NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/pets/dogs/16969

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 5.4 KB | 114 lines

Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!emory!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!lanl!beta.lanl.gov!crs
From: [e-mail] (Charlie Sorsby)
Subject: Re: puppy mills & HD
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:41:15 GMT
Lines: 102

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
= >>
= > Charlie replied:
= >
[...]
= >> Are you suggesting that an animal that, radiographically, is judged
= >> dysplastic but which displays no unsoundness is alright to breed?
= >> If so, I must strenuously disagree.  If, on the other hand you are
[...]
************************Please note************************************
= >> I agree that the whole dog should be taken into account *but*, with
= >> the possible exception of a very unusual set of circumstances,
= >> existance of any *one* of several things should preclude breeding:
= >> CHD is one of them, whether crippling or not.  Lack of a nose in
= >> bird dogs, tracking dogs, etc, is another.
***********************************************************************

= Both Anne and Charlie are very definite about this - no breeding of a dog
= with HD.  I've been following this thread with some interest, having many

See above excerpt.

= years of experience with my own breed (Pulis) and HD.  But I just cannot
= be as dogmatic as Anne and Charlie.  Yes, there are circumstances where
= it may be acceptable to breed from a dysplastic dog, and the rare breeds
= are one example.  I understand from the Kuvasz people that it was rare a
= few years ago to find a decent typey Kuvasz with clear hips.  Especially
= if it came from Europe, where x-raying is much less common.  Kuvasz after
= Kuvasz imported into N. America x-rayed dysplastic.  I'm told other rare
= breeds have the same problem.  Faced with this, the only thing lovers
= of these breeds can do is breed VERY carefully from the soundest dogs,
                         ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
= dysplastic or not, and try and select the typiest specimens from the
= best moving, and best-hipped dogs.  It's a hard row to hoe, with so few
= dogs to choose from.

= Well, I suppose I have to agree, because we do it (x-raying), but I
= know of at least one breeder who has been hassling OFA to undertake some
= kind of research into the correlation between movement, soundness and
= superior hip conformation, if any.  I have a bitch who moves very soundly,
= and is rated Excellent.  I also have a male with poor rear movement: he's
= also rated Excellent.  There's more to rear movement than how the bones
= fit together.  And there's more to HD than genetics.

Of course "There's more to rear movement than how the bones fit
together." And there are more than one reason for the way that bones
fit together.  But can you honestly say that you want to perpetuate
the shallow hip sockets characteristic of CHD *regardless* of how well
the dog moves?

Of coures "there's more to HD than genetics."

But it is the genetic part that will perpetuate the disorder.  That
dog A with the hip structure of Severe CHD not only is not lame
but, indeed, moves like a champ, does not mean that dogs B-Z will
do so.  Clinical symptoms affect only the dog with those symptoms
but the underlying genetics can literally affect millions of dogs.
How many dogs carry some of the genes of the foundation sire of
each breed?

Simple logic suggests, to me at least, that a well-moving dog
with serious hip-joint malformation is a fluke not the norm and not
something that I want to perpetuate in *my* breed(s).

= I have too many stories about OFA and x-raying to bore you with here,
= but one thread in r.p.d recently touched on dogs who x-rayed dysplastic,
= and then later x-rayed clear. Stories like this are becoming too common
= for me to have a lot of faith in the system.  But I x-ray, because everyone
= else in my breed does.  And all my present breeding stock are clear.

As has been pointed out, OFA certification is an imperfect tool.
I know nothing about OFA's counterpart in Canada or even if one
exists but I do know that OFA won't certify a dog before 24 months
of age because changes *can* occur, not only up to 24 months
but beyond.  I believe that 24 months is a compromise in the attempt
to minimize the number of cases that change after certification
without delaying certification so long that it is moot from the
standpoint of breeding.  Some also decry that OFA is a "closed
registry."  My  perception of that situation is that it was a
judgement call decided in the belief that fewer people would have
their dogs evaluated if the identities of the bad ones were made public.
An imperfect tool in a universe of imperfect tools.

As to lacking "faith in the system" what do you suggest as an
alternative?  If you have something better, I'm sure we'd all love
to hear it.

I'm not being sarcastic and I don't really mean this to sound like
a flame.  Indeed, I've elected not to comment about the rare breeds
because I'm almost certain that I would really sound as though I'm
flaming and perhap I would be.

But I do have strong opinions about breeding dogs with serious
heritable defects including CHD and about condemning those tools
that are available based on anecdotal evidence.


--
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby                "I'm the NRA!"
      [e-mail]