Re: [pyrnet] Eye problems

["Linda Weisser" <lmweisser@olywa.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <JGentzel@aol.com>

All this information has previously been shared.>>

Shared is fine, but shared with whom and in what venue?  Shared in anyway
in which it could be useful to the breed or retrievable by anyone at any
point in the future?  Shared in a open registry?  Shared with the GPCA
health survey?  If this kind of information is not shared openly in a
retrievable form it verges on being "useless" in a broad sense.  It is not
enough that we know that such conditions exist if we do not know where they
exist and in what numbers.  In this sense what Marie and Janice are doing
is a model for what can be done.  I hope that their info is also lodged in
a permanent database.

<<You suggest we ignore rumors form eye
specialists or just because I am reporting it you would only consider it a
rumor?>>

No, what I mean is that we give these eye specialist names and we give the
reports numbers and perhaps we assemble them into a single unified
"report".  But, bottom line is that unless the owners/breeders of these
dogs are willing to share names and numbers it is only a general report and
it is in that sense that I use the word "rumor" which is probably not a
dictionary accurate use of the word.

<<I think you well know better than this, but just in case here is the
definition.

1 : tending to occur in more members of a family than expected by chance
alone <a familial disorder>
2 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a family "    >>

Well, thanks for the definition but that defintion does not say that
"familial" means only in *your* family which is what you were saying or
implying in an earlier post.  In short, it's probably not just you, but the
condition is still familial.

<<You and I had severel emails about this and you told me there was no
data.  Are you saying that you had information that you did not share with
me?>>

Absolutely not, I am saying exactly what I said in the snip of my post that
you quoted. "What you may have been told was that we had no cases reported
to the committee nor to the survey. This does *not* constitute non
existence."  I certainly don't read that to mean that I had information
that I did not share.  Indeed, it means the exact opposite.

<<In my opinion I would test at about
1 to 1 1/2 years old initially or sooner should I suspect anything
beforehand.  Then I would test about 3 years and then about 5 years.  Past
that I would use my own judgement and recommendations of the specialists.
>>

In breeds where eye conditions are a problem almost all those recommend
and/or "require" that eye exams be done yearly.  CERF and GDC certs for
eyes are only good for one year.  This is because experience shows that eye
conditions can arise fairly 'suddenly" and at some advanced ages.  One
tries to prevent the breeding of affected dogs and the sooner you know they
are affected, the better.  When you publish such a clearance in some breeds
it has to be accomanied by a date of certification.

<<PPM is
not thought to be a problem at this time and CERF will certify there eyes.
>>

GDC cleared all of our PPM dogs, even Cody, I believe.  However there are
breeds in which PPM dogs will not clear.  I'm not sure how CERF or GDC
makes that decision and/or how seriously affected the dogs and breed have
to be.  PPM Basenjis will not cert.

<<Are you recommending either personally or as a member of the health
committee
that we breed dogs with multifocal retinopathy and that we not check for
it,
which I guess would mean we do not check eyes. If it does not affect the
vision, why do dogs run with their heads close to the ground?>>

Neither I, nor the committee makes or has made any recomendations about
what you or anyone else breeds.  Nor who checks for what at this point.  We
try to inform and educate.  the information on MR has appeared in the
Bulletin as has information on many different eye problems.  As has
information on heart problems.  You may do and make of that what you wish.
My personal view is that I would be a lot more frightened by Sub aeortic
stenosis than I would by cataracts or even PRA but nobody yet has made a
blanket recommendation for cardiac exams.  IF (and a BIG IF) the breeders
of these affected dogs would be up front and honest about it, we might be
able to identify those dogs and/or lines where such cardiac or eye exams
were crucial.

MR was not identified in any of the 50+ dogs checked at Sacramento.  And as
for running with their heads close to the ground, we are all just going to
have to accept a difference of opinion and standard here.  Those are
reports of individuals.  The medical evaluation and reports do not speak of
such things.  What I and Darrell are saying to some extent is that we would
prefer to have controlled study reports that show visual impairment in
these dogs.  Such studies and reports exist for all other eye anomalies but
not for MR at this point.

Linda