# Sad, but true.



## Reese9 (Jan 11, 2012)

Came across this article on breed standards. I would recommend reading the whole thing, but I will highlight the part on Golden Retrievers:

A Tragic Example of Narrowing the Gene Pool: Golden Retrievers

I asked Wayne if we could return to the subject of the narrowing of breed gene pools, for example, the Golden Retriever.

Wayne replied that this is a particularly sad example. He has a dog show catalogue from an AKC show in 1926, and there were no Golden Retrievers in that show. Golden Retrievers didn’t exist in 1926.

I asked him how one breed could grow so quickly. He explained that in the 1970s there were two very popular sires. He was personally familiar with one of them. The dog had a great temperament – the best temperament he’s ever seen in a dog. He won the group at Westminster. He was bred to a lot, as was the other sire. According to records, one of the sires, Misty Morn’s Sunset, has over 96,000 registered descendants.

That’s REGISTERED descendants, and typically, only half the puppies in a litter get registered. So if we double the number of registered puppies, that’s 180,000 dogs from one sire.

And according to Wayne, there’s also Gold-Rush Charlie, an even more popular sire, who’s responsible for another quarter million puppies. So you have around a half million descendants from those two dogs. And both those sires developed cancer. Both died young.

And while there’s no unequivocal evidence that cancer is an inherited trait, we do know the rate of cancer in the Golden Retriever population is astronomical.

Goldens are a tragic example of one DNA pool being ruined. Dr. Greg Ogilvie calls them the “golden tumor dog.” You’ll never get a better temperament in a dog, but statistically, they’re all going to die of cancer. It’s just overwhelming. And we’ve created this disaster in less than 60 years.


http://healthypets.mercola.com/site...=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130805

........

I hope in future breeders care more about the breed than they do the money, and stop over breeding. We need to save this precious breed. Cancer is the number one reason Golden Retrievers die today.  Let's make it a priority to change this. :crossfing


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

I know it's been said before so it isn't news, but it just makes me so sad that a breed that I love so much is so prone to cancer.


----------



## Reese9 (Jan 11, 2012)

Tayla's Mom said:


> I know it's been said before so it isn't news, but it just makes me so sad that a breed that I love so much is so prone to cancer.


Agreed! I don't know what I will do if Reese develops cancer at some point, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised either.


----------



## Linzi (Jul 30, 2013)

Is there anything you would recommend for Golden owners to do, such as cancer screening?


----------



## Showell (Jun 16, 2013)

Could the high rate of cancer be caused by the environment, they do put a lot of the world in their mouths??


----------



## Wendy427 (Apr 4, 2009)

Showell said:


> Could the high rate of cancer be caused by the environment, they do put a lot of the world in their mouths??


There could be many causes. Some believe that over-vaccinating could be a cause, lawn pesticides, and one could go on and on.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

But think of all the GOOD that also came from those two dogs. I'm sure all of us would be lab owners if the golden retriever breed did not exist.  

Serious speaking though, during the 90's and 2000's - breeders did quite a lot to bring new blood into the breed. This means that you had breeders breeding to English lines and I remember back then people were talking about cancer and trying to get healthier longer lived lines. 

And - for as long as I've been paying attention, you have breeders who are concerned about all the various health issues in the breed. And they have been working to selectively breed to lessen those issues. 

Those are all bad inbreeding breeders, right?


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

I've done a lot of reading on this and I'm trying to do what I can to at least not contribute to the factors. Tayla is eating a mainly raw diet. Freeze dried raw for one meal and raw for the second meal. Will it help, I don't know, but I'm really trying to educate myself on nutrition. She gets veggies and fruits freely that are supposed to be super good for cancer fighting. Her food has no potatoes in it or any grains. Mainly because carbs turn into sugar and sugar feeds cancer cells. Her water is filtered. I try to use natural cleaning products around her and we don't smoke. I'm trying to eliminate some of her vaccines. She had her initial round and I'm holding off on her shots other than rabies for now. Although right now I'm waiting to hear back from a training club if they will accept her with titer values instead of shots. We don't spray chemicals in the yard and I am lucky we don't have a flea problem so I only treat for fleas if she has a few. I've only been using Comfortis 3 tims a year so far. She gets checked out annually by our vet and we do acupuncture and herbs. It's the best I can do. If she gets cancer at least I know that I did the best that I could for her and it was out of my hands.


----------



## Reese9 (Jan 11, 2012)

Linzi said:


> Is there anything you would recommend for Golden owners to do, such as cancer screening?


Hmmm.. Good question. I just looked up on UC Davis' vet med website and found a wonderful article on understanding cancer in Golden Retrievers. As far as prevention goes, there are a few things we can do:

Fortunately, we do have choices that may significantly improve our dogs’ cancer risk profile. Most important is to raise puppies to follow a very slow growth curve, and keep adults lean and fit. The data are incredibly strong on this point, and come from not only research in dogs, but also many other species, from humans to other primates to mice to worms. Although the exact mechanisms aren’t fully identified, it is thought that oxidation of food produces free-radicals, which cause DNA damage and inflammation, which are steps along the pathway to many diseases. Put in simple terms, we rust. And the more food we eat over a lifetime, the more we rust. Since cellular damage may take many years to fully manifest, and since cells are most susceptible to damage when they are most rapidly dividing (which is during growth), it is thought that overfeeding during the earliest ages of puppyhood has the greatest potential for causing harm, including increasing the risk of cancer. So this factor – totally under human control – has the potential to add more years of healthy life to our dogs than any other known factor. Below are age-specific Slow-Grow weight guidelines that are applicable to all Goldens, regardless of projected adult size or bone. Puppies raised according to these guidelines will eventually achieve their full genetic height, bone, and body conformation potential, although it will take them longer to do so than overfed puppies. The lifelong benefits of following a Slow-Grow plan and keeping adults lean and fit may include reduced incidence and severity of orthopedic disease, reduced incidence and later age of onset of cancers, and overall increased longevity. 

There are also several dietary supplements that some research has suggested may possibly improve a dog’s cancer risk profile. Recommendations include serving fresh cruciferous vegetables such as cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and cabbage approximately three times per week. Other research supports the daily addition of the omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids found in fish oil (also called DHA and EPA); and there is some support for adding 200 mcg selenium and 400 I.U. Vitamin E to the daily diet. Each of these acts as an anti-inflammatory and/or antioxidant, which counteract the inflammatory and oxidation effects of food discussed above. At the same time that we want to optimize the good things that go into our dogs, we also want to reduce their exposure to possible carcinogens. The following environmental exposures have been linked with an increased risk 
of cancer, and can act as carcinogens by damaging DNA and/or increasing the DNA mutation rate: 

• Coal or kerosene heaters 
• Fumes from paints and solvents 
• Asbestos 
• Second-hand smoke 
• Radiation 
• Phenoxy herbicides 
• Pesticides 

Specifically, exposure to coal or kerosene heaters, fumes from paints and solvents, and asbestos seem to be correlated with increased risk of several canine cancers. At this time, second-hand smoke has only been linked with nasal cancers in dogs, but evidence is mounting that there may be other associations too. Radiation exposure – most commonly via x-rays – should be evaluated by balancing the benefit of improved diagnostics when medically necessary, against the risk of harmful exposures if less necessary. There is no precise number of exposures that is known to be fully safe, nor a certain number where harm begins. Rather, radiation damage is accumulative, and the greater the number of lifetime exposures, the greater the carcinogenic risk. Also, in general, the younger in life the dog is exposed to x-rays, the greater the risk. 

As we discussed with regard to feeding, this is because rapidly dividing cells are most vulnerable to damage, and cells with DNA mutations early in life have more years to accumulate all of the further changes that are necessary for a cancer to grow (remember, it’s not a one-step process). And as with many types of exposures, fetal cells are at especially high risk. So while there is not strong data in dogs implicating prenatal x-rays (sometimes done to count puppies) as increasing the risk of cancer, there is such data in humans, where great care is usually taken to avoid prenatal exposure. But again, the balance of risk vs. benefit must be considered, and if a prenatal x-ray offers benefit that may save the life of one or more puppies (such as in determining that the litter is very large and that perhaps an elective C-section should be considered), then a prenatal x-ray may be a reasonable choice. 

Herbicide and pesticide exposures are difficult to study, because there are so many of them and the level of exposure is difficult to quantify. However, there is data implicating exposure to a class of herbicides called “phenoxy herbicides” as linked to certain canine cancers. These are fairly common chemicals used in yard care products, but since there are over 1100 names for various herbicides, owners can use the link Compendium of Pesticide Common Names to enter chemical names from the product label to determine if the product is classified as a phenoxy herbicide. Direct exposure to commonly used yard pesticides should probably be avoided, but this is not to be confused with “spot-on” flea and tick products. The spot-on products work in a way that does not appear to affect mammals, and safety data in mammals is very strong. In fact, data from the GRF/GRCA Health Survey showed that Goldens treated with spot-on products have a significantly reduced incidence of both lymphoma and hemangiosarcoma, our two most common cancers. The reasons for this are not clear yet, although that is one of the areas currently under investigation by a GRF sponsored study. 

There are widespread health considerations related to the age of neutering, but this column will focus on only those that impact the risk of cancer. Reduced risk of testicular cancer and mammary cancer have long been cited as important reasons to neuter dogs prior to six months of age, but those two cancers are only part of how the cancer picture is altered by altering a young puppy. Although many competition owners do not neuter their own dogs as puppies because they are potential conformation and/or breeding dogs, this discussion may pertain to breeders’requirements or recommendations for pet puppies sold on spay/neuter contracts. It is true that spaying a bitch prior to a first heat cycle will ensure the lowest possible risk of mammary cancer. However, the risk remains fairly low when the spay is delayed until after the first cycle, but before the second.

......

Some really good information in there, but still much to be learned on Goldens & cancer. A wonderfully written article by Rhonda Hovan who is breeder/owner/handler of Golden Retrievers for over thirty years. She is the Research Facilitator for the Golden Retriever Club of America, founded the Starlight Fund at the AKC Canine Health Foundation to support Golden Retriever health research, serves on the Advisory Board of the National Canine Cancer Foundation, and is an Emeritus Director of the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals.

If interested in reading the whole thing, "Understanding cancer in Golden Retrievers", here is the link: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/CCAH/local-assets/pdfs/UnderstandingCancerinGoldenRetrievers2.pdf


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

As said in other threads about longevity, the average life span of goldens today is not much different than other large breed dogs. And, not to be crass, but all living beings have to die of something. Just as in humans, the older we get, the greater our chances of having some type of cancer.


----------



## Reese9 (Jan 11, 2012)

Tayla's Mom said:


> I've done a lot of reading on this and I'm trying to do what I can to at least not contribute to the factors. Tayla is eating a mainly raw diet. Freeze dried raw for one meal and raw for the second meal. Will it help, I don't know, but I'm really trying to educate myself on nutrition. She gets veggies and fruits freely that are supposed to be super good for cancer fighting. Her food has no potatoes in it or any grains. Mainly because carbs turn into sugar and sugar feeds cancer cells. Her water is filtered. I try to use natural cleaning products around her and we don't smoke. I'm trying to eliminate some of her vaccines. She had her initial round and I'm holding off on her shots other than rabies for now. Although right now I'm waiting to hear back from a training club if they will accept her with titer values instead of shots. We don't spray chemicals in the yard and I am lucky we don't have a flea problem so I only treat for fleas if she has a few. I've only been using Comfortis 3 tims a year so far. She gets checked out annually by our vet and we do acupuncture and herbs. It's the best I can do. If she gets cancer at least I know that I did the best that I could for her and it was out of my hands.


So happy to hear I'm not the only one on here who is taking the more holistic side of things. The Golden I grew up with (died almost 6 years ago) from what we believe was cancer. Of course, back then there wasn't as much research on what foods were best, lawn pesticides, or cancer in dogs whatsoever. At least, not as popular as it is today. My parents fed a grocery store kibble, used lawn pesticides regularly (good thing not year round, as it snows here), and gave her table scraps on a regular basis. She was a good 85 pounds, and completely overweight for her size. She did live to be 13, which was amazing, but I feel we could have done a bit more for her the time she was alive. Her last few years were rough, and she wasn't thriving whatsoever. 

Fast forward to now. I have my own Golden and have learned so much as to how to prevent much of this from happening. Reese gets fed high quality, grain free kibble, canned food, and raw food (not all at the same meal), get's veggies & fruit on a regular basis, filtered water as often as possible and we only use all natural lawn feeders. As far as cleaning solutions, what do you use to make your own? I've heard of lemon mixtures being wonderful options. Also, what herbs do you use? I would love to get Reese started on some but don't know where to start or how much to give. Reese has all her vaccinations, but they are 3 year, not annuals.. Still debating whether or not I will vaccinate her for everything when that comes up again or not. We also don't have a flea problem up here but we do get the occasional tick. I only use preventatives if I am going somewhere where they are a problem. We have frontline but I have read good things about comfortis and will probably end up putting her on that down the road.


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> As said in other threads about longevity, the average life span of goldens today is not much different than other large breed dogs. And, not to be crass, but all living beings have to die of something. Just as in humans, the older we get, the greater our chances of having some type of cancer.


Yes, all things have to die of something. However, dieing at 6 or 7 is much different than dieing at 13 or 14. My goal is to give Tayla and others the best chance for living to be 13 or 14 or maybe even 15.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

I still have a very hard time understanding why breeders continue to use dogs as studs that have died of cancer ????


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

Reese9 said:


> So happy to hear I'm not the only one on here who is taking the more holistic side of things. The Golden I grew up with (died almost 6 years ago) from what we believe was cancer. Of course, back then there wasn't as much research on what foods were best, lawn pesticides, or cancer in dogs whatsoever. At least, not as popular as it is today. My parents fed a grocery store kibble, used lawn pesticides regularly (good thing not year round, as it snows here), and gave her table scraps on a regular basis. She was a good 85 pounds, and completely overweight for her size. She did live to be 13, which was amazing, but I feel we could have done a bit more for her the time she was alive. Her last few years were rough, and she wasn't thriving whatsoever.
> 
> Fast forward to now. I have my own Golden and have learned so much as to how to prevent much of this from happening. Reese gets fed high quality, grain free kibble, canned food, and raw food (not all at the same meal), get's veggies & fruit on a regular basis, filtered water as often as possible and we only use all natural lawn feeders. As far as cleaning solutions, what do you use to make your own? I've heard of lemon mixtures being wonderful options. Also, what herbs do you use? I would love to get Reese started on some but don't know where to start or how much to give. Reese has all her vaccinations, but they are 3 year, not annuals.. Still debating whether or not I will vaccinate her for everything when that comes up again or not. We also don't have a flea problem up here but we do get the occasional tick. I only use preventatives if I am going somewhere where they are a problem. We have frontline but I have read good things about comfortis and will probably end up putting her on that down the road.


I use a lot of vinegar for cleaning. I've made some of my own cleaners using vinegar and lemon, etc. The herbs we use are ones that our vet recommends in his Chinese medicine. Although I have been reading about detoxifying herbs to be given after heart worm and flea medications that help the liver cope. I know there is only so much you can do, but on a similar diet (although I fed a high quality kibble on my past dogs) and lifestyle my last two dogs (Aussie/BC mix died of a brain tumor at 15) and my Golden mix (died of complications to a pancreatic issue as best as we can tell) in March at 15 years. Better than that I don't expect, but they both were pretty healthy until shortly before their passings. That is what I'm shooting for with Tayla and future Goldens.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Tayla's Mom said:


> Yes, all things have to die of something. However, dieing at 6 or 7 is much different than dieing at 13 or 14. My goal is to give Tayla and others the best chance for living to be 13 or 14 or maybe even 15.


I completely agree. I think there needs to be a differentiation between young dogs dying of cancer and a geriatric dog whose end of life issue is cancer.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I lost my Toby at 3 weeks short of 14, cause of death unknown. My Tiny is 16+. 

All their lives, both were kept lean, both got lots of exercise, both were fed nothing but dog food, and both were appropriately vaccinated. And no one in my house smokes. 

And I've been very lucky, too. Lucky plays a pretty big role.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Reese9 said:


> Came across this article on breed standards. I would recommend reading the whole thing, but I will highlight the part on Golden Retrievers:
> 
> A Tragic Example of Narrowing the Gene Pool: Golden Retrievers
> 
> ...


First off, there are so many inaccuracies in this article, it's borders on comical.

FACT: Golden Retrievers existed before 1926, they were developed in the 1800's. 
FACT: CH. Misty Morn's Sunset CD TD WC OS SDHF died at age 11 of pnuemonia (he did not die 'early' of cancer).
FACT: Only two dogs have ever won a group 1st at Westminster, in 1968 Am. CH. Cragmount's Hi-Lo OS SDHF, and in 2006 Am/Can CH Chuckanut Party Favour O Novel SDHF OS. According to records Cragmount's Hi-Lo was not widely used as a stud dog (in comparison to other dogs of the day). 
FACT: Am./Can./Bda. CH. Cummings' Gold-Rush Charlie OS, Am./Can. SDHF died at 12, not 'young' as Becker wrote.

To imply (Becker says descendants, but then implies he sired) 180,000 puppies were produced by Misty Morn's Sunset would mean that 5.6 different bitches would have to have been bred to him every day of his life (using the average of 8 puppies per litter), since birth.

To imply Charlie had 250,000 puppies would mean he was bred to 7.1 different bitches every day (using the average of 8 puppies per litter), since birth. 

The average age of death for a Golden is 10-11 years, that hasn't changed in many many many many decades. Of course there are exceptions both above and below that. The average falls inline with dogs of similar size (large breed dogs, mixed and purebred).

Dr. Becker continually misinforms the public with these types of articles, and when it is brought to her attention she is misinformed or downright wrong there is never a correction nor a retraction. 

Dr. Becker has proven to be very anti AKC, very anti Purebred, and very anti Breeder.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Conqueror Gold - THANK YOU.


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

While she was the person doing the interview I believe Wayne Cavanaugh was the person being interviewed. They were in fact recognized by AKC in 1925 which although misleading they were discussing AKC so in fact they didn't exist prior to that year in AKC. I have no info on any of the dogs, but it's hard to dispute that cancer is a top health issue in Goldens as in several other breeds.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

Thank you Conquerergold. 

"Dr. Becker continually misinforms the public with these types of articles, and when it is brought to her attention she is misinformed or downright wrong there is never a correction nor a retraction. 

Dr. Becker has proven to be very anti AKC, very anti Purebred, and very anti Breeder."


It does make a difference if there are biasis on how things are presented and to actually use incorrect information is disgusting.


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

This is a little off topic, but it seems everyone is getting cancer. Dogs and humans alike. Perhaps it is an environmental factor, not just genetics. 

I know that because my Dad has cancer, I have a higher risk for developing it. But is that because we share genes or because we would have (traditionally speaking) spent 18 years around the same environmental triggers?

Is cancer so much more common because we can more easily detect it versus a few decades ago? 

Just thinking aloud. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

Jen, I think the advancement in medicine plays a large part in early detection of cancer today versus years ago. With people and dogs 50 years ago, you died of something. Might be called cancer, might be called something else. Especially in dogs, Spot just died. He wasn't himself and he died. Yes he was young, but you didn't have the testing back then. Now we do so maybe it's found more, but hopefully someday more can be done, especially with certain types of canine cancers. Advancements in both people cancer treatment and canine cancer treatment will help the other also.


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

Tayla's Mom said:


> Jen, I think the advancement in medicine plays a large part in early detection of cancer today versus years ago. With people and dogs 50 years ago, you died of something. Might be called cancer, might be called something else. Especially in dogs, Spot just died. He wasn't himself and he died. Yes he was young, but you didn't have the testing back then. Now we do so maybe it's found more, but hopefully someday more can be done, especially with certain types of canine cancers. Advancements in both people cancer treatment and canine cancer treatment will help the other also.


Tayla's mom--- i am quoting you because it follows my train of thought....

Logically, I feel (woah - that's contradictory. Lol!!) we cannot definitively draw a line that says cancer is more prevalent today than it was in 1950, 1926, etc. 

I came to this conclusion, because there are too many unaccounted for variables:

* detection of cancer
* reporting of cancer cases
* percentage of populations affected is skewed (mainly by the first two reasons)
*environmental factors - plastic containers, chemicals present that may have affected large portions of populations (DHT - I think it's called; oil spills, radiation [???] to name a few)
*food sources - there is the GMO debate. 

I don't think it's fair to anyone to say distinctly "line-breeding (inbreeding) causes cancer" or "cancer is so prevalent because two dogs are descendants of so many modern dogs."

Edit - fixed my unintentional double negative. My proof reading is not up to par.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

The part of this that I thought was most over the top was_: "You’ll never get a better temperament in a dog, but statistically, they’re all going to die of cancer." _Yes, cancer is a problem in Goldens as well as other breeds and in people. Hopefully, the cause will be found and dealt with but not all Goldens are going to die of cancer, statistically or actually.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Also, both people and pets are living longer. I do consider cancer in old dogs/people an old age disease. You live long enough and your cells divide enough times and something is going to go awry!
Veterinary medicine has grown a lot in the last decade of so. There are things being treated today that would have resulted in pets being put to sleep not to long ago. Think of some of the advances in arthritis treatments. 

I also make a big distinction between cancer in a 5yr old dog and cancer in a 12yr old dog.


----------



## Jessie'sGirl (Aug 30, 2010)

Jennifer 1, you have said exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Tayla's Mom said:


> While she was the person doing the interview I believe Wayne Cavanaugh was the person being interviewed. They were in fact recognized by AKC in 1925 which although misleading they were discussing AKC so in fact they didn't exist prior to that year in AKC. I have no info on any of the dogs, but it's hard to dispute that cancer is a top health issue in Goldens as in several other breeds.


As the interviewer, it is her job to check facts when writing an article about the interview/interviewee. She didn't. What she stated in her article (which wasn't a quote of the person she was interviewing): "Golden Retrievers didn’t exist in 1926.", that is wrong, no if's and's or but's about it. As you said AKC recognized them as a registrable breed in 1925, if the author wanted to present a factual piece they would know, the AKC wouldn't recognise a breed that didn't exist.

To blame the average age of death on any past dog(s) is irresponsible, I would like her to explain why the average around the world tends to be the same (with a six month leeway). Most (all?) of the Retriever breeds have generally the same average life span, all have dogs that surpass that average and all have dogs that don't meet that average.

It is this twisting of thoughts/facts that the reader needs to be aware of. Unfortunately, many J. Publics will now think of this piece as factual information since it came from a vet, when in fact, it's propaganda.


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

Do you deny that cancer in Golden's is more prevalent than in other breeds? If you do then why would we need a study like the one being done on Golden's specifically?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Tayla's Mom said:


> Do you deny that cancer in Golden's is more prevalent than in other breeds? If you do then why would we need a study like the one being done on Golden's specifically?


I believe there are studies that have been going on with other breeds.... and have been.

Flat Coated Retrievers in particular.... Bernese Mountain Dogs too.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Tayla's Mom said:


> Do you deny that cancer in Golden's is more prevalent than in other breeds? If you do then why would we need a study like the one being done on Golden's specifically?


I don't believe I indicated my thoughts either way, and really do not understand what baring my thoughts on cancer has to do with the article. 

Cancer roughly affects 30% of all dogs (that is all dogs, mixed and purbred, toy and giant).

If the study you are referencing is the GR Lifetime Study, you do know why it's likely Goldens were chosen for a lifetime study that will benefit all dogs? Above the major funding source coming from the GRF, the popularity of the breed plays a huge role. It is much easier to find 3,000 Golden Retriever owners willing to partake in a 10-14 year study then it would be 3,000 Vizsla or IWS owners.

Cancer is not more prevalent than in all other breeds, it can be considered less or equal to:
Flatcoats
Bernese
Irish Water Spaniels
Flat Coats
Wirehaired Vizsla
Rottweilers
Spinones
Leonbergers
Boxers

I am not in anyway down playing the cancer within our breed, nor within dogs in general. As has been mentioned previously, I think we are more aware of the stats within our breed due to owners, breeders, breed clubs, popularity and advancements of veterinary technology.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

I would be curious to see if goldens "get" more cancer vs "die" from more cancer. Some cancers are more deadly/faster than others, such as hemangio. HSA also tends to be most prevelent in GSD and goldens. There are some cancers that are more treatable or at least the dog can live a relatively good life with cancer. 
I had a cat with a form of leukemia. We were able to get her into remission. She died an old cat with cancer, but cancer isn't what killed her.


----------



## Reese9 (Jan 11, 2012)

In response to Conquer Gold:

You are right that there are a few inaccurate sources in this article, my apologies.

As far as facts go: Golden Retrievers began to develop in the 1800's but weren't recognized as the actual Golden Retriever breed until 1925 with the AKC. So yes, they existed, but they weren't yet recognized as an actual breed.

There aren't many sources related to Misty Morn's Sunsets death but the one I could find said he died of pneumonia, but that doesn't mean he didn't also have cancer. Ann Johnson claims Gold-Rush Charlie died of acute pancreatitis and that he never had cancer, but how can she know for sure? She could just be trying to protect her legacy.. But you are correct, neither died young. Wayne also never stated either of them died of cancer, only that they had both developed it.

If you also do research on Gold-Rush Charlie, you will find that many people who have bought puppies that are descendants of him, died from cancer.

I found a list of Misty Morn Sunset's & Gold-Rush Charlie's registered offspring. There are a good 200 dogs on each list. The list only contains dogs in the database for which this dog is a parent. Dogs that have not been entered into the database aren't in this list, so I can only imagine how many more they were actual sires to. No, I don't think one dog could produce 180,000 dogs, nor do I think that is what Dr. Karen Becker was implying. 

http://www.k9data.com/offspring.asp?ID=56

http://www.k9data.com/offspring.asp?ID=63

I don't know much about Westminister but it does show Gold-Rush Charlie won best of the breed in 1973 & 74, which from my research, is the same as winning group, not getting 1st.

Statistics: Approximately 60% of all Goldens will die from cancer. By gender, it’s 57% of females and 66% of males. For comparison, the rate of cancer in Goldens is just slightly less than double the rate of cancer in all dogs, which is estimated to be about one in three (and which actually is about the same as in humans). But even though our cancer rate is nearly double then all-breed average, it’s important to keep in mind that the average lifespan of the breed is still within the same 10-11 year range as all breeds. Our two most common cancers are hemangiosarcoma, affecting about one in five Goldens; and lymphoma, affecting about one in eight Goldens.

So yes, obviously all humans and dogs alike are prone to cancer. But, hopefully in the future we can find a way reduce a Golden's risk of getting cancer. For now, I do my part in feeding a species appropriate diet, not using fertilizers, and keeping my pup away from environmental toxins.


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

Can you please cite the source for your statistics?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Reese9 (Jan 11, 2012)

Brave said:


> Can you please cite the source for your statistics?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


A few places -

Rhonda Haven with UC Davis on Understanding cancer in Golden Retrievers - 

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/CCAH/local-assets/pdfs/UnderstandingCancerinGoldenRetrievers2.pdf

Gold Rush Charlie's owner & now breeder - 

Gold-Rush Goldens - Am. Can. Bda. Ch. Gold-Rush Charlie OS, SDHF

Pedigrees for both dogs -

Pedigree: Am./Can./Bda. CH. Cummings' Gold-Rush Charlie OS, Am./Can. SDHF

Pedigree: Am. CH. Misty Morn's Sunset CD TD WC OS SDHF

Offspring of both dogs - 

Offspring of Am. CH. Misty Morn's Sunset CD TD WC OS SDHF

Offspring of Am./Can./Bda. CH. Cummings' Gold-Rush Charlie OS, Am./Can. SDHF

Complaints from people who have received dogs from Gold Rush Kennels - 

3 Complaints and Reviews about Gold Rush Kennels

Golden Retriever Breeders - The Pets' Domain - WWPToday Chat

(if you look up Gold Rush Charlie & cancer on google much more will come up)

The AKC - 

Golden Retriever Page


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Here is a pretty good article, can't vouch for the accuracy.
The Cancer Risk for Purebred Dogs - WSJ.com

They had an interesting blurb about rates of cancer with different breeds


> *Susceptible Breeds*
> 
> About 1 in 3 dogs die of cancer, about the same rate as people. Some breeds, however, are more susceptible than others. Here are the breeds with highest to lowest incidences of cancer. (Average life expectancy shown in parentheses.)
> *Highest Risk*
> ...


Also, to put it in perspective (for me) 


> While it's tempting to see cancer as the Curse of the Golden Retriever, all breeds have their health scourges. Bulldogs have respiratory problems; dachshunds have back issues; Labrador retrievers have heart disease and diabetes and even with a much lower rate of cancer, die at roughly the same age as goldens.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Here's the hard part of any statistic like these. Not all goldens in the US or any other part of the world are in a database that you can see, yes there are X and X died of cancer. You are also assuming that all goldens see a vet and know accurately they have cancer.

Statistics are one of the easiest things to manipulate. The only accurate way to determine if there is a problem in goldens, is for all goldens to be recorded and have a vet that determines throughout their life if they are sick and what they die from. Now Morris study has potential, but it still leaves out a huge amount of goldens.

The only way I'll believe there is a problem in a breed is finding a genetic marker that leads to a particular cancer. But only if 100% of the dogs develop that cancer if they have that marker.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Yes, statistics are often manipulated.
But, you don't need all goldens to be studied to know if there is a problem.
It is safe to say that the percentage of goldens studied, followed by a vet etc.... Is going to be the same percentage as labs, spaniels, GSD etc... 
Assuming these dogs are a cross-section of their breeds (vs skewed by being selected by criteria ignored in other breeds). Then if 60% of goldens get cancer and 35% of labs get cancer and 30% of GSD get cancer (numbers are hypothetical-I haven't looked at any data to know if the real numbers are that different), than yes you can conclude that goldens get a higher percentage. Assuming your sample set was large enough and broad enough, it is safe to say that the percentages will hold true on a larger scale.

It doesn't however tell you WHY goldens get cancer more.
Also as pointed out in my last post, other dogs less prone to cancer had other issues that caused them to have similar life expectancies.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Think of it in terms if human cancers. You don't have to study all smokers to know that smokers have a higher incidence if cancer than non-smokers. We all know that smoking is a risk factor for cancer. 
Or being of European decent has a higher incidence of celiac disease. Again, you don't need to study all people of European decent to get that statistic.

In this case, the breed itself is a risk factor. (Assuming the numbers bantered around are correct)


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> As far as facts go: Golden Retrievers began to develop in the 1800's but weren't recognized as the actual Golden Retriever breed until 1925 with the AKC. So yes, they existed, but they weren't yet recognized as an actual breed.


Something to point out.... they were a breed before the AKC recognized them. You have to have a set breed standard and have several generations of existence before you can start showing a breed with a breed club. 

As far as pedigrees go - I can track my goldens' lineage all the way back to the late 1800's. There were other breeds mixed in that pedigree at the time - which gave us some chuckles. 



> There aren't many sources related to Misty Morn's Sunsets death but the one I could find said he died of pneumonia, but that doesn't mean he didn't also have cancer.


With all due respect.... isn't that speculation as opposed to fact? 



> If you also do research on Gold-Rush Charlie, you will find that many people who have bought puppies that are descendants of him, died from cancer.


And it would be very tough finding a golden retriever who is not a descendant of his. As well as longer lived dogs. Meaning that there are descendants of his who live very long lives.

And speaking with my vet - the older a dog is, the more likely they will develop cancer. And old age cancer is not a new invention with either dogs or people. 

What I'm afraid of are those cancers which affect younger dogs. Golden retrievers should live 10+ years. If their lives are cut short before old age - that's a horrible tragedy.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Reese9 said:


> In response to Conquer Gold:
> 
> You are right that there are a few inaccurate sources in this article, my apologies.
> 
> As far as facts go: Golden Retrievers began to develop in the 1800's but weren't recognized as the actual Golden Retriever breed until 1925 with the AKC. So yes, they existed, but they weren't yet recognized as an actual breed.


The article says plain as day, "Golden Retrievers didn’t exist in 1926.". That is false.



Reese9 said:


> There aren't many sources related to Misty Morn's Sunsets death but the one I could find said he died of pneumonia, but that doesn't mean he didn't also have cancer. Ann Johnson claims Gold-Rush Charlie died of acute pancreatitis and that he never had cancer, but how can she know for sure? She could just be trying to protect her legacy.. But you are correct, neither died young. Wayne also never stated either of them died of cancer, only that they had both developed it.
> 
> If you also do research on Gold-Rush Charlie, you will find that many people who have bought puppies that are descendants of him, died from cancer.


In North America you will be hard pressed to find any NA Pedigree that does not contain Charlie. We all have descendants of him. They do not have descendants of him in the majority of overseas pedigrees, yet the average lifespan is close to being the same with cancer still being the number one cause of death. If one is going to speculate that Charlie's owners are lying to protect something, one should also speculate that those involved in this interview/article are lying to enforce the thought process they are presenting.

There are many breeders still active who were around when Sammy died, the ones that knew him personally confirm pneumonia as COD, I personally trust them in their recollection.

This article leads the reader to believe both died young of cancer, via this statement: "And both those sires developed cancer. Both died young.". It forces the reader to make a connection. We know neither were young, how do we know both had cancer?



Reese9 said:


> I found a list of Misty Morn Sunset's & Gold-Rush Charlie's registered offspring. There are a good 200 dogs on each list. The list only contains dogs in the database for which this dog is a parent. Dogs that have not been entered into the database aren't in this list, so I can only imagine how many more they were actual sires to. No, I don't think one dog could produce 180,000 dogs, nor do I think that is what Dr. Karen Becker was implying.


The implication happens via this statement: "So if we double the number of registered puppies, that’s 180,000 dogs from one sire.". The definition of sire: The male parent of an animal



Reese9 said:


> I don't know much about Westminister but it does show Gold-Rush Charlie won best of the breed in 1973 & 74, which from my research, is the same as winning group, not getting 1st.


No, winning Best of Breed is equal to winning Best of Breed. Winning Group, means winning 1st in the Sporting Group (Hound Group, Toy Group etc.). If the author of that article doesn't know proper terminology, again they should have fact checked. If they meant winning Best of Breed, they should have stated 'He won Best of Breed at Westminster', rather it is written as 'He won the group at Westminster.'. Mistake? Bending the proper terminology? Or yet another flat out false claim?



Reese9 said:


> So yes, obviously all humans and dogs alike are prone to cancer. But, hopefully in the future we can find a way reduce a Golden's risk of getting cancer. For now, I do my part in feeding a species appropriate diet, not using fertilizers, and keeping my pup away from environmental toxins.


Yes! This is what anyone can realistically do, stack the odds in our favour, which applies to pedigree research, education about spay/neuter, vaccinations, topical meds etc. in addition to what you have outlined.


----------

