Well done for walking away from this breeder.
I cannot think of any valid reason for not using the health tests available, i can only imagine it is to save money. Though, even being from the UK and having to send the swabs to America for testing, the fanconi tests still came in hundreds of pounds less than the xray/DNA tests i have to do on my labs, so it is a cheap test really!
As dog breeders we are lucky to have these tests available to use to ensure that we are not producing pups with a likelihood of developing these awful diseases, it makes me angry when people care more about profit than their pups. One person in my other breed pugs refuses to hemivertebra test her stud dog as it is "not in her lines"… Now, owning a pug with HV i can see that this dog has all the subtle signs of having it himself so i suspect the reason she is not testing him (or admitting to have had him tested positive) is because she will be losing her ?500 a time stud fee... Disgusting really. So the excuse "my dogs dont have it" usually makes me more suspicious of a breeder.
Mango..I commend you for doing your research BEFORE getting attached to a puppy or even purchasing a dog..many, including myself, does it the other way around…
Good luck in finding that perfect little bundle..I know you will be very happy when you do.
So the excuse "my dogs dont have it" usually makes me more suspicious of a breeder.
As I noted on the breedings…
the sire and dams of those litters HAVE produced Fanconi, therefore she has carriers in the midst and DOES have the mutant gene there.
There are breeders that I know of that state that "they tested as p. Fanconi Clear, as we would have expected" yet they are breeding IND and CAR basenjis.
The CAR dogs carry the mutant gene and we are told to treat the IND dogs as if they carry the gene as well [until the direct test is established, we can not assume otherwise].
This type of outward thinking is ludicrous.
Unless one's kennel of basenjis are ALL Fanconi Clear they carry the mutant gene, and can produce it.
Unless one's kennel of basenjis are ALL Fanconi Clear they carry the mutant gene, and can produce it.
And even if the whole kennel is Probably Clear the breeder should still be testing every animal prior to breeding because it is a linked marker test and there is no such thing as Clear By Parentage with Linked Marker Tests.
Ivoss - this is one of the questions I had about testing. I do know of breeders here who don't bother to test puppies from parents with Probably Clear results and wondered why. Possibly they are intending to do so if/when they breed - I just don't know.
I don't think that there is the urgency to test puppies from two Probably Clear parents so people tend to wait longer. I know alot of people are hoping the direct gene test will be out sometime soon so then they can just use that instead of the marker test.
The really important thing is that the test be done BEFORE they breed the animal. There are people who are breeding then testing because they figure the dog is "clear by parentage" and that is bad practice because if there was an error or mutation somewhere they will have compounded the issue by producing offspring.
Thank you Ivoss. Lets hope that the breeders I know of in the UK will indeed test before breeding but of course if they don't do so its difficult to persuade them.
There isn't an urgency to test from two Clear parents.
I will test those I am sending overseas, but only because it can be done much quicker via mail in the US.
For all my other clear pups, the owners are happy to test them at any time… I will test what I keep prior to any thoughts of breeding, as I want the reassurance that the test is testing as it should.
I don't have any doubts, as there have only been two AFS that tested as Carriers, and it had nothing to do with the test.. it was their DNA being all back a$$wards. I know they were retested and they still came out the same way... as Carriers.
Most of the breeders in the UK are testing, even breeders who are not totally convinced are testing, they don't have much choice if we stick together and only allow tested b's to use our stock, the ones who don't are very much in the minority and usually using their own dogs. I don't envy them if they produce affected because they will have a lot of explaining to do to the owners of these b's.
I agree about clear by parentage, you cannot claim your dog is of any status unless it is tested. There is always room for human error and it is good to be testing the test as it were.
Most of the breeders in the UK are testing, even breeders who are not totally convinced are testing, they don't have much choice if we stick together and only allow tested b's to use our stock, the ones who don't are very much in the minority and usually using their own dogs. I don't envy them if they produce affected because they will have a lot of explaining to do to the owners of these b's.
I agree about clear by parentage, you cannot claim your dog is of any status unless it is tested. There is always room for human error and it is good to be testing the test as it were.
You have to wonder where breeders would stand legally if they dont test knowing that there is an issue in the breed and a pup they produce develops fanconi..
I have heard of puppy owners suing labrador breeders who have not tested and actually winning. So its certainly another thing to think about.
I wish owners could sue the USDA who licenses these puppymills.
I wish owners could sue the USDA who licenses these puppymills.
Of course as we all know, it is not just Puppymills…. and in this case it is a person passing themselves off as a reputable breeder...NOT
Jess - I spoke to Geoff Sampson at Crufts and the KC has no plans to include Fanconi testing as a noted health issue. They don't normally take action until an actual gene is isolated as there is no telling whether it is for a disease or merely a tendency to the disease (as some genes for a tendency to cancer, for example).
Therefore there can be no legal comeback as such as there are no guarantees by indication on the pedigree. Of course it would always depend on the sale contract and how it is worded.
Incidentally, Geoff also said that he thought the incidence of Fanconi Syndrome is low in the UK.
However as Moetmum says most breeders here in the UK are testing whatever they believe. Peer pressure is wonderful in that way!
I think any caring breeder would be devastated if a pup they bred developed any serious illness whoever they sold it to.
As someone who is very new to the breed, I CANNOT understand why people who are breeding, (i.e. the so called 'responsible' breeders, worldwide…) wont at least test for Fanconi...
Here in Australia, testing for Fanconi is starting to filter through, but not as quickly as it should be. I think, (and this is completely MY own ideas), we have a false sense of security down here. As far as I am aware there have only been a couple of cases of Affecteds, so far. We are having a few more Carriers crop up, but the testing is only being done with a touch of peer pressure I believe... Even here in Aus, it really isnt a lot of money at all to have the test done. I think it was roughly $120 Australian dollars each, to get my 2 done, (Vanda ill be done later this year). We are in a fantastic situation with this disease. We can COMPLETELY erradiate this awful disease by doing a simple non invasive test on our dogs. Why, oh why, wont breeders who truely care about the breed, test their dogs, prior to breeding them ??? I just dont get it... Just from my enquiries around Aus, I have heard all the reasons under the sun about why people AREN'T testing, and it mostly comes down to, "I know my lines and all my dogs live long and healthy lives, so I dont need to do it. I dont think its in my lines" 
As has been said by so many, HOW DO YOU KNOW, IF YOU DONT TEST ??? (Need a head hitting a brick wall, emoticon here !!!)
I think its pretty safe to say, over here we dont have many, if any B's in PF or BYB foul establishments. I think at this stage, here in Aus, the B is still a very well guarded secret ;);). I just hope it stays this way...
Sorry Ive got on my high horse a bit here, so my apologies to the OP... Please run really fast from this ' money-making kennel' :):).
I think in some places there is real heavy "code of silence" with regards to Fanconi and since the test results are required to be public there are some who really don't want their skeletons out of the closet. One thing I see with some breeders is they are breeding Untested to Clears which always makes me think they already have a pretty darn good idea what the status of that Untested dog is and they just don't want everyone else to know.
Incidentally, Geoff also said that he thought the incidence of Fanconi Syndrome is low in the UK.
From my many many talks with Dr. Gonto… I wouldn't believe this to be true.
Maybe a low incidence of letting "others" know about it... but not according to Dr. Gonto.
I think in some places there is real heavy "code of silence" with regards to Fanconi and since the test results are required to be public there are some who really don't want their skeletons out of the closet. One thing I see with some breeders is they are breeding Untested to Clears which always makes me think they already have a pretty darn good idea what the status of that Untested dog is and they just don't want everyone else to know.
Ivoss, why the 'code of silence' ??? Are breeders more interested in saving face, than saving the breed ??? Do other breeders publicly ridicule people who have Affecteds ??? Surely the welfare of the breed is FAR more important than who has what in their yard, and wear it came from :mad::mad:. (Its what you do with those results that is the most important thing IMHO…). WHY, WHY, WHY ??? More questions than answers . With our litigious society, I really believe that its only a matter of time, until a puppy buyer, with boundless money, who ends up with an Affected puppy, cos the 'registered breeder' didnt test the parents before they went ahead and did the mating, will sue and will win :rolleyes:... Another nail in the coffin of purebred dogs :mad:.
Just to be a bit more controversial, I truely believe that IF there is a DNA test for ANY breed of dog, PRA, Fanconi etc, etc, it should be mandatory to DNA test all breeding stock prior to any matings. (This also includes H/E testing, but thats for another thread :)). Flame suit on, and now running away :D:D:D...
Are breeders more interested in saving face, than saving the breed ??? Do other breeders publicly ridicule people who have Affecteds ???
The simple answer is YES. Some breeders are more interested in saving face than actually making things better. Prior to the test being released the topic of world wide incidence of Fanconi was brought up and it was noted that Dr Gonto has been consulted by basenji owners every where. People who said that were privately emailed by people stating how dare they spread lies because their country simply didn't have Fanconi, it didn't exist there. Based on the hostility aimed at people who only mentioned that it existed in that country, I can only imagine what would happen to a breeder or owner who publicly admitted it was their dog.
Kathy - I'm sure that Geoff Sampson wouldn't lie. He is a well respected Kennel Club Specialist and is prominent in canine health issues.
Of course as you say it could be an instance of breeders keeping quiet - how would we know either way? It would be really difficult however, to keep it quiet here as there are relatively few breeders in our small country and as you can imagine rumour is rife!!
When Dr Gonto came over to give his excellent talk on Fanconi here, Geoff was also present and spoke on Canine Genetics. He did have some questions to privately raise with Dr Gonto.
At that time Dr Gonto said that he had a few cases in the UK on his protocol.
I actually asked him why the Fanconi Syndrome instances were in proportion low here compared to USA and he said perhaps it was because of our low gene pool.
Of course since his visit the gene pool has been increased by the import of several overseas Basenjis for one thing, and the linked marker test has become available.
In my opinion it is difficult to get breeders to talk about all health issues here. One of our reasons in inviting Dr Gonto here was to widen our knowledge of Fanconi. Our Breed Council had surplus funds and it was my suggestion that we put on a Health Seminar but this resulted in only Dr Gonto's and Dr Sampson's talk. There was little interest in a general health seminar and as it turned out this was not such a good idea as the take-up on the Fanconi one was relatively low.
Any way we're getting away from the thread a little.
I must say I agree with all that has been said and it is advisable imo to keep away from breeders who don't test whatever their reasoning.
Incidentally after the seminar I was approached by an owner who said that he had contacted Dr Gonto about his protocol but that he had decided to have the two dogs put down instead. These dogs had not actually been diagnosed as having Fanconi Syndrome - it was only assumed that they had it.
