Comments

1. mary bauer
   March 5th, 2009 | 8:57 pm

   Hi Cat,

   Isn’t Richard Nance the president of the BHCA?

   And this very same thing happens in other breeds
   as well. The breeder finds out they have a bad
   gene pool for some serious genetic problem and they
   keep quiet. Keep trying to win shows and leave everyone in the dark about their “secret”. Ethics do not enter into their thought process at all.

   I’m sorry Emma had to fall victim to the greed of an unethical show breeder.

   Mary

2. Cat
   March 5th, 2009 | 10:13 pm

   Richard is not the President, but he wanted to be. You bring up a very good point. This breeder was at the top of the BHCA chain. They drag in potential buyers via this hierarchy.

   BoBac has a horrific gene pool. Their secret is coming out now. I am going to make sure of it. My Emma is not going to be silenced. Hear her howl!

3. HA
   March 6th, 2009 | 12:58 pm

   I did read the TH article and Sharon makes it sound like she was just very unfortunate and it can happen to any basset breeder at any time. I guess it can, but you don’t keep breeding the pair that produced Emma. You certainly don’t take any chances to see if she goes blind. You have all the proof you need right in the eye examination. I personally would like to see a copy of that if you don’t mind. You can e-mail me.

   Not all blogging is fun and games and I appreciate your strength to tell your side of the story.

   HA

4. Lisa
   March 6th, 2009 | 11:08 pm

   Hi Cat – I have been quietly reading your blog some time. I always wondered what went on between you and BoBac after reading about Emma. I can’t believe they only offered to pay for some of Emma’s treatment if you remained silent. This story is depressing and scary. You think you are doing everything you can to buy from a reputable breeder but I guess you never really know. After checking out the BoBac site, I’d say they look pretty legit. And since I’m not a member of the BHCA, I’d never know the difference. Scary stuff. I look forward to seeing the Tally Ho article posted here.

5. Jenny
   March 7th, 2009 | 6:46 am

   How does Sharon Nance get to have her article published as a “true story”. It is listed in the contents under “feature”. The Tally Ho has an editorial opinion/disclaimer listed on page 2. Can anyone submit a “feature” like Sharon and write anything they want? It seems really reckless of Tally-Ho to publish an article like this that is obviously jaded and full of untruths. I think this proclamation by Sharon is just the tip of the iceberg. I know Titan was prolific.

   Can the basset hound club kick someone out for doing this much damage?

   Thank you for listening. Emma is very lucky to have such a voice.

   I almost forgot – those drops that Sharon mentions are extremely expensive. One small bottle can be over 100 dollars. Usually, a patient can require several different bottles and ointments.

   Jenny

6. Cat, Chaps and Emma
   March 7th, 2009 | 7:30 am

   Jenny, I am in the process of composing an e-mail to the Editor right now about the guidelines for submitting a response to Sharon’s featured article.

   I had that same question. I am also working on my article that I assume will be featured as well in the next issue of Tally Ho. I am sure more show people read that publication than read my blog.

   Cat, Chaps and Emma

7. Evelyn
   March 7th, 2009 | 7:36 am

   Cat, do you know if the study that Sharon is referring to has been checked out by the BHCA, AKC and the Canine Health Foundation?

   I know that Emma is doing her own fundraiser that is supported by the BHCA and the Canine Health Foundation and I think the BHCA board voted on the donation that was in support of the glaucoma test that is currently being done in MO.

   I hope I got that right. I remember reading it on your blog about a year ago.

   You might want to check into that.

   E

8. Cindy, Jethro, Rugs, Oz and Harriet
   March 7th, 2009 | 7:50 am

   What a sad, sad situation. I can’t blame you Cat. I would be yelling just as loud if not louder than you are. Emma DOES have a good voice and even though the pain will always be there and you cannot reverse what has already been done, maybe, just maybe, since this is out in the open the Nances will FINALLY be FORCED do what’s right. It would be interesting to find out what brought this out. About a year ago we took in a basset at Basset Buddies Rescue of Texas that had glaucoma. She looked so awful and was obviously in pani. Her owner had to give her up because he could not afford to remove her eyes and take care of her anymore. The rescue had her eyes removed and she’s with a nice family and being well taken care of now. It makes me wonder, especially since we are here in Texas, if this dog may have been bought from BoBac. Too sad. Good luck and let me know if there is anything I can do for support.

9. Audra, Colby Chaps & Abby
   March 7th, 2009 | 11:45 am

   I just recently rescued a basset and have been in touch with Basset Buddies of Texas and they told me about that dog being returned with glaucoma…..I wonder too now if it was related to the BoBac Line. I did not receive the email nor have I seen the entire article. I am not a BHCA memeber but I do have a BoBac dog — WHY is this email not being sent out to everyone that has ever received a bobac dog. But my question is what about ALL THE DOGS……ALL OVER THE WORLD NOW that this has effected due to the cover up since 2006. That gene could of been passed down to the dogs that they sold to other breeders as well. Cat, I have cried many tears along with you over Emma. In fact it was a year ago in Feb. (right) that Emma totally lost her sight…..no dog, no owner EVER ADAPTS…..they just endure and make the best of it. Just one thing….THANK GOD EMMA has you– what about all the others??????

10. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    March 7th, 2009 | 12:03 pm

    I just wanted to chime in on the basset that wound up in Basset Buddies Rescue in TX with glaucoma. BHCA breeders are supposed to take back any basset of their kennel with no questions asked, but with the state of the BoBac Sharon could wind up with an entire kennel of blind bassets. Just think about that family who could not afford an eye removal. That procedure is the least expensive of any of the treatment. I think it ran about 300.00 dollars in KY and that is on the low end if you look at states like TX and CA it can be closer to a grand.

    I have been e-mailed and called from several BoBac hound owners that do not belong to the BHCA and also did not receive the glaucoma alert e-mail from Sharon. One called me in tears last night saying that she called Sharon months ago about Emma after she saw her on my website. She wanted information about her hound and the possibility of the family hound being affected with glaucoma and Sharon told her my website was a, “pack of lies” and that “Emma did not have glaucoma”.

    This my dear readers is what we are dealing with. Very scary indeed.

    Cat

11. Cindy, Jethro, Rugs, Oz and Harriet
    March 7th, 2009 | 12:43 pm

    OH MY GOODNESS! Why in the world would someone lie about their dog having glaucoma?! And why would someone go through all the trouble of thoroughly investigating an illness and trying to find a cure or just a little hope for their hound? That’s an insane accusation. I’m appalled. I hate to be so harsh but sounds to me like BoBac is running a close race with puppy mills.

12. Cat
    March 7th, 2009 | 1:44 pm

    The entire situation is just starting to unfold. I think people just want a place like this to hear the other side. The Tally Ho article by Sharon just gives her side of the story. No, no, no. If I am not allowed to tell my side in Tally Ho, at least I have my blog and my soon to be release forum.

    Cat

13. Cat
    March 7th, 2009 | 3:38 pm

    Lisa – I know. I did all of my research, went to the dog shows, tried to talk to breeders, read the Tally Ho and whammo – Duped. I even went to a breeder who did the eye examination to avoid a blind hound. When someone tells you normal examination, you believe them.
    Cat

14. lois
    March 7th, 2009 | 9:15 pm

    i think people who are unaware of the facts will read her article and say “oh thats good she is doing something…what a caring breeder.” but they are ignorant of the whole situation.

    a breeder who has a whole litter of blind puppies and is unaware of eye issues has no business breeding anything beyond goldfish. they are irresponsible and no worse than a puppymill.

    anyone who purchased a basset from them should be notifed of the health issue. period. not just a select few.

    one of the benefits of purchasing a purebred dog is that you know some of the risks (disease wise) you run with that breed and can somewhat minimize them with improved breeding. seems like this breeder managed to set that principle back many years.

    i wonder how many bassets had to suffer or be put down because of this breeders lack of care for the breed and care more for the almighty dollar.

    my opinion.

    lois lema
    proud owner of 2 rescued bassets

15. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 7th, 2009 | 9:43 pm

    Lois

    The first indication was………..

    A true story. Give me a break. Like we are going to believe that line of bull shit?

    The entire article is BS.

    Remember, I told the Nances that Emma went blind 2.5 years ago from primary glaucoma. They payed no attention. Total disregard to the Breed and to the Club. The only reason they did the Tally Ho article is for a last ditch effort.

16. Glenn,Charlene,Clancy &Baiey
    March 7th, 2009 | 10:40 pm

    Cat,
    We have waited for this day ever since you told us about Emma. Up to this day when I think of Emma being blind the tears just start to flow. Cat my prayers are always with you and Emma. We are so proud of you girl, take it all the way!!!!

    Charlene

17. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 7th, 2009 | 10:49 pm

    You bet your bottom basset hound belly I will Charlene.

    I will not let this thing rest. Alaska are you with me?

    Diva? Moose?

    Cat

18. Cat
    March 7th, 2009 | 11:00 pm

    Charlene – I have to tell you that I learned that 2 of Emma’s litter mates have glaucoma. I am so sad about it. Diva (Emma’s sister) has had many litters. I know that one of her off spring died at a very young age from an auto immune disorder. What is going on?

    This has to be stopped!

19. "Keeping an eye on it"
    March 12th, 2009 | 8:19 pm

    I am unable to disclose my true identity due to professional constraints. I truly sympathize with your experience with canine glaucoma. I do wish to offer some facts which may help you feel a little bit better about your experiences with it.

    1. GONIOSCOPY DOES NOT PREDICT PRIMARY GLAUCOMA IN BASSET HOUNDS! Please wrap your head around this one. Many have believed otherwise and this has contributed greatly to the widespread pollution of the basset hound gene pool.

    While it remains possible that “bad angles” may indicate a predisposition to SECONDARY glaucoma, which is caused by trauma, it has recently been established that they are not a reliable predictor that a basset hound will later develop primary glaucoma, which is genetically caused. Many responsible AKC/BHCA breeders have provided genetic material and gonioscopic results on their affected stock. IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS NO RELIABLE CORRELATION BETWEEN “BAD ANGLES” AND PRIMARY GLAUCOMA. Bassets which have tested with “great angles” have developed it as well.

    Unfortunately, despite a lack of conclusive scientific evidence, many were led to believe that gonioscopic examination could predict primary glaucoma and “testing angles” became something of a fad. One cannot be too critical of breeders who were fed “junk science” by vets who made their living doing gonioscopies and believed that a test with “good angles” allowed them to confidently tell puppy buyers their puppies “were tested” and were not at risk for developing primary glaucoma! What could they know?

    2. All present research indicates that the gene that causes primary glaucoma in basset hounds is autosomally recessive. This means that TWO carriers, sire and dam, WILL produce get that carry the gene and may themselves develop the condition. IF carriers can be identified in a pedigree, the likelihood they will produce other carriers and affected get can be mathematically predicted using established genetic formulae.

    However, until the primary glaucoma gene is identified and its presence determined in any given animal, the only way to know if any animal is a carrier of the gene is to calculate the percentages based on available anecdotal information. Thus, any breeder may have a carrier in their stock and never be able to calculate the odds of producing a bassst that will develop primary glaucoma unless they know the affected dogs and potential carriers in the pedigree going back many generations. Until recently, few breeders were scientifically sophisticated enough to be aware of how the primary glaucoma gene was transmitted and erroneously believed it was just something that spontaneously appeared and so was better kept quiet in the hope it wouldn’t appear again. (”Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt!) That practice left even those breeders who sought to avoid the gene helpless, particularly when other breeders with whose stock they bred, concealed affected get produced by that stock. It is entirely possible that a carrier might go on passing the gene throughout their entire breeding career without throwing an affected offspring that would betray their carrier status, and that only a generation or three later, when TWO of their offspring carriers are bred, do affected get appear. Thus, it is entirely possible for a breeder to have believed in good faith that “there’s no glaucoma in our line” when such was not the case. Indeed, at this point, it is statistically doubtful that any breeder could make that claim. The research we have now completed reveals that some of the most prolific basset stud dogs in recent times have been carriers of the gene and that many unsuspecting breeders have bred to these dogs, in some cases repeatedly, thereby spreading the gene far and wide throughout the breed. Given statistical realities, as the number of carriers increase, the likelihood two will be bred to each other increases and we are now seeing a mushrooming of glaucoma cases throughout the basset hound breed in certain regions of the country.

    This isn’t to say that careful, scientific breeders cannot dramatically reduce the chances of producing affected animals, but ONLY if the other breeders to whom they breed their stock have been completely honest about the incidence of affected and carrier animals in their pedigrees, and if responsible breeders ruthlessly avoid ever breeding any possible carrier to any other carriers. (After a number of generations, a single carrier’s genetics will be sufficiently diluted that the statistical probability of the gene being replicated becomes insignificant.)

    3. The presently available anecdotal data identifying the incidence of glaucoma in specific AKC/BHCA basset hound pedigrees does not indicate that the kennel which you discuss in your blog had any previous history of producing affected animals or otherwise engaging in irresponsible breeding practices.

20. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 12th, 2009 | 10:57 pm

    Thanks for your comments KAEOI. I hope to digest your comments more fully after reading this several times.

    You are obviously very educated and I respect your detailed summary.

    I look forward to responding.

    Cat

21. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert - Basset Hound Town Enterprises, LLC
    March 13th, 2009 | 5:51 pm

    Howllo Dear Readers. Here is my response to the above comment that came in last night, 3-12-09. I am now responding to this comment. I will use my same format of breaking this extended comment up with my responses.

    HERE IS THE POST FROM AN UNIDENTIFIED READER. EVERYONE IS WELCOME IN BASSETHOUNDTOWN.

    Beginning of post………………

    I am unable to disclose my true identity due to professional constraints. I truly sympathize with your experience with canine glaucoma. I do wish to offer some facts which may help you feel a little bit better about your experiences with it.

    Comment from Cat: Thank you and no problem about your true identity. I respect that.
    _______________________________

    1. GONIOSCOPY DOES NOT PREDICT PRIMARY GLAUCOMA IN BASSET HOUNDS! Please wrap your head around this one. Many have believed otherwise and this has contributed greatly to the widespread pollution of the basset hound gene pool.

    Comment from Cat: I never said that Gonioscopy predicts primary glaucoma in basset hounds! As I stated in my blog, my experience is with one breeder – BoBac Bassets and what they told me.
    _______________________________________________________

    While it remains possible that “bad angles” may indicate a predisposition to SECONDARY glaucoma, which is caused by trauma, it has recently been established that they are not a reliable predictor that a basset hound will later develop primary glaucoma, which is genetically caused.

    Comment from Cat: I make no reference ever to secondary glaucoma. Emma had abnormal, bilateral angles from birth as reported on her eye examination report from Dr. Munger. This was also confirmed during her surgery to place a prosthetic in place of her dead eye. Her Ophthalmological surgeon, diagnosed Emma with primary, bilateral, closed angle glaucoma in her other eye. Her surgeon was able to make this diagnosis while she was under. He told me it was just a matter of time before she went totally blind. I called Sharon that evening and informed her, per her request. The call was curt and short. I could elaborate, but I will not at this time.

    Here is what Sharon states in the Tally Ho article,

    “At that time and up until today, the answer has been to eliminate any dog with abnormal angles from your breeding program and you decrease the chances of getting glaucoma. The word here is “decrease” not “eliminate” your chances. Abnormal angles do not mean the dog will develop glaucoma, but it is also true that dogs with seemingly normal angles can develop glaucoma, too. How well we know.”

    Here is what Elizabeth A. Giuliano, DVM, MS states,

    Elizabeth A. Giuliano, DVM, MS
    Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists
    Assistant Professor, University of Missouri, College of Veterinary Medicine has a different take than Sharon does. She states in her study entitled Canine Glaucoma Basics that,

    “Glaucoma is defined as an increase in pressure within the eye. The increased pressure is the result of a buildup of the intraocular fluid which is known as aqueous humor. In a healthy animal, aqueous humor primarily drains out through a circular filter at the junction of the clear cornea and white sclera, called the iridocorneal angle. Animals with glaucoma have an abnormality in the filter which obstructs outflow, resulting in a buildup of fluid within the eye. An analogy would be a kitchen sink – if the drain is open and the water is running, the sink is operating normally. However, the drain becomes clogged for some reason and the water continues to flow, then the sink fills up with water and overflows!”

    She continues…..

    “There are various causes of a defective filter. Dogs of some breeds are often born with abnormal filters and are therefore prone to getting inherited (genetic or primary) glaucoma in both eyes.” (This is one of the researchers working on the AKC/CHF research for Canine Glaucoma.

    Grant No. 747: The Mapping and Characterization of Mutations Responsible for Canine Glaucoma – BASSET HOUND BREED SPECIFIC.

    Principal Investigator(s): Elizabeth Giuliano, DVM, MS, DACVO, University of Missouri, Columbia
    Sponsor(s): No Sponsors
    Grant Amount: $82,080.00 (half paid by AKC/CHF)
    Start Date: 10/1/2007 Duration (in yrs): 2
    __________________________________________________________________

    Many responsible AKC/BHCA breeders have provided genetic material and gonioscopic results on their affected stock. IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS NO RELIABLE CORRELATION BETWEEN “BAD ANGLES” AND PRIMARY GLAUCOMA. Bassets which have tested with “great angles” have developed it as well.

    Comment from Cat: The study that the AKC/CHF is conducting is still ongoing and results are still pending. When I picked BoBac Bassets they made a point of telling me that Emma had a normal eye examination. That is why I agreed to purchase her. If I had been told that she had an abnormal eye examination I could have based my decision to purchase her upon that information. If I was given the chance to research this, I could have made an informed decision. I would have made an appointment with my area canine ophthalmologist for an expert opinion. Again, my experience is with the Nances only. I trusted them. Emma did become a victim of this insidious, “junk” disease.
    ________________________________________________________________

    Unfortunately, despite a lack of conclusive scientific evidence, many were led to believe that gonioscopic examination could predict primary glaucoma and “testing angles” became something of a fad. One cannot be too critical of breeders who were fed “junk science” by vets who made their living doing gonioscopies and believed that a test with “good angles” allowed them to confidently tell puppy buyers their puppies “were tested” and were not at risk for developing primary glaucoma! What could they know?

    Comment from Cat: BoBac knew that Emma did not have a normal eye examination. My experience has nothing to do with what you refer to as junk science. I would have no problem, whatsoever, if I had been told the truth and consciously, with an educated decision went forward to purchase a puppy with a bilateral, abnormal eye examination. Emma is living proof that in her case, the junk science was correct. The Nances trusted Dr. Munger. If Sharon had said (before I drove from KY to TX), “OK Cat, here is a puppy with a bilateral, abnormal eye examination for you”, and I agreed to sign a contract for that puppy with all of the accurate health information we would not be here right now. It would have been my decision based upon the facts.
    __________________________________________________________________

    2. All present research indicates that the gene that causes primary glaucoma in basset hounds is autosomally recessive. This means that TWO carriers, sire and dam, WILL produce get that carry the gene and may themselves develop the condition. IF carriers can be identified in a pedigree, the likelihood they will produce other carriers and affected get can be mathematically predicted using established genetic formulae.

    Comment from Cat: Again, this has nothing to do with the sale of Emma. The medical experts are still working on this and Emma and I are actually holding a fundraiser to help the AKC/CHF in this effort. Here is the link to that Fundraiser: http://www.firstgiving.com/emmarudertbassethoundtown
    __________________________________________________________________

    However, until the primary glaucoma gene is identified and its presence determined in any given animal, the only way to know if any animal is a carrier of the gene is to calculate the percentages based on available anecdotal information.

    Comment from Cat: Again, this is great information, but does not pertain to the sale of Emma. Bobac was using Junk Science and in my mind they were more educated than I was. That is why I decided to go with an AKC/BHCA breeder instead of rescuing. I wanted to support a reputable breeder and report on my experience. In my opinion these AKC/BHCA breeders were the guardian’s of good health, ethics, integrity, and followed a code of conduct. I have always felt that when you desire the best, you go to the best. I was shocked and disgusted with my experience. Come on, we are not talking about buying a piece of luggage here. I was mislead, at best.
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Thus, any breeder may have a carrier in their stock and never be able to calculate the odds of producing a bassst that will develop primary glaucoma unless they know the affected dogs and potential carriers in the pedigree going back many generations. Until recently, few breeders were scientifically sophisticated enough to be aware of how the primary glaucoma gene was transmitted and erroneously believed it was just something that spontaneously appeared and so was better kept quiet in the hope it wouldn’t appear again. (”Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt!) That practice left even those breeders who sought to avoid the gene helpless, particularly when other breeders with whose stock they bred, concealed affected get produced by that stock. It is entirely possible that a carrier might go on passing the gene throughout their entire breeding career without throwing an affected offspring that would betray their carrier status, and that only a generation or three later, when TWO of their offspring carriers are bred, do affected get appear. Thus, it is entirely possible for a breeder to have believed in good faith that “there’s no glaucoma in our line” when such was not the case. Indeed, at this point, it is statistically doubtful that any breeder could make that claim. The research we have now completed reveals that some of the most prolific basset stud dogs in recent times have been carriers of the gene and that many unsuspecting breeders have bred to these dogs, in some cases repeatedly, thereby spreading the gene far and wide throughout the breed. Given statistical realities, as the number of carriers increase, the likelihood two will be bred to each other increases and we are now seeing a mushrooming of glaucoma cases throughout the basset hound breed in certain regions of the country.

    Comment from Cat: This is phenomenal information and I hope many, many folks read it. So often, this type of information is buried in the breed publications and on breeder forums.
    _____________________________________________________________________

    This isn’t to say that careful, scientific breeders cannot dramatically reduce the chances of producing affected animals, but ONLY if the other breeders to whom they breed their stock have been completely honest about the incidence of affected and carrier animals in their pedigrees, and if responsible breeders ruthlessly avoid ever breeding any possible carrier to any other carriers. (After a number of generations, a single carrier’s genetics will be sufficiently diluted that the statistical probability of the gene being replicated becomes insignificant.)

    Comment from Cat: Again, great information. I will remain hopeful. I however hate the word, “stock”.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    3. The presently available anecdotal data identifying the incidence of glaucoma in specific AKC/BHCA basset hound pedigrees does not indicate that the kennel which you discuss in your blog had any previous history of producing affected animals or otherwise engaging in irresponsible breeding practices.

    Comment from Cat: Can you tell me where to find the presently available anecdotal data to which you are referring? I would love to track the upcoming data. I told BoBac that Emma had primary glaucoma 2.5 years ago. They misrepresented Emma’s health records to me. They asked me not to contact any of Emma’s litter mates. In my opinion this is irresponsible. The data that you have would not list any of the companion pups they sold. I was asked by Sharon not to spay Emma. My experience with this breeder has been awful. I have never heard the words,

    “WE ARE SORRY!”

    
    EMMA WANDA RUDERT – STARTED GOING BLIND FROM PRIMARY CLOSED ANGLE GLAUCOMA AT AGE 2.

    So, KAEOI – thanks for your comments and I totally respect your anonymity.

    Emma will never agree to hide.

    Respectfully, Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert

22. "Keeping an eye on it"
    March 13th, 2009 | 8:12 pm

    “This is phenomenal information and I hope many, many folks read it. So often, this type of information is buried in the breed publications and on breeder forums. Please correct me if I am wrong, but would you say that primary glaucoma would be more prevalent in the BHCA than in the rescue population due to the nature of prolific stud dogs? Believe me, this is just an honest question.”

    Absolutely not! It’s just that the only place it has been genetically tracked so far is in BHCA kennels because some BHCA breeders have courageously stepped forward and disclosed all they know about occurences in their breedings and provided their pedigrees and bassets’ DNA to the research programs.

    Think of the glaucoma gene as a “genetic time bomb” that lurks in the DNA of any basset hound. (The gene pool of any canine breed is relatively tiny.) If a basset that carries the gene in its DNA is bred to another without the gene, a certain percentage (it’s a complicated formula depending on generations, but accurately calculable) of its offspring will also carry the gene. As the generations go on, the odds of passing the gene on decreases until the odds of its occurence are very small. BUT, if a “carrier” basset is bred to another “carrier,” a large percentage of the litter will also be “carriers” and the odds are very good that some or all of the litter will develop primary glaucoma.

    Until the gene can be isolated and identified by DNA testing of individual breeding stock (which U of Missouri and U of Iowa are trying to do now by studying the DNA of known “affecteds” and their relatives), the only way to know for sure if a basset is a carrier is if it produces offspring that develop primary glaucoma, at which point it’s too late to do the offspring any good! We now know that some of the most prolific stud dogs are “carriers” only because they have produced offspring that later developed primary glaucoma. The tragedy is that for so long, some breeders, in the absence of uncontrovertable scientific proof, refused to believe the gene was autosomally recessive, i.e. that it took two carriers to produce primary glaucoma, and clung to the belief that it was produced by only one “carrier.” Because the research has only recently demonstrated this as strongly as it has, many breeders until very recently engaged in this sort of “wishful thinking” because they understandably didn’t want to neuter their “star” show stud. Of course, when glaucoma appeared in a litter, usually two or three years after the whelping, they also believed the “carrier” had to be the other breeder’s basset, not theirs, because in the interim, having been lucky enough not to breed to another carrier, they didn’t “have any glaucoma in their line.” What they missed was that it was going to pop up a generation or two down the line when the resultant carriers bred with other carriers!

    Perhaps because they didn’t want to “get a stink on themselves,” many breeders tried to keep the affecteds they produced a secret. Then they went on to the next breeder and did another breeding with what we NOW know was a KNOWN affected stud dog. Now, if the other breeder’s dog wasn’t a carrier, there wouldn’t be any affecteds resulting in that litter, BUT there quite likely would be carriers who pass the “genetic time bomb” on from generation to generation. It would eventually “peter out,” UNLESS one of the descendants was bred to another carrier. Unless the breeder really has an honest health history of what they are breeding, going generations back, it’s entirely possible to “have glaucoma in your line” and not know it… until bad luck pairs up two carriers.

    I must stress that the current genetic understanding of canine glaucoma is very new and still evolving. The “breakthrough” was the BHCA breeders who came forward and offered their breeding records, incidences of glaucoma, and their bassets’ DNA for the studies. Before that, it was an open-ended argument. Up until only a year or two ago, we weren’t so sure how the gene was passed and whether it was polygenic or autosomally recessive. As primary glaucoma only develops when the basset reaches maturity, there are still bassets today developing glaucoma that were bred before the current data became available. Their breeders weren’t irresponsible. They were doing the best they could to avoid it without really knowing how to accomplish that scientifically. As time goes on, there will be “no excuse,” but for the moment, their past ignorance is excusable because they just didn’t know.

    There is no greater likelihood that glaucoma would appear in bassets bred by a BHCA member than there would be in a basset that ended up in rescue. It is now, however, easier to identify carriers among BHCA members because it is the BHCA members who have provided the researchers with the DNA and pedigrees of their affected animals and it is within the BHCA pedigrees that the transmission of the gene has been traced. It’s “apples and oranges” really. For a variety of reasons, some economic, statistically, very few bassets bred by AKC show competitors, which I would think make up the majority of the BHCA membership, ever end up in rescue. Most reputable breeders sell bassets with a “no questions asked return policy.” Some even require that the animal must be returned to the breeder if it ever can no longer be cared for by its owner. No responsible breeder ever wants to be associated with the puppy mill and backyard breeder industry by having one of their animals end up in rescue. (Most all show breeders now microchip all their puppies so they can be easily identified.) Most reputable breeders also require spay or neuter documentation before signing off on a puppy’s AKC registration, so any “pets” they sell cannot produce offspring in any event. Most all of the bassets that end up in rescue are the product of either puppy mills or backyard breeders who have in one way or another acquired an intact AKC registered basset hound and bred it. It arguably may even be MORE likely that a puppy mill will produce more glaucoma affected bassets because they often repeat breedings with the same parings and use one stud on many related bitches, often breeding father to daughters. Puppy mills certainly don’t study pedigrees at all, since all they are interested in is producing as many registered puppies as they can. (AKC registration means nothing other than that the sire and the dam were registered… not that there was any serious thought given to selective breeding to produce quality bassets consistent with the breed standard.)

    Moreover, it would seem a responsible breeder would be more likely to care for an affected basset, or euthanize it, than ever turn it over to a rescue organization. There are many bassets that come into the rescues with glaucoma, but, unfortunately, their pedigrees either don’t exist or cannot be traced back far enough to be of use in tracking the spread of the gene. All one can say about a rescue basset is that it was a basset somebody didn’t want, and maybe not even a registered purebred basset at that. Not that a rescue might not be a wonderful pet, but once a basset hits rescue, the odds are overwhelming that its heredity is impossible to trace.

    The anecdotal information presently available on affected bassets and their pedigrees has been provided to the university research studies presently seeking to identify the glaucoma gene. I doubt that they would make it available to anyone outside their own research departments. I doubt that one program is even sharing their findings with another… the research is proprietary. Whoever isolates the gene first and develops a testing protocol will have a valuable veternary product to sell and developing those products, just like human medical research, is what pays the researchers’ salaries.

23. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    March 13th, 2009 | 8:30 pm

    KAEOI – thanks for you totally wonderful comments. You are very smart and I appreciate your knowledge. I had corrected some of my comments before you added yours. I will acknowledge that in my next comments. I want to thank you for your advise and knowledge.

    Cat

24. Cat
    March 14th, 2009 | 2:27 pm

    This is my response to KAEOI above commet: This person states,(first copying my question)

    “This is phenomenal information and I hope many, many folks read it. So often, this type of information is buried in the breed publications and on breeder forums. Please correct me if I am wrong, but would you say that primary glaucoma would be more prevalent in the BHCA than in the rescue population due to the nature of prolific stud dogs? Believe me, this is just an honest question.”

    Comment from Cat: I did ask this question, but I could not explain it correctly, so I deleted the question while you were responding to it. It just made me think about breeding couples in puppy mills that are kept from birth until they are bred to death, literally. If they are not affected then the puppy palaces keep buying from said mill or backyard. If that breeding couple is affected, the puppy palaces tell them about diseases and they put that couple down and try again. When they hit pay dirt with a couple that is producing somewhat healthy pups, that couple is then bred until they drop dead. The stud’s sperm is not sold and the off spring usually go on to be pets, not unaltered show dogs. Puppy mills only care about money. But, again it was just a hypothetical question. That I deleted because I could not ask it correctly. I am sure you will comment on this.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Absolutely not! It’s just that the only place it has been genetically tracked so far is in BHCA kennels because some BHCA breeders have courageously stepped forward and disclosed all they know about occurences in their breedings and provided their pedigrees and bassets’ DNA to the research programs.

    Comment from Cat: I would not consider the breeder I dealt with”courageous”at all. I was asked to keep silent about this genetic time bomb. Sharon knew Emma had primary glaucoma early 2006. She had just re-homed Emma’s sister in WA. Sharon specifically asked me not to tell this person that Emma had glaucoma. She said it was none of her business. Let me just tell you one more thing that makes this even more disturbing. The woman she re-homed Emma’s sister to had just gone through glaucoma with her beloved basset and Sharon knew it. How cruel can a person get? Of course I alerted Emma’s sister and the rest of the pups in her litter that I had contact with. Why is she just now doing something about glaucoma in her line? It is not out of courage or telling the truth.
    ___________________________________________

    Think of the glaucoma gene as a “genetic time bomb” that lurks in the DNA of any basset hound. (The gene pool of any canine breed is relatively tiny.) If a basset that carries the gene in its DNA is bred to another without the gene, a certain percentage (it’s a complicated formula depending on generations, but accurately calculable) of its offspring will also carry the gene. As the generations go on, the odds of passing the gene on decreases until the odds of its occurence are very small. BUT, if a “carrier” basset is bred to another “carrier,” a large percentage of the litter will also be “carriers” and the odds are very good that some or all of the litter will develop primary glaucoma.

    Comment from Cat: Sharon told me, that she believed at the time that both Titan and Dawn could be carriers. She knew at least one of them had to be. Titan and Dawn had another litter. I am not sure of the date, but I can look it up. I wonder what happened to Tornado, Tital Wave, and Twister?
    ________________________________________________

    Until the gene can be isolated and identified by DNA testing of individual breeding stock (which U of Missouri and U of Iowa are trying to do now by studying the DNA of known “affecteds” and their relatives), the only way to know for sure if a basset is a carrier is if it produces offspring that develop primary glaucoma, at which point it’s too late to do the offspring any good! We now know that some of the most prolific stud dogs are “carriers” only because they have produced offspring that later developed primary glaucoma. The tragedy is that for so long, some breeders, in the absence of uncontrovertable scientific proof, refused to believe the gene was autosomally recessive, i.e. that it took two carriers to produce primary glaucoma, and clung to the belief that it was produced by only one “carrier.” Because the research has only recently demonstrated this as strongly as it has, many breeders until very recently engaged in this sort of “wishful thinking” because they understandably didn’t want to neuter their “star” show stud. Of course, when glaucoma appeared in a litter, usually two or three years after the whelping, they also believed the “carrier” had to be the other breeder’s basset, not theirs, because in the interim, having been lucky enough not to breed to another carrier, they didn’t “have any glaucoma in their line.” What they missed was that it was going to pop up a generation or two down the line when the resultant carriers bred with other carriers!

    Comment from Cat: I know I keep harping on this, but BoBac does a lot of breeding. They hopefully are providing the U of MO with the same data and samples they are providing the U of Iowa. Or is it as you state in the bottom of this comment that this will be about selling Vets testing kits and the race to do just that? After dealing with the Nances and their secrets and lies I just don’t trust them. I asked Sharon and Richard to their faces why they were not keeping Emma. The comment to me was because she had a turned out paw. That was not the whole truth. They did not keep her because Sharon eliminates pups with abnormal angles from her program. Most of the buyers would be none the wiser when Sharon told them that, OH WELL, THESE THINGS HAPPEN! YOUR PUP IS THE FIRST REPORTED CASE IN OUR KENNEL.
    A huh…………right.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    Perhaps because they didn’t want to “get a stink on themselves,” many breeders tried to keep the affecteds they produced a secret.

    Comment from Cat: I was not willing to keep Sharon’s secret. Can you imagine someone asking you to lie for them and hide the fact that your dog has primary glaucoma? That is just evil.
    _________________________________________________

    Then they went on to the next breeder and did another breeding with what we NOW know was a KNOWN affected stud dog. Now, if the other breeder’s dog wasn’t a carrier, there wouldn’t be any affecteds resulting in that litter, BUT there quite likely would be carriers who pass the “genetic time bomb” on from generation to generation. It would eventually “peter out,” UNLESS one of the descendants was bred to another carrier. Unless the breeder really has an honest health history of what they are breeding, going generations back, it’s entirely possible to “have glaucoma in your line” and not know it… until bad luck pairs up two carriers.

    Comment from Cat: This is such a shame. I really did try to do the right thing by supporting a AKC/BHCA breeder. I did my homework with joy and glee. I got on BoBac’s website for months and we e-mailed back and forth. I was totally honest with the Nances. I told them that I had written a kids book about basset hounds and my goal was to have the biggest, best basset hound website on the internet. I was going to showcase Chaps and Emma and most likely they would become very famous in many basset hound circles. They knew before I purchased Emma what my goals were. So, my blogging about them and my experience is what I told them to expect. I don’t think for one minute they believed me. I know this comment from me is a bit off track and I guess it all boils down to, buyer beware. I had no idea I had to take Veterinary or PhD classes in glaucoma before I purchased a puppy from BoBac. I had no idea how to read a Cert examination. I was told it was normal. It was not until Emma went blind in her first eye that my Ophthalmologist told me her examination was not normal.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________

    I must stress that the current genetic understanding of canine glaucoma is very new and still evolving. The “breakthrough” was the BHCA breeders who came forward and offered their breeding records, incidences of glaucoma, and their bassets’ DNA for the studies. Before that, it was an open-ended argument. Up until only a year or two ago, we weren’t so sure how the gene was passed and whether it was polygenic or autosomally recessive. As primary glaucoma only develops when the basset reaches maturity, there are still bassets today developing glaucoma that were bred before the current data became available. Their breeders weren’t irresponsible. They were doing the best they could to avoid it without really knowing how to accomplish that scientifically. As time goes on, there will be “no excuse,” but for the moment, their past ignorance is excusable because they just didn’t know.

    Comment from Cat: I am not talking about all AKC/BHCA breeders I am talking about BoBac. I will NEVER give them a pass on their practices which included lying to me and reckless disregard for the health of the puppies that were out there that should have been pressure tested after Emma came down with the disease. These bassets are family members, not stock. I am appalled. However, I have learned a wealth of knowledge that I know will help others in the future.
    ________________________________________________

    There is no greater likelihood that glaucoma would appear in bassets bred by a BHCA member than there would be in a basset that ended up in rescue. It is now, however, easier to identify carriers among BHCA members because it is the BHCA members who have provided the researchers with the DNA and pedigrees of their affected animals and it is within the BHCA pedigrees that the transmission of the gene has been traced. It’s “apples and oranges” really. For a variety of reasons, some economic, statistically, very few bassets bred by AKC show competitors, which I would think make up the majority of the BHCA membership, ever end up in rescue.

    Comment from Cat: Agreed
    _________________________________________________
    Most reputable breeders sell bassets with a “no questions asked return policy.” Some even require that the animal must be returned to the breeder if it ever can no longer be cared for by its owner. No responsible breeder ever wants to be associated with the puppy mill and backyard breeder industry by having one of their animals end up in rescue.

    Comment from Cat: Most rescues would contact the breeder and tell them that the hound has wound up in a rescue if it is chipped. All breeders cannot keep track of all of their hounds that are spread across the states. Anyone can take a dog to the pound with no questions asked. In KY an owner relinquished dog is put down that same day. Other folks can re-home a dog and the breeder would never know. Some of the kennels like BoBac could never keep up with where all their dogs are. Also, if you have been burned by the breeder why would you send your dog back there for any reason. I know it is in the contract, but again, breeders like the Nances are too big to keep up with it. Sharon is not the type of person to deal with anything negative. She totally ignored Emma until she wanted her to participate in her study. She tried to guilt trip me into it. She cannot hold a candle to my tenaciousness. She also wanted Chaps just as bad. Where was Sharon when I wanted answers? Oh, that’s right she hung up on me. Cowardliness not courageousness.
    ______________________________________

    (Most all show breeders now microchip all their puppies so they can be easily identified.) Most reputable breeders also require spay or neuter documentation before signing off on a puppy’s AKC registration, so any “pets” they sell cannot produce offspring in any event.

    Comment from Cat: Sharon asked me not to spay Emma. They pressured me for months to give her up to a handler so they could show her in this region of the country. I remember thinking, don’t you have enough dogs already? Do you really have to badger Emma and I? She finally admitted she had no dogs in this region and it would help get the BoBac Kennel recognized by the public at dog shows. I had Emma spayed on schedule and Ms. Nance was not happy. I at no time EVER lead either Sharon or Richard to believe I was interested in showing Emma. EVER!
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Most all of the bassets that end up in rescue are the product of either puppy mills or backyard breeders who have in one way or another acquired an intact AKC registered basset hound and bred it. It arguably may even be MORE likely that a puppy mill will produce more glaucoma affected bassets because they often repeat breedings with the same parings and use one stud on many related bitches, often breeding father to daughters. Puppy mills certainly don’t study pedigrees at all, since all they are interested in is producing as many registered puppies as they can. (AKC registration means nothing other than that the sire and the dam were registered… not that there was any serious thought given to selective breeding to produce quality bassets consistent with the breed standard.)

    Comment from Cat: Actually puppy mills only want to make money. We have a horrible problem with the Amish in the OH river valley. They view dogs as live stock and nothing more. They are so religious aren’t they? That’s a whole other bag of worms.
    ______________________________________________________________

    Moreover, it would seem a responsible breeder would be more likely to care for an affected basset, or euthanize it, than ever turn it over to a rescue organization.

    Comment from Cat: I have never heard of a responsible breeder turning over a hound with glaucoma to a rescue. I am pretty sure the rescue would not even consider it, but I will let them chime in if they want.

    There are many bassets that come into the rescues with glaucoma, but, unfortunately, their pedigrees either don’t exist or cannot be traced back far enough to be of use in tracking the spread of the gene. All one can say about a rescue basset is that it was a basset somebody didn’t want, and maybe not even a registered purebred basset at that. Not that a rescue might not be a wonderful pet, but once a basset hits rescue, the odds are overwhelming that its heredity is impossible to trace.

    Comment from Cat: I would have to say that the majority of rescued bassets do make wonderful pets. Also, Chaps was a BoBac basset that the Nances did not want. They also did not want Emma. She did want Emma’s sister for about a minute until she did not win as many ribbons as was necessary to stick around for a few years.
    ________________________________________________

    The anecdotal information presently available on affected bassets and their pedigrees has been provided to the university research studies presently seeking to identify the glaucoma gene. I doubt that they would make it available to anyone outside their own research departments. I doubt that one program is even sharing their findings with another… the research is proprietary. Whoever isolates the gene first and develops a testing protocol will have a valuable veternary product to sell and developing those products, just like human medical research, is what pays the researchers’ salaries.

    Comment from Cat: OK, but the Nances must have shared their private information with you for you to make the statement you did in your last comment about anecdotal information and the Nances not having anything that would show that they irresponsibly bred their hounds. Maybe they had to for some reason. Also the U of Iowa study is not all that proprietary. Other people are e-mailing me, telling me they are learning all kinds of information from the researchers. Also why is Sharon driving the study? Do other breeders get to sit with the researches and pour over the project. It only seems proprietary when it benefits the secret. Of course I realize that someone is going to make money off of this. It’s going to be a lot more than just paying the salaries of the researchers.

    Again, thanks for all of your good information.

    Cat, Chaps and Emma

25. keeping an eye on it
    March 14th, 2009 | 7:48 pm

    I was just guessing about whether the researchers would be hesitant to release information on affected and carrier bassets and their pedigrees that had been provided by breeders. Your site was the first that mentioned your basset’s breeders and kennel in the context of glaucoma. I don’t know them at all, nor have I ever seen the names in any of the research data I’ve seen. My point was only that what you had reported appeared to be pretty standard responsible breeding up until just a few years ago when we started learning more about the transmission of the gene. I’ve heard the story you tell told with respect to other breeders. Until recently, a basset with glaucoma was like a child with Down’s Syndrome a hundred years ago… “lock ‘em in the closet and don’t tell anybody we’ve got it in the family!”

26. Barbara Wicklund
    March 15th, 2009 | 4:17 pm

    I was involved in Basset Hound rescue for some 20 years and during that period took in a number of dogs with obvious eye problems, all of which turned out to be glaucoma. EVERY ONE could be traced to a puppy mill breeding simply by asking the person relinquishing the dog where (s)he obtained it. Always from a pet shop, where BHCA breeders do not sell their puppies. I adopted one of these dogs myself and, for the past 6 years, he has been blind as a result of glaucoma and the removal of both eyes. It disturbs me to read all the negative comments about the hardship facing blind dogs. Mine must be an exception because he has led a perfectly normal, healthy life since his surgery. You do a disservice to dogs who face blindness when you warn owners about non-existent hardships. My advice if you dog loses its sight: don’t move the furniture!

27. Cat
    March 15th, 2009 | 4:35 pm

    Thanks Barbara – Great advise. Your comments are welcome and appreciated.

    I am very sorry that you think my blog does a disservice to dogs who face blindness.

    I bet if you read my entire blog you would think different. But that is just my opinion, we are all entitled to one.

    Cat, Chaps and Emma

28. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    March 15th, 2009 | 5:44 pm

    KAEOI – I totally agree with your last comment and I had to laugh. I found it oddly funny. Thank you for your willingness to banter with me. I love smart people like you and I learn so much. Sometimes we can laugh as well. I get what you are saying and you do it so well.

    Cat

29. Julia
    March 16th, 2009 | 8:27 am

    I had to comment on the comment by Barbara Wicklund. It is painfully obvious that she has no clue what you do on your blog. To say that you do a disservice to dogs who face blindness is just downright wrong. I think if she takes the time to read more about you she is going to feel really small.

    She goes on to say that you warn owners about non-existent hardships. Obviously she had never read any of your advise other than one blog posting and she can pontificate about your advise to others? Then we get Barbara’s sage wisdom. Don’t move the furniture. I guess she does not travel very much with her blind dog.

    I refer people with blind dogs to your blog all the time. Just sayin’

    Julia

    And to think this lady wrote a book about basset hounds.

30. Hound Dog
    March 16th, 2009 | 10:33 am

    Just curious about your $8,000 vet bills for her treatment. Sounds high. I had a basset with the same problem and even with inserting artificial eyes, the cost didn’t exceed $2,500.

31. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 16th, 2009 | 10:40 am

    I have copies of all of my medical records plus prescription receipts. I am going to list them all later on tonight. I am counting stuff like the gel that had to be used every 4 hours. Man that stuff was not cheap even with a coupon. Often times I would spend hundreds of dollars on drops that would be changed the next month for another hundred dollar worth of new drops. I wound up donating close to a thousand dollars in medication to House of Puddles after she had her final enucleation.

    

    These are just some of the meds which included:

    Xalatan latanoprost ophthalmic solution (Emergency drop that costs about 80 dollars for a very small amount) This is the drop that I had a prescription for in Emma’s emergency package. I donated 2 containers.

    50mg Methazolamide #24 20 tabs

    Trusopt, 1/2 bottle left

    #6 100mg Rimadyl – 4 tabs that I split for Emma

    #18 20 mg Pred – 8 tabs

    Almost a full bottle of Indomethacin – like an aspirin for the eye.

    These were just meds that I had bought trying desperately to save sight in Emma’s real eye. At one point, towards the end, I was putting drops in her eyes every four hours. I set my alarm to get up during the night. I had to wait 10 minutes between drops which means I was up for about 30 minutes.

    Thanks for your comment. I can’t wait to see the actual total. I felt I was estimating on the low side. I remember Sharon telling me that a thousand dollar prosthetic in OH would cost triple that in Dallas. I have no idea how she knew that.

    Cat

32. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 16th, 2009 | 7:15 pm

    Lord have Mercy – I just pulled out all of Emma’s medical records and I almost need to do an excel spread sheet. I cannot possibly do this all in one night. I am, however, working on it. I am all about full disclosure.

    You can see that I listed a few meds in the above post. That drug called Xalatan, is this size of one 1/4 of a dainty pinkie finger. Like I said, it is 80.00 per bottle.

    Emma also had a deep corneal abrasion in her prosthetic that resulted in weekly visits and multiple eye drops trying to save the prosthetic. The expenses were enormous.

    I really want to document this in a financial fashion and I will. I am very detailed oriented and I will not post any of this until I have a full accounting. Emma and I are looking forward to it!

    Hope you are OK with this Hound Dog! (love the name)

    Cat and Emma

33. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 16th, 2009 | 7:32 pm

    Oh, one more thing. The actual costs do not include time off of work. There would be very few folks who could do what I did for Emma with a 9 to 5 job, not to mention the heartache.

    I am fortunate enough to have a canine eye doctor within an hour of my home. Many are not that lucky. I would like to do a more detailed post on that as well.

    Cat

34. Dawg
    March 16th, 2009 | 7:43 pm

    I had to laugh when I saw Barbara Wicklund’s post. As a long time reader and follower of Emma’s journey, Barbara’s comments were just absurd. I could tell from your response that you showed her respect. Good for you. Keep up the good work you do for blind bassets. I like the light you are shining on glaucoma in bassets. It takes so much time and effort but many are behind you. Keep that in mind.

    Dawg

35. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 16th, 2009 | 7:59 pm

    Ah, thanks Dawg! I respect your comments. I have been blogging about Emma since birth and will do it until she crosses the Rainbow Bridge.

    Regarding Barbara’s comments……I treat everyone with respect. It does not matter one hoot to me if you wrote a book or have a pup that is throwing up. I tend to all comments the same. With compassion, honesty and intrigue. I cannot control others, but they are welcome. Mine is an open forum and debate.

    Cat, Chaps and Emma

36. "Keeping an eye on it"
    March 17th, 2009 | 6:38 pm

    Well, I try to bite my tongue, but sometimes even the blather on the internet moves me to “chime in.”

    Aside from the fact that she knew she wrote a book about basset hounds, Julia apparently has no idea who Barbara Wicklund is. I know of Ms. Wicklund by reputation. Barbara Wicklund is, I believe, the senior-most delegate to the AKC’s Board of Delegates, in other words, the longest serving member.

    Ms. Wicklund INVENTED “RESCUE,” or so I have been told. Not “basset rescue,” but “rescue… period.” It was she who began the program of placing retired racing greyhounds, rather than permitting the dog racing tracks to simply kill them when they didn’t run fast enough.

    It was clear to me that the “disservice” to which Ms. Wicklund referred was simply that if caring for a blind dog is seen as a huge burden, they are more likely to be euthanized than cared for.

    I’d say Ms. Wicklund deserves more than respect, she deserves to be worshiped!

37. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    March 18th, 2009 | 11:04 pm

    Thank you KAEOI! Your worship of Ms. Wicklund is welcome!
    I remain sad that she did me such a disservice, but I will get over it! I am a big girl. LOL

38. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    March 19th, 2009 | 5:08 pm

    Hey Hound Dog, it’s us, Cat and Emma!

    I finally shored up the courage to go through all Emma’s bills as they relate to glaucoma. Sharon conveniently forgets to mention in her one sided article about the costs associated with a blind basset hound. She states, “As hard as it is on the dog to lose the eye, it is usually harder on the owner. I am not in any way trying to minimize the loss of an eye or both eyes, but just as humans, they can still lead a happy life and will always love you unconditionally.”

    Hopefully, you have a lot of money to lead this happy life that Sharon talks about. In my opinion she is minimizing the journey your hound will take. I have said it before and I will ask it again. Sharon, do you have any blind bassets in your very large kennel? I think we can all answer that question.

    According to Emma’s Ophthalmologist, if the hound is diagnosed with Primary (hereditary) glaucoma, it is a almost certain the hound will go blind in both eyes.

    On with the show………

    After spending about an hour going through every medical record for Emma as it relates to glaucoma the total came to 7,979.00 dollars. I reserve the right to amend this total as other expenses crop up or I find something that I forgot.

    At this point I would like to thank my Mom who was by our side every step of the way. She was sitting with me when we saw Emma on the internet until the time we sobbed in the parking lot of the vet office, as it was pelting rain, after Emma’s final enucleation. My Mom sat by Emma’s side for 14 days while I tried to work and find extra money to pay for Emma’s needs. She made sure Emma was not rubbing her incision and keeping still while she healed.
    

    I am going to do a rough total from the time that Emma was diagnosed until her final enucleation. I came up with 7979.00 dollars. Here is just a quick and fast break down. Emma’s medical files reads like the phone book.

    EMMA’S ROUGH DRAFT SUMMERY DETAILS………

    I have not provided the spread sheet details because it is just too time consuming. I really want to do this at some point. I have every detail and more than I have explained below. I cannot tell you how many hours I have spent researching, documenting, e-mailing, and holding Emma.

    Emma’s trips to her primary care doctor plus pressure checks at 50.00 dollars per pop.

    Emma, my Mom and I made a total of 32, two hour round trip visits to the Ophthalmologist in 24 months. Most of the medicine is included in these visits.

    Gas for car to eye doctor trips is included in the total.

    Other medications such as Genteal gel and Benadryl. Genteal gel is a life long expense for as long as the fake eye lasts. It is not cheap and runs about 10 dollars per small tube. Emma’s eye doctor had her on it 4 times a day to lubricate her fake eye. As an aside, this was not mentioned when we discussed the fake eye.

    Emergency room nose bleed (3:30am) after first enucleation.

    Emergency medications the day Emma went blind. Of course it was on a Sunday and her doctor was out of town. The doctor gave me an emergency pack for the eventual fact that Emma would go blind. I had to rush to my pharmacy and provide them with the emergency instructions and scripts for Emma. (This is where the 80.00, less than a thimble full of drops comes in. I had to buy 2 of those.)

    Fee to hire a person to help us home with Emma. He had to carry her in the house and place her near the dog door on a pre-made bed for me. I slept with her to insure she did not scratch her paw under the protective collar. I also placed a bell on her collar so I could hear if she woke up during the night.

    

    Trip to the dermatologist to check Emma’s neck due to irritation from the hood she was wearing. It was awful. She suffers terribly from allergies anyway, but with this thing on we needed help! This is just an aside but Emma has horrible allergies that stifle her ability at a full life. This is a totally different problem that our girl has.

    

    Expenses to the primary vet after her trip and fall down the steps after she went blind.

    Rug cleaning after her many accidents in the house after she went blind.

    End of List for now………

    So you see, Sharon’s flippant remarks about unconditional love are all Roses and Lollipops, but the truth is very simple. Any dog will love you unconditionally no matter what. They can be blind, deaf, or have 3 legs. That is a certain. What I want is unconditional truth. Somehow that is sorely missing from the middle finger down the throat article that Sharon wrote.

    I waited for over 2 years for her to fess up. You mark my words. I will follow this forever. No longer can foul smelling practices be hidden in the back roads of a kennel. The world is on to you.

    If it can happen to me, it can happen to you…at any level! These are the hard and plain truths folks. It is not all Roses and Lollipops as BoBac Bassets would have you believe. This is just a tiny part of what we have gone though with Emma. It has been VERY EXPENSIVE. IT HAS BEEN VERY HEART WRENCHING.

    Do not let Sharon of BoBac Bassets tell you other wise. It is evident that she has no clue about caring for a blind basset hound. She is negligent and ill informed.

    Remember I told you I had no idea about why she was coming forward now? I am getting closer.

    Stay tuned for my radio show!
    

    I love my Mommy……….Emma!

39. Cheri Feldhausen
    March 21st, 2009 | 1:45 pm

    I think it is wonderful that someone who is breeding show dogs is finally speaking out. I am also a show breeder. It is every show breeders responsibility to make sure that the dogs they breed are healthy and clear of problems.
    However, the genes for narrow angle glaucoma are in every line of Bassets, not just Bo-Bac. There is really nowhere that you can go, to make sure that puppies you are looking at have no ancestors who have had glaucoma. They don’t exist.
    Every show breeder is responsible for testing and making sure that they are not contributing to the problem. This problem with narrow angles also surfaced in my line about 7 years ago after I did an outcross to another line. The genes for narrow angle glaucoma are dominant with variable expression, and what you see on the gonioscopy test is what you have genetically. It is very easy to eliminate this problem in a few generations, by breeding up to dogs who test clear.
    It is not necessary, however, to eliminate every dog from the breeding program who does not test perfect. You can breed dogs who test so-so, (I would probably not breed a dog who tests really bad) to dogs who test clear, and get puppies who test excellent.
    It is very dangerous to try to eliminate every Basset who does not test perfect. Since there is such a high incidence of this in our breed, this would eliminate far too many good genes as well as the bad, and seriously deplete the genetic diversity of our breed which is already too inbred as far as I am concerned.
    This has been done in other breeds with disasterous results. In Basenji’s they tried to eliminate a genetic eye disease by eliminating all the affecteds and carriers, and ended up with rampant Fanconi syndrome which is always fatal. Same thing in Bedlington Terriers. They tried to eliminate PRA by “doing the right thing” and ended up with a large portion of the breed with Copper toxicosis which is also fatal.
    So far, I have never produced a case of glaucoma because I test, and if I have a dog who is not perfect, he or she is bred to a dog who tests excellent. I imagine that the Nances are doing the same thing now, and that the witch hunt against them on this list is not necessary.
    I don’t really know them personally, although I know who they are. Just the fact that they are willing to speak out says volumes about their ethics.
    I think they are a bit misguided when they claim that you don’t know who is carrying the genes and who isn’t. This is the rumor about narrow angle glaucoma that is rampant in Bassets today. It is very simple to know who carries it, and who doesn’t since this is not a simple recessive. What you see on a test, is what you have, and you can breed accordingly.
    There are also many other non-genetic reasons why a Basset might get glaucoma. Uveitis, (inner eye infection), injury to the eye, lens luxation, (which actually can be genetic, but it is a different gene which causes it). There is also open angle glaucoma, which I hope is not in our breed, but is found in other breeds. This is a simple recessive.
    Do not throw blame at breeders until you have been in there shoes. This is one of the most difficult things that a person can do. There are about 400 known genetic problems that any dog can possibly get, and many more that have not yet been identified. There are also many problems that lie hidden for generations, and when you get the right combination of gene falling in a certain puppy, you will end up with a problem that you could not possibly foresee. Every dog, whether mixed breed, hunting dog, show dog, whatever, carries at least 6 defective genes that can possiby cause problems. The fact that we don’t have more problems than we do says a lot for the ethics of breeders, and their desire to breed healthy dogs. None of us wants to deal with genetic problems, whether it is with our own dogs, or in the puppies that we sell.
    No breeder I know breeds intentionally with the idea of producing problems.

40. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 21st, 2009 | 2:41 pm

    Cheri – Thank you for your comments. The Nances sold me Emma and told me she had normal angles. They were not honest. They asked me to lie to others about glaucoma in their breeding program. I will and do throw blame at them. I would never be in their shoes because I don’t lie or ask others to lie for me. I will address other statements you make when I have time. Today, Emma went lame so my time is being spent with her. It looks like she has a herniated disc. She also has some hip dysplasia. Emma has fallen and twisted her back a number of time since going blind.

    Cat

41. Cheri Feldhausen
    March 21st, 2009 | 3:06 pm

    Actually, narrow angle glaucoma in Bassets has not yet been proven to be a recessive. In other breeds it is a dominant.
    The pedigrees that I have seen that are complete with test scores look very much like a dominant mode of inheritance.
    They have not finished the study yet, or proven anything to that effect. We will have to wait until the results of the study are finished before we will know for sure. Announcing anything now is jumping the gun.
    If a dog has a bad gonioscopy test score, it has a much greater chance of getting glaucoma than a dog who tests clear. A dog may have quite bad angles and not get glaucoma, but this does not mean that they will not produce it if bred. In a dog with a bad test score, any small challenge to the eye such as irritation, or infection may cause the eye to go, but if the eye has just enough drainage to get by, it may not ever happen. However, this dog will always be a time bomb waiting to explode. This does not make testing irrelevant.
    A dog who has a clear test score can *not* get narrow angle glaucoma. It might possibly get glaucoma that is secondary to something else, but if the dog does not have narrow angles, it can not get narrow angle glaucoma. This is why some people claim that testing doesn’t mean anything. They don’t understand the difference between secondary and primary glaucoma.
    Narrow (or closed) angle glaucoma is not a secondary glaucoma. It is a primary glaucoma and the narrow angles are directly caused by the genes that the dog is carrying. The *genes* for narrow angle glaucoma do not cause glaucoma. They cause the narrow angles, and the narrow angles block the drainage, and cause the glaucoma.
    Secondary glaucoma is glaucoma that is not caused by a hereditary condition. The only exception to this is primary lens luxation which has been proven to be a simple recessive. Primary lens luxation can cause a secondary glaucoma, and primary glaucoma can cause secondary lens luxation. This does not mean they are caused by the same gene, and does not mean they are both recessive, or related to each other.
    So even if it were a recessive, just carrying the genes without the presence of the narrow angles will not make the dog any more suseptable to glaucoma than any other dog.
    Secondary glaucoma is caused by non-directly heritable conditions like injuries, infections, lens luxation etc. Any one who says different has not done their homework.
    I have a friend who is a long time Basset show breeder and who works in a vet hospital. She had a problem with glaucoma about 15 years ago and got rid of it by outcrossing to dogs who test clear. I also know of another breeder who did the same with the same results.
    She breeds several litters per year, tests everything, and in 15 years has never yet produced a puppy with a bad test score out of two dogs who tested clear.
    She also sees many dogs of all breeds coming into the vet hospital where she works with eye injuries, and infections that produce glaucoma. This is not primary glaucoma, this is secondary glaucoma, and is not a hereditary condition. So just because a dog with a good test score gets glaucoma, it does not mean that testing is irrelevant, or that the gene for narrow angle glaucoma is recessive.
    Many things are being written lately that are totally confusing to people who don’t understand the difference between primary and secondary glaucoma. This confusion does nothing to help breeders understand the problems or make educated breeding decisions.

    Cheri

42. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    March 21st, 2009 | 3:24 pm

    Cheri – All Sharon would have had to say was…..

    “Cat, Emma has bilateral abnormal drainage angles. I can tell you what I think about this. Then you can ask an independent Opthalmologist what they think and make your own decision about if you want to go ahead with the purchase.”

    Wow – what a great concept – full disclosure! However, Sharon, in all of her wisdom, went down a different path.

    Regardless of who knows what and all of the scientific data on the planet, it would have been my decision, not Sharon’s decision. BoBac had no right not to present me with all of the medical facts.

    It’s shady at best.

    Cat

43. Cat
    March 21st, 2009 | 4:16 pm

    This is my reply to the above comment from Cheri Feldhausen: I am going to use my usual format and make my comments within the actual comment:

    Start of Cheri’s first comment:
    I think it is wonderful that someone who is breeding show dogs is finally speaking out. I am also a show breeder. It is every show breeders responsibility to make sure that the dogs they breed are healthy and clear of problems.

    However, the genes for narrow angle glaucoma are in every line of Bassets, not just Bo-Bac. There is really nowhere that you can go, to make sure that puppies you are looking at have no ancestors who have had glaucoma. They don’t exist.

    Comment from Cat: I was not looking at ancestors. I was looking at one pup. Emma and I was told she had a normal eye examination.

    Every show breeder is responsible for testing and making sure that they are not contributing to the problem. This problem with narrow angles also surfaced in my line about 7 years ago after I did an outcross to another line. The genes for narrow angle glaucoma are dominant with variable expression, and what you see on the gonioscopy test is what you have genetically. It is very easy to eliminate this problem in a few generations, by breeding up to dogs who test clear.
    It is not necessary, however, to eliminate every dog from the breeding program who does not test perfect. You can breed dogs who test so-so, (I would probably not breed a dog who tests really bad) to dogs who test clear, and get puppies who test excellent.
    It is very dangerous to try to eliminate every Basset who does not test perfect. Since there is such a high incidence of this in our breed, this would eliminate far too many good genes as well as the bad, and seriously deplete the genetic diversity of our breed which is already too inbred as far as I am concerned.

    
    Comment from Cat: This is great information. Thanks for adding it.

    This has been done in other breeds with disasterous results. In Basenji’s they tried to eliminate a genetic eye disease by eliminating all the affecteds and carriers, and ended up with rampant Fanconi syndrome which is always fatal. Same thing in Bedlington Terriers. They tried to eliminate PRA by “doing the right thing” and ended up with a large portion of the breed with Copper toxicosis which is also fatal.
    So far, I have never produced a case of glaucoma because I test, and if I have a dog who is not perfect, he or she is bred to a dog who tests excellent. I imagine that the Nances are doing the same thing now, and that the witch hunt against them on this list is not necessary.

    Comment from Cat: LOL! Witch Hunt. You have to read more than this blog posting to get all of the facts. Witch hunt implies that I have no facts.

    I don’t really know them personally, although I know who they are. Just the fact that they are willing to speak out says volumes about their ethics.

    Comment from Cat: I totally disagree. It takes time for these things to come out. When you ask people such as myself to lie for you to save your business it is not very ethical. When you sell a puppy that does not have a normal eye examination to someone stating that it is normal, that is not ethical. When I was asked by Sharon not to tell Emma’s litter mates that she had PRIMARY glaucoma, that is the bottom of the barrel unethical. If anyone thinks otherwise they are unethical as well.

    I think they are a bit misguided when they claim that you don’t know who is carrying the genes and who isn’t. This is the rumor about narrow angle glaucoma that is rampant in Bassets today. It is very simple to know who carries it, and who doesn’t since this is not a simple recessive. What you see on a test, is what you have, and you can breed accordingly.

    Comment from Cat: Misguided, ya think? No comment.

    There are also many other non-genetic reasons why a Basset might get glaucoma. Uveitis, (inner eye infection), injury to the eye, lens luxation, (which actually can be genetic, but it is a different gene which causes it). There is also open angle glaucoma, which I hope is not in our breed, but is found in other breeds. This is a simple recessive.

    Comment from Cat: Emma had primary, closed angle glaucoma.

    Do not throw blame at breeders until you have been in there shoes. This is one of the most difficult things that a person can do.

    Comment from Cat: I answered this right below in another comment but I will add, I don’t believe that this is one of the most difficult things a person can do. I believe that it became difficult when they lied, asked me to lie, and then turned their back on folks like me.

    There are about 400 known genetic problems that any dog can possibly get, and many more that have not yet been identified. There are also many problems that lie hidden for generations, and when you get the right combination of gene falling in a certain puppy, you will end up with a problem that you could not possibly foresee. Every dog, whether mixed breed, hunting dog, show dog, whatever, carries at least 6 defective genes that can possiby cause problems. The fact that we don’t have more problems than we do says a lot for the ethics of breeders, and their desire to breed healthy dogs. None of us wants to deal with genetic problems, whether it is with our own dogs, or in the puppies that we sell.
    No breeder I know breeds intentionally with the idea of producing problems.

    Comment from Cat: To breed intentionally with the idea of producing problems is just too absurd to even reply to. This is a long and arduous posting with many more facts on my website. You cannot just read one posting and announce that it is a Witch Hunt which is equally absurd. The Nances brought this all on themselves. I am not going to sit back and read the swill she wrote in the Tally Ho and not feel outrage. I do appreciate your time and your educational statements.

    Cat

44. Cat
    March 21st, 2009 | 6:03 pm

    THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO CHERI’S SECOND COMMENT TO ME:

    Thanks for this information Cheri – It is very informative. I just want to state again, that Emma was born with primary, closed angle glaucoma. Sharon had the luxury of her expert opinion but did not give me that same luxury. She did not reveal the data or did she allow me to get my own expert opinion. I work in medical research so I know how to do that.

    When Emma’s eye doctor did the prosthetic in her first eye he checked her other eye and said it had a severely closed angle and she would go blind. He confirmed it was primary, not secondary, which I informed Sharon of that same night. Sharon was so concerned with herself she cut me off and hung up on me. Emma’s surgeon also told me that it was the worst experience he had ever had placing a prosthetic in his career. Emma is allergic to everything, including the surgical scrub he used. The tribulations go on and on. Sharon offered me no human comfort. She did pay for the procedure which was a drop in the bucket of Emma’s care. After I asked for more bills to be paid I never heard from her again, that is until she wanted me to participate in her study, never mentioning the Tally Ho article. This is how these things snow ball. Deception is never the answer.

    Let prospective buyers make their own decisions. I came to an AKC/BHCA breeder for a plain, pure and simple reason. I trusted them. I wanted to support the guardians of our breed and show case how these breeders do the right thing. I wanted to report on how we cannot do without reputable breeders of this caliber and at the same time support the down trodden rescue hounds. I had the best intentions and then I got shafted. Cheri, this is not a witch hunt. This is the truth coming out. It is Emma’s truth and I have every right to tell it. I am also affording you and anyone else a right to tell their story. This is an open forum and I respect everyone. I will never back down off of Emma’s story however. She is one hound that fell into the right arms. The arms of truth. She may not live long enough to tell it, but I sure will.

    Cat

45. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    March 21st, 2009 | 7:10 pm

    P.S.

    If anyone cares, Emma is resting after her first dose of steroids after going partially lame. Some how I don’t think she will get any well wishes from this group of readers. You know who you are. Very sad.

46. Cheri Feldhausen
    March 21st, 2009 | 10:01 pm

    I will wish Emma well. I am so sorry that this has happened to you and Emma. I wish there was something that I could do, but I cannot control what other breeders choose to do. I wrote my first comment before I had read through all the comments.
    I guess I have been sort of touchy about people attacking breeders since that film “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” came out and was very one sided and slanderous about reputable breeding practices. They said nothing about any of the good that breeders do with rescue, health testing, helping to fund studies etc, instead they chose to lie to the people they interviewed about the intent of the film and show all breeders in the worst light possible. Our breed was attacked particularly viciously.
    I am a breeder who is very concerned about the health of my breed, and have a desire to breed healthy dogs who are capable of doing what they are originally bred to do,(hunt). I not only show my dogs, but I enter them in field trials, and I try to breed dogs who have the stamina to be capable of spending all day in the field.
    I wrote my first comment knowing that sometimes no matter what you do, and how careful you are, things happen that you cannot predict. I know this from experience. Many disease genes are recessive, and there is no DNA test for them, so there is really no way to know who carries what, and what you may be doubling up on. Particularly if the people who bred the dogs behind yours are not completely honest. So I know exactly what you are up against.
    Things can lie hidden for many generations, and pop back up unexpectedly. However, I don’t believe that this particular disease (narrow angle glaucoma) is one of those diseases.
    I understand that you have had a bad experience with a particular breeder.
    I am sorry that this had to happen, but please don’t think that all reputable breeders would do this, or that this is a common practice.

47. Cat
    March 21st, 2009 | 10:52 pm

    Dear Cheri – Thank you for your well wishes. They mean the world to us. Emma is my life. Your last sentence gives me so much hope. I have never felt such joy reading comments. I totally get it! I wish I could hug you. Thank you, thank you again.

    Pure JOY. Cat, Chaps and Emma

    

48. Cheri Feldhausen
    March 22nd, 2009 | 12:57 pm

    This is how it is supposed to go. I acquired a bitch who was an outcross for me. She had everything that I was looking for, lots of energy, beautiful conformation, very healthy, no allergies, no eye problems like entropion,or goopy eyes, not too much wrinkle over the eyes, not much sag underneath so her eyes were very clear and healthy. She finished her show championship with two 5 point majors out of the puppy class. Later on, she earned her Dual Championship (show and field) and is now a Dual champion/Grand Field Champion/Master Hunter Excellent, with a Versatility title. Only a handfull of dogs in the history of the breed have accomplished this.
    I went to get her eyes tested before I bred her, and she only tested at about 50%. Darn. OK. My eye vet told me that at 50% she still had plenty of drainage, and since her eyes were very healthy, the chance of her actually getting glaucoma was very slim. She is 8 years old now, and doing fine.
    I happened to have a dog who was also a Dual Champion who tested 100% and had no glaucoma behind him. At least not that I knew of. He is line bred on a line that I have been following for 25 years.
    I went ahead and bred her. I just couldn’t bring myself to thow everything else she had away. Where could I possibly find that again? Once those genes for hunting are gone, they are gone forever. Many show Bassets just don’t have the drive, and instinct anymore. If you don’t select for specific traits, then you will eventually lose them. If you breed only for looks, you will eventually lose other things that are very important to our breed.
    When I went to sell the puppies, I gave full disclosure. I kept two and sold one to someone in California who wanted a bitch she could show and field trial. I told her exactly how the sire and dam tested, exactly what my eye vet said, and exactly what I expected out of that litter. I ended up getting exactly what I expected.
    Obviously, a trait that can test anywhere from 0% to 100% can’t be a simple recessive. It is probably a co-dominant or incomplete dominant with variable expression, just like it is in Welsh Springer Spaniels. The really bad scores are probably doubled up, the intermediate scores may be carrying one gene, and the excellent scores are probably clear. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119453289/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
    I got half the litter with scores about like the dam, and half the litter who tested clear like the sire. This makes sense if she carries one gene and he is clear. You would get half and half.
    I don’t test baby puppies because I don’t believe that the tests are accurate since the eyes haven’t finished developing.
    I told the person who bought the puppy everything I knew about her, and she made the decision which puppy she wanted, and made an educated decision on whether or not to take a chance on her.
    Well, that puppy is now 4 years of age, testing at 85%, is a Dual Champion/Grand Field Champion/ Master Hunter Excellent with a Versatility title. She couldn’t be happier with her.
    I kept a dog and a bitch out of that litter, and the dog tested at 85-90% and is now a Dual Champion. Unfortunately, the bitch I kept tested just like her mother. Darn. She very pretty and she hunts though. Thats the way it goes. The other puppies were sold as pets on spay and neuter contracts with full disclosure about testing. Most of them didn’t have a clue what I was talking about, but at least I told them.

49. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    March 22nd, 2009 | 6:07 pm

    Hey Cheri – I just wanted to let you know that anytime a comment comes across with a link, my blog software thinks it is spam and I have to approve it. That is why it took so long for this to show up. Also, I think the link you provided is broken. At least it is on my end. If you send it to me again, I will update your post and delete this sentence.

    Wow, Dual champion/Grand Field Champion/Master Hunter Excellent, with a Versatility title! That is really impressive. I would like to see that hound!

    I love that you give such an excellent example of how all of this should be done. You have provided so much fantastic data. The big thing for me is how you used the words, “full disclosure”.

    What is also so dear to my heart is to hear that you explained everything to the buyer about the puppies. Just the way you explained it here is such good credible information.

    I had to laugh at your last comment about most of them not having a clue. That is too funny. You know what? That was all I was asking for and the important thing is, you gave the buyer the option. Plus, you explain the stuff that matters to lay people in a very smart fashion.

    I really enjoyed reading this post and I hope you send me the link so I can re-post it in your comment.

    It has been a pleasure learning from you.

    Cat

50. Cheri Feldhausen
    March 22nd, 2009 | 6:49 pm

    I think the link was down for awhile today. I just found it this morning by googling Welsh Springer Spaniels/ Glaucoma. I seems to say everything that I have thought to be true about the way that it is inherited in Bassets. It is working now. I downloaded it after it came up just to make sure. Let me know if you still can’t get it to come up.
    I also know two other long time Basset breeders who have had problems with glaucoma and are very open, honest, and above board about it. I have learned a lot about this from watching how they dealt with the problem, and stuying their pedigrees, and asking lots of questions.
    I never blame a breeder for ending up with a genetic problem. If you breed long enough, it will happen. It always does. No one is immune. It’s what you do afterwards that speaks about how ethical and honest you are.
    >Wow, Dual champion/Grand Field Champion/Master Hunter Excellent, with a Versatility title! That is really impressive. I would like to see that hound!<
    I would post a photo of her, but I don’t have a clue how to do that.

    NOTE FROM CAT:

    I am posting a picture of Shania for Cheri. Wow – Smart and pretty
    

51. Cat
    March 22nd, 2009 | 7:07 pm

    Cheri – I will try that link again and let you know. It still seems to be down, but I can figure it out with the info you gave me.

    I so agree with you about your statement of, “It’s what you do afterwards that speaks about how ethical and honest you are.” I also agree with your full disclosure policy in the selling process. That is what speaks volumes.

    Cheri – you can send me an e-mail with the photo of your special hound and I will post it. Just attach a jpeg in an e-mail to me. I would love to see her. It would be an honor.

    My e-mail is

    cat@bassethoundtown.com

    Or if you have a picture of her somewhere on line I can go and grab it. Just give me a link.

    Thank you Cheri – It is has been so nice to meet you.

    Cat

52. keeping an eye on it
    March 30th, 2009 | 9:49 pm

    Sadly, I cringed when I read Ms. Feldhausen’s posts. Primary glaucoma IS autosomally recessive and gonioscopy does not predict it at all, it only confirms its presence once the condition is active. This is the present state of the research findings. Ms. Feldhausen’s data, in some respects derived from studies applicable to other breeds, is about twenty years behind the times.

    Now, it wouldn’t matter all that much, except that her approach is EXACTLY the approach taken by many basset breeders that has spread this scourge throughout the gene pool!

    THERE IS YET NO PREDICTIVE “TEST” FOR PRIMARY GLAUCOMA IN BASSET HOUNDS! Period. End of paragraph.

    There will not be any predictive test for primary glaucoma in basset hounds until the gene producing it is isolated and can be identified in an individual animal’s DNA. Folks who “grasp at straws” believing that gonioscopic examination can “predict” whether a basset will develop primary glaucoma are simply looking for a way to justify “taking a chance” and breeding carrier stock. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt!

    If one is serious about these issues, they really should expand their research beyond the Internet… which is an authority on NOTHING. Please consider reading Dr. George A. Padget’s book, “Control of Canine Genetic Diseases,” if you are really interested in these issues. This book is the “Bible” for vets in this field. Dr. Padget lays out very clearly a formula for predicting the odds of a basset developing primary glaucoma, IF you know the pedigree well enough to identify “affecteds” and their get. If the BHCA had the integrity to declare an “open registry” and required breeders to disclose all “affecteds,” and breeders then bred according to the scientific genetic “odds,” then glaucoma could indeed be virtually eradicated in the breed. However, so long as some folks cling to outdated “junk science” to justify breeding glaucoma carriers, they will continue to “pee in the gene pool” with disasterous consequences.

    Declining to breed a known carrier which is otherwise a great specimen is a disapointing obligation. Just because a dog wins a National Specialty or racks up a huge number of breed points does not mean it is otherwise worthy of being bred. It is no secret that one of the most widely bred “top stud dogs” in recent memory is a KNOW glaucoma carrier that has thrown the defect, yet his owner continues to breed him notwithstanding. THAT’S how the primary glaucoma gene is spread and all the gonioscopies in the world ain’t going to erradicate the defect as long as people breed known carriers, no matter what their “angles” may be.

53. Cat
    March 31st, 2009 | 11:18 am

    Hey KAEOI –

    Thanks for your comments. I for one am anxious to see what the update is on the research that the BHCA has invested in. Motion #07-08
    I move, “That the BHCA partially support the following grant requests out of the AKC/CHF Basset Hound Donor Advised Fund”:

    Grant No. 747: The Mapping and Characterization of Mutations Responsible for Canine Glaucoma
    Principal Investigator(s): Elizabeth Giuliano, DVM, MS, DACVO, University of Missouri, Columbia
    Sponsor(s): No Sponsors
    Grant Amount: $82,080.00 (half paid by AKC/CHF)
    Start Date: 10/1/2007 Duration (in yrs): 2
    BHCA Amount: $20,000 (BH breed specific)

    _______________________________

    There should be an update on this research at any time. I really look forward to reading their findings.

    Cat

54. Cat
    March 31st, 2009 | 8:17 pm

    Hi again KAEOI-

    If you are checking in can you comment on this question? Will the BHCA support the study the Nances are touting? How does that work? Can the Nances just make it happen because they want it to?

    Cat

55. Cheri Feldhausen
    April 5th, 2009 | 10:36 pm

    I have to cringe when I hear people saying that narrow angle glaucoma is definately a recessive. Besides the fact that there have been no studies in Bassets yet that have proven this, the pedigrees that I have studied, have shown otherwise.
    Here is a website showing the mode of inheritance of glaucoma in humans.
    http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/glaucoma-3 Note that almost all forms are dominant.
    Here is some more information that I obtained a few years ago from the Gary Johnson lab when they were doing a study on Bassets. I personally know the person who submitted many blood samples and pedigrees for this study. What she had was narrow angle glaucoma, proven by many gonioscopy tests. They determined at that time that it might be the same gene that causes narrow angle glaucoma in humans. Unfortunately, they never finished the study. I believe they ran out of money. This came directly off the BHCA website.
    http://www.basset-bhca.org/News/glaucomares.htm

    Open angle glaucoma in some breeds has been proven to be recessive, but I believe that narrow angle glaucoma is much more prevalent in our breed. They are not caused by the same gene, and are compeletly different.
    The study I found a few weeks ago on Welsh Springer Spaniels showed a mode of inheritance that was exactly what we were seeing in the Basset pedigrees. This is what the study showed.
    —————————————————–
    >Primary glaucoma in the Welsh springer spaniel
    BEVERLEY D. COTTRELL 1 K. C. BARNETT 1
    1 Unit of Comparative Ophthalmology, Animal Health Trust, Lanwades Park, Kennett, Newmarket, Suffolk CB8 7PN
    Copyright 1988 British Small Animal Veterinary Association
    ABSTRACT

    This paper reports 28 cases of primary angle closure glaucoma in the Welsh springer spaniel, a breed not previously reported to be affected by this condition. Females are affected more frequently than males (2–4:1). The age of onset ranges from 10 weeks to 10 years; however, the distribution is skewed towards the younger dog. The mode of inheritance appears to be dominant, which should make elimination of the trait through breeding control more straightforward. Gonioscopy on clinically affected and clinically normal dogs revealed three angle types; open (normal), partially open and partially closed (equivocal) and closed (affected). The equivocal cases may represent the heterozygous state and the closed the homozygous; alternatively the gene(s) may show variable expression.<

    ——————————————————————————–

    DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
    10.1111/j.1748-5827.1988.tb02276.x About DOI

    Related Articles
    Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
    Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors
    Request ReprintWiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

    ____________________________________________________

    George Padgett’s book is quite old, and much of it is out of date considering the advances in genetics in the last few years. At the time he wrote this book, there, of course, were no studies that proved the mode of inheritance of glaucoma in Bassets, just as there is none now. This does not mean that his theory of computing the possiblity of inheriting recessive genes is out of date, but since it has not been proven that narrow angle glauoma in Bassets is recessive, that would be a moot point.
    Cheri

56. Cheri Feldhausen
    April 6th, 2009 | 8:44 am

    >Now, it wouldn’t matter all that much, except that her approach is EXACTLY the approach taken by many basset breeders that has spread this scourge throughout the gene pool!

    Actually, I do have Dr. Padgett’s book, and read it cover to cover, as well as Willis, years ago. In this book he lists the mode of inheritance of primary narrow angle glaucoma in Basset Hounds as being “undetermined”.
    I notice that “Keeping an eye on it” has listed no references proving that the mode of inheritance is actually recessive. When I see some proof of this in an actual study, then I will believe.
    While the study that I listed was done in 1988, this does not mean that the mode of inheritance has changed since then, or that the researchers were incorrect in their conclusion.
    It is the people who claim that angles mean nothing, and there is no way to tell which dog has a problem that are the root of the problem. It is those people who continue to breed, knowing that their dogs angles are bad, or never test, believing that there is no way to know, and those who do not disclose the problem to potential breeders that have spread this disease through the breed.
    There are two breeders I know personally, who have had a problem with glaucoma in their dogs. As soon as they found the problem, and started gonioscopy testing and breeding accordingly, the problem went away, and has not resurfaced. One of them has gone 15 years this way without a problem. The other has gone at least 8 years. These are both well known show breeders who usually breed several litters per year.
    They are also very open and honest about what happened. I have great respect for them. I notice that “keeping an eye on it” has declined to reveal their name, or give any proof of what they claim.
    Until I see some proof, I will continue to breed according to the only test that currently exists that gives any indication of which dogs are a problem. I have done it this way for 20 years, and so far, I have not produced any puppies with glaucoma.
    Cheri

57. Cheri Feldhausen
    April 7th, 2009 | 12:26 pm

    I spoke with Liz Hanson at the Johnson lab yesterday afternoon. She works with Gary Johnson who is doing the study on glaucoma in Basset Hounds.
    We had a long conversation. She says that they are looking at glaucoma as though it were possibly a recessive, but this has not yet been determined. They will not know for sure until they isolate the gene. She says that they have been proven wrong before when the gene for certain diseases have been found, and they discovered that it was not inherited quite the way they had suspected.
    She says that at this stage of the game, they would never presume to tell breeders to change their breeding practices, but to continue to use gonioscopy testing to determine which dogs are affected, and which one’s are not.
    She also said that since there are many different causes for glaucoma, some of which are not heritable at all, to tell breeders to eliminate ALL producers would be, in her words, “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” This is far too extreme a measure considering the knowledge that we have to go by at this time.
    Cheri

58. Cat
    April 7th, 2009 | 12:54 pm

    Cheri!

    Thank you so much for this update. I am very interested in anything you find out. Is this the AKC/CHF study in MO the BHCA is partially funding? I heard they were going to have an update at the end of March.

    Again, thanks so much for posting this.

    Cat

59. Cheri Feldhausen
    April 8th, 2009 | 8:38 am

    Cat writes:

    >I am very interested in anything you find out. Is this the AKC/CHF study in MO the BHCA is partially funding? I heard they were going to have an update at the end of March. <

    I haven’t heard anything about an update. Where would you go to find this information? I called because I had questions and Liz Hanson is the person who deals with questions from breeders.
    This is the study that that is being done at the University of Missouri that the BHCA had up on their website a few years ago.
    I have a friend who submitted a lot of samples to them back then, and they still have these, and are using them as well as the recent ones they have recieved.
    Liz told me that at that time, they couldn’t find the particular gene they were looking for, so they have been waiting until advances in science caught up with what they were attempting to do. They say that they are getting very close.
    I am not sure who is funding this study.
    Cheri

60. Cat
    April 8th, 2009 | 9:35 am

    Hey Cheri – This is a blog posting I did after I read the January/February 2008 issue of the Tally Ho.

    http://www.bassethoundtown.com/blog/2008/01/21/basset-hound-club-of-america-2

    The Grant is no longer pending and is currently being researched. Erica Kitchen, of the CHF told me a few weeks ago that there should be an update at the end of March, but the study is still ongoing.

    Here is the link to the CHF contact page.

    http://www.akcchf.org/contact/?nav_area=contact

    Grant No. 747: The Mapping and Characterization of Mutations Responsible for Canine Glaucoma – BASSET HOUND BREED SPECIFIC.

    Principal Investigator(s): Elizabeth Giuliano, DVM, MS, DACVO, University of Missouri, Columbia
    Sponsor(s): No Sponsors
    Grant Amount: $82,080.00 (half paid by AKC/CHF)
    Start Date: 10/1/2007 Duration (in yrs): 2

    This is an e-mail I got from Dr. Giuliano back in January of 2008.

    This just in from Elizabeth Giuliano, DVM, MS, DACVO, University of Missouri, Columbia:

    START OF COMMENT

    “At the moment, we are in the early stages of genetic discovery… and there is a great deal of work yet to be done. Glaucoma is indeed a rather depressing disease for veterinary ophthalmologists world-wide and we strive to learn more about it to try and to help dogs. Unfortunately, there are very few ACVO diplomates (less than 400 world wide) and much fewer of us in academia (only about 50) who are actively involved in research.”

    Here is the motion that was approved by the BHCA. This is not to say they are not going to support the Nance project. I just want to know where the BHCA stands.

    Motion #07-08
    I move, “That the BHCA partially support the following grant requests out of the AKC/CHF Basset Hound Donor Advised Fund”:

    Pending Grant No. 747: The Mapping and Characterization of Mutations Responsible for Canine Glaucoma
    Principal Investigator(s): Elizabeth Giuliano, DVM, MS, DACVO, University of Missouri, Columbia
    Sponsor(s): No Sponsors
    Grant Amount: $82,080.00 (half paid by AKC/CHF)
    Start Date: 10/1/2007 Duration (in yrs): 2
    BHCA Amount: $20,000 (BH breed specific)

    When I find the update I will post it here. I been a bit lacking due to Emma’s back surgery for early degenerative disc disease.

    Cat

61. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    April 8th, 2009 | 9:54 am

    Cheri – I just sent an e-mail requesting information to Liz Hansen as well. Here is the original e-mail reply I got from her back on 6-5-08.

    Start of e-mail

    Dear Cathy

    I believe that the “active” grant 2291 has been completed, and what they have listed as “pending” grant 747 is the current, active grant. CHF only makes 2-year grants, and we’ve been working on this longer than 2 years, initially with 2291 (and I think there was another one prior to that even), and now with 747. We have sent DNA from extended family groups of Basset Hounds, Bouviers, and Dandie Dinmont Terriers where glaucoma has appeared to a collaborating researcher in Finland who is doing the mapping run for us. We expect data back soon. Hopefully that will give us one or two target areas to search for a likely gene, and a mutation that causes glaucoma. We definitely do need additional samples from glaucoma-affected dogs, plus their normal siblings, parents, and grandparents. If an affected dog has produced offspring, all those puppies and their 2nd parent are useful to sample as well. You can find the form and instructions for sending a sample in the SAMPLE SUBMISSION section of the Glaucoma & Lens Luxation website contained in http://www.CanineGeneticDiseases.net. The information on the website needs some updating but the sampling info is current.

    Let me know if you have any questions.

    Liz

    Liz Hansen

    Animal Molecular Genetics Laboratory

    University of Missouri – College of Veterinary Medicine

    321 Connaway Hall

    Columbia, MO 65211

    573-884-3712

    HansenL@missouri.edu

62. Anonymous Basset Lover
    April 17th, 2009 | 9:33 pm

    Hi Cat-
    I just heard about this blog and have been trying to briefly catch up on all that has happened to you. I had recently spoken to the Nance’s about getting one of their puppies. After having read this….I’m so dumbfounded. I apologize for not knowing the background here but I want to make sure I understand what went on. Can you please answer my questions:
    1.Did your Emma come from Bobac bassets? Who were the mother/father?
    2. Emma is now blind due to glaucoma which was a result of bad genetics?
    3. You informed the Nance’s of this in 2006?
    4. The Nance’s knowingly continued to breed their dogs with this genetic fault?
    5. Only recently have the Nance’s admitted the genetic fault and are actively working to eliminate it from their line?
    Please keep me anonymous. Thank you.

63. Cat
    April 18th, 2009 | 8:04 am

    Hi ABL –

    You mention you are dumbfounded so you can get a small measure of how I felt dealing with the Nances.

    1.) Emma is of BoBac and the mother is Dawn (First Light). She is no longer with the Nances. The Father is Titan and I do not know his status.

    2.) Emma is blind from primary closed angle glaucoma. This is an inherited disease.

    3.) I informed the Nances in March of 2007, the day of her diagnosis. Sharon hung up on me.

    4.) The Nances continued breeding. Sharon asked me to lie for her about Emma (which I did not) and she asked me not to tell any of Emma’s litter mates, which I informed all of them I had access to.

    5.) For reasons known only to the Nances they have come forward with the admission of glaucoma in their line. I have my own opinions which are in the original posting.

    The Nances lied to me from the start. They sold me Emma and told me she had a normal eye examination. However, when you actually look at that report the box is checked ABNORMAL. Then the eye doctor notes, “bilateral abnormal angles”.

    Talk about dumbfounded.

    Please feel free to ask me anything you want. I believe in full disclosure. I told Sharon I was going to blog about Emma and Chaps for their entire lives. I wanted her to know that everything was going to be documented. She patted me on the hand and said, “that’s nice dear”. I also told her and Richard that I was going to have the number one basset hound website on the internet and they rolled their eyes. I may not have the number one site, but I get about a thousand hits a day. Google has me on page 2! I wonder if they are rolling their eyes now?

    I do not want one more person to suffer the fate that my family has suffered.

    Emma is blind, she has severe allergies, and degenerative disc disease. Emma is currently recovering from 4,000 dollar back surgery. Her medical bills are nearing 15,000 and she is only 4 years old.

    I hope this answers your question. Feel free to contact me at any time.

    Cat – bassethoundtown.com

64. No name
    May 8th, 2009 | 9:45 am

    Cat – After I read the Noonan article I knew you would be commenting. I am so glad that you do. Neither the Tally Ho or the BHCA have any type of forum for comments. Their website needs serious help.

    Your site will put this information on the internet where it belongs. Not in some antiquated, members only closed meeting. What secrets that were kept years ago are no longer possible with sites like your. (you might be the only one). It takes time, effort, passion and dedication to do what you do and I might add……balls.

    Keep it up.

    No name

65. Basset Girl
    May 8th, 2009 | 10:41 am

    I have read both articles and my question is, how were the Nances approved to write their article? Was it published without question?

    Should there have been an editorial note stating that this was just the opinion of the Nances and anyone else that would like to send in an article in response can do that.

    The club is very closed minded if they let a breeder who has been spreading glaucoma speak as if they are an authority on it now.

    Never, taking one bit of blame. That is arrogance at its peak. Something funny is going on.

    Then the Noonan article comes along and clearly this woman has not read this website.

    I see what you are saying about the spin in her article.

    Is there not someone on the board that has an opposite opinion from the Nances?

    Or, do they just not see what is going on? I kind of doubt that. Anyway, I hope to find out more.

    BG

66. Cheri Feldhausen
    May 8th, 2009 | 3:32 pm

    OK, what did I miss? What is the Noonan article, and where do I find it?
    Anyone who wants to can print an article in the Tally-Ho. I have thought about doing just that. They are not censored, except maybe for profanity, or slander.
    You may have to be a BHCA member to post an article in the Tally-Ho, but I have seen many articles written by others and submitted by BHCA members there.
    Cheri

67. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    May 9th, 2009 | 10:06 am

    Hi Cheri –

    The Noonan article is in the current May/June Tally Ho.

    Thanks for the information on publishing in the Tally Ho.

    I am gathering more information on the subject of the Nances and the study they are promoting.

    Cat

68. Cheri Feldhausen
    May 10th, 2009 | 8:32 pm

    >I am gathering more information on the subject of the Nances and the study they are promoting.<

    Cat

    I’m interested. Let me know what you find.
    Cheri

69. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    May 10th, 2009 | 9:08 pm

    I am all over it. Rest assured…..

    I have many contacts

70. Sinisa Grozdanic DVM,PhD
    May 23rd, 2009 | 10:20 am

    Dear Mrs Rudert,

    My name is Sinisa Grozdanic and I am a veterinary ophthalmologist at the Iowa State University. I am also one of lead investigators in the Basset Hound glaucoma genetics study which is conducted by joined effort of Iowa State University and University of Iowa – College of Medicine. While I do not have a habit of responding to blog postings, I found it very difficult not to respond to some of your statements.

    The reason why we actively engaged in the Basset glaucoma research is to help animals and humans, since there is a high chance that similar genetic mutations are responsible for development of glaucoma in both species. Monetary gains (as you pointed in your blog) do not have anything with our effort. In the last 5 years I donated hundreds of overtime clinical hours and dedicated huge financial and human laboratory resources to support this research.We are always seeking for grant resources, since genetic analysis can be very time consuming and expensive process. It is almost an identical story with investigators from the University of Iowa. As an additional example of “profit making” activities, I can only point to the fact that ophthalmology genetics laboratory at the University of Iowa tested thousand of blood samples from humans and animals for free, just by using support of generous donors.

    Unfortunately, I do see way too many Bassets with glaucoma as my patients, for which we go long ways to try to help with different medical and surgical procedures. In the last five years we focused our effort to develop early diagnostic tests which can be used to detect glaucoma years before the acute form of disease develops, so these dogs can be treated with medications which can delay blindness as long as possible. Furthermore, we actively work on development and testing of new medical and surgical procedures, including stem cell based therapies which can help in battling this terrible disease.

    I can only say that Sharon and Richard Nance have been instrumental in spearheading our effort to identify genetic mutation responsible for a disease. They managed to mobilize a lot of breeders to step forward with their problems and send us blood samples from affected dogs and dogs which are related to affected dogs. In the last year we managed to make more progress compared to the last five years all together. In our experience, problem with glaucoma in Basset Hounds is massive. We do see evidence of disease in many top lines of Bassets, which points to the fact that there are many breeding Bassets with problems, however we do not have access to these dogs. Ultimately, it takes huge courage for a breeder to admit that there is a serious hereditary problem in the line, but that is the only option if we are to be successful in eliminating this disease.

    While I absolutely understand your pain and frustration by dealing with glaucoma in your own pet, spreading information which is not correct does not help our effort to eradicate glaucoma. We have tried to contact you several times via e-mail and by phone to get blood samples from your dog with glaucoma, but unfortunately we never got any response back. While I do not have any doubts that your actions are motivated by the best intentions, I would strongly encourage you to help us by publicly spreading word about a need to identify dogs with glaucoma and collect blood samples for genetic studies and most importantly to send us samples from your own dog. That would be the best contribution to the breed and many pet owners who are dealing with glaucoma in their pets.

    If anybody is interested about more details of our study and our work, I will be more than happy to provide any answers via e-mail (sgrozdan@iastate.edu) or phone (515-294-6712).

    Sincerely,

    Sinisa Grozdanic DVM, PhD
    Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences
    College of Veterinary Medicine
    Iowa State University
    Ames, 50011 IA

71. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    May 23rd, 2009 | 11:38 am

    Dr. Grozdanic: BTW – I am not Mrs. Rudert. I am not married.

    Thank you for your comments on my blog posting. Many people do not make a habit of responding to blog posting so you are not so unusual.

    First off, let me point out that it is obvious that you did not read my entire blog posting or you would not be making the statements you do in your comments. You have to read the entire history of what I have been through with the Nances to comment effectively to this posting.

    Also, you should get with Dr. Kuehn, PhD (who works with you on this study) and see just how many e-mails we have exchanged. I find it odd that you would make the following false statements without checking with your colleague. I have NEVER been contacted by phone, EVER.

    Dr. Grozdanic states,

    “We have tried to contact you several times via e-mail and by phone to get blood samples from your dog with glaucoma, but unfortunately we never got any response back.”

    I have every e-mail that has been exchanged between Dr. Kuehn and myself. I also have every e-mail that Sharon Nance rudely sent me wanting Emma’s blood. (I will never respond to her again – ever). I also have every e-mail from Sharon regarding how she handled Emma when she found out she had primary glaucoma. Her actions have never been courageous and I wish for the sake of that word it was not used with Sharon’s name. She is a coward who is steering, or “spearheading” as you call it, this study for reasons known only to herself. Do you think she came forward out of the goodness of her heart? If you do watch out. To reiterate. Go to Dr. Kuehn and see how many times I promptly responded to him.
    
    “From: markus-kuehn@uiowa.edu
    Subject: RE: Basset Hound Glaucoma
    Date: February 2, 2009 9:37:27 PM EST
    To: bassethoundtown@fuse.net

    Dear Cathy:

    I am glad you got back to me so quickly…..”

    If he has a memory loss I have copies of every e-mail and I can send them to you. I can also send you the e-mails from Sharon and my one reply.

    I can appreciate all of the OT you work because I do the same thing. I have donated thousands of hours and financial resources myself to basset hound health, education, and rescue efforts. It is mostly documented on my blog.

    After I was shafted by the Nances I made it my mission to show and warn others how I was treated by this breeder. From the moment I bought Emma to the moment Sharon hung up on me when she found out I would not lie for her. It’s all in the blog posting doctor. You just have to read it in its entirety. Sharon is a coward.

    I also have generous folks that donate and support my efforts. I have raised close to 20,000 dollars in the last 3 years for basset hound rescue. (This does not include what I have donated). I could not do it without my generous friends who donate. I have done thousands of hours of work for free, just like you. You would know that if you researched my blog.

    One of the reasons you are seeing way too many bassets with glaucoma is due to the ignorance of BoBac Bassets. They think they know it all and then want to hide and lie about their mistakes. I am speaking from experience. First hand knowledge.

    Had I known what the Nances knew from Emma’s birth I could have possibly delayed Emma’s blindness with medications and regular pressure checks but the Nances lied to me and told me that Emma had a normal eye examination. Again, all in the blog posting. Courageous or Coward? I pick the latter. When Sharon was forced to come forward and state that they had glaucoma in their line she alerted only members of the BHCA. I know people who have purchased bassets from her and they did not hear a word about how they could potentially delay or save the sight of their hound by testing or medications. How can you call that courageous? I am the onlly one out there warning people because I lived through it and it is not pretty. The expense is crushing. Sharon should be ashamed of herself. How low can she go? “Spearheading”, that is laughable.

    You mention that in the last year you were able to make more progress than in the last five years. Sharon and Richard have known that they had glaucoma in their line for years! It is only because they were forced to come forward that you are making all of this progress. They need to redeem themselves. They never thought that a counter point would be available.

    So, Dr. Grozdanic, when and if this test kit is developed for detecting the mutant gene for glaucoma who is going to make monetary gains? How does that work? Please explain that to me as you see it. I know how I see it. Would you be so kind as to comment again?

    Please also explain what you mean by this statement?

    “While I absolutely understand your pain and frustration by dealing with glaucoma in your own pet, spreading information which is not correct does not help our effort to eradicate glaucoma.”

    What information am I spreading that is not correct? I feel that you are spreading incorrect information. Your comprehension of what is correct and mine differ. That does not mean I am incorrect. Nothing in my posting suggests you are going to make any money off of this. You seem to take that point so offensively. Would you not want your University to make money off of a kit that would be purchased world wide? Potentially making millions for all canine breeds who suffer from this disease?

    Then you go on to state,

    “While I do not have any doubts that your actions are motivated by the best intentions, I would strongly encourage you to help us by publicly spreading word about a need to identify dogs with glaucoma and collect blood samples for genetic studies and most importantly to send us samples from your own dog. That would be the best contribution to the breed and many pet owners who are dealing with glaucoma in their pets.”

    So, you cut me down and then suggest that I offer up Emma’s blood?

    I think I have answered this statement quit clearly and in much detail in the blog posting. I want nothing to do with Sharon’s study, PERIOD. I don’t trust anything she is involved with. She has done massive damage by ignoring the facts that were staring her in the face. Oh, I forgot, Sharon gets rid of all of her puppies that potentially could get glaucoma. She makes a statement in the Tally Ho article that just infuriates me,

    “As hard as it is on the dog to lose the eye, it is usually harder on the owner. I am not in any way trying to minimize the loss of an eye or both eyes, but just as humans, they can still lead a happy life and will always love you unconditionally.”

    How in the hell could this freaking aitch know about a blind basset hound? This is just so typical of her arrogance and total disregard for those of us who have gone through this. I asked Sharon right after Emma went blind about what to expect and she said, “How should I know, I never had a blind basset hound.” She was right, she sold them all to people like me. Callous! She wanted me to go away. She knew I was on her case. What she did not know is that I would stay on it.

    

    Emma Rudert – The truly deserving one to have the word courageous used in conjunction with her name.

    If anyone has any questions about anything I have said or blogged about feel free to contact me. Also, Emma is raising money for glaucoma research herself. You can visit her FirstGiving Page and learn all about it. She will even send you a free gift that is a 20.00 value!

    http://www.firstgiving.com/emmarudertbassethoundtown

72. Sinisa Grozdanic DVM,PhD
    May 23rd, 2009 | 3:40 pm

    Dear Mis Rudert,

    The value of this study and possible positive impact goes way beyond interests of any individual, Basset Hound breeders and Basset owners, and may have significant implications for discovery of cause of glaucoma in other animal species and human patients.

    I am extremely sorry that despite all our effort, you are not ready to help with our study by providing a DNA sample from your dog, which could potentially dramatically improve our chances to get earlier to the discovery of gene mutation and possible help us detect glaucoma in many dogs before they start suffering from pain associated with this disease.

    I wish you all luck with your money raising effort for glaucoma research, with a hope that collected money will indeed find its way to scientists which are trying to alleviate suffering of dogs affected with glaucoma.

    Sincerely,

    Sinisa Grozdanic DVM, PhD

73. Cheri Feldhausen
    May 23rd, 2009 | 5:40 pm

    If Dr Grozdanic is still willing to talk on this blog, I have a few questions that I would like to ask about primary glaucoma.
    I am a breeder who has been gonioscopy testing all of my dogs that I plan to breed. So far, in over 20 years of breeding, I have never had a problem with glaucoma. I know of 4 other breeders now, who have had problems, and who have gotten rid of the problem by testing and breeding accordingly. Testing is one thing, breeding accordingly is another.
    Dr. Kuehn is under the impression that gonioscopy tests are not testing for the right problem, even though studies in Great Danes and Flat Coat Retrievers have shown a definite connection between the degree of goniodysgeneis/Pectinate ligament dysplasia and glaucoma. It also showed that breeding for better angles and less PLD produced puppies with less GD/PLD and less risk of glaucoma. Obviously, it is not an absolute, that you cannot predict that any dog who tests at a certain percentage will never get glaucoma, and another dog who tests at another percentage definately will get it. It is only an indicator of a risk factor, not an absolute.
    What worries me, is that Dr. Kuehn is going to be a guest speaker at the Nationals. Is he going to discourage breeders from using the only screening test that we have available to us before we have a viable alternative to use? That thought really frightens me.
    What he has right now is speculation, and I don’t know if the breeders who listen to his talk will appreciate the difference between speculation and fact. The breeders will hear what they want to hear, and if they want to hear that it is OK to breed their dog who tests at 20% on a gonioscopy, then that is what they will hear.
    One question that I have is, say you have two dogs with similar, poor test scores, and one dog gets glaucoma, and the other one doesn’t, and you are looking for the gene that causes the difference. What if the difference is environmental, or even epigenic? It might not take much to push a dog over into glaucoma if his eyes are not good to begin with. Any environmental stess could do that. It may not have to be something obvious. Likewise, if a dog has just enough drainage to get by, he may die before his eyes blow.
    There are many genetic diseases that can be made better, or worse by environmental factors. Hip dysplasia is one very classic example.
    When Dr Kuehn mentioned dogs with open angles that still got glaucoma, are you saying that we have open angle glaucoma also? I thought that a prerequisite for having narrow angle glaucoma, is that the dog needs to have narrow angles. If he doesn’t have narrow angles, then he has something else. If you are looking for one gene that causes both forms of primary glaucoma, you probably won’t find it, since the two are caused by entirely different processes.
    Are these cases anecdotal stories from breeders, or are they actual cases certified by veterinary ophthamologists who have proved that the glaucoma was not caused by a secondary condition? It is my understanding that once the eye blows, there is so much damage that it is rather difficult to know exactly what caused it.
    Dr Kuehn responded to my first e-mail to him, but he did not give me the supporting evidence to prove his point. He has not answered these questions that I posed to him in a second e-mail in response to him. I believe these are legitimate questions, and I am open to learning something new. Please respond
    Cheri

74. Cat
    May 23rd, 2009 | 5:50 pm

    Dr. Grozdanic:

    I was hoping you would answer my questions but I am not surprised that you did not. Not surprised at all. You also did not comment on the fact that some of your statements were absolutely false. You did not comment on that either. Since you don’t make a habit of commenting on blogs, let me fill you in. When asked a question by someone you should try to answer it.

    You state, “The value of this study and possible positive impact goes way beyond interests of any individual, Basset Hound breeders and Basset owners, and may have significant implications for discovery of cause of glaucoma in other animal species and human patients.”

    I totally get that. That was not a question I asked you. If you read Sharon’s uncontested article in the Tally-Ho (printed above for your reference) She goes into that in great detail. She plugs, plugs, plugs you and your study. What she is vague on, to the point of leaving it out, is how long she knew about glaucoma in her line and how many hounds are affected, that she even knows about. The article is the Nances spin on their bad decisions and mistakes. You say that this goes beyond interest of any individual, Basset Hound Breeders and Basset owners. Too bad the Nances of BoBac did not heed that advise years ago and come forward to help when they could have made a real impact. Yes doctor, when I told them about glaucoma in their line they asked me to lie for them. That was years ago. Now they want to ride in on their white horses with their cowboy hats and cure glaucoma. I don’t buy it. That article Sharon wrote was the epitome of “don’t believe everything you read”.

    This brings me back to the Test Kit. Who is going to gain Monetarily from this? If not your University, then who? Some one has to sell it. I doubt it will be free.

    Dr. Grozdanic, you made no effort whatsoever to contact me and you are giving out false statements about this to my readers. You people really need to get your facts straight, but I have to cut you some slack because you are dealing with the Queen of Spin, Sharon Nance. I can only imagine what she is telling you. However, that does not excuse you from asking Dr. Kuehn, your colleague and partner in this study. Your misstep on this point is reckless.

    I had to laugh when you tried to suggest that Emma is now the big bad wolf for not participating and all dogs that are the affected by the Nances will suffer because of Emma. How twisted are you? That is just insufferable bullshit. Sharon has plenty of dogs with glaucoma for you to test. I am sure she will have more for you soon.

    You state in your previous comment,

    “I can only say that Sharon and Richard Nance have been instrumental in spearheading our effort to identify genetic mutation responsible for a disease. They managed to mobilize a lot of breeders to step forward with their problems and send us blood samples from affected dogs and dogs which are related to affected dogs.”

    It sounds like the Nances are getting you what you need so leave Emma alone. She has no desire to participate in this study. But then you go on to state,

    “We do see evidence of disease in many top lines of Bassets, which points to the fact that there are many breeding Bassets with problems, however we do not have access to these dogs.”

    ATTENTION READERS….YOU JUST READ A BLATANT PLEA FOR BLOOD!

    The Nances have mobilized a lot of breeders but you top line folks look out. You may get the same ridicule that Emma got. Will your hound be the next big bad wolf?

    First you lambaste me for my blog posting, then you chastise me for not sending Emma’s blood, and on top of it, you will not answer my questions. Do you see how ludicrous you are coming across?

    You obviously do not know anything about Firstgiving fund raising pages. It sounds like you are trying to suggest that I would keep this money. Frankly, you also sound a bit bitter. Every donation is deposited into the CHF 501c3 account. That way, people like you can not question the good efforts of people like me. Or maybe you are questioning the CHF? If so, feel free to call them, just like you called me! However, make sure you actually call. All of their information is on Emma’s Firstgiving page in my previous comment.

    Scientists like you would have a much easier job if the Nances of BoBac took a pro-active stance instead of a band-aid approach. Sharon stated in her article that her and Richard look forward to 1 or 2 litters a year. That is just false. How these people get away with what they do is just down right baffling to me. I am not going to sit idly by while the Nances bull dose all over the basset hound breed. Nope. Not going to do it.

    Did you know that Sharon did not want me involved in this study at all? It was not until Dr. Kuehn insisted upon it that she actually e-mailed me. I tasted vomit in my mouth when she told me to join the study. Yes, told me, just like others she is bossing around. I am sure many are intimated by her but not me.

    As you can see, I have addressed every statement of your e-mail. I hope you go back and read my previous comment and answer my questions. Maybe then my readers can have all of the information and make an informed decision about this study. I think the days of being told how to donate your money and blood are over. Thank Dog!

    My blog is the only place in the Nation where interested folks can come and read the other side of this story. I am thrilled to offer this forum. I hope you take me up on answering my questions because I am sure my readers would like to hear your answers. I for one, would love to hear how I am spreading incorrect information. Can you detail that for me instead of making a sweeping blanket statement suggesting I am incorrect? Exactly, what incorrect information are you talking about?

    Lastly, I have never heard such a disingenuous wish in all of my life as your closing statement.

    Cat

75. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    May 23rd, 2009 | 6:29 pm

    Just to let everyone know, I get a fair amount of private e-mails on this subject. Everyone who has e-mailed me privately knows that I keep these comments and concerns confidential. Feel free to ask me any questions and I will get right back to you. I am thrilled that Dr. Grozdanic came to this forum and I hope he will be back to answer all of our questions. Just to let Dr. Grozdanic know, I get over 1000 unique visitors a day. I have no idea what they are reading but many may came to this page.

    Posts can get heated at times, as they do on forums, but I will make sure I keep it to a low roar. Emma is my baby and I will protect her at all costs.

    Anyone can reach me at:

    cat@bassethoundtown.com

76. follower
    May 23rd, 2009 | 8:31 pm

    Cat

    You are so spot on. There is no where to hear about this topic. I have lurked for months and I have learned so much,,, THX

77. New Breeder/Shower
    May 25th, 2009 | 6:31 pm

    Hi BHT\\\\

    I was hoping Dr. Grozdanic would comment. I had been having some hard times fitting in with BHCA. I thought it would be fun to show my hound but I find that I am intimidated. When I ask the other breeders about my hounds they ignore me. One person walked away from me. I chalked it up to my first show but it has happened 3 more times. I thought it would be fun for me and my daughter. I saw what you said on another post about being ignored.

    I googled basset hounds and found you.

    Your site looks fun and I can learn. I will check back.

    New Breeder and Shower

    How can I send you a pic?

    NBS

78. Cheri Feldhausen
    May 26th, 2009 | 12:24 pm

    Dear NBS.
    Established show people should not ignore new people. They should remember how they started, and I’m sure that in most cases, it was not much different from how you are starting out.
    What area do you live in, and where did you get your first show dog? The best way to break the ice would be to talk to different people at a show, and see who is friendly, and who isn’t. I’m sure that they are not all that way.
    I show in the NW, and we try to be nice to new show people. Sometimes new people come in with dogs that they have purchased from pet stores, or some other place that doesn’t produce the type of dog that would be competitive in the show ring.
    Telling them this is usually not what they want to hear, but they will end up finding out anyway when their dog never wins. I’m not saying that this is true in your case, but it happens.

    The person who sold you a show dog should be the one to help you get started in the showring. If they are not showing themselves, then they probably don’t know enough to teach you. They also may not know enough to know if your dog is competitive or not. To know this, you have to be out there showing, and evaluating the competition on a regular basis. In this case, you need to find someone else who does know.
    You may want to talk to a few show breeders in the area, contact a local Basset club, and show some interest, and ask lots of questions. E-mails work, and you will find out who is willing to take the time to respond and who won’t.
    Some show people will not want to be bothered at a show when they are getting ready to go into the ring, and they are concentrating on how that particular judge conducts his ring procedure, and switching dogs between classes, and getting their dog ready to go in. People take this very seriously, and if you bother someone at the wrong time, they may be short with you even if they don’t mean to be.
    If you find someone who is really too stuck up to talk to you, then you are probably better off talking to someone else.
    Many hopeful show people come and go, and you never know who will have what it takes to stick it out and keep coming, and who will just give up and quit.
    Sometimes you just have to prove yourself. Keep going to the shows, and people will notice that you are serious about this. You and your daughter can still have fun even if no one else notices. If you give up easily, then they will just assume they were right about you.
    You need to find a show person/breeder who is willing to take you in, and show you the ropes. If you find that the dog you have is not competitive, keep in mind that no one will want to sell a nice show puppy to someone who will give up easily and have the fruits of their labor sitting on someone’s couch never to be seen again.
    I would love to see a photo of your dog.
    Cheri

79. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    May 26th, 2009 | 7:58 pm

    Cheri – I actually e-mailed her as well and I have not heard back. Her e-mail was sad. I was actually at a show a few years back where a gal was trying so hard to fit in. She cottoned up to me and was just a doll. Her hound was cute! She tried to ask me for advise but of course I am not a breeder or a shower. I felt so sorry for her because she told me that exact same story. I rooted for her and held her hound’s snood. She came in last. I often wonder about her. She was just a beaming face full of hope. It was fun to talk to her.

    Cat

80. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    May 27th, 2009 | 5:57 am

    Just to add – I know it is probably not the time to ask for advise (regarding the comment above) when a breeder is near the show ring. It is an anxious time. I actually told that girl to call me and I could direct her to some people. I gave her my card. I actually went through my pictures of that show but I could not find any of her. I did a YouTube she might be on. Anyway, I got to thinking if that could be her?

    Call me!

    Cat

81. BassetLover
    June 4th, 2009 | 8:57 am

    Dear Cat,

    Regarding your previous post on Emma’s severe allergies, I’d like to say ,respectfully, that I think your anger might be a bit misdirected.

    I have owned five bassets over the last 23 years and I am a member of the BHCA. I’m not a breeder, and I do not show my bassets. I own basset hounds simply because I love the breed and enjoy them as companions and members of the family.

    Every single one of my five bassets has experienced skin or other allergies to some extent. Two have had mild problems, and three have had moderate to severe skin allergies. Two of my hounds were from seperate basset rescue groups. The other three each came from different breeders known to me, all with excellent reputations, champion lines, and dogs currently competing successfully in the show ring.

    Let’s face it: bassets are just prone to skin allergies. They can range from mild to severe and be exacerbated by seasonal or environmental conditions. It seems rather unfair to hold a single breeder responsible for knowing that a single basset would have allergies and to say that skin allergies are problem specific to that breeder’s line of dogs. If this was the case, then I would have at least five different basset breeders at which to be angry. And based on the odds, I’m guessing the next basset hound in my life could have some allergies at some point too – regardless of it’s origins.

    That said, I have found (on my vet’s advice) that oral Benadryl is huge help in easing skin inflammation and itching due to allergies. Further, it doesn’t seem to have the same “drowsy” effect on my dogs that it has on me. Also, using a simple oral over-the-counter anti-histamine like Benadryl doesn’t pose the risk of possible harmful long-term side effects to internal organs, as can stronger prescription drugs like oral cortico-steriods (prednisone, etc). You might discuss the possibility of Benadryl for Emma with your vet (if you have not already), and see what he/she advises. In my experience, it really can help make some bassets MUCH less itchy and a lot more comfortable.

    Also, DVM Pharmacueticals makes a wonderful line of shampoos, conditioners, and other dermatological products to help ease skin allergies, inflammations, and other skin infections in dogs. You might check out their line of stuff if you don’t use them already. (No, I do not work for them. I just like their stuff.)http://www.tevaanimalhealth.com/DVMBrandedProducts/Default.aspx

    I wish you much good luck and special happiness with Emma. She will always be a beautiful basset hound and obviously a very loving girl. She is blessed to have you in her life, and I can tell that you love her with all your heart from reading your posts. I remind myself frequently that their time with us in this life is much too short. I try my best to cherish every day I’m given with each of my bassets, from the first day I hold them in my arms to the last day I hold them as I have to let them go. May you and Emma have many, many more special days together.

82. Cheri Feldhausen
    June 4th, 2009 | 12:08 pm

    Basset lover writes:

    >Let’s face it: bassets are just prone to skin allergies. They can range from mild to severe and be exacerbated by seasonal or environmental conditions. It seems rather unfair to hold a single breeder responsible for knowing that a single basset would have allergies and to say that skin allergies are problem specific to that breeder’s line of dogs. If this was the case, then I would have at least five different basset breeders at which to be angry. And based on the odds, I’m guessing the next basset hound in my life could have some allergies at some point too – regardless of it’s origins.<

    I have been breeding Bassets for show for over 20 years. So far, I have never bred a Basset that ended up having skin allergies. The reason for this is that I refuse to breed a dog who has problems like this. Allergies, and autoimmune skin problems are genetic, and if you breed dogs with problems, the puppies most likely will also.
    I don’t want to deal with problem skin, and I know that no one else does either if they have the choice, so I really have gone out of my way to make sure that I don’t perpetuate this problem.
    Yes, many Bassets do have skin problems, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t work to eliminate, or at least reduce it’s frequency. It is not inevitable, or something that we will just have to put up with if we choose to own Basset Hounds.
    I have dogs at home from 12 years of age to one year, all of them related in some way, and I can feed them anything. They all have shiny coats, and healthy skin.
    Cheri

83. Cat
    June 4th, 2009 | 6:26 pm

    Hey BassetLover: Thanks so much for your comments. You must have read the posting I did last night about Sinisa Grozdanic DVM, PhD, not responding to any of my questions and how angry I was. I got a bit off track regarding Emma’s allergies and that is mainly why I deleted it. I wish I had not done that now. I wanted to keep this posting mainly about glaucoma. Just to reiterate a bit, I was pointing out that I am furious with the Nances on different levels of horrible health issues. Emma suffers from allergies that I would consider severe. Actually, her dermatologist considers her allergies severe. One of the things that Emma is allergic to is protein of any kind. She has to eat a very expensive special food. It is not only Emma’s skin that is affected but her internal system as well. If Emma get’s too much protein in her diet she gets UTIs. This has happened since birth.

    Some folks don’t have enough money to even research the problems like Emma has, let alone care for her long term. When I explained all of this to Sharon about her allergies and asked her what food to feed, she totally blew me off. She did not even want to deal with it.

    So, you see, the Nances did know about Emma within weeks of me bringing her home. I also do not believe that Emma was the first basset in their line to suffer. I asked for help and wanted to educate them about the issues in their line, just like I did when Emma came down with primary glaucoma. Sharon was offended that someone would question her breeding practices. I have all of her e-mails. I also remember sitting with her in a hotel room, almost in tears about Emma’s allergies and she was not a bit concerned. So, Sharon did know. I told her, I begged her for help.

    I do hold them totally responsible for not helping me through this issue. They tried to blow me off like Emma was just a fluke, just like they did with her glaucoma. We all know Emma is not a fluke now. Emma and I will not be swept under the carpet, which is kind of funny. I can’t have carpet in my home because Emma is allergic to it.

    Emma’s niece, SWITCHSTAND CASCADE DAYLIGHT, AKA SADIE, had massive auto immune problems as well.

    Sadie passed away with the help of her Mom and Dad from an auto immune disorder. Young Sadie had a disorder that did not allow her to fight off any infections. There were no antibiotics that could help young Sadie. Sadie passed away just shy of 15 months. Sadie was sick from the day she was picked up. Her condition could not have happened on the drive home.

    My dermatologist classifies Emma’s allergies as auto immune. Emma’s body cannot fight off anything. From a dust mite to when she had her first eye removed. Emma was so allergic to the surgical scrub they almost lost her on the table. She cannot get certain portions of vaccinations or she will go into toxic shock. I cannot list all of her problems. They are too voluminous.

    Again, Emma’s allergies are so severe that they attack her internally. Her condition is much more serious than just giving her a Benadryl. I am very angry at the Nances for what they have done and what they are trying to do. In fact, I am mad as hell and I am not going to stand for it.

    I am not angry with you because you seem very nice and have no idea what I have dealt with. I have been dealing with Emma’s allergies issues since I brought her home. She has primary care vets, specialists vets, and even sub specialty vets. I have spent thousand of dollars on heath care and special food. She also has holistic vets that have tried everything in their power. I even took her to an animal communicator. I am exhausted.

    Thanks for the advise on the products. I will take a look at that website.

    Also, thanks for your well wishes. I really appreciate them.

    Emma is right where she is supposed to be. In my heart, forever. I will do everything in my power and check book to get her though life with the dignity and grace she deserves. I am just so fortunate to give her a voice. If she could talk, I know she would say, “I want real food not that stuff you feed me”! (I confess, that is what the animal communicator told me)! LOL

    Best wishes to you as well……

    Cat

84. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    June 4th, 2009 | 9:35 pm

    Cheri -

    I totally agree with you. Totally!

    Cat

85. BassetLover
    June 7th, 2009 | 9:53 am

    Dear Cat,

    Thanks for your response to my post, and I completely understand that you are not mad at me. I have indeed read through this complete line of posts, including everything related to the glaucoma issue, your issues with the breeder, and the info submitted by the PhD participating in the glaucoma research.

    You are absolutely right – there is no way I can understand everything you’ve been through. No one can until they’ve walked in your shoes. I can, however, get a real sense of the anger, frustration, and sadness you must feel in dealing with all Emma’s serious medical issues -her glaucoma, how it could have happened, and her resulting loss of sight all at the top of the list. My main point was that your additional frustrations with Emma’s severe allergies seemed to be getting carried over into the genetic glaucoma issue. But I can see from your response that you understand that’s what I meant anyway. So thanks.

    I would like to say that I believe I do understand what you mean by truly “severe” allergies, which affect Emma internally -her auto-immune system- and are far beyond being helped by a simple dose of Benadryl. When I posted that all of my dogs have had allergies to some extent – mild to severe, I was including ONE of my dogs who also had allergies to a very severe level similar to what you have described with Emma. Her immune system was compromised, and she also tended to develop UTI’s periodically and had allergic reactions to some vaccinations. She left us at the age of 14, but for the last two years of her life, she was diagnosed with and treated for canine Cushing’s Disease which became a full-time job of round-the-clock medical care for me. One of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do was make the decision to let her go and call the vet to come and euthanize her as comfortably as possible while in her own bed at home. Again, I can never understand everything you have been through with Emma, but I do know how very painful and frustrating it is to watch a beloved basset suffer through an extremely debilitating disease. Not to mention the huge expense of medical treatments, drugs, special foods, etc. But your statement says it all: “Emma is right where she is supposed to be. In my heart, forever. I will do everything in my power and check book to get her though life with the dignity and grace she deserves.” Bravo.

    That said, I would also like to respond respectfully to this from Cheri:
    “I have been breeding Bassets for show for over 20 years. So far, I have never bred a Basset that ended up having skin allergies. The reason for this is that I refuse to breed a dog who has problems like this. Allergies, and autoimmune skin problems are genetic, and if you breed dogs with problems, the puppies most likely will also.”

    Cheri, I think that is wonderful and a great example of responsible breeding. Again, the point I was making in my original post was that all five of my dogs came from different breeders and they all had allergies to some extent. I just didn’t want Cat to confuse her frustration with the issue of a breeders’ potential responsibility for a genetic condition (glaucoma) with her frustration over Emma’s additional severe allergies. As I originally stated, by that same token I would have to be angry with five different breeders for ALL giving me dogs who ended up with allergies, each of which may or may NOT have been bred by sire and/or dam with allergies. I am not a medical specialist, so please correct me if you have other information, but (unlike glaucoma) I know of no tests which can screen for any or all potential allergic and/or auto-immune conditions in potential offspring of non-affected dams and sires.

    I was also making the point that just as in humans, allergies can be exacerbated by seasonal and/or environmental conditions. A couple of months ago, I read an article listing the top ten “Allergy Capital” cities in the U.S., as ranked by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA). And guess what? My dogs and I live in one of those top ten cities. Lucky us! Maybe if we moved to the mountains of Colorado or to dry Arizona or maybe even to Cheri’s locale(?), perhaps my dogs allergies would be significantly decreased. Or maybe they (and I) wouldn’t suffer at all. Who knows? I just know that the degree of suffering from allergies can be related to environmental conditions, whereas we do know that glaucoma is hereditary.

    OK, so that’s enough on that. I know Cat’s main focus here is on the glaucoma issue, and I respect that, and I respect the fact that she is giving Emma a voice and bringing attention to the issue. Again, sincere best wishes to you and Emma, Cat.

86. Cheri Feldhausen
    June 8th, 2009 | 10:16 pm

    Here is a link for canine allergies. Scroll down to “Treatment Options”, and read what it says on “prevention” If you google (Canine allergies, inherited), you will get dozens of hits all saying that allergies in dogs are inherited from their parents. I have seen this over and over again in dogs. Allergies to specific things are probably not inherited, although both my mother and I are allergic to Amoxicillin.
    I live in “Allergy Central” The Pacific NW. We have very high pollen counts in the spring,and summer, and mold and mildew in the winter. Fleas live very comfortably here.
    The tendancy to react inapropriately to substances in the environment is definately an inherited trait, and the frequency of autoimmune problems are higher in dogs that are highly inbred. Inbreeding depletes the immune system. This is true in people as well as dogs.
    Yes, you can be mad at 5 breeders.
    http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/medical/canine-allergies.html

    Cheri

87. Basset Lover
    June 9th, 2009 | 12:44 pm

    Cheri writes: “The tendancy to react inapropriately to substances in the environment is definately an inherited trait, and the frequency of autoimmune problems are higher in dogs that are highly inbred. Inbreeding depletes the immune system. This is true in people as well as dogs. Yes, you can be mad at 5 breeders.”

    Perhaps I could be mad at them all by your standard, but I won’t. Sorry, but that’s way to much anger to hold onto for something I still believe is unrealistic to expect from all five breeders.

    It’s one thing to expect a high standard among breeders for selective breeding against, screening for, and honesty to potential buyers regarding primary glaucoma. Allergies are another thing altogether- environmental variables included. That’s all.

    Oh, and PS to my human Mom and Dad: I’m also not angry with you for having an allergy-prone kid, even though niether of you had allergies. I still love you, even if you were inbred somewhere down the line. – KIDDING!

88. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    June 14th, 2009 | 7:20 pm

    Basset Lover, thanks for your comments.

    I had to laugh about the inbred comment, being from KY and all! OMG – our state is really bad for that.

    Actually, KY has some of the worst poverty in the world.

89. bassethound
    July 7th, 2009 | 8:33 pm

    Hi Cat,
    I have read all the posts, I have something to add. I took my dogs to a eye specialist for their goniooscopy, keep in mind that my mentors in the show ring have had these tests for years and have been told that they have to pay attention to the open and closed angles, never breed closed to closed, but you can breed open to closed and open to open. Well this guy said angles dont matter, what matters is if you have the presence of Goniodysgenesis. This is supposed to be how they can determine the ones that are predesposed to Glaucoma. That Dr did not mention this. here is the defenition

    What is Goniodysgenesis: In the embryo, the iridocorneal angle is a smooth, closed sheet of tissue. Late in gestation and continuing in the early postnatal stage, the tissue undergoes progressive rarefaction (becomes less dense, more porous, thinner), and leaves a sheet of tissue now consisting of fine fibers (ligaments) with flow spaces between them. The pectinate ligament spans the area between the base of the iris and the sclera (white part of the eye). In some dogs, the pectinate ligament does not undergo enough rarefaction to form normal pectinate ligaments and flow spaces. This arrest in the development of the angle may occur as long as perhaps three weeks after birth. What results in some cases, is a broad sheet of tissue with few openings, which impedes the outflow of aqueous humor. Most animals have rather long slender strands making up the pectinate ligament. These strands occasionally branch and join adjacent strands, and some animals have rather stout ligaments that are often correspondingly short. This shortness may be associated with a webbing of iridal tissue between strands that bridge the width of the angle from 1/3 to 1/2 the width. Extreme examples of this may be associated with glaucoma. Goniodysgenesis signals a potential pre-glaucoma anatomy. Whats funny is they can see this upon looking at the eye during the test.
    Sorry for your trouble, honestly the Nance’s had to have known this ahead of time, because it is noticable to them. I had a fellow breeder test this way, and they disregarded the warning of the Dr to not breed the female, that to me is maliicious.

90. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    July 7th, 2009 | 9:16 pm

    Bassethound

    I am reading your very interesting post right now. Thank you. I will be commenting soon!

    Cat and Emma

    

91. Cheri Feldhausen
    July 7th, 2009 | 10:09 pm

    Unfortunately, there are as many different opinions on this as there are ophthalmologists. I have contacted the researchers at the University of Iowa where they are currently doing research on glaucoma in Bassets. They will tell you the exact opposite of what your vet told you.
    What you are talking about is pectinate ligament dysplasia, not goniodysgenesis. Goniodysgenesis is the narrowing of the irridocorneal angle with corresponding shortening of the pectinate ligament. It is not clear whether these two things are caused by the same genes, or are inherited separately. The failure of the pectinate ligament to separate into a porous structure instead of a solid sheet is called pectinate ligament dysplasia.
    I have found after talking with different researchers, you have to pin them down to exactly what they mean by the terms that they use, and they can and will use them interchangeably. This causes much confusion among breeders, and researchers alike.
    According to the researchers in Iowa, who by the way, have probably done more gonioscopies on Bassets from all over the Nation than any other eye vets; pectinate ligament dysplasia does not necessarily predict whether or not a Basset will get glaucoma. They say that they have seen many Bassets with 360 degrees of pectinate ligament dysplasia with no corresponding glaucoma. Upon microscopic evaluation, there are still plenty of holes for the fluid to pass through which cannot be seen on a regular gonioscopy test.
    However, while narrowed angles do not *always* cause glaucoma, they say that they have never seen a Basset with glaucoma without the presence of a collapsed cleft behind the pecinate ligament, which is always found in the presence of narrowed angles.
    Studies in the past have shown that pecinate ligament dysplasia *does* correspond with the risk of developing glaucoma, so this is the dilema that Basset breeders are left with. Who do you believe?
    Studies in Great Danes and Flat Coat Retrievers have shown a direct connection with the degree of goniodysgenesis (narrowed angles) and the risk of developing glaucoma.
    I think I am more apt to go with the results of controlled studies than with what any one individual vet tells me.
    The researchers at the U of Missouri who are collaborating with the U of Iowa, are looking to find a reliable DNA test for glaucoma. However, they feel that at this time, Basset breeders should not change their breeding strategies, and should continue to use gonioscopy testing and breeding accordingly. They also are not talking about the collapsed cleft that the U of Iowa researchers are talking about, and they also did not mention that PLD was not a factor.
    > keep in mind that my mentors in the show ring have had these tests for years and have been told that they have to pay attention to the open and closed angles, never breed closed to closed, but you can breed open to closed and open to open. Well this guy said angles dont matter, what matters is if you have the presence of Goniodysgenesis. <

    Yes, the old “angles don’t matter” theory. I have heard it many times. Usually from breeders whose dogs angles are not the best. The breeders you talked to are correct, more or less. The problem with their breeding strategy is that angles are not always totally closed, or totally open. A carrier will have angles that are in the mid range, and the genes for this have variable expression.
    A carrier may have angles anywhere from 30 to 70%. This is where a DNA test will be very handy. With a gonioscopy test, it is not always clear which dogs are carriers and which ones are clear or doubled up. If you breed two carriers you will end up with some puppies who are clear, some who are carriers, and some who are doubled up and whose angles are bad enough to be affected with glaucoma.
    When people assume that a dog with a 70% test score is clear, this is when they can get themselves in trouble.
    There are some ophthalmologists who will tell you that angles don’t matter. This is because they see dogs come in with secondary glaucoma without the presence of narrow angles, they will also see dogs with terrible angles that don’t get glaucoma. The angles are an indicator of the factor of risk, they are not an absolute, but if what I am gambling on is my dog’s eyesight, I prefer not to go with the long shot.

92. bassethound
    July 7th, 2009 | 10:38 pm

    Thanks Cheri,
    This specialist was doing research in Florida, he also said that the ones with Goniodysgenesis are the ones who are carriers. I learn different things all the time, and take into consideration everything.

93. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    July 7th, 2009 | 10:39 pm

    Bassethound. I think the Nances are malicious. So do Chaps and Emma. They are thrilled to be away from them. YES!

94. bassethound
    July 7th, 2009 | 10:41 pm

    Ihave recently leared of someone whom I considered a friend had done to other people as the Nance’s have done to you. Disclosure…..

95. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    July 7th, 2009 | 10:45 pm

    Time will prove the Nances for who they are. I know it in my heart. So does Emma.

96. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    July 7th, 2009 | 10:48 pm

    bassethound – I am sorry for the other people. I totally get what you are saying.

97. bassethound
    July 7th, 2009 | 10:52 pm

    Most of us try to do the right thing, but when someone does’nt they give the rest of us a bad name.

98. Cat, Chaps and Emma Rudert
    July 7th, 2009 | 11:01 pm

    bassethound -

    I totally agree. However some have more money than brains and that is when things get compromised. Sigh…….Buy, buy, buy!

99. Cat, Chaps and Emma
    October 13th, 2009 | 9:55 pm

    Anyone want to update us on glaucoma talk at the 2009 Nationals? Anyone?

Leave a comment