Bravo Mr Foote

Yesterday morning, I had an anonymous phone call from someone in Chihuahuas tipping me off to a Long Coat Chihuahua called Ch Ballybroke Harry. The dog, said the informer, has been diagnosed with syringomyelia (SM) - the neurological condition best known for being rampant in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels but which is also evident in other toy breeds. Harry, I was told, is being shown in the Open Dog class at Crufts tomorrow (Friday) and, apparently, the the dog had been given "permission to show" by the Kennel Club. 

"Is the dog symptomatic?" I asked, aware that despite the condition being evident on an MRI scan that some dogs may show no obvious symptoms. Well no, came the reply.

My informant went on to say that although the breeder who owned the dog was fully open about the dog's SM, some people in the breed felt the dog shouldn't be shown.

The story was tempting.  In 2008, Pedigree Dogs Exposed revealed that a top winning Cavalier had been diagnosed with SM - but the issue then was that, despite the best advice, his owner had continued to breed from the dog. Had Harry been bred from? The KC's Mate Select reveals no health tests listed for Harry - but it shows that a sibling has tested positive for SM, and it also reveals that Harry had sired a litter of one - a pup that had tested negative for SM  It also, interestingly, shows MRI scan results for quite a few Ballybroke dogs and also some extremely low coefficient of inbreedings. Hmmm... was this such a bad breeder after all?

I pinged an email to the Kennel Club asking them to confirm that the dog had been given permission to show. I admit I was a bit confused...  Usually, this is sought only when a dog has had a veterinary procedure and if Harry wasn't showing any symptoms, it is unlikely that he has had surgery for his SM. But maybe this was just someone who didn't totally understand the regulations?

I also asked if I was right in thinking that as long as the condition didn't affect the outward appearance of a dog, there were no rules that prohibited the dog from being shown.

The KC was unable to answer my first question, saying that most of the KC had already de-camped to the NEC and didn't have access to all the records back in the office. But it did confirm that a procedure that didn't effect the outward appearance of a dog would not result in a ban.

Now this has always infuriated me. As we revealed in Pedigree Dogs Exposed, Danny, the Peke that had won Crufts in 2003, had had fairly extensive surgery to relieve the respiratory distress caused by brachycephalic airway syndrome. As we discovered, this broke no rules. But if the procedure had been to fix, say, a dodgy tooth or a wry mouth, Danny would have been disqualified.

So it's perfectly all right to show a dog with a genetic problem that is so serious that no breeder in their right mind should breed from the dog - as long as you can't see it. If ever there was evidence that dog shows are all about surface, then this is it.

I emailed Harry's breeder/owners, Graham and Margaret Foote, and here's the email in full:

Dear Mr and Mrs Foote 

Apologies for what I am sure will be an uncomfortable email.
I have been contacted by people in Chihuahuas who are unhappy that you are showing Harry at Crufts, despite the fact that he has been diagnosed with syringomyelia.  

I am writing to ask if you would like to respond to that criticism - and also to ask the following: 

• when was Harry diagnosed with SM?
• has Harry been bred from?
• is he symptomatic?
• is there anything else you would like to say? 

As far as I'm aware, there are no rules that prevent Harry being shown so I am not for one moment suggesting you are doing anything that is against any rules. Indeed, I am impressed that you asked the KC for permission to show him (not something I am aware that any owners of Griffons or Cavaliers have ever done). I also understand that you have been fully open about the diagnosis which is to be applauded. 

I would very much appreciate your thoughts. 

Best 

Jemima

I wasn't really expecting a response. But tonight back came this. Please take the time to read the whole thing.

Dear Jemima, 

Thank you for your email of yesterday's date regarding my Chihuahua Long Coat dog Ch Ballybroke Harry, and the first thing I must put you right on is that I do not find it uncomfortable to answer you enquiry, I have been very open about the problem with SM in our breed and more importantly in some of my dogs. 

I will start of with the point you make in your penultimate paragraph about me having asked the KC for permission to show Harry. I do not know where whoever contacted you got this from. I have never made such a claim, because like you I believe that I am not breaking any rules in showing an asymptomatic dog who I only know has signs of SM, because I have gone to the trouble and expense of having all my breeding stock MRI scanned and have removed from my breeding programme, any that showed positive.  

My full story is that following one of my dogs, Ch Deeruss Flashmoon at Ballybroke, having been diagnosed with SM when he was being shown in the United States in 2006, I brought him back to the UK and as the symptoms that he had displayed prior to his MRI scan in the States were very different from the symptoms of SM that I had read about. I decided to have him and all my dogs from the same bloodline MRI scanned. The result of his scan was positive for SM but his sire half brother and 3 half sisters all scanned clear. I attempted to follow up and have his dame scanned, but as she had been spayed following her litter and had been placed in a pet home, following the death of her owner, I was not able to trace her, but assumed the SM had come from her side. 

Flash had been on treatment with Prednisone for approx one week after his return from the States, but had no treatment after that and the only possible sign SM that he ever displayed was a very slight weakness in a front shoulder. He was never bred from in this Country, but had sired a litter during his time in the States. 

I contacted the owner of the two pups in the States and advised that he did not breed from them until he had them scanned to check for SM and that the scan should not be done until they were over three years of age. Just after the dogs were three years old I found out that one of them had been exported to Denmark. I followed up on this with the breeder in the States and was advised  that rather than scan the dogs the Breeder had one of Flash’s offspring castrated and the other which had displayed absolutely no signs of SM had been exported to Denmark. I immediately contacted the owner in Denmark and organised that the dog be scanned, this was done and he scanned positive for SM. Fortunately he had not been bred from in Denmark, but had sired a litter in the States the owner of the litter still has the three offspring and will have then scanned at a later age. 

Due to the fact that I publicised the facts about Flash in the British Chihuahua Club Newsletter several times a few owners contacted me about dogs they were worried about and asked if I thought that the symptoms they displayed could be SM. I convinced just 4 of them to have the animal MRI scanned. All four were positive for SM and these included dogs from both the Long Coat and Smooth Coat variety. 

I decided in 2011 that I was going to have more of my breeding stock scanned and was shocked at the outcome of scans carried out in Sept 2011 and during 2012, Out of 17 scanned under the BVA/KC scheme 4 were clear 4 had SM grade 1 and   9 were grade 2 all are asymptomatic, three American bred imports were positives as was an Italian bred dog. 

I have not bred from any of my dogs that have tested positive for SM, some have been spayed or castrated but most have not. As you are no doubt aware there are breeding recommendations published under the BVA/KC Scheme that would cover some of my dogs, but I am trying to work my way through the problem without reverting to using these recommendations. I keep hoping that there will be a breakthrough with a DNA marker for SM, but it does not seem to be close. 

Coming back to your questions about Harry, he was scanned in Sept. 2011 along with his litter sister and both were positive. They, by the way, were from a litter out of a daughter of a bitch imported from Australia and were sired by a top winning Italian dog. 

Before he was scanned he had sired just one litter, at that time I was following through on dogs related to Flash, as mentioned above Harry was mainly from foreign stock, I had no reason  at that time to suspect that SM was also a problem in imported dogs. I decided to have a litter and to keep the pups. As often happens in these situations there was a single puppy, I had the puppy scanned very early at the age of only18 months and he was clear. My intention had been to have one litter by him and keep the puppies, then have him scanned again at four years and also to have his litter scanned at that time unfortunately I lost him due to a Megaeosophagus. 

Due to the situation with SM, I am breeding very few pups and in my update on SM in the BCC Newsletter that is presently with the editor I have said that I have taken two of my dogs out of retirement and will be showing them until I have suitable youngsters to replace them. 

One thing that I can assure you is that I will never show an animal that is suffering with symptoms of SM or indeed any other disease. 

I obviously do not know who contacted you about Harry, but the question that I would ask them is, have they had their breeding stock scanned for SM. The only one of mine, that has shown any symptoms, is Flash, all the others have been scanned and those that were positive are all asymptomatic. 

The fact is that of the 29 Chihuahuas so far scanned under the BVA/SM scheme, 18 scanned positive i.e. 62%, so there is a very great chance that some of their unscanned dogs are affected. 

My reason for being so open with the situation with my own dogs is because I am very concerned that many other breeders are not recognising the extent of this problem, as I have done, and seem to be taking the view that it is all right to carry on breeding. It is obvious from the evidence that I have discovered that this is not simply a problem in my Chihuahuas, but is wide spread in both this country and abroad
 Yours sincerely
 Graham Foote

Now I still yearn for a world where no one would even think of showing a dog that had been diagnosed with SM, no matter how "good" it might look on the outside.. And I am not a big fan of Chihuahuas with their dome-shaped heads, open fontanels and risk of hydrochephalus.

But, boy, I bloody love Mr Foote.

Points win prizes - but wreck dogs

As Crufts Dog Show begins its annual four-day jamboree at the NEC in Birmingham today, a team at the University of Manchester University researching the history of pedigree dogs has pinpointed who I can blame for bigging up the idea that you can judge the worth of a dog by its appearance.

The guilty party? John Henry Walsh.

The team, researching the history of pedigree dogs, has unearthed an article by John Henry Walsh published in the Field Magazine in 1865 which, according to a press release from the University of Manchester,  details the first attempt to define a breed standard based on physical form - a description of a Pointer called Major.

This, says the release, is "one of the most important milestones in the six-thousand-year-old relationship between canines and man."

Well arguably. 

Detailed descriptions of individual breeds were in existence some years before 1865. John Henry Walsh, writing under the pseudonym Stonehenge, wrote "The Dog: In Health and In Disease" in 1859 and it contained a detailed description of the English Pointer and many other breeds. Before him, William Youatt described different breeds of dog in "The Dog" and of course distinct types of dogs have been been in existence and described or illustrated in various forms for thousands of years.

But it is certainly true that Walsh helped formalise the whole process. He was one of three judges at the first formal dog show in Newcastle in 1859, and he developing a points system as a means to judge various physical attributes (nicked from Plato, as it happens - and also pigeon-fancying where presumably a pigeon chest is not a fault).

Here's an example from Walsh's description of the Bloodhound (yep... that's what a bloodhound looked like 150 years ago...).

As you can see, Stonehenge marks a dog out of a 100 based entirely on physical points whereas the whole point of a bloodhound - and why it was developed -  is what it does, not what it looks like. Of course, 160 years on, too many breeders still labour under the conceit that function follows form, not the other way round. It is entirely possible for a bloodhound with no tracking/scenting ability to win Best of Breed at Crufts. It's a nonsense. Was then and it remains so today.

The Field is a rich source for the early criticism of dog shows. In an article called "Breeding up to Defects" published in 1862, "Old Towler" complains that bloodhounds now had ‘long pendulous ears and lips – the drooping eye, the shambling gait, and the slovenly way to dropping and eating its food – all defects which judges deem beauties’. And yet as you can see, the illustration above from just a few years earlier, shows a much more moderate animal than you'll see today. Old Tower also wrote that Bulldogs had been bred with ‘a ridiculously short nose, and a great projection of the under jaw’.  He urged breeders to ‘get rid of that absurd “stop” between the eyes; it is a very great defect, and injures the scent.  We might as well breed a dog with one eye as with no nose’.

‘Old Towler’ was also uncompromising about the short, flat faces in toy dogs, arguing that ‘Dogs of no sort should be subjected to such freaks, nor should judges countenance the abortions with mere fashion in breeding produces’.

Lessons from history. Mostly ignored.

Bullmastiffs - as "gud" as it gets?

The Daily Mail today carries the story of how the current UK Bullmastiff of the Year 2012, Hyerdunscar As Gud As It Gets got loose from his pen with another dog last March and attacked a woman and three children walking along a pavement.

Breeder Julie Lindley quickly destroyed both dogs and is, the court heard, full of remorse. I am sure she is. But how on earth did she come to have dogs with such a dangerous temperament? That kind of behaviour simply doesn't come out of nowhere.

Now the Bullmastiff is a guard dog and is bred to defend its territory. But "a serious and sustained" attack of three children off their own territory?

The KC breed description describes the Bullmastiff  as "makes a happy companion who is totally reliable both physically and mentally". Clearly these dogs were not.  And although it's clear there were some mitigating circumstances here (it's thought the dogs had been let out by someone trying to steal them) the dogs still bit three children and, according to evidence presented in court, shook them "like dolls".

Now temperament is paramount for many breeders - but not all.  And it's possible to get away with a poor temperament within in a system that is still focused primarily on looks. Sure, the show-ring conditions dogs to trot round a ring without attacking other dogs and it teaches them to be fondle-friendly enough for a judge to grab their testicles and not have their faces bitten off. But often not much else. Indeed, in attempting to maintain some semblance of the dogs' original qualities without the true test of actually doing the job properly (whether guarding or herding or retrieving or going to ground) the danger is that showdogs can end up with less stable temperaments than their working cousins.

In Sweden and some other countries, working breeds are asked to take temperament/mental stability tests. The results are published and taken seriously by breeders in their breeding decisions.

With new calls by MPs to extend the breed ban to more breeds, I suggest the Kennel Club acts quickly to introduce temperament tests for working breeds here too - and encourage the Clubs to promote them. They might just have prevented this tragedy, and would be a proactive and welcome addition to current requirements for Accredited Breeders (of which Julie Hindley is one).

The KC might want to suggest that Julie Hindley removes the glowing reports of Theo on her website, where she is still advertising the dog at stud. 

Part of the blurb there reads: "Theo is very exciting dog he is such a showman he never lets me down and is very hard to ignore in the ring We can only dream of what else is to come from this boy."  

Edited 21/2/13 + 22/2/13. Please also read the comments below.

You've got the eekest little baby face

This dog's pic is currently doing the rounds on the Internet and elsewhere as "the dog with a human face" - a Shih-Tzu x Poodle apparently, although I can't see much Poodle in him.

The reason that the image of Tonik - in rescue in Indiana in the US  - has proven so "grabby" is because humans are genetically programmed to respond to faces - and particularly baby-like faces. 

This may be good for babies, but it's terrible for dogs. It's the reason why flat-faced breeds have been developed and endure, despite the cataclysmic impact this so often has on the health of these breeds.  We find them appealing - and continue to find them cute even when people like me keep banging on about how awful it is for the dogs.

The Indiana rescue that has Tonik says he is in good health and microchipped - no mention of whether or not he is neutered. Hopefully so, or there'll be those wanting to start a whole new line of money-making mutts that look like humans.

And how about this for the embodiment of the problem? As a friend of mine commented this morning.. many levels of wrong.

As I've nicked the pic, I feel duty-bound to provide this link to where you can buy one - for only $250...  

But please don't. Obviously. Unless it's a straight substitute for buying a real one. And even then please keep it in a crib locked box.

Sex for bulldogs

Fun, eh? 

A huge number of bulldogs are mated like this - and probably most of them in countries like the US where artificial insemination (AI) is more routine than it is in the UK due to the geographical distances and the fact that it is much easier to ship a syringe of semen than it is a whole dog. 

This is especially true for a the Bulldog whose physical shape so often prevents a natural mating. Even if it didn't, you'd have a tough job getting a Bulldog from one side of the States to the other  by anything other than a car. The breed is so susceptible to dying during air transit that many airlines have banned them. Most Bulldog bitches, therefore, have to endure this indignity - while Bulldog semen is also collected by human hand.

The Bulldog has just made the AKC Top 5 for the first time. It is a breed for which the average age of death in most half-decent surveys of the breed is  five years old - half the average of what most healthier breeds can manage. (In fact, the AKC figures probably reflect this necessary turnover to meet the demand.) 

It is a bloody disaster for these dogs.  Have a look at - and a listen to - this video of a Bulldog youngster in the US,  rather astonishingly sub-titled "Having Fun at the Yard".

Now will you please stop breeding them and buying them?

Everyone involved in the Bulldog business is guilty of causing unacceptable suffering - even if the dogs you produce personally are a bit better than this one. 

I was recently asked by an American dog person planning an outcross programme for one blighted breed why I was so against artificial insemination.  

The reason is that it circumvents natural sexual behaviour patterns that have developed as part and parcel that ensures survival of the fittest. 

“Human assistance not only tolerates but also encourages males that in nature would never stand a chance to mate,” say Johan and Edith Gallant, authors of SOS Dog: The Purebred Hobby Re-examined (now also available on Kindle in both English and German). “Of course such matings may produce the desired color, the chiseled head that one is after or improve on any of the external features described in the breed standard, but the chances that it is instrumental in improving mental stability and true canine behaviour is remote.

"[It] brings two individuals together that most likely would not mate under natural conditions, the offspring that they produce are in fact contrary to nature and improvement of the breed concerned. When we are faced in modern dogdom with an endless list of complications in canine reproductive behaviour and with general behavioural disorders, their origins can be found to a large extent in human-induced mating, which in many cases has been applied over consecutive generations."

In the wild, it is usually the females who choose their mates. This is certainly true for the wolf, with whom our dogs share a common ancestry. And as nature favours the fittest/most adaptable, the females choose the most able and – it has been shown – often the most genetically diverse (i.e less related) mate. This is not something that can always be ascertained from a co-efficient of inbreeding which gives only a statistical measure of relatedness. 

In reality, individuals can be much more or less genetically similar due to the genetic deck-shuffling that happens with every generation. It is thought, for instance, that female wolves are able to distinguish between two brothers - on paper identically related; in reality not. This may be a critical mechanism in ensuring the survival of closed, isolated populations in the wild - and also in dogs which are artificially isolated by us wishing to preserve individual breeds.

Of course, I’ve heard dog breeders maintain that alpha male wolves mate with their daughters, but this is rarely the case. That’s because female wolves do not come into oestrus until two years old and often do not raise their first litter until they are four or five. By this age, their father is very likely to have been deposed by a younger, stronger, unrelated successor from another pack who has challenged and won the right to reproduce.

Now dogs are not wolves, even if genetically so very similar. It is obvious by some bitches’ utterly flagrant flirting that they can be shameless hussies compared to wolves, who often pair for life. But, still, bitches often do show a preference and we should show some respect for this where we can - as, indeed, some enlightened breeders already do. The bitch may know something about the mate that you have chosen for them that makes him an unwise choice.  And, believe me, she does not care how many fancy titles he may have if she doesn’t think he cuts the mustard.

“Bitches don’t like breeding down to lesser dogs,” says Don Turnipseed, an American breeder of hunting Airedales who allows his bitches freedom of choice .  “The dogs have more sense than people in this case”.

Artificial insemination circumvents another of nature’s safeguards too – the demanding journey sperm has to embark on in order to be the one that fertilises the ovum; a journey that so efficiently weeds out the weaklings.  

Of course, there are occasions where AI is justified – particularly if is to bring in some new blood from a valuable line from another country. But it should always be done with great care and only when both parties have already proved that they can reproduce naturally – as, indeed, is the current sensible Kennel Club requirement. 

The bum note in 'dem bulldog blues

This video has been doing the rounds for a while and has been universally promoted - including by the dog's owners - as cute, funny and adorable (see stupid article in the Daily Mail today).

It is nothing of the sort of course. What you're seeing here is a Bulldog trying to deal with an itchy bum but prevented from doing so via normal means by his conformation. Note how the dog makes licking motions. (And nope, not a guitar lick...). The poor boy just can't reach because of the way he's been built and that's the case for most bulldogs.

Not a massive problem here - the resourceful dog has found another way (although rather their carpets than mine...). But many Bulldog bitches (and indeed other breeds with similar body proportions selected for by man) cannot reach round to help whelp their pups. That is on the rare occasion where they are allowed to whelp naturally as opposed to by C-section that is the most common way to bring Bulldog pups into the world.

Shih-Tzu-faced

The Hertfordshire Mercury reports this morning the sorry tale of a man who got drunk and shaved his ex girlfriend's Shih-Tzu - apparently ruining the dog's chances of entering Crufts' in a couple of months' time.

Ah well, can always enter the dog in the Chinese Crested class where s/he will be in the company of loads of other dogs who have been shaved.

"This behaviour is completely unacceptable," said Chairman of magistrates Nicholas Moss to defendant Adam Davey, 26. "You do not treat other people's property including a harmless pet in this fashion."

Of course you don't. Absolutely shameful.