An Idea Whose Time Has Come!Open Health Registry for Golden RetrieversBy Jennifer Krawsczyn Have you ever wished for a one-stop place to go to learn about the health of a family of dogs without having to call all the owners and breeders? Have you ever wondered which report about an unclear dog was actually the truth? Have you longed for somewhere to research dogs that failed to clear something instead of only being able to research those that cleared? Have you wondered how to learn about the littermates of a stud dog you are considering using? Then how about an Open Health Registry for Golden Retrievers? Can you imagine how much progress this will help us make in the breed? Most likely, most breeders who have bred even a few litters grimace a little thinking about the gorgeous dogs they bred that they had such high hopes for, only to have them fail a clearance. I guess after a few of these disappointments, everyone just figures it is part of the territory. Secretly, we covet and curse our friends in “easier” breeds that don’t require all these clearances and who breed with only structure, temperament and wins as criteria. Is it that their breeds are not cursed with all the problems ours is? Or are they simply choosing to ignore them? In our own breed, we may secretly both curse and envy those bold breeders who did breedings that were far too risky, in our opinion, yet came out with wonderfully clear litters. Some of these breeders smile and say that breeding is a “crap shoot” and we can’t know what will happen until we do it. And time after time this proves to be true, but sometimes we wonder if these pups are actually time bombs for future generations. Meanwhile, after months of searching and agonizing, we settle for breeding to a dog who may not be the top winner, but who has “health” behind him. Okay, so we have spent hour after hour researching this stuff. Okay, so some people aren’t beating our door down to have a pup sired by this healthy, yet virtually unknown, dog and instead are lusting after a puppy sired by BIS Ch. Mr. Wonderful, SDHF. But, by golly, we are improving the breed, right? We are putting temperament and health first! Maybe we are also trying to prevent genetic bottlenecks and the popular stud dog effect. We know that in future generations, this will be what is best for the breed, right? Right?? Alas, sometimes it feels as if few people appreciate the hours of effort we put into choosing a stud dog that would sire the healthiest animals. How can this be? Is it because people don’t know about all the potential problems that plague our breed? Is it that they don’t understand that health and temperament are the most important things? Is it that winning is blinding their common sense? The answer probably is that they really just don’t know! I confess that I was in this position myself when I was looking for my perfect first dog. I just figured that a dog with clearances bred to another with clearances was all that I needed to consider for health-related issues. I assumed all these Goldens would have the wonderful temperament my first Golden had. So my focus was on the wins and production record, believing the health of the two parents behind my pup was all that mattered. In retrospect, I realize I was pretty darn lucky with the first show dog I purchased, and with the ethics of her breeder. Hindsight is better than foresight, though. For many people, there is nothing like a few bumps in the road to make them sit up and take notice! DOING YOUR HOMEWORKSo how do we research this stuff? The first answer that comes to mind is to go to the CERF and OFA databases and look up these dogs. Unfortunately, this only lists the clear dogs, and in most cases (hearts and eyes, for example), only the dogs that people choose to register! What if your search shows two clear dogs in the litter you are researching? Does that mean there were only two puppies? Does it mean this breeder sells mostly to pet homes and only two were checked? Or does it mean that littermates are in pet homes because they failed a clearance? No official site will tell you that! So how do we learn about these things? Well, the simple answer is to go to the breeder. Let’s hope the breeder is honest about disclosing everything. To say the dog is in a pet home and was never tested could be quite true. But technically this would also be true if the breeder saw cataracts and didn’t take the dog in to be tested. The breeder may have quietly placed the dog in a pet home because there was no way this dog would clear. Or what if the breeder says the dog was not OFA’d? Well, yes, but that would also be true for a dog who received an iffy x-ray that was never sent to OFA. The truth can be rationalized. And when egos cloud judgment, these rationalizations can become far too easy to use. Another way to check on health and temperament production records is to ask other fanciers — yes, that ringside chatter, or the phone and e-mail conversations reporting the unclear dogs and the displays of nasty temperament someone saw at a show. Much of this information is of value, but we all know much of it can be exaggerated, misinterpreted, or simply retold incorrectly. Remember the telephone game and how different the original message was once it was passed through several people? Can someone be faulted for being too honest? Apparently this seems to be the case. Traditionally, it has been considered improper to share things you have heard about another person’s dog. The proper procedure has always been to go directly to the owner of the dog for the information. While in a purist sense this is commendable, in reality it isn’t expedient. When we are looking for answers in our search to select a dog for breeding or purchase, it isn’t always possible to follow up on everything we hear. It is hoped we have heard it from the owner, breeder, or at the least a reliable source. Yet we all know that even this information is not always accurate. Many times I have gone to the owners or breeders after hearing about things, and the facts are often a bit “off.” I’ve even been given conflicting information from owners and breeders about the same dog! So while it is noble to insist we only get information from the actual owners, this mode of obtaining information is much too limiting and not without discrepancies at times. When researching dogs, we need to be able to gather information quickly and accurately. A BETTER MOUSETRAP!The solution? An open health registry (OHR). In my opinion, and speaking only for myself, I think the beauty of an open registry is to take much of the former way of obtaining information out of the rumor mill/word of mouth mode and into a publicly accessible area. This should help to minimize much of the appearance of bashing, whether intentional or not, and keep the information more factual (limit exaggerations and misinformation as the information is shared). Unlike the current registries that list only clearances, this will hopefully help us do some research to learn about the problems in lines and know what we need to avoid or include to better our own lines and breedings. I think that many people will come to the realization that there are problems in every line. I also believe people will quit insisting that parents and littermates of any dog with a problem not be bred. I imagine most breeders who have bred even a few litters are well aware of this. An open health registry will help us pick and choose what lines can statistically help “clean up” the things we need help with. Having just done a tremendous amount of research trying to locate a stud dog in my general area with a good health history, a good temperament history, and winning lines that would blend well with my own, I can tell you that the OHR would have been a huge help in this regard! While it may be easy to research what lines are producing the most champions, it isn’t as easy to find out what problems and strengths this line may be spreading. In my opinion, this information is very important as well! What good is a champion dog if he or she doesn’t clear, or produces many get that aren’t clearing? What good is a dog that has the potential to spread autoimmune problems, early cancer, incorrect temperaments, or get without longevity? How could sharing this information be bad for the breed in any way? ESTABLISHING THE OPEN HEALTH REGISTRYA small group of Golden owners/breeders/exhibitors got together to start a voluntary registry for people to report health data in dogs they own and/or bred. Not all the details are complete yet. We are still working on what to include and how to include it, how to encourage complete compliance, how to eliminate misinformation, how to set up the Web site and information, etc. As you can imagine, this will be a huge help in improving the health of the breed. It will give us information on clear as well as unclear dogs. The members of the group are Christopher Glaeser (who organized this group), Bev Brown, Amy Burzynski, Andrea Dec, Sylvia Donahey-Feeney, Rick Fish, Ann Greenberg, Gail Lutolf, Doug McGuire, Sally Sheridan, and me. Christopher Glaeser wrote:
“There are several areas that I think the OHR can contribute, and include:
WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO FEAR?Understandably, many people will have fears and concerns about this. One is that people with too little understanding of an imperfect gene pool will reject dogs whose owners honestly reveal their dogs’ “faults,” and consequently make bad breeding decisions in favor of dogs whose owners do not come forward. The answer for this, of course, is education. People need to be made aware that virtually every gene pool has imperfections, and the only way to help is to disclose the unclear dogs too. This information is actually more important than the sire’s and dam’s clearance information. If breeding clear to clear produced only clear, we wouldn’t need to know about non-clear littermates. But genes don’t work this way, and without acknowledging this simple fact, we will only be hiding our heads in the sand. Might some people choose not to do breedings because the facts are too obvious that it would be a high risk? Perhaps. Is that a bad thing? I certainly don’t think so. It is what I hope happens, actually. Will some potential puppy buyers be frightened off by this information? Again, I hope it will work this way if a breeding looks too risky to them. I believe that all of us have our own set comfort levels when it comes to risk, and experience often tells us that no breeding is totally safe. But I can tell you from a personal perspective that when we are forewarned about a potential problem and it does arise, that bitter pill is a lot easier to swallow than if we find out later the problem was pretty common in the line and we were never told about it until it showed up in our own dogs or our own breeding. WHAT HAS THE SILENCE TOLD US?In the past, silence has been our nemesis. The old unspoken rule of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has not helped our breed at all. If we withhold health information, then we are probably ensuring continued problems for the future health of the breed. If there is a compelling argument that owners and breeders should withhold information regarding dogs’ health issues, I would certainly like to know what it is. The only reason I can think of is that some individual dog (or his lineage) may be exposed as problematic in a certain area. But this is an ego issue, and not an issue that will help the breed. Simply put, it is loving an individual dog and his fame more than the breed itself. And that is detrimental and selfish no matter how you look at it. This silence has been an acceptable and common approach, from what I’ve been told. It was viewed as courteous to the owner of the dog and a way to avoid what may be perceived as a smear campaign targeting a dog who has experienced success in the breed ring, or who is producing dogs that are winning. Now we realize that we need to look at the big picture and consider the impact these dogs may have on our breed for generations to come. The popular stud dog effect can have a far-reaching impact, even in a breed as large as our own. We know the silence must end! There is no shame in admitting these things, and there are no breeders who intentionally try to breed unclear dogs. But I feel there is shame in knowingly withholding the facts. Let’s not pretend that withholding information isn’t detrimental, simply because someone didn’t ask the right questions. If a registry will provide information on clear dogs but does not provide information on affected dogs, that is withholding extremely important information. BREEDING AS AN ART, AND ADDRESSING THE GRAY ZONESI know there are some gorgeous dogs that have been and still are a big part of our breed’s history who would never have been born if the breeding of an unclear dog had not occurred. Some of these dogs have proven to produce very well in areas in which they didn’t clear, and further generations have proven so as well. Others have continued to produce the problem, but may be making other important contributions to the breed at the same time. While I am not saying these dogs are to be avoided at all costs, I will say that a breeder needs to be aware of a probable genetic weakness and should evaluate the strengths in their own lines before they consider combining these genes. I am not mentioning this to in any way judge the choices others make, but I think the results of these breedings are of grave importance to the future of our breed. A multigenerational pedigree is helpful in evaluating these things, but unfortunately, a pedigree will not reveal the number of clear and unclear littermates. This is extremely important information to have when we are making our breeding decisions. We need this information to help avoid potential problems, as well as clear up problems we are currently plagued with. Also, a paper pedigree can be altered to show clearances that never happened, if a dishonest person so chooses, and the buyer/breeder may not have a reliable source to help track back to verify these issues. And then there are cases where a dog may have been cleared for something one year, and failed the next. Those pedigrees in the file cabinet will not magically update that information for us. Whether you agree with the breeding of uncleared dogs or not, the OHR would help people evaluate these “gray zone” breedings for themselves by reviewing what was produced and whether or not the problem was phenotypically perpetuated. As breeders, I think we have a right to know what is behind our dogs, and this information is usually not available past a few generations, nor for all the littermates in the pedigree. After all, when you breed to a certain dog, that dog’s pedigree becomes our dog’s pedigree. So if stud dog owners insist that they are the only ones who should be asked about their dog’s production and pedigree, once the dog is used that pedigree becomes our pedigree, and the torch is passed. Researching pedigrees becomes a difficult task and is fraught with holes and unknowns, plus it is subject to tremendous distortion via the current methods of sharing information (word of mouth). For the newer fancier who isn’t privy to this back-door mode of sharing information, things are even more grim. FALSE INFORMATION LISTED?Some people may fear that false data could be entered on dogs and made public. Yet the very nature of this database being made available to anyone and everyone will actually help prevent this problem. Currently, it is all too common to hear that such-and-such bred a dog that had a certain health problem, only to find out from the breeder that this is untrue. Or maybe the breeder is the one not being truthful. Maybe the dog has a slight heart murmur that is not indicative of SAS, but the rumor mill has changed it to a case of confirmed SAS. With an open registry, the facts are there for all to see. If a breeder tries to falsify information, the owner of the dog will know the truth and will be able to correct things. The system will not be foolproof, and many questions are still under discussion by the group pulling this together, but for the breeders and owners who really want to help the breed, it will be a wonderful tool. IN THE REAL WORLD…The Open Health Registry will not cure all our problems. Even with all the data before us, we will still have to choose what faults we can or cannot live with, and what perceived problems will be least detrimental in combination with our own lines. There will be people who will be reluctant to contribute data, and others who will want to take a “wait and see” approach before they volunteer data. I certainly hope people will view this as a tool to identify possible problems or avoid doubling up on them, and they will respect those who contribute. It is one thing to share with a friend that your dog or one you are familiar with has this or that problem. People are usually sympathetic about your misfortune. But will breeders become angry if an owner enters the dog’s identity, and therefore his ancestry, in a database, and documents the problem for generations to come and for all to see? Quite possibly some will, but it is hoped that in time we will come to a point where we will accept this as the normal and proper way to deal with health issues. We must develop the mind-set that it is not shameful to be the breeder of a dog with a fault, but it is shameful to conceal it. A database alone will never solve our breed’s genetic problems, but without it as a tool with which to document and trace the occurrences of problems, we will never be able to make educated choices to reduce the incidences. That is, not until we have DNA markers for the problems, but this is a long way off on many health issues, and we need to deal with our problems in the best way we can now. I feel the Open Health Registry can help us do just that. And I also feel that it may also help us pinpoint an upcoming problem before it reaches an epidemic stage. DR. GEORGE PADGETTI would like to conclude this column by sharing one paragraph from Dr. Padgett’s book, Control of Canine Genetic Diseases. “If a registry truly wants to help breeders produce normal, healthy dogs, it should provide as much information as possible on the genetic makeup of breeding stock, which includes data on the entire family. Further, that information should be as current and up-to-date as possible. Rather than accepting published lists of phenotypically normal and affected dogs, which a breeder might still be using after the list is two or three or more years old, breeders should be encouraged to request current information on any dog they are considering for breeding purposes. That information should include data on the whole family, indicating that a given animal is affected with a deleterious trait or the risk it carries, or is free of the gene(s) for any trait in the registry that is known to occur in that breed. Is that possible? Sure it is. Right now. Today. We have the computers and technology already in our hands. We just need to get off our collective duff and do it. We need to forget the ways we handled disease yesterday and quit avoiding the fact that diseases occur. We need to forget the registries we had yesterday, because it is obvious that they did not accomplish what we thought they would. It’s time to get out of the 1960s and move into the new millennium.” As always, any correspondence is welcome and appreciated. If anyone has questions, comments or suggestions concerning this column or any future subjects, please feel free to contact me at (740) 985-3975 between 8:00 and 4:00 EST, or e-mail me at shilogr@yahoo.com. |