Report Recommends Tighter Dog Breeding Regulations

[sandgrubber]

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.

In my experience in Australian academia, the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders is widely advocated in forming advisory panels, and you don't get your grant funding if you don't get a broad mix on your advisory panel (especially for CRC's). Eg, a business advisory panel will have a few representatives from labour, a childcare advisory board will typically try to include interests of owners, parents, workers, and local government. I was working on bushfire research . . . we sought land owners, fire fighters, aboriginal representatives, tourism operators, research scientists, ecologists, local government, state government, national government . . . the whole kit and kaboodle. I see no problem with including a zoologist, geneticist, reproductive vet, a gene testing company rep, someone from a welfare organisation, or whatever on a dog breeding advisory panel if they have experience and credentials relevant to the problem. If I were picking a panel I might insist on a statistician with broad experience cause I see a high frequency of people drawing generalisations (on both sides) based on flimsy data and personal bias. I think it would elevate the debate if people could unite behind statistically defensible studies.

Edited January 16, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Tapua]

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.

Hi Steve

I understand the principle of what you are saying but working in welfare at State and NGO level 'advisory boards' are always a requirement and they must consist of a broad base representation if possible. Otherwise the advisory board is considered to be biased and non-representative of the 'community' or in this case the consumer (dog/puppy buyer).

Mind you no matter how well constructed an advisory board is they can only give advice - it doesn't mean that the stakeholders follow the advice unless it is authorised or followed through with consequences if breached all it will be is another Paper-Tiger - all growl and no bite.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Tapua

[asal]

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."

hush your mouth, surely nothing good can come of shock horror, inbreeding

[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."

hush your mouth, surely nothing good can come of :D shock horror, inbreeding

The purpose of the quote was to show that the report gives a balanced, non-dogmatic position. Island biogeography is FULL of plant and animal populations that start from a single founder, and hence are highly inbreed. Eg, most of the native species in the Galapagos or the Hawaiian Islands descent from a few individuals that happened to drift to the island. Many of these are healthy and robust. Extreme inbreeding can produce healthy popuations, though, as I understand the academic research on the subject, it is more likely to lead to failed lines. My own bias is strongly against ANY dogma. Biology is wonderfully complex, and many 'rules' have exceptions. There may be cases where close inbreeding would be useful to rescue a rare breed with high incidence of some genetic problem.

Edited January 16, 2010 by sandgrubber

[asal]

my poor attempt at humour sandgrubber.

its getting to the stage this is becoming a big brother country. i remember how supposedly horrified at how "oppressed" those in russia were, no freedom of speech etc.

beginning to look like our government has decided its not such a bad idea after all\

that poor farmer that went on the hunger strike IS RIGHT. only he had to starve himself for how long before anyone even the press noticed and finally the headlines at least embarrassed rudd a bit.

he is telling the truth, things are turning scary we are no longer a democratic society

Edited January 17, 2010 by asal

[Wajoma's Aussies]

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.

Using the C word, to scare the crap outta people?

[bet hargreaves]

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.

Using the C word, to scare the crap outta people?

Could I just mention an interesting comment in the Bateson Report,it is on Page 32 of the Report and concerns the Cavalier Breed.

"Prominence has been rightly given to Syringomyelia in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.

In this case the BRAIN Continues to Grow after the Skull has Ossified ,with the Result that the Canal between Ventricles of the Brain and Spinal Cord is Occluded"

I wonder if Cavaliers with Larger Heads ,and whether it could be Faulty Genes that 's making the Brain continuing to grow after the Skull has Ossified,if those Cavaliers have more space inside their Skull ,and would'nt be having the same problem from Syringomyelia.

This is the first time I have seen this comment about the Cavaliers' Brains still growing after their Skull has Ossified.

Any thoughts any-body about this Statement?

Bet Hargreaves

[sandgrubber]

my poor attempt at humour sandgrubber.

. . . .

he is telling the truth, things are turning scary we are no longer a democratic society

Sorry to be humourless. I've been accused of being a BYB etc on DOL and it tends to depress one's senso fo humour.

I don't see democracy at threat.

But I wish to whatever one wishes to that people would provide evidence when they make strong assertions. I see both sides slinging a lot of . . . ok I'll be polite and call it mud. Until we have better reporting systems and decent prevalence data and a way to tie the disease to the pedigree, in my books it's all 'speculative' . . .or BS, depending on your level of crudity. If I read another study trying to make sense of 'incidence' X breed data I think I'll puke. Surprise, surprise, surprise. If a breed is popular and there are lots of pedigree dogs in the breed, the number of reported diseases is relatively high. If the breed is relatively rare, not so many genetic defects have been reported. TOTAL ABSURD POPPYCOCK. We need to understand what genetic diseases pose the greatest threat to what breed . . . and design strategies accordingly. I think it's great that Bateman came out strongly in favour of compiling prevalence data.

Edited January 18, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Jed]

Sandgrubber

We need to understand what genetic diseases pose the greatest threat to what breed . . . and design strategies accordingly

If "we" refers to breeders, we already do. I know the major diseases my breeds are liable to acquire, and how (when known). I have personally to research into some of these, as opposed to the mandatory donation which my CC takes from puppy registrations. I also have a litte black book with noted hereditary problems in lines in my breeds, which I add to when necessary.

I think all responsible breeders do the same thing.

. I think it's great that Bateman came out strongly in favour of compiling prevalence data.

What bothers me is the spin off coming from this. Very similar to what happened prior to BSL and anti docking laws (as well as some other draconian laws overseas). It also bothers me that the report couldn't get the name of the breed right - or maybe they did mean King Charles Spaniels, which despite having a domed head, also suffer from SM

I don't think most breeders will want to be told by "someone" that that cannot use this line, it is too close, or they cannot use that dog, or that the pups must be microchipped at birth, or the bitch checked by the vet every time pre mating, or checked post whelping (which is already law in Vic).

Bet Hargreaves - absolutely no idea.

[asal]

Sandgrubber

We need to understand what genetic diseases pose the greatest threat to what breed . . . and design strategies accordingly

If "we" refers to breeders, we already do. I know the major diseases my breeds are liable to acquire, and how (when known). I have personally to research into some of these, as opposed to the mandatory donation which my CC takes from puppy registrations. I also have a litte black book with noted hereditary problems in lines in my breeds, which I add to when necessary.

I think all responsible breeders do the same thing.

. I think it's great that Bateman came out strongly in favour of compiling prevalence data.

What bothers me is the spin off coming from this. Very similar to what happened prior to BSL and anti docking laws (as well as some other draconian laws overseas). It also bothers me that the report couldn't get the name of the breed right - or maybe they did mean King Charles Spaniels, which despite having a domed head, also suffer from SM

I don't think most breeders will want to be told by "someone" that that cannot use this line, it is too close, or they cannot use that dog, or that the pups must be microchipped at birth, or the bitch checked by the vet every time pre mating, or checked post whelping (which is already law in Vic).

Bet Hargreaves - absolutely no idea.

it is interesting, the dog world, well pedigree anyway looks like ending up breeding by committee.

wonder how long before they expect to do the same to the throughbred breeding industry? NOW that might get interesting.

dont know if your aware of it but thers a stallion line noted for its descendants breaking legs, it was commented ruffian was bred to die, apparently she is of the line, they tend to have a short use by date. the wise get them to a few black type races then retire em to stud before they "break down" well if they are lucky. the idea of course being make the money standing the survivors at stud to produce the next fragile generation, they are fast and thats the bottom line

or dairy and beef breeders, or sheep?

anyone any idea the priority list n who has it?

Edited January 18, 2010 by asal

[Bilbo Baggins]

Sandgrubber

We need to understand what genetic diseases pose the greatest threat to what breed . . . and design strategies accordingly

If "we" refers to breeders, we already do. I know the major diseases my breeds are liable to acquire, and how (when known). I have personally to research into some of these, as opposed to the mandatory donation which my CC takes from puppy registrations. I also have a litte black book with noted hereditary problems in lines in my breeds, which I add to when necessary.

I think all responsible breeders do the same thing.

. I think it's great that Bateman came out strongly in favour of compiling prevalence data.

What bothers me is the spin off coming from this. Very similar to what happened prior to BSL and anti docking laws (as well as some other draconian laws overseas). It also bothers me that the report couldn't get the name of the breed right - or maybe they did mean King Charles Spaniels, which despite having a domed head, also suffer from SM

I don't think most breeders will want to be told by "someone" that that cannot use this line, it is too close, or they cannot use that dog, or that the pups must be microchipped at birth, or the bitch checked by the vet every time pre mating, or checked post whelping (which is already law in Vic).

Bet Hargreaves - absolutely no idea.

I picked up on that too Jed. Other breeds also get SM. No mention of them.

[Steve]

Sandgrubber

We need to understand what genetic diseases pose the greatest threat to what breed . . . and design strategies accordingly

If "we" refers to breeders, we already do. I know the major diseases my breeds are liable to acquire, and how (when known). I have personally to research into some of these, as opposed to the mandatory donation which my CC takes from puppy registrations. I also have a litte black book with noted hereditary problems in lines in my breeds, which I add to when necessary.

I think all responsible breeders do the same thing.

. I think it's great that Bateman came out strongly in favour of compiling prevalence data.

What bothers me is the spin off coming from this. Very similar to what happened prior to BSL and anti docking laws (as well as some other draconian laws overseas). It also bothers me that the report couldn't get the name of the breed right - or maybe they did mean King Charles Spaniels, which despite having a domed head, also suffer from SM

I don't think most breeders will want to be told by "someone" that that cannot use this line, it is too close, or they cannot use that dog, or that the pups must be microchipped at birth, or the bitch checked by the vet every time pre mating, or checked post whelping (which is already law in Vic).

Bet Hargreaves - absolutely no idea.

I picked up on that too Jed. Other breeds also get SM. No mention of them.

F1 cross get SM too.

[bet hargreaves]

Sandgrubber

We need to understand what genetic diseases pose the greatest threat to what breed . . . and design strategies accordingly

If "we" refers to breeders, we already do. I know the major diseases my breeds are liable to acquire, and how (when known). I have personally to research into some of these, as opposed to the mandatory donation which my CC takes from puppy registrations. I also have a litte black book with noted hereditary problems in lines in my breeds, which I add to when necessary.

I think all responsible breeders do the same thing.

. I think it's great that Bateman came out strongly in favour of compiling prevalence data.

What bothers me is the spin off coming from this. Very similar to what happened prior to BSL and anti docking laws (as well as some other draconian laws overseas). It also bothers me that the report couldn't get the name of the breed right - or maybe they did mean King Charles Spaniels, which despite having a domed head, also suffer from SM

I don't think most breeders will want to be told by "someone" that that cannot use this line, it is too close, or they cannot use that dog, or that the pups must be microchipped at birth, or the bitch checked by the vet every time pre mating, or checked post whelping (which is already law in Vic).

Bet Hargreaves - absolutely no idea.

I picked up on that too Jed. Other breeds also get SM. No mention of them.

F1 cross get SM too.

The Problem is that the Cavalier King Charles Breed is the only Breed that seems to have a Premature Ossifying of their Skull ,and their Brain keeps getting Larger.

Could this be a Flaw particular to the Cavalier Breed. ?

Bet Hargreaves

[sandgrubber]

belated response on the question of prevalence . . .

I have a pretty good idea of what my own dogs are most at risk for.

I don't object to well-justified regulations on breeding from dogs who carry genetic diseases.

But the Labrador is probably the single most common pedigree dog in the world. Labs have registered most every genetic disease found in dogs. Many of these are incidences in a specific bloodline in a specific part of the world (eg, we had a few cases of late onset deafness in WA that seemed to be genetic. There don't seem to be any records of this problem in Labs elsewhere. It would be stupid for the entire Lab population in the US, Canada, and Europe to have to be screened when there seems to have been a minor problem . . . five or six dogs total . . . in WA). There are huge numbers of pedigree Labs, and the genetic diversity in the breed is extremely broad. So most of the genetic diseases registered have prevalence of less than 1:1000 . . . and many may be less than 1:10,000. I do not want to be saddled with doing 20 genetic tests for diseases that 'have been recorded' in the breed . .. much better to be able to prioritise testing and require it only where prevalence was relatively high, say 1% or higher.