SV á'Stamp Program Has A Problem - Page 3

Hip quality has increased everywhere that testing is done since the 1970’s. I understand that the breeding council has set those limits, but until the KC stops registering dogs which are bred either dysplastic or without tests, none of it matters. Same problem we have in the United States with the AKC and OFA. With OFA, you can withhold a negative test result from the public and still breed. At that point, its up to the customer to question why a hip rating isn’t being advertised and of course any “decent” buyer would question that, but plenty of other don’t and the AKC will still register the puppies as long as the parents have full registration.

Like I said earlier, the SV system is known to be “more lax” and to have made mistakes, all the other rating agencies make mistakes as well. If you look up the OFA equivalency chart, it states that NZ is mild…yet the German’s still approve this for breed survey and therefore breeding. Kiwi Boy stating that the great kennel club of Australia is so much better because they will only A-stamp 16 and not 25 like the Germans would is not a surprise. It still boils down to the rating being subjective. You’re talking about a minuscule difference that you see under the OFA as well. I have known of stories even recently where a dog went NZ under SV due to issues with positioning and then resubmitted a different film to OFA and went good. Who’s right? Of course we side with OFA because they gave the better result and we all want positive results…but why was the SV film rated at NZ?

At the same time, when we throw away all other important traits of a breed just for the sake of hip health, we end up losing the most important part of the breed. Sure, the hip health is important to most pet people and of course to working people as well, but when we remove great breeding dogs from our breeding pool over something questionable like the difference between a 16 and 25 in the British system or in the case of the OFA where a different film with better positioning could take a dog from mild to fair, we start to lose a lot of what the breed is. Just because a system of scoring is more stringent, doesn’t make it better for the breed or even more successful at achieving healthier dogs in general. The Americans and the English might’ve improved the hip health of the breed in their countries, but they’ve also destroyed their version of the breed to a point of no return IMO.

You still seem to be obsessed with this picture of 'English' GSDs as, like the ASL, so diverted from the original German type as to be a 'version of the breed' that bears little resemblance to
"German Shepherd Dogs as I know them". Maybe this view comes from general dog books or the canine press, but it ain't the real deal. That is only a small percentage of our S/L dogs, the "alsatian" version; as I have said before, most of ours (and Ireland's) can hold their own with the German variety. (In fact, this year's Youth Siegerin is a UK bitch, even though only a tiny proportion go over and compete in the German Sieger Sh.) Our working trials / hundsports dogs, as distinct from Show dogs, are a mixture of types ; I've always admired the American W/L dogs because they were in the most part closer to German / European type than to either the ASL or many of the British dogs, especially when the "alsatians" were more to the fore on the UK scene, - but that hasn't been the case for 30-odd years by now. So unless you think ALL current German ('show') dogs are utterly worthless, would you please stop making ignorant cracks about "destroying our version of the breed" and similar judgements. Thanks !

There IS a problem with the lack of training and competing in anything more than running round a ring with the majority of our dogs, so they may have something less in drives (debatable) and physical ability, but that is the owners' fault, and anyway doesn't automatically translate into long flat backs and short legs ! (Or, conversely, overangulation, hocks flat on ground, or hinged backs.) None of which has a thing to do with classification of hip status, of course ...

Hundmutter, I definitely was reading his sentences in my mind as "New Zealand hips." "Noch zugelassen" makes so much more sense. 

Yeah, there are all sorts of problems when two strands of thought are run together in one post !
Hell, Les can defend himself as to what he thought he meant (as distinct from what Bav thought he meant); I just wanted to extricate the UK end of the deal. International cooperation between scientists is one thing; 'one size fits all' as translated by Bav leaves a bit to be desired.

[Bavarian Wagon] 13.10.2016 - 14:10

● "Lol...only the Australians and Brits can come up with a great hip rating system. I mean...look at their history of breeding dogs, they're definitely the ones to go to for anything dog related."

#1: "Lol" should be "LoL" or "LOL" = Lovely Old Les - that's ME!
#2: You appear to suddenly have become miraculously discerning, with your "only the Australians and Brits can come up with a great hip rating system". What a pity that I have to somewhat burst your bubble. See, the Australians didn't come up with ANY "hip rating system". THEY came up with the world's only ELBOW scoring system, using a 0, 1, 2, 3 scale, with UAP an instant fail - which the world (including even the "Jonny come lately" SV - yes, the SV dragged its tail for both dysplasias, with 'a'-stamps for what the Germans had called "the American disease" not required until 1967, compared to Sweden1959, Britain 1965 (changing to BIF-scoring in 1978 for GSDs, 1983 for all breeds), OFA 1966. Although NZ started trialling ways to detect HD in 1966, the scheme wasn't transferred to the NZVA until 1972) adopted.
#3: The Brits WERE "definitely the ones to go to for anything dog related". The world's first dog show - Pointers & Setters only - was held at Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1859. In 1860 at Birmingham, England, the first dog show society came into existence. Within three years, the Acclimitation Société in Paris held the first dog show on the European continent, exhibiting a range of breeds. (NZ being more focussed on WORKING dogs - especially BCs - our first dog trial was held on 18 April 1867, at Wanaka. NZ's first dog show was held 11 November 1870 at Christchurch in conjunction with the Canterbury A&P Society.)
The world's first KENNEL CLUB is The KC, founded in April 1873.
Charles Cruft held his first show in 1886. Now run by The KC, "Crufts" is the largest dog show in the world (see Guinness World Records). NZ sends someone each year to the Junior Showmanship competition.
Of course, as those all happened before you were even born, they don't actually EXIST, do they! "Never happened. Don't count."

● "Since the rating is out of 106, a difference of 9, or about 10% it shouldn't have any bearing on the quality of the hip or the dog's value to a breeding program or ability as a working dog."
Thank goodness there is no likelihood of me ever using any of YOUR stock at stud! You obviously have NO conception as to the inheritability of recessive polygenic disorders. Autosomal recessive inheritance is enough of a problem - as proven by such as "liver". "blue", "Irish spotting" popping up from parents who display none of those phenotypes.
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/inheritance/inheritancepatterns
MIGHT help you get started, if you can sustain the concentration to actually ingest it. 

● "The assumption that Australia/Brittain is so much better at this because their system supposedly eliminates certain dogs from getting passing hip ratings is comical."
Correction. Mz Clownaround - the British BIF system doesn't HAVE any "passing hip ratings", although its original BVA system did. The GSDCAu does have a system that DOES "eliminate certain dogs from getting passing hip"-scores,  ditto elbow-scores. Initially it eliminated them from only "Ex" and BS.Classification. But NOW it also eliminates them from having litters registered.

Your IGNORANCE of genetics is SHOCKING. I doubt you'll ever bother to ask questions in
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GSD_Genetics/info
to LEARN. It is owned by a professional genetics consultant who competes in both conformation and training (she owns both BSD Malinois and GSDs), is an Agility judge, and in the GSDCAu 50th Jubilee book gets thanks for her assistance in defining the genetic problem that saw a VERY popular stud sire an occasional achondroplastic dwarf (I imagine that you are one of those people who LOVES spreading gossip accusing the stud owner or bitch owner of allowing mismatings and false registrations... Just as many bitchy Aussies did).

● "The system you described is still subjective and leaves room for error and difference in opinion on scores of measurements."
Subjectivity and uneducated opinions and HUMAN error can be eliminated only by disqualifying the human who repeatedly makes errors. The NZKC system did that by firstly making me wait from 30.4.1985 until February 1986 to get my first 4 BIF-scorings. My 4 were included in a batch that circulated NZ, being read by each NZVA vet who wanted to be a Panellist, then sent to the BVA to be read by its experts. Once the Panel was selected, the NZVA had each plate independently read by 2 different Panellists - and if their totals differed by more than 1 or 2 "points" the plates were sent to a THIRD Panellist to read, after which the NZVA could (a) calculate the official part-scores & total by averaging all 3 readers' scores, and (b) identify which reader needs to be cautioned for being inordinately optimistic or depressingly negative when performing his paid duties, and be warned that he is likely to be removed from the panel if he doesn't improve his accuracy.

I imagine that that process was modelled on the BVA system, but [Hundmutter] etc are welcome to TRY to educate you if theirs now differs.

As for the AVA system: I have no idea - but the "A"- and "Z"-stamps are not issued by the GSDCAu unless the plates were sent to one of the 2 readers it approves of - Dr Lavelle and Dr Richardson. Radiology professors tend to have their students pre-read the plates - partly to keep the prof "honest", partly to identify students who need extra tutoring or to be failed.

● "Australian A-stamp…right up there with the Australian/New Zealand breed survey."
I deem the "A"-stamp and "Z"-stamp superior to the SV's stamps.
The only significant difference between the DownUnder Surveys and the SV Körung is how the character and trainability WAS assessed. The SV's way (IPO/SchH) has been a commercial nest-egg for professional trainers.
But if you haven't yet seen the newly introduced SV character test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK4mU_keeQ0
sit through its boring 27 minutes (with inept camera-work and up to THREE people shouting Deutsche at the same time). Apart from the elevated walk and the not-shown section in the club-house (both first introduced in the Swedish test for older puppies) there is nothing there that isn't done in NZ. Our "human tunnel" is more organised - I remember Karl (who'd worked out that I wasn't allowed to command him) taking the opportunity to lick all the ice-cream off the face of a boy who was in one of the 2 lines of humans crowding us.

That reply was originally part of the same post as my next one, to [Hundmutter]. But the CKEditor had "other" ideas, and in the process I lost my stored copies of my reply to you and the first part of hers.

[Hundmutter] 13.10.2016 - 15:10
● "Um, Bav ... (snip) ... The point about the UK's BVA/KC hip scoring scheme is that it is supposed to: A) reduce the reliance on chance, when owners actively Xray & have stock scored;"
Which was a BIG factor in Malcolm Willis's decision to NOT have a fail. It is better to KNOW how bad a pooch's joints were than to be forced to merely HOPE that the P3 or P4 or P5 ancestor you are thinking of line-breeding on had "good enough" joints.

● "B) establish a 'mean' as guidance to those breeders so that they at least use the better-hipped animals."
I forget how I continued from that comment to the part of my original message that needed a modified version of the OFA "comparison" chart in  

 

http://www.ofa.org/hd_grades.html  

But here is the chart:

OFA (USA)	FCI (Europe)	BVA (wrong!)	SV (Germany)	BVA BIF (Dr Willis)
Excellent	A-1	0-4	Normal	0-10
Good	A-2	5-10
Fair	B-1	11-18
Borderline	B-2	19-25	Fast Normal	0-15
Mild	C	26-35	Noch Zugelassen	1-25
Moderate	D	36-50	Mittlere	no plates ?? to 106
Severe	E	51-106	Schwere

Pale blue "paper" indicates BIF-scores that would probably gain an Australian "A"-stamp, pale pink indicates BIF-scores unlikely to gain an "A"-stamp, dark pink indicates "A"-stamp Fails. As Dr Willis made no attempt to compares FCI and/or OFA plates with the BIF-scoring, I cannot tell you what BIF-scores those 2 schemes'  categories might match.

A reminder that as Dr Willis wasn't told of any 'a'-Fails that had been exported to Britain, he could not get Dr Latham(?) to read their plates to work out what the smallest BIF-score was from plates that Prof Brass had failed from an 'a'-stamp. And a warning that, (1) because Dr Willis wanted BIF-scores used for compensatory matings and (2) the stubborn The KC (UK) refuses to impart Litter Registration Levels, in the UK there are NO "fails".
 

● "The scheme has never claimed to be a cure for HD, it has never claimed that it will eliminate all risk of HD."
Dr Willis being a geneticist, he would NEVER have accepted that a mere phenotype examination (which IS what an xray "shows") would remove the risk of recessive alleles being inherited! But so many BREEDERS are ignorant enough to think that a pooch's OWN hips "prove" that it cannot produce HD. Yeah sure.... Just as 2 non-epileptic people or pooches "prove" that they cannot produce epileptic offspring.

● "I don't know that the UK scheme is claimed to be 'better' than other countries schemes, where those even exist. I do know that I find it clearer and therefore easier to use than anyone else's version"
I STATE that it gives sensible breeders (of which there are FEW!) an early warning for 9 aspects per hips. For instance, for the bitch I am hoping to get my next pup from, the stud must NOT have any significant scoring for the subluxation aspect. "R", the only stud I have so far suggested to the breeder, has 1 : 1 for the subluxation aspect - his total scoring being hips 2 : 2 and elbows 0 : 0 (despite being born in Britain and neither of his parents nor any of his siblings & half-siblings appearing in The KC's "BreedWatch" table. "R"s sire's joint's are hips: 'a'-fn, elbows: -n, but "R"s dam has no stamps listed in the pdb. I have written to the Pommies who imported her, but they have not yet deigned to answer).

● "but to each their own."
Fair enough - but unfortunately the CONSEQUENCES of idiotic breeding decisions rarely affect the idiotic breeders, just the buyers of the progeny and/or grand-progeny. Until the owners get as "sue-happy" as many Yanks are, anyway! One of the 2 "big" breeders in my area sold a show-pup to a South Island family; when he failed the hip and/or elbow test they sent a replacement who also failed the hip and/or elbow test, so they were taken to court. The buyer won the case - but what a long period was wasted waiting for pups to arrive and grow old enough to be xrayed!

And GEEZ getting that table to fit into the CKEdfitor's screen-width was a problem - it kept insisting on hiding the last column off-screen, with no scroll-bar. After each failure I had to abandon the pdb and go fiddle again with my Mozilla programme to try a different way of controlling the table's size. On the 3rd try the CKEditor at last agreed to let my mouse drag the right edge of the table - but then suddenly the pdb was full-screen.... NO menu line at the bottom of the screen to let me return to the software that contained the rest of the reply. So I had a bath!
After which the CKEditor was STILL refusing to leave the screen so I had to reboot and start a FOURTH time. THIS time I was "allowed" to reach the end and add this grizzle. But as my local time was coming up to 3am I needed to sleep before attempting to put the rest of my prepared responses in. And when I tried to "Submit" my message the pdb reported that "something was left at the vet".... So I had to spend Sunday trying a FIFTH time to get my responses in....

[Bavarian Wagon] 13.10.2016 - 18:10 to [Hundmutter]

● "Your "established mean" is still subjective based on who's doing the grading and who is taking the x-ray which affects the positioning and will affect grading. Having a number just makes people feel better and more scientific, when at the end of the day you're coming up with the same result +/- a few dogs here and there."
Human error cannot be eliminated - but PEOPLE who produce human errors CAN be made ineligible to perform the task they are incompetent for.
Which is why PennHIP made such a big deal about vets attending PennHIP seminars; why the NZVA had only about 30 radiologists allowed to read the hip plates, and a different panel for reading the elbow plates; and why the GSDCAu allows only TWO radiologists in all Australia to read plates for the "A" and "Z"-stamps.

● "The 25 that Kiwi pointed out...is an NZ dog."
Oh really? NAME him or her!
NZ (in capital letters, to stand for a proper noun) stands for New Zealand.
If you meant 'a'-nz, every letter must be lower-case. And neither you nor I know how many dogs or bitches Prof Latham(?) scored as "25"; merely that BIF-25 was the worst he found in the sample of German 'a'-nz GSDs exported to Britain.

● "There are constant discussions going on about the NZ rating and how it relates to OFA. Some will go fair, others will go mild. 9 points of a difference seems extremely minuscule in the grand scheme of the breed."
Can't be very "constant" - my Bea (xrayed on 24.6.2013) was almost the last GSD BIF-scored in NZ before the current prof of radiology convinced the NZVA to switch to PennHIP. I suspect that his biggest argument was because it was cheaper to e-mail digital "plates" to PennHIP than it was to snail-mail real plates to 2 or 3 panellists in NZ.
Over-opinionated people who don't UNDERSTAND a scheme are sure to find plenty to argue about. The simple FACT is that, like 'a'-stamps, there is NO reliability in how OFA scores plates that will allow any computation to relate an OFA category to BIF-scoring. Look up and see that pooches with BIF-4 as their score were found in each of 'a'-n, 'a'-fn, 'a'-nz. Despite the "pretty" and SEPARATED ranges OFA claims for its main 3 categories, if 100 plates in each category were sent to the BVA or the GSDCAu for reading, you would find that the BIF-readings that result will vary as widely and with almost identical overlaps as did the BIF-readings of Prof Brass's 'a'-stamp categories.

● "The "approximate correlation" table they provide"
Magnificently UN-FUCKING-SCIENTIFIC, [Bavarian]!
WHAT ""approximate correlation" table"?
WHERE do WE find it on the Internet?
WHO are the "they" that provided it?

● "looks to say that the rating is more stringent than what OFA or SV is, but without hard data and real comparisons (comparing BIF score to OFA rating)"
FORGET the OFA rating! OFA has only 2 virtues:
#1: It is accepted by almost every breed club in the USA.
#2: It places MOST of its results on-line so that they are accessible by people wishing to calculate their own Progeny Analysis (which is currently the ONLY almost-reliable way to estimate how many "bad" hip-alleles a parent possesses).
However, because it panders to con-artists, it allows owners to NOT have their pooch's Fail displayed - and yet when it comes to disorders produced by recessive polygenic inheritance, it is only the WORST score that actually matters.
http://www.gsdcouncilaustralia.org/hip-elbow-control-scheme/statistics/
links you to each of the GSDCAu's hip & elbow reports so you can SEE the Willis-based Progeny Analyses,
On the basis that the BIF range is from 0 to 106, you (well, [Hundmutter], at least) should be able to quickly realise from
http://www.gsdcouncilaustralia.org/gsdcacontent/uploads/2015/03/GSDCA-HD-Control-Scheme-Progeny-statistics-as-at-30-June-2016.pdf
that although he is VERY popular with Australian breeders (they, too, mostly like over-angulated-behind maximum-or-above height mutts) and has produced at least 1 son with a perfect 0:0 hip total, Kwint is the ONLY popular sire with an almost complete set of the "bad" hip recessives who has mated a bitch who also possesses an almost-complete set of the "bad" recessives - together, they produced a pup whose hips were so bad that the aspect-scores added up to 104 out of 106! So we can expect a lot of hip-fails to be produced by Kwint's sons & daughters unless their owners are VERY thoughtful about who are the least risky partners.

● "there is no way to know how exact the table is. The questions will always arise between the NZ/fair/mild/14-36 when you're looking at various testing systems."
You are rabbiting GIBBERISH (are you Donald Trump's twin sister?).
There is NO "fair/mild/14-36" in ANY "New Zealand" table. YOU have not supplied us with ANY table. There is NO "nz/fair/mild/14-36" in the Willis table I have supplied, NO "nz/fair/mild/14-36" in the table that I have taken from OFA.

● "And no, sorry, Kiwi Boy"
Yay - with less than a fortnight left before I was due tp become 76 you have magically subtracted the burden of about 70 of those years! When will you also remove the burdens of my amputations, my deteriorating eyesight, my diabetes, my Dupuytrens contractures?

● "clearly stated in his post how the UK system is better than the SV a-stamp system."
You BETCHA I did, and it is - well, the BIF-scoring part of it is!
The INFORMATION on each certificate is worth more than all the other schemes added together. You are welcome to study my Bea's certificates in
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/galleries.html?gallery=55297
As I periodically state, the only thing that saved the 'a'-stamps scheme was the development of the ZW calculations.
But I did NOT state that the British BREEDERS are using BIF intelligently - a few are, but most are NOT. Just as so MANY Brits are still line-breeding on carriers of epilepsy.

● "Claiming corruption as if corruption and lying doesn't exist in the UK or Australia."
Such an ACCURATE reader you are - NOT!
Like "dear Donald Trump", a TWISTER is what you are, I did NOT mention "lying", and I stated "even without going into alleged corruption". But corruption is the only explanation for how come a German bitch was exported to Scandinavia (I forget her name, and no longer have contact with my informant - divorce DOES tend to end kennels), failed the FCI scheme, was returned to the breeder who then got either an 'a'-n or an 'a'-fn. I'll accept that NOT anaesthetising a pooch plus VERY careful manipulation (such as PUSHING instead of pulling) can produce xrays that look like 'a'-nz instead of Fail - but I do NOT believe that those dodgy "tactics" can put the plates into either of the SV's top 2 categories. And only "corruption" would induce a radiographer to employ any of those 3 tactics.

 ● "Yeah...I'm sure the ethics and morals of the breeders over there are so much better than everywhere else in the world..."
I don't know about "everywhere else in the world", but there ARE places that are much worse than others.

● "oh wait, check the last thread I had going with Kiwi where he failed to mention the HUGE differences between the requirements for the breed survey. Just "happened" to leave that out right?"
YOUR ignorance & prejudice do NOT justify your claim that I "Just "happened" to leave that out".
I answered the question I was asked. Any LITERATE person would have seen that the difference between the 2 schemes has just ONE element different: Until very recently the SV required an HGH or IPO or SchH certificate (which has produced the profitable-for-some industry known as "midnight trials"), NZ doesn't - nor do Australia, Britain, NAmerica (outside the GSSCC and USCA). In the case of Australia, the Alsatian/GSD breed was banned from importation throughout 1929 (in 1933 NZ ALMOST followed suit but the Bill lapsed during the Parliamentary holidays - no doubt the problems caused worldwide by the 29 October 1929 collapse of the the USA's employment & monetary systems and during the 1930s were a bigger worry) through to 1972 - FORTY-THREE YEARS! Some states required native-born Alsatians to be de-sexed right up until 1976!!! Pg.738 of the massive 846 page (with A4 pages instead of the A5 or even A6 pages that most books are printed in) 50th Jubilee GSDCAu book states "The Hughenden ban was lifted in 1991. Until then it was still on the local Council statutes that German Shepherd Dogs wandering the streets were to be shot on sight".
The ANKC has banned "biting sports". As far as I know, Queensland is the only Australian state whose judiciary HASN'T banned "biting sports". As a side-effect I was one of the Kiwi GSD Advisory Committee folk who had to vote whether to nominate AUSTRALIAN Sanne Pedersen & her bitch, Jabina Nala
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=726996-jabina-nala
to represent Australasia/Pacifica to the WUSV "Worlds" - because the GSDCAustralia couldn't or wouldn't. I WISH she had had a competent cameraman who knew how to use a zoom-lens and a wide f-stop, but here is what Nala did on "our" behalf:
A - tracking   : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-akfof6eHE      73
B - obedience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=806wLjpZNYg    77
C - protection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DbnYZDz_Hk    85

 

For those unfamiliar with IPO/SchH:
Each exercise is marked out of 100, with 70 being just a Pass. So Nala didn't have a GREAT day, ending in 92nd place with 235/300 points. But at least she WAS there, competing against the best from each WUSV zone.

 

[Hundmutter] 14.10.2016 - 06:10
● "I point out that it is not claimed the UK scheme is a 'cure'. And whatever Les claims for the NZ system, even if it is based in the UK one, I am telling you they should be thought of as TWO distinct versions, and WE do not claim it as "the best"."
While the NZVA was running the BIF-scheme it WAS identical to the BVA's. The batch including 4 of my plates taken on 30.4.1985 took almost a year to be finally certificated. They and other people's plates taken to BVA specifications travelled the world, going to each NZVA radiologist who hoped to be included on the Panel of readers, and then to the BVA to be read by ITS readers, and then back to NZ for the various readers' 18 aspect-scores to be compared with the scores from Britain. The certificates I received for my 4 in that batch are dated 31.1.1986.

● "I cannot see WhereTF you gleaned your conclusion, from what Les actually says, AT ALL."

Yeah - SOME people are poor readers! I could name a couple of self-important Kiwi who are dreadful readers.

 

● "This thred isn't actually about the relative merits of the various countries' schemes; it is about someone relying on the German A stamp and then discovering a flaw with results in their dog.  This is indeed nothing new - though I acknowledge to Susie that it is not all that common, and usually is dealt with professionally when it does occur.  Not always, however - we had a famous case in the 80s, that Les part-references (I don't think you and he are talking about the same dog here !), and as I recall it took the SV quite some time to even admit the possibility it was wrong, let alone make any amends.  If a dog is exported partly dependent on the strength of test results that then prove distinctly false, that is terrible for the buyer/importer of the dog; and can amount to a scam."
Good points. But [Bavarian] isn't writing to support the 'a'-stamps - she is attempting to "assassinate" me.

As for "your" 80's GSD - I doubt that I heard about it. Barbara Lines (Melony GSDs) was either dead or ill by then, and Ron & Janet Firth (Ronet GSDs) were divorcing in 1978 and we received R, Lieschen + Gina z. Wolfskammer (and her daughter by Chicko v.Gut Friedburg. Gina had - allegedly, at least - failed a leptospirosis or some such test so was NOT allowed on the plane that was supposed to bring her to whelp in NZ, and we couldn't afford to fly & quarantine a litter here as well so had to accept only 1 UK-born daughter plus sell her in partnership) in about January or February 1980.

[Bavarian Wagon] 14.10.2016 - 13:10

● "Hund...it's amazing how subjective and blind you can be. His first paragraph rips apart the SV a-stamp system, calling it full of corruption"
Learn to READ. I did NOT write what you claim. What a pity no-one has been able to remove the bias you instinctively put on everything. I guess you were one of the pupils that teachers gave up on and allowed to sit in the back row painting finger-nail & toe-nails,

● "and then while trying to give some merit to the ZW score, still points out where it lacks."
Of course. How can any INTELLIGENT person consider anything without looking at BOTH aspects - its merits and its demerits? The ZW has the merit of ATTEMPTING to incorporate evidence from the pooch's FAMILY. It has the demerit of NOT attempting to do so in the logical and straightforward way developed by Dr Willis and continued by the GSDSCAustralia. As the GSDCAu has now re-opened its table-pages to non-members, in an earlier part of this (my response to your 13.10.2016 - 18:10 post) I linked you to the pages showing its analyses.

● "Yet in the paragraphs after he talks about how amazing the BIF system is and how a vet 40 years ago proved how inaccurate the SV a-stamps were compared to this new scoring system."
"new"? What "new scoring system"? Just because YOU are unaware of somehtign that started in 1978 doesnlt make the thing "new"!
Use "amazing"? Me??? NEVE....Well, yes -  it IS "amazing" how consistently you fail to read the ACTUAL WORDS people write. Among the MISinterpretations you prefer are that
(1) I tried to make a comparison between the 2 schemes. NO WAY!
(2) That two PROFESSORS (Dr Willis was a geneticist-mathematician, Dr Latham - if I've remembered his name correctly - was the BVA's top radiology professor) were "a vet 40 years ago" who set out to "prove how inaccurate the SV a-stamps were" - the reality is that they went to find out whether there was any way to validly compare the 2 schemes. The figures DO prove that there isn't, once you get past that the AVERAGE for each stamp is (with μ the symbol for "population mean"): 'a'-n μ 2.86, 'a'-fn μ 4.14, 'a'-nz μ 7.79- which is easer to remember (albeit inaccurately!) as =3, =4, =8  in rounded terms for the "middle dog of each stamp". And (3) that 1983 was "40 years ago" instead of only 33 years ago - I guess you don't understand the principle by which rounding and approximations can be made, either.
What I presented were the ACTUAL ranges each stamp covered, thus PROVING that the BIF method of measuring & scaling the measurements would have given SOME of the 'a'=fns an 'a'-n, SOME of the 'a'-fns an 'a'-nz. And that of the 'a'-nzs, some deserved 'a'-n, some others an 'a'-fn, but also that SOME deserved to get a Fail -  especially in the Australian version of the scheme where the ANKC has THIS YEAR agreed to refuse registration to any GSD litter where a parent has either hip totalling more than 8 - and as many pooches (and people) DO have one hip worse than the other, that means that any pooch with a combined total of 17 is definitely removed from the Australian gene pool from now on, so are GSD dogs & bitches whose total might be as low as 10 if the actual lateral totals are 9 : 1 or 1 : 9 or have an aspect score higher than 3 on any of the 18 aspects measured.
It won't ELIMINATE HD, but it certainly will reduce the average risk of HD!

● "With every system there's room for inaccuracy and corruption. A lot of borderline hips/elbows can go either way based on the opinion of the person doing the grading."
True - but why USE a person who operates on "opinion" instead of applyng MEASUREMENTS? And why HAVE a "borderline" grading -  a category with such a variable definition based on the OPINION of whoever "reads" the plate - especially as, last time I checked, OFA doesn't even require vets to certify that the pooch was fully anaesthetised during the xraying?

● "No matter how you want to break down the grading...the scoring will always be subjective."
Although you worship on your knees 3 times a day in front of the ikon niche where a candle illuminates the image of yourself when you were merely a stubborn child instead of a stubborn adult, that does NOT mean that YOUR experiences cover enough and that YOUR opinions are automatically RIGHT.

I can well believe that 'a'-stamps and OFA categories are "read" subjectively. But the human error with BIF-scoring is minimal - only where to START and where to FINISH each measurement is subjective.

● "The borderline dogs will always be questioned. I had a dog just go from being fair at 2 years old to good at 3 after a re submission of new films to OFA. It happens."
Demonstrating that ONE of the readers is incompetent and needs to be sacked or retrained.
The normal progression is in the opposite direction, as natural wear & tear within joints makes the slightly-defective joint degrade faster than a still-correct joint does.
A pooch I am interested in was 1 "point" on the wrong side of the limit for one aspect, The pooch wasn't re-xrayed, the "thumb" with the original digital xray was sent to a different reader and that aspect became scored as just within the limit. A 1-point "improvement" I can believe, just as I CAN believe that a pooch whose xray shows that it is right on the "wall" between 2 broad bordering categories can sometimes be regarded as on the "better" side of that "wall" (especially if the reader has just had an enjoyable experience!) but be regarded as on the "worse" side of the "wall" by a reader who is headachey or in a bad mood.
So I do NOT approve of ANY category scheme that relies on "walls" between a few broad "areas" - I require the rating scale to be as long as possible.
BIF has a 0-to-106 scale and REPORTS every one of the 18 aspects measured. PennHIP has a 0-to-100 Distraction Index scale - but the rest of its certificate has so little INFORMATION that it cannot supply the "early warnings" that BIF reports can.
Because of the small amount of human error that remains in BIF-scoring, I would PREFER that a limit last 2 generations (5 to 10 years) before being tightened - but nevertheless the GSDCAu/ANKC tightening of limits IS being done democratically, based on the wishes of GSD Club members as expressed in national polls conducted independently of the GSDCAu.
When does the GSDCAm start presenting FCI#166 to the AKC as THE Standard of the GSD then start DEMANDING that LRLs (Litter Registration Limits) be applied as to WHICH GSDs are eligible to have their litters registered as breed-worthy GSDs?

● "Also...the OPs post is completely lacking any REAL information. "Some dogs with known good hips have recently been returned from the SV dysplastic." "
Again, your lazy mind makes your statement indecipherable. Forums in the pdb are NOT conversations between just 2 people, so you need to IDENTIFY each person you refer to. "OP" does NOT identify anyone. I know that I have never written the bit you claim to be a quote from the unnamed "OP".

● "I've heard some stories of NZ hips coming back good, fair, or mild when sent to the OFA."
Whereas I, despite being a New Zealand statistician for GSDs, don't know of ANY NZ GSD's xrays being sent to OFA. To Australia, yes. To Britain, yes. Learn to THINK OUT what you actually mean, and then to EXPRESS that thought in CLEAR English with correct punctuation.And BTW - if the SV's 'a'-stamps are as good as you want us tro bel;ieve, ad the PFA;s catefories are as good as you periodically want us to believe, WHY do people go to the expense of

getting 'a'-stamped pooches re-xrayed by OFA?

 

[Hundmutter] 14.10.2016 - 15:10
● "That isn't quite what he said ... I think you want to see more in it, and so you see what you see. And make 2 + 2 add to 10, in the process.
But there's no point in arguing with you, ever, is there ?"
You've got it!
I rarely bother to reply TO such people - but I do have to APPEAR to answer them, so that other readers don't get left thinking that the subborn person is actually right.

 

I have already implied Bav is a 'child' still, to his 'face' in PMs, and also that he is stubborn. He
(and he confirms he is a 'he', when I'd assumed otherwise - sorry about that) could still have been at the back of his class painting his nails though, cuz he sure as hell wouldn't have been listening & learning anything, given his PDB performances. Nothing any of us say to him seems to make any dent in this. A pity, as he does sometimes come up with sensible remarks, but only, it seems to me, in those areas of GSD-dom that are immediately familiar to him.

Anything that involves actually READING the explanations put to you by others here, BW, you fail to study & give any credit to; any info. that has a 'historical' base you write off on the assumption every aspect today stands alone and what has gone before has no influence on it and therefore does not matter. This is arrogance.  What a shame, I think that is a loss to the breed.