Bulldogs @ Crufts 2013 - Part 1

There's something odd that happens if you're around abnormality for long enough. You start to become desensitised to how grossly abnormal it is.

This is why the alarm about the severe morphological problems in some pedigree dogs took so long to register; why Bulldog breeders look at you in astonishment when you challenge the wisdom of breeding an animal that fails on so many basic functions (breathing and running freely, mating, whelping).

I am not immune to this process myself. I was ringside at the Bulldogs yesterday and they're beginning to look a bit less abnormal to me, too.

Now this is partly because they are a little better than they used to be. They are a little taller on the leg; there are some marginally more fluid movers (particularly the bitches which are smaller and lighter); some better breathers, too.

But let's not pretend that Bulldogs are anything other than a gross parody of what a dog should be - and it becomes painfully obvious when you photograph them.

The Bulldogs and most of the brachycephalic breeds were shown in Hall 4 at Crufts yesterday. It was markedly cooler than the other Halls - by design of course. The Bulldog ring was, as ever, deliberately positioned by a door kept open to aid the flow of cool air.

It was by no means warm, but not a single Bulldog that I saw in the hour or so I spent there could trot up and down in the ring yesterday without panting.

Here's the Bulldog bitch that went Best of Breed at Crufts yesterday.

This 19-month-old bitch was better than some - but is still breathing quite heavily in these pictures, several minutes after a brief trot round a cool ring.  Later in the group in the bigger Arena, where she had to trot a few metres further, she was quite obviously breathing heavily, too.

But she passed the vet check. So how come?

It's partly because the vet check isn't very taxing... the vets are not allowed to use any instruments; not even a stethescope. 

And it's partly because of the normalising process I mention above. 

The veterinary team at Crufts this year is headed by Andreas Schemel - a pug breeder and judge whose views on the breathing problems in flat-faced dogs are at odds with experts in the field. Contrary to most expert veterinary opinion, he insists that it is narrow nostrils, rather than the short muzzle, that is the main cause of the high prevalance of bracycephalic airway syndrome in Bulldogs, Boston Terriers, French Bulldogs, Pugs and Pekes. Schemel even opined recently that the "the presumption that a long nose is automatically healthier than a short one grossly simplifies the situation and still has to be proven."

Schemel believes that breeding for wider nares is the solution... ergo - da-daa-  you can keep the flat face. It's bollocks, of course. 

Yesterday, Schemel either did or oversaw the vet check on at least one of the brachycephalic breeds as he was in the vet-check booth with them. They all passed.

The other vets doing the vet checks are now under the KC's wing, too. They've been brought into the fold; introduced to breeders and attended Kennel Club health seminars - including a High Profile Breeds Education Day last month "showcasing the health work that has been undertaken by breeders and the progress that has been made."

I am sure they are all great vets, but immune to this kind of indoctrination? Of course not. They become desensitised - as described in 1997 in the Canadian Veterinary Journal by vet, Korarik Arman. In an article entitled A new direction for kennel club regulations and breed standards Arman wrote: 

"The high frequency of genetic disease that has developed in purebred dogs over the last century has resulted in the desensitization of society and veterinarians to the resultant welfare issues to such an extent that the production of anatomically deformed dogs, such as pugs and daschunds, is neither shocking nor considered abnormal. 

So vets start to think: "this breathing, this movement... hey, it's pretty good for a Bulldog" whereas what they must continue to ask is: is it good for a dog... 

Of course the breeders are happy. They have always whinged that the vets don't understand that Bulldogs, Bassets and the like are supposed to be like that.

The Bulldog judge yesterday was asked if she was seeing less extreme dogs coming through the ring now. Her reply? She never thought they were extreme.

I applaud the Kennel Club for introducing the vet checks. They have worked. The Best of Breed Basset and Bloodhound and Shar-pei at this year's Crufts are all more moderate dogs. But there must be no resting on laurels and the checks must  not be watered down.

Because, after all, where do we go from here? Given that the vast majority of Bulldogs are now passing the vet checks done by vets who are no longer as objective as they should be, are these oxygen-starved, shambling creatures with grossly undershot jaws and tongues too big for their mouths really as good as it gets?  See Bulldogs @ Crufts 2013 - Part 2 and decide for yourself.

Bulldogs @ Crufts 2013 - Part 2

Sore muzzle

Powder in the skin folds

Crufts 1927

Click to view..

This is British Pathe's earliest clip of Crufts - from 1927.  Have a look at the Great Danes. I grew up with Danes that looked pretty similar to this - lighter, more athletic, more moderate dogs than anything you see in the ring today with their bigger ear, exaggerated flews and - often - very loose eyes. This dog was photographed at Crufts last year.

Westies: how to make-up a champion

The Kennel Club has caved in regarding the use of cosmetic products on show dogs - after a breeder-protest (memorably dubbed "The Ellnet Revolution" by Dog World writer Kevin Colwill). Although,  technically,  the rules prohibiting the use of enhancing "product" on dogs are still in force, no one was taking a blind bit of notice on the Westie benches at Crufts today and no one was policing it.

Chalk, talc,Thick "n" Thicker, Ducky White, mousse and hairspray were all being used liberally.

'Cos nature doesn't make West Highland White Terriers white enough.

This in a dog breed that has a skin condition - Westie Itch - named after it.

Bull Terriers: head case

1915

This is what a Bull Terrier looked like 100 years ago - a fit and functional, well-balanced and in-proportion dog. Note in particular this dog's head... there's nothing abnormal here.

And here's a modern Bull Terrier - bred by a chap in called Lyndon Ingles in Wales who breeds for a Bull Terrier that is a working all-rounder. 

The breeder of that 1915 Bull Terrier would have no problems recognising Lyndon's dog. But what on earth would they make of these three Bull Terriers, shown at Crufts today? 

I always get a rise from the Bull Terrier breeders when I dare to mention that what they've done to the Bull Terrier's head is pointless and ugly. 

So I'll say it again.

What show breeders have done to the Bull Terrier's head is pointless and ugly. 

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.