In cautiously-optimistic mood about the future of dogs on my return from Stockholm and the 1st Dog Genetic Health Workshop last weekend (report to come shortly, I promise!) I have to confess to gulping slightly when I saw the latest poster - or infographic as they're calling it - from the RSPCA.
This is a very strong, clear graphic with a simple message and a single point of action: sign the RSPCA petition to call for breed standards to be changed.
The reason I winced slightly is because I believe that Kennel Clubs and breeders are beginning to get the message and, from their point of view, it will only increase the chasm between them and the RSPCA at a time when there is momentum to build bridges rather than blow them to smithereens.
But, of course, this poster is primarily aimed at the dog-buying public who are still buying freakish dogs in their thousands. And they do still need to be told that too big, too flat, too wrinkled and too-out-of-proportion causes suffering, and not least because if they start demanding a more moderate dog, it will be a very powerful lever for change across the board. As I believe that this is what reforming Kennel Clubs and good breeders want too, I'd ask them to take this one on the chin.
The breed standards do still need to be changed - as called for recently by the British Veterinary Association's Harvey Locke recently (download link to Vet Record editorial). As was discussed in Stockholm, breed standards in the main do not demand exaggeration, but they do in some instances still detail physiological traits that have the potential for harm (eg a lozenge-shaped eye or a double-twist in a tail). There is a lot of potential for breed standards to act as a moderating force eg in ensuring an upper weight limit in giant breeds (or even reducing the current weights/sizes), or demanding a minumum. measurable muzzle length in the brachycephalics.
So I'd urge everyone to sign the RSPCA's petition for a further revision of the breed standards. You can do that here.
NB: the wording on this link is a little nebulous, but I've checked with the RSPCA today and they have reassured that your signature here is a signature specifically (and solely) for this single petition - to call for further changes to the breed standards. They also revealed that 16,000 people have signed it so far.
I think you know that I have been supportive of your cause. Still, I have trouble bringing myself to sign the petition because I fear the repercussions if the campaign is overly vague. Slippery slope....
ReplyDeleteI know. I did think long and hard about this one - and not least because I knew it would invite comments like Anon's at 16:18.
DeleteI contacted the RSPCA this morning and they have reassured that the signatures here will be presented as signatures supporting a call to further improve breed standards and absolutely nothing else. They have publicly committed to this.
For all the RSPCA's faults (and I am not blind to them) I just feel it would be more effective to join forces on this one.
At the end of the day, the breed standards in the UK are owned by the KC and however much people may fear that the RSPCA's secret plans is for some kind of generic brown mutt and the end of dog shows, it ain't going to happen.
I appreciate, however, that not everyone will feel the same way.
Jemima
Jemima says "For all the RSPCA's faults (and I am not blind to them)" so why not endulge us all and show you arnt just a mouth piece for the RSPCA and lista one or two (or more ) of what you disagree with the RSPCA on after all you say you arnt blind to them but happy to be dumb silence on them instead?!? inthe repsonces here you you giove many excuses for their behaviour, actions and "logical" and "facts" but never challenge them, odd for a journalst who claims to seek the truth for dogs.
DeleteI invite you to check out the Chesapeake Bay Retriever clubs American Standard to see how carefully a standard can be written to avoid exaggeration.
ReplyDeletewell if we didn't know you were a shill for the animal rights groups we do now.. what bunk!! The RSPCA is a sister group to HSUS/PETA and other groups that want nothing more than to eliminate the pedigreed dog..and you are a part of this...
ReplyDeletean "assurance" from the RSPCA is like the fox "assuring" the hen house will be safe with him in charge.
Words like "can" and 'may' and 'could' use in this context are nebulous at best. But that is what the RSPCA does best. Sadly you walk among them. But many of us already knew that.
Please never give a farthing to these people and certainly don't sign their silly petition.
So have they also called for the change of standard for Horses, cats, fancy fish, birds and rabbits? no they havnt got a clue, the RSPCA so called vets wouldnt know one end of a breed standard from another hence why when they were last changed they admit they comments on them with ever reading them!!
ReplyDeleteLike it's just the dogs and there's nothing wrong with the breeding of horses, cats, fancy fish, birds and rabbits...
DeleteCould you provide the reference/proof for the claim that the RSPCA "admitted" that they called for a change in dog breed standards without ever reading them?
Jemima
And thank you for your replies, Anon, but I've had to delete them for the libelous content. You are welcome to try again, keeping it factual.
DeleteIn the mentime, I can say that Anon couldn't provide evidence that the RSPCA's Chief Vet had not read the revised breed standards before commenting on them. He did, however, say in this report that the RSPCA had not had a chance to look at the breed standard changes in detail:
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/51779/News/4-crufts
This article was published just 11 days after the KC announced the changes to over 70 breed standards. I think it was reasonable that at the time the RSPCA had not had a chance to look at every single one in detail.
Jemima
I think you have abit of a cop out on this one no breed standard is longer than 1 A4 piece of of paper so the TEAM of vets they have could not read 6 of them a day............ As for the RSPCA being liabled strange he dont worry when he liable the breeders of pedigree dogs, but then again you didnt bother either, what about the owners of the shar pei ? you lied about ?
DeleteIs there any proof the RSPCA chief vet has ever read any standards? Or not read them?
DeleteCould you please tell me what is wrong with "a lozenge shaped" eye? Those standards weren't written in a moment by someone high as a kite, or full of claret and good humour they were carefully thought out, and once you know why some conformation item is called for, you have some idea why it is required to be so. The standards were written so the dog could best do the job he was designed for, and yep, the job may no longer be there, but the nature and conformation is.
If you change a "lozenge shaped eye" you may get a lot of other problems.
I think you and your ilk should be forced to produce proof that a large % of any breed, when bred to the standard, are actually suffering, and that they will suffer less after you have had your way.
There is no proof, only someone's opinion. And many of those "someones" are not qualified to have an opinion.
Luckily I'll be dead before the disasters of this plan are revealed. And once they are revealed, it will be too late.
You can forget your flat coat retreivers, they wont be around any longer, they will be a vague "black dog", and just one of the endogenous mutts which people will be forced to have. One size doesn't fit all.
It is nearly impossible to be a small animal vet without ever having read a standard. However, it should be pointed out that the people who wrote these standards were not exactly up-to-date on veterinary science back when these things were first written in the second half of the 19th century, and the passage of time since then has not exactly improved the disparity between some standards and even the most basic requirements of health.
DeleteOf course, one should also point out that the problem not only lies in the standard, but also in its interpretation. For example, Bassets have been bred to a standard for a long time, yet today's horrible exaggerations in excessive eyelid and skin folds have only been around for the past few decades. Clearly, this is not a problem that can be attributed to the standard, but rather to its interpretation.
Given that the present breeders and judges of some breeds are evidently not qualified to interpret the standard in a way that leads to a non-exaggerated dog, more explicit prohibitions about such exaggerations should be added and enforced in the show ring. Of course, these should be written by people who actually have knowledge of canine anatomy and how it affects health, i.e. by veterinarians.
As for the proof that certain physical features lead to a high risk of certain associated diseases, OFA, CERF and other statistics paint a rather obvious picture. Such data are inherently more useful than purely theoretical considerations about "functionality", which in the affected breeds have no base in actual proven functionality of show dogs. Theoretical constructs of how anatomical details affect functionality are just that: Constructs without the slightest empirical base, perpetuated by a Cargo Cult following where everybody repeats what everybody else says without ever bothering to verify how much of it can actually be verified based on empirical data.
While I will not call the gradual dying out of a certain segment of the breeder population lucky, it is certainy revealing that the person's emphasis in their argument is about their own ability to have such dogs rather than about the well-being of these dogs.
Over the years many of the breed standards in the UK have been overseen in thier redrafting by many different vets indeed the major change in the 1970's were chaired by a former President of the BVA.
DeleteI couldn't sign a petition to change breed standards across the board. I have Siberian Huskies, for example - can you tell me what is damaging about our breed standard? There must be many other breeds that are similarly "fit for function" who lead long, active lives well into old age. This sounds like a crusade against pure bred dogs in general.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the wording is is too generalized to be signed as far as I am concerned. Also, regarding the image: If hip dysplasia risk is caused by large bodies, how do you explain that Irish Wolfhounds (the world's largest breed of dog) rank 138 out of 164 with 5% dysplastic dogs and Borzois (not exactly a small breed either) rank 160 of the 164 breeds with 1.8% dysplastic dogs ranked by HD frequency in OFA? Compare this to pugs (2nd of 164, 66% dysplastic), Glen of Imaal Terriers (18th, 31% dysplastic), and you will notice that the correlation is anything but convincing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.offa.org/stats_hip.html
Sighthounds have slim builds. It's hardly surprising that a large slim dog has less risk of HD than a large stocky dog.
DeleteThen how about a post-hoc explanation of the interesting fact that Cavaliers get more hip dysplasia than Great Danes?
DeleteAnother interesting comparison:
DeleteFlat-Coated Retriever - 4.2% dysplastic
Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever - 6.4%
Labrador Retriever - 11.8%
Curly-Coated Retriever - 15.3%
Golden Retriever - 19.7%
Chesapeake Bay Retriever - 20.6%
Or how about:
Irish Red and White Setter - 4.1%
Irish Setter - 12.0%
English Setter - 16.1%
Gordon Setter - 19.3%
Intriguing.
There is a 0.4% difference between the two breeds. It hardly indicates anything. Besides, OFA stats known to be unreliable because of its self-selection bias.
Delete"The true prevalence of CHD by breed in the general population is unknown. Most hip registries worldwide permit voluntary submission of hip radiographs. Understandably, this practice encourages prescreening of films such that only the best (most normal-looking) films get submitted for evaluation. The resulting bias in the registry understates the true prevalence of CHD within breeds of pedigreed dogs. Data suggest that this bias is large and breed dependent. A random sampling of subjectively scored hip radiographs from 200 golden retrievers and 132 rottweilers showed the prevalence of CHD to be 74% and 69%, respectively. These figures are 2 to 3 times higher than comparable figures reported in the United States by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA)." - Canine Hip Dysplasia: The Disease and Its Diagnosis
The study quoted from(Estimates of prevalence of hip dysplasia in Golden Retrievers and Rottweilers and the influence of bias on published prevalence figures) indicates that X-rays that show no HD are 8 times more likely to be submitted to OFA than X-rays that show HD.
It could simply be the case that Great Danes have higher HD rates than Cavaliers but that Great Danes breeders and owners are less likely than Cavaliers breeders and owners to submit bad results. (Even if everyone submits their scan results, it still won't be representative since, hip tests are not compulsory and also subject to self-selection.)
Or it could be the case that the founding Cavalier population just have bad hips or the founding Great Dane population good hips.
Interesting, but PLEASE give sources. Not just the article title, also the authors, and where it was published . . . or a web link.
DeleteYou can find the sources easily with a google search.
DeleteKapatkin AS, Fordyce HH, Mayhew PD, Smith GK. Canine Hip Dysplasia: The Disease and Its Diagnosis. Compendium Cont Ed 2002, 24(7): 526-538
http://cp.vetlearn.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/PV_24_07_526.pdf
Erin R. Paster, Elizabeth LaFond, Darryl N. Biery, Alisa Iriye, Thomas P. Gregor, Frances S. Shofer, and Gail K. Smith.
Estimates of prevalence of hip dysplasia in Golden Retrievers and Rottweilers and the influence of bias on published prevalence figures.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, February 1, 2005
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2005.226.387
Irish Wolfhounds may be the TALLEST, but English Mastiffs are WAY bigger overall.
DeleteI'm not sure that I want to sign this. There may be some breed standards that should be amended, but generally most breed standards dont describe an exaggerated dog. The problem lies not so much with how the breed standards are written , as with the way breed standards are interpreted, distorted or ignored by some breeders and show judges. If this petition is aimed at Joe Public and pet owners, then they are being misled if they believe that all it will take to breed healthier and less exaggerated dogs is to change the breed standards. I think the KC have a better approach which is to work with judges and breed clubs to promote a less exaggerated and healthier type of dog. Changing breed standards may be a part of the strategy, but it isnt the whole strategy or even the first priority, and for many breeds no change is required
ReplyDeleteI agree. There is something about this petition which doesn't sit right with me - and usually I am fully supportive of this sort of thing.
DeleteI haft to second dalriach. Personally I think dogs would be in a much better state if health checks were mandatory and breeders turned away from inbreeding. There would be less health problems and less illnesses. Breeders should be focused on lowering the rate of the hereditary health problems in pedigree dogs and cats. Dogs that have a huge amount of exaggeration, such as the neo mastiff and basset hound; should be revised with less exaggeration. Basset hound breeders are beginning to revise the breed standards. UKC has just now released a revised breed standard of the bulldog. Now the bulldog has a short muzzle instead a flat one.
Delete-http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/EnglishBullDogRevisedJune12012
I prefer to donate to local rescues instead of big corporate ones. Such as RSPCA and others. Vast majority of the money is never donated to the charity. Which is a sad truth. Local rescues need our help the most. Millions of dogs are euthanized due to the puppy mill industry and dogs with poor temperament problems.
And Jemima I urge you to watch on HBO "One Nation Under Dog" an American documentary about our obsession with dogs. Not a happy documentary either.
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSMRfHwa5kE
Last - Beth said "Here in the States what started out as a well-meaning push to get more people to consider adopting dogs from shelters has turned into, in many cases, an attitude that breeding dogs and buying purebreds is morally inferior to rescuing." She pretty much nailed that. I think when people rescue a dog. It should be about the love for the dog and cat. Not having the mentality about "we should end breeding".
This poster highlights the issues. But I think it is somewhat.. very flat. and a bit bias.
I would agree with the suggestion that if one is not happy with the way national organisations like the RSPCA are run, then dont support them but continue to support the local rescues and the local branches of the RSPCA. I dont like seeing the way the RSPCA as a whole is being attacked and the campaign to stop people donating to them. It is going to be a disaster for animal welfare in England if the RSPCA income continues to fall because of the hate campaign against them, and they have to cut back on front line services, while the number of abandoned animals and cases of cruelty and neglect continues to rise. Who is going to pick up on the shortfall? The local branches of the RSPCA still provide a good service, and there is no reason why people should not go on supporting them. I'm glad I live in Scotland where the SSPCA still enjoy a high level of support and get little criticism. But the SSPCA focus on spending their funds on a direct service to animals, the staff who deal with complaints of cruelty and neglect and the excellent rescue and rehoming centres which they run.
Delete@dalriach..''income falls''
DeleteDo you know how much central funding have in the bank and in properties? The interest alone could funds centres ..they choose not to ...they have chosen to take the political pathway ....
Isnt this the same old petition they set up over a year ago, but just dressed up with a new poster to stir up interest, if so it no news and to kid people to sign it second time looks rather shifty, if i remember rightly the last one had hundreds of false names and many people from overseas who would sign anything. its a shame the RSPCA dont look to their own problems before starting yet another political compaign against pedigree dogs. Afterall if they want to have ago a breed standards what about the Corgi, or do they like their Royal title too much?
ReplyDeleteThat is a powerful graphic, especially the silhouette outlines extending the brachycephalic profiles, but it is still a bit half-baked in concept. Changing certain breed standards is about the 4th or 5th thing down the list. Before that, we need a series of graphics, charts and sound bytes being used to educate people about extreme and unsafe dog exaggerations in general. Showing how the less extreme the particular dog is, the better the chance for a decent quality of life. First, educate people against the extreme examples of any breed. Bull dogs and many other breeds are already exaggerated, but then making them even more so is pure qualzucht.
ReplyDeleteI think all breed standards that have semi-dominant traits written into the standard need to take a look at their standards, because dogs with those kinds of genes or alleles never breed true- there is a statistical average of 25% throwbacks to the original type without the dominant, semi-lethal mutation added in. Double doses of this kind of gene are lethal in utero or at least damaging to the dog- such as congenital deafness and/or blindness. There are several breeds that have this kind of trait as the defining trait of the breed, but they can never breed the throwbacks out of the gene pool, because of the nature of semi-dominant gene itself. Sometimes, the throwbacks are culled at birth though they are perfectly healthy. Rhodesian Ridgebacks are a prime example of this kind of culling being practiced by 100% of the breeders. The ridgeback itself is a semi-dominant trait which causes congenital damage to the spines- This is a situation that needs education and good graphics before demanding changes in breed standards.
A great deal of education needs to be done for more breeds that need high rates of caesarians- ie Chihuahuas. I think dogs under 8 pounds or so, should be disqualified from ever breeding. There certainly should be graphics educating people about the German Shepherd show dog as an example of bad hips.
Perhaps all breed standards that have exaggerated traits and/or semi-dominant lethal genes as a defining trait of the breed need to change the standard to include the throwbacks (who, after all are an excellent genetic resource, especially in breeds with less than 100 or so founding animals).
But perhaps the most important change to any standard would be to add a paragraph about how the breed is exaggerated by nature, or has an exaggerated trait, and any further exaggeration is dangerous to the health and longevity of those individuals. The only changes to any standard should be ones that encourage the health and sustainability of the breed and keep as high a level of heterogeneity as possible without losing the type.
A trend toward average-ness for any breed is the healthiest way of maintaining the breed as is.
So that graphic is a good idea, but not well executed.
I hate the spca, hsus and peta. The former two are bureaucracies that mostly feed themselves and build their own pensions, with only half-hearted attempts to relieve suffering and Peta is just there to make the other two look mainstream- PETA is actually an effort to move all thinking about domestic animals to the far, far, far-out, right. In the US, all three organizations are responsible for the deaths of massive numbers of dogs- with abysmal records of attempts to rehome. Even though they all pretend they are only there to prevent abuse and suffering and need your donations to save pets from misery, less than 1% of the donations go to aid local humane societies.
Does the RSPCA seriously think that if they were sucessful with this petition and breed standards were changed in some respects, that the general health of pugs, bulldogs etc would improve?!
ReplyDeleteForcing the show ring world (especially in this manner-I agree with your concerns Jemima) to capitulate and breed dogs with longer muzzles for example, will not make any significant difference to the majority of dogs that are bred and destined never to see the show ring. Only a tiny minority of puppies registered by the KC are ever shown and in many breeds, especially the very popular ones, those that are registered by the KC represent only a fraction of the population of that breed. There is no requirement for anyone breeding dogs of a particular breed to attempt to produce dogs that conform to the standard. To be frank, some dogs/breeds that are shown and win bear little relation to their 'blueprint', which really is one reason why exaggerations have been allowed to proliferate. Many breeders that register puppies with the KC have no intention of showing them or any connection with the show ring and will probably never have read the relevent breed standard!
The RSPCA labours under the impression that forcing changes upon the show world will result in a positive knock on effect lower down the 'chain' of dog breeders. I know puppy farmers try very hard to ensure their dogs conform as closely as possible to the ones they see winning in the show ring (!).
This could (if it succeeds) lead to an unfortunate side effect when people who want a flat faced pug for example, are no longer able to purchase one from a responsible show breeder so instead turn to those advertised in the free ads or on the web as having 'really flat faces.' The demand for show bred dogs, where breeders have ensured the relevant health tests have been done and the puppies reared to the highest of standards, will fall dramatically. However, if there are still puppies available from 'other sources' with the attribtes that owners are looking for then sales of these will soar as BYB, puppy farmers and even one off pet breeders take advantage. The evidence for this happening exists as without looking very hard it is possible to find adverts for 'very wrinkly' puppies of various breeds, when breed standards and emphasis in the show ring has moved away from this. It is unusual for show breeders to advertise 'chunky' labrador puppies, yet this term is frequently used as a selling point by other types of breeder and it works because that is the sort of puppy that appeals to and is being bought by the public.
If this campaign is also intended to change buying habits then again I really can't see it succeeding because it won't reach those who most need educating. Undeniably in many of the so called High Profile Breeds, progress has been made to move away from the 'more is better' mindset - because breeders care enough about their breed and their dogs to make the changes. Significantly they are also a part of a wider community where information is shared and peer pressure counts. The same cannot be said of many puppy buyers who frequently do not do any research or have even a basic knowledge level. Celebrity culture I'm afraid has a far greater influence than the trivial happenings of the show ring.
The problem really lies in the fact that the subtleties of the wording of the breed standard have very little impact in the real world. Because the reputation of show dogs has been so badly damaged it will also be very difficult to suddenly hold them up as a shining example of how breeds should be looking. Perhaps the show world was responsible for opening the Pandora's Box of 'exaggerations' but trying to shut it again like this is quite simply a waste of time.
Folks, we would use our name but can't deal with the URL requirement so here goes. Here's the reason NOT to sign the petition. There is a really significant and ongoing push to convince the public that all dogs are a bad thing, full stop. "Pure breds all have genetic faults", "pet shop puppies all come from puppy farms", "pound puppies have behavioural baggage" - none are true but the cacophany and politics are translating to a clear message to consumers - DOGS ARE BAD. In Australia there is now clear evidence that dog ownership is dropping, and fast (and even faster on a population corrected basis). Euthanasia hasn't dropped though. FAIL on all counts. Getting "behind" the RSPCA push enhances this broader message, so that's the real reason not to go there. WHAT IS NEEDED is NOT more politics designed to engender donations, but getting the protagonists into a room with a Minister with the clear message that breed standards will change unless...
ReplyDeleteMay and Can, are the words use in the above poster, but no where do they use the word Do and Have. Thery have no actual proof to back up their ideas, just one glance at the latest KCBRS would disproved their claim of Bulldogs born by CS. I think the RSPCA should think againon this before taken to Ofcom for misleading the public.................. again
ReplyDeleteOk, I wanted to clarify what I meant by slippery slope. Here in the States what started out as a well-meaning push to get more people to consider adopting dogs from shelters has turned into, in many cases, an attitude that breeding dogs and buying purebreds is morally inferior to rescuing. Good breeders are lumped in with puppy mills. Despite the fact that in 5 years of searching I have never seen a single Corgi (not one!) in a local shelter, there is somehow the impression that responsible breeders are responsible for the unwanted pet problem. The fact that the huge majority of dogs in shelters are unplanned mutts, many of them pit-mixes, does not dissuade anyone.
ReplyDeleteSo we have a seemingly well-meaning push from RSPCA to moderate exaggerations. Ok, fine, but the push is just as vague as the breed standards that allowed the problem to start to begin with. Who defines what is too much exaggeration? I have seen many posters here throw out Corgis as an example of a ruined breed who can no longer run, and whenever I can't even keep up with my happy, health Corgi in agility I laugh and then get angry because to many people, they look at a dog and think they know how it must live every day. I've seen several very healthy long-lived breeds with few problems lumped into the "exaggerated" group.
So sure, do an outreach campaign. But make it specific. Focus on what specific problems very certain traits cause, how slight changes would fix those problems while still leaving a dog typey enough for everyone to recognize as the breed. But to fix a problem caused by vagueness with more vagueness? It might create a worse problem than we started with.
Then don't be a snob, and pick a corgi mix! - there's quite a few in LA shelters - not sure where you are but not one in FIVE years? come on now, where were you looking? your backyard?
DeleteSeems they have no trouble selling their so called standard bred pedigree dogs for more money than their mutts. Its about time they seen to their own house first and foremost
ReplyDeleteUnless it is in very very small print I cannot see the source for the claims made in this poster, where it claims % surely it must be a legal requirementto quote such sources (even hair and make up adverts who make claims of support have t o quote sources and how many peopel they asked), is this isnt given I ewould of thought this was misleadingand not allowed under law, perhaps Jemmima or the RSPCA will clarify this?
ReplyDeleteYes once again the RSPCA miss the main point. You can pressure the easy target of the show breeders but fail to somehow grasp the fact that the majority of puppies of the most popular breeds come from people who only have the vaguest idea of a breed standard and just use the nearest and cheapest dogs. And this petition [which will be signed in droves by the 'all pedigree dogs are inbred freaks' brigade] will achieve no more than to add to the huge rift that there has been between pedigree dog breeders and the RSPCA from the time Gavin Grant was last in chance. Support your small local dog charities and breed rescue!!
ReplyDeletewhy is there always a standard? cant we just treat them properly? this is just messed up
ReplyDelete