For the GSP breeders ?

BigShooter · Post by **BigShooter** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:13 pm

I knew you didn't direct that at me and I'm glad you expained a bit more. Then I thought since I opened that can of worms again I better provide a bit more info.

Have a good day!

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:39 pm

The "LD tag" has not been applied by Dr. Casal or her researchers to any "line" of dogs or to any specific progenitor. Given the occasional "looseness" of registration paperwork before the existence of DNA, I frankly doubt that anyone can trace the LD gene back to specific dogs that existed several generations ago. The applying of the "LD tag" to Rusty lines, and to specific dogs in that line, and to other lines, has occurred here, on the Internet, by rumor and by people who do not know, are not, and never have been involved in any emperical research on the subject, but who wish to be viewed as authoritative.

In any event, there is now a clear way of insuring that one's dogs and the dogs one breeds to, do not carry the recessive for LD, and that is to have the dogs tested by Dr. Casal. It seems to me any responsible breeder of GSP's would want to do that, since LD has been found in GSP's throughout the world, in all kinds of lines and variations of the GSP, field trial, DK, show.

Hotpepper · Post by **Hotpepper** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:05 pm

I thingk she is still receiving samples for the testing. The previous from her has been free of charge.

Spot's daddy said it was well as it could be said.

Jerry

BigShooter · Post by **BigShooter** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:53 pm

Just to belabour a small point there is a marker test available that seems to be quite accurate for predicting affected, carrier and clear dogs. Researchers are still looking for the genetic mutation itself. While a marker test is the next best thing, a mutation test would be 100% accurate.

Dave Quindt · Post by **Dave Quindt** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:32 pm

John wrote:

The "LD tag" has not been applied by Dr. Casal or her researchers to any "line" of dogs or to any specific progenitor.

That's a very convenient half-truth. UPENN is not doing historical pathology research; they are not going to publish the name of any dog that's a carrier but are also not going to publish the name of ANY dog; affected-carrier, non-affected carrier, clear or unknown. I can give you the name of the dog I sent them with the disease and they will not confirm that they have the dog or that the dog was a carrier. They are very specific about how they answer questions, in great part due to the fear of lawsuits, but their answers are suited to the type of questioner. "Joe Schmo" off of the internet just interested in the disease gets a true answer from them, but it may very well not be all of the same info that a vet calling with a possible case or an owner with a confirmed case is going to get. And even then, those folks are not getting a complete, unvarnished description of everything that is known. I know for a fact that their recommendations to vets for treatment protocols and to breeders trying to deal with the disease are not all based on published, peer-reviewed work; that's an unrealistic standard when you are trying to save dogs' lives and help prevent future affected carriers from being produced.

The applying of the "LD tag" to Rusty lines, and to specific dogs in that line, and to other lines, has occurred here, on the Internet, by rumor and by people who do not know, are not, and never have been involved in any empirical research on the subject, but who wish to be viewed as authoritative.

So John, if a dog is a DNA-verified descendant of a sire and dam, and that dog develops LD what more empirical evidence do we need to determine that the sire and dam are LD carriers?

We all can have it one of two ways; either Rusty was a carrier of a gene that causes an extremely rare disease or the disease is in the breed at an exponentially higher rate than the researchers at UPENN and elsewhere believe. If the pedigrees were incorrect and Rusty was not behind these sick pups and known carriers, then we've got a breed full of carriers with no common recent ancestors. Rusty is the common thread in an OVERWHELMING percentage of the recent documented cases. If Rusty isn't a carrier, then we've got a breed full of carriers with no connection to Rusty. The problem with this claim is that we should then be seeing lots of sick pups with Rusty not in the pedigree, and there's no evidence of that. We don't even see this with Rusty on one side and another fountainhead carrier on the other; it's a powerful statement to the risks of inbreeding.

The idea that this is a disease that is common throughout the entire breed is misleading as well. This is a disease seen extremely infrequently in the breed as a whole but has been popping up pretty frequently in the FT lines as of late. The reverse is true with regards to cone degeneration disease in GSPs; extremely rare in the field lines but an issue in the show lines. It's due to the same reason as LD; a very influential dog who (unknown to anyone) just happened to a carrier. The gene for LD is a "part" of the GSP breed genetic make-up; how it got there we will never know. Without a marker test and every dog being tested, it's going to show up every once in a great while. But is should not show up in the predictable manner that it is today. This is not like EIC with Labs, where you have upwards of 40% of the breed being carriers; this is an exceptionally rare gene that usually causes a case of the disease when the offspring of a very specific dog are bred together.

Having a marker test is nice, but until we get a public database of results the impact of a marker test will be very limited. My suggestion to anyone looking to find a dog that's verified clear is to ask for the documentation, which is the best we can do until a public database with UPENN supplied data is offered. I would not take anyone's word for it.

BigShooter · Post by **BigShooter** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:22 pm

Geez,

I really didn't want to start another war of words. Here's the deal, as of now no one is going to publish a list of affected dogs or a list of possible past carriers. However, If we want to eliminate LD from the breed IMO we should be sending in DNA samples for testing before breeding. If the test is not free anymore at least UPenn has committed to use the money generated to fund additional research.

Troy08er · Post by **Troy08er** » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:57 pm

I see alot of you would go with the Dixieland Rusty breeding,what about Beier's Evolution. I don't see much info on this site about Beier's Evolution. I sure would like to get the pros and cons on the Beier's line. Thanks

ACooper · Post by **ACooper** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:34 am

Dave Quindt wrote:John wrote:
The "LD tag" has not been applied by Dr. Casal or her researchers to any "line" of dogs or to any specific progenitor.
That's a very convenient half-truth. UPENN is not doing historical pathology research; they are not going to publish the name of any dog that's a carrier but are also not going to publish the name of ANY dog; affected-carrier, non-affected carrier, clear or unknown. I can give you the name of the dog I sent them with the disease and they will not confirm that they have the dog or that the dog was a carrier. They are very specific about how they answer questions, in great part due to the fear of lawsuits, but their answers are suited to the type of questioner. "Joe Schmo" off of the internet just interested in the disease gets a true answer from them, but it may very well not be all of the same info that a vet calling with a possible case or an owner with a confirmed case is going to get. And even then, those folks are not getting a complete, unvarnished description of everything that is known. I know for a fact that their recommendations to vets for treatment protocols and to breeders trying to deal with the disease are not all based on published, peer-reviewed work; that's an unrealistic standard when you are trying to save dogs' lives and help prevent future affected carriers from being produced.

The applying of the "LD tag" to Rusty lines, and to specific dogs in that line, and to other lines, has occurred here, on the Internet, by rumor and by people who do not know, are not, and never have been involved in any empirical research on the subject, but who wish to be viewed as authoritative.

So John, if a dog is a DNA-verified descendant of a sire and dam, and that dog develops LD what more empirical evidence do we need to determine that the sire and dam are LD carriers?

We all can have it one of two ways; either Rusty was a carrier of a gene that causes an extremely rare disease or the disease is in the breed at an exponentially higher rate than the researchers at UPENN and elsewhere believe. If the pedigrees were incorrect and Rusty was not behind these sick pups and known carriers, then we've got a breed full of carriers with no common recent ancestors. Rusty is the common thread in an OVERWHELMING percentage of the recent documented cases. If Rusty isn't a carrier, then we've got a breed full of carriers with no connection to Rusty. The problem with this claim is that we should then be seeing lots of sick pups with Rusty not in the pedigree, and there's no evidence of that. We don't even see this with Rusty on one side and another fountainhead carrier on the other; it's a powerful statement to the risks of inbreeding.

The idea that this is a disease that is common throughout the entire breed is misleading as well. This is a disease seen extremely infrequently in the breed as a whole but has been popping up pretty frequently in the FT lines as of late. The reverse is true with regards to cone degeneration disease in GSPs; extremely rare in the field lines but an issue in the show lines. It's due to the same reason as LD; a very influential dog who (unknown to anyone) just happened to a carrier. The gene for LD is a "part" of the GSP breed genetic make-up; how it got there we will never know. Without a marker test and every dog being tested, it's going to show up every once in a great while. But is should not show up in the predictable manner that it is today. This is not like EIC with Labs, where you have upwards of 40% of the breed being carriers; this is an exceptionally rare gene that usually causes a case of the disease when the offspring of a very specific dog are bred together.

Having a marker test is nice, but until we get a public database of results the impact of a marker test will be very limited. My suggestion to anyone looking to find a dog that's verified clear is to ask for the documentation, which is the best we can do until a public database with UPENN supplied data is offered. I would not take anyone's word for it.

This is the kind of information that NEEDS to be discussed and talked about, people need to be able to make informed decisions, and EVERY DOG that is going to bred needs to be tested using the marker test that is currently available, it may not be prefect but it is the best that is currently available. People shouldn't be so afraid to talk about it, this is a problem that can be eradicated from the breed if everyone will do their part.

gspdog · Post by **gspdog** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:21 pm

You are 100% right about getting the test before breeding. This could eliminate this horrible disease. I had a dog with LD and it is a terrible thing to go though.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:23 pm

That's a very convenient half-truth.

Your statement is flatly untrue and highly offensive.

This is the kind of information that NEEDS to be discussed and talked about

You are right. However, when it comes to identifying specific dogs or lines of dogs that are affected, I would prefer to have the published results of empirical researchers rather than the "opinions" of putative Internet experts. That kind of "discussion" is not productive.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:43 pm

The honest and ethical approach is simple. If the dog is a carrier, it must not be bred. So, plunk down your $75, get the dog tested, get the information and act accordingly.

To help matters along, I will also create and maintain a listing of dogs that have tested clear. Show me the test results, get on the list.

gspdog · Post by **gspdog** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:07 am

If I'm not mistaken I think it is ok to breed a carrier as long as it is not breeding another carrier. I think alot of the reason they are saying that is to not scare people away from testing their dog and the fear of losing some of the best trial dogs for breeding.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:56 am

What do you mean "it is ok" to breed a carrier? The disease won't manifest, because it is a simple recessive.

I dispute, however, that it is "ok". That comes down to someone's ethics. I, personally, wouldn't do it. I also would not purchase a pup that was a carrier.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:15 am

Here's small Q&A to Dr. Jerold Bell.

GDC EXCHANGE: What is your concern about breeders focusing on the elimination of a single defective gene?

Dr. Jerold Bell: If we are selecting against one gene out of the estimated 100,000 genes in the canine genome without considering what desirable genes we may also be selecting against, we are doing a disservice to the breed. If breeders eliminate most of the carriers of a particular defective gene they can be eliminating entire families along with their desirable genes.

When tests for carriers exist, we advise breeding carrier individuals to non-carrier individuals in many cases so that we don't lose the good genes in that breeding program. But then the next critical step is replacing carrier parents with normal testing offspring. We need to select against carrier offspring, and to select individuals whom we know are not carrying the gene and have the positive characteristics we want to preserve in the breed.

A major problem is that it is almost never just one trait you are selecting for or against. There may be a couple of other genetic disorders you want to control--maybe hip dysplasia, or a problem in certain families in the breed with epilepsy. And that is just the negative selection pressure you want to apply.

You also need to put positive pressure on traits like conformation, behavior, personality, or performance characteristics like hunting or coursing. The more things that you want to select for, the smaller the group that you are selecting among becomes. And eliminating the families of carriers entirely can profoundly reduce genetic diversity in your breed.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:28 am

But then the next critical step is replacing carrier parents with normal testing offspring. We need to select against carrier offspring, and to select individuals whom we know are not carrying the gene and have the positive characteristics we want to preserve in the breed.

Three things:

1. Lupoid is very rare.
2. The nature of LD is very extreme. We're not talking about a bite being off here.
3. The GSP gene pool is both wide and deep. That is, there are a great many superlative dogs from very diverse genetic stock. That is one of the great strengths of the GSP breed. We don't have to use dogs that are carriers. Not even close.

So, in context here, fighting lupoid in the GSP is just about as simple as something like this ever is. At the root, it comes down to people setting their egos aside.

Breeding or buying. Get the information. Do the right thing.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:14 pm

Greg,

People having dogs from various breeds can learn from discussions. From an outsiders perspective, I think I'll agree that the genepool in GSP's is wide and deep. But that is not the case for other breeds. I simply posted an opinion, from a pretty well respected DVM, that there is a path through the mess of a genetic disorder.

But the greater point remains. Breeder or buyer...get the info.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:49 pm

My "don't breed a carrier" post that you replied to with the DVM's quote was strictly in the context of lupoid dermatosis. My information is that it is GSP-specific (see http://www.gspca.org/Health/lupoid-dermatosis.html ). Thus, my comments about the GSP gene pool.

In the general case, I certainly concur with Dr. Bell's statement.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:19 am

I want to respectfully disagree with Greg's comments about not ever breeding a carrier. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not making these statements because my dogs have the gene, they don't, or because "alot of field trial dogs have the gene" which is also untrue. I have field trial friends who have bred directly and frequently to dogs that have been "fingered" on these pages, and who have never seen the disease in their dogs or in pups out of litters they have bred. That said, because of DNA there is a responsible way for a responsible breeder to breed to carriers without putting any carriers or affected dogs into the gene pool.

Assuming Dr. Casal is correct, that this disease is caused by a simple recessive, statistically, 50% of the pups out of a litter where one parent is a "carrier" and where that parent is bred to a non-carrier, will be carriers. None will be "affected" dogs, that is, dogs that have the disease. A responsible breeder could then have tests performed on all the pups, and know which were carriers and which were not. The carriers could be neutered before being sold or placed with homes. They would not have LD, but one would not want to take the risk that they could transfer the gene to future generations by leaving them in a breedable condition. The pups that are identified as not being carriers could be bred without risk of transferring the gene.

One would probably want to communicate directly with Dr. Casal about the reliability of the present test, and of her conclusions about the nature of this issue (simple recessive).

I say all this because it is my understanding that there are breeders who were involved in and supported Dr. Casal's work, primarily because their dogs were affected or carriers and they did not want to pass on the disease. I am pretty sure they have had the conversations with Dr. Casal. Dr. Casal's work offers them a way to continue to breed their dogs in a responsible way, and I would not want to condemn them for having done the right thing by stepping forward and looking for a cause and a way of eliminating the disease.

JKP · Post by **JKP** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:48 am

The GSP gene pool is both wide and deep. That is, there are a great many superlative dogs from very diverse genetic stock. That is one of the great strengths of the GSP breed. We don't have to use dogs that are carriers. Not even close.

BINGO!!! .. and that is the crux of the matter. So often folks convince themselves to breed carriers or compromised dogs based on emotional reasons and not on intellectual content. The GSP is fortunate...huge performance genepool. However, I would not shout down a breeder that breeds an otherwise excellent dog even though it may carry an undesirable trait....especially if pups can be genetically evaluated. We will all be doing a lot more of that in the future....there are undesirable recessives hidden in all our dogs....we're all cooking with water.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:12 am

Well, John, if someone wants to screen every pup in the litter as you mention, I'd certainly be OK with doing the carrier breeding pre-supposing there is some way to guarantee that the carrier pups were not bred. People being people, I'm just dubious about the last part. Hard to neuter those pups before they go to homes.

JKP · Post by **JKP** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:09 pm

Well, John, if someone wants to screen every pup in the litter as you mention, I'd certainly be OK with doing the carrier breeding pre-supposing there is some way to guarantee that the carrier pups were not bred. People being people, I'm just dubious about the last part. Hard to neuter those pups before they go to homes.

And Greg, I agree with you...and for the GSP it may not be necessary. It would be better to have the discussion out in the open rather than force folks to go into hiding. This is where the (8???) registries in North America need to unify the breeding restricted policy or we put down pups, hold them and neuter them, wait for trusted hands, etc. The issue really becomes problematic when we start talking about breeds that are less populated. To drop all thyroid affected/carriers from the GWP ranks would be a major step...with only 1200 pups/year and only a part of that from performance kennels, this could be become prohibitively restrictive especially when we start trying to weed out other undesirable traits. Could put the Griffon, Vizla, Weim, etc, etc in a real bind when we start to outlaw a bunch of recessives.

With more knowledge of canine genetics, our job as breeders will be to manage the best we can and pick our poison....and be open with one another about what we are doing.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:15 pm

Agreed and why I'm *only* talking about lupoid dermatosis...and that, just to clarify, is limited to GSPs.

EDIT: Just to be 100% correct I'll modify what I said about "must not be bred" to "steps must be taken to 100% insure that the gene is not allowed to continue". Anyway people choose to accomplish that would be peachy keen in my book.

DGFavor · Post by **DGFavor** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:29 pm

Troy08er wrote:I see alot of you would go with the Dixieland Rusty breeding,what about Beier's Evolution. I don't see much info on this site about Beier's Evolution. I sure would like to get the pros and cons on the Beier's line. Thanks

Iiiiii like 'em!! Pretty well regarded in my parts for their inherent bird finding and all day "go get 'um". I'm not a good trainer but my trainer is and I think he'd say they don't break out as well as say his line of dogs or the "Rusty" dogs - they like to get birds in their mouths and can take some patience and convincing that standing put while a bird exits is a reasonable idea!!

Generally I'd say they are a nice, compact size, great feet, a great chukar dog size...some you can hang from your rear view mirror. And they still look like GSP's too!!

These two go back to BE 3x:

One of the things I notice in the "Rusty" lines or "BE" lines is how much the dogs of today still carry the physical traits or appearance of those two sires - you can still generally just look at 'em and say that's a "Rusty" dog, that's a "BE" dog...so the question is are the other more important bird dawg traits also as strongly passed from generation to generation as the physical traits. I don't know...maybe I make much ado about nothing!

NWCORNER · Post by **NWCORNER** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:47 pm

I apologize if this is a stupid question but how many (a few, some, most) breeders are aware if the dogs they are breeding carry this gene? I will be in the market for my second pup in the next year and LD is something I had only heard of briefly before this discussion. Is it something that I should require knowing about parents of my future pup before buying?

Sorry, I'm fairly new to the game, am a huge fan of GSP's but after seeing those pics and reading what dogs go through with LD it makes me a little nervous.

Oh... I'm 99% certain where I want my next pup from, would I be "out of line" asking about LD?

Jake

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:13 pm

Jake,

You are NEVER out of line asking about the health of a breeding. If someone is offended by the question, move on to a breeder that is not.

I put together a list of written questions when I went to visit Rick and Brenda about the, then, pup in my signature below. They might have looked at me a little funny when I whipped out my list and pencil and jotted down answers, but, hey, I get that a lot. It's the engineer thing.

Crestonegsp · Post by **Crestonegsp** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:47 pm

In looking at breeding or not breeding a carrier you must breed two carriers in order to have the LD present itself in the pups, breeding one one carrier to a non carrier will not result in LD presenting itself. The responsible breeder would only have to have the parents tested and not breed two carriers. I have dogs from these lines and would not change anything about them LD or not.

Troy08er · Post by **Troy08er** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:45 pm

DGFavor wrote:
Troy08er wrote:I see alot of you would go with the Dixieland Rusty breeding,what about Beier's Evolution. I don't see much info on this site about Beier's Evolution. I sure would like to get the pros and cons on the Beier's line. Thanks
Iiiiii like 'em!! Pretty well regarded in my parts for their inherent bird finding and all day "go get 'um". I'm not a good trainer but my trainer is and I think he'd say they don't break out as well as say his line of dogs or the "Rusty" dogs - they like to get birds in their mouths and can take some patience and convincing that standing put while a bird exits is a reasonable idea!! Generally I'd say they are a nice, compact size, great feet, a great chukar dog size...some you can hang from your rear view mirror. And they still look like GSP's too!!

These two go back to BE 3x:

One of the things I notice in the "Rusty" lines or "BE" lines is how much the dogs of today still carry the physical traits or appearance of those two sires - you can still generally just look at 'em and say that's a "Rusty" dog, that's a "BE" dog...so the question is are the other more important bird dawg traits also as strongly passed from generation to generation as the physical traits. I don't know...maybe I make much ado about nothing!

Great looking GSP. Some of the great greif dogs.
http://thegreifcorps.blogspot.com/2007/ ... -bier.html

My GSP is linebred off Neo from the above link.He also did great finding the gray ghost.My friends call him Mt.Goat I would like to find a B.E. linebred female. Thanks Troy

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:32 pm

Crestonegsp wrote:In looking at breeding or not breeding a carrier you must breed two carriers in order to have the LD present itself in the pups, breeding one one carrier to a non carrier will not result in LD presenting itself. The responsible breeder would only have to have the parents tested and not breed two carriers. .

Everyone is entitled to do was they will with their own dogs, but I would not consider knowingly perpetuating a lethal (and truly miserable) genetic disease to be a responsible breeding practice.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:17 pm

Crestonegsp wrote:In looking at breeding or not breeding a carrier you must breed two carriers in order to have the LD present itself in the pups, breeding one one carrier to a non carrier will not result in LD presenting itself. The responsible breeder would only have to have the parents tested and not breed two carriers. I have dogs from these lines and would not change anything about them LD or not.

The thing is you will always have carriers as long as you breed them and if you have a carrier you have automatically just eliminated the possibility of breeding to the dogs you would like to breed to. better to get rid of it now and not just keep it going with more and more dogs affected. Problems of this kind never get easier as numbers increase.

Ezzy

ACooper · Post by **ACooper** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:33 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
Crestonegsp wrote:In looking at breeding or not breeding a carrier you must breed two carriers in order to have the LD present itself in the pups, breeding one one carrier to a non carrier will not result in LD presenting itself. The responsible breeder would only have to have the parents tested and not breed two carriers. I have dogs from these lines and would not change anything about them LD or not.
The thing is you will always have carriers as long as you breed them and if you have a carrier you have automatically just eliminated the possibility of breeding to the dogs you would like to breed to. better to get rid of it now and not just keep it going with more and more dogs affected. Problems of this kind never get easier as numbers increase.

Ezzy

Agreed 100%. No GSP is worth perpetuating health issues of this nature.

Crestonegsp · Post by **Crestonegsp** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:34 pm

Greg Jennings wrote:
Crestonegsp wrote:In looking at breeding or not breeding a carrier you must breed two carriers in order to have the LD present itself in the pups, breeding one one carrier to a non carrier will not result in LD presenting itself. The responsible breeder would only have to have the parents tested and not breed two carriers. .
Everyone is entitled to do was they will with their own dogs, but I would not consider knowingly perpetuating a lethal (and truly miserable) genetic disease to be a responsible breeding practice.

Greg,
To breed a carrier of LD is not a good idea and I agree with you on that, I was pointing out that in an effort to understand how it works and that both parents must be carriers.

The biggest part of this that bothers me is people have put out a dogs name and said that they were the cause and the only way to know is to test that dog that has been dead for years. Since that will never happen we can only move forward and try to keep it from continuing and not put blame on unfounded opions but on facts.

GSP breeders should be thankful we don't have as many health issues as some other breeds and have pleanty of great health dogs to breed to.

DGFavor · Post by **DGFavor** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:09 pm

Some of the great greif dogs.
http://thegreifcorps.blogspot.com/2007/ ... -bier.html

Holy cow, found one of my own hounds in there! Freaky!

I would like to find a B.E. linebred female.

Richardson's, http://www.prairiewindgsps.com/, have a pretty good BE collection going crossed on Rockin' Rollin' Billy lines. My buddy, Sharptailhunter, just got a pup out of Spek and Ella and she's a real burner sticking birds like a veteran. Trying to get him to give her to me to hunt and compete with but so far not working.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:39 am

ACooper wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:
Crestonegsp wrote:In looking at breeding or not breeding a carrier you must breed two carriers in order to have the LD present itself in the pups, breeding one one carrier to a non carrier will not result in LD presenting itself. The responsible breeder would only have to have the parents tested and not breed two carriers. I have dogs from these lines and would not change anything about them LD or not.
The thing is you will always have carriers as long as you breed them and if you have a carrier you have automatically just eliminated the possibility of breeding to the dogs you would like to breed to. better to get rid of it now and not just keep it going with more and more dogs affected. Problems of this kind never get easier as numbers increase.

Ezzy
Agreed 100%. No GSP is worth perpetuating health issues of this nature.

Fortunately, while it's a serious disease, it's a small problem overall. We all know that people have thrown around certain "lines". That is, in my mind, far too broad a brush. Hence my recommendation of makking use of the existing information and testing.

GrayDawg · Post by **GrayDawg** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:47 am

Wow........ I'm kind of sorry that I inquired into whether it would even be possible to get a pup that was linebred back
to FC Leightons Ace Mona . But to get the sub-thread of this thread back on course, let's just say that I'd be very
interested in finding a breeding that was linebred back to NFC DC LEIPCHEN BUDDENDORF.............
who or where would you all point me to?

A name of a breeder/owner would be great. A kennel name? An owner of one of NFC DC LEIPCHEN BUDDENDORF's daughters?
Any port in a storm- I'll take any help that any of you can dispense as to where I might find such a pup.

Thanks,

Rob

TAK · Post by **TAK** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:27 pm

Troy08er wrote:
My GSP is linebred off Neo from the above link.He also did great finding the gray ghost.My friends call him Mt.Goat I would like to find a B.E. linebred female. Thanks Troy

Look no more... Almost in your back yard!
CC Kennels
http://www.cypresscreekgsps.net/index.html
New litter
http://www.cypresscreekgsps.net/pedigre ... DIGREE.pdf

This is the dog I have from them....
TAK's Beer Thirty

sh0rthair · Post by **sh0rthair** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:29 pm

Troy08er wrote:If you had to start you breeding program all over, and you couldn't use any of the lines that you use or own today, what lines would you use? Thanks, Troy

I would use FC Mac The Knife or FC Windyhills Prince James.

Jeff

Dave Quindt · Post by **Dave Quindt** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:33 pm

Crestonegsp wrote:
The biggest part of this that bothers me is people have put out a dogs name and said that they were the cause and the only way to know is to test that dog that has been dead for years. Since that will never happen we can only move forward and try to keep it from continuing and not put blame on unfounded opinions but on facts.

Dan,

Having owned a dog with the disease, I've read just about everything there is about LD and spent dozens upon dozens of hours talking and emailing with the leading researchers of this disease. I have yet to see anyone say, and I have never said, that we know who the CAUSE of the disease is. We don't know and will never know; LD appears to be as old as the breed. Naming carriers has NOTHING to do with labeling dogs as the "cause" or assigning "blame"; it's not the dog's fault he's a carrier. But let's be honest about what's gone on in the breed, and in our particular segment of the breed. Dogs who threw sick pups continued to be bred. Breeders with known or probable carriers refused to participate in studies looking for a genetic marker. The claim "how can they say it's genetic when they can't find the gene" and "how can it be the sire and the dam's fault that a sick pup was produced when neither of them were sick" were used over and over. And pups that were going to die an early, ugly death were produced. It's not the dogs' fault; it's due to the ignorance, the arrogance and the greed of their owners.

You mention the word "facts" which can be a very tricky word, as there is no consensus for what is and what isn't a fact. Folks here have thrown out the word "empirical" as the only standard as to what is and what is not a fact. The problem is when we take standards from the laboratory and apply them to the real world; especially in an historical setting. My back ground is in history; get a group of subject matter expert historians together discussing certain events and they can come to conclusions about what they consider "fact" without 100% empirical evidence because of overwhelming anecdotal and statistical evidence. If something has a 99.99% probability of being true, do we say it can't ever be considered "fact" if we can't determine the last .01%? We convict people and send them to be executed not based on an empirical standard, but a preponderance of the evidence.

Here's an example from within the dog world. There are FT Labs that the Lab folks are certain were not sired by a specific legendary sire within the breed, even though the pedigree says he was the sire. They've come to that conclusion because that sire is the sire of record for hundreds upon hundreds of pups but never sired a chocolate colored pup until very late in his life, even though he was often bred to females who carried the needed recessive genes to produce chocolate pups. As a result, they've concluded that at some point that sire stopped producing pups and was replaced by another male, as there is no reasonable explanation as to why a sire would all of a sudden start throwing a recessive gene late in his life that he never threw before. Now, one can argue that maybe that sire never actually sired ANY pups until late in his life, and that another dog was used for all those years and no one ever caught on. Or, one can argue that maybe some bizarre gene mutation occurred. Both of those are theoretically possible answers, but so remote in their possibilities that they can be easily dismissed. If DNA is the only standard, then you'll never believe that the dog in question was not the sire of certain pups. But a professional historian writing a history of the breed would say "the presence of chocolate colored pups shows that he was not the sire of those particular pups" and that "fact" would sail through peer review. So determining what is and isn't a "fact" isn't defined by one single standard applied in all cases.

You also accuse folks of having “unfounded opinions”; when you look at the pedigrees of sick dogs which I assume you have, can you find an inheritance pattern that excludes Rusty? Have you talked to Katie Tazza about what pedigree patterns she has seen, or about how she stumbled into producing sick pups and what the pedigree analysis showed in her case?

What are you basing your opinions on?

And contrary to the abundant PMs and emails I get about this, I'm no "Rusty hater"; I replaced my sick pup with another dog that's got linebred Rusty on both sides and I have no concern that he'd get sick or be a carrier. We know FAR more about this disease and where it exists than most want to admit.

FWIW,
Dave

Troy08er · Post by **Troy08er** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:11 pm

Thanks TAK, How's TAK's Beer Thirty doing?

TAK wrote:
Troy08er wrote:
My GSP is linebred off Neo from the above link.He also did great finding the gray ghost.My friends call him Mt.Goat I would like to find a B.E. linebred female. Thanks Troy
Look no more... Almost in your back yard!
CC Kennels
http://www.cypresscreekgsps.net/index.html
New litter
http://www.cypresscreekgsps.net/pedigre ... DIGREE.pdf

This is the dog I have from them....
TAK's Beer Thirty

TAK · Post by **TAK** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:33 am

Troy08er wrote:Thanks TAK, How's TAK's Beer Thirty doing?

Sly the Goof ball! He's going to be a good dog! He is somewhat slower maturing dog, and shows a lot of pup in him just being over two now. But he also shows a very serious side when birds are involved! He seems to have a super nice nose, and his retrieve is something to be desired! He likes to run around with the bird as a prize. But no presure has been put on him thus far for it. His only really weak point to me is he could be a little more independant, and that will come with more time and maturity.
My buddy took a litter mate from this litter also. They are about twins but his seems just a tad bit more independant.

Mearns Hunt in AZ

Crestonegsp · Post by **Crestonegsp** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:20 pm

Dave,

I have dogs based on Rusty lines and some of his decedents that are very tightly line breed and so I talked with a friend who has been breeding those lines for over 20 years. He said he has breed a Rusty son to his daughters, grand daughters and had one client breed a Rusty son to a Rusty daughter and has never experienced LD. Is he just lucky of did he never have that perfect combination? While I agree it is a big problem I am not ready to say this one dog is the cause of all the problems, who’s to say it is not from Mosegaards Ib or Brown L? I have not seen anyone drag their names through the mud and since they are behind Rusty why are they not the guilty dogs? Is I that there is an agenda?

We do not know who was and was not a carrier and what combination of dogs started it. This is why I can not understand how one dog or his son can be blamed for this problem.

I will test my dogs to be sure they are not carries and if they are than I won’t breed them. We have few genetic issues in the GSP breed and we need to do what we can to keep them form continuing.

I am sorry I did not make it to Eureka in time to hear Katti talk about LD, I sure it was informative.

wems2371 · Post by **wems2371** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:56 am

Troy08er wrote:I would like to find a B.E. linebred female. Thanks Troy

Not sure if this fits the bill, but this litter was just posted...
http://www.gundogforum.com/forum/viewto ... 58&t=24053

Troy08er · Post by **Troy08er** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:40 pm

Thanks wems

wems2371 wrote:
Troy08er wrote:I would like to find a B.E. linebred female. Thanks Troy
Not sure if this fits the bill, but this litter was just posted...
http://www.gundogforum.com/forum/viewto ... 58&t=24053

hi-tailyn · Post by **hi-tailyn** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:47 pm

sh0rthair wrote:
Troy08er wrote:If you had to start you breeding program all over, and you couldn't use any of the lines that you use or own today, what lines would you use? Thanks, Troy
I would use FC Mac The Knife or FC Windyhills Prince James.

Jeff

I have heard over the years, from several very well known breeders of FT GSP dogs that they look for links to Windyhills Prince James in a dogs pedigree.

Looking at Jame's pedigree is nothing real special. If looking at dogs now days with as few titled dogs. Most breeders wouldn't look twice at such a sire. But he has produced many great dogs that also have produced.

Was his greatness seen in his performances?

How did breeders know that he was special.

There are no field trial titles in 4 generations in his pedigree.

Was he a total fluke, or what?

I appreciate what he has produced. Just curious how. Surely he wasn't just lucky enough to be bred to great females.

I'm always learning and hope to gain some insight from this.

Scott

Troy08er · Post by **Troy08er** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:50 pm

Thanks everyone for your help. I just put a deposit on Larry Lowells Bean & Goonie litter.Goonie is out of Neo bred to a linebred Biers Evolution bitch. Goonie is a really nice daughter of Neos, that should produce some nice pups.I bought my Gator from Larry and coudn't be happier. When I called Larry and found out about this breeding, I was all over it.My Gator is linebred off his Neo and I was looking to add some Biers nad keep the Rockin Rollin Billy. I really like that Rockin Rollin Billy lines. Here's a pic of Goonie http://www.lowellsgundogs.com/goonie.jpg

Neo http://www.lowellsgundogs.com/pb/wp_b1c ... 050f6.html