We labrador breeders do a TON of clearances on our dogs. The basic standards are hip, elbows, cerf annually, Optigen, EIC, Echo and maybe coat color inheritance. Yes, I know there are a few others on top of these, but I do think those are the basic 6-7 clearances.

I know so many breeders from a few of my clubs (especially of little dogs) that do no clearances (or barely hip OFAs) on their dogs. It got me to thinking about the other breeds.

How many other breeds do as many health clearances as Labrador breeders?

How many other breeds have such an impact on the overall dog population? How many other breeds affect so many human lives by their presence and health? The fact that we have chosen to "step up" to the challenge of making the lives of the dogs and everyone they touch easier says a lot about the breed and the breeders.

All other breeds. All other dogs.

I don't think so. I see so many dogs that are just dogs. Not smart, don't please the owner, take alot of care. Labs live for us. You can look eye to eye with a Lab and see trust and smartness. I have never seen a dog relate to a human or family like a Lab does. Sure they might be cute and sit in your lap. They are love, but Labs are so much more. If they are in your house and in your family unit you know this.

Cummon - you know better. Labs are the most popular and populous purebred dogs worldwide. Because of their special uses as service, guide, search, drug, etc. partners, their soundness and health have the power to positively impact more human lives than any other breed. What was the line from Spiderman?? "With great power comes great responsibility!"

Goldens are just as nice. What are their standard clearances? A long listed as ours?

Goldens have hips, elbows, eyes and heart as major issues - just like Labs. They do not have EIC or CNM, but test for TWO types of PRA as well as Ichthyosis. In addition, they have vWD and another form of hemophilia. Thyroid is a big issue for them as well. Data from the 1998 GRCA/GRF Health Survey http://grca.org/pdf/health/healthsurvey.pdf indicate that 18.7% of Golden Retrievers (nearly one in five) die from hemangiosarcoma at an average age of 10.3 years old. Lymphoma is also a major health concern. Add DM and Hyperuricosuria to the tests available, but I suspect not many breeders use those - like not many Lab people test for DM or Cystinurea.

All things considered, Labs are a generally healthy breed. One of the reasons is that many concerned breeders make a commitment to health screening and careful breeding to give their pups the best chance for a healthy, long life. The FIRST OFA board had two well-known Lab breeders to help it get started. Lab people have always been "early adopters" when it comes to protecting the future of their dogs. Even those who question testing today owe uch of the health of their base stock to breeders who endorsed the idea way back when

Does anyone else think a lot of our testing is really way more than necessary? Don't you think we are sold on the fact that we need to test for every imaginable issue?

What did we do before Optigen, EIC and CNM testing? We bred carriers to carriers and guess what? The breed survived and did get better.

And like I have said here before and someone said above, Labradors make up a very large part of the dog population and with all that there are not huge numbers of blind dogs, collapsing dogs, or dogs suffering with CNM. Sure there are a few... but think of the problems Bulldogs have. That breed is plagued with problems.

I still think the # of clearances we aim for is due in part to people trying to outdo one another.

Jeepers Don, I hope you buy your dogs and don't breed them. The reason Labradors are in a good state of health is because dedicated breeders use the tools provided by the availability of health testing.

Bulldogs are a different kettle of fish since they were bred from selecting for abnormalities as the foundation of the breeding program. The breed did not start with short deformed legs this came from deliberate inbreeding of stock with dwarfism. This coupled with the desire to have the massive heads and strong underjaws have resulted in a breed which is usually unable to breed or whelp naturally. Should be a recipe for making massive changes to the structure & appearance of the breed of perhaps letting it die out altogether.

JMHO. Sounds harsh, but that is how I feel about breeds which are deliberately bastardised to get a particular look.

I agree with Don to a point. Health clearances are great tools and I use them, but every 5 years there are another 2 or 3 "mandatory" tests added to the list.

15-20 years ago there was no tests for EIC, CNM, PRA, and hearts weren't checked unless there was a noticable problem.

Heck, most folks 15 years ago didn't do elbows, and there are still some big breeders today who don't care to test for elbows.

The breed is doing OK, and honestly, I can't really see where the massive laundry list of clearances has done all that much to change statistics.

Since we began testing hips/elbows has the rate of dysplasia gone down?

I never saw a dog go down due to EIC in my life before the test, and still haven't. All of my dogs were tested and came back all clear with one carrier.

My point is, Don may not be too far off base. For a hundred years folks bred relatively healthy dogs to other relatively healthy dogs and they didn't do horrible things to our breed. They brought us to where we are today, and despite a few problems here and there, we have it better than many other breeds who have death sentence types of problems.

If all laboratories that do testing shut down tomorrow I wouldn't lose much sleep. I'd just continue to make the best decisions possible like we did 20 years ago.

JMHO

I wouldn't call coat color a clearance since there is no health related aspect there. That is the least of my concerns.

The golden folks I know are dying to get a uveitis DNA test developed in addition to what they are already doing. I bet if both breeds could get a DNA test for cancer, allergies, heart issues, etc, many of us would rush to use them too. It's not about how many tests we have to do, it's about us being able to live w/ ourselves knowing we did all we could to prevent what we can.

Wouldn't it be great if things were all black and white like that?

DNA test for cancer? Heart issues?

It isn't that simple. You can't DNA test for some things.

If we had a DNA test for cancer, allergies, heart issues I think we'd soon be without our breeds. Pile on the clearances and we'd have a good number of dogs that probably shouldn't be bred if we tossed out dogs based upon the long list of clearances.

And there is the huge flaw in your reasoning. If we had real DNA tests for even more serious health problems, we wouldn't have to toss ANY dogs out of our breeding programs! Affected dogs could be used where desirable with NO risk of producing affected offspring. Lovely carriers could be woven into blood lines without doubling on a problem accidently. DNA testing is our FRIEND, not a bludgeon to be resented and maligned. The real adjustment that we need isn't in the science, but in our thinking.

Also, any dogs that "shouldn't" be bred if they were tested really shouldn't be bred now - we are just blissfully ignorant of that fact

Every dog is going to have more than just 1 "carrier or affected" status with all those tests. The gene pool will become smaller in a sense as well.

One thing that I think everyone tends to miss when looking at these tests is the "living creature" element. Sometimes it's the roll of the dice.

We aren't baking a cake where the finished product is a result of the individual ingredients we choose to put in. Living creatures have too many moving parts to eliminate all of the bad.

You can't test for all problems.

Not all problems are genetic.

The tendency toward a problem may be genetic, but too many issues are environmental.

The posters mentioning testing for cancer are cracking me up. It is SOOOOOO not that simple. Every single person on this planet has tendencies for this condition or that condition, and they don't manifest unless put into the right environment.

I didn't say it WAS all genetic. Wouldn't it be *nice* to sort thru what was and wasnt genetic though? Same w/ epilepsy. Same w/ HD. There is an environmental component to much of this. Would it not be helpful to know this? I too doubt it's possible to develop tests for some of these things, but will never say never. Science is progressing at a staggering speed w/ respect to DNA work.

The number of tests that need to be done is equal to the number of problems a breed has and the availability of the tests.

Why would you do OFA's on a small breed that never experiences orthopedic or back problems? What is too bad is if a breed has a certain problem but it is not a popular breed and that problem is not shared with other breeds, then why would a company spend the money to develop the test?

I know that Whippets are a very healthy breed and here in Iceland they don't need to be tested for anything before they are bred so I guess that's how it is in Europe too. BUT with that being said their skin is very very thin so my friend who's a Whippet breeder has had to take her dogs several times to the vet to be stitched up!

To Great question- regarding hips
http://www.offa.org/stats_hip.html?view=1&sort=5
Labradors rank 85 of 160 breeds - Bulldog and Pug are #1 & #2. I wish on this forum people would look at facts versus their gut. Labs are the most tested because the most money can be made from us. Create a FUD factor (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)and watch the money roll in. The average breeder is only in this 5 years so they don't know any better. And new people with no knowledge take their place. They follow the pack and don't check into the legitimicy of the claims. We have many wanting the dogs of yesteryear because "movement was better" yet improvements in the breed were made for movement because legs were unequal. Just as the Labrador is an all round breed you have to study everything to breed a total dog not just to clearances. The biggest issue I see today is temperment which one of the hallmarks of the breed.

"The breed is doing OK, and honestly, I can't really see where the massive laundry list of clearances has done all that much to change statistics.

Since we began testing hips/elbows has the rate of dysplasia gone down?

I never saw a dog go down due to EIC in my life before the test, and still haven't. All of my dogs were tested and came back all clear with one carrier."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????
I have to ask, how long have you been in the breed to ask these questions? They are without foundation if you are expecting a confirming answer to your rhetorical questions.
To answer your questions with real facts: yes, the "laundry list" of clearances that we have available to us HAVE actually improved the breed. Do we really want dogs that are seizuring, blind, collapsing, dying from heart abnormalities or dysplasic? I don't think any breeder would say yes, that's fine to breed these traits into our dogs by default, because we don't want to do the tests that are available to us.
Has OFA and PennHip improved the rate of dysplasia in Labrador Retrievers and other dogs? You bet! OFA has those statistics on file, but again, the statistics are only as good as the breeders that decide to do the tests. (Why would you NOT do these tests in breeding animals?)
And, you must not have had much experience in the breed if you have never seen a dog collapse before the EIC test became available.
So are you saying that the genetic testing has actually brought on these afflictions? That is akin to Social Darwinism and is crazy thinking!

Is every test perfect? No, they are not, but it's all we've got to make sure our breeding stock is sound and that we do not knowingly or unknowingly pass on these destructive and painful traits to the next generation....it is our responsibility if we love the breed we are genetically experimenting with, because that's what we are doing every time we put two dogs together in a controlled breeding situation.
Just MY humble opinion.

I have experience in the breed for quite some time, conformation and hunt testing, and I have not seen an EIC collapse. I see similar flaws in your arguments, but I don't care to get into a dual with you about it, but I do think before you start calling people ignorant, you should take a look in the mirror.

Probably a lot longer that you! My grandfather is a pastor and he always talked about how christian kids go off to college and either forget their church or get all holier than thou. So idealistic. With age and experience comes wisdom, and usually the holier than thou attitude disappears. Of course there are those immature people who are doomed to an arrogant and holier than thou attitude for the rest of their lives.


OK Kool-Aid drinker. Think what you want to think if it makes you feel better. The TRUTH is that there are still as many dysplastic puppies born to excellents as there were 100 years ago. No matter how many generations of good or excellent you have behind them, the rates have not significantly gone down.

Back in the day, if a dog or bitch had trouble moving properly, they would be culled. How is that any different than waiting 24 months and getting films done to decide whether to cull? Usually we question the borderlines and dysplastics anyway based on their movement. Same as in the old days. Come on, be honest. Have you ever had a dog come back with bad hips that you didn't question already watching him move in the yard?

You should read some research that wasn't paid for by the OFA. There are several articles out there that mention the swayed statistics. First of all, many of the bad films aren't sent to the OFA these days. If a GP vet sees them and knows they won't pass, the breeders don't submit them. That's a fact. Back in the good old days, breeders watched their dogs and wouldn't breed the unsound ones. Your pie in the sky fantasy regarding vastly better hips are just that....fantasy.


I have a lifetime of experience in the breed first with grandaddy's hunting dogs, then with my show stock. Never seen an EIC collapse in my life.


Huhhh???? Where the heck did I say that these things don't exist? My point was that some of this is blown WAY out of proportion and these newbie breeders are falling for it hook line and sinker.

More dogs die every year by getting their collars hung on crates and fencing than die from EIC collapse, yet hysteria has convinced the reputable breeders to fork out a ton of money every year on a test to guard against this highly improbable scenario.

Go ahead and breed your clearance papers to clearance papers. You will still have as many issues pop up as breeders 50 years ago who didn't rely on paper. Allergies, demodex, seizures, temperament issues. Why has temperament gotten so bad in our breed? Because people are breeding to dogs halfway around the world that they have never seen because they have all of the correct paper to prove their "health". Health is a lot more than these tests.



Believe me....there is nothing humble about your holier than thou opinion!!!!

If you will go back to my original post and re-read it you will see that I use these tests as tools too.

All of my breeding dogs have OFA Hip/Elbow clearances, all are optigen tested (even the CBP ones), all are echocardiogrammed, all boys are EIC tested, and they all get regular ACVO screenings. I'm not saying don't do the tests, I'm saying even with my OFA excellent bitch, the chances of her having dysplastic puppies when bred to another excellent dog is almost the EXACT SAME as it was 50 years ago.

The breed did fine getting to this point and it will do fine long after we are all dead as long as we take care with it and breed healthy (body and mind) to healthy (body and mind), not just paper to paper because the pet folks and newbies think more paper is better.

I agree with Breeder two.

I agree with Breeder too.

The TRUTH is that Labradors were not even mostly "purebred" 100 years ago, so there are no "facts" or figures about hips or any other attributes from those times. The hip rating system for good, excellent, etc. was not developed until mid-1985. Please give a reference to the SCIENTIFIC proof for your statement as to the percentage of dysplastics produced by excellents since 1985. Without empirical data, your "truth" is just an unfounded opinion - and worth about as much as a bellybutton (everybody has one).

Even though OFA figures represent a "skewed" sample, the improvement in hip statistics in many breeds is obvious to even those not trained in science. The change of percentage clear (and excellent) in some breeds represents a major shift toward sounder dogs. In a hunting breed, that has to be a plus that is worth the investment. The Labrador was not a breed with a severe problem when OFA started, so the improvement is not as drastic. Look at some of the other sporting breeds to get a better idea how selective breeding for hip phenotype has literally brought some breeds back from the brink!
http://www.offa.org/stats_hip.html?view=2