[blockquote]That would make sence if I had bought the dog as an adult.....But, since that dog was 8 wks old at the time your point is moot. No the problem is trusted "breeders" that thought they knew more than they did....They talked alot about history too... [/blockquote] Talking about history and using it as a model are two different things. I have no idea if the breeder you got your dog from or not used performance selection. Talking about history has nothing to do with performance testing unless one is going to pick up the torch and go do it. Now, you spoke of how your dog would walk 3-4 miles without showing signs of limping or won some field events. What was your reason for mentioning this, because it seemed to be as if you were saying that was some type of measure...and to me, it most certainly is not a sufficient measure to test soundness. [blockquote]What I am against is preformance ONLY breeding, breeding programs that excuse medical screening as some sort of PC sillyness.[/blockquote] Call it what you want, but that doesn't change the facts that you have refused to address...the facts that the most sound breeds in existence are/were breeds developed without lab tests but on the basis of actual performance tests where a dog had to earn its keep. [blockquote]It doesn't matter (to me) how much drive a dog has if it's crippled. A fact that is not always obvious in a young dog.[/blockquote] Being crippled will show up under real performance tests. You apparently don't accept this, but like I stated...history has proven that performance testing removes the weak...weak for whatever reason. [blockquote]And I belive you do understand that point if you have been in dogs as long as you indicate. [/blockquote] Now, you can try to imply personal attack if you like, but let me tell you what "points" I "understand." I understand fact. Let me underline this portion of this message for you, as I don't want you to miss this. [u]The term fact refers to what has been proven...as in results. And the results show...accept them or not...that the most sound animals are animals that have been SELECTED on the basis of ability. Ability can be looked at in the terms of resistence to stress. Only the most sound dogs in both MIND and in BODY can endure the most demanding of selection measures...and this is how we should use technology to improve our capabilities if we truly wish to improve dogs. Instead of trying to replace performance testing (which like it or not is what general screening type of lab tests try to do), we should enhance are abilities to work dogs and measure their recovery times.[/u] Performance testing is the way to produce sound dogs. Lab tests would serve dogs better if they were not used as a breed selective measure, but used for clinical diagnosis. [blockquote]As to your dismissal of titles & competion....I've heard that smack all the time from people that can't get it done. The value in a title is that someone (unbiased & experience in that breed)other that the dog owner is confirming ablity.[/blockquote] I am not saying you shouldn't go out and get titles if that is what you want to do...but instead of taking my word for it...or instead of assuming I can't get one...how about lets look at another fact. A simple fact is less than the best dogs can get titles. Agreed? After all, your bilaterally disabled dog was able to. And I have seen dogs with "protection" events titles that wouldn't protect their most loved ones if ever threatened. Games and real events are two different things, and to assume or imply a dog doesn't know the difference is...to be honest...totally foolish. And when things are done in a game like fashion (not real)...these titles don't really "confirm" ability. There are a number of dogs getting protection titles today that could never do real protection work. Would you not agree? Any real protection dog trainer knows this. Many real protection dogs would be too civil to score well in an event...but be far more capable on the street than would be some sleeve jute junkie that is in it for a prey driven game. [blockquote]Bottom line is we all have our own ethics.[/blockquote] You are absolutely right. The most ethical path one can take is to accept the facts as we know them, learn from them, and apply that knowledge into choosing the best "ethical" path one can take. I...I choose the path of historically proven facts. Oh, and since you brought up ethics...how about answering this. How ethical is it to not address the questions presented to you when your "points" are discredited? You didn't answer why you mentioned your dog's titles and ability to walk 3-4 miles. You stated the ability as if it was some performance measure and when I replied saying my 9 year old 150# female can still easily walk 3-4 miles you then say you were not claiming that to be a performance accomplishment...yet, you never addressed why you mentioned it if it wasn't to imply ability. Again, the problem here isn't performance. The real problem here seems to be pride. You have problems accepting the fact that you were not aware of how to performance test for soundness...and because you can't accept it, I believe you can't admit it. And I also believe this is why you choose to bring emotional implied personal attacks or "discussions" of ethics...all implications but all also diverting the real issue. You may not have intended to go down this road, but it is what in the end happened. Instead of pursuing this further....sit back and think about it for a while and really look at what history has given us. Don't "talk" about it. Seek to understand what really happened. The key to producing sound animals is to select for sound animals. Think about this and ask yourself, "what is the best way to see if an animal is of sound mind and body...really sound?" Good luck with your journey for the truth. You have a lot here to think about. I wish you well. P.S. No harm done between us as far as I am concerned, as my goal isn't to attack you. I just want people/breeders to think about these things. Best wishes.