dogs with more than 600 All Age points. :twisted:


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

What the naysayers on the this forum seem not to realize is that the wonderful dogs we have today are the result of selective performance based breedings based on what genetic disease evidence was available at the time. 

Anyone who has owned or bred a truly outstanding dog probably has an idea how rare these individuals are, those who just have opinions with nothing to back them up have just that, opinions, not definitive ideas.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

EdA, I believe you succinctly & accurately summed it up. 

ErinsEdge I agree with the drift of your post but not even Corky broke 600 points. I believe he was something like 505.5


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

EdA said:


> What the naysayers on the this forum seem not to realize is that the wonderful dogs we have today are the result of selective performance based breedings based on what genetic disease evidence was available at the time.
> 
> Anyone who has owned or bred a truly outstanding dog probably has an idea how rare these individuals are, those who just have opinions with nothing to back them up have just that, opinions, not definitive ideas.


Good post Ed, most people don't realize how truly special are the ones that title by 3 or earlier. Continual National qualifications and double header wins are typical


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> EdA, I believe you succinctly & accurately summed it up.
> 
> ErinsEdge I agree with the drift of your post but not even Corky broke 600 points. I believe he was something like 505.5


You are correct of course. I was being a bit facetious.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Since owning a national caliper retriever is something that most of will never experience, and breeding one (whether seemingly healthy or dysplastic) is something that most of us can't express experience based opinions. I have a couple of questions for anyone who has the experience:

Since the dog is so special and the breeding is supposedly done to produce other superior animals. Then why are some of those wonderful dogs bred to any dog only dependent upon the bitch's owner having the stud fee?

Would you as an owner of a national champion stud, accept a breeding to a bitch with HD if your stud did not have the problem? Would that bitch's talent be the deciding factor? (Who knows which dog would be blamed for any resulting pups?) 

And finally, dogs like Lean Mac, Super Tanker, Cosmo and others produced great offspring. What would be your guess as to the percentage of really nice pups produced in relation to the total number of pups produced for most studs (since the bitches do not produce hundreds of pups)? I am supposing that some other fabulous studs did not produce the number of talented offspring like the above mentioned dogs...


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

In my experience, relatively few owners of champion studs will agree to a breeding simply based on your willingness to pay the fee. They generally want a full set of health clearances and a dam that is titled and/or has a very strong pedigree.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> In my experience, relatively few owners of champion studs will agree to a breeding simply based on your willingness to pay the fee. They generally want a full set of health clearances and a dam that is titled and/or has a very strong pedigree.


Do you own/or have you owned a national champion? I was asking for expert opinions/views based on experience...

Yes...clearances but how about talent in those bitches? There are alot of hunt test dogs that really have not proven that they have talent that are bred to big name dogs...I just don't see that performance is being enhanced by alot of those breedings nor do I think that the stud dog owner has seen or know about the bitches strong or weak traits...but maybe it is not relavent if the stud owner is not taking a pup out of the litter...just wondering


----------



## Brad Slaybaugh (May 17, 2005)

I've read the majority of the post in this thread.

Great discussion, good pro and con points of view.

IMHO

If a dog male or female has a genetic inheritable problem, OFA, CNM, CERF whatever ---- it's not bred.......

I don't care if it has an NFC or a JH or no title at all.

I would rather have a clean pup from a backyard bred bottom of the barrel generic pedigree over a loaded pedigree but a pup who might not be able to see(mark), or to walk(play with my kids) or produce clean pups( to play with other peoples kids) - ANY DAY - titles be dammed.

the talk about all the great dogs we would have missed if such and such breeding had never taken place, even though this dog had this problem and this dog had this problem - well. 

How much better - from a health standpoint - would the overall breed be if these breedings had never taken place.

If all the titled dogs produced from these genetically unhealthy breedings had never exsisted. (as one post said, "do we miss what we never had")

They would have been replaced by other dogs, other breedings who would have been clean from a health standpoint.

A star would rise to the top, the performance wouldbe there one pup would have been smarter than the other, or had better training and exposure, there would be high demand for this dogs pups because he/she would be the "cream of the crop" the "IT" dog, eventually one of these all stars would pass on the performance ability and everyone would want a "so and so" pup, the pedigrees would become littered with this certian bitch or studs name

-------BUT THE PUPS WOULD BE HEALTHY -----

Because the parents were healthy and the grandsparents were healthy

imagine buying any pup you wanted without needing any OFA, CERF or CNM health certification, because these problems didn't exist.

However as long as people let performance drive thier breeding choices rather than health, we'll never have to worry about this scenario.

IMHO regards!!!


----------



## Waterfowl Retrievers (Jun 20, 2004)

Let's really get hypothetical. 

What if you had the chance to get a Corky x Lottie puppy right now? :shock: 
Would the possibility of getting an OFA good or excellent pup with those field trial genes be worth the risk? The pup would certainly FC in the right hands. I know Corky has produced some excellent dogs down the line that did OFA. I am proud to have Corky in my dogs pedigree three times and she is OFA excellent. 

I would really have to think hard about taking a pup out of him knowing he was dysplastic at any level. BUT what if you got lucky like getting River Oaks Rascal and he OFA'd? From a breeders standpoint, getting a female out of Corky would not be acceptable to me because of the chance of producing more dysplastic pups and that is net ethical. But if I were looking for a dog to campaign and not necessarily use in a breeding program, it might be worth the risk. WHAT IF? 

Also, there are quite a few National caliber dogs out of FC x Hunt test female breedings out there. I could list them. 
Hunt Test dog ownin and breedin regards, Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Dukdawg said:


> I would rather have a clean pup from a backyard bred bottom of the barrel generic pedigree over a loaded pedigree but a pup who might not be able to see(mark), or to walk(play with my kids) or produce clean pups( to play with other peoples kids) - ANY DAY - titles be dammed.


you are much more likely to get a healthy quality puppy from a breeder of competition retrievers than you are from "a backyard bred bottom of the barrel generic pedigree" 

and you fogot to mention "or retrieve"......... by your own admission :shock: 



Dukdawg said:


> got to it, sat down and looked at it and that was it, I had to walk out and put a lead on her to get her to come back in, I put her in the truck, scratched her in the test. Over the next few months, I gave her plenty of marks, she never retrieved again,


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Dukdawg said:


> I've read the majority of the post in this thread.
> 
> Great discussion, good pro and con points of view.
> 
> ...


IF you have made yourself clear in this post and you really feel you have explained things exactly how you think, this is full of genetic misunderstandings.


> BUT THE PUPS WOULD BE HEALTHY -----
> 
> Because the parents were healthy and the grandsparents were healthy


This is a prime example of just one of those misunderstandings. 
Then of course a quick glance at the pedigree's of the dogs on your website, quickly show that you are either very naive, or very hypocritical.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> -------BUT THE PUPS WOULD BE HEALTHY -----
> 
> Because the parents were healthy and the grandsparents were healthy
> 
> imagine buying any pup you wanted without needing any OFA, CERF or CNM health certification, because these problems didn't exist.


Do you truly believe carriers of traits aren't healthy? Do you believe dogs with folds can't see? I'de hate to see these standards applied to humans because more dogs could be bred than humans should.


----------



## Brad Slaybaugh (May 17, 2005)

This is a prime example of just one of those misunderstandings. 
Then of course a quick glance at the pedigree's of the dogs on your website, quickly show that you are either very naive, or very hypocritical.[/quote]

If you want to make it personal, go for it. 

I think expierence is the best teacher. I've said on here before, 30 years ago I was backyard breeding, didn't know about OFA or CERF or much of anything else, only that I liked labs and wanted good ones. I've advanced quite a bit from there to now, if thats hypocritical, then the answer to your post is YES.

I've yet to have one of my pups returned for hips, eyes or anything else. I know it will happen sooner or later but, it hasn't yet and for that I'm thankful.

I'm sure I do have much more to learn about this business, we all do.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Dukdawg said:


> a pup who might not be able to see(mark), or to walk(play with my kids) !!





Dukdawg said:


> I've said on here before, 30 years ago I was backyard breeding.


so you admit to being a backyard breeder and now your are critical of other's breeding decisions......you are part of the problem 

if your breeding program of 30 years has produced anything noteworthy please inform us


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> Dukdawg said:
> 
> 
> > a pup who might not be able to see(mark), or to walk(play with my kids) !!
> ...


Ok…this is getting a little like the drunk guy in the bar picking a fight with Chuck Norris.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Ok…this is getting a little like the drunk guy in the bar picking a fight with Chuck Norris.


I never cease to be amazed at people who continue to post on a topic and continually weaken their argument :? :?


----------



## Anthony Heath (Jan 3, 2003)

> I never cease to be amazed at people who continue to post on a topic and continually weaken their argument Confused Confused


Interesting reading all around.

Kinda of curious as to the # of people that have a family member with some sort of genetic issue that have gone on to have children, or had a child with a genetic issue and then had more children. :?


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Anthony Heath said:


> Interesting reading all around.
> 
> Kinda of curious as to the # of people that have a family member with some sort of genetic issue that have gone on to have children, or had a child with a genetic issue and then had more children. :?


Most would say that this is not exactly the same thing...regardless what others might think...


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Anthony Heath said:


> > I never cease to be amazed at people who continue to post on a topic and continually weaken their argument Confused Confused
> 
> 
> Interesting reading all around.
> ...


My Momma always said that if I'd have been first, I'd have been an only.

Never was sure what she meant by that regards

Bubba


----------



## Becky Mills (Jun 6, 2004)

Bubba said:


> My Momma always said that if I'd have been first, I'd have been an only.
> 
> Never was sure what she meant by that regards
> 
> Bubba


Obviously because once she achieved perfection with you, it would only be downhill with other children. 
What else could she have meant???


----------



## Anthony Heath (Jan 3, 2003)

> Most would say that this is not exactly the same thing...regardless what others might think...


SueLab,

Not sure I follow the intent of your reply.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Anthony Heath said:
> 
> 
> > > I never cease to be amazed at people who continue to post on a topic and continually weaken their argument Confused Confused
> ...


My ******* brother, you can't post such easy to target stuff on the internet. This is just too easy to take shots at. I can't even bring myself to take aim. So here's a rabbit with a pancake on his head....










/Paul


----------



## A_Fever (Feb 24, 2007)

Having children with genetic problems (all of them) has absolutely nothing to do with breeding dogs. What the??

Is it me or does it seem like a lot of people are concerned about getting “ a “ dog with HD. As in their dog or just the one great dog with good hips. The debate about breeding a great dog with HD is more about the effect on a lot of dogs rather than the one that ends up at your house.


----------



## Andy Carlson (Jan 3, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> So here's a rabbit with a pancake on his head....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I am not mistaken, that rabbit has TWO pancakes on his head. How hard is it to count to two?? :wink: 

Flapjack regards,

Andy


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Andy Carlson said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > So here's a rabbit with a pancake on his head....
> ...


Oh well smarty pants big city high falooting ededmicated callage master of math. quit pickin on the ******** when thera picking on each other...

/Paul


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Anthony Heath said:


> > Most would say that this is not exactly the same thing...regardless what others might think...
> 
> 
> SueLab,
> ...


Well, the intent is: the genetics may be the same but the choice to purchase a dog with genetics issues is a little different than having a child with genetic issues. The dog: you can say "no thanks" or mercifully destroy it ... the child: you now have it and really cannot send it back or if you could, to whom would you return it? 

I definitely am NOT going to argue whether the people should have taken the chance with having the child because I do not walk in their shoes. Many times they just didn't know that there was a genetic issue until after the birth, they may choose to ignor the probabilities or perhaps they think the risk is acceptable.

If people and dogs were that similiar, our society would be neutering some of those that do not improve the human genetic pool! :lol:


----------



## okvet (Jun 20, 2006)

> If people and dogs were that similiar, our society would be neutering some of those that do not improve the human genetic pool!


yep--that would be me


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

Kinda of curious as to the # of people that have a family member with some sort of genetic issue that have gone on to have children, or had a child with a genetic issue and then had more children. :?[/quote]

Dogs are not people.

Dogs are not people regards,

Tom


----------



## Anthony Heath (Jan 3, 2003)

> Dogs are not people.
> 
> Dogs are not people regards,


Tom,

I agree dogs are not people.

I agree dogs are not people.

Seems like we would hold ourselves to an even higher standard than we would for dogs. 

SueLab wrote:


> If people and dogs were that similiar, our society would be neutering some of those that do not improve the human genetic pool! Laughing


And that's a bad idea? :wink:


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

I look forward to the day, when I do not worry, when radiographs are performed and submitting them for scoring/grading. Am I dreaming? Will the day ever come when hip/elbow/hock/shoulder dysplasia ever be simply a DNA test? 

Another link which some may like to read and comment on:

http://www.pennhip.org//09230v7.pdf


----------

