|
Not only do these dogs run with their heads towards
the ground the back away from people they know
Marie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 5:13
AM
Subject: Re: [pyrnet] Eye problems
In a message dated
12/18/00 11:06:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lmweisser@olywa.net writes:
If by checking you found information that led you to know that
the problem
did not exist *only* in your dogs, it would truly be helpful
to the breed
if that information could be shared by the owners/breeders
with the GPCA
health survey and the GDC open registry. This is the
same point i have
made over and over with the dwarf issue (indeed
any genetic "problem") If
the information is not shared where it
will be useful to the breed as a
whole, it can only be regarded as a
form of "rumor".
All this information has
previously been shared. I gleaned it from Vets
specialists who
reported to me they had found it in pyrs for several years.
I agree
if by rumors you mean that misleading or incorrect information is not
in
the best interests of the breed. You suggest we ignore rumors form eye
specialists or just because I am reporting it you would only consider it a
rumor?
<<Having it called "familial" says *nothing* about it
being "only" in your
dogs. What calling it familial means is that it
is most likely hereditary
at some level. It could occur familially
in any number of kennels or
groups of dogs. Possibly even unrelated
to each other.>>
I think you well know better than this, but
just in case here is the
definition.
"Main Entry:
fa·mil·ial
Pronunciation: f&-'mil-y&l, -'mi-lE-&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Latin
familia
Date: circa 1900
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, I don't know who "the powers
that be" are but the health committee
(as in JoAnn or myself) did not talk
to you personally about the cataract
issue when it first arose, and
certainly neither of us told you that it did
not exist. 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.>>
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?
<<Yes, but be very aware that, for breeding dogs at
least, eye exams and
certification are a yearly event. Especially
for those conditions in which
we are seeing late onset.>>
If
that's the case then thats the case. 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.
I will repeat what I have been told by at least 3
vet opthomogolists, PPM is
not thought to be a problem at this time and
CERF will certify there eyes.
This should be a clue that it at least
now is not felt to be a problem, just
an anomolity. It was not felt
to be a problem in the one dog we own they
found it in. BTW, this
dog was clear, but is a carrier of late onset
cataracts. These are
things we should look at closely going forward.
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?
Joe
|