breed after cancer diagnosis?

[Dante'smom]

I am just looking for the opinion of rottweiller lovers. I work for a veterinary oncologist. I recently set up a consult appointment for a rotti owner who's dog has a fibrosarcoma and it was recommended for radiation. the owner asked me about frozen seaman collection before begining therapy. We do artificial insemination at our hospital but do not have the means to freeze samples (liquid nitrogen is needed to do it properly I am told). the owner stated they wanted it done because it was "a valuable dog". My question is...even though genetics only plays 10 to 20% in cancer being passed from generation to generation would any of you still use this dog for breeding purposes? I am not a breeder and do not know too much of the fine art of breeding, but I find this a little disturbing. What do you think?
Lisa

[AngelBunny]

Dante'smom:

I don't breed--never have, never will, but you asked for opinions.

I lost my wonderful Otto to osteo and my darling PussCat to nasal cancer. I wouldn't want a dog I loved to suffer from such dreadful diseases and I don't want to put myself thru the anguish of their illness. I don't care how "valuable" the dog is--cancer is too dreadful for words. This breed has enough problems without knowingly breeding dogs with cancer. We will never improve the health of this breed if we don't have rigorous standards for the dogs we breed.

[winniecnm]

Dante's mom, I firmly believe that cancer is caused by diet, exercise and environmental circumstances, not by genetics. Unless it is breast or colon cancer, which has been shown to place offspring in a higher risk group. We do not have enough information on canine genetics to see if markers for cancer exist and are passed on. What does this person mean by a valueable dog? And also, if this person wants to breed, then why dosen't he go out and find this information? That's what breeders do, isn't it? You are right to question this though. If this dog's cancer could be passed on, it seems that even 10-20% is too high a risk, no matter how valueable the dog is.

[Carol Burke]

This is a really interesting subject. Fortunately, knock on wood, I have not had a cancer problem in my lines, but if I did I really don't know what I would do about further breedings. If the dog was so outstanding I might collect him and use his sperm in the future, but it would have to be a dog that was so near perfect that it would be worth the risk. And I would not offer his sperm to others. I would only use it on my own bitches with a very controlled placing of the puppies until I could determine this was not an hereditary thing.

I do know of several breeders who have bred their stud dogs after discovering cancer, but it is really a tough decision.

------------------
Carol
Darrlburg Rottweilers

[psaudoaugustine]

IMO, it would be unethical to knowingly breed a dog with cancer. Its kinda like breeding knowing your dog is HD+. Even at the low chance percentage rates of passing cancer to the offspring. If the purpose to breeding is to improve the breed, how does knowingly breeding a potential cancer spreader improve it? This last statement may get me into hot water but I have to say it.

A breeder that would take the risks of passing on genetic defaults is IMO, causing damage to our breed. Proveing that conformation and winning in the show ring is more important than Breed itself.


Aug.

[This message has been edited by psaudoaugustine (edited October 15, 2000).]

[Judi W]

Unfortunately, most dogs that develop cancer do so after their breeding career has started, rather than prior to it, so the choice cannot be made. You cannot go back and unbreed a dog. Where there is a choice, generally, I do not know anyone who recommends breeding known cancer victims. Usually the owner is the only one who thinks that particular individual has irreplaceable vitues that must be duplicated. Sadly, we get enough of cancer dogs bred unwittingly. I don't know of any individual dogs that the breed cannot limp along without them reproducing themselves.

You don't say how old this dog is. If it is a mature dog and so very outstanding, I would assume that he has already been bred so there is already stock on the ground from him. If it is a very young dog that has not had an opportunity to prove himself, would you want to risk reproducing those things unique to him that made him suseptible to cancer at such a young age?

[This message has been edited by Judi W (edited October 15, 2000).]

[WorkinDogz]

I agree with psaudoaugustine.

Knowingly breeding a dog with cancer is unethical in my opinion.

The Golden from the movie "Air Bud" died shortly after the movie (after having an amputation for osteosarcoma) and his owner(s) collected him and reproduced him MANY times.

Diet and genetics do play a roll; however I'm not so quick to dismiss the genetic links. We all know that Science has been able to tell us humans if we have the "gene" for breast cancer...and others.

Wouldn't we all like to blame diet for the early demise and illnesses of our dogs. Unfortunately; I believe genentics plays a major roll.

The truly "valuable" dogs (and lines) don't die of cancer; they die of old age.