Adam Protos was born in
Massillon, Ohio, on February 19,
1981. As a small child his
family moved from Ohio to
Roswell, Georgia, a small suburb
of Atlanta. It was here that the
family had their first Great
Dane, a brindle female which
would be the beginning of a
passion that would follow Adam
into his adult years. After
graduating from high school he
attended the University of
Georgia, obtaining a degree in
chemistry. Slightly before
graduation, Adam acquired the
first Dane he would call his
own. That fawn puppy would
mature to be Ch. Winhurst’s
We’ll Be There, otherwise known
as Arthur. Adam’s involvement in
Danes has been deepening ever
since. He is attending Tulane
Medical School in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
We all
want healthier, longer-lived Danes:
a breed that not only gets great
marks in the ring, but also in the
vet’s office.
But I don’t believe the initiative
on the Great Dane Club of America
(GDCA) ballot is a means to that
end. The screenings overemphasize
technology as a superficial
substitute for depth of knowledge
and leadership.
We need to return to our roots. We
need our long-term breeders to speak
out on pedigree history, basic
genetics, and breeding fundamentals
-- health, temperament, style,
soundness, and type. We must examine
the direction of the breed relative
to the roles of the newer and the
long-term breeders. The health
screening issues, including the
specifics of the proposed
legislation and its anticipated
effectiveness, can then be
dissected. Finally, the implications
to Futurity and breed as a whole can
be examined.
Newbies like me often are used as
justification for the new
legislation, which would require the
screening of the sire and dam to
nominate a litter for the Futurity.
This is by no means a trivial
concern, since newcomers today
represent the future of the breed,
the very lifeblood of the fancy.
While the immediate welfare of the
Futurity is certainly cause for
concern, this issue is essentially a
symptom of a larger and more ominous
problem facing our breed.
As all facets of our society have
become more inclined toward instant
gratification, the sport of dogs has
likewise followed suit. A drive is
created to obtain the maximum return
on the minimal investment of time or
effort. This is underscored by the
current emphasis within the fancy on
campaigning and ego, rather than on
the long-term development of a line
where intimate knowledge of a
pedigree and health histories is
paramount. This intimate knowledge
is painfully absent with most of
today’s novice breeders, which now
constitute a large constituency of
the fancy. For instance, look into
ring and you will see a lack of
breed type being passed off as
“soundness”. Thumb through a breed
publication and you will find dogs
with a parade of acronyms after
their names denoting a laundry list
of various health certifications,
only to discover later that some of
those same dogs died at startlingly
young ages. This is because most
newcomers are at loss as to how to
define and recognize type. Likewise,
they are oblivious to health issues
which lurk deep within the ancestry
of their beloved Danes.
Conversing ringside with newcomers
similar to myself reveals many at a
complete loss regarding these
issues. This does not seem to stem
from a lack of intellect, but from a
lack of guidance. These are things
which must be learned from mentor,
not a book or website. Consequently,
a void in knowledge once supplied by
leadership and mentoring is
developing within the breed, and is
being filled with the advent of
modern technology. While resources
such as the Internet and health
screenings can certainly be used to
provide constructive information,
without the proper guidance to place
them in the correct context they can
actually become counter-productive.
The superficial becomes a substitute
for substance and depth, providing
easy, one-dimensional answers to
complex, multi-faceted problems.
When dealing specifically with the
issue of health screening I view it
as an important piece of the overall
picture regarding a breeding.
However, as I found out in no
uncertain terms on a recent
Danelinks poll, this is a black and
white issue for many people. Often,
any criticism of health screening or
the proposed GDCA legislation is
misconstrued as an ideological
stance against all health testing,
and this, I believe would be a vast
over generalization. A faulty piece
of legislation could set the
original intent of the proposal back
years and actually be an impasse on
the road to healthier Danes.
Despite sensationalistic ramblings
to the contrary, there are many
reasons why caring and responsible
people would oppose the initiative.
First, and foremost, the initiative
mandates screening for conditions
which are not serious threats to the
health and welfare of Great Danes.
According to the recent health
survey published in Daneworld
magazine the most critical issues
facing Danes today are bloat,
cancer, and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM),
none of which are suitably addressed
by the screenings proposed by the
GDCA legislation.
For instance, you can perform eye (CERF)
or the Orthopedic Foundation for
Animals (OFA) cardiac screenings on
your dog at age two and his
offspring have a pass into the
Futurity for the rest of his days as
a stud. Never mind that he may have
died of cardio at age five. Oh,
thank God for health screenings, I
know I’ll sleep easier at night.
Further, other issues such as
age-appropriateness, frozen semen
breedings, and public availability
are essentially by-passed. These
oversights misplace priorities and
perpetuate a false sense of
security, which will do nothing to
provide a reliable predictor of the
most serious aliments facing Great
Danes.
This situation is further
complicated by the fact that, when
considering DCM for instance, the
phenotype of the affliction is only
loosely tied to the genotype. For
example, a DCM carrier bitch would
never show any symptoms of the
disease and would likely pass all
screenings, but half of the male
puppies whelped by this bitch would
be afflicted, while half of the
bitch puppies would go on to be
carriers. This is assuming, of
course, that the sire is not
afflicted. All the while these
puppies would be eligible for the
Futurity under the GDCA initiative.
Do we really want to give these dogs
an implied seal of approval?
While the intent of the proposal is
admirable, the method is poor. If
the people within the corridors of
power of the parent club were
receiving such a tremendous outcry
for a health screening mandate, then
why not formulate a proposal that
has the courage of its convictions.
Under the current proposal the sire
and dam do not have to even pass
their screening, or even receive the
same screening. The retort to this,
that the focus is about the flow of
information, is mired by the fact
that the results are not made
available in a public database.
Personally I feel that anyone who
does not health test at present are
not going to start because of the
Futurity, which is not even a point
granting event. Hoping that American
Kennel Club (AKC) will follow suit?
Well, I have more bad news on that
one too, AKC is nothing if not a
business and doing anything that has
the potential to lose entries is not
high on its priority list.
Repeatedly, I hear the contention
that other breed clubs have enacted
similar measures and have had
wonderful results. However,
typically, these clubs reaped great
results because they faced systemic
problems (hip dysplasia in German
Shepherds or Rottweilers, for
example) in their breeds which could
be identified with the application
of a widely available screening.
Unfortunately, this is simply not
the case regarding Great Danes.
Rather, these mandated screenings
are not based on the most critical
problems facing Danes, but on which
certifications are widely available.
Certifications are not an end in
themselves. Besides, the majority of
breeders (according to the 2002 GDCA
National Health Survey) are already
using health screenings as part of
their breeding programs. The
information is already there, so why
focus on coercive tactics. Instead,
honest conversations about pedigrees
and individual dogs must be
encouraged and should be the rule
rather than the exception. However,
the implementation of compulsory,
yet ineffective, screening mandates
runs completely counter to that
goal. This creates an atmosphere of
implied guilt, fueling the
reluctance of experienced people in
the breed to speak out. This
deprives newcomers to the breed of
guidance in the areas of ancestry
and basic genetics, which are
paramount in not only improving
health issues, but also in areas of
type, style, and temperament.
So, in the end, I believe that the
legitimacy of the Futurity will be
undermined by making it a more
restrictive event. We will be
excluding entire litters of
worthwhile puppies from competition
based on their parents
participation in unreliable screenings, rather
than on the merit of their
conformation.
Thus, implying that health
screenings are an acid test of
responsible, conscientious breeders
would be a grave oversimplification
of a complex issue. Instead, we
should be spearheading efforts to
develop more reliable and predictive
tests such as genetic markers, while
emphasizing a culture of honesty and
camaraderie instead of coercion.
Long term breeders have to stop
hiding in the corner and speak up,
breaking the silence born out of
either apathy or frustration, and
newcomers have to listen and be
willing to learn. Pillars of the
breed must reclaim control over the
direction of Danes, providing the
leadership we so desperately need.
Sadly, this is something no health
screening can provide.