John F Richardson wrote:
But it behooves
those who preach solemnly against
irresponsible breeding to prove that
they are in fact not doing the same.
I've been waiting many years for
such proof and not only haven't
seen it, but have actually had to
lower my estimation of many
self-avowed "responsible" breeders
over the past few years.

Well since there's no set-in-stone definition of responsible breeding,
it would depend on your criteria. If your criteria is impossible, then
no one could meet it. For example, if your criteria is that responsible
breeders must always produce dogs who never die of any type of inherited
disease, it's just not going to happen. It's an impossible goal. A
responsible breeder does two things. First, he or she works hard to
identify and reduce the incidence of genetic disease in the dogs they
breed, always with a view to work toward producing dogs with good
phenotypic health that live a long time. Second, they are absolutely
open and honest about any and all types, ages, and causes of death. On
the genetic disease front, that's about all any good beeder can do.
Because they aren't going to be able to totally eliminate genetic
disease until DNA markers are found for every single one, and even then,
care must be taken to not eliminate other important breed traits, like
mental and structural soundness.

Meanwhile, Padgett's has access to
exactly what percentage of
veterinary records?

Dr. George Padgett is a person, not an entity. I don't have his book in
front of me at the moment, but his data was the result of studying
thousands of dogs over a large number of years--he's probably the
foremost researcher into canine genetic disease in the world.


And how
many vets have access to
the pedigrees of the dogs they
treat? (And how many breeders
even bother to take their plotzing
kennel stock to the vet in the
first place?)

"Plotzing?" Deliberately using derogative inflammatory terms does not
enhance your argument, it makes you soundlike a radical with an agenda,
thus leading people to dismiss you as unreasonable. Vets don't
necessarily have access to the pedigrees of the dogs they treat, but
their breeders do. And there are enough good breeders out there that it
*is* making a difference. For instance, there are now almost 1,000 dogs
enrolled in the Doberman Pinscher Club's database of dogs who live past
10. The average age of death for male dobes is 9, for bitches it's 9.5.
So by establishing a database of dogs who live past the norm (many live
to 12+, a respectful age for any larger breed dog), we give breeders a
tool to find lines where the dogs are living long, healthy lives.

YOu might also want to look at this article on the OFA website:

http://www.offa.org/advocatespring2003.pdf

This is a study done comparing the incidence of hip dysplasia in
purebred dogs versus mixed breed dogs. There turned out to be NO
significant difference in the incidence of HD between purebreds and
mixed breeds.

Robin Nuttall said in rec.pets.dogs.breeds:

Dr. George Padgett is a person, not an entity. I don't have
his book in front of me at the moment, but his data was the
result of studying thousands of dogs over a large number of
years--he's probably the foremost researcher into canine
genetic disease in the world.

And has identified, or helped identify, the modes of inheritance
of 32 genetic diseases. I've just been going through his book
again, my latest interest being heart disease.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.