I think I might be with you on this one - my thoughts are a bit of a jumble at the moment, with more questions than answers!

Excellent post (although I am surprised you haven't yet been jumped on by the holier than thou brigade ). The points you have made are the same queries I now have.

A dog can look healthy on paper with all health tests done but in reality that dog might have skin issues, might be completely unsound, or be reactive or have an aggressive temperament or genetically predisposed to torsion etc etc. This is what leads me to wonder whether certain dogs shouldn't be ruled out of the gene pool on their health results alone.

I did mention DM and Haemophilia However, I agree there are certain tests in various breeds that should be done in order to eliminate (where possible) the condition. I suppose hips and elbows are controversial because no-one knows what causes HD and ED.

The only time I would think of having a dog from non health tested parents would be if the dog was a rescue.

There is no excuse for not fully health testing any dog for any of the genetic/clinical conditions the dog could have.

I do think that all breeding animals should be hip & elbow scored as a minimum.(the only exception would be a racing bred Greyhound-as no case of HD has ever been found in the Greyhounds that are pure racing bred.

I would expect all the smaller breeds to be check for Patella luxation(slipping patella) as this is quite common amoungst all small dogs regardless of breed

I would also expect all the DNA tests available to be done on breeding dogs that were not normal by parentage. Their is no excuse for breeding from dogs for which there is a DNA test available & that isn't normal by parentage.

Designer crossbreeds/mongrels should also have all the tests that would be done on the breeds they come from or may contain.

Health testing has certainly worked for ISDS registered dogs, when the eye screening scheme was brought in around 30% of all registered ISDS dogs had PRA or CEA. By simply clinically screening all dogs that are to be bred from, breeding from only unaffected dogs & removing from the gene pool any dog that had sired 2 or more affected puppies & any bitch that had produced 1 or more affected puppies, the incidence was reduced down to 0.01 % affceted dogs being found. The DNA results to date show that the reduction is correct & also that the numbers of carriers is also now much lower than before the clinical tests started.

The same cannot be said for Rough/Smooth collies & Shetland Sheepdogs as only a relatively few dogs are tested & even less DNA tested so the incidence has probably increased

I'll repeat what I said in the other thread. The problem is some health testing is black & white ie haemophilia testing & some is really complicated like hips which are part heredity, part environment & even two dogs with equal scores do not produce the same results in their litters. When hip scoring & using the results first started it made a big difference & the breed average improved but now it is not as useful in Germany & they are adding a component to a dogs results dependent on whether he/she improves their progeny or not. I know when looking for a sire I look at his progeny results & his litter mates results just as much as his.
As for DM it is a start, as it has been found to be an auto immune problem. The marker may not tell the whole story but it definitely helps.
I think a lot of the problem is back in the 50's when we started breeding many puppies died in the nest or young but the ones who lived were healthy & even in pets itwas survival of the fittest producing the right dogs to breed from. Now vets can do so much more but this can mean less healthy dogs entering the gene pool & skewing the statistics.

Do you think the ISDS should do more though? Do you think they should bring in compulsory testing for HD and other conditions that affect the BC?

When you say that you would only buy from tested parents, are your ISDS collies tested for the whole range of tests, or just the ISDS stipulated eye test?

There used to be a set of lists of hip scored dogs that had been used at stud & whose offspring had be also hipscored & this showed which dogs were improvers for the breed. Our Echo(German import as a 13 week old puppy & hip scored 0:0=0)was a hip improver as all his scored puppies had lower scores than their mothers(obviously could not be lower than his ) One litter produced 4 x 0:0=0 & the bitches score was around 12 I think & all the others were well under 12.

Nope, I am on the right thread Moobli.

Why, when you dont consider them important

"So do you think its ethical to breed from a dog with poor hip results, a dog from a very large genetic pool??"


This thread is a GENERAL thread. If you want to discuss a PARTICULAR dog or mating, please speak to the breeder concerned.


Can you please point out where I said I didn't consider health tests important.