Are health clearances necessary before breeding? - Page 8

"I would go to a breeder that extensive health tests, than just hips and elbows. Due to all the conditions and problems with the shepherds. I would think they were being fantastic ambassador for the breed. Why would anybody think health tests are a red flag?"

Exactly. For me a red flag is when a breeder says she/he doesn't need to test. Well, if you are so sure your dogs are healthy, get the tests done and show me the proof. I'm really having hard time understanding the resistance from some breeders here. For some, you've known your dogs and your lines forever and you may be 100% correct in saying there are no health issues in your dogs. But, the typical puppy buyer doesn't personally know you and having proof the dog has the clearances brings peace of mind! Also, I would not buy a puppy JUST because the parents had all the health clearances, but it is the necessary starting point for me. Again, without good health, the working ability or the other desirable characteristics one is looking for in a puppy mean nothing. Sorry, I don't lnow how I ended up in this format- tried to change it, but couldn't- hence my edit.

I too do not see health clearances as a red flag, nor as a 'marketing' tool. If the dog is clear of those diseases, it is clear.

What I do think is that we have no idea of the prevalence of any of these diseases in the breed because of the limited testing. We don't really know to what extent of a problem any of them are in the breed as a whole. If everyone tested we would get a clear picture. We would know whether we could 'avoid' or whether we would need breed carrier to clear, or whether we could not even do that if the problem was too entrenched, as some conditions are in some breeds.  We are blind, and sometimes it appears that we want to stay that way.

It may be better than we think, in which case we could truly work to eradicate some of these diseases for good. It may be worse, in which case a very careful approach would be needed so that the gene pool was not reduced even further. But without knowing, how can a sensible breeding strategy be designed? We can't just keep ignoring the problems the breed has, or stumbling along as we are now surely? As a breed I don't even think we HAVE a clear breeding strategy that covers anything healthwise other than hips and elbows. Not from the SV, nor certainly from any breed club/council or body in the UK. I can't speak for other countries, but would be interested to hear whether any club or body was taking the lead in GSD health?

I have often mused about what would happen if and when a test for epilepsy is developed. Everyone says they want it but my deepest fear is that people will be afraid to use it.  Just my opinion, and just some thoughts that sometimes go round in my head, and I would hope to be wrong.

As an 'end user' as someone put it, and not a breeder, I would be seeking a breeder who does health tests for DM, AF, Hips & Elbows. In the UK I only know of one!   If there was a test available for EPI and Epilepsy, I would also want those as a minimum. There are others I would list as a nice to have, but not a need to have.

First:  Even if a breeder knows their lines and thinks that means they shouldn't test for x, y, and z, because they've never had it come up...  What happens when you outcross to another line?  Don't you want to know IF you bring something in?  Are you just going to take the other breeder's word that their line is clear of x, y, and z too?  Even if they are honest, what if they aren't nearly as knowledgable or observant?  What about issues that can remain dormant and sprout up after several generations?  (Or even new mutations??)  Few breeders can say that they've been breeding their line exclusively (inbred anyone?) for 5 or so generations.  Point I am trying to make is just because you've never had something turn up in your line, does not mean you won't.  Because you don't expect it, you are probably less likely to have the vet listen to the heart, check the eyes, etc. and may miss it for a considerable time. 

Second point:  For those concerned with elbows right now (as not everyone is)... wouldn't you love to get your next dog/pup from a line that can show the dogs had clear elbows for many generations?  Well, if we have a big issue with something down the road that we don't have right now, you'd be ahead of most if you can pull up the proof that generations of your dogs were clear.  Of course we are only going by phenotype, but you have to work with what is available.

Third point:  If a breeder was only testing hips and hearts, nothing else, then that would be a red flag to me that there are having issues in the cardiac department.  But if they are testing for everything or most things, I'd just think they are throughal and certainly don't put money ahead of the health of their lines. 

Last point:  I would guess less than 10% of breeders here have been breeding the same lines for 20 years or more.  MAYBE it's logical that they don't need to screen as much because they have a lot of first hand knowledge of their dogs, BUT what kind of example are they setting for everyone else?  If "I know my lines" is the rational you give for not screening, then who's to stop less experienced/knowledgable breeders from using your same arguement?  Breeding is not cheap and we all like to save a buck here and there, but hopefully not at the expense of our breed.  Now I don't expect everyone to test for EVERYTHING as that would cost a fortune, and some things are advisable to do yearly and that's not necessary, but the less expensive and less intrusive tests, yes I'd want to see the parents of a pup I bought tested for them... it's for the greater good.

For me, if I knew the breeder was breeding for a reasonable number of years, respected, and known for breeding healthy dogs, I'd probably be more lenient about which healthy tests I would want before buying a puppy. Breeders like Blackthorn and my co-owner have been observing their dogs long enough to have a good handle on what they need to check for. If one establishes a healthy line of GSD's, I assume that are not going to compromse that record so will be very diligent about which outside dogs they bring into the mix.






 

Longevity and survival can happen in a really poorly dog .  I had Kee for 12 and a bit years. 

She had:  AF
               DM
               HD
               pancreatic problems
               Allergies
               Skin problems
               Immune Problems
               Bad ears
               Colitis on and off I could go on and on

There is a blood test called TLI Trypsin Like Immunoreactivity to diagnose EPI.  Will try and find out more.  Found the info on Kesyra GSD UK.

oops-wrong thread

The TCL1 test for EPI can diagnose a dog that has EPI, but can not predict if a dog will get EPI. The dog must already have symptoms for the test to be accurate.

And I guess that's my point about longevity. My Kali's breeder was breeding GSDs with a mentor for >40 years. Her dogs were healthy, her pups were healthy. My girl's parents were healthy & long-lived. My girl's 1 & only litter, to a male from very different lines, but healthy also.....& I get 2 pups with issues that could very well be genetic. No other pups with these problems are admitted to on either side. So did I just draw a poor hand on the first deal? I'll never breed from either line again, despite how wonderful the dogs are, because I know now what lurks there. And who knows why this manifested in this litter. I know that there are niches in breeding horses, combinations that produce animals that are much better than you'd expect the sire/dam combination to produce.....could there be reverse niches? Combinations that bring all the, for lack of a better word, crap up to the fore-front? And wouldn't genetic testing be a way to keep that from happening? I'm not blaming Kali's cancer on genetics, tho' they probably do play a part, I just think that our enviornment also plays a significant part in that. I'm talking about EPI, bowel issues, & other issues. Stuff that I'm sure some day there'll be tests for. Why wouldn't you use tools like these if they were available. I know why, if you've developed an awesome dog that you intend to breed & then do the tests...? All your work & investment could be down the tubes. But if you could test a pup before you made that uber-commitment in time & energy, emotion, & $$$....wouldn't it be a very good thing? Just sayin'.....from the bitter land of disappointment!
jackie harris

Many of the ailments you're citing are not proven genetic, hence, some of the difficulty in testing. Some issues are congenital, some are of unknown origins, and some are complex but hereditary. Many fall under a general auto-immune syndrome category. I think genetic predisposition and then ENVIRONMENT are working hand in hand and until we clean up BOTH sides, nothing will improve, regardless of testing. 

This is long but interesting to think about. I agree with much of it. http://www.videxgsd.com/PDF/Immune%20System%20Problems%20in%20the%20Canine.pdf

I'm only a pet owner so have no real idea of pedigree's,titles or genetics.  Common sense tells me we have created the majority of the problems due to over use of some stud dogs,being to inbred, wanting the perfect look the best working dog.  We pick who mates with who.  I know there are some fantastic ambassadors for the breed.  If my shepherd hadn't been so ILL I would be none the wiser thinking hips are all you need to be concerned with.  I know a little now about most problems with in the bred because of Kee what a way to find out! She was my first shepherd.