If It Looks Like Duck

[BJean]

The bits in brackets were examples only not definitive lists of all high risk breeds/ types.

Lameness- as an example. I go to perform a pre purchase examination on a horse. It is lame. I tell the purchaser not to buy it. They say "but we really like it, it's very pretty". I say"ok, give it 2 weeks for it to get better from its bruised foot/ kick in the field and we'll look at it again". Two weeks later it's still lame. The advice is don't buy it. It has some ongoing issues, they may get worse, it may stay lame. The purchasers don't buy it. Hooray! a triumph of function over form. I would prefer not to breed from a lame animal unless I knew why it was lame and whether it potentially an inherited issue. It should be up to the owner of the animal to present a functionally sound animal for inspection.

I don't think horses legs are comparable to dogs though.

It's only a tiumph of function over form if there is indeed a structural problem.

And timing can be a bitch.

[shortstep]

For me the most interesting thing was that the people who would do the selecting will be show judges. Speaking from the basis of working springers (which is the breed I am most familiar with): there are KC registered working springers in the uk, who if placed next to a show dog, look like a different breed. They are certainly healthy, prized and bred from on the basis of their working ability. The show versions of working breeds frequently seem to have drifted significantly from their working roots preferring form over function.

I suspect this is a step in the right direction as when all breeds were being originally developed they did not come from closed stud books and strategic outcrossing to other breeds and types was, I suspect, frequently performed to acquire desired traits.

I would be more impressed if the working breeds were made to pass working tests rather than just conform to present standards on looks. For the non working breeds it would be nice if they could pass simple standards of - can it breathe? (all the brachycephalic breeds), can it see without discomfort? (brachycephalics, sharpei, St Bernards etc), is it lame? (pretty much all large breeds).

Pause........wait for howls of outrage and derision..................

I have to say this was the very first thing I thought of, that in effect it was still the same system of selection based on appearance. Hence the title 'If it looks like a duck'. However I decided to give the benefit of the doubt in their favor.

My fear is that people will go to a lot of trouble and expense to import dogs, say a Siberian that comes from Siberia, is used as a sled dog from a line of sled dogs from a family of people who have raised and used Siberians for as long as their family history can be traced backed. Then the 2 judges will say, nope not a siberian it does not look like siberian, must be a cross bred.

Even worse would be the case of a dog from a working registry that has a pedigree, even the very foundation pedigree system that the current show breed came from, and they will say no it does not conform to the appearance we have decided the dog should look like.

However the bottom line is they will not fool anyone and I am sure that the use of selection based on appearance was not unnoticed and will be watched carefully.

The thing is, it is not really up the The Kennel Club anymore, they are against the wall, it really is a case of do it right or it's over. If they pretend too much, if they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of their overseers, it will not work in their favor.

Personally I think they will give a total of 10 years (starting last year) for the KC to make some very dramatic change, a change that has addressed and has changed how dogs are bred, what is selected for and how breeds are judged as fit for function. They will expect to see real measurable change, not just words or well written policies that are ignored by the breeders.

There will likely be action to end/ban some breeds during that 10 year time period if they do not see dramatic change happening in the next few years. I do not think we have seen anything yet when it comes to going after the breeders and the KC about a breed that they feel is suffering.

As it stands now, the ball in the KC hands, it is up to the Kennel Club to convince it's members to change their behavior. Now it is up to the judges and breeders, but do they realize this and just how far this has already proceeded? I fear not in many cases. It is only going to take another Jeffery Bragg type incident to discredit the whole idea that the KC has any intention at all to change.

As far as working tests, I understand the idea and the real benefits that could be achieved.

However, even most working registries do not require every dog in every generation to pass a working test to be used for breeding or registered, so I think this is not really a fair idea. Leave the breeding working dogs to those who work their dogs, as only they will really know how to breed proper dogs for work.

I do not think that everyone has to work their dog/s in what ever the historical work of that breed in order to breed them as good pets. The fact is, most dogs are now destine to be pets and will never do any sort of breed historical work, so why pretend that they will or that the breeder would know how to breed for that work. I think these sorts of flights of fancy are part of the bigger problem and we need to be working in reality. For most breeds today and almost all dogs born in the KC's, their current function is Pet Dog and there is nothing at all wrong with that function! The breeders should focus in on breeding the best 'fit for the function of pet' dogs in the world and be proud of that. The most noble job a dog can do is be our best friend.

Edited April 21, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

Right on cue!

The Kennel Club has already responded to the potential problem of only show type being selected and all others including working bred dogs as being labeled as not correct.

They state that trial/working judges can be used for dogs that are of working type or breeding. So I would say if someone is trying to bring in a working border collie( or kelpie or cattle dog) from Australia that is not in the ANKC, that the owner can ask for 2 herding judges to assess their dogs appearance. Herding judges in the Uk would be well aware of what working border collies (or working kelpies, cattle dogs) look like and would recognize for example a smooth coated tri coloured with an ISDS type structure as true to type border collie.

Wow, well lets hope this really works!

Will be exciting when an Australian working bred border collies, kelpies or cattle dogs turns up in the The Kennel Club in the Uk!

Edited April 20, 2011 by shortstep

[Souff]

I think the point of this is, that change is coming, be it by choice or driven by parliament enquiry and government direction.

Sure seems to me it is time to start addressing these issues before it is thrust upon us.

I am saying, if we want choice we better start acting now.

Frankly I do not think there will ever be a system that will suit everyone.

Change HAS to come for some breeds because genetic diversity is disappearing rapidly. It is as simple as that.

And you are right, no system will please everyone.

But it is not a situation that needs to be applied to every breed.

Souff

[Souff]

For me the most interesting thing was that the people who would do the selecting will be show judges. Speaking from the basis of working springers (which is the breed I am most familiar with): there are KC registered working springers in the uk, who if placed next to a show dog, look like a different breed. They are certainly healthy, prized and bred from on the basis of their working ability. The show versions of working breeds frequently seem to have drifted significantly from their working roots preferring form over function.

I suspect this is a step in the right direction as when all breeds were being originally developed they did not come from closed stud books and strategic outcrossing to other breeds and types was, I suspect, frequently performed to acquire desired traits.

I would be more impressed if the working breeds were made to pass working tests rather than just conform to present standards on looks. For the non working breeds it would be nice if they could pass simple standards of - can it breathe? (all the brachycephalic breeds), can it see without discomfort? (brachycephalics, sharpei, St Bernards etc), is it lame? (pretty much all large breeds).

Pause........wait for howls of outrage and derision..................

You wont get any howls of outrage or derision from Souff ;)

But like Lilli, I think you can include ALL breeds in that lame statement.

If a dog of any size is not able to walk normally on all 4 legs because they have dysfunctional patellae or east-west feet or other congenital deformities in the legs and feet, then they should be regarded as LAME. It is not just about hip problems.

Souff

[shortstep]

I think the point of this is, that change is coming, be it by choice or driven by parliament enquiry and government direction.

Sure seems to me it is time to start addressing these issues before it is thrust upon us.

I am saying, if we want choice we better start acting now.

Frankly I do not think there will ever be a system that will suit everyone.

Change HAS to come for some breeds because genetic diversity is disappearing rapidly. It is as simple as that.

And you are right, no system will please everyone.

But it is not a situation that needs to be applied to every breed.

Souff

I am not sure, I would have said that before, but now I really do think across the board is the only way to do it.

First it gives freedom and equal opportunity to all breeders, they can either use the system or not, line breed or not, seek dogs they feel will bring in something or leave out something they want to achieve in their breeding program.

I would much rather see this than have laws made about COI and rules that have to be followed to reduce it. However, I also think that if breeds with rising COIs or small gene pool and multiple health issues do not do something to reduce their COI, It may well be decided what to do by the government for them.

I would much rather see this, then have rules made by the government about structural extremes which give few or no options to breeders and force change, however if breeders do not start to address these structural extremes now, then we may end up with laws anyway.

I would much rather see this than have laws made about diseases and systems set into place to reduce or control disease that take away the breeders options on other parts of their breeding choices, but if we do not make our own plans and track results, it is surely going to be done for us.

I also think that a system like this could prevent problems from occurring down the track in 2 ways.

1. I don't see any advantage in waiting till problems occur, to then put in an open stud book system to try to correct the problems. For example, for those breeders who want to keep COI as low as possible there is never a time that new bloodlines are not needed. If you are not interested then no one is making you reduce COI in your dogs or making use the new bloodlines.

2. The welfare issues surrounding closed stud books has been forever addressed, it is now a non problem. Ask me, that is real power.

Anyway I can not see this happening here by our choice and design, not the way things are now at least. But if the UK gets this to work, the pressure from animal rights groups and the unis will be extreme and they will drive this through down here. Personally I would be building my own system first and not let that power be taken away.

Edited April 21, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

For me the most interesting thing was that the people who would do the selecting will be show judges. Speaking from the basis of working springers (which is the breed I am most familiar with): there are KC registered working springers in the uk, who if placed next to a show dog, look like a different breed. They are certainly healthy, prized and bred from on the basis of their working ability. The show versions of working breeds frequently seem to have drifted significantly from their working roots preferring form over function.

I suspect this is a step in the right direction as when all breeds were being originally developed they did not come from closed stud books and strategic outcrossing to other breeds and types was, I suspect, frequently performed to acquire desired traits.

I would be more impressed if the working breeds were made to pass working tests rather than just conform to present standards on looks. For the non working breeds it would be nice if they could pass simple standards of - can it breathe? (all the brachycephalic breeds), can it see without discomfort? (brachycephalics, sharpei, St Bernards etc), is it lame? (pretty much all large breeds).

Pause........wait for howls of outrage and derision..................

You wont get any howls of outrage or derision from Souff

But like Lilli, I think you can include ALL breeds in that lame statement.

If a dog of any size is not able to walk normally on all 4 legs because they have dysfunctional patellae or east-west feet or other congenital deformities in the legs and feet, then they should be regarded as LAME. It is not just about hip problems.

Souff

I do not think asking for a working test to given to all working breeds (for registration or for the right to be bred in the KC) is the right track for the kennel club to take.

First off, almost no working registires require each generation of dogs to pass a test for registration or breeding rights. Working dogs are bred by those who use working dogs, they already know how to breed them and usually have well established systems or cultures in place to protect and promote them.

However in the Kennel clubs, many if not most of the dog born and many if not most of the breeders are not doing the historical work of the breed, nor are they placing their dogs into working homes. The small number of breeders in the KC that are breeding working dogs do not need the intervention of test rule (see above). I think flights of fancy are not good. Reality as I see it is, that the majority of dogs in Kennel clubs are pets and their pups are destine to be pets. That is the primary job these dogs will do. When we talk about fit for function for most KC dogs, that function is pet. There is nothing at all wrong with the job of pet and it is the most important role any dog can have. I therfore can see no reason to make rules that all breeders of a working breeds will be resticted to selecting their breeding dogs based on working tests results.

Lameness

That recent post on the main page, (dont have time to look it up) was yesterday or the day before on the UK KC report on health, had some very good reading.

One section had judges and general observers at dogs shows make notes on the health problems they saw. Eyes had to be top of the list, but also several lame dogs were noted.

Why on earth are lame dog being shown in dog shows, and these were some of their top shows? I hope this is not happening here. Is there a system in place to address this? What it is?

Edited April 21, 2011 by shortstep

[Souff]

Lameness

That recent post on the main page, (dont have time to look it up) was yesterday or the day before on the UK KC report on health, had some very good reading.

One section had judges and general observers at dogs shows make notes on the health problems they saw. Eyes had to be top of the list, but also several lame dogs were noted.

Why on earth are lame dog being shown in dog shows, and these were some of their top shows? I hope this is not happening here. Is there a system in place to address this? What it is?

Kennel blindness is real Shortstep. Many people either dont know or dont want to know about the importance of good hindquarters, from the hocks to the hips and turn of stifle and patellae. I think most of us have seen a dog in the ring that is not up to scratch in these areas. Nobody checks for soundness before the dogs go into the ring and many newbies don't know their dog has a problem until the problems are pointed out to them. Not all judges comment on what they see. And anyone else who points out a likely problem is often not thanked for having burst their bubble about a show dog. Sigh.

Souff

[geo]

I think if it was introduced properly and said dog met all the health requirements, and the breed was in need of new blood so to say then you'd have to agree it could work.

Maybe the dogs would also have to be of a certain age so that any health tests that you can't do as a pup would more than likely be present in an older dog.

Could another of shoot of this be BYB amstaffs could be registered as a purebred and therefore avoid BSL.

[KatrinaM]

The ANKC had a development registry in place for the ASTCD but they closed the books again a few years ago, which was a crying shame. Maybe they could model off that if they wanted to open studbooks, adding of course all relevent health testing.