4mo old Black and White Basenji girl for sale!
-
Been a long day at work and I am reading this and am not sure what her fanconi status is. Did I miss that?
Sharon,
As per Kathy the dog was first tested a P.Clear.. she used this dog for her own breeding and since the breeding was a P.Clear or P.Carriers tested the pups… 1 P.Clear, 2 P.Carriers, 1 P.Affected. She questioned those results because it was not what was expected. It was a P.Clear to P.Carrier which should have resulted in P.Carriers at worst. She retested the pups and the Male... the male came back the second time as P.Carrier. This was way after both the breedings happened
-
Thank you Pat.
-
It's unfortunate that a pup came out affected regardless of the situation. I do however agree that it DOESN'T make Kathy look bad or irresponsible. We ALL know the risks of Fanconi in the breed (or at least we should) and we should all be aware there are no guarantees.
-
This is what I stated from the beginning-the test is not infallible and should be used in conjunction with a pedigree. But that being said, there is always, always room for error and mistakes do happen. It seems everyone went into the breeding in good faith, but a mistake happened. Why this should make anyone afraid of the future of the tests or the breeding of any basenji is beyond me. Not one person has said to rely on this test wholeheartedly. It seems to have happened, nothing can be done about it, except learn from it, and move on from there. You can be adamant about wanting a clear stud all you want-mistakes will happen irregardless.
-
Nomrbddgs: It's not and I will take care to be more careful from now on. It's a sad mistake that we didn't know about until long after I bred Kiya and after Kathy bred Maya.
When I see something is amiss and I know that it is something that is important to be known to a community I make it public. For the remark about ethics that was about -ME- not Kathy. I wish people would try to read the positive in the words not read into things that don't exist.
This got more information to the community about the testing and that is a good thing. Kathy and I have both been forthcoming on information about our dogs.
As for the information posted on my site, I have decided to not breed to any dog that is under age 2 or OFA health tested yes. I didn't realize making that clear on my site was dirty laundry to be aired.
Debra: Do not make remarks on people's character when you don't understand the situation fully. It reflects poorly on you, not the person you insult.
I listened to a seasoned breeder as a new breeder and believed her when she told me that a 1yr old was a good match for my girl. He is a fine dog, I never will say otherwise. I love my puppies and I'm grateful for the wonderful temperament that they have inherited from their parents and the compliments that are showing through from the match.
The issue was that after I made this thread and someone inquired about the puppy's parents and their health I had to discover he was a carrier on OFA and not from the breeder. Perhaps she didn't have enough time to inform me, but I didn't know that and I felt very wounded by this. So yes I made it public. I am all for full disclosure; especially when it concerns health and especially when it concerns the dogs in my breeding program.
If anyone knew anything about me they would know that I am a very caring, concerned dog mom and my puppies are well taken care of. :D
I have already mentioned that mistakes have been made and further witch hunting is not 'socially savvy' and I ask it to stop.
**Please I ask that this thread go back to the original topic. A very sweet, happy4mo old black and white puppy is looking for a companion home. She loves people of all ages, dogs, cats and even ferrets!
More pictures to come soon! :)
-
Debra: Do not make remarks on people's character when you don't understand the situation fully. It reflects poorly on you, not the person you insult.
The issue was that after I made this thread and someone inquired about the puppy's parents and their health I had to discover he was a carrier on OFA and not from the breeder. Perhaps she didn't have enough time to inform me, but I didn't know that and I felt very wounded by this. So yes I made it public. I am all for full disclosure; especially when it concerns health and especially when it concerns the dogs in my breeding program.
I have already mentioned that mistakes have been made and further witch hunting is not 'socially savvy' and I ask it to stop.
Again, you are the one attacking the other breeder, continuing to make comments like the above, and the you ask others to stop? You stop, others will. You claim she didn't contact you, she said you didn't respond to her requests. One is not being honest, no one can prove who, but really… class shows.
-
Annandael: Might you post pictures here on the forum rather than links to Facebook? Some of us do not belong to Facebook, and cannot view the pics. Thanks.
-
This is an old post but I am confused about something. According to these posts the mother was clear and the father turned out to be a carrier thought to be clear originally. So how did he sire an affected puppy. I thought if a clear and a carrier were bred you would not get affected. only if two carriers were bred you would get affected. Or of course if an affected was bred you could get affected. I am just curious. I am not breeding
or anything just trying to understand this Fanconi. My own girl is a carrier but spayed, and my understanding is she should never come down with Fanconi. Im just not sure how a clear and carrier could have an affected thats all. -
This is an old post but I am confused about something. According to these posts the mother was clear and the father turned out to be a carrier thought to be clear originally. So how did he sire an affected puppy. I thought if a clear and a carrier were bred you would not get affected. only if two carriers were bred you would get affected. Or of course if an affected was bred you could get affected. I am just curious. I am not breeding
or anything just trying to understand this Fanconi. My own girl is a carrier but spayed, and my understanding is she should never come down with Fanconi. Im just not sure how a clear and carrier could have an affected thats all.Not the same litters, the one mentioned with the affected was from a different litter than Annandael's litter. The litter with the one affected turned out to be a carrier x carrier breeding. Keep in mind that the linkage test for Fanconi was just that "linkage", not a direct DNA test. So retested when we got the direct DNA test was/is needed. The bitch was a carrier, the male "retested with the direct test" turned out to be a carrier
-
This is an old post but I am confused about something. According to these posts the mother was clear and the father turned out to be a carrier thought to be clear originally. So how did he sire an affected puppy. I thought if a clear and a carrier were bred you would not get affected. only if two carriers were bred you would get affected. Or of course if an affected was bred you could get affected. I am just curious. I am not breeding
or anything just trying to understand this Fanconi. My own girl is a carrier but spayed, and my understanding is she should never come down with Fanconi. Im just not sure how a clear and carrier could have an affected thats all.Her post is confusing, The bitch was not CLEAR, she was out of a clear/carrier breeding, so she had to have been a carrier. But also, this was the linkage test. Hopefully all involved have gotten the DNA test that came available the end of last year.
-
The bitch was not CLEAR, she was out of a clear/carrier breeding, so she had to have been a carrier.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but clear to carrier should yield 50/50 clears and carriers (statistically speaking). Carrier to carrier would give one clear, two carrier, one affected, if I am doing the math right. And clear to affected would yield all carrier. (obviously affected to affected = all puppies affected, carrier to affected would give you half carrier and half affected)
Maybe I read the implication wrong. Now that I am looking at it again, I don't think Debra meant she had to be a carrier, just that obviously she was if she had an affected puppy. Really good that the direct test is now available!
-
You are right, I thought one of the puppies from her litter was affected. Too tired to go back and read.. so let me say, first yep, you are right on transmission of recessive genes.
Second, IF her bitch had an affected puppy when bred to a carrier, she also is a carrier (that is IF her sire and dam actually include one clear parent).
