"Pugs are dog versions of pigs. They breathe like pigs"

This was never meant to be serious, of course.  it is heartbreaking to hear a jokey commentary over pictures of dogs whose bodies are heaving with the effort of trying to suck in enough air to keep themselves conscious.

Check out the comments section. Carla Schodde deserves a medal for keeping her cool in the face of an idiotic response to her pointing out that these dogs are suffering.

One day.. one day... videos like the above will be considered as inappropriate as making a joke about a child struggling to breathe. 

And note well: in the video below, the features pointed out as indicators of this boy's acute respiratory distress - "the tug", and the indentation on the ribs - are exactly what you see in the pug video above.

PDSA - caption please

UK Charity PDSA (People's Dispensary for Sick Animals) has featured the above picture on its Facebook page today.

Is it to illustrate the horrors of being an extreme brachycephalic breed like this pug? (After all the PDSA has ruled recently that it will no longer offer free/subsidised treatment to more than one purebred dog per household given the increased veterinary costs associated with pedigree dogs).

Or is it, perhaps, to spell out the horrors of dogs overheating in cars on a sunny day?

Or even to point out the dangers of stenotic nares (very narrow nostrils)?

Er no. It's a caption competition -  "for a bit of fun this Friday".

I'm sure they would welcome some suggestions.  You can do that here.

1/2/14: The PDSA has now removed the photo from its Facebook page. Response to my query from Head of PR Mary   Bawn:  "Dear Jemima. Apologies it was an error and has been removed. Thank you for flagging. Best wishes, Mary"

Huffington Post in a huff over mongrels

Huffington Post

Unthinking prejudice against crossbreed dogs always makes my hackles rise, and there was a bad case of it last week in the Huffington Post - a piece written by Jody Thompson.

Thompson referred to "designer dogs" as "just mongrels", said that it was a terrible idea to cross breeds such as the Labrador and Poodle and stated categorically that such crosses were no healthier than purebred dogs. She also advised people that if they didn't want to get a rescue dog, they should go to a Kennel Club breeder.

Not surprisingly, a few Doodle owners took exception in the Comments section and I whizzed off an email to the Huff Post to ask if they'd like a "counter".  The answer was yes, they'd be more than happy to consider a rebuttal.

So I wrote it and sent it to them over the weekend. But it turns out that Jody Thompson is the Huff Post UK's Blog Editor and as such has the say-so on whether or not to accept my piece. 

This morning, she got back to me and turned it down, saying I had twisted and misinterpreted what she'd written.  Ms Thompson says she is only interested in the piece if I take out the bits criticising her (she didn't think they were fair) and make it a more general article in defence of crossbreeds.

I replied:

"I think you’re taking this a little too personally.  

"I have been a journalist for 30 years. I have written for all the UK nationals and been a commissioning editor for two of them. Alternative views are the lifeblood of the free media because they generate interest and debate. Of course, I shouldn’t have to tell you that. 

"Very unsettled to learn that the Huff Post censors in this way ie. employed editors who turn down material because they can’t tolerate an alternative view to their own.  I mean, really, what’s the worst that can happen? Some people will agree with you; some people will agree with me. Don’t think the world will end. 

"Your piece was on an area I specialise in and the comments to your piece make it clear that others interpreted it exactly the same way I have done. In other words, it is a fair challenge."

"I’ll publish both pieces side by side on my blog (two million pageviews by the way…).
Let’s see what my readers think."

So here we go.  First, you'll need to pop over to Huff Post for Thompson's article, which you can find here.

Read it?

Here's my counter.. let me know what you think.  I can take it on the chin, promise...

Six years ago, my documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed revealed the horrifying levels of deformity and disease in purebred dogs. The cause? A century of inbreeding and pursuit of show-ring ribbons under the auspices of a Kennel Club stuck largely in the scientific dark ages. 

We showed gasping Pugs, Bulldogs that couldn’t mate or give birth naturally, show-bred German Shepherds dragging wobbly back-ends, and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels screaming in agony because their skulls were too small for their brains.  

The film had an enormous impact. The BBC pulled out of broadcasting the Kennel Club’s flagship show, Crufts (after 42 years). Crufts also lost its main sponsor, Pedigree. Then the veterinary profession, welfare organisations and three independent reports backed the film’s findings. The Kennel Club, finally, was forced to act to clean up dog-breeding. 

The film is often charged with sending puppy-buyers in their droves to buy “designer dogs” -  Labradoodles, Cockapoos and a host of other combinations often being sold under the “hybrid vigour” banner.  There is nothing more likely to give a purebred dog breeder the vapours than to tell them how much some of these pups fetch. How very dare someone just chuck a Pug in with a Beagle and cop £800 or more for the resulting mongrel “Puggle”.  

Yep, you’re allowed to charge money for a pedigree dog. But, the moment you take money for a deliberately-bred mutt you are by default morally and ethically bankrupt, however good a breeder you are; however healthy and personable the dogs themselves turn out to be. 

.Jody Thompson, whose family owned a purebred Golden Retriever, joined in on the designer dog bashing in the Huff Post this week. She turned a snooty nose up at the “Dorkie” (Dachshund x Yorkie) she met on the train and advised everyone that if they could not be persuaded to take on a rescue dog they should go to a nice Kennel Club breeder. The message was clear - purebred is good; these half-caste crossbreeds and mongrels are inferior, not worthy  - "...why even bother with a 'sort-of' dog," she wrote. 

I hope Thompson is aware of what she’s buying into here.  The reason purebred dog breeders hate designer dogs so much is because it undermines what they do... the belief, very deeply entrenched, that purebred dogs are inherently superior to mutts; that show-ring success and a pedigree as long as your arm somehow mitigate for trapping the poor creatures in tiny gene pools polluted by ever-spiralling rates of dysfunction and disease.  

And if all this talk of purity and innate superiority is beginning to make you feel rather uncomfortable, you have a reason to be. It is well documented by canine historians that Kennel Club breeding as we know it developed alongside the eugenics movement. 

Purebred dog breeders also love to tell you how combining two breeds will result “in the worst of both”.  This makes little sense scientifically.  Of course you can get some strange-looking results from crossbreeding, but on the whole Nature is a great moderator. A “dorkie”, or any other designer crossbreed, is likely to be a half-way house between its two parent breeds. A “dorkie” won’t have as long a back as a Dachshund (something which contributes to a 25 per cent incidence of back disease in Dachshunds) and it will be longer-muzzled  and have a bigger mouth than a Yorkshire Terrier, reducing the risk of the often severe peridontal problems that blight Yorkies.  

A first generation cross of these two breeds is likely to suffer from fewer single-gene disorders, too. Both breeds can suffer from eye problems - but they’re different ones caused by different recessive mutations. For the pups to be affected, both parents have to pass down the same mutation; much less likely if they are different breeds.  

In common with all crossbreed dogs, Dorkies are also statistically likely to live longer - a year or more extra on average (Longevity and mortality of owned dogs in England - O’Neill et al, Veterinary Journal, December 2013). This is good evidence of the hybrid vigour enjoyed by crossbreeds and many studies confirm it. 

Ironically, purebred dog breeders deny the science while enjoying the benefits of it on their plates. Your morning toast? Very likely to be bread made with hybrid wheat. Your steak for supper? It may say Aberdeen Angus on the packet, but it only has to be 60 per cent purebred to be allowed to use the moniker. Same goes for eggs, chickens, corn-on-the cob and lots of other types of food. 

The reason farmers use crosses is because the wheat grows stronger, the maize grows sweeter, the poultry thrives better and the cattle grow bigger. Indeed, the hybrid vigour so dismissed by dog breeders is one of the things keeping our farming industry afloat (if barely). That’s not to say that farmers don’t maintain purebred lines too – they do. But it’s often a more expensive business because the yield is less; fertility often diminished.  

Insurance company data also confirms the crossbreed health benefit. Most charge lower premiums for crosses and mixed breeds. This isn’t because they’re “anti-pedigree” – an accusation often levied at anyone who dares sing the health-merits of the average mutt. Nope, it’s the financial bottom-line that cuts the ice with the actuaries. They’ve calculated the risks by looking at their data (ie claim history) and priced their premiums accordingly. 

And yet despite all this, Jody Thompson berates designer dogs because they are “fashionable”, apparently unaware that the most currently-fashionable dogs are purebred Pugs, Bulldogs and French Bulldogs - dogs with faces so flat and nostrils often so pinched that many spend their whole lives in a state of oxygen deprivation.  

Worse, Thompson urges would-be buyers to eschew designer dogs (“just mongrels” as she calls them) and go to a Kennel Club breeder of purebred dogs for their puppy. 

But the issue here is not whether a dog is purebred or crossbreed. This is a question of responsible breeding independent of a dog’s genetic provenance. 

Are there shocking breeders of “designer” dogs? Yes. 

Do they make exaggerated claims about their health, happiness or hypoallergenic properties of their dogs? Absolutely. 

But the same applies  in purebred dog breeding too. Worse, the latter is given a veneer of respectability by an organisation that presents itself as a welfare organisation when it is actually nothing of the sort. The Kennel Club is a trade association; the equivalent of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association; there to defend the breeders’ not the dogs’ best interests. 

Certainly, a Kennel Club pedigree certificate is no guarantee of anything - over 80 per cent of licensed volume breeders (puppy farms) in Wales register at least some of their dogs with the Kennel Club and there are no health-test requirements for the majority of breeders.  Even the KC’s Assured Breeder Scheme, although better than it was, has holes in it.  There are breeders within it still indulging in the kind of inbreeding that would make your hair frizz and few mandatory health tests; none at all for some of the most blighted breeds. 

Dogs are amazing creatures. I have nine sitting here with me as I write this - a mix of purebred  and crossbreeds; loved and treasured equally; none better nor worse than the other.   The difference? I know the Flatcoated Retriever at my side has a 50 per cent chance of being dead from cancer by the age of nine (and many of them die long before that).  The mutts? They might live to 15 or they could be dead at four. Their muttness does not make them immune to illness.  But at least I don’t have to experience the cold curl of dread that I feel every time I look into a Flatcoat's eyes.

Despite popular perception, I am a huge fan in principal of the selective breeding that has produced the extraordinary variety of  size, colour and ability we see in our dog breeds.  Watch a Saluki run, a collie gather sheep, a spaniel bust a drug-smuggler or a Golden Retriever guide the blind and it is surely hard for anyone’s heart to not sing. 

It’s just that we have to  breed ‘em smarter - and that means learning from, not trashing, mutts.   In particular, we need to drop the “purity at all costs” meme and recognise prejudice towards mutts for what is is: a distasteful legacy from the early 20th century that has no place in a science-savvy, welfare-conscious society.

Lewis Hamilton is an idiot

First for buying a Bulldog. Second, for buying another one. Third, for not recognising that one of them is in trouble.

Given how dangerous it is to hurtle - pointlessly if lucratively - round a track at 200mph, I guess it's probably better to not think about stuff much. But Lewis Hamilton's comments on  Instagram two days ago display breathtaking ignorance.

On a snowy New Year break with his Bulldogs Roscoe and Coco, the Formula 1 driver wrote:

"Today, I went hiking up the mountain. Thought I'd take the dogs. Roscoe was fine but Coco, she walks about 20 meters & sits down. She doesn't want to go anywhere unless she's carried. Lazy ass bulldog Lol so I put her in my backpack.....she literally snored the whole way up!!'

Mr Hamilton.... Coco is less than a year old. No dog of that age is ever "lazy".  Ever. And that snoring? It isn't snoring. She can't bloody breathe. 

A pound to a dollar, Coco will be at the vets for a soft palate resection within the year.

Hamilton's other Bulldog, 14-month-old Roscoe looks quite the athlete body-wise - slim and fit and relatively long-legged. There are very few pix of him gasping either - good to see.

Roscoe

Nevertheless, four months ago, Roscoe almost died from pneumonia  a breed-related problem that is a direct result of the Bulldog's impaired respiratory system.

He recovered, but will never overcome the basic handicap of being born a Bulldog - something that Hamilton clearly thinks is cute and funny. Have a look at this:

It's clear from Hamilton's posts that he adores Roscoe and Coco. 

He's in for a lot of heart-ache.

"What a beautiful stud - bred by me"

I am happy to report that you would never see a Bulldog this extreme in a UK show-ring today.

Unfortunately, you still find them in many other parts of the world.

This dog was bred by South African show breeder Este Dessels (Esmari Bulldogs) and the quote above is what she thinks of him.

No one should be breeding dogs that look like this. No one. Anywhere.

Pied pipers and the blot on the fancy's landscape

The painting above shows a piebald ("pied") Mastiff by Gilpin, dated 1780.  Pied Mastiffs were common at the time and, indeed, the colour featured in the first, 1880 breed standard for the Mastiff (or what's known as the English Mastiff outside of the UK).

But the colour was dropped with the formation of the Old English Mastiff Club in 1883, just three years later. Today, the only admissible colours are apricot, fawn and brindle.

The "problem", however, is that pied Mastiffs have continued to be born, despite breeders' best efforts to get rid of them. For years, these pied pariahs have been quietly culled or sold off to pet homes; same as so many other "mismarks" in so many other breeds.

But now there's a campaign to have piebald re-admitted into the Mastiff breed standard. It is being led by Simon and Jen Willshire of Gammonwood Mastiffs in New South Wales, who believe it is a madness to continue to deny - and decry-  their existence.

It has, predictably, prompted a storm of protest within the breed.

Here are some of the comments out there on Mastiff internet groups.

"The breeders of the past were much more responsible.  They were put down at birth.   Many breeds are put down at birth when they are not correct."  

"The pied 'mastiff' is nothing more than a mongrel with a designer price tag. They are nothing more than the offspring of BYBs."  

"I have never had a pied and never want it to happen.  Breeders today are too soft in the heart, they want to save everything. Are we that sure that these genes just mutated on pieds or could a fox have gotten in the Hen House ...so to speak."

No one knows exactly why pied was dropped from the breed standard. It might have been that it was an attempt to differentiate the breed from the St Bernard. Or it's possible it was connected to an awareness that white is linked with deafness in some breeds (not, of course, that this prevented the embracing of very white dogs in other breeds). But there may have been something else at work too. And that's because piebald/parti-coloured* dogs began to disappear from other breeds (and art) in the late 1800s/early 1990s, possibly fuelled by a belief that solid colours were somehow "stronger" and "more pure".

Note the wording in the excerpt from the 1880 breed standard above..."pieds are admissible and equal for purity".  It was clearly designed to reassure that pied mastiffs were, indeed, purebred.  And that's because at the time "piebald" didn't just refer to a colour - it was a term widely used to describe mongrels (etymology here).

The Mastiff wasn't the only breed to lose its piebalds around this time. Until 1880, Irish Setters comprised both solid red dogs and red-and-whites. They were considered all one breed and were shown in the same ring. But the founding of the Irish Red Setter Club in 1880 specifically excluded red-and-whites. Segregated from the rest of the breed, the IRWS very nearly died out.

Gordon Setters too, often black + white, or tricolour  in the 19th century, became solid black with tan points - somewhat ironically given that the Duke of Gordon favoured the parti-coloured dogs. Interestingly black, white + tan is still considered a registerable colour by the Kennel Club and they do appear in litters from time to time. This picture is of an accomplished working tricolour Gordon Setter, but you would never see one in the showring. Today, the breed standard demands that Gordons are black and tan.

FTCH Freebirch Vincent with Bob Truman, circa 1980

The same happened with parti-coloured Poodles - once widely celebrated in art; ostracised around the turn of the 20th century; today viewed with horror by many Poodle purists.

Of course, piebald/parti-colour dogs remain an integral and valued part of other breeds but it should be remembered that the late 1800s/early 1900s was a time when much of the (white) world was being swept up in unapologetic and unfettered racism; when any hint of "mongrelisation" was viewed with revulsion. The term "piebald" was often used pejoratively.

Look at this reference from Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History by Dirk Moses.

And I found this, also from Australia,  dated 1909.

And how about this, from the same period?

We still have some of this prejudice in the horse world. Piebald/painted/pinto ("coloured") horses are considered inferior by many - often dismissed as "gypsy" horses. It is easy to understand how it could have informed dog-breeding. Indeed, many breed standards limit the amount of white admissible. A little bit of white on a dog's chest or foot is often a fault, deemed evidence of impurity.

In Mastiffs, the piebald gene is recessive and can be passed down silently for generations. And so pied dogs continue to be born - and show breeders continue to cast them out, very often dismissed as evidence of crossbreeding back in the pedigree. (This despite, of course, their apricot, fawn or brindle siblings being accepted as purebred Mastiffs). Some kennel clubs won't allow them at all; others only allow pieds limited registration or with their true colour mis-described. You will certainly never see one in the show-ring. The UK Kennel Club standard effectively bans pied dogs by stating: "Excessive white on body, chest or feet is unacceptable."

But this is being challenged by Jennifer and Simon Willshire, of Gammonwood Mastiffs, who were startled when one of their Mastiffs (a brindle bitch mated to a fawn) unexpectedly gave birth to these three pied pups in June 2012.

The Willshires already knew that the recessive piebald gene - although rare - has always been in the breed. Long before their own pieds were born, they had made a film which explored the issue. See here (about 26 minutes in).

Consequently, the Willshires felt that their pied pups had every right to be recognised as Mastiffs. As the Wisdom Panel result below shows, their pups were indubitably purebred. So instead of culling them, as some suggested, they have started a campaign to have the colour accepted in the breed.

The Willshires have been in the breed for 20 years and are active members of the Mastiff community in Australia. Jen Willshire is English - her grandfather was a Major in the British Army, her great grandfather was Rear Admiral in the Royal Navy and served as a Gentleman Usher to four reigning monarchs (including our current Queen) between 1927 and 1961.

In short, they are educated, articulate, passionate, persuasive - and unlikely to be fobbed off by lingering prejudice and arbitrary rules that make no good scientific sense.

They are  supported in the UK by the great canine historian, Colonel David Hancock - a Mastiff man himself:  Hancock maintains: "The exclusion of pieds wholly on colour grounds is irrational, unscientific and harmful to the breed."

But for pied to be fully-recognised, the two Mastiff clubs here in the UK would have to give their approval.  Recently, the Willshires wrote to the Old English Mastiff Club with this plea:

"We know our piebald Mastiffs to be true Mastiffs, no matter their coat colours. They show this in character, form, mannerism and everything they do. They are kind, loyal, courageous friends. They are not the results of crossbreeding and they are able to produce solid standard coloured fawn, apricot and brindle offspring. We ask why should they not deserve the same recognition and acceptance as their parents and siblings?"

They continued:

"We hope the OEMC will take a stand for piebald and provide registry departments with the necessary consent to record their colours accurately. We hope the club will review its stipulation that piebalds may not be bred from, shown or exported. Their genes are useful, their looks are beautiful and they deserve the opportunity to go to the very best homes possible, regardless of where they are on the globe."

And here - brace yourself - is the response from Club Chairman Sian Pass, published in the OEMC Autumn/Winter newsletter.

"Some minor Antipodean breeder, whether by accident or design, have landed themselves with pied dogs and seeks to change our Breed standard to legitimise and justify their actions. Reliable sources say these dogs are being sold as "rare" Mastiffs. Is this to inflate the price? Our breed standard, drawn up by the greast Mastiff experts; Dr Sidney Turner, Mr Mark Beaufoy MP, Dr Forbes Winslow and Walter K Taunton in 1883, when they founded the OEMC, has been our lodestar in definiting the Mastiff is its grandest form. The black mask is indispensable. A white face or part coloured face doesn't bear thinking about. I know retro is cool, but not when it applies to our dogs!!"

So where to now?

It is of course ludicrous to have a colour bar like this still in effect today now that we better understand the genetics. There is no evidence that pied Mastiffs carry a greater risk of deafness that can be associated with too much white (although this has been intimated by some).  And it makes no sense to forbid breeding from dogs that may be superb examples of their breed, just the wrong colour.

At the end of the day, no one would be forced to breed or buy a pied mastiff - there's a DNA test available to identify carriers.  The Clubs worry about Pieds becoming "fashionable" - but what was it other than fashion that led to them being dropped from the breed standard in the first place?

I hope that in my lifetime we will see this kind of discrimination end - and not least because some dogs continue to be killed just because they are born the wrong colour. It is a blot on the fancy's landscape; something that has no place in a modern, welfare-savvy society.

But I confess I don't hold out much hope for the Mastiffs. The Old English Mastiff Club is still seething about the fact that they lost a 10-year battle with the Kennel Club to have a dog called Jengren Mr Milligan, born in 1999, struck from the register - something it felt so strongly about that it spent an estimated £18,000 in legal fees. The reason? Mr Milligan's pedigree lists his dam as "unknown". (Report here.) The Club claimed - and continues to intimate - that his dam wasn't a Mastiff. And never matter than Mr Milligan's sire was the Champion Jengren Pluto, that Mr Milligan himself did well in the show-ring and that he went on to sire the breed's record holder, Ch Lady Lavinia.

A current link on the OEMC website states:

"Due to the upsurge of interest and disbelief generated by the emergence and proliferation of an influx of 'mastiff dam unknown' lines and to fulfil our fundamental obligation to protect our noble breed, we are showing the following pedigree as guidance for the unwary and unknowledgeable."

In the same newsletter that trashes the Willshire's plea for pieds, Chairman Sian Pass laments that 32 of the 50 Mastiffs registered in the third quarter of 2013 originate from the "dam unknown" line and concludes:

"All this, together with the farcical strictures imposed on us by the powers-that-be are the slow death knell of the Mastiff that you and I went out and bought, shared our lives with and shed copious tears over when that awful day arrived. Remember what it was that first attracted you to the Mastiff, hold on to it and fight for it. 

"Our footprint in the history of our breed is not one to be proud of. Future generations of Mastiff fanciers may well look back and wonder we we did so little, and cared even less."

The message is clear: the threat of pieds and a drop of mongrel blood will be the ruin of the breed.

The reality of course, is that it more likely to be its salvation.

Please sign the Willshire's petition.

The Gammonwod Pied Mastiffs  Facebook page is here.

* pied/parti-colour means different things in different breeds - but essentially refers to white dogs with spots/slabs/patches of one or more colours.

KC admits: ABS breeders in Frenchie cruelty case "never inspected"

Today the Kennel Club has finally admitted that breeders Sue and Sarah Stacey - who had been members of the Assured Breeder Scheme since 2008 - had never been inspected. The mother and daughter breeders were found guilty of cruelty and banned from keeping dogs for 10 years.

See the story here and here:

In its defence, the KC says the Staceys had only registered four puppies in that time so were very low volume breeders.

Nevertheless, the RSPCA found 13 dogs in a poor state on the premises when they went in, following a tip-off, in January.  One had to be PTS.

Lower-volume does not automatically mean lower-risk. And while there may be fewer dogs suffering, it is no comfort to those individual dogs having to endure conditions like this.

There is some better news, however. As predicted, it would seem that the KC is about to announce improvements to the Assured Breeder Scheme - including that every breeder will have to be inspected before they can advertise puppies as an Assured Breeder.

The statement in full from the Kennel Club:

"We are deeply concerned by the incident with the French bulldog breeder, who was immediately removed from the Assured Breeder Scheme when the matter was brought to our attention. To our knowledge this was an isolated incident and processes are being put in place to ensure that it remains so, as the Assured Breeder Scheme is the only scheme in the country where puppy buyers can find breeders who are inspected and monitored to ensure that their pups’ health and welfare come first and foremost and therefore has an important role to play in improving dog health in this country. 

"Most importantly the Kennel Club was recently granted UKAS accreditation to certify Kennel Club Assured Breeders, which means that the government’s only accreditation body is satisfied that it is a robust and impartial assessor of those on the scheme. Whilst all breeders who breed two or more litters the previous 12 months are currently inspected prior to acceptance, in addition to random spot checks and the follow up of complaints, the launch of UKAS certification to Assured Breeders in the near future will mean that every member will be inspected prior to any puppies being registered within the scheme, even if they are low volume breeders, as in this case. 

 "Of course a number of other processes are in place to ensure the quality of Assured Breeders, which include proof that the required health tests for the breed have been undertaken and feedback from puppy buying customers, which will continue. In this incident the breeder was low volume and to our knowledge had sold just four puppies since 2008 and so had not been inspected and there had been no negative feedback from puppy buyers. The increased inspections that will begin when UKAS certification is officially launched will help to make the scheme even more robust and immediate action will always be taken if somebody is found to be acting against scheme rules."

Watch this space...