# Crescent Goldens?



## hmj (Oct 25, 2011)

Has anyone heard of Crescent Goldens in Virgnia?

Crescent Golden Retrievers Established in 1996 - Crescent Goldens - Top Quality Champion Golden Retrievers and Golden Retriever Puppies - North Carolina - Virginia - Raleigh - Durham - USA


----------



## hmj (Oct 25, 2011)

What about Random Winds in North Carolina?

:: Random Winds Golden Retrievers ::


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

hmj said:


> Has anyone heard of Crescent Goldens in Virgnia?
> 
> Crescent Golden Retrievers Established in 1996 - Crescent Goldens - Top Quality Champion Golden Retrievers and Golden Retriever Puppies - North Carolina - Virginia - Raleigh - Durham - USA


If you are looking at the Spicy X Rico litter you will need to ask the breeder to see a more current CERF on Spicy (on the OFFA website her clearance is from 2009) and a heart clearance on Rico.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

Crescent goldens is a great breeder! Beamer is from EmmyxBuzz just this past spring. She does have all of her clearances (but she doesn't send in eye exams to OFA, so you have to ask for them, which she will provide). Good luck!


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

hmj said:


> What about Random Winds in North Carolina?
> 
> :: Random Winds Golden Retrievers ::


It appears that Rico, the sire of the Cresent litter is owned by Random Winds! For these dogs just make sure they have a Cardiac Clearance since they do not have it listed on the OFFA website. Not being listed is not a problem, you will just need to see them and it is best if they were done by a cardiologist.

The sire of this litter Chaos is one of the TOP show Goldens in the country and has won the National Specialty twice I think?


----------



## Dexell1827 (Feb 23, 2011)

Crescent was at the top of my list when I was searching earlier this year. The timing didn't work out, but I'll definitely consider them in the future.

But they're located in NC, not Virginia.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

Dexell1827 said:


> Crescent was at the top of my list when I was searching earlier this year. The timing didn't work out, but I'll definitely consider them in the future.
> 
> But they're located in NC, not Virginia.


Yes, near Raleigh. It was about a 6 hour drive down from Northern VA.


----------



## hmj (Oct 25, 2011)

Yup, you're right, I put in the wrong state. That's what happens when you have a sick child in your lap when you're typing.  Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## golden_eclipse (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't understand not sending in the cardiac clearance...its once and you are done...I can see the CERF form, as you have to do it every year and if you have multiple show dogs or dogs generally (as you should keep doing them even when you aren't breeding them) it adds up. 

But I know the cardiologist we go to charges $100 for the examination if you don't need an echo, I don't see whats the big deal for the $35 to register it with the OFA and get it searchable on the database, especially when you have probably invested $10k or more (sometimes much more) to get the dog an AM. CH...

not to criticize, I just don't get it.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Yvonne is a very reputable hobby breeder and a wonderful person, to boot. She does do the clearances on her dogs-you just need to ask.

Spicy is having her babies as I type......


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

kdowningxc said:


> I don't understand not sending in the cardiac clearance...its once and you are done...I can see the CERF form, as you have to do it every year and if you have multiple show dogs or dogs generally (as you should keep doing them even when you aren't breeding them) it adds up.
> 
> But I know the cardiologist we go to charges $100 for the examination if you don't need an echo, I don't see whats the big deal for the $35 to register it with the OFA and get it searchable on the database, especially when you have probably invested $10k or more (sometimes much more) to get the dog an AM. CH...
> 
> not to criticize, I just don't get it.


I agree with you 100% about the heart clearance... but not about CERF. It only takes $8.00 to recertify the dog each year. This practice of not sending in clearances may not have directly led to the steep increase of Pigmentary Uveitis (sp?) cases in the breed... but it certainly didn't help us to catch it any faster. I think with this devastating disease on the rise and so little information available about it that every breeder (and pet owner who chooses to participate... that is so very important too!) needs to send in every CERF every time. In fact, I understand the GRCA recently updated their recommendations in the Code of Ethics to suggest that breeders register all clearances including eyes with CERF and heart with OFA. I personally think that's a great recommendation!!

Sorry for the side track. I am not familiar with Crescent personally but it seems they have a good reputation judging by the comments here. As others said make sure you ask to see up to date eye clearances if they are not available on the CERF database and a heart clearance performed by a cardiologist. That rule holds no matter what breeder you are looking at... and the truly reputable ones are always glad to hear the questions being asked... it shows you care and that you're doing your homework to give a puppy the best possible future. Good luck in your puppy search!

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Jersey's Mom said:


> I agree with you 100% about the heart clearance... but not about CERF. It only takes $8.00 to recertify the dog each year. This practice of not sending in clearances may not have directly led to the steep increase of Pigmentary Uveitis (sp?) cases in the breed... but it certainly didn't help us to catch it any faster. I think with this devastating disease on the rise and so little information available about it that every breeder (and pet owner who chooses to participate... that is so very important too!) needs to send in every CERF every time. In fact, I understand the GRCA recently updated their recommendations in the Code of Ethics to suggest that breeders register all clearances including eyes with CERF and heart with OFA. I personally think that's a great recommendation!!
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


 

OK, first, I don't want anyone to think they are being picked on but I have a "thing" about misinformation. First, how do you believe that people not sending in CERF form's added to the PU problem in the breed??

If people are asking for CERF information before doing a breeding with a dog and before buying a puppy, they have that information and would be aware of whether or not a dog had PU. The "problem" became a problem because PU used to clear CERF. As I have mentioned in previous posts about CERF, CERF tracks trends in all the different breeds. There are 3 forms with every CERF exam. One goes to the owner of the dog, one stays with the optho doing the exam and the third is sent into CERF for their data. So, whether or not the owner chooses to send in the form, CERF does get the information to add to their statistics. CERF compiles all the statistics and looks to see if there is an increase of any of the eye anomolies that affect the different breeds. Some things will clear CERF in one breed and not in another. The different opthos meet and discuss if there are any clear trends that they need to be watching or if there are any increases that now not need to clear.

We still know VERY little about PU in our goldens. Is it a problem? Absolutely. However, when the experts can't agree on what causes it or where it comes from, we certainly cannot make generalizations or speculations about it. The other reason that it is believed to have become an issue is that the average age of onset is about 8 years old which is past breeding age for most bitches and even many dogs. So, some dogs have had the disease and it has not been diagnosed until it was in late stages.

The GRCA is helping to fund as many studies as possible and to get the information out there that we do have. However, it will take more time before there are any difinitive answers. 

One other huge problem is now what to do with these dogs that are found to be diagnosed with PU. Because of the late onset, most of the dogs who are diagnosed have reproduced. What happens with their kids and their grand-kids when someone finds out there 10 year old dog has PU??? Again, the jury is still out. So, please don't make recommendations when the experts don't know what to do. It is a knee jerk reaction to just say, oh, don't breed any of them. However, the problem with that thinking is that we don't know what other genes are linked with PU. Lots of other breeds have gotten into huge problems with this way of thinking-Besenji's probably being the best known. Plus, no breed is so so large, even goldens, because all dogs go back to common ancestors, that you can afford to throw all these dogs out of the gene pool. Genetics is a very complex subject and is best left to the experts in their field.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Not to hijack, but for years the vet who came to Maine to do eye clearances, refused to do CERF's(hated the paperwork), so he did his own form. All of those dogs that he did for years (I would say at least 20 years) for the local retriever club would be untraceable(except thru him) with regards to clearances and eye disease patterns... For that reason, I like the way the CERF paperwork is done. It is inexpensive to send in annual clearances so I do it. I also like to see OFA heart clearances as I like to see everything up there in black and white. And the issue is that PU was CERFable....


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Sally's Mom said:


> Not to hijack, but for years the vet who came to Maine to do eye clearances, refused to do CERF's(hated the paperwork), so he did his own form. All of those dogs that he did for years (I would say at least 20 years) for the local retriever club would be untraceable(except thru him) with regards to clearances and eye disease patterns... For that reason, I like the way the CERF paperwork is done. It is inexpensive to send in annual clearances so I do it. I also like to see OFA heart clearances as I like to see everything up there in black and white. And the issue is that PU was CERFable....


 
Obviously, none of the people who were attending these clinics were sending their information into CERF since he was using his own form and the CERF bubble carbon copy is required for a CERF. If there is one mark on a CERF Bubble form that shouldn't be there, it will be rejected. From the CERF website:
7. I received my form back from CERF stating it was ineligible for registration due to the
form appearing to be altered; I didn’t alter the form I don’t understand what to do next.​CERF examination forms are carbon copies. No pen, pencil, marker or crayons of any
type are permitted on the front side of the form in the diagnosis or signature area of the
form. Please do not try to mark over an examiners diagnosis to darken it, if we have
questions regarding a diagnosis we will contact the examining veterinarian for
furthering questioning. Any and all forms with pen, pencil, marker or crayon will be sent
back as ineligible due to appearing to be altered. If this happens, the examining​veterinarian can contact the CERF office about how to resubmit the form properly.
 

I would have to say that is shame on them for taking their dogs there and not to another clinic where the correct forms would be used so that whether or not they chose to send the form in for a CERF number, their dogs would be included in the statistics and for not being able to send their information in for a CERF number.
By using him, they couldn't get a CERF number, so anyone "could see it in black and white", if they wanted to.


----------



## golden_eclipse (Apr 1, 2011)

In my original post, I was not at all trying to say I agree that eye clearances shouldn't be sent in, but would be more convinced that they did the examinations and just keep a file of them, instead of sending every single one in every year of the dogs life, and especially after they are done breeding, although I would expect that they do send in the abnormal ones to be registered, as that is a piece of information that can be invaluable to someone trying to look up pedigree health history. 

But none the less, I get frustrated when top breeders with great top winning dogs don't bother to send in the forms. You do several stud services a year and have invested thousands into each dog, why can't you take the time and a few bucks to mail in the CERF. But that is the same argument for the heart, but its much less work, so its even more frustrating to me. I often disregard good breeders just because they don't bother to make that information available to the public. Especially when their stud will have a lot of offspring, its even more important for the public to have that information. And now the COE recommends to always use the online database its easier to feel justified in getting frustrated with a breeder over this. 

Overall the most important thing is that the clearances are getting done, secondary to that is being able to view them on a data base. By no means is a breeder who does the checks but doesn't send them in a bad breeder, just frustrating for others who would like to verify the information without having to make a trip to their location and view the paper work in person (especially years after the breeding took place, it can be impossible to do so.) 

I feel uncomfortable commenting on the PU issue, as from what I read on the GRCA website and other studies, I don't feel there is definite conclusion about why the disease came about. 

I do agree with HVgoldens4 that we most certainly can't start going crazy and cut a large portion of dogs out the gene pool when we do not have sufficient information. 

But I do hope that more people start doing CERF's on the pet goldens so we can gather more information and hopefully come to a conclusion or more of one about the disease.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I made him do CERF's on my dogs, but ultimately just took them out of state, not at a retriever sponsored clinic, for my clearances. I am not saying at all that I agreed with what went on, my point is I do CERFs and I send them in. I do OFA hearts, elbows, and hips and all of my bitches have CHIC #'s with clearances.... so it is all there in black and white.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

kdowningxc said:


> In my original post, I was not at all trying to say I agree that eye clearances shouldn't be sent in, but would be more convinced that they did the examinations and just keep a file of them, instead of sending every single one in every year of the dogs life, and especially after they are done breeding, although I would expect that they do send in the abnormal ones to be registered, as that is a piece of information that can be invaluable to someone trying to look up pedigree health history.
> 
> But none the less, I get frustrated when top breeders with great top winning dogs don't bother to send in the forms. You do several stud services a year and have invested thousands into each dog, why can't you take the time and a few bucks to mail in the CERF. But that is the same argument for the heart, but its much less work, so its even more frustrating to me. I often disregard good breeders just because they don't bother to make that information available to the public. Especially when their stud will have a lot of offspring, its even more important for the public to have that information. And now the COE recommends to always use the online database its easier to feel justified in getting frustrated with a breeder over this.
> 
> Overall the most important thing is that the clearances are getting done, secondary to that is being able to view them on a data base. By no means is a breeder who does the checks but doesn't send them in a bad breeder, just frustrating for others who would like to verify the information without having to make a trip to their location and view the paper work in person (especially years after the breeding took place, it can be impossible to do so.)


 
OK, I am confused. In the first paragraph, you say the stud dog owner/breeder should keep the information in a file rather than sending them in every year but then you are saying they need to be sent in. I have every CERF exam that was ever done on any one of my dogs, and I do do them yearly. They are in a file with each dogs name on it with their breeding records and other clearances. I didn't send them in every year but they were done every year. Then you have the problem that many opthos were telling breeders that they could stop doing CERF's when a dog was 8 and some said 10. Now with PU, they are asking that the dogs be done for life. That is fine if you own the dog for its entire life. There are breeders who retire their show dogs and place them in pet homes. Once the dog is no longer yours, you cannot force the new owner to continue to do CERF exams. You can request, but you cannot force. Then comes the issues that there are not that many opthos. They tend to be centered around large metropolitan areas and so there is also the issue of getting to the CERF clinic. So, we will all do the best that we can.

The GRCA just changed the COE a couple months ago. You do have to give breeders time to get things in. For example, I sent in heart exams on 6 dogs back at the end of August. I got the certificates back a few weeks ago, they just showed up on the OFA website yesterday!! It would be nice if things went faster, but there are still people inputting all the information into the database so it does take time because they are dealing with every breed of pure bred dog and now some of the hybrids.

In 6 months or a year from now, if you are still not seeing a breeder sending in heart and eye reports, then you have a beef. Until a few months ago, there was no mention of hearts or eyes being recorded. Then when the Health and Genetics Committee decided that CERF's should be sent in to an online recordable database because of the late onset of PU, there was outcry from the membership that if it was going to be required for eyes, it should be required for hearts. So, before the final revisions were made to the changes, hearts were added in.

Please understand that I am not saying that the exams shouldn't be sent it. What I am saying is that you need to give everyone time to get things sent in. There is still debate going back and forth about allowing expired CERF exams to be added to the database for historical reasons. I do think this would help with the more popular sires, etc but the verdict has not come in on that yet. Just a month or so ago, CERF was going to get rid of the months at the end of the CERF number. Again, there was outcry from breeders and club members from different clubs so they are now looking at whether that will remain or not. Hopefully, they will add that back as that is a very easy way to tell if a dog's CERF is current.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Very interesting information re: Cerf and exams. Could you take this discussion to it's own thread though? The OP posted asking about a specific breeder and this has become a discussion about CERF not the original question. It would be beneficial to take all the information posted to it's thread so it can be seen by everyone.


----------



## golden_eclipse (Apr 1, 2011)

hvgoldens4 said:


> OK, I am confused. In the first paragraph, you say the stud dog owner/breeder should keep the information in a file rather than sending them in every year but then you are saying they need to be sent in.
> 
> Nope, I did not say that a breeder should keep them on file and not send them in but that it is commonly done, since the eyes are so much up keep as every dog and every year it all must be mailed and paid for. But I most certainly do not prefer it. I do understand that the COE were just changed, and I my self have redone eye exams that were done in May just to get the CERF form registered and mailed in. (again I wasn't sure about mailing in a 6month old form, figured I would just redo them and mail in a new one.)
> 
> But otherwise, I don't see a reason for a new thread I think we all understand each other.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

kdowningxc said:


> hvgoldens4 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I am confused. In the first paragraph, you say the stud dog owner/breeder should keep the information in a file rather than sending them in every year but then you are saying they need to be sent in.
> ...


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

hvgoldens4 said:


> OK, first, I don't want anyone to think they are being picked on but I have a "thing" about misinformation. First, how do you believe that people not sending in CERF form's added to the PU problem in the breed??
> 
> If people are asking for CERF information before doing a breeding with a dog and before buying a puppy, they have that information and would be aware of whether or not a dog had PU. The "problem" became a problem because PU used to clear CERF. As I have mentioned in previous posts about CERF, CERF tracks trends in all the different breeds. There are 3 forms with every CERF exam. One goes to the owner of the dog, one stays with the optho doing the exam and the third is sent into CERF for their data. So, whether or not the owner chooses to send in the form, CERF does get the information to add to their statistics. CERF compiles all the statistics and looks to see if there is an increase of any of the eye anomolies that affect the different breeds. Some things will clear CERF in one breed and not in another. The different opthos meet and discuss if there are any clear trends that they need to be watching or if there are any increases that now not need to clear.
> 
> ...


Saying people should send in every CERF every time to get as much knowledge out there in the *public* domain is a recommendation I shouldn't make? Really? It's my opinion and I stand by it. At no point did I say we should not breed any of them. In fact, I made no statement about the breedability ( I may have just made that word up, but it's late and it's the best I can come up with) of any dog... you have no idea my opinion on that subject, so please do not put words in my mouth. I also stated that failure to send in CERF forms did not directly lead to the steep rise in PU -- another statement you misrepresented. I appreciate the good information in your post. I personally did not know that PU used to clear CERF. That's good to know... and certainly has a bearing on the statement I made. But you always come out guns blazing as though you've been personally assaulted when you disagree with someone. As you suggested in a different thread today, maybe you need to take a breath and think about it before you hit that send button. To be clear: I don't feel picked on in any way shape or form. You just come across as very defensive and angry every time I see you post. It's just not conducive to a productive conversation... and then we wind up with a ton of really long posts with everyone having to clarify and reclarify what they are trying to say to appease you. And then we have vastly hijacked threads like this one. 

To the OP, sorry for my part in hijacking the thread... but I do have to respond here. Feel free to skip to the last paragraph of this post, that one's for you!!

I still stand by my belief that every clearance should be made public regardless of the results every time. That extends to OFA clearances where people have the option of suppressing failing scores... but that's outside the realm of this thread. *Especially* since we know so little about PU. The more that's out there the more we have to work with. It would seem the GRCA shares a similar opinion regarding CERF clearances with the recent adjustment to the COE -- as they are also aware that 1 copy automatically goes to CERF, it would seem they see an added value to also submitting the results to the public database. 

Now allow me to make what I was trying to say in my first post a little more clear. This is sure to upset you because it is going to seem that I am badmouthing someone involved in breeding. Allow me to assure you that I am simply stating facts, not passing judgement.... I am also going to refrain from identifying the person. Someone in the USA owns a dog who was a fairly commonly used stud in his day. I couldn't guess at how many litters he sired... but let's say it was probably more than 5 and less than 20 -- only to say that there is a fair amount of his DNA out there now. This dog had all of his clearances and got yearly CERF exams that were sent in to the database for public display. Those who owned puppies sired by him, I would imagine didn't bother checking the database every year... I know I've never done that on my dog's parents.... until one day one of those owners was planning a litter (maybe of one of his offspring... maybe of one of his offspring's offspring... I really don't know). She wanted to do some good pedigree research and just happened to notice that he hadn't had a CERF submitted for the past 2 years. She called the owner of said dog and found out then that the dog had been diagnosed with PU a year and 1/2 ago. At that time, PU did not pass CERF. And yes, his data was added to the statistics... great. But how many of his offspring or offspring's offspring were bred in the year and 1/2 before this point? (especially those bred close to the time period of the initial failing CERF -- they wouldn't have known there was any reason it wasn't there yet... and gee, he'd always been clear before and wasn't all that old). This person chose not to submit the CERF and chose not to contact the owners of the bitches to which he had been bred to inform them of the diagnosis. So no one had access to that information.... except for CERF's statisticians. Not to say that any of the dogs bred should not have been... but the people involved should have made that choice with ALL the information available to them. That is the type of situation I was referring to. This particular event in no way happened in a vacuum and it is hardly a singular event. Thus my statement in my first post (paraphrased): The practice of not sending in CERFs may not have caused the steep rise in PU cases (to clarify, by this I mean it didn't cause it), but it certainly didn't help us catch it any faster. I stand by it.

I am thankful that there is currently a big push by some big name, reputable breeders to be more open and forthcoming concerning this disease. I am thankful that the GRCA sees the benefit of encouraging breeders to submit every CERF to the database. And I am hopeful that these measures will help us get more information about this disease more quickly. 

kdowning: I did understand what you were saying in your first post... what you said was not an unreasonable stance... and I definitely saw that most of the comment was more about why people wouldn't send in a 1 time heart clearance than anything about CERF, and I did try to get across that I agreed with you about the heart clearance. Though, to be honest, I did think you agreed with your statement about CERF more than you actually do. But that's really neither here nor there, and I didn't think your opinion (or what I believed it to be) was anything horribly wrong... was just adding my opinion as it's something I do feel strongly about.

And since I've already written a novel... something for the OP: As others have said, just ask about the clearances that you can't see online. I have a good feeling this breeder will be able to show them to you... but to best protect yourself do ask to see them before you put a deposit (and definitely before you see puppies... once you smell that puppy breath the heart beats the brain every time! LOL). Check out this thread for examples of what the clearances should look like:
http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/choosing-golden-retriever-breeder-puppy/71378-what-clearances-look-like.html
I apologize for my part in hijacking your thread... the convos on this forum kind of bleed from one thread to another and I think we sometimes forget that we're not being very polite to the OP. Actually, I'm often guilty of that... I have a short attention span and tend to follow tangents. Good luck with your puppy search... and please be sure to come back with any more questions you have!

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Saying people should send in every CERF every time to get as much knowledge out there in the *public* domain is a recommendation I shouldn't make? Really? It's my opinion and I stand by it. At no point did I say we should not breed any of them. In fact, I made no statement about the breedability ( I may have just made that word up, but it's late and it's the best I can come up with) of any dog... you have no idea my opinion on that subject, so please do not put words in my mouth. I also stated that failure to send in CERF forms did not directly lead to the steep rise in PU -- another statement you misrepresented. I appreciate the good information in your post. I personally did not know that PU used to clear CERF. That's good to know... and certainly has a bearing on the statement I made. But you always come out guns blazing as though you've been personally assaulted when you disagree with someone. As you suggested in a different thread today, maybe you need to take a breath and think about it before you hit that send button. To be clear: I don't feel picked on in any way shape or form. You just come across as very defensive and angry every time I see you post. It's just not conducive to a productive conversation... and then we wind up with a ton of really long posts with everyone having to clarify and reclarify what they are trying to say to appease you. And then we have vastly hijacked threads like this one.
> 
> To the OP, sorry for my part in hijacking the thread... but I do have to respond here. Feel free to skip to the last paragraph of this post, that one's for you!!
> 
> ...


I am going to ignore the personal attacks in your post because they serve no purpose. I feel that this subject is very important and it is also very important that the correct information is out there.

At no time in any post did I state that exams/data should not be sent in to CERF so that it can then be recoradble on the CERF website and on the OFA's website. I have stated the opposite. I have simply explained the process of where the carbon copies that are part of the CERF exam go to after the exam is done.

Because I apparently was not clear in my previous post in the fact that I was not speaking to one person: *The information below is directed at all members of the forum or anyone who choses to read this and not at any one member in particular.*

PU (Pigmentary Uveitis) was first described in scientific literature as a cause of blindness in the Golden Retriever in 2000. ACVO(American College of Veterinary Opthamologists-who are the doctors that give CERF exams and review statistics) listed PU as a presumed inherted condition is 2001. So, before 2001, dogs who had PU were eligible to get a CERF number. Even though the condition was first described in 2000, the Health and Genetics Committee for the GRCA is aware of some anectdotal evidence that it may have existed before that time. However, there is no way to know with 100% certainty if it was pigementary uveitis or uveitis as those dogs in question have long since passed and are not available for examination. There is a difference between the two-PU at this time, other than 1 possible case in a lab, has only been seen in Goldens and so it is sometimes called Golden Retriever Uveitis. Uveitis is seen in other breeds. The main problems with PU are that it casues blindness through cataracts or thru glaucoma. Glaucoma in people can have the same end result, if the pressure cannot be relieved, and ends with removal of the eye and it is very painful. At this time, it is believed that about 50% of cases of PU will develop into glaucoma.

In the beginning cases, there was also another problem. The cases being seen were being diagnosed at an opthamologist's office on referral from the regular vet because of symptoms/problems that a dog was having(redness and drainage) and many cases were in "pet" animals and not the dogs being seen at well-dog CERF screening clinics. Because of this, the information is and was not part of the central database at CERF and not included in the statistics. The Health & Genetics Committee now recommends that *ANY* time an animal is seen at an optho, that a CERF bubble form be used so that information can work its way back to CERF for inclusion in statistics.
Dr. Ann Hubbs of the GRCA's Health & Genetics committee states: 
"If the dog has genetic eye disease and is
ineligible for a CERF number, the owner does not need to submit the owner copy to
CERF, but the ophthalmologist will submit the CERF copy. CERF does not disclose the
identity of affected dogs. However, these reports allow CERF and GRCA to track the
frequency of eye disease in general, as well as the frequency of specific forms of eye
disease, such as pigmentary uveitis, in Golden Retrievers. This aggregate information
helps us better understand how eye diseases impact the breed, may help us become more
rapidly aware of emerging diseases, and aids in funding decisions regarding research​projects."

Through the work of Dr. Hubbs and other's, owners may now have abnormal results submitted to the OFA. This started earlier this year around the time the ammendments were made to the COE. *CERF only records normal results*. I am not saying that I agree with that, I am just stating the facts and I am thankful that there is now a place that the abnormal results can now be submitted.

The GRCA and the Health & Genetics Committee actually recommends *ALL *golden retrievers, not just those being bred, be seen at an optho and a CERF bubble form be used so that as much data as possible can be collected about this disease. I am sure that if any of you are interested in taking your dog to have it's eyes examined, your breeder would be more than happy to help you find a clinic in your area(usually at a dog show) where the cost would be greatly reduced. If not, I, personally, would be more than willing to help you find a clinic-just contact me. Breeding animals are recommended that CERF exams start well before breeding. Just as an example, we typically CERF our dogs for the first time at around 6 months old. Unfortunately, those animals will not show up on the OFA database(but will on CERF's database as long as they are "normal") because until the OFA makes a record for the dog(for heart or hip and elbow films) the OFA will not post results to their site. However, when say a heart exam is submitted, subsequent years of CERF exams will be noted(or are supposed to be). Non-breeding animals-"pets" are recommended that exams start at the 4-5 year old range and be done yearly.

Because pigmentary uveitis often develops after the prime reproductive years, it is difficult to control in breeding programs. Further, we do not yet understand the mode of inheritance of pigmentary uveitis, so the most prudent prevention strategy is to plan breedings that minimize the genetic contribution of affected dogs and their close relatives and this can only be done by having a searchable online database where normal and abnormal results will be posted.​ 
Now, I am speaking to Julie and addressing the bottom part of the post and her example.

Unfortunately, until this year, abnormal results did not have a way of making it to a recording database. CERF only records normal results. Again, I am not saying that I agree with this-I am only stating the facts. Everyone who is breeding a dog needs to be checking the health of the ancestors of their dog. That is a repsonsibility that you take on when you are breeding.

In your post, you stated that you were unsure if it was an offspring of this dog or a grand-offspring of this dog. I will never advocate people hiding information or not being truthful. However, because you are unsure of the ancestry of the dog, we cannot say with certainty, who dropped the ball, just that it was dropped somewhere along the way. For example, the stud dog owner may have contacted the owners of the bitches that were bred to him but then those bitch owners did not contact subsequent generations that were produced from that mating. If the stud dog owner did not contact the bitch owners, they are certainly doing the breed a disservice. However, it sounds like the owner of the dog in question was truthful in saying the dog had PU when contacted, from your post unless I read that wrong. This is exactly the reason that there was a push for information to be searchable. Up until this year, if there was an abnormal CERF result, your only recourse would be to contact the owner of said dog when it wasn't showing up on the CERF database. This is much too difficult because of the fact that people move, pass away, and simply get out of dogs and yes, some owners are less than forthcoming with information. 

You are correct and breeding decisions need to be based on as much information as possible but I stand by the fact that if you are going to be breeding, you need to be checking and asking about previous ancestors of your dog. It is not enough that their eyes were clear when the breeding was done and you got your puppy. Dogs can develop other issues-geographical retinal dysplasia, PRA and different types of cataracts(triangles that are believed genetic) that will not CERF at a later age, which is why CERF recommends yearly examinations.

This type of thing was happening and that was part of the reason for the push by the GRCA to have a place for abnormal results to be able to be recorded. Thankfully, the OFA stepped up to the plate and abnormal submissions can be made to them at no cost to the owner. This is a recent development though and wouldn't have been available a year and a half ago. Hopefully, the dog in question now has the information recorded on the OFA website and many owners are/have also added the information to the honorifics section on K9data so the information can be disseminated and get to the people who need it.

Jennifer Craig
Harborview Goldens


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

Even if I could afford it (Which I couldn't), I personally would be very hesitant to fork over $1500 for a dog, especially considering all the other expenses like vaccines and supplies and such you'll need to consider for a puppy. If you just need a companion animal, I am not really sure that's really truly buying you noticeably better quality than less expensive puppies would. Obviously, if you're planning to show the dog at competitions or breed him/her, that's a different story, and that's where pedigree might be worth paying for.

Also, a $300 non-refundable deposit seems a little sketchy. What if a puppy you want more becomes available between now and then? What if your family or financial situation changes between now and then and you decide you need to go in a different direction (Whether it be a cheaper puppy, an older dog, or post-poning pet ownership)? They're obviously requiring the deposit because they fear some people will want to back out. So, it's worth thinking about- is there any reason why you might want to back out? Is having flexibility important to you? If there isn't and it's not, then I guess this isn't a big deal, but it bares thinking about.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Jennifer,
For the record, nothing in my post was intended as a personal attack. I don't believe you see the way your tone comes across in many of your posts, including specifically the one I was responding to. You have a wealth of good information but there are times it feels as though the person you are responding to is made out to be the enemy and the information is a loaded weapon. I get that you're really passionate about breeding... that's what makes you so great at what you do. But that passion seems to lead you to see attacks on reputable breeding practices where there's only a difference of opinion or lacking knowledge. 

If you intended your first response to be just a dissemination of information for the wider forum and not a directed specifically to me, you should not have interspersed the following:
1. Paragraph 1 you refer to my opinion (which is all it ever was) as misinformation.
2. Paragraph 3 you attribute "generalizations and speculations" about PU to me.
3. Paragraph 5 you tell me not to make recommendations when the experts are still out (after talking about a subject I never even mentioned).
See where I was confused? How could I not think that you were speaking specifically to me? My single statement of opinion was addressed at the beginning, middle and end of your post. It was all at once misinformation, generalization, speculation and recommendation about CERF, PU and breeding decisions. (That's one very busy sentence I wrote.) As a comparison, your most recent post is a wealth of good information that directly addresses the subject of my first post in a way your original response did not. It also doesn't repeatedly suggest motive and/or opinion that I never expressed. I do hope you can see the difference.

Thanks to your most recent response, I now realize I was missing one very important fact: Prior to this year CERF didn't publish failing results. So knowing that, I retract the part of my statement that suggested not mailing in CERF results had any bearing on our ability to track PU cases. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong... this isn't the first or last time that will happen. But I do still hold my opinion that it's important to submit every CERF now, especially since they are going to be publishing all results. But again, that is just my opinion... nothing more.

As an aside:
Let me be clear - yes I do know for a fact who dropped the ball in my example. I am trying very hard here not to throw anyone under the bus (especially as the person is not even here to defend themselves)... but trust me when I say I know for a fact that the person did not contact the owners of the bitches bred to the male in question. This isn't speculation or a guess and it's not gossip I heard third hand through a grapevine. The dog's diagnosis is not listed on OFA (what a wonderful option that is though...) nor is it in the honorifics section for this dog on k9data. Unfortunately, there are still some who are not willing to be forthcoming with this information. That's all I'll say on that on the forum.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## SunGold (Feb 27, 2007)

Sally's Mom said:


> Not to hijack, but for years the vet who came to Maine to do eye clearances, refused to do CERF's(hated the paperwork), so he did his own form. All of those dogs that he did for years (I would say at least 20 years) for the local retriever club would be untraceable(except thru him) with regards to clearances and eye disease patterns... For that reason, I like the way the CERF paperwork is done. It is inexpensive to send in annual clearances so I do it. I also like to see OFA heart clearances as I like to see everything up there in black and white. And the issue is that PU was CERFable....


Dr Donovan? He did my dogs eyes for years, that's why there are gaps in their CERF records.


----------



## hmj (Oct 25, 2011)

Golden999 said:


> Even if I could afford it (Which I couldn't), I personally would be very hesitant to fork over $1500 for a dog, especially considering all the other expenses like vaccines and supplies and such you'll need to consider for a puppy. If you just need a companion animal, I am not really sure that's really truly buying you noticeably better quality than less expensive puppies would. Obviously, if you're planning to show the dog at competitions or breed him/her, that's a different story, and that's where pedigree might be worth paying for.
> 
> Also, a $300 non-refundable deposit seems a little sketchy. What if a puppy you want more becomes available between now and then? What if your family or financial situation changes between now and then and you decide you need to go in a different direction (Whether it be a cheaper puppy, an older dog, or post-poning pet ownership)? They're obviously requiring the deposit because they fear some people will want to back out. So, it's worth thinking about- is there any reason why you might want to back out? Is having flexibility important to you? If there isn't and it's not, then I guess this isn't a big deal, but it bares thinking about.


I appreciate your questions and opinions, but there isn't a question in our minds about paying $1500 for a dog. Unfortunately, our previous golden died at age 6 from histiocytosis. I purchased her from what most people would consider a "backyard breeder"; she was AKC registered but had no other clearances. Knowing how her life would end, I wouldn't change a thing, but moving forward I would like to feel that I did everything I could to get the healthiest dog possible and this is one step we can take, even though we fully understand that there are no guarantees.

As for the deposit, there aren't ANY breeders I've come in contact with that do refundable deposits. This is their livelihood and any dog they hold for an individual is a dog they can't sell to someone else, so I don't mind that one bit. I have, however, come across MANY breeders that have first right of refusal on any pets they place.


----------



## golden_eclipse (Apr 1, 2011)

SunGold said:


> Dr Donovan? He did my dogs eyes for years, that's why there are gaps in their CERF records.


He does cerf's now, because we use him, although I don't go to the clinics. ...I wonder if he is one of the last charter ACVO vets left practicing..


----------



## SunGold (Feb 27, 2007)

kdowningxc said:


> He does cerf's now, because we use him, although I don't go to the clinics. ...I wonder if he is one of the last charter ACVO vets left practicing..


I haven't been to see him in over a year... I remember my last appointment was over 2 hours for one dog. The man loves to talk!


----------



## golden_eclipse (Apr 1, 2011)

He was in the Navy in WWII, and well my dad was in the navy for 20 years, so trust me when I know he likes to talk...I think for two dogs we were there all day. I learned a lot about military history though


----------

