Bad Bites

[wannabe]

However Jerry has a pretty good point. Bites are very obvious. If someone chooses to breed to a dog with a bad bite, well that's their choice. Like many genetic traits bites are polygenetic and recessive so you don't know with any certainty whether or not they will appear in the next or subsequent generations just because one parent has an off bite.

It's not like anyone is going to pawn off pups with alligator mouths on the unsuspecting unless the buyer is too dumb to look at their teeth!CR

This has been a very informative thread, but IMHO, we have probably beat the subject to death. I just want to go on record as saying, "breeding a dog with a bad bite is a bad idea".

[hubweims]

However Jerry has a pretty good point. Bites are very obvious. If someone chooses to breed to a dog with a bad bite, well that's their choice. Like many genetic traits bites are polygenetic and recessive so you don't know with any certainty whether or not they will appear in the next or subsequent generations just because one parent has an off bite.

It's not like anyone is going to pawn off pups with alligator mouths on the unsuspecting unless the buyer is too dumb to look at their teeth!CR

This has been a very informative thread, but IMHO, we have probably beat the subject to death. I just want to go on record as saying, "breeding a dog with a bad bite is a bad idea".

i agree with your breeding philosophy on bites. now, not trying to call you out, wannabe, but i think that naming some dog names would be beneficial. this site sees way more guests than it does members. so, that means that there are way more people just reading instead of joining our conversations. i would assume that a good many of these guests are in the dog market. many are probably willing to pay good $$$ for a good dog. this thread and discussions has been very educational for many. you have succeeded in now everyone who has read this thread and is in the market for a pup is gonna be looking at the parents bite and the pups. by naming some names of dogs that may be marketed as far superior dogs and bloodline (but actually don't meet standards), you may be helping someone from making a horrible mistake, investment, and heartache.

[Dave Quindt]

Dave indicts every one of our 3 national ch's (NGSPA, GSPCA, NGPDA) by saying at least two of them every year since 01 have had horrible bites since he won't name them. How would you feel if you owned one of these dogs that in fact has a perfect bite when you read that? By making blanket statements instead of having the cahones to be specific it ends up trashing the whole breed.

Charlie, you told me you already knew about the dogs I knew about!

There are 3 national championships with 3 stakes plus the AKC Gundog CH with 2 stakes. That's 11 stakes; the average of the GSPCA and NAVHDA data is 9.25%. You could claim, with no knowledge whatsoever, that 1 out of the 11 dogs has a bad bite and the odds are in your favor that you'd be right! Robbi herself said that Tarkus had a bad bite; that takes care of '02, '03 and '04 alone.

You know I won't go naming individual dogs of folks who don't participate here. It's not the dog's fault he has a bad bite and in many cases, it's not even the owners fault because many of them don't know what a bad bite is! I could own a dog with a bad bite, claim his bite is good and post photos to "prove it" and even if you've seen the dog with a bad bite, how you going to prove me wrong?

Go back and read Vern's original post; almost every other person I know with 20+ years experience in the breed agrees with Vern. Others want to argue that things are not getting worse.

Don't you find it odd that no one is claiming that it is getting better?

The best data we have is that roughly 1 out of 10 GSPs has a bad bite. The root cause of the problem is with the people, not with the dogs. We have a breeder education, and breeder ethics, problem.

JMO,
Dave

[WildRose]

Dave we got our first GSP 38 years ago. I for one certainly can't tell you that the problem is getting any worse because what I've seen for myself shows me it's still a pretty rare and minor problem. I've registered 7-12 litters averaging about 9 pups per every year since around 95, about half that many during the ten years prior. I've yet to have a report back of a bad bite, and I've only seen three in the dogs I've owned myself for a year or more. I'm not a mathematician, but even running the numbers in my head that's less than 1%. I like to think I'm breeding a superior dog to most in many ways but I doubt I'm really all that far ahead of the breed average.

The stat's you posted don't differentiate between bites that are not perfect and bites so bad the dog has physical problems due to a severe jaw misalignment. The number of respondents to that survey is also less than 1% of the dogs registered EVERY YEAR so by no scientific methodology would that be considered to be a representative sampling of the breed as a whole.

It is cowardly and a disservice to the breed to make blanket statements about the national champions as a whole having bad bites if you aren't going to pony up and say which of them you have firsthand knowledge of actually having and passing bad bites..

I know what I've "heard" but I also know what I've seen first hand and won't be a party to passing rumors unless and until I see it first hand or get the information from someone I can implicitly trust.

John (Wagonmaster) on page one talked about one of Doug's dogs (Sonny) he'd "heard" had a bad bite from several people on this thread, which upon his personal inspection was found not to be true. I'm one of the people who had told him that before breeding to the dog I'd look at his bite because of what I'd "heard". What I'd heard was obviously in error. I don't have to look Sonny in the mouth to know he has a good bite because I can implicitly trust that John would not deceive me.

Spreading rumor an innuendo rather than having discussions of fact is a darn poor way to try and improve anything. CR

Way to pony up there Wannabe, I think you've clarified what you're really about. CR

[WildRose]

I've had about enough fun with this. From the link that chip posted:

Genetic or Not

Normal interdigitation of premolars;
Occlusion is controlled by genetics, nutrition, environment, and by mechanical forces generated by the interlock of the upper and lower teeth. Some abnormal bites (malocclusions) have been proven to be genetically influenced, such as severe over or under bites, and wry bites. Other bite abnormalities are known to be acquired (non genetic). Acquired malocclusions can result from tug of war games played with towels or ropes which move teeth into abnormal position. Traumatic birthing can also responsible for some acquired abnormalities.


This is a genetic malocclusion because the premolars do not line up in a pinking shear arrangement. To help define whether the malocclusion is genetic in origin, interdigitation of the premolars is studied. In breeds that have medium and long muzzles, the premolars should meet in a saw-toothed fashion. For example, the tip of the lower third premolar should be positioned equally between the crowns of the upper third and fourth premolars. If the tip of one premolar points to the tip of another premolar, there may be a genetically induced malocclusion. This only holds true in those breeds that do not have shortened muzzles.

Some genetic bite problems do not show up in each litter because they are recessively passed on. The goal of selective breeding is to mate one animal to another that has superior occlusion.

Since only some, certainly not all bite problems are genetic before you run around the internet talking about dogs with bad bites, and passing them it would probably be a pretty good idea to read on the topic and figure out how to tell the difference between bad bites caused by genetics and those caused by environmental factors.

But that would of course make it much more difficult to just sling mud at a few lines or breeders wouldn't it??? CR

[Ayres]

Dave we got our first GSP 38 years ago. I for one certainly can't tell you that the problem is getting any worse because what I've seen for myself shows me it's still a pretty rare and minor problem. I've registered 7-12 litters averaging about 9 pups per every year since around 95, about half that many during the ten years prior. I've yet to have a report back of a bad bite, and I've only seen three in the dogs I've owned myself for a year or more. I'm not a mathematician, but even running the numbers in my head that's less than 1%. I like to think I'm breeding a superior dog to most in many ways but I doubt I'm really all that far ahead of the breed average.

The stat's you posted don't differentiate between bites that are not perfect and bites so bad the dog has physical problems due to a severe jaw misalignment. The number of respondents to that survey is also less than 1% of the dogs registered EVERY YEAR so by no scientific methodology would that be considered to be a representative sampling of the breed as a whole.

So why are the stats that Dave posted, being a representative sample recorded by the breed parent club, flawed, yet your single personal observation deemed an accurate accounting of the breed?

By the way, a representative sample is deemed a proven scientific method of accounting. An easy example is political polls, whereby some 100 to 1000 people are polled to reflect the feelings of the entire voting nation. Sure there's margin of error, but overall that methodology has proven substantially accurate. In the AKC world that registers 14,000 GSPs per year, if 100 reported to the parent club it's a much larger percentage sample than many many other scientific experiments.

But, I digress. Attacking the source of information really does no good. What Dave's point has been this entire thread is that there is a problem in the GSP breed whereby some people are breeding and have bred serious faults (including but not limited to bad bites) with reckless disregard, simply because the bred animals posed some other desired trait. One thing that gets lost in the shuffle is that nobody has compared this problem in the GSP breed to other breeds. I'm sure you'll find that this is not a breed-specific problem. But you really can't deny that the problem exists, can you? Dave hasn't named names, and, Charlie, you've established that it hasn't been you. That doesn't make it disappear, though.

The bottom line is caveat emptor. Let this stand as a warning, and to each their own to make sure and properly research their chosen breedings. In my opinion, names don't need to be named unless there's an allegation of someone keeping the problem hidden with misinformation instead of accountability.

[WildRose]

Ayers I'm not attacking the source, I'm a member of the GSPCA! I am pointing out though that it's not necessarily reflective of the breed as a whole. The survey certainly doesn't begin to address whether the reported bites which are not perfect are genetic, environmental, or the result of old age!

A couple of reasons that it's not a sample which is reflective of the breed over all.

1) Sample size is way too small. If you figure the average gsp lives to age 11, 11 x 14,000=154,000 or more GSP's living in the CONUS at any given time.

2) This is a survey of members of the GSPCA. That means most of the respondents are active in the GSPCA and are "breeders". That means we're going to have a much higher percentage of people responding to this survey that do a lot of line breeding and tight line breeding which of course will skew the results considerably from what the overall breed average is since line breeding magnifies the occurance of both positive and negative traits.

For a poll or survey to be representative of a total population the sample pool must be reflective of the average. If I wanted to intentionally skew the results of a poll on the popularity of the war, all I'd have to do is poll only republican voters who consider themselves to be conservatives to get a very pro war answer; and on the flipside I could only poll people who consider themselves to be liberal democrates to get a result that showed the war was a miserable failure.

A poll or survey is only representative of the whole when it is demographically representative of the whole.

This survey is worthy of consideration for sure, but not something to trigger a fire alarm over or to make people start thinking that "bad bites are a big problem in GSP's" because they are not. CR

I may not care for people too much but I spend a lot of time looking at dogs when I go to trials. I look a lot of them in the eye and in the mouth while i'm petting them. I see no where close to a 1:10 ratio of bad bites. When I do see a bad bite it's rare enough that I take notice of it. CR

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

Those envious people who will only dream of owning a dog like Slick, Magnum, and others, need to go train, breed, and come out and run 'em, and stop posting their insults about great dogs. If you can't win, you talk crap. Few could beat Magnum or Slick on their worst day. Don't point fingers at great dogs, the likes of which, you will never dream of owning.

Don't get defensive about these great dogs, they deserve better. May Mag and Slick rest in peace.

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

Ayres, what's your deal, you got a litter of fine Vizslas to sell??

[ezzy333]

1) Sample size is way too small. If you figure the average gsp lives to age 11, 11 x 14,000=154,000 or more GSP's living in the CONUS at any given time.

2) This is a survey of members of the GSPCA. That means most of the respondents are active in the GSPCA and are "breeders". That means we're going to have a much higher percentage of people responding to this survey that do a lot of line breeding and tight line breeding which of course will skew the results considerably from what the overall breed average is since line breeding magnifies the occurance of both positive and negative traits.

You are searching for straws Charlie. The samples may not be perfect but way better than what you or I have when we base our opinion on dogs we have seen. When the breed organizations put out the info I will accept that there is a problem and am glad they are starting to be concerned. It can only help to upgrade the qualitry of the dogs being bred.

However, the numbers really aren't whats important but rather that there are dogs with severe faults that are being bred. I have seen it in Brits, GSP's, Pointers, and Labs and I am sure it exists in every other breed also.

Ezzy

[ezzy333]

Ayres, what's you deal, you got a litter of fine Vizslas to sell??

I would guess his deal is that he made a post that made a lot of sense about a subject he is interested in, the same as every other poster on here.

Did it quite nicely too it seems. He didn't even mention any other posters other than the post Charlie had just made.

Thats kind of the way we try to keep things informative and not personal.

Ezzy

[WildRose]

Ezzy I'm not grasping for anything. I'm a scientist by education and have actually taken courses like bio statistics where we study statistical methodology.

Note how we actually had some data to referr to and it's not even being referred to accurately. According to the GSPCA 9/625 responding members have "conderns" over bite issues. Of those responding only 6.25% report any bite issues. Of those about 2% are missing teeth, and lord knows missing teeth are caused by a whole lot of things that aren't genetic!

If even one dog in ten doesn't have a perfect bite is that something to be considered as a "problem" in ANY breed? But of those that don't have a perfect bite what percentage are genetic? Caused by injury? Caused by the dogs behavior? Certainly no one here is qualified to even hazard an accurate guess but it's ok to just bash "field trial dogs" and "national champions" in a blanket manner??? Come on!

All I'm doing is presenting the facts as I see them and the flipside of the argument. Obviously I think breeding dogs with a genetic bad bite is wrong and I won't do it.

I'd venture to say that less than 10% of dog owners even know what a perfect bite is, or how to rate their own dog's bite. I'd even venture to say that of those that can tell their dog doesn't have a perfect bite are clueless to whether it's genetic or environmental.

I'm not the one who started or pushed a thread along with the specific intention of slamming a very small group of the top performing dogs in the breed, or who lacked the decency to at least name the dogs and lines they consider to be "flawed". CR

[wannabe]

You know I won't go naming individual dogs of folks who don't participate here. It's not the dog's fault he has a bad bite and in many cases, it's not even the owners fault because many of them don't know what a bad bite is!

I agree with Dave. As much as some people would like to see it, I do not think we need to turn this thread into a "witch hunt".

If there are breeders who are going to continue to breed dogs with bad bites, then "let the buyer beware". After all, the majority of the puppy buyers wouldn't know a bad bite if they saw one, and by the time they realized what they had, they have already fallen in love with him.

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

Ayres said, "But, I digress. Attacking the source of information really does no good. What Dave's point has been this entire thread is that there is a problem in the GSP breed whereby some people are breeding and have bred serious faults (including but not limited to bad bites) with reckless disregard, simply because the bred animals posed some other desired trait. One thing that gets lost in the shuffle is that nobody has compared this problem in the GSP breed to other breeds. I'm sure you'll find that this is not a breed-specific problem. But you really can't deny that the problem exists, can you? Dave hasn't named names, and, Charlie, you've established that it hasn't been you. That doesn't make it disappear, though. "

ALL of that post is personal. The statement is based on no facts and no personal experience until Ayres gives us his resume in the GSP breed.

YES, we can deny the "problem" exists. It is NOT a widespread issue, but limited to a few lines and very few dogs.

If those who make blanket statements then name names, then we have a discussion.

[Ayres]

... The survey certainly doesn't begin to address whether the reported bites which are not perfect are genetic, environmental, or the result of old age!

That much I'll give you. Maybe we need more data or clarified results. And it ought to be pointed out that the survey results included such things as "tooth decay". But overall the Health Report shows most findings to be in "undershot jaw" (2.51%), "missing teeth" (1.68%), "parrot mouth" (.86%) and "wry mouth" (.34%)

A couple of reasons that it's not a sample which is reflective of the breed over all.

1) Sample size is way too small. If you figure the average gsp lives to age 11, 11 x 14,000=154,000 or more GSP's living in the CONUS at any given time.

And considering that the survey covered 3,272 total dogs, that's using roughly 2.125% of the total population as the representative sample. I don't know how you judge experiments, but that's a pretty good sized "representative sample".

2) This is a survey of members of the GSPCA. That means most of the respondents are active in the GSPCA and are "breeders". That means we're going to have a much higher percentage of people responding to this survey that do a lot of line breeding and tight line breeding which of course will skew the results considerably from what the overall breed average is since line breeding magnifies the occurance of both positive and negative traits.

If we're discussing a possible genetic problem that needs to be at least passively addressed, don't you think we'd want to know how prevalent it lies within the actual breeders? I don't know how you come up with the theory that the sample would be skewed to reflect people only doing loose and tight line breeding, but my response is "does it matter?!?" IF it's data reflective of only line breeding, then at least the people that do line breeding need to be informed. Again, it's valid data and much more scientifically gathered than singular anecdotal responses.

... A poll or survey is only representative of the whole when it is demographically representative of the whole.

I don't dispute that. But where is your factual information that the survey was actively skewed? I don't see it. Are you just assuming that it's skewed simply because it was a poll of GSPCA members? Even if so (and I don't agree that it is), then the obvious response would be that GSPCA members need to take a serious look at their breeding practices then.

This survey is worthy of consideration for sure, but not something to trigger a fire alarm over or to make people start thinking that "bad bites are a big problem in GSP's" because they are not.

Now here's where we get to the meat of the problem. Nobody has compared the rate of bad bites in GSPs to other breeds. Nobody has addressed whether or not that would even be a fair comparison. Certainly I agree that nobody can bash GSPs based on the bad bite research if it has not been compared and shown to be a higher rate than other breeds. And, even then, it's no reason to bash the breed. It is a only a reason to bash bad breeding practices which one must acknowledge that not every breeder takes part in.

[Ayres]

Ayres, what's you deal, you got a litter of fine Vizslas to sell??

Ezzy already gave the perfect response to this remark.

ALL of that post is personal. The statement is based on no facts and no personal experience until Ayres gives us his resume in the GSP breed.

I don't know where you get your definition of "personal". ALL of that post was a summary of what Dave has said and an acknowledgment that Dave said it. It was also an acknowledgment that it is not breed-specific.

As for my "resume", I honestly don't think it matters. I think that anyone who takes the time to educate themselves on an issue that they're interested in is capable of discussing that issue.

That said, I've spent the past three years hunting over and training GSPs and running them in hunt tests. I've also done breed research with regard to possible breedings and kept tabs as to health issues I've discovered both personally and through word-of-mouth. I've helped whelp several litters. I'm a card-carrying member of the GSPCA and I have at least one GSP, possibly two, on order from a Spring 2008 litter(s).

In short, I'm "in the market". So yes, this concerns me. This is an issue I'll undoubtedly follow, as I want as much information as I can possibly get when looking at breedings.

YES, we can deny the "problem" exists. It is NOT a widespread issue, but limited to a few lines and very few dogs.

That's an oxymoronic statement. Just because a problem isn't widespread, doesn't mean it's non-existent.

If those who make blanket statements then name names, then we have a discussion.

We can have a discussion without a witch hunt. If you take offense and assume that people are trying to offend you by talking about the problem, that's your problem. I'm left wondering, though, how anyone can be offended if their name is not named.

Again, Blake, like Charlie you've said that the problem hasn't been you. I haven't heard anyone come out and dispute that or blame you. Why get ruffed?

[lvrgsp]

Wow this post kinda rolled along. You know as owners of dogs trial, show or just "bleep" good hunting dogs ( I have seen many hunting dogs that were not trialed that should have been ), we as owners are reflecting our breeding practice and knowledge of our dogs on the progeny we leave behind. We control that not the dogs. If you are going to breed, educate yourself as much as you can, that's not to say anyone on here has not, just offering up that advice. As far as this post goes, LIKE A SLOW KID PLAYING BASEBALL.....I'M OUTTA HERE.........

CHIP

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

As I thought Ayres, you have little experience.

A problem is only a "problem" if it is big enough to be a major concern. Bad bites are uncommon, therefore not a problem to those who know the breed and the dogs of the breed.

Guess I'll ask you the same questions as have been posed earlier, are you on the GSPCA board, are you your club's nationals delegate, what are you doing to fix the problem you see as it exists?

I like how you word, you have dogs "on order". Another person who would never own a dog that I bred. Purely with that statement.

[WildRose]

Steve I get my feathers ruffled because the way in which particularly two of the posters on this thread have presented themselves would lead one to believe that there's a serious problem in the breed with serious genetic defects due to irresponsible breeding practices. The FACT is there is no such serious problem.

There are genetic problems in ever breed of dog we have today, some to a very minor degree as I belive is easily shown to be the case in the GSP's and some major in some of our other sporting breeds.

I think is grossly unfair to allow supposedly knowledgeable and informed people to randomly bash field trial dogs in general, and national champions in particular without naming the dogs and lines they see as having serious flaws or throwing gas on the discussion while hiding behind an anonymous internet login name.

As for the statitiscs... we'd only have a good representative sample if the sample were random. What we do have are some interesting figures but the only way to have a good representative sample of the breed would be to send the questionaire out to everyone that owns a GSP or to send it to a specific number of owners from each state relative to the number of GSP's in each state. Then you'd have a scientifically representative sample of the breed overall.

Even if we accepted that the numbers were reflective of the breed overall then we're talking less than 4% of the breed with less than perfect bites, that might be genetically related. Of that 4% we have no clue as to the severity of any bite issues, just that they are less than perfect.

To put that into perspective if we used only bites as the criteria for breeding then over 96% of the breed is worthy of being bred.... Is that such a big problem??? CR

[ezzy333]

Tru Blu,

I am sure the more you post the more people you are turning off. I am sure that of the 2 people who you are going to refuse to sell to because they said something you disagree with had already made up their minds not to ever buy from you.

The paragraph I just wrote is probably true but since it is personal rather than issue oriented it has no place on this board. The same can be said as to where this thread has gone. We no longer are talking about the problems that GSP's and every other breed has but rather who and why someone says there is a problem. Each and every one on here with an ounce of integrity knows there are continuing faults that all dogs have that need to be discussed and dealt with. Even us little folk and dog owners with other breeds know there are conformation problems with all dogs. And we can express our experiences and opinions just as well as the big people and breeders.

After reading this thread over the past 3 or 4 days it is becoming apparent that if anything is going to change or improve it or even be discussed rationally it will be the little people who get it done. When people have too much time and money invested in something they tend to defend the status quo and it becomes very difficult for most to discuss the past problems or the future remedies that might improve the dogs of the future.

Our dogs of all breeds deserve better.

Ezzy

[Rodger]

One only has to look at what happened to the once proud Vizsla breed to understand the why the GSP community has this level of concern for the issue.



Please folks get a grip. There has been this much hanging of the messenger going on since Caesar. I think everyone pretty much understood what a bad bite was 5 pages ago and that it shouldn't be bred to. If not....see above illustration of the last 3 Vizsla NFC's.

Rodger

[snips]

Wow, I can't believe the rant going on about dogs bites. I do not think it is a BIG problem in GSP's, but I think it is well worth watching, just as hip dys, and epilepsy. These are things I am seeing more of. It may be from people breeding to dogs that they believe will make them winners, or from the lack of knowledge or care the MANY backyard breeders are producing puppies or both. I have seen the biggest number of "backyard breeders" in the last 5 yrs than I have ever seen, and I think I started a thread as to the lack of hip checks being done, this has to go along with everthing else that is not being checked. BUT, they just want to know how much they can make on the litter. Pointing fingers is not the solution, but working together to eliminate these problems.

[Wa Chukar Hunter]

I went into my latest issue of VHD Magazine and looked at the test reports of GSP's, I thought it might be of interest.

Before I put up the numbers let me state - that I have no GSP's and I don't breed dogs in general. The reports consisted of 105 dogs of various lines - of dogs tested over various parts of the country over a 2 month period.

The results showed.

81 Normal Bites or nothing listed
5 Undershot
6 Butt Bites
11 With extra teeth, misaligned or missing teeth
2 Overshot

Granted it is a small sampling - but if you look at the percentages

77% have normal bites
2% Are overshot
10% Have extra teeth, misaligned teeth or missing teeth
6% Have a Butt Bite
5% Are undershot

FWIW

In the interest of being thorough - I also compared the numbers for a breed I do own - Small munsterlanders from the same magazine over the same period of time

Of the sample of 26 dogs

20 Normal Bite
1 Undershot
5 With extra teeth, misaligned teeth or missing teeth

This is an even smaller sampling but the percentages are interest

77% Have Normal Bites
4% Are Undershot
19% Have extra, misaligned, or missing teeth

[WildRose]

Ezzy in this case the status quo is worth defending. While there are a few dogs that have bad bites it's a miniscule number when you put it into perspective with the overall breed. Even the numbers from the GSPCA health survey clearly show that to be the case.

The "little people" are the one's that benefit from all the hard work careful breeders put into producing quality dogs.

Don't kid yourself. The "wannabe's" of this world and participating in this thread aren't doing anything to help anyone except maybe themselves.

I view a bad bite to be a disqualifying fault and one worthy of eliminating a dog from being bred. To some breeders a dog that is a half inch over standard is disqualified from breeding. To some, as long as "ole dan" suits them even if he's only got three legs and four teeth he's breedable because they like him!

If the intent of this thread is "awareness" then let's be honest and make people "aware" that there's just not any significant problem in the GSP breed with bad bites. They are rare, not rampant. CR

[AT2]

Not to be rude. But does it take 9 pages to make people aware?

[ezzy333]

It has been sometime now since any real info has been added to this thread so its probably time to just close it and move on. If someone has something more to add then lets start a new thread and keep it on the subject and not the people.

Ezzy