> but I thought I had read that in Sweden they do require health check to be
> published for offspring to be registered. The parents do not have to have
> passed the health checks and so the choice to breed or not is still with a
> breeder, but the public is informed. This approach gets the open health
> registry idea that has been talked about on this list off the ground too.
> Without someone dictating to breeders which animals should and should not
be
> breed.
> I think what I read also said that they found the peer pressure of this
> approach is more effective than dictating which animals should and should
not
> be bred.
I don't know if they require the dogs to pass or not in Sweden. But I do
agree with mandatory testing (but not necessarily passing). Genetic
diversity is the most important aspect of breeding. This is the best way to
insure better health. I agree that in certain circumstances, dogs can be
used that may not pass certain tests but are genetically superior (good
ancestors) in that category in order to preserve genetic diversity. In one
large study of Poodles, it was shown that the higher the inbreeding
co-efficient (the more close breeding there was to produce that dog) the
shorter the lifespan was--on average. The difference was quite
dramatic--YEARS not just months! Genetic diversity is of utmost importance!
At this moment I would NEVER breed from or to a dog that I believed had hip
dysplasia, inherited patellar luxation, serious inherited eye disorders
(won't CERF) or a dog known to have developed MVD before age 5, ONLY because
there are so many SECRETS out there. An open registry would eliminate many
more secrets --although there are some that will still find a way to cheat.
When I dream about if I were to start my own registry, this is what I dream
about. I would talk with each national breed club in depth and decide on
which three to five *worst* problems there are in each breed and require
that for a litter to be registered, both parents would have to have been
tested for those things. I would not require them to pass any of those
tests, however, at first. From that first year with an open registry I
would gather the statistics of probabilities of each health problem showing
up in each breed and keep that information for the future as a starting
point. In about 5 years (and every 5 to 10 years thereafter) I would hold a
national forum of all breed clubs where we would take the new statistics and
discuss in depth which problems are getting worse, getting better or are
static in each breed. I believe that many breeders would suddenly start
being much more careful in their breeding programs simply because of the
open registry and the fact that they now KNOW which problems are prevalent
in their breed--because they would have to face reality. After 10 years it
would be quite apparent which problems, if any, need more *structure* to
improve upon. If a problem saw no improvement and/or was in fact getting
more prevalent--that is a problem I would earmark for mandatory PASSING in
order to be bred. But so long as there is continual improvement--however
slow--no changes would be made re that particular health problem. Peer
pressure is such that it is entirely possible mandatory passing may never be
necessary--at least I would hope so. But the possibility would always be
there.
This is a registry that might be impossible to create unless we wanted to
charge $100 to register each puppy! It might be better to hold each breed
club responsible, but regardless it would still be a monstrous task.
Since we are all just dreaming--it is still one person's idea.
Laura Trunk
Roycroft Cavaliers
=========================================================
"Magic Commands":
to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
to start it up gain click here:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 1999 by its original author.
