Jump to content
anon2345

Need advice regarding sick puppy and the breeder

79 posts in this topic

asal   

they appear to eat with no trouble, the problem as my vet explained it was the teeth alignment in toy breeds and brachy breeds is different to for example cattle dogs.

 

tarter buildup is a given for them, so it needs to be watched for and removed.

 

as Rob Zammit pointed out, crossbreeds are only as sound as the breeds used and many carry the same defective genes so the problems arent going to magically dissappear and not show in the puppies

 

in fact as he showed with one he used as an example that crossbreeding does not give a puppy with none of the two breeds faults, instead it can combine them all, no amount of "hybrid vigor" is going to help when that happens, cute as she was, had slipping patellas, hernia's, undershot jaw and sorry forget the other two she had.

 

The biggest problem is the assumption that "ethical" breeders dont breed puppies with health problems.   Mother nature doesnt care how "ethical" you are, every puppy is a completly new genetic mix even full bothers and sisters are remarkably diverse... As my vet says, instead of asking why did this happen, when a puppy has a defect, we should be blown away by how many are fine when you realise how many things can go wrong.

Not all problems are genetic.   there is a reason some conditions are called "congenitial " aka "born with it" defect occurred as the fetus was forming. mum running a temperature in early pregnancy can seriously mess with with the cells busy forming the fast growing baby, that happens with people too.

 

stop and think ..

 

what parent can " life guarantee" their own child? 

 

When I first heard fellow breeders saying that if you are an "Ethical" breeder you "life guarantee your puppies.  I thought, your kidding surely, that is not a sign you are ethical, it is a sign you have absolutely no idea how impossible that is.  

 

AS the old time breeders of every species said, you put the best to the best AND HOPE FOR THE BEST!    that is reality....

 

Yet everyone expects the breeder of a puppy to achieve what you cannot do for your own child.

 

That is reality

few seem to live in reality these days.

 

As the buyer of the puppy I bred that developed syringamyelia asked me when she began running in circles at 5 months and it was diagnosed.  "How could you be so cruel, you have broken my heart, I love her so much."

She had to be put down there was no way to save her.  But to blame me for a condition I had no idea my dogs could produce and was only just beginning to be understood was a bridge too far in the blame game for me and many others.

 

life IS A LOTTERY, for all of us, you and me included, not just our dogs.

 

to criminalise anyone for trying to breed healthy  puppies, when the dice fall the wrong way. Is going to achieve what Peta want.   Less and less people are going to take the risk of being demonised.

 

Yes, some dont care a jot....   Sadly they are the breeders who will be the only ones left in the long run at this rate

 

Her breeder may be one of them,  not treating the ears and not telling you rather makes me suspect she may be one of the ones that will be churning out puppies without a twinge. So it would not matter if she was in the next street. The result would be the same, delivery of a puppy already needing vet attention.

 

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tdierikx said:

Many crossbreeds are bred nowadays for the money factor... give the cross a "breed" name like Cavachon or Cavapoo or similar, and charge exhorbitant sums for them... *sigh*

 

Unless all breeding animals used are fully tested for issues they could pass on to their offspring, it's really a lottery in what will happen with the offspring... and sometimes, like asal pointed out, some issues are not that easy to weed out of a particular pure breed, let alone when crossing them with other breeds that may or may not help or hinder that process.

 

T.

Many Frenchies, lagottos, bulldogs, and other pricey breeds are bred for $$ as well.  But every breeder is different. Some of them take health seriously, some put higher value on showing, some are sentimental and lack clear priorities.  I'd guess some x-breeders put health and temperament first, particularly in x-breeds like puggles (not the baby echidna kind) intended to keep the temperament of a brachy breed but move away from the flat face. 

Edited by sandgrubber
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

There are now comprehensive DNA tests available, improving all the time. The Embark tests for multiple factors across breeds that could easily become compulsory for dogs used for breeding and tied into the dogs microchip on a publicly accessed data base. I believe it also tests for inbreeding levels and funds ongoing research into genetics and behaviour.

Registration fees for entire dogs could be  reduced for inclusion as part of the breeders program and transparency of practices. It could also be tied to veterinary interventions .

I would expect such a system would serve to train both breeders and buyers to research more effectively, and understand the risks and limitations of any breeding program, while illustrating the importance of having one with genuine goals that look beyond the breeders immediate purpose. (show ring wins, profit work or whatever)

 

I think its most beneficial effect would be in educating the public,  on how and what to look for getting a dog, and  would result in more effective breeders. Because breeders are only as good as the public that supplies and supports them.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

my vet wanted a central register where vets could list breeders they found to be breeding soundness and give a rating so that anyone thinking of buying could ask their vet.  One look and you could see how many and what health issue percentages were found in their puppies.

 

he said he couldnt get the ava to approve it.

 

they were worried the breeders who had low ratings could sue.

 

bonzer idea

pity they didnt back it

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

Yes. 

 

But I can understand their  reservations. I think my idea could overcome those drawbacks, and reinforce the idea that breeders and buyers share responsibility for the dogs that are being supported by their choices.

 

It would also bring back the more obvious missing  elements of the natural selection  processes that gave us domestic dogs, and eventually breeds, enhanced by the available science and its communication. A better familiarity with whats being utilised, why and to what purpose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogsfevr   
5 hours ago, asal said:

my vet wanted a central register where vets could list breeders they found to be breeding soundness and give a rating so that anyone thinking of buying could ask their vet.  One look and you could see how many and what health issue percentages were found in their puppies.

 

he said he couldnt get the ava to approve it.

 

they were worried the breeders who had low ratings could sue.

 

bonzer idea

pity they didnt back it

Problem is far too many vets misdiagnose so I wouldn’t be a fan and I myself had a dog badly misdiagnosed by a vet ,luckily I could read the x ray and question the vet another poor sucker wouldn’t have a dog listed for an issue By an idiot vet 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

Then there are accusations of bias, and an assumption the vet has intimate knowledge of a breeders program, goals and health history of dogs not in front of them.

Some dogs seldom see a vet, apart from vaccinations and chips.

It gives the expectation of  a duty beyond the purpose Vets train for. A healthy dog has no reason to be seen by a vet.(edited to say little reason to see a vet)

 

 I Could see a lot of potential problems, but Its easy to see why  Vets would want to help promote breeders who they do see as doing every thing right  for the health of the dogs they produce, when they deal with the opposite so much.

 

 

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BDJ   

Whilst the idea of a register sounds good in theory, there are lots of drawbacks (some noted above). 

 

Another one is that a breeder can have a sound line and be doing everything they can (so be rated well on a registry), and then one of those 'things' crop up that has causation linked to genetics, how they are raised, nutrition and just plain luck (eg: HD) - the owner is then looking at the breeder, the vets and the registry as dodgy, unethical and untrustworthy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

I think the simple transparency of comprehensive DNA test results, publicly accessible,  puts responsibility solidly where it belongs. 

For all involved parties to make informed decisions on transparent information, and take full responsibility for the results of those choices once made.

 

 

 

 

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, moosmum said:

I think the simple transparency of comprehensive DNA test results, publicly accessible,  puts responsibility solidly where it belongs. 

For all involved parties to make informed decisions on transparent information, and take full responsibility for the results of those choices once made.

 

 

 

 

https://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmEtusivu.aspx?Lang=en

I think the Finns have made a useful start in this direction... through their kennel club. 

 

One problem with strong emphasis on testing is that search for optimal genes will worsen popular sire syndrome and narrow gene pools.  

 

Another problem is the many things, eg., epilepsy, succeptibility to allergies, unstable temperament, bloat, skin problems and cancers, etc. for which genetic testing isn't well developed. 

 

IMO it's crazy that most pedigree systems track births, but no death records are kept.  I would really like to be able to select a pup... or a sire... knowing that the bloodlines have a high proportion of individuals living to a healthy old age. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   
On 20/07/2019 at 5:07 PM, sandgrubber said:

https://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmEtusivu.aspx?Lang=en

I think the Finns have made a useful start in this direction... through their kennel club. 

 

One problem with strong emphasis on testing is that search for optimal genes will worsen popular sire syndrome and narrow gene pools.  

Yes.

I  agree thats true for most closed stud book registries due the wording of introduction to their mission statements .

 

But  I don't see ANKC or FCI have left themselves any other other options that can be utilised effectively by their membership. Health testing has become the expected solution to increasing incidence of disease because alternatives are beyond what is acceptable to the 'standards' that members will uphold to identify as an acceptable member breeder.

 

Popular sire syndrome is not much a problem else where for dogs. And It seems to me this is no longer about just the survival of Pedigree Dogs, but about the benefits for dogs, in continuing to be bred as they are.

From an engineering perspective, the design and its components are not to have any additions,  and  input from external sources that could add to the machines effectiveness is mostly rejected, because the results often don't match the standard as presented and expected in the show ring.

 

There needs to be recognition: that dogs can't  continue to be bred solely for how well they conform to a design, Once set,  by its blueprint. (or internal standards of conditions)  rather than influenced by the demands of its environment.

 

The environment is demanding health, and transparency of choice in what it will favour. While  breed registries bicker over the 'ethics' of choices that allow that without strictly conforming to  verified design and components 1st. Nature just doesn't work that way. It doesn't allow evolution.

Its not working that way. It can't.

 

The fact that this would work elsewhere should prove the fault is in the system, not the solution.

That the fault is in a disability to recognise anything 'different' to whats there.

The fault is in an inability  to quantify value  that could possibly equal  the  K.Cs own show ring. 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Another problem is the many things, eg., epilepsy, succeptibility to allergies, unstable temperament, bloat, skin problems and cancers, etc. for which genetic testing isn't well developed. 

 

IMO it's crazy that most pedigree systems track births, but no death records are kept.  I would really like to be able to select a pup... or a sire... knowing that the bloodlines have a high proportion of individuals living to a healthy old age. 

Agree again, Testing though will improve as more make use of it, and its value becomes a recognised environmental expectation.Transparency too,  when the benefits of including and utilising more information becomes obvious.

 

Pedigrees as we know them have have a huge role to play in breeding better, but recognition of values beyond what is there right now, has to be recognised before thats possible.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

What should be good news, is that closed stud books have surprisingly little to do with the problems facing breeders of Pedigree Dogs.

 

The main problems are the closed minds tasked with interpreting the instructions laid out by the standards.

.Because they are instructed to be closed to what they don't see already there.

 

Conformation showing isn't even such a problem without that instruction.

The show ring tells them what they should see best, in a good example of a breed standard.

Its the faulty instruction that means the show winner  is the only demonstration of a breed standard that  quantifies its value.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogsfevr   

The other issue is vets sell products that cause health issues ,potential death .Those things would be potentially recorded without a vet having the balls to accept the products they may sell is part of the issue .
Most Vets don't have the ability to know what there talking about ,it takes a special vet to be open & honest  & savvy & have true experience .
Many clinics despite the very public issues surrounding certain flea/tick products haven't stopped selling it ,some vaccinate dogs with C7 in scenarios where its totally not required & without any thought of the lepto component & the affect to the dogs.
Since vet clinics have know become chain stores all about the sales the only way this would work is providing vets are made very accountable for there decisions .
Working in the animal industry i can only but cringe at what many vets say,suggest ,infact its down right scary.

I belong on a breed group where a number of the dogs are dying younger than they should BUT simply put when you read what they feed,products they use & many other factors im not surprised .
Sadly many owners its all about keeping there "furbaby" happy instead of keeping there wonderful dog in good health & a well adjusted animal .
As a breeder its also no shock how many vet practices try to convince puppy buyers to feed,use products that are not suitable for the breed because they have no clue & almost bully puppy owners into there way or no way
Many do not consider heartworm products with ivermectim  sensitive breeds & crosses of those breeds .
In my breed by nature it has a higher cholesterol so its important what meds are prescribed ,some meds side effects is increasing cholesterol levels  ,diet  is important as there at a higher risk of pancreatitis .
Diabetes is becoming the norm in dogs aswell
Our breed isn't the only breed known for higher cholesterol levels but surprisingly many vets don't know this when prescribing .
Our dogs live to 14/16 years

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

Very true Dogsfevr,  it is rather frightening to realise you know more than the new vets..... they dont even know the difference between a genetic condition and a cogenital (developmental defect) which is not an inherited cause they just lump the lot.

 

A friend had to tell the newly graduated vet what she wanted for her pups, she recognised they had an infection,. the vet didn't even know they needed antibiotics?

 

I could not believe one young vet, he believed all dogs should be given ivermectin on the grounds that will eliminate the sensitive ones from the gene pool... I kid you not.

 

well remember when it was first discovered it kills an unfortunately large percentage of Murray Grey Cattle as well. When I told him this, his reply was eliminate all the susceptible and rebuild

 the breed from the survivors

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta be fair to vets and help owners take more responsibility for their dog's health.  The vet school curriculum covers many species and I doubt that many schools spend much time on breed specific issues.  If you breed collie type dogs, do your genetic testing and if your pups are likely to be ivermectin sensitive, give puppy buyers a BIG warning. If you breed Labs, likewise, warn buyers of the dangers of overfeeding.  And so on.... 

There are loads of breed specific problems with sheep, cattle, and pigs as well.  Can't expect anyone to master the whole gamut. 

Older vets in small animal practices tend to learn this stuff as they go.  You're kidding yourself if you expect someone fresh out of vet school to know all the ins and outs of dog health. 

Edited by sandgrubber
Further thoughts
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogsfevr   
7 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

You gotta be fair to vets and help owners take more responsibility for their dog's health.  The vet school curriculum covers many species and I doubt that many schools spend much time on breed specific issues.  If you breed collie type dogs, do your genetic testing and if your pups are likely to be ivermectin sensitive, give puppy buyers a BIG warning. If you breed Labs, likewise, warn buyers of the dangers of overfeeding.  And so on.... 

There are loads of breed specific problems with sheep, cattle, and pigs as well.  Can't expect anyone to master the whole gamut. 

Older vets in small animal practices tend to learn this stuff as they go.  You're kidding yourself if you expect someone fresh out of vet school to know all the ins and outs of dog health. 

Sorry but vets have resources readily available, to them above and beyond what we do if breeders are expected to be at a certain level then the same applies to a vet 

If your not sure spend a few minutes to check or ask the experienced breeder at a consult about key features .

We have had our own vets phone to query something ,nothing stopping new vets to do some hands on learning at shows,talking to breeders in there chosen field .

 

Our puppy folders cover these key areas but when vets don’t respect this knowledge or listen to new owners then it’s the vets fault new or not .If they don’t now be humble and check 

 

We expect Doctors in the human field to be drug savvy and many have failed there luckily for people the pharmacist has picked up an issue ,vets are a pharmacist too so it does require a little more work .

i totally get in multi cross breeds this is a much harder thing to work with but with breeds known for ivermectin issues then the first question asked should be have the parents been tested or the pup ,if owner unsure please check or we dont have  a product suitable .

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Dogsfevr said:

Sorry but vets have resources readily available, to them above and beyond what we do if breeders are expected to be at a certain level then the same applies to a vet 

If your not sure spend a few minutes to check or ask the experienced breeder at a consult about key features .

We have had our own vets phone to query something ,nothing stopping new vets to do some hands on learning at shows,talking to breeders in there chosen field .

 

Our puppy folders cover these key areas but when vets don’t respect this knowledge or listen to new owners then it’s the vets fault new or not .If they don’t now be humble and check 

 

We expect Doctors in the human field to be drug savvy and many have failed there luckily for people the pharmacist has picked up an issue ,vets are a pharmacist too so it does require a little more work .

i totally get in multi cross breeds this is a much harder thing to work with but with breeds known for ivermectin issues then the first question asked should be have the parents been tested or the pup ,if owner unsure please check or we dont have  a product suitable .

 

Human physicians work with only one species, and the variation among dogs is MUCH MUCH greater than the variation among humans. 

Edited by sandgrubber
Got something backwards
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jumabaar   
22 hours ago, moosmum said:

What should be good news, is that closed stud books have surprisingly little to do with the problems facing breeders of Pedigree Dogs.

 

The main problems are the closed minds tasked with interpreting the instructions laid out by the standards.

.Because they are instructed to be closed to what they don't see already there.

 

Conformation showing isn't even such a problem without that instruction.

The show ring tells them what they should see best, in a good example of a breed standard.

Its the faulty instruction that means the show winner  is the only demonstration of a breed standard that  quantifies its value.

While not obvious ultimately the closed stud books are what is causing most of the health issues but its a gnarly problem. They are opening the registries on a number of breeds to improve genetic diversity and lower COI. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   
On 22/07/2019 at 12:48 PM, Jumabaar said:

While not obvious ultimately the closed stud books are what is causing most of the health issues but its a gnarly problem. They are opening the registries on a number of breeds to improve genetic diversity and lower COI. 

I agree with this too. I guess "surprisingly little" was a poor word choice.

 

 Better to say , The effects of closed stud books  would be mitigated by a wide margin,  If breed choices were influenced more by what is successful in environments beyond the show ring and the registries own rules and conditions. As they could be, if recognition of those were acceptable to  membership identity.

 

They are not, because of an unneeded statement that serves NO purpose, except to favour those who put faith and belief before science and  logic.

Believing that  the singular perspective of their own position is the only legitimate position to hold. Because "We do not recognise"- another.

Thats what makes it gnarly. And will affect how well the resulting dogs bred from open stud books will be accepted.

 

No recognition of what takes place beyond your own conditions of membership means, no recognition of the environment that sustains you, or enabled your being.

 

I believe country of origin for the Dalmation has recently refused to accept dogs that carry the pointer cross from some 40 years ago.

 

Not recognised. Delivering the promise.

 

 

Edited by moosmum
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×