Is Health Testing worth the extra cost?

[Jennifer Tramell]

I'm sure many people are already riled and have their opinion formed and ready to shoot, but hear me out.......

Over the past couple years, I have researched a few different health issues/diseases which affect dogs.  The first is hip dysplasia.  Webster is a big boy (88 lbs) and he has a more retriever frame.  I have always worried about him having hip dysplasia, even though upon educating myself he shows no signs.  I learned that hip dysplasia is caused by many different genes and dogs who have excellent hips can produce puppies with hip dysplasia while dogs with bad hips can produce pups with great hips.  It is not only genetic, it is also environmental, and it is often not discovered until a standard health warranty (1-2 years) is expired.  I know of someone who has a goldendoodle bought from a very reputable breeder at full market price, parents had all the health testing and hip certification, and the pup came down with hip dysplasia under 1 year old.

 

The next disease is seizures.  I am familiar with a couple dogs who have seizures and there is no health testing for parent dogs which will show epilepsy.  It appears as though this disease can be triggered by non-genetic factors and often is not displayed until the health warranty expires.

 

Thirdly are the auto-immune diseases.  We are dealing with this because of Charlotte so I've done a little research.  It is assumed that auto-immune diseases are inherited but, again, there really aren't tests to run on parent dogs.  Charlotte's auto-immune disease usually stays dormant until a dog is 3-5 years old and most health warranties expire prior to that period.  Even if there was a long warranty, there is no proof that this is inherited, it is only assumed.

 

I have not researched extensively but as of this time I am not convinced that the very high prices charged for puppies from health tested parents is warranted.  I've had Charlotte's hips tested (for my own peace of mind) and I looked into the other genetic testing.  We just added a 3rd doodle to our family and I decided that health testing of parents didn't give me much peace of mind - there are too many variables in play which affect the future health of my dogs.

 

 

[Jen, Lachlan, and Declan]

Here's my opinion - getting a healthy puppy free of defects and diseases is a bit like (or a lot like) playing a lottery: I'm more likely to plunk down my money for a ticket for a lottery with better odds, say 1 in 100 chances of winning vs. 1 in 1000. Picking a puppy, to my mind, isn't much different in the end: Health testing simply improves the odds. There's still no guarantee that I'll "win" but my chances are better.

There's no guarantee that Lachlan won't develop hip or shoulder dysplasia, heart problems, eye problems, or Von Willebrand disease, but being able to look up his parents on offa.org and see that his ancestors are clear of all of the above for several generations means that my odds are greatly improved that at least he won't develop something that can be predicted through health testing. Does that make sense?

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Just like when the DRC places a dog in a new home. Can we guarantee that the new owner will keep that dog for the rest of his life so that he never has to lose a home again? No, but we can do everything in our power to stack the deck in his favor, and increase the odds. 

[F, Calla & Luca]

It makes sense to me.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I agree with Jen. There are no guarantees, but stacking the deck in your favor is worth it, IMO.

But another issue is, the integrity of the breeder. If they are not doing health testing, how are they choosing breeding dogs? There is no shortage of puppies in this country, and no shortage of doodle puppies. If you are deliberately bringing more of them into the world for your own beneift (i.e. breeding for profit), don't you have some obligation to choose the healthiest breeding dogs you can find? Don't you have some obligation to both the puppies and your clients to do everything possible to produce puppies who are as free of genetic diseases as you can?

So what is the criteria for breeding a dog or not breeding a dog if you don't do health testing? Is it okay to just breed any lab with any Poodle in order to make money?

And what criteria do you use for choosing a breeder? If you like them? If they "seem nice"? 90% of the people you meet every day "seem nice". Especially people who are selling something. That's not enough for me. I deal with the fallout from these "breeders" every day. 

Is it worth saving a couple of hundred dollars, or even a thousand dollars, to patronize a "breeder" who is not meeting accepted professional breeding standards? Not to me. 

[Jen, Lachlan, and Declan]

Very well said, Karen. I'd far rather if I'm going to actually pay for a puppy that my money go to someone who cares at least enough to produce puppies that have a good chance at a healthy and pain-free life.

[Nancy, Ned, Clancy, and Charlie]

 Glad you posted this because it is great for debate and makes the reader pause to think about WHY they are choosing the dog/ breeder they are choosing. This is just my opinion, but I want a breeder who is cautious and really thinks about what dogs they put together to make puppies.  I want them to think about temperament (like NOT putting hyper dogs together); doodles do NOT have to be such high energy dogs that only a select few can manage them.  I want them to think about coats; there are coats that are little to non-shedding and little to non-matting - isn't that what most of us want? I figure that if a breeder spends the bucks to health test their breeding stock, they care enough to think about what dogs they choose for other things also.

As the owner of a back yard bred (owner back to a dog from their breeder) anxious/nervious Springer Spaniel, obviously without thought to health or temperament, I feel qualified to criticize.  We have spent thousands of dollars on torn CCL surgeries, skin disorders, allergies.  He has GREAT teeth though.....

I expect to pay big bucks for my next dog and I plan to get what I pay for.

[Nancy, Ned, Clancy, and Charlie]

nervous not nervious!  Hmmm on second thought, perhaps it is a new word describing my Springer.....

[Jennifer Tramell]

All excellent points, however I offer the following rebuttal:

I do not believe that health testing the parent dogs is evidence of a conscientious breeder.  It costs $95 to test for Von Willebrand disease, heart and eye testing isn't very expensive (my cousin had her poodle tested), hip xrays are $125-150 (Charlotte cost $125 and many breeders don't go further than a prelim at vet).  To be honest, the ROI (return on investment) on health testing is very high.  A puppy mill breeder could easily get their dogs tested and appear to be a conscientious breeder.  It reminds me of when I was showing alpacas.  We would show in small classes because then we were almost sure to get a ribbon.  We could advertise our "prize winning" alpacas and look like we were big time alpaca breeders because we had lots of ribbons.  We did have quality animals, but the shows and ribbons were simply good marketing.  I believe that in many cases, health testing could be used as marketing.

 

Sometimes breeders of health tested dogs are snobs who rely on the testing results to speak for them.  I have spoken and emailed breeders who's answer to many questions is that their dogs are health tested or that they belong to a certain association.  They don't know their dogs, can't answer questions about their personalities, but their dogs are health tested, have great bloodlines, are registered with this or that association, etc, etc.  A recent trend is "our dogs are used as service animals".   None of these things tell me if your puppy will make a good family member.

 

My brother has a beautiful Rhodesian Ridgeback from a premium ridgeback breeder.  He is from health tested parents and is a prime specimen.  I would not want that dog.  I do not see him as a good family dog.  He has fought with their other dog (real fighting causing vet visits), he has nipped the kids, he has to stay in a crate, etc.  My dogs are from parents who are not health tested, but are healthy dogs.  The breeders are small family breeders whose stated goal is to produce superior canine family members with low shedding.  The parent dogs are members of the family who live in the house,  travel with the family, and "do life" with their people.  It was evident from day one that my pups were attached and attentive to humans and they have been a joy to live with and love. 

 

I don't believe that I am patronizing a breeder by purchasing a puppy from them.  I would agree with this if I were on a waiting list for a litter, but once the puppies are born it is a different issue.  Let's say that this is a horrible puppymill breeder.  The pups who are born will either go to families or go to the pound.  If we are looking for what is best for the puppies, an argument could be made that we should take these puppies so they get out of a bad situation and into a good home.   My purchasing 1 puppy from a breeder is a one time occurrence - I am not supporting them, I am getting the puppy who I think is best for my family. 

 

I would find it interesting how many puppies are "dumped" due to personality/behavior/non-health problems and how many are "dumped" due to health.  I think that health is often an excuse for someone to get rid of a dog.  I select my dogs based on how they will fit in my family and, in my opinion, that is more influenced by how they are raised for the first 8 weeks of their life rather than how healthy the parent dogs are.  If you can get the best of both worlds, that is wonderful, but I can't afford to pay extra on the front end on a lottery ticket which may or may not stack the odds.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

There are a lot of points here. 

First, simply health testing the breeding dogs doesn't make a great breeder. That is only one of the criteria I would use. (But it would be the first one.) After that, of course i want a breeder who knows her dogs and can answer questions. And there are many, many who do health test and also know their dogs and do not simply rely on the test results to speak for themselves. I would want it all, and happily, that's not hard to get.

Rhodesian Ridgebacks are not intended to be family dogs. They were originally bred for lion hunting. Neither are a lot of breeds. Your brother made a poor choice of breed for his situation. I can't speak to that particular Ridgeback breeder in terms of whether or not her dogs are chosen for temperament in terms of Ridgeback temperaments But everyone doesn't  have a family and doesn't want a family dog. There are all kinds of breeds for all kinds of people. I don't really see what that has to do with this discussion. Nobody ever said that health testing the breeding dogs guarantees good temperaments or good family dogs. But there are a LOT of doodles from the BYBs who don't health test who have rotten temperaments, too. And there are a LOT of doodles here who are from health-tested parents and are great family dogs with phenomenal temperaments. Again, I would want both, and it's not hard to get.

Regarding how many dogs are dumped for health problems, I can tell you that not a week goes by that the DRC doesn't get a call from the owner of a doodle who is in despair because their dog has serious health problems that they cannot afford to treat. They love their dogs, there are no behavior issues, but they simply cannot afford four figure surgeries or medications that cost hundreds per month for the life of the dog, or they cannot physically manage the care requirements of these sick animals. And these dogs have documented genetic illnesses, believe me; the owners are not just making excuses.  I lose sleep over this on a regular basis. Look at Honey, as a good example. The surgeon who operated on her yesterday feels that her knee problems were 100% genetic. There isn't a serious health issue that we have not heard about, and in at least 75% of the cases, the dogs are not from health tested parents. 

"Let's say that this is a horrible puppymill breeder.  The pups who are born will either go to families or go to the pound."

OR, they will go to rescue and be adopted into loving homes and the $ will go to the rescue instead of into the hands of the puppy miller. And maybe if people stop buying his puppies, the puppy miller will go out of business and no more dogs will spend their entire lives in cages. Sorry, but when you buy a puppy mill puppy, you are not saving or rescuing them, you are rewarding the puppy miller for abusing animals. The mother is still in a cage for 8 years. When you give someone money for goods or services, you are certainly patronizing them and supporting them, whether you get on a waiting list or buy a puppy who is already born. Here's another way to look at this:

If a fur coat is hanging in the store, the animals are already dead, right? Buying that coat wouldn't be the same as ordering one from the manufacturer, where they might go out and kill animals to make it. 

BUT...if nobody bought the coats that are hanging in the store, the store wouldn't order any more. If nobody buys the coats, the manufacturer will go out of business. No more animals will be killed to make coats. 

I have to say that it does sound a little to me like you are trying to justify your own decision to purchase a puppy from a breeder who doesn't health test. That's not the purpose of this group, we are debating an issue, not an individual's personal situation, beliefs or choices.  We can't speak to any individual's financial situation or address your own reasons for choosing to purchase a puppy from a breeder who doesn't health test. All we can do is discuss the general issue. However, I think most people here who did buy from breeder who health test also selected their dogs based on how they fill fit into their families, and again, that has nothing to do with whether or not the parents are health tested. It's not an "either or" situation. And as far as being to able to afford "the best of both worlds", the difference in price between a doodle puppy from a breeder who does health test and a doodle puppy from a breeder who doesn't is not enough to even pay for the diagnostics for one serious genetic illness. So what happens when the person who can't afford to pay $2000 for a puppy has a $2000 vet bill? 

[F, Calla & Luca]

Very well said Karen. I completely agree with you.

[Jennifer Tramell]

I understand and respect your position and I agree with many of your points.  As you say, we are debating an issue not an individual's personal situation, beliefs or choices, so I don't need to justify anything.  That is not the purpose of this group.

 

The purpose of a debate is to argue and present all sides to a position.  Just because a point is argued doesn't always mean that the debater believes that position.  I am decidedly against puppy mills and was merely presenting an extreme.  When looking for Charlotte, we decided against a puppy because we "google earthed" the address and we could see what looked like kennels and dog houses behind the address.  They had a great website, great communication, but the 'google earth' gave too many red flags.

 

I agree with your fur coat example except I see it differently.  Buying the coat is like buying the puppy who is waiting for a home.  Ordering a coat from the manufacturer and causing the death of animals for your coat is like being on a waiting list and encouraging the "breeder" to breed another litter.

[F, Calla & Luca]

Any way the "product" is sold encourages the manufacturer to make more product no matter whether it is for a preorder, directly from the manufacturer or how ever many middlemen it goes through. Only when the demand drops does the manufacturer lose incentive to produce.