I am throwing this out there, I don't expect anyone to agree with me and I will probably offend a few but, no harm intended....

A few weeks back there was a thread running with a good discussion on what types of requirements we should place upon Chesapeakes before a sire/dam is bred.

Some of us felt a field title should be required, some a show title, some said basic health clearances. I think we all agreed that the basic health clearances should be expected, beyond those, everyone breeds for their purpose.

This lead to a long discussion on breeding only popular field lines and how this is very bad for the breed and causes genetic bottlenecking.

Onward another week and the DM testing is being explained in depth to the point a layman like my self is starting to have an understanding of the testing, results and what they really mean.

I have yet to be corrected but, the current DM test seams very inconclusive and should I say, "infantile" in nature.

To another recent subject intermingling with the same intent, posting a litter on the board now may require a DM test?

Why wouldn't we require a field title on any litters posted on the board. A field title is a conclusive determination of a breeds ability to work in the field and complete a test with a very well defined set of rules. Would be requiring a field title any different than requiring the results of a test which may or may not indicate anything other than, the possibility that your dog may or may not be afflicted in the future?

I am confused. Maybe someone can straighten out my thinking.....Paul

Paul,

Watch the videos ..............

I think without a shadow of doubt you will see why...........DM is at the forefront of almost every discussion we are having these days.

Kent

PS Infantile ?

Paul, in my opinion field titles should not be required. I participate in some games, but others may not. You got people like Kent, Nick, and Rick who may or maynot play these games. I don't know. I'm sure any of these guys could post pictures and we would know exactly what these dogs can do. Just my opinion

I have seen the videos and pictures and it is not my intent to belittle the importance of developing a test/cure for DM.

From what I read, the test does not determine, positively, that any dog or breeding will be affected by DM. It only reads carriers with POTENTIAL for DM.

From the information I have read on this forum, it appears researchers have a long way to go to develop a test which will give us POSITIVE/NEGATIVE results.

I think every dog should be tested if, it helps researchers understand and develop better testing.

Just my thoughts.

Infantile---lacking maturity, in early stages, young

Just my stupid opinion. I don't know if we need to breed dogs with only field titles. I think we should breed dogs that are intelligent are easily socialized and have pry drive. And any venue can show these attributes. I have noticed a rise in bad aggression in chessies both at the show ring and field. Handles can easily hide this. If we don't watch this we will have a time bomb ticking which could hurt our breed even more than health issues.

Oh yeah and then we have the laughing problem. You chessie people at dog shows - stop laughing at me every time I try to show my young chessie. I know I am a lousy handler.

We'll all have to remember this;

people who do not understand the test and are about to pay over $700+ dollars for a pup, will not touch a dog who has tested as a positive carrier.

This will certainly will result in breeding only to dogs who are not carriers of DM. This will be an even larger factor to consider for genetic bottlenecking than a small minority of folks who are breeding to a particular field line because of anticipated performance in the field.

Now, add peoples desire to have an excellent working field dog from a field titled background, free from DM carrier status and we'll really narrow down the available lines for breeding.

Kinda feels like shooting ourselves in the feet--Paul

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CBRKAIE,

Paul,

Some other data for you to ponder if you haven't already done so.

http://www.amchessieclub.org/survey/index.html

Many,many years when the ACC first required OFA #s for advertised litters and studs a proposal was made to add the newly adopted WD titles to the requirement. The shouting was heard around the world. "The field people are trying to take over, there are more show than Ft people, etc,etc."
Had this policy been adopted we would have established a larger "field pool" for breeding since people would have been encouraged to pursue these measured traits/titles. This larger pool MAY have diluted our current problems.

While the ACC requires voting for these types of policies a private website can make any rule it wishes.
Billy, it's your call!

Tim

The survey information is interesting. Of the 3,000+ participants, DM did not make the list of commonly reported problems. Hip dysplasia, aggression, allergies were the top three.

The study also reported on "perceived as most common" diseases. DM was reported second to last.

Actual reported incidences of health problems listed in order...behavior, reproduction, musculoskeletal, skin, infectious, urinary, mouth then neurological (which I assume DM falls) as the top problems reported by those in the study.

Good information. The only problem I would point out is much information would have been based upon the owners' self diagnosis of the dogs problems. Obviously, the study was a survey which made conclusions on data provided, not gathered by scientific means...(veterinarian records, blood, dna, etc..)

I know I am playing a little bit of a devils advocate here but, we cannot forgot the our stances on broader subjects such as genetic diversity in breeding. May it be perceived importance of a non-conclusive test or, perceived importance of field work. By making a requirement of either, the outcome is the same, narrowing of the available genetic pool. Paul

One difference in our thinking, Paul, is that you seem to be reading an "A/A" test result as "potential" for developing debilitating symptoms of DM, while I'm reading it as more of a likelihood of developing debilitating symptoms of DM. You seem to be willing to close your eyes and take your chances until there is proof-positive, while I think it wiser to take a hard look and play the odds.

And though that decision is, of course, Billy's to make, I see no correlation at all between making readily available health infomation a litter posting requirement and requiring field titles on the parent dogs for inclusion. The two address very different issues: one of concern to a much smaller segment of the Chesapeake community, as well as far more difficult to attain, than the other.

But if you really believe there should be parity between health certifications and field aptitude, it should be enough, under Billy's current guidelines, to simply list the litter's parents as "gundog" or even "couch potatoe".

Mike you gotta put away the Groucho getup and take the TUTU off the dog................

LOL !

You wanna see something real funny ? You gotta see my grizzled butt out there. That's why I use my baby ....or a Pro.

100 degrees today so am just going to do swim by and jump in with the dogs to cool off !

Almost early Honker season in Klamath thank doG

Correlation for argument sake only, maybe a bad one at that. Just trying to point out that requiring a DM test result are like my feelings that all chessies bred should have a field title.

DM afflicted dogs are rare in the breed. Carriers, not so rare. I am not turning my head, I think the test should be more conclusive before making it a standard such as OFA.

I am not intending to close my eyes to the disease . People here have stated clearly that there are dogs well into their old age who are A/A and never show a sign/symptom.

My suggestion would be to continue testing, providing data to research until a more conclusive test is established.

While DM should be a concern in the breed, the information I have seen shows that it affects a very small percentage of animals in contrast to other debilitating/problematic disorders shown in the ACC study posted above.

We don't hear much talk about the top listed afflictions even though, they are much more commonly reported than DM according to the ACC study.

Paul

quote:

health certifications and field aptitude, it should be enough, under Billy's current guidelines, to simply list the litter's parents as "gundog" or even "couch potatoe".

the couch potato is a little easier to spot...looking around on the ground for treats instead of hearing whistling wings overhead and scanning the skies.....

Quote " I don't know if we need to breed dogs with only field titles. I think we should breed dogs that are intelligent are easily socialized and have pry drive. And any venue can show these attributes. I have noticed a rise in bad aggression in chessies both at the show ring and field. Handles can easily hide this. If we don't watch this we will have a time bomb ticking which could hurt our breed even more than health issues."

Mike, Great Statement!! A few years back, I encountered a growing concern with Goldens and aggression. Normally a docile dog, the popular demand for GR's lead to mass breeding for larger & stronger dogs. Unfortunately, a large percentage of them were showing signs of aggressive and ill-tempered behavior. (Not a trait for a dog usually kept with small children).
Today, you will still encounter the 'hostile' Golden, less frequently, but still present.

With the vast 'fears', 'concerns', 'mis-concptions', 'opinions', etc that people have about the new DNA testing and with using the information properly (including the true/actual meaning of results), I am afraid that LIMITED BREEDING will be the 'norm' and the exclusion of "carrier" & "affected" dogs will unfortunately lead to dogs that are not TRUE Chessies.
This limited breeding may erase all, or most of the desired traits of the CBR, including prey drive, socialization, IQ,
willingness to please no matter what, etc. And if aggressive traits manifest, its Nigthmare Time for all!!

I always said breed a 'well-rounded' and 'sound' dog first!! (before the introduction of DNA tests, breeders bred the dogs they felt would be the best pairing for the Chesapeake standard - period! Done this for decades and we have great lines to work in any venue. Now these tests emerged and may un-necessarily undo what was achieved).

It was asked what do we want along with other pertinent questions regarding our breed. Foremost is what the CBR was originally bred for - to hunt! Isn't a chessie a Gun Dog?? The concept of showing & trials (HT/FT) were secondary to the use of hunting, mainly to 'show off' and showcase their abilities. Honorable Scars should not be discounted... Charlie

(PS- Mike, you can call me doctor, doc, Charlie, whatever you want - answer to your inquire before).

quote:

Originally posted by CBRKAIE:
The survey information is interesting. Of the 3,000+ participants, DM did not make the list of commonly reported problems. Hip dysplasia, aggression, allergies were the top three.

The study also reported on "perceived as most common" diseases. DM was reported second to last.

How about a little reality check here?

I have it in my noggin that Billy recently posted that a fellow who is now one of the disease's leading researchers, Dr. Sam Long, knew little about DM when he made Tiger's diagnosis in 2006. So how many of that survey's respondents do you figure even knew what DM was when it was taken in 2004, much less knew it when they saw it?

I like to think I'm "at least semi-informed," and I never heard of DM until Billy stepped forward. But that didn't mean it wasn't out there making dogs and their owners miserable.

(And the "If one thing doesn't get 'em, something else will." inference I'm reading from some is like suggesting we not fight cancer because people have heart attacks, too.)

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Charles Bortell PhD:

With the vast 'fears', 'concerns', 'mis-concptions', 'opinions', etc that people have about the new DNA testing and with using the information properly (including the true/actual meaning of results), I am afraid that LIMITED BREEDING will be the 'norm' and the exclusion of "carrier" & "affected" dogs will unfortunately lead to dogs that are not TRUE Chessies.
This limited breeding may erase all, or most of the desired traits of the CBR, including prey drive, socialization, IQ,
willingness to please no matter what, etc. And if aggressive traits manifest, its Nigthmare Time for all!!

(PS- Mike, you can call me doctor, doc, Charlie, whatever you want - answer to your inquire before).

Charlie's reply is exactly what I was getting at...we will be causing an exclusion of breeding which we will be responsible to answer for, soley and worse yet, based upon a test which as Tim stated, only predicts a "likelyhood" of developing the disease.

If, the listing of DM as a requirement becomes a standard, no layman will buy a pup listed as a carrier. This test should be a tool used by responsible breeders to make good choices. This test should not be used as a banner for breeders to say, "look at me, I don't have any DM in my line." Because we know, that because a dog bred is A/A, it doesn't mean pups will be. A buyer will not take the time to understand the considerations which need to be made to come to that conclusion.

Paul

quote:

100 degrees today so am just going to do swim by and jump in with the dogs to cool off !

Almost early Honker season in Klamath thank doG

Kent, have a good swim for us too....I'll be thinking about you in my air conditioned office! Got a taste of the heat this a.m. as had to run by the vet with a dog first thing this a.m.

Canada's have been flying south over the top of my house for a couple of weeks now....I must be part of the West coast flyway!

Hopefully it will be an early wet winter and a hunter's paradise coming up.

Kathy

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Hall:

quote:

Originally posted by CBRKAIE:
The survey information is interesting. Of the 3,000+ participants, DM did not make the list of commonly reported problems. Hip dysplasia, aggression, allergies were the top three.

The study also reported on "perceived as most common" diseases. DM was reported second to last.

How about a little reality check here?

I have it in my noggin that Billy recently posted that a fellow who is now one of the disease's leading researchers, Dr. Sam Long, knew little about DM when he made Tiger's diagnosis in 2006. So how many of that survey's respondents do you figure even knew what DM was when it was taken in 2004, much less knew it when they saw it?

I like to think I'm "at least semi-informed," and I never heard of DM until Billy stepped forward. But that didn't mean it wasn't out there making dogs and their owners miserable.

(And the "If one thing doesn't get 'em, something else will." inference I'm reading from some is like suggesting we not fight cancer because people have heart attacks, too.)

DM was listed in the survey? again, the survey was not based upon veterinarian information, self diagnosis will definately cause problems with vailidity as I mentioned.

quote:

So how many of that survey's respondents do you figure even knew what DM was when it was taken in 2004, much less knew it when they saw it?

I like to think I'm "at least semi-informed," and I never heard of DM until Billy stepped forward. But that didn't mean it wasn't out there making dogs and their owners miserable.

I've had this breed since 1973, and have heard of DM in the past.....not a lot, but have known of chessies in past years who developed the symptoms and received a preliminary diagnosis of DM. Maybe because I'm a breeder I've had more of an awareness of these problems as I make it a point to keep my ears and eyes open.

Billy has brought it to the forefront as a problem to be dealt with.

As I said in another post, if they were to develop a DNA test for hip dysplasia, I think they would find that 100% of our breeder were cariers, but for one reason or another some dogs are afflicted, and others aren't....and I know of instances in this breed where a pair of OFA Excellent parents produced a lot of hip dysplasia, where affected dogs produced dogs that cleared OFA.

It seems as though DM may be in the same kind of situation.

As for Billy's ad requirements, I can understand why he is going to implement this policy as he's experienced the tragedy of DM first hand. But another point to ponder because of the questions still handing on the DM test, perhaps ads should be listed that meet the OFA CHIC requirements until there is more precise knowledge on DM. CHIC for CBRS required OFA for hips, elbows, and a CERF number.

Kathy

Kathy, Good post!