Indi's post name edited - Page 8

What you have done, Jantie, is take the known number for a1s for example and say since the a1 number is only that of 1/3 of the population, that a1 has to be devided by the dogs not screened. So 57% then becomes 19%. Not so. We really do not know any facts about the population that has not been screened at all, other then the 15% already mentioned. Best we can do is assume that according to the large numbers that we do know, that the same trend will repeat itself in the rest of the unscreened population. That is how statistics work. Another example. The OFA has only some 80thousand certified GSDs in their database, but the AKC produces well over 40thousand GSD pups a year. Times 40 years of OFA history is 1.6 million GSDs, give or take a few, using rounded number to make it easier. The number of GSD pups may actually be a lot higher, as German GSD number nowadays are about 2/3 of what they used to be 10 years ago, the same may be true for AKC number. But lets use that assumed number as an average because it is easy to work with. 80thousand means that only 5% of the AKC GSD population is actually certified, with only some 3% of these certified dogs having excellent hips. According to your math then that would mean that less than 0.2% (that is ZERO POINT 2) of all AKC bred GSDs would be OFA excellent. Hardly. 0.2 percent means that virtually every single GSD out there is dysplastic. One of the things your math is also doing, is reducing the numbers of the actual HD cases. So then according to your math only 1% of AKC dogs are dysplastic. How can that be if already almost the whole population of GSDs is dysplastic? That of course also means that less than 2% of SV dogs is dysplastic. All that of course you fail to mention when you quote the examples of your math. You stick to the numbers you want to see. 19% of HDa1 dogs. But what about 2% of all dysplstic dogs? If the numbers go down, they go down for the whole stats. So why worry about HD incidence at all if it is less than 2%, and that is for a4 and a5 combined? Only 1/4 of a percent of a5s - according to your own stats! That is a quarter of one percentage point, or 0.25% of a5 dogs, dogs with severe dysplasia. According to your own numbers your unfortunate case with Indiana was indeed an extremely rare incendent. And who exactly used these numbers and did not catch on to that part of the equation? Jantie, did you ever consider that part of your calculations? What do you reckon will a judge say in court if you show him/her, that according to your own calculations Indiana only had a 0.25% chance of getting severe HD? How can a breeder guarantee against something that happens to one dog out of every 400 according to your own stats? I think you need to get back to the drawing board and look at your own numbers again. Consider my suggested numbers above and see how that works for you. They are probably not perfect either, but to me those numers just seem very logical.

"RE: To SAOA: Please let me know if I can put the (old) x-ray pictures back on the Gallery." Jantie, the gallery of Indy is truly a tribute to this wonderful dog and it would ruin this completely by posting such images. And, again there is no good reason to do this. Again, you can email those images to member who are interested in given their expert opinion to you. Therefore, pls insert your email address somewhere so those members can contact you. Also, if you can not afford to take care of Indi anylonger, then I am offering to have him picked up and shipped to me at my expense hereby. My email address: shepherds@phreego.com

So if a dog is photographed in a crappy way such photos should not be posted either? The x-rays are simply an internal view of that beautiful exterior. Saoa, you just stated very clearly that the censorship of the x-rays are based on your personal opinion, not because of TOS. Thank you. Good call on offering to take Indi, yet another breeder who has done so, or suggested not to have him put down.

no not so at all DH. The images, in addition to the posting of the full kennel name, our awareness of the feelings of buyer vs. breeder, and given the pending legal action against the owner of said kennel, give this the negative twist the owner possibly seeks to promote. TOS 9: This forum system is not a venue for personal or private vendetta's. Keep your personal business as just that - personal. This forum is not a venue for the resolution of personal disputes with members or companies.

Saoa, Does this mean I cant post in the final hip/elbow xrays of my dog? even know that I would be paying my vet to take them? What is the big fricken deal with it anyways? How about deleting photoshop pictures of dogs? that looks like cartoon charecters?!?! those pictures should go first into the trash can.. It serves no real purpose for the people here who wants to research and to do their homework. again you are voicing your OWN opinion... Showing everybody your dogs Hip/elbow xrays are not personal... as of matter of fact it's apart of research that is in value to the members on this forum. WE are soo use to seeing the good side of the lines but never the bad... I think it's time to stop with this censorship crap and get into reality.

DH, I don't know if adding a link will cause an extermination of my post, so just the directions: go to SiriusDog site, then to Aticles, then to Breeding, and read more on the second topic on the list, Jantie's math might be better explained there. SAOA, I think your offer is somehow very cruel. Something tells me that Indi is going to be put down not because of money problems. Regarding X-rays: do you think it might be possible to post X-rays without kennel name?

I think this horse has been beaten long enough. Jantie got his point across, the breeder now knows that this beautiful and loyal companion will be put to sleep, and I am certain he feels very badly, especially for his puppy that he raised from birth. You all must think of this from the breeder's point of view as well. This has to be heart-breaking for him. I know it is for me, and it's not even my dog, nor have I ever been around him. If Jantie feels that he cannot keep Indiana, I also am willing to pay to have the dog picked up and shipped here to me, where he will remain (Neutered, if Jantie would like) for the rest of his life. I would do everything that is within my power (yes, even hip surgery if it was required--that is the responsible thing to do, in my opinion!) to assure that this dog is given a fair chance at life. I'd love to see some video of him, to see how bad he truly is and to properly prepare a place for him here (likely indoors 95% of the time!) without tile or any slippery surfaces. As you can see, I do feel very strongly about these types of things. I apologize, Jantie, if you think I am being harsh. That is not my intent. Please email me if you would like to take me up on my offer.

You truly have a loving and kind heart, VomFelsenHof.

zvkmm, that article states: "In plain language, only one-fifth of **all examined** GSDs have "perfect" hips." That is where the math and the statement are both incorrenct. It is an irrefutable fact that of the dogs that have in fact been examined, 57% have perfect hips (a1). What it should say is that one fifth of all GSDs ever registered with the SV have been certified with perfect hips. There is a difference. Lets assume the statement in Janties article was true, then it would also be true that "only 0.25% of all examined GSDs have severe HD", and it would also be true that "only less than a total of 2% of all examine GSDs have mild to severe HD". That would mean there is virutally NO incidence of mild to severe HD in all of the GSD population, and with only a quarter of one percent most certainly hardly any incidence of severe HD at all. How wrong the math is a bit more apparent when you look at the other end of the scale. That is my point. The math is seriously flawed. BTW, to add the total of all a6 results to the a1s is also a fundamental flaw, since the a6 rating is a pass only and covers a1, a2 and a3.

Thank you all for sharing ideas and feelings with me. I appreciate your support. To SAOA who wrote: “the gallery of Indy is truly a tribute to this wonderful dog and it would ruin this completely by posting such images”. I am outraged by this comment, however, I will keep my voice down, and add ONE phrase only: “It is ALLRIGHT to document his gorgeous outside, but I need to refrain from showing his INSIDE?” How about this for denial? One last summary of my poor math: Let me stick to the heart of the matter and the overall question I had: GSD-fans (like me) would be interested to know exactly: “How many GSDs (of a greater population) are actually x-rayed?” and “How many of them have perfect hips?” The SV offers one of the best, when not THE best database ever. What are my conclusions, based on this very SV-Genetics-Database? A: 33% of all registered GSDs have been “officially” x-rayed (in a population of 554.596 dogs). B: 57% of them have proven to have HD-1 hips. This conclusion can NOT be doubted, you will find that figure confirmed in the SV-Genetics-Database. I consider it to be a very well documented fact, that a maximum of 57% have anatomically superhips, based on a huge amount of probationers. So it can NOT get any better than that, 57%. BUT! We all need to be very cautious with statistics. You will agree to that. Is there any more information we need to think of? Yes, of course there is. The count can NOT be complete, when we KNOW for a fact, we have withheld a substantial amount of diagnoses, namely the bad ones. So I add C and D. C: Common knowledge: A lot of dogs are x-rayed, their results are however never sent in. D: Assuming only 10% of the population have actually also been x-rayed but been diagnosed “bad hips”, we have to add them to our results, correct? Consequence: the 57% drops to 44%. Now, all experts I have talked with so far, have stressed, my 10% quote here is way too low, in reality MORE x-rays would “disappear” from the count. Therefore, I am very well pleased with my “weakened” calculation. I don’t think one needs several pages to understand the logic of my calculation and accept the outcome as a very well documented fact. I accept you think otherwise D.H. and would want to testify differently, it is NOT a result that makes one happy, but my personal conclusion is: “that less than 50% of all GSDs have anatomically correct hips”. I consider this to be a fact, moreover proven when talking to GSD-fans shattered worldwide. I repeat the statement of Prof. Dr. Mark Flückiger from the Swiss HD-ED Kommission in Zürich (now how about him for an Authority!!) and I quote: “in reality only 20-25% (depending on “untersuchtem Jahrgang”) of the x-rayed GSDs have HD-1 = HD frei (A).”. Can you imagine this Professor destroying MY “44% Perfect-Hips-idea” to merely HALF of the figure?! Should you still doubt my figures, please feel free to discuss this with this expert. I have made my point.