Hi julie t, how old are your pups now?  Are you planning on getting them scored?  Advice varies on the age to hipscore but my breeder advises that, for my gundog breed, then between 12 and 18 months is best.  Someone else I know sticks as close to 12 months as possible.  If you let us know where you live we can probably recommend somewhere to go if you like :)

If your breeder is careful about hips, scoring is a factor in his/her breeding decisions, and they have been scoring their own dogs for some years then they are often the best people to get advice from about food and diet. However a good quality food and vigilance about weight management will all help.  I do think it possible to ruin a perfectly good pair of hips with over exercise so I've always been cautious about limiting distance walked, and time off lead.  I also don't allow my dogs to tackle the stairs or to jump on and off furniture either.  Do I read that you have two puppies at the moment?  Pups can be demons for over enthusiastic play so I would limit that too, particularly if it involves a lot of chasing and rolling!  I do stick to the 5 minutes per day, per month of life, rule although that doesn't curtail our trips for socialisation as I carry or use a trolley at the garden centre!  I don't generally walk purely for exercise until my dogs are over 8 months - prior to that it's all about giving them new things to learn - and I'm very careful til they reach 12 months.  I do think that if you are aware of the need for caution then that is probably enough to prevent you from over doing things

> It doesn't say anything about whether these dogs were genetically carriers/suffers anyway so seems irrelevant.  In fact genetics didn't feature in this article at all so were the dogs genetically tested for HD?  Might they be carrying/suffering from the HD gene anyway

floJO, HD is a polygenic disorder. That means that there are several genes involved. Unless you think these genes are linked in some way and are inherited together, then you can't talk about 'carriers'. It could be that the whole population are 'carriers' of one or more of these genes. Until we get a DNA test we have to rely on X rays and hip scores.

> HD is a polygenic disorder. That means that there are several genes involved.

> you can't talk about 'carriers'. It could be that the whole population are 'carriers' of one or more of these genes.

Exactly, chances are all dogs carry some of the genes that combined will produce clinical HD.

This is why the most reliable results when breeding are when you mate dogs with generations and close relatives with normal range scores, as it shows that various permutations/combinations have all produced acceptable results.

Both in the US system and our own by looking at scores achieved in various time periods, where selection for hips has occurred the scores have overall improved over time, so proving that genetics is involved, though of course people may also be taking more care with environmental and dietary influences..

Might they be carrying/suffering from the HD gene anyway and the early neutering influenced the emergence rather than early neutering be the cause??

Think it is because the control the removed hormones has on growth and maturity of the bones is missing the bones continue to grow  (including one assumes the joints) and at the same time the laying down of muscle is reduced therefore animals neutered before full maturity are susceptible to not just HD but other bone and joint conditions.

EDIT

Having difficulty in understanding what I meant myself, will try again.

The hormones produced by the testis & ovaries control the bone growth and the laying down of muscle, and when this hormone is not available the bones are likely to grow longer than usual and the joints may also be involved add to this the fact that the laying down of muscles is not so pronounced and you have a situation where the development of HD and other bone and joint problems may occur more readily than in a dog that is not neutered or not neutered until fully mature.

The gsdfederation link that was posted backs that theory too.  If you read about 3/4 way through it talks about the effects of diet and exercise but says that there is no value in restricting the diet etc in animals  not pre-disposed to the disease.  I read that to mean there has to be a  genetic factor of HD for diet and exercise to matter.

That site also mentions that x-rays aren't done until 12 months of age but suggests they should be done again at 24 months as the development of this 'hereditary' (quoted from the gsd link ) disease is not precise.

An interesting, thought provoking, informative thread.

How badly is your dog affected flojo?

floJO, HD is a polygenic disorder. That means that there are several genes involved. Unless you think these genes are linked in some way and are inherited together, then you can't talk about 'carriers'. It could be that the whole population are 'carriers' of one or more of these genes. Until we get a DNA test we have to rely on X rays and hip scores.

I realise its polygenic and have said so in earlier posts.  If you read all the links that have been posted on this thread you will see the references to 'carriers' there and the relevance.

How badly is your dog affected flojo?

Only mild.  But it was noticeable from a few weeks.  Vets wouldn't x-ray then but monitored throughout develoment.  She was always on good food and weight was recorded every 2 or 3 weeks, exercise kept within strict limits.  She was seen by  physios but despite taking every care it was clear by 12 months that the gait was getting worse and x-rays confirmed HD in both hips.  The real worry is for later in life when osteoarthritis can set in.

What was her score?

What was her score?

The x-rays weren't sent to bva as there was never any intention of breeding.  The x-rays were independenty assessed by vets, physios and surgeons with '50% coverage of the femoral head on the left and 60% on the right with medial divergence of the coxofemeral joints;..... evidence of mild hip dysplasia but no osteoarthritic change associated with this on the x-rays '.

Theres a lot of technical stuff in the report that goes over my head but the bit above is the important bit.

The point of submitting for scoring is to have the statistics for the breed as well as yourself.

None of us can tell from what you have said as to how bad her hips are on the scale.

The highest score in my breed was 63 and the bitch never suffered anything except arthritis with age, yet some dogs with a lower score would have clinical effects at a lower score.

There are very few dogs with radiographically perfect hips and anything below a total of 20 is a functionally normal hip.

> Theres a lot of technical stuff in the report that goes over my head but the bit above is the important bit

I know it's a bit late now bit I think that the actual score is pretty important - not only is it useful for the breed it enables you to see at a glance how the hips compare, with each other, and with the rest of your breed.  In the grand scheme of things the actual scoring process (i.e. the fe to the BVA) doesn't add a huge amount to the cost of your X-rays AND I think your vet should have recommended it. 

It's never too late to submit them though if the ID details were put on the plates as they should have been. 

I never understand a Vet taking hip x-rays and not advising submitting them for an objective assessment.  After all the BVA fee is the least of the cost.

The point of submitting for scoring is to have the statistics for the breed as well as yourself.

None of us can tell from what you have said as to how bad her hips are on the scale.

As a breeder I can see that would be important to you and others but it isn't to me as an owner of a pet dog from whom I never intended to breed.  (the breeder was notified of the problem).

The x-rays themselves were over £100 then it was about £30 for each independent assessment and report by other professionals, the meeting with the surgeon cost £200 and then there's been the cost of on-going physio therapy and pain-killers to boot!  there's no way I was paying for a what is to me a useless piece of information to have the hips scored by the bva. 

I know exactly how my dog is affected by the HD and also realise that what the dog physically presents with doesn't always match the clinical condition.  All that's important to me is to make sure my dog lives as a good a life as possible given the condition she's got to live with.   The only reason why I mentioned on this thread that my dog suffered with HD was to explain my personal intestest and why I'd  investigated the HD condition, its cause and influences.

I appreciate that others here might want to help by giving their opinion as to how the 'score' could affect her but I know that in this respect the 'score' is irrelevant because it doesn't reflect the reality of how each individual dog is affected as some have a high score but seem totally unaffected and some have a low score but suffer immense pain and mobility/flexibility discomfort.

floJo you've said that "The x-rays weren't sent to bva as there was never any intention of breeding" and this is obviously true for you. I appreciate too that the score might not feel very relevant to you and it's completely your choice at this time    However those scores can be very valuable to the breeder of your dog, the stud owner, owners of siblings, and other people interested in that family line.  If we are to improve hips with breeding (in as much as that might be possible) then it's important to have as much data as possible from owners of all types.  If my dogs were ever to be used at stud I'd want to know as much as possible about their progeny to help me decide whether my dog is positively adding to the gene pool...

I'm not picking on you floJo and this isn't about "how the score could affect her" but about the wider picture.  I'm not a breeder either but I know that when choosing a dog I want to ensure that I can find the best possible puppy - this includes knowing as many scores as possible within a family group as I can.  I can also see instances where it would be useful for breeders to know, and be able to communicate to their owners, that they know of dogs with high scores that show no clinical signs, or vice-versa.  I feel that owners should be encouraged to score, and certainly in your situation when the x-rays have been taken, I feel the vets should play a more active role in suggesting the plates are submitted to the BVA for scoring.

I'm not picking on you floJo and this isn't about "how the score could affect her" but about the wider picture.

The breeder was told straight away of the diagnosis and at the time we had a cd with x-rays plates on which we sent to other professionals for assessment.   If the breeder wanted it or a copy she could have had it but chose not to. 

Like I said, the important bit for me is to do the best thing for my dog and its cost me a fortune so far and she is only 2 years old now.  I have as many years of expense to look forward to as she has pain and limitations.  If its important for breeding purposes then as far as I'm concerned the breeder can pay for the score to be done by BVA.  Incidentally I know she bred from the same pairing again after she knew of the problem we had.  No Offense dogs a babe but I'm sure you can see my point of view.

> The breeder was told straight away of the diagnosis and at the time we had a cd with x-rays plates on which we sent to other professionals for assessment.   If the breeder wanted it or a copy she could have had it but chose not to. 
>
>

but without scoring the information would not have made any sense in the grand scheme re hip screening, and it affects more than just the breeder, or whether they are interested.

Also had the plates been scored others considering using the sire or dam or your dogs littermates etc or their progeny would have had that information to give them a wider idea of what could be produced.

Malcolm Willis had found that the offspring's scores of a dog or bitch once there were more than 20 scored was a better indicator of what they might produce.  10 scored progeny was as good as the parental score.

This is why unfortunately progress in improvement with a polygenic condition can be slow as there is not enough information relating to given dogs at the time it is of use.

For example in my breed it is very unlikely that any dog or bitch will have 20 scored offspring in their lifetime (most bitches won't even have that many offspring).

So any dog or bitch being x-rayed and not having their x-ray scored is a missed opportunity for helping the health of a breed re this condition.

We are quite lucky in our numerically small breed that because numbers are low the number of dogs scored, eye tested etc is over 20% of all registrations, so a very good and indicative cross section of the whole breed.  Sadly in some breeds the proportion health tested compared to those registered is small, so not a good indication of the status of a breed as a whole.

> If its important for breeding purposes then as far as I'm concerned the breeder can pay for the score to be done by BVA.  Incidentally I know she bred from the same pairing again after she knew of the problem we had.

I'm happy to pay for scoring as I do think it important but equally I have a breeder who I know is very supportive of the hip scoring initiative AND who uses that information in her breeding decisions.  I consider that we are working in partnership.

There could be many reasons for repeating the mating (difficult to know from the sidelines and of course I/we don't know your girls actual score or those of her litter mates or other progeny) but I'm not sure how I'd feel if it appeared my breeder wasn't listening to, or disregarding, the feedback he/she gos from the scoring data...

> If you read all the links that have been posted on this thread you will see the references to 'carriers' there and the relevance.

I have read your posts, and your links. And I'm afraid your belief that HD can be 'carried' by certain dogs is just too simplistic. Polygenic diseases are notoriously hard to pin down. For that reason, scored X rays are vital for the dog breeders amongst us. This helps us to look at families rather than individuals, and to make informed choices.

but without scoring the information would not have made any sense in the grand scheme re hip screening, and it affects more than just the breeder, or whether they are interested.

I think we should take responsibility for what we're responsible for.  Mine is to my dog; and to my mind the breeder's is for the lines she bred from, what she produced and any future breedings from what might be similarly affected dogs.  I don't even know who has siblings to mine but the breeder does.  I think the buck stops there.

but it doesn't really as they don't have info that they can really use. 

All they knows is yout dog ha issues, based on two vet specialists opinions, but  without the score they don't know where those issues lie, or to what extent, how serious, one off etc etc. 

As has been said HD is not a simple issue when making breeding decisons.

> I think we should take responsibility for what we're responsible for.  Mine is to my dog; and to my mind the breeder's is for the lines she bred from, what she produced and any future breedings from what might be similarly affected dogs. I don't even know who has siblings to mine but the breeder does. I think the buck stops there.

This is why discussions like this, on dog forums like this, are so important.  There may well be owners who have no real idea of what is involved in 'scoring' why it is important and vitally who or what it should be done for.  I don't agree that scoring is simply the breeders responsibility

I'm sorry to be using you and your quotes again floJo but yours are the prompts I have available.  People like you with HD affected dogs are uniquely positioned to understand what difficulties this can give a dog and what financial burden it can put on you and your families.  As a consequence you ought to be the ones with a vested interest in scoring your dogs - getting that data for your breed, and informing future breeding decisions.  If you don't add your data, and your vet allows you to opt out, then you are missing an opportunity to improve your breed.  There are no absolute guarantees but scoring enables puppy buyers, as well as breeders, to make good decisions about which mating/lines to choose.  Hip scoring results for KC registered dogs are included on the KC database and you can compare your dogs scores to those of her parents and any scored siblings.  Potential puppy buyers or researchers can find all this information too as long as they know a name from which to start.

I agree that it also takes a committed breeder to make breed improvements but as owners we are also responsible for choosing breeders that we trust to do the right thing.  Breeders should take a role in educating their owners but we owners have a vital role to play too.  We must stay in touch, let them know how their puppies are developing into adulthood and keep them advised of the results of any health tests that are available to us and any others issues that might be used to inform their future plans.   Allergies are another issue which can affect some breeds and breeders need to know about this too.  In my case I know that my breeder talks to the stud dog owners regularly too, but if she didn't then I would.  If my dog developed an issue that even might be inherited then it's my responsibility to tell them about it.  For this reason alone it's such a shame when puppy buyers aren't given the level of support that really good breeders give - both parties miss out on so much...

have read your posts, and your links. And I'm afraid your belief that HD can be 'carried' by certain dogs is just too simplistic. Polygenic diseases are notoriously hard to pin down.

Its not my belief that genes can be carried, I didn't write the papers.

> Its not my belief that genes can be carried, I didn't write the papers.

Why post them as evidence then?

People like you with HD affected dogs are uniquely positioned to understand what difficulties this can give a dog and what financial burden it can put on you and your families.  As a consequence you ought to be the ones with a vested interest in scoring your dogs - getting that data for your breed, and informing future breeding decisions.

they are not 'my dogs' to have a vested interest in scoring, I have one dog that is affected that I didn't breed and that doesn't  make it 'my breed'.  I can't do anything about future breeding decisions I can't tell a breeder how to breed or what dogs she should breed from.   As an owner I told the breeder of the condition so that she can put the information to use.  You are deflecting the responsibility from where it really belongs to somewhere it doesn't.  

> I can't do anything about future breeding decisions I can't tell a breeder how to breed or what dogs she should breed from.

You don't have to - your dog's score will inform that decision making process for potential owners and breeders alike.  As a 'buyer' you would choose from hip scored parents and ask your chosen breeder to explain his/her ethos with regards to scoring

> You are deflecting the responsibility from where it really belongs to somewhere it doesn't.

I think we just don't agree on where the responsibility lies.  I'm just an owner too - I don't breed - but I consider the breed I've chosen to share my home with as 'my breed'.  As such I believe I have an obligation to do right by my dogs and those that might come after them.  I do not want to inadvertently buy a puppy with HD so I add to the pool of scored dogs so that I might have the data from which to choose a future puppy.  Hip scoring, like insurance, is simply part of my running costs :)

> As an owner I told the breeder of the condition so that she can put the information to use.  You are deflecting the responsibility from where it really belongs to somewhere it doesn't.

Sorry, this just doesn't stack up. You say you 'told the breeder of the condition' but without giving her the info that she needs to be able to make an informed decision about her future breeding plans. I don't know of any breeders who would expect to pay for the health tests of puppies they have sold. That is part of your responsibility as an owner.

Hello floJo,  from what I understand of the posts on this thread so far you are a concerned owner of a pet who is trying to understand the condition that your dog is afflicted with and how this arose?!  I do know exactly how you feel in a way - a few years ago I was in your situation too.  I have a gorgeous Golden Retriever from parents who were hipscored with good results.  She was fed an excellent quality food, kept at the correct weight for her age and breed and exercised carefully and appropriately for her age.  I introduced another gundog breed puppy to my family when she was 6 years old.  Again from a breeder of repute whose standards of care, health testing and lifetime support are impeccable.  Not long after getting my youngster my goldie started to show signs of degenerative arthritis.  On my vet's advice I did not even xray her - they advised that it was not unusual for her breed.  I do understand that her condition and HD are not necessarily closely linked.  However, having been through this with her, when my young bitch was 18 months old I decided that I would have her hipscored under sedation - in order to support my breeders efforts in producing healthy dogs for other people, to add to the information for others choosing dogs of this breed, to assist breeders when choosing a stud dog ......... but also so that if she had a problem, I would be well informed early on and therefore able to better manage her condition.  A small price to pay and so, so valuable to a lot of people and more importantly the dogs.

Incidentally, as it turned out - my bitch is a very good example of her breed, has one of the lowest hipscores in her breed and is the dam of the 11 pups that Dogs a Babe referred to in an earlier post.  A breeder who can create enthusiam for health testing is an ambassador for her breed! :-)  Well done Wirelincs!!

I agree there is a global responsibility here, not just whats in our own back yard. I'm sure FLojo would be expect different if a siblings owner knew that there was possibly something genetic and deadly that all the litter could be harbouring but never passed on the info.

Just to throw a spanner in the works. With regard to the apparent 'improvement' of scores, certainly in GSD's with many breeders it has become customary to conduct preliminary x-rays before 12 months of age to gauge whether or not the hips are likely to achieve a 'passing' grade. Those that are not are not scored. Granted they are also removed from the breeding pool, but this skews the true picture of the hips being produced by the individual dogs, the breed, and   whether hip scores are improving, declining or remaining static. In fact this approach by some breeders is now rendering the whole scheme pointless.

I would add by the way that these breeders are considered very good and very high profile show breeders. It is just a shame that they don't share the same ethics as some of the breeders here.

I agree there is a global responsibility here, not just whats in our own back yard. I'm sure FLojo would be expect different if a siblings owner knew that there was possibly something genetic and deadly that all the litter could be harbouring but never passed on the info.

You're absolutely right Boody I would expect to be told that there was a potential problem. And as an owner who doesn't have any contact details for the owners of siblings I would expect that the Breeder, who does have that information, would pass it on to all interested parties once I'd told her.  Whether she did or didn't is beyond my control.

As such I believe I have an obligation to do right by my dogs and those that might come after them.  I do not want to inadvertently buy a puppy with HD so I add to the pool of scored dogs so that I might have the data from which to choose a future puppy. 

See my reply to Boody. 

BVA hipscore results are available on the KC health test results page and as such are available to anyone without recourse to your breeder.  For a small extra amount of money you could improve the chances of healthier dogs being bred :-(

>I would expect that the Breeder, who does have that information, would pass it on to all interested parties once I'd told her. 

But she doesn't know all the information. Without an actual score she (and anybody else looking into the line) has no idea of the seriousness of the condition. A verified score would make the information so much more useful. Hipscores are published and put on the KC website, making the information universally available, not just to the small circle of you, the breeder and the owners of siblings. The owners of any related dogs, or those considering using a related stud dog, for example, need the information too.

> But she doesn't know all the information. Without an actual score she (and anybody else looking into the line) has no idea of the seriousness of the condition. A verified score would make the information so much more useful. Hipscores are published and put on the KC website, making the information universally available, not just to the small circle of you, the breeder and the owners of siblings. The owners of any related dogs, or those considering using a related stud dog, for example, need the information too.

That is what I was trying to say, it also means that no-one can brush the information under the carpet, it is in the public domain, so even if the breeders don't take it on board others can, for the greater good of the breed as a whole, be that potential new owners of puppies bred from related dogs, those looking for a stud dog to know what it produces etc.

So lets get this straight.

I'll start off with Esmes' comments that I shouldn't expect a breeder to pay for health costs for a pup she sold.  That actually isn't what was said.  The breeder was never asked or expected to pay for any health test, maybe you skimmed through but didn't actually read my posts.  What was said is that as an owner I'd paid for all the remedial care for months before my dog was old enough to be x-rayed, paid for the x-rays which confirmed a genetic, hereditary condition,  paid for further expert assessments and  for treatment programmes and would continue to have medical and treatment costs for year to come.  Given that a hip scoring test would have bo bearing on the conditon nor save future costs of treatment and was of no benefit to me I decided not to have it done.  However, that test would be very beneficial to the breeder as it might have helped to identify the cause of the genetic fault in  her breedlines and therefore be of benefit to her.  You feel that as she sold this (genetically) damaged dog then the breeder is absolved from paying for anything and the owner should pay for it all. Would you say a manufacturer of a faulty, potentially dangerous product is no longer responsible for its design and manufacturing faults, nor to other customers he sold the product to, because someone who had found the fault had bought the product?  If you do I there is something seriously floawed with your thinking Esme. 

But it gets worse.

A responsible owner buys a pup from a registered breeder whose dogs have good hip scores.  Within days its obvious there is a mobility problem and on-going vet checks and monitoring, paid for by the owner, point to this being more serious than a minor problem.  The owner pays for x-rays and for second and third opinions as to the cause and treatment of the problem.  The crippling condition is going to need on-going crippling financial and emotional expenditure for years to come.  Dogs a babe said she wouldn't mind paying for hip scoring if it helped her breed.  If you had had to spend over twice what the dog cost to get as far as diagnosis and then had to look forward to years of financial outlay in both preventive care and treatment you might feel differently. The owner is told by the experts to let the breeder know so she can alert owner of siblings of the genetic problem in the lines.

Being responsible, the owner keeps the (genetically damaged) dog despite the financial outlay already made and the future costs of care and tells the breeder of the problem, what tests that have been done, professional advice bought etc.  The owner does this, not looking for any financial compensation but so that the breeder can safeguard her breed lines and let other owners know they might have a problem with their dog.  The breeder however, doesn't ask if hip scores have been done/are being done, doesn't ask to see or use x-ray plates to carry out her own investigation , the expert reports - in fact as dogs a babe said ealier on this thread, the breeder is 'disinterested'.

Contrary to what Jeangenie, Boody, Brainless and Dogs a Babe have said, many pet dog owners who have no intention of breeding (or have endorsement prohibiting breeding) don't look at KC websites to see if hip scores have been added months after they bought their pup.  They believe that as they bought  from a registered (responsible) breeder, a pup from parents with good hip scores, that they don't have anything to worry about.  These owners will continue to exercise their pets as 'normal' dogs until they are advised otherwise. The only way these people will know is if someone tells them.  As the breeder is the one who knows who she sold the pups and their contact details, the onus is on the breeder to let other owners know.

In all the posts about this issue not one word of criticism has, at the time of me writing this,  been levelled at the breeder who abdicated all responsibility for a dog she produced and sold.   Instead, responsibility for the breeders failings and lack of responsibility are being put on the owner. 

Chinablue, you highlighted some very unscrupulous practices by some very iresponsible breeders who profess to be 'responsible' by registering with the KC.  I think there is a bigger problem within the breeding fraternity than those you've highlighted in the GSD communities.  I think anyone who reads this thread will see exactly what is wrong with breeders and breeding today who do cover up their failures and blame others for their failings.

>However, that test would be very beneficial to the breeder as it might have helped to identify the cause of the genetic fault in  her breedlines and therefore be of benefit to her.

And of benefit to every other breeder (and therefore indirectly every other pet owner) in the country. We need always to keep the bigger picture in mind.

>You feel that as she sold this (genetically) damaged dog then the breeder is absolved from paying for anything and the owner should pay for it all.

Because HD is multi-factorial it's not certain that the dog was genetically or environmentally damaged. A score would help to put that in persepctive; if one side scored markedly worse than the other then environment is likely to have played a large part - and that's not the breeder's responsibility. Also having a score, rather than just an interpretation, would be much more beneficial to the owner in case of dispute.

In an ideal world all dogs, whether show, working or purely pet, potential breeding animals or not, would be hipscored. That's the only way to get a true picture of the hip status of the breed as a whle, as well as making it easier to spot anomolies in lines within any particular breed. Every dog that isn't scored muddies the picture slightly. As it is, any score of 20 or less can be considered functionally normal, and average for the species as a whole.

I can certainly understand that your first thoughts are for your own dog and the bigger picture does not seem relevant.

The cost for scoring is I think now £45 -£50 to the BVA.

The only way for a breeder or breeders to know the extent of any issue is for the dog to be scored.

This information is then in the public domain, so not only more useful to the breeder but to all breeders and potential puppy owners.

Contrary to what you believe many people do now research health test results of parents and relatives when they are considering a puppy.

So if your particular breeder was not as interested or responsible as might be desirable, the information suppled to the breed as a whole would have given information on that breeders lines results.

The more that is known the more likely people are to use the information, so therefore breeders will have to use the information or not be able to sell their puppies, or at least not to those who research.

Unfortunately often information that can be positively used in future breeding decisions is of the 'shutting the stable door after some of the horses have bolted' type.  Sadly steps to prevent future problems occurring, or in complex conditions like HD reducing their likelihood does not help the individual affected with a problem, but in the larger scheme of things the affected animals can help the breed as a whole discover where and how problems arise to make them less likely to occur in future.

There are breeders and breeders some more conscientious, knowledgeable than others, some can at best be called puppy producers or to have a brief and casual interest not extending beyond producing a litter, but then there may be very conscientious breeders using the same lines who wish to do the right thing and the knowledge you could provide to the breed as a whole would help them do the best for the breed..

By choosing not to score in a way this allows This issue to stay hidden from public scrutiny, and by scoring you would actually show up their lack of commitment if they re continuing to use the same breeding combinations.  To be fair they do not have the full information that a breeder needs to do anything to address future breeding decisions.  They simply know your dog has an issue.

Unlike inanimate goods over which the manufacturer has major control of components, or a Cook has control over the recipe (though both component qualities and raw ingredients may fluctuate), a breeder cannot know all the components being incorporated when they mate a dog or bitch.  they can only go on what is visible and quantifiable, and then the traits and genes come together randomly in the offspring.

They can rear a puppy well, and at time of sale know it is healthy, but they cannot guarantee how it will continue to develop beyond that.  If an issue major or minor arises they can in future combinations try to change things, but unfortunately can do nothing about what is already.

Out of interest have you used the Kennel Club health test tool, have you seen how many litters sire and dam have had and the test results for other offspring?  It may well be that the breeder has taken your dogs problem on board and altered their breeding plans to not combine particular lines in future.

> I would expect to be told that there was a potential problem

If the breeder was more interested in a sale then they would  not tell you.

> I would expect that the Breeder, who does have that information, would pass it on to all interested parties once I'd told her.  Whether she did or didn't is beyond my control.

In an ideal world the breeder of your dog would inform everyone with one of her dogs, but if they were in it for the money then again they would keep quiet about any problems.

The breeder of my dogs knew full well of his severe HD, indeed I told her his hip score but she had no intention of informing any prospective owners. I still have a copy of an e mail I sent her posing as someone interested in one of her puppies in which I asked if she had ever had any of her puppies diagnosed with HD and she replied back saying how lucky she had been in never having had a dog of her breeding develop HD!

At least the scores are on the KC website for people to research which means the breeder cannot hide the facts.

> I'll start off with Esmes' comments that I shouldn't expect a breeder to pay for health costs for a pup she sold.  That actually isn't what was said.

Actually this is what you said:

  'If its important for breeding purposes then as far as I'm concerned the breeder can pay for the score to be done by BVA.'

So it's rather inconsistent to say the least, for you now to say:

> The breeder was never asked or expected to pay for any health test, maybe you skimmed through but didn't actually read my posts.

I have read your posts and you seem determined to believe that HD is a 'genetic, hereditary condition'. People on here are trying to help you to understand that there is much more to it than that.

> You feel that as she sold this (genetically) damaged dog then the breeder is absolved from paying for anything and the owner should pay for it all.

I don't believe you can say the breeder has sold you a 'genetically damaged dog' and really, looking after your dog as best you can is your responsibility. That is what your insurance is for. But if your dog was found to be sick at its first vet check after you took it home, then that might have been a different matter. Many breeders do mention return of the puppy and a refund in their contracts.

I won't even seriously consider replying to your ludicrous analogy with manufacturers and faulty goods - surely you must realise that living creatures are not 'products'. If you don't, then I think it's you whose thinking is seriously flawed.

As for this point:

>  many pet dog owners who have no intention of breeding (or have endorsement prohibiting breeding) don't look at KC websites to see if hip scores have been added months after they bought their pup.

Hip scores cannot be added until the dogs are more than 12 months old which in most cases is going to be 'months after they bought their pup'. So there is no way the scores can be available any sooner.

Still, you will no doubt continue to believe exactly whatever it suits you to think. Pity, you might have learnt something.

>  I'd paid for all the remedial care for months before my dog was old enough to be x-rayed, paid for the x-rays which confirmed a genetic, hereditary condition,

If no xrays were taken at the onset of lameness, how can the conclusion be made that the initail lameness was caused from HD, instead of an altered gait due to a something other than HD (pano/fore-limb problems that can actually result in an altered gate that looks like a rear-leg limp/ over nutrition causing an over growth of tendons resulting in a looseness that looks like a rear-leg limp and if not managed correctly may well cause wear on developing hip joints/cruciate problems etc....)  being mis-managed, causing the malformation of the hips??

Growth problems that are mis-managed can result in alterations to the joints, there does not need to be a genetic pre-disposition to HD for an over-nourished pup (resulting in loose joints), being over-excersied and erroding the hip-sockets, it's mechanical, not genetics.
Allthough I do not dispute the fact that there does appear to be a genetic link, it is not the only cause.

Hip displasia means the malformation of the hip, ie. during growth the hip has not formed correctly, it seems foolhardy to discount external influnces when talking about a developmental condtion. A congenital condition is something an animal is born with, a developmental condition is something that happens during the growing phase (upto 12 months +).

Have you seen what ancient Chinese women used to do to thier feet? They would be bound so tightly (from young) that they wouldn't grow properly, they would be small and malformed. There was no genetic component it was all about external influences during growth.

> In all the posts about this issue not one word of criticism has, at the time of me writing this,  been levelled at the breeder

She she breed the litter from dogs with poor/no hip scores, or use dog with good hip scores?

The breeder cannot be criticised if they acted appropriately when considering which dog and bitch to mate based on the Hip information available. 

Subsequently when the problem came to light if they altered their breeding program taking that information into account they cannot in all reasonableness be held to account.

Of course if they mated two animals with poor hips and scores, or the parents had produced dysplastic offspring previously, that's completely different.

How great it would be if we had crystal balls when breeding.

I can only judge from my own experience - we have never had any HD problems when we have line bred to dogs where we have known the lines scored for generations.     The only odd problem  occurred (yes, it happens to the best of us!!) when we have outcrossed - also to a line with generations of good hip scores.     To me this underlines the fact that any predisposition to HD is carried at more than one gene/locus.   The supposition is that many dogs may carry one or more genes/loci which will predispose to HD, but by itself will not cause a problem.    Say one of these dogs were to be mated with a different line which carried a different gene/locus - the two or more genes meet and bingo - you get HD predisposition.

Interestingly enough, the only real problem we had in 40 years of breeding was  with folk who used to regularly tether their pup, and the pup used to get tangled up with the lead.

As I understand it, the formula for heritability of HD is

             H2 = Vgenetics/ Vgenetics + V variance due to environment

H2= heritability index
Vgenetics = variance due to genetics
Venvironment = variance due to environmental influences   

with estimates of H2 of 0.2 to 0.3.      I seem to remember Jeff Sampson saying at the Breeders Symposium in 2010 that somewhere round about 40% of HD was directly caused by heredity, the rest by environmental factors.     I think this was in GSDs.

In effect, all hip score averages are skewed unless it is made compulsory for breeding stock to be hip scored.     And a picture will only be complete if all scores are reported back to the breeders and the BVA.

Jo 

> In effect, all hip score averages are skewed unless it is made compulsory for breeding stock to be hip scored.   

Fortunately;y this has been the case in all KC registered stock in the last 20 years in our numerically small breed, and as around 20% of all registered dogs are scored this gives a very representative picture of the breed as a whole

> Fiortunatel;y this has been the case in all KC registered stock in the last 20 years in our numerically small breed, and as around 20% of all registered dogs are scored this gives a very representative picture of the breed as a whole

That's a fabulous example of what can be done. It's a shame it's so much more difficult in numerically strong breeds, particularly where there isn't much of a culture of showing. Catching the popular imagination can be bad news for a breed, at least for a while until fashion changes.

Actually all hip score averages are skewed unless all breeding stock and their progeny are scored. It actually makes no sense to rely on breeding good scores to good scores and not knowing what they are producing. That has always been the biggest flaw in all the hip/elbow screening schemes.

This is where those breeders who are pre screening out progeny scores that are poor in those puppies that they have chosen to run on are being so detrimental to the breed. They are by far the biggest % of progeny that are likely to be scored and it isn't happening if there is a hint that they may not obtain a passing grade, thus hiding what is actually being produced by dogs with very good hips.

I feel it unlikely that this is unique to the GSD breed either.

For a start how can dogs be pre scored in the UK (unlike in teh USA where theyc an do prelim evaluations at under two years), as only one go is allowed. 

The worst that happens is someone relying on their vets opinion that a score will be poor (they are often wrong in both directions).  It is very wrong for a vet to do hip x-rays and advise against submission.

Vets can often get it wrong. A locum vet who looked at the plates said that my collie's didn't look good at all. They came back as 8-7 so balanced and only one point above the breed average. I wasn't intending on using him at stud (and never did) but wanted to get an idea what his hips were like as I wanted to work him and he was a tall, gangly boy for his age. 

They are going on evidence of X ray, not submission. With a vet that does a lot of hip x rays for the scheme they are pretty good at reading the x rays, and some breeders themselves are pretty good at it too if they have seen enough over the years. These breeders are not relying on just your average vet down the road who generally doesn't have much idea about interpreting hip x-rays. In some cases I know the vet that is being used, and it is a specialist orthopaedic vet. The vet is not recommending non-submission, submission isn't an issue as these are done prior to 12 months of age (usually very close to 12 months) - obviously the vet knows why it's being done, but is doing nothing wrong. Technically nobody is doing anything wrong. Morally and ethically and for the future of the breed it's wrong.

It makes a mockery of the scheme that they outwardly 'support' but backhandedly avoid if the results may not suit them personally. I want to add that this is not all breeders of course, but some high profile show breeders and it seems to be catching on and becoming more and more routine. I can only speak for GSD which is where I know it is happening, but I would be surprised if it wasn't happening elsewhere.

Well I doubt anyone in my breed could afford to do so, there would be no point, no-one gains anything from it. 

A well used stud ddgo will maybe produce half a dozen litters in their lifetime, even imports.  Most others even champions may never be used if available bitches are all close relatives.

If it's their owner breeding stock then they are basically fooling tehmselves and theri breedign will eventually fall apart built on legs of clay.

If a dog comes up with an unacceptably high score it simply continues to be shown but not bred from, no big deal.

Those who call on specialist health tersts to be needed to be able to take part an in competiton would only encourage such behaviour.  Health tests matter for breeding, unless the condition causes pain and suffering, why should it exclude them from being shown, especially if the results are out in the open (by being officiallly scored).  Even more so where dogs are carriers fro conditions, but themselves symptomless/perfectly healthy.