Following on from another thread, without wishing to hijack theirs, I thought I'd pose this question.  Some breeds have diverged, so there is quite a difference between the show type, and the working type.  This isn't about which is right or wrong, but, if there is a difference between the health of these gene pools, should one set with less problems, be expected to foot the bill for the other gene pool, that exhibits more problems?  It seems a bit unfair to me, that people who have a healthy example of a breed, and know their lines carry few problems have to pay for health testing simply because the other side of the gene pool carry more problems??

Off to open a bottle of red, I feel this may be a huge discussion.....

The question is, is there a difference in the health of the two 'sides' or is it that one 'side' tends not to test?

The breed I'm thinking of, definitely a case of not a problem with one side, hip scoring/elbow grading is a bit of a difficult one, because dogs can have a supposedly high bms without showing any signs of real discomfort.  But, for arguments sake, let's say that one side is pretty much healthy, or shows signs of being healthy and not developing problems associated with the other side of the gene pool divide. 

What do you mean by one side 'footing the bill' for the other? Everyone should health test their own dogs whichever 'side' they are, so they'll all pay the same. The attitude "I don't have X, Y or Z in my lines" leads to complacency and very quickly to problems.

This is so generalised I think it may be difficult to say, it is the sporting breeds that are duel purpose and in a lot of cases there are examples that do both work and show ring. If you are thinking of the one or two pastoral breeds then they do seem to be separate and in most cases look different. Perhaps you could give an example of the sort of breeds you are thinking of.

Health tests cost money, and it's also risky putting your dog(s) through a GA for some of the required tests. 

I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into a them vs us debate, I'm more interested in the ethics of health tests, with reference to breeds where there is a divide in particular.  There are numerous health tests available for different breeds, and it worries me, that some don't fully understand the implications associated with health testing, there seems to be a clear tick sheet mentality with some, that would only consider using 'clear' dogs, with low BMS/elbow grade, whereas I think there are a number of things to take into account with a dog, not just their health test results. 

Jackie, I don't want it to turn into a them vs us debate, so wanted to generalise, but one breed I'm thinking of in particular, where I know a few people with working types, is cocker spaniels.  There are people I know that have lines where they haven't had associated problems with some of the show dogs, apparently - and this is my HUGE disclaimer, I am not singling out one side vs the other, and I know there is no study to say that one side has problems, the other doesn't, but just asking the question.  

But there are health tests for narcolepsy and EIC within my breed, narcolepsy is virtually unheard of as far as I know, and EIC the test isn't particularly convincing when carriers can still collapse and the trigger isn't known. 

If a breed where so split that only one side reported hip problems, I think I'd be loathe if I owned a dog from the other side, to risk a GA, if I didn't think it were necessary, just as an example. 

In which case I am not in a position to say, in my youth we had working strain and they were huge by today's standards so be it show or working over the last 60 years things have changed a good deal. As to health testing I have know idea but if you are working your dog and it is lame you shoot it not breed from it, the pet trade is different as people are prepared to nurse a dog and give it a good life even if it could not do a days work. Now people who show have different requirements to both the working owner and the pet owner because they want a dog of breed temperament and good conformation and to that end are more inclined to health check because they can't afford to risk the unhealthy or lame dog that is no good for showing or breeding. Would not mind betting that there are show dogs that work and work dogs that show but only the cocker people would know for sure.

EDIT: sorry just read this and I did not get to the point, I was trying to say there are 3 sides to all working dogs - the working - the show and the pet. Excess pups from the show people are sold for pets but in the breed you talk of I would think a good many litters are bred purely for the pet market with no intention of any going near a show ring.

>one breed I'm thinking of in particular, where I know a few people with working types, is cocker spaniels.

We see far more 'working-type' cocker spaniels than 'show-type' at work, and they're certainly not noticeably sounder physically or mentally than their show counterparts. To be honest, unless a breeder knows the lifelong health results of every single puppy from every single litter they've had there's no way they can say that their line is free of a particular problem.

I don't know anyone who would shoot their dog for being lame, not sure which working circles you know/knew??   Sure they are there, but thankful I don't know of them! 

True, but if they've never had a problem, nor know of a problem within their lines, why suddenly start testing, whether or not it's become a problem within the 'other' gene pool?  Surely that's just testing for testing's sake??

Just to reply to your point about breeding for the pet market, actually, the working people I know, sell with first preference to working homes only, and rarely consider pet homes, unless they are convinced that it will be a good pet home.  Perhaps it's just the type of people with working dogs that I know.  Having said that, I do know that there are people with 'working' dogs, that do breed and will happily sell to all and sundry, but then you get that with any segment, show, pet, working breeders and anything else. 

Perhaps I should have said disposed of - no one who's livelihood depends of there having sound dogs will tolerate a lame of sickly one so that dog will be re-homed as a pet or PTS.

If you don't test then you don't know.

I know of a dog with a hipscore of 53 that's as sound as you like, and one with a hipscore of 6 that's lame. If only dogs that displayed problems were tested then the high-scoring dog would have gone unnoticed and possibly bred from, with the breeder confidently saying that 'there wasn't a problem in her line'.

But there is no need to use a GA for hip testing - over the years, I've had 3 labs & 4 aussies hip scored at Cambridge, under sedation.     To use the risk of not putting a dog under a GA is not a good enough excuse not to hip/elblow score!

So are you saying we should all hip score all our breeds?  Because unless we all did that, then we wouldn't know whether or not there was a problem, at least on paper???? Surely that's the wrong approach???

Jackie, get your point, I do think sometimes the working fraternity are viewed rather harshly, at least from my experience of mixing with them, perhaps I've been lucky.  There are good and bad in all walks of life, which I think it always pays to bear in mind. 

Actually, having had a bitch put under with sedation, I wouldn't want to repeat the experience.  It was the vet's fault for not taking a good set of plates the first time round, not wanting to risk another GA, I asked for sedation, didn't find her response to coming round was any better tbh. 

To be honest I think you may be making divisions where there is none whether you are breeding working or show strain you are looking for healthy stock whereas if you are looking for money you just breed.

You do seem to have firm beliefs yourself so I am not sure what it is you are asking. If you wish to breed as health stock as possible then you take advantage of every test there is other wise you keep the best and dispose of the rest in any way you can.

The reason I'm asking, is for one, I'm cynical about the amount of health testing available to use, and also because I'm very wary about the way people are possibly using it.  It seems to be a tick list as in, ok to breed if clear, clear, below bms, etc, when I think there is more to consider about a 'dog' than whether it's got the best set of health test results, hope that makes sense?? 

As I said you have made your mind up that testing in not needed and I think every available tool to produce healthy stock should be used, so there is not much more I can say

> I think there is more to consider about a 'dog' than whether it's got the best set of health test results

For me health is a huge priority and it should be for anyone who breeds. The temperament is a huge one too. For me those are the 2 main things I look at first before I go any further.

There are dogs in my breed who in the show ring are showing no signs of lameness but we know from the health results that the scoring is to the point you wouldn't even consider them in a breeding line. Why use a dog which has proof that its not at its best, even if its not showing it(yet), why pass it on down the lines?
With regards scores, you have to weigh up what is a good score, if a bad score is that down to genetics, injury when young etc..
Same with eye testing unless you test and prove clear you'll never know.
For example you think that your bitch is clear on here eyes, you visit the stud dog(not owned or bred by you), how do you know that it is clear? You'll never know unless you test. Who wants a dog going blind at a young age?

Some breeds have to be heart tested, liver shunt tested etc, these too are things which are serious enough that they have to be tested and taken into account
Both my boys have been scored, under sedation only, I won't put them under a GA.

Its irresponsible to breed without health testing first, regardless of the lines, whether they are worked, shown or for any other reason.

Eh, not sure how you've come to this conclusion???

I've tested both my bitches, one I decided to spay, her elbow grade came back as a 2:1, although the plates were by a vet that I don't trust as competent, but unfortunately I didn't know the appeals procedure.  I'm also paying to have my other bitch pra tested, as although she's cbp, her sire's health test results aren't on the KC database, so it wouldn't appear on any pups' pedigree, that is if I do go ahead and breed.  Please don't point the finger at me for non-health testing, I've done more than my fair share, what I am saying is that people are using it as an excuse to breed in some instances. 

But, the point I was trying to make, is that within some breeds, where there is a diversification, then one side may suffer problems the other doesn't appear to.  Do we therefore test for the sake of it, which means that some people with apparently perfectly healthy lines have to start testing for things that aren't a problem, or at least don't appear to be. 

suejaw, thanks, really think you are right along the lines, but, what if you don't have those problems within your lines associated within another set of 'lines', still your breed.  If you, as a knowledgeable breeder, know of no similar associated problems within the lines you choose to breed, why do you have to subject your dog to yet another bout of health testing, simply for the sake of it? 

I agree, there are serious health problems, certainly, that should be tested for where they are known to be a problem within a breed, generally.  But I also think that health testing is used by people to say their dogs are worth breeding out of, when they possibly aren't, or the breeders are breeding for the wrong reason. Slightly OT but also worth discussion.

> If you, as a knowledgeable breeder, know of no similar associated problems within the lines you choose to breed, why do you have to subject your dog to yet another bout of health testing, simply for the sake of it? 
>

What you have to look at here is how honest people are, there are plenty of people who won't and don't speak out about issues they have so things get passed on down lines, some people are none the wiser until one day a pup ends up with a problem.
You think they are healthy but when something does happen you'll have no idea what dog/lines its come from, i think with health testing it keeps things in some way simple, its a way of tracking results and actually knowing they are good, even if you knew that before testing. Some things never show up until much later on, they may never show up, but some dogs are carriers on certain things, to which you'd never know unless you test.

True, but then one thing you mentioned initially, is temperament, which I think is paramount, dogs should look like their breed, act like their breed, and be healthy representatives of their breed, in that order, for me.  A lot of people breed from dogs that aren't suitable temperament wise, and that doesn't get recorded, or frowned upon, in the same way, as if someone with a carrier, or even affected for some conditions, bred to breed clear of a condition, or a high hipscore, to a low hipscore, etc. 

>But, the point I was trying to make, is that within some breeds, where there is a diversification, then one side may suffer problems the other doesn't appear to.  Do we therefore test for the sake of it, which means that some people with apparently perfectly healthy lines have to start testing for things that aren't a problem, or at least don't appear to be.


Depends on the health problem involved, some dogs are carriers but not effected unless you test how will you know.

Still not sure what the breeds are where there is a noticeable diversification.

Sorry if I miss read you post I thought you were saying health testing was a waste of time and I think it is always worth while even if you don't intend breeding, the health of progeny being just as important and that of the breeding stock.

I maybe wrong but on the continent, I think its either Switzerland or Germany or the both in my breed, dogs have to pass a temperament test too before they can be bred from.
They do assessment's over here for my breed once a year, only a certain number of dogs can go through it, but i'd like to see this at some point put through as another requirement before breeding can take place.

Jackie, I agree, health testing has it's place.  As an example, I'll use my bitch Tau, she has 0/0 hips, 0 elbows, is pra and cnm clear, which most people would think great.  However, I take into account her temperament first, which is good, not as good as her big sis, Indie, but then I doubt if any example of my breed could be quite as good as Indie.  Ability, she has a bit, not bags full, but enough to count worthwhile, for me.  I won't produce another 0/0, 0 pup, and depending on which stud dog I use, I may produce a carrier, is that a failing?  Depends on the dog I produce, not on the health test results to me, if you now see where I'm coming from. 

But, apply that to both sides where there is a diversification within a breed, and it becomes a bit of an issue to me.  Surely if you know you don't have a problem within your lines, you will be gutted to be seen as irresponsible, not to test for a problem that's never raised it's head??

>Surely if you know you don't have a problem within your lines,

As I said before, unless you know the total health history of every single one of the pups in the entire line you don't know for certain that there isn't a problem lurking, waiting to be exposed.

As for sedation, I've had dogs sedated for BAER testing and the recovery has been far quicker than that of a GA.

>I may produce a carrier, is that a failing? 

Not at all, but with a simple recessive condition a carrier should only be mated to a clear, and without testing you won't know that.

Taking CEA in border collies as an example clinical health tests have been done by working and show breeders for quiet a number of years and yet when the DNA test came in both ISDS breeders and KC breeders did have suprises as to some dogs that where found to be carriers. With a recesive mode of inheritance a problem can be carried for quiet a few generations before it meets its counter part in another dog and then a problem appears to have occured totally randomly whereas now the genetic test is available breeders know how and where to bred away from this problem. If the breeder had took the stance its not been seen in my lines for generations I dont need to test then those carriers could have remind hidden or been expressed purely by chance. If the tests aren't done how do they know for certain?

> I won't produce another 0/0, 0 pup, and depending on which stud dog I use, I may produce a carrier, is that a failing?

I take it the stud is a carrier, or the one you're looking at is?
What is looked for is clear to clear(obviously as we know), BUT if a carrier what's the worse that can happen if they are a carrier only? I'm asking this as I don't know. The stud I would be making sure was a super example of the breed and temperament second to none to start with.

The thing is you know your lines, but what if one of your puppy owners has had a problem but never told you? What if the stud dog has problems, never tested, you'd not know unless told about it, before you know it its in your lines.. I can't see any reason for not testing at all.
There is a certain breed which is split, one line health test and the other are known not to so much, why?? I won't get into that discussion, but I can't see any reason for not testing, even if its to prove there is no problems in a line and to knowingly keep it that way.

I do so agree - temperament is paramount - after all, as a Mentor told me, long ago, you can live with Ugly, you cannot live with bad temperament!"

However, I am also firmly of the opinion that when one only has one bite at the cherry, one uses one's best bite - and therefore, when it comes to hip/elbow scoring, I would not go to my local vet - I would use a specialist!  

Not many people own both the dog and bitch involved in any mating - and behind each dog and bitch there are generations of animals that should also be tested if you are to be sure. If you own both sides of the mating and have also owned the generations behind them and know that they are not carrying anything then fine but few people are in this situation.

For me it is not a case of temperament first or type, you need type, temperament and health nothing else will do.

but your saying appearing not to have a problem, we all know of sound dogs who have high hip scores in the 40's.

If you breed you foot the bill to ensure your own individual gene pool that your propagating is as problem free as possible.

A breed i have a lot of affection for and many of which are personal canine Friends is the Doberman.

Breed mean score is 7, but so few people score.  The range of scores they have is worse than my own breed where every reputably bred litter (only occasional KC litter not bred by reputable caring sorts) are from scored parents.

A Springer with top Field Trial pedigree, but not a single hip score among the,.

I personally know people who have working bred versions of popular gundog breeds with terrible HD.

>If the breeder had took the stance its not been seen in my lines for generations I dont need to test then those carriers could have remind hidden or been expressed purely by chance. If the tests aren't done how do they know for certain?

They can't. They're playing Russian Roulette, with their fingers crossed for extra luck.

> I'm more interested in the ethics of health tests, with reference to breeds where there is a divide in particular.

Whether a breed has divided they all come from the same original gene pool and in fact same species.

So all need health testing.

All breeds require Hip scoring, and in my opinion eye testing.

For example why some breeds have the same version of a disease, prcd-PRA for example, is common to quite a few breeds probably because of common ancestry.

If you don't keep a check on the health status problems will creep in.

I'm with Barbara on this point - I have always carried out health tests on all my dogs - WHETHER OR NOT
they have been in my "breeding programme".   To do so, gives vital information to my breed society - they then know that breeding x to y produces z - and the resulting implications.   This is valuable for future breeding programmes - it may well wreck havoc with any planned breeding programmes of my own - but if, as we say, we are concerned with the well-being of the breed, then this information has to be in the open.

Sadly, what we cannot yet test for in a manner that can be rated 1-10, is temperament.

Sue, not picking on you, trying to answer lots of responses, but no, the stud dog I am looking at isn't a carrier for anything, and has low hip scores (3:3 from memory) and 0 elbow grade.

But that's no guarantee I will produce healthy pups from Tau. 

What I'm more interested in, is that I will produce good all round nice represenatives of the breed, conformation and temperament wise, the fact that I want to use this stud dog is after seeing him in action, it's a complete outcross as I couldn't find what I wanted within the lines my bitch is from. 

This seems to have turned into a health testing vs not debate, rather than querying if/why there is a divide between some breeds.  I think that this might be the case, but the only answer seems to be, unless you health test, you won't know, so damned if you do, damned if you don't type of thing......

Even greyhounds, re hip scoring????

> So are you saying we should all hip score all our breeds? 

Yes as all breeds and non breeds and wolves can and do produce Hip Dysplasia.

With other problems they can be much more breed specific, but eye problems are fairly universal, in there being at least some condition to look out for.

After that we get conditions that are much more breed specific and the give breed should be tested if there are more cases of a problem than in the general canine population.

For example Elbow dysplasia has not been an issue in my breed and in fact all those that have tested for their own interest have been normal.

Maybe people in the show world are more likely to network though their breed clubs and the clubs can keep a finger on the pulse far more than individual owners/breeders.

For example Epilepsy is fairly common in dogs as a whoel adn there are many causes, but a breed dispostion exists in some.  Sadly no real test available other than avoiding using affected dogs and close relatives.

So what about problems with the stifle joint, cruciate injuries are one that spring to mind?  And shoulder injuries, problems with the wrist etc?? Why are these then discounted, they occur...

HC is going to be a big divider I believe, from the believed mode of inheritance, it is going to be a bit of a cross to bear....

> rather than querying if/why there is a divide between some breeds.

I think the answer can only come from those who don't health test as to why. So if we look at working Cockers, which was mentioned above by someone, why don't they health test(not all breeders), reason behind it and how they can be so sure that their lines are healthy etc.
It does appear that some working lines are less likely to health test than say show lines in some breeds, why I can't say..

> A lot of people breed from dogs that aren't suitable temperament wise, and that doesn't get recorded, or frowned upon, in the same way,

You can live with an ugly good natured dog, even a lovely unhealthy one(which is why bad breeders get away with it counting on people's love for the dog) but not with a beautiful bad tempered one.

No breeder worthy of the name wants to live with horrid dogs.

Temperament isn't mentioned much maybe because it goes without saying, it is an essential before you start, a bit like entirety/fertility.

>For example Epilepsy is fairly common in dogs as a whoel adn there are many causes, but a breed dispostion exists in some.  Sadly no real test available other than avoiding using affected dogs and close relatives.

And the knowledge of its existence in a line relies on lifetime feedback from the owners of all the puppies produced, whether or not they're ever shown or worked or bred from.

I don't think that's entirely true, they are less likely to test for a problem that they don't see within their lines, not less likely to test overall.  Of course, generally speaking, you will get people from show/pet/working that won't test for what they should.  But that really brings my initial point to the fore, if you know your lines, you breed a dog without problems that you know of, why do you suddenly have to start health testing it when you haven't come across any health problems? 

That and the test for some cancers is a very worthwhile health test imo for some of the affected breeds.  Edited to add, if/when those tests have been developed! Much more important than something like Narcolepsy in Labradors.....

>So what about problems with the stifle joint, cruciate injuries are one that spring to mind?  And shoulder injuries, problems with the wrist etc?? Why are these then discounted, they occur...

Because injuries of any sort can happen to any animal - they're not robots with guaranteed perfect good health at all stages of life, whatever activity they undertake. Even the soundest animal can injure itself (cruciate injuries are reputedly more common in animals that are neutered before maturity), but that's not a hereditary condition - it's the conditions with an hereditary element that are tested for.

>if you know your lines, you breed a dog without problems that you know of, why do you suddenly have to start health testing it when you haven't come across any health problems?

"That you know of" is the relevent part here. There are late-onset hereditary conditions that, to be certain the animal isn't affected by without testing, would require delaying breeding from it until old age, which would be madness.

But, the genetic test for HD is on it's way, what's to stop the genetic tests for other joints, or don't they matter? 

I have a bitch that wasn't neutered until mature, she suffered a stifle injury whilst entire, not necessarily due to conformation, but a one off unlucky incident.  But, if it had been that her conformation, ie a more upright stifle, was a contributory factor, then that would be a hereditary consideration. 

> That and the test for some cancers

Oh how i'd wish they'd come up with a test for that.. Not lost a dog to it, but plenty in my breed have, and also many large/giant breeds..