> Actually the testing craze in the U. S. has more to do with "groupthink" > than anything else. Here's a definition of "groupthink" from one of my > college classes this semester.
You are oh-so-wrong about that with me! I have an entirely different view of genetics and breeding that few others seem to have. I think so much larger, so completely out of groupthink--it isn't even funny! It is a holistic type of thought, somewhat buddhist in general. I see the entire world as in a balance of sorts--hopefully. The earth is a changing place. It changes from day to day, year to year, millenia to millenia. Life, in order to survive, must keep evolving/adapting with the earth. If one *being* is born and lives for thousands or millions of years, that one being cannot evolve--it stays the same--so as the earth changes, it would cease to exist. Therefore, I believe *life* has a built-in *time bomb* of sorts--to be sure that all beings eventually die so that beings may continue to evolve with each new cycle of birth, life and death. Also I believe life comes with a time bomb to ensure that *weaker* beings do not live as long, therefore they are less likely to produce beings that are more faulty than average. All to ensure evolution. This *time bomb* is ready-built right into the genetic makeup of all beings. So at the very least I see most faults as probably being *related* to each other in some small way. I also see genetic diversity as ESSENTIAL for the continuation of a species, because only by genetic diversity can one keep the good and bad combinations of genes in a *balance* of sorts. Also living life is hard on beings--therefore the stronger ones tend to do better in reproducing thereby ensuring enough strong beings to continue that species. When deciding to breed specific sub-species of dogs (different breeds of dogs) we humans have done something quite unusual. (This includes purebred cats as well.) For the first time since life began (at least here on earth<G>) we show breeders have decided to breed an animal almost purely to our *designs*, for looks and temperament. They are not being bred to race, pull, hunt so it is not absolutely essential that they be designed adequately for such. They are not being bred for food or science either--so their lives don't come to a purposeful early abrupt end. We are breeding them to live in harmony with humans and expect them to live somewhat healthy, decently long lives. And we are breeding them to look more and more uniform throwing genetic diversity aside to please us. Unfortunately poor genetic combinations just don't cause an early death, they can also cause the species to hurt/experience pain, sometimes tremendous pain long before it should be expected and to endure it for years and years. We humans bond with our dogs and when they hurt--we hurt. Dogs do however have a tendency to hide their pain--probably an instinct from the pack days when the weak would be attacked and killed. So many times we don't know just how much pain our dogs endure. Since I live myself, I can well imagine that they do feel pain, and a lot more than we know. By breeding the way we do, we are removing almost everything needed to ensure evolution/adapting of these sub-species. Testing is a way to add that some of that ingredient back in. This is why I believe testing should be done--as much as is feasibly possible without getting too ridiculous. Do I think we should remove all those dogs that flunk *a* test? NO! Not a good idea since that will further decrease genetic diversity. But if everyone is testing, we don't have to! The testing is simply a way to see trends and to keep that balance. When something, say MVD now, tips too much to the *bad* end, then we need to take more extreme measures to breed back away from that--however we can. If EVERYONE tested for hip dysplasia, we would *see* which combinations were problems and would easily be able to avoid hip dysplasia becoming a big problem--without removing every single dog that has hip dysplasia from a breeding program. This would go for all faults. MVD is the one thing that has gotten out of hand in the Cavalier however, so I don't believe ANY dog that developed MVD before age 4 should be used--no matter how many great other things that dog had. It is because it has gotten SO out of balance that nearly every single Cavalier develops it, so more extreme measures need to be taken. If everyone tested however, MVD would almost certainly not have gotten to be the problem it is today. Without testing, these things have a way of sneaking up on us--just like MVD did. It can happen with anything. This testing alerts us to problems when they are just beginning so we can easily breed just a bit differently and avoid the problem getting worse without taking drastic measures and removing so many dogs from breeding programs. We will NEVER remove the faulty genes--because in a way they are also a species strength! They allow it to continuously experience birth, life, death and therefore to evolve and adapt so that the species may continue. So we woudn't want to remove the faulty genes. But we can slightly improve upon them by tipping the balance slightly to meet our needs--and give up a few other things. It really bothers me when everyone says hip dysplasia is not a big problem in Cavaliers. Every country that tests has seen at good percentage of Cavaliers with hip dysplasia. So many dogs don't show evidence as youngsters and are deemed *ok*. Then they develop *arthritis* when older--as this is expected. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that even minor hip dysplasia causes a dog pain (I know I feel my aches and pains) and not even slightly surprised to find that much of the *arthritis* we see in old dogs is because of hip dysplasia instead. It is there, but some refuse to accept that. It is easier to look the other way. You can apply this analogy to just about any other genetic fault as well. We are ourselves, we are not the dogs. We cannot know just how our dogs feel and we should not pretend they are just fine, they may very well not be just fine. Because so many refuse to test and so many who do test refuse to make the information public knowledge, it puts the *health nazis* in a bad place. We have SO LITTLE information available to us that we do not feel safe breeding a dog affected by much of anything. We don't know the trends because there isn't enough information available to see those trends. We cannot keep balance unless we go a little overboard. As for those who say they know their dogs are fine--I have such a hard time accepting this as reality. I have been alive for nearly 50 years. I watch people and know people. Everyone is different. Some have a much lower threshhold for observing emotion and pain while others have a very high threshhold for the same. How can I take what 2 people--at opposite ends of the scale--say as my reality? I guarantee that same dog, no matter whether viewed by someone at the high end or someone at the low end, still feels the same way ITSELF. So what is the reality of the situation? We can't know--not without testing! My apologies to those who don't believe in evolution. Who knows YOU may be right! My opinions are mine only for now. I could not say for certain whether they will be mine in 10 years. I am an adaptable human being--always learning, always open to new ideas. Laura Lang 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 2002 by its original author.
