It is advised by vets to have an annual eye test on retrievers who are bred from.
If this is because a dog that has previously passed can then fail a subsequent test, what confidence can a puppy buyer have in the parents of their puppy having clear eye tests if they could go on and fail the next one.
If this does happen should a breeder then contact all previous puppy buyers and inform them that the parents of their pup have failed?
I am interested in peoples thoughts on this.
Amos 

<<If this does happen should a breeder then contact all previous puppy buyers and inform them that the parents of their pup have failed?>>

Yes, definitely, especially if the puppy buyers are intending to breed. 

Sadly breeders have to test for everyone as pet owners rarely do any testing as they think it unnecessary as they are not going to breed their dogs - in many cases knowing the status of your dog could help it.

You don't say which breed of retriever you are talking about Amos. Assuming it is a Golden or a Labrador, both these breeds are affected by hereditary cataracts. Cataracts come in several forms. Occasionally both these breeds can be affected by an early forming cataract. This would normally be visible to an ophthalmologist by 18 months to 2 years so should be found before the dog is likely to be mated.

Unfortunately, the more usual cataract found in these two breeds is the late forming cataract. This is the big problem because it can form at any age up to around 8 years old! This is the reason why the eye test should be repeated at yearly intervals. If you think about it, it is possible for a breeder to test regularly every year and for the dog to pass clear. At 8 years old and with its breeding finished it can fail with hereditary cataracts. This has happened! I feel so sorry for these people, they have done everything possible to breed healthy puppies and through no fault of their own have succeeded in breeding puppies carrying bad eyes!

Incidentally, I have known several breeders who have passed the information on but I sincerely hope ALL breeders whose dogs fail at a later date would inform their puppy buyers. It is only sensible for those puppies to be removed from any breeding plans.

Regards, John

As John says good breeders can do everything possible and still have an affected dog, who fails at a late. Another thing to consider are the eye diseases which are polygenic in nature, such as primary angle closure glaucoma. This affects flatcoated retrievers, it is polygenic in nature which means we can breed several generations of dogs and bitches who are tested clear, over a period of several years then suddenly one dog we breed will have a predisposition to glaucoma. To actually get the full blown glaucoma the dog will need to encounter a trigger factor. The herditary pattern is unknown. So we responsible flatcoat breeders sell a puppy we insist that the buyer has their puppy tested at 5 to 6 months of age and again at 7 to 8 years of age incase there are age related changes in the eye. Even at the time of sale we cannot guarantee that the puppy you buy or indeed it's sire and dam will not at some point be affected. Not every dog or bitch with the predisposition (referred to as goniodysgenisis), will develop glaucoma either.
Flatcoat breeders who do have a problem tend to tell everyone they know and will even have it printed in club health reports. Nobody is therefore left in any doubt as to what has developed. We also advise any potential buyer to ask the breeder of the puppy they buy to ask to see the British Verterinary Association / Kennel Club / International Sheep Dog Society (BVA/KC/ISDS) certificates for eye eye testing, of the pups sire and dam. If a problem is discovered in any puppy sold we usually offer help to the puppy owner, in what ever way we can.
It is devastating to find out that a puppy you have bred has a problem, however large or small.

Agree with the others, it`s important to test yrly due to some eye diseases not showing up till later in life. And letting any disease thats detected be known to people it concerns.

Christine, Spain.

My cocker spaniels are eye tested yearly, I also put breeding restrictions on all pups, but if a problem cropped up then I would contact all of the pups owners!

This situation could produce massive litigation issues if the infalibility of the eye test is not fully explained to each puppy owner. A clear eye test will not mean much to a new owner.
I have a freind who had a litter of GR's. She kept the best pup who is doing well at shows, has a great hip score, fantastic temperament but failed the eye test due to 'a tiny fold' The opthalmic vet thought it shouldn't stop her being bred from as long as she avoided a dog with the same and said that she would have passed the European test and even said the fold may be gone next test. But where does this leave her, at the end of the day she has not a clear test certificate. Both parents of this pup have clear eye tests. Should those dogs not be bred from again as are they not 'carriers'? and what about the parents of them and all their siblings?

I am not saying it shouldn't be done but it does call into question the usefulness of the eye test.
Amos

Surely any eye test such as the British Veterinary Association test is better than no test? If there were no tests, then your friends dog may easily have been born with a problem such as the predispostion to glaucoma, which by the way some goldens do get. The dog could have developed the full blown disease and within 48 hours would be blind, having gone blind in the most painful manner imaginable.

As to the dog passing the "european test", in this country the European Test as in the rest of Europe requires the dog is tested for MRD which is the fold you are talking about. There is in circulation a "European type" certificate this is a copy of the real certificate, which is being used and referred to as the European Certificate. Personally I'd rather have a good scheme which shows all eye problems and the changes to the eye due to age development, than none.

As to MRD and some other canine eye problems, it is not unusual for these problems to appear and equally disappear, as the dogs eye changes with age. Another example would be collies and shelties who have CEA, (collie eye anomaly), if the puppy is tested between 5 and 14 weeks of age it will show up, after 14 weeks it appears to disappear and the pup will get a pass. As CEA can cause blindness in a puppy, or an older dog, would it be right to test after 14 weeks to get a pass, or test at 6 weeks and risk a failure? In flatcoats some young dogs and bitches can develop entropian, but they grow out of it, and at around two years of age you'd never know the dog ever had it, this is because in some indiviaduals, looseness of the eyelids is affected by the rate at which the head grows.

Your friend may well be devastated now, but at least she knows the score. She can retest under the BVA scheme and get a pass at a later date, due to growth and age related changes to the dog's eye. She could also appeal and ask for a second opinion, provided it is within 28 days of the first test. If she hadn't tested under the BVA scheme, and had got a pass with the "european type" certificate, would she have bred a litter? Is ignorance of what might be in your dogs breeding line better than knowing the truth?  If so, then yes, breed away and why bother with the european type certificate at all?

The ECVO or 'European' certificate is just as valid and 'official' as the KC/BVA/ISDS certificate and the opthamologists testing under the ECVO scheme are also qualified to test under the BVA scheme (but generally not vice-versa)!

Both schemes check for the same conditions but the recording of the results differ.
On the KC/BVA/ISDS certificate, there are two columns, 'Unaffected' & 'Affected'.
On the ECVO certificate, there are ''Unaffected', 'Affected', 'Undetermined' & 'Suspicious'.

With a condition such as MRD, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain whether it is in fact MRD or there is another cause for the fold, or whether there is a fold at all. The Undetermined and Suspicious columns allow for the dog to be re-examined at a later date to ensure that it is in fact MRD and not another condition which at first appears to be MRD but is not. A sensible and prudent option which allows a dog the benefit of the doubt before being damned for a condition which is basically one persons opinion on the day.

Furthermore, the certificate for both schemes actually records whether the dog is affected or unaffected, it is not a 'pass' or 'fail' certificate.

Once the owner has had the dog tested and knows the status of their dog's eyes, a judgement can be made whether to breed or not. There is no rule or law against breeding from ANY dog that has had 'affected' recorded on the certificate for any of the tested conditions. This is the moral responsibility of the breeder and in my opinion (and the vast majority of Golden Retriever breeders), MRD is NOT a condition which discards an animal from the breeding population.
Obviously the dog would only be mated to another dog that was unaffected for this same condition.

If the ECVO was the scheme in use when MRD was introduced to the testing schedule of Golden Retrievers, it would have spared a great deal of anguish, anger and loss of faith in the veterinary profession by a great proportion of Golden Retriever breeders.

As a matter of interest, many years ago we had a bitch tested with HC, which absolutely stunned us at the time.
The Opthamologist who had performed the test remarked that he had not stated that she must not be bred from, he had only recorded an affected on the certificate. The decision whether to breed or not was ours and if she was the last of a line or important to the breed, she could still be bred from! Obviously with a condition as serious as HC, this was not even considered but at the time I thought that it was a strange comment. With more experience and hind-sight I now understand the point that he was making.

snomaes

I think you missed my point which was under the European certificate the results are recorded just as they are on the BVA certificate, but I have seen copies which the owners of the dogs claim are the real thing! These copies do not record all results.
Another point I was trying to make and with examples was that in some eye problems you will get an affected result which at a future date will appear as a pass or clear certification. The reason for this being that as dogs grow from puppies, to mature dogs and even into old age the dog will change and grow, the eyes being part of the dog will also grow, develop and change, consequently a clear can become an affected result and equally it can go from affected to clear. It is in supporting and trying to work with the schemes we have in place that we can hope to improve the overall health of our breeds.

Both you and I know Polly that the so called European scheme was just a cop out to allow dogs with MRD have a "Pass". We both know of dogs which have failed with us who have gone out and got a European pass so that they can carry on breeding.

Best wishes, John

I'm not getting into another argument with the Golden people on this board. My views on Goldens and MRD are well known. I purposely left MRD out of my original post because that opens a whole can of worms

John

I am a bit sceptical about the efficacy of eye testing.I know many people who eye test their pups as soon as they can to obtain a clear eye certificate ( before any anomalies are apparent)and thats it !!. It seems to be viewed as just a hoop to jump through, so that later on they can say that their dog is 'eye tested clear'. Until the Kennel club make it compulsary for testing to be done yearly the whole thing strikes me as a nonsense.

Hips are also scored as early as possible to get the lowest possible score.

Yvonne

It is not quite like that Yvonne. Some conditions, CEA for as start cannot be declaired clear if you do not test at a very young age because of changes which occure in the eye.

<<Until the Kennel club make it compulsary for testing to be done yearly the whole thing strikes me as a nonsense>>

If this really is your view then remind me to stay well clear of your puppies! That is almost the biggest load of rubbish I've ever seen on this board! You mean I'm wasting my time organising eye testing? I think not!

John

A dog without CEA is usually stated to be normal rather than clear as this would indicate the dog did not carry the gene(at least it is in ISDS BC's)

There was a gentically clear Shetland Sheepdog(via test mating to CEA sufferers)sadly he was one of the dogs that the RSPCA got their hands on & castrated !!!!!!

Only a DNA test for CEA would would show that a dog was clear

In the KC/BVA/ISDS Eye test scheme WILL pass a dog clear provided it is tested as a puppy. Once it is past 12 weeks old it can only be accepted as "Go Normal" The recomended age for testing for CEA is 5 to 6 weks of age. We have litter screened many litters over the years.

John

Sorry John I meant in the word clear in CEA cases is a bit misleading as the dog tested might not have it but could be a carrier or have been a go right CEA case so in the ISDS world eye tested clear dogs are referred to colloquially as normal rather than clear especially until recently the ISDS did actively support puppy testing(they do now of course)

I just wish they would find the marker gene

I have very little confidence in DNA testing at the moment Moonmaiden. There have been so many mistakes. Christine (Spain) on here can tell you all about one dog who was passed by a DNA test for PRA when in fact it actually had PRA. We all believed that the DNA tests when they arrived would give us the definitive answeres but so far this has not proved to be the case. Also, reading the info on the web sites of the companies involved it appears to me that they have devided the world up between them! "I won't tread on your turf if you don't tread on mine." Whole strands of DNA have been patented by a company effectedly stopping any further work by anyone else. It strikes me that we are going to loose all the advantages which we could have gained from the genome.

Best wishes, John

Too true it should be funded but left to independant scientists to do the research for the benefit of the dogs not someone's pocket. I know my BC's could be carriers even though they are eye tested normal at 6 weeks & have current certs as they have carriers in their breeding(as do most BCs) which I am open about & they are not at stud anyway

Thank goodness the research into SM(Syringomyelia)in Cavaliers is being funded for the dogs benefit, my dogs are off for sampling next week, as one is a carrier & the others show no signs & are older & all three are related they are a useful group. Plus my boy who is the carrier mother is to be sampled & his siblings will be done after they are three(the age by whioch it normally manifests) Even the KC are funding research into MVD in Cavaliers

Thing is M/Maiden, where are the independent scientists who have the funds to continue this line of work? Don`t think they exist! John`s explained why I don`t have much confidence in DNA testing just now, the firm in Canada(can`t think of the name right now) gave my dog a clear certificate for pra but she already had been tested by Dr Barnett as affected pra, he got in touch with them & optigen & shortly after the Canadian firm withdrew the test for labs. I do think it`s the way forward, if only they could get it right!

Christine, Spain.

Tha's why the governing KC's should fund it as they are supposed to be the guardian's of the dog breeds-as well of course as the breed club's

The CEA research seems to have ground to a halt for some reason which is a real shame as there are lots of the collie breeds that could benefit by opening the gene pool by using genetically clear to carrier(if the carrier is a good example)the offspring could be screened & then if carriers only used with clear mates. At least that way there would be fewer dogs with CEA

Think we need a John Paul Getty to set up  independant research

"I am a bit sceptical about the efficacy of eye testing"
Since the eye certificate states "The age of onset of non-congenital inherited eye disease varies in different breeds & between individual dogs. it is therefore important to follow any advice given at the time of this examination with regard to the necessity for and frequency of eye examinations", it is up to prospective owners to discover the nature of problems & the fact that, with certain conditions, eye certificates are only meaningful if they are current ones. Our Club advises only buying from parents who have current clear certificates for HC.
Your attitude sounds like nothing more than a cop-out. There will always be people who will try to find ways around a system and always be people who are daft enough to fall for their methods - The rest of us, with the good of our breeds at the foremost, will continue to test & abide by the results.

Firstly this is not 'my attitude' - I'm simply stating what I know to be true in many breeds - secondly ( and this is to John) - there is  no need to be so rude to me - if you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I am in fact calling for  stricter regulations in regard to eye testing - the present situation allows for the 'test once and thats it' brigade to sell their pups as eye tested clear.

Without COMPULSORY annual testing then I'm afraid the present system IS a nonsense as pups that are tested clear ( for hereditary cataracts ) could well develop them at a later date when they have already been used in a breeding programme. This is the situation that exists in many breeds at present.

From all this you may well gather that I do in fact test annually, all my pups are from parents who have good hips/temperaments and as far as possible are free from other hereditary diseases that may affect my breed ( I have waited 7 years before having my latest litter so that I could bring in epilepsy free lines as this is a significant problem in Belgians ). It is fortunate for both of us that you are unlikely to want one of my pups but I think you would be hard pushed to find a breeder who does more to ensure the future health and character of her breed.

<<It seems to be viewed as just a hoop to jump through, so that later on they can say that their dog is 'eye tested clear'>>

Me being rude to you Yvonne? As someone who "Wastes his time" organising eye testing sessions as a service to breeders to assist them in their aims to breed healthy dogs I consider your remarks to be totally unhelpful! We make sure the people attending our session KNOW exactly what is required and do our best to explain the significance of the results. The tests may not be perfect, but what in this world is, but they are the best we have at the moment. If you want the KC to legislate (And I would like to see it compulsory to) then I would suggest you lobby them. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the way forward!

John

John - nowhere in my post did I state that " you were wasting your time" - whilst you may give sound advice at the time of testing I will reiterate that in many breeds this advice is not carried out and that testing is only done once so  that a clear certificate is optained. you may not like this fact but it IS a fact !.

In my breed hips are scored at 12 months ( or as soon after) as this is thought to give the lowest scores - other breeds may be different.

Finally - whilst you may not agree with what other people have to say you must allow them a degree of experience which may be different from yours and just as valid - resorting to insults is childish and counter productive.

Yvonne

If you like to check back in this forum Yvonne you will see we always tell people to check for a CURRENT eye test certificate. If it is more than a year old it is not current.

As far as hips are concerned, this is a once in a lifetime test. A dog cannot be tested before a year old and personally I believe you get a better plate at nearer 18 months. Either way the difference is marginal. As to x-raying at the best time, I thought that was the idea! That is the true score! Scoring after the dog has wear or damage would give a worst score but wear or damage is not a hereditary problem so really does not enter into the equation.

There is no law to enforce any health tests but it does help puppy buyers to sort out the breeders who are at least trying from the could not care less kind. A lot is wrong in the world of dogs, not least is the KC's habit of fence sitting and breeders dodging their responsibilities. Another problem is the difficulty in getting the necessary information. A visit to the OFFA site and by entering the name of a dog you can see the hip status of not only that dog but also it's ancestors and its progeny. Quite a few breeds do make a certain amount of information available but that info is not easy to find for anyone not "In the know" to find.

It is easy to knock the health schemes but it is not clever. At the moment it is all we have, and a better approach is to canvas for improvements.

John

Grondemon wrote:
<<I am a bit sceptical about the efficacy of eye testing.I know many people who eye test their pups as soon as they can to obtain a clear eye certificate ( before any anomalies are apparent)and thats it !!. >>

Some of us test our pups in breeds that are not generally tested, especially as puppies, because we want to know if they are affected or not and whether our Clear adults are likely to be carriers!

In my breed the only problem officially tested for is PHPV and this is apparent at a few weeks of age although any other problems will also be put on the certificate.

<<Hips are also scored as early as possible to get the lowest possible score.>>

What is this supposed to mean - if the hips are good then they should not deteriorate by more than a point or two over the years unless injured? I have my dogs hips scored as early as possible so I know what they are and whether I can then breed in the future if I wish to.

I have been advised that hip scoring is best done at 2 years of age. Also that the bitch es should ideally be roughly mid way between seasons. I have found that when testing my dogs I have always had better scores when the dog is about two as the muscle is developed by that age. When done younger I have had poorer scores.

Thank you for all your interesting replies. It is a topic which is certainly not clear cut but I think all would agree that a 'better' test would be desirable but seemingly not available at present.
However, I must just comment was the rudeness to Yvonne really necessary?
Amos

What rudeness Amos?

Calling someones opinion ' Biggest load of rubbish' is what I call rude. Even if you do not agree, no need for that in an adult debate. And that is my opinion.
Amos

Particularly as it was not 'my opinion' merely my observations on the truth of what happens in many breeds with regard to testing.

Thank you Amos.

Yvonne

We spend a lot of time on here trying to persuade people starting out in breeding that the responsible thing to do is to only breed from health tested dogs then someone comes along and posts.

<<Until the Kennel club make it compulsory for testing to be done yearly the whole thing strikes me as a nonsense>>

Would you not say she's talking rubbish? She's is undoing all the good work the people on this board have tried to do at one stroke! People come here, see this and say, "Oh well, if its nonsense then I wont bother!" Remember, some people are only looking for an excuse to make more money out of farming their bitches. And this is just the kind of post which gives them encouragement. The more puppy buyers we stress to about the need for health testing the more we reduce the possibility that they well end up with puppy farmed dogs.

I stand by ALL of my posts on this thread.

John

While I agree with John that to state that you are skeptical about the eye testing and that it seems to be a hoop to jump through and a nonsense to you Yvonne, I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to say so on a forum where guests visit for advice. As you say "resorting to insults is childish and counter productive", but I didn't read John's post as being rude, but as being an opposing view put across very strongly. To say this to somebody who does not agree with you surely makes you equally guilty. I would hope that your comments as to why it is a nonsense were a little more reasoned, so everyone can follow the argument. What might happen in your breed is not the same in other breeds. My own breed being one which is very open about our results and when a problem is detected we are also open about that, which is why we flatcoat breeders are so keen to support the glaucoma testing.
I have tried on earlier posts on this thread to explain why results will vary. On many other threads on this forum like other regular contributors have tried to encourage all potential breeders to get their dogs eye tested and hip scored prior to breeding and to potential puppy buyers to buy only from health tested stock, as while this doesn't necessarily give them any guarantees it is better than not knowing.

I do not want to get into a debate about what is rude and what is not as we obviously will disagree on that one.
I do think that this type of response to the voicing of an opinion will put off others who may like to contribute incase they receive the same. That can not be good for a forum such as this.
For someone whos' contributions are obviously repected by many its just a bit disappointing.
Enough said on this I think
Amos

I take it you are happy with people being told its not worth testing then Amos. I'm guessing that is not what Yvonne meant in her post but that is the way it read and that was irrisponsible.

'Take it' as you will, but actually the only comment I have made about the replies (apart from to mention your tone) was to thank respondants for their contributions and that includes both you and Yvonne.
Amos

I give up !!- I thought this was a FORUM - am I not allowed then to express my opinion or is it that my opinion must be the same as Johns ( otherwise I'm 'talking rubbish'.)

O.k. you explain to me how eye testing once is any more effective than not eye testing at all if dogs that have already been used for breeding then go on to develop cataracts ? - yes it may give a clear result at the time of testing but unless it's done annually it is meaningless - unless you can explain why it is not ?

Well done to the Flat coat people if they ALL test annually but this DOES NOT HAPPEN in most breeds . So what its a one off clear certificate worth then ?

Yes most breed clubs advise puppy purchasers to buy from eyetested and hip scored stock which is why breeders play the game and get a clear certificate ( and no I'm NOT condoning this attitude just stating how it is) - but once thay have it they do NOT retest annually.

Now you may not like what I'm saying John but all the huffing and puffing in the world does'nt change how the reality is - just as we are now questioning the efficacy of annual vaccinations I think that it is right that people should query the effectiveness of the present situation with cataract testing.

I really dont understand your posts Yvonne. The whole point of testing is to hopefully get a pass because that will mean that your dog is as healthy as far as hereditory problems are concerned as you are able to check. As I said in my very first post, not all problems will be caught unless you continue to test throughout the life of the dog.

As the retesting, possibly the largest section of people attending our sessions are the same breeders retesting their dogs so maybe we explain things better than the person who tests your dog. Maybe you should lobby him or her to spread the information.

John

Going back to the situation my friend finds herself in i.e. a fantastic dog who was found to have a tiny fold when eye tested, she would like this dog retested as the vet suggested the fold may well go. Does she have to show her eye test result to the next vet who examines her bitch as she is worried this will influence them and would rather the next vet examine the eyes with an open mind and I must say I would feel the same.
Amos

After being told I'm rude I dont think I'll bother to answer this.

If the object of the second test is to see if the fold has gone, then I would have thought it best to show the vet the previous result anyway. (I'm SURE you dont mean it this way but otherwise it sounds as if you hope that he just wont spot it!)

I believe it would be beneficial for the vets to see evidence where eye conditions have corrected themselves. Given the small number of vets that do eye tests, and the benefit of them sharing their experiences this can only add to a greater understanding of eye conditions.