Melinda Shore wrote:
In article 1KlRe.8731$fP.218@trndny08,
Janet Puistonen wrote:
That's what I said.

You said that they don't have those problems, which isn't
true. What is true is that they're less likely to have
those problems.

Oh, I misunderstood your caveat. I thought you were referring to the
"pertaining to all breeds" part. Reviewing my original post, you're correct:
I wasn't clear. What I *meant* originally in refuting the OP was that well
bred goldens are not particularly prone to "behavioral and health problems,"
or whatever term she used, not that they never have them. And that that
holds true for well-bred examples of any breed.

In fact, agreeing with what you say above, it is my observation/belief that
well-bred dogs of any breed are *less* likely to have health and behavioral
problems than the dog population at large, although like Shelly I don't have
hard evidence to back it up.

One of the problems in discussions like this, of course, is always in
defining what is "well-bred" ...

In article DkmRe.8455$wE1.164@trndny01,
Janet Puistonen wrote:
In fact, agreeing with what you say above, it is my observation/belief that
well-bred dogs of any breed are *less* likely to have health and behavioral
problems than the dog population at large, although like Shelly I don't have
hard evidence to back it up.

This doesn't go directly do that, but Siberian Husky
breeders have been successful at reducing the incidence of
hip dysplasia to the point where it's now relatively
uncommon, although I think eye problems have remained fairly
steady.

Anyway, I expect there are all sorts of caveats and "it
depends" in there. A breed in which hip problems are rife
will probably tend to have them be more common than among
the average dog, even when carefully bred. Unfortunately
it's hard to figure this stuff out from the OFFA database,
since there's a sampling issue there (the dogs registered
with OFFA aren't a random sample of the entire dog
population).
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Number of articles touting the "Bush Boom" on nationalreview.com: 44
Change in median income in the US, 2001-2004: -$673.00

Melinda Shore wrote:

This doesn't go directly do that, but Siberian Husky
breeders have been successful at reducing the incidence of
hip dysplasia to the point where it's now relatively
uncommon, although I think eye problems have remained fairly
steady.

Sibes have an extremely small incidence of HD.

Anyway, I expect there are all sorts of caveats and "it
depends" in there. A breed in which hip problems are rife
will probably tend to have them be more common than among
the average dog, even when carefully bred. Unfortunately
it's hard to figure this stuff out from the OFFA database,
since there's a sampling issue there (the dogs registered
with OFFA aren't a random sample of the entire dog
population).

Right. So St Bernards and Bulldogs are just going to have worse hips
than Sibes or most of the sighthounds. In fact, one reason why the OFA
compares dogs to others of its breed is that what is Excellent in one
breed is not Excellent in another.

And there's a very good article on the OFA website about a study done
using a random population of dogs and comparisons to the OFA.

http://www.offa.org/advocatespring2003.pdf, originally published in
Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound.

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article DkmRe.8455$wE1.164@trndny01,
Janet Puistonen wrote:
In fact, agreeing with what you say above, it is my
observation/belief that well-bred dogs of any breed are *less*
likely to have health and behavioral problems than the dog
population at large, although like Shelly I don't have hard evidence
to back it up.

This doesn't go directly do that, but Siberian Husky
breeders have been successful at reducing the incidence of
hip dysplasia to the point where it's now relatively
uncommon, although I think eye problems have remained fairly
steady.

Anyway, I expect there are all sorts of caveats and "it
depends" in there. A breed in which hip problems are rife
will probably tend to have them be more common than among
the average dog, even when carefully bred. Unfortunately
it's hard to figure this stuff out from the OFFA database,
since there's a sampling issue there (the dogs registered
with OFFA aren't a random sample of the entire dog
population).

I seem to recall a few years ago that people said that GSD breeders had
succeeded in lowering the rate of CHD in their breed to a level that put
them something like 37th on the list, rather than in the top few.

Of course, there is the issue of increased diagnosis and reporting in other
breeds, too.

Janet Puistonen wrote:
carola wrote:

I have discovered - sorry to anyone who is involved - that Goldens
have serious health and behavioural problems.


*Well-bred* goldens do NOT have such problems. As is the case with most
breeds.


Actually that's another blanket statement that, I'm afraid, you have to
take with a grain of salt. Well bred Goldens SHOULDN'T have those
problems, but they too often do, and it depends, largely, on what you
call well bred. But there are many top show breeders (and field
breeders) who care more about looks or performance than livability, and
who are also quite willing to ignore some rather major problems in their
chase for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Certainly ethical breeders are honest about problems in the breed and
actively breed away from those. But it's just ludicrous to think that
even the best breeders don't sometimes end up with some real problems,
in all breeds and certainly in Goldens! And unfortunately there's a
marked downward trend in temperaments in the breed due at least in part
to their popularity.

Robin Nuttall wrote:
Janet Puistonen wrote:
carola wrote:

I have discovered - sorry to anyone who is involved - that Goldens
have serious health and behavioural problems.


*Well-bred* goldens do NOT have such problems. As is the case with
most breeds.


Actually that's another blanket statement that, I'm afraid, you have
to take with a grain of salt. Well bred Goldens SHOULDN'T have those
problems, but they too often do, and it depends, largely, on what you
call well bred. But there are many top show breeders (and field
breeders) who care more about looks or performance than livability,
and who are also quite willing to ignore some rather major problems
in their chase for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Certainly ethical breeders are honest about problems in the breed and
actively breed away from those. But it's just ludicrous to think that
even the best breeders don't sometimes end up with some real problems,
in all breeds and certainly in Goldens! And unfortunately there's a
marked downward trend in temperaments in the breed due at least in
part to their popularity.

Well, I've already clarified that what I meant to say was that well-bred
goldens don't have more of those problems than the average dog, which is
what I think the OP was suggesting. I didn't mean to say that well-bred
goldens *never* have problems. Of course they do. All dog populations have
"problems."

As you say, it depends on how you define "well-bred." I don't consider a dog
whose owners have deliberately bred an animal with significant temperament
or physical problems "well-bred." I only know a few golden breeders
personally, but they do include some who are very successful, having owned
and bred a number of well-known, multi-titled dogs. And they would never do
that. Their dogs are tempermentally and physically sound, and live as both
family pets and performance dogs. Many of them earn conformation, obedience,
*and* field titles.

I'm curious about this marked downward trend in temperament that you
mention. What evidence do you see of it?