Hip dysplasia

[Denise Wall]

Bill,

 

I don't know how many puppies have make-your-toes-curl x-rays. You didn't seem to think puppies could possibly have hips bad enough to warrant a diagnosis of HD and I'm saying there are definitely some that anybody could tell were that bad. The lack of normal protective factors can cause even normal activity to deform a developing hip.

 

No, they definitely aren't being sold as goose dogs. These puppies can barely get around sometimes. People here have given accounts of such cases. As for what happens to them - I've known some to be put down. Some have TPO and go on to do fine. The vet in NC who probably does the most TPO surgeries will NOT do them unless the puppy is bad enough to warrant it, BTW. Some have FHO at some point. Many are given away as pets and are couch potatoes. None I've known of just grow out of this sort of problem. Things just don't get any better when hips are that bad on a puppy.

 

You're against ABCA's recommendations for HD, which are only recommendations, BTW. I'm sure you're aware I was primary author on that breeder's guide. Each recommendation was made based on the recommendations on all of the other genetic diseases in the breed, the tests we have now and how long it appears to be before there are better ones, the heritability factors thought to be involved, and the breed incidence. It's difficult to perfectly balance out all of those situations for the entire gene pool. But I promise you it was the very best I could do and I took everything I knew and researched out into account.

 

And I honestly don't think I'm ignorant on the reasons you have for not thinking they are appropriate. I've taken a lot of flack from some people for my views on passive laxity. However, my views on laxity and the working dog come down to hip efficiency combined with overall structure and this balance results in a good hip, not a bad one. That bad hip tells me there was maybe too much laxity in that hip and it was not compensated by muscular mass. I don't think the answer to having an athletic working dog is having slightly bad hips. When you say we are throwing out the baby and leaving the bathwater is that what you mean? Is this really what you think? And if so, what do you base this opinion on, exactly? What are these "positive correlation between working ability and the things that are called "bad" hips" that you write about?

 

What breeding recommendations, if any, would you suggest ABCA have for avoiding HD? How do you suggest OFA or other scoring systems grade hips that fall somewhere on a continuum from very bad to very good? I'm all for the hill proving the dog and have aggressively argued such points on the Canine Genetics lists in the past. But how would you suggest we evaluate hips for breeding in dogs that do less than work all day until they are eight to prove them?

 

Denise

[Northof49]

One of the problems with hip films as done for OFA is that they're done under anesthesia, so the muscle tone that may hold a joint in good working conformation is absent

 

________________________________________________

Where we get our dogs done, they never put the dogs under, we don't allow local vets to take the Xrays and a lot of people either fly their dogs in or make a special long trip to get them done by the Radiologist rather than Xrays from a Vet.

 

 

The laxity that Denise refers to, is one of the reasons they won't certify before two years of age. I remember talking to my Radiologits about some of the larger breeds. He said even before a year old if you do Prelims, you could possibly diagnose of borderline HD or mild HD because of the laxity of the hips at that time. However, take a Prelim at 14 - 18 months and you get a different picture altogether.

 

With respect to Denise's comments about the absense of HD in racing greyhounds, I remember years ago, before we had the internet to research coming across come articles in older Vet journals with respect to this. The observation was this was due to the high muscle to bone ratio in the greyhounds. There was also research done on comparing young pups (labrador retrievers) in some litters (I don't remember the number). Hip Xrays had been taken of them all for a starting point. Diet was the same. Half of the pups were allowed to be pups, not a lot of training was done on them until the got older. Basic obedience, some ground work being laid down for hunting, field trials etc until about 1 year of age. The other pups were vigorously exercised, vigorously trained and a lot of physical stress. Comparison of hips xrays at the end, showed the pups that had their little butts worked off - the majority were classifed as borderline to mild HD at one year of age. Their conclusion was that because as young pups they didn't have the muscle/ligament support for the hips that comes as they grow and matures, the excessive training and exercisinng produced the hip abnormalities. Pups have a much lower muscle/bone ratio than they will have as adults. Certain breeds also have a much lower muscle/bone ratio as well.

 

THe conclusion was that excessive stress by overtraining, etc in young puppies could be a contributing factor to HD being bascially "created" likc mechanical founder in horses.

 

I also know there were some testing done with Border Collies in England a long time ago, comparing those dogs that didn't start their stock dog training to any greatr degree until closer to a year old and those pups that were started in a vigorous training program at aprox 10 - 12 weeks of age, and they were finding the same thing, which would support the theory that environment can influence the creation of HD in certain circumstances.

[Denise Wall]

Hi Terry,

 

Thanks and yes that iespell is great!

 

AK doc,

 

Thanks for weighing in on the discussion. I'm always interested in the sled dogs because they also do a significant amount of work to test the "system".

 

As an aside, OFA does not require the dog to be under anesthesia. I don't have my dogs' hips done that way anymore. I don't consider it to be worth the risk for one thing. ABCA has recently approved a grant for testing dogs over the next two years with the new DLS procedure from Cornell. These dogs will only be sedated, not put under general, so the test will more naturally evaluate the dogs' hips in what is a more natural position to evaluate them.

 

Denise

[Northof49]

As an aside, OFA does not require the dog to be under anesthesia

 

________________________________________________

 

Denise, no, OFA doesn't require the dogs to be put under, but AK Doc, were you referring to the fact that Vets normally put the dogs under for the xrays? I know when I get queries from people they advise me that their vets insist on having the dogs put under for the xrays and want to know if that is really necessary.

[AK dog doc]

Denise and Northof49

Yes, you're right - OFA doesn't require anesthesia, and I should have been more precise - not that it HAS to be done with anesthesia, but that it commonly IS done with anesthesia. Truthfully, I know any number of dogs for whom an OFA film would be impossible to get in the absence of anesthesa even if you had a muzzle, a winch and 4 extra people holding the dog! We do sometimes take them without anesthesia (and when I say anesthesia, I mean we usually use either deep sedation or light anesthesia, and rarely do we intubate), but positioning is difficult to impossible to get in some dogs any other way.

 

Also, I did forget to mention (but someone else didn't) that the OFA position is fairly unnatural (although Finn will lay down with his legs strait out behind in exactly that position at times, usually on my bed while trying to entice me to get up and play - a position which evidently requires his snout to be approximately one inch from my sleeping eyeball.) So I don't consider it the be-all and end-all of hip assessment - but it is a place to start. And as an interesting thought about the muscle to bone ratio as it relates to soundness - show greyhounds probably have a pretty similar ratio (maybe not quite as high since they're usually not run as hard, but those are still some gigantic thighs) but they have more CHD than the running dogs do. So I'd agree that the ratio helps, but I'm not sure that's all there is to it. It's a good point, though.

 

Bill, you've been in BC's longer than I have, and I respect both your intelligence and experience; but I am not certain that an OFA excellent hip would mean poor working ability. I really don't know on this, as I have no concrete information to back it up. In my paltry 6 years with BC's I've only had 3, and only one worked sheep (Finn too young/not going to start that in winter with 2.5 feet of snow down and my truck in the shop, Buddy more the borderLINE collie), and that one not professionally (a hobby for her). She wasn't OFA'd, since she's spayed. Finn is too young to OFA, but I did prelims when I sedated him for his tattoo, and though I'm not OFA, my eye says he'd go good or excellent - not just on laxity, but the shape of the joint, the symmetry of the two hips and the lack of subchondral sclerosis or other changes that suggest abnormal wear. However, he hasn't been started on stock (yet! ) so I can't correlate the two. And realistically, I'm unlikely to use him on stock a lot even if he's good at it, since I have none. So in my personal experience of my own dogs I'm unlikely to be able to answer this question, and it would take years to shake out anyway. So I guess my question is this: have you had (or do you know) a dog that went OFA excellent that lacked the agility or other physicality to do well on stock? This is not meant as a challenge; I really want to know what your experience and thoughts are on this matter, and I'd be curious to know what other people who work their dogs frequently on stock have to say about the correlation between OFA excellent hips and the physical aspect of stock work. This is partly just a chance for me to learn something, and partly because Finn is a breeding *prospect* - I haven't made a decision, but the things I love about him are his soundness (and so far, my opinion of his hips is part of that, but I also mean his soundness "on the hoof"), his intelligence (naturally) and his temperament - he's VERY stable in that regard, similar to Pepper (the one who does work sheep) - although in a different style. So I'm reserving that as a possiblity, though I may end up collecting him and storing semen for use at some distant time in the future, since I right now don't know of a bitch I'd like to use him with, and he is unproven in other regards as of yet. But realistically - and perhaps this is just my own prejudice - if he'd had bad hips I'd have neutered him already. And I'll admit that I was quite happy to see what his hips DID look like, since I mean this dog to last me a while.

 

Just as a BTW (and rather late) but I'd back up what Eileen and others have had to say about a fresh eye sometimes being faster to pick up a subtle lameness than one that's been looking at the dog day in and day out for ages... an insidious onset might escape notice by even a dilligent owner, at least for a while, whereas someone who doesn't look at the dog daily might see it more readily; and a recovery from injury might be so improved as to appear 100% to an owner, but not necessarily to someone who has not been looking at improvement daily but is looking at it cold.

[havenjm]

I want to agree with Bill that the working BC is well served by a hip structure that, through a certain degree of laxity, places less stress on the bone structure. The problem, it seems to me, is maintaining an appropriate amount of laxity due to the compounding nature of any genetic defect.

 

If two dogs with perfect working (or slightly lax) hips are bred it seems very possible they will produce offspring that will have hips that are overly lax, and likely to develop CHD. Balancing an appropriate amount of deformity would appear an extremely difficult prospect.

 

I think this is where xrays can be valuable. If you have xrays of two dogs that appear to have hips that border on being too lax, it might not be a good mating match. That isn't to say that they shouldn't be bred at all, but there might be a better mate for each of them.

 

I think AK touched on an important part of this as well. If "sound" dogs are bred at a young age it's possible that, through youth and stoicism, they are able to conceal problems. The woman who introduced me to BCs did this very thing. She had a bitch who showed true talent at work, and the man who owned the sheep on which she worked the dog asked if he could put his stud to her. She was two and a half at the time of the breeding, and as sound as any dog. Now at four she can't work at all and can barely get up the stairs. The two pups that I saw from the litter were lame before they were a year old.

[Bill Fosher]

My point, Denise, is that I don't think there is a single set of recommendations, guidelines, rules, policies -- whatever you want to call them -- that can be written that will adequately adress this issue because there is too much of a balancing test that's needed.

 

If a dog is a biscuit eater, we don't even need to address his hip status. If he doesn't work, he shouldn't be bred. And if he is Wiston Cap reincarnated, he should be bred without regard to his hip status (though the hip status of his bitches could arguably be important). It's all of the cases in between those extremes that are all judgment.

 

I realize that your efforts to draft the recommendations were not conducted in a vaccuum, and that you are cognizant of my concerns. But I am seeing the unintended effects of hip paranoia pretty regularly. Haven's initial reaction to an eight-year-old dog having degenerative joint disease implied a belief that this was the result of a flawed breeding decision.

 

There are plenty of people out there who would tell you that eight years is the normal life span of a dog. The fact that it's still alive to get DJD means that it has beat the odds on some level.

 

I'm sorry to pick on Haven, but that comment is what got me to take my hands out of my pockets on this topic. I found it telling that Haven didn't ask anything about the dog's life, or about the littermates before suggesting that the breeder be notified.

 

Hopefully if they're aware of the situation they will retire Duncan's parents as breeders and you can perhaps save others from the grief that you have suffered.

 

The question of what good has come from that breeding isn't asked. It produced bad hips, therefore it was a bad breeding and shouldn't be repeated. The questions of whether the dog is overweight, or was taught to play jumping games at a young age, or was fed high-protein diet is not raised. The problem is *presumed* to be 100% genetic, and it's *presumed* that no possible good for the breed could outweigh the harm to one dog and his owner done by the condition.

 

This is the level of understanding of CHD that most people in the dog world have today, and while that might be a fine approach to CHD in the dog fancy, it will speed the ruin of the Border collie.

 

While I am aware that it is not the intent of your recommendations, I am also aware that it is how your recommendations are understood.

 

As I have said before, both publicly and privately, I have a great deal of respect for you and appreciate the work you put into this policy. Unfortunately, I feel it has added the wrong kind of selection pressure to the breed among those who take these matters seriously and are trying to do the right thing.

 

The paragraphs leading up to the recommendation get at much of what I am an concerned about, but even adding a single sentence that says that working ability should remain the primarily selection criterion -- even in the face of CHD -- would be a good addition in my opinion.

 

I think you should also be clear about what you mean by "tested" and "unaffected." Are dogs that work all day and are not lame tested and unaffected? Are dogs that are X-rayed by a competent vet who reviews the films himself or with the owner and finds them acceptable tested and unaffected?

[Northof49]

If a dog is a biscuit eater, we don't even need to address his hip status. If he doesn't work, he shouldn't be bred. And if he is Wiston Cap reincarnated, he should be bred without regard to his hip status (though the hip status of his bitches could arguably be important). It's all of the cases in between those extremes that are all judgment.

 

________________________________________________

 

I certainly wouldn't want to see that kind of dog being bred if he is dyplastic, no matter what a great working dog. You are guaranteed to produce CHD dogs. It also sounds to me, so please correct me if I am wrong, that you are placing a lot of the blame on the bitches to produce problems.

 

If you use a dog extensively for breeding like Wiston Cap was that is displastic, the pups produced will also have the capabilty of producing CHD, so you are increasing the probability of producing CHD in the breeding population. If you want to argue that it takes two to tango, you are still passing on the genetics that can produce CHD.

 

THis is how the Brrder Collie in Britain got into so much trouble with CEA in the early 1900s and they started testing to not only reduce the incident of affected dogs, but the number of carriers in the population as well. There are still people that believe a known CEA carrier should be bred as much as you want, regardless of the fact that that dog is producing more and more CEA carriers.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Like AK Dog Doc, I'm curious if there's any evidence to support a correlation between working ability and OFA "bad" hips? I'm sure there aren't any studies -- IMO, there is a deplorable dearth of criterion-related studies with a criterion such as working soundness to retirement age -- but is there even anecdotal evidence? I'd be interested, because the few OFA Excellent dogs I've known have have had good long working lives with no soundness problems. I'm convinced that a certain amount of laxity is not harmful to a working dog with good muscle mass, but do we really have evidence that greater-than-"Excellent" laxity is necessary or even preferable for the working dog?

 

>

 

I agree that there is some pressure tending to discourage responsible breeders from producing litters from good working dogs if one of the parents' hip status on x-ray is questionable. I think that pressure comes mainly from what you're calling the public's paranoia about genetic diseases (in which I would include oversimplified advice in the popular press), and much less so from the very restrained and nuanced (IMO) recommendations of the ABCA. But I also see a lot of pressure the other way -- "let the hill prove the dog" (complacently said of dogs who've never seen a hill, and who work perhaps an hour a day), "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and the normal human tendency not to want to see a fault in your own dogs, especially an income-diminishing fault. Perhaps these competing pressures work to create an equilibrium?

 

I would probably come down on the side of breeding a truly superb working dog with questionable hips on x-ray (assuming s/he and close relatives were apparently sound) despite the ABCA recommendations, just because breeding is a balancing act, and that dog's overall positive contribution to the breed might outweigh its negative one. But at the same time, the number of dogs I would place in the truly superb category is pretty darn small. For good, solid working dogs -- of which there are enough that not all of them need be bred -- I think the ABCA recommendations are a guideline that would benefit the breed overall if they were followed.

[havenjm]

Originally posted by Bill Fosher:

If a dog is a biscuit eater, we don't even need to address his hip status. If he doesn't work, he shouldn't be bred. And if he is Wiston Cap reincarnated, he should be bred without regard to his hip status (though the hip status of his bitches could arguably be important).

 

What good is it to preserve working ability if it is present in dogs that are born into a body that can't support a working lifestyle?

 

I don't think you can simply disregard hip status on the whole like that. The best seaman is useless in a rotting dingy with no oars.

 

There has to be a protocal based on balance. Working ability is the premier qualifier, but health needs to have a say in the proccess.

[Bill Fosher]

Haven,

 

A dog couldn't be Wiston Cap reincarnated without healthy hips. What I am not sure of is what those hips would look like on film. I say a dog like Wiston Cap -- with his proven abilities -- should be bred even if his hips look bad on film.

 

No dog is perfect. They all have strong and weak points. You don't breed weakness to weakness, whether that weakness is hard-headedness or a predisposition to degenerative joint disease.

 

If, in fact, working ability remains the first criterion, that's all I'm asking for. But under the ABCA's recommendation, it is placed either second or co-equal to "tested and unaffected."

 

Bill

[havenjm]

Originally posted by Bill Fosher:

Haven,

 

A dog couldn't be Wiston Cap reincarnated without healthy hips. What I am not sure of is what those hips would look like on film. I say a dog like Wiston Cap -- with his proven abilities -- should be bred even if his hips look bad on film.

 

No dog is perfect. They all have strong and weak points. You don't breed weakness to weakness, whether that weakness is hard-headedness or a predisposition to degenerative joint disease.

 

If, in fact, working ability remains the first criterion, that's all I'm asking for. But under the ABCA's recommendation, it is placed either second or co-equal to "tested and unaffected."

 

Bill

Bill,

 

I think you're right regarding a Wiston Cap reincarnate, but I still think his hips should be documented on film to determine appropriate bitches that he should be put to.

 

I'm not saying that I agree completely with the ABCA breeding guidlines. I think that just as no dog is perfect, neither is any law.

 

If I had it my way, all Border Collies would need to demonstrate a certain level of working ability to even be eligible for breeding. Then those who are proven eligible would be tested in order to avoid breeding like weeknesses, whether they are observable to the naked eye or not.

[Denise Wall]

I'm going to have to take a break from this thread.

 

Before I do, I'd like to say that one reason I wanted to do the recommendations is the ABCA gets mail that reads something like this:

 

"I have a year old male border collie, ABCA###### bred by so and so, who has hip dysplasia. I'm contacting you so you can ban the breeder of this dog from ever producing any puppies from this line again."

 

And they often mean the whole line, not just the parents. Sometimes they want the breeder banned from any further breeding.

 

I wanted something informative and reasonable we could point people to. I don't think the recommendations spawned this attitude since it was obviously there well before them.

 

Some people need guidelines as a starting point to base decisions on. This was how the recommendations were intended to be used.

 

Denise

[Bill Fosher]

Denise Wall writes:

Before I do, I'd like to say that one reason I wanted to do the recommendations is the ABCA gets mail that reads something like this:

 

 

"I have a year old male border collie, ABCA###### bred by so and so, who has hip dysplasia. I'm contacting you so you can ban the breeder of this dog from ever producing any puppies from this line again."

 

 

And they often mean the whole line, not just the parents. Sometimes they want the breeder banned from any further breeding.

 

 

Are these the people who we want to be responsible, at least in part, for the future of the Border collie breed?

 

I recognize that the vast majority of the dogs in the ABCA studbook will probably never work to the level that most of us reading this board would consider worthy of consideration for breeding. But when one does, I think that the hips should not be a disqualifying factor.

 

(The fact that many non-working ABCA dogs will be bred and will produce non-working offspring is a genetic problem upon which the ABCA should place more emphasis in my opinion, but that's not considered a disease condition so it doesn't come up.)

 

The current ABCA recommendations, coupled with the climate of paranoia, place a stigma on those who breed dogs based first on working ability. I don't think that's the intention of the ABCA, but it is one effect of the current recommendations.

 

Given how genetically complex CHD is, I don't think its a matter of if it is linked to other traits, but just what those other traits are. Placing heavy selection pressure on genetically complex traits has proved quite problematic in other animals, and I don't see any reason why it should be any different in dogs.

 

Take the Holstein cow. Sometime around the second World War, it became necessary to reduce the amount of labor that went into producing a gallon of milk as the lads went off to fight and the young women were called into service in the factories making the stuff of war. The obvious answer was to increase production of milk per cow. One person would still tend 20 cows -- but his labor would produce twice or three times as much milk. So the process of selecting for high levels of milk production was started.

 

Today we have cattle that produce 10 to 15 times as much milk per lactation as their ancestors did. But they also have bad legs and feet, poor udder health, difficulty calving, and life spans that are a quarter to a third as long as their low-producing ancestors. Many forward-thinking dairymen are going back to the "unimproved" breeds to try to create sound cattle.

 

Suppose we discover down the road that one of the genes that can predispose a dog to CHD is also linked to the genes that create the instinct to crouch silently behind prey? The process is so slow it would be difficult to notice until it was too late.

 

I am not advocating breeding dogs without regard to their hip status. Quite the contrary. A dog that can work to the level where he or she is worthy of consideration as a breeder should be considered for breeding. His or her hips have been shown to be functional, regardless of what radiography might show.

 

Now, if a breeder wants to use radiography as a further tool in selecting the right breeding pair of good working dogs, that's fine with me. In fact, that's more or less how I think it probably should be done.

 

Even if you reject my concerns about potential linkage between CHD genes and desirable working genes, consider this. After 40 years of trying, none of the European breed associations have succeeded in eliminating CHD from their gene pools. We won't either. Doesn't it make sense to breed dogs who can work *despite* a diagnosis of CHD? In some ways, wouldn't their genetic material be even more desirable than the ones who work without any challenge?

 

If you take away CHD dogs with full function, you are also taking away dogs with the genetic capacity to live with CHD, whether that is via muscle mass or some other process that we don't understand.

 

Denise has been very diligent in searching the literature on this subject -- much moreso that I have. I am relying on my experience and understanding of the unintended effects of breeding programs in livestock, and the fact that this disease has not been considered a problem by the people who developed this breed. Lame dogs were not bred, but they were not a huge problem for the breed until they were brought to the US, where nutrition and exercise levels are generally quite different than they are in the UK, and where people will often breed dogs a with a little less regard to their working ability.

 

While I certainly understand the motivations and at least some of the science behind the ABCA's recommendations, I think they are an overreaction, and perhaps the wrong reaction regardless of scale. I know that Denise and others think it's the right thing to do. That's the nature of purebreeding. Some breeders consider some traits more important than others. I just wish that the ABCA would base its breeding recommendations more on the whole dog than on its hips before other criteria.

[Eileen Stein]

 

Are these the people who we want to be responsible, at least in part, for the future of the Border collie breed? >>

 

Usually not, I should think, but in fact they are responsible for it, in part, through their role as consumers of pups from good working breeders. Official guidelines from the ABCA which contradict this "paranoid" attitude toward hips can only help to diminish the market pressure on those breeders that you are concerned about.

 

>

 

Surely not. It might be more accurate to say that the ABCA recommendations place a stigma on those who breed dogs without x-raying their breeding stock, breed dogs who are dysplastic on x-ray, and repeat breedings which have produced dysplastic dogs, without regard to whether or not the breeding is first based on working ability. Breeding based on working ability first is of the utmost importance to the future of the border collie, but as you acknowledge it is not a health issue, and therefore it doesn't really belong in health recommendations for breeding. To include it in the health recommendations would be like the CDC (or whatever entity is to the US government as the ABCA Health & Genetics Committee is to the ABCA) including "support our troops, and register to vote" in their vaccination recommendations.

 

>

 

But this argument applies to working ability as much as it does to hip formation--perhaps more. If you were breeding a Holstein cow for increased milk production, and began to notice that the cows you were producing "had bad legs and feet" and a productive life much shorter than their low-producing ancestors, wouldn't you try to address those emerging defects? Or would you say, "Oh no, the point of a cow is to produce milk, and therefore milk production is the only appropriate measure of a cow"?

 

 

Doesn't it make sense to breed dogs who can work *despite* a diagnosis of CHD? In some ways, wouldn't their genetic material be even more desirable than the ones who work without any challenge? >>

 

The problem with these arguments is that breeding decisions must be made before all the evidence about working soundness is in. A dog diagnosed with CHD may function well until he is four or five or six or seven years old, and then break down. It's not desirable that we populate the breed with dogs that break down before the age of eight, but how many breeders are going to wait til their dog is eight or older to breed him? To do so with bitches would be out of the question. I realize that this is an oversimplification, since the age at which lameness sets in for a dysplastic parent will not necessarily be the age at which it sets in for his dysplastic offspring, but averaging over the whole population the effect would be the same.

 

>

 

Basically what you're saying here is that CHD has not been a problem in the breed until recently. That could be because nutrition and exercise levels are different in the US and the UK (although I question whether that is true overall), or it could be because more border collies are now owned by people who care about them as individuals rather than as tools which can be replaced if broken, or it could equally likely be because the gene pool we're looking at has changed, and the particular mix of genes with bad effects on hip formation has come to the fore through the breeding of popular sires or their chance concentration in good working dogs imported to the US, so that there is increased likelihood of bad gene combinations occurring in the dogs we are breeding now.

 

If the problem is just a result of exercise and nutrition, it can pretty easily be eliminated, but the available evidence indicates that it is not -- that there is a significant hereditable component to CHD. If so, and if the incidence of CHD is on the increase, then it makes sense to try to address the problem by taking it into consideration in breeding decisions. The ABCA has not regulated the breeding of dysplastic dogs, as many would like it to do. Its Health and Genetics Committee has investigated the issue thoroughly, which puts it in a better position to speak authoritatively than those who have not. It has recognized that the genetics and pathophysiology of CHD are not fully understood, and that the tools available for assessing it are not optimal. As a result, it is funding research to develop a method of diagnosing hip dysplasia that is more exact and more appropriate to our breed. In the interim, it has issued recommendations, based on the best available scientific evidence, as to how to minimize the risk of producing dysplastic dogs. Those recommendations are not drastic, and are subject to change as new information is acquired. This all seems reasonable, responsible and beneficial to me.

 

I guess the questions I would ask you, Bill, are whether you think there are any circumstances under which it would be appropriate for the registry to make breeding recommendations for the border collie based on health concerns in general. And if so, would it ever be appropriate for the registry to make breeding recommendations regarding CHD? And if so, what type of scientific evidence would have to exist for you to feel those recommendations were justified?

[Bill Fosher]

Hi Eileen,

 

I guess I thought I had made it clear that I think the registry ought to promote the breeding of dogs based on working ability first and foremost. You seem to think that's a given, but I don't see it that way in the current recommendations. Your analogy to the CDC is not apt, unless you think that vaccination somehow might reduce patriotism or civic responsibility. (That would be an interesting road to go down ...)

 

The Holstein cow expamle shows how insidious gentic slippage can be. Indeed, for many years breeders were saying that the only thing that matters is milk production. It wasn't until milk prices started to fall and they really looked at their bottom lines that they discovered that one of the major cost centers was replacement. Some New England Dairy herds have to replace a third of their cows every year.

 

Milk production was placed above all else. You'd think it would be obvious that cows with failing legs at age three or four would be undesirable in a dairy, but the pressure to replace them to keep production up meant that their daughters were kept and we bred to high-production bulls.

 

The difference in selecting for working ability is that we have a built-in test for the dogs' structural soundness. If a dog is doing well at three or four, it's unlikely that it is going to fall apart before a reasonable retirement age. Remember that we consider 8 to 11 years of age to be a reasonable retirement age, and in many purebred dog circles you're lucky if a dog even lives that long. Our dogs are working hard at ages that are considered geriatric by most of the dog fancy. When was the last time you saw a 17-year-old Irish Setter?

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Well, the recommendations begin as follows:

 

"The Border Collie stands alone in its exceptional ability to work livestock. ABCA defines the breed by this working ability. The main goal of any Border Collie breeder should be to produce sound, useful, working dogs. While Border Collies also excel in many non-herding activities, they should be bred primarily to work livestock. . . . The breeding prospect should be considered as a whole being, with positive and negative aspects of the individual being weighed and balanced for an overall picture of a dog's suitability. Breeding should be undertaken with thoughts of what the parents have to offer to their pups that could benefit the breed."

 

Given that these are health recommendations, I think this does as much as one could reasonably expect to promote breeding for working ability first and foremost.

 

>

 

Hmm. I think there's as much evidence that vaccination might reduce patriotism or civic responsibility as there is that breeding only dogs of demonstrated working ability and radiographically sound hips would reduce working ability in the border collie. But I recognize that your theory is that it could, because of a possible genetic linkage between working ability and radiographically-poor hips which we know nothing about, so in that sense I agree it was not an apt analogy.

 

>

 

Why do you say that? I don't know of any data suggesting that, and I certainly know examples to the contrary. If there was good evidence that dogs doing well at three or four are unlikely to become lame before retirement age, I think that would be a relevant consideration, but I suspect it's not so.

 

>

 

I have never seen either a 17-year-old Irish Setter or a 17-year-old border collie, though I'm sure both exist. I think most people would be disappointed if their 8-year-old stockdog had to be retired. I guess I'd expect a 9-year-old to go to lighter work, and retirement after that wouldn't seem too young. But retirement at 8 is a waste, I think, and not to be expected. This is true whether or not other purebred dogs typically don't live to 8-11 years of age (which I also question, but not too vigorously, since it's irrelevant).

 

I still wonder how you would answer those last few questions in my last post.

[Bill Fosher]

Eileen,

 

You write: But I recognize that your theory is that it could, because of a possible genetic linkage between working ability and radiographically-poor hips which we know nothing about ...

 

If I have actually left that impression and this is not an attempt on your part to twist my words into something I didn't say, I guess I need to take a break to collect my thoughts and come back when I can state them more clearly. But just in case anyone thinks that's my position, let me try quickly to clear it up.

 

I do not hypothesize a link between working ability and radiographically poor hips. I am concerned that until we understand better why dogs that *shouldn't* be able to work if we believe the fiims *are* able to work, we shouldn't put radiography on the same level of selection criteria as working ability.

 

You also write: I think there's as much evidence that vaccination might reduce patriotism or civic responsibility as there is that breeding only dogs of demonstrated working ability and radiographically sound hips would reduce working ability in the border collie.

 

I think I'm starting to get your point, and I think I understand where you're confused about what concerns me. I am not concerned at all about the breeding of dogs of demonstrated working ability and radiographically sound hips. Not in the least. I am concerned about the ABCA's discouragement of breeding dogs of demonstrated working ability who may not have radiographically sound hips, but who have functionally sound hips.

 

You can defend it as much as you like, but the preamble notwithstanding, the ABCA's current recommendation is plain as day.

 

"the recommendations at this time are to breed only hip tested, unaffected parents."

 

Not "the recommendations at this time are to breed only hip tested, unaffected parents unless the parents, considered as whole beings, would provide traits that would benefit the breed."

 

Only tested and unaffected dogs should be bred.

 

And from discussions with three members of the hip and eye committee (are there any others?) either in person or via e-mail, it has been made abundantly clear to me that the intention of the policy is to discourage any breeding of dogs that are either untested (not X-rayed) or affected according to the OFA. All three have admitted that the OFA has shortcomings, but contend that it is the best of a bad lot of tests available at the moment.

 

None of them take seriously the possibility that important dogs may be excluded from the gene pool if these recommendations were followed. When pressed on specific cases, the best response I've gotten is, "They're only recommendations. Do you think Mr. X is going to worry about our guidelines when he's deciding whether to breed Dog Y?"

 

My question -- as yet unanswered -- is this: if you expect the recommendations to be broken by people with good dogs who know what they're doing, what good are they? About as much as the rule that says that no AKC dog can be registered with the ABCA, I suppose. It's a statement, but when the rubber meets the road, it's not going to be enforced.

 

Perhaps I am simply taking all this too seriously.

 

Eileen, I don't have many friends. And I have probably lost two good ones over this issue. It would be a lot easier for me to just shut up and go along. But I don't think it's the right thing to do. The stockman in me has seen too much damage done by well-meaning selection for traits that in the long run turn out to be detrimental to the overall health and well-being of the breed.

[Bill Fosher]

Eileen,

 

Answers to your questions.

 

I believe the ABCA nailed it on CEA. The science is sound, the gene is a simple recessive, and once we have the DNA test in place no dog has to be taken out of the gene pool to eliminate the disease.

 

If you could develop a way to eliminate CHD (which you can't -- or at least 40 years of attempts in Europe have failed) you could probably persuade me that the dogs that appear to have faulty hips on film but are functionally sound are no longer really needed in the gene pool.

 

But the best we can ever hope for is a reduction from a hypothetical 25 percent affected population to a hypothetical 10 or 12 percent affected population, even if we banned breeding anything other than OFA excellent dogs.

 

Anything that bars a proven working dog from the gene pool is going to have a negative impact on working ability. I don't know how to say it more plainly than that. So if you can come up with a way to write a policy on CHD that doesn't discriminate against a proven working dog, I'm all ears.

 

In past threads I've listed studies that I'd love to see done. I'd like to see a randomized study of CHD and its effect on function both here and in the UK. I'd like to try to get to the bottom of the question of why it's a problem here when it's not thought to be a problem there. (And I don't buy that Border collies are disposable tools over there and cherished family memebers here.)

 

In Border collies we have a breed of remarkably strong genetic health in comparison to most purebred dogs. They have gottten that way from performance-based selection. It has worked, it still works in the UK, but for some reason it's not working here, if we believe the experts.

[blackacre]

Yo Bill,

I still love you even though you do have some weird ideas.

Andrea

[Eileen Stein]

 

If I have actually left that impression and this is not an attempt on your part to twist my words into something I didn't say, I guess I need to take a break to collect my thoughts and come back when I can state them more clearly. >>

 

What would be the point of trying to twist your words? I'm not interested in winning an argument -- I'm trying to explore a difficult and complicated subject with you, where very little is clearcut and the answers aren't easy, and I have reservations of my own. I thought I was acknowledging a contention you made several times. For example, you said "If I didn't think there was some positive correlation between working ability and the things that are called 'bad' hips in many cases, I would totally shut up about this issue," and in a later post, "Even if you reject my concerns about potential linkage between CHD genes and desirable working genes, consider this." Somehow I took that to mean that you thought there might be a linkage between working ability and radiographically poor hips. What can I say?

 

>

 

This sort of gets at the question I asked you about what level of proof you would want before you would think it appropriate to make breeding recommendations about CHD. I'm sure you'd agree that there's a positive correlation between radographically poor hips and lameness, wouldn't you? And there is a correlation between radiographically poor hips in parents and radiographically poor hips in offspring, right? Neither one is a perfect one-to-one correlation, but there is a correlation. How strong would those correlations have to be before you regarded radiographically poor hips as a reason not to breed a dog you would otherwise breed? If there are a handful of dogs who can work when radiographically they shouldn't be able to work, is that enough to discredit the use of radiography for this purpose? It's a rare diagnostic test that doesn't yield a few anomalies, and the incidence is magnified when hearsay plays a role.

 

 

I think I'm starting to get your point, and I think I understand where you're confused about what concerns me. I am not concerned at all about the breeding of dogs of demonstrated working ability and radiographically sound hips. Not in the least. I am concerned about the ABCA's discouragement of breeding dogs of demonstrated working ability who may not have radiographically sound hips, but who have functionally sound hips. >>

 

Did you notice I said "only" in the sentence you quote?

 

It is not necessary for every dog of good working ability to be bred in order to maintain working ability in the breed. We would be very overpopulated if they were. The breed would not be harmed if dogs with radiographically unsound hips were to be among those with good working ability who are not bred, unless, somehow, those dogs should be disproportionately more worthy than the other dogs of good working ability who are being bred. But if you're not contending that there's genetic linkage between good working ability and radiographically bad hips, as you say now, then that's not a problem. As I said earlier, I would even make an exception to the guidelines (which one can do because they're just guidelines) for the truly exceptional, superior working dog. But those dogs are very few and far between, and I don't think the guidelines should endorse an exception in such cases, because of the propensity for people to think that their dog is more superior than it really is. I'm talking about dogs that are so obviously superior that no degree of hip paranoia would dampen the demand for their pups.

 

>

 

Indeed it is. The recommendations say what they say, and everybody can read them for themselves, and draw their own conclusions. It would be silly for us to argue over what they say.

 

>

 

They state the optimum general rule. They exert some pressure on people not to breed radiographically dysplastic dogs unless they can articulate a justification of why their situation should be an exception to the general rule.

 

>

 

Well, no, it won't be. It's a guideline. It sets forth what the registry's experts, after study, think is the best practice. I agree with your position (or what I thought was your position) that the state of our knowledge doesn't justify setting a hard and fast enforceable regulation.

 

>

 

Well, yeah -- once we have the DNA test. Then it's easy. But we don't now, and that kind of test is not even on the horizon for CHD. What is in the best interests of the breed to do in the meantime?

 

>

 

You're right -- we can't, and it's not realistic to expect that we could. But I'm surprised you don't think a major reduction in affected dogs is desirable enough in itself to make it worth some intervention to achieve.

 

>

 

Not true -- see above.

 

>

 

Me too! But what results would you think significant enough to justify these guidelines?

 

>

 

I wasn't really saying that about the UK versus the US -- I was saying it about the people who developed the breed (i.e., the ones you said didn't find CHD to be a problem) versus many of the people who own the dogs today. I don't think you're right that it's clearly not a problem in the UK -- I hear plenty of complaints about it there from certain sectors -- it's just not a problem with the guys you talk to. Here's an example -- a big hat sold a pup to a friend of mine, who at that time was fairly new to dogs but has since come to wear at least a medium-sized hat. Though this friend is a farmer (and raised the pup as a farmer would), the pup was intended to be a family dog as well as a working dog. The pup began limping before it was a year old, and x-rays showed severe dysplasia. The breeder regarded it as no problem at all -- he readily offered a replacement pup and as far as he was concerned, that was that. My friend, whose children had become very attached to the pup, regarded it as a big problem. Today, if you were to ask that breeder and my friend whether CHD was a problem in the breed, you would get two very different answers. I'm not saying that one attitude is better than the other; I'm just saying that the fact that flat caps you've talked to over there say CHD is not a problem doesn't necessarily mean it's rare or non-existent there.

[Denise Wall]

Bill,

 

>The stockman in me has seen too much damage done by well-meaning selection for traits that in the long run turn out to be detrimental to the overall health and well-being of the breed.<

 

Is it possible that I'm also a good stockman who knows about and understands what you're talking about? Is it possible that I know about and have taken all of the things you know and fear into account as well being in a position to have additional information on which to base recommendations for breeding for sound working dogs? Is it possible that I have more, appropriate overall information even given your definition of appropriate?

 

It seems as if you're pitting your views, "practical stock person," against me as "scientist who has blinders on regarding practical working breeding decisions and the "real" working people." I have a small commercial flock that I'm proud of just like you had until just recently. I try very hard to manage them like a good stockperson. I certainly acknowledge that your world now is different from mine in terms of sheep numbers, but that doesn't make me blind to the concerns of your world. We're not so different as you might imply.

 

I pride myself on breeding dogs that are "real" dogs, often at the expense of the their trialing success. My goal is to produce sound, useful dogs, not dogs with good hips who can also work. I've bred and trained all of my current seven dogs. I have generations of dogs on the ground who have been proven to be good working dogs. I haven't done it as long or well as some but I am doing it and have some experience at it. And I do listen carefully to those who have the lifetime of experience and success.

 

I'm saying all this because seeing expressions like "well-meaning" being used roughly in association with me, I'm starting to feel like I'm being categorized as some "ivory tower scientist" who knows nothing of the real working world. No, I'm not Tommy Wilson but neither are you. And I've heard the same things from the Tommys that you hear. I've taken all of that into consideration along with everything else.

 

In an earlier post you wrote, "I realize that your efforts to draft the recommendations were not conducted in a vacuum." I invite you to study this problem from every angle for as long and hard as I have and see how much more than "not conducted in a vacuum" you consider that effort to be.

 

You've said in the past that you've never bred a litter of puppies, although you've been responsible for care and raising of one or more. I wonder if you'd feel the same if you were directly responsible as breeder for these "okay to breed bad hips if they work well" decisions you're so sure the ABCA should endorse for the entire breed?

 

Who do you suggest make the decision on "functionally" sound hips? I'm guessing my definition of that is different from someone who has a vested interest in that dog being labeled as sound. Whose opinion do we trust on that determination?

 

Denise

 

PS In the beginning of this thread you said you thought Alasdair's Ben was dysplastic. He wasn't. He had a well documented injury to one hip.

[Bill Fosher]

Eileen,

 

I stand by my statement that anything that bars an otherwise qualified breeding dog from breeding is a damage to the gene pool.

 

Your contention that we can reduce the gene pool by eliminating dogs that work despite "bad" hips without having an impact on the working ability in the breed is wrong. It might be true if both working ability and CHD were controlled by single genes or even small collections of genes.

 

But both are so complex that there is no way that one doesn't have some impact on the other. This is not the same as saying there's a correlation between CHD and working ability per se. I believe there may be a complex interplay between these two (and many other) factors.

 

Any dog that, when considered on balance, can prove his or her worth to the breed should not be removed from consideration. The ABCA is recommending that many should. It is a mistake.

 

I'm starting to think that this debate is pointless. I have written poorly in my attempts to explain why these recommendations were a mistake, and I'm tired of defending what seems like common sense to me. Take it any way you like it.

 

I'm glad Andrea still loves me. And I take the fact that someone considers my ideas weird as a high compliment.

[tucknjill]

Denise,

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. I for one really thank you for all your hard work and dedication to the breed. Sometimes it is hard to stand up for what you believe in and put yourself out there the way you do. I for one appreciate it and I just want to tell you I love the sheep that I got, they are just beautiful.

[Denise Wall]

Thanks, Sam. I'm glad you like the sheep.

 

Denise