new ruling

[Calvinator]

I am told that the EC has passed a new ruling at the annual meeting that now requires both male and female to have a DNA before you can register the litter. That is a BS money making scheme.

[ryanr]

I don't know if it's true or not but how if it is how is that a money making scheme for NAVHDA? Are they providing the testing source?

[JTracyII]

This may come back to bite NAVHDA eventually if breeders simply use another registery to register litters. What does it cost to DNA a dog?

[blue04]

$55 - http://navhdastore.org/dnatestkit.aspx

[JTracyII]

When does the rule take effect?

[Calvinator]

Regarding the NAVHDA Registry, the following motion was discussed and passed by the EC. Motion 19-19 - That the Registry committee develop a policy no later than April 1, 2019 that requires submission of DNA for both Sire and Dam before a litter may be registered with NAVHDA. Passed.

Several years ago when I had my stud done it was $65.

[ryanr]

This may come back to bite NAVHDA eventually if breeders simply use another registery to register litters. What does it cost to DNA a dog?

I doubt it. And I won't be surprised if you start seeing other registries doing the same. Folks that take their dogs to the Invitational are already doing this anyway.

[flitecontrol]

I'm ignorant about DNA testing, but assume it's to detect genetic defects. If so, have they found any way to predict HD in the offspring?

[Deuce]

I'm confused on how this makes NAVHDA money?

The policy isn't done yet, as the note you posted says. I don't see in there where it requires breeders to use NAVHDA's kit. Am I missing something?

[JTracyII]

I assume this policy is to ensure that we know which parents were used for X breeding and less to do with health screening. Is this right?

[Drahthaar1108]

The VDD-GNA are already doing DNA test for the sire & bitch and the whole litter of pups. Forrest

[JONOV]

I'm ignorant about DNA testing, but assume it's to detect genetic defects. If so, have they found any way to predict HD in the offspring?

Its to insure the integrity of a breeding, so no one pulls a Ferrell.

[flitecontrol]

I'm ignorant about DNA testing, but assume it's to detect genetic defects. If so, have they found any way to predict HD in the offspring?

Its to insure the integrity of a breeding, so no one pulls a Ferrell.

So they can verify that the parents on the pedigree are the biological parents? How many instances of cheating have they found? That's going to increase the cost of a pup significantly I would think.

Reminds me of an instance where someone mishandled funds. The accountants came up with a foolproof way to detect such behavior early on in the future. Trouble is, it was going to cost 100 times more than what a few unscrupulous individuals had been able to get away with before being caught. Gotta weigh the pros and cons.

[blue04]

That's going to increase the cost of a pup significantly I would think.

Maybe I'm missing something. I _think_ NAPPA (which is the only versatile breeders organization I have ANY experience with) already requires DNA for the sires. If that's true, we're talking about $55 per litter extra? Even if I'm wrong, it's $110 per litter.

With pups already selling for $1000 each or more, I don't see how and extra $50 - $100 per litter is going to increase the cost of pups very much.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on whether the extra DNA testing is needed or sensible. That's a different aspect of this. I just don't see the DNA testing cost as a prohibitive issue given the prices of pups.

[ryanr]

I'm ignorant about DNA testing, but assume it's to detect genetic defects. If so, have they found any way to predict HD in the offspring?

Its to insure the integrity of a breeding, so no one pulls a Ferrell.

So they can verify that the parents on the pedigree are the biological parents? How many instances of cheating have they found? That's going to increase the cost of a pup significantly I would think.

It's a $55 test right?