Re: [pyrnet] GPCA -- and dwarfs

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/11/00 8:02:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kshoffman@aol.com writes:

<<  I'm having a difficult time reconciling what you 
 are presenting with what I have heard in several discussions with people who 
 live with these dogs and what I have seen with my own eyes.  I would be most 
 interested in reviewing this evidence. >>

Yes, Kelly a lot of misinformation out there.  Patric  posted a Literature 
search on September 28.  Go and review that and you will see some scientific 
evidence of radiographical abnormalities in the vertebrae.   I will quote 
just a short portion from only one, having to do with Pyrs directly:

"Radiographic abnormalities in chondrodysplastic Great Pyrenees are 
restricted to the metaphyses of long bones and vertebrae."

DR Padgett classifies it as follows:

Severe Traits

          Disorders that disfigure, maim or otherwise render an animal 
nonfunctional (i.e. cataracts, retinal dysplasia and
     detachment, chondrodystrophy). 

There are others references.  If we rely on our information from antidotal 
information we will leave ourselves open to very possibly dealing with 
rumors, interpretations, spin, lies, mistakes, and the whole spectrum of 
misleading information.  Even science has difficulty getting agreement many 
times.  Does it surprise you that you do not hear a lot about the culled dogs 
from a litter?

<< I don't recall 
mention in the GPCA dwarf health survey results of any spinal deformities. >>

I agree totally.  They were absent in the main.  Did the survey follow 
guidelines for scientific study?  The survey was antidotal.  Nothing wrong 
with that as long as we understand what that means.  It does not mean that it 
represents any degree of  accuracy from science standards.  It was 
interesting.  The scientific literature refutes the results of same, as the 
survey did not find some the problems that science has documented.  

Lets look at this differently.  Lets suppose we accept Dwarfs as some cute 
harmless aberration of our dogs.  And yes people are getting rich breading 
them, which is how this thread started anyway, i.e. the use of the marker 
study to identify Dwarf carriers thereby enabling those who breed them to 
succeed better.  My remark that wait until they get the deformed dogs, with 
the response, said then and repeated many times, "What deformities."  Now 
that we have identified the "deformities" we are now at a point that "oh, its 
not so much."  So lets tell everyone how much is OK to tolerate in the 
"Maimed and disfigured" dogs (not my words but DR Padgett's).  1% seems to be 
within the tolerance level of some from prior posts.  So some of you tell us 
what percentage is tolerable as we go forward with these cute little dogs 
being bred that are really a lot like Corgis, Bassetts, etc. 

Joe