I was chatting with someone a bit earlier about some of the health tests for Labs (I know, I'm a bore) and how the genetic status can be an absolute curse. They would like to use a dog on their bitch, but this dog is a carrier for PRA, and so, understandably, don't want the pups to carry the *curse* of this status.

I think the KC needs to do more to educate people, the new health section on their website is great, but people need to understand that if we don't breed from dogs that aren't genetically perfect, we may not have the various breeds we love, the gene pool can only be restricted so far before we are left between a rock and a hard place, even for a breed as numerous as Labs. The other problem being that we only know the very small absolutely minute tip of the iceberg, there are so many more genetic conditions we haven't even started developing tests for, and yet some seem willing to discard good dogs for a simple genetic status, it seems like these dogs are marked with a curse or something, less than perfect, as it were. All dogs are less than perfect, however, the scientific confirmation of this somehow magnifies it in the minds of some, who like the clear health test tick box approach.

Rant over, off to go and write some reports on bridges, should calm me down a little

I can understand what you are saying in that with a limited gene pool you can't always afford to be so picky as to only ever pick "perfect" specimens. However I think it is perfectly understandable that breeders, if possible, will go for a PRA clear stud over a carrier. Carrying PRA IS an imperfection and where as some may be willing to compromise on having a carrier if it is a good specimen in other areas (eg conformation/hips etc), others may look at it the other way and be willing to accept slightly less good conformation or hips as a compromise for clear PRA. It is down to the individual breeder and what they think is the best match for their dog and I don't think either really shows any short sightedness in improving the breed .

It is down to the individual breeder, unfortunately, there are some who would exclude a dog from the gene pool in preference of an inferior dog, simply because of a carrier status, for something that can easily be bred clear from. Of course, there are genetic conditions where it's not so clear cut, the mode of inheritance would make it a little more difficult, so each breeding decision needs to be taken on it's own merits, definitely. My problem is we know so little about all the other *stuff* our dogs suffer from, and are possibly carriers or even affected status for, perhaps will never suffer from it within their lifetime, and yet we're happy with that complete lack of knowledge to make decisions on breeding. Yet knowing a dog isn't genetically perfect for something like PRA, which isn't life threatening, and it's not common for even an affected status dog to go on to become clinically affected, many are willing to completely discard what is otherwise a good example. There are already those who are anti pedigree breeds because of the closed gene pools, and we seem to be closing them off further and further, the more health tests come out. I think there will come a point in the not too distant future that we will actually know we are making breeding decisions where a dog is a carrier, or even affected status for some conditions, and doing so because we have no choice, other than to not breed at all.

Yet of course the whole point of genetic tests is so we can breed with more facts - there is a huge call for not using such carriers, yet we can throw the baby out with the bathwater if we don't. Using the tests means that pups wont be born with terrible diseases and can, eventually be removed from the genepool. If people are buying a pup to breed then a carrier may be an issue - if they're not then it's not a problem surely? and we should be educating people that being a carrier is not the same as having the disesase.

A cautionary tale from Australia where border collie breeders found a terrible storage disease was killing their dogs. Until the DNA test was available they got together and plotted where this terrible disease (CL) was coming from and very successfully bred round it. Unfortunately the dogs who were clear of CL were often carriers of another terrible killer disease called TNS. Now thanks to the late Prof Wilton we have DNA tests for both these killers, TNS is more common in UK than people thought - at least the carrier status is. Thanks to the Australians and their smaller gene pool TNS was discovered before it hit here although pups have died here too. TNS - as it's fairly uncommon - is something I wouldn't out of choice bring into my lines, but other things may not be so bad to have carrier status of, CEA in collies and shelties for one thing. We can eliminate over time and generations whilst keeping the best qualities.

__________________
Penny
Funfastquick Agility Dogs

Didn't something similar happen with another breed, can't remember off the top of my head, something like shiba inu's, where one genetic defect was completely bred away from only to find another genetic condition lurking, which was pretty much throughout the remaining population. Who knows what new conditions/tests, are going to surface/be developed. I do think it will be very difficult in the future when we know more facts about the dogs we are using to breed from.

With pedigree breeds, the gene pool is self limiting, and no dog is perfect, but *we* (collectively speaking) are discarding dogs for no good reason really.

I hesitate to say, but it's similar to the misconceptions about hip scores, and the idea that a score above the breed mean standard or BMS, is to be avoided. It's simply not the case, although unfortunately, there is bad advice out there from supposedly reputeable sources that tell people this is what they should be doing.

Apparently, I am now allowed to 'rep' you

I think my feelings on this are well known - so not even going to go there other than to say this.

At present, each breed has the health conditions it has - some can be tested for, some can't.

Some are preventable by DNA testing, some are health-tested for, but all we can do is our best.

Science and nature stands still for no man - removing dogs from a gene pool who will not produce affected offspring is irresponsible - because - NO-ONE knows what is around the next corner.

A new DNA test for a dominant gene could wipe out 40 to 50% of a gene pool in one hit.

A new condition can appear in a breed with no warning (only recently, I've heard from two independent sources of this happening).

I think identical criteria should be applied to recessive carrier status dogs, if it hadn't been, I wouldn't have two of mine - I wanted THAT breeding - THAT pedigree - the status was immaterial.

====================================

There are already some breeds in trouble numerically, and it does make you wonder whether the re-opening of gene pool registries could well be needed in an increasing number of breeds going forward as we continue to walk this slippery slope of DNA testing - which for anything other than recessive conditions has major implications for any breed AND cross-breed (AND Heinz 57 crosses which are cropping up with frightening regularity accompanied by new names )

Don't be fooled into thinking that a numerically large breed means a large gene pool.

__________________
What you need to know before buying a Labrador puppy

I know your views Swarthy, and I think there's a fair few of us (thankfully) with the same viewpoint. I am honestly worried about the clear tick box syndrome, low scoring and clear dogs do not equal 100% healthy animals, it's a complete misconception. There's a vast difference between knowing, and using that knowledge wisely when it comes to dog breeding, and a huge part of that HAS to be understanding health test results. And this is one of my main bones of contention, so many just do not understand, I barely do, I'm rubbish at this type of *data* but I make the effort to read up and try to look at health conditions relevant to the breed(s) I love.

The low/clear check list for breeding is incredibly irresponsible, if this is the only criteria breeders use, imo.

How bizarre. So after lecturing ad nauseam about health testing and not breeding from non health tested dogs are you now saying just ignore results you dont like and use the dogs anyway.

Wow, you've obviously not read my posts very closely, and thank you for your assessment of how I 'Lecture' about the subject, perhaps you would like to take a teensy peek at a few of your own posts.