Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Jon Bray — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:34:01 GMT

Yes, any population will have inbreeding (I seem to recall reading somewhere that after about eight generations the average UK caucasian family tree starts getting smaller again!) but as you say it is less of an issue if natural selection weeds out those with poor survival.

I was interested by your comments on the "designer breed" - my initial feeling was that crossing (eg) labradors and poodles sounded like an excellent way of widening the gene pool and reducing issues such as HD. I read in a recent Vet Record that the incidence of a certain type of retinal disease is about 4% in labradoodles though - much higher than in either of the parent breeds. I think the suggestion given was that labradoodles were subject to inbreeding at the F1 stage which does seem an awful shame.

Regarding your request for feedback regarding the KC making "contracts" with vets. I would think very carefully before assuming that a liason between KC and BVA will be an altogether effective way of doing this as, rightly or wrongly, many vets don't feel that the BVA is relevant to them.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:33:49 GMT

[quote user="Jon Bray"]

Surely "pedigree" is merely a euphemism for "inbred" - with all the potential for doubling up of recessive alleles that that implies? You can potentially do tests for some of these but not all.

[/quote]

Too simplistic in my view. Any population has a degree of inbreeding. Humans have pedigrees (family trees) and over time the world population is gradually becoming more inbred. Wild animals in packs, herds and flocks have a degree of inbreeding especially where a dominant sire persists for a number of years.

Inbreeding increases the risk of mutations producing an alteration in anatomical or physiological features. If they produce an advantage then the chance of survival increases. If the change is detrimental the reverse is true. However man has altered the normal (and brutal) natural pressures on survival and taken over the responsibility for the breeding of domestic animals. In my view there is little point trying to alter this.

Pedigree breeding increases the predictability of the characteristics of the progeny but increases the risk of an inherited disease mnaifesting itself. The former offers advantages and is probably why so many people seek a pedigree dog rather than a mongrel. Appearance, size, type of coat, exercise requirements and temperament are all more predictable with pedigree dogs.

The counter argument is the incidence of inherited disease. We are learning how to cope with the relatively easy mutant autosomal recessive gene and developing techniques to reduce the impact of the polygenic diseases. Yet the bottom line remains - the public prefer pedigree dogs to mongrels. They are even trying to invent new breeds by crossing existing ones (but have not yet realised that F1 crosses do not breed predictably). I fear the so-called 'designer breed' is the profession's next big challenge.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:15:32 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Exactly. You make some regulations and police them. Any breeder who wants to "get on" in the breeding-showing-breeding world has little option but to play the KC game. The KC has attained this power by the classic tactics. The KC does not "regulate nearly all the activities..........." although no doubt it would like to.

[quote user="Steve Dean"]I find your comment about a contract depressing and I hope it is not representative of the profession as a whole. How then do we forge an effective relationship with the veterinary profession so we can move forward as other contributors have suggested would be beneficial? Or is this all about money?[/quote]

Who mentioned money? I did not. I'm sorry to depress you. Do you hope that the profession as a whole does have some sort of contract (or agreement, or "memorandum of understanding" () ) to assist your club in its activities?

[/quote]

I guess we just idffer here in our views. If you want to show your dog, compete in KC activities (flyball, obedience, field trials, working trials, heelwork to music, agility etc) then you pay by the regualtiosn and rules or you play elsewhere. I call that regulation.

As to the second part I am interested in improving th health of all dogs. If the KC needs a contract with each vet we will consider it. The BVA-AWF has just produced a puppy contract - do we need somethig like this to get vets to take part in the ambition to improve canine health? I would be happy to hear from you what you believe would engage the profession.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:03:12 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]THis demonstrates there are problems but there are dogs that can live long lives.[/quote]

These are very depressing figures.

Perhaps all bulldog puppies should have a cigarette-like health warning attached......

What about having a "senior" class at Crufts?

Open to dogs over, say, 10 years. You know, like golf.

That would bring the Arnold Palmers of the dog world to the fore, accent the blood lines that are long-lived and highlight problems that become exaggerated with age.

[/quote]

Most shows have veterans classes usually 7 years or over but some split the class and have a second at 10 years plus. The Best in Show at Crufts last year and this year were veterans. Veterasn wuite often win Best of Breed. So I agree with your sentiment and am on record as stating to several breeds that if they bred for longevity it would be a good start.

Please do not misunderstand my view on bulldogs. I cannot defend the worst in the breed's history but believe me when I say that many of the breeders understand the problems and are trying very hard to reverse the situation. They have always been there but they now feel supported and are coming more to the fore. The next 5 years will reveal how serious the breed is but in the interim I will defend and suport them if the trend is in the right direction but they do have a mountain to climb.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:51:06 GMT

Sorry the stats post went haywire with too many copies of the data - I am still an amateur at this stuff

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:48:14 GMT

[quote user="Jon Bray"]

List of most popular breeds in the general population, from a survey by the KC:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/887

I think I remember seeing another one in a tabloid (only because I was cleaning out some kennels and there were no page three's to look at instead, honest) which put the pug at number 7, so hopefully the KC one is closer to the truth!

EDIT: I noticed that the KC survey is 2006, and I remember the tabloid one also recorded the change vs last year - pugs had suddenly got a whole lot more popular so maybe they're both right. :-(

[/quote]

2010 top 10:

Labs; Cockers; Springers; GSD; Staffords; Border Terriers; Cavaliers; Golden Retrievers; Pug; Boxer

2005 top 10:

Labs; Cockers; Springers; GSD; Staffords; Cavaliers: Golden Retrievers; Westies; Boxer; Border Terriers.

Pugs in 2006 were 20th (2681 registrations); In 2010 5726 registered.

1.	Retriever (Labrador)	44,099
2.	Spaniel (Cocker)	23,744
3.	Spaniel (English Springer)	13,988
4.	German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian)	10,364
5.	Staffordshire Bull Terrier	8,663
6.	Border Terrier	8,383
7.	Cavalier King Charles Spaniel	8,154
8.	Retriever (Golden)	7,911
9.	Pug	5,726
10.	Boxer	5,699
11.	Miniature Schnauzer	5,651
12.	West Highland White Terrier	5,361
13.	Shih Tzu	5,247
14.	Lhasa Apso	4,865
15.	Bulldog	4,746
16.	Whippet	3,557
17.	Yorkshire Terrier	3,441
18.	Beagle	2,877
19.	Dogue de Bordeaux	2,841
20.	Dachshund (Miniature Smooth-Haired)	2,802

1.	Retriever (Labrador)	44,099
2.	Spaniel (Cocker)	23,744
3.	Spaniel (English Springer)	13,988
4.	German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian)	10,364
5.	Staffordshire Bull Terrier	8,663
6.	Border Terrier	8,383
7.	Cavalier King Charles Spaniel	8,154
8.	Retriever (Golden)	7,911
9.	Pug	5,726
10.	Boxer	5,699
11.	Miniature Schnauzer	5,651
12.	West Highland White Terrier	5,361
13.	Shih Tzu	5,247
14.	Lhasa Apso	4,865
15.	Bulldog	4,746
16.	Whippet	3,557
17.	Yorkshire Terrier	3,441
18.	Beagle	2,877
19.	Dogue de Bordeaux	2,841
20.	Dachshund (Miniature Smooth-Haired)	2,802

1.	Retriever (Labrador)	44,099
2.	Spaniel (Cocker)	23,744
3.	Spaniel (English Springer)	13,988
4.	German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian)	10,364
5.	Staffordshire Bull Terrier	8,663
6.	Border Terrier	8,383
7.	Cavalier King Charles Spaniel	8,154
8.	Retriever (Golden)	7,911
9.	Pug	5,726
10.	Boxer	5,699
11.	Miniature Schnauzer	5,651
12.	West Highland White Terrier	5,361
13.	Shih Tzu	5,247
14.	Lhasa Apso	4,865
15.	Bulldog	4,746
16.	Whippet	3,557
17.	Yorkshire Terrier	3,441
18.	Beagle	2,877
19.	Dogue de Bordeaux	2,841
20.	Dachshund (Miniature Smooth-Haired)	2,802

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:34:10 GMT

[quote user="Jon Bray"]

Steve, does the KC's registration contract with the Breeder specify that vets can report conformation-changing surgery the same way as they can a caesarian? I came across an orthodontic procedure recently where the uninsured client has apparently paid for twenty GAs in an attempt to fix her entire bitch's malocclusion rather than just shortening a couple of lower canines and am assuming it is for show reasons.

[/quote]

Yes it covers any surgery that modifies natural conformation. This embraces nearly everything and given some of the techniques being used to repair cruciates these days these are also included. Interestingly most of the notifications we receive come from the owners themselves. Vet reports are so rare they casue quite stir when we get them. The good news is we are receiving some vet reports on caesars (I will check the numbers) but nowhere near the real figure I am pretty sure.

For information the staement the owner signs reads:

I/we confirm and agree that any Veterinary Surgeon performing a caesarean section and/or an operation on any of my/our

dogs in such a way that the operation alters the natural conformation of the dog or any part thereof may submit a report to

the Kennel Club

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Joyce Whitehead — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:51:36 GMT

I've found a KC one for 2010 here -

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3714

Of course for instance Staffies are number 5, but their true numbers are so much higher as a large number are not registered. Ditto the fact that no crossbreeds (designer dogs if you like) are included. I see very few bulldogs, and have no breeders of them, but have in the past worked in practices that did, and generally the breeder would phone up requesting a caeser as soon as first stage labour started. In fact my first ever caeser was in a bulldog that was having her third litter (and therefore third caeser), not ideal for a new graduate - lots of adhesions and panicking!

We don't have many non working dog breeders (mainly spaniels and labs) so don't therefore do huge numbers of caesers on registered bitches, but I will bear in mind the reporting issue for the future.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Jon Bray — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:37:52 GMT

List of most popular breeds in the general population, from a survey by the KC:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/887

EDIT: I noticed that the KC survey is 2006, and I remember the tabloid one also recorded the change vs last year - pugs had suddenly got a whole lot more popular so maybe they're both right. :-(

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Jon Bray — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:35:08 GMT

I've always thought of myself as being vehemently anti-bulldog - to the point of spending quite some time trying to get the RCVS to agree that a vet is allowed to refuse to caesar a bulldog without a concomitant spay (long story (opinions differ, if you do then for heaven's sake give owner fair warning and write your reasoning down) - probably easier to have a clause on your consent form giving permission to report the operation to the KC (±RSPCA ±police on basis of possible AWA infringement )). Up until recently I thought that made me automatically anti-KC as well, given about the only time it comes up in consultations is when I have to convince an owner that I don't give a damn what the chart on the wall says Buster's "ideal" weight should be, his BCS tells me he's Too Bloody Fat).

However a lot of what Steve Dean has said rings true. I experience enough cognitive dissonance whenever I see a happy bulldog (and most of them do actually seem pretty happy (obviously proof that oxygen is overrated)) to realise I'm pretty blatantly biased against the breed and anyone who thinks perpetuating it is a good idea, but if the KC stopped registering them the Bulldog club would just branch off by itself. If, for whatever reason, the KC has become more vocal in advocacy of breeding for increased welfare now is not the time to withhold support. It surely doesn't need a contract with us to appeal to our moral duty to report caesarians to it. How about a poll of which practices do report caesars to the KC (or don't but promise to start doing so from now on) Arlo?

It has always been my feeling that Bulldogs are generally going to need a caesar, but then there is obviously a bias involved as the breeders we see tend to assume a caesar will be necessary and generally request an elective caesarian - obviously we don't see the ones which do whelp at home and I for one would be nervous for both ethical and legal reasons about forcing a bitch to whelp naturally when I considered it highly likely that a caesar would eventually be necessary..

The KCs results are likely to be skewed the other way as some breeders will presumably register litters without reporting caesarians - I'd like to know what their statistic is though. The more of us report caesars to the KC the more accurate their stats get.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Jon Bray — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:09:48 GMT

[quote user="Joyce Whitehead"]Agreed! Don't envy him/her though - suspect there will be flack flying soon. It is a good start, but in a sense surely all of them should be checked pre show rather than just BOB winners? I wonder if these particular dogs will be able to continue to be shown. It certainly sends a message to the judges though...[/quote]

Hmm. I think it maybe gives a stronger statement to say "this is what the judges consider to be the epitome of what the breed should be - and we're disqualifying it for welfare reasons".

Much as I applaud the KC starting these vet checks I do wonder if a scar from a small ulcer was a valid reason to disqualify a bulldog - that said it may not have been obvious whether the ulcer was current or not without the use of fluorescein and in that case it would be perfectly reasonable not to sign off on it. The breeder vitriol I read was focussing on the "illegal" use of a torch* and I'm not sure why the KC put in the requirement for no tools to be used.

*One wonders whether they'd have been similarly scathing about the use of any kind of artificial lighting - bearing in mind that the NIA has no windows..:-)

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Jon Bray — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:58:01 GMT

[quote user="astraldream"]If there is a litter of Labradors for sale, KC reg, HIP/ELBOW tested and thought has gone into the mating and then around the corner is a litter of Labradors cross with something else no health tests performed no consideration to the mating no idea of what the progeny will look like or behave like why is the cross more desirable?[/quote]

Surely "pedigree" is merely a euphemism for "inbred" - with all the potential for doubling up of recessive alleles that that implies? You can potentially do tests for some of these but not all.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:19:15 GMT

[quote user="Steve Dean"]No I mean we make the regulations and police them. If an owner registers their dogs with us and competes with them then you play by Kennel Club rules and regulations. We do not have a legal vires to do this so inclusion is voluntary but very real. Unlike the law if you opearate by co-operation then you have to deliver a suitable environment.[/quote]

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Malcolm Ness — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:44:23 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]The KC has now been forced by a TV programme to face some of the issues and to their credit are doing it in a really positive way. This must continue and opened up to more public scrutiny.[/quote]

The KC was active here long before the TV programme. However, the programme, through the law of unintended consequences, has, I think made the KC's job rather easier.

Whilst I am no great fan of the Bulldog, I can report that over recent years we have seen a couple of Bulldog bitches going into labour at a time when their own vet ( a Bulldog Specialist - I am not commenting, only reporting!) was unavailable to perform the planned elective caesar. Both bitches whelped naturally. Again, I am not commenting, only reporting.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Anthony Todd — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 03:22:51 GMT

[quote user="Steve Dean"]THis demonstrates there are problems but there are dogs that can live long lives.[/quote]

These are very depressing figures.

Perhaps all bulldog puppies should have a cigarette-like health warning attached......

What about having a "senior" class at Crufts?

Open to dogs over, say, 10 years. You know, like golf.

That would bring the Arnold Palmers of the dog world to the fore, accent the blood lines that are long-lived and highlight problems that become exaggerated with age.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:08:51 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]The KC is not simply about pedigree dogs as we also regulate nearly all the activities that involve dogs with the exception of greyhound racing.[/quote]

Er, don't you mean try to, or would like to, or have ambitions to, or will adopt aggressive tactics to, regulate.................? As far as I know the Kennel Club (private club) has no statutory powers.

[quote user="Steve Dean"]If the profession truly wants to make a difference to canine health it could start by reporting surgery to alter natural conformation to the Kennel Club.[/quote]

I have no contract with this private club to assist it in its activities, praiseworthy though some of those activities might be.

[/quote]

No I mean we make the regulations and police them. If an owner registers their dogs with us and competes with them then you play by Kennel Club rules and regulations. We do not have a legal vires to do this so inclusion is voluntary but very real. Unlike the law if you opearate by co-operation then you have to deliver a suitable environment.

I find your comment about a contract depressing and I hope it is not representative of the profession as a whole. How then do we forge an effective relationship with the veterinary profession so we can move forward as other contributors have suggested would be beneficial? Or is this all about money?

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:56:10 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Mr Dean, we can all tell stories. I have in the past 4 months I have seen 5 bulldogs of varying provenance die from acute respiratory failure from things an innocuous as an general anaesthetic or kennel cough, directly related to their conformation; 3 daschunds with IVDD; and 3 CKCS with syringomyelia. I suppose it depends where you draw your line in the sand as a veterinary surgeon: to me, for instance, a breed that only 'many' can actually - as a dog, can you imagine! - breath normally is completely unacceptable and even one dog that has been bred for pure vanity, and its bedpartner money, to die a horrible death or live a life of misery because of this is one too many.

Can you really not see how your organisation, by endorsing breeds that by common scientific sense are barely compatiable with a normal dog's life, are perpetuating the situation? You may wish to spin this as overbearing veterinary surgeons telling people how to behave, but the real problem lies with the fact these dogs are desirable - both financially to churn them out as breeders, and in vanity terms for owners. To cast a veterinary surgeon, using hos or her scienitific knowledge to call a breed a freak, as some sort of extreme dictator is peculiar - surely, as we swore, nonetheless, we have animal welfare at the heart of what we do - whilst politely ignoring the utter ignorance of these problems or their breeds extreme nature by the dog owning public (they pay your wages after all) is a bizarre stance for you as a veterinary surgeon to take. The quickest and easiest way for the KC - if that's what you're truly interested in doing - to improve dogs' welfare is simply to stop registering the extreme breeds. But let's be serious here - you need to maintain the KC's existence so that ain't going to happen.

Furthermore, if anecdote is the only evidence on which you rest your argument

[quote user="Steve Dean"]The vast majority live active lives at home which is not appraciated.[/quote]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]many of these dogs can breathe normally and do not collapse in the way you describe.[/quote]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]I have in the past walked my Border Terriers with a friends Pugs across fields and they kept up with and lasted as long as my terriers did.[/quote]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]The simple fact is there are bulldogs being bred that self whelp, breathe normally, no longer have screw tails and are fit and active[/quote]

then this is bloody worrying. Do you seriously believe what you have written, from a veterinary surgeon's perspective? Do you have any sort of objective figures to back this up? Is this the sort of tittle tattle upon which KC policy is based?

[quote user="Steve Dean"]the breeds will work with us[/quote]

Or "continue to pay our fees whilst making token gestures at improvement". You have so far ruled out 'exaggeration', whatever that means. Please do divulge any further 'working with breeds' that is currently ongoing.

[/quote]

My point is the Bulldog breed is trying hard to improve. Around 5,000 Bull dogs are registered each year but this is only about half of those actually bred as many are produced by the puppy farms for money. Figures for dachshunds are about the same number of registrations and Cavaliers number some 8,000 per year. All are produced by those who do not register their too.

Cardiac diseaes (20%) is the commonest cause of death of the Bulldog which in a KC breed health survey had an average life-span of 6years 3 months but a range from 10 months to 14 years 5 months. THis demonstrates there are problems but there are dogs that can live long lives. Cavaliers however had an average age at death of 11y 3m a range of 2m to 18y 6m and the commonest casue of death related to cardiac disease. Neurologic diseases represented around 3% of deaths. This pattern is reproduced by Swedish data on the breed. Dachshunds average age at death is 12 yrs 8m with a range of 4m to 19y and neurologic diseases including IVDD represented 11% of deaths.

Personally I do not buy this 'one too many line' you have trotted out as you can find disease in mongrels that leads to an unhappy miserble life but I can guess your response to that given it does not fit the line you take. In my view you have a number of misconceptions in common with many others. The majority of pedigree breeds are generally healthy. They have an incidence of inherited diseases but that is because we know their genetics and can identify mutations. THis cannot be done so readily with mongrels and crossbreeds but they also suffer from inherited diseases. Most breeders who register do not make money out of breeding dogs. The average breeder registers just one litter every three years - not a high profit industry. Look to the puppy farmers who care not a jot about health for the source of many of your clinical cases.

Those who bother to research the KC will find an organisation that has been working for many years to improve pedigree dog health.The TV programme allowed us to speed up our work as it was in fact the veterinary profession and public that was galvanised by what was a very biased piece of journalism. However the rofession is still ot really fulfilling its moral duty in my view. Any profit the KC makes is ploughed back into health research and welfare support (for all dogs) and just for the record I receive no wages for what I do it is my contribution back into the health initiative for dogs.

However it would appear that many vets can only complain and point fingers of blame without appreciating the scope of the problem. The word breeder is used without understanding there are many types of breeder and not all of them (about half actually) register their dogs with the KC.

The KC (an I) are interested in promoting healthy dogs and it is possible to breed what you call extreme breeds to live a healthy life. However if we banned them from registration they would simply go on outside of our influence, where then does improvement come from? My knowledge is based on experience as is yours. Only you see a handful of dogs per week and I see thousands. Take a trip to a dog show (not a local open show but a serious champioship show where 6-8 thousand dogs will be present over three or four days and take a walk around. Yes you will see some with problems but the vast majority will be healthy. However I accept I see the 2-4 % that make the show ring and you see the dogs that have problems but how many are there in the middle that only pitch up to the vet for vaccination?

Veterinary surgeons can play their part by reporting caesareans, surgery that changes natural conformation and taking part in health schemes. Of course none of this will make any money but I assume that is not a key issue where the health and welfare of the nation's dogs are concerned. David you accuse me of lacking data or ignoring science - where is your data or is yours just based on peer opinion and a few dogs that pass through your hands? Do you even know how many of the dogs you see are registered with the KC or is this another piece of assumed information?

I simply want you and colleagues to take time to understand the issues, the KC and the work we and the breed clubs are doing. You can make a difference but only if the profession contributes positively.

Well done by the way your response raised my pulse rate quite a bit.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Anthony Todd — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 01:14:18 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]Instead of having to deal with the clamouring and complaints of dozens of entrants per breed who got "gated"[/quote]

Just do a cat show! Dog shows are a Sunday morning walk in the park by comparison.

And the "gaters" were just that; in a pen by the entrance in full view of all, because of a suspicious skin, which could be ringworm, when a published report on long-haired asymptomatic ringworm carriers was in the news..... I think the incidence was around 30%!

And if you think some dog breeds have flat faces just look at the long-haired cat breeds and see if you can see a patent nasolacrimal duct!

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Lorna McHardy — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:41:38 GMT

[quote user="Steve Dean"]

The simple fact is there are bulldogs being bred that self whelp, breathe normally, no longer have screw tails and are fit and active. I hope some of them reach your surgery soon.

[/quote]

Well, if they do, it'll be a first!

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:42:54 GMT

[quote user="Steve Dean"]The KC is not simply about pedigree dogs as we also regulate nearly all the activities that involve dogs with the exception of greyhound racing.[/quote]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]If the profession truly wants to make a difference to canine health it could start by reporting surgery to alter natural conformation to the Kennel Club.[/quote]

I have no contract with this private club to assist it in its activities, praiseworthy though some of those activities might be.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Bob Russell — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:52:37 GMT

Having worked over a significant period in one of the 'top' GSD kennels I consider myself to have a little knowledge albeit not as great as yours. Every Sunday the kennel owner would have lunch with a group of judges. They would alternate who did the cooking!

None of them had a clue as to anatomy, physiology or veterinary science. The only anatomy they knew was cosmetic. The temperaments of many of the stud dogs and breeding bitches was at best dubious.

This was one of the so called top judges so pardon me if I retain more than a degree of skepticism when it comes to the quality of pedigree breeders.

I do know a fair bit about the different breeds and can advise owners in a fairly unbiased manner based on knowledge and experience over more than 25 years.

I am a secret fan of bulldogs and pugs but could not recommend them to anyone in all honesty. The compromise is that I try to make sure the owners take out solid pet insurance to pay the inevitable 'repair' bills. They are all too often like Maseratis, good looking and superficially good performers but all too often spend much of their time in the local garage being fixed.

I am happy to discuss a breed choice and if I am unfamiliar with an aspect I will do the research but owners do tend to go on appearance and simple breed characteristics rather than get a balanced view on a breed.

It is refreshing to see the KC waking up to the negatives and discussing more openly the pros and cons of particular breeds and even more significantly particular breeders. The KC has never worked with the profession as a whole and hence the rather jaundiced view of breeders by many in the profession.

The KC has now been forced by a TV programme to face some of the issues and to their credit are doing it in a really positive way. This must continue and opened up to more public scrutiny.

Vets are a positive resource if used properly and the KC should be encouraging prospective owners to talk to their vets before making a decision. I think you will be surprised at how good this will be for responsible breeders.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

David Mills — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:52:11 GMT

Furthermore, if anecdote is the only evidence on which you rest your argument

[quote user="Steve Dean"]The vast majority live active lives at home which is not appraciated.[/quote]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]many of these dogs can breathe normally and do not collapse in the way you describe.[/quote]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]I have in the past walked my Border Terriers with a friends Pugs across fields and they kept up with and lasted as long as my terriers did.[/quote]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]The simple fact is there are bulldogs being bred that self whelp, breathe normally, no longer have screw tails and are fit and active[/quote]

[quote user="Steve Dean"]the breeds will work with us[/quote]

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Steve Dean — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:57:05 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

This, however, is trite nonsense. Show dogs are bred primarily and overridingly for looks. Yes the ability to walk around a show ring, and stand/be touched (temperament), and undergo hours of pampering (quite apart from whether this is ethically acceptable - what price a dog's inherent integrity?). Let us take the bulldog, for instance. Yes, 'exaggeration' may be 'discouraged' but, come on, let's play with a straight bat here. The dog is nothing but a freak, it's anatomy a thing of horror not beauty and the dog can barely break into a trot without almost dying - is this, in your opinion, natural? Beautiful all by itself? What of the curved tail and kyphotic spine? The problem is an abominable one: the KC trying to explain it away by this peculiar inference that vets, actually, know little about pedigree dogs and their world, is patronising, unhelpful and self-damaging.

[/quote]

Thanks for the polite intro but the mailed fist within demonstrates my point that vets will take the moral high ground and therefore fail to win hearts and minds. There are over 200 breeds out there recognised by the KC and you canot lump them all in one groups. The show dog is bred for looks but this is based upon the dog's conformation. The vast majority live active lives at home which is not appraciated.

You may wish to dictate to your clients how they should behave but they will not listen unless you can demonstrate that you understand their point of view. The bulldog in your eyes may be a freak but to the many who own them they are not and using such words will only distance the breeders from the profession. In fact only around 2% of dogs are shown so the rest are much loved pets whatever you might think of them.

In the show ring bulldogs are increasingly fitter and better than they have been for some time. Despite our professional views many of these dogs can breathe normally and do not collapse in the way you describe. Toy dos are loved for their gentleness and suitability for family life and you may prefer the rugged working dog (as I do) but you have to respect that others have their views.

As an example, I have in the past walked my Border Terriers with a friends Pugs across fields and they kept up with and lasted as long as my terriers did. We simply must stop using generalisations and deal with objective, specific issues and the breeds will work with us. Dictate and use 'Mark Evans' terminology and you will simply drive these people away and loose any chance you might hope for of influencing their breeding. The simple fact is there are bulldogs being bred that self whelp, breathe normally, no longer have screw tails and are fit and active. I hope some of them reach your surgery soon.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

Laurence Webb — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:36:24 GMT

[quote user="Steve Dean"]This belief that dogs are bred purely on looks is entirely misleading. Dogs breeds are bred for their conformational characterstics and exaggeration is discouraged by the breed standards[/quote] But what are the conformational characteristics rather than a description of the appearance of a dog? There may be some mention of temperament and gait in the KC breed standards, but the vast majority is a description of the proportions of an animal and what it looks like.

The breed standard for a bulldog is 77 lines long. 69 of those lines consist of descriptions of the appearance, the shape of the head and skull, the eyes, ears, mouth, etc. If the shape of the skull has no impact on the appearance or function of an animal then palaeontologist are going to be very upset.

The nature of bog breeding, when judged in shows, is that animals that best fit a judges mental image of the ideal appearance of the breed get the highest scores. If there were not judged on the appearance of a dog then judges may as well do their jobs blindfolded.

They are not judged on function. Obviously it would offend modern sensibilities to set dogs onto a bull, although I would be surprised if a modern bulldog would out perform most other breeds even if they have the wrinkles so proudly describes by breeders to help the bull's blood run away from the eyes.

Re: Pedigree Dogs Exposed 3 Years On

David Mills — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:41:17 GMT

Mr Dean, you remain one of the few in positions of responsibility in the veterinary profession that I retain respect for; thanks for coming into this forum, somewhat of a lion's den in may prove.

[quote user="Steve Dean"]

This belief that dogs are bred purely on looks is entirely misleading. Dogs breeds are bred for their conformational characterstics and exaggeration is discouraged by the breed standards. Judging is based on the structure of the dog and not simply on appearance although good anatomy has a beauty of its own.

[/quote]