Degenerative Myelopathy - Page 3

Not sure anyone was suggesting DM and HD were related to each other. Both just possibilities raised, in the absence of veterinary exam / conclusions, to try to explain a weak, odd, gait.

A summary in case readers out there are becoming confused:

Just because any given dog is not a purebred, papered GSD ; or, if it is, there is not full info available on that pedigree as to the results of health tests on the ancestors (whether or not those ancestors were ever tested for HD, ED, DM ) makes zero difference to whether the dog in question has HD or DM, or any number of other neurological or muscular-skeletal problems. A dog which is a "Shepherd mix", even one which is only half GSD, can still be prone to the GSDs' variety of those conditions; if the genes are in there. A dog which has been X rayed or whose ancestors have all been graded can still prove to have HD and/or ED; a dog who has not been established as affected or a carrier for DM can still develop it (at the very least. There are those who would argue that DNA classification is still no guarantee of a 'Clear' result). And as far as I know there is STILL no confirming test for a living dog that it has DM; that can only be confirmed post mortem.

As for hips or elbow joints, knowing there are dogs in the pedigree which have bad grades for HD, for example, will just alert you to the possibility - and the odds - the dog can be a sufferer ; does not guarantee they either will or won't be.

The point in doing tests and radiographs is to guide breeders as to which dog to breed with which bitch, and which to avoid; not to provide a way to sort out the 'blame', after faulty puppies have been

produced.

 

I will add to your summary for crystal clear clarity, that while a dog is alive and presenting symptoms of DM, seeking a diagnosis of elimination is ONLY what a vet CAN do. If all other conditions are ruled out, and as I mentioned before, the testing protocal is extensive and expensive, then one is faced with calling what "looks like a duck— a duck."

A necropsy must be performed to make a definitive diagnose. It is the sad fact of this devasting DM disease.

The current genetic testing for the suspected genes responsible for DM are based on the best science at this time and are intended as a tool only for some breeders and simply ignored still, by others.

The best buyer is an informed buyer when it comes to pedigreed breeders, and they should want to know what testings and any results are meaning when being included in a pedigree. Also, the best buyers are aware perhaps, of what testing is not being done for the best odds for obtaining healthy, lifetime outcomes of the pups they seek to buy.

The OP is commended on seeking this information even if the curiosity was piqued because of their farrier's experience with their pup.

@Hundmutter, the OP refers in their Topic Header and additional posts, to both DM and HD, my comment was directed to those.

This dog is almost one year old, the owner says he got a "hip warranty".
I'd x-ray the dog as soon as it's one year old- SV will graduate the hips by then, AKC will do prelims at any time.
DM in such a young dog-possible, but rare. HD - always possible.
Hopefully just a not well trained, maybe not well fed overangulated show line puppy...

Somebody who buys a puppy AGED 6 WEEKS (and is already talking about breeding it) is not among those "best buyers" in my eyes.

Susie : no W/L puppy ever goes through a 'wobbly stage' ? LOL

Why a buyer who informs the breeder they will pay and want full registration for a puppy, presumedly to be of the standard suitable for breeding and then be sold such a pup by the breeder, would that make them less than a best-type of buyer? Are you also saying best-breeders don’t sell puppies expecting them to be bred?

Actually, I know what you are trying to insinuate. That all puppies are unknowns so the idea that breeding suitability can be known by any buyer OR the breeder can never be a certainty.

They would only be less than a best-buyer/owner if the desired standards received turned out to be less than suitable for breeding, but they proceeded to breed anyway.

I have learned so much from this thread. THANK YOU all.

I hope she will have him checked but part of me thinks she won't. She got him more or less as an impulse buy as she had just lost her horse. And with so many GS breeders in Michigan and her dream of having one she went with the first one she found. This was all before I knew her.

I am hoping she brings him along this weekend when she comes. I will get a video of him in motion.

Cherjam, hope you do, it will be interesting to see video and who knows, we may be able to help more if/when we have seen it. In any case perhaps you have more info now and can assess better for yourself what you are seeing. If there really is something lasting wrong, hope you can persuade her to get him checked out properly by her vet.

 

@Beetree: I don't know why you have to use words like "insinuate"; it is not an insinuation to state that I do not like or think it good that anybody buys a puppy at the tender age of six weeks, I am far from alone in that.

And yes, whether 6, 7, or 8 weeks - or 12 weeks, or 6 months - because puppies ARE always such a 'crap shoot', my European sensibilities ARE appalled by the peculiar notion that greeders not only charge one price for one sort of puppy and a higher one for dogs which are they SAY are 'breeding prospects' (based on nothing, if they cannot supply a copy of papers with health results all complete), but that the AKC shores up that practice by making a box on its forms that they can tick to say the pup is suitable for competition/breeding with - and greeders simply cross through on sale even though they have charged the 'breeding stock' price ! System strikes me as thoroughly ridiculous.

Seriously, I think good breeders just want to produce nice puppies that fit their Standard and are healthy.  Most rational breeders will tell you they cannot sell every puppy to a Show home (in which I include for W/L dogs a home where they will be actively worked or participate in hundsport training etc, and maybe also get shown, SV style); and thus the pet dogs the remainder become will not and should not be considered for breeding, unless the owners change their minds and get active, AND the dog turns out a particularly good specimen.

This works for all breeds, but particularly with those like GSDs  where we have Surveys/Korung or similar methods to qualify our dogs as 'breedworthy', as well as the Show Circuit.  People who just go right ahead and breed, whatever the quality they produce, and expect and condone their puppy purchasers doing the same thing in their turn, are no better than the 'millers' who churn out hundreds of pups.

Bee, so far you have implied that its perfectly alright for the breeder who sold this pup to the farrier to have :
a) let it go at only 6 weeks;
b) sold a puppy on the purchasers wish that it can be bred from (eventually) for a 'breeding quality' price, but then destroyed the ability of the purchaser to actually do so by crossing through the box to turn it into a limited registration;
c) sold to an impulse purchaser;

Seems to me if they fitted that description, it would be no surprise whatever if they did not either do their part of, or educate their purchasers in, correct worming, feeding and exercise protocols


- are you sure you don't know who the breeder was ? And are they a friend of yours ? LOL

Hund, I made no such implication about age of sale whatsoever. If one asked me, I would say 6 weeks is too young and not my ideal. Nor did I remark on “b”. You have done a fine job of inferring both buyer and sellers motives and an M.O., instead.

My actual comments should have been taken as an opinion in general of any typical honest buyer, albeit one with an eye for future $$$ prospects and any honest breeder. One could argue those are far and few between?

Do I know any of these parties being discussed? No, I do not. Enough with your pot stirring, now, don’t you think?