Hi there, hunting with basenjis, visiting Nocturnal

[tanza]

@eeeefarm:

This thread got me curious, and I wondered what the incidence of HD is in Basenjis. I found this, although I haven't chased down verification, but it seems right to me: Basenjis are one of the least affected at 3.2% of those tested being dysplastic and 23.7% having an 'excellent' score. . Breeders undoubtedly should test, but I would be willing to roll the dice on those stats, especially if I had seen the sire and dam of the pup I was buying.

You quote "3.2% of those tested"…. there is the rub.... OF THOSE TESTED. If you don't test, you don't know

[eeeefarm]

@tanza:

You quote "3.2% of those tested"…. there is the rub.... OF THOSE TESTED. If you don't test, you don't know

Yes, I appreciate that. I also understand that anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but for what it is worth, I have never seen a Basenji with hip dysplasia, although I sure have seen lots of examples in other breeds. I tend to agree that x-ray evidence can be "fudged", and it will be a good thing when we have an actual genetic test for the condition.

Unfortunately, once you close registries and start breeding for show as opposed to performance, you are bound to encounter increasing problems with genetic deficiencies. Breeding away from certain traits can also have unintended consequences, particularly with conditions that are linked to desirable traits as well as the ones you are trying to erase. I sympathize with the Border Collie people who desperately did not want the breed recognized for bench showing. Who knows whether the Basenji that evolved over thousands of years will in the future retain any resemblance to the dogs imported from Africa? What changes will be rendered by breeding for show ring results, as opposed to being selected for hardiness and hunting ability? But now we are on to another topic!

[mixie]

@tanza:

You quote "3.2% of those tested"…. there is the rub.... OF THOSE TESTED. If you don't test, you don't know

With the completely subjective qualitative test we use now, even WHEN tested, you don't know; you are not testing for genetic markers.
Are we all clear on this? The test you are doing only shows if your dog has bad hips. It does not show if your dog will pass bad hips to offspring. In fact, more than half the time, YOU are giving bad hips to your dogs' offspring.
If we are going to continue talking about this, I need to be sure we all understand this. I come from a background working with dogs that DO have a very significant rate of CHD, and this is a subject that means a great deal to me. I don't want to come off like I'm being combative for the sake of being combative, here. Good hips are a BIG DEAL for working animals, and the people who taught me everything I know about dogs depend on their canine partners for their actual lives, in reality. Not just economically, I mean, actual life-or-death situations, where, if your dog is slow to the strike or his limb collapses under him, you might actually die. Structural soundness means 100% of everything to me. I want to be expressly clear that I care very, very much about how to breed and rear a dog with good biomechanics.

The test we are currently using does not screen for genetics. It doesn't screen for functionality. Its results are certainly variable according to the skill and/or shadiness of your vet. We know that somewhere between half and three quarters of CHD is "caused", rather than bred. The <4% incidence rate in this breed is ABSOLUTELY within range of "environmental co-factors". Hell, ~3% is a reasonable margin of error, period.

Yes, it is certainly your "right" set your own standards for what YOU do, and what you advocate for. That certainly leaves plenty of room for my "right" to point out that some of your standards are unnecessary and may serve to bottleneck your gene pool in ways that are not beneficial. It's also most certainly my right to vote with my wallet for the practices I support. I do not MIND if someone wants to have their dogs' hips X-rayed. But really… put it in perspective. They did just fine for 13,000 years without first-world hobbyists x-raying their joints.

The dog fancy is dying from a thousand cuts right now, and most of those cuts come from you slashing at each other. If you want to retain the right to keep breeding your dogs, you are going to have to stop cutting each other down. I'm just a pet owner that wants to keep being able to buy dogs from practitioners I respect. I don't mind that you encourage people to do their very best to improve the health of their dogs, but I do mind when it stops being a reasoned choice and a discussion about allocation of resources, and starts being a weapon you use to attack each other.

[tanza]

I beg to differ with you mixie…. testing parents/greatparents/great grandparents will show if it is coming genetic line...

And I hold to my belief that if you don't test, you don't know... and that is not good for the breed. If you want to support a breeder that doesn't full test, that is your right. Is it right... nope, not in my opinion... if you CAN afford to breed and raise a litter you should be testing as much as you can, period

[mixie]

@tanza:

I beg to differ with you mixie…. testing parents/greatparents/great grandparents will show if it is coming genetic line...

You don't have to beg. I'm not stopping you from differing.
No, multi-generation testing doesn't demonstrate the presence of the genes. It shows that you have consistently bad hips. You could be feeding your dogs incorrectly, or conditioning them incorrectly, or they could be injuring themselves, or a combination of all of the above. A consistent environmental influence causing dysplastic hips looks exactly the same on film as a consistent genetic influence causing dysplastic hips. We even have evidence to show that pediatric alteration significantly impacts the CHD expression rate. So you could have generations of functionally clear dogs who are genetic carriers, sell most of your puppies on an early s/n contract, have a bunch of pups come up with joint mobility issues in early adulthood, and STILL have no idea whether it's genetic or environmental, or both.

We are all free to hold onto whatever we like. But let's not get dramatic about it. You don't "full test". You don't test for a variety of things that have a 3/100 chance of occurring. I am not slandering you as an irresponsible breeder for not testing for every conceivable congenital issue under the sun. I'm not even slandering you for not testing for everything that happens at a >3% rate of expression.

I agree that it's nice if you can throw an endless fountain of play money at your hobby, for sure. That's great, and people should absolutely do the most and best they can. I am, personally, not of the opinion that only the leisurely wealthy should have the right to breed dogs, or own purpose-bred dogs, so if like most people you have a limited hobby budget to dedicate toward preserving a precious living relic, you could also put that money toward improving a variety of environmental factors which are at the VERY LEAST equal in influence to the polygenetic traits that we know about, particularly in a dog which, after 13,000 years of completely uncontrolled breeding, has a functional disease expression rate within a margin of error of zero.

[tanza]

Have to Laugh at your position on heath testing… the breed considers health testing before breeding.... and that is from Basenji Club of America. Glad that you are happy with your pup.. and hope that in the future that you will consider full health testing before breeding... and if not breeding, hope that you have a healthy dog and breed to a healthy dog that have been totally health tested.

I do not believe that it is "throwing" money away to health test before breeding...

[mixie]

Tanza, I can't tell if you are deliberately misunderstanding me, or if I'm not making myself clear, so I'm going to try one more time to lay my position on this out for you, and then be done with it.

There are some things for which we have excellent, effective testing available, which makes a significant difference to the health of your breeding program.

There are some things we have clumsy tests for; millions of dollars in biomedical research later, we have a better understanding of the diseases' heritability and causes of expression. Using these tests is a piece of the puzzle that should be used appropriately, when useful. They're not always useful, and sometimes their use can be detrimental.

One way over-testing for non-issues can be detrimental, is with a condition that MORE THAN HALF OF THE TIME is environmentally caused. Choosing to visually evaluate your dogs' hips is not a bad thing, per se. But it's not a big deal, either. And when you're working with a small gene pool and a closed studbook, without a significant reason for concern, culling your gene pool against something for which you have zero proof of genetic basis (since the test is not genetic), or even any tangible reason for concern on that count is not wise. But then, it's not wise to arbitrarily cull your limited gene pool for color, either, which you guys do.

I certainly didn't say "health testing" in general is a waste of money. I demanded to see the test results I cared about, and was pleased that she had done them before even knowing whether she was keeping Scout for her breeding program, or not.
What I said was that I don't know a lot of people these days with an endless fountain of disposable income for a hobby. Maybe you do. I am making very considered choices with my dog-buying-dollar, and so is Sarah, with her breed-preservation-dollar. Aside from the dogs, she also raises small-scale, free-range heritage ducks, turkeys, cattle, and sheep. She's been specifically working for genetic preservation of critically endangered livestock animals for more than thirty years as a member of the ALBC. She is thoughtful, experienced, practical, and has a great eye for a naturally balanced, functional animal. She does not ask a fortune for her dogs, and the money she does make goes toward an extremely thoughtful, hand-built breeding program.
I'm really disgusted at the tone, here.

[tanza]

You made you position very clear and also your choice of breeders, I just happen to not agree that breeder is a responsible breeder. And this especially because they breed more than just one breed….

[eeeefarm]

I think this goes under the heading of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". It depends on your perspective.

The one thing that is not in doubt is that you both have the best of intentions for the breed. I do applaud that Pat uses her dogs for coursing. Personally I don't give a fig for titles obtained in the breed ring, I've witnessed too much (admittedly in other breeds, but why would Basenjis be different?) to think that the best conformation always wins the prize. But it's hard to fake performance, and IMO all breeding stock should be tested that way before being used. Something like the criteria for warmblood horses.

Unnecessarily reducing the gene pool is another issue that deserves serious consideration. Many good and excellent rated hips have produced dysplasia in the breeds prone to it…...

[tanza]

I will say the proper conformation is "form/function" for performance. If a dog does not have proper conformation then chances are great that they will not hold up in events like coursing/racing/agility and even OB, let alone the show ring. My Basenjis have all be both conformation champions and lure coursing/racing champions. Many of the pups that I have place have also done well in Obedience along with coursing and conformation. And they have performed well into their teens in all events. I think that conformation is important… and we prove that in the conformation ring.

As a breeder, I breed for myself... looking to improve the breed in conformation/health/temperament. However, since I can't keep them all, after the breeders pick, the most important thing is the homes for the remaining pups. And for my pups 90% of them are companion homes.

If you are talking about performance, then IMO, hips are important, even if there is a low % of Basenjis that have hip issues. Again, if you don't test, you don't know. We all know that Basenjis are very, very stoic and many, many times have issues but never complain.... so things like hip problems may never come to light until it is too late with heavy performance use.

But hips are only one thing... health, IMO is a package... and all that we can do to eliminate and breed responsible is a plus to the breed. It is not about money, I have never made a dime off of any of my litters.... that is not why I breed.

[tanza]

Let me also add, Mixie that you have obviously decided the your choice of breeders is a responsible breeder… I disagree... and I hope by my posts others will look further and take into consideration health testing and pedigree before deciding on a breeder to purchase their Basenji. I do not ship puppies and anyone interested in a Tanza pup would have to come the California in person, so it is not that I am trying to push my pups or my breeding. I am glad you are happy with your choice.

There are any number of what I would consider responsible breeders on the East Coast and I would encourage people looking for a Basenji to talk to as many breeders as possible. Keep in mind, the purchase price is just the first thing... it does not address possible problems as your pup grows to an adult and to their elder years. Breeders that only have one breed (Basenjis in this case) concentrate on raising their litters as family members and are not in a kennel situation with a number of other breeds, but in the home.

If you are interested in seeing a Tanza bred child... go to http://www.tanzabasenjis.net/News.html and see Lucy… and all her titles and still winning at Specialties at age coming 12 yr old. Her titles are in conformation/racing/coursing/OB and agility....

[mixie]

@tanza:

You made you position very clear and also your choice of breeders, I just happen to not agree that breeder is a responsible breeder. And this especially because they breed more than just one breed….

Right. The difference is that I have actually been there, spent close to a hundred hours on site, talking with her, asking questions, probing her plans, looking at her records, handling her dogs, watching how she handles them and how they respond to her, talking to the vets in the area, talking to other owners, helping with chores and getting an in-depth feel for who she is as a lifelong, dedicated rare-breed preservationist.

On the other hand, you are making judgments from the other side of a computer screen on seemingly arbitrary criteria. Sarah has a name, you don't have to call her "that" or "they". Her name is Sarah and her kennel is Nocturnal. She has raised Basenjis for something like thirty years.
You're right, that the purchase price is just one expense. If you're responsible, like me, you keep an emergency fund set aside. You clearly have plenty of play money, so this may not be a concern for you, but for some of us, keeping an extra $500-1000 in the emergency fund may come in very handy. We have great credit and live debt-free, so while I could put emergency care on credit, I'd rather pay cash for things that matter, and not waste it on things that mostly don't.

Seeing as how 96% of your population doesn't have a problem, how would you know? How about the fact that here in reality, 96% of the time, you have no problem? That is how you know. The same way you know you don't have statistically significant problems with neurological disorders, without demanding every dog be subjected to FMRI. You simply do not have a statistically significant rate either of neurological deficits or CHD.
I have worked extensively with dysplasia prone breeds. Believe me, they know. Yes, it is a problem that dogs may lose joint stability under heavy use; since as we (and Cornell) have already established that up to 3/4ths of all CHD stems from environmental cofactors, simply filtering out four percent of your breeding stock isn't going to fix your problem, if you keep giving your dogs hip dysplasia by the way you feed and work them.

I certainly respect your intentions, but you are using a subjective, observational, non-genetic test as a "quick fix", and thereby unnecessarily narrowing your gene pool. I think it's a fine tool for monitoring your program, but it's not a "quick fix" for breeding good hips, and until a direct, genetic screen becomes available, you should not be using it to cull dogs or to guarantee hip health, or attack other breeders who choose not to use it as a quick fix.

[mixie]

And, it would be great if you stopped throwing in the snide asides. She has more than one breed, that doesn't stop her from raising her dogs as "family members". I was there the day after one litter was born. Mama was sleeping in their bed with them when she started to labor. Sarah stops by my house to visit, or bring me some eggs from their yard, and every fiber of Scout's being lights up to see her. These dogs are extremely personal to her, and they adore her. So do her terriers. You clearly have a picture in your mind that does not reflect the reality I have personally experienced.

[tanza]

@mixie:

And, it would be great if you stopped throwing in the snide asides. She has more than one breed, that doesn't stop her from raising her dogs as "family members". I was there the day after one litter was born. Mama was sleeping in their bed with them when she started to labor. Sarah stops by my house to visit, or bring me some eggs from their yard, and every fiber of Scout's being lights up to see her. These dogs are extremely personal to her, and they adore her. So do her terriers. You clearly have a picture in your mind that does not reflect the reality I have personally experienced.

Sorry… find that hard to accept that she/they can raise multi breeds and properly socialize them... You have your opinion, I have mine.. and in my opinion this is not a responsible breeder. So I am able to voice my opinion and hope that others will look up and down the East Coast and talk to other breeders... before deciding on a Basenji pup. I clearly have a picture on how their dogs are whelped/raised... just look at the kennel runs.. again, my opinion and I will continue to put out there my opinion.... sorry but this person is into it for the money.. since they do not do all health testing they can reduce price..... and for the rest of us that do testing... our prices are in line with the rest of the Basenji breeding community...

[tanza]

Again if you are happy with your Basenji from this BYB breeder.. good for you… it will not stop me from encouraging others to look further for breeder if they are intersted in a Basenji pup... certainly being in California unless people want to travel here to get a pup, since I will not ship... it is important to me that they understand what makes a responsible breeder... It is certainly not like I am pushing my pups... far from that

[mixie]

@tanza:

Sorry… find that hard to accept that she/they can raise multi breeds and properly socialize them... You have your opinion, I have mine.. and in my opinion this is not a responsible breeder. So I am able to voice my opinion and hope that others will look up and down the East Coast and talk to other breeders... before deciding on a Basenji pup. I clearly have a picture on how their dogs are whelped/raised... just look at the kennel runs.. again, my opinion and I will continue to put out there my opinion.... sorry but this person is into it for the money.. since they do not do all health testing they can reduce price..... and for the rest of us that do testing... our prices are in line with the rest of the Basenji breeding community...

Right. So from the far side of a computer screen, your completely uninformed opinion means precisely nothing in light of my actual experience with her beautifully socialized dogs. Got that? I have not only handled every single one of her dogs, I own one. In this conversation, I am the actual, hands-on expert about how well-socialized her puppies are. Not you.

Yes, of course she can "reduce price" if she is not wasting money on useless, unnecessary testing for conditions that for all practical purposes do not exist in your breed. That is not a bad thing, since I'm not personally of the opinion that only wealthy people should get to own well-bred, structurally sound, responsibly health-tested, thoroughly socialized dogs. There's a very elitist streak in the upper crust of the dog fancy that says the only choice in dogs should be pound mutts or gold-plated, artisan-crafted works of art with caviar price tags. And just listen to yourself… HOW THE HELL DOES IT MAKE SENSE to claim that she's "in it for the money" and you know this because she takes LESS of her buyers' money than YOU do?

What's wrong with her kennels? They're clean, dry, comfy and secure. Her dogs aren't crated or stuck indoors 22/7, or left unattended all day in a suburban yard. It's not million-dollar fencing, but there's nothing wrong with any of it. Dogs are hard on grass, and I'm glad they don't live on poured concrete or pea gravel. Precisely what sort of flooring do you think your African pariah dogs evolved to stand on? And do you truly, honestly believe that no worthy Basenji existed before your privileged, Western idea of top-shelf dog breeding? Whatever did those ignorant villagers do without you?

Might I remind you, you liked my dog until you found out where she came from? Personally, I'm for the democratization of purpose-bred dogs. I very much appreciate someone who is practical, experienced, and able to raise wonderful dogs for under a thousand bucks. So far, you have done nothing in this thread except insult people you do not know, advocate for irresponsibly bottlenecking your already tiny gene pool, and throw around more slander. You've been wrong on every single count, but at the end of the day, you don't seem to care. Holding on to your pre-conceived hatred for a stranger and insulting me and my dog is more important to you than considering published research and potentially improving the health of your dogs and integrity of your gene pool. It's truly unfortunate.

[tanza]

My dogs are not in the house 22/7 nor are my litters raised in a kennel… nor are any of them crated during the day and they are not in wire runs or raised on concrete runs/pea gravel.... so before you throw out comments that indicate that is how I breed/raise puppies, best you find the facts. But then I am lucky that I can set up my home in a manner that does not include kennel runs or having to keep them in crates when we are at work.... nor do I want to. I only breed when I am going to keep a puppy in 99% of the cases... and they all live as family pets first, in the house with their humans.

And seriously? I am Bottlenecking the gene pool? How do you figure that? If you research their pedigrees, their breedings are to the same dogs over and over and crossed back on the same lines over and over. They breed at least 2 to 3 litters a year... how is that not "for profit"?

I think it is great that they at least DNA test for Fanconi... but what about other testing, take out hips... what about DNA testing for PRA? PRA is long known as a late onset problem in our breed that causes late onset blindness? And Thyroid issues has long been know also as a problem in Basenjis? "IF" there was a DNA test for hips, would you then say it should be done?

The intergrity of my gene pool is not in question... and I don't breed year after year after year. Has nothing to do with hatred of anyone it has to do with the breed and improving the breed, not just breeding to sell puppies.

By the way, this is not just a post about this particular kennel and their breeding practices, but it is a post to any/all kennels that breed in this manner. Has nothing to do with what are being charged for a puppy... there are any number of kennels that are not responsible IMO that charge way more then I do for my puppies... and please take into account the area of the country before claiming that our puppy price is outrageous... things are way more expensive on the West Coast compaired to NC... so I don't just look at the price... has way more to do with it than price.

[mixie]

@tanza:

My dogs are not in the house 22/7 nor are my litters raised in a kennel… nor are any of them crated during the day and they are not in wire runs or raised on concrete runs/pea gravel.... so before you throw out comments that indicate that is how I breed/raise puppies, best you find the facts.

Really? You mean the way you keep throwing out crappy comments about Sarah? You mean you don't like it when people who don't know you and have never seen your home make wild speculations about how you might keep your dogs? Huh. Imagine that.

But then I am lucky that I can set up my home in a manner that does not include kennel runs or having to keep them in crates when we are at work…. nor do I want to. I only breed when I am going to keep a puppy in 99% of the cases... and they all live as family pets first, in the house with their humans.

That's not "luck", that's a choice. Sarah works at home running a small, beautiful, biodiverse, homestead-type farm, specifically for genetic preservation of critically endangered domestic animals. She spends all day with her animals, while you are at work. Your dogs are a hobby when you have spare time for them. Hers are an integral part of her life.
What you do with your dogs is fine, I'm not knocking it for you and your puppy buyers. There is room for everyone and I firmly believe people should have a world of choice in dogs. But you're acting like your super-privileged Western life, where your few dogs exist as ornaments around your hobby-time schedule is the only humane, or even desirable option. And that you "only breed for yourself" is… what, supposed to be... admirable? So what? We have retailers posing as "rescue" groups importing puppies from second- and third-world nations, more than a quarter million a year at the CDC's last reporting, to fill the demand for pet dogs in this country. Why is it admirable that you hoard your dogs' genetics?

And seriously? I am Bottlenecking the gene pool? How do you figure that? If you research their pedigrees, their breedings are to the same dogs over and over and crossed back on the same lines over and over. They breed at least 2 to 3 litters a year… how is that not "for profit"?

Seriously. You are advocating removing healthy animals from your gene pool for reasons that are absolutely not genetically-linked. You also advocate removing sound animals from your gene pool because they're not the preferred color, even though they are authentic to the actual Congolese dogs and the standard does not prohibit them. That is an absolutely arbitrary choking of your available genetic material, and not wise.
Why not repeat successful breedings? What's wrong with reproducing lovely dogs? What's wrong with line-breeding to strengthen desired traits? Do you think African village dogs had semen flown in from other villages so they could be outcrossed to a dozen different lines? Her dogs are structurally correct, healthy, brainy, drivey, and beautifully socialized. They are great pets.
Do the math, tanza. If it costs you $900 per puppy to raise a puppy, and you sell your puppies for an average of $900, it doesn't matter whether you sell one puppy or ten thousand, you'll still be breaking even. And there you go with another arbitrary standard. Is three litters of papillons with three puppies each, more, or less scumbaggy than one litter of GSDs of fifteen pups?

And anyway, WHO CARES if anyone breeds "for profit"? What's wrong with a skilled practitioner getting paid for fine work? I would MUCH rather see someone turning a profit and be able to reserve money for emergencies and be able to continually reinvest in and improve their program, than see someone living like a martyr, constantly in the red, and sometimes having to cut corners to keep everyone fed. That "professionalism is a dirty word" mantra does NOTHING but feed the anti-dog-breeder rhetoric of the radical animal abolitionists who think you are ALL scum for exploiting your dogs.

I think it is great that they at least DNA test for Fanconi… but what about other testing, take out hips... what about DNA testing for PRA? PRA is long known as a late onset problem in our breed that causes late onset blindness? And Thyroid issues has long been know also as a problem in Basenjis? "IF" there was a DNA test for hips, would you then say it should be done?

WHEN there is a direct DNA test reasonably available, sure, though at the tiny percentage in which it exists in Basenjis, I still wouldn't call someone a scumbag for choosing not to, if in thirty years they'd never had a single complaint about hips. Her older dogs have all been screened for PRA, and none were affected. Considering that "late onset blindness", according to the BTCA is: "…if the dog lives long enough, ... can lead to blindness." and "most changes were characterized as PRA suspicious rather than PRA affected. Not all of those dogs have hereditary eye disease, as retinal changes may be acquired or may be due to other disorders."

"It is not currently known if Basenji PRA is one disease or more than one. Mode of inheritance is presently unknown."

"Basenjis can also have some unusual, but benign, forms of retinal pigmentation that can easily be confused with PRA or retinal degeneration. Both false positives and false negatives are common with Basenji PRA." Early onset symptoms are classified as either "rare" or "extremely rare" by the BTCA.

Got that? From the BTCA's website, you MIGHT see daytime affected symptoms IF THE DOG LIVES LONG ENOUGH. But there's currently no way to know if it's one of several types of PRA or maybe just normal retinal aging that all dogs everywhere experience. This is ANOTHER issue that you are blowing way out of proportion. You have no idea how many forms of PRA exist, or even if all the cases of extremely elderly dogs that have night blindness are "PRA", and false positives and negatives are common. Why EVER would you skewer someone for choosing to wait for further developments before using such a tool as a basis for culling their breeding program?

The intergrity of my gene pool is not in question… and I don't breed year after year after year. Has nothing to do with hatred of anyone it has to do with the breed and improving the breed, not just breeding to sell puppies.

AGAIN, what is wrong with "selling puppies", if those puppies are structurally correct, healthy, happy, typey, well-socialized animals? Should people not be able to buy puppies except scrambling for your precious few hobby cast-offs, once a decade, for which they will have to take time off work and an airplane ride?
And AGAIN with the self-aggrandizing. Improve the breed, huh? You are already selecting against traits exhibited by the Congolese dogs. How ever did they survive for 13,000+ years without you?

By the way, this is not just a post about this particular kennel and their breeding practices, but it is a post to any/all kennels that breed in this manner. Has nothing to do with what are being charged for a puppy… there are any number of kennels that are not responsible IMO that charge way more then I do for my puppies... and please take into account the area of the country before claiming that our puppy price is outrageous... things are way more expensive on the West Coast compaired to NC... so I don't just look at the price... has way more to do with it than price.

I didn't claim that your prices are "outrageous". I just said they're higher than what a lot of people would be able to pay for a family pet. Which is, of course, fine, since I'm pro-choice like that, but your bizarro contention that her charging less for her dogs means she's a profiteer (about the most bizarre backward logic I've seen yet) was very strange. If people want a good family pet, and don't want to pay for the overhead of costly dog hobby stuff and all the over-screening you do, they should know that there are plenty of choices out there for breeders who won't charge a full month's wages to support your occasional dabbling in hobby breeding. Sarah's been breeding great family pets for several decades, and has it down to an art and science. Her dogs are delightful. She's a pro.

[DebraDownSouth]

@mixie:

1 But the testing currently in use isn't genetic. It's qualitative and subjective.
2 I've seen breeders shop for vets in order to get great ratings on dogs with terrible hips. I've also seen, in person, a vet manipulate bad hips to get a good film.
3 I've seen dogs from long lines of well-rated and extremely athletic, functional, field-proven animals turn up dysplastic when fed and exercised incorrectly in a pet home… meaning dogs with excellent conformation and who is a more-than-sound mover with a long, long record of field functionality AND an excellent OFA rating may still carry the gene.
4 Just like "papers" are no guarantee of quality, an OFA score on the parents is no guarantee that your pup won't be dysplastic if you raise her with mediocre nutrition and conditioning.
5 Now, what I am concerned about, and what you are concerned about, may be two entirely different things. Some people are thrilled to pay thousands of dollars for a dog from breeding stock tested for everything under the sun, including conditions for which the breed is among the "least affected" among all dogs. For me, and my purposes, I know precisely what I want in a dog and what I expect of my breeder.

1. When you have 3 vets rate and their agreement is very much similar, it isn't that subjective.
When you have dogs that are not rated with CHD as puppies and who, not matter what they eat or do, are still not dysplastic at a rate over 95 percent as adults, it isn't subjective and it isn't CREATED by diet.
DIET can help with symptoms, but it does not make a dog have CHD.

2. Well all have, but fortunately they are the minority. Just because some people cheat doesn't make it bad for all. GOOD breeders test to know if they should breed.

3 & 4. I don't give a flying fig what you feed a dog… every research shows that.. OF COURSE NOT A GUARANTEE... but your chances for a dog who does not have CHD improves with testing of the parents and of the litter mates of the parents. When I look at a pedigree, I look at everything the sire and dam produced, especially the full liter mates of a potential stud/dam. I think you are confusing other orthopedic issues with CHD. No question that over eating, poor diets etc can affect joints and growth. That isn't CHD. No question good food can help a dog not have symptoms of CHD or at least less. But it doesn't cause or prevent actually having it. A dog from ofa clear parents can still have or NOT HAVE CHD, no matter what they are fed. Research has shown this over and over... chd is not caused by bad diet. There was a preliminary study once trying to see if maternal diet produced higher or lower chd in puppies, but it wasn't conclusive and I have yet to see another. Other studies hinted that overweight early might increase CHD... but yet they found they could actually tell as early as 4 wks so that in truth, being overweight wasn't the issue. Another study

Findings failed to support the hypothesis that heavy and fast growing dogs from four large sized breeds were at increased risk for development of CHD. << http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587710002643

You do no damage and a great deal of good by good nutrition and keeping dogs at a good weight, but you won't make or stop them from having CHD OR passing it on to offspring.

4. And that gets me to the big issue with your post… I propose that what everyone should want from a breeder should include health testing. If you want less than that, you perhaps need to do some more research on the statistics.
Dogs who have heart clearances have lower rate of puppies with heart problems.
Dogs with passing hips have a better chance of producing puppies without chd.
Dogs who are testing for Fanconi and other genetic diseases can be bred to avoid affected puppies or simply not bred if carriers/affected.

Why on earth would any responsible breeder not do health testing so that they give their puppies the very best possible chance of being healthy? Yes, that to me is the basics of RESPONSIBLE breeding. Would I say a Rottweiler breeder should do Fanconi testing? Of course not. But would I say any Rottie breeder who fails to do hips, heart and elbows is not responsible? Damned straight. And while I don't think not testing for CHD is HORRIBLE for a basenji breeder, I sure do think that between someone who cares enough to test so they limit their chances of having a dog and producing dogs with it are a big step more toward the responsible caring type of breeder I want to deal with.

And you want to know WHY? Because breed after breed that claims "our dogs don't have that"... when more breeders tested they were shocked to see the stats showing they do.. same with basenjis with CHD.

I see people use what you said to justify buying from byb/pm litters. I cannot support breeders who do not at least do the minimal testing for their breed. And I can totally support breeders who test for conditions to be sure. Because my concern is one I have seen play out many times with other breeds... "oh we don't have that problem".. and then the breed club and good breeders start pushing testing and the numbers actually affected are double, triple or more than they thought when the testing was a low amt.

[DebraDownSouth]

@mixie:

tanza, your scare quotes suggest that you think the environmental issue is a minor one. CHD has a heritability of approximately 0.25-0.5. That means anywhere from 50-75% of CHD is environmental or cofactored with a polygenetic influence.

Your rights and abilities to breed your dogs are being eroded very quickly by people who believe that ALL of you are "exploiters" and "abusers" and "puppy millers".

Please show me research that supports your continued claim that CHD is environmental. "co-factored with polygenetic" is still genetic. In fact you talk about Baker, but you see to pick and choose and misconstrue facts. They said, as I keep saying.. environment (including diet) influences the expression or PROGRESSION of the disease but NOT if a dog has chd.

http://bakerinstitute.vet.cornell.edu/animalhealth/page.php?id=1104

What can genetics teach us about hip dysplasia?

It is clear that hip dysplasia is an inherited, polygenic disorder, meaning that more than one gene influences the development and transmission of the disease. It is not yet clear however which genes are responsible, and this is the subject of intense, ongoing research. Both genes and environment have significant effects on the expression of hip dysplasia. The disease has a heritability of between 0.25 and 0.48. This means that 25 to 48 percent of the variability in hip dysplasia development is due to additive genetic factors. We may interpret this to mean that both genetic and environmental influences impact the progression of the disease.<<

But let us even say that diet might help cause or prevent it (which old studies thought though new ones disproving it)… until we have a goodly number of dogs tested in the breed, the breeder testing is doing the breed and their puppies the best possible action. Yeah, I'd be willing to pay my part of that astronomical cost.. what a few hundred dollars most places in the US?

I agree that calling a breeding bad over not testing for CHD with basenji isn't cricket. It isn't ideal, but not terrible. But try to understand this--- it only takes a few popular studs who have a disorder to make it big. So yep, I won't bash those that don't but I sure applaud those that do.