Re: [pyrnet] GPCA --ILP

[Kshoffman@aol.com]

In a message dated 09/30/2000 11:04:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
bamb@monmouth.com writes:

> Why not just say dogs displaying chrondroplaysia (SP?) are not
>  eligible for Hall of Fame? At least this would not exclude and
>  alienate a whole other group entirely.

I'm not interested in engaging in a nonproductive debate that will accomplish 
nothing more than arousing folks strong feelings and emotions either way on 
this topic, and perhaps leave some with hard feelings towards others. 
Nevertheless, I do have a few serious questions that I wouldn't mind hearing 
some honest, objective, rational, well thought out answers to:

Why pick and choose only ONE genetic defect to discriminate against in the 
eligibility for top club awards?  Is it simply because the effects of this 
particular genetic defect happen to be visible to the naked eye, easy for all 
to see?  Is that the primary reason?

If the idea is to discourage recognition of individuals afflicted with 
genetic defects we don't want to perpetuate in the breed, hence presumably in 
this manner discouraging the so-called "promotion" of specimens that are 
genetically defective in an effort to avoid presenting a negative image of 
the breed to the general public, then why don't we require certifications on 
hips, elbows, shoulders, knees, hocks, eyes, ears, heart, thyroid, etc., to 
ensure phenotypic normality of any and all GPCA Hall of Fame or top awards 
candidates?

I don't understand why we should single out one genetic defect and not others 
as undeserving of top club honors/awards, apparently simply because this one 
happens to be visible and obvious and it can't be corrected, altered, or 
hidden from view.  It is clearly (to me) not the most serious genetic defect 
that occurs in the breed, so why single it out as undeserving of recognition 
even in the performance department? (It's a given it can't/won't be 
recognized in the conformation department, so that shouldn't be of concern to 
anyone.)

What about a dog that displays a less then stellar Pyrenean temperament? 
Should we also insist that GPCA HOF and top award candidates have at least a 
CGC, a TT, and one other performance or working title after their name to be 
eligible for such awards, in addition to all the other genetic health 
clearances mentioned above?

Are genetic defects somehow automatically a more concerning threat to the 
breed when/if they alter the external morphology of the ideal specimen, but 
not when/if they alter the internal works and function?

Retreating back to my crate. <vbg>

Kelley Hoffman
kshoffman@aol.com