One of my pet families' vet told them the PennHIP database is open to the public. I can't find it on the PennHIP home page. I didn't think it was... but if it is open to the public now, could someone point me in the right direction?

This is what the PennHIP page has on it:

"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. "

Thank you, how did I miss that?! I scoured all the menu tabs and pages beneath, and missed that paragraph plain as day on the main page! Thanks again!

How long will this privacy issue will be used as an excuse? Make the people sign when they go to the vet and be done with it no signature no x-rays!
We pay a lot of money to have the Pennhip done on our dogs sure it's a far superior method but what good is it if one can not check for example what <3 are passing to the progeny? I have read the suggestion to seek information via Facebook and Clubs this is incredible. I need official results, the official score document can be forged so easily it's not funny.
At present it is impossible to check pedigrees and it's very difficult even to locate pennhipped dogs.There is an international comunity using and supporting Pennhip the list they deserve is an open database. I have lot of faith in Pennhip but I am begining to think that <0.3 dogs are reproducing >0.3 dogs and this may be the reason for not wanting to make the results public.
Tired of waiting

If your dog is listed in OFA for any other test (elbows, cardiac, etc.) you can have their PennHip DI scores included in their OFA results. I don't think it would show up on the "vertical pedigree" function, and of course it still doesn't show on the AKC pedigree. You CAN submit a copy of the hip-extended x-ray taken for PennHip purposes to OFA, to get a rating that will show on the pedigree.

Here is a dog who's PennHip and OFA Hip scores both show up on his OFA page...
http://www.offa.org/display.html?appnum=1228332#animal

Forgot to mention, you can use the "advanced search" function on OFA to find PennHipp'd dogs. Not ALL PennHip'd dogs, just those who have been entered in the database.

Thank you for the info provided.However I tried the advance search for 3 Breeds: Labs Collies Border Collies. I found few Labs and zero of the others.
Appreciate your suggestion but keep finding odd that the same organization that tells breeders to use dogs below the breed average (a correct approach)does not provide a database to enable people to do just that!
At present anyone can alter the form all that's needed is a scanner and any dog can have a score <0.30 and provide that false information without anyone being able to know better.I find it very frustrating and very short-sighted by Pennhip people. Maybe all interested people should email Pennhip and complain for this unfair situation for the very people that want to things properly. Pennhip should not forget that until recently there was only their evidence to support their claims without our support there would have been no momentum to force comparison with the outdated and untrue findings and statistics by OFA. "Evaluation of the relationship between Orthopedic Foundation for Animals' hip joint scores and PennHIP distraction index values in dogs" is a study that was long overdue by the American Veterinary Medical Association.The list they could do is make us able to work properly!

As much as I would like a public database, I have not found a public database necessary to find dogs who have PennHIP evaluations. Yes, it's more work to find them than if we had a database, but it is not impossible. Years ago I put a small database (about 100 dogs) on YahooGroups called PennHIPLabs because I was trying to help people locate other PennHIP users.

Privacy in the US is what it is. Not all people want their PennHIP data published in a public database. And PennHIP wants a complete database rather than a cherry picked one. It will be a long battle. If PennHIP provides such a database, they will be winning a battle that OFA has lost.

If you are dealing with people who you suspect might be capable of forging PennHIP data, perhaps you should consider using another stud dog. If you suspect that PennHIP is deliberately hiding data, then perhaps you should not be using PennHIP. I trust the people with whom I work or I don't work with them.

One difference between the OFA and PENNHIP databases is that the veterinarian taking Penn Hip x-rays must be certified to take the x-rays and must send in all the x-rays. The owner of the x-rayed dog cannot opt out of sending in the x-rays if they show a bad set of hips. IMHO that means that PennHip is getting a more complete database. I suspect that it is the owners of dogs with poorly graded hips that have privacy issues. FWIW I have been doing both PennHip and OFA for about 10 years.

Sally

It seems to me that few points may need clarifying.
Firstly I would like to say that I breed collies (working collies) secondly that I live in Italy.
Have you any idea what it is like to find good dogs from here? I tell you it’s not easy at all.
In my country there is no Ofa database (not ideal but better than nothing) or otherwise, this forces me to buy in other countries such as USA,Canada,Sweden,Denmark where I can gather information to study pedigree vertically and horizontally.

George Padgett has published a very informative book on the subject of genetic problems ‘Control Canine Genetic Diseases’. Breeders should be aware that with the advent of internet and artificial insemination we are all part of earth’s genetic pool so whether we like it or not, we all have a little effect on it and we are all greatly affected by it.
So whether you like it or not you are also working with those people you do not trust.
A very basic reading of population genetics text will confirm what I am saying.

OFA,FCI,OVI,Willis methods are outdated they all suffer of the same problem (but not the only one) positioning of the dog and x-ray technique hides HD.
One would think that veterinarians would recognise it after some 30/40 years of failure but they don’t as it’s not the well being of the dogs they hold close to their hearts, rather the dollars they can make out of it.
I am aware that what I am making a serious accusation but I find no other logical explanation if scientific research is the recognised parameter to evaluate a system.

An anaesthetic is a necessary evil. I think there are more dogs run over by cars than dogs dying from HD examination. Relaxation of the muscles is a prerequisite to have a correct assessment of HD status. I would hate to loose my dog during examination but I would be conscious that the only pain involved would be mine. By x-raying without proper muscle relaxation the statistics are skewed and many dogs suffer pain as a consequence. Who’s callous?

Coming to Pennhip it’s at least since 2006 that we keep getting reassured that they are working on it but there is always something that postpones publication.
I would like to point out that genetic improvement as stated about forty years ago by Malcolm Willis and reiterated by Pennhip in agreement with principles of genetics needs the use of subjects below the breed average. So what would be the objection to publishing the scores of dogs that can help improve the breed?!
The others could be left out it would not be ideal I admit, but at least we could start working and given time understand also the hip status of the unpublished results.
I might suggest that this problem is strictly related to those dogs already in the database for ‘new entries’ one could pretend that the results be made public irrespective of scores by asking the owner to sign a document to that effect at the vet when requesting the assessment.
No authorization… no x-ray after all Pennhip is a no profit organization.

Not being able to have data, makes it impossible to try to understand the inheritance pattern of HD. All we have at present is based on today’s invalidated research, conducted on the outdated schemes mentioned above; you understand how eagerly I await those results also considering that according to life expectation statistics I have only some 20 years left to live. :-)

Your sentence: ‘If you suspect that PennHIP is deliberately hiding data, then perhaps you should not be using PennHIP.’ Really does not make sense to me. Are you suggesting that I stop testing my dogs when there is no other serious alternative? Well the way I see it, because Pennhip is the best and only valid method to assess HD available to breeders today I will not leave anything untried in order to have this database made public. I may be highly critical of their conduct in this respect, but I do my darned best to make people understand that the vets community world wide is leading them by the nose when using other obsolete evaluation systems and promote Pennhip.
Hope this helps to explain my point.

Carlo, I guess you will have to trust me when I say that I would like a search-able data base of PennHIP results as much as you would. In fact, I began using PennHIP when I couldn't find an appropriate matching PennHIP'd dog when I wanted to use my bitch.

Despite my sympathy for your position, I also have sympathy for the position of PennHIP in trying to get compliance from breeders who have traditionally been able to avoid publishing their results in other databases if they did not like the results. I think the PennHIP task is nearly impossible.

I don't suspect any nefarious or lukewarm motivations by PennHIP. You implied in an earlier post that perhaps PennHIP did not want to publish the database because it did not conform to their predictions about the efficacy of PennHIP. Why would you want to use a technique developed by people who had so little respect for their own approach that they would hide data?

I think you don't have a good conception about how few Labs fit into the category of DIs below .3. I have a couple myself, and I can tell you that PennHIP rates them in the top 100% (or more realistically the top 1%) of Labs evaluated. Even though over 20,000 Labs have been evaluated since the inception of PennHIP, 1% is a still a very small number--especially over time.

Where PennHIP has been able to evaluate outcomes of breeding dogs free of DJD has been breeds such as Borzoi and Greyhounds. In such breeds hip DJD is quite uncommon because most dogs have DIs less than .3. Not so Labs.

I do share your desire to improve hip health with a reliable and valid test and your belief that PennHIP is the best we currently have. However, I have learned over time the wisdom of the Chinese proverb that it is better to light one candle than curse the darkness. Long ago I gave up wishing for a PennHIP database in favor of seeking dogs myself.

Kate, I did not say Pennhip should publish scores below 0.3 but rather below the breed average whatever that might be. Any dog below breed average be it 0.2 or 0.5 is a potential candidate to improve hip status in its breed.

I agree with you that it is better to light one candle than curse the darkness but do you wait to run out of candles or while lighting the candles you try to get electrical power?

My suspicion about Pennhip not reflecting genetic status is legitimate but does not take anything away from the validity of the system it would be just normal for phenotype not necessarily reflecting genotype and dogs below 0.3 may still be carriers.
I think statistics by Pennhip should either prove or disprove it.

A while back I wrote to Pennhip about the database and to be frank I did not appreciate their replay which much amounted to: 'We are a small bunch of dedicated people we do what we can' talk to clubs and look out on the internet.’

I have great respect for Doctor Gail Smith without him we would still be in the dark ages at the same time I would want to see a little more energy in dealing with people that have little respect for dogs, buyers and fellow breeders.

Carlo, My comments about the small percentage of Labs who have DIs below .3 was addressing the above quotation from you.

In a similar vein, I told you that the place where the efficacy of using PennHIP'd dogs with DIs below .3 to improve hip health is best seen in breeds such as Borzoi and Greyhounds because the majority of dogs have DIs below .3.

My comments were not meant to address your suggestions about which dogs could be listed in a database. I honestly don't care if they ever develop a publicly search-able database. I've gotten along without it for over a decade now. True, my method is not as convenient as a search-able database, but my method works. And I don't end up spending a lot of time beating my head against the wall of breeders who would not want their results published. The problem does not lie with PennHIP staff. I have found them to be most helpful and accommodating.

Perhaps you should address your concerns to Dr. Wright on PennHIP's blog, especially because it appears that your questions concern breeds different from Labs.

HHello Kate,
Could you please explain your statement:
'.... I told you that the place where the efficacy of using PennHIP'd dogs with DIs below .3 to improve hip health is best seen in breeds such as Borzoi and Greyhounds because the majority of dogs have DIs below .3.'

I would have imagined it would been best seen in breeds where the DI has gradually improved say from .6 to .3. A DI <0.3= No HD surely you can't get better than that.

You mentioned a method: without knowing the mode of inheritance of versions of genes involved or how many versions each has and how they interact with other genes I don't think it is possible to assume a particular genotype from a given phenotype (in this case indicated by the PennHip DI.)

Additionally not having statistics available to elaborate pedigrees, I find it extraordinary that you can say 'your method works' You may have good results I am not doubting that.... but a method I think it's a big word.

I am also a little confused when reading your statement: 'I honestly don't care if they ever develop a publicly search-able database." when only the day before you wrote: 'Carlo, I guess you will have to trust me when I say that I would like a search-able data base of PennHIP results as much as you would.'

In my modest opinion the problem is of course with the breeders that do not want to disclose results but also with those that do not realize that each of us is dependent from the genetic pool of our respective breeds.
We can continue working in an isolated fashion but this will only gain 'success' to those breeders who will manage to limit problems to their own satisfaction.

We are in 2011 and it's high time breeders understood that we can all benefit from sharing information.

My statement concerning PennHip was perhaps a little too harsh, none the less I observe a lack of energy in tackling this problem.

Firstly there is no reason not to ask people to allow publication of DI when this is below the breed average.
This would put the others in a spot, their secrets would be like an admission of DI greater than average.

Secondly once such database is published PennHip could require authorization (to be signed for at the vet) to publish any results from there on and this way the wise guys that are preventing us from working properly to improve the health of our dogs thus the betterment of our breeds would really be gotten by the nuts if you will excuse my French.

Anyhow I seem to understand I have overstayed my welcome so I will move on as it seems you are adamant that a Collies breeder Pennhip problems should not be discussed in a Labrador list... at least I tried.

Carlo, I feel your pain, but you are barking up the wrong tree. I am not your enemy. I've used PennHIP for over a decade and deliberately and successfully produced Labs with DIs below .3. You are not only preaching to the choir but accusing the choir of sin. What you want is admirable, but you will catch more flies with honey than haranguing. (I think I have used up my supply of cliches.)

Now go in peace to love and serve the database somewhere else.

Kate, I said I'd go but the unfairness of your replay compels me to replay yet again.
1- 'I feel your pain'
No pain at all I just try to raise awareness.

2-I am not your enemy.
It takes a lot more for me to consider anyone as such.

3-You are not only preaching to the choir but accusing the choir of sin.
Which choir? The one that 'couldn’t care less' or the one that 'wants an open database as much as I do'
I did not accuse anyone; the fact is that if I say my dogs are all DI 0.1 you have no way of finding out if true or not and no honey in the world will change that. All serious breeders are seeking genetic diversity to reduce the damages caused by irresponsible line breeding (however close).
Not having a database is greatly limiting. Besides it's high time honest capable breeders make their voices heard instead of tolerating this deprecable state of affairs where those who know little or nothing are hampering those that take the problem to study and have an informed, honest, ethical approach to breeding

4-you will catch more flies with honey than haranguing.
If by haranguing you mean some writing characterized by strong feelings than yes I plead guilty. I find flies fastidious insects.

5- Now go in peace to love and serve the database somewhere else.
Only one word for such comment: RUDE!

Guess you missed the part above in what I said.

Anyway, I suggest you take your concerns to the PennHIP website where you can blog to your heart's content about what you think Dr. Wright should do.

BTW, my last breeding was a outcross back 4 generations and both sire and dam had DIs less than .32. Genetic diversity need not be compromised by using PennHIP, and you don't need a database to accomplish this feat.

A four generation outcross? Never heard of it
Today an outcross may be defined as such if you have nothing in common between the two dogs for ten (10) generation and a COI = zero.Now tell me you can look at at two pedigrees 10 generation back and have DI scores for all the dogs.
What I want is admirable but you asked me to leave!