As
just one longtime breeder who is
actively breeding, I am becoming
increasingly more annoyed by the
constant insinuation that no one in
the past ever knew anything about
their dog’s HEALTH, that the so-called new technology and/or science
replaces all prior knowledge just by
itself, and that longtime breeders
are just ideologically opposed to it
because they are not "with it,"
or that they're all hiding all kinds
of secrets.
Is having technology even new
anyway? Is health screening new? Genetic markers are new but are still just another tool to be used wisely
to help produce excellent Great
Danes. The tools don’t produce good
results themselves, the brains of the
breeders do. The breeders
are who maintain the gene pool.
There are dangers
when scientific data and health
screenings are used incorrectly,
that render them useless with little or
no chance to enhance results.
Misuse can then result
in a setback instead of an
improvement, especially when technology
itself is just being used as
a "cop-out" to allow people a
means to pretend to have real
answers, without thinking they have
to do anything except read them.
There is an attempt to misuse health
screening underway right now by the
GDCA; a naive attempt to level
the playing field, saying all
opinions have equal value
regardless of background or
experience. So many, or even
anyone involved in any aspect of
the sport, can now declare how Great
Danes should be bred. It is an
attempt to give the right to non-breeders or inexperienced
breeders to impose their simplistic
untried theories on
others just because they have the
time, desire or calling to spend in
club activities.
Just who do these self-proclaimed
experts think they are, and why
should experienced breeders take
them seriously? It's becoming
a bit too insulting to constantly be
hearing how they, who seem to have
just noticed health testing,
have decided that longtime breeders are
just not up to these current, new,
innovative ideas. Ha!
Just who is
deciding all this “written in stone
baloney” about what breeders
should or should not be
doing? And based on what?
The first Champion I bred was Ch.
Rojon’s The Hustler, whose OFA
number is 315. What's your dog’s
OFA number? His sire, Ch. Von Riesenhof's
The Boss, had an OFA number, too.
The Hustler was born in 1970.
Here is one of many
documents
regarding neck x-ray screenings for cervical vertebrae when we began to
hear about Spondylolisthesis (what
you now call wobblers) and were
trying to protect our bloodline.
And, yes, we have documented EKG
results and Chest
Radiograph documents from when we
screened hearts, too. Did we use them to justify our
breeding choices or to advertise the
test results
to draw interest and/or promote our
particular dogs?
No.
And notice the birth dates of these
dogs. Now, thirty five years later,
some people want to talk down to us and
tell us all about health screenings, all they know about them, and
to tell us their version of how to
breed Great Danes. I think
not!
Did everybody do all this stuff?
Some did, some did other things. But
we weren't just a bunch of people pompously
walking around at dog shows trying
to figure out shortcuts to "wins" and
telling everyone else what to do. (Now that I think about it, there
were some of those then, too!) And,
we produced some excellent Great Danes,
some even produced bloodlines,
and we even did some winning along the
way.
Speaking for myself as a breeder,
we always took steps to protect our bloodline and our
dogs from genetic disease using all possible
means, as well as protecting them from other bad
circumstances, including landing in
inappropriate homes or in rescue. Frankly, I think we did a better
job. What we didn't do was
just provide "lip-service."
Now I would suggest you re-think why longtime breeders
could possibly
know more than non-breeders about
breeding Great Danes. It's a
no-brainer, a phrase I hear all
the time.
In the year 2005, attempting old methods of coercion to force others to do
what you want them to, while you do/did little or nothing
yourself regarding the
subject, is pretty revealing
in and of itself.
Whether it was intentional or not,
the people who implement and value
health
screening were set up and let
down by poor leadership at the GDCA
on this issue and that should be the
most revealing fact of all.
Good leadership is suppose to
improve the environment so all others
can flourish and excel at their jobs.
Because of
the failed leadership on this issue, I'm sure many are now more
frustrated and even more cynical than before. But this setback will not be as difficult to
overcome as the long-term effects of
a mistaken and incorrect decision
involving bad legislation. Even if
some choose to throw in the towel, others will begin to question and
learn that there are far more
appropriate answers about these complex subjects
that can bring better results
through breeding. There are choices that
would have fewer bad
consequences than just a crude, inconclusive and
uninformed attempt at legislation.
There were many things I heard
experienced breeders say when I was
a relative newcomer, things that
echoed in my head years later and
still do today, things I never
really understood until I gained
some experience
to put them into
perspective. So keep listening, keep
remembering, and understand-- no one is telling you not
to question. And that applies not only
to this issue, but to
everything.
Attempting to pass off longtime
breeders as ideologically opposed
because they are antiquated and
afraid of progress is absurd.
Don't let useful technology be reduced to
rhetoric people use to pretend they have real
answers or valuable information, just because it sounds
good, it's easy, or because they read it
somewhere.
Your RESULTS (and not just
determined by wins) are what
will validate the choices and decisions
you make about breeding. Without
good results one will never earn
respect, and after all is said and
done, your work will seem
meaningless and unrewarding even to
you.
So...
is having technology really
new anyway? Is health screening really
new?
For those who claim to be so "with
it," it's so obvious and
easy to see how much they really don't
understand. They are thirty-five years too late on
this one, and they keep bragging
about it. And now the slow
learners want to blame everyone who
came before and to proclaim
leadership............ "they have
seen the light" and can save the
breed by broad, sweeping, faulty,
legislation. They want to dismiss the
very breeders that have known and
actually have been doing all this
NEW stuff for the past twenty,
thirty and forty years.
It would be more innovative (you'd
look better) and your time would be
better served asking the right
questions and learning some correct
answers so you can actually get
better RESULTS.
And, constantly reducing the point
back to "for or against health
testing" is exposing your simplistic
thought process. If that's
where you're stuck, how would you
ever understand or be able to implement any of
this? If that's where you're stuck, how could you
ever become an
outstanding breeder?
It is not legislating that is going
to have any profound impact on the
improvement of Great Danes, health-wise or
in any other way.
You have been walked out onto a
plank by unqualified leadership on
this issue. That is unfortunate, not only for
you but for health
screening itself. Now, if you
are smart, you'll get past
this and get on with the real
task at stake. And you can do it.
This is not the only, but is one
longtime Great Dane breeder's
opinion regarding this issue.
On a personal note, my
accomplishments as a BREEDER are
more rewarding than any other accomplishments I
may have achieved in the sport of
pure bred dogs thus far.
It is also the hardest part and takes
the greatest degree of skill and commitment.
Breeding Great Danes has been my
lifetime work and that is why I feel
compelled to write this.
Ray Cataldi
Rojon Great Danes
http://www.rojongreatdanes.com