Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: puppy mills & HD
From: shoran@mtroyal.ab.ca
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:26:15 MST
Organization: Mount Royal College, Calgary, Alberta

In article <1993Jan15.220045.11432@unislc.uucp>, abb@unislc.uucp (Anne Beck) 
> Anne wrote:
> 
>> = Please, Chris, don't take this to mean I think we should ignore
>> = CHD in any breed.  I just think you have to look at the whole
>> = dog and not the X-rays exclusively.  This is an argument I've
>> = had with lots of vets!!
>> 
> Charlie replied:
> 
>> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, Anne.  I grant that the
>> whole picture is important *but*...
>> 
>> Are you suggesting that an animal that, radiographically, is judged
>> dysplastic but which displays no unsoundness is alright to breed?
>> If so, I must strenuously disagree.  If, on the other hand you are
>> speaking only of its value as a companion, or even as a working,
>> dog, then I agree.  My view with regard to breeding is that *any*
>> evidence of CHD, radiographic or otherwise, should be reason enough
>> not to breed the animal.  Before everyone jumps on this, I do
>> realize that few things in animal breeding are all black or all
>> white--I'm stating what *I* believe to be a reasonable guideline.
>> I agree that the whole dog should be taken into account *but*, with
>> the possible exception of a very unusual set of circumstances,
>> existance of any *one* of several things should preclude breeding:
>> CHD is one of them, whether crippling or not.  Lack of a nose in
>> bird dogs, tracking dogs, etc, is another.
 
> And Anne replies again:
> Never ever ever in a million years should a dog who X-rays even
> borderline be bred!!

Both Anne and Charlie are very definite about this - no breeding of a dog
with HD.  I've been following this thread with some interest, having many
years of experience with my own breed (Pulis) and HD.  But I just cannot
be as dogmatic as Anne and Charlie.  Yes, there are circumstances where
it may be acceptable to breed from a dysplastic dog, and the rare breeds
are one example.  I understand from the Kuvasz people that it was rare a
few years ago to find a decent typey Kuvasz with clear hips.  Especially
if it came from Europe, where x-raying is much less common.  Kuvasz after
Kuvasz imported into N. America x-rayed dysplastic.  I'm told other rare
breeds have the same problem.  Faced with this, the only thing lovers
of these breeds can do is breed VERY carefully from the soundest dogs,
dysplastic or not, and try and select the typiest specimens from the
best moving, and best-hipped dogs.  It's a hard row to hoe, with so few
dogs to choose from.

> Anne writes:
>   And I agree entirely with you about the
> siblings, etc.  What I meant was, I don't think that simply because
> a dog X-rays abnormally that that dog should be labelled as a cripple
> or as a dysplastic dog.  There is a difference between radiological
> dysplasia and clinical dysplasia.  Either one disqualifies the dog
> from being bred; however, neither necessarily disqualifies the dog
> from being a companion or a working dog, within reason.
> 
> I'm talking about some vets I've known who see the X-rays and
> immediately start putting on the surgical gloves, even though
> the dog has no clinical symptoms.  I'm talking about vets who
> refuse to look at the dog's lifestyle, its personality, its
> drives, etc., but who look ONLY at one piece of film.  
                        ******************************

There are breeders like this.  If the dog x-rays clear, it's breedable.
Even if it moves like a cripple and has a rotten temperament.

> Anne continues: 
> I'm obviously taking this personally because it happened to me.
> I had a dog "sure" to pass OFA with flying colors:  great OFA
> background, great working ability, would run and jump and play
> for hours.  My vet knew this about the dog.  Two hours later,
> we could have been talking about an entirely different animal!
> Suddenly I was a horrible person for 1) not having my dog's
> bones rearranged surgically 2) insisting that the dog could
> still work.  Now, two years later the doctors have agreed
> they were wrong, but there was much anguish involved at the
> time.  However, that dog was spayed IMMEDIATELY, even though
> she was a show and breeding prospect.  She was the only 
> one of a litter of ten who had dysplasia, and it was so mild
> as to be, in my mind, inconsequential.  
> 

I have also had the experience of gasping in astonishment in the vet's
office at a dysplastic x-ray of a sound-moving, active dog.  I have not,
however, had my vet berate me and/or try to talk me into treatment.  On
the contrary, they were also astonished and sympathetic.  One dog was
8 years old the first time he was x-rayed, and pronounced moderately
dysplastic.  He moved beautifully, was a Group winner and multi-placer, 
and remained sound and active with no signs of arthritis right up to 
his death at 14.   Before I get flamed for using him at stud, we owned 
him for years in England, where Pulis were not being x-rayed at the 
time, and only got him x-rayed when we moved to Canada when he was 7 and
discovered that all serious Puli breeders x-rayed.  None of his
kids who were x-rayed were dysplastic, and only one of his grandkids.  We
are now several generations removed from him, still x-raying his
descendants, and getting almost all Good and Excellent results on
the hips.

Another bitch we owned, a Hungarian import, was the most active and
bouncy Puli we have ever had (and this in a breed known for bounciness!)
Her movement was not ideal, however, and she x-rayed severely dysplastic.
We found her a pet home, where she continues to leap and bounce with
no sign of lameness or discomfort..... 

>> Charlie writes:
>> As someone else mentioned recently, OFA certification is an
>> imperfect tool but it is one of the few tools that we have at
>> present.  Let's use it.

>>And Anne says: 
> Yes, I agree.  I'm all for it!
> -- 

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

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

Stef

>    Anne Beck			| The difference between difficult
>    abb@unislc  sun!unislc!abb   | dogs & vicious human beings is
>    Unisys  SLC UT               | that difficult dogs don't rise to 
> 			        | prominent positions in the community.