Report Recommends Tighter Dog Breeding Regulations

[Steve]

Report recommends tighter dog breeding regulations

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/pe...ns-1867832.html

All puppies should be microchipped and new owners should insist on seeing them with their mothers as part of efforts to crackdown on bad breeding practices including dog "farming", a report recommended today.

The independent inquiry by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson called for changes in the law to include a requirement for all puppies to be microchipped before sale, which could help trace bad breeders.

And he called for changes in the Dangerous Dogs Act - which only focuses on certain breeds - to allow authorities to take action on all dangerous individual animals to stop dogs being bred and reared as "weapons".

The inquiry, funded by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, looked at the issue of dog breeding in the wake of a BBC documentary which claimed pedigree dogs bred for shows were suffering a high degree of genetic illness.

Prof Bateson said inbreeding in pure breeds, breeding dogs for specific looks or extreme characteristics such as wrinkly skin and negligent management of "puppy farms" were all major welfare issues for dogs.

He warned that inbreeding among pedigree animals led to inherited diseases, made it harder for them to reproduce and lowered their immune system - making it more likely they would develop diseases such as cancer.

His inquiry called for a non-statutory advisory council on dog breeding which would look at the problems of inherited diseases and inbreeding, and produce advice on breeding strategies and priorities for scientific research.

The study also said a computer system should be developed to collect anonymous diagnoses of inherited diseases from vet surgeries to see how prevalent different conditions were in various breeds.

The report urged changes in the law to make microchipping all new puppies a requirement under the Animal Welfare Act and to bring in a statutory code of practice for breeders.

And Prof Bateson called for a more robust "accredited breeder scheme", which Crufts organisers the Kennel Club already runs, under which breeders have to run tests on parent dogs to make sure their offspring will not be at risk of inherited diseases.

The accredited breeder scheme would also enable prospective owners to view their new dog with its mother before buying.

Prof Bateson said there should be a public awareness programme - which he suggested could be fronted by a celebrity such as Joanna Lumley - to help the six million dog-owning households in the UK use their purchasing power to improve welfare for dogs.

Prof Bateson's inquiry took written evidence from breed clubs, breeders, vets, animal welfare charities and pet owners, interviewed more than 50 people and visited four dog shows.

The Cambridge University professor and president of the Zoological Society of London said there was widespread concern about so-called puppy farming, in which dogs are treated as commodities and are mass-bred for sale, often online.

In Ireland, there are puppy farms selling to the UK market which can produce 5,000 young dogs a year, while the industry in Britain is centred in Wales.

The problems associated with these puppy farms include poor care of the mothers, poor hygiene and health standards, puppies not being vaccinated, cared for or socialised properly and being sold too young, the report said.

Many breeders requiring a licence - those which breed more than five litters a year - are not inspected properly because local authorities "don't have the expertise or resources to do the job properly", he said.

He urged the British Veterinary Association to compile a list of vet practices which were prepared to carry out inspections.

He said: "I must stress many dog breeders exercise high standards of welfare, are passionate about breeding dogs properly and take great care to make sure they go to good homes."

But he said many breeders were receiving poor or no advice on breeding, dogs were being bred with relatives too closely related and animals were being sold to members of the public whose lifestyle did not suit that type of dog.

And he said there were some breeders of "questionable status", prompting the need for an upgraded accredited breeders scheme to be implemented quickly.

He said the ID number of microchips should be recorded on registration documents, health test certificates and even a "contract of sale" that could be drawn up between the buyer and seller - although he said he was not sure whether such a contract could be binding.

He warned that some dogs were being bred and reared as "weapons" and said the Dangerous Dogs Act was not currently working - with the number of injuries to humans on the rise.

The Act was limited to a certain number of breeds, while other unlisted breeds were equally dangerous and individual animals within the listed breeds were not a threat.

He said the law should be amended to focus on individual animals which had been shown to be dangerous, but admitted legal changes would be slow in coming in the face of a general election and the economic concerns of government.

On the issue of pedigree dogs - which are found in three-quarters of dog-owning homes in the UK - he said current breeding practices imposed welfare costs on individual dogs.

For example, some 90% of bulldogs cannot give birth without Caesarian section while King Charles' spaniels can suffer from syringomyelia, in which they have brains too big for their skulls causing them pain and fits.

He said animals too closely related should not be bred, adding: "It's certainly unacceptable to breed parent and child, siblings or granddaughter and grandfather."

Breed standards should be amended to avoid selection of extreme characteristics and judges in dog shows should focus on healthy dogs, he said, while the shows themselves could be use to educate the public.

And, pointing to the well known slogan that "a dog is for life, not just for Christmas", he said: "Members of the public should be given as good advice as they can get on how to keep a dog.

"They should take the trouble to get the right kind of advice, should insist on seeing the puppy with its mother, should insist on it being microchipped and make sure the parents have been properly health checked."

And he said: "In many ways the public has been as responsible as anybody for allowing this to continue, they have bought puppies without thinking about it, and then dumped them in ways that are sometimes unspeakable."

The report said that, if the Kennel Club was unable to upgrade its accredited breeder scheme promptly and no other body could step in, a new programme should be implemented under the auspices of the advisory council.

The advisory council should also give guidance on breed standards revisions and, where a welfare problem already existed, the standards should be amended specifically to select physical features which will improve the dog's welfare.

It is expected that the various organisations involved in dog breeding will have to contribute to funding the board, while pet insurance companies could help fund the computer system to monitor inherited disease, it was suggested.

Caroline Kisko, spokeswoman for the Kennel Club, said the organisation welcomed the report's recognition that it had made a good start in its efforts to "unite responsible breeders" within its accreditation scheme.

The club also said it had banned mating of close relatives and was developing a new database which would help breeders find suitable, healthy mating pairs and give a better picture of the health of pedigree dogs.

Ms Kisko said: "The report recognises that 'dog showing and judging are a powerful lever for change' and the Kennel Club is dedicated to ensuring that only the healthiest dogs are rewarded at shows.

"Public education is vital and all dog welfare organisations must continue to work together to ensure that people know what to look for when buying a dog," she added.

The RSPCA said it was disappointed that Prof Bateson had not recommended the advisory council should be given powers to make it effective.

The animal welfare charity also said it was already working with the University of Sydney and the Royal Veterinary College on a three-year research project to create a new electronic system for collecting, analysing and reporting data on inherited disorders in both dogs and cats, which would help monitor progress.

Chief veterinary adviser Mark Evans said: "The world has woken up to the extremely unpalatable truth that the health and welfare of many pedigree dogs is seriously compromised as a result of the way they are bred. Pedigree dogs need our help and they need it now."

And he said: "We agree with Professor Bateson that consumer pressure is the greatest lever for change.

"The way to solve this is through people power. Changing the industry will take some time, but the public can start to demand better quality animals that are in good health right now."

Richard Dixon, president of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, said: "Vets are at the forefront of advising potential dog owners and breeders about the health and welfare issues involved with breeding.

"We hope that the public attention given to Professor Bateson's report will remind people to always seek advice from their vet before buying a puppy and never buy on impulse.

"If the dog-buying public is properly educated to make the right welfare choices they will turn their backs on puppy farms and bad breeders."

Edited January 14, 2010 by Steve

[jacobite]

Yes, I read about this on another forum I'm on, and everyone in the UK is rightly concerned about it. Whose going to pay for this new body, well breeders of course, you can bet that puppy farmers won't pay any thing. What sort of powers if it going to have, let's hope the RSPCA don't get their noses in this trough, but I bet they will. I think we dog breeders should keep a very close eye on this as what happens in the UK now will happen over here eventually.

Pam

[Steve]

Yes, I read about this on another forum I'm on, and everyone in the UK is rightly concerned about it. Whose going to pay for this new body, well breeders of course, you can bet that puppy farmers won't pay any thing. What sort of powers if it going to have, let's hope the RSPCA don't get their noses in this trough, but I bet they will. I think we dog breeders should keep a very close eye on this as what happens in the UK now will happen over here eventually.

Pam

Actually based on what I know is going on behind the scenes I wouldnt be surprised if it happened here before it does there.

[Jed]

and 3. A non-statutory Independent Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be

established

[BJean]

and 3. A non-statutory Independent Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be

established

well, we've got the seminar

[Steve]

Actually as long as those who are on the advisory council are a good representative of the stakeholders and its not stacked

I would support such a move regardless of who had to pay for it.

On the whole I think this report was better than it might have been.

[lappiemum]

I share concerns. However, at least this report mentions puppy farmers. In this country they get endorsed......!

[Quickasyoucan]

Actually as long as those who are on the advisory council are a good representative of the stakeholders and its not stacked

I would support such a move regardless of who had to pay for it.

On the whole I think this report was better than it might have been.

I think it raises a number of good points:

BSL

Puppy Farms

Responsibility of the public in dog welfare

At least it is not just jumping on pedigree breeders, although I note the RSPCA is.

Geez that has got to be better than the one-eyed stuff that is going on here.

[Tapua]

Actually as long as those who are on the advisory council are a good representative of the stakeholders and its not stacked

I would support such a move regardless of who had to pay for it.

On the whole I think this report was better than it might have been.

I am with Steve on this one as long as the committee/advisory council are not stacked and there is reliable data and science involved this could be a good thing. As said in the report the puppy farmers are being targetted and the need for microchipping prior to sale is not a national requirement in Australia either.

An unbiased public eduction would be good but what a challenge to get that happening either at a state or national level - eeek not sure where you would start there. Far too many issues for my small brain today.

I feel many breeders underestimate and dismiss the knowledge of the buyer. Whilst the average punter may be shallow in understanding I havent had a buyer yet who hasnt asked about hips/elbows/temperament or inherited disease. Its annoying sometimes but a very consistant series of questions. How openly I answer the quetions pretty much determines whether I get the sale or not.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Tapua

[Are You Serious Jo]

If inbreeding and purebreds are the source of all evil, then why do crossbreds and mutts turn up at vets with the same diseases as purebreds. There does seem to be progress with this story re BSL and puppy farms, but again there is ignorance of dog disease.

[Steve]

If inbreeding and purebreds are the source of all evil, then why do crossbreds and mutts turn up at vets with the same diseases as purebreds. There does seem to be progress with this story re BSL and puppy farms, but again there is ignorance of dog disease.

Yes I agree and I think a lot of what is in the report may be about England and not so much Australia.

Unless it is managed properly and we have little evidence to make us feel it would be based on other advisory panels and outcomes I can see some pretty big unintended consequences and I have to ask if they really understand

the whole culture and the issues.

If you stop the CC registration of dogs for example which are closely line bred all I see that doing is less breeders registering some litters,false papers,less registered breeders, less registered dogs, more market for unregistered, more breeding unregistered, more puppy farms.Only those who were treating inbreeding as a tool with respect and knowledge will be stopped because they are the type of people who follow the rules and understand the importance of the integrity of the registry but those who were doing it without regard for the welfare aspects will continue to do it and find a way around it.Not to mention of course the only breeders who know what dog is closely related are registered breeders - no one would have a clue how closely related unregistered dogs are.

There are several other things which concern me including the fine line between advisory and compulsory,how advice can lead to laws which the advisory panel may not have powers at law over but which would place some other body like the RSPCA having legislative power sooner or later over the 'advice'.

Then what of the people who dont want advice - thanks anyway - or who prefer not to take the advice of this advisory council?

Would this stop any dogs from suffering? I dont think so.

[sandgrubber]

I've begun working my way through the first few chapters of the Bateson Report. I find it interesting reading, though sometimes at odds with points of view that seem to dominate DOL discussions. For example, Ch. 3 which deals with Inbreeding has some interesting references on inbreeding depression in wolves based on field studies in Scandanavia. I have heard people on DOL forums deny that there is good evidence for inbreeding depression.

Discussion here seems to be going right for the recommendations. Would others like to move discussion of the concepts and evidence in the text to some other forum on DOL?

[_PL_]

What's inbreeding depression?

[Steve]

What's inbreeding depression?

This is a term used to describe health issues which can arise in animals which have been closely inbred especially over a period of time which can lead to a decreased fitness of a population, inbreeding depression.

[sandgrubber]

What's inbreeding depression?

Inbreeding depression is reduced viability (eg, low litter sizes or low survival rates offfspring) arising from inbreeding. Zookeepers worry about it a lot when they select mates for rare animals. Whether or not it occurs in pedigree dogs has been a subject of discussion on DOL.

Note, the report also mentions the opposite effect. To quote: "When animal breeders wish to produce pure genetic lines, as they sometimes do, for example in laboratory animals, they will mate brother with sister generation after generation. Most lines die out due to the exposure of deleterious recessives that are normally hidden. However, any healthy lines that survive are likely to have lost many of the deleterious recessive genes they started with, a process known as genetic purging."

[Jed]

The long answer is book length Powerlegs, but the short answer is that if you inbreed for generations, you produce whatevers which have fewer offspring, and perhaps a less active immune system. It also means that deletorious genes are more likely to occur

Studies were done on a group of wolves on Lake Michigan, and also on things like fruit flys.

There's a fair bit of research out there, but there is also a lot of supposition with no studies to back it up.

There is also outbreeding depression, which is self explanatory - the same results as above, from x generations of outcrossing.

Dr Helen King experimentally bred rats, brother to sister for over 100 generations. The end products were finer and larger than the original pair. Dr Whitney developed guppies by breeding brother to sister for 10 generations, each generation was a little smaller and less vigourous than the preceeding one, but at the 5th generation, there was a sudden improvement, and each generation afterwards improved in colour and vigour.

Additionally, when 2 inbred lines, consecutive brother x sister matings are crossed with each other the progeny are always larger than the original stock, and possess increased vigour.

Just giving you both sides!!

Sandgrubber

For example, Ch. 3 which deals with Inbreeding has some interesting references on inbreeding depression in wolves based on field studies in Scandanavia. I have heard people on DOL forums deny that there is good evidence for inbreeding depression.

There is, depending on which author and which study you read. See above re Lake Michigan wolves. However, there are other studies which disagree.

There are studies out there which prove or disprove everything, just about. I tend to go with my own experience, or the experience of others more experienced, who I trust.

I personally disagree about "inbreeding" (linebreeding) being a problem in dogs, which should be stopped. This is because over a long time, I've seen a lot of dogs produced by outcrossing, and line breeding, and been able to see 4 or 5 generations as time passes, and reflect on the results.

I do a little line breeding. I think my best bitch is the result of fairly tight linebreeding.

My dog is the result of a half brother half sister mating, he is 7 no problems, good stud dog.

I didn't breed him, but I was keen to own him. His dual grandfather is a multi country grand champion, very sound, who had no hereditary issues at 11. I can see no reason why he would not be used in a line breeding program, and I particularly bought the dog because I wanted to introduce strong healthy lines, to continue the healthy lines I already had.

Additionally, my stud dog shares a grandfather on the bottom of the pedigree with my older stud dog. Again, a well credentialled dog, hale and hearty at 14, HIS father was hale and hearty at 16. Neither of my stud dogs has ever produced any of the health problems in the breed. My third dog, untested as yet, is from a totally different line, also very healthy.

(I'm sorry I said that, they'll all test positive for all sorts of things now!! Never tempt fate)

A lot of lines in various animals were brought forward quite a lot by ONE inbred example.

The pedigree studies have proved that very few breeders do line breed. The ones I know who do it, do it with superior stock to produce superior results.

However, I think it will be banned. And probably be introduced to Qld first, as DogsQld has shown they simply rull over when faced with any legislatitive process. BSL and docking legislation was introduced to Qld first, as the CCCQ was seen as an "easy" target, not having elected representatives, and having shown they were happy to lie down and roll over in the pastl.

They have already advised members that they intend banning close (brother x sister, mother x son etc) matings, despite the fact that hardly any members do it, and members are against them banning it.

I suppose, after that, matings of other relations will be banned as well. It will certainly close a door. And it will disseminate, rather than concentrate the blood lines of outstanding, healthy dogs, which seems to me to be a pity, as history shows us that this is the way forward.

I would like to see proper scientific studies of dogs with problems specifically caused by line breeding. Not stuff someone thought, or results of mating fruit flies for 6 generations. Or studies of wolves. How healthy and sound were t he fruit flies, and how healthy and sound were the wolves? No one seems to have taken that into account, but I can find 5 or 10, or 20 dogs from long ago who were line, or inbred, who did great service to their breed. The dogs today which go back to them don't seem to be afflicted with anything, although they have come down to use by diverse lines. I also think that we need to factor diet into any health studies, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that diet has an enormous effect on health.

Not that it matters much, between whatever "animal welfare" wants to legislate for, and the actions of the RSPCA, so many breeders will walk away there wont be much gene pool remaining.

Maybe we should have taken Don Burke up on his offer, and started up in opposition to the ANKC!!

Edited January 15, 2010 by Jed

[Jed]

Here's something on the Scandanavian wolves. There are so many conflicting studies, I prefer to go with the evidence of my own eyes, which at least I know I can trust.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 25, 2006) — Increasing levels of inbreeding is a threat against the viabi lity of the Scandinavian wolf population. A study just coming out in the new journal PLoS ONE now demonstrates that inbreeding is not affecting the wolves as badly as expected. The results show that it is the most genetically variable wolf individuals that are recruited into the breeding population. An important consequence of this action of natural selection is that the negative effects of inbreeding are accumulating much slower than previously believed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The wolf was exterminated in the Scandinavian peninsula by the 1960-ies. The present Scandinavian population of approximately 150 animals was founded by three immigrants from the larger Russian-Finnish population; a pair around 1980 and a single male ten years later. With so few individuals founding the population the level of inbreeding is high. By the use of DNA-analyses the research team has previously reconstructed a pedigree of the whole population. This kind of detailed information about wild animals is quite unique, but a necessary prerequisite for calculations of so called inbreeding coefficients.

- The inbreeding coefficient is a measure of the proportion of the DNA that is inbred. It varies between 0 and 100%. If a brother and sister are mating, their offspring will have an inbreeding coefficient of 25%. This is about the average level for the present wolf population in Scandinavia. And our analyses have shown that inbreeding is negative, inbred wolves produce less number of pups, says Staffan Bensch, one of the spokespersons of the research team..

The inbreeding coefficients are calculated from the sorted out pedigree. Another way to estimate the proportion of the DNA that is inbred is with DNA-techniques. The research team used samples from blood, hair and scats and examined the DNA at several places to measure the level of genetic variation of individuals. Together with the previous analyses based on inbreeding coefficients the new direct m easures of genetic variation delivered some surprising results.

- For each level of inbreeding it appears to be the wolves with the highest amount of genetic variation that establish themselves as breeders, Staffan Bensch concludes. Whether this is because the genetically diverse wolves are more healthy and stronger and thus more likely to become reproductively active, or if they are more preferred as mates by the opposite sex, we do not know.

- Even if selection is favouring the wolves that are genetically diverse, genetic variation will inevitably be lost over time in such a small population as this one. But it will take much longer than previously thought. This is an important observation since if novel genes are added by introducing a new wolf from a nearby population, the positive effects will be maintained longer than previously estimated.

- We think our results are relevant also for other threatened populations of carnivores. Such spe cies require large areas for their territories and most natural reserves are of a size in which only a few territories can be accommodated. Without immigration inbreeding will increase. If the pattern seen in the Scandinavian wolf population holds to be general, active introductions is only required to be done at rather long intervals in order to maintain the genetic variation of populations.

The study has been carried out by Swedish and Norwegian researchers lead by Staffan Bensch (Lund University, Sweden) and Olof Liberg (Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Sweden) as a part of the SKANDULV project.

Citation: Bensch S, Andre´n H, Hansson B, Pedersen HC, Sand H, et al (2006) Selection for Heterozygosity Gives Hope to a Wild Population of Inbred Wolves. PLoS ONE 1(1): e72. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000072. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000072)

[Steve]

Another thing in the report is a call for more evidence and all of us regardless of what side or position we are in are saying the same thing.

There are some issues with this.

The unis need funds to do the research and if the unis dont do the studies and someone else does its not counted anyway because the scientific community wants initials supervising the studies. When they do their studies and research they have tight reference points and things are done slowly with many variables left out and not considered.

Decades ago a guy called Pottinger did a longditudinal study on cat diets and over some 5 generations some of the cats fed on certain diets had died out and developed what to date [ and still ] are considered to be genetic illnesses.His findings were that diet caused animals to have all the things which are noted as in breeding depressions etc over several generations so when we look at studies on in breeding how do we know whether what is considered to be caused by in breeding isnt caused by a particular diet or environmental factor unless we have a control group which experiences everything else in an identical situation other than its inbreeding status.

For a uni to set that up in a controlled study this would take at least 10 years and hundreds of dogs - The MDBA has already done a lot of work toward this - the entire program is written up and ready to go and we could get through it self funded.

Or we could survey breeders to ask them questions relating to the health and longevity of their dogs in relation to how in bred they were.

The point is would anyone in the scientific community take any notice of the results and by then it will be too late because it will be illegal anyway and we will never really know.

[Steve]

I also note the recommendations for how this advisory council should be set up and its specific that some positions should be held by people who have not bred dogs. I wonder how it would go if an advisory council for preschools specifically said two seats should be people who have never had kids? A Vet advisory panel which had two spots where they can not have ever been vets, an acedemic advisory council where two spots were filled by people who had only limited education, an endagered species board where two couldnt have experience in zoolology.

[Jed]

I also note the recommendations for how this advisory council should be set up and its specific that some positions should be held by people who have not bred dogs. I wonder how it would go if an advisory council for preschools specifically said two seats should be people who have never had kids? A Vet advisory panel which had two spots where they can not have ever been vets, an acedemic advisory council where two spots were filled by people who had only limited education, an endagered species board where two couldnt have experience in zoolology.

Because it's rigged, baby. It's not about breeding better dogs, they don't gove a rats about breeding better dogs. They have the results of studies, anecdotal evidence etc, which they are ignoring.

They want NO dogs. And they are going to achieve it.

I said that doco was the springboard for tiny steps along the road to no dogs.

Why would there be a government enquiry because of some skewed doco, unless there was a lot going on behind the scenes? Even the maker admitted it was skewed and it got a bagging by OFA

Did they have an enquiry into the RSPCA after the ABC doco on the RSPCA? Nuh.

They came for the pitbulls

They came for the tails

Now they're coming for the breeders