If a breeder repeats a litter with the pups being a year apart, what obligation does that beeder have to let the second litter puppy buyers know that several pups in the first litter didn't pass OFA's.

None. If the other pups were having problems, I would hope the owners would contact the breeder in question (whether it's you or someone whose practices you are questioning).

You can never know if the pups with problems are due to genetics or environmental.

Now if some of those first litter pups out there were held out or put with breeder homes, I would think it would be wise to let those folks know.

But for pets that are altered and living with families, why open a can of worms unnecessarily?

My contract only guarantees against SEVERE HD, so unless a pup is out there in severe distress due to hips, I won't do anything. A dog can be diagnosed with moderate HD and never have a visable problem and never have a bump in it's quality of life. I don't guarantee a PERFECT pup.

You know how some puppy buyers can be, if you told them that some pups had problems suddenly they will want you to refund them.

The litters were one year apart, so there is no way they could pass OFA. Pre-lims and finals don't always agree. They could go one way or the other. I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If the first litter is already over 2 years old and have their evaluations, I see no reason to upset pet people. If they owners are breeders, you should let them know.

O.K. first litter was whelped in 08 - one year and 2 months later the second litter was born. At the time the first litter turned 2 and could OFA, puppies from the second litter were activly being shown and doing very well. Dogs from the 1st litter are also being shown by the breeder. Puppies from the second litter are now 29 months old

When puppies from the 2nd litter didn't OFA, we found that only 1 puppy (not owned by the breeder)from the 1st litter now over 3 years old has passed OFA's according to OFA's website. So, puppies that I'm speaking of from both litters, are in a breeder/show homes.

The owner of the puppies from the 2nd litter that didn't OFA has spent quite a bit of money, time and emotional energy showing them. Granted pre-lims should/could have been done by owner but she had no reason to suspect they wouldn't pass.

Not mad about the hips, aren't looking for any money back from the breeder but we seem to have a lack of open information from the breeder. Would a simple "heads up" from the breeder that the first litter hadn't passed have been to much to ask for? Could have saved us a lot of time, money and energy.

You do not say how many puppies were actually x-rayed. And if the 2nd litter puppies were doing so well in the ring, I would bet the owners wouldn't have gotten rid of them if they did hear one or more from the first litter were x-rayed and flunked. And what is keeping the owner from having a civil conversation with the breeder? If it is not your puppy, I frankly think you are just stirring up trouble.

What is ethical is different to each breeder. The bottom line is things happen and you move on, whining on the forum is just that WHINING!

I am sure the breeder didn't repeat the breeding knowing the first litter would fail. Did the parents have their clearances? Clearances are a tool, that is it they guarantee nothing. I did a breeding good/excellent elbows normal, all the pups had issues, sometimes two pedigree's just do that.

JMO

Sounds like you are just assuming the others from the first litter failed OFA because they are not listed on the website. Not everyone runs out and does OFA xrays at 2 years old. Maybe some have been prelimmed or pennhiped and the owners have not gotten around to doing OFA finals yet, or do not have the money. Instead of assuming, maybe contact some of the owners. Though at this point, does it really matter?

There are people in this world that should not be in the dog game, you sound like one of them.
There are No perfect dogs, clearnaces mean that that dog on that DAY was sound. That's all they mean !
If you don't expect dogs to fail OFA these days then I have to ask you to pull your head out of the sand, it happens regularly. Is it anyone's fault , of course not. Does anyone put unsound puppies on the ground on purpose , no I think not. If you cannot play the game , then get out. It's a tough game, not for the faint of heart. It's painful , things happen , expecting perfection ....then you are in for a world of hurt.
Sweep your own front porch , before trying to sweep anyone else's. Move on, place dogs that don't work out, and learn from it. You are not the first one with disappoitment in dogs, and certainly not the last. Questioning someone else's ethics is a waste of time and energy , worry only about your own, thats what you have control over.

I do understand that one can breed two sound dogs together and still produce dysplastic puppies, and I know someone who produced almost an entire litter of dysplastic puppies out of two OFA Excellents. However, they certainly did not repeat the breeding! Regardless of what the facts are in this particular situation, I do not understand why anyone would do a repeat breeding of a litter that had not reached an age to at least assess what they had become (and by this, I do not mean show wins, which seems to be a primary reason to breed for many)? If the first litter does not turn out - no need to repeat it.

Yes, people can do what they want, and it seems like many do just that. But if we are not trying to learn from each breeding so that we can improve on the next one, it doesn't seem like we are breeding for the right reasons. The number of boys being bred on prelims at 8-12 months old seems to increase each year - it is no longer a special circumstance but a common occurrence. And then people complain down the line that they have wound up with a bunch of issues that no one told them about - how could anyone know? The sire himself was never old enough to properly evaluate, and in some instances, neither was the dam!

[ breeding for the right reasons. The number of boys being bred on prelims at 8-12 months old seems to increase each year - it is no longer a special circumstance but a common occurrence. And then people complain down the line that they have wound up with a bunch of issues that no one told them about - how could anyone know? The sire himself was never old enough to properly evaluate, and in some instances, neither was the dam![/quote]



AMEN, AMEN,AMEN !!!!!
I think TOO MANY people breed to win in the show ring.. They live through their dogs and will do whatever it takes to get the job done. I can't imagine the breed getting any healthier until breeders REALLY start as a whole to give a crap about the dogs and their health and not the almighty wins and glory.

Is this a joke? Is this really how people feel?

Now, what if one of the OP's dogs had passed clearances, and she bred that dog? Or you had chosen that dog as stud?

Would you then not feel like you deserved to know that the stud dog's littermates failed clearances?

Keep tucking things under the rug people.

[/quote] Why does it always seem to be the boys the *stories* are about and not the girls?[/quote]

Probably because the boys are much more heavily advertised and used. While their genes will impact a particular litter 50%, they have the ability to impact many more litters than a particular bitch. I also think bitch owners are far more selective in the boys they mate to their girls than stud owners are in the girls they allow to be bred to their boys. It is not unlikely that a nice stud will be mated to mediocre/pet bitches, but it is highly unlikely a nice bitch will ever be mated to a mediocre/pet stud. If stud owners are going to be willing to accept pet quality to mediocre quality bitches, they need to exercise extra due care that their dog is good enough to mate to that type of bitch.

I think that any owners of either litter who might not otherwise have their dogs checked should ethically be notified so that they can find out if their dogs have a problem before they do them irreparable harm by subjecting them to activities that could make things worse (e.g. jumping in performance events, strenuous play for pet homes etc).

"Show" homes I would think (hope) would already have been planning on having OFA's done, so shouldn't need to be notified as much, but it would still be a courtesy.

Things happen, and since I'm assuming the parents both had clearances, there was most likely no way to predict that problems would arise, but now that things have, then protecting the health of the dogs affected should be the priority - not protecting your own reputation.

I realize that I am in a minority, but for the life of me I cannot understand why an obedience, hunting, or agility home would NOT x-ray their Lab early in the career, maybe at the time of a neuter/spay, even prelims, just to get an idea of where they stand with their dog. I have known dogs who didn't break down until close to age 8, when the OTCH or MACH suddenly seemed too hard to get, bars knocked, etc. and only then did they find some HD. If I know the dog is going into a performance home, I do push for at least a hip film to be done, and for me to get a copy of the results. It benefits me AND the line. Sometimes an issue may necessitate keeping the dog thin and on supplements, and maybe a faster track to those titles, as long as the dog is having fun. I have been lucky and the dogs I have put in performance homes had good hips and elbows. Keeping the dog fit may have been part of the nature/nurture puzzle. That being said, I feel more comfortable knowing the breadth as well as the depth of my pedigrees when non-breeding sibs make up part of the data. When I have bred more closely, I REALLY want those OFA or PennHIP results, to know a bit more of where I am going, and where the line has been.

If the performance folks won't be part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
Conversely, show folks maybe should not be so fast to put all those extra pounds on the conformation puppy or youngster, who roly-polys into joint problems. We have the studies about fatness increasing risk of HD.

I think that unfortunately, there are many performance owners out there who quite frankly aren't educated enough about it. Maybe they didn't get the dog from a reputable breeder or got one from a breeder who isn't familiar enough with how much physical stress these dogs are under to recommend it. I know with our first girl we didn't have any x-rays done until she started having problems with her elbows when she was about 6 or so. Now we know better and have them done before they go full steam with their careers. I know lots of performance people of various breeds who don't seem to be really educated about the health issues common in their breeds, and I would assume Labs are no exception to that.

"I know lots of performance people of various breeds who don't seem to be really educated about the health issues common in their breeds, and I would assume Labs are no exception to that."

Your points are well taken for the general public, and their vets, those not on a breeder forum. Thanks for pointing that out. My comment was meant more for those identifying themselves as performance people on this breeder's forum.

I don't know if that old girl of yours was bred when elbows were not as commonly x rayed or not, at least on her parents. Honestly, I also don't know if elbow films are as good a screening tool as we need. That being said, I can't see CT scans or MRIs as being anything affordable at this time as a screening tool on breeding prospects who pass x rays. Maybe someday. After all, the affordable computer on which I type can do more than a roomful of computing equipment just a few decades ago. I also expect that we would get a lot of false positives until the orthopods get used to seeing good, rather than bad, elbows.

Yes, she was bred before elbows were routinely screened, so we don't blame the breeder. She was bought as "just" a pet, and we fell into obedience with her, so were not particularly educated at the time and certainly didn't frequent forums like this one, LOL.

I'm not sure which performance people you are referring to here that don't screen ... I haven't read every post for sure, but haven't gotten that impression myself. The post above by "performance person" seemed to me to be talking about informing puppy buyers who were doing performance with their dogs rather than performance breeders, unless I misunderstood it, which is always quite possible!.