Since I haven't read the full study it's hard to say how useful it would be to use PennHip. The abstracts of the article I have read do not provide any numbers on dogs that have rated HD free at 2 years of age, who have actually developed degenerative changes that caused debilitating arthritis in middle aged dogs. They give a percentage of dogs that they label as being at risk, but at risk does not mean they actually develop it. It has long been known that HD is not just what the dog is born with, but that environment also plays a role in the development of degenerative changes, such as weight, diet, inappropriate exercise or lack of exercise, early spay/neuter, injuries etc. With HD being a polygenic disease it would probably be difficult to eliminate the disease even if Pennhip were a superior method. And since they suggest that 80 percent or so of dogs that pass OFA are still at risk of developing HD, are they suggesting we should toss 80 percent of those dogs that have tested HD free and only breed from the other 20 percent? That may seem like a good idea to anybody who doesn't understand genetic diversity, but in reality if we were to eliminate those 80 percent we would be opening the doors to the extinction of most breeds because many breeds already lack genetic diversity and cannot afford to lose a substantial number of dogs from their genepool.

I agree with ASD Marlene and would add:

I spent a lot of time trying to understand PennHIP and OFA, as well as the differences, similarities and value added of the two methods. The two most important things I learned from my perspective are:

1. Dogs that are assessed as low risk for hip dysplasia under PennHIP are less likely to have issues in the future than dogs assessed as low risk under OFA.

2. However, dogs assessed as medium risk for hip dysplasia by PennHIP (and therefore not breedable) often do NOT develop it nor create offspring that develop it. In other words, the false negative rate of PennHIP is very high. Some estimate as high as 80%.

So while, it may be true that scientifically, PennHIP is the better predictor of dogs who will not pass on HD to their offspring, relying totally on PennHIP would result in the elimination of a great many healthy dogs from the breeding population. Certainly, science would recognize the problem that would create!

So, the question is what do you prefer – a guarantee of no HD and a concerningly small population of potential breeders or a slightly higher risk of HD and a healthy population of potential breeders.

I am not a Vet. However, I am a supporter of science and have faith in scientific evidence. It is for that reason that I believe that one must consider all the evidence – that collected through science, as well as that gained through experience and observation – and use all the information available to make intelligent decisions.

Relying totally on PennHIP could be a mistake – something I think many breeders understand, which is why PennHIP is not as popular as its ‘science’ would suggest it should be.

In addition to ASDMarlene's points, I have to ask--what was the Lab doing in those five years between two and seven? And when did that Lab start doing those activities?

To return to ASDMarlene's point, you've more than once suggested that "responsible" breeders should be ruthless in eliminating from the gene pool not only any dogs with problems, but their entire lines. That would restrict an already-too-restricted gene pool even further, doom quite a few breeds, and reduce the available canine genetic diversity to a truly scary extent. If UPenn wants to eliminate 80% of the dogs currently cleared by OFA, that's basically calling for the extinction of all intentionally-bred dogs.

Has anyone other than UPenn done a serious comparison of OFA and UPenn's own method of hip evaluation? Does it not occur to you that UPenn has the kind of vested interest that makes us skeptical of "studies" done by companies of their own devices and pharmaceutical products?

Seems to me like I should have offered some more background first. Here's my more complete take, from a past post (unfortunately not on this database):

"For those of you whose breeds are predisposed to hip dysplasia, you might know that the OFA (Orthopedic Foundation for Animals) and PennHIP models represent rival technologies for assessing dog hips. You should also know that I consider the PennHIP model superior.

No, it’s not because I went to the University of Pennsylvania and had this method drummed into me (indeed, they did almost no chest-beating on this issue while I was there). And it’s not because Dr. Gail Smith, the veterinary surgeon originator of the PennHIP approach, was a popular prof there.

Nope. It’s because I believe that any rational person who would compare the two technologies would be hard-pressed to side with the OFA method. Here’s why: 1-Objectivity
PennHIP patients’ X-rays are assessed via objective measurements while the OFA X-rays are graded by a small panel of radiologists based on subjective impressions of the dogs’ individual hip conformation.

2-Evidence-based
PennHIP requires any veterinarian who undertakes this method to have his or her X-rays included in a database of cases, regardless of hip quality. This improves not only the value of the database but its value to dogs at large for its more accurate representation of the real incidence of hip disease. Result accuracy for individual dogs are continually refined as more enter the database.

The OFA’s approach effectively allows veterinarians to select the best images or decline to submit poor quality hips for evaluation, thus skewing their database towards better hips. This selection bias renders this database somewhat useless.

3-Early prediction of future disease
The OFA method does not purport to accurately predict future disease. Moreover, it cannot be undertaken until an animal is two years old and well into its breeding years. This means that many dogs will enter the show ring before its hips are evaluated, thus increasing the chance that poor hips will enter the genetic pool through award-based incentives.

PennHIP can be employed as early as 16 weeks for an accurate prediction of future changes to the hips. Therein lies its most valuable asset: its ability to eliminate hip dysplasia entirely from the genetic pool if everyone used this method on their pre-pubescent dogs.
But PennHIP does have some downsides and detractions. Here’s a run-down of these:

1-Access
OFA can be used by any veterinarian with an X-ray machine while PennHIP vets must be certified after completing a one to two day course. In my area (Miami) only one vet is certified. I counted about 25 PennHIP veterinarians in the whole state of Florida.

2-Expense
OFA requires a simple fee for evaluation and certification on one X-ray. If the hips are judged obviously poor by the general practitioner veterinarian taking the X-ray, many elect not to send in the film and incur an additional expense. Many vets don’t sedate or anesthetize for this X-ray (though I do).

PennHIP requires the dog’s owner to commit to the entire service: anesthesia, three X-rays and the evaluation fee. Tack on any additional fees to reimburse the veterinarian for his or her certification status and you’ve got a pricier procedure, sometimes two to three times what OFA costs.

3-Anesthesia
I’ve already mentioned this one but it deserves a special mention for those who choose to limit their dogs’ anesthetic experiences. While I would not undertake OFA X-rays without anesthesia or sedation, many vets do. Dog owners unwilling to have their dogs anesthetized can usually find veterinarians to perform drug-free OFA X-rays. Not so for PennHIP.

4-Pain
OFA says PennHIP causes pain while the animal’s limbs are submitted to the more natural weight-bearing position required for these X-rays. But PennHIP denies this, citing only a handful of cases where patients were more than minimally lame for a day or more (with no lasting discomfort for any). I can’t vouch for this, but I will attest to having some OFA patients experience some discomfort after their X-rays if their hips were poor.

(To check out what the different styles of X-ray positioning looks like, check out this previous post of mine.)

For me, it seems the OFA procedure is so inferior a method that if we were comparing treatment regimens instead of diagnostics, there would be little doubt that the newer, pricier model would have been overwhelmingly accepted years ago as the ideal alternative. But it’s not.
Hip replacements over FHOs, TPLOs over extra-capsular repairs, cyclosporine instead of perianal fistula surgery, hyposensitization over serial steroid therapy…

These are some off-the-top-of-my-head examples of where more expensive therapeutic regimens won out in favor of far less effective methods. In fact, it would be fair to say that NOT offering the more effective choice in these cases could be construed as malpractice…or at least as depriving clients of their right to informed consent.

Not so with PennHIP. The minimal access clients have to this superior diagnostic tool (at least in my area) means that veterinarians are justified in ignoring its clear superiority in favor of the more accessible, less expensive alternative.

There's a wealth of research addressing the superiority of the kind of objective measurements PennHIP offers and OFA does not. Here's are a cache of relevant JAVMA and AJVR papers. And that's only two journals.

To academic minds there is no comparison. PennHIP is superior. Yet in terms of marketing, OFA always wins. There are lots of reasons for this, mostly to do with veterinarians' commitment to the "old ways":

The uphill battle of educating clients who have always used OFA is a biggie. And the need for veterinarians to become certified is problematic as well. It takes time (and money) to get certified. You can imagine that PennHIP is a tough sell when breeders clamor for OFA since they understand it better.

Yes, breeders understand OFA better because it's subjective, just like the show ring. It's about judging the appearance of the hips on an X-ray. They don't want a new method they've heard is going to screen out more of their dogs.

And yes, PennHIP will screen out more dogs. That's the point. It's more sensitive and more specific.

The scary thing I'm hearing from the first two comments today is that we really don't have the will to eliminate diseases if they include a wide swath of our breeds. These polygenic diseases will always persist exactly because breeders effectively choose them by actively opposing better tests to weed them out.

And they always claim the genetic diversity argument, which is a serious red herring. After all, if we can build entire species back up on the basis of five-hundred individuals I'm really having a hard time buying the BS that is the breeders' argument on this one.

Do we want healthier animals or do we not? Must we doom our breeds to bad hips based on fear of their lost heritage? Puh-lease!

Our Pup has hip dysplasia, Doctor, said up to me, but since it when in and out of place with no signs of pain. Leave it along, thats been 17 yrs. Yes, we had him fixed. the old man is still with us. We keep his wt. down. He is in good health.

Our 17 yr. is a small breed, 8 pds. Large Breeds must be another story.

Very excellent article. My wife and I are looking at breeding our first litter when our Beagle comes in again in December (got to love one/year heat cycles) and are currently doing the health checks. I am curious as to if the middle-aged lab you mentioned would have shown hip dysplasia with the PennHIP method when she was two.

I have trouble thinking that price is a major determining factor among reputable breeders when choosing between OFA and PennHIP. Honestly... a good breeder isn't making money anyways - if you take into account show/trial fees as well as health and whelping expenses, what's an extra few hundred? I think that perhaps it's more likely that breeders see the increased availability of OFA, as well as the multiple health checks that OFA does (beyond hips).

You've given me something to think about now when trying to figure out what check to do - hip dysplasia isn't a huge problem in beagles and OFA is by and large the most commonly used... however if we're going to spend the money, it makes sense to get the best test - especially when we are talking about the foundation of our breeding program.

Here's the list of abstracts:
http://avmajournals.avma.org/action/doSearch?type=simple&searchText=OFA%20PennHIP

The OFA website http://www.offa.org/ offers a great deal of information. Including the section on hip dysplasia is at http://www.offa.org/hipinfo.html I cannot find a rating listed as "very good" can you provide some clarity on that?

The OFA accepts preliminary consultation radiographs on puppies as young as 4 months of age for evaluation of hip conformation. If the dog is found to be dysplastic at an early age, the economic loss from the cost of training, handling, showing and so forth can be minimized and the emotional loss reduced. These preliminary radiographs are read by the OFA veterinary radiologists and are not sent to outside radiologists. The same hip grades are given to preliminary cases.

A recent publication* compared the reliability of the preliminary evaluation hip grade phenotype with the 2 year old evaluation in dogs and there was 100% reliability for a preliminary grade of excellent being normal at 2 years of age (excellent, good, or fair). There was 97.9% reliability for a preliminary grade of good being normal at 2 years of age, and 76.9% reliability for a preliminary grade of fair being normal at 2 years of age. Reliability of preliminary evaluations increased as age at the time of preliminary evaluation increased, regardless of whether dogs received a preliminary evaluation of normal hip conformation or HD. For normal hip conformations, the reliability was 89.6% at 3-6 months, 93.8% at 7-12 months, and 95.2% at 13-18 months. These results suggest that preliminary evaluations of hip joint status in dogs are generally reliable. However, dogs that receive a preliminary evaluation of fair or mild hip joint conformation should be reevaluated at an older age (24 months).

*Corley, EA, et al. Reliability of Early Radiographic Evaluation for Canine Hip Dysplasia Obtained from the Standard Ventrodorsal Radiographic Projection. JAVMA. Vol 211, No. 9, November 1997.

Halle: You didn't provide your name. Can you offer us some clarity on that?

Great article - even better comments by Dr.Khuly! EsPECially the comments referring to money-hungry breeders. If it means a few less dogs are born that don't have to suffer, that is EXACTLY what the breeders should be doing.

But how can we control dysplasia in cats? I have a 14-yr-old that was born with bilateral hip dysplasia. (He was also born with cauda equina). He's had surgeries on both hips & lumbar spine. My Big Boy - Oliver - can't run: he hops. He can't jump, so there are stools all over the house that allow him to get on the couch, bed, etc.

I wish more information was available about this affliction in cats. I was lucky - the vet for whom I worked years ago recognized the problems & operated to make him more comfortable. Not too many vets would even bother with a dysplastic cat. :o(

From personal experience, I have used PennHIP on one of my dogs. As an owner it didn't provide me with information I could use beyond what the reports from OFA provided (she was rated good). Few breeders in my breed are utilizing PennHIP and the information my one submission provided seemed pretty insignificant. I also don't get much out of OFA vs. PennHIP discussions. I'd be more interested in how OFA vs. PennHIP vs. OVC vs. FCI vs. BVS vs. SV all stack up. With the realization that comparison would still be limited primarily to just hips and few breeds have the luxury of hips being their only health concern.

The OFA has been the standard bearer. Most people are familiar with at least some aspect of what services they offer (primarily in regards to HD). They have partnered with the AKC's Canine Health Foundation, offer a very useful database (albeit a semi-open one), and helped create the Canine Health Information Center and its DNA repository. http://www.caninehealthinfo.org/ Maybe you can encourage your clients to submit DNA samples to CHIC to help with genetic studies?

Please forgive my loose use of numbers(don't have the references at hand), but my understanding the average amount of time a person spends in a particular breed is 5 years. Hardly time to learn what the heck they are doing let alone make a positive contribution. This coupled with the overwhelming majority of dogs being produced by one-time/backyard/random breedings means making breed-wide improvements a lot tougher.

A summary of some of Dr. George Padgett's work can be found at
http://www.lgd.org/library/PadgettDefects.htm and his book, "Control of Canine Genetic Diseases" is an invaluable resource on the topic.

This would seem to be a good starting point since each of us will bring a different perspective as a breeder, buyer, or vet.

From: http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/2005TuftsGeneticsConfArticlesPosterAbstracts.pdf

Strategies to Control Canine Hip Dysplasia: The Need for Veterinarian and Breeder Alliance
Gail K Smith VMD, PhD
School of Veterinary Medicine University of Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT: Genetic control of CHD requires: a) a knowledge of the principles of quantitative genetics, b) an accurate screening method keyed to a phenotype with optimal heritability, c) an organized screening program based on a proven screening phenotype, d) a centralized database containing essential phenotypic and pedigree information, and e) trust and cooperation between breeders and the veterinarians who perform the screening procedure.

E) is pretty vital to the topic. I read your post and was enjoying it, as I do most days, until I read the part about an OFA rating of "very good." It made me wince. I wondered if these were radiographs you or your clinic submitted and received the rating on, if this was information the client had told you without providing documentation or any number of reasons why it was written as "very good." I asked for clarity to help with my understanding of your post and to some extent your familiarity with health testing.

As far as my last name, I don't feel comfortable posting it on this forum or would have included it from the beginning. If this discredits my request for clarity, I'll take my lumps then.

Halle,

You must be an Aires! LOL I agree about posting your last name, tho. Heck, I don't even post my FIRST name. You sure don't deserve any lumps.

You also presented a lot of really good info. I'm not a breeder, but I used to show Irish Setters - all had to be thoroughly checked out. And OFA was the only way to go. I recently adopted a GSD & she will x-rayed next month.

IMO - maybe OFA isn't as good as PennHIP. So I guess PennHIP needs to shell out a few pennies to get their information out there.

:o)

I especially agree with Dr. Patty on her comment that restricting breeding to individuals that have shown to be free of hip displasia will NOT wipe out individual breeds but free them from painful lives owners from horrible and expensive options.

And to the potential Beagle breeder - why? Is your dog from a line of blue ribbon or special hunters? Surely you know that there are thousands of puppy mill beagles out there along with back yard beagle breeders that are creating more animals than our world has homes for. Until all the shelter animals have found homes DON'T creat more animals, please!

We had our Golden male OFA'd when he was 2 years old. His hips were rated "Good".

The only reason we had him OFA'd was because we were trying to prove he had dysplasia - which we had known since he was six months old thanks to his classic bunny hop.

The breeder refused to do anything thanks to the "Good" stamp from the OFA. Two years later another vet rated his hip dysplasia as moderate to severe. He was four.

Both of his parents were rated "Very Good" and had CERF clearance as well. Field lines on both sides. By the time he was two and a half he also suffered from idiopathic alopecia, hypothyroidism, epilepsy and AIHA.

What's required is fewer litters from more dogs. A widened gene pool plus an age restriction - or at least an age of recommendation. Say, tests beginning at age 4 and breeding once these tests have cleared.

Of course, that would require co-ownerships, breeding contracts and dogs left intact (gasp!) past six months of age. But that's what's required to ensure that these tests are worth the paper they are printed on.

http://www.thedogplace.org/Breeder/Genetics/Certified2-Certifications-01011005_Andrews.asp

I found the above article interesting and informative.

When CHIC certification first came out, I was all for it. But after thinking on it awhile, I believe it should be limited to proven "genetic tests" (not even suspected link tests), to not falsely lull someone into security, or used as an advertising "tool".

Maybe not fair for me to even comment, since "fortunately" HD is not in the forefront of my breed(s).

Not that I expected you to put your name out there. Merely responding to the snark in kind. FWIW, it's actually kind of annoying to get called out for minor issues by people who clearly have nothing better to do than snipe in anonymity and certainly don't understand how tough it is to produce 100% perfect posts every single day. However, I do thank you for the rest of what you offered.

Thank you so much for the information! So, how do you get your vet to do any testing for this? The last time I asked him to do an X-Ray to determine how bad our shelter-dog's arthritis was, he didn't do it. How else do we determine if our large dog has HD, or simply really bad arthritis? Going to the vet's had become an extremely traumatic experience for her, but I will persist if I need to. She is almost 13, a large shepherd/collie/chow mix, and is having trouble getting up. Granted, testing for pure breeds is almost a given, but what do you do when you have a rescue dog whose medical history is unknown? I think she is just aging, but how would I know it's HD??
Thanks again! CAG

Okay, second try. I just got "timed out" while typing my response, and no, it wasn't all that long, so if I'm a bit testy, well, actually, I suppose you WILL hold it against me.

I didn't notice any "snark" in Halle's comments, just a request for clarification on your statement that the Lab mentioned had been rated by OFA "very good," a rating which does not exist.

You also have not responded to my question about what activities the Lab had been engaged in between age two and age seven. That was a serious question, and I would have thought the reason would be obvious to you.

Yes, species have been restored from populations of less than 500 individuals. While it's better than extinction, it does create real, severe problems. Lack of genetic diversity in a population makes that population more vulnerable both to infectious disease and to new unfavorable mutations. Honestly, look at cats, the least genetically diverse of all domestic species because of an evolutionary bottleneck that predates their domestication. They lack the ability to taste sweetness, they are more vulnerable than either humans or dogs to a range of toxins, they virtually all eventually go into renal failure. Restoration of near-extinct species and their return to the wild is a difficult and delicate proposition because of these increased vulnerabilities.

Moreover, the major problem facing quite a few breeds, and not just low-population breeds, is that in the MOST genetically diverse domestic species, we have created frighteningly tiny gene pools by means of the closed stud book.

You're proposing that, not just 80% of the potential breeding population of breeds at high risk of hip dysplasia, but 80% of those who test good or excellent under OFA, should be eliminated from breeding. Without any other restrictions, that leaves less than 20% of the potential breeding dogs able to breed.

But it's actually worse than that, because you have ALSO said that, if a dog test positive for any gene that makes them undesirable for breeding, not just that dog but ALL DOGS IN THAT DOG'S LINE, should be declared ineligible for breeding.

From the 1860s through the 1960s or 1970s, restriction of the gene pool in specific breeds via the "popular sire" effect was done largely in ignorance, and many of the genetic problems in specific breeds now are a product of ignorance. You're proposing that engage in a far more extreme version of that, intentionally and will full knowledge of how crazy it is.

Since you love a breed that, if an individual conforms to the breed standard, that individual is severely and cripplingly deformed, it's perhaps understandable why you'd choose to have that breed consigned to the dustheap of history. Not all of us are in the same position, however, and for most breeds there's a better course available.

Continued on next rock, to avoid being timed out again.

Second try on the second comment. Gee, why would anyone find this irritating?

Now, as it happens, I love a breed which is at risk for blindness (PRA and lens luxation), and which, in hairless individuals, does not always possess a full set of adult teeth. What do responsible breeders do about this?

1. Test for the prcd gene. Neuter dogs who test as Affected. With Carriers, if otherwise suitable candidates for breeding, breed only to dogs who test Clear. Also, study pedigrees for indications of other versions of the PRA gene which can't currently be tested for. In some cases, delay breeding an otherwise-excellent dog until an age at which PRA would have manifested if the dog were Affected. In each generation, wash, rinse, repeat, gradually reducing the prevalence of PRA without unintentionally producing other problems.

2. Test for PLL. Same procedures as above, wash, rinse, repeat in each generation.

3. Consistent with guarding against more serious health issues, in each generation, favor for breeding purposes dogs with complete or near-complete dentition. Most highly-regarded lines can now say with confidence that, in their lines, you can't tell the difference between a Powderpuff and a Hairy Hairless by looking in the dog's mouth. Thirty years ago, this was not true.

In the breeds with the worst genetic problems, these problems stem directly from a TOO RESTRICTED breeding population. This in term stems from the fact that between the 1860s with the disconnection of many breeds from the reality-check of working stresses, and the beginnings of a more scientifically sophisticated understanding of genetics in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the "popular sire" effect, unchecked by other considerations, produced populations with huge coefficients of inbreeding, with the latent genetic time bombs in some of those "popular sires" not recognized until far too late. You want to "solve" the problem by EVEN MORE restricted breeding, when we already know how dangerous that is.

The real solution for many breeds, especially the relatively low-population and highly-inbred breeds, is not more restricted breeding, but opening the closed stud books to allow planned, careful outcrossing to suitable breeds in order to improve health and increase genetic diversity. An example of how this can work well and be effective, even though it is not currently recognized by the Dalmation breed club or the AKC, is the Dalmation/Pointer Outcross Project.

Accusing anyone who is not persuaded that what highly inbred breeds with low populations and low genetic diversity really need is more restricted breeding, of being greedy and indifferent to the suffering of the dogs, is not likely to sway people who don't already agree with you.

Just a couple random thoughts here. First, it is my understanding that even two OFA "excellent" parents can produce a dysplastic puppy, so I don't think careful breeding is the whole answer. Add to that all the other things needing tests...PRA, EIC, TVD...it's a crap shoot for even the best of breeders. We're not talking automobiles here, we're talking about living creatures and not fully understood genetics.

Second thought is that my first Lab did have hip dysplasia. It was clear as a puppy and my vet advised surgery. I declined because it sounded way to risky and gruesome to go in and chop off the femoral head of a seven month old puppy! She did develop some arthritis in her later years but her pain was well controlled and suplements helped. But she lived a happy and active life until felled by acute pancreatitis at the age of twelve. So the old adage "treat the dog, not the x-ray" often comes to mind. My new puppy is better bred but I certainly don't intend to do OFA *or* Pen-Hip on her because regardless of what her films might show, it's her symptoms (or lack thereof) I would go by.

@Ellis: compose on note pad and paste your reply when finished. It's a lot less frustrating. I've never seen a web site time out as fast as this one does!!!

"The real solution for many breeds, especially the relatively low-population and highly-inbred breeds, is not more restricted breeding, but opening the closed stud books to allow planned, careful outcrossing to suitable breeds in order to improve health and increase genetic diversity."

I did not give my thoughts enough time to properly form when I posted (reference the subject of Prioritizing and the content not matching). I offer sincere apologies if my words were received in such a negative light. I didn't strike at an opportunity to "snipe" at a mistake, but sought clarification on something that had confused me. I winced because I encounter so many people who have been told, or even shown, bogus information in their search for a responsibly bred dog. Even "babysweet" wrote, "Both of his parents were rated "Very Good"." Yikes. Smart educated puppy buyers can certainly be a driving force in how health issues are addressed in a breed. If the market demands it, change will occur. When trusted sources don't use the correct terminology confusion results.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers," Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow". To that extent OFA vs. PennHIP in regards to hip dysplasia screening isn't the best starting question. I have not, and may never, produce a single puppy and write this as a buyer. I don't ask about PennHIP testing. If there were an open database* to search for myself, I would at least look into the reports (or lack thereof) of the dogs I am interested in. The breeders I knew who were excited about PennHIP 15+ years ago have largely abandoned it primarily since it was not widely embraced in our breed (sure you tested your bitch, but good luck finding tested stud dogs to consider). Better education and marketing could be very useful here. Most breed clubs hold national specialties each year, many with guest speakers on health issues. The AKC CHF also hosts several conferences http://www.akcchf.org/index.cfm

The context of a health problem is so important to keep in mind. I was wicked angry at the breeder of my first dog when our puppy had so many health problems. Dr. George Padgett's book, "The Control of Canine Genetic Diseases" provided much needed perspective on breeding healthy dogs. There is so much that can be done, but not without a bit of empathy for the vets, the breeders, the owners and the dogs and certainly not with preconceived notions of why those involved can't see the light (or at least our own version of it). It's hard to form a cooperative relationship with someone who thinks you suck eggs. A powerful tool (such as better health screening) isn't useful if you don't know how to apply it. Thank goodness for folks like Jerold Bell, DVM. http://www.tualatinkc.org/pdf/Responsible%20Breeding%20Management%20of%20Genetic%20Disease.pdf
http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=TUFTSBG2003&Author=3711&O=Generic

The information on "Selection Pressure in Breeding" on the PennHIP site doesn't suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater either. http://research.vet.upenn.edu/pennhip/OwnerBreederInformation/SelectiveBreeding/tabid/3350/Default.aspx

*Open-optional Database
The launch of PennHIP’s open-optional database has been postponed due to some unforeseen legal and privacy issues. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working diligently towards a solution. If you are seeking breeding dogs, we invite you to network with other dog breeders via the PennHIP page on Facebook. Your breed club or breed club magazines may also have information on dogs in your breed with good PennHIP scores.

Oliver's Mama,
I am indeed an Aires. Not very familar with astrology and afraid to ask what my tell was!

To respond to stthrift's question as to why we are going to breed our Beagle.

1) She has her Canadian conformation Championship, showing that she is a good example of the breed (sending her down to the States in December on a handler to see how we do there, although most people involved in the breed think she will do very well).

2) She has her PCD obedience title, and should easily get her RN when we start trialling her in rally-o next year (don't want to confuse her by doing conformation and an obedience sport at the same time, although she's done great in rally classes). When time permits we will get her a CGN title (Canadian version of the CGC). The off-leash parts (required for CD and greater or RA and greater)... those require a bit more work - she is a Beagle. There might be food outside of the ring!

3) She is good from a performance point of view - we give the Salukis a run for their money at lure coursing practice, and she does very well at agility - simply haven't had the time to get back into it after I blew out my knee doing a course with her.

4) She is healthy - to use her in our breeding program she will have clear Eyes, Hips, Elbows, Patella, Heart, and Thyroid. She is also MLS N/N (also known as Chinese Beagle Syndrome - she is not affected or a carrier). The only issue we have had with her weight is trying to put on enough so that her ribs aren't sticking out like an underfed whippet.

5) Beagles are the #1 registered hound with the Canadian Kennel Club, however there are no breeders that are putting out registered Beagles in our province. There is one that does nice field beagles, however they sell them to pet homes in the city resulting in, as we like to call them, snausage beagles, as a dog bred to be active all the time doesn't take well to maybe getting only a 30 minute walk per day.

There are a couple of puppy mills with Beagles in our area, so right now people who want a Beagle have really two choices - a nice dog not suited for their lifestyle, or a puppy mill dog. There are few Beagles in rescue here - and when they do come up, homes are found right away. We were involved with trying to rehabilitate and rehome around 50 breeding bitches from a closed mill a year or two ago - dogs that required a lot of behavioral and medical care were adopted very quickly into extremely suitable homes.

If there are healthy, purebred Beagles available, that will decrease the demand for the unhealthy mill Beagles. The total number of people wanting one does not change - but the average quality will increase.

The implication that reputable breeding has a detrimental impact on the unwanted animal population is fallacious. If you look at who operates the vast majority of breed-specific rescues - it is the good breeders. If you look at sale contracts from the vast majority of good breeders, you'll see clauses that state that the breeder will take back the dog if not wanted/cannot be kept by purchasing home... sometimes as a statement solely binding the breeder, sometimes going so far as to require that if the dog owner must give up the dog, the breeder has the right to select a home (or, commonly, approve a home that the dog owner has found). Try getting that from Jim Bob down the street who breeds Miniature Puggles (*shudder*).

I've run into the problem of timing out while carefully composing a message too. Very annoying. I try to remember to use another program to compose but too often I forget that is necessary on this particular website. I like the websites that allow the option of staying logged in. I'm the only person who uses my computer and there isn't anything on this site that requires high security. I actually emailed the webmaster about it and was told it was because they have to maintain open connections for every person logged in - which is a crazy way of programming for the web, which is a stateless environment.

I noticed your quick retort & no-nonsense reply. I recognized that because that is how I am & I'm an Aires! :o) However, I did not find your question "snarky" - you asked for clarification & we all still await that.

PGWY - I will disagree with your comment that the breed-specific rescues are probably run by good breeders. We are in the midst of fighting a local GSD Rescue that truly misled us when we adopted. Come to find out they'd been drugging this dog with Benadryl to keep her calm....gggrrrrrrr

I stand corrected. The dog in question was purchased over twelve years ago, and I haven't looked at OFA papers since. However, one of my criteria for purchasing a puppy was that both parents had to have the highest hip rating possible.

I stated that they read "Very Good" when in fact Halle is correct, the term used is in fact "Excellent."

I also agree that errors like these DO confuse the discussion. However, Dr. Khuly is correct that we are delivered a post each and every day (which we obviously enjoy or we wouldn't keep reading) and to expect perfection from her is unfair.