|
|
|
Reply ECSCA News-Review July, 1983 Lynn P. Clark |
|
I wish to thank Eugene Phoa for his article in the Spring 1983
Review (Ed. Note: "On Inherited Defects: a Breeder's Perspective"); and since
it is often lonely to go against the tide, so to speak, I should like to
join him in trying to interject a voice of reason into the current brouhaha
over so-called "congenital defects."
It has gotten almost to the point where if an English Cocker should break his leg I might expect the immediate launching of a brand-new "study" to ascertain if some EC lines have an hereditary predisposition to breaking legs. In fact, if the present trend were to continue unchecked one might envision a future in which we would not have to take our dogs to shows at all; but simply exhibit our x-rays, eye checks, blood tests, et. al, to a committee of appropriate "experts." They would in turn study these, preferably along with exhaustive pedigrees, submit their resulting opinions to me-chanical scrutiny, and then inform us which dogs should be titled "champion" and/or are worthy of breeding use. Dog breeding is, in its essential purpose, a creative endeavor. It is logical to use the tools of science, just as a painter might choose to use a certain pigment of proven fine quality. It is, however, illogical to base all hopes of the eventual quality of the resulting painting upon the quality of one specific pigment. I should like to remind the fancy at this time that the most influential sire of our breed in the last two decades ( in this country) was a dog which offered no OFA number or eye check. This dog was heavily used, partly because of his undeniable quality, partly because he became "trendy." Amusingly enough, the majority of those now so zealously demanding OFA and CERF certifications are simultaneously involved in intense linebreedings to this same dog "without credentials." I have no idea whether or not this dog's hips were ever x-rayed or if OFA certification was sought, nor if his eyes were ever approved by a veterinary ophthalmologist. And I personally do not find this frightening, unless the overt legacy of this brilliant stud is misused. I myself used him, and with gratifying results. Our bred is the richer today for this dog having lived and been bred from. The current scientific evaluation of whether or not certain defects are indeed hereditary, the grading of the severity of such defects, and the establishment of their mode of transmission remain woefully undefinitive, and in fact change remarkably from year to year. Breeders cannot abandon the use of their own eyes, their own experience - yes, even their own occasional "hunch"! - and accede totally to the genetic theories of laboratory scientists. To return to my original metaphor of painting, There is no masterpiece that I know of that was painted by numbers. First of all, I thoroughly wish that people would stop con-fusing "congenital" with "hereditary"; secondly that they would maintain the healthy skepticism that is an adjunct, NOT an adversary, of true science; and thirdly, that they would not mistake the tools for the craft. The distrust and lack of perspective presently existing among our breeders does no service to those that are thoughtful and/or gifted. It does, however, encourage and arm the thoughtless and undiscriminating ones. Originally printed in the ECSCA News-Review
|
