Rspca Responds To Bateson Report

[Jed]

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/4750/r...d-has-woken-up/

K9 Magazine

RSPCA Responds to Bateson Report “The World has Woken Up”

Submitted by The RSPCA on January 14, 2010 – 1:32 pm2 Comments---

Dog Welfare Report: New Panel Needed To Oversee Pedigree Health

A new report published today (Thursday) has been welcomed by the RSPCA for its recognition that pedigree dog health and welfare is a serious problem and urgent action is needed.

The Independent Inquiry Into Dog Breeding, commissioned by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, is written by leading zoologist Professor Sir Patrick Bateson who concludes that ‘dog breeding raises a number of serious concerns about the welfare of dogs’.

He recommends that a new advisory panel should be set up, an idea the RSPCA supports – however we are concerned that the panel won’t have the necessary power to push through the real change that’s clearly urgently required.

RSPCA 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.

“Some are suffering as a result of what Darwin’s disciples might refer to as ‘unnatural selection’ – survival of the most fashionable rather than the fittest. This report is what we have all been waiting for and we hope that now we can all get on and start working towards meaningful change for pedigree dogs.

“We’re delighted that Professor Bateson agrees with the RSPCA that something has to be done, but we are disappointed he hasn’t recommended that the advisory panel should be given the appropriate power to be effective. What is encouraging is that, when asked by the RSPCA, Professor Bateson acknowledged that in an ideal world the government would give the panel statutory powers.”

We fully support the inquiry’s conclusion that information on diseases suffered by dogs should be collected and in fact this was the top recommendation made in an independent report commissioned by the RSPCA, Pedigree Dog Breeding in the UK: A Major Welfare Concern?*

As a result, the RSPCA is 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. When complete, for the first time in the UK there will be comprehensive data to show the prevalence of inherited disorders in specific breeds. Vitally this will allow the effectiveness of any new breeding initiatives to be monitored.

Mark Evans 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.

“We will now study the report in more detail and come up with a full response.”

As Professor Bateson has already agreed and the RSPCA has called for, there needs to be an urgent meeting of all relevant stakeholders to review all recommendations in all three reports,* to prioritise them, and to come up with a robust, workable action plan with clearly identified objectives, responsibilities and deadlines. Clearly an important part of this will be setting up some form of independent advisory body to oversee dog breeding and supply in the UK.

Interesting to see that the RSPCA is prepared to oversee dog breeding. Where is the offer to match breeder donations to develop health tests?

They want healthier dogs, are prepared to criticise the breeders, who are reponsible for 100% of the tests available, yet wont throw any money in.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Jed

[Wajoma's Aussies]

We're all doomed ...

As a result, the RSPCA is 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. When complete, for the first time in the UK there will be comprehensive data to show the prevalence of inherited disorders in specific breeds. Vitally this will allow the effectiveness of any new breeding initiatives to be monitored.

I wonder if all the cross-breds that pass through the RSPCA doors will be subject to similar testing before rehoming .. to give a clear indication if the problem is really a 'purebred' dog problem, or just a 'dog' problem in general ..

bet they won't be ...

[Jed]

Closer to home, I wonder if they intend testing the cocker pups which the BLIND bitch from the puppy farm whelped whilst in the RSPCA's care.

Very likely to be PRA, and if the bitch is affected, and from a puppy farm, chances of affected pups are good. So if they are not tested, the public couldl be buying dogs which will go blind.

And, of course, it was the breeders who paid for the gene to be identified, so cockers could be tested.

[Wajoma's Aussies]

unfortunately though ... even if they do test those pups, it'll come back to bite the good breeders out there, because it'll show BIG problems in 'purebred' dogs ... it won't make any difference to the RSPCA whether they were puppy farm bred or show home bred ...

[Steve]

We're all doomed ...

As a result, the RSPCA is 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. When complete, for the first time in the UK there will be comprehensive data to show the prevalence of inherited disorders in specific breeds. Vitally this will allow the effectiveness of any new breeding initiatives to be monitored.

I wonder if all the cross-breds that pass through the RSPCA doors will be subject to similar testing before rehoming .. to give a clear indication if the problem is really a 'purebred' dog problem, or just a 'dog' problem in general ..

bet they won't be ...

Hope they are aiming at working with breeders too while they are in the putting it together phase as unless they also collect data to say who bred them and what group those breeders belong to their figure will mean zip anyway.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Steve

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yes, collecting information on specific breeds, great. Unless they are including dogs of those breeds that are chosen randomly from the general population as a control sample they cannot gain much useful information. A good study would also include crossbreds as well, both bought into the clinics and from the population. I can already see that the sample will be flawed and the results extrapolated to push personal agendas to promote crossbreeding. I am disturbed that the scientific process is being abused in this way, despite the fact some of the existing literature from these clowns are sketchy they are being grabbed by the media as gospel.

[Steve]

You can just see it cant you.It looks like a beagle so its recorded as a beagle and even though its a cav cross beagle bred by some disgusting commercial puppy farm we get pinged for the problems.

[sandgrubber]

We're all doomed ...

As a result, the RSPCA is 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. When complete, for the first time in the UK there will be comprehensive data to show the prevalence of inherited disorders in specific breeds. Vitally this will allow the effectiveness of any new breeding initiatives to be monitored.

I wonder if all the cross-breds that pass through the RSPCA doors will be subject to similar testing before rehoming .. to give a clear indication if the problem is really a 'purebred' dog problem, or just a 'dog' problem in general ..

bet they won't be ...

Actually, comprehensive data on prevalence would be a great thing!!!! As more genetic tests become available, I want to be able to say 'no' to those tests that have less than, say 0.5% prevalence in my breed. It would be even better if the data were in some sort of open registry, cause even 2% occurrence can be ignored if it can be tied to specific lines . . . and lines you have steered clear of. You're only doomed if you lie down and play dead.

If they are following the recommendations of the Bateson Report, if I read it right, the reporting will be done via vets when the dog comes in for care, and will apply to cross breeds and mixed breeds as well as pedigree dogs. I may be wrong. But the devil is in the details, and I think we need to see the details before passing judgement.

Also, if they are departing from the recommendations of the Bateson Report, which is good in recognising that puppy farm problems may be at least as bad as those of pedigree dogs, I think it's worth observing that and rubbing their noses in it.

Edited January 16, 2010 by sandgrubber

[mita]

As a result, the RSPCA is 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. When complete, for the first time in the UK there will be comprehensive data to show the prevalence of inherited disorders in specific breeds. Vitally this will allow the effectiveness of any new breeding initiatives to be monitored.

It's not the electronics which will inject any scientific rigor into this enterprise. It's the methodology. If this project is to show the prevalence of inherited disorders in specific breeds, they're very much flirting with the notion that a disorder detected is peculiar to a breed. ( Which, in fact, some people seem to have already made up their mind about. The bandwagon's already taken off on that one.) Only way to prevent that, is to include crossbreeds in the study. And also to flag sources. As U of Q did for their extent of socialisation study.

Do these folks....RSPCA UK, Sydney Uni & RVC ever talk to, or look at work, from other places?

Denmark already carried out a useful study re cause of death & longevity, across purebreeds & crossbreeds. Interesting results there....a little bunch of pure breeds, trumped all the others. What is really funny & quite against the current bandwagon....the strangely shaped little dachshund with its long barrel body & short legs, came out in the top group. Now it could be worth doing similar studies to see if this is replicated in other countries with other genetic pools.

Following on from this, then it's likely not a simplistic equation....that pure breeds have been developed into a state where genetic conditions, uniquely, abound. Which is why there's such good research IMO coming out of some of the top US university schools of veterinary medicine.

I wish such places were involved. Less likely to start with a premise that drives a bandwagon & then set up a data collection which proves the bandwagon. Also known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Another issue that give me the scholarly chills.....is the RSPCA UK's bloke's reference to 'consumer pressure' as driving the project. Now that's a surprise....I'd expect it to be science, if a university is involved. Consumer perceptions about ideal dogs, should in itself be something to be critically studied. Not accepted as truisms.

No wonder then that some riders on the bandwagon seem to be talking the language of advertising.

My wish.....tho' it won't happen....would be for this project & its rationales.....to be submitted to a range of expert evaluations....& ranked.

Same system that injects quality into public- purse research funding... before a project can even get off the ground.

Nope, I'm not an expert myself....which is why this would make me happy.

Edited January 16, 2010 by mita

[sandgrubber]

As a result, the RSPCA is 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. When complete, for the first time in the UK there will be comprehensive data to show the prevalence of inherited disorders in specific breeds. Vitally this will allow the effectiveness of any new breeding initiatives to be monitored.

It's not the electronics which will inject any scientific rigor into this enterprise.

Do these folks....RSPCA UK, Sydney Uni & RVC ever talk to, or look at work, from other places?

Denmark already carried out a useful study re cause of death & longevity, across purebreeds & crossbreeds. Interesting results there....a little bunch of pure breeds, trumped all the others. What is really funny & quite against the current bandwagon....the strangely shaped little dachshund with its long barrel body & short legs, came out in the top group. Now it could be worth doing similar studies to see if this is replicated in other countries with other genetic pools.

Following on from this, then it's likely not a simplistic equation....that pure breeds have been developed into a state where genetic conditions, uniquely, abound. Which is why there's such good research IMO coming out of some of the top US university schools of veterinary medicine.

Another issue that give me the scholarly chills.....is the RSPCA UK's bloke's reference to 'consumer pressure' as driving the project. Now that's a surprise....I'd expect it to be science, if a university is involved. Consumer perceptions about ideal dogs, should in itself be something to be critically studied. Not accepted as truisms.

No wonder then that some riders on the bandwagon seem to be talking the language of advertising.

I have seen the press do more damage than the RSPCA, and I wouldn't take any press release at face value. I would have to see the details before I concluded that this study wasn't about both pure breeds and F1/crossbreeds/DD's.

As for scholarly chills . . . sounds like you haven't had a good bout with post modernist intellectuals who tell us that science is all value based . . . no one is objective . . . and that improvement comes from putting our biases up front for examination. Vet research is often funded by drug companies and pet food companies, so much veterinary research requires skeptical reading. I am much happier with 'consumer preference' as a driver, if it means complaints from puppy-buyers and voiced opinions of pet-owners, than I am with 'science' as established by some multinational conglomerate.

[mita]

[i have seen the press do more damage than the RSPCA, and I wouldn't take any press release at face value. I would have to see the details before I concluded that this study wasn't about both pure breeds and F1/crossbreeds/DD's.

As for scholarly chills . . . sounds like you haven't had a good bout with post modernist intellectuals who tell us that science is all value based . . . no one is objective . . . and that improvement comes from putting our biases up front for examination. Vet research is often funded by drug companies and pet food companies, so much veterinary research requires skeptical reading. I am much happier with 'consumer preference' as a driver, if it means complaints from puppy-buyers and voiced opinions of pet-owners, than I am with 'science' as established by some multinational conglomerate.

Where did I say I prefer funding to come from? From the public purse research grant process. Why? Because a research proposal must be sent out for ranking by experts in universities, not private companies or sources. To even get off the starting block. What did I say this system helps engender? Quality, rather than even perception of bias.

Which led me to state my (unlikely) wish that this project be first ranked by independent experts.

(My apologies, sandgrubber, I sound like the person out the front of a protest group. Puts megaphone down )

I don't meet too many post-modernist intellectuals. I worked in a university with a high ranking for research & still meet with an associated research-review group.

Which is why the objective eye of science would examine those 'consumer preferences' you talk about.

However they've been gathered, they're essentially perceptions about something. And if this project claims to have a scientific base but considers itself consumer opinion driven....then those perceptions would need to be studied in themselves. Why are you so concerned about perceptions being studied? The results may support your point of view.....or not. Or something else entirely.

UQ did so.....in relation to reasons people gave for dumping their dogs. Main reason was dog didn't live up to expectations. There you have those perceptions, again. And the study showed that a majority of those perceptions demonstrated unrealistic expectations about dogs. Which meant that clear recommendations could then be given....

By the way, I did not say that the research should not be done. But that it get the rationale & methodology straight (&, if only , be subject to independent ranking.)

Edited January 16, 2010 by mita

[Quickasyoucan]

I'm ploughing my way through this report and something about the inbreeding bit is bugging me.

If I am understanding correctly what it is saying is that if you inbreed to an extent that you do not have a sustainably large gene pool the number whelping problems and health in general declines and there is not a large enough genetic variety to breed out any bad genes that might be discovered without having to resort to outcrossing.

Why is it then that in situations where there is a small population not because of artificial selection but popularity etc, using for example Irish Terriers, which have never been a dog with large numbers, that you get a breed which has relatively few "genetic" health problems. From my reading the Irish Terrier only has one real identifiable "hereditary" disease and that is to do with corny feet?

Just hoping someone with more knowledge can assist.

[Steve]

The fact is that the "breed" of dog which has the most genetic diseases is a mixed breed dog.

The RECESSIVE genes aren't eliminated by outcrossing - they are only hidden so when they meet up they will show.

So what we are seeing in our survey is that mixed breed and F1 cross bred dogs as a group have more different diseases than purebred dogs - lots more.

Purebreds have much less but higher incidence of these particular issues known to be bred related.

So here is the question - look at Cavs for example where the two big deals for them are MVD and SM is it more cruel to keep it contained so we know what to look for and test for so the causes can be found and eliminated or to spread it around where it will just crop up all over the place?

Purebred dogs don't get more HD or Patella issues or skin problems than mixed breed dogs.

[poodlefan]

Yeah tell it to my friend with a Kelpie X desexed as a baby by the RSPCA. He has HD.

[Jed]

Quickasyoucan

If I am understanding correctly what it is saying is that if you inbreed to an extent that you do not have a sustainably large gene pool the number whelping problems and health in general declines and there is not a large enough genetic variety to breed out any bad genes that might be discovered without having to resort to outcrossing.

Why is it then that in situations where there is a small population not because of artificial selection but popularity etc, using for example Irish Terriers, which have never been a dog with large numbers, that you get a breed which has relatively few "genetic" health problems. From my reading the Irish Terrier only has one real identifiable "hereditary" disease and that is to do with corny feet?

Just hoping someone with more knowledge can assist.

I think the first statement about inbreeding till the gene pool is so reduced that you have to outcross is right - but studies with rats etc show that they get healthier and bigger after a lot of crosses. I don't know that anyone has done it with dogs. I notice that the wolves that they were jumping up and down about because the gene pool was so reduced seem to be ok, and they will be ok for a lot longer than formerly thought.

Maybe Irish terriers didn't have any bad problems to begin with? I have a friend who has been line breeding for years,(30? 40?)before there were any tests and I'd go there in a flash for a dog. She was careful about what she used.

If you have a closed gene pool, you can't introduce any nasties you don't know about, which is what steve is saying about cross breeding.

I don't know much about it, but there's my 2/- worth!!

I personally think the whole thing is a beat up, and there is not much truth in it, but a lot of hysteria and hyperbole. All the studies I've read on in breeding seem to pruduce the goods in the end.

I'm not planning to inbreed for 20 generations anyhow, and there is little inbreeding done with pedigree dogs, so there is no need for all the drama - except it fits into the agenda, which is not about purebred dogs getting healthier any time soon. However, if you want a "line" in your kennel, you do need to line breed, which is NOT inbreeding. I wanted a line, and I've pretty well got one, but I haven't done any first generation matings to get my line, although I have mated relatives. No signs of anything deleterious in the dogs themselves.

Steve - Cavs are not the only breed to suffer from MVD, nor are they the only breed to suffer from SM. I can probably find you some references, although I did find one on SM which Mita read. There are others on MVD across breeds. And I think they should be contained, rather than being spread around to other breeds, mixed breeds etc. Most cavs are outcrosses, with very little line breeding done. And if you look at a pedigree without similar dogs on it, the dog itsels may still have MVD. All the sources I've read or heard says nothing past the 5th generation makes much difference to the dog itself, so how come they are now talking about the same dog twice on the 12th line being a problem?

Is what I've read/learned wrong? Are all those breed societies who accept F4 as pure, and have done for years, wrong? Was the UK KC wrong when it accepted Steynmere's 5th and 6th generation away from the corgi with botails as purebred boxers? And genetic tests show they have no corgi in them. I know that is only 1 cross, not inbreeding, but if it works for 1 dog, it will work for 2 dogs.

I know they are saying that the dog himself will have 25% of dog X who was used on the 9th and 10th line, but what's the difference between him being a grandfather once, and twice back in the pedigree?

Maybe I need help. Maybe I've been reading pedigrees wrong. Maybe the people who taught me have been reading them wrong too? Naw, I don't think so. I think there is a lot of twaddle being talked.

[Steve]

A big part of the issue for me is that all this on line breeding and how its the magic quick formula to fix the perceived problems overlooks the work done by some pretty smart people who have their qualifications in genetics specifically Canine Genetics.- Padgett,Bell,Battaglia and a heap more - not to mention what some experienced breeders have to say regarding what they have seen and encountered in their own dogs. They have a completely different take on how we should go about it all.

Yet here and in the UK the OPINION of people who have no qualifications in canine genetics,no experience with breeding is taken over and above anything else.

Makes you wonder why. It makes you ask how much of it is about trying to gain funding and support for a genetic diseases data collection software program.

Sorry Jed I didn't mean to imply that Cavs are the only breed who have a particular problem.Its clear that others do too including F1 Crosses and mixed breed which have shown up in our survey. Just that if a particular problem shows up in one breed the breeders know how to work out how to rub it out rather than have it bubbling away all over the place.Its not possible for a mixed breed breeder to test for everything and a purebred breeder only needs to test for what's known to be an issue in their breed.You can only breed and screen and correlate a pedigree if you know what you're looking for.

[mita]

Yet here and in the UK the OPINION of people who have no qualifications in canine genetics,no experience with breeding is taken over and above anything else.

Makes you wonder why. It makes you ask how much of it is about trying to gain funding and support for a genetic diseases data collection software program.

The quoted comment, 'The world has woken up' speaks volumes about extent of the speaker's knowledge of what's already in existence. I've mentioned before that this bandwagon stirred up in the UK with an alliance with someone from Sydney University....seems to leave out past, present & continuing work from US sources. (And even Denmark.)

Which could make it, from an Australian perspective, narrow, & not strongly related to circumstances here. For drawing on research, Australia has always been in an excellent position to draw on work from both the UK/Europe AND the US.

Just look at the profiles of some US (& one UK) located people who work in areas relating to breeding health. First is Tufts Uni's Jerold Bell, whose excellent paper on HD, I've already posted about. Note that a couple of these researchers/educators, are involved in p/b dog breeding themselves. Dr Bell, with gordon setters. Dr Johnson, with irish terriers. Far from being an indication of bias, it's an indication of first-hand experience with the scope & range of breeding practices (for good & ill).

http://www.irishdogs.ie/breeders/Developin...hy_Breeding.htm

Of course, a data collection registry via appropriate software, is a good idea. But what's more important is the rationale on which it would be based.... And that's the area which needs a great deal more work. Any public funding, in this country, should depend on the project getting independent scaling from independent experts.

Edited January 20, 2010 by mita

[Steve]

Dr. Battaglia holds the Ph.D. and Masters degree from Florida State University. He is a breeder, author, researcher and lecturer and has worked at Emory University, Florida State University, DeKalb College and the University of Tennessee Space Institute.

He has authored many books and articles which have appeared in the AKC Gazette, Canine Chronicle, Dog World, Dog News and in publications throughout Canada, Hungary, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.

http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com/articles...storm_pt_1.html

Big things often come from small beginnings

By Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia

Over the years one can find many examples of an event which at the time seemed small and unimportant only to be later learned that it had grown large with unintended consequences. It was the repeated occurrence of these scenarios that eventually led to the expression, big things often-times come from small beginnings.

In this regard, there is now within the dog world a chain of events that has been defined as more than just an annoyance. These are a series of small events that can be described as a gathering storm but, unlike those of the past, this storm is being driven by forces that are connected in unusual ways. At its center is the repeated and effective use of several undefined labels. They have become the primary tool that fuels these turbulent winds. The storm is being driven by the fundamental idea that breeders should do the right thing. The motivating argument for this comes from the Animal Rights Movement which identifies the expectation that a responsible breeder would analyze his/her pedigrees for problems using DNA technology and the other certifications, tests and protocols that are available (OFA, CERF, PENN HIP etc). The idea, of course, is popular, but for those who study these events and how they are used to influence the future, it seems clear that the conditions are now right for a disaster. Unfortunately, there is no authority in the dog world who can say with any certainty how much damage this storm will cause. What is certain is that it has now reached a level that makes it a clear and present danger.

Storms in a sport, like those in society, are always risky because they usually bring with them unwanted damage. What has gone unnoticed about this storm is how the animal rights movement has used a series of undefined labels to drive the winds that have already altered and changed the dog world. Until now, most of these changes have gathered little national interest. Now however, through the use of well crafted-labels they are able to describe a person, thing or event in either a positive or negative light. Over the years they have learned how to use the power of the undefined label to capture the interests and attention of the public, the clubs and the breeders.

The use of labels to drive ideas is not new in an industrialized society. Advertising agencies and political campaigns use them to influence policy, regulations and elections. The hotter the issue, the more dramatic the pitch and the more clever the strategy. When the issue is ideological, labels are used to energize supporters. They are also used on web sites to announce the issues and promote the problems. When combined, they become the important vehicles for influencing opinions and changing perceptions. Sociologists call this the "labeling process".

Their studies focus on the groups and organizations that use the labels to exploit a situation, target a group or identify a victim. In this regard, the "labeling process" is best known as an applied method. Studying how they are used to achieve certain goals involves a search for the motive and the desired objective. Many times the goal is subtle and not easily noticeable. Understanding how the change agents use the "labeling process" is key to understanding how they are able to drive their programs. This is important in today's climate because the breeders seem to enjoy using the undefined labels without ever knowing their meaning or purpose and more importantly who will become their next victim.

One of the newest labels gaining in popularity has been designed to make the breeder its victim and their pups the target. It's called the "responsible breeder". What makes this label so dangerous is the attention it calls to the quality of the pups produced. What makes it politically correct is the fact that it has many meanings and interpretations and most importantly, it offers everyone who "does the right thing" the opportunity to label themselves a breeder.

Underneath its exterior however, is the special emphasis it brings to the quality of the pups being produced and sold. It assumes that if a pup is of poor quality, unhealthy or has something wrong, it should not be bred. Most breeders agree with this notion and respond by selling their pups without AKC registration papers, or with a limited registration or perhaps a spay/neuter contract.

The underlying assumption is that they are being "responsible breeders" and would not want to continue to produce low quality pups given the technology and protocols that are available. The latter point is key to the strategy. The notion that the unsound and unhealthy should not be sold for breeding is fundamental to this label and with that logic the best indicator of whether a breeder is being responsible or not can be tested by what they produce and how they register it. This method identifies some breeders as better then other breeders. This scenario salutes those who breed to produce better quality. In the background however, there are some important and very fundamental questions.

For example, why do so many breeders endorse the use of DNA but have little or no understanding of its uses or benefits and why have only a small fraction of the breeders actually used it? Why are so many breeders not trained in the use of DNA testing or the techniques available for managing the normal's, carriers or affected when they occur in their pedigrees? The animal rights strategy sees this as opportunity.

Their logic suggests that because there is widespread support for a technology they do not understand or use, the quality of their litters is not likely to improve. Thus, over time, a determination can be made as to whether a breed and its breeders are making progress and thus, being "responsible breeders". Said another way, if quality pups are the goal, a responsible breeder can be measured by how they sells their pups.

In retrospect, there is a lesson to be learned from this simple logic and how, through the use of undefined labels, the animal rights movement has been able to create havoc in the world of pure-bred dogs.

In the past, the most popular use of the undefined label was to describe the commercial or high volume breeders as "puppy mills". Other labels were then linked to it. They were called "overpopulation", "vicious dogs", "dangerous dogs", "responsible dog owner", etc. While each of these labels enjoyed wide-spread acceptance, none were ever defined. In each case, the fancy and the public accepted them without any understanding of what they meant or what they were intended to do. Now, after more than ten years of use, they are still undefined. For these reasons, it is important to appreciate who creates the labels (change agents), why they are using them and what affect they are having on the AKC, veterinary schools, dog clubs, registrations (stud book), and ultimately the breeders.

By design, most of these labels are left vague or never defined. This reduces the chances for resistance. When catchy words and phrases are linked to them, many ideas can be pushed to support their agenda. It is not just the general description given them that gathers attention, it the success they have had convincing breeders, their clubs and the writers to use undefined labels. Whether this new label will follow in the footsteps of the others is yet to be determined. But based on the past, it is safe to say that we should take this opportunity to understand its potential.

History shows that one of the earliest undefined labels targeted breeders by calling them "puppy mills". Catchy phrases were added to describe them as irresponsible individuals who owned dirty kennels and carried out careless breeding's. This label was then linked to a negative form of animal husbandry as a way to grow the idea into something bigger. Some of the first uses of this label focused on the breeders in certain states and cities. It resulted in changes in policies, zoning, regulations and even legislation. The strategy being used today closely parallels this scenario. It focuses on issues the Animal Rights Movement believes need to be changed. Their current strategy begins with the fancy (breeders/writers) they push for acceptance in conversation, at meetings and on web sites. Follow-up efforts are then used to identify the problem that fits their strategy. This step usually involves their critic groups who are developing court cases that will follow. Their use of the law and the courts has already resulted in a negative and financial impact on hundreds of breeders and their dog clubs. Their efforts have been effective only because they are able to create labels the community will accept.

In the past, it was only the like-minded groups within the animal rights movement that were able to function as change agents. In the beginning they were forced to use negative incentives and the courts to push their agendas. But over the past 20 years they have effectively learned how to use legislation and the courts and the breeders to introduce new changes in zoning, ownership, breeding rights, care and conditions etc. Typically they use the argument of "raising the bar". Sometimes they call it "raising the standard". Today, when the term "puppy mill" is used, it quickly arouses a negative and emotional response. More importantly it demonstrates how one undefined label in the hands of a determined group can manipulate the masses.

From the beginning, their goal was to control, limit and reduce the ownership and breeding rights of the breeders and those who exhibit purebred dogs. Thus far, they have successfully done both. What is best known about their efforts is the ripple effect they are having on the gene pools of many breeds. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of this new label. The cumulative effects they are having on registrations can not be ignored. Related to this problem is the impact they are having on the gene pools of the 35 breeds listed in Table 1.

The unintended and cumulative consequence of their efforts continues to gather momentum only because there is acceptance without understanding. What must be learned from these experiences is that most of the undefined labels are used to suggest something good. Later they are used to fit an agenda that will produce a negative effect. The most dangerous part of the process is how well they are able to reach beyond the obvious. In the early stages of acceptance the critic groups remain in the background preparing to use the courts as opportunities present themselves.

With this infrastructure in place, the animal rights groups are able to extend their reach. Their success can now be measured through declining registrations and the numbers of pups being sold on limited registrations or on spay/neuter contracts. The "responsible breeder" label is the vehicle being used to establish a new kind of husbandry, one that will eventually be guided by new and tougher quantative standards. During the initial stages of implementation their strategy only whispers about a better way. They do this by painting a picture of something that is good for everyone. At the center of their storm is the attention they are giving to DNA technology and health certifications which most breeders and their clubs endorse.

In their words, a "responsible breeder" is expected to screen and test all of their stock before breeding. This idea sounds great on the surface but this is only the first step. As the breeders and their clubs continue to embrace this label the animal rights activist slowly begins to lobby for the required use of both DNA and health screening. This follow-up step is called "raising the bar". It is unfolding one step at a time. We already have heard their voices asking that more testing must be used on breeding stock. Next they will push for testing as a condition of breeding and then as a condition to register breeding stock and their pups. In some quarters they already are asking that it become a condition for entry in some AKC venues. As the popularity of the "responsible breeder" spreads they will attempt to further extend their reach into the AKC stud book and the registration system. To this end, the change agents and their critic groups have already taken the first step by raising the level of awareness. Some believe they are ahead of schedule. What is so interesting is how well the breeders have accepted their ideas.

FIGURE 1. LIMITED REGISTRATIONS

Notice in Figure 1 how quickly the breeders responded when they were told that in order to be a "responsible breeder" they should sell their pups on limited registrations or on spay/neuter contracts as a way to control "over-population" a problem that does not exist. Figure 1, also shows that after only nine years well over 100,000 dogs each year continue to be removed from the gene pools of all breeds. Not only have the animal rights movement been able to encourage breeders to reduce the size of the AKC stud book they have identified the "responsible breeder" as their next victim. Unfortunately, the dog world has not noticed the negative effect limited registrations and spay neuter contracts are having on registrations and the stud book. The strategy thus far has linked two ideas together. The first was to convince the breeders that they could reduce over-population. The second was to separate the breeders and the buyers from the AKC. More than half of all pups sold on limited registrations and spay/neuter contracts were not being registered. Both efforts shrink the number of breeders and litters. Unfortunately, the impact they continue to have on the stud book and particularly the 35 breeds listed in Table 1 should not be ignored. These breeds are now registering fewer than 100 litters per year. The greatest dilemma now comes if this trend continues because it currently is on schedule to collapse the diversity of several gene pools and their ability to maintain breed health (Ostrander).

Table 1. AKC Litter Registrations (1997-2001)2001 RankBreeds2004 2003 200220012000199919981987112Salukis 8479806367113Belgian Tervuren 84847889106114Belgian Sheepdogs 83808085101115Retrievers (Flat-Coated) 82100759884116Petits Bassets Griffons Vendeens 75837210092117Bedlington Terriers 6654575657118Spaniels (Welsh Springer) 6163585760119Wirehaired pointing Griffons 5566443741120Briards 5161576058121Spaniels (American Water) 4945576268122Lowchen 4944372435123Spaniels (Clumber) 4760435146124Black and Tan Coonhounds 4747485557125Anatolian Shepherds 4248494145126Pulik 4036483646127Polish Lowland Sheepdogs 40382800128Miniature Bull Terriers 4042494244129Kuvaszok 3548495984130Spinone Italiano 336 131Finnish Spitz 3027302739132Scottish Deerhounds 2828272733133Retrievers (Curly-Coated) 2725253128134Komondorok 2623323140135Canaan Dogs 2625201811136Spaniels (Field) 2528283629137Spaniels ( Irish Water) 2523332221138Greyhounds 2530243229139Sealyham Terriers 2418211728140Skye Terriers 2423253831141Pharaoh Hounds 2319162019142German Pinschers 23 143Spaniels (Sussex) 2016212216144Dandie Dinmont Terriers 2033383033145Ibizan Hounds 1812131719146Plotts 18353080147Foxhounds (American) 1814141513148Harriers 11661011149Otterhounds 87249150Foxhounds (English) 785762001 RankBreeds2004 2003 200220012000199919981987 Total for all 150 breeds 461,863506,727527,023555,964564,165

Conclusion

The strength of the winds that are pushing this storm has been marked and identified. It is heading toward the fancy with an unusual force. They have already unleashed a new kind of husbandry which is likely to have a qualitative and quantitative form of measurement. The plan and the mechanism that is driving this storm is intended to continue on its path of reshaping the dog world piece by piece. While these trends seem to be clear, hardly anyone seems to be noticing. In retrospect, we can now see the true meaning of the phrase, "big things often-times come from small beginnings". More will be said about the plan and the labeling process in the next article (Part II). If you would care to express your ideas on this subject, forward them to me in care of the editor at [email protected]

References:

• AKC Gazette, "AKC DNA Tests", New York, New York, January 2003.
  
• Battaglia, Carmen, Table 2. "Breed Dilemmas and Extinction", Canine Chronicle, August 2003, pg. 104-108
  
• Wilson, Craig, "Moredoggerel", USA Today, March 26, 2004, pg.2/a.
  
• Holt, James, Key note address entitled "Puppy Protection Act" AKC Forum Long Beach, CA, 2003.
  
• Ostrander, Elaine, Presentation at a Workshop for the AKC Directors December 13, 2004, NY, NY.
  
• Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine health Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO.
  

Edited January 20, 2010 by Steve

[Steve]

Part 2

<H2 class=title>A Gathering Storm Part 2</H2>A Gathering Storm Bring New Measures

By Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia

This is a continuation of last month’s discussion of the gathering storm and how it has already begun to impact the world of purebred dogs. The winds that are fueling this storm were identified as the undefined labels that are used by the animal rights movement. As stated in Part I, their efforts have gained wide-spread acceptance among the breeders which in turn have impacted AKC registrations and the gene pools of thirty-five breeds some of which may soon be facing extinction. Related to all of this is the fact that hardly anyone is noticing how effective and dangerous this storm has become. As discussed in Part I, there are many examples that show how, through the use of undefined labels, the animal rights movement has negatively impacted breeding and registrations.

Sociologists who study social change and the use of labels to impact events call this discipline the "labeling process". When epidemiologists study their causes they look for three common denominators. First, whether the labels are defined. Secondly, their underlying purpose or intended target. Thirdly, the strategy that has been linked to the label which later can be grown into something large with varying consequences.

In the dog world the use of undefined labels (responsible breeder, dangerous dogs, viscous dog, puppy mill etc.)has already been demonstrated to be an effective way to negatively impact breeding, ownership and the sport (see Part I). Many believe that the animal rights movement has been successful only because most breeders are so busy with their jobs, families and other things that they fail to notice the implications hidden within the labels they accept and use. What lingers in the background are their intentions and a general lack of awareness. This problem is not limited to just undefined labels; it extends into many other areas. For example, it was not so long ago that three important announcements were widely published in the dog world. The first occurred in 2003, when the AKC reported the introduction of a new Superplex G panel of 13 DNA markers that were designed to improve the quality of parentage testing. This announcement changed the AKC compliance audit program as well as the voluntary testing of puppies and adults. At the same time, the AKC announced that a fourteenth marker had been added to identify the gender of each individual tested. The third announcement came when the AKC Canine Health Foundation (CHF) reported that 25 DNA health tests were available for the screening of breeding stock. Today, no one would question the importance of these announcements even though most breeders are still unaware of their existence.

Scenarios like these have led the animal rights activists to believe that the dog world is asleep at the wheel. They believe we are uninformed and therefore vulnerable. This of course works to their advantage. Consider how they effectively were able to link their ideas to the undefined labels called: "puppy mill", "vicious dogs", "dangerous dogs", "over-population" and "responsible dog owners". Each label played an important role in reducing registrations, zoning, breeding rights, ownership and the number of breeders. Now after more than ten years these same labels continue to impact the sport even though they are all still undefined. This has only encouraged the animal rights groups to move forward with their expectations for the label called "the responsible breeder". It is even more dangerous than the earlier labels mentioned because this label has more closely been linked to the breeders, their pups and the use of clinical protocols such as x-rays, health certifications and DNA testing. These protocols will become the mechanisms by which they intend to measure breeders. The animal rights movement believes that all breeders should screen and test all of their breeding stock as the first step to producing the pups they will sell. While most breeders´ support being labeled a "responsible breeder" they fail to see that they will be expected to screen and test all their pups. Since the AKC has already collected DNA on more than 350,000 dogs, one would think that the breeders would have learned more about how the parentage tests works and how the DNA health tests can be used in their breeding program. The truth is that very few breeders can explain the DNA parentage test or how it is being used to preserve the integrity of the stud book. One would also expect that because of the widespread support for DNA health testing more breeders would be using the 35 plus DNA health tests that are already available for screening diseases. The record shows just the opposite. Most breeders do not use the DNA parentage test unless it is required and only a small percentage are using the DNA health tests, x-rays or other clinical protocols as a way to eliminate or manage the carriers in their pedigrees. The under-utilization of these technologies in an environment of widespread acceptance confirms that indeed the dog world "may be asleep at the wheel". This encourages the animal rights groups with their strategy to change breeding practices.

To better understand the dynamics of this gathering storm, one must ask why there is such widespread support for DNA testing and the other health protocols given the small fraction of the breeder’s who actually use them. This has yet to be explained but it seems fair to say that the animal rights movement will continue to ask that all breeding stock be screened and tested. In time they will demand health and parentage testing of every litter. As their agenda begins to unfold nothing short of a massive educational program will be able to slow down the effect it will have on the dog world. Notice in Figure 1 how AKC registrations have slowly been reduced. In 2004, of those who purchased an AKC registerable pup only 44% registered them. Experts agree that the reason for this decline is not simple; but the facts show that this has been a nine-year steady decline and it expected to continue.

FIGURE 1.

To understand this dilemma and the use of undefined labels we need to examine events that had already emerged by the early 1990’s when the high volume breeders were thought to be out of control. In response, DNA technology was offered as the savior of the AKC studbook. As a new technology it was considered the tool by which those suspected of cheating would be caught and punished. It was also during this period that the animal rights movement linked their ideas to several undefined labels which the breeders had made popular. Their strategy has worked only because undefined labels can mean many things to different individuals. Most importantly, they make everyone feel good about their own beliefs. Over the past 15 years the breeders and the pubic have been conditioned to accept this approach.

What was not anticipated was how the animal rights movement would create two problems for the "responsible breeder" to solve. The first problem they called "pet overpopulation" which they linked to limited registrations (Figure 2). At the same time they also encouraged the use of spay/neuter contracts. Both ideas were immediately popular and both produced a negative impact on purebred dogs, particularly the gene pools of the 35 breeds seen in Table 1.

FIGURE 2. LIMITED REGISTRATIONS

A brief analysis of the nine year downward trend in registrations (Figure 1) shows that it is inversely related to the steady increase in limited registrations. Breeders are selling pups on limited registrations and/or spay/neuter contracts in the belief they will help to control the problem that we know does not exist (Strand). Patience on the part of the animal rights movement coupled with the encouragement from the breeders and their clubs has more then tripled the number of dogs removed from the stud book since 1995.

The subtle strategy underlying the use of these undefined labels should not be under-estimated because the important question has been overlooked. Why would breeders want to remove their pups from the gene pool of their own breeds if nothing was wrong with them? What can not be ignored is the fact that the animal rights movement and its critic groups have leveraged their position among the breeders. Most breeders have not noticed how testing has been linked to a way to measure breeding's and the quality of the pups produced. The second problem for the "responsible breeder" to solve involves the use of DNA technology, x-rays and other clinical protocols. The goal is to require widespread testing of those saved for breeding. Theoretically this would produce the better individuals. The problem with their logic is that the pups saved may not be the better specimens of their breed based on the breed standard. Saving those who have been tested for health and parentage is not the same as saving those who are the better specimens based on their conformation and temperament. Shifting emphasis to one area is not in the best interests of purebred dogs.

While most breeders seem to agree with the concept of screening and testing, many do not realize how it can be used to obligate them to sell more pups on limited registrations and spay/neuter contracts as proof of their being a responsible breeder. The scenarios they are offering lead to the pathway by which breeders and their pups can be quantitatively measured. The good news for the animal rights movement is that the number of pups sold on limited registrations and spay/neuter contracts can be compared with previous litters. Thus, a determination can be made as to whether the breeder is being responsible or not. This is an important objective to appreciate because it shows how the breeders and their litters will be measured by the numbers. The logic for making the breeder and their pups the next victim and target has been carefully crafted. Unfortunately, it embraces a strategy that already has widespread support.

http://' target="_blank">

Table 1. Declining Gene Pools

Registrations (1997-2001)2001 RankBreeds20012000199919981987112Salukis8479806367113Belgian Tervuren84847889106114Belgian Sheepdogs83808085101115Retrievers (Flat-Coated)82100759884116Petits Bassets Griffons Vendeens75837210092117Bedlington Terriers6654575657118Spaniels (Welsh Springer)6163585760119Wirehaired pointing Griffons5566443741120Briards5161576058121Spaniels (American Water)4945576268122Lowchen4944372435123Spaniels (Clumber)4760435146124Black and Tan Coonhounds4747485557125Anatolian Shepherds4248494145126Pulik4036483646127Polish Lowland Sheepdogs40382800128Miniature Bull Terriers4042494244129Kuvaszok3548495984130Spinone Italiano336 131Finnish Spitz3027302739132Scottish Deerhounds2828272733133Retrievers (Curly-Coated)2725253128134Komondorok2623323140135Canaan Dogs2625201811136Spaniels (Field)2528283629137Spaniels ( Irish Water)2523332221138Greyhounds2530243229139Sealyham Terriers2418211728140Skye Terriers2423253831141Pharaoh Hounds2319162019142German Pinschers23 143Spaniels (Sussex)2016212216144Dandie Dinmont Terriers2033383033145Ibizan Hounds1812131719146Plotts18353080147Foxhounds (American)1814141513148Harriers11661011149Otterhounds8724915

0Foxhounds (English)785762001 RankBreeds20012000199919981987 Total for all 150 breeds461,863506,727527,023555,964564,165Who would have suspected that in just nine years, the blind acceptance of undefined labels would have significantly reduced the size of the AKC stud book and the gene pools of 35 breeds (Table 1). There are no accurate figures on the number of pups sold on limited registrations that were not registered but some estimates suggest the number may be at least another 100,000 per year. When the effects of both are taken as a whole, no one can question their impact on declining registrations, gene pool size and genetic diversity. It has been astonishing. The unintended consequences of these efforts have no equal.

The impact of this storm can be viewed in yet another way. In 1981, AKC derived 96% of its income from dog registrations. By 2003, income from registrations had fallen to 61%. These declines represent a significant loss in revenues and future earnings. What makes this all so important is that AKC has been forced to find alternative sources of income to support its 18,000 dog events, its one-of-kind library, health research grants, veterinary scholarships etc. During the past decade twenty- three for-profit registries have emerged to compete with the AKC. In time, they could diminish AKC´s position of influence if they continue to grow at their current pace. Of equal concern is the growth and effectiveness of the animal rights agenda. The growing number of breeders that seek to wear the label "responsible breeder" should serve as the foundation for this concern. While no definition exists for this label, the negative effect it has already produced is clear. The critic groups are prepared, poised and ready to propose legislation that will further define and measure breeders by what they produce and sell. They have crafted a strategy that carefully identifies the breeder and their pups as both the victim and the target. Given the events described, no one should wonder if there is a gathering storm. The howling winds are everywhere and with them come a new and different kind of thinking. In retrospect, this might be a good time to ask where we do we stand after ten years of undefined labels and the blind acceptance of DNA. In the rush to be first, some clubs have already begun to implement mandatory DNA programs. Acceptance of such a requirement without understanding is certain to produce unrealistic goals with unintended consequences. In the midst of what seems to be more confusion, we must find the time to step back and ask the big question. Where do we stand after ten years of undefined labels and the announcement that DNA testing would be used to rid the studbook of errors and clean out the cheaters? Many are beginning to question if the strategy may have been deeply inadequate especially in light of the fact that no one has defined the problems to be solved or their intended solutions. Perhaps out of fear and confusion we have failed to define the means by which we would know when we have solved the perceived problems. We should also remind ourselves that today, breeding is no longer an "elitist" hobby and its rewards as either a pastime or a profession are no longer a well-kept secrete. Anyone can become a breeder. There are no entrances examines, no rules and no penalties. No organization serves to punish those who make mistakes or those who produce poor quality pups. Anyone of our neighbors can claim to be a breeder.

This dilemma will continue to worsen if the breeders, veterinary schools, shelters and others continue to accept and use undefined labels. Selling pups as a hobby and breeding has already been stigmatized and many believe this is only the first inning. By the fifth, they will be asking for a higher standard and acceptance of the principles that will produce a new kind of animal husbandry. In their world, fewer dogs and fewer litters are better. While the options to the future are still open, a massive educational program begs to be ignited. At the end of the day, the clubs their breeders, vet schools and shelters must settle on a definition for the "puppy mill", "responsible breeder", "responsible dog owner", "viscous dog", "dangerous dog" etc. They must also articulate the vision, goals and objectives. These efforts must become the centerpiece of their educational programs.

Conclusion

History´s judgment will not wait to see what actions the dog world chooses to take. The polarization of the sport is well underway. The efforts made to date have largely focused on the use of seminars held annually which have not been sufficient enough to reach the fancy and the growing number of new breeders spread across America. Programs that are fresh, brisk and focused must be designed with the help of experienced leaders in the dog world and the research community. The subject matter must, as a minimum, define the undefined labels and address the utilization of DNA technology, the better breeding methods, pedigree analysis and selection techniques, modes of inheritance, the management of carriers, formula breeding and legislation. The time we have is slipping away. The storm has arrived. Boarding up the windows and the doors will no longer be good enough as a way to survive it. The future should not be left to chance, the novice or the animal rights movement.

If you would care to express your ideas on this subject, forward them to me in care of the editor at [email protected]

References:

• AKC Gazette, "AKC DNA Tests", New York, New York, January 2003.
  
• Battaglia, Carmen, Table 2. "Breed Dilemmas and Extinction", Canine Chronicle, August 2003, pg. 104-108
  
• Holt, James, Key note address entitled "Puppy Protection Act" AKC Forum Long Beach, CA, 2003.
  
• Katz, Jack, "Deviance, Charisma, and Rule-Defined Behavior", Social Problems, Vol. 20, no.2, Fall, 1972, pg 186-202
  
• Ostrander, Elaine, Presentation at a Workshop for the AKC Directors December 13, 2004, NY, NY.
  
• Spector, Malcolm, Labeling Theory in Social Problems: a Young journal Launches a New Theory, Social Problems, Vol. 24, No 1., October 1976, pg 69-75.
  
• Strand, Patti, Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine health Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO.
  
• Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine health Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO.
  
• Wilson, Craig, "Moredoggerel", USA Today, March 26, 2004, pg.2/a.
  

[mita]

Exactly!

Going along with ignoring the substantial work on breeding, is a view that purebred dogs are almost a different species from mixed breed dogs.

The consequence is that mixed breed dogs don't have to be investigated re genetic & health problems. Much less screened. (Not the view of rigorous researchers, like Jerold Bell & others, of course.)

So the public is left with an impression that all must be supremely well with mixed breeds. That's one heartbeat away from taking as a 'fact' that mixed breed dogs are superior in health.

Now, that is relevant because this same UK bandwagon talks about the power of consumer desire driving it along. Leading to a likely conclusion that it's in the public good to produce designed, mixed breed dogs. Enter marketing & advertising.

It's not only some general 'animal rights' influence behind this bandwagon, there's also economics.

Edited January 20, 2010 by mita