"Knowing" the pedigree

[Grizel]

And the "herding" and rally people fear health problems for good reasons. They are usually very limited in the number of dogs they can keep. Getting rid of a sick dog would be out of the question in their community, even if they miraculously found someone who wanted it.

 

On the other hand, I admit I have gotten frustrated with people who prize health checks to the exclusion of everything else. That kind of thinking has become prevalent, especially with modern day people who are used to attaching measurements to everything. Many of them also want to shop on the internet without getting to know the people/dogs first hand.

 

(To be quite honest, I have never heard of anyone getting a border collie for rally. I have a friend who got a Westie especially for rally, and even that was kind of unusual.)

[Tommy Coyote]

Ole dumb me. Whats a "rally"?

[Grizel]

Kind of a cross between obedience and agility, but with much less demanding scoring than obedience. It's often used for baby obedience dogs, rescues, older dogs who need a less demanding occupation, new handlers or time-crunched people who want to train but not for something as rigorous as obedience.

 

Generally, the focus is on making the most of the dog you have. It's not the kind of thing people breed specifically for as far as any type of working breeds go. Conformation breeds may very well see it a little differently (a potential title behind the name of a champion terrier perhaps) - an asset but not a focus.

 

My senior dog and I enjoyed it immensely. The younger one found it quite boring. People vary in what they make of it as well, but it definitely has a place in some situations. Not every type of training or even competition is meant to be the foundation of breeding programs.

[Lana]

 

Many of them also want to shop on the internet without getting to know the people/dogs first hand.

 

 

Very much agree. Then they like to come on here and say they cant find anybody who will sell them a pup that has seen a large man in a snowsuit and been dumped in a kids pool full of plastic bottles...while having prick ears and a smooth coat. BUT they are going to breed some nice red pups and to hell with all of you!

[Liz P]

AND, those dogs must also be able to work horses.

[Sue R]

And the "herding" and rally people fear health problems for good reasons. They are usually very limited in the number of dogs they can keep. Getting rid of a sick dog would be out of the question in their community, even if they miraculously found someone who wanted it.

 

Some of "us" for whom the working dog is the reason and the necessity also find ourselves in the same situation. I am limited in the number of dogs I can or would have, for multiple reasons. We have never, and would not, rehome a dog *unless* it was strictly for the benefit of that dog or another dog in the household. So, if I get a dog for work and it doesn't work out, I am in a jam if I was needing to depend on that dog on the farm.

 

I know many handlers who can and do keep multiple dogs and rehome those that either don't work out for them (not a suitable partnership or the dog is just not right for the handler's wants/needs) or that may have physical or mental issues that make them unsuitable for the want/need. The ones I know seem to be extremely careful in their choice of new homes for their "wash-outs" and started/trained dogs that might be better in someone else's household. And I know some who simply do not rehome/pass on dogs that aren't just what they want or need for farm, ranch, or trial (unless, again, it is for the dog's or other dogs' benefit).

 

So, sometimes we who depend on the working dog are in the same position as pet/performance people, and sometimes we are not. It's all on a case-by-case basis.

[Grizel]

Sue, I have known some people in the stock dog world who not only look out for their own dogs no matter what but are very generous with any dog in need. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[Sue R]

No, I didn't think that at all from what you wrote. I was just mentioning that people in both worlds and their circumstances vary in terms of the number of dogs they can or will keep and also whether or not they rehome with that being a potential limiting factor.

[Diana A]

Regarding health checks and rehoming dogs - I agree that I get frustrated with some out there who think clean health checks is all they need as the green light to breed. I guess you can have that attitude when your other breeding requirements are pretty minimal (able to run agility or pets, obedience, appearance, etc). But I also get frustrated that it seems there are still a lot of working breeders out there who don't do health checks. I know many do, but I still seem to come across quite a few who don't, and even some who belittle it as something only sport dog breeders worry about. Health checks aren't THE most important thing, and in and of themselves aren't a reason to breed, but they do have some importance and need to be factored into the decision-making process, whether breeding or buying.

 

All decisions should be based on the work FIRST, yes, but the health checks are just added information that may make someone think twice about an otherwise good breeding if that information points out the potential for real problems. What you don't know CAN hurt you, so why not check? If the dog is SO fantastic that you decide the breeding would benefit future generations despite the health problems, you can still make that choice (and factor that knowledge into how future generations are bred), but at least you're making it with both eyes open instead of blindly out of ignorance.

 

Let's say you know about an awesome dog who would be perfect for your bitch in every way, but you find out he has seizures - would you rethink your decision on that breeding, based on health information? With so many good dogs out there, would you be likely to look for another stud that worked equally well but without a known health issue? I think most would. No point in breeding fantastic working dogs who turn 3 or 4 years old and suddenly can't work due to a medical problem. Assuming you get anyone to buy them in the first place, knowing there's an issue. So if it makes sense to take into account a known, obvious health issue like seizing that you can detect without a test, why is it okay to choose to stay in the dark about other potential health issues that could easily be detected with a test?

 

Let's say Dog A is mildly dsyplastic but it doesn't affect his work too obviously, and Bitch B is also in the same condition. Individually you could say 'well the dog works okay so he/she must be fine'. But if you do the test and realize both have a mild issue, you may think twice about crossing them. Maybe they're both really good dogs and you decide to breed them each anyway, but not necessarily to each other. You can make informed choices with that additional information - knowing is better than being totally in the dark and getting a nasty surprise a few generations down the road.

 

I know as a buyer I would want to know - because no matter how good a breeding is, there are a lot of good ones out there, and if I know there's the potential for health problems I'll wait for another litter. Maybe someone with the ability to keep more dogs would make a different choice and take the chance - it's all just more information so that each person can make the decision that makes sense for their own situation. Working ability comes first, of course, but once I find a cross I like the looks of based on work, that's when I'd start asking the health questions. I don't rehome dogs and can only have so many, plus it's heartbreaking to put several years into a dog, just start to get things going on a good track with a young dog, and then have some health issue rear its ugly head that prevents that dog from fulfilling its potential. Not only am I emotionally invested in the dog at that point, but there aren't a lot of homes out there that will take on a dog with known medical issues; it's a little different than just rehoming a dog who doesn't suit me but who would be perfect for someone else.

[Liz P]

Good post Diana.

 

I've had dogs sidelined by hip dysplasia and adult onset hearing loss. I also had an epileptic dog, but his seizures were rare enough that I was able to keep working him. While I have rehomed a few dogs, it is VERY difficult for me emotionally and I try to avoid it as much as possible.

[Grizel]

I also agree with Diana. At first, I was very annoyed by the fixation on health checks, but when I thought about the differences between the typical performance home and the typical working home, it did make sense. One story that stands out was from someone who told me they got "blacklisted" by performance breeders after rehoming a dog with medical issues. In the stockdog world, it is fine to move on a dog for any one of a number of reasons.

 

For some people, the scales have tipped out of balance. I have had people tell me they would rather have a puppy from aggressive parents than one from parents without health testing. There are also lots of people who think that all they have to do to be a good breeder is health test.

 

Having been in the situation where a sick dog sidelined my plans for years, I have complete sympathy. I want breeders to be knowledgeable about the health of their lines and using whatever testing is appropriate. But I also don't want people breeding dogs just because they are healthy, which seems to be a bit of a trend in some circles.

[Laurae]

I am all for testing, but as far as I know there is no test for epilepsy or adult onset hearing loss (which one of my dog suffers from as well). As far as hip dysplasia goes, I do know people who are leery of testing for this because while there is an obvious genetic component to the condition, there is also strong evidence that its expression is at least partly environmental as well.

[Sue R]

People do need to be looking at the whole picture and many are not.

[Liz P]

Laurae, my personal and professional opinion about HD is that it is far more genetic than some give it credit for. Look at breeds selected for strict performance with NO health testing like Alaskan huskies. They have virtually zero HD. Same for Salukis and others. I think we just haven't figured out how it's inherited. It might be so complex that we never have a genetic test. At the very least, I think it's responsible to use the available (though imperfect) tests. We know, based on collected data, that your odds of producing a dysplastic pup drop if both parents have higher hip scores while the odds jump up if they both have failing scores. Why not at least stack the odds in your favor?

 

There will hopefully be a test for adult onset hearing loss in the near future.

 

Epilepsy is a tough one. Breeders at least need to be honest. I hope there will eventually be a test, but based on the data I've seen I am not hopeful.

[Mark Billadeau]

There will hopefully be a test for adult onset hearing loss in the near future.

 

Epilepsy is a tough one. Breeders at least need to be honest. I hope there will eventually be a test, but based on the data I've seen I am not hopeful.

see ABCA Meeting: H&G committee summary for updates on epilepsy and EOD.