Only just started reading the whole thread so started from the back.

But what is the down side of compulsary health testing of any breed? I understand that just because dogs have been health tested is worthless if the breeder doesnt giive a dam anyway but how is itworthless to the ethical breeder?

Give me one good reason why I should test my dogs for Narcolepsy, when it isn't a problem within the breed, but a genetic test exists for it.

But where there is a known problem what is the harm in testing - actually what is the harm in doing it anyway to make it sure it doesnt become a problem - surely its better to be aware of things before they become a problem?

I think tests should be done that the problem has cropped up in the breed. For instance, PRA and PLL crop up in cresteds. (both eye problems) so we test and ethical breeders do not breed from affected dogs.

Don't think we should test for everything thy the test is available for. But the minute a problem crops up in a breed (with a significant number of them having it) it should hen be brought in as a compulsory test.

I don't know one Labrador with narcolepsy, I've never heard of one with narcolpesy, so why should I test? Just because someone in a Lab stumbled across the right genetic marker for that test?

If Narcolepsy was an issue, I would test, and I'd want to see if it was something we could breed clear from, and if we didn't harm the gene pool by cutting out dogs with this condition. I don't know of one dog with this condition either as a carrier or affected status, so I really can't say it's either harmful or has an effect on the gene pool.

gPRA is a good case in point, when the test first came out, people used it and made decisions based on the results, which were later found to be flawed. People still rely on the results of this test, even though it isn't guaranteed beyond one generation, how many test every generation? I think you'll find most rely on the clear by parentage results, which is just one downside to health testing, ie a lack of understanding.

Health testing is quickly becoming a catch 22, what's the harm in testing, but why test when a breed is healthy overall? Do we need to always know a status to know a breed is healthy, or does the dog on the ground tell us what we need to know? Genuine question.

Agree with that. Surely it best to start testing and investigating as soon there is the slightest problem than to wait until it affects lots of dogs to see if its a massive problem?

I would rather catch it sooner than later, but I don't think one dog having a problem is going to make everyone test for that problem. Maybe when a problem occurred, others in that line could be tested for? Or maybe a random number and dogs picked to be tested maybe? I just think if a problem occurs in only one dog, after years of it not being here, it should be fairly easy to pin point where it came from.

I was kinda thinking a similar thing
Not that I am knocing health testing - but possibly they are not the be all and end all that people are making them out to be
How often is it touted when looking for a good breeder - health tests for the breed and a few other things
But as the boxer in this latest program has shown if a stud is used such a high number of times something that wasnt really much of a problem in a breed could potentially become a really big problem in next to no time
But people would think they are being 'good' b reeders because they are following the 'rules' set just now - and buyers would think they are doing the right thing

In many ways seeing the parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles have healthy long lives is going to be at least as important and at least as much of an indicator of health
either one has limitations

But no single dog should be siring 800 puppies

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. We are looking at 17 tests for Labradors that's tests already in existence and in development. Tell me how we breed clear from all of those?

Tests will need to be prioritised, and that will be, in my books, for those that affect quality/length of life, as the first and foremost, and other conditions will follow. Narcolepsy does not affect quality/length of life as far as I'm aware.

Interesting to note no-one's answered my previous question, JH owns a dog that hasn't been tested for Glaucoma, and yet that is one of the most painful eye conditions for a dog to suffer from, shame that there's no test results available according to the KC database. Parents are tested but that's not a guarantee, as stated previously, the optigen status for gPRA was flawed at least initially, and I know breeders who test every generation to ensure that status is maintained as correct, and to be shown on KC paperwork.