# Would you breed? EIC Lab



## andrewschlueter (Dec 23, 2009)

If you owend a stud dog and did an EIC test on him, that resulted as "carrier". Would you contine to use him?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

andrewschlueter said:


> If you owend a stud dog and did an EIC test on him, that resulted as "carrier". Would you contine to use him?


 
Yes, on clear bitches. I would not want to be responsible for causing an affected puppy, but there is nothing wrong with a carrier.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Why not??? Make sure the bitch's are tested that would be using him.......

Angie


----------



## Linas Danilevicius (Jan 2, 2009)

What is wrong with a carrier? If you read all the data published regarding EIC there is no reason not to if the dog has all the traits that you would want to continue on in the lineage. Just because a dog is a carrier does not mean that they have EIC. They only have one gene. If bred to a clear dog there is no possibility of producing affected pups (those that have two genes) and would be symptomatic with EIC.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

The sire of the all-time high point derby dog is an EIC carrier. Would you take him out of the gene pool?

fp


----------



## andrewschlueter (Dec 23, 2009)

Ok, maybe I should have typed, 

If you owend a female and wanted her to raise a litter, would you breed to a EIC carrier? Even if she is EIC clear. I don't know *just asking!!!*


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Simple, read Bayou Magic's post. Would I breed to a dog that "fits" my female in most areas....brains, structure, and other health clearances.....Yes. No dog is perfect. Are there dogs out there with "all" the clearances, yes. Do we have tests for every possible disease or problem, no. 
We have to quit thinking that Carriers are somehow "less" of a dog than a Clear. They are just as healthy, can be just as talented, just as good looking, they just got the short end of the stick in the gene dept when it comes to who gets the carrier gene.


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

THese are all just pieces in the puzzle. You have to make the decisions based upon many, many things.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Absolutely.

John Lash


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

andrewschlueter said:


> Ok, maybe I should have typed,
> 
> If you owend a female and wanted her to raise a litter, would you breed to a EIC carrier? Even if she is EIC clear. I don't know *just asking!!!*


Yup,,, in a New York Minute!!!! I'd breed an affected to a clear if the pedigree was that nice....

*Ask Away!!!!!!*

Angie


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

andrewschlueter said:


> If you owend a stud dog and did an EIC test on him, that resulted as "carrier". Would you contine to use him?


1st, an EIC carrier is NOT an EIC dog as your thread title suggests. An EIC carrier is just as healthy as a EIC clear dog. A carrier is just that, a carrier but not in any way affected by EIC. An "EIC Lab" is a dog affected by EIC.

I would not breed an EIC-affected dog. I would breed an EIC carrier to an EIC clear dog/bitch provided there were traits worthy.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> 1st, an EIC carrier is NOT an EIC dog as your thread title suggests. An EIC carrier is just as healthy as a EIC clear dog. A carrier is just that, a carrier but not in any way affected by EIC. An "EIC Lab" is a dog affected by EIC.
> 
> I would not breed an EIC-affected dog. I would breed an EIC carrier to an EIC clear dog/bitch provided there were traits worthy.


Food for thought David,,, There's more then one FC-AFC affected dog/bitch out there that never displayed a symptom....

I would no more take them out of the gene pool then fly to the moon....

Amazing athletes,,, There is way more pieces to the EIC puzzle then anyone know's....

Angie


----------



## Alain (Dec 9, 2005)

I decided to breed my clear bitch to a carrier stud because i feel it will be an outstanding litter. Both dogs are extremely talented. I was blame for that by some and other reserve pup.
What happen, is every body want clear pup.

So what i will do in the future, ????????

Alain Jetté


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I ran smack dab straight into this awhile back. I have two clear titled bitches I want to breed. Two studs I thought long and hard about. who are wonderful dogs, are eic carriers. I decided that since there are also very good to great eic clear studs, to go with one of them each time I bred. Call me an eic snob, but I'd rather breed all eic clear pups than some that are carriers. I'm absolutely sure I'm missing out on breeding some wonderful pups from the carrier studs. But, I'm hoping for some wonderful pups out of eic clear studs.


----------



## andrewschlueter (Dec 23, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> I would not breed an EIC-affected dog. I would breed an EIC carrier to an EIC clear dog/bitch provided there were traits worthy.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only difference between breeding a EIC clear to a EIC Carrier and a EIC clear to a EIC affected dog would be that with the 

EIC Carrier + EIC Clear = 50% carrier, 50% Clear. 

And with a EIC affected + EIC clear = 100% affected. 

So all the pups would be affected, but that appears not to matter. 

If the genetics do not work out that way, let me know.


----------



## TimThurby (May 22, 2004)

andrewschlueter said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only difference between breeding a EIC clear to a EIC Carrier and a EIC clear to a EIC affected dog would be that with the
> 
> EIC Carrier + EIC Clear = 50% carrier, 50% Clear.
> 
> ...


Clear X Affected would give you 100% carriers.

You have:
Clear - Normal and can't pass the gene
Carriers - Normal, but can pass the gene to offspring
Affected - Does have the diesease, and will pass the gene to the offspring

The sire/dam only passes one copy of the gene to their offspring. It takes two copies to make an affected dog.

Tim


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

*Here we go again. *I did, and would not do again. Very promising MH bitch, EIC carrier status, running some AA. Bred to a well known NFC finalist who was clear. Pups turned out well, kept one myself. 5 of the 6 pups were carriers. The one I kept is a carrier. I did not fully plan to keep a pup, but we had difficulity selling the last pup of the liter. Perhaps one day if she should be titled AFC or FC, I would consider breeding her, but I think not at this time. Her pups were almost impossible to sell. At the time, everybody calling was asking about "clear" pups only. All the pups are doing well and the owners are happy with them. The pup I have has great potential, she is further along at a year then her mother was at this age. But no, I am sorry I bred the bitch, it was much more difficulity then it was worth with all the people not wanting a EIC carrier. Incidently, I had made shipping arraingements to ship her to be bred and just found out she was carrier the day before shipping. I mistakenly used the self induced pressure of pre=arrainged shipping to talk myself into going ahead with the breeding. *It was a mistake. *Howard used excellent judgement is choosing clear sires to breed his bitches with. Also, if there is ever any chance of erridacating EIC, people will have to stop producing carriers as well as affected. Of all the people shown above saying that a carrier pup would be fine with them, how many actually choose a carrier pup when they got their last pup. Like Howard decided, if you have a choice of a carrier liter or a clear liter, with simular breeding, its a no brainer, choose the clear. Thats all I have to say, blast away. Bud


----------



## andrewschlueter (Dec 23, 2009)

Ya that's what i meant 100% carrier for the affected+clear


----------



## Echo41725 (Jul 25, 2004)

"Call me an eic snob, but I'd rather breed all eic clear pups than some that are carriers..."

Howard, I'm right along side of you on this one. I thought the purpose of everyone spending all their money on EIC testing was to help eliminate the EIC gene as much as possible. So why not find a nice EIC clear stud that has all the qualaties? They are out there.


----------



## LabLady (Jan 27, 2003)

For the most part, puppy buyers want EIC clear pups - it's as simply as that. I think that is the main reason that breeders are now staying away from producing carrier pups. If you can't sell them except to pet homes, then we still will never know whether they could have been a top competitor or not. Sure, you will have a few people that say they don't care, but when you are the breeder and want to produce litters that will be competitive AND marketable, a clear litter is one that sells. Breeders can't plan litters and just hope that the people that don't care about carrier status will be one of the folks that buys their pups!! 

I hope this makes sense. I'm on my first cup of coffee


----------



## Steve Hamel (Mar 1, 2004)

A very interesting thread: Lab lady hit the nail on the head. You have to sell the pups.

As a breeder, one of the questions you should be asking yourself is "Can i get these pups into good homes ? " Most people are looking for clear pups, period. They don't want to hear about parents that are EIC Carriers.

Steve


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Yes, assuming the dog was a good quality dog to begin with
To the above point of selling the dogs, as mentioned there are some very good FC dogs out there that are producing carriers and I would have NO problem buying them (one really comes to mind), but hey if enough people are to dumb to understand that EIC carriers are no different than any other dog that is fine by me, maybe I can get a better price on the carriers


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Steve Hamel said:


> A very interesting thread: Lab lady hit the nail on the head. You have to sell the pups.
> 
> As a breeder, one of the questions you should be asking yourself is "Can i get these pups into good homes ? " Most people are looking for clear pups, period. They don't want to hear about parents that are EIC Carriers.
> 
> Steve


I haven't found that to be the case. Doesn't matter if they're looking for a pet or a working dog or the next field champion. They just don't want an affected.

Angie


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Angie B said:


> I haven't found that to be the case. Doesn't matter if they're looking for a pet or a working dog or the next field champion. They just don't want an affected.
> 
> Angie


I agree, I get very, very few people who demand clear, nor do many care if I tell them a litter is eic/cnm clear, they just want to know their pup won't be affected by either, but very few of my buyers are looking for breeding stock either. I did have one who wanted a YLF from my last litter that might breed down the road to keep a pup as he's done in the past, the litter he chose was MH x SH and "mixed" for eic, he was okay with that because he understood, with his vet's help, that if his pup ends up a carrier, have to breed around it, he preferred to choose his pup based on what he saw and he certainly had a variety of yellow litters to choose from in the Midwest. Guess it's a matter of education and personal preference like anything else. I prefer clear mostly as a matter of economics so I don't have to continue testing nor would I breed to an EIC carrier stud unless there was something there I really wanted, not when I have a multitude of clear studs. I wouldn't bother buying a carrier male if I intended to stud either, not with the current mindset.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Angie B said:


> I haven't found that to be the case. Doesn't matter if they're looking for a pet or a working dog or the next field champion. They just don't want an affected.
> 
> Angie


I'm with Angie. Most buyers have no interest in breeding, they just want a healthy dog. If you are marketing or buying specifically for competition/breeding, then you will find those want EIC clear.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2009)

I would only breed to a clear female


----------



## Alain (Dec 9, 2005)

Out here in Québec province, not much title stud (clear / carrier) to breed with. 
Fortunately, i have close to me an outstandind great looking dark yellow FTCH AFTCH stud with awsome pedigree, but he is EIC carrier. My MH black bitch is all clear. 
What should i do?
It will be her first litter, at start i wanted to breed (frozen seemen) her to FC AFC Taylorlab Magic Trick. Then i tought before putting down that much money and do not know if she is a good mother, will she throw big litter, does she throw ylw,....... I decide to go with the local stud. From local field trial expert, stud and dam are consider top dogs from here, that is why i have sold 4-5 clear pups already to field trial competitor but guess what no one want carrier pup. Breeding not done yet but will very soon.
I do think it says it all, i'm croosing my fingers to have big litter, and mutch clear pups as possible.

If Cruise produce a large healthy litter, will i bread to a carrier stud? I don't think so.

The trend out here is competitif trainer want clear pup. They invest so much time and money that they ..........

I Just bought a new clear female pup from a clear/carrier litter, fortunately i'm rank first pick of the litter out of 7 females. I follow the trend.

Sorry for my poor english.

R.

Alain Jetté


----------



## LabLady (Jan 27, 2003)

In the real world, most people want clear pups!

Vikki


----------



## bcollins (Nov 14, 2007)

I have a question for all the experts that have been posting on this thread.If their is no difference between a carrier and a clear pup then why are breeders selling the carrier pups cheaper than the clear pups.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I'm with Angie. Most buyers have no interest in breeding, they just want a healthy dog. If you are marketing or buying specifically for competition/breeding, then you will find those want EIC clear.


I found this to be true. On Honor's last litter when bred to a carrier (*HONOR IS EIC CLEAR*), only one person even asked the question. Most just want healthy puppies. 

Even though the test wasn't supposed to make breeding a witch hunt, only a breeding tool, somehow it still can be. 

Most people realize that most of us won't wind up with a Lean Mac, and make that kind of $$ off of breeding.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Howard N said:


> I ran smack dab straight into this awhile back. I have two clear titled bitches I want to breed. Two studs I thought long and hard about. who are wonderful dogs, are eic carriers. I decided that since there are also very good to great eic clear studs, to go with one of them each time I bred. Call me an eic snob, but I'd rather breed all eic clear pups than some that are carriers. I'm absolutely sure I'm missing out on breeding some wonderful pups from the carrier studs. *But, I'm hoping for some wonderful pups out of eic clear studs.*


So far, I really like the one I got from you Howard!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> So far, I really like the one I got from you Howard!












Think he'll learn how to heel at the handler's side? hehehe :razz: :razz:


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

My position is clear , just like the dogs I breed . Many good points in this thread , from sales , to the future of the breed ,to lo and behold , reality . Reality in the form of questions potential buyers ask . Just because the uninformed do not ask does not relieve the breeder of the integrity of the future of the breed .Is that not what you breed for ? The future ? 
Unless you are selling pups with limited registration ,you cannot predict the future .So few people/buyers know whats in the paperwork they receive from the breeder.They don't know what FC or MH means , let alone EIC/ CNM.Now throw in clear /affected/carrier status .And down the block,the neighbor has a dog and they think it would be a good match to breed the 2, w/o testing ,and the problem continues for how many more generations ???
If the breeders before us had this attitude , with lets say , hip dysplasia, what would have happened to the breed , long and short term ?
This generation of breeders has an opportunity to eliminate a serious problem from the breed we all love .They give us so much , do we not owe them any less than our best ?


----------



## LabLady (Jan 27, 2003)

They are harder to sell, I would suspect.

Vikki


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

bcollins said:


> I have a question for all the experts that have been posting on this thread.If their is no difference between a carrier and a clear pup then why are breeders selling the carrier pups cheaper than the clear pups.


Show me a performance litter like that. Most FT people want a dog that will do the work. Since buying pups are crapshoots anyway, I think I want a pup out of 2 proven dogs. If 1 is a carrier, oh well.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

bcollins said:


> I have a question for all the experts that have been posting on this thread.If their is no difference between a carrier and a clear pup then why are breeders selling the carrier pups cheaper than the clear pups.


Every breeder decides how they choose to do things. I don't do that but then I make sure they don't breed unless they understand the status by using limited registration.


----------



## Echo41725 (Jul 25, 2004)

I still would like to know why people continue breeding EIC carriers when there are PLENTY of EIC clear dogs? What's the purpose of the testing if everyone continues to pass the gene on? If a EIC carrier pup doesn't matter why is the last pup you see left out of a litter on this site almost always an EIC carrier?

And before someone says that only exceptional EIC carriers are bred, then why can you get on this site and find an EIC carrier bitch out of two FC's that has a SH title or no title at all bred to a EIC clearn FC?

Just curious is all


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

Again its just a piece of the puzzle... but I will offer some insight into what we just did.

EIC Clear Stud to Carrier Bitch. Again lots of pieces to the puzzle and we decided to go ahead with the breeding. The results were 9 puppies (3 Clear and 6 Carrier). We were open and honest about the status of all the pups. I found that very few people even knew what the hell we were talking about. Then after some education on the issue I still found them shying away from the breeding due to the "carrier" status. I found so many people not understanding the difference between carrier and affected.

We found excellent homes for each and every pup. I could not ask for better placements. However I dont think I would breed a carrier again unless the deck was incredibly stacked on other attributes.

One of the 8 week old clear pups at my feet now... regards.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Every breeder decides how they choose to do things. I don't do that but then I make sure they don't breed unless they understand the status by using limited registration.


Winner, winner chicken dinner!!! Cha Ching.....

Angie


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

If you look at the history of domestic dogs. By breeding away from EIC you are just going to bring another genetic fault to light. Be a responsible breeder and don't produce affected dogs, but don't discount carriers just on thier Eic status alone. It wasn't long ago when nobody knew what CNM or EIC even was. Just finished watching a documentary on pure breed dogs in europe. They have show champions with some serious health issues being bred just because they are CH and it is destroying the gene pool over there. Same thing applies. If you breed soley on one aspect of the breed i.e. staying away from eic, or because it is a FC but has questional hips then you will inevitabley cause another problem in the breed. Hope this makes sence its late. IMHO as a breeder if you have a dog that has all the traits that you are looking for to better the breed, and the only fault the dog has is it is a EIC carrier then you should count yourself very lucky.


----------



## rds7015 (May 19, 2006)

WOW, moral value vs money. Why would you knowing the health record, breed less than the best?? Are you a puppy mill? Turn the puppies out, with out regard to the betterment of the breed. But you saY MY SIRE IS A CHAMPION. I can understand breeding to a less than healthy dog, if that was all that was out there. When I got my pup I didnot know any thing about EIC etc. Just want a hunting dog. Ok, so now I am bitten, I would like to ht. Luck has it the pup came from a good breeder and was very good to me. I understand that I have a pup that can do hunt test.Why stop with EIC, why not color, overbite, as well as other breed defects??? Ok so I dont know what I am talking about, just novice in me talking out loud. Who do I trust????

Jim Schaefer


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

rds7015 said:


> WOW, moral value vs money. Why would you knowing the health record, breed less than the best?? Are you a puppy mill? Turn the puppies out, with out regard to the betterment of the breed. But you saY MY SIRE IS A CHAMPION. I can understand breeding to a less than healthy dog, if that was all that was out there. When I got my pup I didnot know any thing about EIC etc. Just want a hunting dog. Ok, so now I am bitten, I would like to ht. Luck has it the pup came from a good breeder and was very good to me. I understand that I have a pup that can do hunt test.Why stop with EIC, why not color, overbite, as well as other breed defects??? Ok so I dont know what I am talking about, just novice in me talking out loud. Who do I trust????
> 
> Jim Schaefer


 
Jim,

no offence,

but if you breed "only the best" you limit your gene pool so much that in the long run you end up with even worse genetic defects then you already have. There is a reason the the U of Min doesn't suggest that you cut EIC Carriers out of the gene pool. Cutting them out will eliminate EIC in a more timely manner, but they know what kinds of things doing that can cause. We do need more responsible breeders out there, but eic is not the end all be all. There are more things out there that people aren't talking about. Like at what age did you dogs FC father need an acl replacement. We need to look at the big picture.


----------



## Boondux (Feb 10, 2006)

rds7015 said:


> WOW, moral value vs money. Why would you knowing the health record, breed less than the best?? Are you a puppy mill? Turn the puppies out, with out regard to the betterment of the breed. But you saY MY SIRE IS A CHAMPION. I can understand breeding to a less than healthy dog, if that was all that was out there. When I got my pup I didnot know any thing about EIC etc. Just want a hunting dog. Ok, so now I am bitten, I would like to ht. Luck has it the pup came from a good breeder and was very good to me. I understand that I have a pup that can do hunt test.Why stop with EIC, why not color, overbite, as well as other breed defects??? Ok so I dont know what I am talking about, just novice in me talking out loud. Who do I trust????
> 
> Jim Schaefer


An EIC carrier pup is not a "less than healthy dog." They can live & perform just like any other dog. Keep in mind that you are one generation from having a clear pup if that is what you desire. Responsible breeders breed their carrier dog to a clear or clear to a clear. They do not produce affecteds and their breeding stock has health clearences. Sometimes "the best" stud pick may be an EIC carrier as long as the hips, elbows, eyes, CNM are good and you have a clear female.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

bcollins said:


> I have a question for all the experts that have been posting on this thread.If their is no difference between a carrier and a clear pup then why are breeders selling the carrier pups cheaper than the clear pups.


 
Wow Brady! You and Yella sure are more photogenic than me and Bus!

How are you, Easy, Yella and the rest getting along? Happy New Year!

Chris


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Wow Brady! You and Yella sure are more photogenic than me and Bus!
> 
> How are you, Easy, Yella and the rest getting along? Happy New Year!
> 
> Chris


No, he's not. He's got his heeling stick in front of his face!  Both pictures are so similar, I had to look twice!


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> No, he's not. He's got his heeling stick in front of his face!  Both pictures are so similar, I had to look twice!


Don't start the heeling stick stuff! I've already been beaten up for my stick in the wrong hand (versus Brady) and my knees improperly bent bent (versus Brady).

Both pics were taken by the same photog, on the same memory card, about 10 minutes apart on the same setup...except Yella smacked this beast of an uphill retured at Fish Road and Bus had to be helped...DOH!

(probably cuz I bent my knees and held my stuff wrong)


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> (probably cuz I bent my knees and held my stuff wrong)


Oh suuuuuurrrrrrrrreeeeee..... your dog just knew your knees were bent, and you held your "stuff" wrong...


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

P.S. props to Jim Harvey....

Freshest, juiciest oranges you could ever imagine from Harvey's Grove....and one heck of a camera clicker!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

John Kelder said:


> If the breeders before us had this attitude , with lets say , hip dysplasia, what would have happened to the breed , long and short term ?
> This generation of breeders has an opportunity to eliminate a serious problem from the breed we all love .They give us so much , do we not owe them any less than our best ?


Hmm, so you think OFA cert'd dogs aren't potential "carriers" for Hip and Elbow dysplasia too? Considering they are both likely polygenetic, I think you may want to reconsider what you just wrote. Otherwise our cert'd dogs would never produce HD or such. 

And then think about allergies. Too many genetics involved to predict but not something I want in my place either. Epilepsy may be the same complicated issue. Let's not fool ourselves-- we aren't in control of so much. I too sell on Limited for that reason. At least get those pups thru the first 2.5 yrs or so and see what you've got before converting regs to full... not a popular thing w/ the field folks but might be worth considering.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

windycanyon said:


> Hmm, so you think OFA cert'd dogs aren't potential "carriers" for Hip and Elbow dysplasia too? Considering they are both likely polygenetic, I think you may want to reconsider what you just wrote. Otherwise our cert'd dogs would never produce HD or such.
> 
> And then think about allergies. Too many genetics involved to predict but not something I want in my place either. Epilepsy may be the same complicated issue. Let's not fool ourselves-- we aren't in control of so much. I too sell on Limited for that reason. At least get those pups thru the first 2.5 yrs or so and see what you've got before converting regs to full... not a popular thing w/ the field folks but might be worth considering.


You need to look at what I wrote again .It was in the form of a question .And I am well aware of that a "cert'd" may produce pups with HD.
And WE ARE in control of this EIC issue, do not fool yourself .


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I really think what this boils down to is the stigma of the positive identification of "carrier" status and the association of buying defective mechandise and in some cases the fear of that status because they can't/won't understand genetics. If you want to equate breeding the best (a favorite BYB line) with EIC clear then by all means go and make that your priority, but don't try to force your "pure" stock beliefs onto breeders who utilize the tests properly and try to label them as breeders with ulterior motives. Part of this also is the same people that want to "purify" the breed, also demand full registrations because they want to make their own decisions, but they really don't know how because the whole genetics thing really scares them. They want the decisions to be easy. Select A stud for B dam and you get perfect pups. It doesn't work that way because inheritance is not always black and white (polygenic, crossing over, genes that influence other genes, mutation and more). Something can always come up because we are all carriers of disease. Concentrate on educating those that will never take the steps to test for EIC, CNM, CERF. This too will pass in a couple of generations just as CNM, dwarfism, and blindness which are rare now now among the tested stock but are still found with the untested and uneducated byb and puppy mills.


----------



## goldngirl (Nov 10, 2009)

My, my, a complex issue ......

Food for thought.....genetics are set per dog......as with all breedings.....you try to select out what you deem desirable in the breed.....and ofcourse when you do this in a breeding..."you get the best of the best...and the worst of the worst" .... so by trying to breed only the best of the breed( FC AFC champs who are EIC carriers verses EIC clear, CMN clear verses CMN affected, talent, trainability, desire, etc.) this is reality.

Truly, the best "specimens" bred over and over again only reduce the gene pool and hence do select out the best and worst genes....with multiple breedings, it is only a matter of time. 

If the Field Trial world's goal for our Labradors is to rid itself of the EIC gene, which in reality is probably here to stay in the pedigree...well, that goal is going to take time which means at least 5-6 generations of breeding labs who are only EIC clear, and true vigilance on the breeders part to only breed EIC clear with no exceptions. Now, if you choose that to be your goal, then you will sacrifice other characterisitics both genetically and behavioral (talent, etc.) to reach your goal. The question is also...can you find what you want in a field trial pup from a breeding that is EIC clear? Some say absolutely yes, some say no...I want what "FC AFC Dog X" had and that dog has EIC in his/her pedigree. So in the end, we are left to decide for ourselves, as field trialers, as breeders, what our goal is for the breed, or in our next pup, and what dogs we want to breed. And on the flipside...if all you want to do is just control the outcome of EIC affected dogs, and you like & desire the other qualities of the best FC AFC dogs that are affected or carriers.....well then, you will always have EIC lurking somewhere in the backround of the pedigree and pedigree's to come. Might as well get used to the EIC gene. 

And then to consider...what about the pet owners who do not test for EIC? Even if we are trying to select out the EIC gene for our labs,we cannot make every person out there who owns a lab test their dog for EIC before breedings or control their choice of dam and sire regardless if they are EIC clear or not. Yes, there are both EIC clear FC AFC males and females, and breeding only EIC clear dogs seems the clear & logical choice when just looking at one genetic trait. But then reality sets in and the EIC issue gets a bit muddy, as we all know there are many other traits, and qualities in the field trial labs we all look for and we ALL admire in some of the very best EIC carriers or EIC affected dogs, who have been bred over and over again. Should we do whats best for the breed or future of the breed, or do we just decide that...."I want a lab like that FC AFC dog even though I know I will most likely have an EIC carrier?" Tough decision for some?

Why is there a desire to buy a pup out of a FC AFC famous dog?? We all know the answer to that question and unfortunately the EIC gene has just recently been identified along with a diagnostic test to figure out who is affected, who is a carrier and which dogs are not EIC positive. Would we have done anything different in breedings had we had known about the EIC issues before the genetic trait was identified and a test available, especially concerning all the breedings of great FC AFC labs?? I don't know ???? Well,ofcourse we might have really tried to stay away from breeding 2 EIC carriers or affected labs, but I bet we would have still bred the FC AFC EIC affected or carrier "famous" dog to a lab that was not EIC affected, so then we still would be stuck with the EIC gene in our field trial lab gene pool? Maybe a few of our furry friends would be alive today if we had known now what we didn't about EIC. Hopefully, we would have avoided the EIC affected dogs, since this is one terrible outcome of the EIC gene, no one should be witness to or bear losing a dog. But I bet, and I maybe wrong, (not saying I would have done it) but I think there would have been breedings of famous dogs, and some would ask ..."why would we do this?" ....well, it goes back to our desire and wish to have the best chance of having a dog that might be as good as the sire or dam. And ofcourse the good ol' money issue comes to mind because stud fees and breedings can be a motivator to breed a famous and talented dog. So...we might still be in the same boat with EIC just with less dogs dying from being EIC affected? 

Guess, since we cannot impose true regulations on breeding labs, whether they are EIC positivie or negative, plus all the other factors we screen for...CMN, eyes, heart, elbows, etc.....it is up to each and everyone of us to decide where to spend our hard earned dollars when purchasing a pup. 

So after all that....my questions to myself and everyone who is in the field trial world....."What is your goal or your wishes for our breed's future and the EIC gene? & How will my personal choices and thoughts affect my choice in a field trial lab or pup?"
Not that it is any of my business...but just curious.


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

WOW! 
I hope this post doesn't mean you're going "Lab" on us, goldngirl. 
Hey, BTW, that's a real nice looking dog in your avatar. 
BAIT


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

Okay - I've read through this long enough with out saying a word - I have an EIC carrier that is a MH . THAT PART IS NO SECRET - I know where he caught the gene from . Do I dislike him more than my dog that is clear ----------------- absolutley not . Sure I've missed out on a few breedings , but the reality remains , IF a dog has everything your looking for in a stud , then by god , use that stud and cull the carriers and affecteds if need be . I just don't see where a carrier is that bad . HELL had this test been out 5 years ago when I got Jax , I still would have bought him and ran him in HT's . IF you want to get rid of EIC or whatever else may come up then start cullin and cullin hard -- and see what a mess you get .


Grandpa always told us kids ---------- Wish in one hand and **** in the other - See what the hell you get regards .
________
Buy extreme q vaporizer


----------



## Linas Danilevicius (Jan 2, 2009)

Okay, not sure where this is going but I just looked at the last three issues of Retriever News. This is not a "scientific" anaylsis by any measure; however, I was curious to see from what type of breedings our new FC's and AFC's are coming from each month. RN publishes that months new list of FC/AFC dogs and their Dam's and Sire's.

Over the past three months there have been 48 FCs or AFCs titled. Of those new FC/AFC dogs, 42 had at least one or both parents as an NFC, FC, or AFC which equates to 87.5% of the Dams and Sires were titled.

I broke this down further. Of the 42 dogs whose parents were at least an FC/AFC on one side or the other, I went back and counted the parents who were both titled as NFC, FC, or AFC. The number was 14 or 29% of the total of 48 dogs.

What can I surmise from these facts? You need to have a good breeding to find that next FC or AFC with a minimum of one parent being titled at that level or above. Or at least both parents. From my limited experience, which is indeed limited, I am quickly learning that you need an exceptional pup from the best breeding to try to make it to the world of FCs and AFCs.

Lastly, one other thing I noticed. The average birth date seems to be around 2004. I did not do the math to average the years out but by quick glance, it appears that it takes 5 years to win enough points to meet the threshold for an FC or AFC title (and the dog to be able to do it).

If we breed away from these wonderful dogs what will happen to the talent pool so to speak?

Linas


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

-- from a previous quote : If the Field Trial world's goal for our Labradors is to rid itself of the EIC gene, which in reality is probably here to stay in the pedigree...well, that goal is going to take time which means at least 5-6 generations of breeding labs who are only EIC clear, and true vigilance on the breeders part to only breed EIC clear with no exceptions. 

_If all you breed are clears.. EIC is gone in 1 generation. (That means you may select for nothing else)_


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> -- from a previous quote : If the Field Trial world's goal for our Labradors is to rid itself of the EIC gene, which in reality is probably here to stay in the pedigree...well, that goal is going to take time which means at least 5-6 generations of breeding labs who are only EIC clear, and true vigilance on the breeders part to only breed EIC clear with no exceptions.
> 
> _If all you breed are clears.. EIC is gone in 1 generation. (That means you may select for nothing else)_


 
Your right about selecting nothing else , IF you cut the carriers out . your missing out on some great dogs . IF you still utilize the carriers and cull the affecteds , or if you want carriers , you can still get all the good (granted you may loose a few exceptional dogs), by keeping only the clears -
________
Mexicocity hotel


----------



## andrewschlueter (Dec 23, 2009)

Linas Danilevicius said:


> Over the past three months there have been 48 FCs or AFCs titled.
> Linas


It would be intresting to see how many are EIC clear or EIC carrier.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

I'd be willing to bet that if you look at all the finalists in this year's NFC and NAFC, every dog has at least one ancestor that is an EIC carrier and an ancestor that is a CNM carrier. There are some very nice dogs that are in most pedigrees that have positively influenced the breed immeasurably that were carriers of these diseases as well as others. If the tests had been available at the time, would dogs like Maxx, Cosmo, Tank, Honcho and Lottie have had the same influence on the breed? Would the dogs be as good? Who knows?


----------



## Linas Danilevicius (Jan 2, 2009)

This is pulled from a post on a thread regarding EIC. The post is from Katie Minor, one of the researchers that put the EIC test together. She was updating the stats as of July 2009. I would venture to say that this statistical sample would contain many of the Dams and Sires listed in RN for our new FCs and AFCs. I also go along with the previous post, that where would the breed be without Maxx, Cosmo, Lotties, etc?

"Hi everyone, 
I thought it was time for an update on numbers tested. These stats are from VDL official test results submitted since the test became available late last July.


700 affected -This includes diagnostic testing for collapsing dogs, as well as litter testing from parents found to be carriers. As such, it is inflated compared to the population at large; which is predicted to be 3-5% based on the carrier rate. 

2595 carrier 

3664 clear 

6959 Total



Affected 10%
Carrier 37%
Clear 53%

This is not a random sampling of Labradors. This is a breakdown of dogs tested."


----------



## MoJo (Mar 24, 2004)

Some definitions to start.

*genotype: *the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms with reference to a single trait, set of traits, or an entire complex of traits
This describes the genetics of the characteristics on the chromosomes.

*phenotype: *the observable constitution of an organism
This is what you see.


-EIC is pretty well proven to be dictated by an autosomal recessive mode of inheritance. What does that mean? (And I know most of you know this)
- Let's call the EIC clear gene E, and let's call the EIC affected gene e. 
- Assuming a strictly autosomal recessive mode of inheritance, the dog must have two little e's to be affected.
- Let's look at a breeding between a carrier (Ee) and a clear dog (EE) and look at how the two chromosomes could pair up.
- Reminder, it takes two to tango, so you need two ee's for an affected.

Carrier 
----------| E e
___________________
Clear ---E | EE Ee
---------E| EE Ee
==========================
That's 50% clear and 50% carriers. 

I would do it in a heartbeat if both of the dogs had other clearances, were very good performers and it was a good breeding.If you have a carrier, you just need to be careful about to which dog you breed.

I think there are many out there that do not understand Mendelian genetics and how they operate and therefore become scared when they hear "EIC Carrier".

That being said, I am glad my bitch and the dog to whom I bred her are both clear mostly for the reason that I do not want to contend with the stigma of an EIC Carrier. However, I would have done it even if one of them was a carrier. 

I do not think we want to unnecessarily dilute the gene pool of talented dogs that could produce future nice pups due to a trait for which we can test, is autosomal recessive and will (as far as we know at this time) not be passed on phenotipically if you breed a carrier to a clear.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

There is no such thing as a clean/clear dog. Every dog is a carrier of something - actually about 30 "somethings" if we are to believe geneticists. So we are going to advocate removing EIC-carriers from the breeding pool and somehow think we have accomplished something good for the breed ? While removing some otherwise great dogs w e will continue to breed the others who are still carriers of the 30 something genetic recessive traits - many of which could be far worse than EIC. I guess this means ignorance is bliss.....as long as we don't know what we are breeding it is better than breeding with the knowledge of how to avoid affected dogs? I don't think so.

Less than 5% of performance field dog owners are breeders, the rest of us (or at the least the majority) just want great, healthy dogs - and an EIC-carrier dog is just as healthy as an EIC-clear dog.

Let's just say (no accusations) that Super Chief, Honcho, Cody, Abe, Harley, LM and Chavez were EIC-carriers. If they had been eliminated without breeding EIC-carriers, virtually none of them would have been born much less bred. I think that would not have been good for our Lab breed. Testing for EIC and other genetic issues just gives us a better tool for predicting results. To use such testing to eliminate otherwise great dogs from the breeding pool is a mistake of major proportions for the breed.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Granddaddy said:


> There is no such thing as a clean/clear dog. Every dog is a carrier of something - actually about 30 "somethings" if we are to believe geneticists. So we are going to advocate removing EIC-carriers from the breeding pool and somehow think we have accomplished something good for the breed ? While removing some otherwise great dogs w e will continue to breed the others who are still carriers of the 30 something genetic recessive traits - many of which could be far worse than EIC. I guess this means ignorance is bliss.....as long as we don't know what we are breeding it is better than breeding with the knowledge of how to avoid affected dogs? I don't think so.
> 
> Less than 5% of performance field dog owners are breeders, the rest of us (or at the least the majority) just want great, healthy dogs - and an EIC-carrier dog is just as healthy as an EIC-clear dog.
> 
> Let's just say (no accusations) that Super Chief, Honcho, Cody, Abe, Harley, LM and Chavez were EIC-carriers. If they had been eliminated without breeding EIC-carriers, virtually none of them would have been born much less bred. I think that would not have been good for our Lab breed. Testing for EIC and other genetic issues just gives us a better tool for predicting results. To use such testing to eliminate otherwise great dogs from the breeding pool is a mistake of major proportions for the breed.


Amen. You stated it better than I attempted. Anne


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> There is no such thing as a clean/clear dog. Every dog is a carrier of something - actually about 30 "somethings" if we are to believe geneticists. So we are going to advocate removing EIC-carriers from the breeding pool and somehow think we have accomplished something good for the breed ? While removing some otherwise great dogs w e will continue to breed the others who are still carriers of the 30 something genetic recessive traits - many of which could be far worse than EIC. I guess this means ignorance is bliss.....as long as we don't know what we are breeding it is better than breeding with the knowledge of how to avoid affected dogs? I don't think so.
> 
> Less than 5% of performance field dog owners are breeders, the rest of us (or at the least the majority) just want great, healthy dogs - and an EIC-carrier dog is just as healthy as an EIC-clear dog.
> 
> Let's just say (no accusations) that Super Chief, Honcho, Cody, Abe, Harley, LM and Chavez were EIC-carriers. If they had been eliminated without breeding EIC-carriers, virtually none of them would have been born much less bred. I think that would not have been good for our Lab breed. Testing for EIC and other genetic issues just gives us a better tool for predicting results. To use such testing to eliminate otherwise great dogs from the breeding pool is a mistake of major proportions for the breed.


Winner, winner,,, chicken dinner!!!!

Angie


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Should the criteria for breeding Labradors be based on what traits a small segment of breeders have individually or even collectively for that matter(?), determined is good for Field Trials ?????? Or , when mutually exclusive, should it be what is good for the breed at large ?

Tail wagging the dog regards,

john


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

John, I can't answer the greater philosophical question.........

.......... But, if you want a competitive field trial dog you'd better buy a pup from the best field trial litter you can find.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Howard N said:


> John, I can't answer the greater philosophical question.........
> 
> .......... But, if you want a competitive field trial dog you'd better buy a pup from the best field trial litter you can find.


Yes , but the question remains................ Is that necessarily a good thing for the breed at large ?

Or should the game be played with dogs that fall within some generaly accepted standard that would include health standards.


john


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

john fallon said:


> Yes , but the question remains................ Is that necessarily a good thing for the breed at large ?
> 
> *Or should the game be played with dogs that fall within some generaly accepted standard that would include health standards.*
> 
> ...


The game is being played with dogs that fall within generally accepted stds. The issue here is that some are trying/wanting to impose unrealistic and artificially imposed stds while continuing to breed carrier dogs of "something", thinking that is better than breeding with the tools we have to avoid affected dogs. A carrier is not a health issue, it is an identification that should be considered when breeding - nothing more/nothing less.

If you are saying we should dumb-down performance for the sake of an artifical health std, that is wrong, contrary to very idea of improving the breed. You seem to forget or ignore that all dogs are carrier dogs of approxs. 30 recessive traits. Science has helped breeders by identifying a hand full of those but only a small minority. Secondly, there will always be carriers BUT, the important, significant thing is that carriers are just as healthy as clear dogs when we are talking about a specific trait. Further when we are talking about multiple traits, ALL dogs are carriers.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> The game is being played with dogs that fall within generally accepted stds. The issue here is that some are trying/wanting to impose unrealistic and artificially imposed stds while continuing to breed carrier dogs of "something", thinking that is better than breeding with the tools we have to avoid affected dogs. A carrier is not a health issue, it is an identification that should be considered when breeding - nothing more/nothing less.
> 
> If you are saying we should dumb-down performance for the sake of an artifical health std, that is wrong, contrary to very idea of improving the breed. You seem to forget or ignore that all dogs are carrier dogs of approxs. 30 recessive traits. Science has helped breeders by identifying a hand full of those but only a small minority. Secondly, there will always be carriers BUT, the important, significant thing is that carriers are just as healthy as clear dogs when we are talking about a specific trait. Further when we are talking about multiple traits, ALL dogs are carriers.


That there is a broad and all encompassing statement

Is that true for ...um..hip dysplasia ?

john


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

john fallon said:


> That there is a broad and all encompassing statement
> 
> Is that true for ...um..hip dysplasia ?
> 
> john


Apples and oranges, autosomal recessive (EIC) versus polygenetic (hip dysplasia); testing for EIC confirms genetic trait, hip x-rays confirm a physical structural condition NOT a genetic trait - and most importantly, a dog judged with excellent hips can be a carrier for hip dysplasia.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Apples and oranges, autosomal recessive (EIC) versus polygenetic (hip dysplasia); testing for EIC confirms genetic trait, hip x-rays confirm a physical structural condition NOT a genetic trait - and most importantly, a dog judged with excellent hips can be a carrier for hip dysplasia.



Is there any reason *you* would consider it a good thing to breed a dysplastic dog ?

john


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Boy, this topic goes round and round!

I recently inquired about a litter. Dam tested for EIC, sire not tested. I asked why and stated that for my purpose (hobby competition), a carrier was not an issue. Additionally, I do not buy a dog with the intention of breeding - that only comes later if the dog is really nice. The answer I got was that many (FT folks and others) do not trust the test and so they do not care to do the testing. What was interesting was that both talented animals were owned by the same person.

So this is another idea - why don't we see elbows on every breeding dog? And why don't all of those dogs tested for EIC post their results on the OFA site if it is so important? And why not CERF before all pups are sold? And why not a history with no allergies for both sire and dam? And you name any issue...Oh and also, I would really like a critique about the trainability of the pups produced by the sire and dam... 

Did I forget anything???

Oh yeah, does a failure to certify in "any of the above" eliminate the dog for the purpose that an average dog owner intends for the animal? How many of our dogs go on a pro's truck with the intent to be a truck dog for it's entire life? How many are weekend warriors? How many are occasional competitiors, hunters and full time companions?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

john fallon said:


> Is there any reason *you* would consider it a good thing to breed a dysplastic dog ?
> 
> john


Probably not but it has nothing to do with this discussion. To not breed a dysplastic dog would be decided because the dog has "expressed" a condition of unknown but possibly polygenetic origin. An EIC carrier does not "express" the EIC trait, rather that dog is completely healthy as regards EIC but carries the EIC autosomal recessive trait that can only possibly be expressed if that dog is bred to an EIC-carrier or affected dog. And in the case of EIC we have testing to positively conclude the trait, with dysplasia we have no test and even dogs with excellent, good or fair hip can produce dysplastic pups. That same EIC-carrier dog when bred to an EIC-clear dog will never produce EIC-affected pups. In comparison (why your example is not germane), a dog with excellent hips can very well be a carrier of hip dysplasia. To carry your illogical example to its conclusion, the question you would have to ask, if you are consistent, would be if dogs with excellent hips produce dysplastic dogs does that mean you don't breed dogs with excellent hips?

The bottom line is we don't know what causes dyplasia and do know what causes EIC and how to avoid it being expressed.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Probably not but it has nothing to do with this discussion. To not breed a dysplastic dog would be decided because the dog has "expressed" a condition of unknown but possibly polygenetic origin. An EIC carrier does not "express" the EIC trait, rather that dog is completely healthy as regards EIC but carries the EIC autosomal recessive trait that can only possibly be expressed if that dog is bred to an EIC-carrier or affected dog. And in the case of EIC we have testing to positively conclude the trait, with dysplasia we have no test and even dogs with excellent, good or fair hip can produce dysplastic pups. That same EIC-carrier dog when bred to an EIC-clear dog will never produce EIC-affected pups. In comparison (why your example is not germane), a dog with excellent hips can very well be a carrier of hip dysplasia. To carry your illogical example to its conclusion, the question you would have to ask, if you are consistent, would be if dogs with excellent hips produce dysplastic dogs does that mean you don't breed dogs with excellent hips?
> 
> The bottom line is we don't know what causes dyplasia and do know what causes EIC and how to avoid it being expressed.


Did my OP's restrict themself by rerfencing EIC ?

You say Probably not? Why didn't you just say "No"

Or are you going to go down that_ overwhelming redeeming qualities _road?

john


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

john fallon said:


> Did my OP's restrict themself by rerfencing EIC ?
> 
> You say Probably not? Why didn't you just say "No"
> 
> ...


Probably not means probably not. That said, I'm remembering River Oaks Corky, who is rumored to have been dysplastic...& is the all-time high pt dog, 2x NAFC, NFTCH & sire of several titled dogs.

The issue, in the case of dysplasia, is that we do not know the means of inheritance. So dysplasia is a poor comparative example to that of an EIC carrier when discussing breeding, i.e., we do not know conclusively that a dog expressing dysplasia will, in fact, pass that condition on to his offspring. But again, uinder most all circumstances I probably would not breed a dysplastic dog. And BTW, ironic that ROC could accomplish what he accomplished being dysplastic while numerous dogs with OFA cert hips of excellent, good or fair are retired early due to arthritic hips.


----------



## Jared77 (Oct 7, 2009)

> So this is another idea - why don't we see elbows on every breeding dog? And why don't all of those dogs tested for EIC post their results on the OFA site if it is so important? And why not CERF before all pups are sold? And why not a history with no allergies for both sire and dam? And you name any issue...Oh and also, I would really like a critique about the trainability of the pups produced by the sire and dam...


I was with you till the sarcastic comment about trainability. When I went out looking for my dog I asked about all the health issues and I don't want a dog to breed. I just want a healthy dog that I can share as much time as I can with my future hunting companion, compete in HT, and family companion as possible. Why have their working time and overall quality of life cut short because I didn't ask or a breeder felt it was ok to not test for certain possible health factors? 

Those are all part of finding a good dog and its not just dependant on future breeding stock. Those things are all important regardless of where the dog goes or if its going to be bred or not.



> Oh yeah, does a failure to certify in "any of the above" eliminate the dog for the purpose that an average dog owner intends for the animal? How many of our dogs go on a pro's truck with the intent to be a truck dog for it's entire life? How many are weekend warriors? How many are occasional competitiors, hunters and full time companions?


Its about producing quality dogs. So your saying its ok to push off a less than perfect dog on someone who's just a hunting companion or someone who wants to train their own dog for a few HTs and let their kids play with when not in a blind?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Jared77 said:


> .... *I just want a healthy dog *that I can share as much time as I can with my future hunting companion, compete in HT, and family companion as possible. ...
> 
> Those are all part of finding a good dog and its not just dependant on future breeding stock. Those things are all important regardless of where the dog goes or if its going to be bred or not....
> 
> Its about producing quality dogs. *So your saying its ok to push off a less than perfect dog on someone *who's just a hunting companion or someone who wants to train their own dog for a few HTs and let their kids play with when not in a blind?


Jared, 

Just a couple of questions relative to your remarks:

1) Is an EIC-carrier dog a "heathy dog" in your opinion?
2) Are there perfect dogs available for purchase?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> 2) Are there perfect dogs available for purchase?


Ain't never been one.

Jared77 might have a long hunt on his hands if he's expecting to find a perfect pup.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Jared77 said:


> Those are all part of finding a good dog and its not just dependant on future breeding stock. Those things are all important regardless of where the dog goes or if its going to be bred or not.
> 
> Its about producing quality dogs. So your saying its ok to push off a less than perfect dog on someone who's just a hunting companion or someone who wants to train their own dog for a few HTs and let their kids play with when not in a blind?


The point is: nothing is perfect. You would prefer that a dog that is otherwise healthy should be culled and only the "perfect" animal should be available. Boy, that would really eliminate many puppies. HOw about those that don't have the best coats, are the "wrong color", don't look the way the breeder wants them to look, are too small or too large, perhaps are slightly cowhocked or don't move exactly like the breeder would like. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Every dog is a carrier of something.

In regard to trainability: Yes, I would like a dog that is easy to train AND remembers what it has been taught. Who would want a dog that was difficult and not trainable?Had a nice young dog here for some basic manners and OB. He was extremely sweet and perfect for the family that owned him. He didn't retain any training beyond a few days and at some point, we had to routinely review manners over and over and over (beyond what I have normally encountered). (It was a learning experience for me because pedigree and performance do make a difference in the puppy that you buy.) His pedigree was nothing and no clearances were done. Should that puppy be considered one that is less than perfect? He had the perfect disposition for the kids and his family loved him. 

I run HT's, don't make money breeding and right now my dogs (both retired and current HT dogs ) are lounging with me in the living room. I don't particularily like your comment that I would push off a less than perfect dog off on someone who is a hobbist like you! My dogs have all done what we have wanted them to do as far as our HT/FT goals were concerned. None of them are perfect! I am not a pro and dogs are a hobby...not a career.


----------



## Jared77 (Oct 7, 2009)

> 1) Is an EIC-carrier dog a "heathy dog" in your opinion?


Since it is not afflicted with EIC then its a healthy dog. It only carries the trait. But that does not mean its a dog that should be bred.



> 2) Are there perfect dogs available for purchase?


As said before, no such thing.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Jared77 said:


> Since it is not afflicted with EIC then its a healthy dog. It only carries the trait. But that does not mean its a dog that should be bred.
> 
> 
> 
> As said before, no such thing.


I'd have to conclude from your remarks you would not breed or own a dog. Why? Because all dogs are carriers of a number of recessive traits & therefore none are perfect or clean. Life (in this case meaning specifically the life contained within a dog) just isn't as simple & objective as we would like when things are thought through to their logical conclusion.

I say use the science available to make the best choices possible to choose the imperfect pup which best provides you the potential to have the best dog you can have, then train it the best you can to accomplish you goals for the dog -then hope for the best results. But understand the science & understand even with the best understanding, choosing a pup will always be subjective and the pup chosen will always be a carrier of approx. 30 something recessive traits, many of which may be far worse than EIC.

And in the case of EIC & other recessive traits for which there is a test, by all means use those tests & the means of breeding to avoid producing affected dogs (meaning dogs that express the trait).


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Trainability as far as genetics is a far cry different than EIC.
So so so much more goes into the trainability of the pup than simple gentics.
Early socialization(birth-7weeks.),(7weeks-23weeks) . I've raised too many pups for clients that the pups were given early socialization from a distance.
My own personal perference is to buy only clear pups. Again MY own personal perf.
To each his/her own. 
As far as this discussion goes....................can't eliminate "Good" dogs from the gene pool simply cus they are carriers or even effected. Too many "Good" dogs AND their pedigrees would be lost forever.
IMHO
Sue


----------



## goldngirl (Nov 10, 2009)

To Hookset, yup thats what I am talking about!

And no Bait....not going all Lab on ya! LOL


----------



## andrewschlueter (Dec 23, 2009)

I think it is a personal choice. A choice on wither you think that an EIC carrier is something that you want to produce. Yes, you can breed to an EIC clear and get the 50/50 chance on the pups. And that means that you have tested both the male and female. If you are ok with passing the trait on and having the possibility of one of your pups passing on the EIC carrier or EIC affected to their pups, then do it. Granted that would not be your fault if you inform the purchaser of your pup that there is a chance that his pup might be an EIC carrier. But the person you sell the pup too might not test, and then produce an EIC carrier or an EIC affected and that could have been stopped, by you. Now before you say that no dog is all clear or perfect, I understand that, but this EIC is not a desired trait, no matter how you put it. How many breeders have got a call saying I want a EIC carrier pup, not sure, but willing to bet that not a whole lot. It has a test and can be eliminated or carried on depending on your decision.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Linas Danilevicius said:


> This is pulled from a post on a thread regarding EIC. The post is from Katie Minor, one of the researchers that put the EIC test together. She was updating the stats as of July 2009. I would venture to say that this statistical sample would contain many of the Dams and Sires listed in RN for our new FCs and AFCs. I also go along with the previous post, that where would the breed be without Maxx, Cosmo, Lotties, etc?
> 
> "Hi everyone,
> I thought it was time for an update on numbers tested. These stats are from VDL official test results submitted since the test became available late last July.
> ...


I don´t know what other breeds of dogs are affected by EIC but in my knowledge it probably concerns mainly labs but also Chessies and Curlies.

So these numbers posted implicate that nearly half of the population of the dogs tested are either affected or carriers. So if these dogs are all excluded from breeding half of the genepool is lost.....

I think it should be the choice of the breeder whether he uses a carrier or not, but everybody should considerthat breeding a carrier to a clear will also produce clear pups (hopefully) with genes otherwise lost for the breed which can be used in the future by people who only want to use clear dogs for breeding...

So I guess people who use carriers will support the future variety of the genepool more than people who exclude them from their breeding program.
And I would assume that high quality breedings even with a carrier shouldn´t have huge problems to find homes for the pups.
For example I would always take an EIC carrier pup out of a FC x FC breeding if I would be interested in labs and if everything else is looking ok (hips, elbows, eyes cmn and so on)


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Why does everyone keep forgetting that the majority of puppy buyers, *Don't Breed*!!!

I'll give my own personal example... I have a wonderful bitch that is EIC affected. Never shown a symptom and will get her SH at 5 years of age. She has 5 breed points and I hope to get her CH here soon. I got her later in life... She trains hard, hunts hard and throws wonderful puppies. I breed her once a year to a stud that is clear of EIC and I could sell 2 litters of those puppies every time she has a litter. That combination has found a huge niche in my puppy clientelle...

So I sell them on a limited registration, plus edumacte the puppy owners, that their puppy is a carrier of this disease....

Pretty simple,,, they say, "I want a companion, I want a hunting dog, I want a dog to do doggie games in the off season"... 

Not once has a puppy buyer said,, "Well heck,,, I want a clear because I want to breed _precious_ some day".....

Breeding is NOT in the mind set of the general puppy buying market....

If you think it is,,,, Ummm,,, well then,,, you're unedumacated as to what the market place is really like for puppies...

As far as the field trial market goes,,, They just want a healthy dog... They're not that big into breeding either... They want to win!!!

And the one FC I did own was a carrier for CNM and EIC and if I had known that before hand when purchasing him as a puppy, I would have taken him anyway because his pedigree was that nice. I wanted a winner not a sperm donor... Breeding him was the last thing on the list.

Breeding is pretty black and white* IF *you know what you are doing and take off the "rose colored glasses" and get off "your personal soap box"...

What you want and what the the puppy buyer market wants could be a huge difference....

IMHO.....

Angie


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Angie B said:


> What you want and what the the puppy buyer market wants could be a huge difference....
> 
> IMHO.....
> 
> Angie


I couldn't agree more. If puppy sellers just relied on the posters of this board to sell puppies, the market would really be over-saturated. 

The problem is, we all want to win the lottery, or have the next Lean Mac. But, I don't have to tell the majority of you, that the chances are slim to none. 

I agree with Angie, while having a clear pup is "nice", carriers are just fine....... as long as they are carrying home the blues.

Oh, and BTW, for the "purists", where would our breed be (and, I'm talking field dogs, not bench) if Lean Mac or Lottie had never been bred?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> I couldn't agree more. If puppy sellers just relied on the posters of this board to sell puppies, the market would really be over-saturated.
> 
> The problem is, we all want to win the lottery, or have the next Lean Mac. But, I don't have to tell the majority of you, that the chances are slim to none.
> 
> ...


Winner, winner,,, again chicken dinner... 

I loved every Cosmo puppy I trained and I would no more take them out of the gene pool then lean Mac,, or Lottie puppies or Abe puppies, or Harley puppies or Zipper puppies, or a multitude of other puppies I've trained from wonderful dogs and bitches that could be a EIC carrier, or clear or affected...

That's the way it is.....

Why is this so hard????

Angie


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Oh, and BTW, for the "purists", where would our breed be (and, I'm talking field dogs, not bench) if Lean Mac or Lottie had never been bred?


Objection.....Calls for speculation.

john


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Objection.....Calls for speculation.
> 
> john


Speculation? Those two dogs have produced some of our best in the field trial world. 

fp


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Objection.....Calls for speculation.
> 
> john


Actually, as you well know, it's quite factual. Look back in your old issues of FT News and see all the Lean Mac dogs who became FCs, and the grandsons who are now FCs. And then there's Lottie. Look at the pedigree of our little derby champion, Ammo...... and the name right there in the pedigree.


----------



## LabLady (Jan 27, 2003)

We also have a lot of clear sires that have Lottie and Lean Mac (and Cosmo) in their pedigree.

Vikki


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

... The question calls for expert opinion, and we on the RTF are not an experts,
and even if we were...................


The speculation that I am refering to is what would have happened with this segment of the breed had they not lived.........and For arguments sake, suppose the dogs had been born but as puppies they went to different owners;-)

Where would we be now regards

john


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Why is this so hard????


Beats me. I consider myself lucky to be able to have offspring from Lottie, LM, Tank, Honcho, Corky and all those great dogs and they are EIC and CNM CLEAR. Why don't people GET this. USE the test and use limited registration if you don't feel that people have the knowledge to breed intelligently. It's about $$$ to some of these people buying dogs with breeding in mind, and not competition or hunting. So go buy from clear dogs, they are out there, and if they can't understand it, maybe they shouldn't be breeding. Think about it; EIC and CNM are some pretty strange genetic conditions. If you "purify" the gene pool, what other exotic genetic conditions will you uncover with your smaller gene pool. Von Willebrand’s is the most common bleeding disorder and is found in Labs, and we could end up with it being common. Go to Vetgen and click on the description of the disease and see what other breeds with smaller gene pools deal with.


----------



## LabLady (Jan 27, 2003)

What I am trying to say is that most of these same lines still have clear dogs in it. I don't think that we are narrowing our "gene pool" by using clear dogs from those same lines. 

Vikki


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

LabLady said:


> What I am trying to say is that most of these same lines still have clear dogs in it. I don't think that we are narrowing our "gene pool" by using clear dogs from those same lines.
> 
> Vikki


 True, but what if you get a high point something or other dog but he/she is a carrier-you don't breed them and test the pups? You just reject a new and better dog from a breeding program?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

LabLady said:


> What I am trying to say is that most of these same lines still have clear dogs in it. I don't think that we are narrowing our "gene pool" by using clear dogs from those same lines.
> 
> Vikki


What Nancy said,,,,, plus just because there are clear dogs/bitches from the same lines, are they necessarily as good a producer as their carrier or affected brothers or sisiters??

I think this whole EIC thing will works itself out over time. By utilizing clear dogs and bitches with carriers and affecteds sensibly, in a couple of generations you will have a majority of clear puppies. 

Angie


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

LabLady said:


> What I am trying to say is that most of these same lines still have clear dogs in it. I don't think that we are narrowing our "gene pool" by using clear dogs from those same lines.
> 
> Vikki


My question was, Viki, if Lean Mac, Lottie, etc had never been bred at all..... I personally, feel that Lean Mac had a lot of effect on our labs.... for the positive. 

Back in the old days, people even bred talented bitches with a "bad wheel" (HD) to FCs to get nice pups... 

The idea is to make smart breeding decisions with tools, not to narrow the gene pool and create a 3 headed horse.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

There is another side to this that most people don't get unless they breed a lot. If a sire is bred many times as opposed to one or two times, the breeder has more information, and the chances are there are fewer genetic defects that he passes to the average population. Now this doesn't work 100%, but maybe a sire passes parrot mouth and you get two pups in your litter. Do you repeat the breeding? Most would say no. Substitute epilepsy, entropion, hip dysplasia, tri-cuspid dysplasia, ectopic ureter, or any other common inherited genetic defect from an average well bred bitch that changes the quality of life for the pup. Is it something you want to add to your breeding program hoping you don't see it again? With a dog bred multiple times to multiple females you have more information. That outcross may also be risky because you have less information on his line. Does that mean you don't take the risk? No, but there is less risk in breeding an EIC carrier from a line that was bred a ton because it does not affect the quality of life of the pup if it is bred to a clear, than the risk of breeding to an unknown outcross with multiple individuals that were not bred much and relatively unknown to avoid the EIC lines. I'm not sure how many GET that, but I have experienced the phenomenon over the years.


----------



## hamie7 (Jul 31, 2009)

I have two eic. carrier females that I have breed to clear stud dogs only. And have had alot of people ask about the EIC. most are uninformed and think that just because they are a carrier they are sick. After explaining the genetics of EIC some understand others don't. So then I ask them that when they find a dog that is perfect no health issues. hips (have to be excellent), eyes, pra, cnm eic, allergies ect. let me know. I will buy one too. There is no perfectly healthy dog out there.And as soon as you find one there will be a test to find something else wrong.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

go ahead and breed your carriers to clear-just be darn sure the pups are tested before selling, and that the buyers of the carrier pups either don't breed them or use only clear dogs to breed them to. that means limited registrations for the breedable life of the dog. be responsible.

i have to say i find the narrow gene pool argument amusing- remember how many Lean Mac litters were sired about 10 years ago? that was a pretty narrow constriction.-Paul


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

Bayou Magic said:


> The sire of the all-time high point derby dog is an EIC carrier. Would you take him out of the gene pool?
> 
> fp


 
No but his owner is a different matter


----------



## Georgia.Belle (Dec 5, 2006)

Angie B said:


> Why does everyone keep forgetting that the majority of puppy buyers, *Don't Breed*!!!
> 
> As far as the field trial market goes,,, They just want a healthy dog... They're not that big into breeding either... They want to win!!!
> 
> Angie


My little EIC affected is a marking fool. Soft, easy to train, eager to please. I don't breed, I don't have the time. 

While EIC is scary as hell there is NOTHING wrong with a carrier. Would it be nice if she was unaffected, sure but every dog has something to teach you. Angie is right, I just want to win.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

> I really think what this boils down to is the stigma of the positive identification of "carrier" status and the association of buying defective mechandise and in some cases the fear of that status because they can't/won't understand genetics.


Actually, I think it is because a number close to 90% of the "holier-than-thous" on this site who profess not to be breeders, are really breeders just waiting to happen! It's all about breeding issues. If people truly want only a performance dog or a family pet, having a carrier is absolutely NOT DIFFERENT FROM HAVING A CLEAR!

As for puppy sales, people who truly want to succeed in field trials are generally more interested in the performance aspect of a pup's potential than its status as a carrier or a clear. Most of these folks are only buying pups from FC or FC-AFC sires bred to FC or FC-AFC dams.

Ditto the discussions about limited registration.


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

My personal hope is that all you lab people never breed an EIC carrier again, because that means in 5 years the goldens will rule:twisted:
That will be awesome!! Throwing that baby out with the bathwater
Tongue in cheek regards.


----------



## Goldenpond (Jan 7, 2010)

I should embrace D Osborn's cunning approach and add a bunch more breeding prohibitions until you end up with who knows what. But it pricks my conscience. I wonder if most people realize how limited is our understanding of the genome and genetics. Right now we have problems even identifying and counting genes. Some genes can be removed and the related trait doesn't go away. Some defective genes are no longer defective if environmental conditions are changed. Some eliminated genes will re-appear, apparently copied back from somewhere in the RNA. Some genes don't have contiguous sequences and some have both a contiguous copy and a discontiguous copy. Insurance aginst accidental change is built in in ways we don't yet understand and genes interact with each other and with neighboring "junk" sequences. Disturbing aspects of genetic science seem addicted to over-promising and under-delivering and thrive on selling anything patentable. Many patents turn out to be invalid such as the one for the means to identify all 100,000 human genes, kind of a con when the latest published number appears to be 23,000 and falling. Remember that genes were supposed to be coders for proteins, one for each of the identified human proteins, Crick said so? Recently we found one fruit fly gene producing 30 different proteins and many producing none at all. And remember that 90% of the human DNA that was supposed to be junk? Well that now appears to be where the epigenome may reside, but that doesn't exist because that idea was discredited decades ago when it was called Lamarckism, or was it? Genetics is about where astronomy was when it was called astrology. I'm not discrediting the science only the marketing of it as a technology which it is not, yet. Humans have a large number of so-called defective genes, all quite common. What about eliminating the one that causes carries of both copies to be subject to iron poisoning? well if we did that the human race would no longer have a gene providing natural immunity to hemorrhagic fever; the one where all your blood leaks out internally. The gene is quite common because of ancestors who survived the last epidemic. We have never looked to see if the EIC gene is environmentally influenced or if it carries with it some survival benefit. This is science at its worst: "if we don't look for it then its not there". The Newfoundland fishermen who originated the gene pool now represented by Labs used something we now call phenotype selection and we'd better stick to what we know works instead of applying a science in its earliest phase of understanding. A visit to Newfoundland and a voyage up the Labrador coast would be an eye-opener to a Lab owner, seeing the conditions this dog was developed for. Does anyone know if Newfoundland fishermen had a problem with EIC? The genome of wild canine evolved so that the best pair, the alphas, bred. There are as yet still undiscovered benefits to this approach. How do we know? we keep finding new ones on a frequent basis. Only recently did we discover just how rapidly the phenotype can adapt animal size to environmental change.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Wow this thread is moving faster than I can read.

1) singel trait selection is ALWAYS a bad idea. Doesn't matter if you are selecting for or against a trait, if breeding is based on a single trait, it is SINGLE TRAIT selection and therefore BAD because it opens things up to other things that we don't know about yet, unless one of these "clear" studs happens to be a carrier for something else that we don't know about yet, but he is overbred because he is "clear"

2) the U of M says that the test should not be used to irradicate the gene, but as a tool to not produce AFFECTED pups. If we were to remove all of the carriers we loose out on a lot of genetics as already been mentioned. Do you think the AMMO breeding should not be repeated? If Ammo is a carrier, should she not be bred????

3) Personally, if I were to produce a breeding that would produce carrier pups, I would test the pups and make sure that carrier pups went to nonbreeding homes with Limited registration. If in the future that pup turned out to be a dog worthy of breeding, the registration could be changed, correct? 

Finally) as mentioned selecting against a single trait is no different then selecting for a specific trait. For those that bash "silver" breeders for single trait selection, think about it.......


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Is there any reason *you* would consider it a good thing to breed a dysplastic dog ?
> 
> john


collectively, We don't even breed FAIR dogs let alone dysplastic.....

But there is a dog that I know that has FAIR hips that has not been bred, but if he were to be bred to a female with good/excellent hips and other traits that would make a good match I would not hesitate to buy one of the pups......


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

LabLady said:


> What I am trying to say is that most of these same lines still have clear dogs in it. I don't think that we are narrowing our "gene pool" by using clear dogs from those same lines.
> 
> Vikki


you can take two dogs from the same litter and one has the "goods" and one doesn't. To say that two dogs from the same lines carry the same genes is not completly true....

Maybe the one that is the carrier is a cut above the clear dog available from the same line. I'll take the dog with the "goods". save the clear with less talent for the carrier dams if needed.....


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

I will breed one in a heart beat.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

> But there is a dog that I know that has FAIR hips that has not been bred, but if he were to be bred to a female with good/excellent hips and other traits that would make a good match I would not hesitate to buy one of the pups......


I had a dog that was the result of OFA good to OFA good and he was severely displastic. It was not due to poor care, feeding, or injury!


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

limiman12 said:


> collectively, We don't even breed FAIR dogs let alone dysplastic.....
> 
> But there is a dog that I know that has FAIR hips that has not been bred, but if he were to be bred to a female with good/excellent hips and other traits that would make a good match I would not hesitate to buy one of the pups......


It doesn't matter if one dog in the litter has fair hips, (and it's a number, BTW) what matters is the depth and breadth of the pedigree not producing dysplastic hips.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

bcollins said:


> I have a question for all the experts that have been posting on this thread.If their is no difference between a carrier and a clear pup then why are breeders selling the carrier pups cheaper than the clear pups.


Human nature that folks will pay less for what they think is "tainted".


Would I breed a female I own to a carrier stud, no. 
Too many nice “clear” studs to choose from.

Though I bust my butt twice a year to help my club host Field Trials, I don’t view FT Labs as the “be all, end all” of Labs. Many FT bred dogs do NOT make great hunting companions, as many are just wound too tightly to relax on a hunt. I guess I am at fault since I have this thang about looking at the total dog and the integrity of the breed. I do NOT fault those wanting FT winners for justifying the breeding of carriers. They are so focused on winning FT’s that they will breed anything if they think it will produce winners. They’ll breed dogs with skeletal issues, poor breed conformation, vocal dogs etc. to hopefully get that winner.

Carrier breedings the average hunter or Hunt Tester does not need to be successful in their venues. The FT community is a very, very small percentage of total working Lab owners. They can place carrier pups out of their FC females with other FTers. The hunter or Hunt Tester will have a hard time placing their pups in homes where the potential buyers are aware of CNM and/or EIC. Human nature is that they don’t want a “tainted Pup” no matter how unaffected it is.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

The point is, there is no need to "justify" breeding to a carrier, if the other half of the breeding is clear. A CARRIER IS NO LESS HEALTHY THAN A CLEAR. If you do-gooder breed police want to ruin the breed, then make sure no carriers are bred. The geneticsts have told you this and you refuse to listen.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Franco said:


> Human nature that folks will pay less for what they think is "tainted".
> 
> .... I don’t view FT Labs as the “be all, end all” of Labs. Many FT bred dogs do NOT make great hunting companions, as many are just wound too tightly to relax on a hunt. I guess I am at fault since I have this thang about looking at the total dog and the integrity of the breed. I do NOT fault those wanting FT winners for justifying the breeding of carriers. They are so focused on winning FT’s that they will breed anything if they think it will produce winners. They’ll breed dogs with skeletal issues, poor breed conformation, vocal dogs etc. to hopefully get that winner.[/FONT]
> 
> Carrier breedings the average hunter or Hunt Tester does not need to be successful in their venues. The FT community is a very, very small percentage of total working Lab owners. They can place carrier pups out of their FC females with other FTers. The hunter or Hunt Tester will have a hard time placing their pups in homes where the potential buyers are aware of CNM and/or EIC. Human nature is that they don’t want a “tainted Pup” no matter how unaffected it is.


Wow...these statements are pretty damning for the FT breeder. What is really interesting is that the HT dogs are (in most cases) the results of the same breedings as FT dogs. The idea that "HT dogs are inferior" is just as true as the statement that "FT dogs that don't title are inferior". 

In regard to carriers (of anything), most people who purchase a pup are not intending to breed and if they would use their noggins, they would realize that a pup not affected with any disorder will not be distinguished from one that "apparently" has no carrier traits...I just don't see the first pup as "tainted".


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Though I bust my butt twice a year to help my club host Field Trials, I don’t view FT Labs as the “be all, end all” of Labs. Many FT bred dogs do NOT make great hunting companions, as many are just wound too tightly to relax on a hunt


My opinion is that weather you use a FT bred dog,, a huntest bred dog,, a show dog,,,a backyard bred dog,,,or a puppy mill dog,,,,,,you will find that they all have individuals not suited for hunting because of the excitement factor,,

I for one have seen way more of the other groups not suitable for hunting than I have seen in FT breedings,
All breeds ,,have excited individuals in them,,,, but we dont notice unless it is a field trial breeding,,, then we blame it FT bredding practices instead of the individual dog and the randomness of this personality type.

I have worked with all 5 catagories and there aint nothin that compares to a FT breeding as far as generalities in regards to hunting but,these are my own lifes experiences

when you breed dogs for generations upon generations whose work is to work along side of humans you end up with a dog apt to work well along with humans
my 2 cents


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

SueLab said:


> Wow...these statements are pretty damning for the FT breeder. What is really interesting is that the HT dogs are (in most cases) the results of the same breedings as FT dogs. The idea that "HT dogs are inferior" is just as true as the statement that "FT dogs that don't title are inferior".
> 
> In regard to carriers (of anything), most people who purchase a pup are not intending to breed and if they would use their noggins, they would realize that a pup not affected with any disorder will not be distinguished from one that "apparently" has no carrier traits...I just don't see the first pup as "tainted".


The point is that top FTers are breeding solely for FT winners, thus justifying the breeding of carriers in hopes of producing that special winner for thier own speciality venue. Whereas, the hunter or HTer doesn't need that over-the-top talent to have a great hunting companion or HT dog. I have also never heard an owner of an FC female say that she ought to produce very nice hunting dogs because hunting is not even considered when breeding top FT dogs. Just look at the popular FT studs that are known for producing vocal, tightly-wound offspring that need experienced pros to train.

I used the word, "tainted" in answering the question of why carrier pups sell for less than clear pups. The large majority of non-FT pup buyers would consider a carrier pup as not being as desireable as a clear pup and you would be amazed at the number of breedings that nonFTers and non-Hters produced. Labs have been #1 with new pup AKC registrations for years. 

I've said before that the hardcore FTer will continue doing what they have always done because winning is everything. Whereas hunters and HTers really don't need that special FT dog to be successful in what they want. So, there is no reason to breed carriers among hunters and HTers unless one owns one and wants to justify breeding such.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Franco said:


> Human nature that folks will pay less for what they think is "tainted"....


Since every dog is a carrier of many recessive traits, what's not "tainted" as you use the word?



Franco said:


> ....Would I breed a female I own to a carrier stud, no.
> Too many nice “clear” studs to choose from.....


Your decision but faulty logic, there are no "clear" dogs. Guessing you mean EIC "clear" specifically since, again, there are no clear dogs. But as you said, most of us are FT'ers, so we compete against each other. Eliminating approx. 35-40% of the potential breeders because they are EIC carriers means anyone making that same decision as a FT'er is greatly increasing odds against a great dog - where the odds are already steep.


Franco said:


> ....Though I bust my butt twice a year to help my club host Field Trials, I don’t view FT Labs as the “be all, end all” of Labs. Many FT bred dogs do NOT make great hunting companions, as many are just wound too tightly to relax on a hunt. I guess I am at fault since I have this thang about looking at the total dog and the integrity of the breed. I do NOT fault those wanting FT winners for justifying the breeding of carriers. They are so focused on winning FT’s that they will breed anything if they think it will produce winners. They’ll breed dogs with skeletal issues, poor breed conformation, vocal dogs etc. to hopefully get that winner....


Another over-used bias that just isn't true. I own and run 6 AA dogs. All are excellent hunting dogs, none are "wound too tight" and all are better than most "hunting dogs" I see. Ironically, it's dogs from "many" of the "total dog & integrity" breedings that have no desire, won't get in the water and are overly influenced by the British show lines - being smallish, squatty and fat. If anything, breeders of some of these "all-purpose" lines have forgtten the primary "purpose" - to excel in the field.



Franco said:


> ....Carrier breedings the average hunter or Hunt Tester does not need to be successful in their venues. The FT community is a very, very small percentage of total working Lab owners. They can place carrier pups out of their FC females with other FTers. The hunter or Hunt Tester will have a hard time placing their pups in homes where the potential buyers are aware of CNM and/or EIC. Human nature is that they don’t want a “tainted Pup” no matter how unaffected it is.


The avg hunter doesn't even know what EIC means. The avg HT'er buys FT line pups - and both want to successful, as they measure success. As for placing pups, there are always too many pups produced. but particularly those of the "hunting dog" tag where there is little if any breeding control. As for EIC and CNM, these traits are not FT line exclusive and if anything are better controlled by FT'ers than any other segment of breeders. Botton line is that successful FT lines do produce winners because they have to compete, they have to prove their worth in an objective environment.

Sure we can point to the extremes or fringes for our examples (as both of us have done) but year to year the best examples of the American Labrador are produced within FT lines. And specific to those pushing the dual purpose idea, I support it and I'm great with the idea but the idea itself has taken a wrong turn simply to accommodate British show lines or their "look" which were not part of the American Labrador. The American Labrador was/is first and foremost a field, hunting dog and it's only British influence was from British field lines long ago. And even that influence was very minor by the 1940s. So my idea, the historical idea IMO, of the American Lab is that of the mid-20s century Am Lab. And surpirse, that Lab resembles very closely the field bred Lab of today.......


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Pete said:


> My opinion is that weather you use a FT bred dog,, a huntest bred dog,, a show dog,,,a backyard bred dog,,,or a puppy mill dog,,,,,,you will find that they all have individuals not suited for hunting because of the excitement factor,,


True. But, I'll venture to say that pups out of high-powered FT breedings index much higher as being hyper and vocal. That is why it is so important to know more about the breeding pair than just thier titles.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I don't believe generalities work well by labeling the dog hyper. Many FT line bred dogs don't do well in a kennel run but settle down in the house very well, but put them back in the run and they are hyper. Some dogs are hyper in the house, but a lot of it has to do with training in the house and the experience of the owners. Even some of the "Moderate" Labs that I am aquainted with are not necessarily heavy on the English, but have enough go to field test but just retain proper Laborador conformation (which I don't believe the English conformation Labs always have with too short of legs, too heavy) but more to the standard.

I was looking on the Finnish Labrador site and many of their field dogs we would say looked like the old Dual Labs. They also openly post lists of EIC, CNM, PRA, and eyes, as part of being a good breeder. They don't seem to worry about the stigma as much as we do here.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Since every dog is a carrier of many recessive traits, what's not "tainted" as you use the word?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, since this thread in about EIC. 

I have no interest in English Bench dogs. My 4 labs are all US FT bred dogs. 

All are tainted with something, including mine. Two of my dogs are not huntable due to hips, which I view as a bigger problem today than EIC. Retired one at 8 years of age(in his prime) due to one hip and just 2 points short of his AFC with two Am wins. Ran him in one Am this Fall, got a 3rd with me handling but said, "no more". 

Like I said earlier, FTers can justify breeding carriers in trying to produce that winner. I don't think breeding carriers is needed for the hunter or hunt tester. Yes, many HTers get thier dogs from FT stock in AKC MH. I've noticed that many if not most of the UKC HTers stick with UKC dogs. 

P S 
I don't think any of the dog specialities, Bench or Field are concerned with the total dog. They are concerned with the type of dog thay need to win with in thier choosen speciality. Blue ribbons may be the enemy of sanity!


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> True. But, I'll venture to say that pups out of high-powered FT breedings index much higher as being hyper and vocal. That is why it is so important to know more about the breeding pair than just thier titles


Its really quite difficult to plan for or against this outcome.

You can put 2 fire breathing excitable goof balls together and end up with a majority of laid back pups,,,,and you can put 2 of the most doped up qualude pill popping dogs together and end up with mostly fire breathing goof balls,,

excitability and drive are not related.

Pete


----------



## hamie7 (Jul 31, 2009)

paul young said:


> go ahead and breed your carriers to clear-just be darn sure the pups are tested before selling, and that the buyers of the carrier pups either don't breed them or use only clear dogs to breed them to. that means limited registrations for the breedable life of the dog. be responsible.
> 
> i have to say i find the narrow gene pool argument amusing- remember how many Lean Mac litters were sired about 10 years ago? that was a pretty narrow constriction.-Paul


I will breed my carriers to clear. I will not test the pups for eic. Because there wont be any affected pups. I do sell all the pups with a limited registration. I feel this is being responsible.


----------

