Ponderings

[Eileen Stein]

Julie, Pam was using the term "Recessive Carriers" in an earlier post, I was taking that to mean a "Carrier". I may have misread or misunderstood her post but I took it as suggesting that there was a lack of openness on carriers and it should not be that way.

 

Deb, she only used that term after you said, "Comes down to, it takes two, both the male and the female had to be at minimum carriers. So the bitch owner is equally responsible for producing defective dogs." Your statement is true only with respect to health issues that are recessive, i.e., cases where each parent must contribute a copy of the mutant ("bad") gene. In the case of genetic problems where the mutant gene is dominant, the sire or dam alone can transmit the condition, even if the other parent is unaffected.

 

Should a breeder advertise all possible carriers as defective?

 

The breeder should disclose the facts to anyone who has a legitimate interest in knowing the facts. That includes persons interested in buying their dogs, the owners of dogs who are considering breeding to their dogs, and potential puppy buyers. Certainly a breeder should disclose that known carriers are carriers. (There's no reason to use the term "defective.") If there have been indications that their dog *may* be a carrier, the breeder should disclose the facts that suggest this possibility. For example, there is currently no test for adult early-onset deafness, but there is research strongly suggesting that it is genetic and transmitted recessively. In that case, if sire and/or dam have produced pups who went deaf in early adulthood, of course their owners should disclose these facts to anyone interested in buying them, breeding to them, or buying their pups.

 

If so, does anyone have dogs that are defect free?

 

There are certainly dogs as to whom no facts are known that would give rise to suspicion that they carry a genetic defect. That doesn't mean they don't carry one. It just means that there is nothing to disclose regarding them.

 

So here's a question, if the bitch owner made sure that their dog was defect free would it matter? I guess I have to wonder about a bitch owner that is worried about the genetic predisposition of the male, makes me think that they don't really know and that their female may be affected or a recessive carrier.

 

I don't understand your point here. Of course their bitch might well be a carrier of the gene (or one of the principal genes) that cause adult early-onset deafness, or the other diseases for which there is no test. Any dog might be a carrier. But if one of the pair to be bred has produced such deafness before, that is information that the owner of the other dog is entitled to know. And if the owner of the bitch knows that their bitch is a CEA carrier, of course they have all the more reason to want to know if the prospective mate is a CEA carrier also.

 

ETA: I guess what I wonder is how many bitch owners would go to that stud dog owner and say, my dog has epilepsy, HD or CEA in her lines when they inquire about having their dog bred

 

All of them, I would hope. But Pam is saying that too many of them don't disclose this information. If she's right, that's unfortunate. In my mind, you don't qualify as a good breeder unless you're upfront about this stuff with people who have a legitimate interest in knowing. Some might say the owner of the bitch has more of a right to this information because that's who will be responsible for selling/raising the pups, but IMO both owners should be interested in this information and it should be shared by both.

 

There is a situation that I am aware of right now. There is a known issue in the parents (both). So owner of the sire is insisting on testing all offspring or else she will not sign off on the breeding. However, same sire remains untested for a multitude of other possibilities- perhaps owner didn't want to make the investment? or thought the results may not be perfect?

 

Sounds to me as if the owner of the sire is acting responsibly in insisting on testing before signing off on the breeding. As for her not testing the sire "for a multitude of other possibilities," to my mind it would depend on what they are. There really aren't a "multitude" of issues for which we have DNA tests currently. I am assuming the "known issue" is CEA, because there are actually so few defects for which we have genetic tests at this point, and CEA is the only one that is prevalent enough that it makes sense to test for it, in the absence of some specific risk factor or ground for suspicion. (I suppose it could be congenital sensorineural deafness, for which there's no DNA test but which will be evident in pups by the time they're a few weeks old.) The only other DNA-testable conditions I can think of are exotica such as CL and TNS, and unless the dog were an Oz-NZ import I should think the reason the sire's owner isn't testing for them is the extreme unlikelihood of anything being found. It would be like testing people of 100% Nordic heritage for sickle cell trait. What are the tests the sire's owner should be getting, in your opinion?

[Crawford Dogs]

I find the idea of hiding your genetic problems interesting. First, some breeders may not talk about a problem simply because it can not be determined whether it is genetic or not. Should they announce that they have eye problems etc. now and find out in 5 yrs that it doesn't appear to be genetic? Sometimes all a breeder can do it notify the potentially affected and wait to see what happens. I've known 2 different lines diagnosed by Dr. Betts at ISU with PRA. Many of the dogs were spayed/neutered but oddly enough the dogs are 7-10 yrs old now and still have perfect vision AND pass their eye exams every year. Had the breeders waited and done more health checks before spaying/neutering those lines might still be around. I think the fact that many exams are qualitative instead of quantitative along with veterinary errors cause people to wonder if any bad (or good) test is trustworthy. Sadly, this encourages people to avoid health checks.

Of course, I also see breeders purposefully breeding mentally and/or physically unsound dogs or breeding without health checks. Do those refusing to do basic health checks on amazing working dogs potentially create problems down the line? I have been fairly lucky in that I got my youngest from someone who honestly tells me of any potential issues in the line and views health checks as important. But, should my pup fail a health check I would honestly get a 2nd opinion and then retest in another year before announcing that I had a genetic problem. If I did have a genetic problem you'd find the failed health test online at the OFA or CERF databases. I feel that communication is important but perhaps some breeders worry that an issue isn't genetic until they have more info and so don't communicate? Perhaps some don't care? I'd love to hear your opinions.

[Pam Wolf]

Yes but if there is a problem the breeder should be open about it. The interplay between genetics and environment is complicated and things can 'change' when conditions change, but doesnt' this mean that there might be a potential for such problems in a line and knowledge would allow a breeder to make informed intelligent decisions on breeding.

 

Problem is as I see if IF a breeder says they have a dog with a problem then people would avoid the breeder even though they may have excellent dogs. I've seen this happen with at least one National Champion over the years. While another has produced what I consider a major defect and all info about it is swept under the rug.

 

As Liz P has said, ALL dogs have some sort of issues in their lines. Knowledge would help make for healthier decisions.

 

And on this topic how many would euthanize a pup that had a potentially lethal problem such as a heart murmur? Or would you sweep it under the rug? Or would the pups not have been checked for this all too common problem? (which for most cases involves a simple vet check). Or would you sell the pup hoping it wouldn't be bred? If sold would it be on NB papers? (which rings bells to many people as saying the dog is 'defective:)

[Debbie Meier]

And on this topic how many would euthanize a pup that had a potentially lethal problem such as a heart murmur? Or would you sweep it under the rug? Or would the pups not have been checked for this all too common problem? (which for most cases involves a simple vet check). Or would you sell the pup hoping it wouldn't be bred? If sold would it be on NB papers? (which rings bells to many people as saying the dog is 'defective:)

 

 

If you had asked me 6 months ago I probably would have said that I either would have the pup destroyed or placed into a home disclosing the issue.

 

But, since I have met someone that was given a working bred pup that had been diagnosed with a heart murmor. The dog is over a year old now, working great and follow up vet visits have revealed no signs of the heart mumor.

 

I think what I would do now is to keep the pup and test it ourselves. If the pup didn't make it as a working dog I would place it as a pet and disclose the issue on a s/n contract agreement and withhold papers. I have been withhold papers until I get evidence of the s/n, we also request that the females are not spayed until after they are 18 months old after seeing a early spayed daughter of Jake, compared to her unaltered sisters you could really see how the early spay effected her structural development.

 

If the dog later showed no evidence of the mumor at a later date and was a solid working dog we would take it into consideration if the dog stayed in our program and when selling the dog alert the buyer that the dog had a mumor when it was a pup.

[Pam Wolf]

Deb would you consider doing an EKG on said pup to see if there is a weakness of the heart wall to use in breeding decisions? Or would you breed without revealing a potential problem to future buyers? (not meaning to pick on you BTW)

[Denise Wall]

I'll be the first to admit people do some less than honorable things when breeding dogs and selling dogs. And I don't know the situation that started this thread. But in general who should set the standard for what is expected to be announced to the world? There are a lot of people out there with unrealistic expectations as far as health issues. Should they be running the show?

 

As someone said, it's really between the breeder and the puppy buyers and the owners of the dogs being bred. I've never gotten why it's considered to be such a noble thing to post on some database, accessible to all, specific dogs' health "clearances" or "failures." It's just human nature to not want bad things spread around everywhere about ones' breeding program or dogs to people who have no involvement in it. No amount of finger pointing will change human nature. That doesn't mean people won't let the people who should know know about those things.

 

What I do and what I advise people who ask me about it to do, is to ask the person pointblank, while looking them in the eye, specific questions you're interested in about a dog or line in question. Personally, on the rare occasion I breed a litter, I make a list of known issues to go over with each puppy buyer in case they don't know about them or don't remember to ask. I don't feel the need to publish that list but that doesn't mean I have something to hide.

 

Also, why not expect other faults to be made common knowledge? I've never heard of a database of dogs or lines that are big chickens and can't be used for lambing because they get run off. Or one with cheap grippers. Or one with dogs that can't work more than ten minutes. These and more are all things that should be taken together in a breeding of two good working dogs.

 

JMHO

[Lana]

 

Also, why not expect other faults to be made common knowledge? I've never heard of a database of dogs or lines that are big chickens and can't be used for lambing because they get run off. Or one with cheap grippers. Or one with dogs that can't work more than ten minutes. These and more are all things that should be taken together in a breeding of two good working dogs.

 

JMHO

 

Love this and so true. Thanks Denise.

[Crawford Dogs]

ALthough a bit off topic, people keep on mentioning heart conditions and descended testicles. Are heart conditions and testicle problems prevalent in the breed?

[Debbie Meier]

Deb would you consider doing an EKG on said pup to see if there is a weakness of the heart wall to use in breeding decisions? Or would you breed without revealing a potential problem to future buyers? (not meaning to pick on you BTW)

 

If said pup showed no murmor on follow up vet visits I really would not worry about an EKG. As far as breeding again, it would depend on how the pups from the previous litter turned out from a working standpoint, I think if a person was really honest about the pups they could find a reason from a working standpoing to not make the cross again. But, based on what we have come to do recently, if we are uncertain of what a cross will produce or worried about an issue we don't advance book pups until we can see what is produced. Basically go into test breed preservation mode.

 

I have a litter due at the end of the month, this is the note on my website "There may be a pup or two available from this cross after they have reached 12-16 weeks of age. Availability is limited to working homes." It's a test breeding, we don't know what we are going to get and I'd rather keep them all then to sell them and have to repeat the breeding or have unhappy puppy owners.

 

We have deafness in our ACD's, we alert buyers and even remind them if we hear that they are considering breeding their dogs that they have purchased from us.

 

In all reality it's pretty tough to make an arguement for repeating a cross. We did it with Bea/Jake because we screwed up and didn't stick with our picks. Thought we learned our lesson...but are releasing one of our picks this time too but we are retaining breeding rights this time.

[Pam Wolf]

I agree Denise and don't like the advertising for the sake of advertising health 'clearances', but I think breeders should be more open about the problems within a breed.

 

And I have had people lie when asked point blank, but there is no cure for that

[Liz P]

And I have had people lie when asked point blank, but there is no cure for that

 

I had a breeder lie point blank while in full view of a dog she bred with the very condition I was asking about. In fact, the dog still had a shaved area and healing incision from surgery to fix the problem.

[Pam Wolf]

ALthough a bit off topic, people keep on mentioning heart conditions and descended testicles. Are heart conditions and testicle problems prevalent in the breed?

 

 

From what I've seen they are.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

From what I've seen they are.

 

 

Any particular lines?

[PennyT]

Hello, Health Committee. Would you say heart conditions and testicle problems are prevalent in the breed?

[juliepoudrier]

Just one person here (data point of 1), but I'm two for two on undescended testicles with the male pups I've gotten.

 

By the same token, I've not had, nor known of, any dogs with heart problems.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

As of yet every one of our males that we have kept to maturity have had their testicles decend, but some were real late, 8 months to almost a year. I could see where is someone purchased them as pups that the vet would have advised for surgery. When ever I sell a male I tell the buyers to not panic and to wait, so far all have descended.

[Liz P]

I know of many, many dogs that were cryptorchid. This is a problem found in a lot of different breeds.

 

For the last few days I've been trying to think of lines that consistently produce heart problems and I came up with three. One of those lines I know was producing PDA because owners had their pups diagnosed more extensively. The other two I don't know the exact problem, but dogs with murmurs have been found dead in their runs at very young ages (9 months, 4 years, etc).

[juliepoudrier]

As of yet every one of our males that we have kept to maturity have had their testicles decend, but some were real late, 8 months to almost a year. I could see where is someone purchased them as pups that the vet would have advised for surgery. When ever I sell a male I tell the buyers to not panic and to wait, so far all have descended.

Yep, the first undescended male I had, people advised me to wait, that they could take as long as 18 months to descend. But is that a good thing? If it's normal for pups to be descended by 8 weeks are we accidentally creating within the breed a propensity toward late-descending testicles? And how late is too late? I don't neuter any male dog before 2 years old, so I'm unlikely to accidentally neuter one that would have descended, but I do wonder if there's an upper limit beyond which you can be pretty sure they're not going to descend, and whether this is something (late descending and nondescending) that we are accidentally (?) creating (or increasing the incidence of) within the breed by not paying more attention to it.

 

And a sort of corollary to that: If we're not paying attention to the production of cryptorchids or late-descending dogs are we inadvertently limiting the gene pool? Clearly cryptorchids aren't contributing to the gene pool, but by creating dogs who could be worthy of breeding based on work, but can't be bred based on lack of descended testicles, what are we doing to our genetic diversity? (These questions aren't directed specifically at you, Debbie--it's just stuff I've wondered about after having two cryptorchids.)

 

And I guess along similar lines, if you (the general you) produce cryptorchids and the buyer of such a puppy is told "Wait, they may yet come down" and then they never do, the buyer had paid for potential, including breeding potential, that will never be realized. But if they've waited a year or more then they've already got a lot invested in that particular dog. And that's where the question of what a breeder reveals to a potential buyer is important, IMO. If, say, after two breedings of a particular stud dog (two different bitches, since it can be carried through the bitch as well) litters have included cryptorchid pups, do you point out the possibility to a potetial puppy buyer? I think you should, so that they can make an informed purchase. ("I really like this cross, so I'm going to take a chance on perhaps getting a pup that's a cryptorchid.") Again, just more rehtorical musings, but it's stuff I've wondered about....

 

J.

[Liz P]

Julie, technically those late descending dogs are cryptorchid. The gene seems to have variable expression (sometimes the testicles never come down, sometimes they do come down but very late).

 

If you had a superior dog that had a lot to contribute to the breed, but he was a cryptorchid (and fertile), you could use him and be fairly certain of eliminating the gene in a single generation. 1)Breed him to the bitch of your choice. 2)Place all the females from the litter on non breeding papers (because they are all silent carriers). 3)ONLY male pups with both testicles down at 6 weeks stay intact. 4)Male pups with one or two testicles missing at 6 weeks are placed on non breeding papers.

 

The problem with eliminating cryptorchids from a line is depending on the honesty of all the owners involved, silent female carriers and the need to balance working ability and the elimination/avoidance of more serious health problems.

 

Are all stud owners honest about when their dog's testicles dropped?

 

Did the stud change hands a few times, so the current owner has no idea when they came down?

 

If cryptorchids appear from time to time in your lines but you are trying to reduce your odds of producing a pup with HD/epilepsy/OCD/AOD, how much do you worry about it?

 

What happens if you keep a bitch line so don't want to be forced to keep a male in order to eliminate the gene?

[juliepoudrier]

If you had a superior dog that had a lot to contribute to the breed, but he was a cryptorchid (and fertile), you could use him and be fairly certain of eliminating the gene in a single generation. 1)Breed him to the bitch of your choice. 2)Place all the females from the litter on non breeding papers (because they are all silent carriers). 3)ONLY male pups with both testicles down at 6 weeks stay intact. 4)Male pups with one or two testicles missing at 6 weeks are placed on non breeding papers.

 

Doesn't the above assume that we *know* the genetics of transmission of cryptorchidism? Isn't it possible that a pup from a cryptorchid that isn't itself cryptorchid could still pass it along? What if bred to a bitch line that carries cryptorchidism? And how would you know, if the owners themselves don't know or don't care to divulge that information?

 

And yes, I realize that this problem isn't as critical as hips or deafness or epilepsy, but it is annoying that people tend to keep quiet about it, which I think was the original topic of this thread.

 

And if I'm not breeding my own (don't intend to do any more breeding), then I have to rely on the veracity of the folks who are breeding to inform me of such potential problems. And there lies the rub.

 

I don't have the answers, obviously, and I'm sure there are more pressing issues, but I think *all* of these issues should be discussed, which is what we are doing.

 

J.

[Liz P]

Doesn't the above assume that we *know* the genetics of transmission of cryptorchidism? Isn't it possible that a pup from a cryptorchid that isn't itself cryptorchid could still pass it along? What if bred to a bitch line that carries cryptorchidism? And how would you know, if the owners themselves don't know or don't care to divulge that information?

 

And yes, I realize that this problem isn't as critical as hips or deafness or epilepsy, but it is annoying that people tend to keep quiet about it, which I think was the original topic of this thread.

 

And if I'm not breeding my own (don't intend to do any more breeding), then I have to rely on the veracity of the folks who are breeding to inform me of such potential problems. And there lies the rub.

 

I don't have the answers, obviously, and I'm sure there are more pressing issues, but I think *all* of these issues should be discussed, which is what we are doing.

 

J.

 

We are not 100% certain of the inheritance, but the evidence for a single recessive, sex linked gene is extremely strong. Depending on who you ask, there may also be modifier genes that determine whether the testicles come down late if at all or come down then go back up.

 

You are correct that the only way to move forward with any hope of success when it comes to controlling genetic disorders is to be willing to share information.

[Debbie Meier]

Clearly cryptorchids aren't contributing to the gene pool, but by creating dogs who could be worthy of breeding based on work, but can't be bred based on lack of descended testicles, what are we doing to our genetic diversity? (These questions aren't directed specifically at you, Debbie--it's just stuff I've wondered about after having two cryptorchids.)

 

 

No problem, in the case of the males that we raised that were late decenders, neither are breeding worthy and have been culled, they had working ability shortfalls. If either had been rare talents I don't think I could have excluded them from the program due to them dropping late and to be honest I doubt I would even remember that they were late decenders aside from these threads that remind me. On another note, those late decenders were also late to mature, Ricky the male that we are currently using is a 1/2 brother out of a different female, he was "all boy" early on, early to mature in all areas from ability to trainability and beyond.