# Genitic OR Performance Breeding



## 43x (Mar 29, 2009)

Which direction do you think the future of the lab breed is heading ?
With the new tests which are available, EIC, CNM, looks to me like it's heading toward a genitic breeding. 

I would have thought it would have gone the other way with the new tests, but people seem to be hung up on "CLEAR" genitics


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

43x said:


> Which direction do you think the future of the lab breed is heading ?
> With the new tests which are available, EIC, CNM, looks to me like it's heading toward a genitic breeding.
> 
> I would have thought it would have gone the other way with the new tests, but people seem to be hung up on "CLEAR" genitics


Both.... dogs with proven performance that have clearances for know genetic issues. I wouldn't buy a dog from parents that weren't proven field performers AND had genetic clearances.

If a BYB had the genetic clearances but could only say "yeah, this dog can hunt"... w/o the field titles I wouldn't give a second look.


----------



## 43x (Mar 29, 2009)

Mike Tome said:


> Both.... dogs with proven performance that have clearances for know genetic issues. I wouldn't buy a dog from parents that weren't proven field performers AND had genetic clearances.
> 
> If a BYB had the genetic clearances but could only say "yeah, this dog can hunt"... w/o the field titles I wouldn't give a second look.


OK, you said "wouldn't buy a dog from parents that weren't proven field performers AND had genetic clearances."

Would make a cross FC AFC Carrier X FC AFC AFFECTED ? You have the test to elimate the affected pups ?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Uh, performance is genetic! And it can also be tested before breeding.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

43x said:


> OK, you said "wouldn't buy a dog from parents that weren't proven field performers AND had genetic clearances."
> 
> Would make a cross FC AFC Carrier X FC AFC AFFECTED ? You have the test to elimate the affected pups ?


This has been beat to death in other threads... but...

I wouldn't buy from anyone who bred an affected to a carrier just because I wouldn't want to support their decisions. I can't understand why anyone would knowingly breed to produce an animal that could potentially suffer from EIC.

Plenty of talented dogs out there that are clear or just carriers.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Mike Tome said:


> This has been beat to death in other threads... but...
> 
> I wouldn't buy from anyone who bred an affected to a carrier just because I wouldn't want to support their decisions. I can't understand why anyone would knowingly breed to produce an animal that could potentially suffer from EIC.
> 
> Plenty of talented dogs out there that are clear or just carriers.


Actually there are three breeding you don't want to happen 
Affected to Affected= 100% affected
Affected to Carrier= 50% affected, 50% carrier
Carrier to Carrier = 25% affected, 50% carrier, 25% clear

and the other possibilities are:

Carrier to Clear= 50% carrier, 50% clear
Clear to Clear= 100% Clear
Affected to Clear= 100% Carrier

the above are the odds of what you will get, in the example of carrier to carrier you could end up with an entire litter of affecteds, or an entire litter of carriers or an entire litter of clears, but most likely would be a combination of carriers affecteds and clears.


----------



## Tommy L. Fairchild (Jul 21, 2003)

Kelly, You failed to mention Affected to Clear= 100% Carriers


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

43X, most of your recent posts have been about breeding selection, EIC etc.

Here is something to keep in mind. 

There is not now, nor will there ever be, a "perfect" Sire or Dam!

Smart Breeders know this, and they select breeding stock by looking at the "whole dog". They don't breed a dog just because it is a FC, AFC, MH, or QAA.

They also don't breed a dog just because it is "clear" of every known genetic disease that we have a test for.

It's about balance, not perfection. Breeding only above average performers, with above average health, is how they produce above average pups.

Every dog has a certain amount of "good traits", and it also has a certain amount of "bad traits". By selective breeding, we can increase the percentage of "good stuff", and decrease the occurance of "bad stuff".


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

43x said:


> OK, you said "wouldn't buy a dog from parents that weren't proven field performers AND had genetic clearances."
> 
> Would make a cross FC AFC Carrier X FC AFC AFFECTED ? You have the test to elimate the affected pups ?


There are too many good, titled dogs out there to make such a irresponsible breeding!

You test the pups? What do you then? Drown the affected pups? Sell them to an older couple who won't be doing many physical things with a field bred, fire breathing pup? 

Jeez!


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Tommy L. Fairchild said:


> Kelly, You failed to mention Affected to Clear= 100% Carriers


If the affected dog was something really, really special ... And the breeding combo was something I really want to have ...

I have no problems with Carrier pups. But

I also would have not problems breeding Clear to Carrier. Just make full disclosures _at the front end_.

The dog performing world needs education of what "carrier" means. It is not the end of the world to have a Carrier. All it means is you need to be careful on who that carrier is bred to.

Good breeding is good breeding. Ethics are ethics.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> 43X, most of your recent posts have been about breeding selection, EIC etc.
> 
> Here is something to keep in mind.
> 
> ...


That is the absolute truth! I think it is sad when breeders give no thought beyond the titles and $$$ they could produce. You want to produce pups that can go all the way with amateurs as well as pros. 

Once again, there is nothing wrong in breeding a carrier. But there is something wrong in knowingly breeding affected pups!

And full disclosure on the breeders web site and/or OFA site is the ethical way to go.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> There are too many good, titled dogs out there to make such a irresponsible breeding!
> 
> You test the pups? What do you then? Drown the affected pups? Sell them to an older couple who won't be doing many physical things with a field bred, fire breathing pup?


 Over the years, breeders in a variety of venues have bred and culled the unacceptable results. Under the right circumstances, I could see a breeder choosing to do so.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Mike Tome said:


> This has been beat to death in other threads... but...
> 
> I wouldn't buy from anyone who bred an affected to a carrier just because I wouldn't want to support their decisions. I can't understand why anyone would knowingly breed to produce an animal that could potentially suffer from EIC.
> 
> Plenty of talented dogs out there that are clear or just carriers.


A breeder culls the affecteds. Breeders of animals have been doing it for years regardless of the species. It's not rocket science,,, you just have the the fortitude to do it....

Angie


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Angie B said:


> A breeder culls the affecteds. Breeders of animals have been doing it for years regardless of the species. It's not rocket science,,, you just have the the fortitude to do it....
> 
> Angie


Culls ????.... fortitude to do what ..You mean kill dont you ? 



Ted Shih said:


> Under the right circumstances, I could see a breeder choosing to do so.


.........and just what might these "right circunstances" be Ted?

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Let's all be PC and say that we would never cull a dog or dogs for a breeding program.

But, I think that's silly. 

If the need arose, it should be an option.

What those circumstances are, I don't know


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> Culls ????.... fortitude to do what ..You mean kill dont you ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culling

Maybe??? 

Angie


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Uh, performance is genetic! And it can also be tested before breeding.


I'm in love with you. (I am on drugs, so can type whatever I like, feeling happy wooopie)

Mode of inheritance of working traits and/or talent please? The hours, weeks I have pondered on such.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Let's all be PC and say that we would never cull a dog or dogs for a breeding program.
> 
> But, I think that's silly.
> 
> ...


Memo to John Fallon:

John, John, John ... you are so naive and lacking of fortitude.

Hasn't anyone told you that breeding is not a sure thing. S#$&t happens!

I guess the PC term when a breeding really goes wrong is: "bucket litters" .

Bucket litter: the breeder drowns undesirable, physically deformed and/or sickly pups in a bucket of water.

You obviously believe the point of genetic testing is to "cull" potentially bad breedings _before_ they occur. Pre-arranging things so you can avoid using the bucket ... so unmanly. ​
So, if we follow Angie & Ted's logic: it's OK to knowingly breed an affected-to-affected or Carrier-to-carrier or Affected-to-carrier. "'Cause that's what they did in the good 'Ol days" ... before they had scientific advancement. What an interesting combination of science and old school thinking: genetically test the litter and keep a bucket full of water handy. That's perfectly logical!

Just say'in


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Aussie said:


> I'm in love with you. (I am on drugs, so can type whatever I like, feeling happy wooopie)
> 
> Mode of inheritance of working traits and/or talent please? The hours, weeks I have pondered on such.


Sent you a PM


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> Memo to John Fallon:
> 
> John, John, John ... you are so naive and lacking of fortitude.​
> 
> ...


Pheasant phoney bologna... 

Get out of the vacuum you're living in!!!!

This is 2010... A whole lot is going on that you're not aware of in the REAL world..

But thank you for your curbside analysis....

When you breed a dog, title a dog or heaven forbid,,,, train a dog and post your real name,,,,, 

maybe,,, maybe,,,, someone will care about your opinions....

*"I'm so much cooler online"....*

Angie


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Angie

I would have thought by now you would have learned not to feed the trolls

Ted


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Culling might not be right, but it is what it is and its happening.


I'd really be shocked if someone were doing this when there are so many dogs available who are also talented, and can offset a carrier or affected mate.

If people are culling carriers, then that is really even more shocking, since those are perfectly healthy animals who will lead normal lives.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Angie
> 
> I would have thought by now you would have learned not to feed the trolls
> 
> Ted


Pheasant dude is a troll that needs to be put in his place every now and then,,,

Like any regular troll...

Did you catch his name Ted???

Angie


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I'd really be shocked if someone were doing this when there are so many dogs available who are also talented, and can offset a carrier or affected mate.
> 
> If people are culling carriers, then that is really even more shocking, since those are perfectly healthy animals who will lead normal lives.




I am not a breeder or a geneticist. I am not prepared to make the sweeping generalizations that many seem to be inclined to issue. 

I don't know whether culling is necessary or not to improve the breed. But, no one who has posted on this thread has persuaded me that they have the credentials to issue an informed opinion on the subject.

Until such time as some one does issue such an opinion, I continue to believe that we should not prohibit culling as a possible breeding option.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

It's threads like this that show people for what they really are.

It seems to me that"* they *"are saying that in the quest for the BLUE, the end justifies the means.... or did I miss something ?

Nothing should be that important.

john


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

john fallon said:


> It's threads like this that show people for what they really are.
> 
> It seems to me that"* they *"are saying that in the quest for the BLUE, the end justifies the means.... or did I miss something ?
> 
> ...


No, _you_ didn't miss a beat!


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

Haven't we reached our quota for EIC and breeding threads for the week?


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

ted and angie,
"it's a dog, not a choice!" that's my new bumper sticker. like it or not culling has and always will be a part of "selective" breeding. let's go shoot some flyers for our dogs?
john mc


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Some think that they are only dogs so fighting them for sport should be OK.
Others say that this is a barbaric pastime because some of the dogs get killed and many more are injured, I come down on the side of the latter.

Some think that in the quest for the super dog in whatever the venue, that the killing of quite a few puppies is a reasonable price to pay. Others say that this is a barbaric practice and with the use of the testing an unnecessary one to boot, On this I also come down on the side of the latter.

john


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> It's threads like this that show people for what they really are.
> 
> It seems to me that"* they *"are saying that in the quest for the BLUE, the end justifies the means.... or did I miss something ?
> 
> ...


I hate to stick my nose in your weekly banter with Ted but where did he say he is willing to cull in order to get Blue ribbons? The topic was the betterment of the breed which is how I took his opinions. 

Obviously if the breed gets better through sound breeding practices you can follow the logic to better dogs = better chance at blue. However, whether the dogs are trialed, hunted or just house pets, isn't betterment of the breed what every breeder should be about? Culling is done in many breeding programs, beef and dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and on and on. It's all to better the breed for what ever purpose they have. To dismiss it out of hand is short sighted in my opinion.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

" Culling is done in many breeding programs, beef and dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and on and on. It's all to better the breed for what ever purpose they have. To dismiss it out of hand is short sighted in my opinion." ......... We don't have to use the bucket of water to cull any longer .....We have limited registration, or no papers at all.....If the carriers or affected are placed in a responsible way you can dump the water out of the bucket.....Steve S


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

steve schreiner said:


> " Culling is done in many breeding programs, beef and dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and on and on. It's all to better the breed for what ever purpose they have. To dismiss it out of hand is short sighted in my opinion." ......... We don't have to use the bucket of water to cull any longer .....We have limited registration, or no papers at all.....If the carriers or affected are placed in a responsible way you can dump the water out of the bucket.....Steve S


I agree completely. But ... not everyone cares to place carrier and affected pups responsibly. And ... with the availability of genetic testing, you shouldn't be producing _any_ affected pups. To purposely breed in such a way as to produce affected puppies is irresponsible. To say, so what - we can always "cull" is irresponsible. It's also unethical and dumb.

Just say'in


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Rick_C said:


> I hate to stick my nose in your weekly banter with Ted but where did he say he is willing to cull in order to get Blue ribbons? *The topic was the betterment of the breed which is how I took his opinions. *
> Obviously if the breed gets better through sound breeding practices you can follow the logic to better dogs = better chance at blue. However, whether the dogs are trialed, hunted or just house pets, isn't betterment of the breed what every breeder should be about? Culling is done in many breeding programs, beef and dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and on and on. It's all to better the breed for what ever purpose they have. To dismiss it out of hand is short sighted in my opinion.


Rick I have no qualms about calling someone out if they are the solo target of my ire. I did not in this case do that with the fellow you mentioned ,which could mean that you are mistaken or that he is just part of a larger group of like minded individuals who for the sake of brevity we will here after call "they".

'Genitic OR Performance Breeding" is the name of this thread and right from the get go people were rationalizing around the weight of strong field prowess as it plays out in selection for breeding...with FT dogs being the benchmark. The words FC and AFC were used in these rationalizations making the betterment of the breed as such, a non issue .

Now that you have "stuck your nose in (it) " Why don't you elaborate on when and why genetic information should be overlooked 

Do you consider your dogs livestock
In what way do you feel that the livestock industry is where we should look for guidance in this regard .............

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Rick_C said:


> I hate to stick my nose in your weekly banter with Ted but where did he say he is willing to cull in order to get Blue ribbons? The topic was the betterment of the breed which is how I took his opinions.
> 
> Obviously if the breed gets better through sound breeding practices you can follow the logic to better dogs = better chance at blue. However, whether the dogs are trialed, hunted or just house pets, isn't betterment of the breed what every breeder should be about? Culling is done in many breeding programs, beef and dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and on and on. It's all to better the breed for what ever purpose they have. To dismiss it out of hand is short sighted in my opinion.




Rick

You should know by now that Fallon makes it a practice to misconstrue what people say. It would seem that Pheasant follows Fallon's footsteps in that regard.

I am amazed that people are so willing to offer opinions about matters in which they have little expertise. 

To my knowledge, no one with any expertise in genetics has stepped in to offer any enlightenment on the issue.

I simply said that I would not eliminate culling as an option in improving the breed. Period. 

I did not condone its widespread practice.
I do not know what circumstances under which it might be appropriate.
I simply offered my opinion that I would be unwilling to eliminate its practice as an option in breeding.

But, hey, why worry about what I wrote, when you can misconstrue it and pretend that I wrote something else?

Why bother with the truth?


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Rick I have no qualms about calling someone out if they are the solo target of my ire.* I did not in this case do that with the fellow you mentioned ,which could mean that you are mistaken or that he is just part of a larger group of like minded individuals who for the sake of brevity we will here after call "they".*
> 
> 'Genitic OR Performance Breeding" is the name of this thread and right from the get go people were rationalizing around the weight of strong field prowess as it plays out in selection for breeding...with FT dogs being the benchmark. The words FC and AFC were used in these rationalizations making the betterment of the breed as such, a non issue .
> 
> ...


Ok, I guess it's my turn to take the bait...

1. I am quite impressed with your fancy double talk way of saying you did not refer to Ted while still including him in your "they" group you were refering to. You might want to look into a 2nd career in politics.

2. I cannot elaborate on something I did not say. Nowhere in my post did I say "genetic information should be overlooked". So on top of your own double speak you're trying to put words in my mouth. What I said was that I don't believe culling should be dismissed out of hand. Meaning that I don't think it should be thrown out as an option without consideration to it's _potential_ effectiveness. Clearly genetic testing must be used in breeding decisions. I wouldn't buy a pup that didn't have genetic testing done. 

3. No I do not consider my dogs livestock. That said, whether you want to admit it or not, our (dog people) breeding programs are not all that different from livestock breeders. They use both genetic testing and culling to produce the best animals possible. We aren't letting our dogs run loose and breed with whom ever they choose. We are making those decisions, hopefully, for the betterment of the breed. The difference is we let dogs into our homes where they become part of the family so there is more of an emotional bond than "livestock". 

4. When I talk about culling I am talking about taking those individuals deemed unfit for breeding purposes (betterment of the breed) out of the breeding pool and I'm not convinced that limited registration alone does that.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

I agree completely on your opinion of culling, well said Ted.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Wow... I don't think of culling as drowning a pup in a bucket. I would think of it as a simple spay/neuter issue, or if the person did feel it necessary to put it down, then there are such things as injections... 

I know some of the mushers up here shoot them, drown them etc.. I could personally never do that, and find that sort of thing hideous...


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

DEDEYE said:


> Wow... I don't think of culling as drowning a pup in a bucket. I would think of it as a simple spay/neuter issue, or if the person did feel it necessary to put it down, then there are such things as injections...
> 
> I know some of the mushers up here shoot them, drown them etc.. I could personally never do that, and find that sort of thing hideous...


Also well said, agree 100%.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Rick_C said:


> > Originally Posted by DEDEYE
> > Wow... I don't think of culling as drowning a pup in a bucket. I would think of it as a simple spay/neuter issue, or if the person did feel it necessary to put it down, then there are such things as injections...
> 
> 
> Also well said, agree 100%.


Few have a problem with the spay/neuter aspect of selective breeding,
So if , when using the "C" word ,that is to what *they* are refering to when saying things* like *

I simply said that I would not eliminate culling as an option in improving the breed. Period. 
I did not condone its widespread practice.
I do not know what circumstances under which it might be appropriate.
I simply offered my opinion that I would be unwilling to eliminate its practice as an option in breeding."for example 

I did in fact misconstrue what was said, if not, my previous posts stand as written.

I just reread all of *their* posts on the matter and to me it seems *they* place no such limitations on it.

john

BTW At what frequency (% per 1000 litters) would it have to happen to make a practice widespread


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I will follow my own advice and forego feeding the trolls


----------



## 43x (Mar 29, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Over the years, breeders in a variety of venues have bred and culled the unacceptable results. Under the right circumstances, I could see a breeder choosing to do so.


+2

http://www.rhodesianridgeback.org.za/notices/AN011.doc.pdf


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

43x said:


> +2
> 
> http://www.rhodesianridgeback.org.za/notices/AN011.doc.pdf


There is some useful information in this pdf. There are still times a breeder should cull (PTS) and each breeder determines when, often with the aide of their vet, but like it says, some vets are more realistic than others. When you have dogs that whelp big litters, there are often weak and defective pups. Most breeders go through the need to save everything and the pups end up with a less than normal life. Part of being a breeder is making this decision not in the interest of the breed, because we have limited registration, but in the interest of the quality of life for the pup. Selling or giving it away in this day and age with high veterinary costs is not an ethical decision IMHO. I think we've all kept them and it does not turn out well. This is what culling really is. We are not talking about an EIC carrier which is a healthy dog or a dog with a cosmetic, bite, or color defect. I've had a dog that had the forearms growing at different rates. The advice by 2 vets was to euthanize because one had done surgery on her own and the dog was in pain its whole life and another had recommended surgery and the dog ended up with 3 surgeries and was never right; ectopic ureter-depending on what is really wrong it can be fixed but is expensive. An aware breeder can catch this; heart defects, liver shunt, kidney abnormalities all are serious. Failure to thrive usually means something is wrong inside and the puppy often starves to death.
To say culling is related to livestock culling is not really that realistic-livestock can be culled and sold for meat. Livestock breeders also have different criteria they use to decide what is breeding stock and what is not. Emotions usually don't enter into the picture.


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

I see NOTHING wrong with culling pupppies. Most of the fools that will not cull a pup are for abortions


----------



## Jim Scarborough (May 5, 2007)

To see the dramatic effects that aggressive breeding/culling practices can have on a breed, one needs to look at the English Pointers produced by Elhew Kennels and Robert Wehle. For years, Elhew-bred pointers dominated the field trial circuit and the national pointing dog championships. These bloodlines are still found in the winning dogs of today. Wehle used aggressive in-breeding to produce his line of dogs, culling those dogs that were not representative of the best of the breed. His methods are carefully outlined in his seminal work, "Snakefoot, The Making of a Champion."

This does not answer the moral dimension of this thread, but it leaves no doubt that aggressive breeding/culling techniques, in the hands of a dedicated breeder, can result in better dogs.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

DEDEYE said:


> Wow... I don't think of culling as drowning a pup in a bucket. I would think of it as a simple spay/neuter issue, or if the person did feel it necessary to put it down, then there are such things as injections...
> 
> I know some of the mushers up here shoot them, drown them etc.. I could personally never do that, and find that sort of thing hideous...


Maybe we should get back on topic.

Following this thread, the issue that started the whole culling discussion is: 



The responsible breeder:

will genetically test their dogs and neuter those that are EIC affected.
will not breed an affected to a carrier; or a carrier to a carrier because that is irresponsible



The response to that was: go ahead with the breeding and test the litter ...


My response was that is irresponsible. 
What will you do with the affected pups? Kill them? Place them in a "pet" home where they will be physically restricted?

Culling the affected pup which was _knowingly_ produced by breeding affected to affected, or affected to carrier, or carrier to carrier ... It's OK because that was how they handled problems in the old days?

What about that _purposely produced_ affected pup? Now you have a high roller stuck on a couch for the rest of its life. How kind is that?

My point: _Use_ the genetic tests to breed _responsibly_. _Cull the high risk breeding_.

Now to John Fallon's point: Why would a breeder promote a high risk breeding? Well I'd guess that he likes the parents and hopes to produce an EIC non affected pup that can be campaigned successfully at Field Trials. Ergo, it's OK to breed a certain percentage of affected pups (go ahead and cull'em), for the sake of winning blue ribbons.

Blue ribbons at any cost? Kind of an old school way of thinking. But wrongheaded given the amount of genetically clear, talented dogs available for breeding.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Mark Sehon said:


> I see NOTHING wrong with culling pupppies. Most of the fools that will not cull a pup are for abortions


Interesting observation... and where did you collect THAT information????


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

:twisted:


Mike Tome said:


> Interesting observation... and where did you collect THAT information????


By following the thread. :lol:


----------



## Huff (Feb 11, 2008)

Would it not be a smart breeding practice to try and elimanate the bad things such as eic over several generations instead of in one generation? I think you could test and do the right thing, but just because a dog is a carrier does not mean it should not be breed. Just be selective on the mate. In my opinion if you try and eradicate 1 problem in one generation, something even worse could pop up from out of nowhere and you have eliminated a large portion of the gene pool due to one problem

You have to look at the whole dog and not one thing. If you just focus on one issue you are being more short sided in the long run.

Russell


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Huff said:


> Would it not be a smart breeding practice to try and elimanate the bad things such as eic over several generations instead of in one generation? I think you could test and do the right thing, but just because a dog is a carrier does not mean it should not be breed. Just be selective on the mate. In my opinion if you try and eradicate 1 problem in one generation, something even worse could pop up from out of nowhere and you have eliminated a large portion of the gene pool due to one problem
> 
> You have to look at the whole dog and not one thing. If you just focus on one issue you are being more short sided in the long run.
> 
> Russell


Excellent post.

There is nothing wrong in breeding a carrier. But you should know that you own a carrier and be careful not to breed to another carrier or an affected dog. If you have a carrier, then you must be sure to know the EIC status of any dog you may be breeding him/her with. 

By being selective of the mate, I am assuming you mean that you will not breed to another dog that is a carrier or affected.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I would think that as more people become aware of EIC and CNM etc.. More people may not want to buy puppies that are either affected or carriers. I am not a producer (Breeder) I am a consumer (owner) and being free to buy the puppy I want I will only buy from a litter that both parents are only Clear. I know that there is nothing wrong with a carrier pup but I choose to support breeders that I think are doing the best for the breed. My money my choice. So if you breed carrier parents or affected parents (even to clears) then you have a smaller market to sell to, even if it is by one person (me) though I think there might be a few more that share my ideals..
I am also sure that breeders that breed clears and carriers have a plan and aren't bad people.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

kzunell said:


> I would think that as more people become aware of EIC and CNM etc.. More people may not want to buy puppies that are either affected or carriers. I am not a producer (Breeder) I am a consumer (owner) and being free to buy the puppy I want I will only buy from a litter that both parents are only Clear. I know that there is nothing wrong with a carrier pup but I choose to support breeders that I think are doing the best for the breed. My money my choice. So if you breed carrier parents or affected parents (even to clears) then you have a smaller market to sell to, even if it is by one person (me) though I think there might be a few more that share my ideals..
> I am also sure that breeders that breed clears and carriers have a plan and aren't bad people.


If you are buying a puppy, you clearly should make decisions that are consistent with your own priorities. Hwever, what you are stating is not a personal preference, but a judgment that those who breed carriers are not acting in the best interests of the breed. You could not be more wrong. One of the major problems with the introduction of CNM testing was that brilliant carriers were no longer used as studs. Breedings that might have gone to them went to other similarly accomplished dogs instead. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that is that the genetic pool used for performance breeding was diminished significantly. As bad as that was, eliminating the best EIC carrier studs from the breeding pool would be worse. Approximately 40% of FC males are EIC carriers.. That percentage also applies to NFC's and NAFC's. Take out that 40% and there are more genetic bottlenecks. 

If the EIC test is used as an appropriate tool for planning breedings, there will be no more affected dogs. That is all that counts. However, even that action would significantly reduce the total number of carriers. If breeders exercise a small bias against carriers (the tie breaker when all other factors are equivalent) the incidence of carriers would be reduced even faster. However, that is actually not that relevant and should never be given precedence over more complicated issues such as performance, temperament, overall longevity, hip and elbow dysplasia, etc. Those are all issues that cannot be addressed with a simple genetic test. Making the least severe and least complicated issue you litmus test for judging the integrity of a breeder is a little extreme and certainly not in the interests of the breed.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

YardleyLabs said:


> If you are buying a puppy, you clearly should make decisions that are consistent with your own priorities. Hwever, what you are stating is not a personal preference, but a judgment that those who breed carriers are not acting in the best interests of the breed. You could not be more wrong. One of the major problems with the introduction of CNM testing was that brilliant carriers were no longer used as studs. Breedings that might have gone to them went to other similarly accomplished dogs instead. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that is that the genetic pool used for performance breeding was diminished significantly. As bad as that was, eliminating the best EIC carrier studs from the breeding pool would be worse. Approximately 40% of FC males are EIC carriers.. That percentage also applies to NFC's and NAFC's. Take out that 40% and there are more genetic bottlenecks.
> 
> If the EIC test is used as an appropriate tool for planning breedings, there will be no more affected dogs. That is all that counts. However, even that action would significantly reduce the total number of carriers. If breeders exercise a small bias against carriers (the tie breaker when all other factors are equivalent) the incidence of carriers would be reduced even faster. However, that is actually not that relevant and should never be given precedence over more complicated issues such as performance, temperament, overall longevity, hip and elbow dysplasia, etc. Those are all issues that cannot be addressed with a simple genetic test. Making the least severe and least complicated issue you litmus test for judging the integrity of a breeder is a little extreme and certainly not in the interests of the breed.



Jeff, it took you 6000 posts to get it right, but get it right you did!

And I might as well say it while I'm here, those of you with such strong feelings on both sides of this issue without the balls to attach your names to those opinions don't carry much credibility - my humble opinion, of course.

Frank Price


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

We have beaten the EIC carrier horse to death.

Everyone gets to make their own decision.

As for me, if there was a breeding that I liked, I would be delighted to get a carrier. I would probably prefer a clear, to simply avoid the prejudice that ignorance associates with a carrier

But, as a practical matter, future breeding possibilities don't factor much into my decision making.

I have only bred one litter (although the litter produced a FC, an AFC, and another dog with an AA win and places). My two FC/AFC females have never been bred, and My two FC/AFC males, and one AFC male have only been bred three times. So breeding is not a big factor in my decision making. Nor, I suspect, is it for most people.

So, do as you will. That's the great thing about freedom of choice.


----------



## Huff (Feb 11, 2008)

Excellent post Jeff.

Russell Huffman


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

You hit the nail on the head Jeff. Very Good!!

Angie


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

It seems to me that it all boils down to what place on the breeding criteria list one places performance vs the various health issues.

john


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I think there are enough Lean Mac genes out there that are now EIC clear that we would be fine in that regard. We would lose genes from FC's that have never bred or had a litter. of course their siblings will carry a lot of the same genes. Field trial breeders narrow the gene pool all the time, try and find a litter that doesn't have Lean Mac. or one of the other top performing studs in it. 
Part of the reason EIC is so prevelant in FC's is because the gene pool is so narrow. 
I do expect that people will justify breeding carriers and I have no problem with that just not going to buy from them. I want a future where two genes never show up in labs again EIC/CNM because I have seen both dogs run and collapse. I have a friend that has such a high drive dog with CNM that it will scream to run and just simply collapse mid stride. EIC at least the dog I saw would get to get a few retrieves before collapsing. 
I have seen enough OOPS litters that I know eventually if their are carriers still out there it will happen, or a carrier dog will end up getting bred by people that just don't understand, never followed thru with the spay/neuter or never cared that they couldn't register their limited registration dog. There are enough idiots out in the world that it will happen and I don't want to see the pups. I think the breed would be better without those two genes.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> There are enough idiots out in the world that it will happen and I don't want to see the pups. I think the breed would be better without those two genes.


I do know of one breeder who had pups neutered before she sent them to homes, because she is very active in rescue & didn't want to trust Joe Average to neuter. There is some negative impact on the growth pattern of the dogs by such early neutering, but it is do-able.

Yes, I think everyone would feel the breed would be better off without these two genes. Old-timers can remember back when hips were the be-all and end-all ... until something worse came along, like elbow dysplasia, retinal dysplasia, PRA, and now EIC and CNM. It really does seem like just when we think there can be nothing worse ... worse does come along. 

In Goldens, there was a furor over prcd-PRA during the past few years. Same kind of talk about treating carriers like lepers. Wouldn't you just know it ... along comes another up-and-comer called pigmentary uveitis. Painful to the dog, sometimes treatable to preserve vision, but sometimes ends up with glaucoma and even loss of the eye. No idea yet how its' inherited. No DNA test. Some areas of the country showing very high %-age of affected dogs. Makes prcd-PRA look like a "walk in the park". 

I'd say that we have to move cautiously before one goes about slicing and dicing the gene pool.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I'd say that we have to move cautiously before one goes about slicing and dicing the gene pool.


After all these threads on EIC, I'm afraid it has become quite apparent that there are very few people capable of comprehending that statement.


----------



## 43x (Mar 29, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> After all these threads on EIC, I'm afraid it has become quite apparent that there are very few people capable of comprehending that statement.


That's like trying to explain DNA to the jurors on the OJ trial, they don't get it


----------



## Buck Mann (Apr 16, 2003)

kzunell said:


> I think the breed would be better without those two genes.


This is an incredibly dangerous statement. You DON'T know that. Genes don't just sit there individually, in a vacuum. They are linked to other genes and can actually change during development and growth. Eliminating a gene may expose other genes that are being suppressed and are worse. The gene may be linked to desirable traits. There are other breeds that have tried to eliminate a certain condition genetically only to end up with something worse. There is a reason most people with genetics training have quit posting on these threads. After banging your head against the wall the headache eventually starts to bother you.
As so many knowledgeable people have posted in the past, a carrier is a completely normal animal and should be treated as such. Just breed to a clear. Trying to eliminate the gene by not breeding any carriers is definitely the wrong approach. And to not consider purchasing carriers or purchasing from people that breed to carriers is very short sighted.

Buck


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Actually if you continue to breed carriers to clear you keep producing pups that are limited in who they can be bred too. By limiting future generations on who they will be able to be bred to seems rather short sighted to me. 
60% of FC's are clear and seem to be of a diverse type. If you have one of the carrier FC's then you have only 60% of the FC's you can breed to Right now. We can limit the dogs that we breed to for a few generations or we can limit the dogs that can be bred forever...
Labradors unlike a lot of breeds have a huge genetic base. Breeds with a small genetic base get into very serious trouble when they start limiting it. Labradors don't suffer that problem. Most of the Labs in the world are non EIC carriers and we have enough examples to know that there isn't any grave genetic problem with not having that gene. 
Is there some great advantage to having the gene for Field Trial dogs? Are there great field trial dogs that are clear? Are there really bad field trial dogs that are carriers? 
What I am hoping will happen is people that start picking pups will start picking the clear dogs over the carriers. Don't eliminate the family tree but breed clear siblings, offspring,aunts,uncles etc..of great affected or carrier dogs. There are ways of getting and keeping the gene pool large and not eliminating whole branches of a genetic tree. Before genetic tests like these the only way to attempt to limit the disease was to eliminate the whole family lines. That eliminates huge portions of the gene pool and is not a good idea.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Buck Mann said:


> This is an incredibly dangerous statement. You DON'T know that. Genes don't just sit there individually, in a vacuum. They are linked to other genes and can actually change during development and growth. Eliminating a gene may expose other genes that are being suppressed and are worse. The gene may be linked to desirable traits. There are other breeds that have tried to eliminate a certain condition genetically only to end up with something worse. *There is a reason most people with genetics training have quit posting on these threads*. After banging your head against the wall the headache eventually starts to bother you.
> As so many knowledgeable people have posted in the past, a carrier is a completely normal animal and should be treated as such. Just breed to a clear. Trying to eliminate the gene by not breeding any carriers is definitely the wrong approach. And to not consider purchasing carriers or purchasing from people that breed to carriers is very short sighted.
> 
> Buck


Since most of us don't know them either personally or by reputation, would you mind listing some of them by name along with their credentials.


----------



## Buck Mann (Apr 16, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Since most of us don't know them either personally or by reputation, would you mind listing some of them by name along with their credentials.


Nope. You've been on here long enough to have read all of the posts on EIC and CNM. Not all of them even post on RTF anymore. If they feel like posting and offering their input they can. Being an obstetrician, I've dealt with human genetics for 30 years now. But there are pure geneticists and veterinarians that have posted about this in the past.

Buck


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

kzunell said:


> Actually if you continue to breed carriers to clear you keep producing pups that are limited in who they can be bred too. By limiting future generations on who they will be able to be bred to seems rather short sighted to me.
> 60% of FC's are clear and seem to be of a diverse type. If you have one of the carrier FC's then you have only 60% of the FC's you can breed to Right now. We can limit the dogs that we breed to for a few generations or we can limit the dogs that can be bred forever...
> Labradors unlike a lot of breeds have a huge genetic base. Breeds with a small genetic base get into very serious trouble when they start limiting it. Labradors don't suffer that problem. Most of the Labs in the world are non EIC carriers and we have enough examples to know that there isn't any grave genetic problem with not having that gene.
> Is there some great advantage to having the gene for Field Trial dogs? Are there great field trial dogs that are clear? Are there really bad field trial dogs that are carriers?
> What I am hoping will happen is people that start picking pups will start picking the clear dogs over the carriers. Don't eliminate the family tree but breed clear siblings, offspring,aunts,uncles etc..of great affected or carrier dogs. There are ways of getting and keeping the gene pool large and not eliminating whole branches of a genetic tree. Before genetic tests like these the only way to attempt to limit the disease was to eliminate the whole family lines. That eliminates huge portions of the gene pool and is not a good idea.



Hi:

I work with similar traits in plants as a commercial plant breeder. My wife is a DVM so I get a lot of information from her journals. You are right when saying most qualified folks will not comment. It's a complicated issue and here is my take. I'm going hunting tommorrow for a week in MT and won't be here to hear the fuss....

1) There is very little money in dog breeding and dog breeders do not like to work together and be told what to do, this is the # 1 limiting factor in improving any dog breed here in the US

2) Given a large amount of money(a few million) and a couple of generations, you could eliminate a couple of alleles from your populations without losing hardly any variation in the breed. The technology has changed drastically in the last 15 years. I can measure individuals and map genes that just were not possible before... but we don't have that kind of money in the dog world. However folks should select a little bit harder than they are currently doing. In the old days, folks culled hard and brought in new genes when they needed to.(I'm talking other breeds here). That is unacceptable now... maybe that is not a good thing.

3) It is very hard to measure most the traits that FT/HT folks want, they are all quantitative. Nobody quantifies enough dogs on a level playing field to get good genetic estimates that can be used. The best example of that is in Hip Displasia.. There has been a little bit of progress improving the hunting breeds via OFA (none in other other breeds), but on average, folks just haven't used the data to make decisions in their breeding programs. they have done the minimum and just threw out the very worst. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997:210:1480-1482 is one reference that's good, if you are really curious I would be happy to send more references).

The key is if you get a piece of information... use it !


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> What I am hoping will happen is people that start picking pups will start picking the clear dogs over the carriers. Don't eliminate the family tree but breed clear siblings, offspring,aunts,uncles etc..of great affected or carrier dogs.


What if the EIC or CNM genes also happen to be connected to some other genetic material?

Some years ago, some breeders of foxes (for fur coats) decided it would be convenient if the foxes were tamer & easier to handle. So, they decided to select the breeding pairs based on tameness. They succeeded. However, the coat quality deteriorated (defeating the whole purpose of breeding their foxes for nice fur coats). Not pertinent to the coat quality, but also noted, was that the tamer foxes also ended up with drop ears v. prick ears.

The point here is simply that a group of individuals with one trait may also be the same group that happens to have some other traits not as obvious as the one we are seeking to enhance/change. In dog breeds, the Portuguese Water Dog breeders, being very dedicated decided to breed out a serious disease, and ended up left with a group of dogs that had prcd-PRA. They were "saved" by the DNA test for prcd, which has allowed them to manage the problem. 

In an excellent article in the Purina Breeder magazine, they quoted geneticists as recommending that breeders use DNA testing to "manage" genetic diseases, i.e. avoid producing affected dogs, but not going crazy "eradicating" genes. 

If we also consider that in each generation only a small percentage of the pups produced will be good enough to make it in the games we humans like to play, we are further reducing the diversity in the gene pool ... AFTER we've selected only "clear" (EIC or CNM or hips or elbows or prcd or RD) then we further select for the other traits we seek. In many cases, even a very promising breeding may only produce 1 or 2 dogs who have passed through every gauntlet. 

Actually, you might be able to eradicate a faulty gene without devastating a breeding program ... Seeing Eye has made its Lab breeding colony dysplasia-free ... both of symptoms and by xray. They have simultaneously maintained the working traits they desire (though different from ours).

They accomplish this by having a professional geneticist make the breeding decisions. They evaluate working traits as objectively as possible ... the person who evaluates is NOT the same person who trains the dog. That eliminates the emotional factor in the evaluation. They have a computer that recalculates EBVs (estimated breeding values) daily. They get health screening results on EVERY puppy they produce. The have detailed health records on EVERY puppy they produce. And when a staff member retires, they can replace that individual, so that the organization has continued to function objectively beyond anyone's single lifetime. I doubt that there will be any breeder who can achieve the kind of success of Seeing Eye ... since they are not immortal  ... nor do they have the capabilities of Seeing Eye to evaluate EVERY dog OBJECTIVELY ... and plan the breedings according to mathematical computations.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Labrador's have improved their OFA hip ratings over the years. Because you have a choice to not send in an obvioous dysplastic X-ray, a better way of gauging hip improvements is to compare the number of Excellent ratings over the years. From 1980 to 2002-2003 the percent of excellent hip ratings went up from 10.8% to 22.3% that is to me a pretty signifigant improvement.
http://www.offa.org/hipstatbreed.html?view=2

What percentage of labradors are actually bred and produce offspring? Maybe 15%? What percentage of the available gene pool is lost every generation without producing offspring? 85%? As long as we don't remove family lines the gene pool will be ok.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> What percentage of labradors are actually bred and produce offspring? Maybe 15%? What percentage of the available gene pool is lost every generation without producing offspring? 85%? As long as we don't remove family lines the gene pool will be ok.


I don't think we can be sure that the 15% that "survive" the gauntlet have the same genes as those who do not. Not all siblings have the same sets of genes. 

It occurs to me ... suppose the reason that EIC and CNM were able to show up is because over time the gene pool was "culled" for hips, and the remaining individuals had a higher probability of carrying these other genes that we now wish weren't there? 

The end result in the real world, however, is that breeders can act responsibly if they choose to use carriers. Breeders can also act responsibly if they choose not to use carriers. Since there will be both groups breeding dogs, there is less chance of losing genes that may end up being useful in the future ... when other genetic diseases are encountered. It will be better for the breed if both groups can get along & respect each other's opinions while the bigger picture is playing itself out. Stay tuned ... for about another 20 years


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

kzunell said:


> Labrador's have improved their OFA hip ratings over the years. Because you have a choice to not send in an obvioous dysplastic X-ray, a better way of gauging hip improvements is to compare the number of Excellent ratings over the years. From 1980 to 2002-2003 the percent of excellent hip ratings went up from 10.8% to 22.3% that is to me a pretty signifigant improvement.
> http://www.offa.org/hipstatbreed.html?view=2
> 
> There is a difference between a change in OFA ratings and an actual change in the frequency and severity of displasia. They are not 100% correlated. OFA ratings have improved, but the incidence of visible symptoms of displasia has lagged behind a little bit. Like you said, there is a huge difference in what is tested and what the population is in general. The ratings have improved, but a 10-15 % improvement in a rating is translating into a 5% less incidence of displasia in the real world (Just saw a nice article in this month's JAVMA). You are right that the take home message is that it's working.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

kzunell said:


> Labrador's have improved their OFA hip ratings over the years. Because you have a choice to not send in an obvioous dysplastic X-ray, a better way of gauging hip improvements is to compare the number of Excellent ratings over the years. From 1980 to 2002-2003 the percent of excellent hip ratings went up from 10.8% to 22.3% that is to me a pretty signifigant improvement.
> http://www.offa.org/hipstatbreed.html?view=2
> 
> What percentage of labradors are actually bred and produce offspring? Maybe 15%? What percentage of the available gene pool is lost every generation without producing offspring? 85%? As long as we don't remove family lines the gene pool will be ok.


Even now the overwhelming bulk of dogs in the gene pool are never bred. On the male side, the numbers of sires is even more limited than the number of dams. Taking 40% of those dogs out of the breeding pool does not mean that they will be replaced by others dogs that arenot being bred. It means that the remaining 60% will be bred more often. That will create generic bottlenecks.

Beyond that, you are actually introducing a major distortion of the gene pool with unknown consequences to counter a problem _*that is not that serious.*_ I say that as one who has had an EIC affected dog who suffered multiple collapses. 

EIC and CNM are completely manageable by any responsible breeder. I refuse to adopt policies for my own program based on the stupidity of bad breeders because they will act out their stupidity no matter what I do. Remember, the overwhelming majority of Labs being bred now are from parents that are not tested for anything. As a responsible breeder, EIC and CNM are the least of my concerns because they are so easy to manage. I worry much more about those things that are more debilitating and harder to control.


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

Jeff - you are part right and part wrong here. I'll try to explain. Say you have 10 dogs that have a disease and there are 3 alleles present in the population A,B, and C. You could cull 8 of the dogs and still maintain all 3 alleles By keeping 2 dogs with the herozygous genotype AB and BC or some variation of that.. *Yes the frequencies would be different... but the variation provided by those alleles would be present*. No practically, you would probably not cull at a 80% intensity level. But culling at a 25% - 40% intensity with some knowledge of the genetic structure of a population will not lead to a bottleneck. The definition of a bottleneck is the LOSS of alleles (not changes in frequency) due to sampling, population size, assortive mating or other reasons. Please be careful when you use genetic terms. There is a ton of misinformation on this forum and elsewhere.

In the past, it was hard to get knowledge about the population structure... it is a fairly straightfoward thing to do now. However, Dog breeding is a bit behind when compared to the economic species. Any one dog breeding program does not generate enough progeny to generate much genetic data, you would have to pool data across people and allow the pro's to make some of the calls. Dog breeders are not going to do that. Like you said, most dog breeders are doing nothing. Do the best you can with the data as it comes to you and try to take as much voodoo out of it as you can. (even then sometimes stuff happens)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Even from a layman's vantage point ,it is plain to see that the favorite sire syndrome coupled with the fact that field bred labs are ostensibly a breed of its own, leave us with no viable genetic health option but "out-crossing" to the general population ......

john


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

scott furbeck said:


> Jeff - you are part right and part wrong here. I'll try to explain. Say you have 10 dogs that have a disease and there are 3 alleles present in the population A,B, and C. You could cull 8 of the dogs and still maintain all 3 alleles By keeping 2 dogs with the herozygous genotype AB and BC or some variation of that.. *Yes the frequencies would be different... but the variation provided by those alleles would be present*. No practically, you would probably not cull at a 80% intensity level. But culling at a 25% - 40% intensity with some knowledge of the genetic structure of a population will not lead to a bottleneck. The definition of a bottleneck is the LOSS of alleles (not changes in frequency) due to sampling, population size, assortive mating or other reasons. Please be careful when you use genetic terms. There is a ton of misinformation on this forum and elsewhere.
> 
> In the past, it was hard to get knowledge about the population structure... it is a fairly straightfoward thing to do now. However, Dog breeding is a bit behind when compared to the economic species. Any one dog breeding program does not generate enough progeny to generate much genetic data, you would have to pool data across people and allow the pro's to make some of the calls. Dog breeders are not going to do that. Like you said, most dog breeders are doing nothing.


You are assuming a genetically driven breeding process where, after culling sire A, I would look to litter mates or other relatives for a substitute. Instead, most will look to other dogs with similar competitive performance and similar health clearances for things like hips, elbows, eyes, temperament, and general longevity in the pedigree. 

I tend to look at sires who are FC's with multiple National appearances, a proven record of performance among their progeny, OFA Good to Excellent hips with a clear bias toward excellent visible across multiple generations, multiple generations of OFA normal elbows, clear eyes, a history of longevity with little incidence of cancer, steadiness and quiet at the line, and good temperaments as house dogs. That's a pretty small pool. If I can get everything on that list from a sire that is an EIC carrier, it's a good deal, and better for the breed than going back continuously to a list that has already been diminished by all those dogs branded with the gene of the day.

You comment that dog breeders are behind breeders of more economic species. I tend to disagree. Dog breeders are trying to do something completely different. We aren't trying to produce chickens with big breasts, even if that means they can't walk. We are looking for animals that will live a long time and remain in good health over the course of their lives. We want animals that are intelligent, trainable, and a pleasure to have in our homes and lives. We also want dogs that can perform the equivalent of Olympic level competition as retrievers. You can't identify the alleles associated with any of those things, yet all are genetically influenced. The minute you begin to structure your breeding program around a specific, and not very important allele, such as that associated with EIC, you have no way of knowing what you are doing to all those other factors. All of a sudden, you are the guy with a hammer who can't recognize a screw. Instead of focusing on the big picture, you are focusing on a detail and recommending a radical change in breeding practices with no idea or consideration of how that might affect everything else. 

If the benefit were extraordinary, I might understand. However, the benefit is almost completely negligible. This is not cancer. No radical change is needed to eliminate affected dogs from the population of well bred dogs. Using the test, no responsible breeder will breed a litter that includes affected dogs again. There is no excuse. That is not the whole population of Labs. However, EIC has never been a significant clinical concern for Labs that are not involved in intense activities. The incidence of EIC is high because it is an essentially benign condition even among dogs that are affected, and it is not a problem at all for dogs that are not.


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

john fallon said:


> Even from a layman's vantage point ,it is plain to see that the favorite sire syndrome coupled with the fact that field bred labs are ostensibly a breed of its own, leave us with no viable genetic health option but "out-crossing" to the general population ......
> 
> john


I don't know exactly how much outcrossing would need to be done (if any), but it would be fairly easy(a nice PhD dissertation level work)to take blood samples from field trial dogs like have been sent in for EIC work, and instead of using a few markers really close to a specific gene on 1 chromosome you take a shotgun approach over all the 30 some odd dog chromosomes. After that you compare what you have and act accordingly. In the olden days, you had to rely on a pedigree and the average contribution of the specific parent to decide the average inbreeding level of an individual. Breeders have more tools now, it doesn't invalidate the old ways... but instead of figuratively having duct tape and baling wire to fix a mess, we now have duct tape, baling wire a pair of vice-grips to solve our problems.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Again speaking as a layman .... it appears to me the *effective* ratio of sires to dams in field bred labs is far lower than the ideal ratio of one sire to every four breeding females

john


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Actually if you continue to breed carriers to clear you keep producing pups that are limited in who they can be bred too. By limiting future generations on who they will be able to be bred to seems rather short sighted to me.
> .....What I am hoping will happen is people that start picking pups will start picking the clear dogs over the carriers.


What do you think using the information from EIC is all about? I think most people are testing pups from the clears to carriers and selecting the best individual that is clear for their breeding program and many are placing limited registration on the carriers. If the best individual is a carrier than breed to a clear again and select. In a couple of generations the responsible breeder will have selected the best from the carriers and not produce affecteds and have clears. This is not rocket science. As far as the rest of the world breeding, most are sticking their heads in the sand or are ignorant of EIC or even ED and HD. We must continue to educate them. If they would not produce affected pups that would be a huge step, but you can't lump all the people that breed dogs together because I don't even call most of them breeders. Now we have CNM clear performance dogs from the great field champions and national field champions that were known carriers. EIC is following on the same track. 



> Is there some great advantage to having the gene for Field Trial dogs?


I assume you mean marking, or maybe you are not aware what makes a field champion, but YES the genes from great field trial dogs are an advantage over a common dog to produce a successful FT dog.


----------



## trippadoo (Sep 8, 2009)

I have to say this whole topic disgusted me. A whole new level of ignorance, well beyond what I thought some here were capable of; and that was pretty damn high to start with.

It's all about ethics, and obviously some of you don't quite understand that. Enough said, as I have no respect for anyone that intentionally kills a puppy, especially after intentionally breeding a dam and sire that would produce undesired pups. 

There is no defence, so don't bother, as I won't be visiting this thread again to read responses. You can not defend such activity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

trippadoo said:


> I have to say this whole topic disgusted me. A whole new level of ignorance, well beyond what I thought some here were capable of; and that was pretty damn high to start with.
> 
> It's all about ethics, and obviously some of you don't quite understand that. Enough said, as I have no respect for anyone that intentionally kills a puppy, especially after intentionally breeding a dam and sire that would produce undesired pups.
> 
> There is no defence, so don't bother, as I won't be visiting this thread again to read responses. You can not defend such activity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I haven't seen anyone even suggest a breeding that would produce affected pups, which is what you seem to be suggesting. A breeding that produces carriers is a completely different thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a pup that is a carrier. The only thing wrong is to suggest removing all carriers from the breeding pool regardless of other considerations. We would be better off culling those breeders who choose not to test because they "know their lines are clean".


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Perhaps all EIC threads should be sent to POTUS, since those that don't agree automatically misconstrue the posts and throw out the I word-Ignorant. I see a lot of that going around when someone can't comprehend and disagrees, not just on this thread.


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

Jeff: It would take forever to explain everything here... but Yes, I would look for siblings. In fact I use that type of data every day. They are called Blup Estimates. Also, I'll stand by the statement that dog breeding is in the dark ages. Find me a dog breeder with an organised set of stud books and numerical ratings and a numberical selection index on how he weights his selections. Also he should have a list of 4-5 different sources for various traits and their effects in his populations... again cold hard numbers also. Economic breeders have to make it work or lose their livelihoods, dog breeding is recreational at best.


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

john fallon said:


> Even from a layman's vantage point ,it is plain to see that the favorite sire syndrome coupled with the fact that field bred labs are ostensibly a breed of its own, leave us with no viable genetic health option but "out-crossing" to the general population ......
> 
> john


Yep the effective population size is small, but that can be handled. think of all the Dairy Sires that are AI'ed. You just need to know what you have.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

scott furbeck said:


> Jeff: It would take forever to explain everything here... but Yes, I would look for siblings. In fact I use that type of data every day. They are called Blup Estimates. Also, I'll stand by the statement that dog breeding is in the dark ages. Find me a dog breeder with an organised set of stud books and numerical ratings and a numberical selection index on how he weights his selections. Also he should have a list of 4-5 different sources for various traits and their effects in his populations... again cold hard numbers also. Economic breeders have to make it work or lose their livelihoods, dog breeding is recreational at best.


No you won't find that because we don't have a database of meaningful statistics like DHIA, although it sure would be nice to have the percentage of good marking dogs (like total production or butter fat) from each sire, his daughters etc across the board, not just those that fall into the right hands and receive titles. I had those statistics over 30 years ago with dairy goats on DHIA test but you do learn from those stats something about breeding. In livestock they are culled, in field trials they are sent to hunters. Race horses have statistics for every race, we don't have those kinds of statistics for every trial other than placings and talking to people that watched the trial which usually are not unbiased at best. There are national field champions that avoided water and won and some of them never produced. Everything is based on performance and prepotency, and there are not that many truly prepotent sires.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

scott furbeck said:


> Jeff: It would take forever to explain everything here... but Yes, I would look for siblings. In fact I use that type of data every day. They are called Blup Estimates. Also, I'll stand by the statement that dog breeding is in the dark ages. Find me a dog breeder with an organised set of stud books and numerical ratings and a numberical selection index on how he weights his selections. Also he should have a list of 4-5 different sources for various traits and their effects in his populations... again cold hard numbers also. Economic breeders have to make it work or lose their livelihoods, dog breeding is recreational at best.


The problem with most "dog breeders" are the traits we are looking for are subjective.

Its not as easy as simply weighing something or measuring some (with a tool, black and white).

When it comes down to it, because dogs are "pets" and not "meat animals" people make justifications for breeding individuals every day that probably should not be bred.

Its funny, how in the past, some of the greatest "dogs" whether you are talking hounds, pointers or retrievers never had any "health clearances". Either the dogs held up in the field or they were culled. Period.

I think that really is where the "performance" breeders have gone wrong. While its not very pc to "cull heavily", isn't that what the breeding success and advancement of other types of animals (whether for meat or milk or whatever) have relied on? 

WRL


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Most of these threads about genetic Lab diseases just make me roll my eyes at the strident "don't breed carriers, get rid of the gene" podium and how certain of you would likely keel over from a heart attack if your favorite breed was the Chesapeake, or another sporting dog with small numbers and a high degree of inbreeding.









 But then there are gems like this:




Buck Mann said:


> This is an incredibly dangerous statement. You DON'T know that. Genes don't just sit there individually, in a vacuum. They are linked to other genes and can actually change during development and growth. Eliminating a gene may expose other genes that are being suppressed and are worse. The gene may be linked to desirable traits. There are other breeds that have tried to eliminate a certain condition genetically only to end up with something worse. There is a reason most people with genetics training have quit posting on these threads. After banging your head against the wall the headache eventually starts to bother you.
> As so many knowledgeable people have posted in the past, a carrier is a completely normal animal and should be treated as such. Just breed to a clear. Trying to eliminate the gene by not breeding any carriers is definitely the wrong approach. And to not consider purchasing carriers or purchasing from people that breed to carriers is very short sighted.
> 
> Buck


The EIC gene was discovered in Chesapeakes (although to date I believe there's been exactly ONE dog with clinical symptoms) and the breed also has higher than average numbers affected by DM aka degenerative myelopathy, almost certainly as heart breaking as CNM although it's a late in life disease, rarely appearing before age 7. About two years ago, a test was developed that could identify ONE gene associated with DM, which is widely thought to be a multi-gene disorder. And to make matters worse, over 65 percent of all tested CBRs have been found to carry one or both of the newly-identified DM gene.

The witch hunt certain breeders have been on about DM and which Big Name Sire is at "fault" for the widespread incidence of the testable gene is a real eye opener, as well as proponents of never breeding any dog with the gene, even carriers (that is, until said gene is found in one of their own dogs)









And then there are the braggarts touting litters as being DM and EIC clear as if that's more important than an athletic, trainable CBR that likes to retrieve. And, having both genes that make a dog "at risk" for DM is not the same as being affected; indeed many dogs that have the two genes and are at risk will never get DM or at least not before age 13 or 14, when most die of other natural causes. So there's obviously something else that those dogs with two of the identified recessive gene have, that prevents DM from occurring. And that's something that should not be culled from the gene pool. And while the incidence of the EIC gene is low among those that have tested their dogs, the number of CBRs that showed EIC symptoms is virtually non existant. 

We're a long way from being scientific about breeding dogs or even selecting genetic traits in the manner commercial breeders of livestock do. I'm guessing more dogs are bred because in the owner's mind, that dog is the world's best (fill in the blank) than any other reason and that thinking isn't going to change anytime soon.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

trippadoo said:


> I have to say this whole topic disgusted me. A whole new level of ignorance, well beyond what I thought some here were capable of; and that was pretty damn high to start with.
> 
> It's all about ethics, and obviously some of you don't quite understand that. Enough said, as I have no respect for anyone that intentionally kills a puppy, especially after intentionally breeding a dam and sire that would produce undesired pups.
> 
> There is no defence, so don't bother, as I won't be visiting this thread again to read responses. You can not defend such activity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BINGO !!!!!! 

Does anyone that disagrees with this have the stones to stand up and be counted ? I'll wait a while then, baised on your posts on this thread ask a few directly. 

john


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Does anyone that disagrees with this have the stones to stand up and be counted ?


I don't like feeding trolls but I'd put a puppy down for a cleft palate and I'd probably put a blind dwarf down. 

There's other birth defects I'm sure I'd put the puppy down for also.

Any breeding can produce _"undesired puppies."_


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

john fallon said:


> BINGO !!!!!!
> 
> Does anyone that disagrees with this have the stones to stand up and be counted ? I'll wait a while then, baised on your posts on this thread ask a few directly.
> 
> john


John, 

Is it your impression that trippadoo is talking about breeding a litter that includes EIC Carriers (not affected) when he condemns breeders who would are "intentionally breeding a dam and sire that would produce undesired pups"? If so, I have and will disagree completely. If trippaloo is condemning people who intentionally breed EIC or CNM affected pups, I would agree, but I wonder why the comment was made since no one suggested anything of the kind. Treating the two as equivalent is simply ignorant.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> John,
> 
> Is it your impression that trippadoo is talking about breeding a litter that includes EIC Carriers (not affected) when he condemns breeders who would are "intentionally breeding a dam and sire that would produce undesired pups"? If so, I have and will disagree completely. If trippaloo is condemning people who intentionally breed EIC or CNM affected pups, I would agree, but I wonder why the comment was made since no one suggested anything of the kind. Treating the two as equivalent is simply ignorant.


I'd say that he is taking special exception to the latter....



> ....especially after intentionally breeding a dam and sire that would produce undesired pups.


If *no one *is breeding litters with affecteds in them, there is no problem

john


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I'd say that he is taking special exception to the latter....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Affected of what??

WRL


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

WRL said:


> Affected of what??
> 
> WRL


I am going to say it's EIC and CNM 'cause they've been the threads focus of late.

john


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Jim Scarborough said:


> To see the dramatic effects that aggressive breeding/culling practices can have on a breed, one needs to look at the English Pointers produced by Elhew Kennels and Robert Wehle. For years, Elhew-bred pointers dominated the field trial circuit and the national pointing dog championships. These bloodlines are still found in the winning dogs of today. Wehle used aggressive in-breeding to produce his line of dogs, culling those dogs that were not representative of the best of the breed. His methods are carefully outlined in his seminal work, "Snakefoot, The Making of a Champion."
> 
> This does not answer the moral dimension of this thread, but it leaves no doubt that aggressive breeding/culling techniques, in the hands of a dedicated breeder, can result in better dogs.


This. Wehle had the money and the time to really establish a line, and he did. He also kept the pups way longer than most breeders, so he could evaluate them as they matured and then decide what to keep and what to sell on (and that was post-culling). To this day, I can usually look at an English Pointer and see the Elhew...they have a look all their own.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I am going to say it's EIC and CNM 'cause they've been the threads focus of late.
> 
> john


Has a single poster on here advocated breeding a carrier to a carrier or a carrier to an affected?

If they have, could you please quote it as I have not seen it.

If there are none, then trippydoo and you (John) need to put the pot pipe down, throw the LSD in the garbage and step away from the bag of doritos.

WRL


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

WRL said:


> Has a single poster on here advocated breeding a carrier to a carrier or a carrier to an affected?
> 
> If they have, could you please quote it as I have not seen it.
> 
> ...


Yes this is post #3 which started this whole discussion:



43x said:


> Would make a cross FC AFC Carrier X FC AFC AFFECTED ? You have the test to elimate the affected pups ?



Now, I actually know of a stud dog owner who encourages bitches with carrier or affected status to breed to her stud dog who also is an EIC carrier.

The stud dog's EIC status is not listed on this individuals web site. The stud dogs EIC status is not listed on OFA. EIC is a closed registry, so the EIC status has to be listed somewhere else to make this info public knowledge.

This breeder also has an EIC affected stud dog who currently being bred.

This breeder claims that this behavior is acceptable since they test the puppies and place any affected pups (at full price) into pet homes.

This breeder claims that this behavior is responsible and ethical since the puppy buyers are eventually told about the EIC status of the puppies they are purchasing.

This stud dog is being heavily advertised on Retriever Field/Hunt test web sites.

I think this breeder is practicing bait and switch tactics.
I think that this breeder is acting irresponsibly and unethically.

Potential puppy owners really do not understand EIC or why they should not be doing business with this individual.

Just Say'in


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Ya know Pheas- your whole act would gain a lot of credibility if you simply generated the cojones to post your name and quit with the - "this breeder" is a bad guy thing.

Nut up and come out of the closet.

Your Sh!t is weak regards

Bubba


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> Yes this is post #3 which started this whole discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't read that post that way.

I read it as a QUESTION....not they are SAYING they WOULD do it. They are asking would "YOU" (the individual quoted in that particular post) if they would do it.

I think that is a misinterpretation on your part.

If you in fact do know of a breeder breeding (and ENCOURAGING) people to breed their "affecteds and carriers" to her affected or carrier stud then please post up the info. 

Cuz.....I'm having a hard time believing that they are "encouraging" others with affecteds or carrier dogs to breed to their stud/s.

WRL


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

WRL said:


> I don't read that post that way.
> 
> I read it as a QUESTION....not they are SAYING they WOULD do it. They are asking would "YOU" (the individual quoted in that particular post) if they would do it.
> 
> I think that is a misinterpretation on your part.


Well, I answered this post, and then the thread was highjacked into a discussion regarding how culling has been practiced for years. The questions is: does that mean it is OK to purposely produce affected pups, as long as you "cull" them out of the breeding program?



WRL said:


> If you in fact do know of a breeder breeding (and ENCOURAGING) people to breed their "affecteds and carriers" to her affected or carrier stud then please post up the info.
> 
> Cuz.....I'm having a hard time believing that they are "encouraging" others with affecteds or carrier dogs to breed to their stud/s.
> 
> WRL



No, I'm not going to name names. 

But this is a true story.

Are you implying that this breeder is behaving in an acceptable manner? Or that you don't believe that anyone would behave in this manner?

Puppy buyers as well bitch owners need to understand that the arguments set forth by this stud dog owner breeder is both irresponsible and unethical.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> Well, I answered this post, and then the thread was highjacked into a discussion regarding how culling has been practiced for years. The questions is: does that mean it is OK to purposely produce affected pups, as long as you "cull" them out of the breeding program?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

WRL said:


> Pheasanttomeetyou said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I answered this post, and then the thread was highjacked into a discussion regarding how culling has been practiced for years. The questions is: does that mean it is OK to purposely produce affected pups, as long as you "cull" them out of the breeding program?
> ...


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Here is my position.

I am not the breeding police. What you choose to do I may not choose to do. Period. 

I find it ironic that someone who remains and insists on anonymity wants to comment on some other individuals (maybe real maybe not) breeding practices when they have stated they breed yet refuse to actually stand behind WHAT and WHO they breed. Very ironic. Some folks may agree with me or may not agree with me, but I don't hide behind a screenname and then point fingers at others. Its really pretty straight forward. 

I find what you post to be similar to walking into the psych ward and seeing a man sitting in the corner in a child's chair sucking on their thumb while putting lipstick on screaming at the top of their lungs and pointing that the guy standing next to the wall doing nothing is crazy. Maybe the guy standing by the wall IS crazy....but then, maybe not.

WRL


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

WRL said:


> Here is my position.
> 
> I am not the breeding police. What you choose to do I may not choose to do. Period.



So ... given your answer.




scott furbeck said:


> Hi:
> 
> I work with similar traits in plants as a commercial plant breeder. My wife is a DVM so I get a lot of information from her journals. You are right when saying most qualified folks will not comment. It's a complicated issue and here is my take. I'm going hunting tommorrow for a week in MT and won't be here to hear the fuss....
> 
> 1) There is very little money in dog breeding and dog breeders do not like to work together and be told what to do, this is the # 1 limiting factor in improving any dog breed here in the US


You are part of the problem.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL, do you find it hard to believe that there are no owners of EIC affected Studs, "encouraging" owners of bitches with carrier, or unknown EIC status, to breed to them?

Really?

Coming right out and saying the name of a Breeder that is doing that, would open someone up to a Lawsuit. They might be "right" about the allegation, but without proof, it is still slander.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

No actually YOU are the problem. There are no absolutes.

You are stating that you should NEVER breed two carriers of the same disease. 

So take EIC.

What if this alleged breeder you are referring to knows something I don't. What if, (you refuse to name names or even stand behind your posts with real evidence) this "breeder" KNOWS that the EIC gene is linked to an "anti-cancer" gene? In that by "eliminating" this gene, that the lifetime of a Labrador will be reduced to an average of 6 years. Or that this line of dogs that they are breeding, are the most significant line when it comes to some other gene say a source of a stronger immune system? 

You are making stuff up and trying to make things absolute. If this breeder is doing what you say, I would give them the chance to make their point of WHY they are doing what they are doing what the purpose that they hope to accomplish is. 

Is is type of breeding something I would do? Not likely. 

Its funny that you posted about how you "breed to improve the breed" but you can't/won't site examples of how you are doing that. That line is the biggest cop out I have ever seen anyone ever use. You aren't the breeding police. I am not the breeding police. Personal goals of the breeder will dictate how they breed and for what purpose. Anyone using that line is feeding everyone else a line of BS. YOUR OPINION of what is a "betterment of the breed" may not be my opinion of what is best for the breed. So who died and made you the "king of breeding"?

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> WRL, do you find it hard to believe that there are no owners of EIC affected Studs, "encouraging" owners of bitches with carrier, or unknown EIC status, to breed to them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Coming right out and saying the name of a Breeder that is doing that, would open someone up to a Lawsuit. They might be "right" about the allegation, but without proof, it is still slander.


Without proof you don't know they are doing it now do you?

WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> Without proof you don't know they are doing it now do you?
> 
> WRL


What counts as proof?

Without holding the results letter, it's all speculation. Even if the Stud has thrown multiple affected and carrier pups, but for some strange reason, not a single clear pup can be found.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> What counts as proof?
> 
> Without holding the results letter, it's all speculation. Even if the Stud has thrown multiple affected and carrier pups, but for some strange reason, not a single clear pup can be found.


But now REMEMBER...we aren't talking about a person BREEDING AN AFFECTED dog we are talking about a breeder of an affected dog (or carrier) ENCOURAGING people with EIC carriers or "unknowns" to breed to their affected (or carrier). 

I don't doubt that affecteds are being bred. 

WRL


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

PUBLIC STATEMENT. WILL PERSONALLY GIVE $100.00 US DOLLARS TO THE PERSON WHO CAN PUT A FACE WITH THE NAME OF PHEASANT TO MEET YOU.

John


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> PUBLIC STATEMENT. WILL PERSONALLY GIVE $100.00 US DOLLARS TO THE PERSON WHO CAN PUT A FACE WITH THE NAME OF PHEASANT TO MEET YOU.
> 
> John


LMAO!!

Go for it Drakehaven......Looks like Aussie might be one  


WRL


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

WRL said:


> LMAO!!
> 
> Go for it Drakehaven......Looks like Aussie might be one
> 
> ...


Do you really think that Aussie is the kind of person who would kiss and tell?


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> What if the EIC or CNM genes also happen to be connected to some other genetic material?
> 
> Some years ago, some breeders of foxes (for fur coats) decided it would be convenient if the foxes were tamer & easier to handle. So, they decided to select the breeding pairs based on tameness. They succeeded. However, the coat quality deteriorated (defeating the whole purpose of breeding their foxes for nice fur coats). Not pertinent to the coat quality, but also noted, was that the tamer foxes also ended up with drop ears v. prick ears.
> 
> ...


You mention EBV's. I attended this seminar as two friends were presenting. Some say I am a seminar tragic. 

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAWSC#p/u/14/ogSTTbvKMRM


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

WRL said:


> What if this alleged breeder you are referring to knows something I don't. What if, this "breeder" KNOWS that the EIC gene is linked to an "anti-cancer" gene? In that by "eliminating" this gene, that the lifetime of a Labrador will be reduced to an average of 6 years. Or that this line of dogs that they are breeding, are the most significant line when it comes to some other gene say a source of a stronger immune system?


Your kidding, right? This breeder KNOWS about the latest scientific findings regarding EIC and cancer control? Like such scientific knowledge is kept in a vacuum?




WRL said:


> You are making stuff up and trying to make things absolute.


Having my cake and eating it too? 




WRL said:


> If this breeder is doing what you say, I would give them the chance to make their point of WHY they are doing what they are doing what the purpose that they hope to accomplish is.


Greed, stupidity, ego satisfaction, all of the above ...

Does it really matter?




WRL said:


> Its funny that you posted about how you "breed to improve the breed" but you can't/won't site examples of how you are doing that.


I checked all my posts in this thread, and i made no comments that I breed to improve the breed.

This thread was about performance and EIC. I have been very consistent in my position regarding the idea that breeders should know the EIC status of your dog and be selective regarding their breeding decisions.

With the availability of genetic testing, you shouldn't be producing any affected pups. To purposely breed in such a way as to produce affected puppies is irresponsible. 

To say, so what - we can always "cull" is irresponsible. It's also unethical and dumb.

Regarding "Carrier to Clear" or "Affecteds to Clears": The dog performing world needs education of what "carrier" means. It is not the end of the world to have a Carrier. All it means is you need to be careful on who that carrier is bred to.

Good breeding is good breeding. Ethics is ethics.

No, I am not the breeding police. But I do believe in education. That is the purpose of this thread and forum. The buyer should beware. They need to recognize a questionable breeding, ask questions, and know when and why to walk away. Same goes for the stud dog and bitch owners. There are a lot of conscientious breeders in the retrieving world. Unfortunately, there are also breeders who either do not understand or do not care about making appropriate decisions.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally Posted by WRL
> If this breeder is doing what you say, I would give them the chance to make their point of WHY they are doing what they are doing what the purpose that they hope to accomplish is.


a.)What reason would be acceptable to you ? b.)Is the quest for Title capable progeny an acceptable reason in your opinion ?

john


----------



## Jeff Brown (Jan 5, 2008)

John you raise an intersting question and my deliema. I want to breed my female in Jan. She is EIC clear and a CNM carrier. Does this stop people from buying? Would you have the litter tested to identify which pup. Thanks for the help


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

john fallon said:


> a.)What reason would be acceptable to you ? b.)Is the quest for Title capable progeny an acceptable reason in your opinion ?
> 
> john


I am not the breeding police. Its not what is "acceptable" to me but what THEY hope to accomplish.

If people want to buy pups from me, then they can ask why I did a particular breeding. If people want to buy from them, then they can ask why they did the breeding. 

WRL


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Being so focused on EIC and CNM, I forgot to ask ... are you all using the DNA tests for prcd-PRA and retinal dysplasia, too? If you do use these tests, do those who would choose not to use EIC & CNM carriers, also do the same with the other two?


----------



## hughest (Oct 5, 2007)

Geesh. All the arguing amongst ourselves is so discouraging. I think MOST - not all - but most of us agree on the basics, but get so caught up in the assuming what others mean when they say something, it all gets off track. 

Culling means different things to different people. To some, it means the water bucket, to others it means injection, and to still others, it means spay/nueter. Culling is appropriate in a variety of different circumstances. To list each, and which of the meanings is the appropriate one, is impossible. (For me, personally, the water bucket is never an option. Injection - yes. Water bucket - no.) So we just assume the worst in each other for some reason. We pick and choose sentences, and twist them to fit our version of what we assume to be true.

It seems to me as I've read this thread, we started off on one topic, and ended up back at the EIC/CNM horse we continue to beat. And in the meantime we just beat up on each other, assuming that we know what someone means on the other side of the keyboard. Why? Why? Why? 

And yeah, maybe I do want us all to hold hands and sing Kumba-ya.  My name is Tracy Hughes, and I live in Greenhill, AL. No hiding going on here. Anyone who wants to come over and hold hands and cheer for the Tide tomorrow night, come on over.


----------



## Black Bart (Jan 10, 2003)

I don't see much mention of PRA here. Is it not a problem in your field bred dogs in America?

I have a dog with PRA, bred before the DNA test was available, so it is something close to my heart.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Black Bart said:


> I don't see much mention of PRA here. Is it not a problem in your field bred dogs in America?
> 
> I have a dog with PRA, bred before the DNA test was available, so it is something close to my heart.


They have changed the PRA test that is offered at Optigen and it only tests one type of PRA. I find the whole issue a little confusing. 

From Optigen:
*New Mutation Test for prcd PRA Is Now Available*


*Please read this information carefully and refer below for added notes specific to each breed. Please understand that we are counting on you to review this information completely. If you have questions, email, fax or mail them. We will not be able to handle phone calls. Some of the information about prcd-PRA on other pages of this website is now out-of-date. We are in the process of updating and redesigning the site. Please check back in a week or so.
*
June 1, 2005
Press Release

Ithaca, NY: OptiGen, LLC, proudly announces identification of the gene causing canine prcd-PRA (progressive rod-cone degeneration form of Progressive Retinal Atrophy). The cause of this inherited blinding disease, occurring in at least a dozen purebreeds, is one specific mutation in the coding sequence of the gene. OptiGen now offers a direct gene mutation test (mutation test) to detect the prcd-PRA status of any dog among affected breeds....The new OptiGen prcd mutation test accurately detects the presence or absence of the mutant prcd disease gene copy. It replaces earlier OptiGen DNA-marker-based tests (marker tests) that detected changes in coding sequences of genes located near to and inherited with (linked to) the prcd gene. OptiGen henceforth defines result status based on the mutation test as “Normal/Clear” or “Carrier” or “Affected.” Designation of Patterns A(A1), B(B1), and C(C1) for previous marker tests are retired....The prcd mutation test further improved accuracy over the marker test for Labrador Retrievers....
*Labrador Retriever: 
*If you had Labs tested by OptiGen *PRIOR TO March 1, 2004,* at no added charge to you, we retested these dogs with the new mutation test and are issuing updated reports. These will be mailed by June 2nd. As part of the prcd mutation research, Labradors tested by OptiGen *AFTER March 1, 2004* already received reports based on the newly identified mutation. *These dogs do not need to be retested.* For reports dated March 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005, Patterns A1, B1 and C1 are equivalent to “Normal/Clear,” “Carrier” and “Affected.” Starting June 1, 2005, OptiGen reports define result status as “Normal/Clear” or “Carrier” or “Affected.” 
The PRA test for Labs has evolved over 6 years. From September 1999 to July 2003, test results were reported as Pattern A, B or C as determined by detecting DNA markers close to the prcd gene. We recognized and cautioned that there were false positives among these results. Beginning July 2003, based on an improved test with even better DNA markers, the results were reported as Pattern A1, B1 and C1. The frequency of false positives was substantially reduced with this improvement, but was not eliminated.
Another fault of DNA marker tests is the possibility of recombination between the markers and the disease gene. Recombination potentially can separate the markers from the disease gene and lead to incorrect conclusions about the dog’s status. The OptiGen marker test found only three separate pedigrees in which recombination had occurred. These pedigrees were studied extensively to trace the recombination and arrive at the correct status for each dog. These pedigrees also provided information that was eventually helpful to identifying the prcd gene.
With the new prcd mutation test, the result for almost all retested dogs is the same as reported earlier. Some cases of false positives now improve from Pattern C1(C) to “Carrier” or “Normal/Clear” and from Pattern B1(B) to “Normal/Clear.” There are no cases of false negatives and no downgrade in status based on the mutation test. Also, there had been a small group of Labs with “unresolved” status, as designated on their reports. The mutation test resolves the status of “unresolved” dogs.
The frequencies of “Normal/Clear” “Carrier” and “Affected” among OptiGen tested Labs shifts slightly based on results with the new prcd mutation test. Statistics to date show 76% of tested Labs are “Normal/Clear,” 21% are “Carrier” and 3% are “Affected.” 

There is also a generalized PRA but most Labs have the prcd-PRA (progressive rod-cone degeneration form of Progressive Retinal Atrophy)

If anyone is interested the Fall special is 25% off Sept 17-26.

Anyone that does the PRA test want to comment? It still is not a specific test and that's why I am hesitant to spend the money and there seems to be some discrepancies in Labradors. It is not common in field Labradors.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

The test for prcd-PRA didn't really "change"; it was refined to be more accurate.

It's not entirely unusual for a DNA test (not just Optigen's) to first become available with a "marker" test, & then be refined to be more precise by actually identifying the specific mutation. I believe the mutation test became available around 2005. 

In Goldens (and Poodles) more than one type of PRA can occur. prcd-PRA is one of those. There is no test for the "other" form, or forms, of PRA that is known to occur in these two breeds (maybe others as well). I have heard recently that there may be some news on getting closer to finding the gene for the "other" form of PRA in Goldens.

From Goldens who have been tested with the prcd-PRA test, the ones who have NOT had the prcd gene (but still DO have PRA) are mostly (or all?) from Europe or European lines. I don't know what the status would be for Labradors. The Swedish GRC has a database for Goldens who have ben dx'd with PRA.

Optigen also offers a test for Labradors for retinal dysplasia, and its associated dwarfism. That test has only been available for less than two years (I think).

Retinal dysplasia and retinal folds are now also being found in Golden Retrievers, but is considered rare. I don't know how similar it may be to the Labrador version of the disease. 

Now that the canine genome has been fully mapped, it is anticipated that it will become easier to find the correct location of mutated genes for various diseases. Let's hope so!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> From Goldens who have been tested with the prcd-PRA test, the ones who have NOT had the prcd gene (but still DO have PRA) are mostly (or all?) from Europe or European lines. I don't know what the status would be for Labradors.


OK, that helps a little because the "other" PRA I thought to be more associated with the English imports in Labradors so it might be the same as the Goldens. The Labrador Retriever Club site recommends the 
the Optigen test for the prcd form of PRA which is the most common.​


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> OK, that helps a little because the "other" PRA I thought to be more associated with the English imports in Labradors so it might be the same as the Goldens. The Labrador Retriever Club site recommends the the Optigen test for the prcd form of PRA which is the most common.


The prcd-PRA gene has been found in Goldens, as far as I know, only in field lines! However, it has also been found in UK/European field lines as well. About 12 families in North America, and 4 in Europe. In Europe, the 4 families are also field lines. So, it does occur independently on both sides of the Atlantic. Not totally surprising since all No American Goldens came from the English stock originally.

By using the prcd-PRA test, if PRA should turn up later in a breeding program, at least one will know which type it is NOT. 

For Goldens, it would be a boon to have a test for the other form as well, as importing and exporting of dogs seems more & more common each day; not to mention frozen semen.

In Europe, as here, there is quiet a "split" in Goldens between field dogs and show dogs. Although I'm told many in the UK still use their show dogs for "picking up", that seems less common here.

I wonder if there is also a "split" in Labradors in the UK? between those that are primarily bred for field & other bloodlines primarily for show? 

From photos I've seen (and just one UK field Golden I saw some years ago), it would appear that the split is the same ... the field dogs are more athletic in build than the show lines.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I wonder if there is also a "split" in Labradors in the UK? between those that are primarily bred for field & other bloodlines primarily for show?


Yup, same as here. Their field dogs are not unlike ours only a little smaller.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> Yup, same as here. Their field dogs are not unlike ours only a little smaller.


Kind of interesting how the breeds have taken similar paths on both sides of the pond ...


----------

