Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

From my research, I deduced that the key factors involved in blocking effective control and reduction of the incidence of HD are people related:  lack of concern, lack of education, lack of control, lack of veterinary competency, and lack of publicity.  All the factors are interrelated and involve (in varying degrees) the OFA, GSDCA, SV, USA, AKC, breeders, veterinarians, and owners.  One thing is perfectly clear; no 'miracle', no 'scientific or technological advances' will solve the problem of HD as long as the people involved with dogs exhibit so little real concern for the issue.

There is much 'lip service' paid to controlling or solving the problem, but little positive action taken.  And before the righteous get their hackles up over this statement, consider this fact:  ALL research subjects experienced, observed, or were victims of one or more of the following variations of lack of concern for (or total disregard of) HD.  These variations included (but were not limited to) being blatantly defrauded or deliberately deceived, being misdirected, having information withheld, receiving incompetent professional advice, and having the problem of HD denied entirely as non-existent!  My subjects reported the confirmed following incidents:
 

1.  Purchasing dogs from sires/dams having OFA certification or SV "a" stamp later proven to have been obtained by submitting x-rays of a totally different dog, or where certification was obtained by submitting post-dated x-rays (with veterinarian's collaboration) of the dog taken at a much younger age.

2.  Returning (under replacement contract) dysplastic young dogs to breeders, and then finding the dog being resold and being shown or used in breeding programs.

3.  Having breeder's claim expertise in visually diagnosing HD.  (A VERY famous breeder duo was quoted in a respectable dog publication as saying they were so experienced that they could watch their 8 week old puppies move in the backyard and tell whether they were dysplastic or not.)

4.  Being told by the breeder, "If the dog isn't limping or moving funny, there's no need to x-ray."  Or, "The risk of dying from anaesthesia outweighs the benefits of certification, so don't take the chance."  And, "Oh, he/she x-rayed 'normal,' we just never got around to submitting the x-ray to the OFA."

5.  Having Stud Dog owners refuse to divulge specific hip information on ancestors, littermates, progeny, or even the stud dog himself, when asked directly.  Only AFTER problems cropped up did they vaguely "remember" a piece of information that would have prevented that particular breeding.

6.  Being told by breeders, "We don't guarantee against HD because it's mostly caused by the environment."  Or, "There's no point in sending x-rays to the OFA, because from what I hear, they're wrong on their evaluations about half the time."

7.  Being told by respected, successful breeders, "Just because he's/she's dysplastic doesn't mean you should 'throw the baby out with the bath water!'" Or stud dog owners (and the SV as of Oct 98) advising, "The only way you'll know whether he'll/she'll reproduce HD, is to go ahead and breed and then xray the progeny."  Or being told by x-raying veterinarians, "You'll probably get good hips if you breed to an OFA certified dog."

Those are but a few of the many ways that the lack of real concern about HD is evidenced.  The fact that Novice Fanciers are not the ONLY ones in the dog community affected by this lack of concern, points clearly to a general lack of education regarding HD.

Although it is obvious you should research the subject of any proposed undertaking (such as selecting a breed or purchasing a dog), that rarely happens.  Pet buyers usually purchase on a whim, or because they've "Always wanted a German Shepherd."  The Novice Fancier fares little better, having usually only "studied" or "looked into" the advertised show/trial wins of the illustrious ancestors behind their prospective purchase.  Even membership in the GSDCA,  SV or USA and local clubs doesn't guarantee proper education.

As pointed out in one of Dr. Corley's articles, the half-life of breed club membership is 5 years (echoed recently on the USAMember@onelist posting, citing 4.8 or so years as average membership life).  For much of that 5 years the novice is busy learning how the outside of the dog should look and function (conformation and movement), or what it's drives are and how it should perform (temperament and trainability).  Only after familiarity with those aspects of the dog does he normally turn to learning about the inside (genetics and constitution).

If the new owner does not have an informed, conscientious breeder/seller guiding him, he is in BIG trouble.  If his Breed Parent Club takes no strong, publicized position against the breeding of dysplastic dogs, exercises no control, or offers few breed-specific educational opportunities or materials; no matter how abundant the supply of OFA information elsewhere, little will reach the new owner, and even less will be understood.  For the novice, awareness of the far-reaching arm of HD problems usually comes too late in the game to prevent mistakes from being made.

Since "Hips" is the name of the game - the FCI "calls the shots," and has issued its world-wide agreement of  categorization of hip status.  In America, the OFA is the certifying authority.  But neither body can FORCE Breed clubs to play by the "rules," which is the only method by which any exercise of control will be achieved. In an effort not to appear dictatorial (God forbid we Americans should feel we're having "German-like" RULES imposed upon us), here in America, neither the GSDCA nor the USA has taken a strong stand on the issue of control!  In Germany, the SV continues to certify ("a" stamp) dogs with identified "light" dysplasia.

The Breed clubs use ambiguous language in discussing the subject.  Example: in the opening paragraph (in older REVIEWS) of an OFA report "List of Dogs With Certified NORMAL Hips"), the GSDCA cautions against placing too much emphasis on hips and losing sight of other GSD qualities.  The SV's most recent statement (accompanying their introduction of a "new" hip numbering system - Oct 98) warns that we should not 'throw the baby out with the bath water!'  It even goes further and states that, "Generally it is a fact that the stud dog owner would be well advised if he also accepted "poor" bitches, because with the poor bitches a dog can show plainly that he "improves."  I don't know about you, but I don't want to buy a puppy from your breeding to this dog, just on the off-chance that there might have been an improvement!

Realistically, if you don't have a working (fully functional) set of hips, you don't have a working (fully functional) dog!  Of what value is the most beautiful of perfect conformation specimens, the most courageous of Police dogs, the highest scoring Competition dog, if it can't move correctly, free of pain,  work, or be just a dog?  Let's face it - historically and genetically the GSD should have a lifespan of roughly 12 to 14 years.  Drawing parallels with other life forms, it is not unreasonable to expect that at least half that lifespan he should be physically functioning on all 8 cylinders (or 2 good hips in this case), with a subsequent gradual decline in physical condition and activity level to the onset of old age.

The norm should therefore be OFA certifiable hips at 5 or 6 years of age.  If hips started deteriorating at 6 or 7 in concert with the dog's general, normal decline, the condition would be more or less acceptable.  What must be totally unacceptable is the continuing production of a large number of dogs with detectable HD by 1 or 2 years of age, and perpetuation of the existing situation where receiving OFA certification at 24 months is a hoped for, prayed for, just-squeaked-by-with-a-"Fair" cause for extreme jubilation, or the even worse situation of barely receiving an "a" stamp at 12-13 months with a "Noch zugelaßen!"

Ascertaining or identifying HD at the earliest age possible is therefore of great importance to an owner as well as a breeder.  Various methods of "discovery" of HD have been in existence for many years.  While the OFA - as certifying body - must be relied upon for certification, recent research (see Journal of the American Animal Hospital Associations, 1998, Volume 34, pgs 339-347), involving two palpation and five radiographic methods, gives some promise of the the PennHIP method (Distraction index measurement) producing reliable predictions of HD in pups 6-18 weeks of age.

Since the age of the dog at the onset of HD plays a vital role in attempts to control and reduce HD, the fact that the USA has chosen to accept an OFA Consult report after 12 months of age as suitable for submission to the SV for issuance of an "a" stamp, appears inconsistent with demonstrated evidence!  Such a move might be calming and reassuring to the Fancy, leading to the belief that such great strides have been made in overcoming HD that we can now afford to relax a little. Calm and reassurance are NOT what is needed.

Fanciers, owners, breeders and breed clubs cannot survive without proper education.  There is an old saying; "If the student fails to learn, then the teacher has failed to teach."  The OFA, the USA, and the GSDCA cannot afford to fail to teach, and as in any educational undertaking, the lowering of standards in order to achieve a goal is the worst of all possible moves.

Beginning in 1986, the GSDCA did at least take a very praiseworthy step (and called a spade a spade), by publishing the OFA's caveat (refer to page 42, March 86 REVIEW) specifically warning that individual hip information has "limited" value, and that only with knowledge of siblings AND parents is the hip information truly useful.  The SV's new "hip numbering" system is an attempt to incorporate that information, as well.

However, after lengthy conversations with the OFA about the ratings within the OFA certifiable categories, and after reviewing reports published in veterinary journals, findings still  indicate that the high incidence of "Fair" hip ratings (of the dogs that do manage to certify) is placing great emphasis on the need for further discussion and  clarification of this rating. The category "Fair," as described on the OFA's Consensus Report, clearly states findings of "minor irregularities of hip joint conformation as compared with other individuals of the same breed and age."  I didn't know (nor did anyone in my research project) know what those "minor" irregularities could be.  Dr. Corley cited unusual trabecular patterns, unsatisfactory positioning, or seemingly benign (but abnormal) growths/spots, as being a few of those possibilities.

Whatever the possible "irregularities," what is most important is that the OFA's radiographic research indicates that most deterioration or change in hip status (when re-x-rayed) was found in those hips originally rated "Fair."  That should cause some alarm!  MUCH more emphasis needs to be placed on the OFA's recommendation that a dog with a hip rating of "Fair" ONLY be used for breeding IF the remaining littermates have ratings of at least "Good!"  Furthermore, if you refer to the latest FCI-OFA chart for grading HD (on-line at OFA and in my "a" stamp article), it's questionable as to why the rating of "Fair" is still considered in the certifiable category.

From the stack of x-rays made available to me for this project, it was quite clear there is also great veterinary confusion about the grading/evaluating system.  Isolating just those x-rays I personally begged, borrowed, and "scrounged up" from 10 veterinarians, a lack of veterinary competency in correctly positioning the dogs, using correct film speed and exposure, and  correctly evaluating (or grading) hip x-rays was evidenced.  This is a matter of grave concern!

All x-rays had been taken with the clear understanding that they were for submission to the OFA, so the film quality and positioning should have been the best the veterinarians and their equipment could produce.  Dr. Corley indicated that perhaps only one x-ray of the batch I subsequently sent him could be considered acceptable in film quality.  In general, the positioning of the dogs (even under anaesthesia) ranged from unacceptable to barely adequate.  The really horrifying fact that came to light was that in EVERY case the veterinarians' professional "evaluations" of the condition of the hips was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!  80% of the evaluations erred towards too GOOD an evaluation.

To make matters worse, there seems to be a widespread lack of the ethical compunction or obligation to counsel against the breeding of dysplastic dogs!  In only 2 of 20 cases did the x-raying veterinarian tell the owners that the dogs should not be used for breeding.  To one veterinarian's credit, he not only emphatically told the owners not to breed the bitch, he further refused to perform a small corrective, pre-breeding surgery also scheduled to be done while under anaesthesia....Veterinary exceptions aside, there are honest, conscientious people taking their dogs to be x-rayed, who (based on their veterinarian's radiographic expertise and evaluation) are innocently breeding dogs with hip dysplasia.  Without a firm requirement to OFA certify, you cannot blame those results on the breeder, but rather on veterinary incompetency.

While many of the problems discussed in this study relate to deceptions practiced on buyers by unscrupulous or uncaring breeders/sellers, even MORE serious and problematic is the buyers'/owners' practice of SELF-deceptions!  Even when faced with undeniable and competent veterinary evidence that their dearly beloved dog has HD, and in spite of the best, most conscientious advice from mentors or other responsible breeders, many owners (through misguided affection, optimism, or ego-association) convince themselves that, while one shouldn't breed just ANY dog with HD,  THEIRS is truly the exception!  So - self-blinded to facts and stifling their own better judgement - they breed the dog.........You know the rest of that story.  You've no doubt bought one of their puppies.........