Czech GSD's with bad hips - Page 20

I repeat again and again and again......!!!!That is because breeders do not submit bad hips for evaluation! They submit only good hips.
That is why the percentage of none dysplastic dogs registered grows. 1+ 1 =2
Do you submit obvilously dyspalctic hips to OFA? And who does?


That is exactly the reason to pass on litters and breeders where both parents are not OFA'd, Penn Hip, the SV or some other certifying organization.  For the novice puppy buyer be very careful and start to demand that the dogs are not just X-rayed but also submitted to an objective outside agency for review.  Sure, you may miss out on a good dog but the gamble isn't worth it in my opinion.  There are plenty of other great breedings to look at.     This is standard in other countries for a very good reason.  You send the X-rays in and get a passing score, no passing score you simply don't breed the dog.   It really is the minimum any reputable breeder should do that is concerned with the welfare of the breed and truly breeds sound dogs.  I don't see any reason not to do it, especially if you are skilled enough to read X-rays. 

What I find utterly ironic is when some breeders comment on other pedigrees and offer advice on breedings and say "well there are no hip certifications listed on the dam...or the sire or the grandparents."  Or which ever dog they are commenting on.  When their own dogs don't have it listed either but it's ok for them.   

If breeding Czech dogs in the US, is it not possible to have hips certifed using the Czech scheme?

Nothing much asked for in the US to register a litter. We must be the favorite dumping grounds for European dogs that can't pass their xrays or that keep producing it in their progeny.

@Blitzen....yes iam familiar with Riser and Bardens, the early palpating schemes, the criterion that the military used for accepting dogs, SV, OFA, and Pennhipp. I even remember the way hips were assessed and the dogs that were the result PRIOR to hip testing being compulsory as it is now.  I have already said that the consensus approach in this thread is fine. That I choose to use my lifelong experience in assessing hips is a personal decision. The good thing about being experienced is being able to wade through fluff to get to meat. I am NOT advising anyone to evaluate things like I do, I really don't understand why I get 50 to 100 emails a day asking for my opinion on breedings and hip possibilities with the flawed thinking that I have. Maybe now when people see just how faulty my knowledge of hips and subsequently the breed, my requests for advice will go down significantly.  I think many understand what I am saying and the context in which I am coming from......I am getting personal emails from people saying they understand Hans and my point, but they aren't interested in the drama. That's all that is important to me...that people consider the whole spectrum in assessing hips. I don't live for anyone's acceptance in the breed nor need validation from anyone on this forum....I have never been a follower unless it made sense to me. Blitzen, you and I understand each other though we may not agree, ........some with posts on this subject are doing nothing but parroting what they heard or read....some on here are experts on hips and have never bred a litter or a couple litters in their life. I'm just not interested in following those people, I have much more confidence in a person like Hans on this subject who has dealt with thousands of dogs over the years.

With the above post, I am through with this subject for now....lol, I am a firm believer that time tells all. Take care everyone!

From what I am reading if I understand correctly that people breed for two different buyers. One buyer is someone whom wants a true working dog this person if he/she does not understand genetics will have to rely heavily on breeder to find him the best prospect. This dog would be bred with the whole package in mind. The second buyer would be someone who is looking for more along the lines of a pet or companion dog. So if I want a dog that can work I would get into contact with someone like Gustav,and Hans whom to me seem to understand that is more than just hips. Even if I do research as I did with my puppy someone like myself(Newbie) does not have access to all the different resources that you will need to get a true picture. I have done OFA ,SV searches but there are so many people that do not register their dogs so you get a limited picture of HD in a certain pedigree. I know it is nice to have the parents OFA or SV rated but does that really give me a true picture? I even try vertical pedigree searchs but that at times this  is even more limited. Gustav I am sure you will give me some insight on this learning a lot from you posts on this website.

Like I said, there are some who understand what Hans and I are saying, but conventional wisdom is not in agreement.....that's cool and I definitely understand the conventional thinking.......but I still believe breeders like myself have in the past contributed positively to this noble breed.....I'm sure others can't see that.....but I think we all want to breed sound solid dogs, and many people today are still doing that.

Gustav, for the record, I frankly LOVE PennHIP, and am glad that it's back in the hands of Dr. Gail Smith and Univ of Penn [Synbiotics, who bought ICG, ended the licensing agreement with Univ of Penn in 2002]; since that time, there has been an increase in the number of vets being trained and certified in the technique. Unfortunately, in the time when the technique itself was a proprietary product for International Canine Genetics, Inc., the training and certification fees put it out of reach for a lot of small animal vets, especially those who practice in an area such as where I currently live---the number of people who are having their breeding stock [of ANY breed, not just GSDs]  x-rayed around here is abysmal, so it would take quite a while for them to recoup the expenses involved with becoming certified to do the PennHIP technique back then.  Now it's back to being a not-for-profit program, in the same manner as OFA is, and although there is a fee for the training, the courses are now being offered at a more reasonable cost at local, regional and national veterinary conferences, and according to the PennHIP website, in April 2013, trainings will be conducted in both German and Switzerland.

I consider PennHIP to be the best all worlds: you still have the standard hip-extended view image used by OFA, but you add in the distraction index to measure joint laxity.  When Dr. Smith and his team were developing the technique, the breed clubs in the PA/NY/NJ/MD/DE/VA/CT/VT/NH area solicited their members to volunteer dogs to undergo the procedure, as well as things such as force-impact studies of those dogs in motion, assisting the team in the project, and several of the Siberian Husky and crossbred sled dogs owned by the group I was a member of took part in these. 

One more thing, Gustav--what you call functional, I call sound; we're talking about the same minimum standard, it's just that I won't use the term 'functional' because someone with less scruples than you will trade on the fact that even a dysplastic hip *functions*...it functions poorly  and  painfully, but it does function. 

Unless I'm missing your point, and what you're actually saying is that you don't care if a dog's hips are dysplastic, as long as the dog can perform the tasks called for in the course of working as a law enforcement K9?  'Cause if that's what you are saying [without actually having come out and stated it that plainly before], then yes--you and I, along with a WHOLE HOST of knowledgable others, are on a completely different page when it comes to hip status...I not only want them to be functional, I insist that they be sound in a breeding animal.

Hexe,
You have made some excellent posts on this thread.

I took Gutav's post on the functional hips a little differently.  My understanding of what Cliff meant and he can correct (and I'm sure he will) if I am wrong is that he doesn't need an OFA rating for the dogs he sells to Police Dept's.  I'm sure Cliff as I do reads X rays on dogs we are evaluating for potential Police K-9 prospects and if the hips look "good" or "functional" meaning not dysplastic we will consider the dog.  If the dog has all of the desired traits / drives and temperament we are looking for the dog may be selected.  I think Cliff was saying he doesn't need an OFA rating to tell him if the hips are "functional" or good.  I can tell you in all of the dogs I have selected, tested and evaluated for my PD and others I don't think one had an OFA rating.  They all had X-rays for both hips and elbows  and we have ruled out dogs that although tested very well showed flattening of the femoral heads for example.  When testing dogs besides testing the drives, nerves, aggression, social ness and a couple of neurological tests I do I also look at X rays.  The vast majority of the dogs I test have acceptable hips but fail in one of the other dozen or so tests I do.  

Testing and evaluating dogs for a Police Dept is different than buying a pup or a young dog for a pet, show or work prospect for a GSD enthusiast.  The dogs we test normally do not come with pedigrees and we have no intention of breeding these dogs.  We can not count on lineage or siblings hip scores, we have to select form the dogs standing in front of us.  As I have said before for my personal dogs, which may be my next working partner or sport dog and pet I want the OFA scores on the dogs in the pedigree.

Hans, again, I will say this to you:  OF COURSE veterinary students are reading and 'rating' hip and elbow x-rays while they are in training; how else will they learn what a sound joint looks like versus an unsound one, if not by viewing films and being asked to give their impression of what they are seeing?   That does NOT equate with those students being the ones who are OFFICIALLY RATING the joint?  The board-certified radiologist the students are training with make their own determination, they don't rely on what their students have to say...not if they want to remain board-certified and not if they want to continue to be in OFA's pool of radiologists, they don't.

And again, I say to you:  Prove it.  If you KNOW a vet student who says that he or she read and provided the official OFA rating for so much as a single animal, then you have a moral and ethical duty to report both that student, and the radiologist who permitted that to happen, to the OFA, the AVMA and the American College of Veterinary Radiologists.  I'm thinking that's not going to happen, however, and your justification is going to be that (a) it's not your responsibility to monitor the integrity of the OFA's pool of radiologists or their program; (b) you have no intention of doing something that would cause problems for your friend the former veterinary student who is now likely already a veterinarian, and/or (c) hey, you don't have any actual proof this happened, the student might have just been exaggerating. 

Meh.  You know what? If no one reports wrongdoing when they know or see it is taking place, that person IS saying that the wrongdoing is not important, does not matter, and DID NOT HAPPEN. 

And now you're taking issue with the fact that OFA has TOO MANY radiologists in their pool?!?!?!?  If they only used the same three, you'd complain that they were biased against certain breeds, or kennels, or submitting veterinarians, or they were overworked and being sloppy.  They randomly select three from a pool of twenty to twenty-five, to ensure that no one person is being overly tasked and pressed for time, and you think it should all rest on a single person so the same eye is always making the determination. Yet how does that allow for that person's 'bad day'?

I'm starting to wonder if you are also saying, without actually saying these words, that you consider it acceptable to breed a dog that is dysplastic so long as the dog can work efficiently and has the other traits you deem as or more important than sound [not just functional] hips.  It's not just about 'certification', Hans--it's about soundness, and it's the certification that allows someone to have faith in the attestation of soundness.

What say you to the above question?