Indi's post name edited - Page 7

I hope Jantie reposts the x-ray without (any emotional) comment because that x-ray is a valuable tool. I personally would really like to see the new one too, side by side to the old one. And I hope for Jantie that the next x-ray shows that he is actually dealing with the type specialist that his vets claim to be. That first one has my doubts about that.

I just had to comment.I have a severely displastic GSD who is now 6 years old. He was x-rayed at 12 months and again at 24 months. If I had not x-rayed him(I had to because of show and breeding purposes)I would have never known he had a problem. He runs, jumps and shows no signs. Glad I didn't put this dog down. Love of my life.

He has a right to post the x-rays, point blank. Almost everyone here are buyers and owners and a lot are hobby and medium scaled breeders. It is definitely foolish for those on the upper levels of the ladder here to mess around like that just to protect the name of a kennel.Yes they are famous, yes they had and have some great dogs, BUT, at the same time they did not try to make up for this unfortunate incident.As someone said in a reply to this topic- "it happens", yes very true and understandable, but when it happens someone should be responsible.If not then anyone can get away with anything to a certain extent. Famous breeder or not, they should be held accountable and the public should know.

One last thing Puppies are a crap shoot. PERIOD. If you want a dog with guarantees--BUY AN ADULT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN HIP CERTIFIED, SHOWN, BRED, or whatever it is you want a guarantee on. That is the ONLY way. There are breeders out there that offer guarantees. If that's what you want, you should purchase from someone who offers a SIGNED WRITTEN GUARANTEE/CONTRACT that you agree with the terms of. In this day in age, I hate to say it, but someone's word is not good enough, regardless of who they are!!! Any breeder out there will tell you the same.

Hi to you all, and thank you for your time, efforts, comments and support. D.H. Melanie, why would you think my math is: ‘soooo off!’? In this one topic only: one reads: D.H. reports: “Asko vom Sprötauer Wald”… did all of that with HDa4 hips”. Vomlandholz Angela said (about her own dog?): “Xaver's xray is much better position wise”. GSDfan Melanie: “my females' xray looked the same, although she rated Moderate HD by OFA on one side, the other looked fine.” And she further comments about: “someone I see frequenly at shows has a GSD with Moderate HD”. Blitzen wrote: “I am reminded of a puppy of mine, at 8 months he was so lame he could barely walk and his xrays were worse than your boy's. Mine was bilaterally severe, more DJD than your dog.” Biv1996 said: “I have a pup from her so called top stud dog that has more genetic issues than you could imagine.” SGBH Stephen commented: “I have a 12 month female in my kennel NOW that I took back 4 months ago, when it was discovered she had SEVERE dysplasia”. Blitzen then revealed: “I myself bought 4 puppies before I got one that had normal hips. Others on this board have had the same experience.“ Dawn G. Bonome wrote: “I had a GSD who had Grade 3 HD and lived to be 12.” Dog2 communicated: “I have a severely displastic GSD who is now 6 years old.” Seems like my math is NOT so way off, don’t you think? With all due respect, I can’t see why anyone with a calculator and the SV-Genetics-database in hand, would not come to the same conclusion. I have sent you privately my query showing those figures: (the SV database is the best one one can get in the whole world, containing HD-results from over half a million of GSDs). You will find this database confirming only 57% GSDs with perfect hips = HD-1 (=anatomically superb). This is as good as it gets! I do not think that it is a good result after 30 years of trying to decrease HD. (Fred Lanting used my figures in his publications, they are being used by Dr. Coopman in his lectures, Dr. Raiser told me he wished to use them in his speeches also, other statistics of mine were published in "Sporthonden/Hondensport-Magazine" in Holland, they were publicized on "duitseherders.com"; none of them doubted my statements/research.)

Continue: Now do check some of the dogs with vast amounts of offspring. Some (a lot) show NO HD-4 or HD-5 dogs whatsoever, although they certainly must have had some, indicated by the averages you will see in the database itself. We all know BAD results are NOT being sent in (High-profiled Professors and Vets, and a lot of people who had HD-dogs themselves, tell me that.) Especially the Vets with an SV-recognition: One said to me: “No need to send THAT to the SV. It would be bad there also. Save your money!” So, I must assume, the SV-database is far from complete, it does NOT show the reality, because it does NOT show our severely displastic dogs! As said before, let’s assume for just one second, only 10% of the diagnoses are withheld by owners and breeders, the HD-1 percentage drops to: 44%, the HD-2 amount of 23,42% drops to: 18%. Should I count for 20% of withheld x-rays (as vets say would be more realistic due to the vast amount of bad hips they get to see), the HD-1 quote would drop to 35,74%, and HD-2 quote to 14,62%. This would leave (apart from a couple of points for “Ausland-quotes”) only about half of all GSDs with “fine” hips. Again, I know that not all the dogs with HD suffer and a lot of (even un-x-rayed) dogs run around with awful hips without any problems. But that is NOT my point. I am under the impression (and please don’t kill me for generalising), that I encounter amongst us basically two mainstreams concerning HD. The first one, mostly breeders and brokers, say: “What a bad x-ray-picture! Get new ones done! Shut up and don’t talk about it. Bad luck! Buying a puppy is always a crapshoot. Put the poor SOB down and buy another one and start anew. Stop wining. If you don’t want HD, buy an older dog, there is NO such thing as a guarantee.” The second mainstream comes from private people and vets: “Anyone can tell that’s SOME BAD hip! We are so sorry for you, where did you get it from and why don’t they replace it. Please don’t put the poor SOB down, we will find somebody who will take good care of him. If you don’t want HD again, I know a small breeder who will guarantee you good hips.” Go ahead and correct me if I’m wrong. To SAOA: Please let me know if I can put the (old) x-ray pictures back on the Gallery. To ZVKMM: If I would place the HD-history of the family of my dog on this board, no doubt about it, it would be deleted in a matter of seconds. Bedankt voor de wensen. I will ask SAOA later, if I am allowed to put the final X-rays (hips, elbows, back, etc.) on the board once I receive them.

Jantie has got one of the hardest decissions ahead of him. I think it's hard enough for him knowing that Indi is so young and (as far as I read) otherwise healthy. Even if we love our dogs, and that we do, and even if there are kids involved, I think a dog should have a life with a high quality, and that means it should be able to move without pain. It's important that not only good things should be shared on this board. Bad and sad things happen every day and may happen to us one day (I've got a tail-chaser that drives me nuts sometimes)and I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has been grateful for a good word here or there. I wish you alot of strength for the future, whatever may come, your decission is not for you, but for you beloved Indi. Isabelle

Jantie, My condolences, this thread must be very difficult for you. I agree with you, the documented issue of HD is far off from the actual numbers. Not only do people not send in films if they look bad, but what about all these dogs sold as pets, no one with a pet has a reason to xray let alone OFA/"a" stamp a pet if they're not showing signs, therefore the owner or anyone else will never know, further throwing off the actual HD figures. I don't think anyone realized at the beginning of this thread what condition your dog was actually in. While I commend those trying to 'save' him, no one knows how your dog is actually dealing with it except you. Once you went into depth with his condition it looks like most people backed off, it must have been difficult for you to read. My rather passive and understanding attitude may be completely different if my dog was in the same shape yours is in and I was faced with the descision to euthanize her. There's no doubt I would be much more frustrated and angry, I couldn't even bear the thought. Your story really makes me greatful she is doing so well. Whatever decision you must make I hope you are at peace with it. I am very sad for you. Take care, Melanie

Jantie, subtract my dogs from your equation, they were not GSD's. Another large working breed with a high risk of HD. I stand by DH's statistics, she is the GSD expert while my expertise is not specific to this breed, it is of a general nature and has involved most all breeds over a period of 40 years. I don't think that GSD's inherit or express HD any differently than any other breed, so stats for all large breeds are probably applicable and are appropriate for comparison. BTW, both of my GSD's have had very good hips on xrays. My first was sired by an import from a well known German show/working kennel, his dam 100% American showlines. My present dog is 100% showlines related to Uran. His hips look very good. My examples were intended to demonstrate to you that dogs with HD do not always need to be put down if managed correctly and that buying a puppy is risky even if the parents and many of the ancestors are clear. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, had you mentioned that Indie was suffering, I think you might have received some far different responses than you have. As DH said, walking him for 4 kms is not necessary and certainly not the brightest idea if he is in pain afterwards. Doing that is only aggrevating his hips. Have you ever heard the old joke _ "Doctor, it hurts when I do that. Well then, don't do it". I apologize for repeating myself once again. If you buy a puppy and you do not get a written contract, you should not expect the breeder to replace/refund on that dog. That breeder has been honest by not giving a written contract and all this slicing and dising is totally unfair to that breeder. On the other hand, if a written contract were issued and this breeder is refusing to honor it, you have a valid gripe. I am still not clear on that issue either. Did the breeder guarantee this puppy in writing or not? Listen, no one has more feelings for your situation than I do. Been there, done that many more times than I care to talk about. My true and only concern is that you are not rushing to judgement here and putting down a dog that could be a very happy pet for someone, maybe not you. You have got to stop walking him for 4 km, keep him rested, give him supplements. If you are not doing common sense things like that, then you are not giving him a fair chance to recover. Think about it.

Jantie, statistics give a trend. So if 33% of the whole population is recorded then that number is a very good representation of how this trend will reflect on the whole population, especially of that 33% equals some 150 to 170thousand dogs that are in fact certified. Example: When people go to elections, the "polls" that you see on TV while the election is still going on show the results taken from a few select polling stations which will give the trend representing the results of that whole election. This trend is later confirmed after all votes have been counted, sometimes recounted, which is usually not finished until several days later. Unless an election is very close these polls are pretty accurate, give or take a small margin or error. Small that is! The way you place your HD numbers would be the same as saying that Bush never received his majority vote in the 2000 election in which he needed over 50% to get elected. In that election Bush received just over 50% of the votes, I think it was 56% or so. But only 50% of the population voted. According to your math Bush only received slightly above 25% of the actual votes and therefore never received the majority needed to be elected into office. Jeez, I bet a lot of people out there would love your math :o). When dealing with statistics you can only deal with what you know. Not with what we do not know, as you are doing it. We do know that 33% of the whole population is in fact certified. It is safe to assume that an additional 10 to 15% of dogs also get screened but their results never get submitted because of an expected a3 or worse (check with your vets, they will confirm that number, so far every vet I have asked has, and I have asked many). Lets make this easier and use 35% for certified dogs and 15% screened but never submitted, just for the sake of easy math. That means hypothetically 50% (35+15) of the population is screened. What we also know is that the unscreened 15% will not be a1s or a2s because otherwise owners would have submitted them. What we do not know is if those 15% would have in fact been certified a3, a4, or a5s. So we can only lump them all together into a3s or worse. Of the 35% of the dogs that are actually certified, we do know that the a3s or worse sum up to about 17% (I took one percent of the a6s because they are a pass only, covering a3s or better). So now that sum of the dogs screened (50% of the whole) has 15% of possible a3s or worse from x-rays not submitted, and 17% of a3s or worse from x-rays that have been submitted. Leaves a total 32% of a3s or worse, which then adjusts the a2 and a1s to 68%, down from the previous 83%. The previous 83% is the number before the extra 15% of dogs screened but not submitted had been taken into consideration. IMO, the example I have just given is far more representative of the actual situation. 50% not screened at all. 15% screened but not submitted and a3 or worse, adjusting the known stats to still having 2/3 of GSDs virtually HD free with a1 and a2. The rest being a3 and worse.