# Discuss the genetics of Cryptochid and Monorchid



## selzer

I am curious about how the genetics of this condition work. What is the likelihood of a monorchid dog producing monorchid puppies. Or a cryptorchid dog? Or is this a polygenic condition, where it may skip a generation? 

Is there a condition where the testicles just haven't dropped but are present, or is there any where they aren't present at all? 

Does it have to be present on both sides of the equation, like the black recessive to get black dogs? If you breed an affected male to a female that does not have an affected dog behind her, will you have puppies that are carriers, but will not have the condition themselves? 

I have a book on GSD genetics, but it's not handy at the moment.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

i am bummed no one answered this. i would also like to know...


----------



## Stonevintage

Skip down to inheritance on this article. My last male had neuter for one at one year of age. Vet said I would need to bring him back for neutering when the 2nd descended otherwise it would cause problems and need to surgically removed. It descended and never caused him any problems - lived to 14.5

http://www.siriusdog.com/cyptorchidism-congenital-testicle-dog.htm


----------



## Stonevintage

From that article;

"In Germany and many other countries, where registration is denied Cryptoids sanctions are made against their parents, more than half of the "VA" (top show) GSD's in a 20 year period sired Cryptorchidism and hence were carriers."

These disorders go back so far in this breeds history... Just sad.


----------



## Xeph

Welcome to breeding in general. No breed (or mix) is or ever will be free of every and all genetic disorders. It's impossible.

One must pick and choose.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

If a cryptorchid dog is bred, what percentage of his male pups will be crypt? Same question if he is a carrier?

Seems like of all the genettic problems this one is not so terrible, besides a more invasive neuter surgery does it impact the dog's life in any other way?


----------



## selzer

I think if you do not neuter the internal testicle, it is possible that it will twist and cause pain, possible infection or worse. But, like everything else it is just a risk. There are some that do not believe that cancer is more likely in a retained testicle, but spotting it would be near impossible before it is too late, and since, this cancer actually does have a good prognosis if caught in time. That would be sad. Again a risk you take. 

I know of a monorchid dog that sired 10 male pups (2 bitches) and all of the pups had both testicles by 7 or 10 weeks. I would imagine that the pups would all be carriers. Unless there are actually more reasons for the problem. 

I mean, if it is genetic if the accompanying hardware was too short to descend properly, or the testicle(s) were completely non-existent, then all the pups would be carriers of that condition. If it were more the descending and ascending testicle, and the ring closed when it was on the up-swing, maybe that isn't a genetic issue? And then puppies out of that dog might not be affected at all. 

But I really do not know. 

It is a pain for owners because of the extra cost in neutering, and because the dog cannot be shown. The dogs are certainly able to sire puppies, perform in dog sports, and make as good pets as their brothers that have their equipment properly descended.


----------



## Stonevintage

Hopefully soon, there will be better and more affordable tools for diagnostic treatment/prevention of the serious stuff - for both people and animals.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Well I can relate to the surgery being a pain, I am dreading it. Mine is 13 months now, either crypt or monorchid. I was thinking of asking the ultrasound vet if she has ever searched for one prior to surgery to limit the digging around looking for it.

My other vet seemed to feel waiting until 24 months to go in for the other one would be ok. Planning to get a 2nd opinion on that but would like to combine with OFA X Rays while he is under so would rather wait until maturity.

I don't think it is worth it not to get it out of there seeing as there are things that could go wrong. I can't tell that it bothers him any currently


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

I know of a monorchid dog that sired 10 male pups (2 bitches) and all of the pups had both testicles by 7 or 10 weeks. I would imagine that the pups would all be carriers. Unless there are actually more reasons for the problem. 



Selzer, was this an intentional breeding? I didn't think reputable breeders ever used one nutters? Do the dog's accomplishments or attributes at some point outweigh that issue?


----------



## LuvShepherds

selzer said:


> I think if you do not neuter the internal testicle, it is possible that it will twist and cause pain, possible infection or worse. But, like everything else it is just a risk. There are some that do not believe that cancer is more likely in a retained testicle, but spotting it would be near impossible before it is too late, and since, this cancer actually does have a good prognosis if caught in time. That would be sad. Again a risk you take.
> 
> I know of a monorchid dog that sired 10 male pups (2 bitches) and all of the pups had both testicles by 7 or 10 weeks. I would imagine that the pups would all be carriers. Unless there are actually more reasons for the problem.
> 
> I mean, if it is genetic if the accompanying hardware was too short to descend properly, or the testicle(s) were completely non-existent, then all the pups would be carriers of that condition. If it were more the descending and ascending testicle, and the ring closed when it was on the up-swing, maybe that isn't a genetic issue? And then puppies out of that dog might not be affected at all.
> 
> But I really do not know.
> 
> It is a pain for owners because of the extra cost in neutering, and because the dog cannot be shown. The dogs are certainly able to sire puppies, perform in dog sports, and make as good pets as their brothers that have their equipment properly descended.


Why would someone intentionally breed a dog with this? Aren't there other males that can stud?


----------



## Stonevintage

LuvShepherds said:


> Why would someone intentionally breed a dog with this? Aren't there other males that can stud?


Well, that's the big question isn't it? From the posts about DM carriers to this.

I see the answers stemming from "That's the way it is" and "That's what we have to choose from" But I don't see any looking forward to the very near future with the information that's coming. Back to the same question...

Some look at perhaps if the "bottom" just choses more wisely?? and if the bottom just listens none of these problems would exist - that's crazy thinking.

My thought is that leaving things for the "bottom" to fix rarely works. It starts at the top - and that's the only way it has a chance to work....

Zeph IMO is the best source for an honest answer on this.... She is living it and doing it at the top levels. If the genome/genetic tests become very affordable Zeph, and give you information you have had not had access to before - would you use it???? Would it change your practices about taking the good with the bad???

That sounds like a crazy question - but after the discussions this week - I have to ask.... Thanks!


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

LuvShepherds said:


> Why would someone intentionally breed a dog with this? Aren't there other males that can stud?


Backyard and unethical breeders don't care.


----------



## selzer

LuvShepherds said:


> Why would someone intentionally breed a dog with this? Aren't there other males that can stud?


Actually, it really isn't a big deal, unless you are showing. And even then, only a percentage of the dogs will be affected, and maybe none of them. 

In nature, there are many problems, and dogs bring all sorts of them. If you breed exclusively to eliminate one thing, you might also cause the incidence of other issues to increase, by blotting out a percentage of the gene pool. 

Let's look what would happen in the wild? Would these dogs breed or not? They are capable, and they are not sterile, so they would breed. 

There are scads of genetic conditions, some of which we can test for, like hip dysplasia and elbow dysplasia and DM; and some of which we can recognize in progeny, like hemophilia and dwarfism; and some of which we feel a genetic predisposition for, like bloat and pyometra. Monorchid/Cryptorchid is pretty low on the list of things to worry about. Yes, it is a disqualifying fault, just like white dogs are. White dogs and dogs without testicles can be registered though, and their lives are not likely to be shorter because of the flaw. We need to look at the whole dog, and if a dog brings a lot of stuff to the table, then I think it might make sense to see what he produces.


----------



## Stonevintage

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Backyard and unethical breeders don't care.


Now, Selzer and Zeph are BYB's and unethical? They've been explaining all week what a narrow path they have to walk to get it right. LOL - Read what they are saying... This goes back to your whole flying off the handle thing that I am attacking breeders and I am not, never was unless they pass on known diseases - then I questioned it and no answer came except " Well, that's what we have to work with" . They are working with what they have in a very complicated genetic breed. They are doing the best they can, but they are saying there's still problems and are passing on diseases. AND I AM SAYING the genetic information coming can help them tremendously and am curious if they will embrace it.

MAWL - You seem driven,confused and not willing to look forward. I hope you can learn something about the future here....


----------



## Stonevintage

Correction for you MAWL. Selzer and Zeph have not been explaining all week about the current problems. Please change that in your computer banks to "Breeders"....have been explaining...


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Stonevintage said:


> Now, Selzer and Zeph are BYB's and unethical? They've been explaining all week what a narrow path they have to walk to get it right. LOL - Read what they are saying... This goes back to your whole flying off the handle thing that I am attacking breeders and I am not, never was unless they pass on known diseases - then I questioned it and no answer came except " Well, that's what we have to work with" . They are working with what they have in a very complicated genetic breed. They are doing the best they can, but they are saying there's still problems and are passing on diseases. AND I AM SAYING the genetic information coming can help them tremendously and am curious if they will embrace it.
> 
> MAWL - You seem driven,confused and not willing to look forward. I hope you can learn something about the future here....


Where did either of them state that they breed to monorchids / cryptorchids? I did not read that anywhere. What a terrible thing to accuse these two breeders. I am not sure about Selzer, but I know Xeph shows her dogs and a dog would be disqualified from the ring if afflicted. What led you to believe that either of them would breed to a stud that is afflicted? 

I am not saying that the male / female may not have the potential to produce pups like this, or that they should be thrown out with the bath water, after all breeding for the total dog is the priority and there are always risks. People have tried explaining this to you for a long time now, but you choose not to hear it because their is no disdain of reputable breeders in the message.

As far as I know, cryptorchids are sterile and could not be bred anyhow.

I don't believe I have ever seen you ask a question about poorly bred dogs and not point the finger of responsibility at reputable breeders, like you are doing right now. You don't have to explain the difference between backyard bred dogs and those from a reputable breeder to me. I am not the one contributing to the support of backyard breeders and then complaining about the poor health of the breed. I have talked to many reputable breeders in detail, AND LEARNED FROM THEM, still do, and I support these breeders who know about genetics and how to manipulate them to minimize all risks. Perhaps you confuse me with somebody else.

SV You seem driven and confused and your forward is where reputable breeders are today. I hope that you can learn that your future is happening right now when it comes to GSDs and reputable breeders and that these breeders are headed in a whole other direction in the future than you can't even begin to imagine as you cling to where you would like to see backyard breeders in the future.

Besides, I was not talking to you and I really don't like people twisting my words to pretend I bashed somebody when clearly I did not.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Stonevintage said:


> Correction for you MAWL. Selzer and Zeph have not been explaining all week about the current problems. Please change that in your computer banks to "Breeders"....have been explaining...


I am well aware of who has been trying to explain things to you all week, once again, I suspect you confuse me for somebody else.


----------



## Julian G

Just curious, is there a way to fix this? Say if a dogs testicles don't drop, can surgery make them drop?


----------



## Xeph

I'm not sure exactly what I have or haven't done. I have bred two litters, using the same sire. The sire I used was a DM carrier. If I have a good animal in my lines that is a carrier, I'm not going to discard it for that. What I am going to do is breed it to clear animals.

A carrier can produce both clear and carrier animals. It is foolish to throw a dog out of the gene pool when you can safely breed to a clear. Heck, you can breed a clear to an at risk and the entire litter will be carriers.

At this juncture, follow up necropsies probably matter more than the actual test since DM can only be diagnosed with spinal cord tissue.

Breeding isn't just black and white. It is shades of variant grey. You need to pick and choose your poisons regardless and know that there will always be somebody unhappy with your choice.

My foundation bitch has a DJD1 elbow. It's posted right on my website and it's in the OFA database. No surprises. If a buyer asks me about it I tell them the truth...I don't know if it's genetic or an injury. There's no way for me to say. But I bred to a dog with strong joints and with a good joint history behind him.

The dogs from my first litter are being OFA'd now (they just turned two a month ago) and lo and behold, my bitch with a "bad elbow" is producing normal elbows. She's producing good hips so far as well, and two dogs prelim'd excellent.

She's had a total of sixteen puppies and I plan on breeding her once more. There will undoubtedly be a failure or two amongst those animals. That's the nature of genetics. When it comes to breeding it comes down to both preserving the breed and minimizing any possible damage that could be done.

My last litter will be an outcross (AmLine to WGSL). Could be stunning. Or it could be an epic disaster. The COI will be incredibly low, but so will homozygosity. I could improve on joint health but wind up with a bunch of nutters.

I've been doing my best over the years to educate myself and make sound breeding decisions. Took me 14 years to even breed a litter.

I definitely do not have all the answers and have not been breeding nearly as long as many here. The people that are here that have bred for a long time certainly helped impress upon me that no dog is or ever will be perfect, every dog has a fault, and we should only make choices we feel we can live with.


----------



## Stonevintage

Xeph - thank you so much for the reply. I understand the way it is now. My big uphill battle has been the future and discussions about the future of genetic testing and the beginning of cleaning house if you will with the breed if the knowns are there and absolute.

I see no conversation across the board all week addressing working with genetic testing (as breeders) and alteration of breeding choices as a result of the knowledge that is not yet here but very soon to come.....

Lol, and still - no one addresses the topic - just all living in the past or the here and now..... WHY?? Why is the obvious near future on disease discovery (pinpoint) and prevention such a taboo subject? I don't get it. I understand it will always take the knowledgeable breeder to work with genetic health discoveries but why the refusal to discuss what be a very bright future for the breed health wise from the collaboration???

This isn't a question from anyone but a novice. But, there's a lot of us and I think an answer to this question is justified. That's all:smile2:


----------



## Stonevintage

Also, why do you pass on DM now (even though you know what you are doing with breeding to clear) - you knows others down the road wont - or breed a less than stellar hip rating? Again creating a down the road desaster....

Breeding and passing those lines down is helping how? I mean- you've used the dogs for your purpose - but you know down the road, you've not avoided but perpetuated the problems to the next generation.??

Is there no sire or bitch to breed to that isn't full of problems? Or, is it that money is an issue to have your sire or bitch bred to a clear dog? What is the motivator? That there's no problem ridden dogs left in the world?

I'm sure you can see the question - why do this to the breed???


----------



## Xeph

We can't evaluate what does not yet exist. Simple answer. Nobody has answered your question because it is not possible to answer. You're tilting at windmills.

Breeding a dog with less than stellar hip ratings is not creating a down the road disaster. What creates a down the road disaster is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Narrowing the gene pool so much you don't have anything to work with.

There is no sire or bitch anywhere in any breed or mix that does not carry something negative. You are not being realistic about genetics.

There were problem dogs at the inception of the breed. Animals that had pedigrees of bloat, of pannus, of joint problems, of digestive problems. That's the nature of genetics within any populous. That is part of understanding and accepting no perfect dogs.

We breed to complement and compensate. Eradication of all disease is, again, impossible. It has never been possible. These are living creatures.

I don't understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

The only way to get what you're after is to never breed anything again ever.


----------



## Xeph

And I'm not passing on DM by using carrier dogs. Especially not when carriers are bred to clears (double especially when we are actually not entirely sure what is causing DM and when animals are not routinely necropsied).

Like, you keep talking about the future, but I don't think the words you use mean what you think they mean. You are conveying your questions and points pretty poorly, or are being willfully obtuse...


----------



## Stonevintage

Well then, I guess we are at an end to the conversation. I cannot agree that things have always been this bad with the breed. I cannot understand why the attitude of "this is the way it has always been and this is the way it will always be" exists. I know better. Goodnight.


----------



## Xeph

If you know better than people who have been doing this for decades, maybe you should be the one breeding.

It's not a matter of things "having always been this bad". It deals with the reality that Max didn't start with dogs that carried 0 genetic issues. What makes the genetic issues seem so terrible now is that we have considerably more knowledge than he did back then.

Back then white dogs were considered to be albinos and were all culled. We now know that is not true at all and it is a simple masking gene.

They used to cull any "extra" puppies on a bitch as well, but we don't do that anymore either.


----------



## Jax08

I know of very reputable breeders that will breed with missing teeth and with monorchids / cryptorchids because the other genetics are there. That's like throwing out all the dogs that have HD in their lines or DM carriers.

Respectable, reputable, breeders know their lines and breed to lessen the chance of genetic issues but they are dealing with living creatures and limited gene pools to start with.


----------



## Jenny720

I thought this to be all very well explained also in the other thread. Shrinking the forever shrinking gene pool is not the answer but continued selective breeding, continued health testing done by reputable breeders always looking to improve their line is.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Xeph, what is an "extra" puppy?

Jax thank you I think you just answered my question: do a dog's attributes ever outweight cryptorchid ir monorchid when it comes ot breeding. Evidently some breeders think so. It makes sense to me. 

If it you have to pick your poison so to speak as far as what negative thing the dog will bring, something that isn't life threatening or really life altering might be the way to go...unless your 1 and onky dream with that dog was to show in conformation...


----------



## Jax08

Exactly. 

Falk lines can have missing teeth. Don't breed from Falk? Mika or Iron would not have existed. Breeding on Pike can produce livers. No line is free of faults.

Breeders pick what they can live with so to not throw out the rest of the desirable genetics.


----------



## Jenny720

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Xeph, what is an "extra" puppy?
> 
> Jax thank you I think you just answered my question: do a dog's attributes ever outweight cryptorchid ir monorchid when it comes ot breeding. Evidently some breeders think so. It makes sense to me.
> 
> If it you have to pick your poison so to speak as far as what negative thing the dog will bring, something that isn't life threatening or really life altering might be the way to go...unless your 1 and onky dream with that dog was to show in conformation...


Yes if your dream is to get a Show pup will be short lived or not. the good thing though you know before you pick up your pup that he has a retained testicle or testicles. It would be up to you- the puppy buyer- if that matters or not. If the breeder does not mention this I'm assuming there will be many more issues. Wishing the testicle down won't happen sometimes the one testicle will drop down later on but if you are planning to show don't want to bank on it.


----------



## lhczth

Thecowboysgirl: It used to be, not sure about now, that a bitch was only allowed to raise 6 puppies. Any others either had to be moved to another bitch or be killed. 

On topic: It is very hard for a person who does not breed to understand how and why breeders make the choices they do when breeding. When you don't breed you can have tunnel vision and look at only one facet of the breed. Breeders, especially those who are attempting to maintain a working breed and are well educated in genetics, have many many things that much be considered. Those breeding long enough notice that often certain genetic traits come in packages so, for example, strong working temperament and heart might bring an increase in HD (I am just using this as an example). Or high hunt drive often bringing allergies (again, just pulling these out of the air). If we were to eliminate all of the negatives it is possible and highly likely we would also eliminate the good. Our goal is to maintain the good that brings the balance and working abilities of the breed while trying to minimize the negatives. As has also been stated a few times, we have to do this while maintaining enough genetic diversity.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

They must have thought more than 6 that some wouldn't grow up right, recieve enough nourishment or care?

As for your other statement Lisa, I get the idea. I don't have that level of understanding of the GSD (although I would like to) but when I bred goats I tried very hard to breed a better animal and I can recall making decisionss similar to what you are describing...and weighing what I was willing to tolerate to get that animal's good qualities. And trying to improve the most important facets of the overall big picture


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Jax08 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Falk lines can have missing teeth. Don't breed from Falk? Mika or Iron would not have existed. Breeding on Pike can produce livers. No line is free of faults.
> 
> Breeders pick what they can live with so to not throw out the rest of the desirable genetics.


Missing teeth, livers, floppy ears, etc., are not health risks. Monorchids and Cryptorchids not only are, but surgery is usually recommended. 

I am very sorry to hear that you know of "reputable" breeders who breed dogs, that have monorchism / crypotorchidism, and I don't mean carriers, but dogs who have it themselves. IMO, that is not reputable, but irresponsible. 

As my oldest dog ages, I am starting to shop around and I would like to cross those breeders off of my list.

I highly doubt that you will, but I would be very interested in who those breeders are, if you would PM.


----------



## selzer

Thecowboysgirl said:


> They must have thought more than 6 that some wouldn't grow up right, recieve enough nourishment or care?
> 
> As for your other statement Lisa, I get the idea. I don't have that level of understanding of the GSD (although I would like to) but when I bred goats I tried very hard to breed a better animal and I can recall making decisionss similar to what you are describing...and weighing what I was willing to tolerate to get that animal's good qualities. And trying to improve the most important facets of the overall big picture


The idea was that the puppies would not get enough nourishment, wouldn't grow to their potential in a larger litter. 

I think Winifred Strickland in her book, The German Shepherd Today put it something like: Culling the little isn't bad when you have whites or livers or pups with a known problem, but deciding which ones to cull when they are relatively equal is difficult. 

Let's not get all cushy about it here. I have a bunch of bitches, but I've only had bitches with milk at the same time a couple of times. And one of those times, the one bitch had 8 pups and the other had 9. Furthermore, taking pups from one kennel and using a foster bitch means risking the foster bitch's kennel with any diseases the other breeder might be harboring in and vice versa. With rescue dogs you have an entire network of people of various breeds and it might be easy to find a bitch with a small litter or that lost a litter to raise the puppies. But for all intent and purposes, culling was a pretty word for killing. They would drown puppies that had some issue or were white, liver, or blue, or if they felt the litter was too large, the smallest/weakest pup or puppies would be killed. I guess in the beginning, breed wardens would come and inspect your litter, and tell you to cull. 

My guess is that the American show breeders would cull the off-colors in part because they didn't want people to know that they were in their lines. I wouldn't be surprised anyway, after reading the Strickland/Moses book, etc. I think we've come a long way. I think we may be even a bit cruel the other way, demanding every effort be used to save even severely handicapped puppies and injured or ill dogs.


----------



## Jax08

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I highly doubt that you will, ....



You are correct. But it's because I have no desire to engage with you.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Jax08 said:


> You are correct. But it's because I have no desire to engage with you.


Trust that the feeling is mutual.


----------



## lhczth

Let's try not to get personal please. 

ADMIN Lisa


----------



## lhczth

When looking at the whole picture having a few unilateral cryptorchids show up is pretty minor and not usually a serious health threat.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

lhczth said:


> When looking at the whole picture having a few unilateral cryptorchids show up is pretty minor and not usually a serious health threat.


It is not about pups showing up from dogs that are carriers. 

It is about using dogs that are monorchid or cryptorchid as studs. 

Although I do believe that cryptorchids are sterile so I don't see how they could be used for stud.


----------



## GypsyGhost

MineAreWorkingline said:


> It is not about pups showing up from dogs that are carriers.
> 
> It is about using dogs that are monorchid or cryptorchid as studs.
> 
> Although I do believe that cryptorchids are sterile so I don't see how they could be used for stud.


If they have one testicle that descended, they are not sterile.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

GypsyGhost said:


> If they have one testicle that descended, they are not sterile.


Yes, I know this. But the comment made was that they breed monorchids and cryptorchids. A monorchid (unilateral cryptorchid) would most likely not be sterile.


----------



## GypsyGhost

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Yes, I know this. But the comment made was that they breed monorchids and cryptorchids. A monorchid (unilateral cryptorchid) would most likely not be sterile.


A monorchid is when only one testicle develops, period. The second one isn't retained, it never developed. A cryptorchid can have either one retained testicle (the unilateral cryptorchid to which you referred) and still produce sperm, or can have two retained testicles, which would most likely result in sterility. Was just trying to clarify terms.


----------



## LuvShepherds

Not to be difficult but I didn't know the difference so I looked it up. Cryptorchid is when one testicle doesn't descend. Monorchid is when one doesn't develop. In case I'm not the only one who didn't know the definitions.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

GypsyGhost said:


> A monorchid is when only one testicle develops, period. The second one isn't retained, it never developed. A cryptorchid can have either one retained testicle (the unilateral cryptorchid to which you referred) and still produce sperm, or can have two retained testicles, which would most likely result in sterility. Was just trying to clarify terms.


Thanks! There was a lot of confusion over this. So then a cryptorchid with two retained testicles is usually sterile and although can be bred, the point would be moot.


----------



## LuvShepherds

GypsyGhost said:


> A monorchid is when only one testicle develops, period. The second one isn't retained, it never developed. A cryptorchid can have either one retained testicle (the unilateral cryptorchid to which you referred) and still produce sperm, or can have two retained testicles, which would most likely result in sterility. Was just trying to clarify terms.


Thank you. I was looking it up when you posted so mine looks like a copy but it isn't


----------



## GypsyGhost

LuvShepherds said:


> Thank you. I was looking it up when you posted so mine looks like a copy but it isn't


No worries. You can never have too much correct information out there.


----------



## GypsyGhost

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Thanks! There was a lot of confusion over this. So then a cryptorchid with two retained testicles is usually sterile and although can be bred, the point would be moot.


I truly cannot imagine someone trying to breed a dog with no testicles, but I'm sure someone has probably tried!


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

selzer said:


> The idea was that the puppies would not get enough nourishment, wouldn't grow to their potential in a larger litter.
> 
> I think Winifred Strickland in her book, The German Shepherd Today put it something like: Culling the little isn't bad when you have whites or livers or pups with a known problem, but deciding which ones to cull when they are relatively equal is difficult.
> 
> Let's not get all cushy about it here. I have a bunch of bitches, but I've only had bitches with milk at the same time a couple of times. And one of those times, the one bitch had 8 pups and the other had 9. Furthermore, taking pups from one kennel and using a foster bitch means risking the foster bitch's kennel with any diseases the other breeder might be harboring in and vice versa. With rescue dogs you have an entire network of people of various breeds and it might be easy to find a bitch with a small litter or that lost a litter to raise the puppies. But for all intent and purposes, culling was a pretty word for killing. They would drown puppies that had some issue or were white, liver, or blue, or if they felt the litter was too large, the smallest/weakest pup or puppies would be killed. I guess in the beginning, breed wardens would come and inspect your litter, and tell you to cull.
> 
> My guess is that the American show breeders would cull the off-colors in part because they didn't want people to know that they were in their lines. I wouldn't be surprised anyway, after reading the Strickland/Moses book, etc. I think we've come a long way. I think we may be even a bit cruel the other way, demanding every effort be used to save even severely handicapped puppies and injured or ill dogs.


Selzer I totally agree....I recently knew a pet store GSD who had had major hip surgery @ 4 months and at 8 months still appeared totally crippled to my naked eye. His gate was so crooked I can't imagine that he wasn't in some sort of pain, one hind leg was significantly shorter than the other and therefore his rear was off to one side when he moved. He would often fall when he tried to run. Super nice dog mentally. But it did cross my mind if it might have been more humane to just euthanize him when he was young.

I do believe there are some that just shouldn't be saved.

On the other hand I am a total softy and have sat up through the night tube feeding baby goats who would not or could not stand and nurse, then were rejected by the dam when they finally tried so raised on a bottle. One of that litter of quads was stillborn and stuck in the birth canal, two weakly and would not stand. I saved the two weakly ones the worst of whom was castrated and now living a posh life of luxury as a lady's backyard pet (I still see him on Facebook). Dam raised the one vigorous one and rejected the two wimps....maybe nature's way. But I could not let them die before I had given it an honest try through the night. Had they not picked up on the bottle I would have euthanized them.

I once spent a few weeks bandaging paper towel rolls onto one who was born with weak ligaments and he could not walk. They firmed up fine and he also went on to a fine life castrated as a buck's companion.

People who would drown a pup of a different color are made of much different stuff than me....


----------



## LuvShepherds

GypsyGhost said:


> I truly cannot imagine someone trying to breed a dog with no testicles, but I'm sure someone has probably tried!


Turkey baster? I know a breeder whose dogs are always artificially inseminated. But if there is nothing to use... I don't know.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

GypsyGhost said:


> I truly cannot imagine someone trying to breed a dog with no testicles, but I'm sure someone has probably tried!


Well, another person stated they knew of very reputable breeders that do, I guess they meant unilateral cryptorchidism. Seems to me that using a stud with unilateral cryptorchidism would result in at least 50% of the puppies carry the genes? If the dam carries the recessive it would up the percentage to @75%?


----------



## selzer

I think the dog I was talking about was unilateral cryptorchid. I would think that if a breeder knew the dog was monorchid that might be more disturbing. Not sure. I guess I see a missing testicle as a birth defect, while a testicle that didn't drop before the ring closed, is well, could be kind of an unlucky timing type thing.


----------



## selzer

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Well, another person stated they knew of very reputable breeders that do, I guess they meant unilateral cryptorchidism. Seems to me that using a stud with unilateral cryptorchidism would result in at least 50% of the puppies carry the genes? If the dam carries the recessive it would up the percentage to @75%?


I don't think it is as cut and dried as this. I think that on average the genetics would be so many percent under this condition and so many percent under another condition and so forth. 

But a particular litter might have 7 puppies. how could 50% be one way and 25% be another way. It can't be. And it is not necessarily so even with the next closest percentage that you can make. We have no way of saying which genes will be provided by the sire and which by the dam. It just sort of happens. Maybe 40 eggs are fertilized and 33 of them are aborted and never implanted. Then how many of them will be the affected or the carriers? The genetics are just something breeders can expect in general. It is worth paying attention to. It is worth basing breeding decisions with respect to. But it isn't cut and dried.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

I would think if it were at all possible, one who chose to breed a monorchid or cryptorchid would breed it to a female who had none near her -- had not had pups, no brothers ect that had this. Now I don't understand the genetics perfectly enough ti say what they ought to be looking for in the female but to me it stands to reason that just like people are striving to breed a DM carrier to a DM clear, they would not knowingly breed a crypt or a monorchid to a female who was likely to be a carrier.

But I am not a breeder so those who are feel free to correct me.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

selzer said:


> I don't think it is as cut and dried as this. I think that on average the genetics would be so many percent under this condition and so many percent under another condition and so forth.
> 
> But a particular litter might have 7 puppies. how could 50% be one way and 25% be another way. It can't be. And it is not necessarily so even with the next closest percentage that you can make. We have no way of saying which genes will be provided by the sire and which by the dam. It just sort of happens. Maybe 40 eggs are fertilized and 33 of them are aborted and never implanted. Then how many of them will be the affected or the carriers? The genetics are just something breeders can expect in general. It is worth paying attention to. It is worth basing breeding decisions with respect to. But it isn't cut and dried.


I understand it is not that cut and dried. My numbers were all theoretical averages. But a pup that has unilateral cryptorchidism should have surgery. It could be extensive. Maybe not. Anesthesia alone is a risk. A puppy from such a breeding is not something I want to spend my money on.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Thecowboysgirl said:


> I would think if it were at all possible, one who chose to breed a monorchid or cryptorchid would breed it to a female who had none near her -- had not had pups, no brothers ect that had this. Now I don't understand the genetics perfectly enough ti say what they ought to be looking for in the female but to me it stands to reason that just like people are striving to breed a DM carrier to a DM clear, they would not knowingly breed a crypt or a monorchid to a female who was likely to be a carrier.
> 
> But I am not a breeder so those who are feel free to correct me.


Not really. If the stud were a carrier, that would hold true. You can't even compare this to a stud who is at risk. It is like breeding to a stud that actually has DM.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Well, my point was that wouldnt the percentage of affected pups be lower if the female ws clear vs if she was a carrier.

I agree the surgery is a pain. Is it really any worse than a spay surgery, though?


----------



## Whiteshepherds

Thecowboysgirl said:


> I agree the surgery is a pain. Is it really any worse than a spay surgery, though?


Depends on where the little sucker is. Harley was cryptorchid, they had to dig around to find the testicle. His incision was longer than Annie's when she was spayed.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

Quick read from the ICB with results from a test for cryptorchism using 11,000+ litters. (12 breeds)
Interesting results. 
Cryptorchidism is complicated - The Institute of Canine Biology

BTW, Monorchid and cryptorchid dogs are a dq in the FCI but not in the AKC.


----------



## selzer

*Disqualifications:*
*Cropped or hanging ears*
*Dogs with noses not predominantly black*
*Undershot jaw*
*Docked tail*
*White dogs*
*Any dog that attempts to bite the judge*

Wow. I always thought two descended testicles were required. I wonder if a dog ever won in the ring without a testicle? I mean it has to be a serious fault, because they check for it. But what are they checking for, that both of them are descended or that the dog's temperament is such that it does not object. The only mention it under temperament. Hmmmm. Interesting. Time to drag out my standard that I have at home that was written up by the AKC probably many, many years ago.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Whiteshepherds said:


> Depends on where the little sucker is. Harley was cryptorchid, they had to dig around to find the testicle. His incision was longer than Annie's when she was spayed.


Ugh. I so dread this. And I am going to ask the ultrasound vet tomorrow if she could or has ever located one to make surgery easier, I would pay extra it it meant they cut him less. :frown2:


----------



## Jenny720

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Whiteshepherds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on where the little sucker is. Harley was cryptorchid, they had to dig around to find the testicle. His incision was longer than Annie's when she was spayed.
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh. I so dread this. And I am going to ask the ultrasound vet tomorrow if she could or has ever located one to make surgery easier, I would pay extra it it meant they cut him less.
Click to expand...

I dread this to. The vet always felt the retained testicle would drop so I am hoping it's right there. Will do ultrasound to. I could of passed Max up though up as I knew he had a retained testicle and life would have not been the same. I'm greatful for my boy everyday.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Jenny720, I am totally happy with my boy too. I never had any desire to show him in conformation & it doesn't prevent him from doing anything else I want to do with him. Just sucks about ther surgery...but it does definitely seem prudent to get it out if there.


----------



## Jenny720

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Jenny720, I am totally happy with my boy too. I never had any desire to show him in conformation & it doesn't prevent him from doing anything else I want to do with him. Just sucks about ther surgery...but it does definitely seem prudent to get it out if there.


Yeah it sounds like the best thing to get it removed. I hope your boy heals quickly!


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

And yours too


----------



## Jenny720

Thecowboysgirl said:


> And yours too


Thanks!


----------



## Whiteshepherds

selzer said:


> Wow. I always thought two descended testicles were required. I wonder if a dog ever won in the ring without a testicle? I mean it has to be a serious fault, because they check for it. But what are they checking for, that both of them are descended or that the dog's temperament is such that it does not object. The only mention it under temperament. Hmmmm. Interesting. Time to drag out my standard that I have at home that was written up by the AKC probably many, many years ago.[/COLOR]


Standard was amended in 1958 to remove mention of monochidism and cryptorchidism because it's in the show rules for all breeds. Sort of a round-a-bout dq maybe?


----------



## selzer

Whiteshepherds said:


> Standard was amended in 1958 to remove mention of monochidism and cryptorchidism because it's in the show rules for all breeds. Sort of a round-a-bout dq maybe?


So it is a disqualifying fault? 

Back to the AKC website, LOL.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

selzer said:


> So it is a disqualifying fault?
> 
> Back to the AKC website, LOL.


Apparently it's a dq for all breeds if I'm reading this right.

Page 48
http://images.akc.org/pdf/rulebooks/RREGS3.pdf

SECTION 8. 
A dog which is blind, deaf, castrated, spayed, or which has been changed in appearance by 
artificial means except as specified in the standard for its breed, or a male which does not have two normal testicles normally located in the scrotum, may not compete at any show and will be disqualified except that a castrated male may be entered as Stud Dog in the Stud Dog Class and a spayed bitch may be entered as Brood Bitch in the Brood Bitch Class.


----------



## Xeph

Dogs (males) must have two testicles fully descended in the scrotum. It is a DQ otherwise. This is for ALL breeds. That is why it is not listed in the standard, because it is a DQ for all.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

So the AKC, UKC and FCI standard disqualifies unilateral and bilateral cryptorchidism and monorchidism. Do we want to call breeders utilizing these dogs in their programs "reputable"?


----------



## Whiteshepherds

Someone said they didn't understand why Stone can't grasp what's being said. I can't speak for Stone but for other people maybe it's this;

Puppy buyers are told to look for breeders who health test their dogs because that's one sign of a responsible breeder, but there are breeders saying it's okay to use these dogs even if the test results aren't favorable. (and people have done a good job in this thread of explaining why they will use them) 

I would guess the inexperienced puppy buyer assumes breeders health test to eliminate dogs from their breeding program. It's a logical assumption. Maybe_ "how to pick a reputable breeder"_ lists should say breeders health test to avoid doubling up on genetic diseases or health test results are used as a tool, not to eliminate all dogs with genetic diseases from a breeding program. It would be more accurate.


----------



## Xeph

What one breeder will do another would never consider.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Xeph said:


> What one breeder will do another would never consider.


I understand this.

If a stud is a cryptorchid and it is a dq, they can't even breed survey. Right? The AKC dogs can't title in confirmation, right?


----------



## Whiteshepherds

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I understand this.
> 
> If a stud is a cryptorchid and it is a dq, they can't even breed survey. Right? The AKC dogs can't title in confirmation, right?


That's correct, just like any other dog with disqualifying faults.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Whiteshepherds said:


> That's correct, just like any other dog with disqualifying faults.


So then how can these "reputable" breeders be using these dogs in their programs to the sound of only one dissenting voice on this forum? 

Let me ask again, do we call those breeders reputable? Or disreputable? Unethical?


----------



## Xeph

I don't call them anything at this point, considering all the ARs out to shut all breeders down.

When it comes to directing people to breeders, I direct them to people I trust, pure and simple *shrug*


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

I mean in the most basic of formats:

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/1998602-post1.html


----------



## Stonevintage

Whiteshepherds said:


> Someone said they didn't understand why Stone can't grasp what's being said. I can't speak for Stone but for other people maybe it's this;
> 
> Puppy buyers are told to look for breeders who health test their dogs because that's one sign of a responsible breeder, but there are breeders saying it's okay to use these dogs even if the test results aren't favorable. (and people have done a good job in this thread of explaining why they will use them)
> 
> I would guess the inexperienced puppy buyer assumes breeders health test to eliminate dogs from their breeding program. It's a logical assumption. Maybe_ "how to pick a reputable breeder"_ lists should say breeders health test to avoid doubling up on genetic diseases or health test results are used as a tool, not to eliminate all dogs with genetic diseases from a breeding program. It would be more accurate.


This is correct. I understand very well the justification being used. That was never at question on my part. This is an example as well as the DM issue. On the one hand, DM tests are considered controversial - If the test is not trusted and the cause is not absolutely known why breed those dogs? Why breed dogs that pass this problem too?

Every time a statistic or study is mentioned here it is discounted as having some problem. The motivations here are very clear and it's not to maintain quality and health.


----------



## GypsyGhost

Stonevintage said:


> This is correct. I understand very well the justification being used. That was never at question on my part. This is an example as well as the DM issue. On the one hand, DM tests are considered controversial - If the test is not trusted and the cause is not absolutely known why breed those dogs? Why breed dogs that pass this problem too?
> 
> Every time a statistic or study is mentioned here it is discounted as having some problem. *The motivations here are very clear and it's not to maintain quality and health.*


I have to disagree here. I think there are many breeders out there that are doing the very best they can to ensure their dogs end up with solid temperaments and health. It's just that you cannot get rid of every problem by shrinking the gene pool. It cannot be done. It is not a justification, in my mind. Unless you go to making test tube puppies, it is just not possible to have absolutely nothing pop up occasionally, health wise. The dogs that started this breed carried things. You can't expect that to not be there in subsequent generations.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

GypsyGhost said:


> I have to disagree here. I think there are many breeders out there that are doing the very best they can to ensure their dogs end up with solid temperaments and health. It's just that you cannot get rid of every problem by shrinking the gene pool. It cannot be done. It is not a justification, in my mind. Unless you go to making test tube puppies, it is just not possible to have absolutely nothing pop up occasionally, health wise. The dogs that started this breed carried things. You can't expect that to not be there in subsequent generations.


I think that people fail to realize that most dogs are purpose bred to work. Form follows function. First and foremost, a German Shepherd is a working dog. 

A German Shepherd with the correct behavioral traits can perform even with a physical trait that is a breed disqualification. A German Shepherd with the correct behavioral traits can perform despite having various inherent health issues. The German Shepherd that has perfect health and beautiful conformation but lacks the correct temperament is the epitome of what the German Shepherd should NOT be. I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes in. 

Breeders would have far more success breeding healthier German Shepherds if they focused solely on that one aspect, and that one only. By choosing only the healthiest of the breed, and those that do not carry inherent health conditions, they would make great strides in creating a healthier dog. However, by focusing on only this one aspect, the breed as intended would be lost. With no regard to correct temperament and instincts, and focusing solely on health, the end result would be nothing but a mere, empty shell of what a German Shepherd should be, albeit in a healthier package. So by ignoring the traits that make the breed, and to hyper focus on health, breeders would most likely be creating an entirely new breed that is healthy but worthless for the purpose of work as the breed is intended.


----------



## LuvShepherds

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I think that people fail to realize that most dogs are purpose bred to work. Form follows function. First and foremost, a German Shepherd is a working dog.
> 
> A German Shepherd with the correct behavioral traits can perform even with a physical trait that is a breed disqualification. A German Shepherd with the correct behavioral traits can perform despite having various inherent health issues. The German Shepherd that has perfect health and beautiful conformation but lacks the correct temperament is the epitome of what the German Shepherd should NOT be. I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes in.
> 
> Breeders would have far more success breeding healthier German Shepherds if they focused solely on that one aspect, and that one only. By choosing only the healthiest of the breed, and those that do not carry inherent health conditions, they would make great strides in creating a healthier dog. However, by focusing on only this one aspect, the breed as intended would be lost. With no regard to correct temperament and instincts, and focusing solely on health, the end result would be nothing but a mere, empty shell of what a German Shepherd should be, albeit in a healthier package. So by ignoring the traits that make the breed, and to hyper focus on health, breeders would most likely be creating an entirely new breed that is healthy but worthless for the purpose of work as the breed is intended.


That is how we ended with the messes we see in show rings. I met an owner of a Covy Tucker Hill dog titling at a dog. It was a beautiful ASL German Shepherd that never would have received an award if not for the judge. There weren't a lot of dogs competing because the owners know that judge is not a fan of extreme sloping. I've been to the same show in a different year with an extreme judge and it was full of dogs that could barely run but that had extreme low slope the other judges favor.


----------



## Stonevintage

I can only hope that genetic discoveries will help and that breeders will embrace the technology. We can look back and say that "we just didn't know" but we know now, and much more is soon to follow.

It was never my intention to attack breeders but for the last 2 years some tough questions have come to mind. My not knowing, but being one who loves to learn about new advances in health and medicine am optimistic about the future. Then I hear "can't" and "that's the way it's always been" it is frustrating.

It may be that attempts at correcting some problems will have to take place in a clinical environment to prove success before others get the encouragement they need to take a step in that direction. We shall see.

In the meantime. While I understand the current challenges, please think twice when you have a choice. Knowingly causing one harm because it is a lesser harm is still not good enough if that harm is caused only to produce a cookie cutter animal. Change for the better comes from the highest levels of knowledge and conviction and there is little room for status quo thinking.


----------



## Stonevintage

I've always thought of temperament as #1 in the health package - not as a secondary desirable quality but a mandatory part of health. Shaping the dogs has been done even way back. It's what's inside.

Competition, exacting standards in the ring and field and the segregation of types - that seems like the first place to look to break out of such a restrictive gene pool. Yet those that cross, for the most part do not receive encouragement but ridicule. Just a frustrating situation. There's multiple problems here and they were all addressed in the link that carmspack provided from Cambridge (as well as all the rebuttals from breeders). 

I was reading about one cross breeding with a dalmation and hound to remove a major health problem in the dal. The generations of course started at 50/50 pups but were soon bred back thru generations to a dalmation that was .016 percent hound and the rest dal. Yes, all generations were free of the disease. It works. Just another option.


----------



## GypsyGhost

Another option, if you think that there are too many problems with the breed and that no one is doing anything about it, is to just rescue mixed breed dogs from the shelter. Just saying.


----------



## LuvShepherds

GypsyGhost said:


> Another option, if you think that there are too many problems with the breed and that no one is doing anything about it, is to just rescue mixed breed dogs from the shelter. Just saying.


Or choose a different line. ASL, WGSL and WL dogs are almost different breeds.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

LuvShepherds said:


> Or choose a different line. ASL, WGSL and WL dogs are almost different breeds.


Or another breed with less health problems. Although most breeds were bred to perform in some capacity, not all were. Some were created based on some mutation or other physical difference. There also are other breeds who are not bred to any behavioral standard.


----------



## selzer

What does cryptorchidism have to do with temperament or behavioral standard?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

If you are referring to my comment, if a breed does not have expected behavioral traits, then those breeders only need to be concerned with appearance and health. IMO, that would make breeding for the total package a lot less complex.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

selzer said:


> What does cryptorchidism have to do with temperament or behavioral standard?


Dogs with one testical are often embarrassed because the other dogs make fun of them. This leads to withdrawal and behavioral problems. 
Surprised you didn't know that. :smirk::laugh:


----------



## LuvShepherds

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Or another breed with less health problems. Although most breeds were bred to perform in some capacity, not all were. Some were created based on some mutation or other physical difference. There also are other breeds who are not bred to any behavioral standard.


That wouldn't help anyone here since just about everyone has German Sheoherds, but I see what you are saying. There is no requirement to buy a GSD if someone doesn't like the breed.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

LuvShepherds said:


> That wouldn't help anyone here since just about everyone has German Sheoherds, but I see what you are saying. There is no requirement to buy a GSD if someone doesn't like the breed.


They can try another breed if they are that concerned with health problems or they can buy from a reputable breeder and mitigate the risks.


----------



## LuvShepherds

MineAreWorkingline said:


> They can try another breed if they are that concerned with health problems or they can buy from a reputable breeder and mitigate the risks.


And now we are back to the beginning. Find a good breeder.


----------



## selzer

MineAreWorkingline said:


> If you are referring to my comment, if a breed does not have expected behavioral traits, then those breeders only need to be concerned with appearance and health. IMO, that would make breeding for the total package a lot less complex.


I don't know what the heck you are talking about. In the standard, there is a whole section on temperament of the breed, it is part of conformation, and breeders of show line dogs have to produce dogs that meet temperament requirements as well as structural requirements. Temperament is tested in the ring, and dogs are excused who fail in temperament. 

Really, I don't know how this became a pissing match between show and working lines. Nor what it has to do with one testicle or two.


----------



## LuvShepherds

selzer said:


> Really, I don't know how this became a pissing match between show and working lines. Nor what it has to do with one testicle or two.


In 10 pages on this forum? Anything can happen.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

selzer said:


> I don't know what the heck you are talking about. In the standard, there is a whole section on temperament of the breed, it is part of conformation, and breeders of show line dogs have to produce dogs that meet temperament requirements as well as structural requirements. Temperament is tested in the ring, and dogs are excused who fail in temperament.
> 
> Really, I don't know how this became a pissing match between show and working lines. Nor what it has to do with one testicle or two.


??? My comment was about if somebody is all that concerned about health in a dog and find it lacking in this breed, then maybe they could choose a breed that does not have any emphasis placed on temperament making it easier for those breeders to breed for the total package. My comment had nothing to do with show vs work GSDs.


----------



## selzer

LuvShepherds said:


> In 10 pages on this forum? Anything can happen.


It's like when people are dropping dead like flies from overdoses, and spraying bullets from cars that are killing little children and babies, and people targeting cops, we are going to focus on making people pull their pants up. 

There are bigger fish to fry when it comes to choosing breeding stock. What I find incredibly difficult is knowing what a dog produces if I don't own the dog. Will people be up-front with me? Are they going to tell me how many dogs the animal has sired with epilepsy, bloat, DM, EPI, MegaE, and every other crazy thing under the sun? And will we even know this information until it is way too late to make reasonable breeding decisions. A lot of breeding is looking back on dogs in the 3rd and 4th generation and saying, yeah, that dog threw a couple of soft ears, cryptorchid and at least one EPI dog that I know about, not sure if I want to line-breed on him.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

selzer said:


> Really, I don't know how this became a pissing match between show and working lines. Nor what it has to do with one testicle or two.


I didn't see that at all, I think you misunderstood something along the way. :smile2:

Back to cryptorchidism and it being a dq. If these dogs are being used by "reputable" breeders, how is that any different from breeders who intentionally produce white dogs? (because no one is calling them reputable)


----------



## selzer

Whiteshepherds said:


> I didn't see that at all, I think you misunderstood something along the way. :smile2:
> 
> Back to cryptorchidism and it being a dq. If these dogs are being used by "reputable" breeders, how is that any different from breeders who intentionally produce white dogs? (because no one is calling them reputable)


I won't breed for the white color. Why? Because, I like the overall impression of the black and tan dog. I don't breed sables or bi-colors either, or liver or blue. 

But our buddy Capt. Max said, that a good dog can't be a bad color. Hmmmm. Ok. 

There is this though. There are masking genes and an inability to know how the pigment is on a white dog because of the masking. We do want to select dogs with good pigment. If the white dog has good black nose, paw pads, etc, and is not an albino, I do not think it makes someone bad to use the dog, so long as he has a reason for doing so. If there is something about the dog that you want to bring to your bitch. And if other things are correct. 

I don't like the big white splashes on the chests of Am bred dogs. But they are ok. I think we all have those things that we personally wouldn't want to incorporate in our lines. I've never had a white dog in a litter. I don't think I would want to bring in that masking gene. Another breeder wouldn't be as worried about that as a soft ear -- seen some of those at shows. 

Think about the soft ear. Show breeders have all the tricks and know where to buy the stuff that makes gluing/taping them up simple. That is definitely genetic and in the ring a DQ. But if they can manage to train/condition that ear up, even using some pretty rigorous means, then the dog can be shown and bred. 

I just think we all have our major things we want to keep away from, and those minor things we don't want to incorporate, and those things that if other things are right, we might live with.


----------



## LuvShepherds

selzer said:


> It's like when people are dropping dead like flies from overdoses, and spraying bullets from cars that are killing little children and babies, and people targeting cops, we are going to focus on making people pull their pants up.
> 
> There are bigger fish to fry when it comes to choosing breeding stock. What I find incredibly difficult is knowing what a dog produces if I don't own the dog. Will people be up-front with me? Are they going to tell me how many dogs the animal has sired with epilepsy, bloat, DM, EPI, MegaE, and every other crazy thing under the sun? And will we even know this information until it is way too late to make reasonable breeding decisions. A lot of breeding is looking back on dogs in the 3rd and 4th generation and saying, yeah, that dog threw a couple of soft ears, cryptorchid and at least one EPI dog that I know about, not sure if I want to line-breed on him.


I didn't get that, thank you for explaining. Maybe the other question is how to find a reputable stud dog provider? I have no idea, but it's an important question.


----------



## selzer

One can be reputable, but if the dog is 4 or 5 years old, the data hasn't come in yet. His eldest pups are going to be 2-3 years. 2 is an age where dogs often show epilepsy -- so maybe an owner has informed the stud owner about an epileptic pup. But maybe he hasn't produced any yet, maybe not with that bitch, that litter, maybe he has produced one from the second, third and fourth litter he sired, but those pups have not shown the condition. 

DM shows up usually between 5 years and 9 years. At that point, a stud dog that started at 2 years, will be at least 7 years, before it is possible for any dog to show the condition. Genetic DM testing might be helpful in managing breeding decisions here, if they are trustworthy. 

You really have to look at the dogs behind the dog you are breeding and you have to have someone honestly assess what they have produced. And, a lot of breeders, well, they do not want to blame their dogs. They will blame the stud dog. Or they will say it was environmental. Or they will not be sure the dog was diagnosed properly. 

Temperament is the worst, because people who have bad timing, and weak/poor leadership can make a dog look a lot worse than they are. No good working dog is going to be a complete softie because his owner is a fool. The dog is probably going to press his advantage in every area, and owners are going to come back with, "he attacked my small dog, I think he is a dangerous dog." You take the dog back and stare at him for 18 months, and you have another trainer assess the dog, and place him with a family that thinks he is wonderful -- dog's fault? Temperament issue?

If you breed long enough you will run into some stuff. It's not an exact science. There was a breeder here who was fond of saying, the proof is in the whelping box. What breeders should want to do, is to make a spreadsheet that lists every pup that they produced by litter. And to mark when the dog passed. List what health concerns the dog had. List contacts the new owners had with the breed and the general gist of the conversation. And then when they are looking to breed back into their own lines. They should look up and assess the lifespan, general health, and behavior of the dogs produced by their pups. Yeah, does no good for people making 1 litter and never breeding again. No good for 1 litter per year. You have to have data to base decisions on. 

Ah well. 

At some point, if you breed long enough, you won't remember everything about every dog in every litter you produce. So write it down folks. In 10 years, when you are line breeding off these dogs, you will have more data.


----------



## Stonevintage

LuvShepherds said:


> Why would someone intentionally breed a dog with this? Aren't there other males that can stud?


Good question. See the answers I got. Lol


----------



## LuvShepherds

Selzer, do you remember all your buyers? I told our breeder about the person who recommended her and the breeder didn't remember the buyer or the dog. It could be the breeder's age or it could be too many dogs.


----------



## LuvShepherds

Stonevintage said:


> Good question. See the answers I got. Lol


Read Selzer's recent posts. She explained.


----------



## Stonevintage

selzer said:


> One can be reputable, but if the dog is 4 or 5 years old, the data hasn't come in yet. His eldest pups are going to be 2-3 years. 2 is an age where dogs often show epilepsy -- so maybe an owner has informed the stud owner about an epileptic pup. But maybe he hasn't produced any yet, maybe not with that bitch, that litter, maybe he has produced one from the second, third and fourth litter he sired, but those pups have not shown the condition.
> 
> DM shows up usually between 5 years and 9 years. At that point, a stud dog that started at 2 years, will be at least 7 years, before it is possible for any dog to show the condition. Genetic DM testing might be helpful in managing breeding decisions here, if they are trustworthy.
> 
> You really have to look at the dogs behind the dog you are breeding and you have to have someone honestly assess what they have produced. And, a lot of breeders, well, they do not want to blame their dogs. They will blame the stud dog. Or they will say it was environmental. Or they will not be sure the dog was diagnosed properly.
> 
> Temperament is the worst, because people who have bad timing, and weak/poor leadership can make a dog look a lot worse than they are. No good working dog is going to be a complete softie because his owner is a fool. The dog is probably going to press his advantage in every area, and owners are going to come back with, "he attacked my small dog, I think he is a dangerous dog." You take the dog back and stare at him for 18 months, and you have another trainer assess the dog, and place him with a family that thinks he is wonderful -- dog's fault? Temperament issue?
> 
> If you breed long enough you will run into some stuff. It's not an exact science. There was a breeder here who was fond of saying, the proof is in the whelping box. What breeders should want to do, is to make a spreadsheet that lists every pup that they produced by litter. And to mark when the dog passed. List what health concerns the dog had. List contacts the new owners had with the breed and the general gist of the conversation. And then when they are looking to breed back into their own lines. They should look up and assess the lifespan, general health, and behavior of the dogs produced by their pups. Yeah, does no good for people making 1 litter and never breeding again. No good for 1 litter per year. You have to have data to base decisions on.
> 
> Ah well.
> 
> At some point, if you breed long enough, you won't remember everything about every dog in every litter you produce. So write it down folks. In 10 years, when you are line breeding off these dogs, you will have more data.


This is genetic testing. Data gets stored in the computers. No need to guess, no need to write it down. It will be able to locate related dogs for potential parings should the owners lose track of each other. These are all the things that will help breeders in the future.

I can see within 5 years top breeders will most likely be issuing a card (like a credit card size chip card) with registration and the puppy to new owners. The history of the pups line, DNA of sire and dam and health checks and results for parents and pup will all be there. In time the history will build. The insurance companies will reward breeders and owners of their offspring if they prove through time that their lines carry less risk than others. No more guessing and no more trusting just like any other type of important transaction.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Temperament is genetic too. If those traits are not stored or used to breed for the total dog, then any such notion is useless. Breeding the correct behavioral traits which mesh well between pairings should not take a back seat to possible health issues.

Insurance companies should NEVER have a hand in playing breed steward or encouraging breed stewards to make poor decisions based on health first at the cost of the breeds workability or confirmation. 

As long as dogs remain living and breathing creatures, mother nature will be fickle and there will always be calculated risks AND stewards of the breed who we trust to hand the breed down to the next generation should never view the process as a "business deal" but a labor of love and concern about the future of the breed.


----------



## selzer

Stonevintage said:


> This is genetic testing. Data gets stored in the computers. No need to guess, no need to write it down. It will be able to locate related dogs for potential parings should the owners lose track of each other. These are all the things that will help breeders in the future.
> 
> I can see within 5 years top breeders will most likely be issuing a card (like a credit card size chip card) with registration and the puppy to new owners. The history of the pups line, DNA of sire and dam and health checks and results for parents and pup will all be there. In time the history will build. The insurance companies will reward breeders and owners of their offspring if they prove through time that their lines carry less risk than others. No more guessing and no more trusting just like any other type of important transaction.


For most heritable diseases, there are no DNA test for them, no genetic test for them. EPI runs in lines, bloat runs in lines, MegE runs in lines, probably mammary cancer, and pyometra -- all of these are a lot worse than a missing testicle, which there is no OFA database for either. 

Ah well, anything is possible. Let's see where we are five years from now.


----------



## selzer

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Temperament is genetic too. If those traits are not stored or used to breed for the total dog, then any such notion is useless. Breeding the correct behavioral traits which mesh well between pairings should not take a back seat to possible health issues.
> 
> *Insurance companies should NEVER have a hand in playing breed steward or encouraging breed stewards to make poor decisions based on health first at the cost of the breeds workability or confirmation. *
> 
> As long as dogs remain living and breathing creatures, mother nature will be fickle and there will always be calculated risks AND stewards of the breed who we trust to hand the breed down to the next generation should never view the process as a "business deal" but a labor of love and concern about the future of the breed.


Bolded: huh? What do Insurance companies have to do with the price of rice in China? 

And, as you have typed this several times now, it's conf*o*rmation. It is how well a dog conforms to the standard in structure and temperament, gait and coat. 

Confirmation is what usually 8th grade Christians go through in churches that baptize infants.


----------



## Stonevintage

That will always be an option and the individual will always have choices. If you look further outside of the box- temperament tests can still be conducted and several other things that genetics won't be able to test for. As this progresses, hopefully we will learn more about the role environment plays also.

Think about what effect a health check system would have with those well meaning but ignorant buyers that think health tests mean that the dog is neither a carrier or there's some other problem in the line.

Even the most uninformed potential owner will have the chance to get these results and discuss their implications with professionals. I would think a breeder would feel more comfortable bringing a new dog in to their program if they could access much more information then they have access to now. Think of what it could do to the puppy mill industry if this information becomes widely available to all. That's all it is.... information. I can see people making beneficial use out of it. 

I appreciate that breeders operate on the spirit of love and dedication - but trust all as a purchaser when it won't be necessary, No. Re; insurance companies and their practices - no body likes them but recognizes their construction and benefits.


----------



## selzer

LuvShepherds said:


> Selzer, do you remember all your buyers? I told our breeder about the person who recommended her and the breeder didn't remember the buyer or the dog. It could be the breeder's age or it could be too many dogs.


This is the reason for the spreadsheet. 

When you have 1-2 bitches and 1-2 litters per year, and some miss, you can remember every litter, every pup in every litter, who went to whom. You can call people up and ask them about their puppy. 

Maybe 11 years ago, you don't remember one or two of the people. 

Let me think, 11 years ago I had a litter of 7 puppies. 5 males, 2 females. I kept the two females, they are Babs and Jenna. 

The first male to go was the red collar pup, Cheney. They called him Rex. Went to a couple that was fairly local. They left him chained outside. I called and asked about the dog, they said he was fine. I found out through the grape vine that the dog was mean, and he gave him to a buddy. No information when I called. Just said the dog was fine.

The second male to go was Newt, blue-collar pup, largest, was named Leroy, had a soft hear at 11 months. at 13 months, that ear was up -- no interference. No health concerns. Died suddenly, probably dog food. Their border collie and Leroy died in the same week, mysteriously. 

The second male was the green collar pup, Rush. They called him Kane. The owner was having some difficulties and I sent him to my trainer. My trainer still says to her classes to call her... For DOG-related issues, not marital counseling in her introductory spiel because of this reference. He got the pup under control and brought him to see me many times. Nice dog. He was run over by a school bus when the sister-in-law was caring for him when the family went out of town for a death in the family. The school bus won. He was 11 months old. 

The fourth male, the purple collar pup was called Brit, and they called him Harley. He went to his new home at 10 weeks old. I have had limited/pretty much no contact with the owners. I think I called a couple of times, and all was fine. Nothing stood out other than his name. 

The fifth male was Monty. My sister wanted him to be called that as he was supposed to go to her. At eight weeks, her BF said No. At 14 weeks he went to live with my parents, and they named him Cujo. Cujo was neutered at 14 weeks by me, he developed epilepsy at 2 years, and was medicated from that point, he had some allergies, he was big and scary, with a huge bark. But he was a nice dog, great with the girls, and they grew up with him. He got cancer and died at 7. 

Yes, you can remember your first litter, and you can remember dogs and owners that you see, repeat customers, etc., but you aren't going to remember everyone. If you keep a running spread sheet and mark the comments down, and then you have data that you can go with.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

selzer said:


> Bolded: huh? What do Insurance companies have to do with the price of rice in China?
> 
> And, as you have typed this several times now, it's conf*o*rmation. It is how well a dog conforms to the standard in structure and temperament, gait and coat.
> 
> Confirmation is what usually 8th grade Christians go through in churches that baptize infants.


Somebody else posted: " The insurance companies will reward breeders and owners of their offspring if they prove through time that their lines carry less risk than others."

Hence, my comment.


----------



## Orson

Aw man this is a great question! I would also love to know the answer to this, very interesting. I'm not an expert on this topic but I would only assume that both conditions would be passed on or the litter would be at least more susceptible to those conditions. You may be able to find more information in the history of the selective breeding process for GSD's and other dogs and see if those conditions were ever and issue during the establishment of the breeds standards etc.


----------



## Stonevintage

Simulation study on the effects of excluding offspring information for genetic evaluation versus using genomic markers for selection in dog breeding. - PubMed - NCBI

Three times...:smile2:

And this is dated 2010.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

How about a little due diligence by the buyer now? Evidently some would be surprised at the information available out there now, if only one would look or ask. How about coming to this board or another and asking the right question about a breeder or upcoming litter BEFORE buying a pup? Or even just asking questions now with out the assumptions and then listen and learn?


----------



## Stonevintage

Selection for conformation and conformational homogeneity of litters in the German shepherd dog. - PubMed - NCBI

OK. I'll quit now. Just to show, they're working on this and have been. I think they'll be tackling a look at male's "equipment" problems in the future too.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

I think the male equipment problem was looked at quite some time ago and reputable breeders make breeding decisions accordingly.


----------



## Stonevintage

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I think the male equipment problem was looked at quite some time ago and reputable breeders make breeding decisions accordingly.


You have made your position very clear on how you feel about the benefits of genetics. 

I have made it very clear on how I feel about the benefits of genetics. 

You can stay with the same old ways forever. You can latch yourself to every post regarding this great change coming and kick and scream that you like things just the way they are. It won't matter.


----------



## LuvShepherds

selzer said:


> This is the reason for the spreadsheet.
> 
> When you have 1-2 bitches and 1-2 litters per year, and some miss, you can remember every litter, every pup in every litter, who went to whom. You can call people up and ask them about their puppy.
> 
> Maybe 11 years ago, you don't remember one or two of the people.
> 
> Let me think, 11 years ago I had a litter of 7 puppies. 5 males, 2 females. I kept the two females, they are Babs and Jenna.
> 
> The first male to go was the red collar pup, Cheney. They called him Rex. Went to a couple that was fairly local. They left him chained outside. I called and asked about the dog, they said he was fine. I found out through the grape vine that the dog was mean, and he gave him to a buddy. No information when I called. Just said the dog was fine.
> 
> The second male to go was Newt, blue-collar pup, largest, was named Leroy, had a soft hear at 11 months. at 13 months, that ear was up -- no interference. No health concerns. Died suddenly, probably dog food. Their border collie and Leroy died in the same week, mysteriously.
> 
> The second male was the green collar pup, Rush. They called him Kane. The owner was having some difficulties and I sent him to my trainer. My trainer still says to her classes to call her... For DOG-related issues, not marital counseling in her introductory spiel because of this reference. He got the pup under control and brought him to see me many times. Nice dog. He was run over by a school bus when the sister-in-law was caring for him when the family went out of town for a death in the family. The school bus won. He was 11 months old.
> 
> The fourth male, the purple collar pup was called Brit, and they called him Harley. He went to his new home at 10 weeks old. I have had limited/pretty much no contact with the owners. I think I called a couple of times, and all was fine. Nothing stood out other than his name.
> 
> The fifth male was Monty. My sister wanted him to be called that as he was supposed to go to her. At eight weeks, her BF said No. At 14 weeks he went to live with my parents, and they named him Cujo. Cujo was neutered at 14 weeks by me, he developed epilepsy at 2 years, and was medicated from that point, he had some allergies, he was big and scary, with a huge bark. But he was a nice dog, great with the girls, and they grew up with him. He got cancer and died at 7.
> 
> Yes, you can remember your first litter, and you can remember dogs and owners that you see, repeat customers, etc., but you aren't going to remember everyone. If you keep a running spread sheet and mark the comments down, and then you have data that you can go with.


What a memory!


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Stonevintage said:


> You have made your position very clear on how you feel about the benefits of genetics.
> 
> I have made it very clear on how I feel about the benefits of genetics.
> 
> You can stay with the same old ways forever. You can latch yourself to every post regarding this great change coming and kick and scream that you like things just the way they are. It won't matter.


The old ways are the genetic ways. I am not latched on to some post regarding some great future change like you, I know it is already in practice.

Because it is new to you, does not mean that others are unaware. Just because there is no formal clearing house for you to peruse does not mean that it is not in practice.

Heck, I was taught genetics when I was in fifth grade and that was more than a few years ago. Have you ever heard of Mendelian Inheritance from the mid 1800s? How about Scott and Fuller on the genetics of behavior from I believe the 1950s? They didn't think of anything new, they just proved with formal studies what farmers already knew and practiced for centuries. What you are talking about is only new to you. 

When was the last time you shopped around for a well bred dog and spoke to multiple breeders regarding their programs? Have you ever reached out to a knowledgeable person on this board for input on pedigrees and the genetic pros and cons? They can tell you a lot. I know, I have spoke with some of them.

Most importantly, can you tell the rest of us what is a hip improver in breeding? Breeders have been using them for years. Care to hazard a guess?


----------



## cliffson1

Incredible! ...I thoroughly understand how the breed has become what it is by the dialogue in this thread...smh. Temperament is tested in breed ring???....really?
Narrowing gene pool will lead to eradication of inherent faults in the breed?....really?
Genetics is less important than clinical testing.....smh!
I marvel at what I read sometimes. 
There is so much dialogue on this subject by folks that have had so little exposure to the issues being discussed, and then those that have accepted the compromises in the breed to the point that they really don't know a good GS,imo.


----------



## Stonevintage

cliffson1 said:


> Incredible! ...I thoroughly understand how the breed has become what it is by the dialogue in this thread...smh. Temperament is tested in breed ring???....really?
> Narrowing gene pool will lead to eradication of inherent faults in the breed?....really?
> Genetics is less important than clinical testing.....smh!
> I marvel at what I read sometimes.
> There is so much dialogue on this subject by folks that have had so little exposure to the issues being discussed, and then those that have accepted the compromises in the breed to the point that they really don't know a good GS,imo.


The only thing I can see Cliffson that you are attributing to anything I said was that "Genetics is less important than clinical testing"

And that was not what I said. I said that perhaps breed improvements will have to be proven at the clinical level first before breeders will trust the new research and recommendations that our new knowledge of the dog genome and its markers along with computers are going to be able to provide. That would mean actually raising a control group of dogs that by selection and after successive generations are better healthwise than what's been available. 

I don't see anyone saying that narrowing the gene pool is a positive? Where do you see that? I did site an example where the extreme of outcrossing to a different breed and then breeding back proved successful to eliminate a problem in the dalmatian. 

What do you think about the future regarding health issues and discovery of markers/indicators and the ability to compile and test for specific illnesses and possible cures/remedies for dogs in the future? 

Is this your way of entering into the conversation? Interesting. 

A look at how far we've come in the last 5 or 10 years with advancements in the human medical field should explain the differences in where we've been in the past with our understanding and where we are going in the future. Lo and behold, dogs are becoming a more important part of this because of the similarity including mental disorders - how many people knew this would be happening 10 years ago? How did we discover that?


----------



## GypsyGhost

Stonevintage, by suggesting that dogs that are carriers of disease not be used for breeding, you are suggesting that the breed pool should be narrowed.


----------



## Stonevintage

GypsyGhost said:


> Stonevintage, by suggesting that dogs that are carriers of disease not be used for breeding, you are suggesting that the breed pool should be narrowed.


Not at all. That would be taken out of one sentence of all my posts? You will also find sentences in the posts where the paragraph talks about opening up to breed across lines that in some cases have been separated by generations. That is the possible solution to enlarge the gene pool not further restrict it, therefore allowing more restrictions where they are needed the most.

Your argument is with those that are very much involved with these highly complicated topics and the specific discoveries they are making - not me. I like their concepts and efforts they are making with what THEY are doing and what it promises for the future. That's all. I didn't dream any of this up. It comes from what the researchers are reporting. 

It was mentioned in one of the posts by another poster that the DDR lines and a few isolated others presented a chance for this. Apparently, that opportunity was missed. I will never believe that we are stuck with what is the current acceptable norm. Not unless failure to progress and improve gets hung up by lack of willingness and stubborn adherence to current practices and judgments. That lol, I can see as a real hindrance judging from the posts here. 

It was compared in one group to be now simply a game of whack a mole with breeders- most of the moles are underground and hidden and as a natural progression there are more and more moles hidden underground in the game(from breeding carriers as one example). These groups are striving to reveal this currently hidden information and pinpoint causes of mutations etc so breeders can make better choices. They're all on the same team and I see no cause for argument.


----------



## Jax08

DDR, Czech and WG lines are well intermingled. The wall came down in the 80s. That's 36 years to breeding across working lines. 

As far as WL to SL, from all the breeders that have tried it, it doesn't seem to work very well. The puppies have either WL traits or SL traits and the breeders are not producing what they are looking for to better the breed.


----------



## Stonevintage

Jax08 said:


> DDR, Czech and WG lines are well intermingled. The wall came down in the 80s. That's 36 years to breeding across working lines.
> 
> As far as WL to SL, from all the breeders that have tried it, it doesn't seem to work very well. The puppies have either WL traits or SL traits and the breeders are not producing what they are looking for to better the breed.


They will have more help to accomplish that. No one's promising instant results. That's why initially there is expected to be some problems with judges and those with a narrow range of acceptance as to "look". But, if these careful breedings were done with the best of knowledge and technology without the pressures and negativity to conform to current. I believe it can happen. That's why perhaps a control group with proven results may be mandatory before things can open up a little.

That dalmation study I mentioned with the outcross and back from a hound X. The last gen Dal "Registered" and only .016% hound left but free of the disease dals get - lots of resistance to letting that dog in the show ring. I can see resistance coming here too - "that dog can't participate!" It's been genetically altered".


----------



## Jax08

Ok.


----------



## GypsyGhost

I... Don't even know why I am trying here.


----------



## Stonevintage

It really is two different worlds. Paragraph 1 and then further down under "discussion" may be of interest to some. But if you read in between there's bit and pieces such as an answer to exactly what causes white spots in dogs. This study is an example of why there is an increase of funding and research to discover the causes of dog diseases.

Complex disease and phenotype mapping in the domestic dog : Nature Communications : Nature Research


----------



## Redking

*Need Help Urgent*

I need some advice on my situation. I purchased a 9 week old pure bred GSD from a breeder in California earlier this year. When we brought the puppy home it vomited up anything we fed it, but we thought it was car sickness from the long drive home. A few days passed and the puppy hadn't kept anything down and kept falling over, almost like it was dizzy. The puppy had a few other strange behaviors also, like it couldn't track my hand or follow the treat if it left its line of sight. We took the puppy to a very well reviewed vet hospital where the doctor told me the puppy had a list of problems. He said the puppy had a murmur on both sides of its heart, and that it had psychological abnormalities. He said that because the puppy was also throwing up all its food he strongly felt it had distemper, that had possibly affected its brain. He told me they could run test that would be costly to verify it was distemper but that he was very certain it was. We told the doctor we would wait on that decision and call the breeder first. When we called the breeder, he told me to have the puppy put down and that he would give me another one. my family was devastated as we had grown attached to the puppy, so we decided we would pay to have the tests run the next day, before putting it down. But that same night the puppy started wheezing like it couldn't breath and making deep gasping sounds. We rushed to the vet where the pup was put on a breathing machine and that night we had him euthanized. Initially I was angry at the breeder because I felt he had deceived me and sold me a puppy that was sick. But after a few days of back and forth emails I felt that he was genuine and hadn't known the puppy was sick. He offered to let my family pick any one of his puppies even if it was more expensive than my original puppy. He also offered to pay for a vet checkup to make sure puppy was healthy. When we arrived on his property he brought out 3 huge puppies that were all well over 4 months old. Not being as clear headed as I should have been I picked the smallest one of the 3 and we left. Next day we take our new dog to the vet where he tells me the puppy is in great health, strong heart, good legs, healthy weight, but that it only has 1 testicule descended. The vet says other testicule could possibly descend in a few months and to not worry at the moment. Vet told me I should call the breeder and let him know the puppy only has 1 testicule. Breeder tells me he can't help Mother Nature and some times it happens, but the testicule should eventually descend. Months go bye and my dog is now 7 months and his testicule hasn't descended. The vet tells me the testicule in his stomach should be removed before he gets to big to make the surgery less invasive. I haven't called the breeder yet but from what I read online at the age my puppy was, any good breeder should have recognized the problem before giving me the puppy. It also said online that it is considered unethical to breed dogs with this defect, and my puppy cannot be bred. The surgery to remove the testicule is expensive and I think the breeder should pay for it but I want to know what all of you think first. Also I never asked the breeder to pay for the vet checkups like he offered as the puppy seemed healthy at the time. Sorry for the long story it's been a crazy time!


----------



## selzer

Were you planning on breeding the dog? You have full registration for him and discussed using him to breed before buying the dog?

Do you like the dog?

Really, the fact that your dog will require a surgery to remove a retained testicle -- pretty much a spay surgery rather than a neuter surgery. Not a big deal. The dog is a living creature, and yes, there is NO perfect living creature. 

If you were purchasing breeding stock, I doubt you would be asking for advice from an internet forum. But if that is what you want to do, and you are a newbie at breeding, here is a good lesson for you. Get a contract. Make sure (yourself) that both testicles are present and accounted for -- they will not be dropped yet (at eight weeks, but you can feel them). Make sure there is a clause in your contract that is satisfactory to both parties if everything doesn't fall into place. 

Usually there is little to no warranty on a replacement puppy. If I got a pup with distemper, then I wouldn't get another from that breeder, especially pups that were already alive when he had your puppy. 

If you like the puppy, than enjoy the puppy. There are so many things between birth and 2+ years that knock a dog off the list of breedworthy. If a single retained testicle is all your dog has, thank your lucky stars. 

If you choose to do the surgery early (there really is no hurry), than have them take just the retained one, so your pup still has the testosterone of the one testicle for growth, etc.


----------

