Re: [pyrnet] Sande & dwarfs

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/9/01 9:43:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
lmweisser@olywa.net writes:


> .  I brought his
> comments to light only as regards the discussion of the amount of crippling
> and disability found in dwarfs where Joe's belief contradict the evidence
> of the animals themselves and the reports of their owners


I only contradict some subjective and hearsay evidence and certainly not all 
of that.  There are many, (just as many?) subjective reports of marked or 
severe disability and deformity as these reports being promoted as some 
"fact" of the breed as a whole.  Why is it we can rely so completely on some 
subjective evidence and ignore completely all the other subjective evidence?  
Would it not be more even handed to state that "some" feel this way but on 
the other had there are these reports that say something quite different?  My 
information and point of view is primarily from the evidence as published and 
what people like Bob Brown and others with real credentials have written.  
All these have been quoted and previously referenced here and in the 
Bulletin.  

Reference us one account or study that checked for real problems and did a 
representative sample.  Real problems like Lux Patella, Hip Dysplasia, etc., 
(there are many things that should be screened for with such a drastic change 
in the phenotypical structure).  Does any of this information exist and if 
not, would it not be important to consider?  Especially since we have 
information that tells us one professional had seen some of these things 
previously and has it documented in the literature.  Again, why dismiss this 
evidence in preference to only that "someone said this" and someone else told 
us that their dogs were real healthy?  You do not have to scratch the surface 
very far to see that some of these "someone's" seem to have reported some 
very different viewpoints in information they gave to Pyr groups couple years 
ago.  All very subjective, but why leave out the previously reported 
subject!
ive information now and ask us to call the modified subjective 
information fact.  Which is fact the new information or the old reported 
information?  

When someone like myself sees such discrepancies we have to wonder what is 
going on and why the "reports" change.  Again, all subjective and hearsay, 
purely.  That is why the literature is important.  The literature is very 
clear both for Pyr and Mal that there is deformity in some dogs and even 
documents same with pictures.  

But isn't all this an academic discussion?  One of my great concerns is some 
people think that these reports are actually promoting the breeding of 
"lesser Pyrs."  They see Great Pyrenees and Lesser Pyrenees as a possibility 
and now we have DR Sande given public space actually telling us straight out 
there are financial rewards for doing same  Linda also told us as much a 
while ago when she reported that some people, whom she had very high faith in 
their views, worried about the developing of the marker as it would 
facilitate the identification of carriers in order to breed and harvest 
Lesser Pyrs.  Shouldn't we end this academic discussion and agree to disagree 
on this point in favor of the position, all together, arms locked, that we do 
not under any circumstances want to breed Lesser Pyrenees?  That would IMHO 
involve not giving this notion any space or credibility anywhere.  

Joe