VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:28:17 03/22/10 Mon
Author: Jenny W
Subject: Why either or?
In reply to: Lucinda 's message, "Re: Fixing Poor Physical Structure" on 16:37:35 03/21/10 Sun

I don't think we should think of good conformation vs good ability but rather try working towards both.

We seem to be discussing two issues here:

The first, let's call it "formal health testing" i.e. X-rays and other scientifically formulated methods vs. "testing by function". In my view both are necessary and here's why:

It's not terribly uncommon for the signs of poor hips or elbows in some cases to remain hidden in young dogs and they only begin to suffer when they reach middle age or over and the arthritic changes begin to tell. By this time the dog may have led a normal life (I have seen an 75kg+ Newfie scale a 6'6" fence with a hip score of 106!) and sired or borne many puppies, all the time thinking the dog does not have any soundness issues, when in reality it does and may pass those on. They might not affect the dog during the early years or at all, but if that dog is bred to another dog with the same issues that are also hidden, then you perpetuate the problem and potentially worsen it instead of minimising it. One could argue that if the problem doesn't affect the dog then it isn't important and in the case of some of the old breeders (and some of the newer ones) in SA, this is the policy followed. Maybe visibly healthy dogs were and are bred from when they harboured the problems that were unseen or before they were seen?
Before the days of health testing and registries and formalisation of the breed, dogs were bred because they were good dogs and presumably useful to their owners, but our current problems didn't come out of thin air and they were I suspect, already inherent in the breed at that time, but the breeders then had no way of knowing unless the dog was lame and we now know (through X-rays) that some of them don't go lame. Formal health testing gives you the information earlier, it might only confirm what you already think about a dog or it might hold some surprises, but either way it is better to know than not. If your dog has purely radiographic signs of a problem, (I have one of those with poor elbows but masses of drive and ability that has never suffered with her condition - yet) you can then select a mate without those same problems and lessen the risk to the offspring while hopefully maintaining the nowadays rare ability. There is no way of knowing in advance which dogs will suffer from these hereditary joint problems and which will cope adequately enough to lead a normal life, for some or even all their years until something else gets them. Of course working a dog and putting stress on it is more likely to show up problems, but not every time and sometimes not until after breeding from it. We should take advantage of the information from X-rays, not to condemn dogs but to make safer breeding decisions.

Secondly, to take Lucinda's point, a dog with higher drive, ability, working sense and willingness is MORE likely to be at risk of injury and therefore it is even MORE important to get that conformation right in order that the dog can use its ability for longer. I can't see that there is much difference in ignoring serious conformation faults that make a dog injury prone or ignoring temperament faults, neither gives you the best chance of a good all round dog that can and will do what you want for many years.

In the case of cruciate ligament ruptures and straight stifles, too common in my opinion to be mere coincidence. There must be an underlying reason for these injuries. My own dog busted both cruciates in a heavy, high speed fall at 3 1/2 years old and when he was repaired, the vet commented on the weakness and size of the ligaments compared to the size of the dog (an average sized Boerboel male) and his muscles. They were the weakest point in the chain when something had to give and instead of suffering a torn muscle, he snapped those cruciates. The operation to fix him was not terribly successful. I know better, more modern surgeries are now available to most people and most dogs make a full recovery, but it doesn't change the basic fact that the dog had a weakness that caused him to get injured and this weakness was compounded by the straight stifles that made that injury even more likely. The injury now leaves the dog with terribly arthritic back legs and pain at 6 years old. I can't help believing that better conformation through more angulation in his hindquarters would have maybe avoided that life changing injury and allowed him to operate as effectively as he did for longer. His spirit is still so willing and yet he is let down by his body. Very sad to watch. Should the dog have been bred from for his ability and temperament alone? Great hips and elbows too, but what's the point? A dog that lasts only a few years before it needs surgical repairs to the stifles? The only way I can see of sensibly breeding from this dog with a definite and known weakness, is to an older female that has proven her cruciate strength over a period of time, maybe 5 or 6 years and the old boy will be long gone by then.

So what I am saying in my own inimitable long winded way, is conformation, health testing in advance of breeding AND ability are all of equal importance in trying to achieve the goal of a long lasting useful dog and an overall sounder breed.

Jenny
QuoVadis Boerboels

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-7
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.