Golden Retriever

You forgot a glaring difference that you even stated; different gene pool in Europe.

Please post the data on the correlation of higher rates of vaccination and sterilization to decreased lifespan.

BCSnob wrote:
You forgot a glaring difference that you even stated; different gene pool in Europe.

Please post the data on the correlation of higher rates of vaccination and sterilization to decreased lifespan.

I know you like to see 'scientific' studies. :W
But IMHO it is not the end all be all by no means.

I was a Private study. If it won't make money for the pharmaceuticals many studies take a back burner or are never done by the University's. Unless pressured by findings and financial donations.

If we had waited for the University's to perform scientific studies on some of the health issues on Great Danes they would all be dead by now. Private local/national clubs DID and found the answers. We changed protocol on specific ones and eliminated the cause before any studies were started. Because studies 'require' money.

I lost a puppy to HOD and trust me it was NOT from a hereditary disease. I participated in a non-scientific study which resulted in the following:

Quote: ""It is prevalent enough in this breed that the GDCA parent club, along with specific individuals in this breed, have worked to provide funding for current vaccine research going on at Purdue University and a report has been published in JAVMA,""

"I" don't always have to have scientific date performed by scientists. If that were the only case for one to take data from we'd all be in trouble. And it is these types of gathering info showing a basis that is the beginning of ALL research anyway.

I keep an open mind and read and read everything I can find that has substantial basis to make MY OWN decisions and will share with others to do the same, or not. .:C

The advantage of published studies is that they have been reviewed by others in the field for errors in methodology or interpretation of results.

Correlations are easy to establish and well thought-out surveys can find correlations; however, correlations do not prove cause and effect. This is a major mistake made by most people. Follow-up well controlled studies (no undocumented variables that are present in epidemiological studies/surveys) are REQUIRED to prove cause and effect.

This is a major mistake made by most people. Follow-up well controlled studies (no undocumented variables that are present in epidemiological studies/surveys) are REQUIRED to prove cause and effect.

Right on. This is part of what hubby does for a living. There is often correlation but not causation.

Our wonderful Golden Sassy, passed in our arms at 12 half years old September 2013, and our hearts are empty to this day. FWIW, we are the same with humans in our family beliefs on additives and vaccines. She was never neutered, never vaccinated and ate a lot of human foods. Our previous mixed breed was put down at 17. We live on an acreage where she had full run of the place and loved to follow her dad up and down rows on the tractor until she got too old = we saw it slow down to doing a few runs to finally going out with him but sitting in the shade watching her last couple of years. She also adored going camping and never knew when to stop barking for stones to be thrown in the water for her to retrieve and drop the biggest she could find, usually on my toes (LOL). She ran every hill she could find and walked for miles with us, even having to be carried at times on a hike in the NWT on the waterfalls route when she was barely 10 weeks old. She was rarely leashed except where we had to have her so and she truly believed she was a little person in a fur coat = we don't believe in caging, as they have hearts and minds just as we do and we wouldn't like to be caged.

We are pretty confident at the end of the day she did have cancer but she didn't appear to be suffering, and discussing with vets we chose to let her continue her life until she told us she'd had enough without medical intervention. Right up until the night before she passed the next lunch time, she went down the steep deck steps to do her business in her gravelled area, but that night her dad and I had to sling her in a quilt to bring her back up. She drank a little water that night we hand gave her and she said her goodbyes to us the next late morning as we sat with her on our laps on the floor. It was peaceful and she was clean as a whistle right up to her passing bless her. She was probably the best dog we ever had for obedience, intelligence and respect although she loved everyone she met and had peter pan tendencies when peoples came to greet her. You could leave a cooked chicken on the floor and tell her not to touch and come back hours later to a pile of drool and she wouldn't have touched it. Never went on our carpets, stayed on the tiled flooring areas and each night slept on the front hall mat when we retired upstairs waiting for her dad to come back down in the morning. She was also taught it is not acceptable to watch us or be near when dinner is served at the table and she would literally get up and turn the other way when we sat down to eat as a family, or retire to one of her beds until she recognized the sound of the cutlery being placed on the plate when we finished.

We believe as well that Golden's are more predisposed to cancer today than ever before hence why she died just before she was 13, but reading how many pass before hitting double digit ages, we wonder if a lot of it has to do with also dog foods additives,, all the "must have vaccinations", and the biggie, how little exercise in most homes these dogs get today compared to many years ago. I see so many folks with dogs left at home all day on their own whilst they are gone to work from 5.30amish until 6pm at night, owners come home too tired to take them out and give them the exercise and play time this breed really needs - worse still they are sometimes caged for hours during the day and at night. Maybe it is maybe it is not, but our animals typically historically seem to live a lot longer than many of our friends pets with more sedentary lifestyles.

Our daughter and fiance have finally got a little GSD pup aged 7 weeks, and today she is 9 and half. She is with me during the day, and we have had zero accidents in the house 12 days and nights now, she went camping this past weekend for 3 nights with them and no accidents in the RV. She is already learning to sit and give her paw for a treat and is too intelligent for her own good it appears. As young as she is she knows how to give us "her" signals that she wants to go out, wants to snuggle, wants to play. She cocks her head to listen to every thing being said discussed etc, but we are cognizant to give one or two word commands and relevant tonality and she abides to stop doing something she shouldn't be such as trying to chew as and when. She goes out to her unfenced paddock to do her business, play like she should several times a day and to dig like crazy the mole hills, still to learn that hunny bees sting although she tries to catch them. She will get untold amounts of consistent exercise and we truly believe this, coupled with real foods, and zero standard vaccines, will enable her as a GSD, again predisposed to hip dysplasia and cancer as that breed is too, to live to double digits at minimum. Alas, only time will tell with the latter but based on our history for several decades being dog owners and our parents and grandparents too, we are very optimistic in this regards.

BCSnob wrote:
The advantage of published studies is that they have been reviewed by others in the field for errors in methodology or interpretation of results.

Correlations are easy to establish and well thought-out surveys can find correlations; however, correlations do not prove cause and effect. This is a major mistake made by most people. Follow-up well controlled studies (no undocumented variables that are present in epidemiological studies/surveys) are REQUIRED to prove cause and effect.

I have absolutely no problem with controlled published studies. Makes my life easier to research. :B

BUT: published studies are done AFTER suspect clusters or cause is shown to be of interest to 'warrant' the controlled study.

Controlled studies are NOT conducted nor funded without probable suspect or cause, via the ever important studies/surveys/clusters.

To live by 'only' published studies is turning a blind eye to what is and could be very important information to a specific issue before presenting and/or funding is available for controlled studies to even begin.

As chair of our registry's health and genetics committee I am well aware of the value of surveys in assessing issues within a breed (we recently prepared one). They are valuable tools for establishing a general sense about a breed. However, I also know that surveys are biased (due to how the questions are posed and by those who respond). I also know that while correlations can be found in survey data they do not prove causation and may not even include the variable that ultimately proves to be the cause. The real risk with surveys is placing too much value on the data and correlations within those data.

My memory may be fuzzy on this, but I remember researching Greyhounds a few years ago. They have an extremely high incidence of osteosarcoma, and due to the mostly very controlled breeding and good recording keeping, lineage is easier to trace than in many other breeds. And I believe the suspect for the high incidence of cancer was one very prolific sire from many generations ago. So . . . genetics.

BCSnob wrote:
... The real risk with surveys is placing too much value on the data and correlations within those data.

Right on!!!

I have had two Collie's that have had died from lymphoma. One poor lady had two Goldens that were from the same liter and both had Lymphoma.