# maintaining/improving a breed



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

From another thread, who *is* responsible for maintaining a breed? The breeders who produce the dogs, or the buyers who buy the type of dog they want to own?




I guess the words "responsibility" and "blame" might both be used in some cases.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

IMO it can be both. In theory the breeders are responsible for maintaining the breed. But if there are no buyers for the type of dog a breeder produces in their quest to maintain the breed, then there really isn't much influence they can have on the direction the breed is taking. Doesn't matter if the breeders vision for the breed is a solid representation of what the breed should be.

I don't think it ever gets to that extreme, where NOBODY wants the type of dogs a breeder is producing. But if the buyers for a certain type of dog are very limited, then that breeder, and others like them, is going to have a very small impact on the breed as a whole. 

An example is working Groenendaels or Tervurens. And here I'm talking about bitework, not other work which is just as legitimate. There are some breeders out there that are striving to keep the working ability of the Groen and Terv at the same level as the Malinois. But the reality is there are very few buyers for those dogs, for the most part people just aren't interested in Groen or Terv for bitework. So it doesn't matter how many solid working dogs those breeders can turn out, if nobody wants them they will have very little impact on the breed, and end up with a lot of dogs living at their house because they can't find good working homes for them.

On the flip side though there is nothing that says a breeder has to change their breeding goals just to meet market demand. If they believe certain traits are important in the breed, and they breed away from those traits to make a more marketable dog, they have become part of the problem, not the solution. 

Unfortunately there will be people that are willing to breed pet quality dogs, or non-working dogs, to meet the market demand. So in the end while I think both parties are responsible for the direction a breed takes, I think the buyer actually has more "power" in that decision.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

interesting question ...

i think it is 100% the responsibility of the breeders to maintain the quality of any breed
... based SOLELY on a desire to improve the breed they have a passion for, nothing more nothing less
* NOT based on economics, or what is "hot" at the moment, or what the market might seem to demand, or what can be titled in a sport

if someone is not motivated for this reason, and not financially able to breed purely to do this, and must rely on their pup sales to live off of, they should not be a breeder, imo, and that will include keeping pups beyond their "cute" stage when required which places more burdens on the breeder

as a minimum, i feel breeder must :
1. spend a lot of time researching their breed before they ever produce their first litter
2. gain the respect of other responsible owners so that they can place litters when they start to produce them
3. if it is for sport they should know the sport inside and out by competing in it, prior to setting up their breeding program, and then probably stick to breeding ... not easy to have it both ways. plus they should realize not all their dogs will excel and some may not even compete; but all should go to responsible owners
4. they should also spend an equal amount of time studying genetics of their breed before they even select their breeding stock
5. and establish a thorough screening and selection method to ensure pups are matched to the right owners and follow up on sales, which takes a LOT of time and effort many breeders may not have
6. and they shouldn't expand on the number of litters they turn out until credibility is built up and demand far exceeds what they can produce

if this happens any breed should improve, even the rare breeds 
it may seem idealistic, but you asked  ... and that is the only way to truly improve a breed imo
i think there are way too many breeders out there, and even tho they might have had good intentions when they started out, time and money ends up driving their program and breed quality can suffer as a result

of course there are breeders who don't match up to these (basic) standards and may still produce a few good dogs, but i don't see how they will actually "improve the breed" 

** as you can probably guess, i hold breeders to MUCH higher standards than owners 
because i feel they have a ton more responsibility and impact on the way a breed actually develops over the years

of course owners have responsibilities to raise and maintain quality, but i don't see how they can actually improve a breed; until they start breeding dogs themselves


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

This standard could mean that breeders actually improving their breed might end up having to be "hobby breeders," then, right? (I mean in the makes-money-or-not sense.)


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

As far as I am concerned it's a given - everyone who plays a role, assuming that is without any hidden agendas or selfish motives, is responsible for maintaining the breed. And Kadi I agree, the power of a breeders program ultimately is embedded in the end user. Practical applications, pushing thresholds, exploration and demonstration of versatility, high standards, and integrity all play an integral role in establishing value and sustaining momentum within a breeding program. JMO

Connie - it's the hobbist, above all others that I prefer to do business with.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Nicole Stark said:


> .... Connie - it's the hobbist, above all others that I prefer to do business with.


I understand ..... meaning that the breeder has other income and isn't depending on your purchase to pay the rent?

But what about the probability that "other income" means that breeding can't be the breeder's main focus?


(I really know little to nothing about breeding. This comes up at our club, never with a clear conclusion, and then it came up in a PM thread, and it seems like a good thing to express POVs about.)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I think it has to be the breeder. If money and marketing dictate then ultimately, the breed will be lost---especially from a working standpoint. When you look at the history of working dogs, it wasn't about numbers. You bred for what, and when you needed something. You either kept it, got it in the right home or culled. Registry control and systems has not helped working dogs. 

T


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I understand ..... meaning that the breeder has other income and isn't depending on your purchase to pay the rent?
> 
> But what about the probability that "other income" means that breeding can't be the breeder's main focus?


Meaning that the breeder breeds for himself first and does so with no expectation of income irrespective of what income *may* be generated from any pups or adults they choose to sell/place.

As for the second part, this is not nor has it ever been an expectation of mine (breeding to be their main focus). IMO this is where a conflict of interest typically enters in and invites trouble where it doesn't belong.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Nicole Stark said:


> ..... this is not nor has it ever been an expectation of mine (breeding to be their main focus). IMO this is where a conflict of interest typically enters in ....


I see what you mean.

But would breeding as the main focus mean that more thought/study/research can go into the program?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Connie Sutherland said:


> But would breeding as the main focus mean that more thought/study/research can go into the program?


Not necessarily. I've always had my "real job" to support my family and the dogs, and then the dogs as a hobby. But I think I've still be able to put in a fair amount of thought/study/research over the years  Just depends on what the person's priorities are. 

I think when breeding is your livelihood, there is going to be pressure to breed for the money vs the breed. I'm not saying that's what all breeders without another form of income do, but it has to be a consideration. Any time extra expenses come up, if breeding is the sole income source, the only way to cover them is to breed more litters. At that point, the money is one of the main focuses of the breeding. When a breeder has an outside income source, money doesn't have to factor into the breeding decisions.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I see what you mean.
> 
> But would breeding as the main focus mean that more thought/study/research can go into the program?


Can? Certainly. Does it? Not in my experience, at least not in ways that count or matter long term. In fact, I have found what actually occurs in those circumstances to be in direct contrast from that specific expectation. Understand here, I am not using the term "hobbyist" in a loose context. I am talking about the individual who by effort and results alone set themselves apart from the rest. Distinctive and on some level rare, the value of such a breeder is self evident.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

i think alot of people cannot handle high drive dogs so when people produce sort of mediocer dogs with medium drives that is not necessarily a bad thing. Also dogs that are more squarely built seem to be less prone to displasia then dogs that are longer build. You can do x rays when the dogs come of age but some breeds are just going to be more prone to disease no matter who breeds them. JMO of course.



_
Post moved to new thread at _
http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f28/lower-drive-mediocre-dogs-25111/#post358834


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I've had three breeds and when you select against dysplasia, its not an issue. Has nothing to do with square vs. long build. Breeders are constantly gambling on the health for other traits. The SV is still certifying dogs at 1 yr which has been a known problem for over 30 years. Y

T


----------



## Robley Smith (Apr 20, 2012)

rick smith said:


> 3. if it is for sport they should know the sport inside and out by competing in it, prior to setting up their breeding program, and then probably stick to breeding ... not easy to have it both ways. plus they should realize not all their dogs will excel and some may not even compete; but all should go to responsible owners


I am with you on most of what you wrote, but disagree with the part about sticking to just breeding.

Working breeds were shaped and formed by the demands and selection forces present in the work, and their decline begins at the removal of those pressures. The problem is that times change and there just aren’t the original jobs out there for those dogs and their work is redefined as things like military and law enforcement, sport, and SAR.

You say they should know the sport inside and out, and I agree, but they should also be deeply involved with, and participatory to the training and competition of their product. Knowing whether or not they produced a winning dog isn’t enough. Second hand reports about drives, nerves, grips, injuries and more are not good enough. The breeder should be as intimately involved with their dogs in their new roles as the shepherds or farmers who worked with their dogs every day and formed the breed were.

That is asking a lot, and I agree that it wouldn’t be easy.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Ben Thompson said:


> i think alot of people cannot handle high drive dogs so when people produce sort of mediocer dogs with medium drives that is not necessarily a bad thing. Also dogs that are more squarely built seem to be less prone to displasia then dogs that are longer build. You can do x rays when the dogs come of age but some breeds are just going to be more prone to disease no matter who breeds them. JMO of course.


While all of these statements have merit on some level, they mostly diverge from the original question, which was rather pointed. We might do better to stay on point with that or if you prefer, create a separation between the thoughts within another thread.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Robley Smith said:


> I am with you on most of what you wrote, but disagree with the part about sticking to just breeding.
> 
> Working breeds were shaped and formed by the demands and selection forces present in the work, and their decline begins at the removal of those pressures. The problem is that times change and there just aren’t the original jobs out there for those dogs and their work is redefined as things like military and law enforcement, sport, and SAR.
> 
> ...


I agree that to the extent possible the breeder needs to work the dogs and to the advanced levels. There is a lot of "working line" breeders that don't work the dogs. However, that said, I applaud the ones that can't, yet get the dogs into the right hand and heed what those handlers/trainers have to say about what is necessary for the dogs to succeed. Even if you do the work I think you have to be involved and see the placements through their training and careers to keep handle on how multiple puppies in the litters fare in the work, not just your pick or keep.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

You know T, that brings up a very good and often unexplored perspective in the broader scheme of things; the outlier, which is highly beneficial and to some extent an invaluable point of reference often representing the sum of all things relevant. Or on the other end of things, a divergent representative of what may be possible.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

in depth knowledge of what the breed should do is critical of course, whether it's work or sport.

I was only trying to say that the emphasis and focus should stay on breeding and it's hard to breed, work and/or compete unless you have a LOT of time.

i just happen to feel breeders should be not necessarily try and be a jack of all trades and master of none. they should be the specialists who keep our breeds healthy and strong so others can use them the way the were intended to be used, whether it is to keep someone's lap warm or stop and drop a scumbag in his tracks


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

rick smith said:


> ... breeders should be not necessarily try and be a jack of all trades and master of none. they should be the specialists who keep our breeds healthy and strong so others can use them the way the were intended to be used...


Amen, Rick-san. O 

Speaking of specialists, I've been meaning to ask.... Are you on your phone or something weird when you respond here? I gather you are not and are well set with that jumbled jungle of letters you give in your replies.

But, my cry baby, dyslexic mind cannot separate all that shiznit you type, although when you offer something short - then I find that I get to clap and cheer. =D>

Seriously, maybe it's just me but most of your stuff seems to ram together. I find it hard to read and mostly have to skip over it.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Here in Europe, the Show Judges are responsible more or less for the "outcome" of many breeds.

Whatever Judge X places as 1st, will often be the criteria to breed for. Many breeds do not have a "working class" and just breed to satisfy the judge's requirements.

There are however breeders who attempt to attain a dog that is worthy of its breed and attempt to achieve dogs that can "work" in various scenes. Some breed for sport and police work, some breed only for sport but these attempt to achieve a dog that is healthy, athletic and willing to work.

Unfoirtunately, the latterly mentioned breeds are only Belgian Dutch and German Shepherds.

Now going into hiding......


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

My above post in no way includes all hunting dogs.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_" .... the Show Judges are responsible more or less for the "outcome" of many breeds."_

Something huge that I completely overlooked in my O.P.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> _" .... the Show Judges are responsible more or less for the "outcome" of many breeds."_
> 
> Something huge that I completely overlooked in my O.P.


True, but understandable since this is a working dog forum. I'd hate to see this thread go in that direction anyway...


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Nicole Stark said:


> True, but understandable since this is a working dog forum. I'd hate to see this thread go in that direction anyway...


You're right. MIND ERASE!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Entirely the breeder! Then they are responsible for getting the dog in the right hands. That can be a crap shoot just as it is placing any dog.
Dogs "judged" the best are often just the product of the good training.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

I believe the breeder is responsible for the qualities of the breed and obviously the market is a factor. This thinking goes back to my comments on the decline of the GSD. It is an extremely popular breed that is bred all over the world, largely by people who shouldn't be breeding them because they don't know what they are doing or know the qualities of a strong working dog ( for military or police work.) It can also be said the judges of the main sport of the breed, schH, don't know what they are doing when they give showdogs a rating of pronounced couraged in trials, when those dogs have litlle to no fighting instincts.That is why small countries like Belgium and Holland, have breeders (and more difficult protection sports IMO) who can maintain the the strong working qualities, which the majority of the market would call overly aggressive, too dominant, etc. Also, those breeders are not going to sell their dogs to just anyone, but most likely to people who they know they will utilize them in some real working venue and continue to use the better dogs to help improve the breed. That is very different than breeeding a high prey GSD from SchH lines and selling them to soccer moms with little children, who would freak out if the dog showed any aggression.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Regarding Ben's comments on dogs that are more square are less likely to have HD, I believe it is probably more a matter of the protection sports that require extreme jumping such as climbing a palisade, will weed out the dogs with bad hips. Years age the GSD was capable of such jumping and climbing. Now it can be a challenge for them to clear a one meter hurdle.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

If you go to http://www.gsdbydesign.com/Bihari_030108.htm
you will see a photo of a GSD from the 1950's climbing about a 6-7' palisade and jumping off of it onto another 6-7' palisade. Those lines were european highlines for the most part, before there was such a split in the breed between working and show. I don't think there are many GSDs around these days with that type of athleticism and drive.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Chip Blasiole said:


> If you go to http://www.gsdbydesign.com/Bihari_030108.htm
> you will see a photo of a GSD from the 1950's climbing about a 6-7' palisade and jumping off of it onto another 6-7' palisade. ....


Wow! 

_
"Rex the Wonder Dog"
"3X Hungarian GV (1954-1956) & 1956 OV
His record says "Victor Forever." No other dog has been distinguished as such either before or since."_


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

That article also show how the breed has fallen apart in the rear since the late 60s, early 70s.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

People mention old school dogs in terms of physical ability. My American showline bitch scaled 6 foot fences and could climb/jump anything. Physical traits are the easiest to fix. Size/agility is an issue because people like big clunkers. Look how many threads on here with the guys oohhhhing and ahhhing over how big the dog is or the Dutchie that is 95 lbs. But what about the old school dog that had the character for reliability with children and the ability for work? Hi prey or drive shouldn't equal aggressive with children. Since he majority of my dogs have come from AKC show lines/dogs, I don't buy the working vs. show thing. Working line breeders are responsible for the health, character, drives and physical abilities of their dogs. It has nothing to do with what the show people are doing. Money and marketing are bigger problems for working dogs than what the show crowds are doing. As someone else said, instead of talking about show judges, start looking at working sport judges. When I started looking for a dog I had breeders saying X puppy could be a "club dog." Schuzthund is the dominant sport, or so it seems. Any consistency in judging, quality of helper work/pressure at the regional/national levels? One practice that is interesing to me is the fact that you bring in a helper the dogs don't know but the night before the trial that same decoy works the dogs in training sessions. How many PSDs get to train with the bad guy? Is it about the breed or how those competition points will translate into money/marketing in stud fees, puppies, training/seminars, etc.?

Here's a thought. In GSDs if you care about the breed's health, stop trying to get over with 1 year SV hip/elbow x-rays. With dogs in your breeding program, what do the hips/elbows look like at Age 5? In looking at one stud dog recently advertised her, I see a litter that has one puppy with normal hips/elbows at Age 1. His two litermates are described as "hips ok, elbows fast normal." At one year of age and looking at health, how much faith do you have in this litter? What breeding value on health can the normal littermate have with x-rays at 1 year and littermates that don't have a rating on the hips other than "ok" and a fast normal on the elbows? You have a dog at public stud and its obvious no matter which way you breed him, you are getting dogs that are not x-raying out at 1 year. Do you keep him at public stud or pull him? Do you sell him to another country? Have seen this happen in the U.S. as well. Obvious its a genetic nightmare so export it and lit it pollute the gene pools over seas. Money & Marketing.



T


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Bob,
The interview with Bihari also quoyes him as saying that he believes the Martin brothers were some of the most influential people of the breed. IMO, they did some of the most damage as heads of the SV by promoting the red and black show dogs, selling them for exorbitant prices, and loosing some of the best working genes in the process.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

What year did they lower the height of the jumps in Belgian Ringsport. My understanding is that in the early years, the Belgian Malinois breeders didn't bother to xray hips because the dogs' ability to successfully complete the very high jumps over time would tell you if their hips were sound. Again, there is/was a higher standard, not based on a registry, and better dogs were/are produced.


----------



## Mark Sheplak (Oct 28, 2011)

Chip Blasiole said:


> If you go to http://www.gsdbydesign.com/Bihari_030108.htm
> you will see a photo of a GSD from the 1950's climbing about a 6-7' palisade and jumping off of it onto another 6-7' palisade. Those lines were european highlines for the most part, before there was such a split in the breed between working and show. I don't think there are many GSDs around these days with that type of athleticism and drive.



Found a video of this...1:30 mark,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=qeUiF5IaN6s


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Chip Blasiole said:


> My understanding is that in the early years, the Belgian Malinois breeders didn't bother to xray hips because the dogs' ability to successfully complete the very high jumps over time would tell you if their hips were sound.


There are still many breeders who feel this way. However, I also know of FRIIIs with ED, HD, fused vertebrae and other issues (not all in the same dog) that are/were jumping max on the jumps (same heights as BR, with a longer long jump). I've met dogs with dysplasia who were already showing issues at 4 or 5 months, but I've met others who worked until they were 7, 8, 9, etc and showed no issues.

IMO the work weeds out those dogs who are affected by the dysplasia, but there are many dogs who aren't, at least not early on. And how bad it is doesn't really seem to play a role in it, some dogs with minor issues on xray limp around like they can barely move, others with horrible hips appear just fine because of their pain tolerance, musculature, and other factors. The issue IMO is while that dog may not appear to be affected, it's offspring may not be so lucky.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

My older GSD has Moderate HD but going on 9 he's just starting to slow down in the cold damp weather. He'll still retrieve a ball all day with no effect whatsoever.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

He wouldn't be able to herd all day with no effect. My first dog with HD in all four extremities was asymptomatic until she was 5. At that point any stock could outrun her.  If she would have been a protection sport dog, its more than likely she could have titled out before becoming symptomatic. This type of view point is what feeds the problem along with those 1 year x-rays.

T


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Agreed! That's pretty much why he's just playing tug and retrieving now. Also probably the only reason I've never bred him. :sad:


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Kadi,
I think you make some good points. I also think that seeing Malinois with orthopedic problems still performing very difficult tasks speaks to the intensity of their drives, which is infrequently seen in other breeds. I think that challenging the dogs with the most difficult tasks in addition to x-raying is the best way to go. It seems like PennHip evaulations have never caught on in the states and I'm not sure there is much evidence that they help reduce the incidence of HD.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Pennhip does not help reduce the incidence of HD. The only thinthat helps is breeding program that selects against. Early x-rays [less than age 2-3] and even PennHip are a crap shoot. So much at the .3 designation of Pennhip is ignored in a lot of breeds and as long as they meet the breed average or less, people think its fine to breed the dog. 

T


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Pennhip does not help reduce the incidence of HD. The only thinthat helps is breeding program that selects against. Early x-rays [less than age 2-3] and even PennHip are a crap shoot. So much at the .3 designation of Pennhip is ignored in a lot of breeds and as long as they meet the breed average or less, people think its fine to breed the dog.
> 
> T


So if 1 year isnt good enough and you think 2 or 3 what if someone else thinks 3-4 is better or someone might suggest we dont really know till age 5 or 6.I think the specialists can say with a degree of confidence what they think will show on the average thru a zillion case studies and are a step in the right direction.To say that hip scores are going to change hugely to stop a dog being bred from 12mths to 2 yrs for instance i just dont see it sorry.

Over here we have a program but the national committee for gsd overhauled it for the better,our national kennel club only wanted to see that dogs have been xrayed(with no other criteria) so owners could make there own decisions but the gsd national committe changed the rules that the hips had to score in a certain range for breeding there fore excluding bad hips that were still been bred from this has only been happening for a few yr now but from the results so far seems to be going well.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

brad robert said:


> So if 1 year isnt good enough and you think 2 or 3 what if someone else thinks 3-4 is better or someone might suggest we dont really know till age 5 or 6.I think the specialists can say with a degree of confidence what they think will show on the average thru a zillion case studies and are a step in the right direction.


Actually the specialists here, OFA and Pennhip, state that the best age to detect most cases of CHD is between 2-3 years of age regardless of breed. You have to understand that CHD is progressive disease. Which is the reason OFA stopped certifying dogs at 1 year of age, because there were still a significent number of dogs between the ages of 1-2 years old that when on to develop CHD. Hence OFA moved the cert age up to 2 years of age. 
Pennhip's a little different in that while they will cert a pup as early as 4 mos old, however they go on to say that the older the dog is at testing the more reliable or accurrate the test results. And while PennHip will tell you the DI doesn't change (which I know for a fact that it does) there is one thing that can and often does...the actual structure of the hip socket.
So if a breeder is truly interested in eliminating or at the very least reducing the frequence of CHD from their breeding program. They would test at an age that you're most likely to see it, which is around 2-3years of age. 

I own a breed, the American Bulldog, where 40-45% of them have CHD to some degree and the trend has been for the breeders to check if at all, around 4-6 mos old and then shout from the mountain tops their dog has passed. Which is BS because the median for the breed is .52 which can be dysplastic nearly 40-50% of the time and PennHip states in their studies that the dogs that scored .30 and above went on to developed CHD roughly 40-50% of the time. Yikes!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

brad robert said:


> So if 1 year isnt good enough and you think 2 or 3 what if someone else thinks 3-4 is better or someone might suggest we dont really know till age 5 or 6.I think the specialists can say with a degree of confidence what they think will show on the average thru a zillion case studies and are a step in the right direction.To say that hip scores are going to change hugely to stop a dog being bred from 12mths to 2 yrs for instance i just dont see it sorry.
> 
> Over here we have a program but the national committee for gsd overhauled it for the better,our national kennel club only wanted to see that dogs have been xrayed(with no other criteria) so owners could make there own decisions but the gsd national committe changed the rules that the hips had to score in a certain range for breeding there fore excluding bad hips that were still been bred from this has only been happening for a few yr now but from the results so far seems to be going well.


 
To start, I rarely do Age 2 x-rays. Mine have been mostly done at age 3-4. Mostly because once I take a dog home, its here for life. At some point I want to know the x-ray status and it may be because of breeding. I rarely prelim anymore because again, its here for life anyway. Have looked at hips at 5-6 and 8-10. A couple of friends of mine and I have been interested in the change over time issue. Teva's hips were the same at 9 as they were at 2. 

There's already been studies on 1 year x-rays. We already know there can be change from 1 year to Age 2, especially depending on the rating. Dr. Keller/OFA did a presentation years ago on how they came up with Age 2 because dysplasia usually showed up by then. Have there been some OFA certified at age 2 and dysplastic at age 5? Have heard of them but for the most part, Age 2 certifications have worked. I've had dogs of 3 breeds the last 20 years or so that came out of OFA solid pedigrees and they themselves certified and no issues even into the geriatric years. I really would like to see later films on a 1 year old fast normal and wouldn't even consider a noch zuch. We also found out that 1 year on elbows was a disaster. In the beginning, it was UAP that everyone was afraid of and this showed up fairly early. So while you weeded out UAP, we started seeing a lot of FCP related Grade 1 DJD in young dogs. Recently on a herding forum, somone sent in Elbow x-rays to OFA and they were Grade 1 DJD. Same x-rays to the SV and its a Fast Normal. I just looked at the litter of 3 dogs at 1 year. Pup #1 HD/ED Normal; Pup #2 "okay" hips and Fast Normal on the elbows. Pup #3 "okay hips" and Fast Normal on the Elbows. Now my guess is that all of these puppies had hip and elbow x-rays done. The SV would not give a rating of "ok." So perhaps they didn't send the hips thinking they woud re-do them and they only sent the elbows. Or they sent both. But on all of them I'd like to see later x-rays. 

When we changed the certification age on elbows from 1 year to 2 years that weeded out a lot of early DJD. Back in the 80s, they were complaining of import A Normals that were OFA dysplastic once they were x-rayed here. Its not just the 1 year but also the allowance of noch zuch that has littered the gene pool. Fast normal bred to fast normal or too many of them in the pedigree doesn't help either. 

T


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Cool great info!! But i still worry about the age of 1 not being enough so if its being found that 2 is a better age to exclude CHD where will we be in years to come? 3 or 4 yrs of age? I worry that a lot of the findings is because of an increase in science and things being made more clear and that dogs have always had these conditions present in some minor way but we can detect it now more then ever and the science to find it can also help for it to be limited as i dont see it ever being completely gone i think thats a fairy tale.So the age of 1 yr by the sv was determined why? is it a push from breeders to pump out pups because its limiting the breeding capabilitys of dogs?

I know from breeder friends that they are very keen to get xray results in and have the dog suitable for breeding once its temp/drives has been evaluated as some of these dogs are from bloodlines where parents etc are dead and want to get progeny as soon as possible to secure lines.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

brad robert said:


> Cool great info!! But i still worry about the age of 1 not being enough so if its being found that 2 is a better age to exclude CHD where will we be in years to come? 3 or 4 yrs of age? I worry that a lot of the findings is because of an increase in science and things being made more clear and that dogs have always had these conditions present in some minor way but we can detect it now more then ever and the science to find it can also help for it to be limited as i dont see it ever being completely gone i think thats a fairy tale.So the age of 1 yr by the sv was determined why? is it a push from breeders to pump out pups because its limiting the breeding capabilitys of dogs?
> 
> I know from breeder friends that they are very keen to get xray results in and have the dog suitable for breeding once its temp/drives has been evaluated as some of these dogs are from bloodlines where parents etc are dead and want to get progeny as soon as possible to secure lines.


Brad, 

This information is been known since the 80s. It has nothing to do with the increase in scientific findings. Talk to people who consistently breed on OFA goods. I have a bitch here out of a pedigree that is consistently getting excellents--not that heard of in her breed. How much breeding are they going to do from Age 1-2? What dog is really mature enough at age 1 to really know the depth of he character or drives? My pups are 13 months and the one from a familiar line I'm fairly sure of but even with him, he needs to mature and I need to test him further in the work to really know. They want to get them as early as possible before something happens that prohibits it. There's been so many excuses but having had dogs out of multi generation certified dogs, good hips breed fairly true. We're looking at not just sire and dam but a good percentage of littermates as well.

This is why the SV system is masking health traits with the one year system. They are securing the line but will they x-ray later to secure health or even know what they have?

T


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Brad,
> 
> This information is been known since the 80s. It has nothing to do with the increase in scientific findings. Talk to people who consistently breed on OFA goods. I have a bitch here out of a pedigree that is consistently getting excellents--not that heard of in her breed. How much breeding are they going to do from Age 1-2? What dog is really mature enough at age 1 to really know the depth of he character or drives? My pups are 13 months and the one from a familiar line I'm fairly sure of but even with him, he needs to mature and I need to test him further in the work to really know. They want to get them as early as possible before something happens that prohibits it. There's been so many excuses but having had dogs out of multi generation certified dogs, good hips breed fairly true. We're looking at not just sire and dam but a good percentage of littermates as well.
> 
> ...


Since the 80s really ?? cant comment on that im not that old  LOL

we dont use ofa here so that has no bearing on us here either.

yes after ten yrs of breeding a line of dogs i think they have a pretty good handle on what a pup at 12mths will be im not sure what lines of dogs you have but by 18mths a lot of things are already visible in these dogs jesus if its not worth a cent at that age it will probably never will be let some one with more patients waste there time.

I have a real problem in going and looking for trouble when its not something that has ever hampered a dog why when a dog gets certified for service has a long and illustrious career has no issues would you turn around and xray and go looking for things? wouldnt the fact the dog did its job well for 5 or so yrs actually mean something? This is for working dogs right? We are not trying to breed superdogs here are we otherwise might as well give up now.The dog did its job and didnt break down.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

brad robert said:


> Since the 80s really ?? cant comment on that im not that old  LOL
> 
> we dont use ofa here so that has no bearing on us here either.
> 
> ...


 
My male pup is of a male sire line I know well but even with that at 13 months, I'm not ready to declare he's all that and a bag of chips. He has one more testing hurdle. So if they have the line, I can understand but they still probably aren't going to be breeding them between 1-2. Looking for/borrowing trouble is bury head in the sand and dial-a-hope. Over 20 weeks and it doesn't come here without OFA x-rays---period. I've done the dysplastic in all four extremities and had to retire the dog at age 5. You just got in super stud with his long and illustruious career, it don't mean diddly unless he has post 2 year old x-rays and a progeny trail. Otherwise, he's not super stud for me. I know they gotta start somewhere and yep that's why you prove them in their home kennel. The fact that the dog did his job for 5 or so years means nothing. Been there, done that--dysplastic moderately in all four extremities. Had she been sound, she could have done her job for five more years. I x-rayed her at age 2 and she was completely asymptomatic. If I had bred her based on the able to do job theory--then what for her progeny. She was a product of her pedigree and that theory as it turned out. This is for working dogs. My dogs are in their working prime at age 5. This is my point. I don't have time after years of developing them to have them break down. I have an 8 1/2 year old that still works and probably won't retire until age 10 or so which is why Rhemy is in training to take over. About Age 8 I start semi-retirement--no more 10 hour stock setting days, huge pasture work, cows, etc. Since Asta, I've had nothing but dogs out of OFA pedigrees and all sound. This really isn't that deep. People just don't want to keep the dogs out of the gene pool based on hip selection if they can avoid it. Believe it or not, I'm not testing crazy and I'm sure the scientists are coming up with a DNA test a year. The new DM DNA testing is pretty wishy washy and I wouldn't use it as a selection tool as it now stands. But hips and elbows??? Elementary and has been for years. That's something you can control, if you want to .

T


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Going back to Connie's original question about who is responsible for maintaining breed characteristics, I think an important element is missing. I am referring to the protection breeds involved in high level biting sports and selecting for traits that will make for strong police, military, security dogs. The element that I believe that is missing is that the decoys don't get to formally critique the dogs' performance. Again, I am mainly referring to biting sports in Holland, Belgium and France, where there is likely to be a much higher percentage of stronger dogs and decoys. I leave out Germany because of the problems with schutzhund and the disparate judging of the show and working lines. I once overheard a German judge brought to the states from Germany to judge a trial say, "People think the dogs have to be ugly before they can work." 
It seems that in top level national/international competitions, the decoys would be the best person to evaluate many different aspects of a dog's performance in the bitework because their read of the dog is firsthand as opposed to the secondhand opinion of the judge. The decoy can feel the strength of the bite, the intensity of the entry, the intensity of the targeting, etc. Their evaluations wouldn't have to effect the outcome of the competition, but provide an alternative source of information for potential breeders.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

While I agree the decoys are a very valuable source for feedback, and I routinely talk to decoys who have worked dogs I'm interested in breeding, and I've passed on more than one possible stud dog because of decoy feedback, I don't think they are responsible for maintaining/improving the breed. They aren't the ones making the decisions regarding what is bred, unless they happen to also be a breeder. They may influence what is being bred, but at the end of the day that decision is still the breeders.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

I'm not saying decoys would decide what dogs should be bred, but as you stated, they can be a valuable source of information that is not readily accessible and that could improve breeding. I'd say there are more pitfalls in looking at judging results.
Ideally, you would test a dog yourself based on what tests you want to see the dogs successfully pass.


----------

