The Purebred Paradox - to go or not to go?

I'm getting some flak - publicly and privately - for agreeing to speak at next week's Purebred Paradox conference in Washington DC.  The reason? The conference has been organised by the Humane Society of the United States - which is loathed by dog breeders almost as much as they loathe PETA.

I have been told, frankly, that if I lie down with dogs I will stand up with fleas.  And that was from a friend.

There are three main reasons why the HSUS is hated.

First, and notwithstanding some worthy campaigns that help raise awareness of genuine animal abuses,  the HSUS is seen by some as a direct-mail organisation that hoodwinks good people out of millions of dollars while spending only a very small percentage of its income on the hands-on helping of animals.

Second, the HSUS is behind a lot of local ordinances in the States which are proving restrictive for dog breeders - legislation ostensibly to tackle puppy mills but which hits responsible breeders, too.

Thirdly, it is claimed that the HSUS's CEO Wayne Pacelle once said this : ""We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ... One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."

Today, Pacelle claims that he didn't say this exactly; and that what he did say was taken out of context. In fact,  today, Pacelle is often photographed holding a leash with a real live domesticated dog on the end of it and yesterday he could be found on his blog talking about how much he likes bulldogs (really?).  But he has not come out and said exactly where he stands on this issue - and yesterday's blog offered a very un-nuanced view of pedigree dog breeding, with no mention of the conference's intended purpose ie. to find a way forward for purebred dogs. It's easy to understand why the dog world so mistrusts him.

I am an animal welfarist, not an animal rightsist. I  believe - passionately - that there is much to be treasured about the purebred dog. I also believe that people should be free to do with them as they wish as long as it doesn't unncessarily compromise the health and welfare of the dog. And, yep, that includes work, sport, hunting - and even showing.

Clearly, then, I do not have a great deal in common with the HSUS on this issue. And Pacelle really pissed me off yesterday by, on his blog, airbrushing Pedigree Dogs Exposed out of the picture and attributing dog-breeding reform in the UK  to "..pressure from the RSPCA and other animal-welfare groups." (Er, hello...?). I suspect this is Pacelle playing politics - he knows my presence at the conference has been a bone of contention.

So why am I attending?

First, I was asked by James Serpell, Professor of Humane Ethics and Animal Welfare at the University of Pennsylvania.  James appeared in Pedigree Dogs Exposed and I like and admire him.

Second, I admire many of the other speakers, too  - including Professor Sir Patrick Bateson (who chaired the most important inquiry into dog-breeding following Pedigree Dogs Exposed) and Professor Gail Smith of PennHIP fame.

Third,  I hope to bring a perspective to the conference that would be missing otherwise - ie some input from the grass roots that academics and vets are rarely privy to - and my belief that purebred dogs are worth fighting for (a surprise message, I suspect, to those who prefer to picture me with horns and a forked tail).

Fourth, the debate needs more airtime in the US if things are to improve for purebred dogs. And they really do need to improve.

Finally, the conference marks the launch of the Humane Society's new Institue for Science + Policy whose work is intended to contribute more evidence-based reasoning to HSUS policy. Indeed, the HSUS report into pedigree dogs published last year really was exemplary - fair and balanced (read it here). If the new Institute is effective, it will drive a skewer through the heart of some the Humane Society's more questionable dog policy - its lack of support for No Kill shelters for one, and its seemingly hellbent mission to rip the reproductive capacity out of any dog as soon as it is weaned.

After all, it will find it hard to tut-tut about pedigree dogs being inbred monstrosities while promoting policy that penalises or makes it impossible for people to keep dogs intact.  It will soon find out too that the science is by no means clear-cut regarding the benefits of spay-neutering. (Read the report here)

The AKC has snubbed the conference (let's keep our head down - la-la-la-la), but I hope at least some breeders will feel they can come as I believe there is much on the agenda that they will find sensible and useful. It's important their views are heard because, at the end of the day, pedigree dog health won't ever be put right by veterinarians or theorists.  Or, indeed, campaigners.

For my report on the conference, please see here.

Edit 23/4/11: clarification re HSUS/humane societies inc picture change

Edit 24/4/11: correction re the amount of regulation facing US dog breeders

Make way for the mutts - well, maybe

The Kennel Club announced today that it has reinstated what used to be known as the "B register" - a system by which is is possible to bring in "impure" or "unverified" stock in order to enhance genetic diversity.  Using language that is a distinct change of tone, the KC even says that it is "keen to open up its register". 

Blimey!

Well don't get too excited.  There are some hoops to jump through and in truth it's only a small step.

• First, the dog must adhere to the health testing requirements laid down by the Accredited Breeder Scheme (actually, not a huge hurdle as for most breeds there are no recommended or required tests. And even when there are, the dog only has to take the tests; there is - still - infuriatingly -  no requirement for the dog to actually pass them).

• Second, the dog has to run the gauntlet of two Kennel Club appointed judges who will assess whether he or she is a good example of the breed.

• Third: you have to hand over £100 of your hard-earned cash to the KC for the privilege of the application being considered. (And, of course, there are no guarantees.)

• Fourth: even if you succeed, you'll have to wait for four generations down the line before the descendents will be considered "pure".

This is, in fact, the process by which Fiona the backcrossed Dalmatian was registered by the Kennel Club a few months ago. But of course that case was scientically absolutely clearcut and others may be less so - or at least more arguable.

The KC will, I suspect, have to brace itself for protests - and it has given in to these before (famously, over the one-off registration of packhound bloodhounds).   One breeder maintained to me today that she feared the judges assessing the dogs could be put under a lot of pressure to reject the dogs by breeders and breed clubs who vehemently oppose the idea of outcrossing.

But it would be churlish to not acknowledge that this is a move in the right direction. It's just that it is a long way from where we need to be to ensure the future genetic health of our breeds. For that, we need root and branch reform of the way we breed purebred dogs; not just the odd application by the odd forward-thinking breeder.

Ironically, today also marks the publication of the first annual report of the KC's revamped Dog Health Group (set up  a year ago in what proved to be a failed attempt to see off the threat of an independent advisory body). This has lots of interesting info in it for KC-watchers, some of which I will highlight separately, but pertinent to the above is this paragraph.

"Further to the work that the Kennel Club began with Imperial College in 2003/4, the population structures of each breed will now be examined over time, with a calculation of rate of inbreeding (over 40 years) and various breeding dynamics, including an estimated population size. From work done so far, Dr Blott reported that it was apparent that the effective population sizes of at least some breeds were in the realms of rare breeds (<50), but Dr Blott was of the view that there were ways of structuring population strategies to decrease the rate of inbreeding and that tools could be developed to aid breeders’ efforts to do so."

For those unfamiliar with the term, "effective population size" (Ne) is a measure of the  genetic diversity of a particular population/breed/species. When considering wild populations, anything less than 100 is considered criticial by conservation geneticists. Less than 50 - which is what Sarah Blott from the Animal Health Trust is reporting for "at least some breeds" -  is considered by some to be on the road to extinction.

Now,  dogs are not a wild species and we're around to give them a helping hand.  But, really, how bad does it have to get before the Kennel Club fully acknowedges just how serious the situation is in some breeds - and realises that the answers almost certainly lies in a much more proactive effort to bring in fresh blood from outside, not tinkering with breeding strategies within a breed?

It's not as if there's no option. There's nothing to cross a cheetah to in order to save it from oblivion.  But dogs are all the same species and breed boundaries are an entirely artifical construct; something we've imposed on them, very often to their considerable detriment.

What we really need is for whole breed clubs and kennel clubs to fully grasp this nettle and establish proper outcrossing programmes before it is too late.

As, remarkably, the Irish Kennel Club has just announced it is doing in conjunction with the Irish Red and White Setter Club in Ireland.

Now this is to be applauded - an outcross designed as a measure to pre-empt issues down the line rather as a last-ditch attempt to save a breed. Now it ain't a huge leap of faith - the outcross is to working red Irish Setters and not so long ago they were all the same breed.  There is also a precedent in that an outcross was done once before in the Seventies.

The progeny are unlikely to come to a showring near you in the UK anytime soon. The UK show breeders of IRWS don't have much to do with the Irish working dogs and will not be participating in this new initiative. They should, though. Only 90-odd IRWS were registered in the UK last year and the breed has a very limited gene pool.

More details to come...

Vet Oscar won by Clare Rusbridge - the Cavalier's champion

The most famous vet of all time in the UK is James Herriott, of "All Creatures Great and Small" fame and one of the most prestigious awards in the veterinary calendar is named after the man behind the fictional name - Yorkshire vet Alf Wight, who died in 1995 from prostate cancer.

James Wight and Clare Rusbridge

This year's winner of the JA Wight Memorial Award, which recognises outstanding contributions to companion animal welfare, has been awarded to neurovet Dr Clare Rusbridge (left) for her work with Cavalier King Charles Spaniels - and particularly for her role in identifying, researching and treating syringomelia in Cavaliers and other toy breeds.

Clare, who appeared in Pedigree Dogs Exposed to raise awareness of the extent of syringomyelia in Cavaliers, is a world-renowned research and clinical neurovet who also specialises in canine epilepsy. She received her award from Alf Wight's son, James.

I have witnessed at first hand Clare's warmth and calm professionalism with her clients - two-legged and four - and it's obvious why they adore her.  She is also meticulous and unwavering in her determination to help Cavaliers - despite a whispering campaign aimed at discrediting Clare and her research by a small minority of Cavalier breeders who have resented her highlighting the problem of syringomyelia in the breed.

I know there are times when Clare has been upset about this, so it's fantastic that she has been recognised for her work by her peers with this important award  - and I am sure my congratulations will be joined by many Cavalier pet owners and supportive breeders who recognise the huge debt of thanks they owe her.

Many congratulations to Clare and her team at Stone Lion Vets in Wimbledon and to her research team, which includes her very proud mum Penny Knowler.

Beware the Hapsburgs

There's an excellent article in The Independent this morning on new research which has found that the Spanish arm of the Hapsburg dynasty probably died out because of  inbreeding -  a deliberate if ultimately kami-kaze policy adopted by the family in order to make sure no one else got their thievin' mitts on their considerable riches and power.

Researchers found that the last of the Spanish line, Spanish king Charles II, was the offspring of a marriage that was almost as genetically inbred as an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister or parent and child. It is likely the reason he was infertile.

"Charles II of Spain was nicknamed El Hechizado – The Hexed – because people at the time thought that his physical and mental disabilities were the result of sorcery," writes Steve Connor. "Now a study into the genetics of his immediate ancestors has found that he was so inbred that he probably suffered from at least two inherited disorders. 

"Despite his deformities and severe health problems, Charles had married twice in the hope of continuing the rule of the Hapsburgs, but he was incapable of fathering an heir and died childless at the age of 39. He was the last of a long line of Hapsburgs and it spelled the end for the Spanish branch of the dynasty."

In fact, it is a bit unfair to compare the Hapsburgs to dog-breeding as of course there was no attempt at all by the family to select for rude good health - the over-riding criteria was just does your name start with "Haps" and end in "burg" and "ah - you have a severely undershot jaw, too! Great!"  (What is known colloquially as the Hapsburg Jaw or Lip - so severe in Charles II that he couldn't chew.) But even if they had made a point of only marrying the healthiest, least-deformed members of the family,  in all likelihood the inbreeding would still have caught up with them sooner or later.

As it has now done with dogs.

Read the rest of the excellent Independent article here.

Here endeth today's warning from history.

Basset Hounds - a request

Oh dear. I have upset the Basset Hounds - or rather their owners.  They think my highlighting the breed in Pedigree Dogs Exposed was unwarranted and that the Basset should not be one of the 15 breeds that, from next year, will be subject to health checks at shows.  It is, they feel, very unfair to be stigmatised this way. And it is, apparently, all my fault.

In fact, the Vice Chair of the Basset Hound Club, Dave Darley, has asked me if I could help undo some of the damage I've done by posting two illustrations to support his (and other breeders') view that the Basset Hound we see in the ring today is "correct".

So here they are.

This first one is from an illustration dated 1880 of some Bassets imported from France.

The second one is an illustration which Dave says shows how the Basset is designed to be a normal dog - just one with short legs:

So where does this leave us?

At an impasse, actually.

I accept that Basset breeders have done a pretty good job of straightening the Queen Anne front legs that were once such a feature of the breed. I also agree that Bassets are a pretty long-lived breed.

But the Comments section on my last Basset blogpost makes it clear that many Basset breeders are in denial about the cost of the conformation they are imposing on this dog in order to meet what they think is the correct template for the breed.

Exposed haws? No, they don't provide little pockets where debris can collect and damage the eye.

Very long ears?  They're needed to channel the scent into the dog's nose (and no matter that all the show Basset ever has to do is find its way to its dinner) and, hey, show me the proof that they damage their ears if they tread on them. 


Dewlap? Yep, that traps the scent, too (well that's what we've always been told)

Loose skin? Needed to protect the dogs from brambles and thorns and, yep, if no hunting pack of Bassets has loose skin it's because they're crossbreeds! 


Skin folds?  Other breeds suffer from yeast and bacterial skin înfections, you know, and we don't accept that it's directly linked to the skin folds - even if the bacterial form is called "skin-fold dermatitis".

Back and joint problems?  Yes, we know the veterinary literature indicates that the breed is prone to both, and particularly arthritis as they age, but it's nothing to do with their short legs, long backs and enormous weight for their size.

The point is that the dogs that actually do the work for which they were developed - which is the whole reason the breed exists - don't look like this. The show-breeders, though, simply dismiss the lighter, longer-legged hunting bassets as mongrels and blithely carry on trying to replicate a dog they've seen in an old painting, no matter what the cost to the dog.

They seem oblivious to the fact that the above painting is, at best, merely a snapshot in time and, at worst, pure artistic license. We have no idea if the dogs illustrated ever did a day's work; if the people who bred them knew what they were doing; or if these dogs, with their strange knees, were really good examples of the breed (indeed, imports were often the dregs of a breed as the country of origin wanted to hang on to their best dogs).

The breeders also insist that Bassets that looks like the one below are still capable of hunting rabbit and hare.

Now, I guess the mind might be willing... but the flesh? Really? Just look how close to the ground this dog's penis is (here's hoping the terrain is Wimbledon tennis-flat..) .  Just look at the excess skin and the droopy pouch of skin on the dog's hocks. That serves what purpose, exactly?

I understand that the Kennel Club isn't much more sympathetic to the Basset breeders than I am.  Again, apparently this is all my fault (and never mind the wealth of veterinary literature that also supports that it's a struggle to breed a dog to this shape without problems). Dave Darley has suggested that I might like to write to the Kennel Club to tell them I was wrong about the Basset Hound.

Sorry, no can do.  But  I  have a suggestion to make which will, at least, buy the Basset Hound Club some time and may even allow them to prove that they should be allowed to keep the dog as it is.

There is no health information - whatsoever - on the Basset Hound Club website and I couldn't find any on the regional clubs' websites, either.  If the Basset breeders want to prove that they are serious about health, this needs to be remedied.

They also need an ongoing breed health survey, properly designed by someone like epidimiologist Vicky Adams, who can help them establish exactly what problems are prevalent in the breed and how they correlate with conformation.  And it needs to be online so you reach as many Basset owners as you can, regardless of where they got their Bassets from (and where they got their Bassets from also needs to be a survey question so you can establish if - as is maintained - that the show-bred dogs are healthier than their pet-bred cousins).

No one is arguing for a Basset ban - just for moderation. And, as infuriating as breeders must find it, if you're going to breed a dog that so many outside of the breed (including vets) see as prone to problems, particularly as they age, I'm afraid you're going to have to go the extra mile to prove that it is not the case.

Here are some American Bassets having a great day out in the snow - all longer-legged; all leaner; all with tighter skin and still, absolutely, Bassets. Now the video is entitled "Hunting Basset Hounds" and am not sure they're really doing that - but I'm in full support of the American Hunting Basset Association's goal of not letting the breed "degenerate into a bunch of overweight couch potatoes."

Not, of course, that Bassets are really allowed on couches. That's because, as the clubs advise new owners,  they are in danger of damaging their backs when they jump off.

                              

How many more Cavaliers have to fall?

The above video shows a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel called Penny with Episodic Falling Syndrome - a distressing condition induced by exercise, excitement or frustration, in which the dogs' muscles become rigid and spasm, causing the dog to fall over. Affected dogs usually start to demonstrate clinical signs before one year of age, with most cases having their first episode aged four to seven months. The condition can become so severe that dogs have to be euthanised.

Yesterday, the Kennel Club Genetics Centre at the Animal Health Trust (AHT) launched a new DNA test for the condition - and, in a twin breakthrough, also one for Dry Eye and Curly Coat (congenital keratoconjunctivitis sicca and ichthyosiform dermatosis). DE/CC affected dogs produce no tears making their eyes incredibly sore. Their skin becomes very flaky and dry, particularly around the foot, and this can make standing and walking difficult and painful. The syndrome is thought to be unique to Cavaliers and most dogs diagnosed with the condition are put to sleep.

You can read about Cavalier Flossie, who has this condition, on the AHT website.

The AHT estimates currently that around 50 Cavaliers a year are diagnosed with either condition - with only about 3 per cent of the breed thought to be carriers (again of either condition). This means that the DNA tests offer a real chance of eradicating both conditions from the breed without further eroding genetic diversity. As both conditions are recessive there is no need to eliminate carriers from breeding (as long, of course, as they are bred to a clear).

Owners and breeders can access the DNA tests for dry eye and curly coat and episodic falling, from 18 April 2011, through the AHT’s online DNA testing webshop at: http://www.ahtdnatesting.co.uk/

Congratulations are in order to the researchers, but when you add mitral valve disease, syringomyelia, PSOM, luxating patellas, deafness, retinal dysplasia and other health issues in the Cavalier, one has to ask just how many health problems does any one breed have to suffer before one starts to question whether it is morally or ethically acceptable to continue breeding them.

It's a question being asked in the Netherlands at the moment, where an animal rights organisation is trying to bring a legal case against breeders and the Dutch Kennel Club, arguing that health problems are so severe in the breed that breeding Cavaliers should be banned.

I appreciate that people are passionate about the breed - and of course not every Cavalier is doomed to ill-health and an early death. But at what point does one say "enough is enough" - particularly if we are by and large continuing to breed in the same way that created all the problems in the first place (ie inbreeding to a greater or lesser extent within a closed gene pool)?

Some researchers caution against an outcross until the genetics of mitral valve disease and syringomyelia (the breed's two most serious problems) are nailed, but there could be a very long wait for this. Surely we are already way past the point at which a proper, monitored outcrossing programme should be started?

Do you have an epileptic dog?

Then please help Glasgow Vet School by taking part in a survey designed to find ways to  help make the experience a little less traumatic for dogs, their owners and their vets.

The researchers are looking for:

• dogs with epilepsy with either recurrent fits for more than one year with the first fit having occurred between 6 months to 6 years,

OR 

• dogs diagnosed by a specialist with the aid of blood examination and MRI.

Questionnaires are available online at:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YX7ZXV8
Password:	Epilepsy1! (case sensitive)
Starting date:	01.01.2011
Closing date:	31.05.2011

Alternatively Click here to download a PDF flyer including the above details.

"'Idiopathic' epilepsy  – when the cause is not known – has a high emotional impact on owners and affected vets too. But not much is known about the impact of this disease on dogs’ and owners’ quality of life," writes Annette Wessman from Glasgow Vet School in the Veterinary Record

“We hope the information we gather will help other owners caring for dogs with idiopathic epilepsy as well as vets in communicating issues associated with [the condition]. We believe that the support given by first-opinion practices is immensely important in the treatment of epileptic dogs and this study will also investigate this question.”