# Breeding carriers.....



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Well with the release of the new EIC test, how many people are going to breed dogs that are carriers for both CNM and EIC?

Frankly, I think that finding a dog that is NOT a carrier for EIC AND CNM is going to be difficult if the 40% carrier rate for EIC is accurate.

WRL


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

As long as you don't breed to another carrier, what difference does it make?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I will definitely breed dogs that are carriers for EIC because avoiding carriers altogether would require avoiding too many great dogs, including many of the top producing sires. The number of CNM carriers is much more limited. There are some carriers that I believe are so strong that they should remain in the breeding pool, but in most cases the CNM clear alternatives are equally good.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

I'm doing a breeding w/ Jazz (EIC carrier by the research test) in the fall, but to a dog who tested Clear on same-- provided he comes back clear on the PRA test just submitted, that is! Jazz is also a carrier there.  We are fairly certain he will be clear, but obviously I need to know for sure. 

I'm also breeding Mata who came back Clear... hopefully the stud owner will get him done now that the test is out but the results won't change my mind. 

CNM hasn't been an issue so far, thankfully. All clear here in that department.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Just asking what everyone's course of action will be for those carrier breedings. Will you test the whole litter for EIC, PRA, and or CNM (or whatever the issues are)? 

Will you inform the new owners of any carrier status that each puppy might have? Will you sell each puppy for the same price but be selective as to what type of home that a carrier goes to? In other words, a carrier puppy is just as valuable as a clear puppy to every home EXCEPT a breeding home.


----------



## _Evelyn_ (Mar 7, 2008)

WRL said:


> Well with the release of the new EIC test, how many people are going to breed dogs that are carriers for both CNM and EIC?
> 
> Frankly, I think that finding a dog that is NOT a carrier for EIC AND CNM is going to be difficult if the 40% carrier rate for EIC is accurate.
> 
> WRL


i think you are right...
we have an EIC affected (by test) stud dog in germany with about 100 progenys.
his littermate is untested (for my knowledge) and also busy....
their sire also over 150 progenys!!!!!!!

this is a lot for or little genepool.


lg evelyn


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

SueLab said:


> Just asking what everyone's course of action will be for those carrier breedings. Will you test the whole litter for EIC, PRA, and or CNM (or whatever the issues are)?
> 
> Will you inform the new owners of any carrier status that each puppy might have? Will you sell each puppy for the same price but be selective as to what type of home that a carrier goes to? In other words, a carrier puppy is just as valuable as a clear puppy to every home EXCEPT a breeding home.


I will definitely inform purchasers of the potential that pups may be carriers. I will not _normally_ test litters to identify the carriers or price carriers differently from non-carriers. Most of my purchasers are not interested in breeding. Having said that, I am planning a litter for next year from which I and another associate plan to keep females for our breeding programs. For that litter I will probably test each female for EIC if I do not know the carrier status of the stud.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

WRL said:


> if the 40% carrier rate for EIC is accurate.
> WRL


given that two of the most used studs for the last decade are carriers (and with the huge numbers of litters produced from frozen semen), 40% carriers may be a conservative estimate

carrier bitches will be bred because they have highly sought qualities, but the public's perception that carriers are somehow devalued will create a very small stud dog pool, imagine the prepotent male who wins alot and has a negative carrier status for the NOW known genetic diseases

Who Knows What Tomorrow Brings Regards


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

EdA said:


> given that two of the most used studs for the last decade are carriers (and with the huge numbers of litters produced from frozen semen), 40% carriers may be a conservative estimate
> 
> carrier bitches will be bred because they have highly sought qualities, but the public's perception that carriers are somehow devalued will create a very small stud dog pool, imagine the prepotent male who wins alot and has a negative carrier status for the NOW known genetic diseases
> 
> Who Knows What Tomorrow Brings Regards


 
And thats for labs, think about us with chessies. Probably the strongest field lines are at minimum carriers for DM. The next 5-10 years breedings will be very interesting.

T. Mac


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

I wondered how long until some one asked this question.

It is altruistic and IMHO unrealistic to think that great performers wil not be bred because they are carriers and I bet that a lot of the so called top studs wil not ever be tested. 

We have been training and competing with affected dogs for years aparently with a degree of success. I can never recall a post of "did you see (fill in the blank) go down in the 3rd series with an episode of EIC?"

My sympathies definitely go out to owners who have time and $ in training and have a dog become uncompetitive or unfit and have to start over, but I wil bet that we will continue to see breedings of successful dogs that are cariers and there will always be those who will roll the dice to gain an edge.

JMHO

MP


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Mike Perry said:


> I wondered how long until some one asked this question.
> 
> It is altruistic and IMHO unrealistic to think that great performers wil not be bred because they are carriers and I bet that a lot of the so called top studs wil not ever be tested.
> 
> ...


The reason I asked the question, is because if the research data holds up and the 40% rate is accurate, it is going to be rare to find the non-carrier EIC/non-carrier CNM stud. So now we will be "forced" to breed a CNM carrier female to possibly an EIC carrier stud while trying to avoid CNM and vice versa. 

I believe we will see a BIG shift in breeding dynamics for the majority of breeders.

WRL


----------



## Susie Royer (Feb 4, 2005)

YardleyLabs said:


> Most of my purchasers are not interested in breeding.


Hate to burst your bubble however, you would be surprised how many many folks become interested in breeding once their pup becomes a dog and they want to clone it. I assume if your not testing your litter you will be selling the pups under limited registration since the pups are potential carriers?


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Susie Royer said:


> Hate to burst your bubble however, you would be surprised how many many folks become interested in breeding once their pup becomes a dog and they want to clone it. I assume if your not testing your litter you will be selling the pups under limited registration since the pups are potential carriers?


Why would you have to test the litter?

I think that is "buying in to" the theory that carriers are lesser dogs. 

If I get to the point that I breed carriers of some dna tested disease, I will NOT be testing the litters. I will disclose upfront the clearances and then let the puppy buyers do what they should do before they breed. I would hope that I have educated them well enough should they have an interest in breeding that they will get the expected clearances before they breed. 

I don't sell on limited registration now. Nor do I pay for my pups to be Penn-hipped or OFA'd before they go to their new homes either.

WRL


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Susie Royer said:


> Hate to burst your bubble however, you would be surprised how many many folks become interested in breeding once their pup becomes a dog and they want to clone it. I assume if your not testing your litter you will be selling the pups under limited registration since the pups are potential carriers?


I've had a couple buyers who have changed their minds but not many. This is how I choose to deal with it, personally, and I'd love comments. I will add that I provide a contract up front to prospective buyers to review, so if they take offense, I rarely know as I'd just not hear from them again. I sell on Limited Reg unless that person is truly wanting to show the dog (which has been exactly ONE buyer so far)... and so we co-own him. She had no interest in breeding, but I may, so it works for both of us. My contract spells out everything, and addresses those folks who may change their minds about breeding later on. There is one section in my contract that outlines the requirements for conversion to Full Registration. My requirements for that are no more than what I expect personally in my own breeding program-- and that is the dog needs to be evaulated for breed soundness (incl temperament) by someone knowledgable-- a CC evaluation is preferred since there are 2 judges there, but not required. They need to put at least one title on the dog (piece of cake). They need to do annual CERFs, which I normally start at 7 wks personally on the whole litter. They need to pass hips and elbow clearances. Heart is recommended. I just updated it to include PRA, CNM and EIC tests being recommended at minimum-- required if there is a known carrier status of one of the parents. I make it clear that there are no if's, ands, or buts about it, if they breed the dog anyhow, the pups will not be registered because I won't change the status w/o them fulfilling their end of the bargain in advance. I would not personally breed w/o looking at all the info, and I don't want my puppies out there being bred w/o it either. 

I have a potentially interesting situation w/ a 15 mo old pup right now whose owner informed me they found him a "mate" for down the road. Well, guess who has not had a CERF exam and I will bet will be too "busy" to take the dog to the ACVO 90 miles away... let alone do all of the above. ;-)


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Susie Royer said:


> Hate to burst your bubble however, you would be surprised how many many folks become interested in breeding once their pup becomes a dog and they want to clone it. I assume if your not testing your litter you will be selling the pups under limited registration since the pups are potential carriers?


I do not sell on limited registration although I have considered it. I do include a contract clause that requires any pup to be tested for CERF, OFA Hips, OFA Elbows, CNM and EIC before it can be bred and for all test results to be disclosed to all puppy buyers. I'm not sure how enforceable the clause would be, but figure it forces an explicit discussion of the risks of breeding up front. As noted by WRL, EIC/CNM carrier status is only one of many characteristics that may affect the dog's breedability and is much less important than such factors as the dog's temperament, trainability and even fertility that are also unknown at the time of purchase.


----------



## nimloth (Jul 10, 2008)

WRL said:


> Why would you have to test the litter?
> 
> I think that is "buying in to" the theory that carriers are lesser dogs.


At the very least, carriers are "potentially dangerous" dogs to the gene pool at large. Although YOU may test your adults and breed only clear to carriers, those pet people who have no long-term commitment to the breed will breed without testing - and pass the genes along for everyone. 

I have a PRA carrier bitch that has been a big part of my breeding in the last 6 years. She was always bred to a tested clear dog AND every puppy was tested before it went home. WHY??? Not because I see them as "lesser" dogs, but I wanted to be very SURE they would not get back into the gene pool without sound, ethical choices for breeding and testing the next generation. I have passed up sales to "show and breeding" potential homes because I did not "trust" the individual to have the necessary concern for the future of the breed. Most of the tested carriers were placed in CONFIRMED spay/neuter homes where the responsibility for the gene would not be foisted onto someone who lacked the necessary understanding and background avoid future problems.

So, to answer your question as directly as possible, I TEST all offspring from a carrier (of any DNA test) so that I can do my part in PRESERVING the health and future of the breed... not my bank account.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

WRL said:


> Why would you have to test the litter?
> 
> I think that is "buying in to" the theory that carriers are lesser dogs.
> 
> ...


I agree,,,, though my puppy buyers that are buying pet/companions will be sold a puppy on a limited registration. If they should so chose to breed we'll talk. I pretty much will talk them out of it. *The bottom line is that very few people will breed any dog from any litter. *They talk about it, but that's about it.

I will not test a litter. I'm selling healthy puppies/dogs to the best of my ability... All genetic clearances are there for puppy buyers to review. They need to do their homework and decide if my litter meets their needs. I'll give them all the information they need and talk to them so they can make the right decision for them...

Angie


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> My sympathies definitely go out to owners who have time and $ in training and have a dog become uncompetitive or unfit and have to start over, but I wil bet that we will continue to see breedings of successful dogs that are cariers and there will always be those who will roll the dice to gain an edge.


Unfortunately for some it ends up more than uncompetitive and unfit, but dead. It sure changed my outlook on the disease and making sure before breeding and putting money in a dog. It's a serious problem.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

nimloth said:


> At the very least, carriers are "potentially dangerous" dogs to the gene pool at large. Although YOU may test your adults and breed only clear to carriers, those pet people who have no long-term commitment to the breed will breed without testing - and pass the genes along for everyone.
> 
> I have a PRA carrier bitch that has been a big part of my breeding in the last 6 years. She was always bred to a tested clear dog AND every puppy was tested before it went home. WHY??? Not because I see them as "lesser" dogs, but I wanted to be very SURE they would not get back into the gene pool without sound, ethical choices for breeding and testing the next generation. I have passed up sales to "show and breeding" potential homes because I did not "trust" the individual to have the necessary concern for the future of the breed. Most of the tested carriers were placed in CONFIRMED spay/neuter homes where the responsibility for the gene would not be foisted onto someone who lacked the necessary understanding and background avoid future problems.
> 
> So, to answer your question as directly as possible, I TEST all offspring from a carrier (of any DNA test) so that I can do my part in PRESERVING the health and future of the breed... not my bank account.


But isn't this a little bit of a double standard? I mean if you feel you can't TRUST them to do the necessary tests before breeding how can you TRUST them to feed the dogs, take them for their shots and in general CARE for the dog in the way you would wish your puppies to be cared for?

I think that it really comes down to a "I know what's best for you" attitude. I believe if you really educate a puppy buyer beforehand, they are unlikely to breed without some knowledge down the road or asking for assistance. Will 100% of the puppy buyers do what they need to do before breeding? No, but then often the "oughtta know better" people don't either. There are PLENTY of breeders with known issues in their lines that talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Should it come to a time when I am breeding carriers of dna tested diseases, and someone wants me to test them so that they can get a "non-carrier" puppy, they can hit the road. If that is their biggest concern when buying a puppy, they can find another litter somewhere else.

I think it is a double standard to propose breeding carriers, and then on the other hand removing CARRIER puppies from the gene pool just because they are carriers. 

WRL


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

I, personally, don't care what it "carries", as long as it's a blue ribbon. Carrier status doesn't make them an un-fit or un-healthy dog, or stop them from competing like HD, ED or bilateral crutiate tears on puppies would. 

I don't believe that carrier status makes them a lessor dog, either. I don't believe I would breed an affected dog, because it's putting more carriers back in the gene pool.... we need to try and move towards erradication over time. But, we have yet to see the full extent of the ramifications of the results of the EIC test, coupled with the CNM test.

This could set breeding of talented dogs back about 10 years, depending on the path breeders choose to take.


----------



## Loren Crannell (Apr 12, 2008)

Although I never thought I would breed a dog, I have now thought about it and may do so if there is merit.

Having read about EIC and CNM, I would breed a dog that was a carrier to a clear dog. The people who created the tests for EIC and CNM still promote carrier breeding. I would personally would want to test the litter, and if one was a carrier I would at least know that I may need to educate the new owner about breeding a carrier of EIC or CNM.

During the day I work in corporate finance and full disclosure of my activities are required. I would want to bring that level of disclosure to any breeding. Maybe I am paranoid, but I don't want somebody coming back to me and saying that I misled them.

The gene pool does need the many dogs that may be carriers. With the additional tests, at least there is guidance now on what dogs should be bred. That knowledge should bring the percentage down to hopefully 25%. The 40% carrier rate was a result of breeding two good dogs without knowing that EIC had a genetic link.

I agree with JusticeDog's post.

Loren


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

A carrier of EIC, maybe, but only to a clear bitch. A carrier of CNM, no. I also believe that there will be enough CNM and EIC clear dogs to choose from.

Other questions for folks to consider are:

Do you want to maintain or increase EIC at 40% + or do you want its frequency reduced?

To those who say, "what does it matter?". If EIC gets to 60% would it matter to you then? When will it matter to you?

To those worried about a small gene pool, please provide some evidence.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Henry V said:


> A carrier of EIC, maybe, but only to a clear bitch. A carrier of CNM, no. .


This is an inconsistent position and I fail to comprehend the difference. As one who has previously condemned breeding carriers why would you chose one as being acceptable and one unacceptable.....


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

I can see the ethical battle lines being drawn here. For me there are more questions than answers. Is the gene pool big enough to produce competitive dogs that run no risk of passing on the risk of genetic problems? Will clear dogs be marketed as somehow more desireable than carriers? Will those that choose to breed carriers, even though they make every effort to disclose and breed to non carriers, be accused of perpetuating a genetic problem? 
Understandably any resposible breeder wants to do what's best for the breed but where's the line and who decides where it's crossed. Confusing stuff for sure.

Mac


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

I, for one, choose to breed only clear to clear when possible. All of my females are clear of CNM so far. I will test all of my dogs for EIC in the next week or so. If I have an EIC carrier in the bunch she will be bred to a clear male and all the female pups will be tested so I can keep back a clear pup to replace it's mother.

To those who think we have to breed to carriers to be competitive, if we shunned all of the 40% who are carriers it would be like running NASCAR at Datona or Taladega with restricter plates. There might be less horsepower all around, but the competition would be just as fierce only at a slower, more manageable speed.

Sixty percent of the males don't carry EIC and a large percentage of them don't carry CNM either. I figure I can wipe EIC out of my kennel in one generation and keep it out by breeding to clear males. That's my contribution to the breed. If that relegates me to a dirt track in Podunk, so be it.


----------



## LabLady (Jan 27, 2003)

The CNM test has now been out for a while. 

When I tested all my girls and found one to be a carrier (very well bred and an all age competitor) I decided to sell her to someone that wanted to compete in aa stakes, but was not interested in breeding. She is now spayed, in a wonderful home and still competes in field trials. 

My thinking at the time was that I didn't know how I would handle a litter from her, when bred to a non-carrier. I know a lot of people say that they don't care if the pup is a carrier as long as it is from a very desirable breeding. However, it has been my experience, since then, that that is one of the concerns of buyers when looking for a pup. They really don't want a carrier pup!

How have other breeders been handling the sale of their pups when they have parents that are CNM carrier to non-carrier?

LL


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Ken Archer said:


> ...To those who think we have to breed to carriers to be competitive, if we shunned all of the 40% who are carriers it would be like running NASCAR at Datona or Taladega with restricter plates. There might be less horsepower all around, but the competition would be just as fierce only at a slower, more manageable speed.....


I know this is an analogy but it falls apart because in NASCAR, all cars are REQUIRED to run restrictor plates in those races. With dogs there is no such requriement. Carriers of EIC & CNM WILL BE bred if that gives some a perceived edge for no other reason than perception.

But let's not forget, ALL DOGS are carriers of something. There are no clean, clear dogs. Therefore everyone who breeds, breeds carriers. IMO, the issue is whether it will be done ethically & with full disclosure. Testing should be done & results disclosed. 

And subsequent to the breeding there are several methods of restriction that breeders can use to control breeding among carriers by the pups they sell - and yet still provide flexiblity for breeding an exceptional pup.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Henry V said:


> To those worried about a small gene pool, please provide some evidence.


The incidence and carrier rate of EIC are evidence of a small gene pool. Previously unrecognized genetic defects can become widespread in a couple of ways--heavy use of popular sires, as referenced by others on this thread, and by restriction of breeding animals in reaction to some other (existing or perceived) defect.

Genetic diversity and the need for it are more than I can explain in a brief post. If you examine pedigrees of field trial Labradors, however, you will see the same dogs behind all of them, over and over and over. 

I'm personally delighted to see so many people acknowledging the issue. I hope you are right that we will be able to breed carriers to clear and sell all the puppies, and not face constant demands that all be tested and carriers be deeply discounted.

I do think that over time we should select against EIC carriers, but not absolutely--taking that into the mix with all of the other traits.

Amy Dahl


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The simple solution for problems caused by a small gene pool is to enlarge the pool................

Why don't we just step back and exclude all the carriers, enlarge the gene pool by "out crossing" from the proven but not carrier ridden lines and also the geneticly tested unproven ones, *and then* selectively breed for field prowess from then (as clear as possable) clear stock .
It may set us back a few years in our quest for the 600 yd mark and the 300 yd thread the needle blind, but in the big picture it would be worth the wait.
While we are at it we could keep an eye toward the standard.

Two birds with one stone regards

john


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

LabLady said:


> How have other breeders been handling the sale of their pups when they have parents that are CNM carrier to non-carrier?
> 
> LL


I know two owners of EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL FT males(one has a N in his title) that don't get bred because they are carriers of CNM. That's because unless the dam is FC AFC too, there is NO market for the pups. When I say no market for the pups, I mean the great majority of people who know what CNM is won't buy one for ethical reasons. They know that if they breed their carrier that down the road the offspring will be bred. Carrier pups from average FT breedings can be placed with NOVICE buyers even with an explaination by the breeder. But those that know more are not buying carriers. Again, SOME FT folks will buy carriers if they think that's the breeding they need. I personally am not interested in owing a carrier. 

The gene pool doesn't need to be so limited and a poor excuse for justifying breeding carriers. Think outside the box or only FT dogs.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I will not breed my dogs if they are carriers. The standards have now been raised for breeding. My thoughts are if the carrier is not truly exceptional why are you propogating this in the gene pool. My dogs are not the best and brightest hunt test dogs out there. If they were hypothetically carriers and AFC/FC then the decision would be harder to make.

The problem I have with the small gene pool argument is this. The same breeders who point this out are the ones line breeding on this or that stud. A healthy dose of genetic diversity.

All this is my opinion but in the future I will exercise my right to buy only clear puppies.

Mark L.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

fishduck said:


> I will not breed my dogs if they are carriers. The standards have now been raised for breeding. My thoughts are if the carrier is not truly exceptional why are you propogating this in the gene pool. My dogs are not the best and brightest hunt test dogs out there. If they were hypothetically carriers and AFC/FC then the decision would be harder to make.
> 
> The problem I have with the small gene pool argument is this. The same breeders who point this out are the ones line breeding on this or that stud. A healthy dose of genetic diversity.
> 
> ...


but Mark, if everyone were line breeding on the same this or that stud it would cause a huge problem.

I still don't understand why so many are all about "eliminating" the gene all together. Why? With dna testing comes knowledge. We could easily eliminate affecteds by certain breeding practices but I just don't know that the thought of elimination is the answer.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I know that one of my four girls is affected. I won't know about the others for a few weeks. However, I would be concerned about a tendency to move too quickly to eliminate all carriers from the gene pool. 

The fact that the research to date suggests that EIC carriers are found equally among field, show and pet lines suggests that this is not a "defect" resulting from frequent breedings to a small number of high performance field studs. However, we _may _well find that the percentage of carriers among champion field dogs is higher than among the general population. 

This could be because so many of todays field champions share a single ancestor that is a carrier. It may also be because the EIC gene is in some way linked to some form of excitability factor that, when found once, helps a dog achieve that winning intensity but when found twice pushes the dog over the edge. I don't know if this is true, but the fact is that we do not know what the full effects might be of breeding EIC carriers out of the gene pool and we should be cautious until we do. 

The fact is that the EIC mutation seems to be relatively benign as genetic defects go. Personally, I would be more willing to breed to an EIC carrier than I would breeding to a dog that died or had a family history of dogs dying at the age of 7 or 8 from cancer.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

achiro said:


> but Mark, if everyone were line breeding on the same this or that stud it would cause a huge problem.
> 
> I still don't understand why so many are all about "eliminating" the gene all together. Why? With dna testing comes knowledge. We could easily eliminate affecteds by certain breeding practices but I just don't know that the thought of elimination is the answer.


My opinion but I feel the line breeding that is very prevalent in the field lines is partially to blame for the incidence of EIC and CNM. In a lot of pedigrees you will see the same dogs on the top and bottom. It is easier to get the traits wanted by line breeding. The practice has and will continue to produce exceptional dogs. Now that our knowledge is expanded we need to be very carefull following this path.

I really don't see the need to "eliminate" the gene. The bar has been raised as far as breeding carriers is concerned. If you have a carrier that is exceptional enough to breed go ahead and breed. Then fully disclose and allow the market to decide.

Mark L.


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

Do you think that "end use" of the pup/dog will dictate for some whether they are willing to breed a carrier dog or purchase a carrier pup?

For example, some people who want to continue to run field trial at highest level (i.e., place in color at field trials, go to Nat'l and Nat'l Am regularly) will breed for control and/or purchase the carrier pup (not test the litter for carriers, still have OFA, CERF, etc., etc.).

Some people who breed for other venues or pet homes and/or purchase a pup for other venues or as a pet may only be interested in the clear/clear breedings or will only purchase pups that test clear (for all known genetic disease, have OFA, have CERF, etc., etc.), or will cull when breeding a carrier to a clear (i.e., sell on limited reg, spay, neuter).


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

At one time someone said that every trial and national would still have a winner,so why couldn't those dogs be clear.We will not breed or buy affecteds or carriers.Now,we will buy pups off of carrier/clear breedings with tested pups being clear.There is no good reason that a buyer should have to roll the dice(at least on EIC/CNM) when they go to purchase a puppy anymore.The ones that think testing sires and dams is "stupid" will not get our buisness, or referrals.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

WRL said:


> But isn't this a little bit of a double standard? I mean if you feel you can't TRUST them to do the necessary tests before breeding how can you TRUST them to feed the dogs, take them for their shots and in general CARE for the dog in the way you would wish your puppies to be cared for?
> 
> LOL! Not necessarily. After 35 years, I've absolutely found people who can love and care for a dog, but who never absorb the educational information you provide about the responsibilities of breeding. My puppies always go on limited registration unless I know the person very, very well.
> 
> ...


And limited registration is a sure way to get the owner to report back to you on their dog's progress if they need you to turn their limited registration into "full". 

In some cases, testing a litter before it leaves can be an additional way to stress to the new owner even more forcefully the importance of testing. Let's say you do sell a carrier to someone you don't know really well, you can very forcefully tell them, "You can NOT breed this dog to an untested mate. Period!"


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Jay Dufour said:


> At one time someone said that every trial and national would still have a winner,so why couldn't those dogs be clear.We will not breed or buy affecteds or carriers.Now,we will buy pups off of carrier/clear breedings with tested pups being clear.There is no good reason that a buyer should have to roll the dice(at least on EIC/CNM) when they go to purchase a puppy anymore.


Good for you Jay! And, that is why I will continue to send buyers of hunting dogs your way. That and the fact that you Penn Hip!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Ken Archer said:


> Sixty percent of the males don't carry EIC and a large percentage of them don't carry CNM either. I figure I can wipe EIC out of my kennel in one generation and keep it out by breeding to clear males. That's my contribution to the breed. If that relegates me to a dirt track in Podunk, so be it.


Ken thank you for your contribution to the breed! That and the fact that you DO seriously consider the TOTAL Lab by breeding for physical type (working conformation) as well. 

Nimloth and Windy Canyon, I like what y'all have to say as well. I've got a very nice FT bred pup coming in mid-Dec. Bitch just started her heat cycle. I'm also looking for an athletic non FT bred pup will all clearences to send to my Pro at 8 months of age. I'll be in touch and hope I am worthy enough to be considered.


----------



## nimloth (Jul 10, 2008)

Several people have mentioned the "limited gene pool" as a reason to breed carriers or affecteds. In case nobody has noticed, Labradors are the MOST POPULAR and populous breed in THIS country and nearly every other worldwide. Gee.... breeders might have to look outside their retriever club to find a suitable stud - or outside their country. 

They might even have to look outside their sport to find the right dogs. I breed show dogs that started from Canadian field trial stock. People who purchase my "show dogs" compete in Agility at the top level. Great service dogs cetainly have the work ethic and trainability to produce gun dogs, etc. Most enthusiasts in a specific area of competition or training tend to wear blinders. Take them off and LOOK at the millions and millions of Labradors around the world that might contribute positively to your breeding program.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

nimloth said:


> Several people have mentioned the "limited gene pool" as a reason to breed carriers or affecteds. In case nobody has noticed, Labradors are the MOST POPULAR and populous breed in THIS country and nearly every other worldwide. Gee.... breeders might have to look outside their retriever club to find a suitable stud - or outside their country.
> 
> They might even have to look outside their sport to find the right dogs.


I couldn't agree more! Except for the hard core FTer that places ribbons more important than the breed your point is on the mark. 

Ribbons are great and I want my dogs to earn them. But, not at the cost of doing further damage to the breed!


----------



## LabLady (Jan 27, 2003)

I will not purchase a pup from any breeding that will produce a carrier of CNM or EIC (even if both parents were NFC's) - and I am a competitor, but it's just my personal preference. And I think that a lot of people will feel the same way when it's time to purchase their next competitive pup. 

LL


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I see this whole thing being dictated by the market, taking into consideration that we are all capitalists here. What I predict will happen is that people will be unwilling to pay top dollar for carriers. They will also be unwilling to pay top dollar for outcrosses to no field or non accomplished clear dogs. So, what we will see is a narrowing of the gene pool, people breeding clear accomplished dogs. This will result in less genetic diversity and more genetic diseases cropping up.

The market has brought us to where we are now, and I don't believe there are any paradigm shifts in human behavior coming down the pike. People can talk all they want about bettering the breed, and they can carry out their own crusade, but in the end, the vast majority of behavior will be dictated by money.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Buzz said:


> I see this whole thing being dictated by the market, taking into consideration that we are all capitalists here.


No doubt about it for most but, don't forget that FT Labs are a small percentage of all Lab games. Field Trialers for the most part will continue doing the same thing they've always done. There are also bigger issues facing FT labs than EIC or CNM and that is poor skeletal health. Irony in this is that the most demanding of all Lab games, FT dogs from my experience have the most skelital issues.

Not all are driven by money though. I own a bitch sired by NFC Rocket and out of a 2xNAFC Lean Mac x NAFC Hattie Mc Bunn bitch that is OFA FAIR. I could have bred her to dogs like Carbon or Auggie and sold them for $1,200 - $1,500 each all day long! I opted to have her spayed. 

She's a wonderful hunting dog by the way.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Buzz said:


> I see this whole thing being dictated by the market, taking into consideration that we are all capitalists here. What I predict will happen is that people will be unwilling to pay top dollar for carriers. They will also be unwilling to pay top dollar for outcrosses to no field or non accomplished clear dogs. So, what we will see is a narrowing of the gene pool, people breeding clear accomplished dogs. This will result in less genetic diversity and more genetic diseases cropping up.
> 
> The market has brought us to where we are now, and I don't believe there are any paradigm shifts in human behavior coming down the pike. People can talk all they want about bettering the breed, and they can carry out their own crusade, but in the end, the vast majority of behavior will be dictated by money.


I think this is a very correct analysis, though it may not necessarily the best outcome for the survival of the breed. (And this would not only apply to Labs, but any breed that has to deal with DNA tests.)

By only following the money trail, we may fail to anticipate what the future may hold. 

Suppose there is some other disease awaiting these "clear" dogs for the current diseases? Can the gene pool continue to be compressed over and over again without consequences? The experience of breeds like Basenjis and Portuguese Water Dogs would indicate not. 

While there are literally hundreds of thousands more Labs (or Goldens) than there have ever been Basenjis or PWDs, the gene pools within which we operate for the dogs we actually want to breed has been compressed by the impact of "popular sires" over the years.

In the desire to breed better hips (or working capability) did we unwittingly set the stage for these "newer" diseases to become evident? In the zeal to eradicate these diseases, will be be setting ourselves up for something else? 

This is not a reason to ignore the problems of today, but could be a reason to tread carefully and not jump too quickly to the most obvious conclusions.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Buzz said:


> I see this whole thing being dictated by the market, taking into consideration that we are all capitalists here. What I predict will happen is that people will be unwilling to pay top dollar for carriers. They will also be unwilling to pay top dollar for outcrosses to no field or non accomplished clear dogs. So, what we will see is a narrowing of the gene pool, people breeding clear accomplished dogs. This will result in less genetic diversity and more genetic diseases cropping up.
> 
> The market has brought us to where we are now, and I don't believe there are any paradigm shifts in human behavior coming down the pike. People can talk all they want about bettering the breed, and they can carry out their own crusade, but in the end, the vast majority of behavior will be dictated by money.


Most breedings are market driven - breeders go to what will sell, not what has the potential to improve the breed. But I am of the opinion that if you know your pedigrees you can come up with a sound dog that will perform at or above your expectations. TBS - the most I have ever paid for a pup was 1K from Honcho & a FC-AFC bitch of sound parentage. Had the breeder had a higher price I wouldn't have owned that pup. While this was a few years ago I'd like to believe that one can still find a good prospect in the under 1K range. That type of parentage might be harder to come by for that price today but I believe there are equally as good prospects out there if one is willing to search. 

The reason some pay these high prices for dogs & especially a newbie is it provides them instant credibility in the "Oh So Phony" FT hierarchy - & especially if the dog turns out to be a performer. Otherwise they can become a judge without knowing a lot about what goes on. 

I bought a pup a few years back based on the performance of one side of the pedigree. Later on 2 dogs with that bloodline became NC's. The pup turned out to have CNM - at 4 months the pup couldn't walk around for 1/4 mile without being in distress. The vet that certified his health certificate, the pro involved with the bitch's owner are still active in the sport, fortunately the breeder ran for cover but never refunded the purchase price. Taught me a lot about buying a pup from someone who has to fly the pup to you. 

People are what they are. They want to do things the easiest way & are easily influenced by someone who has "expert" status. They are basically to stupid to understand that the smoke being blown is done to line the experts pocket. Unfortunately it is becoming the majority in this sport.


----------



## nimloth (Jul 10, 2008)

> I see this whole thing being dictated by the market


You know what we call dog people who breed for market? Puppy mills! 
Before you get all hostile, consider that if your PRIMARY reason for breeding or selecting a mating is the marketability of the puppies, then what really separates you from the puppy mill breeder? Size? Conditions? Outlet?

Once you face your real motivation for playing God and creating new life, it may change your approach or at least your attitude.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

nimloth said:


> Several people have mentioned the "limited gene pool" as a reason to breed carriers or affecteds. In case nobody has noticed, Labradors are the MOST POPULAR and populous breed in THIS country and nearly every other worldwide. Gee.... breeders might have to look outside their retriever club to find a suitable stud - or outside their country.
> 
> They might even have to look outside their sport to find the right dogs. I breed show dogs that started from Canadian field trial stock. People who purchase my "show dogs" compete in Agility at the top level. Great service dogs cetainly have the work ethic and trainability to produce gun dogs, etc. Most enthusiasts in a specific area of competition or training tend to wear blinders. Take them off and LOOK at the millions and millions of Labradors around the world that might contribute positively to your breeding program.


They might. But as a FT competitor, I won't. We ask our dogs to run triathelons, and mark extremely well while doing it. Your show stock won't get you to 400 years repetetively. Some of the body types on show labs, I wouldn't even want for the agility ring. I prefer my field stock, since I know they can wrap their lithe bodies around a weave pole or a jump as quick as any border collie.

So, if this is the way breeding is going to go, it will set our FT stock back a good 10 years. And for those of you with well bred carrier pups, call me. And as long as you've got a good history of sound hips, elbows and eyes. If they can hammer, they have a spot on my truck. I know I can breed out that carrier status in a couple of generations.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady said:


> I will not purchase a pup from any breeding that will produce a carrier of CNM or EIC (even if both parents were NFC's) - and I am a competitor, but it's just my personal preference. And I think that a lot of people will feel the same way when it's time to purchase their next competitive pup.
> 
> LL


I just shake my head at this sort of comment, esp w/ regards to EIC. If you've been in the breed for any length of time, you need to assume you are purchasing pups that carry "something bad". Heck, the field folks are STILL not testing for PRA!!!! You may be in for a real surprise down the line!!!!!! But, if folks don't test for it, you don't have it, right?  

Look how many field trial dogs have little or no elbow history behind them. The lies and denial out there is scary... I was recently told of a FT dog whose owner "forgot" to do elbows. Yea right. You don't just forget to do elbows after 2 generations of doing them. 

I have PRA carriers here, I am not afraid to tell folks that. Guess where the nasty gene came in? The field side!!! Another friend produced it several years ago after breeding her field/hunting girl to a FT dog. Stop the denial. Stuff is out there and Labs are Labs! We have issues to work on as a breed, yes... but if you think there are any CLEAN lines, you are dreaming.


----------



## nimloth (Jul 10, 2008)

> Susan wrote:They might. But as a FT competitor, I won't.


As I said... blinders. Some of the top agility dogs that have NEVER run in a FT or even HT might have all the traits you look for in those venues. Are you actively OPEN to breeding to a dog from that performance activity? If not, then it is your tunnel vision that limits your gene pool, not the potential of the dogs. 

This is not the place to compare Labradors whose form is dictated by a function desirable in the UK over a century ago and those that perform in extreme sports today. If someone wants to "rehash" that old debate, start a new thread.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

A question for the FT breeders/competitors here that has never been answered before when I've asked-- how many of you REALLY look at the CONFORMATION of your future winners as puppies? If a pup's got slipping hocks or a tipped pelvis at 8 wks, don't you think that may be a disadvantage in the dog's future as far as hips and knees, etc? How many would know to check or what to look at? Those pups with structural issues need to go to pet homes, not competition homes that may well end up breeding the same serious faults over and over again because so many are too damned proud to sell on Limited Reg, for whatever reason or are just plain ignorant of structure. I've seen some horrendous structure out there in the fronts and rears of some "popular" field lines and it's no surprise the dogs are falling apart by age 6-7. Yes, they have may "heart"... but that heart only goes so far. Like Mr Booty and others have said, it's time to maybe even take a step back and fix some of those issues (the things dogs are AFFECTED with) first. The CNM, EIC, and PRA issues are easy to deal with compared to basic structure. 

Susan, you talk about agility, and I agree. The heavy bone desired in the conformation ring by many won't cut it there, but neither will the straight fronts w/ upright shoulders with time! BTW, Nimloth wrote a neat article on front end structure for the current LRC newsletter...


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> . Stuff is out there and Labs are Labs! We have issues to work on as a breed, yes... but if you think there are any CLEAN lines, you are dreaming.


I not sure anyone suggested there were any clean dogs out there. Just that we need to consider throwing some of the babies out(studs and dams) with the bath water. 

There was a thread on here this past week where someone was line breeding to a stud with known skeletal issues and is predisposed to producing skeletal issues. Yes, the dog produces FT talent but in my book it is absolutely crazy. 

Some fear that by eradicating CNM or EIC, new problems will surface. Maybe so but, I'd rather deal with what we know about rather than speculate on something we don't know about. 

I think the point by several is that there is so many genetic problem to deal with that if we can minimize the one we can, lets do it.


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

franco its like any buisness. it will always go on as long as people are buying.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> A question for the FT breeders/competitors here that has never been answered before when I've asked-- how many of you REALLY look at the CONFORMATION of your future winners as puppies? If a pup's got slipping hocks or a tipped pelvis at 8 wks, don't you think that may be a disadvantage in the dog's future as far as hips and knees, etc?
> 
> .


Windy Canyon, you are getting into taboo territory here! 

As long as their narrow 45 Lbs female with a curved tail, straight hocks, poor hips and CNM carrier wins ribbons, that's all the counts.;-)

Mentioning Conformation on this forum will have folks running for cover or reaching for their guns!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

kip said:


> franco its like any buisness. it will always go on as long as people are buying.


Kip, where you been bro?

Hope to see you this Fall in Lebeau and bring your better half!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

The thing is, the good breeders are the ones in it for the long haul, and they have been looking out for the biggies forever-- that part's a no brainer. That's why the limited reg works for me, as I'll have control over what gets bred and what doesn't. I'm only 5 generations into my breeding program, a baby compared to Nimloth and the Winrocs of the world. I'm just now venturing back onto the field side of the fence (where I started). And even so, that breeding is w/ a 50/50 blend out of a QAA sire, so not nearly on the same level as many here. It's a linebreeding on a 15 yr old 3xCH, 2xMH.... will they be FT competent? Who knows... but they will have the foundation genetically to be healthy, structurally correct, trainable gun dogs. And yes, there may be some carriers for something there. I will not screen the litter for PRA (Mata is a possible carrier but Hud is cert'd clear) or EIC or CNM (Mata is clear for both, Hud is getting tested) because I know no puppy will be AFFECTED. If someone wants to breed down the road, they will need to do the testing I require, learn some basic genetics (which I will help with of course) and convince me they can make the right decisions if they are granted Full reg. It's really not that tough. The problem I see w/ many folks breeding is the new owners are just cut free as soon as they leave the driveway. I look at puppy buyers as new family members and hope they'll look at me as the same. It's a long haul.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Mr Booty said:


> Windy Canyon, you are getting into taboo territory here!
> 
> As long as their narrow 45 Lbs female with a curved tail, straight hocks, poor hips and CNM carrier wins ribbons, that's all the counts.;-)
> 
> Mentioning Conformation on this forum will have folks running for cover or reaching for their guns!



snort snort... you caught me stirring the pot. ;-)
No but really. I wonder how many heartaches could be prevented if structure were paid a bit more attention. Dogs don't have to be show dogs to have good structure. I think we can have the best of both worlds, and when we do, watch out!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> Dogs don't have to be show dogs to have good structure. I think we can have the best of both worlds, and when we do, watch out!


I made copies of the LRC's Illustrated Standard to handout to anyone that wants one. I keep them in my truck. Most don't care to look.

Reason I did was because I decided to stack a dog with bad hips to see if I saw anything that deviated from the standard. I noticed that the hocks were straight, hocks were directly above the feet. Not angled with the foot in front of the hock. Owner of the dog looked at me like I was crazy. ;-)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> I prefer my field stock, since I know they can wrap their lithe bodies around a weave pole or a jump *as quick as any border collie.
> *


I would have to see that to believe it



> So, if this is the way breeding is going to go, it will set our FT stock back a good 10 years


And during that 10 years as someone else said earlier the games will go on , with a winner at the National and at every weekend trial.

And, as I said earlier, the breed will be the better for it


john


----------



## Old Coot (Mar 9, 2008)

With all the new tests available now days it's a shame that there is not a test for an enlarged ego. In my entire life I have never met a Hunter, FT, or pet owner that did not have the best dog in the world. I find myself guilty of this every time my pup gets to the next phase of his training. As long as there are human emotions and money involved with the breeding of dogs there will never be a perfect breed of any dog.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I would have to see that to believe it
> 
> 
> 
> john


Come on over to this area John, and I'll show ya a couple.... and No barking, too boot! (I can't stand those dogs that have to bark and entire course).


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> A question for the FT breeders/competitors here that has never been answered before when I've asked-- how many of you REALLY look at the CONFORMATION of your future winners as puppies? If a pup's got slipping hocks or a tipped pelvis at 8 wks, don't you think that may be a disadvantage in the dog's future as far as hips and knees, etc? How many would know to check or what to look at? Those pups with structural issues need to go to pet homes, not competition homes that may well end up breeding the same serious faults over and over again because so many are too damned proud to sell on Limited Reg, for whatever reason or are just plain ignorant of structure. I've seen some horrendous structure out there in the fronts and rears of some "popular" field lines and it's no surprise the dogs are falling apart by age 6-7. Yes, they have may "heart"... but that heart only goes so far. Like Mr Booty and others have said, it's time to maybe even take a step back and fix some of those issues (the things dogs are AFFECTED with) first. The CNM, EIC, and PRA issues are easy to deal with compared to basic structure.
> 
> Susan, you talk about agility, and I agree. The heavy bone desired in the conformation ring by many won't cut it there, but neither will the straight fronts w/ upright shoulders with time! BTW, Nimloth wrote a neat article on front end structure for the current LRC newsletter...


I actually think that structure is more important that whether a dog is carrier or not. I don't want a broken down dog at age 8. Too heartbreaking.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

JusticeDog said:


> I actually think that structure is more important that whether a dog is carrier or not. I don't want a broken down dog at age 8. Too heartbreaking.


You go girl!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> I don't want a broken down dog at age 8. Too heartbreaking.


Tell me about it, I have one that is 6 and one good trial away from from FC AFC!

I'm not saying he will never run another trail but, if he show any signs of pain I'll scratch him in a second.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

I would love to know how to assess the structural integrety of a puppy.Most of the written standards I've seen are kind of hard to interpret while looking at a wiggling little stemwinder.Does anyone have some pics of correct structure......and incorrect also?


----------



## LabLady (Jan 27, 2003)

I think it comes down to what people want out of their dogs. Some want them to look good, some like chocolate, yellow or black. Some like short and stocky and some like tall and lean. Some want just performance and some want just a hunting dog or family pet. But I think EVERYONE wants a healthy dog. They are with us for such a short time even when they are healthy. I feel that health is the most important thing - all the rest is secondary.

LL


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

LabLady said:


> But I think EVERYONE wants a healthy dog. They are with us for such a short time even when they are healthy. I feel that health is the most important thing - all the rest is secondary.
> LL


That pretty much sums it up!!!!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

LabLady said:


> But I think EVERYONE wants a healthy dog.


yeah, a healthy dog capable of winning a National


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Jay Dufour said:


> I would love to know how to assess the structural integrety of a puppy.Most of the written standards I've seen are kind of hard to interpret while looking at a wiggling little stemwinder.Does anyone have some pics of correct structure......and incorrect also?


Jay, 
Pat Hastings has a great video called "The Puppy Puzzle". You would be amazed at what you can see at 7-8 wks.. and also that the pups CAN stand still with a little patience and training, especially if structurally sound. I hope to attach a couple photos here of Mata, now 3.5, at 8 wks (and she was a little wild child as a puppy.. one show breeder friend who came to independently eval my litter -- was used to much mellower litters--said "Gold collared black girl is your pick.. and besides, YOU have to keep her because no one else could STAND living w/ her! ). If they can stand still like a pretty picture, that is often a good sign in itself. Here are some photos at 8 wks, 18 mos, and ~2.5 yrs of her standing, and one running agility. She's fast... and will need a better handler than I am once we're at Excellent level, I'm afraid! As you can see, though she's from 75% show/performance breeding (25% + field depending how you count her Swedish dual CH lineage behind her sire), she is quite moderate in bone, a little longer in the loin/back but w/ decent balance, wow, can she move!

ETA: here's a link to Hasting's site-- click on the Puppy Puzzle DVD on the side bar: http://www.dogfolk.com/


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

nimloth said:


> As I said... blinders.


A {person} hears what they want to hear and disregards the rest. P. Simon/The Boxer.

I think many are guilty of blinders. For example, those that breed for confOrmation with little regard for original working purpose of the animal could very well be excluding the reason the dog walks the earth: working ability; not looks.



nimloth said:


> Some of the top agility dogs that have NEVER run in a FT or even HT might have all the traits you look for in those venues.


...and they might not. Training a dog is expensive. Few people have the time, energy, and resources available to roll the dice. In the same vein, I would think this may be true for confOrmation breeder types. It may be possible for an NFC that doesn't look like a confOrmation dog to throw outstanding confOrmation dogs.

It appears you might be willing to roll the dice on this type of event in your breeding program or are your blinders firmly in place as well?

Some Shoes Fit On Both Feet Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Hey Joe, we are not confirming a religion here.

ConfOrmation regards,;-) 

P S The Standard defines the breed.

Nothing in the Standard says a dog should be an FC or AFC. 


...the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions...

..."The Labrador retriever is bred primarily as a working gun dog: structure and soundness are of great importance"...

any variation from this is what I call a Lab sub specie. I also have a houseful of Labs from some of the most successful FT dogs ever that do NOT fit the above discription.


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

EdA said:


> yeah, a healthy dog capable of winning a National


I'll take 2!

Windycanyon,

Is there a website or book (provide name) that explains how to evaluate a dog's structure--backend and frontend? Thanks for posting the photos of your dog.

Ann


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

HiRollerlabs said:


> I'll take 2!
> 
> Windycanyon,
> 
> ...


I think Hastings has a couple books too on that website. I had one I thought but can't find it here. I really like the Puppy Puzzle as she goes thru all the components from bite to neck, shoulder layback and upper arm, depth of chest (all that lung and heart room!), ribcage, loin and rear. And how the balance affects movement. Be prepared to watch it about 6x before it all starts to sink in though! There is a lot of info there. I always do my own stacking on top of a crate w/ a mirror behind once the pups reach 6 wks or so, and it helps get them used to handling too. But they really do learn to stand still (string or cheddar cheese helps too!). Here's photos of 3 different pups on the table at 7 or 8 wk evals (the latter at a friend's house to add in the "strange location" factor. The last was Sonya at 6 wks (that's her in the first photo too):


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

And Sonya at ~1 yo on alert in the neighbor's orchard (just to show you they don't stay chunky monkeys for ever-- she was a real chunk at 4-5 wks, I began to wonder if there were any legs there!):


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Joe S. said:


> A {person} hears what they want to hear and disregards the rest. P. Simon/The Boxer.
> 
> I think many are guilty of blinders. For example, those that breed for confirmation with little regard for original working purpose of the animal could very well be excluding the reason the dog walks the earth: working ability; not looks.
> 
> ...


Exactly what I was thinking. 

Might not have the traits, almost certainly will not, why should they, they have not been bred for it.

That kind of thinking stems from the belief that any dog that has high energy and desire to retrieve, can be trained to the higher levels. It is so much more than that, ask anyone who has ever done it. 

No way, no how, am I ever breeding one of my titled bitches to some agility dog. It's hard enough to get good pups out of 2 dogs that do have what it takes.

And, Windycanyon, my dogs move pretty good too.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

cakaiser said:


> And, Windycanyon, my dogs move pretty good too.


And that's great! So did/does still my dogs' 13 yo great granny-- all field btw. I got pretty lucky when I picked her, but basically did do that based on her movement and personality.
My point is that you will increase your odds of having a successful field dog (or agility or obed or SAR/drug... whatever) if the basic structure is there. I don't give a rat's behind if the dog breaks down at 4 how great it was as a 2 yo and if I could have increased my odds by picking the soundest structured pups to go to the strongest (and wealthiest) competition homes, don't you think that is a good idea? I'm not wealthy enough to do FT's, so someone else will need to do that. I do hunt tests, agility, obed, etc.. and just have fun. Afterall, aren't you one of them that believes picking a pup for working ability at 7-8 wks is a crap shoot or am I mistaken?


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Joe S, where did you go?

I remember your comment, "I don't care if the dog looked like an ape with stripes if it can win a FT".

Some would rather do it with a Lab.:razz: 

Take those blinders off. Soundness is severly lacking in many FT dogs regards,


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Mr Booty said:


> Joe S, where did you go?
> 
> I remember your comment, "I don't care if the dog looked like an ape with stripes if it can win a FT".


Now THAT is funny!:monkey::BIG:


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> And that's great! So did/does still my dogs' 13 yo great granny-- all field btw. I got pretty lucky when I picked her, but basically did do that based on her movement and personality.
> My point is that you will increase your odds of having a successful field dog (or agility or obed or SAR/drug... whatever) if the basic structure is there. I don't give a rat's behind if the dog breaks down at 4 how great it was as a 2 yo and if I could have increased my odds by picking the soundest structured pups to go to the strongest (and wealthiest) competition homes, don't you think that is a good idea? I'm not wealthy enough to do FT's, so someone else will need to do that. I do hunt tests, agility, obed, etc.. and just have fun. Afterall, aren't you one of them that believes picking a pup for working ability at 7-8 wks is a crap shoot or am I mistaken?


No, you are not mistaken, I do think it's a crap shoot. I also think it's nearly impossible to get competitive trial dogs out of parents that have not demonstrated the needed abilities.

By the way, our first FC-AFC died of cancer at 12, she never had anything wrong with her otherwise. FC-AFC Rudy is 11 1/2, she ran till she was 10+, only thing that bothered her was a shoulder injury when she ran into a rock. AFC Jones died at 12, nothing wrong with his body. AFC Rae doesn't look too broken down at 6, knock on wood.

I am very sorry for all those who have not been so fortunate, but for all those with Booty's story, there are other people with mine.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> and if I could have increased my odds by picking the soundest structured pups to go to the strongest (and wealthiest) competition homes, don't you think that is a good idea? I'm not wealthy enough to do FT's


Not wealthy either.

And yes, I do agree, when I pick a pup, first I like a laid back type, not hyper. Second, I will choose the one that looks to me to have the best body, although I am far from expert in that regard.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> I am very sorry for all those who have not been so fortunate, but for all those with Booty's story, there are other people with mine.


I was reading where FC AFC Watermarks The Boss had his hips shot at 10 years of age and they were evaluated as Excellent. I find that truly remarkable and never intended to infer that all FT bred dogs are walking cripples. However, I just don't see how there will be any improvement in soundness if we don't consider dogs other than FT dogs. There could be a set back in Field Trial talent but maybe the long term outlook would improve.

I suggested once on another general Lab website that we treat OFA like CERF and require studs to have hips and elbows evaluated every two years because there are too many OFA GOOD or better, that are dysplastic in their prime years. That idea went over like a ton of bricks. Once people get that passing OFA badge, most don't want to open that can of worms.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> I was reading where FC AFC Watermarks The Boss had his hips shot at 10 years of age and they were evaluated as Excellent. I find that truly remarkable and never intended to infer that all FT bred dogs are walking cripples. However, I just don't see how there will be any improvement in soundness if we don't consider dogs other than FT dogs. There could be a set back in Field Trial talent but maybe the long term outlook would improve.
> 
> I suggested once on another general Lab website that we treat OFA like CERF and require studs to have hips and elbows evaluated every two years because there are too many OFA GOOD or better, that are dysplastic in their prime years. That idea went over like a ton of bricks. Once people get that passing OFA badge, most don't want to open that can of worms.


Mr Booty, Did you include your poor results in the OFA site? 

I have never asked, and am interested as I sit.......was there fuss when OFA requested owners adding results?


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Aussie said:


> Mr Booty, Did you include your poor results in the OFA site?
> 
> I have never asked, and am interested as I sit.......was there fuss when OFA requested owners adding results?


No and yes.

Booty Raider is OFA Good (CHIC), Elbows normal- on the site but suffered a subluxation in his rear left before he turned 6.
Booty Tattoo, my older hunting buddy is also OFA GOOD, elbows normal and when I took her in for her annual shots two months ago I had the hips shot. Vet said they looked great.(spayed)
Booty Itch, hips didn't look good and like most folks, I didn't submit them. (spayed)
Booty In The Shotgun OFA Fair, submitted.(sold)
Booty Shot, son of Raider x Tattoo- OFA Good, elbows normal.(sold)
Booty Budbubba, hips looked very bad, didn't submit.(died)
Zydeco Kingpin, Penn Hipped and even I could see they were very bad, submitted to penn Hip. Elbows look normal.(gave away)
Vote For Pedro- will be conceived in about 10 days. Keeping my fingers crossed.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

cakaiser said:


> Not wealthy either.
> 
> And yes, I do agree, when I pick a pup, first I like a laid back type, not hyper. Second, I will choose the one that looks to me to have the best body, although I am far from expert in that regard.


You probably have more spare change than I do working in the ag industry (though I'd probably not want to trade jobs with most!). ;-) Your dogs have a great track record, no argument here and it's good to see there are some field dogs that weathered the times well. Regardless of your choice of games, the bottom line is that structure can be the deal breaker... it's far more important than if the dog is a just carrier for something (that was the original topic, wasnt it? lol!). 

The Lab breed is such a versatile one-- it's not just about field trials or hunting. Labs still dominate as companion dogs/ pets and the service/guide industry. Field trials, hunt tests, tracking/SAR, agility and obedience all require that tractability too. Some sports/jobs are harder on the body than others, but the goal should be for the soundest dogs we can produce. That's why there is a standard. It baffles me that so many of the field participants are opposed to even considering buying a pup who has the Carrier status of EIC or CNM (or PRA, but then most of you wouldn't know as not many are testing for it!), yet to heck with the breed standard.. it's all very interesting.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> It baffles me that so many of the field participants are opposed to even considering buying a pup who has the Carrier status of EIC or CNM (or PRA, but then most of you wouldn't know as not many are testing for it!), yet to heck with the breed standard.. it's all very interesting.


If you have chosen "field trial participants" as a label for most who post here, that would be inaccurate, more revealing would be a poll with these choices 

1. have you ever run a dog in a field trial 

2. Have you ever owned a Field Champion or Amateur Field Champion

3. Have you ever run an FC or AFC

4. As a breeder have you ever bred an FC or AFC 

5. Have you ever seen a field trial

6. Have you ever seen a National Championship Stake


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> You probably have more spare change than I do working in the ag industry (though I'd probably not want to trade jobs with most!). ;-) Your dogs have a great track record, no argument here and it's good to see there are some field dogs that weathered the times well. Regardless of your choice of games, the bottom line is that structure can be the deal breaker... it's far more important than if the dog is a just carrier for something (that was the original topic, wasnt it? lol!).
> 
> The Lab breed is such a versatile one-- it's not just about field trials or hunting. Labs still dominate as companion dogs/ pets and the service/guide industry. Field trials, hunt tests, tracking/SAR, agility and obedience all require that tractability too. Some sports/jobs are harder on the body than others, but the goal should be for the soundest dogs we can produce. That's why there is a standard. It baffles me that so many of the field participants are opposed to even considering buying a pup who has the Carrier status of EIC or CNM (or PRA, but then most of you wouldn't know as not many are testing for it!), yet to heck with the breed standard.. it's all very interesting.


That's an interesting angle. However, what is more baffling is that there are 1000x more people participating in conformation than field events yet they do not evaluate their dog for a day "afield". 

If we bring up the pics of the Labs of 50 years ago, the field labs today look more like the dual purpose dogs then than the conformation dogs of today do. They more likely resemble yellow or chocolate Rottweilers.

I grew up with Shepherds. The GS of yesteryear (30 + years ago) look nothing like the slinky dogs of today. They were substantial dogs with fewer issues then. They have now gotten where they resemble Greyhounds crossed with a lowered Ghetto rig.......

Type will be set by the conformation people and that type is so out of whack that it turns most people off that actually want a working dog. The Canadian conformation dogs and some of the dual purpose British dogs are more athletic looking and look like they could still work in the field. 

In order to "expand" the gene pool in Labradors, I think we need to require field ability. Those Labs that cannot make it in the field are removed. Then we can work into incorporating a "typier" dog into the field world. Problem is, there are WAY WAY too many conformation dogs that have forgotten they are RETRIEVERS.

WRL


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Are there really that many successful FT dogs breaking down at 4-6? 
As far as your assesment Booty, I use to work a lot in the sports injury end of things with several high level athletes. There is a reason that the majority of pro football players retire in their 20's. The amount of stress on the joints is amazing. I have to wonder if there was a way to take a large group of bench labs, put them on a truck from the age of 6 months to jump in and out several times per day, run balls out through mud, cover, water, terrain, etc, etc if they would break down in similar numbers?


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> If you have chosen "field trial participants" as a label for most who post here, that would be inaccurate, more revealing would be a poll with these choices
> 
> 1. have you ever run a dog in a field trial
> 
> ...


I think #1 qualifies someone as a field trial participant on its own.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> My point is that you will increase your odds of having a successful field dog if the basic structure is there.... I'm not wealthy enough to do FT's, so someone else will need to do that. I do hunt tests


What's the highest hunt test stake/title you have had success with your dogs?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

WRL said:


> In order to "expand" the gene pool in Labradors, I think we need to require field ability. Those Labs that cannot make it in the field are removed.


Interesting. Let's cull the ones that can't do what they were bred for! Having been to my first, and most likely last, lab specialty 7 years ago, I stood and watched the JH test. I saw rolling on the bird for 20 minutes while owners begged "fido" to bring back the ducky, no looking at marks as they went down, dogs that were so fat they broke cover by "rolling" through the field.... 

I have to agree... worse than any carrier status I can think of.....


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

WRL said:


> If we bring up the pics of the Labs of 50 years ago, the field labs today look more like the dual purpose dogs then than the conformation dogs of today do. They more likely resemble yellow or chocolate Rottweilers.


But why stop at 50 years ago? Do many people choose that "50 years ago" time frame because they *did* look like our field dogs of today? That's probably true...many of the field dogs of today look more like the Dual Champions of 50 years ago. However, photos from back when the breed was _originally _developed (we're talking even before the turn of the century) the dogs look a lot more like the show dogs of today than the field dogs of today, I think. 

Here are some of the dogs to which I'm referring...those in all of the labrador history books:









Nell (photograph from 1867, probably w. 1856)









Buccleauch Avon, w. 1885

Not for the sake of arguing, but something to think about... 50 years ago, the breed was still relatively young. The breed had already changed a _ton_ between when it was _originally _developed and the time frame that you quoted. And yes, it has also changed a _ton_ since that time frame and today, too. Currently, the conformation side seems to be heading more toward those _original_ labradors rather than those from only 50 years ago- JMHO, of course. Is that "wrong?" For what it's worth, I am a fan of both "types" of labs...and appreciate them each for what they are and for what they can do.


----------



## byounglove (Mar 2, 2005)

LabLady said:


> I think it comes down to what people want out of their dogs. Some want them to look good, some like chocolate, yellow or black. Some like short and stocky and some like tall and lean. Some want just performance and some want just a hunting dog or family pet. But I think EVERYONE wants a healthy dog. They are with us for such a short time even when they are healthy. I feel that health is the most important thing - all the rest is secondary.
> 
> LL


BINGO!!! CARRIERS ARE HEALTHY DOGS!!!


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

byounglove said:


> BINGO!!! CARRIERS ARE HEALTHY DOGS!!!


Absolutely.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

EdA said:


> If you have chosen "field trial participants" as a label for most who post here, that would be inaccurate, more revealing would be a poll with these choices
> 
> 1. have you ever run a dog in a field trial
> 
> ...


Read again, I said "field participants". That is an all encompassing term for the field end of it whether it be hunters, hunt tests, and yes, field trials.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> What's the highest hunt test stake/title you have had success with your dogs?



I've titled at SH (and yes, I've been to a field trial, train with friends who have run derby and thru MH). The same spring I did the SH, the same dog titled thru Open agility (4 titles), got Tracking certified, and had finished her open obed title (CDX) just prior. She then was bred for her first litter that August (pups in avatar) and the 2nd (Mata's) the following year so she went into semi-retirement after that, unfortunately. I may enter her again in agility this fall for fun-- she's 9.5 now-- but my time is pretty limited w/ 4 younger ones to focus on. I'm doing pretty much the same with Mata right now though holding off on SH til next year probably (after agility). 

I have no real interest in MH... don't even hunt! And 2 day tests would be tough to work around w/ no one to take care of the crew at home. And I won't send my dogs to a pro... if I can't participate in events w/ my dogs, why bother? I'm in it for a hobby and the relationship w/ my dogs.
ETA: Not to mention, if I don't experience the training and competition firsthand, it doesn't give me near the info as that given 2nd hand thru a pro. I also want to breed dogs that are "user friendly" so figure if I can do it, most anyone can.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

http://www.drumlanrig.com/pages/content.asp?PageID=244

You might take a look at the top picture..."Dan"...the history states that the original dogs and kennel did not produce any color but black. To be a purist, you must eliminate any color variation...So the top picture must be sepia and unfortunately I could not find a date. The dogs pictured look like what? 

In regard to the two pictures of the "original imported to Britian labs" (Avon and Nell), I don't see the resemblence to the current conformation lines. I think that the pics are of old dogs and neither shows them standing...


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

SueLab said:


> http://www.drumlanrig.com/pages/content.asp?PageID=244



Whew, the heat is off me now. It took that kennel 177 years to win a field trial... :lol:

"While Buccleuch Labradors were never actually trialled, being bred entirely for 'work' purposes, the bloodline has formed the ancestry of many champions over the years, including the first labrador to be placed at a retriever trial in 1906 (FTCh Flapper). The main characteristics of the traditional Buccleuch Labrador are a good nose, a tender mouth, and an intelligent and courageous temperament. Their heads are often shorter than the average labrador, they have a thick double coat and frequently have the 'otter' tail." <snip> 

"For the first time in its history, the Buccleuch Labradors are taking part in field trials and on 6 October 2007, after a very exciting month, Buccleuch Opal (Moss) won 1st Place along with her Field Trial Champion status at The Gamekeepers Association Open Stake Retriever Trial at Logiealmond. A thrilling triumph for Moss, David Lisett and the Buccleuch Group as a whole."


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

SueLab said:


> In regard to the two pictures of the "original imported to Britian labs" (Avon and Nell), I don't see the resemblence to the current conformation lines.


Really?? Maybe I haven't been going to the right shows.  
Standing or laying down, those two dogs' photos (the coats, heads, and degree of "bone" you can see from the pictures) are the epitome of the labradors at the shows I've been to the past couple of years.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Well, we have the answer here folks...even though these conformation-type breeders have no interest in higher hunt test stakes or competitive field trials, we need to dummy down our breeding to their level so our dogs are user friendly and our improved conformation will be the key to our field success 
And, as an added bonus, our dogs won't break down at 4 years old. How did we _ever_ get the problem of so many all age dogs in those 100+ dog opens?


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Hey Joe, we are not confirming a religion here.
> 
> ConfOrmation regards,;-)
> 
> ...


Good Point, Sir Booty...although SOME may contend confirmed conformation could be a religious experience. I have corrected my error. 

The Standard defines nothing. Personal interpretation of the standard provides the definition.

Westminster is full of Labs from some of the most successful confOrmation dogs ever that, also, do NOT fit the discription provided. Many could not, seemingly, spend an hour afield let a lone a mornings hunt on the Bay.

Confirmed Respectful Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Joe S, where did you go?
> 
> I remember your comment, "I don't care if the dog looked like an ape with stripes if it can win a FT".
> 
> ...


Sir Booty,

In my hard-core days, I think what I said was closer to this: "I would breed a big black and white striped monkey if it could do a big quad and hold a straight line for 400 yards."

I think that you breed for the traits you need to be successful in the competition desired be it in the ring or in the field.

I Pretty Much Just Watch Now Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Not all bench dogs are big clumsey clodders just as all Field Trial dogs don't mark well. I enjoy running Amateur and watching great dog work. But, I've never thought Field Trial work as being the Benchmark for the breed as much as having a great hunting dog is. There are many successful FT dogs that I would NOT want in a duck blind with me.

I still think the Standard does a great job of spelling it out. Here is part of the field discription;

...the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions...

..."The Labrador retriever is bred primarily as a working gun dog: structure and soundness are of great importance"...

Anything beyond the Standard caters to the specialty player. Both Bench and Field breed to win in their respective venue. When we breed to win in a speciality event, most balance is tossed out the window. Just one reason why most Bench and Field dogs look like different breeds. 

And, the reason some breeders will over-look genetic problems. So that they can win in their Specialty of choice.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> And, the reason some breeders will over-look genetic problems. So that they can win in their Specialty of choice.


I know one is entropion. They fix it, show, breed. Found that out the hard way.
Don't think you are going to find a bed of roses in the CH/MH area-just different stuff.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

EdA said:


> This is an inconsistent position and I fail to comprehend the difference. As one who has previously condemned breeding carriers why would you chose one as being acceptable and one unacceptable.....


I agree that this could be viewed as inconsistent so I will try to explain. From my limited experience, most informed folks that breed field labradors assess and weigh good and/or desired traits against bad and/or undesireable traits when they breed a litter. Being a CNM or EIC carrier is an undesirable trait to me. I agree that it does not affect performance but then again neither does a dog with funny looking ears (or name your trait) but I personally choose to stay away from dogs with that trait too. For that matter everyone I know has a list of traits that they are looking for or against when it come to field labradors and they weigh each one. Some want small dogs some want big dogs some want yellow dogs, etc, etc and everyone wants a dogs that is easy to train and a good performer. No one seems to criticize those choices so why the criticism for folks that make choices about CNM or EIC status?

For me, why not a CNM carrier but OK with an EIC carrier? Well, that gets down to the frequency of the deleterious allele for these diseases in the field labrador population. I suspect that the CNM gene is at a relatively low frequency (~10% according to old reports). There is a post on here from 3 years ago where the CNM folks said that they would be publishing this data from their work but I have yet to see it. If indeed the CNM frequency is low then it will be relatively easy to avoid these dogs in a breeding program because there are many non-CNM carriers to choose from based on what I understand. EIC is a different story. The best available data suggests that it is at about 40% frequency. At this frequency it is more likely that EIC carriers would be in the pool of candidates for breeding so from a practical standpoint I am open to considering one if I ever breed a dog again.

Ed, I think you should look at all my previous posts on this subject. I have never condemned breeding carriers. If you find a post where I have, please let me know. As has been illustrated here in this thread, every time one of these discussions happens those that say they won't breed a carrier are called things like "irresponsible" and told that they are going to ruin the breed. There is this presumption by many that there are no risks to breeding carriers as long as you do not not produce affecteds. Several posts in this thread confirm this notion. I disagree with this presumption based on a bunch of courses in population genetics. What I have consistently tried to point out is that there are risks to breeding carriers. The risk is that you will continue to increase the frequency of these deleterious alleles in the population. There are at least four basic breeding strategies at hand given these new tests:
1) Continue current breeding practices and breed carriers at the same rate as non-carriers ("random breeding") and EIC will likely stay at a 40% frequency.
2) Continue breeding practices where carriers are sometimes bred at a greater rate than non-carriers and EIC gets higher than 40% frequency. This is exactly how EIC got to 40% today.
3) Continue breeding practices where carriers are bred less frequently than non-carriers and reduce the frequency of EIC.
4) Continue breeding practices where carriers are bred but their progeny that are carriers are bred less frequently than non-carriers and reduce the frequency of EIC.

These are the choices as I see them. Everyone can make their own choice and I have never told anyone what their choice should be. I suspect that market forces will result in a reduced frequency of EIC out there.
My questions from page 3 still stand for folks to consider.
_Do you want to maintain or increase EIC at 40% + or do you want its frequency reduced?_
_To those who say, "what does it matter?". If EIC gets to 60% would it matter to you then? When will it matter to you?_


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Montview said:


> Really?? Maybe I haven't been going to the right shows.
> Standing or laying down, those two dogs' photos (the coats, heads, and degree of "bone" you can see from the pictures) are the epitome of the labradors at the shows I've been to the past couple of years.


I don't see the "Rottie look" at all and although they have bone, I doubt that it was ever added by requiring that the dogs be 20-30 pounds overweight for proper ring appearance. ... bone cannot be added by increasing food intake...but fat sure can...


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Don't think you are going to find a bed of roses in the CH/MH area-just different stuff.


"Too true, dat!" as Junior would say.

Back when, there was a female trainer that put a MH on a CH yellow male at a trial I was at. The crowd went nuts! You would have thought a cure for EIC or CNM was discovered. When I asked her how the stats were for the dog I got the "Well, he had a disadvantaged puppydom..." and a tale of woe. When I redirected it was "Enough to get his MH." When I additionally redirected, I was left with the feeling it was in the 5/20ish range...but the dog was a CH/MH and that was all that mattered...I guess.

Just Seating On A Duck Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

afdahl said:


> The incidence and carrier rate of EIC are evidence of a small gene pool. Previously unrecognized genetic defects can become widespread in a couple of ways--heavy use of popular sires, as referenced by others on this thread, and by restriction of breeding animals in reaction to some other (existing or perceived) defect.
> 
> Genetic diversity and the need for it are more than I can explain in a brief post. If you examine pedigrees of field trial Labradors, however, you will see the same dogs behind all of them, over and over and over.
> 
> ...


I agree that the predominance of one sire recently has effectively reduced the size of the field labrador gene pool but that does not mean it is small. Compared to all other performance breeds like a variety of pointers, golden retrievers, and CBR's the LR gene pool is large. Richard Halstead has quoted a Coefficient of Inbreeding that is quite small compared to other breeds. Also, compared to other breeds there is little true linebreeding in field labradors which effectively increases the gene pool compared to these breeds. We also have AI now and a variety of hunting test programs that bring lots of different blood into the population. I do not fear a little more selection against EIC but then I am not running FTs. Like 99.99% of folks interested in labradors I just want a good dog.

Do you find it interesting that no one rallied against jumping on the Lean Mac bandwagon because it would reduce the size of the gene pool but when folks suggest that they won't breed to carriers they are told that they are irresponsible and do not understand genetics? Performance above everything else has its consequences too.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Montview said:


> But why stop at 50 years ago? Do many people choose that "50 years ago" time frame because they *did* look like our field dogs of today? That's probably true...many of the field dogs of today look more like the Dual Champions of 50 years ago. However, photos from back when the breed was _originally _developed (we're talking even before the turn of the century) the dogs look a lot more like the show dogs of today than the field dogs of today, I think.
> 
> Here are some of the dogs to which I'm referring...those in all of the labrador history books:
> 
> ...


Neither one of these dogs would win in the ring today. Their heads are not broad enough, they don't have much of a stop and their ears are way to big for their heads. Ear set alone would have them bounced from the ring.

Those dogs look like these dogs only older.

http://windriverlabs.com/windriver_000017.htm

http://windriverlabs.com/windriver_00001e.htm

WRL


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Henry V said:


> but when folks suggest that they won't breed to carriers they are told that they are irresponsible and do not understand genetics? Performance above everything else has its consequences too.


Henry, folks on the other side of the fence (those with carriers that wish to breed them) have been told the same thing here. The criticism is not just one sided.

I agree, performance above everything else does have its consequences. I'm not a "show" person and I'm probably not a hard-core "field" folk either, but I can see there are some extremists that do not care if their dogs look and behave like hyenas on crack as long as they bring home the blue. It also goes both ways with the show dogs having their extremes too- i.e. Rottie heads, extra weight, lack of drive, etc. The breed is a LABRADOR RETRIEVER and when you take out either one of those two words, the breed ceases to be what it was intended to be IMHO.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Montview said:


> But why stop at 50 years ago? Do many people choose that "50 years ago" time frame because they *did* look like our field dogs of today? That's probably true...many of the field dogs of today look more like the Dual Champions of 50 years ago. However, photos from back when the breed was _originally _developed (we're talking even before the turn of the century) the dogs look a lot more like the show dogs of today than the field dogs of today, I think.
> 
> Here are some of the dogs to which I'm referring...those in all of the labrador history books:
> 
> ...


I had to laugh. My 13 yr old gal (all field) looks so much like Nell... frosting on the feet and all.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Joe S. said:


> "Too true, dat!" as Junior would say.
> 
> Back when, there was a female trainer that put a MH on a CH yellow male at a trial I was at. The crowd went nuts! You would have thought a cure for EIC or CNM was discovered. When I asked her how the stats were for the dog I got the "Well, he had a disadvantaged puppydom..." and a tale of woe. When I redirected it was "Enough to get his MH." When I additionally redirected, I was left with the feeling it was in the 5/20ish range...but the dog was a CH/MH and that was all that mattered...I guess.
> 
> ...



Because you saw one CH/MH w/ a less than stellar pass record, they all must be like that. Shaking my head. Does it make you feel better to downgrade an entire group of people, some who are trying their best to remain professional and courteous through reading these insults? I can attest to seeing many a show dog that spent their first 4-5 yrs in a kennel w/ no formal obed, no birds, no nothing. And when they got out to do JH, if they got stuck w/ crappy judges who set up bankrunning tests that turned them into cheating fools unbeknownest to a newbie handler who didn't initially plan to go past JH, then they got to undo that too before SH and MH. If you don't think that is a severe handicap, you are missing a few screws!  Btw, another friend just finished a MH on a dog w/ no ecollar. I'll have to ask what her record was, but it wasn't too shabby once they found their groove. I find that level of communication pretty cool. 

And Erinsedge, how many venues outside of field have you done w/ your dogs? Too easy, is it? You'll never know til you try.  Actually when I was running Rosa (CDX SH OA OAJ CC) in agility, a well respected MH level 8 judge was running her MH (field trial sired) girl as well. She had a BLAST, even when she NQd... yes, it happens even to the best dogs and handlers. I learned a lot by watching others like her, very much uninhibited to try new sports and ENJOY them with their dogs. I ran into another respected judge recently at an agility trial who I discovered teaches formal obed and used to compete, really looking hard at agility. I hope she does as it is definitely different to train for in the handling sense!

Just so folks don't paint all CH/MH's with Joe's brush, I will share with you 3 x CH, 2x MH Cook's Midnight Bandit's stats. He sired 2 litters for me. He did his AKC MH in 5 of 6 tests (failed one) and his GMHR in 16 tests (failed one). And has his AKC, Mexican and FCI Intl CH titles. He is owned by Jim Cook, a guy who just wanted a nice hunting dog when he bought him from JanRod labs. I can't tell you the joy that owner still has in his voice w/ that dog. He's 15 now, and obviously is his heart dog. So go ahead, belittle his 1 failure in each of those venues if that makes you feel superior. I love what that dog produced for me and every hunt test I have taken his daughters to, I get compliments from even the die hard field people, not just on working ability but looks and temperament too. Continue to ignore the standard and belittle us all you want, but interestingly enough, the biggest protest over the LRC/AKC standard revision was that it was penned primarily by a group of field people! ;-) Anne


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

I dunno, my bench bred dogs don't resemble Rotties...and my 12 1/2 YO was still out hunting with hubby last Fall....waterfowl in the AM, upland later in the day. So was her mother and she never had a lame day in her 14 years.

Poke fun all you want. At least I do fieldwork with my dogs and they go hunting. They also more than likely are closer to the breed standard than many field dogs. 

I just finished my 2 YO boy's Can CH two weeks ago and his AKC CH this past weekend. Including wins under all-breed and breeder judges. He will be doing obedience over the winter and fieldwork in the spring.

*Some* of us at least are trying to prove that a Lab bred to the standard can succeed in any venue and we don't need to make fun of other's breeding programs/dogs to make our point.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

nwlabs said:


> I dunno, my bench bred dogs don't resemble Rotties...and my 12 1/2 YO was still out hunting with hubby last Fall....waterfowl in the AM, upland later in the day. So was her mother and she never had a lame day in her 14 years.
> 
> Poke fun all you want. At least I do fieldwork with my dogs and they go hunting. They also more than likely are closer to the breed standard than many field dogs.
> 
> ...


And good for you. Not all bench dogs are "overdone". BUT even you must admit that a vast majority of them are. AND a vast majority of them are not worked nor bred for working ability.

Its a lot easier to redefine type and bone structure than it is to breed in working ability.

WRL


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

WRL said:


> And good for you. Not all bench dogs are "overdone". BUT even you must admit that a vast majority of them are. AND a vast majority of them are not worked nor bred for working ability.
> 
> Its a lot easier to redefine type and bone structure than it is to breed in working ability.
> 
> WRL


I'm not sure I can agree with that 2nd part Lee. It has taken me a LONG time to set a better front, even using some dogs that were prepotent for that and that was starting w/ a field dog w/ quite a nice front (according to folks who knew far more about structure than I probably still do, though I'm trying). Heads seem fast to change to the better or worse, but fronts seem easy to wreck and slow to fix. 

I agree --from a performance standpoint-- that many conformation dogs are overdone. I think my youngest (who Lee saw at one of the hunt tests recently) has about as much bone as I dare to have to still be able to versatility work, especially agility. We'll see but I think we're on the edge there. What is sad is that she looked like a petite, fine boned 6 mo old (yet was almost 18 mos) when I showed her the one time this spring. The 15 mo old bitch next to her looked like an adult dog when they did their go arounds. Ah well, it is what it is and I was glad I'd only entered her in one show! ;-)


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

WRL said:


> And good for you. Not all bench dogs are "overdone". BUT even you must admit that a vast majority of them are. AND a vast majority of them are not worked nor bred for working ability.


I agree that *some* are overdone, but honestly many are NOT overdone. I just hate that you have people who breed working show lines here on this forum who have not lost sight of the importance of working ability and for the most part we are dismissed. I think a lot could be learned from one another if old prejudices were set aside for a meaningful discussion.

I would be glad to post pics of pups/adult photos of a few of my dogs so you can see how they developed if anyone is interested.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

nwlabs said:


> I would be glad to post pics of pups/adult photos of a few of my dogs so you can see how they developed if anyone is interested.



Post away... ;-)

What I would like is information on how I can tell a good front end from a bad one. I have a pretty good idea, but that's it. Also, you hear a lot that knee problems are due to poor angulation in the rear. But I'm not sure how to judge that either.

I have a friend that's been breeding dogs since the 60's and once had a dream of a dual champion, and aside from her head and being light on bone, she says that my young FT bred female is very well put together. She says that she now believes that the two segments of the breed have diverges so much that she believes that it is no longer possible.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> Because you saw one CH/MH w/ a less than stellar pass record, they all must be like that. Shaking my head. Does it make you feel better to downgrade an entire group of people, some who are trying their best to remain professional and courteous through reading these insults? I can attest to seeing many a show dog that spent their first 4-5 yrs in a kennel w/ no formal obed, no birds, no nothing. And when they got out to do JH, if they got stuck w/ crappy judges who set up bankrunning tests that turned them into cheating fools unbeknownest to a newbie handler who didn't initially plan to go past JH, then they got to undo that too before SH and MH. If you don't think that is a severe handicap, you are missing a few screws!  Btw, another friend just finished a MH on a dog w/ no ecollar. I'll have to ask what her record was, but it wasn't too shabby once they found their groove. I find that level of communication pretty cool.
> 
> And Erinsedge, how many venues outside of field have you done w/ your dogs? Too easy, is it? You'll never know til you try.  Actually when I was running Rosa (CDX SH OA OAJ CC) in agility, a well respected MH level 8 judge was running her MH (field trial sired) girl as well. She had a BLAST, even when she NQd... yes, it happens even to the best dogs and handlers. I learned a lot by watching others like her, very much uninhibited to try new sports and ENJOY them with their dogs. I ran into another respected judge recently at an agility trial who I discovered teaches formal obed and used to compete, really looking hard at agility. I hope she does as it is definitely different to train for in the handling sense!
> 
> Just so folks don't paint all CH/MH's with Joe's brush, I will share with you 3 x CH, 2x MH Cook's Midnight Bandit's stats. He sired 2 litters for me. He did his AKC MH in 5 of 6 tests (failed one) and his GMHR in 16 tests (failed one). And has his AKC, Mexican and FCI Intl CH titles. He is owned by Jim Cook, a guy who just wanted a nice hunting dog when he bought him from JanRod labs. I can't tell you the joy that owner still has in his voice w/ that dog. He's 15 now, and obviously is his heart dog. So go ahead, belittle his 1 failure in each of those venues if that makes you feel superior. I love what that dog produced for me and every hunt test I have taken his daughters to, I get compliments from even the die hard field people, not just on working ability but looks and temperament too. Continue to ignore the standard and belittle us all you want, but interestingly enough, the biggest protest over the LRC/AKC standard revision was that it was penned primarily by a group of field people! ;-) Anne


Relax, Francis. Take a deep breath. You seem to be somewhat hypersensitive to this subject.

I pointed to one dog as an EXAMPLE of some of the problems with thinking a CH/MH is all that. It is not the only CH/MH I have seen. It IS the CH/MH I mentioned. You feel insulted, apparently, because the comment struck too close to home. I am sorry you feel that way. I am sure there are good, or maybe even great, CH/MH dogs out their with impressive field/hunt test accomplishments. I am also sure that the fine folks that train the dogs pour there hearts into it the process, just like those that don't elect to go the CH route for whatever reason.

Again, for the record, the CH dogs that I have seen do not seem capable of spending a day in the field. They appear to me to be squat, grossly over weight and lacking the desire to locate much more than the food bowl at dinner time. I am sure that neither my total experience with CH dogs nor the lone dog you singled out for what seems to be a well deserved pat-on-the-head are representative of the vast majority of CH or CH-wannabe dogs.

Polite Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

WRL said:


> Well with the release of the new EIC test, how many people are going to breed dogs that are carriers for both CNM and EIC?
> 
> Frankly, I think that finding a dog that is NOT a carrier for EIC AND CNM is going to be difficult if the 40% carrier rate for EIC is accurate.
> 
> WRL


Could be worse. Border collies breeders have three recently developed DNA tests to breed around.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Relax, Francis. Take a deep breath. You seem to be somewhat hypersensitive to this subject
> Polite Regards,
> Joe S.


Oh Joe, you are such a romantic....:razz:

Those who believe that breeding a Master Hunter male to any female would/could produce a National competitive field trial retriever are delusional

Likewise those who believe that doing "field work" with a confirmation dog or agility dog could produce a dog who could compete at a weekend field trial much less as a National competitor also believe that the boys who play Little League baseball could compete in Major League baseball

People who seek dogs with the ability to compete on a National level understand how rare these dogs are and how difficult it is to find one.


----------



## jrock (Dec 30, 2007)

Maybe we can learn something from non canine breeding practices. European sporthorse breeders subject their potential breeding stock to a very rigorous evaluation process. They judge the horse on conformation; 100 days of evaluation of performance, temperment and trainability; and the first year's foal crop. If found lacking in any of these areas, the horse is not allowed to be used for breeding. However, this has not been accepted in the US because of putting profit or performance ahead of improving the whole breed. We Americans resist being told what we can or can't do. I don't know that a group as diversified as those of us who breed, train, show, or compete with Labs could ever come together to agree on an organized way to approach this issue. Our priorities and goals are so different.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

EdA said:


> People who seek dogs with the ability to compete on a National level understand how rare these dogs are and how difficult it is to find one.


The secret recipe? Just.......... what do the National qualifiers and finishers(the awesome freaks - litter mates also who "do" good) have in common, besides great drive and training, plus marking ability?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Aussie said:


> The secret recipe? Just.......... what do the National qualifiers and finishers(the awesome freaks - litter mates also who "do" good) have in common, besides great drive and training, plus marking ability?


it's simple really , *GREAT PARENTS*, but not all of their offspring are good enough even with the best of breedings........good trainers help but given a gifted dog or a gifted trainer give me the gifted dog 100% of the time


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Aussie said:


> The secret recipe? Just.......... what do the National qualifiers and finishers(the awesome freaks - litter mates also who "do" good) have in common, besides great drive and training, plus marking ability?


someone with an ample bankroll $$$ to fund their training and the means to campaign them against the best competition in the best venues....a little bit of luck and a *real thick skin* about accepting advice from other dog people as to what is best for your dog...hope I get to meet that person someday


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

EdA said:


> it's simple really , *GREAT PARENTS*, but not all of their offspring are good enough even with the best of breedings........good trainers help but given a gifted dog or a gifted trainer give me the gifted dog 100% of the time


Ed : you had the privilege to witness possibly the greatest trainer/handler of all time with two different exceptional athletes win our sports greatest titles..I think the trainer in this case was the difference and Honcho and Cody were more than gifted...


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

While there certainly are many people with lots of money in FTs, there are also average, middle class types, who make lots of sacrifices to have competitive dogs. Once you have been to the top of the mountain, it's hard to go back.


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Well, we have the answer here folks...even though these conformation-type breeders have no interest in higher hunt test stakes or competitive field trials, we need to dummy down our breeding to their level


Dummy down? Spare me. 

Again, I find it amusing how negative *some* are and how broadly they generalize. Ahhh, and the predictable name calling. Thats fine, I won't sink to *your* level and do the same. I have worked hard at my breeding program to produce good looking dogs who can work.

I wouldn't dare question your choices on what you choose to focus on or do with your dogs, and yet those of us who choose to include the conformation ring as one of the MANY things we do with our dogs, we get blasted. Don't you find that rather a double standard? I choose to do Conformation/Hunt Tests/Obedience (have gone through Utility if that is "high" enough performance wise for ya). You choose to do FT. Good for you. I choose other pursuits. Who cares? 

Bottom line, you can't have a meaningful discussion when one party is not willing to consider possibilities outside the realm of their "comfort zone". Its a shame really because we all share the love of the best breed there is....regardless of their pedigree. 

Oh and back to a question asked here. Who would use an EIC or CNM carrier stud (for example) in their breeding program? I sure would.....on an EIC or CNM CLEAR bitch. Not sure how many field people use the Optigen PRA test, but its the same principal. The test allows us to use carriers in our program without the fear of producing an affected dog. I have used PRA carrier dogs with my NORMAL (non carrier) bitches. I simply need to test the pups I keep and make appropriate breeding decisions. The tests are meant not to eliminate carriers from our pedigrees, but rather breed intelligently armed with this knowledge so that we never produce a PRA (or EIC or CNM) affected dog. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but you know how things have to be "dummied down" for we simpleton non FT folks. I could be all confoosed.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

bonbonjovi said:


> Ed : you had the privilege to witness possibly the greatest trainer/handler of all time with two different exceptional athletes win our sports greatest titles..I think the trainer in this case was the difference and Honcho and Cody were more than gifted...


You would get no argument from me, she was/is THE BEST IMHO, and a better trainer (not necessarily innovator) than her mentor and a better trainer (by his own admission) than her Number One pupil who has done pretty well on his own.....


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

EdA said:


> Oh Joe, you are such a romantic....:razz:


Guilty As Charged Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Joe S. said:


> Relax, Francis. Take a deep breath. You seem to be somewhat hypersensitive to this subject. <snip>
> Polite Regards,
> 
> Joe S.



Oh Joe S., 
Are you buttering me up now? Jus' quit that... 
No, I am not "hypersensitive" at all. Just calling to your (polite) attention that focusing on one dog of the 43 or so that have earned that status that may not up to your standards or according to the book of Joe S., is just plain rude. I guess I was raised to respect other people and their accomplishments a little more than that. 
Anne, whose aunt was Sister Anne Francis btw ;-)


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

EdA said:


> Those who believe that breeding a Master Hunter male to any female would/could produce a National competitive field trial retriever are delusional
> 
> Likewise those who believe that doing "field work" with a confirmation dog or agility dog could produce a dog who could compete at a weekend field trial much less as a National competitor also believe that the boys who play Little League baseball could compete in Major League baseball.


EdA, 
You need to go review the posts if you are referring to me. Work on that reading comprehension while you are at it, and oh yes, spelling ;-) ... Mr Booty tried to give you boys a spelling lesson, yet you've already forgotten. ConFORMation. Got it now?  

ConfIrmation is something I went through long ago, about 5th grade. 

Signed, Anne "Mary" (Mary being my confIrmation name if memory serves me right)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Guess I didn't reference my comments that were in response to


windycanyon said:


> I also want to breed dogs that are "user friendly" so figure if I can do it, most anyone can.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Dear Santa,

I don't know if you have been checking on me or not but, I swear I've been a good boy this year. I know you are a busy dude and forgot what I asked for last year. The sweater you brought me is great and I get to wear it when it gets cold, all 4 days. So Santa, you owe me big time this year and I'll make my list very short.

I want a shinny new black dog and you can spare the ribbon and bow. Please read the Labrador Retriever Standard as I don't want a black poodle. My shinny new black dog needs to be able to hunt ducks under difficult conditions as we hunt sometimes in gumbo mud that can turn to ice. My buddies are terrible shots so the dog needs to be able to mark birds well. When I am hunting with them we often have as many as six ducks to pick up at a time because I rarely miss. Please don't bring me a dog that will get sick or be crippled in his prime years.

Oh, and he has to be good looking too as I'll be letting him ride in the front seat of my pickup.

Tell Ms Clause I think you married over your head. Thanks Santa and I'll leave a cold one for you.

Mr Booty 

P S If he can win FT ribbons that would be great but, not as important as being a great hunting dog. 

Thanks Santa


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Booty-
Very funny!!! You are a clever man....

Its funny how this discussion has gone from the EIC carriers,all the way back to the field vs show vs ugly vs pretty discussion! 
It was about time for that one again....


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Billie said:


> Booty-
> Very funny!!! You are a clever man....
> 
> Its funny how this discussion has gone from the EIC carriers,all the way back to the field vs show vs ugly vs pretty discussion!
> It was about time for that one again....


Yeah, this has totally morphed.

Really, it has morphed from the original question which was "who is going to breed to a CNM AND EIC carrier"....meaning, it may be time to pick which devil to dance with rather than having an option to not dance.

It will be interesting to see if that 40% carrier number holds up.

WRL


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

WRL said:


> Yeah, this has totally morphed.
> 
> Really, it has morphed from the original question which was "who is going to breed to a CNM AND EIC carrier"....meaning, it may be time to pick which devil to dance with rather than having an option to not dance.
> 
> ...


It always morphs into that old field vs show thing. What else is new?

However, I did answer the question in one of my posts. I will use these tests just as I have used the Optigen PRA test. If the best dog for my bitch is a carrier and my bitch is neither affected or a carrier, *Yes* I will breed to the dog. I sure hope people are not so short-sighted as to throw out a good dog or bitch for being a carrier. With these tests you can breed around EIC/CNM and never produce an affected dog which is the goal of the test. 

I have been using the Optigen PRA test since the second/improved test came out in 2003 and Optigen re-tested my previously (all normal) dogs with the blood they had in storage when they actually located the gene and the test went from a gene marker test to a gene test.

As an aside, do any field people use the Optigen test?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> It always morphs into that old field vs show thing. What else is new?


That's right...same old thing. If you read the thread, you would see the little elitist jabs thrown for pages, which some of us DO catch, so expect a retaliation, especially because in your dreams is changing a topline or front end going to give you more success in the field at the higher levels (which none of you are interested in anyway). Instead of crying foul, take responsibility for what was instigated.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

My opinion on breeding carriers is that with the rapid way new genetic tests are being developed, we're able to know exactly what each dog is carrying, which is a good thing...and they're all carrying something we don't want, it's just a matter of time before the next big genetic issue pops up that we haven't heard of yet. The more bloodlines that are eliminated form the gene pool, the faster the next crop of genetic issues is likely to manifest.

With issues requiring a breeding of carrier to carrier to produce an affected puppy, we can breed around the problems and never have an affected puppy, which is the goal.

Again, with the way new tests are popping up all the time, if we eliminate all carriers from breeding consideration and then new tests eliminate more and more dogs from being "clear" of any genetic defects, pretty soon we won't have any dogs left to breed. Or, as others have said, by tightening the gene pool now by eliminating carriers other genetic issues will pop up.
While I'd like to breed clear to clear for all issues, if a good stud has everything else I want and my bitch is clear for whatever genetic issue he has, I'd still use him. 

We need to keep the genetic diversity...and just breed responsibly, using the knowledge we gain from the tests to NEVER produce an affected puppy, be it EIC, CNM, PRA, and so on.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Sharon Potter said:


> The more bloodlines that are eliminated form the gene pool, the faster the next crop of genetic issues is likely to manifest.


OFA and CERF have eliminated many thousands of dogs from the gene pool. Do you believe that the use of OFA and CERF has narrowed the gene pool and, in effect, caused EIC and CNM? If so, do you advocate the same approach to CERF and OFA results? OFA positive dogs can be bred and may not be any more likely to produce affecteds than an EIC carrier if carefully bred. I would argue that the prevalence of these diseases is do to breeding practices unrelated to the currently available "tests".


> With issues requiring a breeding of carrier to carrier to produce an affected puppy, we can breed around the problems and never have an affected puppy, which is the goal.


That is "a" goal but it does not have to be everyone's goal. That goal is most likely to maintain EIC at 40% or it could increase. Some folks may want to reduce the frequency of this deleterious form of the gene. If EIC gets even more common at what point will it be difficult to "breed around". If you reach that point, what will your breeding strategy change to?



> While I'd like to breed clear to clear for all issues, if a good stud has everything else I want and my bitch is clear for whatever genetic issue he has, I'd still use him.


I agree with this but I think there are plenty of dogs to choose from especially when compared to other sporting breeds.

I am surprised that, given all this apparent concern about genetic diversity and eliminating dogs from the gene pool, someone has not suggested that we need to breed all carriers and affecteds to keep the gene pool large. We could then just test puppies and cull those that are affected. This strategy will keep all the genes and not result in any affected dogs either. This is a legitimate breeding strategy with high risk but also with high potential rewards for the elite FT dog.


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> The more bloodlines that are eliminated form the gene pool, the faster the next crop of genetic issues is likely to manifest.



I don't think you have to eliminate entire bloodlines from the gene pool. In fact, I would consider breeding a clear dog to a carrier but my intention would be to keep back a clear puppy with which to continue that particular bloodline. You may have to work at eliminating one disease in each generation if your bloodline of favor is particular troubled. There is also the option of breeding to a clear sibling of a carrier dog, if one is interested in promoting the bloodline without promoting the carrier status.... in any case, in order to safely breed to a carrier dog, we are always going to need at least one CLEAR dog.... so ultimately that's what I will be trying to produce.

Erin


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Henry V said:


> I am surprised that, given all this apparent concern about genetic diversity and eliminating dogs from the gene pool, someone has not suggested that we need to breed all carriers and affecteds to keep the gene pool large. We could then just test puppies and cull those that are affected. This strategy will keep all the genes and not result in any affected dogs either. This is a legitimate breeding strategy with high risk but also with high potential rewards for the elite FT dog.


Cull? Did you say c-c-c-cull?

My God man, have you lost your mind? It doesn't matter if the theory makes sense or not, it would take < .00000000000000001 of a nano-second and the dog world would cease to exist as we know it.

It Wouldn't Be Allowed As A Path Forward Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

I am amazed how many completely moronic statements can be made in only 15 pages of a thread.

The saddest part is the ones that I am talking about will think I'm talking about someone else.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Yep. I said cull. It was probably an often used technique many years ago in field labradors. It has been extensively used in other breeds and in other animals. If your goal is the ultimate in FT performance your strategy could certainly include breeding carriers and maybe affecteds and culling affected pups. I have no problem with that but you had better know what your doing and get all the healthy progeny into serious FT homes.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Henry V said:


> OFA and CERF have eliminated many thousands of dogs from the gene pool. Do you believe that the use of OFA and CERF has narrowed the gene pool and, in effect, caused EIC and CNM? If so, do you advocate the same approach to CERF and OFA results? OFA positive dogs can be bred and may not be any more likely to produce affecteds than an EIC carrier if carefully bred. I would argue that the prevalence of these diseases is do to breeding practices unrelated to the currently available "tests".


OFA....testing for hip dysplasia isn't the same as EIC, CNM, etc. because hip dysplasia is a polygenic trait, unlike EIC, CNM, etc. OFA results can only tell you if your dog is affected and to what degree....it is not a genetic test.

Do I know for a fact that eliminating dogs with poor OFA or CERF ratings has narrowed the gene pool and that's why stuff like CNM, EIC, and so on is showing up? Of course not. But consider the possibility that it *may* have. And, with actual genetic testing for EIC and CNM vs. radiographic evidence of bad hips....eliminating the breeding of all carriers of any genetic anomaly from the gene pool will eventually make a difference, and it's not likely to be for the better.



Henry V said:


> That is "a" goal but it does not have to be everyone's goal. That goal is most likely to maintain EIC at 40% or it could increase. Some folks may want to reduce the frequency of this deleterious form of the gene. If EIC gets even more common at what point will it be difficult to "breed around". If you reach that point, what will your breeding strategy change to?


If I breed carrier to non-carrier, there will never be an affected puppy. EIC is not likely to become more common as we use the genetic tests available. Maintaining the status quo of 40% carriers is a viable alternative, and will likely decrease somewhat as breeders make more responsible decisions.

Should I breed carrier to clear, the pups will be tested and any carriers will be sold with limited registration. That way I can keep the particular line without running the risk of someone else breeding less responsibly.




Henry V said:


> I am surprised that, given all this apparent concern about genetic diversity and eliminating dogs from the gene pool, someone has not suggested that we need to breed all carriers and affecteds to keep the gene pool large. We could then just test puppies and cull those that are affected. This strategy will keep all the genes and not result in any affected dogs either. This is a legitimate breeding strategy with high risk but also with high potential rewards for the elite FT dog.


OK, you lost me there ....how does culling affected puppies after breeding carrier to carrier or affected keep there from being more affected puppies? As long as carried and affected dogs are bred, there *will* be affected puppies. Just because we kill 'em after testing doesn't mean they weren't affected.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Kinderdoggin said:


> I don't think you have to eliminate entire bloodlines from the gene pool.


This is correct.

I'm getting a pup sired by the #4 Open dog last year that is from a line that is known to carry CNM. The stud is clear and so is the dam.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Kinderdoggin said:


> I don't think you have to eliminate entire bloodlines from the gene pool. In fact, I would consider breeding a clear dog to a carrier but my intention would be to keep back a clear puppy with which to continue that particular bloodline.
> Erin



Intention is the key word here. A few people tried that with PRA, and maybe they still do it, but the reality of it all is you may be taking a bigger step backward. The Cattle Dog folks are good examples-- LOTS of affected PRA dogs in that breed, to the point they are having to breed Affecteds (wisely to Clear) to not lose the gene pool.

Let's pretend you are presented with a litter and there are one or two clear standouts in the group. They have that package you've been shooting for. Then you find out they are both Carriers for "x" disease. The clear ones all have something pretty major wrong with them:  bad fronts, tipped pelvises or slipped hocks and you know they aren't a good bet (regardless of your game of choice). 

What are you going to do then? In the end, I go w/ my best bet (the pick/s), and if it takes another generation or 2 to get the carrier out of an otherwise improving line, so be it. We have the tests now to help us do that.


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> That's right...same old thing. If you read the thread, you would see the little elitist jabs thrown for pages, which some of us DO catch, so expect a retaliation, especially because in your dreams is changing a topline or front end going to give you more success in the field at the higher levels (which none of you are interested in anyway). Instead of crying foul, take responsibility for what was instigated.


Nancy...I have read the thread...and I take full responsibility for both my words and actions whether good or bad. I happen to find comments like "elitist jabs" and "none of you are interested in anyway" are made in order to provoke an argument...don't you? Its making things "personal". Any discussion I have regarding dogs in which we disagree is not personal, so please don't turn it into something it is not.

You are assuming I am not interested in higher level events, but I in fact I am interested in all things Labrador. I have been to a FT and I thought it was awesome to watch. Is it what I want to do? No, but I can still admire and appreciate the fact that you and others do and admire your success. I think its great when you are successful in anything that is important to you. I mean that.

I guess I just don't understand the negativity. I have *lots* of friends who do FT and MH tests and they don't make fun of me or my dogs or what I choose to pursue. I guess if my friends don't care what I do or why I choose to, why on earth would a perfect stranger care so much that they have to poke fun at me and my dogs and breeding program.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Sharon, Thanks for the direct reply to my responses to your post.


> OFA....testing for hip dysplasia isn't the same as EIC, CNM, etc. because hip dysplasia is a polygenic trait, unlike EIC, CNM, etc. OFA results can only tell you if your dog is affected and to what degree....it is not a genetic test.


Your are right and I know these are not "genetic" tests. I also know that OFA is quite inaccurate in terms of the test results and heritability. I raise the comparison of EIC/CNM tests because folks always seem to want to talk about the dangers of reducing the size of the gene pool. As a community we have chosen to eliminate virtually all dogs that do not pass the OFA "test" despite its somewhat dubious benefits to reducing the incidence of HD. It is curious to me that many seem perfectly willing to use an imperfect test like OFA to remove dogs from the gene pool but then turn around and are unwilling to consider eliminating some dogs based on the results of very accurate genetic tests. It appears to me that the field labrador population has done just fine despite this intense selection and elimination of many of thousands of dogs from the gene pool. I think it can take a little more selection from more careful breeding based on the EIC/CNM tests.


> If I breed carrier to non-carrier, there will never be an affected puppy. EIC is not likely to become more common as we use the genetic tests available. Maintaining the status quo of 40% carriers is a viable alternative, and will likely decrease somewhat as breeders make more responsible decisions.
> 
> Should I breed carrier to clear, the pups will be tested and any carriers will be sold with limited registration. That way I can keep the particular line without running the risk of someone else breeding less responsibly.


I generally agree with this and have noted previously that market forces are likely to reduce the frequency of EIC. I raised this issue because in my experience there are many folks that have been told that there are no consequences to breeding carriers to clear as long as you don't produce affecteds. You understand that the consequence of using this strategy is that the incidence of EIC will stay at 40% without other selective forces. I totally respect that you have thought this through and have decided you can accept a 40% rate that may slowly be reduced. EIC could increase above 40% if carriers are bred at a higher rate than non-carriers in the population. I would speculate that it has risen to 40% because of the dominance of two recent prepotent sires. If there is another similar sire or two in future generations and they are used in a similar way to the last ones I would expect the frequency of EIC to increase above 40% unless folks use limited registration as you suggest.


> OK, you lost me there ....how does culling affected puppies after breeding carrier to carrier or affected keep there from being more affected puppies? As long as carried and affected dogs are bred, there *will* be affected puppies. Just because we kill 'em after testing doesn't mean they weren't affected.


Note I said won't produce affected "dogs". Perhaps I should have said adult dogs. Again, this was thrown out there to describe a breeding strategy that would preserve the size of the gene pool since some here seem so concerned about that. It is a legitimate breeding strategy employed in other breeds and in other animals where there is a small gene pool.


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> We need to keep the genetic diversity...and just breed responsibly, using the knowledge we gain from the tests to NEVER produce an affected puppy, be it EIC, CNM, PRA, and so on.


Absolutely! There is no reason to eliminate dogs from a breeding program. With the tests available, you as a breeder are able to make educated decisions in your breeding program. Even just a decade ago, we were guessing the PRA carrier status in our dogs. 

Did anyone else see that Optigen is now offering a test for Retinal Dysplasia?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

nwlabs said:


> I guess I just don't understand the negativity. I have *lots* of friends who do FT and MH tests and they don't make fun of me or my dogs or what I choose to pursue. I guess if my friends don't care what I do or why I choose to, why on earth would a perfect stranger care so much that they have to poke fun at me and my dogs and breeding program.


Ditto here. I don't ever remember anyone putting anyone else or their dogs down in any of my training groups and I think because we all complement one another and we know it. Regardless of the breeding, all of us get together and do bird intro/aptitude testing AND conformation evals on our puppies (I have some photos of some very nice FT sired litters here somewhere). 

And don't tell anyone but I actually convinced Billie to stack Micker Picker for me once-- Shhhhh! (Love that little girl... wish you'd have kept a boy though!). ;-)


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Henry V said:


> I agree with this but I think there are plenty of dogs to choose from especially when compared to other sporting breeds.


Actually, we don't know this yet. It will be interesting to see what studs are carriers vs. clear of EIC coupled with the carrier vs. clear status of the CNM test.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Henry V said:


> . I would speculate that it has risen to 40% because of the dominance of a recent prepotent sire.


amend that to at least 2 frequently used and prepotent sires coupled with the enormous numbers of litters they sired due to the availability of frozen semen allows me to speculate that 40% carriers may be conservative.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

EdA said:


> amend that to at least 2 frequently used and prepotent sires coupled with the enormous numbers of litters they sired due to the availability of frozen semen allows me to speculate that 40% carriers may be conservative.


While I would love to think that was the explanation, I seem to remember Katie saying that their data suggested that the incidence of EIC was relatively uniform in both field and show lines suggesting that the key _ancestors_ pre-dated the split of the breed. My fear is that because of the "2 frequently used and prepotent sires" we may find that the incidence of carriers among FC studs is higher than 50% (because of line breeding). I don't know if the sample size studied is sufficient to draw any particular conclusions. Maybe Katie can clarify without violating confidentiality concerns.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

There seems to be a wider dispersion through out show lines.
With the help of Good dog info and knowing affecteds and carriers in both show and field lines, I found a common ancestor born around 1929.
I love Good Dog Info!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> While I would love to think that was the explanation, I seem to remember Katie saying that their data suggested that the incidence of EIC was relatively uniform in both field and show lines suggesting that the key _ancestors_ pre-dated the split of the breed. My fear is that because of the "2 frequently used and prepotent sires" we may find that the incidence of carriers among FC studs is higher than 50% (because of line breeding). I don't know if the sample size studied is sufficient to draw any particular conclusions. Maybe Katie can clarify without violating confidentiality concerns.


We saw occassional EIC dogs 20 to 30 years ago even though we did not know what was wrong with them, there has been en explosion in number of affected dogs in the last 12 to 15 years. 

Couple the influence of an extremely prepotent male with an unknown origin autosomal recessive genetic trait and the incidence of affected dogs in a population rises dramatically.

One of Rex Carr's many wise sayings which apply to all sorts of things was "believe what you see" and I believe that in my soon to be 39th year as a veterinarian and field trial participant this malady is much more prevalent than ever before and I don't think that it is just because we have a larger population of dogs.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

nwlabs said:


> It always morphs into that old field vs show thing. What else is new?
> 
> However, I did answer the question in one of my posts. I will use these tests just as I have used the Optigen PRA test. If the best dog for my bitch is a carrier and my bitch is neither affected or a carrier, *Yes* I will breed to the dog. I sure hope people are not so short-sighted as to throw out a good dog or bitch for being a carrier. With these tests you can breed around EIC/CNM and never produce an affected dog which is the goal of the test.
> 
> ...


Actually you didn't answer the question. So I will try to word it simpler in order to get my point across (might be one of those things that I know what I am saying but you're not getting what I mean).....

Say you have the "perfect dog".....she's meets EVERY requirement you ever wanted (doesn't matter is wonderdog is a show dog or a field dog)....but guess what?

She's a carrier for PRA/CNM/EIC/RD......who you gonna breed her to? A dog like this (wonderdog no less) is probably not gonna get bred. Because based on the stats, to find a stud dog that is PRA/CNM/EIC/RD etc clear AND have the working/structure traits you want is going to be impossible.

So, when FORCED to deal with a "carrier status", which "carrier status'" are you willing to live with and which aren't you?

To date, I have avoided CNM carriers. My choice, my personal reasons. However, now I am looking at trying to avoid CNM/EIC carriers and at a 40% carrier rate, that is going to be hard to do.

So now, the breeding community is going to be forced to pick "which devil to dance with".

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> There seems to be a wider dispersion through out show lines.
> With the help of Good dog info and knowing affecteds and carriers in both show and field lines, I found a common ancestor born around 1929.
> I love Good Dog Info!


It doesn't really matter. This is gonna be one of those "what have you done for me lately" things.

I just had this discussion with someone else over pms.

Doesn't matter if Super Powder or Cork of Oakwood Lane were carriers or affecteds or whatever.....

Gotta start from scratch and test. Then move forward from there. Ninety percent of field dogs have Honcho, Super Powder etc in their lines. The show dog world is the same with their sires of yesteryear. So its just a matter of not trying to figure stats but start testing now and move forward.

WRL


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

JusticeDog said:


> It will be interesting to see what studs are carriers vs. clear of EIC coupled with the carrier vs. clear status of the CNM test.


My understanding is that the EIC list will be a "white list" -- just as it is with the CNM white list.

Are you saying that if a stud dog is not on the EIC list that everyone will assume that they are an EIC carrier? 

If so, I am wondering what the reaction will be in the f.t. Lab community if some of the recently favorite top stud dogs (I am not speaking of Lean Mac) are not on the EIC white list? 

I am wondering how the owners of the bitches who bred to those top stud dog are going to react... will they test their bitches to see if they are EIC clear?

If their bitch is also not clear, will they contact all their puppy buyers to advise them of the possibility that their puppy could be an EIC carrier (or affected) and needs to be tested? 

If their bitch is clear... but the stud dog is not on the white list, will they press the owner of the stud dog and ask "why not? 

And the puppy buyers .... will they check the EIC white list to see if both sire and dam are there? If not there, will they press the owners of both sire and dam to ask "why not"? 

Helen


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

WRL said:


> Gotta start from scratch and test. Then move forward from there. Ninety percent of field dogs have Honcho, Super Powder etc in their lines. The show dog world is the same with their sires of yesteryear. So its just a matter of not trying to figure stats but start testing now and move forward.
> WRL


I think we all realize that. I was just pointing out that mutated gene has been around for quite some time.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I suspect that for a while our primary source of information on carrier studs will come from voluntary publication of the identities of affected dogs by their owners. From this we will know that the parents are carriers long before the parents are likely to have been tested.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> I think we all realize that. I was just pointing out that mutated gene has been around for quite some time.


Its probably found in wild populations of wolves and coyotes. But I bet the affected just don';t make it. 

WRL


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

WRL said:


> I just had this discussion with someone else over pms.
> 
> Doesn't matter if Super Powder or Cork of Oakwood Lane were carriers or affecteds or whatever.....Ninety percent of field dogs have Honcho, Super Powder etc in their lines. WRL


I agree with you that Honcho and Super Powder are in most/many field pedigrees, but they should be waayyyy back at this time. 

Please clarify ... are you saying that SUPER POWDER and HONCHO were either affected or carriers of EIC or CNM, or both?

What's the story ? 

We weren't into Labs during Super Powder and Honcho's hey-day.

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

YardleyLabs said:


> I suspect that for a while our primary source of information on carrier studs will come from voluntary publication of the identities of affected dogs by their owners. From this we will know that the parents are carriers long before the parents are likely to have been tested.



Hmmm... I am not so sure there will be any real voluntary publication of the identifies of affected dog by their owner -- especially if top dogs produced the affected dog. 

If you had an EIC affected dog sired by one of the top dogs in the country, would you voluntarily post that somewhere ? 

If you owned a top stud dog and knew he was affected or a carrier, would you voluntarily publish it? 

I don't see any ads running in RFTN announcing that MY TOP DOG is a CNM carrier ... MY TOP DOG has produced EIC affected pups ... MY TOP DOG can be bred to only CNM clear bitches because he is not CNM clear. 

There are few people like Marilyn Fender out there. My hat is off to her for bringing CNM into the spotlight and to RFTN for publishing articles about CNM and publishing information about CNM testing.

I'm wondering what coverage the new EIC test will receive in RFTN in comparison, since it has been said that 30-40% of field dogs are carriers. RFTN is the logical publication to push getting f.t. and HT dogs tested for EIC. The publication could make a big difference if they decide to promote EIC testing. 

I will be waiting to see if any owner of a top stud dog advertises or announces in RFTN that TOP DOG is an EIC carrier or EIC affected. I sure haven't seen any ads or announcements that TOP DOG was a CNM carrier. 

By omission of EIC or CNM clearances in ads, I guess we'll have to speculate "why?" no EIC and/or CNM clearance. Or do we assume automatically no test... they are a carrier. 

Helen


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

WRL said:


> Say you have the "perfect dog".....she's meets EVERY requirement you ever wanted (doesn't matter is wonderdog is a show dog or a field dog)....but guess what?
> 
> She's a carrier for PRA/CNM/EIC/RD......who you gonna breed her to? A dog like this (wonderdog no less) is probably not gonna get bred. Because based on the stats, to find a stud dog that is PRA/CNM/EIC/RD etc clear AND have the working/structure traits you want is going to be impossible.
> 
> ...


Hmmm...and here I thought I answered the question completely using the example of a clear bitch and looking at carrier stud dogs (which again I would have no problem with).  No worries. I will try again.

Anyway... Here I am with my perfect bitch except that she is a carrier of EIC/CNM. I would definitely NOT breed to an untested dog. I would breed to a dog that is clear of the issues that she is a carrier for. I think the gene pool in Labs is large enough to be able to find a dog that is not a carrier that is a good match for my bitch. I am not saying find a dog with a line free of any and all carriers, but a dog who he himself is not a carrier. It may take some time to find, but it would be possible and be worth the effort to get something out of my wonderful girl.

Personal choices such as yours to avoid CNM carriers completely will put your dream bitch out of your breeding program automatically as she is a carrier wouldn't it? That would be a shame since she is a once in a lifetime bitch. The test allows you to keep your carrier bitch in your program, just as it allows me to use a carrier dog on my clear bitch. I sure hope I answered it completely now. lol


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Helen in N. Calif. said:


> Hmmm... I am not so sure there will be any real voluntary publication of the identifies of affected dog by their owner -- especially if top dogs produced the affected dog.
> 
> *If you had an EIC affected dog sired by one of the top dogs in the country, would you voluntarily post that somewhere ? *
> Helen


Why not? Doesn't matter if it was bred by the dog next door or the #1 dog in the world....if it is affected it is affected and that dog and the dam each carry the defective gene.

There have been affected dogs bred prior to this test or even the mode of inheritance being discovered. Now that we know how it is passed on we can avoid producing dogs afflicted by this condition.


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

Helen in N. Calif. said:


> I am wondering how the owners of the bitches who bred to those top stud dog are going to react... will they test their bitches to see if they are EIC clear?
> 
> If their bitch is also not clear, will they contact all their puppy buyers to advise them of the possibility that their puppy could be an EIC carrier (or affected) and needs to be tested?
> 
> If their bitch is clear... but the stud dog is not on the white list, will they press the owner of the stud dog and ask "why not?


How would I react? Well, I would test my bitch. If she is a carrier, then I would certainly let my puppy buyers know of this new information as a percentage of those pups could be affected. 

If my bitch were clear, she would not have produced any pups that would be affected. Those pups in breeding homes should be told so that they know that they need to have their pup tested to determine whether they are a carrier or clear.

I am not familiar with the "white list", so I can't comment on that. What is the white list?


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

I betcha the stud dogs that come back clear of these testable genetics will be advertised as such,as a marketing asset.The ones that are not tested,or tested and not clear would have to be suspect as they will not have anything regarding clearances aside from OFA/Cerf in their ad.This is a good thing for the consumer,and a good thing for the guy/gal that is preparing their pup to go for a very expensive career in the quest for that national title.Get em tested first!


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Helen in N. Calif. said:


> Hmmm... I am not so sure there will be any real voluntary publication of the identifies of affected dog by their owner -- especially if top dogs produced the affected dog.
> 
> If you had an EIC affected dog sired by one of the top dogs in the country, would you voluntarily post that somewhere ?


I already did until Chris asked that we not publish such information on RTF until the test was commercially available. I will be spending the money to have my affected pup retested and I will post the results on OFA and LabraData. The results are already posted on my website at http://yardleylabs.com/shadow.html and on GoodDogInfo.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Helen in N. Calif. said:


> I'm wondering what coverage the new EIC test will receive in RFTN in comparison, since it has been said that 30-40% of field dogs are carriers. RFTN is the logical publication to push getting f.t. and HT dogs tested for EIC. The publication could make a big difference if they decide to promote EIC testing.


 
If you open up the website for working retriever central, the directions for the EIC test are linked right under the directions for the CNM test. 

My guess is that the publisher will be just as concerned about EIC as CNM.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

YardleyLabs said:


> I will be spending the money to have my affected pup retested and I will post the results on OFA and LabraData.
> 
> 
> I too will be spending the money to have Buddy retested, he is affected, and I will send the results to OFA. It's worth the money to me personally to help prevent another lab from having EIC. It breaks my heart to have to restrict his retrieving. He would rather retrieve than eat.
> ...


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

YardleyLabs said:


> I already did until Chris asked that we not publish such information on RTF. The results are already posted on my website at http://yardleylabs.com/shadow.html and on GoodDogInfo.



Jeff, I went to your website and there it was -- information that your promising pup was EIC affected and who the well-known stud dog is. Thank you for your honesty. I can imagine what a heartbreaker this must be for you.

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

nwlabs said:


> I am not familiar with the "white list", so I can't comment on that. What is the white list?


Think of the "CNM white list" is being the reverse of a "CNM black list". 

The CNM White List is an on line database containing the names of dogs who have been tested and are clear of CNM and have an ID number. You will find the White List on the CNM website.

Go to: http://www.labradorcnm.com
The CNM home page will appear. To enter their website, click on the ENTRY box. A page with information about the CNM disease will appear. To the left of the page is a list of links. Click on the link entitled INTERNATIONAL REGISTRY - WHITE LIST OF CNM CLEAR DOGS.

This link opens up the CNM White List page where you can then type in a search by a dog's name to see if they have been tested and found clear, and what their CNM clear ID number is. 

Field dogs, show dogs, agility, you name it. If a Labrador has been tested and is clear of CNM, you will find them on the White List. 

I believe this is the same way EIC is going to be handled. There will be a White List to check, not a Black List. 

Helen


----------



## Katie Minor (Sep 19, 2005)

Helen in N. Calif. said:


> I believe this is the same way EIC is going to be handled. There will be a White List to check, not a Black List.
> 
> Helen


http://www.vdl.umn.edu/vdl/ourservices/canineneuromuscular/faq/home.html#clear

OFA will be hosting the EIC results. Ideally, every result would be submitted: clear, carrier, and affected. This provides a much more complete picture of disease than just posting clear results.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Helen in N. Calif. said:


> Think of the "CNM white list" is being the reverse of a "CNM black list".
> 
> Field dogs, show dogs, agility, you name it. If a Labrador has been tested and is clear of CNM, you will find them on the White List.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily, like OFA, owners submitting tests can opt not to have their results listed publicly, regardless of clear or not. Not all clear dogs are listed and it isn't safe to assume that because they aren't, they are carriers or haven't been tested. If I'm curious about a stud or breeding and there's no info, I call the owner and ask.

And like OFA, I'm guessing there will be many results not sent in and the database will be skewed.

Bottom line, if I can't find the health clearance info I want online and the owner of whatever dog or litter I'm interested in can't provide paperwork to back up their claims, time to move on.


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Bottom line, if I can't find the health clearance info I want online and the owner of whatever dog or litter I'm interested in can't provide paperwork to back up their claims, time to move on.


That's what I did with a litter and a deposit when the CNM test was new.There was a litter that I put money down on a pup and after talking to enough other breeders there were "hints" that there could be problems with the breeding.Nobody would go further than hint a certain dogs or tell me to be careful but it was enough to question it.I offered to pay to have the dam tested but the breeder didn't want to so I left that litter behind,and my deposit,to not risk a problem.There were a couple of other things about the breeder that bugged me a little too.For all I know they might all be beautiful,healthy dogs now.After that I limited my search to include at least the stud or the dam had to be on the clear list.It will be the same with EIC.I can't imagine why anybody would buy a pup or breed a litter without knowing who the carriers are once a test is available.I did learn about some breeders to avoid next time.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Was lied to once by a fairly known respected breeder (who is no longer around so no point in speculating, nor do I have either of the dogs involved) about health clearances and even titles of the pup's parents when I was first starting out in HT, it was just an awful feeling of betrayal. Glad you were able to avoid a potential problem, Bob.


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

Helen in N. Calif. said:


> The CNM White List is an on line database containing the names of dogs who have been tested and are clear of CNM and have an ID number. You will find the White List on the CNM website.
> 
> Go to: http://www.labradorcnm.com
> The CNM home page will appear. To enter their website, click on the ENTRY box. A page with information about the CNM disease will appear. To the left of the page is a list of links. Click on the link entitled INTERNATIONAL REGISTRY - WHITE LIST OF CNM CLEAR DOGS.


Thanks so much. I appreciate that.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

It is absolutley amazing to me that the people doing the test, getting paid to do the test, aren't keeping a "white list" 
They will have the stats on every dog, at least they better, for the on going research. Why not just plug it into a program that is viewable to the public?

Also, when and where is the research being published? It would be nice to just refer our vets to that instead of taking them handfuls of printouts and crap from the website. 

anyway, just seems like a big avoidable cluster to me.


----------



## jrock (Dec 30, 2007)

I don't think we can trust that everyone will have their clear results posted with OFA. I know of a big name NFC stud that is CNM clear and his name is not listed on the "White List" For some reason the owner filled out the paper work to keep his name off of the list. A lot of us just assumed that he was a carrier because of that fact. It was only recently that someone asked the owner and was told that the dog was CNM clear. We will just have to be diligent when dealing with breeders and owners to request to see the paperwork unless the dog is on OFA's site.


----------



## nimloth (Jul 10, 2008)

achiro said:


> It is absolutley amazing to me that the people doing the test, getting paid to do the test, aren't keeping a "white list"


Why should they? They run the test at a reasonable fee and send both you and the vet the results. Maintaining an online searchable database is NOT a laboratory function - it is an IT job. The people at Alford that do the CNM test decided to have that list - their choice. It is an expense to maintain and host, trust me. One of the most likely reasons is that they are in FRANCE and not directly associated with OFA like most US vet labs. 

The most insidious part of only publishing the clear dogs that owners have given permission to make public, is that ALL dogs not on the list are assumed to be carriers or affected. That is a very dangerous model of thinking. I would far rather see a database of results - good and bad - that give a better view of the breed involvement. I also learn a lot more about a a line if a dog is reported as a carrier than those that are reported clear. Example:

I see a dog on the clear list. What can I guess about his parents?????? Not a thing except that neither one is affected. If I see on OFA that a dog is affected, then I know that both of the parents are at least carriers. I learn more by seeing the warts than the beauty marks


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

achiro said:


> It is absolutley amazing to me that the people doing the test, getting paid to do the test, aren't keeping a "white list"
> They will have the stats on every dog, at least they better, for the on going research. Why not just plug it into a program that is viewable to the public?
> 
> anyway, just seems like a big avoidable cluster to me.


Did you miss the following post or others before it that clearly explained that OFA will be keeping the data? Maybe this veterinary testing lab just does not want to be bothered with the cluster of maintaining a database and website of private information. Most other testing labs don't either, do they?


> From Katie Minor:
> http://www.vdl.umn.edu/vdl/ourservic...ome.html#clear
> 
> OFA will be hosting the EIC results. Ideally, every result would be submitted: clear, carrier, and affected. This provides a much more complete picture of disease than just posting clear results.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Henry V said:


> Did you miss the following post or others before it that clearly explained that OFA will be keeping the data? Maybe this veterinary testing lab just does not want to be bothered with the cluster of maintaining a database and website of private information. Most other testing labs don't either, do they?


NO, I DID NOT MISS IT, Results submitted BY THE OWNER to ofa


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

achiro said:


> NO, I DID NOT MISS IT, Results submitted BY THE OWNER to ofa


Maybe if you send in an extra $25 and write a nice note the lab would fill in your form and send it to OFA for you. 

I think its great that these researchers have collaborated with OFA so that individuals can choose to submit their own results to the public domain. It kind of reminds me of submitting CERF exam results. OFA deserves a big thanks for doing this too.


----------



## Marilyn Fender (Sep 3, 2005)

nimloth said:


> Why should they? They run the test at a reasonable fee and send both you and the vet the results. Maintaining an online searchable database is NOT a laboratory function - it is an IT job. The people at Alford that do the CNM test decided to have that list - their choice. It is an expense to maintain and host, trust me. One of the most likely reasons is that they are in FRANCE and not directly associated with OFA like most US vet labs.
> 
> The most insidious part of only publishing the clear dogs that owners have given permission to make public, is that ALL dogs not on the list are assumed to be carriers or affected. That is a very dangerous model of thinking. I would far rather see a database of results - good and bad - that give a better view of the breed involvement. I also learn a lot more about a a line if a dog is reported as a carrier than those that are reported clear. Example:
> 
> I see a dog on the clear list. What can I guess about his parents?????? Not a thing except that neither one is affected. If I see on OFA that a dog is affected, then I know that both of the parents are at least carriers. I learn more by seeing the warts than the beauty marks


I have been watching this thread and saw no reason to reply until now.

I just wanted to straighten out that it is almost zero extra cost for a laboratory to have a clear list. It is easy to set up as part of the reporting process. And as someone else said, all the results have to be on a data base regardless at a responsible laboratory, so it is easy to have it happen with a software design.

Our International Registry clear list is updated automatically when the certificate is sent to the owner with test results. It keeps it up to date without being dependent on extra money being submitted or the owner having to do anything. We did not pay a host to do it --- Dr. Tiret designed it himself as he is quite computer capable. It is something we feel is necessary. It is not that hard to set up. 

However it is a personal choice of a research laboratory --- not something that "should be done by the research laboratory" and not something that "should be" done by an independent outside location. Early in our history, we were offered the kind option by OFA to use them for data but choose not to do it for a variety of reasons.That does not mean it would have been a bad choice --- it was just not our choice. We continue to have a good relationship with OFA. 

The International Registry has nothing to do with being in France. I have no idea where Maureen came up with some of her assumptions about what our costs are or why we do things a certain way. Checking with us first, if a topic is a concern of anyone, is always the best place to go for information about us --- as with any research project. 

It just happens that the French researchers came up with the answer about CNM before anyone else was close. Their first stage results were published in 2002 and the test released to the public in June 2005. The final peer reviewed research article published April 2005 is found in our downloads and other places in our site www.labradorcnm.com . It just happens the successful researchers were located at a veterinary school in France. 

BTW both myself and Dr. Tiret work for free, including no released time, and make no profit. We provide seven day a week consultation through [email protected] And, as Maureen knows since we did it for a friend of hers, we frequently give the test free to unusual and needy cases where the owner can't afford the test and really has some unusual concerns. 

No, people do not assume a dog is a carrier if they are not on the list. It is not "insidious" at all and that was a poor term for description IMO. Most users are quite clear that the International Registry grows multiple times a month. The only way to keep an up to date list is for the testing laboratory to provide it. We suggest on the site that if someone does not find their dog that it can be for a variety of reasons and they should check with the owner. 
It is very easy in a variety of lists to look up the parents/pedigree of any registered dog. 

So... Maureen ... please make sure you are not insinuating wrong information when posting. We include OFA, Labradata, and other locations as suggestions to individuals who want to post their results in other useful places. We have been very supportive of Labradata to many people that have asked what it is, so I find it disappointing for you to take swipes publically at us. 

We live in a global community where the DNA researchers work in a friendly way with each other. Many just recently met in France at an International Conference where EIC, CNM, DM, and many other diseases were discussed by researchers involved with each and leaders internationally in canine DNA. 

We are communication in a friendly way with the EIC researchers --- and are having pleasant conversations with them. Not everyone is going to run their services exactly the same as each location has different situations to accommodate and different views as to what is best.. 

Just a few thoughts that I felt necessary 

Happy Retrieving,

Marilyn
Marilyn J. Fender, PhD
[email protected] (instead of PMs please)
Global Communications Coordinator 
CNM Project


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

Another thing about searching the white list is that if you may type the name in differently than what it entered in the data base and not come up with the dog. 
Gates is a prime example. If you type in "high tech c e o" you will not get him, but type in "high tech ceo" and you will get him. You can also look up dogs in ofa one way and not find them, look them up by reg. number and you find them and vice versa. I have run into this many times when researching a pedigree. Or the sire/dam aren't listed for a dog, but you enter the names of the sire and dam and they do have OFA clearances. This is mainly in older dogs.


----------



## nimloth (Jul 10, 2008)

> So... Maureen ... please make sure you are not insinuating wrong information when posting. We include OFA, Labradata, and other locations as suggestions to individuals who want to post their results in other useful places. We have been very supportive of Labradata to many people that have asked what it is, so I find it disappointing for you to take swipes publically at us.


Wait a minute and back up the truck!!! Marilyn, how in the world could you infer that I took a swipe at Alfort when I stated that they provide a service NOT provided by most veterinary laboratories????? I find it disappointing that you would even think that - much less accuse me personally in public of defaming an organization that has certainly offered the "extra mile" to users. Rethink this, Marilyn. Apology expected.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2008)

Helen in N. Calif. said:


> Hmmm... I am not so sure there will be any real voluntary publication of the identifies of affected dog by their owner -- especially if top dogs produced the affected dog.
> 
> If you had an EIC affected dog sired by one of the top dogs in the country, would you voluntarily post that somewhere ?


Helen,

There was a recent thread here on RTF about this and there were plenty of folks who did just that.

Melanie


----------



## nimloth (Jul 10, 2008)

> No, people do not assume a dog is a carrier if they are not on the list. It is not "insidious" at all and that was a poor term for description IMO.


Well, actually I was just reiterating what someone had posted on another thread. If the dog is not on the "white list" they assume it is a carrier (or worse). Not my issue, Marilyn, but one voiced by users of the list. I prefer the option to release (or not release) all results - passing and otherwise - as is done with OFA. But then, of course, Alfort's service is free so they can offer whatever they like - it is an "extra bonus" for the users thanks to the computer savvy of the laboratory. 

I, personally, would never use the white list for breeding information. Sure, my dog is on the CNM white list, but I put her into OFA and LabraData as well because her record can be put into the context of ALL records that have been submitted to those databases - clear or not.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

WRL said:


> Well with the release of the new EIC test, how many people are going to breed dogs that are carriers for both CNM and EIC?
> 
> Frankly, I think that finding a dog that is NOT a carrier for EIC AND CNM is going to be difficult if the 40% carrier rate for EIC is accurate.
> 
> WRL


I know a handful of studs that are negative for CNM and EIC by the research testing. The question is, if people choose to breed only those dogs, what other strange genetic defect will surface. Just use the test results wisely, use limited registration, and this too shall pass like dwarfism which was the big deal 25 years ago and CNM which hopefully is being eliminated in those that become educated. Get the word out at your trials and tests. I ran into a couple of people at the HT this weekend that never heard of EIC who bred.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2008)

Where do you see EIC clerances at OFA, or are you talking about something you think or hope they will add?

Patton has a CHIC, so does his dam, Desert Duk.

At GDI, one son of Black Gold Kate's Rascal was reported as an EIC affected; as is an offspring of RAM, and at least one son of Harley is believed to have had and thrown EIC in Canada. The problem with a reported offspring is that other conditions can look very much like EIC and be diagnosed as such by a vet without doing all of the definitive bloodwork needed to be completely sure. 

Neither the reliability nor the validity statistics have been reported for the Minn test; no figures are known for either alpha or beta, respectively, the odds of saying a dog affected when it is not, and the odds of saying a dog is clear when it is not. There may be a link to carrying multifocal retinal dysplasia and EIC, some of the lines appear behind both. One combination in particular has produced MFRD and blind dwarfs--a sister to the dam of Black Gold Kate's Rascal ex Charley, who was out of Itchin' to Go. Look at the other sisters of the common dam of Houston, a known carrier of MFRD who produced dwarfs, Harley, BG Kate's Rascal, etc. A full sister to Lottie is a known EIC carrier and Lottie, as well as Cody are in the background of some EIC dogs. That doesn't mean they carry it, but I sure wish I had a peak at Katie Elder's data and some pedigrees to analyze. It is possible using probability theory to really zero in on the liklihood of various dogs in pedigrees being clear or carriers if you have a large enough data base of cleared, affecteds, and carriers. But the U Minn data on particular dogs is not an open data base. We are facing the same problem here that was faced in England when PRA was such a major problem, and Isabella Kraft started publishing pedigree books of known affecteds, before there was a validated and reliabile optigen test. I have a very nice old yellow who has MFRD, with Houston as grandsire, and he may have EIC, and he has a lot Nellie ex Rascal or Corky behind him.
Nellie is out of Soupy, Itchin has Soupy and his brother Spring Farms Lucky close behind. Lots of room to speculate here, but little solid basis to make conclusions.

It sure would be nice to see a pedigree collection of known affecteds, known carriers, and known clears, and if the stack was deep enough I'd bet more than four bits that some very interesting and convincing trends would emerge.

But couldn't be put in print unless the pedigrees were publishable, and you allowed everybody to draw their own conclusions. But first you would have to have very accurate estimates of Alpha and Beta.

Smike1


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

smike1 said:


> Where do you see EIC clerances at OFA, or are you talking about something you think or hope they will add? Since the test is brand new and just became available, I doubt they would have any results up yet.
> 
> Patton has a CHIC, so does his dam, Desert Duk. Any dog gets a CHIC as long as they have had all the tests the breed club recommends. They can be dysplastic, flunk CERF and have bad elbows and get a CHIC.
> 
> ...


My dogs are Chesapeakes, which are also affected by PRA and EIC. We have a MUCH smaller gene pool than Labs. But this kind of 'finger pointing' doesnt' really help any breed. Test your dogs and move forward.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> Test your dogs and move forward.


Exactly. Do you know who the dwarf carriers were long time ago? No because it doesn't matter. I can pretty much tell you where the pedigrees go back to for CNM, EIC, dwarfism. It's a no brainer if you know pedigrees. Who cares-deal with it now because yyou can't change what happened a long time ago.


----------



## nimloth (Jul 10, 2008)

> I can pretty much tell you where the pedigrees go back to for CNM, EIC, dwarfism.


You had better be looking WAAAAYYYYYY back for that EIC connection, because it seems to be in Labs all over the world AND in some of the other retriever breeds developed in the UK. Gee.... do you think it came from the St. Johns dogs???? :lol:

It is tough to breed away from these genetic issues by pedigree analysis - it is best done by testing. Dogs that have carriers scattered all through their pedigree and even those from TWO carrier parents can be clear. No sense in chasing shadows when a simple test can shed light on the issue.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

nimloth said:


> You had better be looking WAAAAYYYYYY back for that EIC connection, because it seems to be in Labs all over the world AND in some of the other retriever breeds developed in the UK. Gee.... do you think it came from the St. Johns dogs???? :lol:
> 
> It is tough to breed away from these genetic issues by pedigree analysis - it is best done by testing. Dogs that have carriers scattered all through their pedigree and even those from TWO carrier parents can be clear. No sense in chasing shadows when a simple test can shed light on the issue.


You know that is very interesting. I wonder if there is going to be any testing on say Newfoundlands.

WRL


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

Montview said:


> But why stop at 50 years ago? Do many people choose that "50 years ago" time frame because they *did* look like our field dogs of today? That's probably true...many of the field dogs of today look more like the Dual Champions of 50 years ago. However, photos from back when the breed was _originally _developed (we're talking even before the turn of the century) the dogs look a lot more like the show dogs of today than the field dogs of today, I think.
> 
> Here are some of the dogs to which I'm referring...those in all of the labrador history books:
> [snip image links]


Er... no. There exists a photo of Avon standing (I'd have to find it again but it's in one of the standard breed books). He looks sortof like a Candlewood dog of the 1970s, to pick a line most people know. He most certainly does *not* have the mastiffy/Rottie look of today's show dogs.

For comparison, here's a photo of Glenhead Jimmy, who is THE foundation sire behind the English fieldtrial lines, as well as theoretically behind the show lines, via an inbreeding on Jimmy's son... however, this is the point where the show pedigrees stop looking like their ancestors -- Jimmy and his sons consistently sired very pretty, slightly fine-featured dogs, NOT Rottie type dogs, yet the type changed radically just one generation later. Draw your own conclusions. (Or read what Lady Hill-wood and Mary Roslin-Williams had to say about crossbreedings.....)

http://home.earthlink.net/~rividh/kennel/dogphoto/glenheadjimmy.jpg


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I would think their are still people around who possess character and integrety,, I also believe there are people around that can look objectively at their breeding program,along with objective goals
Couple these desireable human traits together and everyone will get what they pay for,,weather they breed a known carrier to carrier or clear to clear.

It will absolutely make no difference and the breeds will become healthier and performance enhanced.

I believe the largest proportion of society lacks at least one of these traits. 

Subtract one of those human traits and puppy buyers will be pissed and demmand a refund. And complain about their misfortunes.

Although I prefer dog sports over conformation and pet dogs I believe that producing a good animal requires it to be good pet and structuraly sound.
My definition of structurally sound is 180 degrees from a conformation person view.

How a dog holds up after years of pounding.. The proof in the pudding

Pete


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

EdA said:


> Who Knows What Tomorrow Brings Regards



Precisely, Ed!

That popular stud who does not carry CNM and EIC, may carry something much worse that is extremely rare in the breed, and for which no test has yet been created. But bottle the pedigrees up on this dog, and suddenly it becomes widespread.

OFA, CERF, CNM, EIC, PRA...these are what we KNOW. It's what we don't know that will rise up and get us in the future, if we are not wise today.

Just because there's no test for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist regards;

Lisa


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Just because there's no test for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist regards;


Nice!

You know, you have been here and gone and here again for a long time but your avatar *STILL* creeps me out sometimes...

No Horror Flicks For Me Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Nice!
> 
> You know, you have been here and gone and here again for a long time but your avatar *STILL* creeps me out sometimes...
> 
> ...


That dog in my avatar is a really good example of the complexities of making breeding decisions.

She is mildly dysplastic, and also has grade I DJD from FCP in both elbows. Not a good wheel in the bunch!

Yet, she has earned her UD, SH, RE, 2 legs on her Canadian CDX, WCI, and a handful of agility titles. Never a lame day in her life, and we are working on OTCh and UDX titles alongside having JUST started her agility career at 6+ years of age. And I still train her on Master setups, too.

Meanwhile, I know of other dogs who started at the same time she did, had similar career paths as she did, have all the bells and whistles, health certification-wise, and yet are now retired at 6 years because of arthritis (one dog that went through the basics with her spent the better part of half this year with Dr. Sherman for arthritis-related problems). Which is the "more breedable" dog?

It becomes even more muddy when you start to look at polygenic diseases that may have environmental components. Once again, the Lab and Golden people are lucky. So far, all your DNA-based tests are single-gene recessive traits. Fairly easy to test for, fairly easy to understand how to breed around them. Chessies (along with a handful of other breeds) just rolled out our first DNA-based test for a polygenic trait. The test only looks at ONE gene in the perhaps several that make up an affected animal. Just because a dog tests as at risk for this disease, does not automatically mean the dog will ever even develop it. So, how do you factor THAT into the equation? A carrier for this type of gene is not necessarily a carrier for the disease. 

Once again, how the Lab and Golden communities handle these early DNA-based tests will set you up for how you will handle future, perhaps less clear-cut genetic tests.

Lisa


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

moved to another thread


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

smike1 said:


> Where do you see EIC clerances at OFA, or are you talking about something you think or hope they will add?
> 
> Smike1


(Katie Minor posted that first results are starting to show up on OFA site).
Report Type: Exercise Induced Collapse

From University of Minnesota site:
"For test results to be eligible for VPI (Veterinarian verified Permanent Identification) certification with the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), the attending veterinarian must verify a microchip or tattoo. The VDL will not be maintaining a list of clear dogs. However, the OFA (www.offa.org) will be hosting the EIC data. The data will be submitted by individual owners, if they choose, after receiving results. On the first page of the result report there will be instructions for submission to the OFA. You will need to make a copy of the first page of the test result, sign the authorization statement, and mail or fax the result (with OFA fee) to the OFA."


----------



## Brent McDowell (Jul 2, 2008)

Has anyone published any Clear/Carrier/Affected percentages from the sample of dogs tested since the test became commercially available? Just curious how the numbers are shaking out...


----------



## Katie Minor (Sep 19, 2005)

Brent McDowell said:


> Has anyone published any Clear/Carrier/Affected percentages from the sample of dogs tested since the test became commercially available? Just curious how the numbers are shaking out...


From the start of testing at the end of July-mid-Jan:

3307 Labradors tested.

355 affected - Realize that this includes a lot of diagnostic testing for collapsing dogs, as well as litter testing from parents found to be carriers. As such, it is inflated compared to the population at large.

1185 carriers 

1767 clears 


11% affected
36% carrier
53% clear


----------



## Brent McDowell (Jul 2, 2008)

So do you think it's more likely that the larger population would break down on a 60% clear, 35% carrier, 5% affected curve - or something close? Thanks for the quick response.

Brent


----------



## Katie Minor (Sep 19, 2005)

Brent McDowell said:


> So do you think it's more likely that the larger population would break down on a 60% clear, 35% carrier, 5% affected curve - or something close? Thanks for the quick response.
> 
> Brent


I think that is probably pretty close. Of course, breeding isn't ever random. All it takes is one non-collapsing, but genetically affected popular sire, and your carrier/affected rate could shoot way up.


----------



## trinitylabs (Feb 13, 2006)

According to an article in Ducks Unlimited 3 - 5% of labs are affected by EIC, of those affected only a percentage will ever have an episode. In comparison, CNM affected dogs will be symtomatic everytime and will suffer terribly. I have chosen since the CNM test came out to not breed with any carriers and I have all of my dogs certified non-carriers because I don't want to produce carriers of CNM. I will however not pull my EIC carriers from my breeding program, they have already been cleared for CNM, have good or excellent hips, CERF. normal elbows, normal cardiac, normal thyroid, normal patella, and proven disposition, trainability, intelligence, etc. There is no such thing as a perfect dog, but if we go too fast to remove EIC from our breed we will definately be losing some of the great qualities that we have worked for generations to create. Are hips and elbows less important that CNM and EIC, I don't think so. Is tri-cuspid valve dysplasia less important or detrimental than EIC, again I don't think so. Is patella luxation less important than EIC, don't think so, is hyperthyroidism less important than EIC, I don't think so. We have to look at the whole dog not just one test result. 
I recently produced a litter from an EIC carrier and I have tested the entire litter, I will sell the carrier pups with full disclosure but expect that only non-breeders will be interested in purchasing them, however I kept a pup from the litter that is a carrier because if he proves that he has all the great qualities that I think he has then he will with proper breeding ethics produce great get. In my opinion (my opinion) stud dog owners should be more selective who they breed their male with. As a female owner I spend months trying to pick a male to breed my female with. I know stud dog owners that don't even ask if the female has the mimimum hips, elbows and CERF clearances before breeding. There are many great stud dogs out there that are being bred with females that have problems and then the stud dog is blamed when a problem shows up in the get. We are all keepers of our breed, breed smart and the breed will improve, breed for money and the breed will go the way of other hunting breeds that can no longer do the work they were bred to do. I have the utmost respect for the stud dog owners that have told me of the possibility of their dog carrying CNM before the test was available, but I have never had anyone tell me that there is a possibility of their dog carrying EIC before the test was available and I honestly believe that most of them did not know because they don't get feedback from the bitch owners or puppy buyers or the pups were misdiagnosed, most vets have never even heard of EIC. Communication and the willingness to be upfront about your dog's qualities and faults is the only way to improve the breed. Knowledge is power.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

The problem as I see it is the fact that if you start to weed out carriers of this and that you limit the gene pool and eventually will end up with some other genetic defect because of the line breeding that this creates. The main goal of any breeder should be to make sure they are breeding healthy dogs that are not affected by any genetic mutation and are bettering the breed by the pups they produce. Just my .02


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

We will not be able to "breed it out of the gene pool". Just the numbers tested so far is a drop in the bucket to the numbers registered every year. CNM is the same way-not many people are testing for it even though the test has been available for several years.

I have a CNM carrier that I wanted to breed to a MH stud in the area. I had a few in mind, but NONE of them had been tested for CNM, including one that has a sire that is a known carrier. I had one person say that it is a new test, so not many are testing for it. For EIC, I could understand that statement, but not CNM. I plan on testing at least the females as I prefer to keep a CNM clear one.

Also you have BYB that don't test for anything...including those that have been informed that their dog is a potential carrier due to dam's carrier status as is the dog they are breeding to due to pedigree. They see it as easy money and don't care about potential health problems. This scenario is what prompted me to sell most of my puppies on limited registration.

In the last year, we've had a member that had a CNM puppy, education is key. I'm not picking on him or saying anything bad about him, he is just a good example of how people don't know about it until they have an affected puppy. He has been educated, unfortunately the hard way, and is now making better decisions about future breedings that he may do. From discussions on the board and by pm, I'm sure had he known about it before hand, he would have had testing done first.

I have included in my website pages that discuss the expenses and risks of breeding as well as links to the disease and testing information. I have posted EIC and CNM results on all my dogs, good or bad, and will be submitting them to OFA as well so that they can be easily verified. If all of us that have websites add at least an info page on the diseases with links, we can educate the general public much faster.

Alison


----------



## Brent McDowell (Jul 2, 2008)

What's the prevailing wisdom out there currently on breeding? I have a carrier female who I plan to breed once - maybe twice over her lifetime. My goal is to breed carrier to clear to avoid producing affected pups. If we work toward eliminating affecteds, we will over time reduce both carriers and affecteds. At the same time, breeding carrier to clear or clear to clear will allow us to keep 90-95% of the dogs in the gene pool and maintain all of the good qualities of the breed. Am I on track with this?


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

Brent McDowell said:


> What's the prevailing wisdom out there currently on breeding? I have a carrier female who I plan to breed once - maybe twice over her lifetime. My goal is to breed carrier to clear to avoid producing affected pups. If we work toward eliminating affecteds, we will over time reduce both carriers and affecteds. At the same time, breeding carrier to clear or clear to clear will allow us to keep 90-95% of the dogs in the gene pool and maintain all of the good qualities of the breed. Am I on track with this?


I would say you are right on track.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

I will not breed any carriers of either CNM or EIC . PERIOD . You say limited gene pool . I say healthy gene pool . Can I breed to just anyone ? Nope . Can I breed to a high quality representative of the breed that is genetically sound ? Absolutely .
I am fortunate enough to only breed labradors , hence the large ,healthy , gene pool available for breeding .Hell ,if 50 % (God Forbid) of the gene pool was affected , that still leaves plenty of good dogs for breeding .
And as science develops new tests ,and new ailments befall our 4 legged friends , the survival of the fittest theory will prevail . As intended . IMVHO .
I mean, what if another new test comes out that identifies a previously unknown marker ? And your clear pup from 1 affected parent may now have this gene so far recessed that it is NOW a carrier ? 
I'm no scientist as you all can tell . but I do gamble . My breedings are just something I'm taking ANY chances with . But for a little coin on the table , I'll bet I can draw to the inside straight .


----------



## Shawn S. (Jan 17, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Brent McDowell*  
_What's the prevailing wisdom out there currently on breeding? I have a carrier female who I plan to breed once - maybe twice over her lifetime. My goal is to breed carrier to clear to avoid producing affected pups. If we work toward eliminating affecteds, we will over time reduce both carriers and affecteds. At the same time, breeding carrier to clear or clear to clear will allow us to keep 90-95% of the dogs in the gene pool and maintain all of the good qualities of the breed. Am I on track with this?_




Duck Creek said:


> I would say you are right on track.


I respectfully disagree. There are to many nice dogs out there that are not carriers that can be used to continue to pass on quality traits, many of whom may be littermates to a prospective carrier.

Breeding Backyard Buck or FC Joe to Sue the Carrier to me does nothing to perpetuate the good qualities of the breed and will never eliminate the number of carriers. It does however seem these days to validate some peoples reasons for breeding thier carrier to clear, One must really ask what does their carrier brings to the table that a clear littermate or other clear dog for that matter doesn't. In some instances there may be just cause, I argue that in most there isn't.

In the upper end of the owners there exists knowledge of the potential issues of owning and breeding carriers, but who is to be responsible for the dogs that end up in pet homes from the Backyard Buck or FC Joe to Sue the Carrier breedings where evetually a carrier to carrier breeding will and does occur somewhere down the line. Most of these pet owners have no knowlege of CNM or EIC until the breedings occur. I know morally I wouldn't want that on my shoulders. The only way to reduce the numbers of carriers and clear is to simply not breed them.

There exist to many clear dogs from great carrier lineage to justify breeding carriers to maintain genetic diversity.

Owner of a CNM carrier.

Regards,

Shawn


----------



## Brent McDowell (Jul 2, 2008)

I should note that my female is an EIC carrier.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I notice nobody is even mentioning using the DNA tests for prcd_PRA and Retinal Dysplasia. 

I can understand why EIC and CNM are more distressing to Lab breeders right now, but to ignore these other known diseases, for which there are DNA tests, might not be wise. 

I can recall some years back when RD was very distressing to several breeders. The recessive prcd-PRA gene could quickly gain a foothold if just a few popular sires were to be carriers.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> In the upper end of the owners there exists knowledge of the potential issues of owning and breeding carriers, *but who is to be responsible for the dogs* that end up in pet homes from the Backyard Buck or FC Joe to Sue the Carrier breedings where evetually a carrier to carrier breeding will and does occur somewhere down the line.


 *Use Limited Registration.*


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

ELIMINATING MUTATION
THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM​by John Armstrong

Though it is not practical to eliminate all deleterious mutation, the incidence of affected individuals may be significantly reduced through a combination of intelligent breeding practice and the development of DNA tests.

Why do we have mutations?

Mutations are changes in an organism's DNA that potentially affect the correct functioning of genes. They occur naturally due to replication errors, mispairing of homologous chromosomes, or through unavoidable exposure to natural radiation (e.g., cosmic rays). Mutations can occur anywhere in the DNA and in any cell. They are heritable only when they occur in the germ cells (eggs and sperm), but mutations in the DNA of other (somatic) cells may lead to cancer. Even though the DNA replication enzymes are very accurate, and there are also supplementary systems for detecting and correcting damage, no system is perfect. We should, therefore, recognize that some level of mutation is inevitable. However, the mutation rate is increased by radiation, including ultraviolet light, and exposure to certain toxic chemicals. We can, therefore, take some precautions to minimize the risk..

The mutation rate for dogs cannot be determined readily, but from indirect evidence and extrapolation from other species, geneticists believe that mutation rates are normally on the order of 1 in 100,000 or less. For a sexually reproducing mammal, that would mean a new mutation in a particular gene would likely not occur more often than once in every 100,000 gametes. That may not seem like a high probability, but consider that most mammals are estimated to carry 80-100,000 genes. This suggests that every individual born has a good chance of carrying one new mutation in some gene.

What happens to new mutations?

Drift is a consequence of the random nature of genetic events. For example, if you breed a brown bitch to a black dog carrying brown, you would expect ½ the progeny to be black and ½ brown, but probably wouldn't be too surprised if you got 7 blacks and 3 browns in a litter of 10. It works the same way for any gene that has two or more alleles. Suppose that we have only one black dog (Bb), all the rest being bb. The one Bb dog may pass the B allele to none or all of his progeny, or to any number in between. If he has more than 5 black progeny, the frequency of black will go up providing all contribute equally to the next generation. In subsequent generations the frequency may drift even higher, or back down.

In a large population, the frequency will tend to fluctuate by only a small amount. However, small populations are inherently unstable and, if other factors don't intervene, one allele will eventually take over. This is called fixation. How long this takes depends on population size. With a rare breed, fixation may easily occur within 25 generations (~ 100 yrs.)
Many recessive mutations persist for a few generations at low levels before being lost again. Only very rarely do they reach a significant level in the population (> 1 in 1000). In terms of estimates of genetic diversity based on average heterozygosity, these genes are effectively monomorphic, as a screen of 50 or 100 individuals from the population would generally fail to reveal any differences for the majority of the these loci. When two individuals appear to carry the same mutation, it may well be due to independent mutations. However, unless there is some common ancestry, the chance of producing affected progeny should be no more than 1 in a million. [Notably, in the first study of an "inborn error of metabolism", Garrod (1902) observed that "among the families of parents who do not themselves exhibit the anomaly a proportion corresponding to 60 per cent are the offspring of marriages of first cousins." He estimates that only about 3% of all marriages are between first cousins.]
These estimates assume equal use of all individuals in the population, and we all know how common that is. If a particularly popular sire produces 10 times his "share" of sons and daughters, whatever deleterious allele(s) he carried will get a substantial boost in the next generation. A new mutation may be promoted from one-of-a-kind to moderately frequent in this way. As long as we insist on making mate choice a popularity contest, we risk introducing new problems as fast as we can develop tests for the old ones.
Genetic "load" and the founder effect
The human population carries at least 2500 deleterious mutant genes (or, more correctly, alleles of genes) causing significant health problems. For the most part they are fairly evenly distributed in the population. For the entire Canis familiaris population, the situation is likely fairly similar. Each individual is estimated to carry a "genetic load" of three or four "lethal equivalents", which implies recessive alleles that would kill of the bearer if they were homozygous. As long as they are recessive, they should not cause problems.
However, consider what happens if we form a subpopulation by choosing 10 individuals from a much larger population. Though these individuals will not carry the vast majority of the unwanted deleterious recessive alleles found in the wider population, the few they do carry will be promoted instantly from rare alleles (0.1% or less) to at least 5% in our example (or more generally, 1/2N, where N is the number of founders).
Because random drift has a greater impact on a small population, the population needs to grow rapidly, to at least several hundred breeding individuals, so as to minimize the loss of valuable alleles. During this time, we should select cautiously. While it is true that fixing "type" is one of the prime objectives of purebred dog breeders, too rigorous selection during the early generations increases the possibility of accidental loss of a valuable gene closely linked to one of the genes under selection. Dalmatians, for example, are all deficient in an enzyme required for correct uric acid metabolism. The mutant gene appears to be closely linked to one of the genes for the characteristic spotted pattern and was likely inadvertently fixed when early breeders selected for that pattern (Nash, 1990).

Selection

Selection is only effective if we are dealing with easily recognized phenotypes. However, undesirable mutations are not always that accommodating. There is a full range of possibilities from silent mutations, that have no noticeable effect on proteins coded for, to mutations that fail to make any functional product. There is even a small possibility of improvement. Those, and the silent class, are no threat to us. However, those that prevent normal function but do not eliminate it completely are likely to present a substantial problem. One example is the vWD mutation in Dobermans. This mutation eliminates 85-90% of the active clotting factor, but this low level is still sufficient to protect a homozygous affected individual from excessive bleeding in most situations. A dog that is "lucky" enough to avoid a major injury or surgery may not be recognized and may even be bred. Consequently, the frequency of the mutant allele rose to slightly over 50% in the population (Brewer, 1999).

Conclusions

Longevity and fertility, commonly regarded as indicators of "inbreeding depression", are reduced in canine populations which ave been inbred over a relatively short time period (Laikre and Ryman, 1991; Nordrum, 1994). However, most of the inbreeding in domestic dog populations does not appear to be due to breeders intentionally mating close relatives1 (though there are certainly exceptions), but to the loss of diversity due to drift and selection. The resultant loss of choices makes every individual a close relative, no matter what breeding strategy is employed.
The outcome for any breed will depend on both luck and on the breed's history. What is the effective population size? How many founders were there? Over how long a period prior to the closure of the stud books had the breed been refined? How intensive was the selection used to define type? Have there been any bottlenecks? How strong an influence have popular sires had?

What can we do?

1. We can control many of the obvious genetic diseases by supporting research aimed at locating the genes and developing direct DNA tests for the mutant alleles. Test results should be employed to make certain that carriers are only mated to clear individuals, rather than for wholesale elimination of carriers, which would further impoverish the gene pool.

2. We can explain to breeders that mutations will always be with us, and are not an indication of failure or bad breeding practice, and that an open exchange of information will produce the greatest rewards. We can also show them ways to achieve their personal goals without making choices that are detrimental to their breed.

3. We can attempt to educate breed clubs on the importance of maximizing diversity in the gene pool. As the keynote speaker at the recent AKC/CHF conference, Dr. Malcolm Willis, pointed out, few breeds even have a good idea of what their major genetic problems are, how many pups are in an average litter, or how long their dogs live. Fewer still have any idea of how to retain existing diversity or reduce the average inbreeding.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

Let me pose this question. If you have a stud or bitch that is clear of all know genetic “faults” except for one in which they are a carrier. They are also a good example of the breed in which you are breeding. Would you use them in your breeding program? Or would you consider them inferior because they carry one marker of a genetic mutation?


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Fortunately for most of us that play the dog games, many of the great dogs of the past that were carriers were not tossed out of the gene pool. 

The genetic tests that we have today are tools that allows us make intelligent breeding decisions. IMO, that does not mean discarding all carriers. 

fp


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

To the folks who say you can't breed it out of the gene pool .
With all the backyard breedings alone , you are mathematically correct .

But you can breed it out of your bloodlines . 

Responsible for who mounts who ,Regards ,


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

I hope all these responsible dog breeders are using the same criteria in there own reproduction.
________
Upskirt Amateur


----------



## Latisha (Feb 2, 2004)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I notice nobody is even mentioning using the DNA tests for prcd_PRA and Retinal Dysplasia.
> 
> I can understand why EIC and CNM are more distressing to Lab breeders right now, but to ignore these other known diseases, for which there are DNA tests, might not be wise.
> 
> I can recall some years back when RD was very distressing to several breeders. The recessive prcd-PRA gene could quickly gain a foothold if just a few popular sires were to be carriers.


A good point. This has happened in other breeds where they were very strict in removing carriers of one disease out of the gene pool only to pop with a new problem instead. Now they have to deal with both.


----------



## choclabs (Sep 7, 2005)

THIS IS MY SPECIFIC ANSWER TO YOUR ORIGINALLY POSTED QUESTIONS.

I have 2 females and 1 male dog. Both of my females are CNM Carrier and EIC un-tested. My male is CNM Clear and EIC Carrier.

I produced 3 litters out of my females, the first litter was prior to the CNM test being available, but I had good reason to believe both of my girls could be CNM Carriers. With each puppy placed in the first litter, I explicitly told each puppy owner that the odds of my bitch being a CNM Carrier were 50/50% and therefore their puppy could also be a CNM Carrier. I even went so far as to explain that although I specifically asked the stud dog owner if he knew of any CNM dogs being produced by his dog (answer was no), that there was a statistical possibility that their puppy MAY actually be CNM Affected (litter whelped Feb 2004). Then when I bred my other female I was the first litter to have the CNM Test performed on the entire litter (whelped Oct 2005). The stud dog provided frozen semen for an AI breeding with out CNM status known. Again I specifically asked the stud dog if there were any know CNM Affected puppies that their dog had produced, and again the answer was no.

I paid for the CNM test to be performed and the results were shared with each potential puppy owner. I also took the time to teach each puppy owner what I knew about the CNM disease and told them to look at the website for CNM.

Once the CNM Carrier status was confirmed for the dam of my first litter I contacted each owner and told them the status of my female and implored each to have their dogs tested prior to breeding. I explained to them each of them that if they produced a CNM Affected puppy and placed it with a family, that they would have to answer the phone when the owner of one of their puppies called them to let them know that their children's dog had to be put to sleep when it was 6-12 months old.

Last year I was informed that my stud dog had produced an EIC Affected puppy with the results confirmed by early tests from Un of MN. My stud dog was bred again one more time after the litter which produced the affected puppy and one more time again after I knew of his probable EIC Carrier status. The breeding that was performed after he became a presumed EIC Carrier was one that I chose to have with my female so that I could keep a puppy. My female's first litter produced a dog that recently passed 9 of 10 series in the 2008 NFC and 2 other very fine marking MH's. My stud dog has been bred a total of 6 times and only once after he was presumed to be an EIC carrier. He has produced some fine puppies from non-competing dogs and a couple of superb young dogs from a well bred bitch. 

I produced 3 surviving chocolate males out of my 9yr old female. All were EIC Clear and 2 were CNM Carriers. YES is the answer! I DID KEEP the one EIC & CNM Clear puppy, he happened to be the Alpha of his small pack. I also provided both tests results to each of the new puppy owners, lectured them about each disease and gave them unlimited AKC registration. They each have a puppy with some very fine bloodlines and what they choose to do in future breeding situations is their right as informed owners. I charged full price for each puppy and specifically passed the costs of each DNA test on to each puppy owner. 

Last of all I just received the EIC Carrier results from Un of MN on my stud dog. I do not plan to advertise his availability as stud dog but would not reject his services to well bred mates, obviously with full disclosure and understanding shared between me and the dam's owner.

That is my story and I have personally supported limited but carefully planned matings of Carrier to Clear pairs of each disease. As one who has spent many years and lots of funds paying for professional training (FT & HT) plus competing and hunting with my dogs, I now have a well bred CNM + EIC Clear young puppy that I hope proves his breeding in upcoming competition. In the future I hope to have the opportunity to consider and probably allow his breeding to some Carrier bitches that I reserve the right to judge as "bringing something to the mating". 

Respectfully,

Michael Watson

BTW - I am now in the process of contacting each owner of dams that previously bred to my stud dog in hopes that they will contact each puppy owner and explain the possibilities (50/50% chance) and the responsibilities associated with owning an EIC Carrier. I also hope to hear that each has subsequently had their dam tested for both diseases.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

trinitylabs said:


> According to an article in Ducks Unlimited 3 - 5% of labs are affected by EIC, of those affected only a percentage will ever have an episode. In comparison, CNM affected dogs will be symtomatic everytime and will suffer terribly. I have chosen since the CNM test came out to not breed with any carriers and I have all of my dogs certified non-carriers because I don't want to produce carriers of CNM. I will however not pull my EIC carriers from my breeding program, they have already been cleared for CNM, have good or excellent hips, CERF. normal elbows, normal cardiac, normal thyroid, normal patella, and proven disposition, trainability, intelligence, etc. There is no such thing as a perfect dog, but if we go too fast to remove EIC from our breed we will definately be losing some of the great qualities that we have worked for generations to create. Are hips and elbows less important that CNM and EIC, I don't think so. Is tri-cuspid valve dysplasia less important or detrimental than EIC, again I don't think so. Is patella luxation less important than EIC, don't think so, is hyperthyroidism less important than EIC, I don't think so. We have to look at the whole dog not just one test result.
> I recently produced a litter from an EIC carrier and I have tested the entire litter, I will sell the carrier pups with full disclosure but expect that only non-breeders will be interested in purchasing them, however I kept a pup from the litter that is a carrier because if he proves that he has all the great qualities that I think he has then he will with proper breeding ethics produce great get. In my opinion (my opinion) stud dog owners should be more selective who they breed their male with. As a female owner I spend months trying to pick a male to breed my female with. I know stud dog owners that don't even ask if the female has the mimimum hips, elbows and CERF clearances before breeding. There are many great stud dogs out there that are being bred with females that have problems and then the stud dog is blamed when a problem shows up in the get. We are all keepers of our breed, breed smart and the breed will improve, breed for money and the breed will go the way of other hunting breeds that can no longer do the work they were bred to do. I have the utmost respect for the stud dog owners that have told me of the possibility of their dog carrying CNM before the test was available, but I have never had anyone tell me that there is a possibility of their dog carrying EIC before the test was available and I honestly believe that most of them did not know because they don't get feedback from the bitch owners or puppy buyers or the pups were misdiagnosed, most vets have never even heard of EIC. Communication and the willingness to be upfront about your dog's qualities and faults is the only way to improve the breed. Knowledge is power.


Great post! Good job.....


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Latisha said:


> only to pop with a new problem instead.


New problem, or pre existing problem? I fail to see where a new problem/health issue would arise?


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Aussie said:


> New problem, or pre existing problem? I fail to see where a new problem/health issue would arise?


Some may be "new" that develop from mutations, but may not be noticed for several years before the gene could spread to enough dogs to be noticed.

Others could be "pre-existing", but never became significant within the operant gene pool being used.

The EIC gene may have existed for many years before clinical evidence made it discernable to breeders. 

It might be hard to pinpoint exactly when a particular gene entered the gene pool.

It took from 1998 (when the DNA test for prcd-PRA test first became available) before we found the first Golden with this gene. Many of the eye specialists believed it did not exist in Goldens for that reason.

However, since this very same gene occurs in so many breeds, it is suspected that the gene pre-dates the separation of the breeds in which it occurs. In fact, one of the source carriers we have identified, was born in 1991, but it took three generations (until 2007) to find a clinically affected dog that brought the gene to the surface. Once we started actually looking for the gene, several other source carriers were identified in about 18 months ... by pure random chance.

So, this was not a "new" genetic problem in the purest sense. However, it was "unanticipated". So, perhaps, the word "new" in Latisha's post would be more appropriately called "unanticipated"?


----------

