If you want to ERADICATE a disease Becky, yes thats exactly what Id do! With diseases you can DNA test for, IMO only clears should be bred from. In this day and age of AI, and taking dogs here there and everywhere for mating, there is no shortage of animals to use.

With regards to those diseases you cannot test for 100% you should do the very best you can, as we do with HD etc..

Thats not the point! ANY disease is a problem in Dogs, just because the dogs leg doesnt fall off or something, doesnt mean it should be viewed as any less a problem!

That how I see any problem in Dogs, if you choose to differentiate between whats a mild disease and not, then thats up to you, but to me its not ethical in any way to say one disease is any less of a problem than the next one.
Dawn.

You are being so incredibly short sighted Dawn it's untrue. You cannot simply go and cut out every dog that may be a carrier or even affected from a breeding program when a new DNA test occurs. Later down the line yes it should be clear to clear only, and ultimately that is what every breeder should be aiming for in any event.
To go from 0- 100 right from the word go would be very detrimental to all breeds resulting in less genetic diversity and hence more than likely causing even more problems in the future because of it.
Even the KC recognise that which is why they have only recently brought in the CLAD clear only matings for Irish Setters.
Becky

AM I? Is that coming from you, an "ethical" breeder becky? Dont you dare tell me Im short sighted when you cross bred Parsons with Boxers and Parsons with your Dachshund, dont you dare! You are the last person id take any "breeding" advice from! yes I am damned annoyed at you.

Your opinion is your opinion, MY opinion is that I would breed clear to clear ONLY, I cant think why I would NEED to use a carrier in a breed such as a Border Collie, when the gene pool is huge!

you are contradicting yourself, you say its ok to do the best you can for diseases that cannot be tested for 100% and yet you then say it was not ok to produce affected puppies full stop even though everything was done that could be done at that time. The DNA test was not available at that time so the dog was tested with the available tests at that time! I did not choose to differentiate what was mild disease and what was not, I really wish you would learn to read posts properly instead of picking up bits and making assumptions! You compared CEA to PRA and HD, it's not progressive like the diseases you mention, it does not get any worse so no in it's mild form it's not the same! In its more severe form it's far more serious for the dog concerned but still it does not get any worse over the lifetime of the dog unlike PRA and HD which do. I didi not say it was ok to pass the disease on and produce affected pups but until those pups were born and subsequently eye tested as no DNA test was available at that time there would be no way of knowing that the parents were even carriers for the disease!!!!

Like I said dawn clearly you are never going to breed from any of your dogs because the risk of passing on a previously unknown disease will always be there even if you are not aware of it. Or is that it's ok for you to breed with all available tests at this moment in time but not for someone else to do it with what was available to them?

Well quincy has some OUTSTANDING attributes that many people want.Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater & all that. His line can now be continued & within a few Generations be CLEAR of CEA. Or he could have stopped being used & all his good bits thrown away.

& not a huge good gene pool in the doggy sports. Esp as hes a BC as opposed to a WS (for agility outside the UK) & for obedience outside the UK. A quality Sports bred & proven BC which does throw his type,with that style & power,does not come along everyday.

You may well be right, but I doubt it


Do you think HD is always progressive? Perhaps you should research that a little!

Oh Dawn you will have a might fall from that high horse of yours. If I was 'unethical' I would have swept the two cross bred litters I had under the carpet, no-one would have known but they were both accidents and the second litter was given to Hearing Dogs as you well know. I have absolutley nothing to hide.
I'm 'damned annoyed' with your attitdue Dawn.
You are a very short sighted narrow minded person.
Becky

No I don't think HD is progressive and I don't need to research it as I have a dog here with the problem so did more than enough research at the time he was diagnosed. I actually meant that a dog with HD does in fact get worse over time because of the HD, ie; they develop arthritis which obviously restricts them as they get older but the HD itself is the same, should have clarified that obviously!!

Well Im not the one that has had all these "accidents" am I Becky, and those mentioned arent the only things, so as I said, you are the last person Id take any breeding advice from. If you were ethical and responsible, one accident yes, definately NOT 2! Just because you gave them away doesnt make it right, it was an easy way out for you, I was, and so many others as you know were disgusted the first time and totally HORRIFIED the second time.

I have no problem being narrow minded, short sighted or anything else, as long I act responsibly where my Pets and their welfare are concerned.

Now back on topic, and MY apologies for going off it.

They "can" develop arthritis yes, but not in many cases. We clearly differ on what is acceptable breeding practice, me I would ONLY breed from clear animals on those diseases with the DNA tests available, you wouldnt, its your choice, as I said we differ on this.

Dawn you are not on topic, this thread is about Mary Ray and your posts have been your attempt to do whatever possible to discredit her because you don't agree with HTM.
Becky