# Will the EIC ignorance have a major negative impact?



## Brandon Bromley (Dec 21, 2006)

Will the EIC ignorance have a major negative impact on the breed for the future of Field Trials and Hunt Tests? Over the past few years several people stated they felt the ignorance regarding EIC carrier status was getting better. In my experience, I feel it is getting much worse. I am grateful there is a test for CNM and EIC to prevent affecteds. Since the CNM and EIC tests came out, many outstanding studs being used and starting to show promise of being good producers came to a screeching halt for breeding. Many top performers are hardly being bred simply because of carrier status… I am one of the few breeders who breed clear females to carrier studs. Simple reason, I want to produce quality, not catering to the ignorant! I fear too many breeders are not doing their homework and settling on convenience. The majority of the best performers and producers are carriers. If we are eliminating our best performers and producers we are not improving the breed!


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

In some ways yes because of the uninformed. I bought an EIC carrier pup because of the breeding.She has finished 50% of the derbies she ran. It's too bad when you don't see fantastic dogs being bred because they are a carrier. I bred clear to clear because of marketablility.It was still a wonderful breeding. The next breeding may be to a carrier ( may be to CNFC,CNAFC stud).I have an EIC affected at home that will be 12.So no predjudice here.
BTW congratulations on Lexie. I have watched her run a few times here in the Pac NW. She's special. I also watched Willie back in the day too.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I think there may have been and may still be an overreaction--certainly on every thread it comes up many folks here say that they would only get a clear. That is silly to me, but it is their dog.

Logically, if the better performers and producers are being ignored by some breeders because they are carriers yet some smart breeders, like yourself, are using them, then the results will eventually be seen in the placements. If so, I think the trend will change quickly.

I have no idea if what you say is true or not--most folks I know would be happy with a carrier. As one who doesn't have access to the top breedings, if a really good one came up and someone said I could have one if I took a carrier, I would be all over it.


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

As a breeder I try to keep only clear bitches so that I can breed to whatever stud I choose. We have gone to carrier males for our last 2 breeding's. We sell most of our pups as gun dogs and some ht dogs. Our buyers don't have a problem buying a carrier pup at all.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Sometimes public opinion takes a while to overcome. There will be a time when a male carrier is the sire of a champion or two and the public opinion will change. I for one was misinformed at the beginning of EIC confirmation but have since changed my opinion. Proof is I purchased a clear sire to a carrier bitch and am comfortable with that decision. Once tested and if my female proves to be satisfactory I would have no problem breeding her to the right carrier is she is clear.

BTW sire of a NFC or two.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Interesting thread, I'd like to add to the discussion by asking. What affect testing litters and allowing buyers the option of picking clear or carrier pups out of breedings, is having on this anti-carrier push. I myself refuse to test my litters, I setup my breedings to produce the whole dog, and while guaranteeing an unaffected puppy, I don't like the idea that the most talented pups might be discounted before they ever see a bird. I've had many buyers gawk at this but if the breeding isn't good enough that you'd want a pup regardless of one gene, I'm not doing my job as a breeder, and if that's stopping point for a buyer, they are not the type of buyer I need for one of my pups. I have two pups right now, just turned 1yr. they are doing well, I have no idea of their EIC status, 50% either way, but they are both the type of dog I want, they'll both be train and ran, and later on if worthy they might be bred, regardless of whether they turn out carrier or not.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Only time will tell but there are definitely people that instantly back off a breeding because of carrier status (regardless of how talented the dog) which is a shame. I saw it first hand a few weeks ago.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Interesting thread, I'd like to add to the discussion by asking. What affect testing litters and allowing buyers the option of picking clear or carrier pups out of breedings, is having on this anti-carrier push. I myself refuse to test my litters, I setup my breedings to produce the whole dog, and while guaranteeing an unaffected puppy, I don't like the idea that the most talented pups might be discounted before they ever see a bird. I've had many buyers gawk at this but if the breeding isn't good enough that you'd want a pup regardless of one gene, I'm not doing my job as a breeder, and if that's stopping point for a buyer, they are not the type of buyer I need for one of my pups. I have two pups right now, just turned 1yr. they are doing well, I have no idea of their EIC status, 50% either way, but they are both the type of dog I want, they'll both be train and ran, and later on if worthy they might be bred, regardless of whether they turn out carrier or not.



I agree and disagree. I test my carrier litters. My goal is to have EIC out of my kennel in 3 generations or less. So if I have 3 females and 2 are clear and I like them as good as the carrier I will keep the clears. On my carrier litters I always seem to have 3-4 people who have no intentions on breeding so I save them $200-$300 and sell them carriers. Everyone is happy and we know we are producing clear pups.

Now I may breed my FC AFC Shaq bitch who is QAA and is running all age stakes to FC AFC Ali. I will test and hope even FT homes will want to buy carriers.


----------



## choch2odog (Feb 8, 2005)

There is a prejudice out there for carrier's. Even with those that understand the carrier status. Most of it revolves around the market for puppies. Personally, I would have no problem owning a carrier female. But, I would be reluctant to own a carrier male, for the reasons outlined above.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

What is the ratio of clear v carrier derby list dogs .....?

john


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

john fallon said:


> What is the ratio of clear v carrier derby list dogs .....?
> 
> john


Good luck figuring that out! I would guess more clears than carriers and way more clear males than females.


----------



## Denver (Dec 10, 2007)

It seems that the people that are the most worried about carrier status are people that are mainly worried about breeding. Doesn't the dog have to add something to the breed before you decide to have pups out of it? Would you rather have a slug of a female that is clear or a very talented female that is a carrier? My point is, that you don't know what kind of a dog you have until it's through the program, so why would your main concern when getting a puppy be if it's clear or carrier? Just my .02


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I for one have taken your concerns to heart in that I only consider pups from clear/clear titled top and bottom parents.

john


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> Good luck figuring that out! I would guess more clears than carriers and way more clear males than females.


Why would there be more clear males than females? Last I heard, odds were 50:50 that the EIC gene would end up in either sex, if the breeding is clear X carrier.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Denver said:


> It seems that the people that are the most worried about carrier status are people that are mainly worried about breeding. Doesn't the dog have to add something to the breed before you decide to have pups out of it? Would you rather have a slug of a female that is clear or a very talented female that is a carrier? My point is, that you don't know what kind of a dog you have until it's through the program, so why would your main concern when getting a puppy be if it's clear or carrier? Just my .02



Do you know they will make it through the program if they *are* carriers? They need to cut their weight no matter their EIC status. 

Would I buy a EIC carrier sure you bet! I had the privilege of buying a NFC Pete pup. When asked if I had interest in a yellow female I said "HELL YEAH!!" I didn't ask about her EIC status until after we decided we wanted her. I think many people would pick the best pup when given the chance. 

Our litter this summer had both carriers and clears. Some cared about EIC but only two out of 8 asked before they picked their pups. One who asked is a well known FT couple who had pick male and the other was a FT Pro buying a prospect to raise and train for a client. A couple of the hunting folks that picked pups were happy when I told them they save a couple hundred dollars by picking the pup they did.


----------



## CindyGal (Mar 6, 2012)

Denver said:


> It seems that the people that are the most worried about carrier status are people that are mainly worried about breeding. Doesn't the dog have to add something to the breed before you decide to have pups out of it? Would you rather have a slug of a female that is clear or a very talented female that is a carrier? My point is, that you don't know what kind of a dog you have until it's through the program, so why would your main concern when getting a puppy be if it's clear or carrier? Just my .02


Hit the nail on the head!


----------



## Lpgar (Mar 31, 2005)

Anyone know of any Recent FC or Derby Champ that does'nt have at least one EIC carrier in a 3 line Pedigree??? Would we want to elliminate any of them from the Pedigree??


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

> Will the EIC ignorance have a major negative impact on the breed for the future of Field Trials and Hunt Tests?


YES, but it will have more of an impact on the Labrador breed and their natural hunting ability than Field Trials or Hunt tests. FT and HT are where the natural instincts and trainability are proven for all to see.

We have just cut our breeding pool in half. My proof.....where are breedings out of the following wonderful dogs who are at the top of the Open All-Age point list?

FC AFC RAGIN EYE OF THE STORM
FC FOXHAVEN'S BORN TO RUN MH
FC AFC TEALCREEK PATTON'S SABER
FC AFC ROBBER'S STRAY BULLET

Just look at the puppy listings. What a shame these wonderful performance, team players are not being reproduced. I am keeping a clear female from my breeding just so I can breed to one!

It is a sad day when EIC status is more important than eyes and elbows, not to mention marking, trainability, intelligence, looks and size etc.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

mitty said:


> Why would there be more clear males than females? Last I heard, odds were 50:50 that the EIC gene would end up in either sex, if the breeding is clear X carrier.


From my experience in selling EIC clears/carriers I have had zero luck placing a EIC carrier in a FT home. I have with female carriers however. EIC carrier males don't get bred. That is sad but true. Look at the list Tammy put together.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> From my experience in selling EIC clears/carriers I have had zero luck placing a EIC carrier in a FT home. I have with female carriers however. EIC carrier males don't get bred. That is sad but true. Look at the list Tammy put together.


Same here too....we bred Nola to FC AFC Hiwood Jaguar and it produced Knowllwood Sweet Lily who ended up being # 2 on the '07 Derby list, people begged Clint to repeat the breeding which he did, but in the meantime had Nola tested, and she came back a carrier...all the people on the "list" ran for the hills and we couldnt sell a pup, almost could give them away, except to friends or family, and even some of those felt like they were getting a defective pup....


----------



## jollydog (Jul 10, 2006)

Just a few thoughts:
We don't know for sure if the dogs Tammy listed are not getting bred because they are carriers. Could be, but who really knows.
I for one would breed to any of those dogs if I felt they would nick well with my Bitchline. 
I had 1st choice of a pup when I bred my bitch to Ali - I kept a carrier because it was the pup I liked the best( Litter had 2 carriers & 5 clears).
In two breedings to two carrier sire's I have not had one person ask me if they were getting a carrier or clear pup.
They liked the breeding and are or were hoping to get a a pup that can be successful. I did test and told them after they had picked a pup.
2nd litter all went to FT homes and again all just are hoping to have one that will play the game.
The AI vet I use who is a retired Reproductive College Vet, developed CC the clone cat, said we are going to do more damage by getting rid of the carriers-
When you limit the gene pool you will have other serious problems develop , Look at the problems that Goldens have with a limited gene pool.
With the EIC test we can breed responsible and keep the excellent traits that the carrier dogs have whether male or female.
I am getting ready to bred my young bitch to Ali. I have trained with him and love everything about him and most importantly he has proven to 
nick well with my bitchline and that is super important to me. I love Cane and Bullet who I have watched compete, but just not sure how the pedigree's match- one doesn't for sure, so going with the known. Have not seen the other two, but know they have great records. This is an age old argument and I just hope and pray that people will do what is best for the breed and keep the carriers and clears coming so we don't destroy the gene pool.


----------



## Brandon Bromley (Dec 21, 2006)

Top 14 Producing Sires and top producing Dam of all time:

2XNAFC 2XCNAFC FC Ebonstar Lean Mac 158 Titled Offspring - EIC Carrier
NFC AFC San Joaquin Honcho 76 Titled Offspring - ?
NAFC FC Trumarc’s Zip Code 62 Titled Offspring - ?
NFC NAFC Candlewoods Super Tanker - CNM Carrier
FC AFC Wilderness Harley To Go 51 Titled Offspring - EIC Carrier
FC AFC Dare To Dream 46 Titled Offspring - EIC Carrier
FC AFC CAFC Chena River Chavez 41 Titled Offspring- ?
FC AFC Webshire’s Honest Abe 41 Titled Offspring- ?
FC AFC Trieven Thunderhead 40 Titled Offspring - ?
Super Powder QAA 39 Titled Offspring - ?
NFC 2XNAFC Super Chief 38 Titled Offspring - ?
FC AFC Trumarc’s Hot Pursuit 36 Titled Offspring - ?
NFC AFC Clubmead’s Road Warrior 33 - CNM and EIC Clear
FC AFC Creek Robber 32 - EIC Carrier

3XNFC AFC Candlewoods Tanks A Lot 22 Titled Offspring - CNM Carrier

Most dogs were deceased before CNM and EIC test were available. Try finding many successful Field Trial dogs without Maxx, Harley or Lottie in the pedigree.

Try looking up the dogs with 100+ All Age points. Many are Carriers, some EIC affected.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

OMG I forgot the other important factors for which there is no test or clearances that MUST be considered. Cruciate injuries and cryptorchidism.....all inheritable traits. So what are your criteria for a GOOD BREEDING??????

FC AFC 
Hips 
Elbows
Eyes
EIC Carrier - non issue
CNM Carrier - non issue
cruciate tear before the age of 7 - no test -issue IMHO
cryptorchidism - NOT BREEDABLE
Bad attitude - aggressive - issue male and especially female - No reason to reproduce

Anything else breeders? What is your code of ethics?????


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

TBell said:


> OMG I forgot the other important factors for which there is no test or clearances that MUST be considered. Cruciate injuries and cryptorchidism.....all inheritable traits. So what are your criteria for a GOOD BREEDING??????
> 
> FC AFC
> Hips
> ...



thats a good list....


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Brandon Bromley said:


> *Will the EIC ignorance have a major negative impact on the breed for the future of Field Trials and Hunt Tests? *Over the past few years several people stated they felt the ignorance regarding EIC carrier status was getting better. In my experience, I feel it is getting much worse. I am grateful there is a test for CNM and EIC to prevent affecteds. Since the CNM and EIC tests came out, many outstanding studs being used and starting to show promise of being good producers came to a screeching halt for breeding. Many top performers are hardly being bred simply because of carrier status… I am one of the few breeders who breed clear females to carrier studs. Simple reason, I want to produce quality, not catering to the ignorant! I fear too many breeders are not doing their homework and settling on convenience. The majority of the best performers and producers are carriers. If we are eliminating our best performers and producers we are not improving the breed!


_*I am glad that there are people who have these criteria No. 1!!! *_ I'm screaming that so that it gets read and, hopefully, believed.

My concern, though, is a bit more general. I think the folks who breed for trials and tests are probably doing just fine. I'm worried about the trial and/or test and/or hunting and/or other suitable performance dog that is also a really nice companion and strongly moderate (if that makes sense) example of the breed.

What, really, is a Lab? Quiet, good-natured, easy-going, willing to couch-surf a bit if life gets too crazy to train or test/trial 5 days a week, fun/can play/has a sense of humor and interacts, sensitive as a pet, clean-mannered, generally strong constitution, good with kids (because even though everyone knows not to leave a big dog with a little kid, little kids and dogs still find each other alone by accident sometim es), good with strangers at the door, handsome, sound, moderately-sized but with a likable range available if that's an issue (if you're old, weak, strong but small, etc.--55 pounds to 80-ish)... AND birdy, driven, tractable/trainable, not overly sensitive, not overly independent, good nose, good marker, etc.--all the hunting, testing, trial stuff too.

I am "luvalab" because I love *Labs*--not field trial or hunt test prospects, though now that I'm hooked, that's (also) what I will want from my next Lab. 

EIC ignorance and overconcern isn't going to affect the elite--it's going to affect the quality middle, the quality moderate, the Renaissance Dog aspect of the Lab--which IMO makes the Lab the Lab.

Sometimes the Middle is where it's at.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

TBell said:


> OMG I forgot the other important factors for which there is no test or clearances that MUST be considered. Cruciate injuries and cryptorchidism.....all inheritable traits. So what are your criteria for a GOOD BREEDING??????
> 
> FC AFC
> Hips
> ...



How do you judge the last criteria? What makes a bitch a _bitch_? A stud a nightmare?

If you are looking for a pup, or breeding pups, which traits that you see in the sire or dam make you cross them off your list?

And, how do you find out about these characteristics? 

Dogs got lots of points, is healthy, how do you find out about disposition? 

Out of the loop regards...


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

mitty said:


> How do you judge the last criteria? What makes a bitch a _bitch_? A stud a nightmare?
> 
> If you are looking for a pup, or breeding pups, which traits that you see in the sire or dam make you cross them off your list?
> 
> ...


RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. Know the dogs you breed to and if you don't know them, ask these questions to the owner, trainer, and competitors.

I keep notes in my head about all of these traits. I want to know the sire inside and out!! Not just a paper pedigree.....

If the dog has not been competitive its whole life ask why. What physical problems presented themselves to end their careers early or create gaps in their careers? Realign your priorities. What makes a great dog????

Performance
Trainablility
Disposition
Conformation
Health Clearances
Longevity
Reproduction
Knee problems
Shoulder problems
Elbow problems
Hip problems
Nose
Thyroid
Training attitude
attitude toward other dogs
looks!
EIC and CNM clearances are the LEAST of my worries!!

What you want is a complete package......NOT what it looks like on paper. There is more to it than that. I could sell pups all day long on paper pedigrees. That is not my goal. Satisfied dog owners, are!!


----------



## Gun Dawg (Dec 18, 2010)

Great Post........


----------



## David Maddox (Jan 12, 2004)

jollydog said:


> Just a few thoughts:
> We don't know for sure if the dogs Tammy listed are not getting bred because they are carriers. Could be, but who really knows.
> I for one would breed to any of those dogs if I felt they would nick well with my Bitchline.
> I had 1st choice of a pup when I bred my bitch to Ali - I kept a carrier because it was the pup I liked the best( Litter had 2 carriers & 5 clears).
> ...


AWESOME post Syl!!!
A few years back, before all of the tests, I bred my MH Stepper bitch Dancy (CNM carrier) to Cosmo (EIC carrier) with some success. Someone asked me just the other day, "if Dancy were still alive today would you still consider breeding her to Cosmo"? My response was, "YES...I may have to keep all of the puppies though"!!!


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

At least one on Tammy's list has a VERY low sperm count.

As far as personality, like Tammy said, ask questions. It doesn't take long for the word to get around about who is a fighter, noisy on line, etc. At the National, I talked to the trainer of one of my bitch's dams and to the owner of her sire. I had never met either one of them before, but they were very forthcoming about the personalities, work ethic, etc. Most don't mind "talking dog" if they're in it. I did talk to one owner of one on Tammy's list that doesn't really know much about the dogs, said to ask the trainer everything including stud fee, live cover/side-by-side, EIC status, etc. If you can get out to a field trial and watch, if the owner/trainer isn't busy, most are more than willing to talk to you. 

Right now, I have two intact clear/clear, two EIC carriers, one that could be EIC out of one of my now spayed EIC carriers (was only puppy, haven't tested yet), one that could be a CNM carrier out of my clear/clear bitch that we bred to an AFC CNM carrier, and another puppy that is possibly an EIC carrier from an FC AFC MH stud. Yes, I would "prefer" all clear because it would open up my choices on the studs. I have tested litters, like mentioned on a previous post, I've sold them to hunting/pet homes at a reduced price since they had no intention of breeding them. When I test a litter, I also post the whole litter's results on OFA...if I'm keeping one, if I don't have a batch to send in, it's going to cost me $15 anyway, the whole litter only costs $30. Now that it's required for CHIC, that's saving the owners some money, too.


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

I've also had "pet" owners that didn't want a carrier because they "had the disease"...


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

TBell said:


> OMG I forgot the other important factors for which there is no test or clearances that MUST be considered. Cruciate injuries and cryptorchidism.....all inheritable traits. So what are your criteria for a GOOD BREEDING??????
> 
> FC AFC
> Hips
> ...


Good list plus allergies! I always ask about allergies and wouldn't breed to one with them.


----------



## jollydog (Jul 10, 2006)

I get a little confused when some differentiate between
field trial, hunt test, hunting dog, and companion.
I guess because I feel the Labrador retrievers and Golden
I own are all of the above. They work as hard as they can
in training and trials and are the best companions I could have 
in the house and every place I go.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE !! Bred a better dog -the whole dog, not just a better trial dog or whatever.


jollydog said:


> I get a little confused when some differentiate between
> field trial, hunt test, hunting dog, and companion.
> I guess because I feel the Labrador retrievers and Golden
> I own are all of the above. They work as hard as they can
> ...


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE !! Bred a better dog -the whole dog, not just a better trial dog or whatever.


Buy the WHOLE DOG, not just the Papers, not just a trial dog, and not just one gene. I guess we could bring up the subset of performance people that prefer the carrier, who believe they are the better dogs; basing that opinion on the skewed # of carriers with FC-AFC-NFC-NAFC etc. in front of their names, if you want to give a discount to those type, I'm pretty sure they aren't gonna argue with yah .

Question for those that test their litter; When you give someone 1st pick female; Do they get 1st pick of all females, (or do you separate the female based on EIC-CNM status) and give 1st pick clear (to someone who does care) vs. 1st pick carrier (to those that don't)?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Cedarswamp said:


> At least one on Tammy's list has a VERY low sperm count.


There is also another very well known NFC and widely used sire with low sperm count which I learned of from my vet. I think this is why there are no more breedings out of him, but I'm not sure on that count.



Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> Good list plus allergies! I always ask about allergies and wouldn't breed to one with them.


Mike, I was going to put allergies, but I sold a puppy several years ago which I learned developed allergies. Neither my bitch nor the very well known NAFC sire whose been bred out the whazoo had allergies. I'm not so sure that allergies aren't environmental or auto-immune type thing. The owner still said that she didn't intend to breed her because of it.

One thing I'd like to change in my description of a worthy sire is the FC AFC part. There are many MNH's and GRHRCH MH's out there that are excellent candidates. Also any dog who has multiple titles in various venues, ie; upland hunting, hunt tests, field trials, super retriever series etc. That to me shows high intelligence and trainability.

This is a great thread. Thank you Brandon for addressing this very important issue right now. Before we simply had the popular sire of the month, but now that has been multiplied by 2 since only half of the sires are being utilized.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

jollydog said:


> When you limit the gene pool you will have other serious problems develop , Look at the problems that Goldens have with a limited gene pool.


Sylvia nailed it. Most people don't understand, don't want to understand or don't care about genetics. It's a tough subject. By NOT using carriers of any disease and I'm putting PRA in here too, we are going to hurt ourselves down the line. We are narrowing our gene pool. We have a big one, but I can tell you...it's getting smaller.

There are other GOOD genes attached, literally, to the bad. We are in danger of losing those too, each time we choose not to use a carrier. Even if you don't like genetics, if you breed a litter, it is your responsibility to understand what happens when you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If you would like to understand more about dog genetics, there is actually a good group http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/

You can take Carols BASIC class and learn so much. It's the Basic Population class, starts in January. Great for everyone.

Anyway...I've got carriers and clears in my house and could care less. They are not affected and I just have to make decisions accordingly. If the best dog for my girl is a carrier for whatever, so be it. I sell all pups as not-affected. No price difference. The FT market is much different I guess. But isn't that an area to educate? On the show dog side there is the same bias interestingly enough. There are really nice PRA carriers out there that no one is using. 

Sue Puff


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

TBell said:


> RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. Know the dogs you breed to and if you don't know them, ask these questions to the owner, trainer, and competitors.
> 
> I keep notes in my head about all of these traits. I want to know the sire inside and out!! Not just a paper pedigree.....
> 
> ...


Very well thought out post!!

As a rabid hunt tester when I bred my personal dog, I went to a stud I knew. Obviously a hunt test dog also. I have always been surprised at owners who breed to titles without knowing anything about the FC stud except what is printed on the OFA page.


----------



## alynn (Apr 5, 2008)

Cedarswamp said:


> I've also had "pet" owners that didn't want a carrier because they "had the disease"...


This is a result of poor science education. I learned Mendelian genetics in Junior high (Catholic school). Is this no longer taught?


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

It is in MN. My 5th grader just had a basic genetics chapter in Science.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

TBell said:


> RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. Know the dogs you breed to and if you don't know them, ask these questions to the owner, trainer, and competitors.
> 
> I keep notes in my head about all of these traits. I want to know the sire inside and out!! Not just a paper pedigree.....
> 
> ...


Why do you not consider the Coefficient of Inbreeding and it's impact ... ?

john

Parent/child 0.500000000 
Grandparent/grandchild 0.250000000 
Siblings 0.250000000 
Great-grandparent/great-grandchild 0.125000000 
Half-siblings 0.125000000 
Aunt/nephew, Uncle/niece 0.125000000 
Double first cousins 0.125000000 
First cousins 0.062500000 
First cousins once removed 0.031250000 
First cousins twice removed 0.015625000 
Second cousins 0.015625000 
Second cousins once removed 0.007812500 
Second cousins twice removed 0.003906250 
Third cousins 0.003906250 
Third cousins once removed 0.001953125 
Fourth cousins 0.000976563


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Brandon Bromley said:


> Will the EIC ignorance have a major negative impact on the breed for the future of Field Trials and Hunt Tests? Over the past few years several people stated they felt the ignorance regarding EIC carrier status was getting better. In my experience, I feel it is getting much worse. I am grateful there is a test for CNM and EIC to prevent affecteds. Since the CNM and EIC tests came out, many outstanding studs being used and starting to show promise of being good producers came to a screeching halt for breeding. Many top performers are hardly being bred simply because of carrier status… I am one of the few breeders who breed clear females to carrier studs. Simple reason, I want to produce quality, not catering to the ignorant! I fear too many breeders are not doing their homework and settling on convenience. The majority of the best performers and producers are carriers. If we are eliminating our best performers and producers we are not improving the breed!



I was just having this conversation with a buddy that's going to breed his AA-Q bitch who is concerned about the whole clear to carrier deal and my first question was who is your target buyer, and what is your breeding purpose? FT dogs, HT dogs, Gun dogs, etc. When you get down to brass tax FT's have one major purpose....breeding! Of course that's not all we enjoy of the game but its one of the major driving forces of the game. I personally feel the HT breeders are the most concerned with breeding clear/clear. You don't have a pedigree that says NFC x FC AFC. I once made the analogy that EiC/CNM was no different than color factoring when matching potential studs to a bitch, I still feel its very similar. AAnd there are prominent field trialers that only buy from the carrier bloodlines because it took 100+ years to produce the field trial Labrador of today and now were going to eliminate some of the best stock because of a silly thing we can breed around? I don't get it myself and don't think many field trialers pass up carrier litters if it's the breeding they want, especially if the bitch has letters infront of her name


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Why do you not consider the Coefficient of Inbreeding and it's impact ... ?
> 
> john
> 
> ...


Good question, John!

There are approximately 250 genetic diseases in dogs. The majority of these diseases have NO genetic test available. 

Many breeders are now basing their breeding programs on ONE genetic test, and I see that as a very disturbing trend (I'll tell you why in a minute). While it is enormously fortunate to have the test, we can't simply 'remove' half of the current stud population and continue to have a healthy breed.

While searching for a stud dog through the high point field trial dog list, I quickly became aware that at least half of those dogs are EIC 'carriers'. If the 'Popular Sire' list had 50 potential stud dogs, it now has only 25 which are EIC clear. By eliminating the carriers we have doubled our chances for the new 'Popular Sire' to occur more frequently in our pedigrees. This will ultimately increase the coefficient of inbreeding very quickly in our breed which is a dangerous trend, and we may find ourselves quickly walking on thin ice.



> *Why are high COIs considered a problem?*Two reasons:
> 1. Inbreeding will help cement ‘good’ traits but there’s a danger of it also cementing bad ones. In particular, it can cause the rapid build up of disease genes in a population.
> 2. Even if a breed of dog is lucky enough to be free of serious genetic disorders, inbreeding is likely to affect our dogs in more subtle, but no less serious, ways.
> These include smaller litter sizes, less vigorous/viable puppies, fertility problems and weakened immune systems. These effects have been very well documented in other species and are known as inbreeding depression. Farmers, who used to breed livestock in much the same way as we still breed dogs, have now changed the way that they breed their animals. In fact farmers so recognise the benefit of hybrid vigour that much of the meat we eat, milk we drink and eggs we boil are from crossbreeds. That’s because the yield is likely to be more/healthier/disease resistant than that from purebred stock.
> A study of Standard Poodles discovered that dogs with a COI of less than 6.25% lived on average four years longer than those with COIs over 25%.


If you want to read more on this subject, see http://www.dogbreedhealth.com/a-beginners-guide-to-coi/

A wonderful service the UK Kennel Club is providing for their dogs are the following:

*Mate Select Services*
Health Test Results Finder
Calculation of an individual dog’s inbreeding coefficient (COI)
Current inbreeding coefficient for a breed
Prediction of the inbreeding coefficients of puppies from a hypothetical mating

See http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/Default.aspx for additional info.


They report the current coefficient of inbreeding for the Labrador Retrievers to be 6.4%

Very interesting, and here is why they provide this service, 

"Moving forward we need to look at ways to manage the genetic diversity in the dog population to try and prevent breeds from becoming genetically homogenous. *One way of achieving this will be to ensure there is a greater number of individual dogs contributing to the genetic population.*"


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Thank you Tammy!!!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

TBell said:


> Good question, John!
> 
> There are approximately 250 genetic diseases in dogs. The majority of these diseases have NO genetic test available.
> 
> ...


To my way of thinking, the popular sire syndrome being diluted by 25 EIC carriers is not the viable solution we need.....

Yes,all reputable studies conclude linebreeding for "whatever" ,(prowess in the field included), to be a potential health problem for the breed .
As you say the solution is expanding the gene pool. 
I am sure you are aware that within a breed, or subset of that breed the ideal EFFECTIVE SIRE / breeding bitch ratio is 1 to 4.
Effective being the opperative word

BTW I am suspect of a 6.4% COI in the American field trial breed Labrador Retriever......our subset of the breed.

john


----------



## Jim Stevenson (Mar 18, 2010)

What about breeding carrier to carrier? 

If you sell/give the affecteds to people who strictly want pets and are looking for a good companion?

I've only seen 2 affected dogs, that I'm aware of, in my life. One is an AFC and the other is a SH. They both looked very pleased to be alive and generally acted as other dogs who I know to be carriers and clear.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

almost two years ago i had a choice of two pups from a very nice nafc x fc litter. the breeder told me one of the pups was a cnm carrier and the other was clear. i asked the breeder not to tell me which was which until i had selected my puppy. i chose the carrier pup. i own a very talented young dog that has a bright future. i wouldn't trade him for anything......i would sell him to a good ft home though if anyone is interested!;-)


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

copenhawgen said:


> What about breeding carrier to carrier?
> 
> If you sell/give the affecteds to people who strictly want pets and are looking for a good companion?
> 
> I've only seen 2 affected dogs, that I'm aware of, in my life. One is an AFC and the other is a SH. They both looked very pleased to be alive and generally acted as other dogs who I know to be carriers and clear.


You have apparently only seen 2 mildly affected, I have seen quite a few more severely affected, if you had seen what I have seen you would never consider the option of producing affected dogs.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

EdA said:


> if you had seen what I have seen you would never consider the option of producing affected dogs.


Got a good friend we train with that has a really talented affected dog. and your are RIGHT ON. Don't want to see any dogs go through what he does.


----------



## coldfront (May 27, 2013)

Nice thread glad I'm not the only one who wants to breed good Dogs,clear or carrier


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

coldfront said:


> Nice thread glad I'm not the only one who wants to breed good Dogs,clear or carrier



What you are saying here is unclear to me, perhaps you would elaborate and define _good_ .....?

john


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

john fallon said:


> What you are saying here is unclear to me, perhaps you would elaborate and define _good_ .....?
> 
> john





Just look at your signature line.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

On a separate note, I know a dog that was tested soon after the test became available and the owner was given results indicating that the dog was affected. They continued to train her and title her in hunt tests and she never had an episode. So last year when they were testing a group of dogs, on a whim the owner re-tested her and the results came back "carrier". When they called about it, they found out that the original test results showed that she was a carrier, but that a "transcription error" had occurred and they got the "affected" results. So if you have an asymptomatic affected dog, you my want to retest just to make sure that it wasn't a screw-up at the university. I hope that they went back and double-checked all the results after that incident to verify that everyone got the correct results, but I have no reason to believe that they did. This situation sure diminished my faith in the process. Can I be sure that my clears are really clear?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

One last thought before I get back to raising a litter of puppies......clear and carriers of which I am having no problem selling carriers. 

I am in NO WAY suggesting that we breed carrier to carrier. It is too easy to find a clear to breed to instead. But when 46.2% (see U of Minn numbers below) of our current Labrador Retriever population are carriers/affecteds, we cannot do the breed a disservice by removing HALF of the breeding population just because of one mutation in one of their 20,000 chromosomes.

Statement by Univ. of Minn on their website describing EIC, "EIC appears to be a genetically simple trait that is due to a mutation in just one of the approximately 20,000 genes present in a dog’s genome."

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

LABRADOR RETRIEVERS TESTED BY UNIV. OF MINN.
16478 Clear 11888 Carrier 2226 Affected 30592 Total 53.9% Clear 38.9% Carrier 7.3% Affected

http://www.vdl.umn.edu/prod/groups/cvm/@pub/@cvm/@vdl/documents/asset/cvm_asset_403528.pdf


Again, do your RESEARCH. EIC is just a very small (1 in 20,000) part of the breeding equation.

If choose to breed your dog, please breed it because it BETTERS the breed, not your pocket book. Don't breed just because you can. If you choose your bitch and sire lines carefully and thoughtfully to better the overall breed, you will have no problems selling carriers.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> To my way of thinking, the popular sire syndrome being diluted by 25 EIC carriers is not the viable solution we need.....
> 
> Yes,all reputable studies conclude linebreeding for "whatever" ,(prowess in the field included), to be a potential health problem for the breed .
> As you say the solution is expanding the gene pool.
> ...


Well, John, you are coercing me to do some research which can be dangerous!

Here is the scary thing I found, and you are right. We are almost double that of the UK COI of 6.4%. Not only are we double, but the Labrador Retriever has a HIGHER COI than the GOLDEN RETRIEVERS!  

Just think where we will be when we breed only EIC Clears. My theory is double the 11.04% to 22.08%, but I'm not a mathematician.

According to K9DATA:

*Golden Retrievers*
355063 Golden Retrievers in database.
Average 10-generation Coefficient of Inbreeding is 9.58%.


*Labrador Retrievers*
61681 Labrador Retrievers in database.
Average 10-generation Coefficient of Inbreeding is 11.04%.

http://www.k9data.com/dbstats.asp


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

copenhawgen said:


> What about breeding carrier to carrier?
> 
> .


If you ever seen a CNM affected pup one not question why this should not be done, If you had ever had to deal with a even a mild EIC collapse, one would not question why this should not be done. We breed dogs with great instinct and desire, it is unfortunate when all that ends up in a body that can't handle the job the dog was bred for. We have a test now, labs are the largest breeds there is, there is always a different choice stud to get the same lines, looks, whatever; and produce puppies unaffected by one of the few diseases that breeders can actually control.

Now I would consider breeding a Affected dog to a Clear and produce all carriers; however it's not something I would do lightly and would have to be a really superior affected dog.

Another question and (I'm sort've on the fence) what do people feel about producing double carriers. I have a female that is EIC clear CNM carrier, thus there should be no issue in breeding her to a EIC carrier male. However I might produce double carriers EIC carrier & CNM carrier (healthy puppies), but double stigmata. Thus far we've bred one litter to a clear/clear male; however there are only a few of those(who everyone is breeding to) and I'd love to cross in a under used male, but I also feel; while not discounting superior dogs that happen to be carriers; we should be pushing the breed toward more clear if we can.

Thoughts?


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

I agree with Ed. I had one I kept as a "pet" after he started collapsing. He was an escape artist. Long story short, even though we tried to "manage" it, he got out of his kennel, and kennel yard. When he drug himself back to the yard, he was in an episode. Unfortunately, that was also his last episode...he died from it. My husband has also seen others die from it...not a pretty sight. 

I am also one that had a "non-symptomatic affected". Since EIC results are now required for CHIC, I had his daughter tested. Shocked was very mild to my reaction of her result of "clear" since I "knew" she would come back a carrier. I did call to question her sire's results when I got them since he was 8-9 at the time, a MH and hunted heavily. Whoever answered the phone said "it's correct". Needless to say, when I got her clear result, I asked to speak to Dr. Minor. She first asked about possible other sire, which there were no other males at either house at time of conception, so she pulled the sire's results which were transposed incorrectly and was definitely only a carrier. She apologized profusely and had it corrected on OFA as well. When I explained that I had called at receiving the first results, she said she wished they had given it a look then. I imagine that whoever was answering the phone in the beginning was fielding a lot of calls that were "shocked" by the results or in disbelief that they could have a "carrier" since everyone was "horrified" about carrier status in the beginning. SO moral of the story, don't do "by parentage", always test ALL dogs that are being bred.


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

And agreed, NEVER risk a CNM affected dog either...once you've seen one, you will never forget it! It never has "normal" moments!


----------



## coldfront (May 27, 2013)

I own a Hrch carrier male who is a great marker runs nice blinds and a awesome hunting dog. That's a good dog isn't it


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

coldfront said:


> I own a Hrch carrier male who is a great marker runs nice blinds and a awesome hunting dog. That's a good dog isn't it


Yes..........


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

From my point of view the purposes of the EIC and CNM tests have been twisted by the almighty dollar. Instead of focusing on "the whole dog", we've become enamored with eliminating genetic diseases that can't possibly surface if selective breeding is done responsibly. 

Yet....people want to keep their breeding options (and $$$) open from their litters. Certainly, I don't blame that outlook, but to pass on a carrier just because they're a carrier is pretty short-sighted IMO. 

The tests are designed to eliminate affecteds. I think we'll see a gradual decline/drift away of both affected and carriers but it's going to take generations to do so. To quickly throw out half of our breeding pool seems awfully silly, IMO.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

TBell said:


> Well, John, you are coercing me to do some research which can be dangerous!
> 
> Here is the scary thing I found, and you are right. We are almost double that of the UK COI of 6.4%. Not only are we double, but the Labrador Retriever has a HIGHER COI than the GOLDEN RETRIEVERS!
> 
> ...


That is a good site with a lot of potential, but it needs more imput from without to reach its maximum...

At this point in time I would not put much stock in the K9data.com's figure of 11.04 being the actual COI percentage rate for our subset of Labradors ...

I spent my lunch hour on that site looking for the COI's of the National Open qualifyers; I'll admit that I did not spend the entire hour looking,I took the time to eat my lunch. But guess what I found while I was looking ? None had been computed as yet.

What I was told by a prompt for those that I found which were entered in the data base at all, was to check back in a few weeks...

This leads me to believe that many were not included in the equation

john


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

For those in the know I'm curious if culling is or was practiced by performance retriever breeders.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Breck said:


> For those in the know I'm curious if culling is or was practiced by performance retriever breeders.


In my research of talking with breeders it was practiced. Two breeders in particular that stood out both produced NFC's and a multitude of Champions.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> That is a good site with a lot of potential, but it needs more imput from without to reach its maximum...
> 
> At this point in time I would not put much stock in the K9data.com's figure of 11.04 being the actual COI percentage rate for our subset of Labradors ...
> 
> ...


Looks like you are correct, John. Is there anywhere else to find the COI on American Labrador Retrievers?

The UK Kennel Club site is AWESOME!

See their COI at http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/inbreed/Default.aspx?breed=2048

They also provide a COI for hypothetical litters at http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/kinship/Default.aspx?breed=2048&data=


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

TBell said:


> Looks like you are correct, John. *Is there anywhere else to find the COI on American Labrador Retrievers?*The UK Kennel Club site is AWESOME!
> 
> See their COI at http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/inbreed/Default.aspx?breed=2048
> 
> They also provide a COI for hypothetical litters at http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/kinship/Default.aspx?breed=2048&data=


I know of none that do not require a protracted formula, but using the values I posted earlier and the formulas that are available on line (google), a quick look at the 10 generation pedagrees of both the sire and dam could/would give you some kind of inkling......

So in a nutshell while it is possible to breed arround EIC, the idea that in the big picture not doing so by "bottle neck breeding" somehow demonstrates ignorance, is in my opinion itself, for want of a better word IGNORANT

john


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Yes, very well said.

Also, from a great geneticist, Jerold Bell DVM, Tufts University, about bottleneck breeding and the popular sire syndrome:



> If two parents are both heterozygous (both Aa) for a gene pair,on the average, they would produce 25% AA, 50% Aa, and 25% aa. (These are averages when many litters are combined. In reality, any variety of pairing up can occur in a single litter.) If a prolific male comes out of this litter, and he is homozygous aa, then the frequency of the “a” gene will increase in the population, and the frequency of the “A” gene will decrease. *This is known as the popular sire syndrome.* Of course, each individual has thousands of genes that vary in the breed, and everyone carries some deleterious recessive genes. *The overuse of individual breeding animals contributes the most to decreased diversity (population bottlenecks), and the increased spread of deleterious recessive genes (the founders effect)*. Again, it is selection (use of this stud to the exception of others), and not the types of matings he is involved in that alters gene frequencies. Breeders should select the best individuals from all lines, so as to not create new genetic bottlenecks.


And for additional info see full article at http://clubs.akc.org/wtca/health/health_bell_3.pdf


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Brandon Bromley said:


> Will the EIC ignorance have a major negative impact on the breed for the future of Field Trials and Hunt Tests? Over the past few years several people stated they felt the ignorance regarding EIC carrier status was getting better. In my experience, I feel it is getting much worse. I am grateful there is a test for CNM and EIC to prevent affecteds. Since the CNM and EIC tests came out, many outstanding studs being used and starting to show promise of being good producers came to a screeching halt for breeding. Many top performers are hardly being bred simply because of carrier status… I am one of the few breeders who breed clear females to carrier studs. Simple reason, I want to produce quality, not catering to the ignorant! I fear too many breeders are not doing their homework and settling on convenience. The majority of the best performers and producers are carriers. If we are eliminating our best performers and producers we are not improving the breed!




The ignorance is in the statement highlighted in red!

The real quality breeders strive to maintain the breed's integrity not change or alter it through some mythical "improving the breed". 

Ever wonder why field Labs have such poor skeletal health and high occurances of poor hips and elbows? 

Health problems overlooked and created by those wanting to win at playing games, ignoring heatlh issues for the sake of ribbons! Using you reasoning, these breeders have improved the breed.

I'll call it irresponsible!

P S Success at winning FT has more to do with puppy placement with proven homes and trainers than breeding. And, you are ignoring the reason the breed was intended for, Hunting. Many of today's FT breeding produce dogs unfit for hunting because they are too jacked-up. That's the reason for the growth in popluarity among hunters for UK Labs. 

I've owned numerous U S field bred Labs over the last 40 years and I have witnessed the physical degradation of the breed over the years!

Degradation caused by the extremes, Bench and Field Trials and not "balance" health and workability.

BTW, one doesn't need a top FT breeding to pass HT's. If winning FT's is you goal, by all means buy a top FT breeding clear or carrier. *But, don't piss down my back and tell me its raining. *


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Franco said:


> The ignorance is in the statement highlighted in red!
> 
> The real quality breeders strive to maintain the breed's integrity not change or alter it through some mythical "improving the breed".
> 
> ...


Wow!!! Very bold! Good luck defending your position. 

Everyone I train with has a "field trial breeding." Every single one of them, and myself, hunts (multiple times a week) with their FT dog that is to quote you, "too jacked up." Everyone of our dogs sits, or lays down, in their place, quietly until sent to retrieve any number of downed birds. Then, *when sent,* fire out of the boat or blind like a rocket!!! Pretty fun to just sit back and watch.

All I will say is be careful with your generalization. My dog and my 4 closest training buddies have their dogs inside the house. One guy as two of them that live in the house. All FT bred, all very healthy, all very calm in the house. So calm in fact, that my FT bred lab is trusted in the house with my 3 year old and 3 month old on the floor playing.

I think it might be raining...


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Handler in Training said:


> Wow!!! Very bold! Good luck defending your position.
> 
> Everyone I train with has a "field trial breeding." Every single one of them, and myself, hunts (multiple times a week) with their FT dog that is to quote you, "too jacked up." Everyone of our dogs sits, or lays down, in their place, quietly until sent to retrieve any number of downed birds. Then, *when sent,* fire out of the boat or blind like a rocket!!! Pretty fun to just sit back and watch.
> 
> ...


I said, "many of today's FT breedings" I didn't say all. All of my Labs have come from well known FT dogs. I just lost the best HUNTING dog I've ever owned and trained. She was almost 15 years old, has FC NAFC MD's Cotton Picking Cropper as one grandsire and FC AFC Gunstock Butch as the other. Both were bred to bitches sired by FC's. I picked that breeding because I hunted with both the sire and dam for an entire season and wanted a level-headed hunting companion and that is what I saw in the sire and dam. That was what I got. But, I have also seen numerous dogs that were not suitable for hunting ducks out of a blind. Unless, one doesn't mind the constant corrections of "nick QUIET or nick SIT! I have seen too many experienced owners trying to justify their jacked up Labs. If that's what you want, more power you. I want a retriever that can turn it off and on and that is NOT a trait top FT breedings strive for. That trait is never considered!

I suggest too that we stick with the topic. That the originator of this thread thinks that breeding known carriers is bettering the breed.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

To be successful at FT puppy placement is a consideration, but breeding is everything!

Often times if someone says it's raining, it really is...


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Lash said:


> To be successful at FT puppy placement is a consideration, but breeding is everything!
> 
> Often times if someone says it's raining, it really is...


This is the nature v nurture argument ....here is a thread where it is discussed at length http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...rs-Nature-or-Nurture&highlight=nature+nurture

john


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

John Lash said:


> To be successful at FT puppy placement is a consideration, but breeding is everything!
> 
> Often times if someone says it's raining, it really is...


If breeding is everything, how do you account for the number of duds from some high profiled breedings and the amount of dyplastic dogs?

Like I wrote, if winning FT' is your game, then by all means go for a pup that is clear or a carrier. But, lets not pretend the practice is bettering the breed!

BTW, I would have zero problem owning a female "carrier" for hunting because I would have her spayed at two years of age and have no interest is raising a litter of pups. Whether I kept the dog would depend on her suitablity for actual hunting.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Franco said:


> If breeding is everything, how do you account for the number of duds from some high profiled breedings and the amount of dyplastic dogs?
> 
> Like I wrote, if winning FT' is your game, then by all means go for a pup that is clear or a carrier. But, lets not pretend the practice is bettering the breed!


You might do a little research into the formation of the OFA, the Baker Institute for Animal Health Research at Cornell University (one of the first supporters was John Olin owner of King Buck whose image is a symbol for the Institute), and the impetus for the DNA tests for CNM and EIC, frankly Franco on this one you are as full if $hit as a Christmas turkey.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> You might do a little research into the formation of the OFA, the Baker Institute for Animal Health Research at Cornell University (one of the first supporters was John Olin owner of King Buck whose image is a symbol for the Institute), and the impetus for the DNA tests for CNM and EIC, frankly Franco on this one you are as full if $hit as a Christmas turkey.


So, you think breeding carriers is "improving the breed"?


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Franco said:


> I said, "many of today's FT breedings" I didn't say all. All of my Labs have come from well known FT dogs. I just lost the best HUNTING dog I've ever owned and trained. She was almost 15 years old, has FC NAFC MD's Cotton Picking Cropper as one grandsire and FC AFC Gunstock Butch as the other. Both were bred to bitches sired by FC's. I picked that breeding because I hunted with both the sire and dam for an entire season and wanted a level-headed hunting companion and that is what I saw in the sire and dam. That was what I got. But, I have also seen numerous dogs that were not suitable for hunting ducks out of a blind. Unless, one doesn't mind the constant corrections of "nick QUIET or nick SIT! I have seen too many experienced owners trying to justify their jacked up Labs. If that's what you want, more power you. I want a retriever that can turn it off and on and *that is NOT a trait top FT breedings strive for. That trait is never considered![/*QUOTE]
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that you are making an overgeneralization. I'm certainly not saying there aren't breeders out there that get caught up and forget about the whole picture. However, I don't know any of them. The ones that I know, strive for the same traits you have said you are looking for, and more.
> 
> I hear people say way too often that a FT dog is "too jacked up to hunt." It rubs me wrong. Are there FT labs that are too jacked up? Possibly. I don't personally know of a single one though. If you do, avoid those breedings. But, to generalize that, *that* trait is *never* considered is a poor generalization. The way I understand it is that this thread is about how it can be considered a poor choice to limit our breeding stock to only the dogs that are EIC clear. It has been very well pointed out by John and Tammy, as well as others, that focusing on any *single* trait is a poor choice. (Sorry to John and Tammy if I am overgeneralizing or misunderstanding. God I hate giving Fallon credit for being logical and not just arguing for the sake of argument.)


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Franco said:


> So, you think breeding carriers is "improving the breed"?


That we can identify carriers and avoid producing affecteds has significantly improved the breed but then your argument was that breeding for performance was flawed resulting in your having flawed dogs while my experience dating to 1969 is very different than yours. No group is more concerned about health and soundness than those who breed for performance. Just because you have had bad luck or made bad choices does not entitle you to condemn the entire sport.

How much of your financial resources have you contributed to what you identify as "improving the breed"?


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Handler in Training said:


> Franco said:
> 
> 
> > I said, "many of today's FT breedings" I didn't say all. All of my Labs have come from well known FT dogs. I just lost the best HUNTING dog I've ever owned and trained. She was almost 15 years old, has FC NAFC MD's Cotton Picking Cropper as one grandsire and FC AFC Gunstock Butch as the other. Both were bred to bitches sired by FC's. I picked that breeding because I hunted with both the sire and dam for an entire season and wanted a level-headed hunting companion and that is what I saw in the sire and dam. That was what I got. But, I have also seen numerous dogs that were not suitable for hunting ducks out of a blind. Unless, one doesn't mind the constant corrections of "nick QUIET or nick SIT! I have seen too many experienced owners trying to justify their jacked up Labs. If that's what you want, more power you. I want a retriever that can turn it off and on and *that is NOT a trait top FT breedings strive for. That trait is never considered![/*QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> That we can identify carriers and avoid producing affecteds has significantly improved the breed but then your argument was that breeding for performance was flawed resulting in your having flawed dogs while my experience dating to 1969 is very different than yours. No group is more concerned about health and soundness than those who breed for performance. Just because you have had bad luck or made bad choices does not entitle you to condemn the entire sport.
> 
> How much of your financial resources have you contributed to what you identify as "improving the breed"?


First of all, I have never condemed FT's! If anythng I have served as an officer for two clubs and have contributed a lot of time and money to thier development! And, I approciate the level of work at the AA level. However, I know that what kind of dog is being produced for hunting is not a consideration. That FT potential is the goal. 

Bad luck, yes. The last 4 pups I've purchased have been dysplastic. The one I thought could win, though OFA Good, became dysplastic at 5 years. 

Those in the know can avoid breeding affecteds. What about the others who will continue to produce affecteds? I'll differ with you that the FT group is the most concerned with health and soundness. Just look at all the high profiled dogs in the past that where known dysplastic and/or produced a high number of dysplastic offspring because it gave them the best chance of winning a speaciality game.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Franco said:


> If breeding is everything, how do you account for the number of duds from some high profiled breedings and the amount of dyplastic dogs?
> 
> Like I wrote, if winning FT' is your game, then by all means go for a pup that is clear or a carrier. But, lets not pretend the practice is bettering the breed!
> 
> BTW, I would have zero problem owning a female "carrier" for hunting because I would have her spayed at two years of age and have no interest is raising a litter of pups. Whether I kept the dog would depend on her suitablity for actual hunting.


I'm pretty sure hip, elbow and retinal dysplasia is way down over the last 30 or 40 years. The genetic tests have all but eliminated affected dogs (EIC & CNM) especially in field trial dogs. You probably would have an argument relating to cruciate issues, but to suggest that field trialers are focused on talent at the expense of health is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Franco said:


> Handler in Training said:
> 
> 
> > Focusing on a single trait is a poor choice, I agree. And, breedong carriers for FT might improve once chanes of taking home more ribbons.
> ...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Franco said:


> First of all, I have never condemed FT's! If anythng I have served as an officer for two clubs and have contributed a lot of time and money to thier developent! And, I approciate the level of work at the AA level.
> 
> Bad luck, yes. The last 4 pups I've purchased have been dysplastic. The one I thought could win, though OFA Good, became dysplastic at 5 years.
> 
> Those in the know can avoid breeding affecteds. What about the others who will continue to produce affecteds? I'll differ with you that the FT group is the most concerned with health and soundness. Just look at all the high profiled dogs in the past that where known dysplastic and/or produced a high number of dysplastic offspring because it gave them the best chance of winning a speaciality game.


The remarkable reduced incidence of hip dysphasia, which has benefitted all breeds of dogs, was begun by retriever field trial enthusiasts, competitors, and breeders led by August Belmont Jr. The last dysplastic dog who lived on these premises was born in 1978, he was unilaterally dysplastic, a Field Champion, and retired from competition at 6, not because of his hip but because of the affects of Ehrlichiosis on his pelvic arteries. Nevertheless he hunted ducks until he was 11 and probably saved my life in an airboat sinking in 20 degree weather. I have shared my home, life, and hunted with many FC/AFCs and 2 National Champions. Your argument is flawed and you continue to veil your contributions to animal health by condemning the breeding practices of others.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Wow someone's really out in left field here


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> The remarkable reduced incidence of hip dysphasia, which has benefitted all breeds of dogs, was begun by retriever field trial enthusiasts, competitors, and breeders led by August Belmont Jr. The last dysplastic dog who lived on these premises was born in 1978, he was unilaterally dysplastic, a Field Champion, and retired from competition at 6, not because of his hip but because of the affects of Ehrlichiosis on his pelvic arteries. Nevertheless he hunted ducks until he was 11 and probably saved my life in an airboat sinking in 20 degree weather. I have shared my home, life, and hunted with many FC/AFCs and 2 National Champions. Your argument is flawed and you continue to veil your contributions to animal health by condemning the breeding practices of others.




Again, as I wrote in my first post on this thread, quality breeders are not trying to improve the breed. Thay are trying to maintain the breed's integrity. Not change it by what they call "improving". It may improve the breed for FT's but ceratinly not in general. That is true of all breeders that breed for a "speciality" whether it be Field or Bench. They will overlook issues in hopes of producing that speaciality winner to win at their extreme sport. And, like I said earlier in this thread, if FT are your game, then buy a clear or carrier, if you think that is what it takes. But, don't pass it off under the guise of improving a breed that has its origins as a hunting retriever and needs no "improvement" as stated by what constitutes a Lab under the AKC. If anything, breeders should be working to maintain The Standard and the integrity of The Standard of the Labrador Retriever!


----------



## Mark AB (Oct 20, 2010)

Ok ... not field Trial'er and new to the game. But I dont see how FT'ers are the issue?? I looked at the puppy for sale section on this site and stopped looking after 20+ and everyone has an good OFA. I pulled the pegree of two of my dogs and going back 5 generations and they all have OFA. The issue I think is the back yard / barnyard breeder. My other girl was bought when i did not have a clue about anything from a backyard breeder. No OFA .. guess what .. she came back "moderate" so she's spayed and still a great family member and a great hunting dog. I let the breeded know about my pup and she didn't care. But when i went lookign for another pup; every pup i looked with a FT or HT background had OFA good or excelelnt. So from my perspective as beeing somewhat new, the FT/HT folks have been the most responsable ...??!!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Franco said:


> [/COLOR]
> Again, as I wrote in my first post on this thread, quality breeders are not trying to improve the breed. Thay are trying to maintain the breed's integrity. Not change it by what they call "improving". It may improve the breed for FT's but ceratinly not in general. That is true of all breeders that breed for a "speciality" whether it be Field or Bench. They will overlook issues in hopes of producing that speaciality winner to win at their extreme sport. And, like I said earlier in this thread, if FT are your game, then buy a clear or carrier, if you think that is what it takes. But, don't pass it off under the guise of improving a breed that has its origins as a hunting retriever!


Keep posting and editing your responses but do not expect to get in the last word on your assertions, you are wrong and I will never give you the satisfaction of the last post. Despite a preponderance of scientific and anecdotal evidence to the contrary you continue to focus on a single trait and you continue to ignore the great strides in eliminating genetic diseases in dogs that have occurred in the last 50 years.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> Keep posting and editing your responses but do not expect to get in the last word on your assertions, you are wrong and I will never give you the satisfaction of the last post. Despite a preponderance of scientific and anecdotal evidence to the contrary you continue to focus on a single trait and you continue to ignore the great strides in eliminating genetic diseases in dogs that have occurred in the last 50 years.


I will add to my post rather than adding a new one. 

I'm not focused on a single trait. I'm just not buying into this "improving the breed" business. The Standard is already in place and I have zero desire to change it. 

I don't have to have the last word, never have.

Post away.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Go watch your really good football team with 2 coaches dumbass JJ let get away! Go Saints!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> Go watch your really good football team with 2 coaches dumbass JJ let get away! Go Saints!


Now you see, I really didn't want to go there. But, since you've brought it up, do you know what kind of booze Jerry likes? I was going to send him a gallon for the holidays thanking him for Sean and Rob Really like my QB too, born and raised in west La. right?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Franco said:


> Now you see, I really didn't want to go there. But, since you've brought it up, do you know what kind of booze Jerry likes? I was going to send him a gallon for the holidays thanking him for Sean and Rob Really like my QB too, born and raised in west La. right?


JJ is a dumbass Arkansas hillbilly snake oil salesman who knows how to make money but who is unaware of his own deficiencies including the ability to complete an intelligible sentence, send him a bottle of moonshine, that's his style face lift notwithstanding.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> JJ is a dumbass Arkansas hillbilly snake oil salesman who knows how to make money but who is unaware of his own deficiencies including the ability to complete an intelligible sentence, send him a bottle of moonshine, that's his style face lift notwithstanding.


Funny!

Maybe with that moonshine, I should attach a note suggesting Ken Norton Jr as DC if not HC with the Boys.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> Go watch your really good football team with 2 coaches dumbass JJ let get away! Go Saints!


Saints are over rated, we saw that when the HAWKS SMASHED em'!!! 

I often, hear, even in this thread "British labs" are better built and therefore don't experience as many orthopedic injuries, especially cruciate's. From the mouth of one of the elite K-9 orthopedic surgeons in the world said "BS, I have labs of all styles, ie. British, American, show, etc and they are all in here having TPLO surgeries." He went on to say that American retriever field trials are the most physically demanding of all k9 games in the world. He told me of a prominent family that imported a "British" lab to trial because they didnt have orthopedic issues (so they thought). The gentelman made an all age dog but in pre-national training one year the dog tore its cruciate. There isn't a lot of "British" labs running American field trials so who really knows if that statement holds any water?? When I asked this particular ortho. surgeon why is the lab susceptible to the cruciate injury he said " labs have a small breeding pool." My first thought was how could that be when the Labrador is the most popular breed of the AKC? Think about how many of all those labs are being bred? The reality is there are only so many studs being bred to. Of course the backyard breeders breed to whoever and don't know what EIC or CNM is, so take them out of the equation. As far as registered dogs, amd especially competitive labs in reality do have a small breeding pool, Then to think breeders are going to make the pool that much smaller by only breeding clear to clear. The only reason I can think of that would propenciate that kind breeding "protocol," is marketability. So is "marketibility" improving the breed or their estate?


----------



## mathewrodriguez (May 11, 2011)

Incidents of ACL, MCL, LCL & PCL injuries in physically demanding sports such as football are significantly greater than those in less demanding sports. Likewise, the percentage of soft tissue knee injuries sigficantly increases from high school to college level, and then again from college to pro level. Common sense would suggest that the higher percentage of CCL injuries in retrievers is a direct correlation to the sports we play with our "best friends" rather than a small breeding pool.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Jeff Evans
Sorry, but in at least the past 50 years a British dog has never even placed in an all-age field trial, let alone win and no way qualified there for has never been in a position to tear a ccl in pre national training. 
Nice try though.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

john fallon said:


> That is a good site with a lot of potential, but it needs more imput from without to reach its maximum...
> 
> At this point in time I would not put much stock in the K9data.com's figure of 11.04 being the actual COI percentage rate for our subset of Labradors ...
> 
> ...


I would agree with you, John. There are many fewer Labs in the database than Goldens, so it could be inaccurate to compare the breed COIs from two such dramatically different size groups.

The COIs for k9data are run approximately the first of each month, but the nature of the process can take several days if the COI run gets interrupted on the server that does the job. If you look at the "change history", it will show you when a dog was entered in the database. So, if a dog was entered on Dec. 8, the COI probably missed the December run and won't show up until the COIs are run again at the beginning of January.

The Lab database was started much more recently than the Golden database (which probably began around 2000). Golden people grabbed onto it quickly, and many people spent many hours inputting pedigrees from all kinds of sources: the OFA database, the AKC database, show catalogs, field trial catalogs, specialty catalogs, GRCA Yearbooks. Also, some people who already had info in their private database programs "dumped" into k9data as well, so the database grew very rapidly.

Lab owners have other databases that they use, so k9data may, or may not, become as heavily used for Labs. Once you get enough dogs in there remarkable things happen. When I first used the db back at the beginning, I did not have info beyond 5 generations on a particular pedigree. As more people filled in the blanks over time, that pedigree now goes back further on k9data.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Franco said:


> Again, as I wrote in my first post on this thread, quality breeders are not trying to improve the breed. Thay are trying to maintain the breed's integrity. Not change it by what they call "improving". It may improve the breed for FT's but ceratinly not in general. That is true of all breeders that breed for a "speciality" whether it be Field or Bench. They will overlook issues in hopes of producing that speaciality winner to win at their extreme sport. And, like I said earlier in this thread, if FT are your game, then buy a clear or carrier, if you think that is what it takes. But, don't pass it off under the guise of improving a breed that has its origins as a hunting retriever and needs no "improvement" as stated by what constitutes a Lab under the AKC. If anything, breeders should be working to maintain The Standard and the integrity of The Standard of the Labrador Retriever!


Franco, maybe it's just semantics or limiting the concept to any one special venue the retrievers participate in? 

Regardless of venue, genetic diversity that promotes soundness in each specialty subset becomes part of the larger whole. When you follow back on even the most nondescript BYB pedigree you will usually end up finding some familiar names that competed in some venue. While breeders have become more conscious of this over time, there will always be some pups who get bred that were never sold as "breeding stock".

So, everything any breeder does that preserves soundness of mind and body, including maintaining genetic diversity, can be said to be "improving" the breed as a whole. If each subset works in that direction, if we should ever find ourselves "in a box" in any one venue, and feel compelled to use stock from another venue to overcome some genetic problem, we will have a better chance at preservation of the qualities pertinent to our preferred venue.

Are there some breeders, even several, in ANY breed that may "overlook" issues that should not be overlooked? Is the sky blue? Dog breeders are not immune to the universal failings that afflict the human species.

Is the FT retriever the epitome of what a functioning retriever should be? I would say yes. While the tests that prove their mettle may be far beyond what the average hunter would fully utilize ... most of the hunt test dogs came from those same FT lines. Most of the good hunting dogs came from those same lines. I've rarely (if ever) heard of an accomplished FT retriever that was not also good at the hunt test game or as a hunting dog. There may be some, but I simply haven't heard anyone complain that their FT dog can't hunt.

The FT retrievers simply have a preponderance of those qualities needed for their original function: intelligence, confidence, instincts, functional conformation. While one might argue that some FT retrievers do not meet the Standard of the Breed, overall their bodies hold up over years of rigorous physical challenge. The FT and hunt test venues are the closest to the original intention for these breeds to assess the dogs' capability for their intended purpose. I'd wager that most (if not all) field-tested retrievers could do just fine in any other performance venue. That may be why so many obedience and agility enthusiasts have come to seek out dogs who have field ancestry for those venues. The only venue that is less likely to look for field ancestry is the show venue where it is easier to get side-tracked away from the traits that are closely related to the breeds' original purpose. Performance venues rely heavily on the same traits that make the retrievers good field performers.

So, while not everyone needs a retriever as highly trained as the FT dogs, many of them need the same innate qualities that make those dogs good field performers.

I think that breeders certainly have made advances in physical soundness, i.e. health issues. On other threads, the question remains whether today's dogs are "improved" in other qualities over some of their ancestors. Training methods and types of tests have changed, but those great dogs from the past are the ones who gave their genes to today's dogs. With the benefit of today's training knowledge and techniques maybe they could hold their own.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

One of the real problems with eliminating carriers of any disease (including PRA, EIC, ichthyosis, whatever) is that there are so many other diseases for which there is no DNA test, but there may be one soon. 
Theoretically speaking, suppose we eliminate the 60% of the Goldens who are either ichthyosis affected or ichthyosis carriers from the gene pool. We now have only 40% of our breeding stock left. 
Now supposing in the next few years we develop a DNA test for the big killers of the Goldens, hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, and osteosarcoma. What happens if we now find that over 50% of the dogs who were kept in the breeding pool because they were ichthyosis clear (a generally mild disease) are carriers/affecteds for the cancers that kill about 65%of all goldens? We end up with a very limited gene pool for sure. And suppose we then find a gene that relates to ACL and CCL injuries. Do we elimate all of those carriers, too? 
We need to use intelligent, informed breeding to keep the maximum number of quality dogs in the gene pool.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Breck said:


> Jeff Evans
> Sorry, but in at least the past 50 years a British dog has never even placed in an all-age field trial, let alone win and no way qualified there for has never been in a position to tear a ccl in pre national training.
> Nice try though.


Wow! You have a vast knowledge of pedigrees, more than anyone I have had the pleasure to talk dogs with. It's very possible he used the words "imported." and I assumed British? Dunno, but can assure you that's what the man said and I trust his knowledge. Where would you get the information going back 50yrs to say with such certainty? Not questioning you, I ask with sincere interest?


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Good posts EdA and G. Clinchy. After my 37 years of FT dogs my advice to you newbies is listen to the oldies who have struggled thru pre-DNA fights. Learn your genetics and do not always breed to the hot dog of the year. Breeding is both an art and science. Learn both.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Maybe so Ed, but he is one rich son of a [email protected]#$. LOL!!!

P. S. Glad that you and the dogs made it home OK from Sodak. I'm guessing we drove right past one another in Mitchell, worst driving conditions I have ever experienced.




EdA said:


> JJ is a dumbass Arkansas hillbilly snake oil salesman who knows how to make money but who is unaware of his own deficiencies including the ability to complete an intelligible sentence, send him a bottle of moonshine, that's his style face lift notwithstanding.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Breck said:


> For those in the know I'm curious if culling is or was practiced by performance retriever breeders.


I don't believe this is practiced anymore (unless it was an extreme circumstances); It would be pretty abhorrent to put together breedings that would intentionally produce problems that need to be culled. Most puppies, pre-EIC test, with controllable EIC could be placed in pet homes on limited registration = no breeding, stopping the gene that way. Now that we have the test, it's pretty unconscionable to breed dogs without knowing their status. I would also assume most responsible breeders do whatever they can to prevent producing puppy's that might need to be culled. That said after seeing a CNM affected pup produced before the test became mainstream, if you knew the status of a CNM affected puppy; culling might be a viable option. I for one am not strong enough to stand 3-5 yrs of misery for the owner & the dog, dealing with the ups and downs of an extremely affected pup. Still that is a very personal decision, and we have the test so we can absolutely avoid producing affected animals. The vast majority of the other birth defects-diseases-conditions that might involve such extreme measures; as culling; are very unpredictable, and most often beyond a breeders control.

Of course go back to the early days and Labs were dunked for simply being the wrong color; Limited Registration at least offers an option for ensuring most pups can live normal happy lives but are removed from the breeding pool, a decision that can even be changed later if the situation warrants it .


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> Wow! You have a vast knowledge of pedigrees, more than anyone I have had the pleasure to talk dogs with. It's very possible he used the words "imported." and I assumed British? Dunno, but can assure you that's what the man said and I trust his knowledge. Where would you get the information going back 50yrs to say with such certainty? Not questioning you, I ask with sincere interest?


well, some 15 years ago my first two Labradors (British/Irish) were flow to me directly from Ireland by the author of this book who wrote about the sire & dam http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Guide-Wing-Shooting/dp/1592286488
(Good read if you shoot shotguns) 
I did a whole lot of digging back then and was unable to find one single dog, bred from UK stock, that had placed in an All-Age Stake at any US Field Trial. There have been a few dogs I know of personally who have managed to QAA by placing in a Qual. It's possible some may have jammed an AA stake but I'm unaware of any that actually have.


----------



## Tonto (Nov 13, 2013)

Ok, so we are talking about carriers. I haven't seen anyone say if they are breeding carrier to clear?, carrier to carrier? We know that we can breed this out if done properly. One even said " I refuse to test my litters, and that the most talented pup may be discounted before they ever see a bird". Yes, the most talented dog might be discarded! Would anyone disagree that the purpose is to produce healthy dogs first and foremost? We can test, and breed out a bad, bad gene. If we could identify the dogs that would die of cancer at an early age(a bigger problem in the breedings) would contentious breeders not breed that out as well???? The question arises in my small mind, after looking at these post, is that if a "NATIONAL CHAMPION" is a carrier, that is ok? I, myself would like to see the day that all the dogs are clear! If pure talent alone is the standard for breeding, where will our talent pool come from in ten or twenty years? I am in the dog game. My own opinion is that there is far too little emphasis on healthy, long lived dogs, and far more on what this dog has done, regardless of health. I can't imagine that I am the only one who knows of some very talented dogs that never should have been breed?? Maybe they throw bad hips frequently?, vocal?, EIC affected?, and a host of other things! And, after a few breedings, with the known results of these genetics passed down, kept breeding, because this dog is very talented!!!!! The technology is coming at a quick pace. We can get there, if we think clearly, and unbiased about the breeding process.
So, I have spoken my mind. My intent is to open real discussion on the affects of breeding these wonderful creatures. For me, if talent is treasured above health, I won't be a part of it. It has gone on for way too long! Healthy, talented dogs are there. Let's be part of the solution!


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Tonto, carriers are healthy. I'm afraid you aren't familiar enough with how the process all works. There are still a lot of unknowns with a connection of other traits to some of these genes. The thought that always comes to mind is the great producers of the past. A very large number of them were carriers of EIC or CNM or even both in some instances. If we eradicate a few gene markers, what else are we loosing in the process?


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Again, I think the ft and mostly ht community are in decent shape on the simple recessives--for now, that is. The health and diversity of the vast, moderate middle that keeps the breed birdy and bright for the common guy and gal may be headed for hard times if so many are forgetting 7th grade biology.


----------



## birdog (Nov 20, 2007)

I bred my FC female (clear) to a very nice FC-AFC male (carrier) because of his performance traits, drive, looks, pedigree, etc. We had a litter of nine that were dewclaw tested. 3 carriers, 6 clears. Litter just turned 7 weeks and went to new homes this weekend. I had no problem placing pups (including carriers) in FT homes. I did have tons of calls from people that were less than well informed on what EIC carrier status meant. 

It will be a huge shame if great, sound, healthy, breed exemplifying, performers are overlooked because of carrier status.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

birdog said:


> I bred my FC female (clear) to a very nice FC-AFC male (carrier) because of his performance traits, drive, looks, pedigree, etc. We had a litter of nine that were dewclaw tested. 3 carriers, 6 clears. Litter just turned 7 weeks and went to new homes this weekend. I had no problem placing pups (including carriers) in FT homes. I did have tons of calls from people that were less than well informed on what EIC carrier status meant.
> 
> It will be a huge shame if great, sound, healthy, breed exemplifying, performers are overlooked because of carrier status.


I think it is obvious with a FC bitch placing pups is always easier regardless of anything else. I haven't had issues selling carriers with from my untitled bitch but they have gone to ht or hunting homes. FC bitch to untitled bitch is apples to oranges in regards to selling pups.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> I think it is obvious with a FC bitch placing pups is always easier regardless of anything else. I haven't had issues selling carriers with from my untitled bitch but they have gone to ht or hunting homes. FC bitch to untitled bitch is apples to oranges in regards to selling pups.


Mike,

My bitch is only QAA, and I am having no problem placing carriers. I have 11 pups, and only two requests for clears. One is for myself so I can breed her to some of these wonderfully talented and underutilized carrier males.

I believe the initial reaction of steering clear of the carriers is being replaced with a little education. Again, 20,000 genes admitted by the Univ. of Minn. are carriers of many things, EIC being only 1/20,000 of the equation. Thank goodness for the test, so we can avoid ever producing an affected again.

Now, back to my search for a sire who is a carrier of marking, style, trainability, speed, intelligence, longevity, fertility, and of course good looks!


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

What purpose would be served if there were no EIC carriers out there? How would the breed be better off? I think it's time for all of the anti-EIC people to find a new problem to hone in on because if history is any indication it coming. There will always be something to try and selectively breed out of dogs.


----------



## Dan Storts (Apr 19, 2011)

coachmo said:


> What purpose would be served if there were no EIC carriers out there? How would the breed be better off? I think it's time for all of the anti-EIC people to find a new problem to hone in on because if history is any indication it coming. There will always be something to try and selectively breed out of dogs.


http://www.thelabradorclub.com/uploads/file/valvedysplasia.pdf

The next XYZ.

Dan


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

Thanks Dan, my point exactly.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> If pure talent alone is the standard for breeding, where will our talent pool come from in ten or twenty years? I am in the dog game. My own opinion is that there is far too little emphasis on healthy, long lived dogs, and far more on what this dog has done, regardless of health. I can't imagine that I am the only one who knows of some very talented dogs that never should have been breed?? Maybe they throw bad hips frequently?, vocal?, EIC affected?, and a host of other things! And, after a few breedings, with the known results of these genetics passed down, kept breeding, because this dog is very talented!!!!!


Tonto, I don't think anyone is saying that talent, alone, is the criteria for breeding a dog. When someone favors breeding a carrier based upon the fact that it is extremely talented, that is very different. The breeder who has tested their dog for DNA status already demonstrates their awareness and concern for genetic health of the dogs being bred.

Throwing bad hips frequently: If one looks at OFA history, Labs have done particularly well in managing CHD and reducing the incidence of it in the breed. "Bad" hips could mean not getting an OFA number, and will never impact the life of the dog as a companion, or even as the average hunting dog. That came about with great effort on the part of breeders. 

Which brings me to Barb's point ... suppose that many of the dogs with the "mild" or "borderline" hips also were dogs who were pre-disposed to longevity, i.e. cancer resistant? Or maybe the ones with the good elbows? By our unremitting insistence on hip criteria, we could have unwittingly pre-disposed our dogs to these other issues. This teaches us that we should moderate our zeal in seeking to eradicate genes from the overall gene pool. 

Tonto, since you have indicated you are new to the whole dog game, it is good for you to participate in discussions like this. There are VERY many good people among breeders who care VERY much about the whole dog ... which includes the health and well-being of ALL the pups they produce. 

If you look over the many threads in this Forum it shouldn't take you long to find a lot of stories of the heartbreak of breeders. There are so many things that can go wrong if you are involved long enough, many of which are beyond human control. If you are fortunate, over time you will meet many responsible breeders and be able to appreciate how very much they invest, emotionally and financially, in their attempt to breed both healthy and talented dogs.


----------



## jollydog (Jul 10, 2006)

To the original question - will the EIC ignorance have a negative impact ?
I believe ignorance personally is a negative in itself and after reading
some of these posts I am starting to think it is a waste of effort 
to even post on this subject . But AGAIN will say a carrier is NOT an unhealthy dog
and if you GET RID OF All The CARRIERS you will
Have some unhealthy retrievers. Plain and Simple


----------



## dogluvah (Apr 24, 2012)

I see more of a problem with everyone jumping to the "hot" sire of the moment. In my area you have a very hard time finding a dog if you want to avoid certain lines. This has nothing to do with genetic testing narrowing down the gene pool. It is human nature wanting the latest and greatest. Yes we need to keep the gene pool as deep as possible, but you can't blame that all on avoiding carriers. I do believe we should be actively working towards eliminating EIC and CNM in *all* labs. FT and HT people feel themselves responsible enough not to create affected dogs, and blame BYB for creating affected Labs. Yet is every single carrier dog that's not sold to a responsible FT/HT home, sold on limited reg and/or a spay/neuter done if they are old enough? Can every breeder account for every single one of their dogs, washouts included, that none may end up in a pet or BYhunter's home and become a BYB sire or dam? Just a thought...


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Dogluvah, you raise a very real concern. 

Most responsible breeders HAVE been using limited registration for a long while. I know I use it. Only occasionally do I give full registration to people I know very well. Of course, there are "bogus" registries for someone determined to deceive a breeder when purchasing a puppy in the hopes of going into the BYB business, and they can use one of those other registries to fool the general public. 

We can try to offset this by asking for referrals on buyers whom we do not know. My puppy packets include information on genetic diseases in Goldens. With email I can keep puppy owners updated on health clinics for eye and heart exams. The GRCA website has extensive information inherited diseases this as well. Every person who inquires is given this website for reference.

We can also help by taking time with each puppy inquiry by explaining about these things ... even when we don't have puppies to sell. That's not always an easy task ... to repeat the same information hundreds of times and many times knowing it's falling on deaf ears. However, that is just part of "paying our dues".

On a personal level, I have found that remaining a small-scale breeder makes it easier to keep track of the puppies placed. There is also a life-time warranty ... any puppy whelped here can be returned at any age, for any reason, and there will be a "refund" at any age (graduated by age at which the dog is returned).

Even this is not foolproof, but it goes a ways toward offsetting the risks of using carriers.

That said, even if we place puppies that are always from clear parents (for any of our many inherited diseases), we still have issues which are not covered by DNA tests, and those diseases can be just as important as those for which there are DNA tests. So, we have risks in placing any of our puppies.

The only answer is the best education we can give to ALL puppy inquiries. It is not unusual for people to balk at the price of a responsibly-bred retriever. If we provide even the bargain-hunters with some education, it may actually save some of them from making a poor purchase. There ARE some people who start out as BYB breeders who turn into responsible breeders if they have the opportunity to get educated. When we give detailed info to all puppy inquiries, we are also indirectly offering this education to such people. When their puppy prospects start asking the right questions about health issues, it raises awareness not just for the person we're speaking with, but also for every person with whom they interact.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> *Dogluvah, you raise a very real concern. *Most responsible breeders HAVE been using limited registration for a long while. I know I use it. Only occasionally do I give full registration to people I know very well. Of course, there are "bogus" registries for someone determined to deceive a breeder when purchasing a puppy in the hopes of going into the BYB business, and they can use one of those other registries to fool the general public.
> 
> We can try to offset this by asking for referrals on buyers whom we do not know. My puppy packets include information on genetic diseases in Goldens. With email I can keep puppy owners updated on health clinics for eye and heart exams. The GRCA website has extensive information inherited diseases this as well. Every person who inquires is given this website for reference.
> 
> ...


Dogluvah did raise some valid concerns FIRST among them being this one which you did not address at all ...


> I see more of a problem with everyone jumping to the "hot" sire of the moment. In my area you have a very hard time finding a dog if you want to avoid certain lines. This has nothing to do with genetic testing narrowing down the gene pool


john


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

john fallon said:


> Dogluvah did raise some valid concerns FIRST among them being this one which you did not address at all ...
> 
> john



Re: popular sires...John you are so right. Try finding a show pedigree without Dickendall Arnold or a field pedigree without, I guess it would be Lean Mac? It takes a long time to find a suitable male....both in pedigree and traits you are looking for. The search is never ending....

EIC is such a non issue for me. I have a carrier bitch. She has been bred to only clears. Her clear daughter will get bred to the best dog for her. I won't produce an affected so I'm just looking for a good dog. 

I wish We only had to worry about hip Dysplasia. EdA was right. We have come so far in the last 50 years. And anyone who has been doing this long enough knows pedigrees and what's behind them orthopedically. We can attempt to make an educated decision. 

NOW as someone else said, TVD is here. And it is in both field and show. Imagine sending an 8 week old puppy Home with a pet family that drops dead at 12 weeks? Or sending one home at 8 weeks, gets diagnosed with TVD and lives until 13 but with limited activity? BOTH extremes happen with that disease. No test other than an echo cardiogram to look for positives. And like hip Dysplasia, breeding two negatives for the disease does mean you won't produce the disease.

And Elbows give me heartburn. How do you breed around a multi-faceted joint issue that is affected by environment worse than hips? 

We have more to think about than a disease we have a tool for. People really need to understand that a carrier is a perfectly fine dog. 

Give me an EIC/CNM carrier with excellent hips, clear elbows and heart and eyes and great looking with great work ethic any day! Oh yeah and a pedigree that allows me room for genetic diversity.

Santa has a big request to fill tonight!!!!!

Just a few thoughts....

Merry Christmas!

Sue Puff


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Dogluvah did raise some valid concerns FIRST among them being this one which you did not address at all ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, John, you are correct.

The only way to address that problem is with the educational conversations we are having in Forums like this one, i.e. to raise awareness of the whole issue of genetic diversity, and trying to preserve lines that have very capable individuals in them, but who may fall off the radar as new "stars" capture the headlines.

Hopefully, in raising the issue, as you have done, some newer to breeding, will remember these thoughts as they progress in their involvement with breeding.

Another reason that it is sometimes easier to remain a small-scale breeder ... one doesn't have a "reputation" to "protect". If I, as a breeder, take "the road less travelled" nobody will notice much if I fail  I can still place some very nice puppies in some great hunting homes. Probably one of my greatest rewards is a heavy-duty hunter on Cape Cod who has always hunted with Goldens, but told me that "there is something different" about his pup from my kitchen ... he retrieves not only because he wants to please him, but because he seems to love doing it more than any Golden he (or his father) had before. You won't read about this dog in the record books , but when I asked his owner if the dog ever did a multiple retrieve, he answered modestly, "Well, one day I was out by myself, and he retrieved four birds I shot from a flock. He had a little trouble with the last one, because it had drifted." My luck, I can't even convince this fellow to go watch a hunt test, much less a field trial ... he's too busy hunting!


----------



## Roy Redifer (Dec 24, 2012)

Hey Bon. 2 and a half years ago I bred Jag knowing he was a carrier to one of my EIC clear bitches out of Lean Mac lines. I kept a male carrier who was QAA shortly after turning 2 and he finished about 75 % of the Derbys he ran. Amatuer trained. Nice playful disposition and an excellent marker. Long and short, I wouldn't trade him for anything. Being a carrier means absolutely nothing to me. In my opinion, not breeding to some talented carriers is a mistake. BTW I remember that Nola-Jag breeding. Heading to southern CA next month.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There will always be breeders who simply pander to the lowest common denominator.
There will also be buyers who want to follow the latest fad.
But thankfully, there will also be thoughtful buyers and sellers.


----------



## Pinetree (Feb 14, 2006)

Well this thread is very interesting. For some reason I have never seen it before. We breed our FC Dixie to our FC Gizmo and had 10 pups. I was so thankful that she had a big litter. We sold all before they where born. ( I Keep 2) 
Dixie is clean and Giz is a carrier. We had a spit of 5 and 5 and every pup is the best I have ever seen. If there had not been a test for EIC I could of sold all for a higher price. As Jeff Schitz said last year we need to breed to these good dogs or we will end up with 3 legged dogs. Not trying to push my dogs just making a statement.
Merry Christmas to all and God Bless


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

Years ago a buddy of mine and I got two pups out of a well -bred, OFAed litter. His failed OFA; mind did not. Heart break for him. obvisous carrier parents. Later I had a dog that was the best marking dog I ever owned, MH QAA passed MN. CERF failed; obvious carrier parents. Bred to a nationallly well known NFC. Pups had bad hips. My point is I insured that my latest puppy's(two weeks ago) parents were clean in all aspects. Do not want to inadvertantly cause hurt down the line.
BillB


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

LabskeBill said:


> Years ago a buddy of mine and I got two pups out of a well -bred, OFAed litter. His failed OFA; mind did not. Heart break for him. obvisous carrier parents. Later I had a dog that was the best marking dog I ever owned, MH QAA passed MN. CERF failed; obvious carrier parents. Bred to a nationallly well known NFC. Pups had bad hips. My point is I insured that my latest puppy's(two weeks ago) parents were clean in all aspects. Do not want to inadvertantly cause hurt down the line.
> BillB


Can you explain the statement I highlited? Thanks.


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

Thomas D said:


> Can you explain the statement I highlited? Thanks.


 obvious carrier parent

Yes, might be out of ignorance but I equate "carrier" to a "recessive" gene.
BillB


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

LabskeBill said:


> obvious carrier parent
> 
> Yes, might be out of ignorance but I equate "carrier" to a "recessive" gene.
> BillB


If only it were that easy with Hip Dysplasia. It's not just a recessive, but multi-factorial. If you have two excellent parents, when bred together, produce 1 dysplastic puppy, do you not breed either of the parents again when the others were clear? Its not as simple as just a carrier.

Sue Puff


----------



## mathewrodriguez (May 11, 2011)

Breeding excellent to excellent with regards to hips only means one has bred dogs that are not affected. Being a carrier of hip dysplasia doesn't mean that the dog has marginal hips, the dog simply carries the recessive gene. Through advances in genetic research though, breeders can effectively ensure healthy dogs with regards to EIC and CNM.

The comments regarding the stud of the day, shall always exist regardless of what venue or type of dog one desires. Dogs are domesticated animals, they are bred for a purpose. There will always be a demand for more intelligent... more athletic... more biddable... more family friendly... better looking... dogs that can achieve the desired purpose _"better"_. Health is deemed more of a standard that is expected and thus guaranteed for the most part by reputable breeders. Not so with the wish list of hopefuls. 

Personally, I want the smartest, most athletic, most biddable, tractable, most friendly, gentlest dog off the line, highest powered, focused dog on the line, best marking dog in the country and of course the best looking dog out there... *That's what I hope for.* But, I demand a healthy dog... CARRIERS are healthy. All dogs carry some genetic recessive traits... mathematically it is nearly impossible to create an animal that does not carry genetically recessive traits. Eliminating one statistically increases odds of another.


----------



## Labsrus911 (Jan 3, 2014)

I used to have my litters screened by DDC Labs, but I just went on their web site and they don't show it as being available any more. Is UM the only place to get it done any more? They charge $65 per puppy and require a veterinarian to sign off, which increases my cost to about $100 per puppy. I bred a clear stud to a carrier bitch, but in my effort to have a totally Clear kennel in the future, I want to keep a clear pup which is why I want to test them all, and then I will only keep the best looking/performing pup out of the clear pool. I dont have any problem with carriers, but for me personally I want to have clear dogs, so I have the option of using a carrier stud or bitch in the future and not have to worry about getting an affected puppy in the litter.


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

> To the original question - will the EIC ignorance have a negative impact ?
> I believe ignorance personally is a negative in itself and after reading
> some of these posts I am starting to think it is a waste of effort
> to even post on this subject . But AGAIN will say a carrier is NOT an unhealthy dog
> ...


Sylvia,
I don't care what subject matter one is talking about, IGNORANCE IS ALWAYS A NEGATIVE.

And yes, it is pointless to post on this subject. 

I bred to Ford and will again. I will breed to Ali as well.

If I may invoke the famous Mark Twain: *"Let us be thankful for the fools, for without them the rest of us could not succeed"*


----------



## Dan Storts (Apr 19, 2011)

Labsrus911 said:


> I used to have my litters screened by DDC Labs, but I just went on their web site and they don't show it as being available any more. Is UM the only place to get it done any more? They charge $65 per puppy and require a veterinarian to sign off, which increases my cost to about $100 per puppy. I bred a clear stud to a carrier bitch, but in my effort to have a totally Clear kennel in the future, I want to keep a clear pup which is why I want to test them all, and then I will only keep the best looking/performing pup out of the clear pool. I dont have any problem with carriers, but for me personally I want to have clear dogs, so I have the option of using a carrier stud or bitch in the future and not have to worry about getting an affected puppy in the litter.


I am assuming by this statement that you will only use non factored black studs and no carriers of the yellow or chocolate allele, correct? By having yellow, chocolates or factored dogs your kennel would not be clear in the true genetic definition. 

Dan


----------



## CindyGal (Mar 6, 2012)

mathewrodriguez said:


> Breeding excellent to excellent with regards to hips only means one has bred dogs that are not affected. Being a carrier of hip dysplasia doesn't mean that the dog has marginal hips, the dog simply carries the recessive gene. Through advances in genetic research though, breeders can effectively ensure healthy dogs with regards to EIC and CNM.
> 
> 
> Personally, I want the smartest, most athletic, most biddable, tractable, most friendly, gentlest dog off the line, highest powered, focused dog on the line, best marking dog in the country and of course the best looking dog out there... *That's what I hope for.* But, I demand a healthy dog... CARRIERS are healthy. All dogs carry some genetic recessive traits... mathematically it is nearly impossible to create an animal that does not carry genetically recessive traits. Eliminating one statistically increases odds of another.


Brilliant! Breed for health and retrieve and hope for the best!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Labsrus911 said:


> They charge $65 per puppy and require a veterinarian to sign off, which increases my cost to about $100 per puppy.


No signature required for doing the test only for verifying identity of the dog


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

My veterinarian has never charged me to verify the dog's microchip for a DNA test. I usually plan a trip when I have other reasons to be at his office, then the verification of the dog and his signature are no big deal. I go to the original sources for the tests--U of MN for EIC and Alfort, France for CNM. The cost of the CNM test has dropped to I think $55 per dog and the turnaround time is fast. They send an email result immediately, then hard copy confirmation. Not a problem to drop it in the post to France with the label and shipping instructions provided.

Meredith


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Quick question as someone else already brought it up. Does UoM require sample be submit by a vet or can I do them myself, the paperwork says the encourage vet participation, but I could care less about getting a vet involved I can do my own cheek swab, heck even blood draw without them, so will the university accept a sample not sent in by a Vet. This is really for my own info, on status, I'm just curious could careless about breeding.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

I think the following statement from the University of Minn. explicitly states that taking the carriers out of our breeding pool would be detrimental to the breed.

I found this on my EIC test result pages. The bold emphasis is theirs and not mine. It contradicts what many EIC normal/clear purists are expressing in the previous posts. They even recommend the breeding of E/E (affected) dogs which has in the past rattled the RTF bus.

Here is their statement verbatim: 



> *Current data shows that 35-40% of Labrador Retrievers are d-EIC carriers: therefore, we do not recommend selecting dogs for breeding based soley on their being N/N (normal or clear) for the DNM1:gene.* Such a drastic strategy, although more quickly eliminating the possibility of producing E/E and EIC affected dogs, also has the undesired result of potentially losing many of the outstanding exercise and performance traits expected of many superior lines of Labrador Retrievers. A breeding program that utilizes E/N or even E/E dogs can be logically implemented by mating to N/N dogs and retaining E/N or N/N puppies for future breeding that also retain most or all of the other highly desired characteristics. Ther is no chance of producing an E/E puppy if it is known that at least one of the parents is N/N. In general, we recommend matings that produce fewer carriers (E/N) dogs in successive generations.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

TBell said:


> I think the following statement from the University of Minn. explicitly states that taking the carriers out of our breeding pool would be detrimental to the breed.
> 
> I found this on my EIC test result pages. The bold emphasis is theirs and not mine. It contradicts what many EIC normal/clear purists are expressing in the previous posts. *They even recommend the breeding of E/E (affected) dogs which has in the past rattled the RTF bus.*
> 
> Here is their statement verbatim:


Tammy, I think that if you have an outstanding male that is healthy, structurally sound and outstanding in performance (or whatever) he shouldn't be thrown out. Same with a bitch. UNLESS SHE COLLAPSES. There are affecteds out there that never have collapsed that are outstanding. If you breed either dog to clears, you could have outstanding pups WITHOUT the disease and not narrow the gene pool. I would NOT breed a collapsing bitch. Too much risk to her health.

A breeding like that would take careful consideration, but shouldn't be ruled out. The whole picture needs to be looked at. I said it earlier, we can't keep narrowing the gene pool by throwing out carriers of anything. We are going to be in a huge bottleneck if we keep doing that. There are plenty of other breeds out ther that are in this position and screwed. 

Flame suit on....

Sue Puff


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Here are the brass tacks of the quoted passage from the statement from the University of Minn.



> In general, we *recommend matings that produce fewer carriers (E/N) dogs *in successive generations


. 

In my estimation narrowing the gene pool by favored sire bottelneck breeding, only to then profess an attempt to broaden it again with the use of carriers in ones breeding program is contrary to the advice given above, not to mention common sense.

Simply put they advise that there should be a *COMPELLING REASON *for breedings potentially producing (E/N) dogs.

john


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

john fallon said:


> .
> 
> In my estimation narrowing the gene pool by favored sire bottelneck breeding, only to then profess an attempt to broaden it again with the use of carriers in ones breeding program is contrary to the advice given above, not to mention common sense.
> john


It is possible that someone can take a path away from favored sires, and still feel compelled to use carriers when a given subset of the gene pool has a lot of carriers.

In Goldens, in North America, there are only about 40% clear dogs for Ichthyosis. Not as serious a disease in Goldens (though more serious symptoms in some other breeds) as EIC in Labs, but still one that is considered in breedings. So, even if avoiding the most popular sires, one is faced with using carriers.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

john fallon said:


> Here are the brass tacks of the quoted passage from the statement from the University of Minn.
> 
> .
> 
> ...


There should also be a compelling reason to NOT breed dogs with curly tails and crabby attitudes but that in itself is not compelling enough for most


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

Yes you can collect your sample and submit to U of Mn without a veterinarian's involvement. 

Meredith


----------

