# Question for you breeders



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

With the increases in genetic diseases for the GSD, what do you all feel about the other genetic tests? Tests like DM, JRD, MCR1, etc? I personally know a pup who died at 9 months from JRD that came from a well known WGWL breeder. Even with the autopsy reports, they are turning a blind eye on this genetic issue and still breeding the same dogs.
Do you all believe that all breeding stock should be tested for all available genetic diseases?


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Do you all believe that all breeding stock should be tested for all available genetic diseases?


No. Realistically people only have so much money and can only do so much. While I DO believe as much as possible should be done to prevent genetic diseases, I find it far more important to test for what is most common in terms of issues.

With the DM test, I like to see it because it means the breeder is aware of the issue (that has become more prevalent in the last few years) and wants to do something about it....but as of right now, the test itself isn't considered highly reliable. Heart troubles are another that I have not seen as terribly common in the breed. Some people do test for issues, but unless you've been producing those issues, I would ask why you were testing. And even beyond that...WHEN did the issues arise? With what breeding, and what bloodlines?


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Xeph.....I agree with you.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Me too, and would like to add there is nothing like a "free of everything" dog. And even if they exist you would narrow the gene pool to such extents than the breed would vanish.

You who have kids and/or are planning to have descendants... are you and your entirely family free of genetic diseases?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I have nothing against these tests, but I don't think they are a substitute for breeders really knowing their lines and what sorts of problems might be expected or eliminated based on combining pedigrees. A test is only a snapshot of THAT particular dog (and this is even being nice and assuming these tests are accurate). I've seen dogs with a1 hips that certain breeders will avoid because in combination with other lines, are known to produce bad hips. We can't realistically eliminate health problems just based on testing individual dogs. For one, a dog that is "clear" of something like HD can still produce it, and two if we just start eliminated ALL dogs that have any problem or might carry any problem, we won't be left with much. To me, this is where breeding becomes more of an art than a science. I'm not a breeder, this is just how I feel on the matter. I do not rule out breeders because they aren't running a dozen tests on each dog.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Xeph.....I agree with you.


Thanks! That truly means a lot coming from you, Robin!


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I can see testing when bringing in a new dog to their breeding program but it doesn't make sense to me to test puppies, or dogs that have been in a program. If a breeder, with an established line like Robin's, Lee's, Chris and Tim, have not had any issues with genetic diseases then what would they gain by testing? Do genetic disease skip several generations before showing up? Or do genetic diseases show up enough that a breeder would know?


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Going back to the first post, however..........

Since the genetic disease has cropped up in a breeder...the breeder is aware of it...shouldn't the breeder be testing both parents to see where the issue is and stopping use of the dogs?  I'm not very familiar with JRD...


----------



## KLCecil (Jul 1, 2010)

I believe if the tests are available the dog should be tested for it. Having "limited funds" is not a excuse to not get the tests done, it’s actually the exact reason why you should NOT be breeding as people are not into it for the money but for the betterment of the breed. Narrowing the gene pool while eliminating health problems is actually a GOOD thing, it means that future generations will have FEWER problems not more.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

KLCecil said:


> I believe if the tests are available the dog should be tested for it. Having "limited funds" is not a excuse to not get the tests done, it’s actually the exact reason why you should NOT be breeding as people are not into it for the money but for the betterment of the breed. Narrowing the gene pool while eliminating health problems is actually a GOOD thing, it means that future generations will have FEWER problems not more.


So dogs can be so expensive from reputable breeders no one can afford them? There has to be a little bit of give and take here. The buyers are the ones that will be absorbing those prices.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I would love to hear a breeders opinion and knowledge on weeding out genetic problems.


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

GSDElsa said:


> Going back to the first post, however..........
> 
> Since the genetic disease has cropped up in a breeder...the breeder is aware of it...shouldn't the breeder be testing both parents to see where the issue is and stopping use of the dogs? I'm not very familiar with JRD...


 
The breeder has turned a blind eye on the issue. So has people that have progeny and stud their dogs out and have MORE pups die. It sickens me. They refuse to accept that it's coming from their dogs.
As far as the cost of the tests, it isn't really that expensive. If you have ever seen a 9 month old pup die from JRD, you would think the $155 for the test is cheap in comparison.


----------



## tierra nuestra (Sep 8, 2010)

jaggirl47 said:


> The breeder has turned a blind eye on the issue. So has people that have progeny and stud their dogs out and have MORE pups die. It sickens me. They refuse to accept that it's coming from their dogs.
> As far as the cost of the tests, it isn't really that expensive. If you have ever seen a 9 month old pup die from JRD, you would think the $155 for the test is cheap in comparison.


When a breeder asks $1500 and up for a pup as we speak right now,then yes,they should be going out there and making themselves aware of what they are breeding and if its preventable by simply testing for whats available, then weeding out the carriers and not including them in their breeding program.
If eveyone is tooting about responsible breeders then this is a glaring issue that should not be glossed over because of the cost of a test and then make it acceptable not to do it because it may mean extra dollars coming from the breeders pocket.At $1500 and up a breeder should be able to give you the assurance that they have tested for whats available by choice because they care about what they are passing into their genetic pool for the future of their kennels and the familys that they may be affecting when they produce a puppy that will leave the boundaries of that said kennel.
If a breeder knowingly passes up a test that could determine a genetic flaw that should not be duplicated,what is there to differentiate them from your common BYB?


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

*cough*.....this breeder charges around $4000 per pup.


----------



## tierra nuestra (Sep 8, 2010)

jaggirl47 said:


> The breeder has turned a blind eye on the issue. So has people that have progeny and stud their dogs out and have MORE pups die. It sickens me. They refuse to accept that it's coming from their dogs.
> As far as the cost of the tests, it isn't really that expensive. If you have ever seen a 9 month old pup die from JRD, you would think the $155 for the test is cheap in comparison.


*Juvenile Renal Dysplasia (JRD)
A SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION
* by David Payne

*PRINT HERE*​Juvenile Renal Dysplasia (JRD) is a kidney disease. The JRD carriers can be potentially affected with reduced kidney development, which in turn reduces kidney function. This is because this disease affects the normal development of the kidneys’, much like Hip Dysplasia (HD) which affects the normal development of the Hips. Like HD which varies in the amount it affects the hips, with measured scores in the British BVA/KC system from ZERO to 106 at the worst level, JRD has similar varying levels of effect on the development of the kidneys.
A JRD carrier needs to have its kidney function assessed by a Vet, this would include Urine & Blood tests, and it may also include a wedge biopsy of the kidneys, if considered appropriate by the Vet. In carriers of a very young age it may be advisable to have the kidney function regularly monitored up to the age of two years at least, again because, in a similar way to Hips, the kidneys take some time to reach full development, and as most will know we do not have our dogs hips scored before 1 year of age because of the hips development period. 
The owners of the JRD carriers have been advised to consult a Vet as soon as possible regarding the JRD DNA Test result, and request tests on kidney function and other Veterinary advice. 
The mode of inheritance of JRD is considered to be *Dominant with incomplete penetration*. *Dominant *means only one JRD carrier parent can pass it on to some of its offspring, in the case of a JRD Homozygote carrier, they will pass it on to ALL of their offspring. The *incomplete penetration* is because when a GSD is a carrier it is potentially affected to various levels or degrees, much like Hip Dysplasia in a litter varies in its Hip scores or Hip grading for each dog in the same litter.
When the level of Kidney development is below that which is required to survive, the JRD carrier will show some clinical signs, some of which are loss of appetite, loss of weight, lethargy, and clear urine. JRD carriers so affected at this level will die. Many carriers can live for many years with only slightly impaired kidney function, and can go easily undetected as carriers. These carriers if undetected can pass the disease onto their offspring. 
With our large and diverse gene pool in the German Shepherd Dog breed, it is my opinion that JRD carriers, especially Homozygote carriers should NOT be bred from, or if identified after they have been bred from, they should be retired from breeding. It is therefore vital for our breed that when a carrier is identified, any siblings or offspring that is or may be used for breeding are JRD DNA Tested, The carriers parents should be tested, and where additional carriers are identified, a similar pattern of testing should be considered. Only by adopting this method of testing and retiring carriers from breeding can we eliminate JRD from our breed. 
If we do nothing, in a few years our breed could be swamped with JRD, a horrifying prospect indeed.

David Payne
VIDEX GSD
*THE JRD DNA TEST IS EXPECTED TO BE PATENTED & VALIDATED IN 2009. *READ HERE


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

I read that yesterday. There are a few genetic posts over on PDB.


----------



## BlackthornGSD (Feb 25, 2010)

If I had any suspicion that any of my dogs had something like JRD and there was a reliable genetic test, I would do the test and use it to guide my breeding decisions.

I don't plan on doing the JRD test on a dog from my bloodlines who has never had a health issue and neither did the dog's siblings, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, etc. For the same reasons, I don't do CERF or cardio testing. 

But if there were signs of genetic health problem in any parents or siblings, then it is important to find out and use any information that it's possible to get.

If there were a reliable DNA test for hemangiosarcoma, I'd do it in a second--too many GSDs, from all bloodlines, are dying from this.


----------



## tierra nuestra (Sep 8, 2010)

jaggirl47 said:


> *cough*.....this breeder charges around $4000 per pup.


$4000 a pop and no testing for a serious genetic issue that they know they carry in their lines?How can anyone disregard this practice?
So if you are not getting health for $4000,what are you getting?The dog better poop golden nuggets to at least pay for vet bills.


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

jaggirl47 said:


> The breeder has turned a blind eye on the issue. So has people that have progeny and stud their dogs out and have MORE pups die. It sickens me. They refuse to accept that it's coming from their dogs.
> As far as the cost of the tests, it isn't really that expensive. If you have ever seen a 9 month old pup die from JRD, you would think the $155 for the test is cheap in comparison.


hmmm- this goes beyond not testing for possible genetic diseases. It has cropped up in their lines and they pretend it's not there. Yikes- I predict you will be getting a lot of PM's....


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

If I had a genetic health issue arise with a puppy from a litter.....this is what I would honestly do.
1) Document & research the issue. (prevention).
2) Document "which" lineage is involved in this litter. (prevention).
3) Make sure NOT to use this specific combination of parents again. (prevention)
4) By keeping track of puppies whelped and sired by the same parents, bred to different dogs.....a breeder can help themselves possibly "pin point" where the problem may actually be coming from. (prevention).
5) IF the genetic problem arises a 2nd time (from one of the previous parents)....I would simply eliminate that dog from any future breedings. (solution).
*To me...because a genetic issue can arise in any litter.....I would want to know if it was an isolated incidence...or is it more than that.
Robin


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

As a breeder, I want to know the validity and reliability of any heath test before I consider implementing a testing program with my dogs.
Robin's approach (which is very valid and reliable) is just as important, if not more, than a test that is not reliable.
What do you think the good "old" breeders did before thr recent development of some of these test?


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

One huge problem that was already pointed out is that it only takes 1 parent to pass the gene with JRD, not both. So even if the pairing that produced a JRD pup is not mated again, but mated to others, there will still be the problem of the gene still passing on.
There is a very well known stud who has had pups die from this. However, the attitude is "you can't prove it's my dog". This dog is out of the same kennel that has put out several dogs with JRD. I have seen it first hand of JRD out of this kennel. However, the breeding stock has not changed and is still being used. How many of those pups will end up being carriers and passing this gene along when they are bred? The cycle goes on until it is running rampant.
It scares the crap out of me. Our breed does not need this.


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

Kris10 said:


> hmmm- this goes beyond not testing for possible genetic diseases. It has cropped up in their lines and they pretend it's not there. Yikes- I predict you will be getting a lot of PM's....


 
I don't mind pm's. I just won't post it publicly. I have received several emails from dog owners whose dogs have died from it. Genetics are very interesting to me so I try to follow and read and study as much as I can.


----------



## KLCecil (Jul 1, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> So dogs can be so expensive from reputable breeders no one can afford them? There has to be a little bit of give and take here. The buyers are the ones that will be absorbing those prices.


There is no such thing as "give and take" when you are a breeder, only "give". You must always give to the breed as much as it takes to produce a healthy dog as possible. Most tests are $40 - $200 apiece; I believe if someone sells a pup even for $1000, two pups will cover the costs of just the tests for BOTH parents. I use to breed and show Aussies and there a lot more reliable tests available for them and "price" does not stop the breeders from doing as many tests as possible and the breeders absorb the cost not the buyer. They also are constantly donating tissue and blood to health institutes for known health issues and I see a serious lack of people trying to help this breed, instead they try to cover up health problems or use excuses as "the testing is to expensive".


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

Jax08 said:


> I can see testing when bringing in a new dog to their breeding program but it doesn't make sense to me to test puppies, or dogs that have been in a program. If a breeder, with an established line like Robin's, Lee's, Chris and Tim, have not had any issues with genetic diseases then what would they gain by testing? Do genetic disease skip several generations before showing up? Or do genetic diseases show up enough that a breeder would know?


 
EPI is known to skip 4-5 generations.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Jag...EPI is not only known to skip 4-5 generations...it is also a very sporadic disease...


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

KLCecil said:


> I believe if the tests are available the dog should be tested for it. Having "limited funds" is not a excuse to not get the tests done, it’s actually the exact reason why you should NOT be breeding as people are not into it for the money but for the betterment of the breed. Narrowing the gene pool while eliminating health problems is actually a GOOD thing, it means that future generations will have FEWER problems not more.


I agree with the first part in that the costs of health testing shouldn't be an issue. 

But frankly that last part scares the crap out of me. Narrowing the gene pool further is NOT a good thing, nor is over focus on any one specific trait, even one so important as health. Is it ok to sacrifice temperament for health? 

My fear with all the health testing becoming available is that over focus by the pet buying population who doesn't understand the concept of balanced breeding will lead to over focus on specific traits by breeders to meet market demand, and while sure it might eliminate one or two health issues in the breed, at what cost? Sacrificing nerve and temperament? Working ability? Sound physical structure? What good genes will be piggybacked on those bad ones being eliminated, and now gone forever? What new problems will crop up due to this "good" narrowing of the gene pool?

There are ways to minimize the chances of problems without throwing out all the babies with the bathwater. Good breeding pays careful attention to health, but does not make it a single minded focus. And personally if I had to choose between health or temperament problems in a dog, I'd rather have health issues. Most of the common genetic health issues in the breed can be managed pretty well with modern medicine. It can be expensive, but with most it can be done. But there is no cure for a dog with unstable temperament and weak nerves. No amount of money or wishes will fix it, and such a dog is even more of a heartbreaker because he can't even be a good pet, not to mention a potentially dangerous liability.


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

Robin, I do agree that EPI is extremely sporadic. They still do not know for sure if only 1 parent can pass or if it takes 2. Or if it is completely genetic or not.
Chris, I do agree that narrowing the gene pool is not a good thing. You know way more about breeding genetics than I do. However, there has to be a balance. No, I do not want a weak nerved, tempermental dog. I don't want a pup that will die painfully at 9 months either.
One big question is how do you find this balance? At least with DM we know that it is ok to breed a carrier (a/n) with a non carrier (n/n) because the risk to the pups is slim to none. But those diseases that only take 1 parent to pass on? What then?


----------



## BlackthornGSD (Feb 25, 2010)

Chris Wild said:


> There are ways to minimize the chances of problems without throwing out all the babies with the bathwater. Good breeding pays careful attention to health, but does not make it a single minded focus. And personally if I had to choose between health or temperament problems in a dog, I'd rather have health issues. Most of the common genetic health issues in the breed can be managed pretty well with modern medicine. It can be expensive, but with most it can be done. But there is no cure for a dog with unstable temperament and weak nerves. No amount of money or wishes will fix it, and such a dog is even more of a heartbreaker because he can't even be a good pet, not to mention a potentially dangerous liability.


Piggybacking on your post, Chris...

Most problems are not just simple dominant or recessive--if we have a known simple dominant or even simple recessive gene that causes a health problem, it's a lot easier to breed away from than if it's a complex problem caused by multiple genes--such as HD. 

In this case, if JRD is a dominant gene (with some dogs being asymptomatic), it's possible to eliminate the producer without narrowing the gene pool too much through the DNA testing. At the least if it was crucial to continue producing through the stud/bitch who had the JRD gene, we could test the puppies to see which of them also had the gene and only breed those who did not have it (although if it's a lethal gene, it is somewhat self-limiting). 

I'm thinking here, too, of the hemophilia that came through Canto--where it was safe to breed to his sons, but his daughters would pass on his X chromosome to 50% of their children. If we "deleted" all dogs who went back to Canto, we'd eliminate a vast number of our current dogs, many of them very influential and excellent dogs. 

So, it's wise to use the knowledge of genetics to not only identify problems but to smartly manage them.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Kris10 said:


> hmmm- this goes beyond not testing for possible genetic diseases. It has cropped up in their lines and they pretend it's not there.


I think this discussion is a good one and has brought many valid points. Now, for the case that brought the OP to opening the thread it is a different matter. If we are talking here of a dominant trait that has popped on several pups of this breeder then you don't even need genetic test, all that breeder needs is a bare knowledge of genetics, to take a clean look at his breeding stock without prejudices nor favoritism and... honesty. Without the last one it doesn't matter if the DNA test exist or not and how expensive it is.

I'm sure that if there are several litters with affected dogs Mendel would have already known who is the carrier in 1866.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> So, it's wise to use the knowledge of genetics to not only identify problems but to smartly manage them.


Exactly! 

Narrowing gene pools is a terrible idea. Genes aren't static. The hemophilia in the Russian royal family which figured so heavily in Russian & WWI politics is believed to have arisen from a spontaneous mutation in the germ cell line of Queen Victoria. You can't simply eliminate all bad genes & live happily ever after. Mutations will continue to occur. Many of those will be undesirable but given large, robust gene pools, the expression will be limited.

Unfortunately, with excessive inbreeding, so called 'rare recessives' become increasingly common. Nature's way, while imperfect, is still the best. Rare s/b rare, never mind non-existent. A breeder I know believes strongly that the best way is to inbreed heavily & cull affected pups. She's brilliant in many respects but she's wrong on this. The problem is that even as you're eliminating a single bad gene, say for DM, another dozen health problems could be accumulating, some of them less obvious than rare recessives & much less manageable. 

To knowingly continue to breed an animal known to carry a dominant gene for something like JRD is absolutely unconscionable. 

I am all about sound, healthy, long lived companions. (Note, an all around healthy animal must have a good temperament as a mentally weak, unstable or unsound dog is less than healthy, IMO) There are health clearances I want depending on the breed. However, these tests do not in any way replace the absolute necessity of pairing sound, healthy dogs with sound healthy bitches. Off spring, sibs & extended family s/b generally sound & healthy. Senior relatives should be generally long lived.

Regardless of how many tests are run, & how great the results of those tests are, if the dogs being produced commonly die young or present with numerous health issues, there's a problem.

Tests can seem so b&w, so definitive, but they're inherently incomplete & not always accurate.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

several points. comment on the most recent re Queen Victoria , maybe not so spontaneous Amazon.com: Queen Victoria's Gene (Pocket Biographies) (9780750911993): D.M. Potts: Books . Have a read of Queen Victoria's Gene for some very thought provoking scientific detective work , gene study , geo political impacts , the horror that was totally preventable , unnecessary , map and history changing WW 1.

Point - how far are you going to tolerate eugenics . If there is a genetic predictor for ALS for example there may have never have been the brilliant mind of a Stephen Hawking . 

What we need is an enormous injection of ETHICS. 

What we do not have anymore is breeders with a long range program , like Busecker Schloss was off the top of my head . We do not have breeders that are familiar with what the generations bring. Instead we have so many trial and error first generations. Not that those were not done with standards and care , it just is not the same . 

Carmen
Carmspack Working German Shepherd Dogs


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

jaggirl47 said:


> But those diseases that only take 1 parent to pass on? What then?


Anything that takes only 1 parent to pass on is inherently a dominant trait, and as such cannot remain hidden for long. If a dog carries it, it IS going to be produced in progeny, and would have been evident in previous generations as well. So here I think DNA testing is of less value. With something like JRD, a policy of randomly testing all breeding stock just for the heck of it would be a waste of money because if it did exist in that bloodline it would have shown up. If it's never shown up in that line, then there is no point to testing because dominant traits can't remain hidden for generations like recessives can. 

The only real value I would see in testing for something like this would be to identify which individual dogs within a bloodline that does carry it are themselves clear and could be safely used for breeding. But if it doesn't exist in that particular bloodline, there wouldn't be any point.

As far as eliminating dogs who carry the gene, really that comes down to how widespread they are. If it would mean eliminating a significant amount of the breed's gene pool other ways need to be found. Such as proactively testing potential breeding dogs to eliminate those from affected lines who themselves carry it, and identify as safe potential breeders those who are clear. Clearly JRD isn't something pandemic within this breed as it is in some others, or it would have a much higher incidence within the breed than it does. So in this case removing dogs who are producing it is not only the ethical thing to do but wouldn't have a significant impact on the breed as a whole, especially since the test is available to identify clear dogs within an affected bloodline if one felt that line had enough to offer to do so.


----------



## tierra nuestra (Sep 8, 2010)

Will testing hurt?No.Just the breeders pocket.
Will not testing hurt?Possibly yes.With possible detrimental effects.
Simplified logic always wins out.


----------



## tierra nuestra (Sep 8, 2010)

carmspack said:


> several points. comment on the most recent re Queen Victoria , maybe not so spontaneous Amazon.com: Queen Victoria's Gene (Pocket Biographies) (9780750911993): D.M. Potts: Books . Have a read of Queen Victoria's Gene for some very thought provoking scientific detective work , gene study , geo political impacts , the horror that was totally preventable , unnecessary , map and history changing WW 1.
> 
> Point - how far are you going to tolerate eugenics . If there is a genetic predictor for ALS for example there may have never have been the brilliant mind of a Stephen Hawking .
> 
> ...


"At $1500 and up a breeder should be able to give you the assurance that they have tested for whats available by choice because they care about what they are passing into their genetic pool for the future of their kennels and the familys that they may be affecting when they produce a puppy that will leave the boundaries of that said kennel."


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Carmspack, the book appears to be sensationalized & speculative rather than deeply researched. Regardless, spontaneous mutations do arise. There currently is no realistic possibility of simply eliminating deleterious genes.

I'm not sure how eugenics relates to a discussion of managing or eliminating genetic problems in dogs. I'm opposed to eugenics but decisions regarding human genetics are a complex, sensitive & inflammatory topic better discussed elsewhere.

I agree that an enormous injection of ethics is needed. And more than a smidgeon of common sense, too, but as Chris & others have noted the decisions aren't necessarily straight forward, easy or predictable. In breeds as fraught with health & temperament problems as the GS good breeding is a complicated on going assessment, re-assessment & balancing act.

It was mentioned that penetrance is significant in the expression of JRD. Some genes have nearly 100% penetrance, others considerably less. Unfortunately, unexpressed genes can be passed on & appear to have 'skipped' a generation, which can complicate matters.

Tierra Nuestra, I'm not a breeder & I'm a fanatic regarding health & longevity. Realistically, health testing plays a role, but only a limited role. Too many health problems can't be tested for, yet they're devastating to the affected animals & those who love them. Running a gamut of tests can give uninformed owners a false sense of security which can quickly erode as the tested to the hilt pup comes down with hypertension, diabetes, heart problems, cascading allergies, fear aggression, separation anxiety etc.

Breed appropriate testing s/b done, but nothing replaces the eminently sensible practice of breeding sound, healthy dogs to sound, healthy bitches & ensuring they're descended from generally long lived, sound healthy extended families.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

just so happens one of my best friends is a senior research scientist specializing in the genetics . Envelope pushing research is no longer straight forward Mendelianism, epi genetics and nutro genomics receiving more attention. 

ALL of breeding is eugenics. 

Selecting for good genes.

I don't have dogs that need $3,000 factored in for health care . Personally I think that is deplorable that the dogs have come to that . I have stated before the dogs I have live long and honest healthy lives living up to 13+ some to 15 the odd one close to 17 .
If you don't think "health testing" will have an impact on you wait until your health insurance no longer carries you because of anticipated problems 10 , 15 years away. 

You want to see where breeding decisions (for most) really come from then read Bred for Perfection by U ot T prof Margaret Derry Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies, and Arabian Horses since 1800: Amazon.ca: Margaret E. Derry: Books

I am a fanatic on health and longevity. I am a fanatic on proper GSD temperament, proper drives , proper conformation. 

I know there are breeds , French Bulldog , as an example that are so riddled with problems including spinal malformation that there are virtually no animals that would be "clear" and then you have the decison of choosing lesser evils.

I never want the GSD to come to that. If you have a problem with a dominant JRD , get rid of it, cull that line . 

So why will no one say what "line" carries this . I have never experienced or heard of this until this thread came up. 

Carmen
Carmspack Working German Shepherd Dogs


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

carmspack said:


> So why will no one say what "line" carries this . I have never experienced or heard of this until this thread came up.


Breeder bashing not allowed on this board  I believe you can find the story on PBD or PM Kendra if you want more details.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Yes, all breeding is eugenics, but the ethical issues in humans are profoundly different than those in other animals.

I don't know about others, but I'm not asking b/c the breeder clearly isn't among the breeders I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. I rarely recommend breeders so it doesn't impact me beyond simple curiosity & I'm just not that curious.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

tierra nuestra said:


> Will testing hurt?No.Just the breeders pocket.
> Will not testing hurt?Possibly yes.With possible detrimental effects.
> Simplified logic always wins out.


I am using this quote, but this is for many posts in this thread, for the attitude it portrays, that breeding dogs should not in any way be considerate of the money involved.

So, where do we STOP? If money is no consideration whatsoever, than why not wait until a dog drops dead after 14 healthy years, and use their DNA to clone and reproduce them. I think cloning dogs cost about 100k, but money should not even be a consideration. If everyone followed this line, only one thing would be for sure as a result, the GSD would cease to be.

It is such a hypocritical thought. You love dogs, you love the breed, you love breeding, you want to produce the best dogs, healthwise temperament, working ability, etc etc etc. You should not want or need any compensation whatsoever for your initial investment, time, work, current costs, and risking the health and lives of your animals to produce puppies.

Doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, veterinarians, police officers should just eat the cost of their education and work for free, because they should be all about helping people. "No, it is on the house, well if you want to pay something against the cost of overhead well, whatever you feel like it."

All of you people with a job should turn your paycheck back in and say that you are just so happy for the opportunity to do what you love, that you just do not feel right taking money for it. Those of you with businesses should just give away your services, because you just love what you do.

And farmers, they should lead their beef, chickens, and lamb to the slaughter and take no compensation because, well it shouldn't be about the money, it should be about producing quality beef, chicken and lamb.

Already dog breeding is a business that cannot be run like a business. Or, it can, but those breeders are the most frowned upon. They are the ones that slaughter the dogs that are not producing and reducing costs and cutting corners wherever they can. 

Any decent breeder keeps their older bitches occasionally finding them a suitable home. They keep dogs that have been returned, unless they feel they are suitable to be sold again. When Arwen needed surgery for her teeth, over a thousand dollars, there was no question about it even though she was spayed. From a business sense you put the money into the dogs that are producing. 

Unless people are independently wealthy, you have to make choices, sometimes hard choices about how money is spent. Testing for a disease you never heard of before, just does not add up, I suppose that could be called simplified logic.

If you keep raising the bar for reputable breeders up and up and up; to the point where no one can possibly be this person, then the breed will be left in the hands of the puppy mills and bybs. 

I do think that it does not make sense to breed again a combination that created such a disease. There is no future in that. No one wants to hear from their customer that their puppy died. No one wants it to get around that they are breeding dogs with serious genetic issues. 

But to remove every sire, dam, sibling, or offspring of sire, dam, and siblings of a dog with any genetic problem is throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Sue, that is an excellent* excellent *post!!


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Sue, statitically, 1/2 the pups produced by a dog/bitch carrying an autosomal dominant will display the condition. With something as severe as JRD, & with a gene pool as large as the GSD, there's no good reason to continue to breed that animal. Nor should the affected offspring be bred. IF penetrance is an issue, the unaffected offspring s/b tested to be certain they don't have the deleterious gene, or alternatively none of them s/b bred.

Personally, I have no problem with breeders making money from their work & efforts. Djibouti's breeder once stated it was over 8 yrs before she made money. That implies both that yes, she does make money but also that it certainly isn't her sole purpose in breeding. Whether people are in it for the money, the glory, to finance their SchH, show & obedience hobbies is irrelevant to me. The dogs being produced is what matters.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

RubyTuesday, please read my post again, I did say that I would see no reason in breeding again a combination that created such a fault. If 1/2 are affected, than no way would I not know about it. No way would it not get around that I was continuing to breed such a dog. No way would I risk that. 

It does not make sense to do so. 

But first you have to figure out which of the combo caused the issue. So if you have such a devastating problem, then you might go back and run the test on sire and dam. Makes sense to do so at that point. That way you can knock out of your breeding program the animal that caused the issue.

For me, I only have females, and use outside studs. If 1/2 of the progeny were affected, and I have had 17 progeny from a full sibling and 7 progeny from another full sibling, I think that it would be pretty safe to say that the problem is not with my bitch. But to be sure, and the price of the test was reasonable, and the test was respective and conclusive, sure I would do the test. 

Just stopping breeding your animals because something went wrong with one of them, something that may have been misdiagnosed even, well, I find that hard to swallow. 

This is why it is all important for people to let their breeders know when there are issues and for breeders to be open and to keep the lines of communication open.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

I think that has potential to be damaging to the breed, depending on the disease in question... for example, (don't read too much into this, its just an off the cuff example) if one dog has a genetic trait where there is too much roach and this causes osteoathritis, but is otherwise a very sound dog, there is an argument that it should be breed with a dog such that the roaching will be corrected, and the other very desirable traits passed on. This is why breeders must do more than put 2 eager dogs together. Their role, like a liquor meister blending several vintages to produce the desired overall effect, is to produce a balanced dog. This doesn't mean you must breed 2 balanced dogs to produce balanced puppies. It would be very useful to know what traits a dog is going to pass on, but the fear is that it might lead otherwise very desirable traits to not get passed on. On the other hand, if the dog has a gene that causes.. I dunno.. congenital fatal heart disease at 3 years of age, it'd be useful to know that and not breed that "perfect dog", assuming that this is more of an off/on trait rather than something that can be slid on the spectrum... if that makes sense

In short, I think seeking to breed only "perfect" dogs, will so severely restrict and concentrate the gene pool, that it will cause more harm than good. Maintaining a healthy sized gene pool is essential to maintaining desired traits of the breed.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

If a breeder is charging 4000 a puppy, those dogs should be tested, there is no explanation for the extra 2500 premium unless some other information was left out. I'm basing this on the fact that most reputable breeders, with SchH sires and dams, charge about 1500. But to require such testing would definately increase the cost of puppies, and at some point people won't want to spend a premium to test for a disease that affects 1% or less of the population. Thats exactly where you'll see a spike in byb or puppy mill puppies being purchased.

Someone mentioned that the tests arent that expensive and can be made up in 1 or 2 puppies, well the problem is there are also other overhead costs to consider, like training, working, titling the dogs, a sire can surely be tested because they can produce thousands of puppies, but how many can you really expect to get out of a female? And it is my understanding that a "foundation bitch" is the key to a successful breeding operation. I'm not saying that other tests should be added to a "must be done" list, like HD is (JRD sounds like one), but there are so many other diseases that just don't pop up enough to warrant such mass testing.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

it would be breeder suicide to breed dogs where 1/2 of the puppies would be dead as puppies. Irregardless of breed traits being passed on or lost. 

I suppose if a breeder could check a litter at six weeks and cull those affected -- but that would STILL kill the breeder. Furthermore, would 1/2 be affected and the others be carriers. No respectable breeder would want to place all their puppies as pets with no breeding rights. Because that is certainly not breeding for the future. 

I just do not get the idea that a well-known breeder would totally ignore something like that and continue to breed the combination. Something just does not add up. This is an industry where reputation is HUGE. 

Maybe full page color ads in dog magazines, titles and names, and a great website might be able to reel in the gullible...


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

selzer said:


> it would be breeder suicide to breed dogs where 1/2 of the puppies would be dead as puppies. Irregardless of breed traits being passed on or lost.
> 
> I suppose if a breeder could check a litter at six weeks and cull those affected -- but that would STILL kill the breeder. Furthermore, would 1/2 be affected and the others be carriers. No respectable breeder would want to place all their puppies as pets with no breeding rights. Because that is certainly not breeding for the future.
> 
> ...


If this was a response to me, it appears something was posted in this thread I didn't read?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Nope, just responded to the passing on of breed traits in your post, but the post itself was more in response to several posts. I agree you cannot throw out all dogs just because one of them has something wrong with them, some traits are connected to desireable traits.

However even if a desireable trait is related to a trait that is as devastating as this disease is described as being, it would be breeder suicide to continue it for whatever reason.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

selzer said:


> Nope, just responded to the passing on of breed traits in your post, but the post itself was more in response to several posts. I agree you cannot throw out all dogs just because one of them has something wrong with them, some traits are connected to desireable traits.
> 
> However even if a desireable trait is related to a trait that is as devastating as this disease is described as being, it would be breeder suicide to continue it for whatever reason.


the main point I meant to illustrate was that there are undesirable traits that can be suppressed such that, while still there, are not of significant concern, while other traits are catastrophic if present. So, I think we are in agreement.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Yes, we are.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

jaggirl47 said:


> Robin, I do agree that EPI is extremely sporadic. They still do not know for sure if only 1 parent can pass or if it takes 2. Or if it is completely genetic or not.


Actually, the most currect research for EPI shows that it is probably polygenic (caused by multiple genes) like HD so will be impossible to totally elminate from the breed. 

Chris, excellent post and states the reality of breeding.


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

selzer said:


> it would be breeder suicide to breed dogs where 1/2 of the puppies would be dead as puppies. Irregardless of breed traits being passed on or lost.
> 
> I suppose if a breeder could check a litter at six weeks and cull those affected -- but that would STILL kill the breeder. Furthermore, would 1/2 be affected and the others be carriers. No respectable breeder would want to place all their puppies as pets with no breeding rights. Because that is certainly not breeding for the future.
> 
> ...


 
Gullible is a very good word and fits pretty well.

However, like it has been said, JRD takes only one parent to pass the gene, not 2. Even if certain pups in the litter were not affected nearly as bad as others, the chances that they are carriers is extremely high. So, testing and culling the pups themselves make absolutely no sense. It is whichever parent that is passing the gene that needs to be pulled from breeding.
I do know for a fact it is being passed on by more than 1 dog in this kennel though.

As far as $4000 a pup, these are West German Working Lines. Several on this board have way better lines and charge $1200-$1500.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Kendra, I agree that the parent s/b pulled from breeding but it's equally important that offspring carrying the gene be identified & withheld from breeding. Identification isn't necessarily straightforward where genetic penetrance is at play which seems to be the case with JRD. Dogs that carry the gene & can pass it on might appear unaffected, perhaps for many years, possibly throughout their lives.


----------



## NarysDad (Apr 29, 2010)

robinhuerta said:


> If I had a genetic health issue arise with a puppy from a litter.....this is what I would honestly do.
> 1) Document & research the issue. (prevention).
> 2) Document "which" lineage is involved in this litter. (prevention).
> 3) Make sure NOT to use this specific combination of parents again. (prevention)
> ...


Basically this has been our practice for many years. Until there are accurate test out there I will continue to breed the way we have and as Robin has said that these genetic issues can pop up, it is how we handle it when they do.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Robin, I see things pretty much the same.....that's why a breeder that does not know the dog's lines; they are breeding, inside and out to me is irresponsible. You have to have an idea on recessives and traits from all four side of the equation to deal with issues like these.


----------

