Doodle Health Survey

[Stella]

After reading about the doodle that was just diagnosed with Addisons disease, there was some mention of a doodle health survey.  Knowing how many people are on this site, and how passionate everyone is about their doodles, I realised there would be a lot of potential data out there.  The question is, would enough people respond to make it worthwhile, what sort of information should we be collecting, how would we analyse that data, and what would we do with any relevent data that was collected?  What could be done to try and get as many people to respond as possible?  We would also want to make sure that this was done is as scientific way as possible and not for it to become a forum for people to target specific breeders (either for the good or bad).  I was thinking an e-mail survey, or through a site such as Survey Monkey, so that only global results are posted, and not individuals responses.

 

A few thoughts of the top of my head would be - type of doodle, age of doodle, where the doodle came from, info about the parents of that doodle (as much as is known), if the breeder did genetic testing and which conditions did they test for, general health problems that dog has had (ie: dietary/ digestive troubles etc), veterinary diagnosed conditions (epilepsy, addisons, dysplasia etc).  The age of the doodle when these conditions became apparent.  If you have a rescue doodle, you could still take part as we would still be interested in their health.

 

For the data to be actually useful, this would need to be something repeated at regular periods of time in order to see trends in health and illness of our doodles, say annually. 

 

So guys, what do you think??  A worthwhile project?  Or an awful lot of effort for nothing?  In order for this to be effective it would need to be carried out over a long period of time, really trying to follow our doodles right up to when they cross the rainbow bridge.  It would be a huge commitment for those trying to administrate over it!

[F, Calla & Luca]

Well, 95 % seems a bit high : ) but I do agree with the bias factor. It is what started this line of thought abut a survey to begin with.

[Noble Vestal Labradoodles]

OK maybe a bit high but I think it would be close

[Adina P]

But what would make people report their healthy doodle to a doodle health registry any more than to a survey?

[Noble Vestal Labradoodles]

Because a survey is just that- nothing more but a health registry is established to follow disorders and links them to specific lines or breeding and can be used to stop and limit the disease.  A survey won't help you limit or stop it just see it more.  It is my belief that the majority of responders to a survey will have little or no diagnoses and that owners with dogs with no issues will fail to report it because it is a waste of time.  Also another spin- an owner can report a dog as healthy when in reality it has HD or PRA and it isn't known because it isn't advance.

 

A survey is going to be an unreliable source of information posted as fact.

 

Finally a DHR is not meant for reporting healthy doodles it is for doodles with proof of diagnoses so that we can improve our lines and the breed.  A survey of half accurate information doesn't compare to a HR with 100% reliable information.

[Adina P]

The point of this survey, in an ideal situation, would be to find out from a large majority of DK members the percentage of DK members' doodles that have no health issues vs. have health issues as well as what those health issues are.  Now if by some miracle we got 7,000 responders I don't think we can really look at the results as useless.  There would be limits on the conclusions we could draw...but definitely not useless.  The chance we would get that many survey responders is slim.  I know that.  But it's not something I'm going to whip up overnight and send out tomorrow.  If we do it we'll do it in a way that makes the survey most useful.  However, I highly doubt that major conditions would be lied about.  Like mentioned in an earlier posts...people don't make up "Atopy, Addisons, Von Willebrands, thrombocytopenia," and other major conditions -- they might self diagnose 'allergies' or 'poor digestion' but not big things with correct disease names.  It would be an overview of the state of current doodles.

[Jane, Guinness and Murphy]

I think you're absolutely right, Adina.  If we had 7000 responses (even if we had 3500 responses) we could draw meaningful insights, and I agree also that people will not "lie" about major health issues.  My only worry was about trying to draw conclusions from a much smaller sample of potentially biased responders.  The larger the sample, the less bias (at least statistically).

[F, Calla & Luca]

Yes, it is my concern too that we tend to have a bias toward doodles seeming to have a higher incidence of disease than they actually do. Your survey is interesting but of course we have no way of knowing how many members who have not joined the group may have doodles with seizures.

[Noble Vestal Labradoodles]

I am unsubscribing to this discussion as it is taxing of my time and email.  I do think that the health of the breeds is important, important enough to do what I do at the extent that I do it.

 

I thank many of you for being willing to help the breed by wanting to collect such data but in the end unverified data is worthless and damaging if stated as fact without proof.

 

Unfortunatly there are some conditions that can not be tested for prior to them existing in the dog and there are some diagnoes that are so generic and lame they can not be counted unless proof of detailed testing is made available (Epilepsy, Allergies, Addisons).

 

Again I think this is a worthwhile discussion and feel I have made my contribution.  If anyone wishes to discuss this with me feel welcome to email me at [e-mail].  Sorry my in box is getting hit hard and I am suppose to be working on a project : )

[Sally, Ditzy Mitzi & Sgt. Pepper]

I remember being at a major dog show some years ago and reading an article regarding "designer dogs".  It was truly written in a negative tone, obviously because it was at purebreed only dog show.  A flyer, however, about using the idea of hybrid vigour as an excuse for purposely  mixing different breeds got my attention.  Perhaps this project could show if there is any  truth to that comment.  Are hybrid dogs healthier than purebreeds that have had so many problems showing over the past few years, or is it a false statement.  Are pet owners simply more aware of heredity health problems?  This project could be very worthwhile on more than one level!

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I think it depends on what kind of purebred dogs they are. Pet stores sell purebreds; the AKC will register any dog whose parents are of the same breed, even if they're bred in a puppy mill. Those dogs will have genetic diseases just like doodles who are bred from untested, gentically inferior stock.

On the other hand, you will not find genetic diseases in dogs from the top champion show breeders. Those dogs are not bred until they are three years old and the purpose of breeding them is not to sell puppies, but to produce champions. It is not a major loss to a champion show breeder if they do not breed one of their dogs, the way it is for many doodles breeders whose only purpose for having the dogs is to breed them. Cutting a dog from their programs means a huge loss of money, and i have seen cases where they continue to breed a dog with known issues. That would not happen with the kind of purebred breeders I am referring to.

It also depends on the breed itself. The more common, or popular a breed is, the more genetic diseases you will find in that breed. Poodles, Labs, and goldens are among the most common and popular breeds, and they share many of the same diseases. breeding a Lab with a genetic disease to a poodle with the same genetic disease does not afford you any benefit, or "hybrid vigor" over breeding two dogs of the same breed together. So it's a lot more complicated than hybrid vs purebred. Which purebred VS which hybrid? And from where?

[Sally, Ditzy Mitzi & Sgt. Pepper]

Karen, I always enjoy reading your responses.  You make some very valid points,  things I hadn't considered.

Guess we will all just have to monitor the health of our furry friends more carefully if we don't know their

health backgrounds.  It would be wonderful if all breeders would have their dogs tested for genetic problems before breeding, instead of just looking forward to getting more pups and more money.

[Adina P]

I think that's a good point.  There is bad stuff in both the purebreed world and the doodle world.  Dogs are imperfect and can carry genes that are imperfect.  It's good to compare like to like.  The best most responsible breeders of purebreed dogs vs. the best most responsible breeders of doodles.  Then the comparison will have weight.  Otherwise merely being a doodle or a purebreed means nothing because either can come from poor breeding.

 

ON the other hand...I think Carol makes a valid point too.  Being a top show breeder doesn't inoculate one from making decisions out of pride.  Anyone is capable of making a decision that compromises the health of a breed--show breeders aren't of necessarily of superior moral character merely because they aren't in the business of puppies.  As long as humans are in charge of something ... that something will never be perfect.