Re: [pyrnet] GPCA -- and dwarfs

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/13/00 11:19:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kshoffman@aol.com writes:

<< 
 A. Cataracts is a VERY BROAD catchall category, and the majority of the 
 cataracts that are identified in many breeds NEVER cause blindness, and some 
 (many) don't even cause vision impairment until old age if at all.  That's 
 not to say we should breed affected dogs, not AT ALL; it's an argument 
 against his broad assessment of what is maiming, disfiguring, or 
 nonfunctional. >>

What type cataracts are your referencing.  There are several and each is 
quiet different?

<<They are often culled 
because there is a perception by some that this condition is something far 
more grave than it is with regard to quality of life issues, and there is 
also the desire to hide the condition because of the unwarranted stigma 
associated with it. >>

Is this anything more than pure speculation?

<< Are you saying you think they were all lying?  Why would 
they do that?..

You know that I am not.  I know there are dogs with a degree of deformity 
that is not identified in this survey.  Simple as that.  That's what happens 
in surveys like this.   

<<Why does the word "cute" always have to get thrown into this point in 
context?  >>

Because it has been used to describe these Dwarfs earlier.

<<Joe, once again, the majority of them are STERILE and can't be bred. >>

That's correct, so if you will read what was said, we were talking about 
carrier identification as a tool for producing the Dwarfs.

<<Tell me Joe, which of any of those conditions do you 
honestly feel is less concerning and less of a threat to the breed than 
dwarfism?>>

I cannot as I do not want to see any of them, and I am not going to make the 
concessions that I can accept any of them.  If you want to talk about Dwarfs 
lets keep it there.  If you want to start a new thread, like linebreeding VS 
outcrossing or something else, start it up.  There may be some interest.

<<Probably somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $150-200.>>

Great I will gladly pay.  When do you think it will be available?

<<, and they shove 
the puppies out the door at 4-6 wks of age to save more money, and you think 
they are going to shell out $150-200 a pop on a bunch of breeding stock >>

I am sorry Kelly but you must have come in on this late, because that was 
what started this thread.  I called it a Red Herring and I still call it 
that.  

<< Are you 100% 
absolutely clear and positive as to what meaning those words have in the big 
picture? >>

What is this, another "What the meaning of is, is"?  I know the words and 
Webster defines them.  They are not foreign to me.  So yes, used the way they 
are I know what is being said.

<<No one has suggested breeding two known 
carriers together to get dwarfs by design. So what do you mean by "go forward 
with these cute little dogs"?>>

Again, we are told there may be those out there that want to use the marker 
as a tool to breed the carriers so they can get Dwarfs to sell.  It has been 
offered to us as a possible valid reason not to develop the marker test

<<Are you saying we 
should make a unilateral recommendation to do that?  What exactly ARE you 
saying and/or accusing folks (seemingly folks like me) of?>>

You have totally taken this into the ionosphere.  Who has even implied 
anything about you at all?  You jumped into this without apparently not 
knowing what was previously said and why it was said.  You have made sweeping 
generalizations and come to some bizarre conclusions that you think is 
related to you personally.  You can relax, this has nothing to do with you.  

Joe