shortstep

I wanted to address this separately. Good breeding practices and options should prevent problems and that is the goal in my mind for the future of dog breeding. I do not see the need to make changes only directly at one breed at at time and only that breed. They should be applied across all breeds. Prevention of future problems is vital before they reach crisis. While this may indeed help to save some breeds that have reached crisis point, the bigger idea is to prevent crisis from happening in any breed. An example of this in practice is how The Kennel Club has opened the stud book to all breeds, not just breeds in crisis. So no, this is not about treating a breed in crisis. This is about treating a whole system that is is crisis. By treating the system, you will then give the breeders the tools they need to keep their breeds vital into the future.

My guess is not a lot of "all purebred dogs have inheritable health issues" talk either. ;) What an interesting concept it is to see people WITHIN a breed identify issues and tackle them. Isn't that what I've been advocating from the get go in this thread? The group was started by someone who was very worried about the future of poodles related to high inbreeing levels, popular sire, closed stud books and so forth. Though he is gone not, you still might enjoy it.

The aim of the cangen list is to save purebred dogs. How the hell do you do that by routinely and universally crossbreeding them? Well that is the best question I have heard on here for a long time and what an interesting and huge topic it is. Firstly lets be clear that there are other definitions of 'breed' that do not include having to breed within a closed gene pool of dogs that all related and all come from a very few ancestors. As just one example, working breeds. If you one can free their mind to work outside of those rules, then the sky really is the limit. The saluki is an excellent example, but so are most working sheep dogs like kelpies, border collie (US working registry is the largest breed club for border collies in the world) or the Canaan dog (at least prior to going into the kennel club), many of the working sled dog like the Alaskan husky or the Siberians outside of the kennel club, and the working Jack Russell as bred in the working registries (the US club is the largest register for jacks in the world) and several other breeds of working terriers now being bred outside the kennel club so they can do the type of breeding they need to do to improve working ability. All of these dogs are clearly breeds, and in fact most kennel clubs dogs would have started from dogs taken from these gene pools. Yet some kennel club breeders would not consider these dogs breeds until the show breeder has 'developed' them into a show dog. Got to let those thoughts go, as they say 'the shows over'. It is detrimental to kennel club dogs to shut off these dogs/genes. The UK KC has now opened the stud books, this means that a working border collie from Australia can enter their gene pool, it means a saluki in the desert holding a rabbit under it's feet (just some dramatics lol) can enter the Uk gene pool, it means a Siberian raised in Siberia by Siberians who's family has used sibs for as long as their history is told, can actually enter the kennel club gene pool, what a shocker! And might I add, if that would have happened 20 odd years ago, we might not be here talking about this today (if you have not follow the history, read Jeffery Brag, Purebred dogs into the 21 century). Just something to think about. LOL Oh to go back and change the past.

Join the Orgcangen Genetics list where there are several Phd's in sceince who also breed native sighthounds and make your comments. Let them discuss it with you in detail, they are experts on the breeds, their heritage and use and their breeding history and they strongly oppose the current inbreeding pratices in kennel club purebred dogs. Have a chat with this fellow on inbreeding in salukies, Dr John Burchard, considered won the worlds experts on salukies , health and dog breeding. Look up some of his talks or work on breeding sight hounds and inbreeding. I listen very carefully to this fellow BTW. http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm http://homepage.mac.com/puggiq/V11N2/V11,N2Gentrification.html His work on diversitiy was even mentioned in some work being done on poodles in the same area of concern http://www.standardpoodleproject.com/Notes%20on%20Viability%20of%20Breeds.pdf You're now narrowing the scope of the discussion to "inbreeding practices". The topic of this thread was the fact that purebred dogs are unhealthy by definition of their pedigree status alone. You brought up saluki, what I am telling you is to join the group and talk about breeding dogs, including what made the saluki what it is today and that was certainly not the kennel club. My understanding is the desert sight hound have been bred well, forever, and outside of any kennel club, with no closed stud book and no rules about cross breeding, and they did cross to other sight hounds if they want to and all based on performance qualities not show ring. They have one of the most diverse gene pools in dogs, directly related to this long history and are a direct result of these breeding practices. Sso yes they are a very good example of how dogs can be bred, and breed with very different selection methods from the the kennel club and end up with a simple wonderful breed. Your conversations will not be limited to inbreeding on this chat group, they will include closed stud book, popular sire syndrom, new concepts on how to have breeds with out inbreeding and closed stud book, advantage of breeding for fit for function over show ring, latest reserch and most important lots of ideas on how to bring our breeds into the future. They even try to make a clear distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. Not a lot of "it is the other guys fault" going on, but still very interesting.

Join the Orgcangen Genetics list where there are several Phd's in sceince who also breed native sighthounds and make your comments. Let them discuss it with you in detail, they are experts on the breeds, their heritage and use and their breeding history and they strongly oppose the current inbreeding pratices in kennel club purebred dogs. Have a chat with this fellow on inbreeding in salukies, Dr John Burchard, considered one the worlds experts on salukies, health and dog breeding. Look up some of his talks or work on breeding sight hounds and on inbreeding and kennel club breeding. I listen very carefully to this fellow BTW. http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm http://homepage.mac.com/puggiq/V11N2/V11,N2Gentrification.html His work on diversitiy was even mentioned in some work being done on poodles in the same area of concern http://www.standardpoodleproject.com/Notes%20on%20Viability%20of%20Breeds.pdf

Exactly as we now know that inbreeding has a detrimental effect on threatened species. Our results have important conservation implications. First, ignoring inbreeding depression will substantially underestimate extinction risk. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss1/art16/main.html#relationship Inbreeding is a big risk for threatened animals. Thank goodness domestic dogs as a species are not threatened!! And thank goodness dog 'breeds' are not separate species. We can open our stud books (a model only in our minds) and cross bred to another breed of dog to reduce COI, remove or control a genetic disease, to modify an extreme trait or to remove defect traits which are wide spread in a breed and many other uses, in any of our breeds. Tthere is no reason to skirt the dangerous world of inbred threatened species with our dog breeds. If we allowed it, there is no problem keeping genetic diversity in any 'breed 'of dogs. But we do no allow it and currently there are more than few dog 'breeds' that are considered threatened. We just have to use this current science and cast aside the ideas and science of 100-150 years ago. We have moved on and now we need to bring our dog breeding practices up to date. I don't disagree with this in principle; however, as wheaten terrier people found, crossbreeding to another breed is not a magic bullet to remove or control genetic disease. A controlled outcross is not the answer for every disease in every breed, but it certainly could be the answer for many of the diseases in many breeds. That is the real point and not that it may not work for some disease. What I find really frustrating is even in the case of the Dalmatian, where the work has been done and successfully, most breeder would rather breed dogs with disease than use a dog with a cross some 10-13 or more generations ago and prevent the disease in their dogs. It boggles the mind. Personally I think any breeder who refuses to bring the healthy genes into their Dals should be banned. I guess it will take the RSPCA to make it a welfare issue and get a government law made first. It may take a new generation of dog breeders to effect some of the needed changes. I just hope that breeding for 'breeds' is not totally banned by then and that most breeds are not already lost or are too far gone before we start to see the needed changes happen.

Exactly as we now know that inbreeding has a detrimental effect on threatened species. Our results have important conservation implications. First, ignoring inbreeding depression will substantially underestimate extinction risk. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss1/art16/main.html#relationship Inbreeding is a big risk for threatened animals. Thank goodness domestic dogs as a species are not threatened!! And thank goodness dog 'breeds' are not separate species. We can open our stud books (a model only in our minds) and cross bred to another breed of dog to reduce COI, remove or control a genetic disease, to modify an extreme trait or to remove defect traits which are wide spread in a breed and many other uses, in any of our breeds. Tthere is no reason to skirt the dangerous world of inbred threatened species with our dog breeds. If we allowed it, there is no problem keeping genetic diversity in any 'breed 'of dogs. But we do no allow it and currently there are more than few dog 'breeds' that are considered threatened. We just have to use this current science and cast aside the ideas and science of 100-150 years ago. We have moved on and now we need to bring our dog breeding practices up to date.

passing an easy open book test to become registered doesn't prevent any of the 'breeding issues' that are shared with the UK. This topic is about pedigree/pure bred dogs, not necessarily those who are registered with a kennel club and as ever it is often (not always) those who are produced by people who don't care or don't know what they are doing that cause the fall out for the rest of us to deal with Of course, this has nothing to do 'registered' breeders and 'registered' breeders have nothing to do with any of the welfare problems facing purebred dogs world wide. It is all 'those other breeders fault'. However, I would still like to see some mandatory health testing on many breeds which are bred by 'registered' breeders. Since 'registered' breeders would already be doing those health tests they would support this. I would like to see some breeds bred by 'registered' breeders taken out of the show ring until they can modify some of the structural extremes that disfigure and cause discomfort, especially if those extreme traits are linked directly to disease, such as the fevers, genetic dentition defects, eye disorders and so forth. All 'registered breeder would support the removal of extreme structure defects. I would like to see more controlled cross breedings done by 'registered' breeders to remove some genes that have a severe negative effect on the breed, like the Dalmatian project. All 'registered breeders would want disease controlled. I would like to see ANKC follow the Uk's lead and open the stud books for all breeds to allow 'registered' breeders the opportunity to increase genetic diversity and increase population numbers, which 'registered breeders' would support to promote current and long term health and vitality in their breeds. I would then like to see real limits put on inbreeding, which should not affect 'registered' breeders as they are experts at producing great dogs and would not need to resort to incest to produce the traits they want to see, they would never put aside what is best for their dog just to see greater uniformity of genes in all of their dogs, 'registered' breeders know the value of genetic diversity for the long term survival of their breeds. There is so much I would like to see the 'registered breeding doing to address the welfare issues in their breeds, even if they are sure it is not 'registered breeders who are breeding the dogs with structural extremes, genetic defects or genetic disease that are showing up in this clinic and driving up their care cost to the point they have to limit the number is pedigree dogs they can treat. Then registered breeders could clearly show that it really is not them and it 'is the all those other breeders faults'.

Well all dogs in the kennel club are inbred. And every breeding of kennel club dogs is doing inbreeding. By definition pedigree dogs are inbred animals. However if they made a law that limited the amount of inbreeding to what is considered safe in humans, I would support that across all breeds. I think that would be a good step in the right direction and would prefer that the ANKC made the change without the RSPCA having to make it a big pulbic welfare issue and a law.

Ok I get it. A total ban on all the whole issue. No problem, I have to go now to see the TV show on inbreeding and kennel club dogs, opps there I go talking about those things we are not to perpetuate. Geeze, over reaction much. I hope you can grasp the difference between "some" and "all" at some point. No one's denying there are issues. No one's suggesting a ban on discussion of them. But your constant assertion that the sky is falling for the health of all purebred dogs is simply untrue. I think these issues do need to be discussed but it would be nice to lose the hysteria and misinformation perpetrated by shows such as the one you're referring to and actually focus on the facts. Here's one to absorb.. there is no data gathering that I know of on the health issues of CROSSBRED DOGs. Yet, strangely, most of the dogs I know with HD, with patella issues ARE crossbred. Strangely this issues are rarely attributed to their genes. Go figure. With the exception of a handful of poodle cross labrador breeders, I've yet to here of any crossbred dogs having health tested parents, Why is that issue never discussed. Poodlefan, I have nothing to do with the charity that is limiting their help to only one pedigree dogs per home due to the pedigree dogs needing too much $$. Tell them why they are wrong and that pedigree dogs are not costing them more money to treat than they spend on mix breeds. I am not the person who put the gardener on the radio to attack the pedigree dog 'industry' this week, tell the producers why they are off base with that topic and should not promote cross breeds. I am not the person who decided inbreeding for pedigree dogs was a good topic for the TV tonight, so please tell the producer that the topic is of no concern, inbreeding is perfectly fine when done with dogs and does not increase the odds of defective genes lining up. The 'not my breed' 'not in Australia' 'not in our kc' 'no proof' 'inbreeding is good' 'it is those other breeders' 'why don't they praise us?' are totally unproductive responses. Just more fiddleing while Rome burns. However what I see The Kennel Club doing now, after the Bateson report and all the rest of the governments and RASPCA movements direct at them, is to be compliant. It would appear they are responding and in a real way. I thought opening all, ALL, the stud books to dogs of unknown pedigree was the biggest change in the kennel club system since it very formation. Closed stud books have been the very foundation, even the very definition of pedigree dogs. Of course that is a 'not in our kennel club' response, at least for the moment.

Ok I get it. A total ban on all the whole issue. No problem, I have to go now to see the TV show on inbreeding and kennel club dogs, opps there I go talking about those things we are not to perpetuate.

Look all I am saying is we, almost all kennel club members of almost all breeds, refuse to address the concerns. So far that approch has gotten us no where and I would say it has even taken us further in the wrong direction. But it may take the banning a few breeds or some of the kennel clubs to get shut down before we realize that what we have to do, I do mean have to do, is respond in a constructive and meaingful way to the concerns.

And a rather confusing thought. I hate this "all pure breeds have issues" crap. And it IS crap. What inheritable conditions do Whippets have? Where are the legions of this breed that suffer from inherited health problems and cost their owners a motza in health bills?? Beats the hell out of me. Why ARE poodles so long lived if they are plagued by health issues??? I hate generalisations when they are inaccurate. The idea that all breeders should "own up" to the notion that the dogs they breed are walking congenital disaster areas is a nonsense. And the sooner people stop lumping all breeds together on this issue, the better. Ok, well you tell them to not do that, to leave the poodles and the whippets in the kennel club alone. Certainly we can say 'Not in my breed'. We will see if that helps to solve the problem.

I agree, lets just keeping saying that this has nothing at all to do with Australian pedigree dogs and sooner or later someone might believe it. No let's make it an even playing field, how about making the "producers" of the thousands of unsound and unhealthy mutts responsible for their stuff ups too, and while we are at it acknowledge that there are many Breeders of registered purebred dogs that are doing the right thing. I'm getting pretty damn tired of people blinking and looking at me like I have two heads when I tell them that my registered purebred dogs are living healthy and happy lives into their mid to late teens. Yeah I know how can they they are purebred, right. I don't know any Breeder in my circle that denies that there are some problems, but they all say the same, acknowledge that it is not across the board. I think we can establish that those folks who are not saying what you want them to say, are not going to start saying it because you want them too. It seems to me if a 'group' of breeders want to hold themselves out as 'different' from the crowd of breeders you are blaming for the problems, then they are the ones that have to do something that defines them as 'different'. Unfortunatly the folks you want to highlight your group as being 'different', can not see this clear cut distinction between the 'differents' and the not differents. Perhaps this is because the 'differents' are not the sort of 'different' they are actually looking for? Just a thought.

That is what the royal families of Europe said too. Though I notice they are now out crossing and the results look promising. http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2011/06/23/a-royal-pain/

I agree, lets just keeping saying that this has nothing at all to do with Australian pedigree dogs and sooner or later someone might believe it.

I can't read the study so cannot answer your question. However as far as I know there are no breeders in Asutralia that are MRI screening all of their breeding dogs. I think the Uk is further ahead with more breeders screening, but it is still optional I believe. As long as Oz does their own study and scans several hundred dogs and gets totally different results which shows it is not a problem over here, that would be great! But until then, I think we can only go on the breed information that has already been obtained. Even if they are off by half and the affected rate is 35% it is still way too high. This is not my breed, but it is my registry and we are now all held to account. Clearly this will come under review soon in OZ and with out any clear plans to address this problem I fear for the future of this breed and the impact it will have on all breeds and breeders in the ANKC. There are some breeders in Australia who are testing all of their breeding dogs That is fantatic to hear!! I hope these breeders are held up as the example that other breeders should follow.

Can you tell us how many are MRI screening every dog they breed, both parents? The ones I have found that have done some scans, have only done a dog here or there, they were not doing both parents of every breeding. With out doing both parents of every breeding, the breeders can not follow the recommended breeding directives, which have been shown to reduce the number of affected pups. Also is there any movement towards making breeding directives with manditory MRI screeing on both parents of all litters? BTW all breeders that have hips, elbows or shoulder scored all have to be put under to be tested. All breeders that do BEAR testing have to put their dogs under. All breeders who place pups on desexing agreements have these dogs put under to have the surgery. There are countless other examples. I do not think that this is a good excuse for not doing the testing. If the breed also has a real problem with tolerating anaesthesia, then that is another matter that needs to be looked at very closely as it could be realated to other health problems that need to brought to light. I realize other tests require a GA. But because the MRI is very expensive $1200 to $1500 dollars, risk of death and not conclusive you have to weigh up the odds. Ok lets weigh it up, so here is the question. Is doing a MRI worth it for the dog or it's new owner?? Will it reduce risk? Yes! Will it improve the odds that their pup will not get sick? Yes! So here are the facts. A) Offspring without SM only occurred when there was at least one parent of Grade A status; (B) There were higher numbers of SM clear offspring if both parents had Grade A; © All Grade A* offspring (SM clear over 5 years) had at least one parent that was Grade A*; (D) 100% of offspring were SM affected if both parents were SM-affected; (E) SM also occurs in Grade A x Grade A crosses (approximately 25%, but this figure might be improved if more older dogs are screened dogs); (F) Using dogs of unknown status was risky for SM affectedness; (G) 50% of dogs in a Grade A x Unknown cross were SM affected. Ok if I was a dog or an owner, I would, with out question, want the parents of my puppy screened! I do not see the cost as inhibitive in any way conpared to the reduced risk with MRI screening. Besides I pay more than that for health testing on my dogs, these days that is not a lot to spend. The risk of dying on the table should not be high unless they are dying due to some other health problem in the breed and if that is the case it needs to be address. I can not see any reason in the world any Cav should be bred without MRI testing. And ask me (which I am sure no one will LOL), males should all have to be over 5-6 years old before being breed and clear on heart and MRI. Soon the governement will have to make a law about it.

They will treat multiple pets/dogs as long as they are not pedigree dogs. The said why Sadly, pedigree pets often need high levels of veterinary care due to inherited illnesses and breed related conditions as a result of irresponsible breeding associated with certain pedigree matings.

I have never heard of this organzation before. Just some highlights. http://www.pdsa.org.uk/pdsa-vet-care/changes-to-service#the-policy-explained Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service PDSA exists to help owners when they are most in need. PDSA is no longer able to support people who actively acquire multiple pedigree pets without being able to commit to their long-term health and welfare needs. Sadly, pedigree pets often need high levels of veterinary care due to inherited illnesses and breed related conditions as a result of irresponsible breeding associated with certain pedigree matings. The high level of demand this inevitably puts on our veterinary service results in a disproportionate allocation of funding, which is neither fair or appropriate. Designer dogs are not classed as pedigrees. However, pet owners deliberately breeding from any species for profit, and without considering the health and wellbeing of the pet, would be stopped from using PDSA services. This practice is entirely at odds with the provision of our charitable veterinary service, which is funded completely by public support. A decision based on veterinary evidence and supporter feedback 91% of PDSA donors and supporters said that we are right to be concerned about the numbers and types of pets some people are acquiring and presenting for charitable treatment, of which 88% said they would support the change in our policy. My words, no where do they say what their evidence was. But their charity they can do what they want I suppose. The bad press on pedigree dogs just keeps comeing and now they are pointing it towards any dog that even looks like a breed. If anybody thinks this is only going to affect breeds and breeders with the most noticable problems, they need to wake up. This is going to take out all dog breeds. If we do not start to address these welfare issues now, real or not in your opinion, there is not going to be any way to turn this around.

Can you tell us how many are MRI screening every dog they breed, both parents? The ones I have found that have done some scans, have only done a dog here or there, they were not doing both parents of every breeding. With out doing both parents of every breeding, the breeders can not follow the recommended breeding directives, which have been shown to reduce the number of affected pups. Also is there any movement towards making breeding directives with manditory MRI screeing on both parents of all litters? BTW all breeders that have hips, elbows or shoulder scored all have to be put under to be tested. All breeders that do BEAR testing have to put their dogs under. All breeders who place pups on desexing agreements have these dogs put under to have the surgery. There are countless other examples. I do not think that this is a good excuse for not doing the testing. If the breed also has a real problem with tolerating anaesthesia, then that is another matter that needs to be looked at very closely as it could be realated to other health problems that need to brought to light.

I can't read the study so cannot answer your question. However as far as I know there are no breeders in Asutralia that are MRI screening all of their breeding dogs. I think the Uk is further ahead with more breeders screening, but it is still optional I believe. As long as Oz does their own study and scans several hundred dogs and gets totally different results which shows it is not a problem over here, that would be great! But until then, I think we can only go on the breed information that has already been obtained. Even if they are off by half and the affected rate is 35% it is still way too high. This is not my breed, but it is my registry and we are now all held to account. Clearly this will come under review soon in OZ and with out any clear plans to address this problem I fear for the future of this breed and the impact it will have on all breeds and breeders in the ANKC.

Ban, maditory desexing and no importing, of the idiot owners/breeders. We already have too many idiots.

As far as I know only the Australian standard says the border collie was developed ion Australia. I am fairly certain that it is not in the Uk standard and that is the standard used by the FCI as the offical country standard. The US also only sees the Uk as the country the border collies comes from. What other countries say that OZ is the country of developement, maybe Japan??

From the other side of the looking glass. The border collie was already highly 'developed' as one of the worlds best sheepdogs in the UK long before some show folks in Australian and NZ decided to take it into the show ring in the 1950's. There was not a lack of show standard in ISDS because the working people were too stupid to write one, there was no show standard because the breed was not being bred to be a show dog. The standard for the border collie can only be assessed on the paddock and this remains true today. The first stud book for purebred border collies was and still is ISDS and it began in 1906. The breed was already well 'developed' by this time and this same dog is still found all over the world. Far more of these original purpose bred dogs exist today then the show dog type and these dogs are still registered in the working stud books without any show standard and kept separate from the show lines. This was with intention and remains this way today and I do not see any chance that this will change. The folks who own this original breed are passionate it will remain a working dog. Border collies bred to the traditional purpose are also by far the most numerous of the border collie types, far out numbering the the show bred dogs. For example, in the US 22,000 border collies are registered in the stud book for border collies each year vs. about 3000 in the kennel club. Of interest, every one of those 22,000 dogs in the border collie studbook can be registered into the kennel club, as the KC had to leave their stud book open to try to increase the numbers registered, yet there is no exoduses form the border collie stud book into the kennel club. I do agree that Australia and NZ did create the show border collie type in the 1950's ish when they took their dogs into the kennel club and they deserve full credit for this, but that is not developing the border collie. A breed does not need to be a show dog or bred to a show standard to be a fully developed breed. BTW same would apply the JRT. Dog breeds can and are fully developed based on function and are by design not in the kennel club and use their own registry instead. We are going to see a lot more use of these older concepts on what defines a breed in the near future I believe, especially in the kennel clubs where it is not the norm. By far, the majority people with border collies today feel the breed has totally spilt, with the majority being the original border collie still being bred to the original ideals and being kept separate in their own stud books. While the show border collie has joined in the show kennel clubs and those ideals. Many feel the show dog could or maybe even should be called the Australian border collie, which would make the split official (Border Collie and Australian Border collie). The the Australian Border Collie folks could then rightly say with pride that Australia (or/and Nz, as I am staying out of that one LOL) developed the Australian border collie. Now back to your normal programing. LOL