Gundog Training Forum

Yep that seems to sum it up perfectly, that's the problem with this. I would still take a championship winner and deal with the all the crap he's had because at the end of the day he's still bloody done it and fair play to him. I have a lot of time for rich he's a good guy.

Bouncing off each other on here helps nobody. The problem is genetic, there is a test for it, the test is accurate but only if the guidelines are followed and nobody is cheating whether through false papers or false samples. Until proven otherwise we have to assume that everyone is honest otherwise we may as well all give up right now.

I don't think anyone questioned the validity of the results - they asked if the results of the third pup are known and explained how the tests can be contaminated. The original statement of a "carriers producing clears" was rather shady - two clear and an unknown quantity from two carriers isn't something to sing from the tree tops about. It's just probability and luck.

Shady? In what way?

If you don't think the fact two potentially affected pups have tested clear is something to "sing from the treetops" I don't know what is. The pups will never suffer from AMS or pass it on. I'd call that good news!

I do see where both sides of the debate have a point, it still saddens me though that on a matter such as this, there comes across more of a stubborn polarisation rather than a concen'sus of moving forward. We may think that because science has cracked the human genome, we know everything about genetics, but this is far from the truth.
I agree some may have been treated unfairly by those knowing half truths or less, but lets face it sad as it is , in the world of dog breeding too many look for reasons to breed rather than not to, often with long term consequences for the individual dogs and/or breed involved. With this in mind I would be very careful about `singing from the tree tops' about `affected parents producing clear pups'. Those that breed responsibly will take such things in context, but those that don't will use it as an excuse.
Like it or not we are in a numbers game, and breeders or working gundogs ( with balanced breeding of ability, conformation and temperament ) are already in a minority compared to other breeders. We need to manage our stock with as much background knowledge as we can find and be a genuine `responsible breeder' not just one with a paper certificate that says so. But the flip side is that we need to fight at every corner in a way that does not fuel the excuses of those that will use it to undermine the work that we are doing.
We live in an era of sound bites, I ask that you use them carefully so they don't end up as an epitaph

A championship winner has produced 2 clear pups that can go on to pass on all his genes for generations to come rather than loose it all because he is a carrier. That is 100% the best out come you can ask for end of.

munstyman wrote:I do see where both sides of the debate have a point, it still saddens me though that on a matter such as this, there comes across more of a stubborn polarisation rather than a concen'sus of moving forward. We may think that because science has cracked the human genome, we know everything about genetics, but this is far from the truth.
I agree some may have been treated unfairly by those knowing half truths or less, but lets face it sad as it is , in the world of dog breeding too many look for reasons to breed rather than not to, often with long term consequences for the individual dogs and/or breed involved. With this in mind I would be very careful about `singing from the tree tops' about `affected parents producing clear pups'. Those that breed responsibly will take such things in context, but those that don't will use it as an excuse.
Like it or not we are in a numbers game, and breeders or working gundogs ( with balanced breeding of ability, conformation and temperament ) are already in a minority compared to other breeders. We need to manage our stock with as much background knowledge as we can find and be a genuine `responsible breeder' not just one with a paper certificate that says so. But the flip side is that we need to fight at every corner in a way that does not fuel the excuses of those that will use it to undermine the work that we are doing.
We live in an era of sound bites, I ask that you use them carefully so they don't end up as an epitaph

Well said!

munstyman wrote:I do see where both sides of the debate have a point, it still saddens me though that on a matter such as this, there comes across more of a stubborn polarisation rather than a concen'sus of moving forward. We may think that because science has cracked the human genome, we know everything about genetics, but this is far from the truth.
I agree some may have been treated unfairly by those knowing half truths or less, but lets face it sad as it is , in the world of dog breeding too many look for reasons to breed rather than not to, often with long term consequences for the individual dogs and/or breed involved. With this in mind I would be very careful about `singing from the tree tops' about `affected parents producing clear pups'. Those that breed responsibly will take such things in context, but those that don't will use it as an excuse.
Like it or not we are in a numbers game, and breeders or working gundogs ( with balanced breeding of ability, conformation and temperament ) are already in a minority compared to other breeders. We need to manage our stock with as much background knowledge as we can find and be a genuine `responsible breeder' not just one with a paper certificate that says so. But the flip side is that we need to fight at every corner in a way that does not fuel the excuses of those that will use it to undermine the work that we are doing.
We live in an era of sound bites, I ask that you use them carefully so they don't end up as an epitaph

Brilliant. Well said

munstyman wrote:I do see where both sides of the debate have a point, it still saddens me though that on a matter such as this, there comes across more of a stubborn polarisation rather than a concen'sus of moving forward. We may think that because science has cracked the human genome, we know everything about genetics, but this is far from the truth.
I agree some may have been treated unfairly by those knowing half truths or less, but lets face it sad as it is , in the world of dog breeding too many look for reasons to breed rather than not to, often with long term consequences for the individual dogs and/or breed involved. With this in mind I would be very careful about `singing from the tree tops' about `affected parents producing clear pups'. Those that breed responsibly will take such things in context, but those that don't will use it as an excuse.
Like it or not we are in a numbers game, and breeders or working gundogs ( with balanced breeding of ability, conformation and temperament ) are already in a minority compared to other breeders. We need to manage our stock with as much background knowledge as we can find and be a genuine `responsible breeder' not just one with a paper certificate that says so. But the flip side is that we need to fight at every corner in a way that does not fuel the excuses of those that will use it to undermine the work that we are doing.
We live in an era of sound bites, I ask that you use them carefully so they don't end up as an epitaph

I am not sure there is such a "stubborn polarisation" as you put it. Especially in the recent pages the consensus seems to be that testing is a good or even essential thing. I also don't think people were " singing form the tree tops" about affected parents producing clear pups. It was actually two carrier parents that produced them anyway. I read it as people putting that information on for interest. The only sad thing about this recent thread is that a guy who has had an unreal amount of hassle goes way beyond what he needs to do (I will not go into details to save his embarrassment) and finally gets a break by getting two tests back clear. He is certainly not singing from the rooftops about it I can assure you. The next thing that happens is a fairly undisguised dig about if the samples had been contaminated or not. As has been said before the way people are dealt with often determines the way they behave in the future and it is a shame some posters still do not seem to understand that.

jeffiner wrote:Yes it was about the result. What is the status of the third pup? If you know 2 results you (or whoever posted them) must know the third and given all the discussion earlier on percentages etc the answer could be helpful - though I doubt given all the arguments that it would actually prove anything to most of you.
As far as cross contamination - it is in the instructions but could be a close thing if you don't know about the 1 hour comment. I wasn't casting aspersions but trying to highlight the possible problems of testing young pups to those who have yet to test anything for any condition.

In answer to the question regarding the third pup. This is with a different owner who I am informed does not intend to test. He is very happy with his pup and should the worst case scenario present itself he will manage the situation as it arises.

I guess the next 12 months will tell us one way or another.