Optigen Test

[Cob-Web]

if puppies from such matings are carefully placed in pet home with their registrations endorsed and the consequence of breeding from carrier animals explained then I can't see a problem

The IF is the biggest issue for me - no matter how careful breeders are, it is perfectly possible that their pups could be subsequently used for breeding, you only have to look at the pedigrees of some commercially bred pups to see that even well bred lines DO end up in commercial and farmed lines
IMO, breeding dogs comes with a responsibility, not only to the dogs in the breeders care, but also the breed as a whole, and so to me, there will always be "a problem" with the deliberate breeding of dogs that carry the risk of perpetuating a genetic condition

Don't breeders breed in a effort to improve the breed? If so, how can deliberately breeding dogs which carry a genetic illness be an improvement? Hopefully, a breeder wouldn't breed a dog with a visible fault/deformity - why is the breeding of a dog carrying an invisible fault OK?

Yes, I know the gene pool is too small to stop using carriers straight away - but in the long term, this gene can and imo should be bred out of the breed by responsible breeders and not perpetuated in "pet" home dogs with the reliance on a KC endorsement to prevent it 

[tracey]

if puppies from such matings are carefully placed in pet home with their registrations endorsed and the consequence of breeding from carrier animals explained then I can't see a problem

The IF is the biggest issue for me - no matter how careful breeders are, it is perfectly possible that their pups could be subsequently used for breeding, you only have to look at the pedigrees of some commercially bred pups to see that even well bred lines DO end up in commercial and farmed lines
IMO, breeding dogs comes with a responsibility, not only to the dogs in the breeders care, but also the breed as a whole, and so to me, there will always be "a problem" with the deliberate breeding of dogs that carry the risk of perpetuating a genetic condition

Don't breeders breed in a effort to improve the breed? If so, how can deliberately breeding dogs which carry a genetic illness be an improvement? Hopefully, a breeder wouldn't breed a dog with a visible fault/deformity - why is the breeding of a dog carrying an invisible fault OK?

Yes, I know the gene pool is too small to stop using carriers straight away - but in the long term, this gene can and imo should be bred out of the breed by responsible breeders and not perpetuated in "pet" home dogs with the reliance on a KC endorsement to prevent it 

Yes this gene can be bred out...pretty quickly actually. Carrier x clear = 50 carriers 50 clear. If I owned a carrier I would test my puppies and keep the clear puppy.... Gene gone

What you are suggesting is that WE breeeders who DO breed to improve the breed should be looked down on as irresponsible for choosing to use carrier dogs I take my responsibilities very seriously, Thank you,  shame the same can't be said for the hundreds of puppies bred by back yard breeders and puppy farmers who do NOTHING for the breed, most are not even eye tested, and yet they churn out litter after litter, but responsible breeders are still critisized for trying to do their best


There will always be puppy buyers out there who tell lies when buying a puppy, I have come across a couple but I usually catch them out because I am very careful where I place my puppies. I have also refused requests for my stud dogs sevices. Responsible breeders are critisized for that too.

Can I correct you Rachel.... Carrier dogs do not have an illness...they are carrying a gene.

[Jane S]

Yes, I know the gene pool is too small to stop using carriers straight away - but in the long term, this gene can and imo should be bred out of the breed by responsible breeders and not perpetuated in "pet" home dogs with the reliance on a KC endorsement to prevent it 

But that's what we're all aiming for so why are we arguing? You accept that carriers can't be withdrawn straight away so what's your solution? You don't think responsible breeders can protect their puppies using KC endorsements so what do you think should happen to any puppies carrying the defective gene produced in the short term. Are we meant to have them put to sleep perhaps?

Like Tracey, I find it ironic that genuinely responsible breeders are getting criticised on this thread when so many of the puppies happily bought by COL members (including one who has been critical on this thread) come from breeders who don't test. We really can't win sometimes Nothing I've read on this thread has caused me to doubt the advice we breeders have been given by true experts so I think we just have to rise above it and carry on trying to breed happy, healthy Cockers to the best of our ability.

[Cob-Web]

Yes, I know the gene pool is too small to stop using carriers straight away - but in the long term, this gene can and imo should be bred out of the breed by responsible breeders and not perpetuated in "pet" home dogs with the reliance on a KC endorsement to prevent it 

But that's what we're all aiming for so why are we arguing? You accept that carriers can't be withdrawn straight away so what's your solution? You don't think responsible breeders can protect their puppies using KC endorsements so what do you think should happen to any puppies carrying the defective gene produced in the short term. Are we meant to have them put to sleep perhaps?

Not at all Jane, maybe I have misread some posts, but the impression I am left with is that some breeders see no harm in carriers being bred and disagree with a time-limitation on using carriers in breeding programmes  If this is not the case, then I apologise.

I accept that it is a necessary evil to continue to use carriers in a breeding programme in the short term - but hope that the KC will take the same approach that it has with other breeds, so that carriers are eliminated from the breeding pool as soon as possible 

[Jane S]

Not at all Jane, maybe I have misread some posts, but the impression I am left with is that some breeders see no harm in carriers being bred and disagree with a time-limitation on using carriers in breeding programmes  If this is not the case, then I apologise.

I've read through the thread again and can't really see how you got that impression. The only reason responsible breeders are using the test in the first place is so they can eventually breed dogs free of the defective gene. The fact is that short-term use of carriers will allow those breeders who do test to eliminate the gene from their lines relatively quickly but during this period some puppies will inevitably be born who carry the defective gene. You didn't answer my question as to what we should do with these puppies since you don't feel placing them in pet homes with KC endorsed registration is the way to go?

[Cob-Web]

You didn't answer my question as to what we should do with these puppies since you don't feel placing them in pet homes with KC endorsed registration is the way to go?

I didn't say that I didn't think it was "the way to go" - I disagreed with Tracey when she said that

if puppies from such matings are carefully placed in pet home with their registrations endorsed and the consequence of breeding from carrier animals explained then I can't see a problem

 

IMO, there are inherant *problems* with this solution, but I don't know if there is any single, magic solution to the breeding of carriers in the short term to ensure the long term survival of the breed
A more extreme *solution* would be to sacrifice the breed for the long- term genetic health of all dogs, of any breed - not  solution I agree with myself, but certainly one I have seen articulated on more than one occasion 

These issues are an inevitable side-effect of the creation of the test and the dicovery of the true situation in reation to carriers of this condition  My commenting on them is intented to be a recognition that there are some difficult choices faced by breeders in the next few years; and no matter what decisions they take, there will are likely to be opinions that support an alternative view.   

[Bryning]

sorry have you studied Mendelian Genetics then???

Erm yes, I mentioned earlier I have an honours degree in Animal Sciene...I don't see your point?

[Bryning]

yes but we are not talking about one litter   

Well, actually I was...
"breeding a 'carrier' to a 'normal' could result in a whole litter of 'normal' offspring where non have inherited the faulty gene so to be totally correct you would have to say that mating 'could' be passing the gene on to a % of the offspring"

[Bryning]

The percentage in Sharon's case if her carrier is mated to a clear is 50% carrier and 50%clear.

That is the statistical percentage yes but is not necessarily so, it could be from one extreme to the other (all clear or all carriers) with anything in between!

[Bryning]

You didn't answer my question as to what we should do with these puppies since you don't feel placing them in pet homes with KC endorsed registration is the way to go?

Speaking from experience that is what I have done and I haven't had any problems with it.  If I couldn't trust someone enough to abide by the rules of an endorsement I had placed they wouldn't be getting a pup in the first place!  However, I am quite particular with my BC's that they only go to experienced homes and very few go purely as pets (mostly for agility/flyball/obedience etc) so generally owners already have an understanding of health issues etc, maybe it's a slightly different thing to dealing with 'Joe Public' coming for a family pet...am I being presumptious??  Where do most cocker pups get homed?

[Bryning]

Don't breeders breed in a effort to improve the breed? If so, how can deliberately breeding dogs which carry a genetic illness be an improvement? Hopefully, a breeder wouldn't breed a dog with a visible fault/deformity - why is the breeding of a dog carrying an invisible fault OK?

It is exactly the breeders efforts to improve a breed and take a long term view they will see the use of carrier animals.  The animal must be viewed as a whole and not just as a genetic status.  In my personal opinion temperament and conformation will come above genetic status and if I think a dog has qualities I don't want to lose I will use it.  The 'culling' of a large number of certain genes from a wider gene pool can force out other, less manageable health issues.

I have found within BC's that some breeders have immediately re-homed/neutered all their known carriers because it makes their stock more marketable (they are only thinking about the immediate), those that are genuinely interested in preserving good lines and maintaining them are taking the more difficult route of using their carriers or allowing their clear dogs to be used to carrier bitches and selectively breeding for the future.  Within a few years we'll all wonder what the fuss was about!

[Jane S]

You didn't answer my question as to what we should do with these puppies since you don't feel placing them in pet homes with KC endorsed registration is the way to go?

I didn't say that I didn't think it was "the way to go" - I disagreed with Tracey when she said that

And the difference between those two statements is.... Sorry but I can't see what point you are making. You apparently disagree with placing carrier puppies in pet homes with KC endorsements but don't offer any other alternatives to this apart from sacrificing the breed totally. I agree that breeders have difficult decisions ahead but in the real world, we have to accept there are no perfect solutions and we have to work with what we've got.

If I couldn't trust someone enough to abide by the rules of an endorsement I had placed they wouldn't be getting a pup in the first place!  However, I am quite particular with my BC's that they only go to experienced homes and very few go purely as pets (mostly for agility/flyball/obedience etc) so generally owners already have an understanding of health issues etc, maybe it's a slightly different thing to dealing with 'Joe Public' coming for a family pet...am I being presumptious??  Where do most cocker pups get homed?

Most show-bred Cocker pups do get homed as family pets but we've never had any problem with any of our puppy owners regarding endorsements (we've been using them for years now) and as far as it's possible to know, none of our puppies has ever been bred from without our knowledge or permission. Rachel mentions the possibility of show bred pups falling into the wrong hands before but in most cases where this has happened in the past, it's where pups have not been endorsed (we have friends who learned this lesson the hard way a few years ago) or where the breeder hasn't been careful enough. Of course there isn't any 100% guarantee that endorsements will protect every puppy but the perfect system does not exist.

[Cob-Web]

You apparently disagree with placing carrier puppies in pet homes with KC endorsements

I disagree with Traceys statement that there is no problem with this solution - don't you agree ?

we have to accept there are no perfect solutions

[tracey]

You apparently disagree with placing carrier puppies in pet homes with KC endorsements

I disagree with Traceys statement that there is no problem with this solution - don't you agree ?

we have to accept there are no perfect solutions

I didn't say NO PROBLEM , just that I can't see a problem, IF puppies are placed carefully with endorsed registrations in pet homes. That it my personal opinion

ALL of my dogs are tested CLEAR...and so far have only been mated to clear dogs thus producing CLEAR puppies. I have always said I  would not rule out useing well bred carrier dogs that have a lot to offer the breed should I need to which I can't see in the near future...  however I am not prepared to answer tit for tat posts about who sad what....
Think I have said all I need to on this subject

[Jane S]

...in the long term, this gene can and imo should be bred out of the breed by responsible breeders and not perpetuated in "pet" home dogs with the reliance on a KC endorsement to prevent it 

Rachel, have you forgotten you said this earlier? This is where I got the distinct impression you disagreed per se with the policy of placing carrier puppies in pet homes with KC endorsements. I apologise if that was not your intention but that's how it reads.

...  however I am not prepared to answer tit for tat posts about who sad what....
Think I have said all I need to on this subject

On that note, I think it's time to close this thread as it's now going round in ever decreasing circles