daphni's parents werent tested i dont think, it was when testing wasnt a major thing in cresteds, but ive had her tested since (obviously before i had a litter) and shes clear anyway.

asbos parent were tested, and were clear, so he was tested for PRA and glaucoma, but i didnt test for PLL as we was clear by parentage..

i think health tests are important, especially if its quite a serious issue.. as the condition shouldnt be passed onto offspring.

i dont think its the be all and end all, and i do think some people have gone a bit overboard with the whole health testing. i think if you know your breed has an issue, then you should test, and if the results are bad then they shouldnt be bred from.

The exact causes are multifactorial (trauma and environment will influence it) but the tendency toward has been studied and shown to run in lines - have a genetic component then.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14753351

Ruby

...not to mentioned low coefficients of inbreeding ....and avoiding the overuse of popular sires ...and making sure you're breeding for good construction and breed type without passing on stuff like monorchidsm or fertility problems.......

...lets face it it's impossible to achieve it all - breeding involves making decisions based on the best knowledge you have - and health testing is just one part of that knowledge - breeders must always look at the whole picture rather than simply breed by health test results alone
...like what ? ..that no dog should be used unless it has perfect health,temperament, construction etc etc - how feasible would this be ?

sadly much as we would wish it to be there is no black and white 'one size fits all' solution - breeding protocols must be tailored to fit the realities of individual breeds

Well they manage it on the Continent.........

In many Breeds

For example you cannot breed GSDs until and unless both sire and dam have passed a Koerung, have ED and HD tests of a certain standard and have a working qualification.

In Weimaraners, Breed Wardens have to give permission to breed and no puppy is registered with the Kennel club until it has passed a working test.

There are other breeds in other countries that have such draconian measures.

or perhaps no dog should be used that is below a certain standard of health, temperament, construction etc, etc, etc.

Let's face it, there's hardly a shortage of dogs, breeds etc, but there is a shortage of homes for the ones already here. Is it so far fetched to believe that now is about the right time to limit the number of dogs being born into the world and to try to ensure that those that are are likely to be both healthy and stable in temperament?

this may well work in breeds with a big enough gene pool but it would be unsustainable in other breeds

...and it's a perfect example of what I meant by having breed specific protocols......

We simply CANNOT square the circle in many breeds- the more dogs we eliminate by testing of one form or another , the narrower our gene pools will become and the higher our coefficient of inbreeding and our overuse use of those dogs that do manage to jump through all the hoops

Brierley - there may well not be a shortage of dogs as a species but there is most certainly a shortage of unrelated dogs in some individual breeds - if we want to keep our gene pools open as much as possible and allow these breeds to continue we cannot afford to exclude whole swathes of the available breeding populaton

Can we afford to take health/temperament risks to keep breeds with a limited healthy population going if that means risking further problems within that breed?

ttotaly agree

Yes, but who gets to choose and how are they qualified? I do agree in many ways, I would love the rescue problem to be improved
But
I am kinda worried that if we restrict things too much, then find out our breeding ideas are wrong then we will have messed up ALL dogs

Yes exactly, it is such a worry really when you read more into it
I am trying to find the papers on the genetic diversity in breeds, it is so annoying to read something then not bookmark it!! It would be interesting to see which breeds do have a big enough gene pool, and also looking at the gene pool that breeders are picking from - because of course that will be narrowing thiings further

I think part of the problem is we are looking for a quick fix instead of the long term goal
Breeders want lines healthy yesterday and so want to boot out all but the very best dogs and use them in lines heavily so each generation is actually heavy in some individuals and many many animals never make it to breed

But
a different way to look at things would be to follow a longer term goal
Instead of taking many litters from a few dogs take few litters from many dogs

Then pick the best 50% of those litters and breed all of them
that way you would maintain diversity and increase the average of the breed

and stop inbreeding to 'fix' things because that is bad practise that has been passed down from breeder to breeder with no actual reasoning behind it except that it gives quick short term results

Any answer from breeder yet??
I took the information from an open forum and I would do it again to ensure no one gets misled about a "good breeder" If I get banned so be it at least other members get to read a different view