The Right To Breed

[Keshwar]

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2349733

The right to breed

The state that has no business in the bedrooms of the nation seeks to insert itself into the fallopian tubes of its poodles

[asal]

The right to breed

The state that has no business in the bedrooms of the nation seeks to insert itself into the fallopian tubes of its poodles

Catherine McMillan, National Post Published: Thursday, December 17, 2009

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...3#ixzz0byhDPcMu

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

I still recall my first visit to the Small Animal Clinic at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. As the young resident took down my puppy's health history, she advised that if I spayed my little dog before her first heat cycle, the risk of mammary cancer could be eliminated.

"Good to know," I replied. "But how will that affect her future as my foundation bitch?"

Some 25-plus years later, "Peras" has hundreds of champion descendants across six continents, while I am quite likely the first and only commercial artist to co-author a peer-reviewed paper for the American Journal of Veterinary Ophthalmology.

That young resident's words were a warning, though I didn't know it at the time. Veterinary medicine, once an equal partner with breeders, sporstmen, and food producers, is being transformed by an activist viewpoint that reduces owners to "guardians" and elevates health providers to the self-appointed role of animal "advocate."

"Spay and neuter" has achieved cult mantra. Dog breeders are held in suspicion: The only good dog is the "natural" one. Defects are blamed on breed standards, despite the fact that the majority of purebreds are produced by family pets and commercial breeders, their puppies as far removed from the show ring as a second-hand pickup from the Formula One track.

This attitude is reflected by provincial boards that recently have moved to impose bans on ear cropping and tail docking. Though long the subject of some controversy, these procedures serve both aesthetic and practical ends, injury prevention and hygiene among them.

This current turf war over puppy tails is just a preview of coming attractions. The state that has no business in the bedrooms of the nation seeks to insert itself into the fallopian tubes of its poodles.

A Canadian Kennel Club (CKC) director recently recounted the hostile atmosphere at a recent meeting with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA): "These vets are not only speaking of cropping and docking. Several, led by New Brunswick, are openly critical of the CKC's breed standards, feel that breeders are poorly educated with respect to health, genetics and breeding practices to support an animal's welfare and are censorious of breeders -- in particular those breeders who breed conformation dogs for show. They are criticizing our standards for individual breeds and are of the opinion that we are not supporting the puppy purchasers with healthy dogs."

To achieve this, they hint at legislation. After all, who better to condemn the docking of a puppy's tail than the person who will, in a few weeks time, slice open her abdomen to remove a healthy uterus? Who better to seek criminalization of ear cropping than a profession that declaws kittens for profit?

For as often as they're consulted by media and policy makers on matters canine, a veterinarian receives no training in basic breed identification, much less the diverse origins and forces that shape gene pools. It's unreasonable to expect them to -- it takes a lifetime of study to master a single breed, much less hundreds.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...3#ixzz0byh8e9Qi

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

The film Best in Show presented the dog-show circuit as a caravan of loopy narcissists. Omitted from the script were the contributions of the fancy to everyday canine society -- rescue efforts, training classes, consumer advice, the millions raised, the efforts donated to health research.

There is no profit in showing dogs, for costs quickly negate the returns. It's an esoteric pursuit, driven by love of breed, competitive reward, and that appreciation of form and symmetry shared by all artists, a thing we know as "beauty." The Doberman's "look of eagles," the merle collie's loud and luxurious coat, the silhouette of the Skipperke -- those things that fill the eye can determine the fate of breeds, for it is their beauty that so often attracts and inspires human beings to devote resources to their perpetuation.

The distance between a breed and extinction is five years, for this is the average reproductive lifespan of a female. For rare breeds and those with limited genetic diversity, it takes only one ill-conceived edict on the part of policy makers to start it down the road to collapse.

It seems like a small thing, this battle for a veterinarian's liberty to practice as he sees fit, a dog breeder's quest for perfection. After all, no one needs to crop ears on a Boxer. But then again, no one needs a Boxer at all, or any sort of pet. Purebreds (of all species) carry health risks derived from their genetic founding fathers. Breeds weren't created to compile longevity records, but to perform tasks for mankind -- to dispatch vermin, predators, and enemy barbarians, locate game, retrieve over water, to pull sleds, or warm a dowager's bed on a cold winter night. And so, they remain imperfect.

The Borzoi is living history of czarist Russia, the giant Mastiff a modern echo of ancient Rome -- but they suffer high rates of bloat. Poster artists recruited the English bulldog as a symbol of resolve in World War II, but the massive head that encouraged a nation results in caesarian sections. The Dalmatian's spots are beloved of Disney and children everywhere, but the genetics that create them can result in deafness. The merry spaniel can wag an undocked tail to bloody pulp, but no one hunts woodcock in these parts. Better no cocker, they say, than no tail.

Like so many other small things in this brave new humane world -- history, property rights, individual liberty, and the beholder's permission to declare something "beautiful" -- the eradication of the purebred dog is underway, aided and abetted by those we once considered friends. And yet, to this breeder at least, so seldom has one small thing carried with it such symbolism for what it is we are allowing them to destroy.

There is an air of nihilism in what they do. Like "green" zealots who insist millions will die from climate change unless we reduce the earth's population by billions, their ideological sisters in veterinary activism would solve the problems of purebred dogs by eliminating them altogether. They seem oddly disconnected from the reality that for veterinary medicine to survive, the patient must reproduce.

- Catherine McMillan lives in Saskatchewan and runs the blog "Small Dead Animals." In 2009, Miniature Schnauzers descending from her "Minuteman" kennel line include those ranked #1 in the breed in the USA, Canada, Brazil and England, along with the #2 MS in Australia and the Jr. World Winner at the World Show in Slovakia.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...2#ixzz0bygtZLSe

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

brilliant summation of what is going on. we either get together or the dogs loose big time.

needs to be added there is no living organisim that is genetically perfect, not even the human race either. so how can they expect it let alone demand it of dogs????

Edited January 8, 2010 by asal

[Jed]

Oh, I do like that.

I notice our very own Dr McGreevy from Sydney Uni has had several papers on the Canadian Veterinary Association website, spreading his own version of cross breeding dogs for fun and profit too, and trashing purebred dogs.

[asal]

maybe he needs to be asked for proof that his x breds are equally free of genetic faults, we all know he cant.

be interesting to see how he tries to wriggle out of that one

a bit of footage of that poor little x bred with robert zammit with all his health issues needs to be aired more often and a lot more as well this stuff needs to be got out there and hey i know where, tvs is always asking for contributions from public groups.

ill ask round here for anyone with a doggy x bred disaster we can film and everyone else ditto we could have a loverly doco for tvs consumption

[Nekhbet]

yeegads common sense still exists!

[sandgrubber]

This thread needs something other than a nodding chorus. I'd class the article as scare mongering.

Given how widely the right to breed is abused, and given how many pups are born each year who will end up meeting a sad fate cause not enough good homes are available, I think 'spey and neuter' is a reasonable mantra. The situation would be improved by having more than a mantra. I think all dogs, including pedigree dogs, would be better off if the right were converted to a privalege with attendant responsibilities . . . eg, vet checks and adherence to basic health standards. This would do more to discourage puppy farmers than pedigree dog breeders.

Mandatory spey-neuter laws have not stopped pedigree dog breeders in Santa Cruz and other counties in California where such laws are in place. Nor do they result in the dog police (SPCA) going door to door looking for entire dogs. They, in conjunction with education campaigns and subsidized spey/neuter clinics have cut down rates of impoundment and euthanasia. See http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-06-09/news...hoice-neutering.

Btw, APBT's are openly bred and sold in Sta Cruz . . . see http://www.scmkennels.com/ . . . note they do not require that all pups be desexed, or forced to wear gear designating them as dangerous dogs.

I don't hear anyone threatening rare breeds by mandatory spey/neuter laws.

[raz]

Why? I'll join in with the applauding chorus

You breed for pet buyers dont you? Good luck to you if you think it's scare mongering.

[Sue]

Great article. Good to see something like that in the mainstream media.

[whippets]

The worst dog I ever had was a mongrel xbred given to me from a friend in my teens (yeah that long ago). Not sure who the father was. Quite a few dogs in the area gang banged this poor little crossbred when it was on season and all the pups where different shapes, sizes and all colours of the rainbow.

Anyway I couldn't put the dog on the ground without it being allergic to "something". She had subluxed patellas, was cross-eyed and was grossly undershot. Her name was Scratch for obvious reasons. Sure wasn't pretty either. Final straw was after spending another small fortune on tests then she developed a huge abcess on the side of her face..argh. She was PTS.

Give me purebred any day of the week.

[sandgrubber]

Why? I'll join in with the applauding chorus

You breed for pet buyers dont you? Good luck to you if you think it's scare mongering.

If I didn't have puppy buyers, I wouldn't breed. If I were breeding specifically and only for puppy buyers I wouldn't bother with importing semen, etc. and I wouldn't have clean health sheets (avg hip score total of 3, no elbow scores, all PRA clear) for all my breeding dogs. The California examples of desexing legislation show that it DOES reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats without causing distress to legitimate breeders of pedigree dogs.

quote:

To achieve this, they hint at legislation. After all, who better to condemn the docking of a puppy's tail than the person who will, in a few weeks time, slice open her abdomen to remove a healthy uterus?

That is scare mongering. Vets vary widely in their level of education regarding pedigree dogs, and in their attitudes toward tail docking, declawing, desexing, etc. Many of them disapprove of some breed standards . . . but so do a lot of breeders. It's really sad to hear of abreed that, in many cases, are incapable of natural mating or natural whelping. It is sad to see some breeds with large fractions of the population suffering from HD. To say it's a bad thing that someone HINTS at legislation is to deny free speach. You'll find extremists who hint at all sorts of things. The extremist who wrote this piece is hinting that the dog police want to impose forced sterilisation on healthy pedigree dogs. But most of the 'healty uteruses' that vets remove are in pets whose owners, for a combination of behavioural and birth-control reasons, choose to have the pet neutered. Some also do desexing for rescue organisations. Is that so horrible? People have been desexing animals for hundreds of years . . . the practice is so widespread that there is a special word for the castrated male of many domestic animals (gelding, steer, etc.).

As for breed standards . . .read the reactions to the recent posting in the general discussion forum of an old book on pedigree dogs. Lots of people think that breeds have gone downhill through a century or so of breeding . . . that the old stock looked better. Or read the many acrid debates about the show GSD.

How is it ok for the pedigree dog community to forbid a breeder from getting more than four litters from a healthy brood bitch, with the result that she will either have her healthy uterus removed, or she will be at risk of some nasty diseases . . . but not ok for someone outside the breeders community to hint that laws might be enacted to require sterilisation of dogs with genetic diseases?

[mita]

Oh, I do like that.

I notice our very own Dr McGreevy from Sydney Uni has had several papers on the Canadian Veterinary Association website, spreading his own version of cross breeding dogs for fun and profit too, and trashing purebred dogs.

Pity there isn't another academic public voice in Australia who presents a tempering view to what Dr McG propogates.

There certainly is research out there which does. I've already posted work by a researcher from Tufts Uni which cuts across the attribution that purebreds should carry the can for hip dysplasia.

It's pointed out HD is a condition also found in mixed-breeds, small & large dogs....& cats. Yet Dr McG speaks loudly about a certain conformation in dogs...especially in certain purebreds...being the cause. Which can't be a sole variable.....because how to explain cats (who don't look like labradors)????

Not surprisingly the condition is far more complex than only a body shape...& research is beavering away uncovering knowledege that's useful for selection for breeding... & for diet and exercise guidelines for young dogs in the critical period when bone growth & tissue growth, aren't at the same rate.

Also purebreds like dachies would seem to break all the 'conformation' rules.....with their long backs & short legs. But interesting research from Denmark found dachies to be among a bunch of pure breeds which had the best longevity stats than mixed-breeds & other purebreds. And that research included hip dysplasia & spine problems in cause for death. The Danish study, which covered thousands of dogs (pure & mixed), is worth looking into.

In the aftermath of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed furore, Dr Peter Higgins representing the AKC spoke more sensibly than anyone else on the panel.

He's a veterinarian, not an academic....but his remarks were in the direction of seeking out the best of knowledge & selecting wisely for breeding.

I just wish there was another voice coming from Australian universities, supportive of that direction.....apart from Dr McG.

As much as I understand & agree with the OP article's concerns, I don't think the author's means of expressing them, is helpful. Why bring in 'green' zealots & the issue of climate change? And her strident call about keeping regulation out of bedrooms. As much as I understand her strong feelings to protect the many positives of purebred dogs, it comes across as 'pull up the drawbridge' hysteria. Reactionary, rather than proactive. Purebred dogs need a more reasoning voice than hers, too.

Edited January 11, 2010 by mita

[raz]

Good oh, sandgruber. So it's NOT fear mongering? Make up your mind.

[Jed]

Unfortunately, Mita, the driven, zealots and those with an agenda, seek and get more publicity. I think the ANCK could lift it's act a bit. For everything Dr McGreevy says, there is published evidence to the contrary, but it's not publicised as well. I guess because there is no agenda.

Interesting about the longlivety (sp?) of dacshunds. All ours lived well into their teens in good health, except my original girl. She lived to 23, and was pts because she slipped a disc.

I'd like to see more studies done on the way dogs are kept and serious studies on diet.

[mita]

Unfortunately, Mita, the driven, zealots and those with an agenda, seek and get more publicity. I think the ANCK could lift it's act a bit. For everything Dr McGreevy says, there is published evidence to the contrary, but it's not publicised as well. I guess because there is no agenda.

Interesting about the longlivety (sp?) of dacshunds. All ours lived well into their teens in good health, except my original girl. She lived to 23, and was pts because she slipped a disc.

I'd like to see more studies done on the way dogs are kept and serious studies on diet.

I agree, Jed, the average researcher beavering away in universities doing spot-on studies, is not usually talking to the public media. But some who want to raise their funds for their research from the public.....make great efforts to get 'stuff' into the media. Dr McG asked for public donations for his research.

I wish the AKC & their spokesperson Dr Peter Higgins would set up an Advisory Committee....& get some other people who know the research world, on it. There's great things being done... & known... re purebreds....here in Australian universities (apart from the lone Dr McG). And a lot, too, overseas.

And get a media-savvy AKC person to talk long & loudly to the media. Peter Higgins, himself didn't do a bad job on the panel following the BBD doco screening. He was the only one who let the hysteria & hot air go by, & kept saying it came down to decisions about breeding.....& getting the knowledge/experience which helped people do that.

In fact, that's at base the huge strength of pedigree breeding. It's so controllable..

Yes, the Denmark study was interesting re dachies (I can never spell it, either). Dachies, poodles & shelties were among a bunch of pure breeds that came out way ahead of other purebreeds & mixed breeds re longevity (with cause of death factored in).

Only qualifications would be:

. it applied to the genetic pool in Denmark

. the study was done in the early 2000's, so is a bit middle-aged in research terms

I agree with you, too, about the place of diet & exercise. Among the number of suggestions, the Tufts Uni researcher made, was that diet can help regulate the 'normal' tissue/bone growth differing rates in young dogs, which set up conditions where the likely genetic triggering for HD can then affect. And also to watch the kind of exercise the young dog has, during that vulnerable time.

That Tufts paper was also a bit middle-aged in research terms....but it points to the directions which are being further studied.

Edited January 12, 2010 by mita

[Jed]

Hi Mita, there are so many things the ANKC could do but politics, ambitions, and the usual things committees suffer from seem to intervene. Also, as sandgrubber, some believe it will not happen or not to the extent some of us 'older' breeders do. Older in terms of dog breeding, you understand!!

I don't think anything much will make a difference, the might of a fanatical army, with a long range goal, where the goalposts were set up 20 years ago, against a small number of hobbyists, most of whom don't believe there is a problem, with a governing body which doesn't have the time or the expertise to mount a challenge - and which also has never been able to see the danger, or mount an effective defence.

sandgrubber, I hope you are right, you will be feeling the sting of the whips, not me. Don't think you are though. The way of the future was written on the wall years ago. I warned of it, and quite a lot of it has happened since then. No reason to believe the rest wont happen, it's all part of the plan.

If I were breeding specifically and only for puppy buyers I wouldn't bother with importing semen, etc. and I wouldn't have clean health sheets (avg hip score total of 3, no elbow scores, all PRA clear)

I hope you didn't mean this to read as it does? Puppy buyers should expect little chance of HD, ED, PRA, heart problems, CEA etc in the breed they choose for a pet. It's statements like this which give AR ammunition, and make pet buyers feel as if they are being sold a pup.

I don't import semen, like to see the studs in the flesh, but last litter was sired by an imp ch, dog of the year, tests for all nasties done, people got some very nice looking and healthy pets. That's how it should be.