Poodles - running out of time

Poodles are so broke genetically that only a concerted international effort from those that love the breed will save it, warns the Institute of Canine Biology.

In a strongly-worded open letter to the Poodle Club of Canada, the ICB urges breeders to stop squabbling over cosmetic issues such as the banning of parti-colours or it will be too late for the breed.

"That breeders could even be seriously considering removing dogs from the gene pool of the breed because they have one copy too many of a recessive allele for a purely cosmetic trait is simply breathtaking.  It reveals a profound and fundamental failure to appreciate the very dire genetic situation this breed is in."

The letter in full:

22 September 2013 

Mary Jane Weir  

President 

Poodle Club of Canada

An open letter to the Canadian Poodle clubs: 

We are dismayed to learn that there is organized resistance to the effort in Canada to remove the disqualification of particolor Standard Poodles and their progeny.  

The Standard Poodle has been the subject of extensive genetic research over the last few years.  The data produced by this work are chilling.  

The genetic diversity of the Standard Poodle has been reduced to the point where the immune system is seriously compromised. Without a competent immune system, dogs have no defense against the pathogens that we all encounter on a daily basis.  Further, loss of the ability of the immune system to distinguish between an external pathogen and its own tissue is being manifested as skyrocketing rates of autoimmune disorders such as Addison's disease and sebaceous adenitis.  These are horrible diseases for which there are no veterinary treatments adequate to restore an animal to normal health.  Genetic research can increase our understanding of the underlying pathology of inherited diseases in dogs, but there is nothing geneticists can do to "fix" this problem.  Many of the genes necessary for a functional immune system in Poodles have been lost from the breed's gene pool, and there is no modern technology that will restore it to proper function. 

At this point, genetic salvation of this breed is going to require a concerted effort by breeders to reduce additional loss of genetic diversity to an absolute minimum.  That breeders could even be seriously considering removing dogs from the gene pool of the breed because they have one copy too many of a recessive allele for a purely cosmetic trait is simply breathtaking.  It reveals a profound and fundamental failure to appreciate the very dire genetic situation this breed is in. 

There is no genetic technology that will restore the Standard Poodle breed to the good health that all dogs deserve.  This can only be accomplished by breeders, who must recognize that time is very quickly running out for this breed.  It is going to require a substantial realignment of priorities as well as an extraordinary level of cooperation among breeders around the world.  Geneticists can provide guidance in this process and there are many that are ready and willing to help.  But breeders need to know that it is possible to break something to the point where it cannot be fixed.  The responsibility to get this right is solely yours.

Carol Beuchat, PhDScientific DirectorInstitute of Canine Biology, USA&Department of Molecular and Cell BiologyUniversity of California Berkeley, USA 

Jonas Donner, PhDDirector of Research & DevelopmentMyDogDNA, Genoscoper Laboratories, Finland 

Iwona Głażewska, PhDAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Plant Taxonomy and Nature ConservationUniversity of Gdansk, Poland 

Claudia Melis, PhDResearch ScientistDepartment of BiologyNorwegian University of Science & Technology, Norway

Pieter Oliehoek PhD Conservation Biology & Canine Genetics Institute of Canine Biology, USA

CA SharpPresidentAustralian Shepherd Health & Genetics Institute, Incwww.ashgi.org

Finally, an organisation with two fully-descended testicles has stood up and called it as it is, rather than continue to pussyfoot round breeders with an appeasing grin and much hand-wringing about the need to keep everyone on board.

I am sure that Beuchat and her colleagues thought long and hard before writing a letter that so doesn't pull its punches. It should be hard to ignore given the quality of those signatures.

But there's no doubt that being this outspoken to dog breeders is a calculated risk. I know I won't be the only one holding my breath in the hope that it won't backfire.

That said...

The whole canine diversity movement was started by scientist and poodle lover , the late Dr John Armstrong. Thanks to his teaching (see The Poodle and the Chocolate Cake, written in 1998) and initiatives such as the Standard Poodle Project, the breed has been well-documented genetically. Indeed, Poodle breeders were among the first to embrace the need to reduce inbreeding - and the ICB's online course for Poodle breeders which started this week is, I hear, very well subscribed.

The ICB is also hosting an ambitious effort to create a global pedigree database for Standard Poodles - in fact being overseen by Mary Jane Weir, President of the Poodle Club of Canada (so one imagines she must be party to the above letter).  I'm a huge admirer of Mary Jane. She knows her stuff and has already done so much to raise awareness about the impact dwindling genetic diversity has on the immune system.

I hope the ICB now throws its weight behind a world genetics congress for the breed.

If Poodle breeders could come together now in an international conservation effort to show the rest of world how it's done, it would be amazing. And a fitting tribute to John Armstrong, who cared so passionately about his Poodles and wanted the world to care, too.

AKC PR offensive - good luck with that...

The AKC has decided to hire Edelman PR ("the world's largest public relations firm") to improve the image of AKC breeders.

In an extraordinary article for this month's Canine Chronicle (read it here), AKC Chairman Alan Kalter lays the blame for the AKC's decline and dwindling reputation entirely on the AR movement.

He writes:

"Just 20 years ago, a purebred dog was the dog to have in your life. Twenty years ago, a responsible breeder was viewed as a respected resource. Twenty years ago there were virtually no important legislative efforts aimed at eradicating all dog breeding.

"What changed in those 20 years? The noble quest to give every dog a “forever” home was co-opted by the animal rights organizations as a method to raise funds for their mission to completely eliminate pet ownership."

There isn't even a nod  to the fact that the AKC continues to embrace breeding practices that, if not modified, will lead to the genetic annihilation of all the breeds (or at least the AKC incarnation of them).

There's no mention of the fact that AKC shows continue to reward distortion, deformity and disease.

There's no acknowledgment at all of the responsibility the AKC needs to shoulder for chasing registration dollars rather than good health.

Kalter even goes so far as to say:

"As told by AR groups, purebred dogs have been wrongly defined as being plagued with genetic health and temperament problems caused by breeders."

But who else is to blame for Cavaliers with brain cases too small for their brains, or Boston Terriers that can't breathe or breed; or Rough Collies with eyes so small that they verge on micropthalmia?

Neither, when I last looked, was PETA the ones responsible for producing Shar-pei riddled with Shar-pei Fever and entropion, or Flatcoats shot through with cancer - or the growing number breeds falling apart with immune-mediated problems.

And neither is it the HSUS's fault that, for instance, the AKC (English) Bulldog standard still demands a "massive head"- refusing, even to embrace the breed standard modifications introduced in the breed's country of origin.

And, last time I looked, it wasn't the ASPCA that continues to suggest that mating mothers to son/fathers to daughters and brothers to sisters might actually be a good thing.  (See here.)

Instead, the AKC has resolutely stuck its heels in, resisted almost all reform, and fired off disparaging potshots at those KCs that have (partially) woken up and smelled the roses.

The AKC has built its house on sand and continues to stick its head into it. And yet Kalter maintains the concerns raised by critics are all "propaganda" and "fiction".

Sure, the anti-breeder camp overstates its case and blogs like mine tend to focus on the bad stuff.

And, sure, there are dedicated breeders that produce good dogs with love and care under the AKC umbrella.

But not to shoulder any responsibility at all for purebred dogs' falling star?

It is true that purebred dogs are in need of some good PR - and, actually, there's real potential to do a good job. Selectively-bred dogs produced by responsible breeders should be treasured and they do have some advantages over crossbreeds/mixed breeds.

But you don't do it by claiming that black is white.

How do you do it?

For a much smaller fee than Edelman PR, please feel free to ask. Although, gratis, I can tell you this:  it requires change. 

And it does not feature the sleight of brand involved in hiring a PR company to illuminate the good stuff while doing fuck-nothing about the bad stuff.

Every breed... every test... every lab.. Today's useful link

Click to enlarge

Want to check what DNA tests are available for your breed (or crossbreed) and which labs worldwide offer them?

You can now, here.

Thank you to PennGen at the University of Pennsylvania, the WSAVA and Waltham. I couldn't catch it out on a test-ride in terms of breed-specific tests offered - although I found the drop-down menus awkward to use and the info takes time to load on luddite internet connections.

But this is only a small niggle. It's a great resource.

Dogs - the elevator pitch

Last year, with little fuss, a bunch of smart dog and conservation people started the Institute of Canine Biology (ICB) - an essentially-online presence designed to act as a conduit between science and dog-breeders.

"The Institute of Canine Biology is an independent, international consortium of outstanding scientists that are working with the global network of dog breeders to manage and reduce the incidence of genetic disorders in dogs."

It's doing that by disseminating research in an engaging way and by offering online courses to dog breeders - both general courses in population genetics, and courses designed for specific breeds.

One for Poodle breeders this month, for instance, includes the latest research into the breed's DLA diversity, a wonderful initiative funded by the Poodle Club of Canada in collaboration with Dr Lorna Kennedy at the University of Manchester.

(DLA analysis looks specifically at genes that code for immune function, of interest to any breed that suffers from immune-mediated conditions as it may provide a way to breed dogs with more robust immune systems.)

The ICB is also hosting The Global Pedigree Project which has the ambitious aim of creating a centralised, free database of the pedigree history of every purebred dog - an international effort that "will bring together pedigree information that is presently scattered among kennel clubs around the world and consolidate it so that the entire history of a breed will be traceable from founders to present day dogs."

The ICB is the brainchild of Carol Beuchat, a biologist and photographer with a lifelong passion for dogs, and she has brought to the party an impressive list of international names.  These include Bob Lacy, a conservation guru who has revolutionised wild animal conservation with two key pieces of software - one that models genetic viability (Vortex); and the other a kind of match.com for managed species (PMx).

I spoke to Bob when we were researching the first Pedigree Dogs Exposed to ask if he might be interested in modelling dog populations. He was, but there was nothing that could be done in time for the film. Bob and Carol have already worked together on a paper looking at the genetic management of Basenjiis (link).

Other interesting names at the ICB include:

• French geneticist Grégoire Leroy, who has published several key papers on dog breeding, including several looking at vulnerable French breeds
• population geneticist Katariina Maki who works with the Finnish Kennel Club and is the author of key papers examining genetic diversity in Lancashire Heelers and Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers (the latter much discussed here).
• CA Sharp, a renowned lay expert on the genetics of Australian Shepherds who runs the fantastic ASHGI (Australian Shepherd Health and Genetics Institute) - a website offering much to breeders of other breeds, too.  Sharp has been a tour-de-force in Aussies for several years.

The ICB has been up and running since spring 2012 and Carol has just written what she calls an "elevator pitch" on what dog breeders need to know (and what the ICB's population genetics courses cover).

Now it has to be said that it would have to be a very high building with a bloody slow elevator to qualify. But, in a nutshell, this is what it's all about:

1) All the useful genetic variation your breed will ever have was in the dogs that founded the breed. This genetic diversity is finite.

2) Every generation, alleles are lost by chance (genetic drift) and also by artificial selection by breeders, who select for dogs with the traits they like, and remove other dogs from the breeding population.

3) Because the stud book is closed, genes that are lost cannot be replaced.

4) So,  from the moment a breed is founded and the stud book is closed, loss of genetic diversity over time is inevitable and relentless.

5) You cannot remove a single gene from a population. You must remove an entire dog, and all the genes it has.

6) You cannot select for or against a single gene, because genes tend to move in groups with other genes. If you select for (or against) one, you select for (or against) them all.

7) Breeding for homozygosity of some traits breeds for homozygosity of all traits. Homozygosity is the kiss of death to the immune system. And as genetic variability decreases, so does the ability of the breeder to improve a breed through selection, because selection it requires variability.

The consequences of inbreeding (in all animals) are insidious but obvious if you look - decreased fertility, difficulty whelping, smaller litters, higher puppy mortality, puppies that don't thrive, shorter lifespan, etc. Genetically healthy dogs should get pregnant if mated. They should have large litters of robust puppies, with low pup mortality. Animals that cannot produce viable offspring are removed by natural selection.

9) Mutations of dominant genes are removed from the population if they reduce fitness. Mutations of recessive alleles have no effect unless they are homozygous. So rare alleles are not removed, and every animal has them.

10) Create a bunch of puppies that have a (previously) rare mutation, and the frequency of that bad allele in the population increases, so the chance of homozygosity increases.

11) Genetic disorders caused by recessive alleles don't "suddenly appear" in a breed. The defective gene was probably there all along. Make a zillion copies, and you have a disease.

12) Using DNA testing to remove disease genes will not make dogs healthier (see 2, 5, and 6).

13) The breed will continue to lose genes (by chance or selection) until the gene pool of the breed no longer has the genes necessary to build a healthy dog.

14) At this point, the breed might look beautiful (because of selection for type), but will suffer from the ill effects of genetic impoverishment.

15) The only way to improve the health of a breed is to manage the health of the breed's gene pool.

16) The health of individual dogs cannot be improved without improving the genetic health of the population. Population genetics provides the tools for genetic management of populations of animals.

17) Breeders can improve the health of the dogs they breed if they understand and use the tools of population genetics.

I am full of admiration for Carol for having the energy and commitment to set up the ICB. It's a fantastic, practical resource for dog breeders and others interested in canine genetics - one of several recent initiatives, as it happens, designed to encourage dog breeders to embrace the bigger picture of breed conservation.

The ICB has just launched on Facebook, too - find and like it here.

Kennel Club is praised in sequel to "German Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

The first "German PDE" aired in Germany in August 2011 - a film by Phillip Hampl. Rather memorably, it kicked off with the mating of a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever to an Australian Shepherd, triggering swathes of German breeders to hyperventilate in horror.

Last night, Hampl returned to German screens with his sequel, which ended with a gathering of the now-adult offspring of that union trotting attractively around a beautiful field of wild-flowers - the not-so subliminal message: crossbreeding is one way out of the mess.

Hampl's original film did not provoke the reform in Germany that Pedigree Dogs Exposed triggered here in the UK.  In his sequel, Hampl urges the German Kennel Club - the VDH - to do more, and holds up the UK Kennel Club as something of an exemplar.

You can watch Hampl's sequel here. It features a fair bit of Crufts footage, including the ghastly-looking guppy-Pug above and something I had missed when I was there - which is that the Best of Breed Bulldog was wheeled to her vet check. I mean, really!

Hopefully Hampl's film will increase pressure on the VDH to do more - and the timing is pretty good. The 2nd International Workshop on Enhancement of Genetic Health in Pedigree Dogs is being held in Düsseldorf next year. If Hampl is right in his assessment of the situation in Germany, there's a very real danger of it being a whitewash - despite the Swedes' best efforts to secure reform.

The 1st workshop, in Sweden last year, managed to get a lot of Kennel Clubs - and other key stakeholders in canine genetic health - round the table for the first time. Progress report on that to come shortly...

How f****d is that doggy in the window?

Well, would you buy it? 

No?

And yet on sale at Harrods in London this week:

Click to enlarge

Of course, many people reading this will express horror at the price - or that Harrods are selling puppies at all (with Kennel Club registration I might add). 

But, for me, the interesting part is the refreshing honesty displayed on this notice at Harrods - a great deal more honest, as it happens, than the Kennel Club is on its breed information health pages. (Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself here... not a single mention of respiratory problems for any of the brachycephalic breeds). Now I know this is likely due to Harrods' need to cover its commercial arse, but still... what a shame that the Kennel Club isn't similarly obliged.

Here's what it says on the Harrods notice:

"Health: Can be prone to joint diseases, spinal disorders, heart defects and eye problems. They can also have respiratory problems and tend to wheeze and snore and have trouble in hot weather. An overweight Frenchie may have trouble breathing, because of a swollen abdomen."

And still they buy!

PS: anyone want to have a bash at illustrating a Borsche Pugster for me...?

Five years on - is the Kennel Club no longer the enemy?

Prof Steve Dean used his "state of the nation" speech at last week's Welsh Kennel Club annual dinner as an opportunity to say that the Kennel Club is no longer seen as "the enemy" but as part of the solution.

This is half-true. Putting right the mess that Kennel Club breeding has made of purebred dogs does, indeed, lie at least partly in the Kennel Club's gift. And there's no doubt that most of the establishment stakeholders - the vets, welfare groups, Dog Advisory Council etc - have made the decision to work with the Kennel Club to improve dog health.

That's simply what the Establishment does. So having decided not to drive the Kennel Club out of town (one option that was considered, and at a very high level, post-Pedigree Dogs Exposed), the only other option was to agree to get round a table and talk.

You can't do that by treating people as the enemy - actually one of the reasons the RSPCA's Mark ("a parade of mutants") Evans was so unwelcome at stakeholder meetings after PDE. Mark continued to speak his mind.

So, five years on from Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which premiered in the UK five years ago this week, where are we now?

Significant reform introduced by the UK Kennel Club since Pedigree Dogs Exposed - and the three major reports into dog breeding that followed - includes:


• a review of breed standards, leading to (mostly minor) changes being made to around a third.
• the banning of first-degree-relative matings
• better training for - and monitoring of - judges
• Mate Select
• the expansion of the high-profile breed list
• funding of the Kennel Club Genetics Centre at the Animal Health Trust
• vet checks at Crufts for the high-profile breeds
• a limit of two C-sections per bitch
• a considerably-improved Assured Breeder Scheme
• independent experts added to the KC's Dog Health Group

Other key non-KC progress includes:

•  the establishment of VetCompass, which is gathering vital epidemiological data (and which has just secured funding for a further three years' work thanks to Dogs Trust)

• the Dog Advisory Council (funding of which is on rather shakier ground)

• a new Puppy Contract setting out a minimum standard for breeders and buyers. This was launched last year without much publicity and without Kennel Club endorsement. The KC is now, however, collaborating with the other stakeholders and the hope that it will result in a revised, universal puppy contract with buy-in from all stakeholders. The simple message -  do not buy or sell a dog without one - has considerable potential.

The KC is also now collaborating with stakeholders (via a working party chaired by Professor Patrick Bateson) on an initiative from the Dog Advisory Council to produce a universal breeding standard  with all-party buy-in. (The DAC's current draft can be downloaded here).

All this is  helpful.

But the core problem remains a much more fundamental one - and that is that the Kennel Club system stinks. Kennel Club shows continue to reward the appearance of health/and the show world is, in the main, driven by distorted sense of what is correct.

The Kennel Club also continues to peddle the lie that DNA tests are the answer to purebred dog health (when they can only ever be a small part of any solution) and despite more general awareness about the perils of inbreeding, the KC is still not addressing genetic diversity in any meaningful way.

There is still no sign of the effective population size figures for individual breeds promised by the KC months ago - and I fear that if I (and others) don't continue to nag, that they will never see the light of day. This will be for the obvious reason that they are concrete proof of the dire straits many breeds are in genetically. I understand the reluctance to let people like me shout "I told you so!", but believe me it would give me no pleasure other than that it would be, I hope, a call to arms to address the fact that many breeds are heading for the genetic scrap heap.

This week, to mark the 5th anniversary of PDE, the RSPCA has called for the Kennel Club to do more - including an independent review of breed standards, further limits on inbreeding, a limit on popular sires and the opening of the stud books (see here).

Being seen to agree with anything that the RSPCA says or does is an invitation to be pissed on from a great height by many dog breeders for whom the RSPCA has become Public Enemy No One. But the RSPCA is right on this issue and I am glad it is still rattling the KC's cage.

I gave them the following quote - an abridged version of which appears in a press release supporting this week's statement:

Five years on from Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the Kennel Club is still in denial about the extent of the problems   

The Kennel Club continues to embrace scientifically and morally bankrupt breeding practices which condemn some dogs to enormous suffering.  By any measure, it is unethical to continue to breed dogs like Pugs and Bulldogs which have such flat faces that they cannot breathe - and yet the Kennel Club registers these breeds in their growing thousands and these dogs continue to be celebrated at Kennel Club shows.   

The same goes for Dachshunds who have such long backs and such short legs that their spines crumble; for Cavalier King Charles Spaniels who are blighted by a skull/brain-size mismatch that predisposes them to horrific pain. Then there are German Shepherds who are quite simply crippled by the warped ideal imposed on them by breeders and Shar-pei bred to a Kennel Club breed standard that demands wrinkles that we now know are linked to a horrific condition that destroys their livers.  The KC has done too little to tackle the suffering these dogs endure, despite an increasing amount of science which both articulates the issues and offers solutions.   

It is also unethical that the Kennel Club continues to endorse inbreeding. You can still, for instance, mate grandfathers to grand-daughters and then mate the offspring back to their great-grandfather. It's a mess genetically and if it isn't addressed many breeds will go to the wall, bred to oblivion. I find it a particular tragedy that breeders who do see the problems and want change are often dismissed as cranks and trouble-makers by those clinging to the status quo. 

If the Kennel Club was the welfare organisation that its glossy PR would have you believe, it would be doing so much more to put this right. The problem is that, at its heart it is a trade organisation that represents those who don't want change.  The dogs continue to pay a huge price."

The Chairman's speech at the WKC dinner last week contained a classic piece of Kennel Club PR. As reported in this week's Dog World, Professor Dean talked of "the increasing acceptance that the source of much of the poor health and welfare of recognised breeds lay outside the KC registration system."

Pure misdirection.

Dean added that "......microchips will help us demonstrate how the vast majority of those who register dogs with the KC are the people to be cherished and encouraged."

There is nothing more than anecdote and wishful thinking to support the implication that KC registered dogs are - overall - in some way healthier, and many reasons to believe that it may not be true.

That there are major problems outside of the KC registrations system is of course evident - and, conversely, many KC breeders go the extra mile for their dogs. But there are likely to be shining examples of robust health outside of the KC system, particularly in our working terriers, collies, lurchers and hounds. I suspect there is less inbreeding in the pet market, too  - while puppy farmers (for all their ills) are probably less likely to tolerate dogs than can't mate or birth without assistance because it's too expensive.

Meanwhile, only 13 per cent of dogs registered with the KC are bred under the Accredited Breeder Scheme and they are the only dogs subject to any husbandry/welfare/health requirements (and even then many breeds - even some of the sickest - are not subject to any health-testing requirements whatsoever). The rest? We simply don't know how well or badly bred they are.

VetCompass is looking at this, as it happens - funded by the Kennel Club, I am sure in its conviction that KC registered dogs truly are healthier.

But we don't know yet, and Prof Dean has no basis for claiming it.

Meanwhile, to the question in the title... is the Kennel Club still the enemy?

Tell me what you think.