09/05/2026
This is a good post, though I do not fully agree with it. I think complete PUBLIC transparency, not just to fellow breeders you might sell to, is a must. Because someone else who unexpectedly encounters the same issue can learn from my experience, even years later and having no direct interaction with me or my lines. Because the more we talk about issues, the more trends can be recognized; my prior vet often asked me if something was common in my breed, and I had to simply shrug and say I didn't know because health information is scarce from Japan. Because when I post about something tragic or traumatic, others may comment their own experiences and help me feel a little less alone. Because no one else will understand as well as fellow dog people. Breeders suffer enough without having to endure everything in silence.
Yes, there is a risk of backlash when being transparent and posting online. The solution isn't to limit transparency just to people who might buy a breeding animal from you, but to change the dog culture itself.
Should Breeders Publicly Disclose Health Problems in Their Lines?
Here is a question that sounds simple until you have been breeding dogs for a while:
How much do we owe each other when something serious shows up in our lines?
Most breeders will say they believe in transparency. We all want health information. We all want to make informed breeding decisions. We all want people to tell us when something important appears behind a dog we are considering using.
The uncomfortable part is what happens when the problem is in our own backyard.
Suddenly transparency can feel a lot more complicated.
Nobody wants a dog, a kennel, or an entire family of dogs branded because one health issue appeared. And that concern is legitimate. Genetics is rarely as simple as “this dog produced this once, therefore every relative is bad.” Congenital conditions can have complicated causes, and one affected puppy does not automatically tell us exactly where a problem came from.
But that is also why information matters.
Recently, PRAA came up in discussions within our breed. Persistent right aortic arch is a congenital vascular ring abnormality that can constrict the esophagus and cause problems such as regurgitation when puppies begin eating solid food.
When breeders learn that something like that has appeared in related dogs or previous litters, that information may influence whether they repeat a breeding, use a particular dog, combine certain pedigrees, or simply watch future puppies more closely.
That does not mean screaming it from the rooftops with accusations attached.
It does mean having honest conversations.
Because there is a huge difference between saying, “This occurred, we do not yet know exactly why, but I think you should know,” and allowing another breeder to make a breeding decision without information you already had.
One of the reasons programs such as OFA’s CHIC exist is precisely because accessible health information helps breeders make more informed decisions. OFA explicitly encourages making health screening results publicly available because more shared information benefits the breed as a whole.
And here is where breeder culture sometimes shoots itself in the foot.
We say we want people to disclose health problems, and then when somebody does, everyone circles the wagons, screenshots the conversation, starts whispering about their line, and acts as though admitting a problem is proof of being a bad breeder.
Well, congratulations. We just taught everyone else to keep their mouth shut.
No breeding program is going to remain completely untouched by health issues forever. We are breeding living animals, not manufacturing appliances with identical parts.
The breeder I trust is not necessarily the one who claims nothing bad has ever happened.
I am much more interested in the breeder who can say, “Yes, I saw this. Here is what I know. Here is what I do not know. Here is what I changed afterward.” That is useful information.
And frankly, I would rather learn about a potential problem before making a breeding than hear six months later, “Oh yeah… we saw something like that before.”
That is a sentence no breeder wants to hear.
So maybe the real question is not whether every health issue belongs in a public Facebook post.
Maybe it is whether breeders have an obligation to share relevant health history with the people whose breeding decisions could be affected by it.
For me, the answer is yes.
Transparency does not mean condemning a dog or an entire line.
It means giving another breeder the information you would want if the positions were reversed.
And if we genuinely believe we are preserving a breed rather than just protecting our own kennel names, that should matter more than avoiding an uncomfortable conversation.
What do you think? Should health issues be openly discussed within a breed, or are there situations where that information should remain private?
