Credible Cockers!

[Dawnrazor]

So how do you explain the consistently results?

They're not consistent - that's the point. I've now been shown results for three dogs which are not consistent privately. I'm really not sure why you don't seem to understand those of us in the field want to HELP the cause not hinder it? There's no point going with "evidence" which is of no use!

You could do with winding your neck in a wee bit, I asked a simple question, there seem to people who'd disagree with you, what makes you think I'd not wa t to help? Your opinion is not the only one out there.

[Miesque]

So how do you explain the consistently results?

They're not consistent - that's the point. I've now been shown results for three dogs which are not consistent privately. I'm really not sure why you don't seem to understand those of us in the field want to HELP the cause not hinder it? There's no point going with "evidence" which is of no use!

You could do with winding your neck in a wee bit, I asked a simple question, there seem to people who'd disagree with you, what makes you think I'd not wa t to help? Your opinion is not the only one out there.

Not a single geneticist has disagreed with me. If you don't believe the experts that's your prerogative. Those who disagree don't fully understand the science - several of us have tried to explain in layman's terms but it seems some don't want to listen.

[Dawnrazor]

Not a single geneticist has disagreed with me. If you don't believe the experts that's your prerogative. Those who disagree don't fully understand the science - several of us have tried to explain in layman's terms but it seems some don't want to listen.

There you go again, try and keep it civil, this arrogant sanctimonious attitude of yours is not helping, I've never once disagreed with "experts" just asked a question about the consistent results that some, you clearly disagree, have reported back on, you may have not seen them but there's more than three!!

[Miesque]

Not a single geneticist has disagreed with me. If you don't believe the experts that's your prerogative. Those who disagree don't fully understand the science - several of us have tried to explain in layman's terms but it seems some don't want to listen.

There you go again, try and keep it civil, this arrogant sanctimonious attitude of yours is not helping, I've never once disagreed with "experts" just asked a question about the consistent results that some, you clearly disagree, have reported back on, you may have not seen them but there's more than three!!

Maybe written tone is hard to convey - I find yours to be argumentative and obstructive but I assume that's not how you mean it be. You find my writing to be uncivil, that's not how I mean it be. I'm just stating the facts and trying to point out how it is possible to sort the whole mess out definitely once and for all - hardly uncivil!

[Dawnrazor]

Maybe written tone is hard to convey - I find yours to be argumentative and obstructive but I assume that's not how you mean it be. You find my writing to be uncivil, that's not how I mean it be. I'm just stating the facts and trying to point out how it is possible to sort the whole mess out definitely once and for all - hardly uncivil!

"argumentative and obstructive" I've asked a couple of questions that you, despite your obvious knowledge on the subject, have failed to answer property, you clearly haven't been very far if you think that's "argumentative and obstructive '!!!
You do not have the monopoly on wanting to sort this mess out, you do not have the monopoly information on what's been done by who and when, this holier than thou attitude of yours does seem to come across pretty strong. If you have the answers on how to sort this mess out once and for all, well.........what was I saying about arrogance?!!
Tell us, in layman's terms, we've not all got letters after our names, how the many wisdom tests, not three!!, CONSISTENTLY come back as sprockers from the lines in question?, you may say they are not, you've seen three.
There may be a perfectly good reason that I'm not aware and am keen to hear it, but you do seem to be in the minority in dismissing wisdoms work, again, maybe with good reason.
Then tell us how you would sort the whole mess out once and for all, now, you may be questioned on you reply, if you are, no one, I'm sure, is being "argumentative or obstructive" just trying to figure out what's wheat and what's chaff, I've been to hundreds of meeting over the years with various "scientific" types and am well aware of how they do not like being questioned by the proletariat so I'll keep this in mind.

[Judy]

For goodness sake! The Wisdom Test cannot be entirely accurate because the two breeds in question have net been clearly separated for long enough - for a sufficient number of generations - to provide a clear, obvious, separation. Quite apart from the fact that Cockers have had more than one injection of Springer blood in the recent past (before the current fracas) even if its never been proven.

The small print in the Wisdom Test states that the results will not be admissible in a Court of Law - they can only be used as a general guide.

[Contender]

Maybe written tone is hard to convey - I find yours to be argumentative and obstructive but I assume that's not how you mean it be. You find my writing to be uncivil, that's not how I mean it be. I'm just stating the facts and trying to point out how it is possible to sort the whole mess out definitely once and for all - hardly uncivil!

There may be a perfectly good reason that I'm not aware and am keen to hear it, but you do seem to be in the minority in dismissing wisdoms work, again, maybe with good reason.
Then tell us how you would sort the whole mess out once and for all, now, you may be questioned on you reply, if you are, no one, I'm sure, is being "argumentative or obstructive" just trying to figure out what's wheat and what's chaff, I've been to hundreds of meeting over the years with various "scientific" types and am well aware of how they do not like being questioned by the proletariat so I'll keep this in mind.

Well, I don't trust the wisdom DNA test either, especially since the company themselves are very keen to point it out themselves It may very well be that in the future, it will improve. This DNA test has simply been grabbed by some as a way to kind of prove what had been the worst kept secret: the deliberate crossing (by a few individuals) between cockers & spaniels where the off spring was registered as purebred cockers - an attempt to get it out in the open. Bottom line is that it's falsification of registration and pedigree and hasn't only happened with cockers. There are many ways to cheat with registration and the only way to stop it (you asked for a way to sort the mess out), is to DNA profile all breeding stock to make sure that the puppies registered are in fact from that litter, by that stud dog, out of that bitch, with a pedigree that matches up. It would have to be a 'clean slate' principle. The DNA profile test is as accurate as any DNA test can be and the ISAG2006 standard is widely accepted in other countries, too.

Natasha

[Naj]

Apparently The KC issued a statement to the Telegraph (?) that there was no definitive and recognised breed test and therefore no proof of malpractice, just as Miesque and other geneticists have been pointing out, and if people believe they have been duped then they should take it up as a private matter with the breeder. So it doesn't matter if we put our faith in Wisdom or think it proves this, that or the other. If we go to the KC waving Wisdom tests at them we're going to get laughed out of the room. The only logical course of action is routine parentage testing, just as the geneticist like Miesque gave been recommending.

Naj

[Miesque]

Maybe written tone is hard to convey - I find yours to be argumentative and obstructive but I assume that's not how you mean it be. You find my writing to be uncivil, that's not how I mean it be. I'm just stating the facts and trying to point out how it is possible to sort the whole mess out definitely once and for all - hardly uncivil!

"argumentative and obstructive" I've asked a couple of questions that you, despite your obvious knowledge on the subject, have failed to answer property, you clearly haven't been very far if you think that's "argumentative and obstructive '!!!
You do not have the monopoly on wanting to sort this mess out, you do not have the monopoly information on what's been done by who and when, this holier than thou attitude of yours does seem to come across pretty strong. If you have the answers on how to sort this mess out once and for all, well.........what was I saying about arrogance?!!
Tell us, in layman's terms, we've not all got letters after our names, how the many wisdom tests, not three!!, CONSISTENTLY come back as sprockers from the lines in question?, you may say they are not, you've seen three.

Wisdom panel cannot distinguish well between recently created/divided breeds. Such as Cockers and Springers. This is in the fine print for the test. So the results are not accurate.

There may be a perfectly good reason that I'm not aware and am keen to hear it, but you do seem to be in the minority in dismissing wisdoms work, again, maybe with good reason.

Lack of understanding of the science behind the tests. It's hard for someone to disbelieve a test which gives them the results they want. What myself and many others have tried to explain is that the results are inaccurate and there's a better test to use - easily accessible and not expensive (in fact it's cheaper than the wisdom panel I believe) which gives definitive results.

Then tell us how you would sort the whole mess out once and for all, now, you may be questioned on you reply, if you are, no one, I'm sure, is being "argumentative or obstructive" just trying to figure out what's wheat and what's chaff, I've been to hundreds of meeting over the years with various "scientific" types and am well aware of how they do not like being questioned by the proletariat so I'll keep this in mind.

I've said it again and again on various threads. The only way to sort it out is to use DNA profiling of litters/siblings to ensure the parentage is correct, exactly as Contender has mentioned. It's the only accurate way to do it - it entails matching the DNA of a pup that of a parent(s) and is almost infallible. Sgurr mentioned there is a move to doing just this guided by a geneticist which is wonderful news.

[Sgurr]

Let me put it this way with an analogy:
In 2015 I was diagnosed with endometrial cancer. First off were the physical symptoms, then my GP referred me to a gynaecologist and among other examinations I had an ultrasound scan which confirmed the problem. The surgeon, however, wanted a CAT scan to give more detail on precisely where the cancer was as he was going to do keyhole surgery.
So, first of all the appearance and hunting style of certain cocker lines gained attention - physical characteristics. Then the Wisdom breed test was used and that has indicated that there is a problem but the Wisdon test has various limitations, just like the ultrasound, it does not give enough detail and there is room for error, which is why Wisdom say it is not for legal purposes. DNA profiling to ISAG 2006 is like the CAT scan, it gives all the information needed to identify an individual dog but it does not indicate breed. It can however be used to validate parentage. If a set of dogs with the same nominal sire are DNA Profiled, there will be some markers specific to that sire which his progeny will carry. Even if you don't have the DNA Profile of the sire, by comparing the DNA Profiles of his pups you can say, yes so many are by a common sire but some are not as they do not have the same markers as the rest. Thus while you don't get information on breed, you get information on parentage which will can be used to validate pedigree. There are issues with the Wisdom test that the laboratory highlights because it knows about them. If you take the Wisdom data you can use it to indicate a trend - certain lines seem to be heavier on Sprockers than others - but we also have the problem of possibly (probably) falsifed pedigrees to muddy the water. If enough people are willing to DNA profile their dogs, and a geneticist works with the profiles produced, then much of this mess can be sorted. And more importantly, in future, pedigrees can be validated for individual dogs. I don't have cockers so I don't have an axe to grind. I'm just concerned that so much trust and integrity seems to have been lost and we need to work together to restore it - with or without the KC.
Hope that helps but I'm keeping my head below the parapet for the rest of this evening!