breeders - Page 10

Blitzen, I know i'm abrasive and you're right about treating everyone the same. I just require proof in order to change my mind.

p59teitel, I can't disagree. I am adamant about my position, because there is too much hearsay and BS on this site. If you know it's true prove it. Otherwise state it as opinion.

Blitzen, btw is Preston wrong also about the Purdue study or is my statement now correct because he echoed it. In your opinion, was the Purdue study legitimate?

So if I'm getting this right...  Those who are saying Bloat is Absolutely NOT hereditary are basically disputing people who have been breeding for 40 years or more and THINK that it might be a genetic issue given they're life of experience ??   mmmm  interesting.

I won't be arguing the point of bloat with anyone who has been breeding for 40 years, 

I would attempt to argue it with someone who SAYS he/she is NOT a breeder therefore having no experience with the possibilities of the condition having a genetic relation.

What happens if it is determined to be a genetic relation ??   would you still curse those who err on the side of caution, and would you still dismiss those who have 40 years of breeding behind them and have seen it occur in what appears to be a genetic relation ?

Spook I don't have enough information to judge whether ot not that was a legitmate study and that's really not the point anyway. Why is it never enough for  you to just say - I disagree and then present your opposing opinion?  You have to call us fools, stupid and other sorts of demeaning descriptions in order to try to get your points acrossed.  You honestly come acrossed as the class bully sorry to say since I suspect  your have some important things to say and I'd be interested in hearing your take on many threads. I've been told that you are a great person with a genuine love and respect for the GSD. So far you have posted little of a positive nature and seem to have a goal of bullying certain posters into leaving this board.  Not everyone here is a moron and unworthy. Abrasive is one thing, rude is quite another.

I  give respect to Preston and others like him who have paid their dues many times over.  Preston has no doubt forgotten more about GSD's than either of us will ever know plus he is unique to this breed in that he actually recognizes and studies other breeds.  Do I always agree with  him? No, but I do read his posts cerefully and give them a lot of consideration and I would never disrespect him. I won't defend him to you as he is quite capable of doing that on his own. We have already lost valuable posters like one of the best GSD people I have met, Hodie, and not much from Hexe anymore either. I'd hate to see Preston take that direction too.

Sorry to be so blunt, I really don't mean to be meanspirited. I'm done with this now, so have at me if that is what you want, I'll not respond.

I don't doubt Preston has knowledge and he probably doesn't need you to defend him, but if that's what you need to take your shot go ahead. I admit I'm abrasive and straight forward, but it is hard for me to entertain foolishness or stupidity. If you can't read a study and understand it, but try to convince people of it's validity or value,  I don't have a lot of patience. If it's your opinion and you can't prove it be smart enough to admit it. If you flat out lie or infer knowledge or information and don't have a clue or are just blowing smoke, you better believe I'm going to bring it to everyone's attention. THERE IS TOO MUCH MISINFORMATION ON THIS SITE. I stay away from a number of these threads because of where they are heading or because of the misinformation the original poster is propagating.

I would suggest you asked hodie why she left or is this your way of taking an underhanded shot?

spook, I assert that the Purdue study was largely irrelevent and poorly designed.  There are different kinds of truth, operational facts and "facts" concluded from academic or non-academic scientific studies.  A scientific study involves the use of implementation of research design and methodolgy, data collection and statistical analysis of that data to measure association between main variables and attempts to infer causation beyond association in regard to the main hypotheses. In a lot of research, some facts are "re ipsa locquitor" facts, that is they are so obvious by interactive & associational occurrence that they must be accepted at "face value".  Gastric and splenic torsion are two of these.  I'll give you some well accepted examples of directly observable heritability which is immediately concluded to be a given observational fact:  A top west german GSD was bought for a very large sum and imported into the USA.  He was absolutely awesome and showed no major faults of any kind (very close to the standard if not the standard).  Problem is that everyone that bred to him had litters with some of the puppies having dalmation type spots in their coat color.  It was a direct result of what he carried genetically as a dfominant with incomplete penetrance (it wasn't a recessive because the dams didn't carry it when their progeny were inbtred, and he didn't show it in his phenotype).  No need for any scientific studies, the fact was accepted and the owner stopped promoting and using him as stud.  Another top stud dog, well known super star and top producer who was bred profusely at an early age and produced some of the best GSDs moving I have ever seen.  Problem was a signifacnt proportion of his puppies started dying of gastric torsion and then he died of gastric torsion.  Many of his puppies kept dying of this even after his death.  Any pedigree with  him in it more than once or even once close up produced GSDs that died as young dogs of gastric torsion.  Solution was a natural occurrence. His death from gastric torsion prevented him from being used anymore (and breeders had kept using him even knowing of the problem because he produced some surviving superstars). Another top stud GSD himself had two incidences of splenic torsion.  Heroic and timely veterinary surgery saved him and kept him alive for a normal lifespan.  A significant proportion of his progeny died from torsion, and some of these produced other puppies that eventually died of torsion before he himself died (he had received veterinary surgery and survived one bout of it himself). Those puppies of his that looked like him and survived produced a significant number of the same disorder (mostly with occurrences died) also produced it in offspring that had their type. The only puppies out of him that did not have it or carry it were those who were of a divergent type (typically sables, short backed, good bone, agile, very ligamented, dry working type with compact abdomen  and not slab-sided & deep chested). This dog sired one litter in which almost every puppy eventually died of torsion except for the one that was of a different type.  One doesn't need to design a scientific study to observe these facts. 

(continued):  These facts are res ipsa locquitor type FACTS.  It's like this, if one puts his hand in a flame, the skin blisters.  The flame caused the blistering and this is a directly observable FACT which cannot be disputed.  No scientific study needs to be designed. Not all associations are evidence of direct causation like this but when res ipsa locquitor type events occur, the facts observed are indisputable.  If current gene duplication and typing/mapping methodoly was utilized to discover the specific genes causing these various types of torsion, diagnoses becomes within reach.  This discovery of the gene number and location of each could then allow the development of an inexpensive and valid cheek swab or blood test, preferably a cheek swab test for determining their carriage by any single animal.  The complex research methodology part of the study would be to discover the effectiveness of the implementation of this system towards reducing the occurence of the various types of torsion that occurs. Spook, it is obvious to me that you do not know much about how actual academic reserach is done or the scientific method.  I see no value in trying to convince you the world is round. It appears that all you want to do is act like a big shot, like a know it all, and put others down.  Problem is you really don't know what you are talking about in most cases and just take the oppositional view for sake of argument. There is rarely ANY content behind your opositional assertions.  If you really love being oppositional, why not learn all the existing genetic research and research methodology.  Every study has some flaws and problems that you can then select out and argue a minority view about if you spend many hour going over them with a fine tooth comb.  At least then you could use facts to make faulty arguments rather than mere ignorant assertions with no facts upon which to base them.

Preston, to say that is enough information to arrive at a finding that torsion/bloat is based in genetics is hogwash and you know it. Continue to try to "baffle 'em with bullshit," because you have just said a lot about nothing in an attempt to sound like you're proving a point. Try not to underestimate people, it makes you sound foolish. By the way do you mind naming the dogs in your study? Sighting two incidents and trying to call the conclusions fact is very weak, but I would like the names of the dogs just to see how far you're willing to go.

Actually, the world isn't round. I know that will upset you, but I'm sure you'll try to prove it is.

Preston, I think I have been told the same story about one of the dogs you mentioned, the super start that produced other super stars some of which also died from gastric torsion, some that "survived". If I recall the story correctly and  assuming it is the same dog, I believe his owners passed his death off as an "accident" and I wonder if some of the owners of his progeny are even aware of the true cause of his death. At any rate, I tend to believe what I see and the experience of other breeders and I am convinced that there is a genetic component involved in gastric torsion. There may never be any proof to substantiate this, but if I were a GSD breeder I'm pretty sure I would try to avoid dogs that have have torsion and even first degree relatives.  I lost a nice dog I bought for showing and breeding to torsion and later came to find out that another in his litter had also died from the same disease and his sire had been saved and tacked prior to his siring my dog.  I was not a happy camper.

Spook, no, I don't know it!  I am not going to identify these dogs publicly for a number of reasons.  One owner is old and very ill and never publicly acknowledged this.  Such a disclosure could cause that person pain if it got back to him or her.  Also, some of the dogs in question have been owned by acquaintences and friends of mine and have already taken steps not to repeat things (and I was told certain facts related to these occurrences in confidence over the years).  One dog well known for this that I will mention was Scorpio and this was discussed in years past as a given trait passed on by this dog to a significant number of his progeny and descendants.  Another was Scott Deodatus, I've been told by a few good sources. Spook, you appear to be ignorant on most GSD related matters that you comment on do not merit any more attention or any answers.  So far your posts have contributed zero knowledge or information that is helpful to GSD owners, fanciers or breeders.  You attempt to provoke others but cannot offer anything useful. Just can't do it can you? Bottom line, your GSD knowledge base appears to be near zero.  The heritability of torsion disorders is beyond question, and is as clear cut as HD or ED (not too many years ago many GSD breeders here and in Europe and West Germany argued vociferously that Hip Dysplasia (HD) and elbow dysplasia (ED) was random accidental occurrences or environmental only and not genetic. HD and ED has been proven beyond question to be heritable by the highly successful experimental breeding efforts to selectively reduce their incidence.