Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by shelby geisler on August 14, 2009 at 9:50pm

Yes my boy was 13 when I became aware and he was still a vibrant dog. I did not wish to portray a sad story simply to give insight of what happens behind the scenes. Surely some have seen pictures of dogs as well as dogs on carts living happy lives but there's a behind closed doors which exists as well.

I too have lost a young dog (different breed) he was 7. Lost him on my 16th birthday relatively sudden. DM is different I've heard it characterized as "THE LONG GOODBYE".

In visiting one of the cart mfgrs web site recently THEY mention "most carts are going to corgi's. That statement in itself should be alarming as DM is apparently becoming more prevalent within the breed. True all at risk dogs don't develop DM but having walked in my shoes, is it worth the chance. I know several who have walked away from the breed.

The test isn't costly, 10 years or over is free. Younger dogs, breeding stock get a swab test at $65. and while you may feel the test is not perfect more dogs should be tsted to assist with the data they are collecting. This would give the breeders more insight how to eradicate the disease. For those breeders who have tested they are producing clears and to this end I say WONDERFUL.

Given the quote from the mfgr along with the heartbreak from many pet owners are corgi lovers prepared to have a wheel corgi society?

Permalink Reply by Millie Williams on August 15, 2009 at 9:30pm

I hardly know where to start here. First, I guess by introducing myself as a breeder of corgis for nearly 25 years and a member of the National club for 18 years… and a regional club for more than that. One thing I have always bred for in addition to other issues, such as correct conformation, size, temperament, has been health. As a matter of fact, after temperament, health is #2 in my mind. I was in golden retrievers for over 15 years and sadly, watched that lovely breed deteriorate to the point that I no longer have one in my home. I call it the heartbreak breed. You name it and they get it.
Second, I am reading thru this. It’s long, and I am passionate about this subject. This does not excuse rudeness, however, I hope that I am not perceived as rude. I beg forgiveness if it is taken as such, and beg forgiveness for the length of it. Please, however, hear me out and think about what I’m saying. Most of my responses are to Beth but think one or two that I have in italics are also Bobbie’s comments.
So when the DM test came out, I was thrilled. And scared shitless. What to do? Unless I tested, I would never KNOW. With a deep breath, I began to test.2 dogs a month, what my income would allow. I was thrilled to discover that I had two clear boys, and several at risks and a handful of carriers. The at risks will stay here so that I can care for them. After some months of thought, I decided to breed a few more litters, more than I usually do, to get clears and get them out to the breeders I know who really care. Several breeders I know have only at risks and carriers. And like Bobbie says, carrier to carrier, while not ideal, will perhaps yield a precious clear. That is the only choice for so many breeders.
Beth, one thing that I find interesting is that you talk about the research and what the researchers are saying. But they are not dog breeders. They have not watched dogs die progressively over time with this HORRIBLE disease. They are involved in research alone. I can read what they say; I can take it into consideration. But being that I have been involved in counseling people with dogs who have this condition over the past couple of years, I have resolved to never produce another at risk dog. No, we don’t know what triggers it and PERHAPS many elder dogs don’t get it because they die early or because another disease took them first, such as cancer. (On another whole plane, lymphoma is becoming more prevalent in the Pem breed…very scary. With what I saw in goldens, I will avoid breeding to any dog who has produced a dog with this like the plague.)
Also, you have been involved in research, personally,and I can tell that you are most impressed with the methods, etc. And that’s fine. Realize, please, that there is tons of money for human genetic testing but not so much for animal genetic testing. Much of the money for this comes from breeders themselves and programs that OFA and AKC, and others sponsor. But you are missing the fact that unless breeders test, and test EVERY DOG in their breeding program, we will lose those precious clears. (Called genetic drift) Maybe they are there, maybe they aren’t. But we can’t know and make assumptions about the state of the breed until we have at least a couple of thousand tests, I’m thinking. Many have tested and not listed their dogs tested. I list mine. I never want to look at a puppy buyer and say “I could have tested. I should have tested. I’m so sorry that you have to put Fluffy down due to the fact that I was too scared, too cheap, too involved with my ego and wanting to sell lots of pups so I could go to shows or didn’t test Fluffy’s daddy because he was a National specialty winner and I didn’t want to lose those stud fees that helped me to show him.” Never. Never, never, NEVER! That is strictly ego and very morally wrong. I never want to look you in the face and say those things to you or to a ten year old child who has grown up with this dog, or to anyone, ever.
I think what is being missed here is that this is an easy thing to get rid of and you don’t face the popular sire syndrome. Hey, the PSS is already out there, breeders (good ones) use the better dogs, the dogs who are gorgeous, winning, producing healthy puppies (or not, as the case may prove). The less desirable breeders do the same thing, Old Joe down the road, he has a purdy corgi and we’ll use that one for Sadie’s next litter, and then keep one of them pups and breed her back to him again. It’s called convenience, and it happens very much more than you might think it would.
You can breed to the clear dogs and then breed back into your line once you have a clear dog to work with. You essentially are out crossing to bring in a desired characteristic, no different than those who wish to improve a head, or feet or a topline. We all do it. It’s called breeding with some sort of plan, some sort of purpose.
There are some positive things about this disease; however, they do not make the dog having the disease any easier to live with. Just positives that can help soften the blow. No pain. Older dogs, mostly, are affected. And there is a test.
Some people use the first two as a “so what” type of attitude. The old dog disease is the one that really gets me. In this country, we see old furniture, old paintings, old cars, old coins as valuable. Yet our people and our dogs and so many other living things are tossed to one side as “old” and not worth bothering about. Well, let me tell you this. Hayley is 14 months and 3 years old. She is healthy as a horse. She RUNS up and down the stairs. She is not “old” and even if she were, she would still be hugely valuable to me as a beloved companion. A lot of breeders don’t bother with old dogs. They are petted out when they are 6 or 7. Why should they care what happens to them?
On to some comments made here in the past few days:
So what damage do we do to the gene pool by aggressively breeding carriers only to clears, and not breeding affected dogs at all? Genetic testing is a pandora’s box. Weeding out DM completely would still not get rid of nearly all the spinal column injuries that could make a dog go down behind. We had a lab who went down behind that was due most likely to arthritis, for example. As another example, I read a report online that showed that most Corgis that have serious bleeding disorders actually test negative for VwB, the bleeding disorder that is screened for.
Yes, to an extent, I see what you are saying. But your premise is incorrect. vWD does not equal other bleeding problems. And what problems are those, actually? It’s the first I’ve ever heard of this. Be careful what you read on the internet, doesn’t make it true just because you read it there. Corgis get the mildest form of vWD. It’s been mostly weeded out due to aggressive testing of dogs being bred. A spinal column INJURY is not DM. One is genetic, one is an accident or a prolonged pounding on the spine that has causes the spine to deteriorate. DM is not caused by anything except for sure having the two genes that allow the progression of the disease at some point in the dog’s life. It has been said if any dog lives long enough that has the 2 genes, they will get DM. I don’t know if this is true or not but it sounds reasonable to me. I hear the same comment about cancer. You are equating DM with all other back injuries and that really can’t be done.
Also, no one said anything about not breeding at risk dogs. This keeps coming up, it’s simply not true. The at risk dogs (and you should use the terminology that OFA and U of MO uses) are still a valuable source of genetic material IF and only IF they have their other clearances and are good specimens of the breed, both mentally and physically. And at risks should be bred to clears only, in my opinion.
it is probably not scientifically sound to expect breeders to breed them ONLY to clear dogs, if clear makes up only 7-10% of the population. Simply too rapid a reduction in the gene pool.
Well, we don’t know that for sure. Breeders need to test to find those clears. Maybe we have more. Maybe we don’t. I know the Bedlington people pulled out of a potentially horrible disaster with copper toxicosis about 20 years ago, they had a simple recessive gene and it was killing their dogs at ages 4 on up. I believe they do have a DNA test for it now. They rolled up their sleeves, made HARD decisions, and did what had to be done. The breed is healthy now and it’s been eradicated from the gene pool.
And if we don’t do something NOW, it will be too late. Dr. Coates, our main researcher, has said she believes that the Pem breed is probably beyond saving. That makes me work harder to spread the news to find clears and get them used in breeding programs. If I can find two in my back yard, how many more are out there?
Moreover, if breeders do start trying to minimize DM in their gene pools, that means that in the short term at least there will be a spike in “at risk” puppies placed in pet homes, as they choose “carriers” or “clears” for their breeding programs.
I totally have to disagree here. There are at risk pups in pet homes NOW. No spike. It’s already happened, although inadvertently. What we need to do is minimize it. And if a clear is chosen, there is no risk of DM in that litter at all. It’s a simple recessive.
Also, what you are suggesting is going far beyond what the scientists doing the study are suggesting, and also is doing exactly what the scientists caution could do major harm to the breed.
 Book learning is much different from scientific study, I’ve found. Let me give you an example. Let me give you a pile of books all about horse training. You have never actually had a horse, but have admired them on TV. Here’s the horse, here’s the books. No problem. How hard can it be? The reality is that as a breeder, I have experienced a whole nother experience than the researchers in the white coats have. Another example is when I was in nursing school. Research was crammed down our throats, spiritual, family, the whole patient, yada yada, yada. Get out on the floor, the patient wants someone to trust to care for them properly, give them the right meds and sit and listen to them if they need to unload. They really don’t want to discuss their families, they want to know if they are going to live or if they are going to be disabled or how to deal with the life changing things going on with their bodies. Research is, remember, the statistical part of something, and SUGGESTS, it does not bring firm conclusions. I cannot let a researcher tell me that I should not use a clear dog. I have nice dogs here, I have been lucky enough to test and find some clears. I know what is in my bloodlines, what the relatives are like back 5 and 6 generations. Sorry, I am the breeder here and KNOW this stuff. I’ve lived it. Researchers know numbers and usually with one generation.
Pembrokes are listed on most multi-dog breed info sources as being relatively clear of many of the health problems that nag other purebred dogs. Let’s not, in our rush to clear out this one problem, create a host more.
Ah, another internet search. Let’s see. Hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, cardiac problems, multiple eye problems, vWD, bladder stone formation, premature closure of the distal physis and now DM. I think that sounds like a lot. When we only tested for hips and eyes, maybe that could have been said. But when I was looking for corgi #1 25 years ago, I was told they did not get HD or have eye problems. By very good and reputable breeders.
However it is also trying to watch a young dog die of cancer, a dog die of kidney disease, a young dog succumb to heart problems, and endless other things that are rampant in some breeds but relatively less common in Corgis.
Of course it is. What’s the point here? Watching any dog die of anything is troubling.
If indeed about half the dogs are at risk and another 25% or so are carriers, it will take many generations to make a major impact and still keep the viability of the gene pool.
Again, here I have to disagree. The OFA site as of today states that 54% are at risk. 40% are carriers. 7% are clears. It will take 2-3 generations to get rid of this disease forever if people will just test and make careful decisions. No one at all is saying to throw away the at risks. No one. Not a single person I’ve talked to. You keep it in mind as you select for a mate for that dog. The best selection would be a clear dog. Same for a carrier dog, however, you can breed a carrier to a carrier and get a clear. There would be at risks, too, but much preferable to do that than to do at risk to at risk (all at risk pups produced) or at risk to carrier (only helpful if you keep a carrier from the at risk dog you have, at least you have improved by one step). You don’t throw anything away, you make a wise selection along with the other criteria (good hips, good temperament, good conformation, easy to train, improve on this or that physically and improve the DM status of the puppies produced).
Checked the page in Finland for my dog’s sire, who has a list of health and behavior clearances as long as your arm and no mention at all of DM
Whoa! Kathleen, are you reading this? Want to tell us all about that? Just because it’s not mentioned doesn’t mean it’s not there. Same with PDA. It’s a dirty little secret and no one wants to talk about it at all.
Your feeling that more dogs are getting it now may be true. It may also be that more dogs are living into old age due to improved care, and therefore living long enough to develop symptoms
I think more dogs are getting it because we have been very busy educating our vets about this disease, as well as other breeds who have had it. No one knew what it was before. Old dogs got weak and couldn’t walk anymore. Isn’t that what old dogs do? Don’t old people get forgetful and cranky? No, they get forgetful and cranky because they have something else going on that can often be corrected with medications, nutrition, exercise, mental stimulation. I have a friend whose mom was getting horribly forgetful, her doctor said “that’s just how it is”. I said “get your mom to a gerontologist who specializes in elders for the best care. Kidney disease can cause dementia”. So can any number of other problems. DM is finally being recognized as not only a legitimate disease, but one that we can do something about and eliminate forever in just 2-3 generations. Just by testing and careful breeding.
Tell me, though, what would you advise breeders to do if fully half or more of all their stock is homozygous positive, and another quarter are carriers?
Exactly what I said above. I have several at risks. One has just been bred to a clear dog to produce all carriers. One carrier will be bred next year to a clear dog. I also currently have two carriers that were bred to clear dogs. People are knocking down my door to get on my puppy list, particularly those who have been through this horrible experience of caring for a dog and watching its body fade away while the eyes stay bright and the mind active. Breeders are thrilled that they can indeed get a clear from me.
So if we vigorously breed out DM, and inadvertently end up with a sickly breed that has an average lifespan of 8-10 years, would that be worth it?
Rhetorical question. How can you know that will happen? And how would they be sickly, exactly? We have been talking research here and now the unanswerable questions are being asked as some way to defend a weak argument.
We’re not talking about a perfect world here. We are talking about tough tradeoffs that breeders will need to make, and right now they have limited information to go on.
The world is not perfect, I’ll grant you that for sure. The tradeoffs I’m going to see is happy people with happy dogs that live a good long life and aren’t subject to a debilitating and stressful death sentence. What limited information? The test is there. Use it. Breed with this problem just as you would for hip dysplasia or a poor topline. ALWAYS try to improve what you have.
From the numbers I’m seeing, lots are “at risk” yet my understanding is only about 5% of Corgis get the disease
No way to know that for sure. So many are being put down, still, by people who haven’t a clue that this is what is going on with their dogs, and clueless vets who say “dog can’t walk, so put it down. I don’t think these can possibly be accurate numbers.
Breeders nurture lines for generations to get certain combinations of health, longevity, conformation, and personality. They are not likely to throw out those lines if indeed the numbers continue to come in as high as early samples seem to indicate.
No one has to throw anything away and I’ve still never seen a single researcher, breeder or pet person say this. It can be beat. But people have to test their dogs.
got much of my info from the site where the research is coordinated. Their recommendation is that breeders consider an at risk dog to have a fault, just like an unlevel topline or some other breeding fault. They do NOT say they should not be bred, or only bred to clears.
Once again, researchers are not breeders. They don’t have a stake in this breed that I love. I don’t say they shouldn’t be bred but I do believe breeding to clears is the best answer and THEN take that dog back to your line to keep what you already have.
Your desire to have the mutation worked out of the gene pool may happen over a long period of time, but won’t happen at all if buyers are insisting on clear or carrier dogs if more than half are currently at risk. If buyers will be demanding clear or carrier at a time when that is not reasonable to achieve, breeders will continue to not test at all.
It doesn’t have to take a long period of time. Test, make careful decisions, keep the best clear you produce or even two, then come back to your line to save the work you have done over several generations. If buyers are demanding clear or carrier dogs, that will make breeders get off their duffs and do something about it. Otherwise, they will have either aan at risk puppy (cheap) sale or be giving them away and not breeding so much. I applaud pet people for educating themselves and demanding these pups. As Bobbie says, the survey she did, there was one person who said they would take an at risk dog but that was the only one. I have not only a long list for people who want carriers as pets, I have show people who want clears for their lines, to try and back out of the corner we have found ourselves in. Clears will help them do this.
Would be interested in hearing what breeders say. I went on quite a few websites for well-respected breeders, and they don’t mention DM status. Many other breeders lack websites.
That would be me. No time to make a website. A lot of well respected breeders have their heads in the sand. These are many times people who allow a dysplastic dog to stand at stud because he won so much or because he “brings so much to the breed”. These are breeders who allow a dog that produces PDA to continue to breed that dog because he is a specialty winner in spite of the fact that PWCCA says that a dog that produces such a defect is to be pulled from public stud and not used if he produces a problem in two separate breedings of two different bitches. Just because they don’t talk about the skeletons, doesn’t mean they aren’t in the closet. There is a reputation to protect, after all!  I don’t worry about reputation. You can ask anyone in the pem world about me. Anyone. The worst I hope they can say is that I am passionate and outspoken about the breed.
Right now, the incidence of DM is high, and one explanation is that one or more popular sires carried the genes
Maybe. I think it’s just that it’s rampant thru the breed, doesn’t matter if you use a popular sire or an unknown one, it’s everywhere and that’s why we have to fight to get rid of it.
We recommend that breeders take into consideration the DM test results as they plan their breeding programs; however, they should not over-emphasize the test results. Instead, the test result should be one factor among many in a balanced breeding program.”
I have no problem with this but do think it is as important as any other testing, barring fluffy testing or color testing.
Yet you, against the advice of all scientists, are saying that you would accept an At Risk puppy from a carrier-to-carrier breeding only, and in 3 years there should be no reason to take an At Risk puppy, because if there are not enough clears it’s because breeders don’t care. I’m still not sure what you are suggesting we do with all the At Risk dogs in the gene pool, if indeed they number over half of all Corgis.
You aren’t getting it. Bobbie was saying to take the at risk pup as a last resort IF the breeder is making an effort to improve by doing carrier to carrier. But in three years (1-2 generations) that wouldn’t be necessary as we produce more clears. If we hustle, we can soon have only carriers and clears. Then if anyone bred carrier to carrier, it would be buyer beware. She is only saying to reward the breeder that has their eyes open and are trying to improve rather than buy what could be an at risk from just any old breeder who doesn’t test.
Now the scientists are saying that over many generations, we can hopefully reduce (not eliminate) the incidence of DM. And you are saying, based on your own feelings, that in three years we should not be accepting at-risk puppies. What you are suggesting involves an extensive culling of dogs that are At Risk, or only breeding them to the handful of dogs that have tested "Clear." That would be a huge narrowing of the gene pool.
No culling! NO, NO, NO! USE THESE DOGS FOR WHAT THEY CAN PRODUCE, BUT USE THEM CAREFULLY! Please read above. No narrowing of the gene pool. The clears can be used and the resulting pups brought back into the gene pool of the breeder.
Why test when your buying public will demand something that science has said is impossible to give safely?
My buying public is demanding it and science can stay in the lab. I’m out here in the front lines, producing clears and carriers, as well as healthy, well adjusted and happy dogs who go to be beloved pets as well as a few show dogs to go on with. There are other breeders who are, too. I find it hard to argue with someone who doesn’t really understand what it means to breed a dog, the huge responsibility that we have, the testing, the work, the time consuming research of pedigrees, going thousands of miles to dog shows, watching dogs, choosing the best compliment for our dogs. DM is no different than any other flaw a dog can have EXCEPT that it is a flaw that can kill dogs. And I can waste a generation or two getting rid of it. I hope other breeders will follow suit and do so. And how exactly is science saying this is impossible to give safely? I’m already doing it safely.
I do apologize for this going on and on. But there were so many erroneous assumptions being made here. Seriously, if you had the choice to take an at risk pup, would you? If you had the choice between that and a carrier or a clear?
This is a serious, serious health problem in this breed, it KILLS. Let us not forget that. Please join wheelcorgis on yahoogroups and post your questions there. I think people who have lived through this experience will tell you that your perceptions may be not as accurate as you think.
And please, get your own boy tested. At least, armed with that information, you can plan for his future. I pray he is a carrier, or an at risk that does not come down with it.

Permalink Reply by Beth on August 15, 2009 at 10:07pm

I appreciate your very long post. Again, going in circles here.

My own understanding of genetics and line-breeding tells me that if the numbers hold, then breeding the large group of Corgis who are At Risk ONLY to clears, and then taking the carriers and breeding them back to clears or other carriers opens the risk of expanding other problems that are now minor in the breed.

Nothing anyone has said changes my belief on that, which is why I say it's going in circles. I have seen what overly close line-breeding has done to Thoroughbred horses over the years.

The test has been only out for a year, and the research is still new. I understand people are passionate, who have experienced this up close. I never said old dogs were not valuable or that it is any easier to see them suffer. However, as a genetic problem to a breed, a disease that strikes elderly dogs is not going to have the same impact as one that strikes young dogs. The most common killer of cats is kidney disease. If they found the gene that caused kidney failure, should we try to breed that out of cats?

I do appreciate your insight. Having been involved in genetic studies myself, about something that is very personal to me, I know that things can change very quickly and as I said I am willing to give this some time before I jump on breeders. Other people are entitled to different opinions.

What if you find out in 2 years that the gene you are aggressively trying to wean out is not the deciding factor in DM at all? That there is another gene that leads to expression or suppression of symptoms, that is needed in addition to the identified gene? And now you have aggressively line-bred out some great traits that had been worked on for years, only to find it's all for nothing, because yet-unidentified Gene SS (which might only affect 10% of all dogs) is the real key to the whole thing? To use another species analogy, all Lyme disease is spread by ticks, but only certain ticks are capable of spreading Lyme disease. The same thing holds true for genes, and as I said I was involved in a big genetic study that uncovered 2 new genes crucial to the disease that I suffer from. Things change rapidly.

I listened to the Coates interview, and she said they are currently studying to find what causes the At Risk dogs to express the disease, and there may be other genes involved.

I am willing to wait on the research before I dump the breeders I know. The ones I talked to are either not testing, or laying low with what they know, and they have been breeding for decades.

Permalink Reply by Beth on August 15, 2009 at 11:00pm

I would rather have a dog that died peacefully and healthily in its sleep at 15.

However, I would rather have a dog die of DM at 14 than have a breed like the Rotweiller whose average lifespan is 8-10 years, yes. Or the Cavalier King Charles, riddled with genetic heart defects that frequently affect young dogs, so their average lifespan is listed as seven to twelve years.

Yes, there are other health issues that are having worse impacts on other breeds. Since the researchers themselves seem to think this is a multi-gene disease, then I am willing to wait and see what stage 2 of the research holds.

I am just reading the researchers and going by what they recommend. I realize, as I have said, that you have another mission.

I believe that when you work closely with a disease, and have a passion for it, and seek out online others who experience the same problem, that perhaps you see it as being more pervasive than it is. I am confused because you are making it sound like this is pervasive, yet all I can find online has incidence rates in the single digits, often the low single digits, and average age of euthanasia at 13.

For a dog with an average lifespan of 12-14, if I lose my dog at 13 I will be heartbroken but not feel betrayed by my breeder.

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Mallery on August 16, 2009 at 4:13am

>I am willing to wait on the research before I dump the breeders I know. The ones I talked to are either not >testing, or laying low with what they know, and they have been breeding for decades.

I'm just getting a feel for this website so my first post and introduction is on page 3. Please go read it.

I see no circles here, Beth. I see a person who, apparently, has little experience in the "work force" (being a breeder) trying to convince us we're wrong. Some one whose mind is made up and not open to reason, supporting their opinion with less than accurate information or info twisted to fit the purpose. We accept all your views and you point out some important things to consider. What makes you think we haven't considered them?

Your statement above is exactly the problem. "Laying low"? No, protecting their or their dogs reputation; afraid of "witch hunts" instead of sharing the information so we will ALL be educated. If we don't share information we cannont improve. My Daddy taught me to learn from others mistakes; make my own, don't make theirs.

They have been breeding for decades? And ;they're not willing to share what their learning? So where is their commitment to the BREED? People committed to the breed share good AND bad information they have learned to help others.

Millie says it several times over....NO ONE SAID CULL. And I am one who has ONE carrier and all at risks. Do you really think I'm going to throw away 25+ years of hard work, joy and heartache I've gone through to produce the outstanding quality I have?

Bobbie is also right on target about others reading this thread. A breeder judge once told me "when you show your dog, you are showing to more than the judge". Changed my attitude totally. I don't breed and show my dogs for the numbers, for accceptance, for ego, for self esteem, for approval. I breed and show the very best I have to improve what I have and preserve the breed. If I breed the BEST, HEALTHY, QUALITY corgi I can, all the other laurels will happen but they are not the reason only the reward.

Permalink Reply by Beth on August 13, 2009 at 6:29pm

One other thought: in the original development stages, they tested a fair number of "healthy" dogs as a control to make sure they had the right gene. The study I saw, though small in number, also had a large number of at risk and carrier dogs. I would think that in doing controls they would pick dogs unrelated to the symptomatic dog. I am not sure, but I have been involved in a genetic study for my own human disease, and they specifically wanted spouses as the control group, as they were not likely to be genetically related to the affected participants.

Permalink Reply by Beth on August 13, 2009 at 9:01pm

Hmm. The study I saw showed several dogs as old as 15 who were at risk and still asymptomatic.

And yes, for controls they generally try to find samples who are not related to the subset being studied, so they can see what differences there are in genes. As I said, having participated in a genetic study, what they looked for was genetic samples from the affected person (me) and also from immediate family members (to examine possible genes that might lead to expression or suppression of symptoms) and then unrelated people for the control. They were trying to get nearly as many controls as they had affected people, because without the control they are only looking at those who have the disease. You need healthy samples for comparison to see where the differences lie in the genome.

Permalink Reply by Beth on August 13, 2009 at 10:01pm

I would be happy to have my dog tested for research, but I don't know if they are looking to test young dogs or not (he's only 2)

From the numbers I'm seeing, lots are "at risk" yet my understanding is only about 5% of Corgis get the disease. I think if they want to find out how the gene is represented in the population, then they should solicit anonymous testing, which would let them establish parameters to work within and then breeders could make more informed decisions.

If, say, only 20% of dogs are at risk and 40% carriers and 40% clear, well then heck yeah I'd think breeders would jump at the chance to work it out of the gene pool over time.

If you continue to look at over 50% at risk and another 35% or more carriers, then we have a big problem and it will take careful decision-making over many generations to make an impact.

Breeders nurture lines for generations to get certain combinations of health, longevity, conformation, and personality. They are not likely to throw out those lines if indeed the numbers continue to come in as high as early samples seem to indicate.

I got much of my info from the site where the research is coordinated. Their recommendation is that breeders consider an at risk dog to have a fault, just like an unlevel topline or some other breeding fault. They do NOT say they should not be bred, or only bred to clears.

Your desire to have the mutation worked out of the gene pool may happen over a long period of time, but won't happen at all if buyers are insisting on clear or carrier dogs if more than half are currently at risk. If buyers will be demanding clear or carrier at a time when that is not reasonable to achieve, breeders will continue to not test at all.

I would be interested in hearing what breeders say. I went on quite a few websites for well-respected breeders, and they don't mention DM status. Many other breeders lack websites.

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Mallery on August 16, 2009 at 4:20am

I believe, with the Pems, they wanted related individuals to compare genetic material. All studies I've seen, this is what is asked for. VetGen has some going on that they ask for familial groups. Now that the gene has been IDENTIFIED they are asking for any and all DNA material, especially blood samples from old dogs that ARE asymptomatic. Now that they HAVE identified the gene, they are looking for variance that may be the trigger for the disease. Seems to me, if this discovery was not important, the ALS community would not be excited about it and the possibilities it suggests for humans.

BTW, this research was estimated to take 10 years or more. The completion of the Genome Project is what helped bring this discovery in about 4 years earlier.

Permalink Reply by Beth on August 14, 2009 at 8:12am

I just wanted to add that I am not by any means downplaying the heartbreaking experience of anyone who has dealt with this cruel disease.

Ideally, though, we base breeding programs on science and reason, and not just on emotion.

I have read of dogs that had symptoms similar to DM, but upon autopsy showed some other degenerative nervous system disorder. We could eliminate DM completely and it would not stop sad stories like those mentioned.

The overall health of the breed is of primary importance. As genetics advances, we will find the underlying cause for more and more health concerns. We must be very careful of how those results are used in a breeding program.

We have casual friends who have an American Eskimo with some disorder that is leaving him increasingly mentally foggy. He is just not there. I know it's heartbreakingly sad to watch your beloved dog slowly lose physical function. Sad, too, to care for a dog every day that increasingly does not even recognize who you are, even though he is alert; a dog who slowly forgets where the door is, or what toys are. If we love dogs and own them, eventually we will all have our very sad stories to share.

Permalink Reply by Beth on August 14, 2009 at 9:53pm

I think you are misrepresenting what I am saying. I said that it would be nice if people tested. I also said I think they should establish an anonymous test to simply track the prevalence of the disease, so that we can make a more informed decision.

You are saying that you would support carrier-to-carrier breedings, and in three years you would not recommend getting an at risk puppy, because by then if there are not enough clears it is because breeders don't care.

What you are actively recommending, to many people you have influence on, goes directly counter to the recommendations of the people at OFA. I don't mean to be harsh, but I think it is that very sentiment that is scaring breeders away from testing.

This is what OFA recommends:

"The “A” (mutated) allele appears to be very common in some breeds. In these breeds, an overly aggressive breeding program to eliminate dogs testing A/A or A/N might be devastating to the breed as a whole because it would eliminate a large fraction of the high quality dogs that would otherwise contribute desirable qualities to the breed. Nonetheless, DM should be taken seriously. It is a fatal disease with devastating consequences for the dog, and can be a trying experience for the owners that care for them. A realistic approach when considering which dogs to select for breeding would be to treat the test results as one would treat any other undesirable trait or fault. Dogs testing At-Risk (A/A) should be considered to have a more serious fault than those testing as Carriers (A/N). Incorporating this information into their selection criteria, breeders can then proceed as conscientious breeders have always done: make their breeding selections based on all the dog’s strengths and all the dog’s faults. Using this approach and factoring the DM test results into the breeding decisions should reduce the prevalence of DM in the subsequent generations while continuing to maintain and improve upon positive, sought after traits.

We recommend that breeders take into consideration the DM test results as they plan their breeding programs; however, they should not over-emphasize the test results. Instead, the test result should be one factor among many in a balanced breeding program."

Yet you, against the advice of all scientists, are saying that you would accept an At Risk puppy from a carrier-to-carrier breeding only, and in 3 years there should be no reason to take an At Risk puppy, because if there are not enough clears it's because breeders don't care. I'm still not sure what you are suggesting we do with all the At Risk dogs in the gene pool, if indeed they number over half of all Corgis.

Now the scientists are saying that over many generations, we can hopefully reduce (not eliminate) the incidence of DM. And you are saying, based on your own feelings, that in three years we should not be accepting at-risk puppies. What you are suggesting involves an extensive culling of dogs that are At Risk, or only breeding them to the handful of dogs that have tested "Clear." That would be a huge narrowing of the gene pool.

Emotionally, I understand where you are coming from. But you are thinking with your heart and maybe not so much relying on the research you have read. It is those very attitudes that will actually discourage breeders from testing, rather than encourage them to. Why test when your buying public will demand something that science has said is impossible to give safely?

Permalink Reply by Beth on August 14, 2009 at 9:59pm

I wanted to add that this is going in circles. I will leave the thread open because the issue is important and the debate very civil. I do appreciate that.

It is clear that the OFA is not recommending an aggressive program to only breed carriers-to-carriers and At Risk dogs only to clears. It is unfortunate that the genetic tendency seems so high. If individuals would like to only support breeders who are testing and trying to clear the disorder from their gene pools, that is of course the decision of the individual.

I suppose I just wanted to make clear that no one doing the research is suggesting the aggressive breeding plan proposed by some who have understandably been emotionally affected by watching a beloved pet succumb to this sad disease.

I also hope that I have not offended anyone whose own dog was affected; it takes tremendous love to deal with a living creature who is in rapid decline.

Hopefully the research will advance and we'll all know more soon.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page