I'm seeing it time and time again with people who are seen as reputable to most breeding from lines when it's so obvious there are problems in their lines.

Some things could be avoided if health tests were done and the results were acted on.
Other things say cancer which aren't so clear, now if you had most of your dogs passing from this dreaded disease would you not think that actually something needs to change.
Anything from hip and elbow scoring, heart testing, eye exam, liver shunt etc.... Many a DNA test out there.

It's worse when I see these so called 'reputable' breeders advertising on here and also speaking out on this forum making out they are hard done by and they aren't doing anything wrong.

Anyway I needed to rant as I'm seeing it more and more yet, if it's obvious to me regardless of breed why are these breeders doing the ostrich!!

Yet even diseases commonly thought to be strongly inherited, like many cancers, are not, researchers found. In a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2000, Dr. Paul Lichtenstein of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and his colleagues analyzed cancer rates in 44,788 pairs of Nordic twins. They found that only a few cancers -- breast, prostate and colorectal -- had a noticeable genetic component. And it was not much. If one identical twin got one of those cancers, the chance that the other twin would get it was generally less than 15 percent, about five times the risk for the average person but not a very big risk over all.

Looked at one way, the data say that genes can determine cancer risk. But viewed another way, the data say that the risk for an identical twin of a cancer patient is not even close to 100 percent, as it would be if genes completely determined who would get the disease.

Dr. Robert Hoover of the National Cancer Institute wrote in an accompanying editorial: "There is a low absolute probability that a cancer will develop in a person whose identical twin -- a person with an identical genome and many similar exposures -- has the same type of cancer. This should also be instructive to some scientists and others interested in individual risk assessment who believe that with enough information, it will be possible to predict accurately who will contract a disease and who will not."

Both of these quotes are from here      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/health/31age.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

There are links in the article for the studies quoted.

It's likely that these results will hold true for dogs too, so I'm not sure what you are expecting breeders to do, given that the experts who should be able to advise them, actually don't really know themselves?

Perhaps instead of criticising, you could offer constructive advice, assuming you have the expertise that researchers appear to be lacking?

Steady on there Dill....

I'm covering all health problems, not just cancer..

If say there was a clear problem with ED you'd score and not ignore the results, and eradicate any problems rather than keep breeding from them.

To keep on breeding from lines which are known to have problems is not beig critical it's pointing out that common sense should prevail and maybe that certain dogs should be removed from the lines and not continued to be used.

Of course every individual removed from the genepool further reduces the genepool ...

Absolutely Sue so agree with what you have posted .

Sometimes people get very blinkered and can't see past their own agenda.

In relation to cancer is is widely accepted there is a problem for example with Flatties that can be associated with certain lines and research into the problem is ongoing.

It is the breeders that think they know the breed but don't get involved with the breed clubs and really know the indepth knowledge of the breeds and keep churning out litters with obvious line related serious health issues.

Depends how big the gene pool is of course

>I'm covering all health problems, not just cancer..

>To keep on breeding from lines which are known to have problems is not beig critical it's pointing out that common sense >should prevail and maybe that certain dogs should be removed from the lines and not continued to be used.

The article and research isn't just about cancer though.   It's about different diseases which, until very recently have been thought to be hereditary.   Yet studies of twins have now thrown perceived wisdom into question.

I quite agree that health testing is vital, and we need to breed with health in mind.  But it's not that simple, very often you are selecting against a known disease, but unwittingly, for an unknown disease which hasn't shown up yet.  

In some breeds, narrowing the gene pool further actually works against the health of the breed.  

I do think that certain vociferous but ill informed people have put massive pressure on breeders to change things, but without the certainty of absolute knowledge regarding heredity of each disease, it's unreasonable to expect things to change in the next few years.  

As an example, breeders of Bedlington Terriers have been working to eradicate Copper Toxicosis from the breed for the last 40 + years.   For much of that, there was no DNA test, so test matings had to be done and liver biopsies taken - a risky procedure on live dogs, which can prove fatal.   Never the less, breeders did what was necessary.   Line breeding was the way forward, in the beginning, mating very close relatives, as they were the only dogs guaranteed free of the disease.   Those first few Copper free dogs were used extensively, so much so that they  were still found in pedigrees in  2000!  Some more than once - yet this breeding practise would now be banned!   All of this was done under advice from the AHT.

Even with DNA tests, things haven't been straightforward,  in the last 14 years, we have seen 3 different DNA tests all with varying rates of accuracy,  now we are told that it's likely more complicated than a single gene and work goes on.

Had JS been around 40 years ago, she'd have had a field day with Bedlington breeders not eradicating the problem fast enough, yet they were doing all they could, as quickly as they could, with the info available at the time.    Don't forget, they were losing beloved dogs, not just breeding stock.   They wanted to eradicate the disease as quickly as possible!

It may not look like anything is being done from the outside of a breed/breeding programme, but that isn't necessarily the case.   It just takes time - lots of time.   Which breeders aren't being given.  And it takes dogs being bred and living their lives, without which you won't know if your breeding programme is working.

>Of course every individual removed from the genepool further reduces the genepool ...

Exactly.  And some very ethical breeders with numerically small genepool, are weighing things up very carefully.  Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Durrr, wish I had read down further and seen Dills post.  Why do people always explain themselves better than me.

It's worse when I see these so called 'reputable' breeders advertising on here and also speaking out on this forum making out they are hard done by and they aren't doing anything wrong.

An excellent post by sujaw -

At the moment I have only read sujaws post, after posting this I'll read the responses which I don't doubt the bulk will be from the 'aformentioned mob' defending their indefensible & documented record of making contributions to their KC, genetic disease infested pedigree data base.
.

I don't think Sue is talking about breeds with a small gene pool or breeders with a few dogs in their breeding programme

Ok, as an example lets take Labradors, not a small gene pool by any means.

You keep producing dogs which keep dying young from say a heart condition, do you keep on with this line knowing that a lot of what you produce will still die young or do you look to introduce new blood to yours lines or start again? Removing one breeding line from this breed won't kill it off will it?
How about said breeder actually heart testing their dogs? Then they might see something ahead of time too.

Would you breed from a Lab with say a hip score of 15/15? I wouldn't, that's far too high for this breed and there are plenty of decent dogs out there that again the breed wouldn't fall apart at the seams because a line or dog ha been removed.!!!

Smaller gene pools yes you have to weigh things up, my point is with breeds which don't have this problem, have health tests available and yet they aren't done and these health issues are being perpetuated!!!
Sorry but aren't people thinking of how these new owners will cope or even the dogs who in the end will suffer?? Clearly not and ther agenda is far more important!!

> Of course every individual removed from the genepool further reduces the genepool ...

Indeed, and this is not just a problem for numerically small breeds.  Dobes have DCM at a rate of around 60% (as of a few years ago, probably higher now) so to never breed from dogs with any possibility of it would chop of 60% of the gene pool straight away.  Add to that the other problems - Wobbler's, vWD, hypothyroidism etc - and you get left with next to no dogs.

What I'd like to see with any breeds with such a widespread problem is outcrossing - I know how controversial that is, especially after the dalmatian case but I do think with some breeds it is reaching a point that it may become a necessity.  My knowledge of breeding and genetics is not enough to explore that idea further but I do believe it is going to need to be done for some in the near future.

Of course every individual removed from the genepool further reduces the genepool ...   

Before I saw this answer I'd already gone to the possibility of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'.   Obviously removing a dog from a breeding programme has to depend on the severity of the condition, given that all dogs have faults.   It is possible to avoid doubling up on a fault by carefully studying pedigrees and knowing the individuals first-hand.   It also helps to know whether the fault runs in that bloodline or is just a one off, which can be bred away from, using the right combination - outcross bloodlines (within the breed hopefully)?   Clearly it should always be the intention to use only the best stock, tested etc., but within reason.

I have stopped a line, purely because of ED. I have  small gene pool breed so this means that I have reduced THAT line to 0. Personally I think that it is the only thing to do. If you KNOW you have a problem you breed accordingly. Or not ;-) Other problems could be bred out by DNA testing if available. In other words you are NOT throwing the baby out with the bath water, but with things like ED or HD you choose the best from a litter in the hope that you are actually improving the breed. And isn't that what we are trying to do? Improve our breeds? However, sometimes you have to take a chance, just to keep the gene pool open, but if you then test all the pups and only breed from healthy pups then I don't see too major a problem.

This is where knowledge of the lines behind the dogs is a major help. You will know if there has been a problem somewhere in the distant past (or not so distant) and can breed with knowledge.

If the Lab with 15/15 hip scores had everything else going for him maybe i would consider him for stud providing he came from exceptional lines working/showing/health/temperament etc. 

What I considered to be my best bitch ever, 7th generation of my breeding, had one litter to an outcross and 4 out of the 5 pups had carpal valgus to some degree, my pick of litter was the worst affected, 2 failed ops later and her elbows are fused together. Going back to my foundation line I'd never had this before. where had it come from? Was it a trauma in pregnancy or throwback from somewhere? The pups were all neutered and I was too nervous to try again from my pride and joy.

My vet tried to write another bitch out of breeding on the strength of her hip X-rays (which turned out to be the breed average). This bitch can jump a 5 bar gate and comes from a line of very good health and longevity for the breed. I asked him about taking other issues into consideration? Just because she doesn't have 0-0 hips? If you only used that as a guideline the breed would die out. There's no guarantee that good scores are passed on but I will continue to health test, I'm also doing DM now which they do in the US and Europe (not commonly done here) and hope Mother Nature doesn't throw something else back at me.

Ok, as an example lets take Labradors, not a small gene pool by any means.

Ok, then lets compare the KC rules for registration of a Lab litter & compare with a European countries breed registration club rules for registration of a litter there & compare the 2.

Dutch Lab Club

4.
HEALTH RULES

Health (screening) parents: preventive screening
of parent should, when it comes to HD research, ED research,
eye exams and deafness research, carried out by experts
approved by the Board of Directors in accordance with the by the Board of Directors
prepared for these examinations and / or approved
research protocols.

4.2 Mandatory screening.

Based on scientific research, the following
health problems identified within the breed and have the
parent before the coverage will be examined:
*
Hip dysplasia
*
Elbow
*
Hereditary eye diseases (Cataract, Retinal Dysplasia,
Retinal Degeneration, Distichiasis, Entropion, Ectropion)
*
Prcd-PRA

Page 6.
4.
HEALTH RULES
Health (screening) parents: preventive screening
of parent should, when it comes to HD research, ED research,
eye exams and deafness research, carried out by experts
approved by the Board of Directors in accordance with the by the Board of Directors
prepared for these examinations and / or approved
research protocols.
4.2 Mandatory screening.
Based on scientific research, the following
health problems identified within the breed and have the
parent before the coverage will be examined:
*
Hip dysplasia
*
Elbow
*
Hereditary eye diseases (Cataract, Retinal Dysplasia,
Retinal Degeneration, Distichiasis, Entropion, Ectropion)
*
Prcd-PRA
4.3.

Disorders:
4.3.1 General
Both parents must at age 12 months or older
to be X-rayed official (hips and elbows) according to the
current protocol / approved by the Board of Management, Department
Behaviour, Health and Welfare (GGW) and have a
ooguitslag current (not older than 12 months on the day of the
coverage and obtained at age 12 months or older). As
reference date on which the health requirements must be met applies
the date the coverage occurs.
4.3.2 Hips
The official result of / approved by the Board of Management, Department GGW
of both parents must be: A (HD -) or B (HD tc)
It is allowed to breed with a breeder whose outcome is:
HD C (± HD), provided that both parents of the affected dog (hence the
grandparents of the puppy) and partner of the dog (ie
the father of the pups) one accepted by the NLV outcome A (HD
-) Or B (HD tc) have

4.3.3 Elbows

Page 7
Format VerenigingsFokReglement (VFR)
7/22
Decision AV May 24, 2012
Board of Directors
The official result of / approved by the Board of Management, Department GGW
needs of both parents to be: both sides 'free'
elbow
.
Breeding animals with osteoarthritis score 'minimal' (Grade I) (without it
indication of LPC, LPA, OCD or incongruence) may
be used for breeding when compared with the same
outcome of the Board of Management of osteoarthritis of the previous year
the breeding animal is not worse (it must therefore be up to grade I) and
there is still no indication of LPC, LPA, or OCD
incongruence
.
4.3.4.Ogen
The official result of / approved by the Board of Directors / FCI / ECVO
need to have both parents 'free' Cataract, Retina
Dysplasia (RD) and Retinal Degeneration (PRA), Entropion, Ectropion and
Distichiasis "***
Retinal Dysplasia (RD)
It is allowed to breed with one parent, that the outcome: "Retina
Dysplasia (Multi) focal 'has long been demonstrated through a
DNA test that this dog is 'free' of the Skeletal Dysplasia Oculo
(OSD) mutation. The partner of the breeding must also by
means of a DNA test demonstrably OSD mutation free 'and
Moreover, "free RD 'to have a valid ooguitslag
.
Prcd-PRA
It is only allowed to breed with a combination of two
parents, if at least one of both parents a rash
the DNA test prcd-PRA (certificate OptiGen ®) is known
.
OptiGen ® DNA test: prcd-PRA
Only the following combinations are permitted (provided of course that
free from the above-mentioned other eye diseases

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=labrador+club+netherlands&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

.

Dobes have DCM at a rate of around 60% (as of a few years ago, probably higher now) so to never breed from dogs with any possibility of it would chop of 60% of the gene pool straight away.  Add to that the other problems - Wobbler's, vWD, hypothyroidism etc - and you get left with next to no dogs.

How sad & for the dogs & the way they must suffer & these days the channel tunnel od only around 1/2 hour to cross by car.

Leaving out the technical medical explanations at the end of the day we deal only with the dog & its needs in a day by day experience.
Below is the health & mobilty levels of what Brainless recently described, all to accuratly, as an end of life Dobe with only european genetics & from decades of European, mandatory, health tested parents as shown in the Dutch Lab Club standards above.

The dog had kennel cough at 4, thats the only health prob on her 11 years 1 month of life.

11 years 1 month.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRuMCwYnnvA
.

On a seminar an orthopaedic vet said, it has been seen three generations of sire and dams elbow scored 0 even for three generations then produced whole litters of elbow problems.  So scoring is no proof that problems will not arise.

Nikita
Indeed, and this is not just a problem for numerically small breeds.  Dobes

Out of interest, why do you buy your Dobes here, I cannot image the negative, ongoing, emotionaly destructive state an owner would have living year after year on some kind of precipice of disaster.

I really am intersted why anyone would risk living in such a risky situation when its not neccesary with the tunnel available. For that matter there are plenty of Euro dogs here.
.

I wonder if people could quantify 'exceptional ' lines as I think that is key in this discussion.

I think 'exceptional' in some breeds means they buck the trend of the general population ...on average.

Interestingly ..reading all the Dutch mandatory health screening listed above....the secretary of the Breed club in Holland bought her stud dog from me.....a UK KC registered dog.

You haven't compared A Kennel Club with a Kennel club???

You have given the guidelines/rules for the Dutch BREED CLUB.

You haven't given the recommendations for our KC or Our Labrador breed clubs.

http://www.labradorbreedcouncil.co.uk/web%20pages/Health_Tests.html

Remember you can't make anyone do anything, responsible breeders do the right thing.

So to buck the trend would mean having quantifiable comparisons against other dogs judged by experts in that particular breed then ? So if the said breeder didn't show or work their dogs that would prove to be unjustifiable to continue breeding ?

> Out of interest, why do you buy your Dobes here, I cannot image the negative, ongoing, emotionaly destructive state an owner would have living year after year on some kind of precipice of disaster.

I don't any more.  I bought my first boy, he has never been healthy a day in life but he was exceptionally badly bred (naivite on my part buying him, looking back I'd run a mile).  Ironically the one thing he's never had trouble with though is his heart!  All rescues from there on but of course the risk is still there - my second died of DCM and my third is occult.

If I was to buy one though I would spend a hell of a long time getting the right breeder - to date I've found only three breeders in the UK who do all the tests I would want, and at least one of those doesn't echo every dog as far as I can tell so I wouldn't go to them anyway.  But, with so many needing homes I doubt I'll ever have another dobe pup unless it comes from a rescue.

For the record, I ended my bloodline after, some years later, I found out the outside stud dog I'd used for that last litter developed epilepsy and was put down, at age 8.   Further investigation, before I took this decision, showed his mother was the same, and there were enough unknown losses down the line, behind his mother.   Actually that side of the pedigree wasn't connected with mine at all, although there was a common relative on the sire's side.   As at the time I felt the buck had to stop somewhere (others had used the dog) I refused studs on the male I'd kept from the lovely litter, and didn't take a litter from his sister who was spayed.   Neither developed epilepsy in their lives, and I didn't hear from any of the other puppy buyers (all males) that they had this problem.   BUT epilepsy can skip generations and I wasn't going to risk being involved in this.   Even if this was late-onset fitting in the sire, and his dam.   Thank goodness I was getting towards the end of my breeding programme in any case, and not just starting out!!

Again I suggest that each case needs to be assessed on it's individual merits.   And yes, taken to the extreme, there IS a risk of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' in all this.   This is all part of being a responsible breeder.  

Well since Labs were singled out it's a mystery to me why breeders here mostly do NOT test for EIC and CNM yet both of those are gene tests and they have the opportunity to guarantee a puppy will not suffer from either.  Meanwhile they continue to test for things like ED and HD where a parent clear at age two is not a sure fire bet no puppy will ever get either.  Not that I'm suggesting they stop the ED or HD testing but why not add in the other two?  I don't see either EIC or CNM mentioned in the required tests in the post above either.

I hate that argument , Sometimes odd colours pop up in litters despite many many generations of breeding ( red in gordon setters for instance) or long coats in short coated breeds but breeders still try to remove the colour/coat  from the gene pool ( reducing the breed pool further )
Mention a non cosmetic issue that actually affects the animals quality of life and suddenly its not worth bothering trying to breed it out unless you get instant results.

>but breeders still try to remove the colour/coat  from the gene pool ( reducing the breed pool further )

As al the members of a litter are unlikely to be sued for breeding, especially in nature, then not breeding from those with obvious faults like incorrect colour, but keeping their siblings in the gene pool is what actually happens.

If people really were hell bent to remove a non standard colour, above every other act of selection, especially health aspects, then it would cease to pop up at all.

In reality both the undesirable cosmetic features and health issues will crop up sporadically, with the majority adhering to the standard and being of good health.

Many people forget that breeders (as opposed to dabblers who breed and then get rid of the parents as well as the pups) live with the results of their breeding decisions just as much as the pet owning public do with the ones they don't keep.  Breeders often also keep more dogs than a pet owner, so it is in their own self interest to minimise  issues of health, and temperament.

>it's a mystery to me why breeders here mostly do NOT test for EIC and CNM

With a breed as numerically strong as the Labrador it could well be that there are differences in disease prevalence geographically, and with our relative isolation until pet travel became easier (in such a numerous breed I expect few felt the need to import with the costs of Quarantine etc), and those diseases are not appearing in UK lines??.

And also some colours also come with related health issues

>it's a mystery to me why breeders here mostly do NOT test for EIC and CNM

With a breed as numerically strong as the Labrador it could well be that there are differences in disease prevalence geographically, and with our relative isolation until pet travel became easier (in such a numerous breed I expect few felt the need to import with the costs of Quarantine etc), and those diseases are not appearing in UK lines??.

By "here" I meant Canada and the U.S. where both are showing up.  Not sure of numbers abroad but I believe the gene test kit for CNM is sent to France.  France?  Going from memory.  My breeder tests for EIC now, it was not so well known when I got Oban.  But Oban has some UK lines in his background.  Something is travelling, maybe just semen?