Ok thank you. My point being the bitches breeder is still escaping any responsibility in your eyes (as far as I can tell) when in actual fact if we believe the guy you want us to, then we should blame him/her just as much.

I have no doubt as to the calibre of the geneticist, but it does appear like people want to take some of his findings as gospel because they suit their claims and cause, and choose to ignore other parts of his findings, i.e BOTH parents have to have gene copies to produce affected pups.

I hope you see what I mean.

Nobody is doubting that as far as I can see.

Trouble is unaffected means nothing really does it,they could be unaffected yet carriers,if it is that both parents have to have the gene to produce affected pups then you could unknowingly mate two unaffected's that are both carriers and produce affected pups.

Ahh yes, I think I remember something like this, will have to watch it again

Dawn, yes its true that both dogs would have to be carriers, we don't know what is or isn't happening with the bitches lines, or if indeed they are also the same line as the stud, which sadly seems all too common
But pointing the finger at the bitch dosent remove the responsibility from the stud either, and as he can be having a far greater number of pups then his effect on the breed is much greater

Work needs to be done now that is true
And imo it is also a great reminder how dangerous heavy inbreeding can be as it can 'fix' undesirable things you don't want and that were really rare and in a short time of using a stud too often ans inbreeding and suddenly its a common condition

My adice would be to speak to the Animal Health Trust and find out what if anything they are doing along these lines.
My experience with them has been great.

They have been collection blood samples from Staffords to help find the marker for PHPV and research is now started.

HC and L2 Hga were also conditions we knew we had in Staffords and you were many times breeding blind because you did not know if your dog was a carrier until you had an affected pup, even though your own dog was not affected.
In the begining people who bred affected dogs got a whole lot of mud slung at them but they were strong and because of them we now have the tests.

I would get involved with the breeds clubs because although there might be people who shout loud if you keep your head and your cool, supporters will start to come out of the wood work.
If the breed clubs are not willing start a face book campaign to encourage people to send in blood samples.

Good luck and I really hope you get your DNA marker.

I think Dawn, the bitches breeder and the stud dogs breeder are one and the same

Unless I am mistaken, mcrobs bitches came from Glenauld, as is the stud dog??

Apologies if I am wrong, but thats the way it came across on the programme

Never said it did, nor mean to imply it, just pointing out the plain fact its the stud dog being blamed for the lot.

Thank you, if thats the case I didnt know that, but still the bitch seems "innocent" in all this. Im just pointing out it isnt.

As my memory has it the documentary showed a Boxer bitch that died that was from a father/daughter pairing.

The sire of the dam and also used as her mate, as you suggest.

Mention was made that the KC no longer allows registration of such progeny. The AKC and the CKC still do.

Ruby

Both sides are to "blame" in that they both have to have the recessive gene but I thought the issue was that the stud dog owners were made aware of his status as carrier thru previous issues yet used him anyway

I follow pedigrees in a couple of different breeds. I mostly see AKC and CKC pedigrees but I've seen parent/offspring numerous times . . . in fact the breeder that I was recommended as a mentor did one in 2007, and the dam's side of that had another parent/offspring pairing by her a few generations back. Chose not to pursue her mentorship on that factor alone. I'm glad I'd had some experience as I ran into this 20 years ago in another breed I was considering getting involved in at that time. This time I looked at the breeders practices before getting too close.

I've seen half sibling pairings much more commonly than the real close ones though. I find that too close as well but have had strong arguments made by many in the fancy, and in the working dog world, on the other side of that.

Am just going back to read some of the former posts and am glad Sharon has come on. I'll read more but I do know that the first time I looked into breeding I was asked to sign a contract for a female puppy stating the breeder got to choose her mates. She wanted her grandsire used with her eventually. The ensuing discussion was why that venture ended, with me refusing. I think many don't question mentors believing they know best for their breed. It is definately not 'socially' or 'politically' helpful when trying to enter into the dog fancy world here where sponsorship is required to be part of a breed club.

My take on it as well.

Ruby