Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[Sheridan]

The paper that says only 16% of dogs were used and are not indicative of the Australian dog population.

[Steve]

The paper that says only 16% of dogs were used and are not indicative of the Australian dog population.

Yet another argument that wont make a scrap of difference to the outcome.

I meant the discussion paper put out by the Victorian government but the science to back that up is overwhelming.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Steve

[Sheridan]

Outcomes are never in doubt when those that should argue for a better approach just shrug and say, 'Oh well.'

As someone who spends a lot of time writing up research, there are always two sides of evidence. One that argues for, one that argues against. Overwhelming evidence rarely is.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Sheridan

[Steve]

Outcomes are never in doubt when those that should argue for a better approach just shrug and say, 'Oh well.'

As someone who spends a lot of time writing up research, there are always two sides of evidence. One that argues for, one that argues against. Overwhelming evidence rarely is.

Exactly but in this case the body of evidence available is weighted against us so if we are to get the desired outcome - healthier dogs which can be proven to be bred by pedigree breeders of these breeds its going to take more than "its not us "

It would seem to make more sense to me to gather evidence to prove your point rather than simply demanding the other side shows theirs - which they are doing without being asked.

[Sheridan]

Outcomes are never in doubt when those that should argue for a better approach just shrug and say, 'Oh well.'

As someone who spends a lot of time writing up research, there are always two sides of evidence. One that argues for, one that argues against. Overwhelming evidence rarely is.

Exactly but in this case the body of evidence available is weighted against us so if we are to get the desired outcome - healthier dogs which can be proven to be bred by pedigree breeders of these breeds its going to take more than "its not us "

It would seem to make more sense to me to gather evidence to prove your point rather than simply demanding the other side shows theirs - which they are doing without being asked.

No, the weight of cited evidence. There is a difference.

And you know very well the difficulty of providing evidence from BYBs and puppyfarmers who do not health test and who breed possibly purebred but pedigree unregistered dogs. I recall some years ago you showing a photo of two very similar dogs and asking which was the purebred. Any number of people breed purebred but without pedigree dogs. Having a purebred dog doesn't equal a pedigree dog. The number of pedigree dogs bred in this country alone would suggest all these issues are not all from pedigree breeders. That alone should give you pause but it doesn't. And that concerns me.

[mita]

Hope those reports continue on to tell the public that buying from a proper registered breeder who understands and abides by the standard produces no tiny nostrils or soft palate problems.

These reports will continue until those breeds are eliminated. At that time, the animal rights machine will move to others.

That's the heart of this matter.

In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems.

The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public.

[Steve]

Outcomes are never in doubt when those that should argue for a better approach just shrug and say, 'Oh well.'

As someone who spends a lot of time writing up research, there are always two sides of evidence. One that argues for, one that argues against. Overwhelming evidence rarely is.

Exactly but in this case the body of evidence available is weighted against us so if we are to get the desired outcome - healthier dogs which can be proven to be bred by pedigree breeders of these breeds its going to take more than "its not us "

It would seem to make more sense to me to gather evidence to prove your point rather than simply demanding the other side shows theirs - which they are doing without being asked.

No, the weight of cited evidence. There is a difference.

And you know very well the difficulty of providing evidence from BYBs and puppyfarmers who do not health test and who breed possibly purebred but pedigree unregistered dogs. I recall some years ago you showing a photo of two very similar dogs and asking which was the purebred. Any number of people breed purebred but without pedigree dogs. Having a purebred dog doesn't equal a pedigree dog. The number of pedigree dogs bred in this country alone would suggest all these issues are not all from pedigree breeders. That alone should give you pause but it doesn't. And that concerns me.

You seem to think Im on the other side - Thats crazy- why would you think I would say or think that all of these dogs are only from registered purebred breeders ? Reality is though that not all registered purebred breeders are innocent either. I want us to be able to come out at the end with exemptions and for our breeds and our dogs to live happily ever after and you are right I do know the difficulty of providing that type of evidence and my major issue is still that stats collected are based on all dogs with no distinction - between a mutt and a registered purebred. But surely if registered purebred breeders do begin to collect data which is representative of only their dogs via mandatory testing and reporting of health issues when they go home etc that would then demonstrate the difference and provide the evidence.

Im interested in being honest about the situation and developing strategies to ensure we are able to unequivocally breed dogs which dont suffer due to our decisions in our breeding programs . I dont want to pretend that some of the dogs with issues are not bred by us in order to try to protect the establishment. What Im saying is that if all we intend to fight this on is "its not us" "prove that it is us" that isn't going to fly.

My primary interest is in what is best for the dogs over and above everything else and it might be better to concentrate on the topic rather than trying to bully me.

[Steve]

Hope those reports continue on to tell the public that buying from a proper registered breeder who understands and abides by the standard produces no tiny nostrils or soft palate problems.

These reports will continue until those breeds are eliminated. At that time, the animal rights machine will move to others.

That's the heart of this matter.

In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems.

The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public.

the major problem is that it seems that some have already determined that it is unlikely to be registered breeders because of the breed standard.- which is being perceived to not reject health and functioning problems.

RSPCA

"Breeders of brachycephalicdogs intended for the show ring are motivated to selectanimals to maintain breed standards; however, somestandards are inherently putting dogs at risk of BOAS"

My link

Edited April 11, 2016 by Steve

[Dogsfevr]

Can i just say my breed has suffered due to registered Breeders breeding for profit,i iwll add the worse offenders in our breed are vet nurses & vets ,one who happily supplied to a pet shop & encourages all there puppies to be breed from registered & unregistered in facts tells there clients how they should be to make a living & brainwashes all the follows about outcrossing guarantees no health issues .

A few of our puppy buyers have contacted us over the years because the vets have told them not to spay there dog(compulsory with us) because they wish to breed from it or have a client base looking for crosses.whilst this is off topic to this post the vet industry has alot to answer for as well & there are more out there just pumping any pup out than many would like to think ,lets face it some of the puppy farms are run by vets .

Over the years we have heard vet nurses told alot of rubbish & had to fast track quickly when questioned on there info there handing out .

We board alot of Frenchies,Pugs,Bulldogs all healthy,long lived & very functional in summer mind you some of these people have been made to feel like cruel owners for getting the breed from the vet staff & some stuff they have been told is down right disgusting ,scare mongering is not classy .

I now at a show once with my breed a vet nurse was telling me about how they see so many & the health issues .Played the game & asked alot of questions ,then asked what breed ,the idiot couldn't even identify the breed & in there superior knowledge thought my dog was that breed ,boy did she cope a mouthful & how many other breeds had this person done the same too .

[Redsonic]

Steve: that link didn't work for me.

I totally agree with Steve's argument that the onus is on registered breeders to ensure that they are not breeding to a standard that compromises the welfare of the dogs they produce. The fact that back yard breeders are producing rubbish and breeding to no standard at all is not something pedigree breeders can directly control. Only by breeding superior dogs and educating the public can pedigree breeders shift the demand away from BYBs and pet shops/puppy farms. By superior, I mean 1/ healthy; 2/ sound temperament; and 3/ appearance/conformation to standard. IN THAT ORDER. If the breed standard is not encouraging selection for healthy traits, then the standard needs to be changed/ clarified.

I understand that heredity is not straight forward and carrier states exist, many diseases are multifactorial, and testing is not always available for heritable diseases etc etc. We are not talking about that here. Blind Freddy could hear the breathing struggles a lot of brachycephalics go through. Pin hole nostrils and nasal folds rubbing the cornea don't take a veterinary degree to detect. Public awareness of these welfare issues is rising, and pedigree breeders can't miss the boat here. I am reminded of the convulsions the production animal industry goes through when various suspect husbandry procedures are publicised. Think live cattle export, sow stalls, docking of dairy cow's tails etc. Pedigree breeders should be leading by example, not kicking and screaming "it is not us" as public pressure forces change.

Edited: spelling mistake

Edited April 11, 2016 by Redsonic

[Sheridan]

Outcomes are never in doubt when those that should argue for a better approach just shrug and say, 'Oh well.'

As someone who spends a lot of time writing up research, there are always two sides of evidence. One that argues for, one that argues against. Overwhelming evidence rarely is.

Exactly but in this case the body of evidence available is weighted against us so if we are to get the desired outcome - healthier dogs which can be proven to be bred by pedigree breeders of these breeds its going to take more than "its not us "

It would seem to make more sense to me to gather evidence to prove your point rather than simply demanding the other side shows theirs - which they are doing without being asked.

No, the weight of cited evidence. There is a difference.

And you know very well the difficulty of providing evidence from BYBs and puppyfarmers who do not health test and who breed possibly purebred but pedigree unregistered dogs. I recall some years ago you showing a photo of two very similar dogs and asking which was the purebred. Any number of people breed purebred but without pedigree dogs. Having a purebred dog doesn't equal a pedigree dog. The number of pedigree dogs bred in this country alone would suggest all these issues are not all from pedigree breeders. That alone should give you pause but it doesn't. And that concerns me.

You seem to think Im on the other side - Thats crazy- why would you think I would say or think that all of these dogs are only from registered purebred breeders ? Reality is though that not all registered purebred breeders are innocent either. I want us to be able to come out at the end with exemptions and for our breeds and our dogs to live happily ever after and you are right I do know the difficulty of providing that type of evidence and my major issue is still that stats collected are based on all dogs with no distinction - between a mutt and a registered purebred. But surely if registered purebred breeders do begin to collect data which is representative of only their dogs via mandatory testing and reporting of health issues when they go home etc that would then demonstrate the difference and provide the evidence.

Im interested in being honest about the situation and developing strategies to ensure we are able to unequivocally breed dogs which dont suffer due to our decisions in our breeding programs . I dont want to pretend that some of the dogs with issues are not bred by us in order to try to protect the establishment. What Im saying is that if all we intend to fight this on is "its not us" "prove that it is us" that isn't going to fly.

My primary interest is in what is best for the dogs over and above everything else and it might be better to concentrate on the topic rather than trying to bully me.

I suppose it's how your posts come across, Steve, unhelped by trying to produce strawman arguments of bullying. You simply do come across as saying that it's pedigree breeders fault.

[Sheridan]

Hope those reports continue on to tell the public that buying from a proper registered breeder who understands and abides by the standard produces no tiny nostrils or soft palate problems.

These reports will continue until those breeds are eliminated. At that time, the animal rights machine will move to others.

That's the heart of this matter.

In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems.

The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public.

the major problem is that it seems that some have already determined that it is unlikely to be registered breeders because of the breed standard.- which is being perceived to not reject health and functioning problems.

RSPCA

"Breeders of brachycephalicdogs intended for the show ring are motivated to selectanimals to maintain breed standards; however, somestandards are inherently putting dogs at risk of BOAS"

My link

Well, citing the anti-pedigree dog RSPCA does nothing for your credibility.

[Steve]

Hope those reports continue on to tell the public that buying from a proper registered breeder who understands and abides by the standard produces no tiny nostrils or soft palate problems.

These reports will continue until those breeds are eliminated. At that time, the animal rights machine will move to others.

That's the heart of this matter.

In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems.

The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public.

the major problem is that it seems that some have already determined that it is unlikely to be registered breeders because of the breed standard.- which is being perceived to not reject health and functioning problems.

RSPCA

"Breeders of brachycephalicdogs intended for the show ring are motivated to selectanimals to maintain breed standards; however, somestandards are inherently putting dogs at risk of BOAS"

My link

Well, citing the anti-pedigree dog RSPCA does nothing for your credibility.

Play the ball Sheridan - when you keep picking on the man its called bullying.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Steve

[*kirty*]

There's a lot of assumptions in this thread, not least of which is that it's all the pedigree breeders fault and every single dog with these features is completely unhealthy. Both are untrue and I think those with a stake against pedigree breeders (rescue businesses, alternative registry businesses, veterinary businesses, etc) need to say so.

Where has anybody said that it's all pedigree breeders fault?? My point is that pedigree breeders always want to blame the BYB for problems in some breeds and that is simply not the case. They are just as much to blame as the BYB and their culture of burying their heads in the sand has to stop or they are going to face some serious questions. All brachy dogs have brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome to some extent. All of them.

Also, why are you getting narky at those in the veterinary industry? What have they got to gain by warning people about brachy breeds? Less business? Doesn't make sense. I am in the veterinary industry and I am all for pedigree dogs. I own pedigrees and hope to breed one day.

[dog_fan]

If pedigree breeders stick their heads in the sand when they pull their heads out there will be legislation against some breeds.

Proactive work may allow us to have these breeds for longer.

The RSPCA will be listened to regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks of the organisation.

[Sheridan]

Hope those reports continue on to tell the public that buying from a proper registered breeder who understands and abides by the standard produces no tiny nostrils or soft palate problems.

These reports will continue until those breeds are eliminated. At that time, the animal rights machine will move to others.

That's the heart of this matter.

In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems.

The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public.

the major problem is that it seems that some have already determined that it is unlikely to be registered breeders because of the breed standard.- which is being perceived to not reject health and functioning problems.

RSPCA

"Breeders of brachycephalicdogs intended for the show ring are motivated to selectanimals to maintain breed standards; however, somestandards are inherently putting dogs at risk of BOAS"

My link

Well, citing the anti-pedigree dog RSPCA does nothing for your credibility.

Play the ball Sheridan - when you keep picking on the man its called bullying.

See previous post about playing the strawman.

[Sheridan]

If pedigree breeders stick their heads in the sand when they pull their heads out there will be legislation against some breeds.

Proactive work may allow us to have these breeds for longer.

The RSPCA will be listened to regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks of the organisation.

Feel free to provide proof that pedigree dog breeders are sticking their heads in the sand.

[dog_fan]

If pedigree breeders stick their heads in the sand when they pull their heads out there will be legislation against some breeds.

Proactive work may allow us to have these breeds for longer.

The RSPCA will be listened to regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks of the organisation.

Feel free to provide proof that pedigree dog breeders are sticking their heads in the sand.

The proof is in this thread, in the show ring and in vet surgery's.

I could ask you to provide proof that they don't have their heads in the sand but that would achieve nothing.

I am interested in solutioms not point scoring.

You are taking a very combatative approach to this issue.

This issue is too serious for me to play word games.

[Sheridan]

There's a lot of assumptions in this thread, not least of which is that it's all the pedigree breeders fault and every single dog with these features is completely unhealthy. Both are untrue and I think those with a stake against pedigree breeders (rescue businesses, alternative registry businesses, veterinary businesses, etc) need to say so.

Where has anybody said that it's all pedigree breeders fault?? My point is that pedigree breeders always want to blame the BYB for problems in some breeds and that is simply not the case. They are just as much to blame as the BYB and their culture of burying their heads in the sand has to stop or they are going to face some serious questions. All brachy dogs have brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome to some extent. All of them.

Also, why are you getting narky at those in the veterinary industry? What have they got to gain by warning people about brachy breeds? Less business? Doesn't make sense. I am in the veterinary industry and I am all for pedigree dogs. I own pedigrees and hope to breed one day.

There are people in the veterinary industry in this thread who are simply relating anecdotes that are being accepted as complete proof of the research. Oh, it's a purebred therefore it must be a pedigree. There are far more many 'purebreds' without pedigrees than with. Does it make sense that every pug seen in veterinary surgeries across Australia is unhealthy and a pedigree? That's what is being accepted as fact and given that the researchers themselves have stated only 16% of dogs from 2014 were used in the study and that it is not representative is being completely ignored. Is it too much to ask for a bit of logic? Apparently so.

[Sheridan]

If pedigree breeders stick their heads in the sand when they pull their heads out there will be legislation against some breeds.

Proactive work may allow us to have these breeds for longer.

The RSPCA will be listened to regardless of what anyone on this forum thinks of the organisation.

Feel free to provide proof that pedigree dog breeders are sticking their heads in the sand.

The proof is in this thread, in the show ring and in vet surgery's.

I could ask you to provide proof that they don't have their heads in the sand but that would achieve nothing.

I am interested in solutioms not point scoring.

You are taking a very combatative approach to this issue.

This issue is too serious for me to play word games.

I don't like witch hunts but I seem to be alone in this.