Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[melzawelza]

In some ways I think some of those breeds which are bred by BYB's may even be healthier than those bred for the show ring.

If I think of the focus of the two groups, one group breeds to a conformation standard that their dogs will be judged against (and a winning dog is what the judge wants to see) vs a group of breeders where it doesn't really matter if the dog has a longer snout or a less round head.

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do.

I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly.

Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad.

Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems.

Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though.

[dog_fan]

In some ways I think some of those breeds which are bred by BYB's may even be healthier than those bred for the show ring.

If I think of the focus of the two groups, one group breeds to a conformation standard that their dogs will be judged against (and a winning dog is what the judge wants to see) vs a group of breeders where it doesn't really matter if the dog has a longer snout or a less round head.

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do.

I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly.

Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad.

Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems.

Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though.

this:

I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far.

I totally agree

[Jed]

Jed I respectfully disagree with your comments. Many of the breeders I have seen are considered top breeders with show winning dogs. Unfortunately many show breeders are still breeding dogs to win in the ring, ignoring health concerns, despite what claiming otherwise.

What don't you disagree with kirty? I said a few things. Everything, or just some things in particular?

[Two Best Dogs!]

In some ways I think some of those breeds which are bred by BYB's may even be healthier than those bred for the show ring.

If I think of the focus of the two groups, one group breeds to a conformation standard that their dogs will be judged against (and a winning dog is what the judge wants to see) vs a group of breeders where it doesn't really matter if the dog has a longer snout or a less round head.

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do.

I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly.

Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad.

Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems.

Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though.

Have you heard of the Retro Mop project? It's a outcross and back cross breeding project in Germany to make for healthier sturdier pugs.

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness.

So there are some breeders out there working towards healthier dogs. It's a shame there's so much backlash from other breeders for them doing this. Results speak for themselves in the dogs and the studies coming out of them.

[Jed]

Quite a lot of individuals in brachy breeds are fine.

I don't think words such as "many", "prone" etc are scientific. Show us numbers, show us percentages - give us some meat - don't just rave on about general unhealthiness.

None is this is about fixing anything, it's about removing pets. You may not believe it - just keep watching.

ANKC is continually giving $$ for research into health problems. Sydney Uni got over 300 grand for various research.

Yes, judges need to be on the job, and award the right type of dogs, not the ones they now award. The Judge at Toowoomba royal put down Cavaliers which were the correct size according to the standard - because they were "too small" in favour of larger than standard.

Here are some healthy little dudes - there are plenty of them out there, but bad news sells more papers and furthers animal rights' aims.

https://www.facebook.com/brenda.oades/videos/110010752372247/

Thistle the Dog

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin

Well, that is uber frightening. The cause of CM/SM is totally unknown and now there is some doubt that it is even hereditary, as 12 years of MRIs have not brought any answers.

And people can have CM/SM too.

It can regress at any time too, without medication.

Be interesting to see whether this produces dogs without CM/SM.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Jed

[dog_fan]

In some ways I think some of those breeds which are bred by BYB's may even be healthier than those bred for the show ring.

If I think of the focus of the two groups, one group breeds to a conformation standard that their dogs will be judged against (and a winning dog is what the judge wants to see) vs a group of breeders where it doesn't really matter if the dog has a longer snout or a less round head.

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do.

I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly.

Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad.

Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems.

Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though.

Have you heard of the Retro Mop project? It's a outcross and back cross breeding project in Germany to make for healthier sturdier pugs.

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness.

So there are some breeders out there working towards healthier dogs. It's a shame there's so much backlash from other breeders for them doing this. Results speak for themselves in the dogs and the studies coming out of them.

I agree. Look at the backlash breeders got and probably still do when they worked to lower the uric acid problem that dalmatians get.

[*kirty*]

Jed I respectfully disagree with your comments. Many of the breeders I have seen are considered top breeders with show winning dogs. Unfortunately many show breeders are still breeding dogs to win in the ring, ignoring health concerns, despite what claiming otherwise.

What don't you disagree with kirty? I said a few things. Everything, or just some things in particular?

I disagree that most pedigree brachy dogs are healthy. All brachy dogs have brachy syndrome. They all have some degree of airway disease. And I disagree that most breeders are putting a focus on fixing these issues. Because breeders know that if they breed a Frenchie with a longer snout, they will be laughed out of the show ring.

[Dame Aussie]

That's the thing though. I dont doubt there are breeders trying to fix the issues but even if they are breeding what they consider to be healthier dogs, are these healthier dogs really all that healthy and comfortable in the scheme of things?

The issues we're talking about come with the territory and just because some dogs aren't as bad as others doesn't necessarily mean that they are healthy animals.

[melzawelza]

In some ways I think some of those breeds which are bred by BYB's may even be healthier than those bred for the show ring.

If I think of the focus of the two groups, one group breeds to a conformation standard that their dogs will be judged against (and a winning dog is what the judge wants to see) vs a group of breeders where it doesn't really matter if the dog has a longer snout or a less round head.

It's a shame to say it but the Pug X dogs do not suffer the same horrendous brachy-headed issues that many of the purebred pugs do.

I love pugs, they're such fun, funky little dogs. And it breaks my heart when I see them living compromised, difficult lives because they simply cannot breathe properly.

Not entirely true. SOME Pug crosses have better breathing and better eyes than purebreds, some are just as bad.

Absolutely, it's a generalised statement and obviously depends on what they were crossed with - but on the whole they tend to gain a whole lot of face and with it lose a whole lot of brachy head problems.

Obviously there may be other health aspects to consider but personally I'd love to see a considered and well thought out outcross and back-cross to correct what has clearly gone much too far. Without a complete change in the culture within the KC and showing scene in general we'd just end up back in the same spot, though.

Have you heard of the Retro Mop project? It's a outcross and back cross breeding project in Germany to make for healthier sturdier pugs.

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness.

So there are some breeders out there working towards healthier dogs. It's a shame there's so much backlash from other breeders for them doing this. Results speak for themselves in the dogs and the studies coming out of them.

Had heard of the Molossers but not the Retro Mop project. That's great! Will have to look in to it.

You're right that the real problem is the backlash from other breeders. The backlash to LUA was so unbelievably disappointing and quite frankly, disgusting. I'm glad they're finally being registered here.

Quite a lot of individuals in brachy breeds are fine.

I don't think words such as "many", "prone" etc are scientific. Show us numbers, show us percentages - give us some meat - don't just rave on about general unhealthiness.

Recent study shows 50% of French Bulldogs suffer from Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (and the other 50% still don't breathe normally).

[Steve]

I cant work out how to attach a PDF but if anyone is interested I can email the discussion paper notes from the Vic state government which discusses the problem and possible strategies.

[Two Best Dogs!]

How is it frightening jed? It'd be lovely to have some answers or eliminations on the cause. At the very least, the f3 back crosses have larger skulls and bring in new blood, so to speak.

Mobile don't let me cut out bits of your quote sorry. I can't link directly to the studies but the names will hopefully make them easier to find.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Thistle the dog

[Steve]

That's the thing though. I dont doubt there are breeders trying to fix the issues but even if they are breeding what they consider to be healthier dogs, are these healthier dogs really all that healthy and comfortable in the scheme of things?

The issues we're talking about come with the territory and just because some dogs aren't as bad as others doesn't necessarily mean that they are healthy animals.

Well if they didnt have brachy head syndrome they wouldn't have brachy heads. Sure the impact on quality of life is variable but a brachy head is a brachy head and to some degree it does affect quality of life.

[Rebanne]

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice.

[moosmum]

Then Rebanne I respectfully apologize for what I thought was clear sarcasm in defense of breeders in general and Greyhound breeders more specificaly. Apologies to every one else who might be offended by my generalized defense of same.

I wait with baited breath to see if the GSD breeders learn before its their turn. Who else does it wrong? Ah yes Greyhound breeders! Then theres Dachies. Shar Pei. Hmmm. Puppy farmers.

In the end, no one can be trusted to do the right thing. If we out law the keeping of dogs, no welfare problem at all.

Edited April 7, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice.

Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are unlikely to be familiar as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again.

Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another.

Edited April 7, 2016 by moosmum

[Two Best Dogs!]

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice.

I didn't say that they are improving the greyhound? I gave the names so people can look up the specifics themselves and a short description on the type of project going on. I'll reword my description for you: they are crossing mastiffs to greyhound then backcrossing the resulting crosses into mastiffs to improve on health and soundness in mastiffs.

As for them using the greyhound, you can read into their decision summaries here: http://www.gammonwood.net/2015/html/breeding.html

Here's a snippet:

We could have chosen another Mastiff breed for the outcross but the various Mastiff breeds share many of the same kinds of genetic disorders so we felt it would be best to go outside of the Mastiff grouping in order to attain the most beneficial new genes. Since Mastiffs and Greyhounds share few of the same disorders, while also being compatible in structure, coat length and colour, we felt it would be the best combination for a first outcross.

I'm simply sharing current ongoing backcross projects as I figured people might be interested in knowing about them so they can also follow and see what results may happen as they happen.

[Salukifan]

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice.

Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again.

Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another.

The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot.

There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers.

In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[Salukifan]

We could have chosen another Mastiff breed for the outcross but the various Mastiff breeds share many of the same kinds of genetic disorders so we felt it would be best to go outside of the Mastiff grouping in order to attain the most beneficial new genes. Since Mastiffs and Greyhounds share few of the same disorders, while also being compatible in structure, coat length and colour, we felt it would be the best combination for a first outcross.

I'm simply sharing current ongoing backcross projects as I figured people might be interested in knowing about them so they can also follow and see what results may happen as they happen.

How on earth did someone conclude a Sighthound and a Mollosser were "compatible in structure". The mind boggles

[moosmum]

There's also the Graussie project for CMSM etc in brussels griffin and the Olde Englishe Bulldogge as a healthier working bulldog... Big dog problems too, there's the modern molasser project - back crossing mastiffs and greyhound to improve health and soundness.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice.

Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again.

Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another.

The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot.

There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers.

In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything.

I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix.

[Kirislin]

Well I'm sorry but if a dog is physically unsound, it shouldn't be bred! And if breeders can't figure out a way to make sure their breed IS physically sound then maybe they shouldn't be breeding.

Scottish Fold cats were a great example - the genetics that caused the folded ears also caused severe arthritis, birth deformities, spinal problems, etc. I don't care how cute they are, if you can't breed a sound specimen then that breed needs to go. It was physically impossible to breed sound Scottish Folds so people stopped breeding them. Dog breeders should take heed - we now know just what issues go along with squashed faces, cork screw tails, bulgy eyes, etc etc. Now is the time to fix it before the decisions are made for you.

I didn't know that about Scottish Folds, but I'm 100% in agreement with you regarding soundness. With some breeds now it seems routine to have to do corrective surgery due to droopy skin on eyes, so many breeds cannot give birth normally, and that's been going on for decades. I remember my mum telling me when I was a kid that boxers and chihuahua often need caesars because the puppies heads are too big, and the bitch's pelvis too small. Even back then I thought that just seemed wrong.

I'm horrified by the appearance of some dogs, for me the worst would be the Cane Corso. How it ever got to look like it does now and be considered good is beyond me. I always feel sorry for those dogs when I see them lumbering along with all that skin drooping and flopping about.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Kirislin