Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[*kirty*]

We see it on here all the time - anytime anyone dares to criticise a breed's traits or appearance or health, some breeders and breed supporters cry foul. The back and legs if the GSD are a prime example.

And the fact that brachy breeds continue to suffer from these issues is proof enough for me that the majority of breeders are not doing anything. I have heard of a handful of breeders that strive for fit, healthy brachy dogs but most seem to strive for show winners which display the extreme features.

Another example is the Shar Pei. If a registered breeder tells you it is normal for your dog to need surgery in order for it to SEE, then something needs to change.

[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.

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

If looking at an issue honestly is seen as a witch hunt then this also identifies another reason nothing changes and dogs continue to needlessly suffer.

[Sheridan]

We see it on here all the time - anytime anyone dares to criticise a breed's traits or appearance or health, some breeders and breed supporters cry foul. The back and legs if the GSD are a prime example.

And the fact that brachy breeds continue to suffer from these issues is proof enough for me that the majority of breeders are not doing anything. I have heard of a handful of breeders that strive for fit, healthy brachy dogs but most seem to strive for show winners which display the extreme features.

Another example is the Shar Pei. If a registered breeder tells you it is normal for your dog to need surgery in order for it to SEE, then something needs to change.

And the issue I have is that people have lumped every single pedigree dog breeder into the 'bad' basket. Never mind all those who health test their dogs and pour money into health research. Never mind all the pedigree dogs that die of old age. Nope, a few people see some unhealthy dogs of a few breeds and therefore every pedigree breeder is responsible even though they're not and that most dogs are not pedigree dogs.

[dog_fan]

We see it on here all the time - anytime anyone dares to criticise a breed's traits or appearance or health, some breeders and breed supporters cry foul. The back and legs if the GSD are a prime example.

And the fact that brachy breeds continue to suffer from these issues is proof enough for me that the majority of breeders are not doing anything. I have heard of a handful of breeders that strive for fit, healthy brachy dogs but most seem to strive for show winners which display the extreme features.

Another example is the Shar Pei. If a registered breeder tells you it is normal for your dog to need surgery in order for it to SEE, then something needs to change.

And the issue I have is that people have lumped every single pedigree dog breeder into the 'bad' basket. Never mind all those who health test their dogs and pour money into health research. Never mind all the pedigree dogs that die of old age. Nope, a few people see some unhealthy dogs of a few breeds and therefore every pedigree breeder is responsible even though they're not and that most dogs are not pedigree dogs.

No one has actually said this.

[Sheridan]

We see it on here all the time - anytime anyone dares to criticise a breed's traits or appearance or health, some breeders and breed supporters cry foul. The back and legs if the GSD are a prime example.

And the fact that brachy breeds continue to suffer from these issues is proof enough for me that the majority of breeders are not doing anything. I have heard of a handful of breeders that strive for fit, healthy brachy dogs but most seem to strive for show winners which display the extreme features.

Another example is the Shar Pei. If a registered breeder tells you it is normal for your dog to need surgery in order for it to SEE, then something needs to change.

And the issue I have is that people have lumped every single pedigree dog breeder into the 'bad' basket. Never mind all those who health test their dogs and pour money into health research. Never mind all the pedigree dogs that die of old age. Nope, a few people see some unhealthy dogs of a few breeds and therefore every pedigree breeder is responsible even though they're not and that most dogs are not pedigree dogs.

No one has actually said this.

Not as directly as I've said it but it's well embedded. There's no acknowledgement at all that there are many breeders who spend $1000s on health testing their dogs or that loads of pedigree dogs die of old age. Hell, there's not even an acknowledgement of the caveat the researchers put on their work. I've said it a number of times and only Steve said anything and that was to dismiss it.

[Sheridan]

Oh well, have fun sticking the boots in.

[dog_fan]

There has also been no acknowledgement from you that just maybe breeders of brachy breeds may need to select away from the type that causes dogs health to be less than optimal.

[*kirty*]

Seriously? Where has anyone said that?

[moosmum]

Or delete the rule that misdirects breeders from the dog to the pedigree.

Even logic alone should point out the fault in that rule.

The insinuation is that there is some danger inherent in dogs with out a pedigree that must be defended against, If a ruling against breeding any dog ineligible for a pedigree is required. That is an assumption all pedigree breeders, under that rule, must work with.

So what separates a dog with a pedigree from a dog with out one? Thats a question the K.Cs must constantly strive to answer and define. But the answer is : NOTHING but the pedigree itself! So the dog goes, bit by bit.

What lies outside a pedigree is a dog. And that is Hendrik Gommers Theory in a nut shell. It works.

Guaranteed ancestry. What a dog looks like may not be what a dog is.

A pedigree is not just a piece of paper. Family trees matter.

They don't matter just in pedigrees though. They matter in any dog.

Steve, I believe this addresses your post also. The same things matter weather you are breeding to a pedigree or not. You may believe otherwise, but we are not talking about you the individual, who has a choice in your beliefs.

We ARE talking about a culture, bound by that rule in its constitution and the cumulative effects of how that rule will be interpreted at any given point in time, and applied to any problem in any given point in time. By the culture.

The same values, knowledge of ancestral history, apply to ANY deliberate breeding. Those values don't depend on a certificate of pedigree to validate them. Not in reality.

The belief they DO require a certificate of validation is why pedigree breders don't teach those values outside of the K.C environment though, and why those values are being lost.

WITHOUT that rule, a pedigree would represent the knowledge and ancestry behind a breed.

With that rule, all it can be is a certificate of validation. It can NEVER guarantee those values are there or fully appreciated by the breeder.

Putting forward arguments af natural law are not 'pointless' when any species depends on those same laws for survival and viability. Despite artificial selection.

The sciences of Physics, psychology, language, Evolution and biology are not irrelevant because you select a dog rather than take it. All those subjects are relevant and seem to support this theory.

The 'Its not us' and 'show us the proof' responses to the problems are BECAUSE of that rule.

It doesn't allow members to see there is problem and respond to address it. To ask, 'How can we add and demonstrate better value so those traits are no longer seen as a problem?'

The problem is seen in other terms. "How do we eliminate those problems and who/what dogs will be the target?'

We sure as hell wont eliminate those problems by pushing for that rule to be removed because right up until there is no life left that rule will stay. If there is an acknowledgment of that and discussion can move on to finding REALISTIC solutions to help ensure we do what is best for the dogs we may make a small step forward.

You have to know which battles you can win and right or wrong no drum banging is going to change that rule. But based on what I see here - there is a hell of long way before strategies are actually developed that will see the breeds still exist into the next century.

Until its clear you speak for all K.C Orgs. then, I will trust the silence means they are waiting for the RIGHT answer, when and if that becomes clear.

If its about the dogs.

Maybe thinking of some of the enormous positive implications of change, if it turns out to be correct, as I have no doubts it will.

Physics governs life. Human cultures mimic and repeat 'Laws' laid down at the cellular and genetic level. This ties together various 'human'science disciplines that appear to reinforce this theory. We are talking cultural evolution. A cultural imperative, as much as any genetic imperative. I don't see you getting any where with out changing physics.

You do realize I am not promoting the opening of stud books, I hope? Because I believe this solution in most cases would mean an end to increasing 'red tape' and restrictions, as well as increasing genetic variability without that. It does not ask the K.cs to be any more than the registry they set out to be. It does not force them into a greater role. Or to 'police' anyone more than current rules allow. It doesn't COST them anything. It only brings value, unless they believe a pedigree has MORE value than the dog it represents and I prefer to hope thats not a reasoned position.

You want realistic solutions based on faith? Right up until theres no life left?

Be careful what you ask for.

I don't believe you can health test, "experimental breed", blame or even out cross your way out of this. Not with out addressing the cause.

Yeah, you have to know which battles you can win. And which will cost most. And what the prize is.

Then take responsibility for your choices.

Edited April 11, 2016 by moosmum

[Willem]

some questions for the experts (I hope it is not too off-topic):

1. why are insurance costs for purebreds in general higher than crossbreeds?
   
2. why do the insurance companies consider parameters like size of dogs, age and breed, but not whether it is a pedigree or just a purebred without papers?
   
3. why are the insurance costs for e.g. a French Bulldog significant higher compared to e.g. a Border Collie?
   

[Steve]

Or delete the rule that misdirects breeders from the dog to the pedigree.

Even logic alone should point out the fault in that rule.

The insinuation is that there is some danger inherent in dogs with out a pedigree that must be defended against, If a ruling against breeding any dog ineligible for a pedigree is required. That is an assumption all pedigree breeders, under that rule, must work with.

So what separates a dog with a pedigree from a dog with out one? Thats a question the K.Cs must constantly strive to answer and define. But the answer is : NOTHING but the pedigree itself! So the dog goes, bit by bit.

What lies outside a pedigree is a dog. And that is Hendrik Gommers Theory in a nut shell. It works.

Guaranteed ancestry. What a dog looks like may not be what a dog is.

A pedigree is not just a piece of paper. Family trees matter.

They don't matter just in pedigrees though. They matter in any dog.

Steve, I believe this addresses your post also. The same things matter weather you are breeding to a pedigree or not. You may believe otherwise, but we are not talking about you the individual, who has a choice in your beliefs.

We ARE talking about a culture, bound by that rule in its constitution and the cumulative effects of how that rule will be interpreted at any given point in time, and applied to any problem in any given point in time. By the culture.

The same values, knowledge of ancestral history, apply to ANY deliberate breeding. Those values don't depend on a certificate of pedigree to validate them. Not in reality.

The belief they DO require a certificate of validation is why pedigree breders don't teach those values outside of the K.C environment though, and why those values are being lost.

WITHOUT that rule, a pedigree would represent the knowledge and ancestry behind a breed.

With that rule, all it can be is a certificate of validation. It can NEVER guarantee those values are there or fully appreciated by the breeder.

Putting forward arguments af natural law are not 'pointless' when any species depends on those same laws for survival and viability. Despite artificial selection.

The sciences of Physics, psychology, language, Evolution and biology are not irrelevant because you select a dog rather than take it. All those subjects are relevant and seem to support this theory.

The 'Its not us' and 'show us the proof' responses to the problems are BECAUSE of that rule.

It doesn't allow members to see there is problem and respond to address it. To ask, 'How can we add and demonstrate better value so those traits are no longer seen as a problem?'

The problem is seen in other terms. "How do we eliminate those problems and who/what dogs will be the target?'

We sure as hell wont eliminate those problems by pushing for that rule to be removed because right up until there is no life left that rule will stay. If there is an acknowledgment of that and discussion can move on to finding REALISTIC solutions to help ensure we do what is best for the dogs we may make a small step forward.

You have to know which battles you can win and right or wrong no drum banging is going to change that rule. But based on what I see here - there is a hell of long way before strategies are actually developed that will see the breeds still exist into the next century.

Until its clear you speak for all K.C Orgs. then, I will trust the silence means they are waiting for the RIGHT answer, when and if that becomes clear.

If its about the dogs.

Maybe thinking of some of the enormous positive implications of this, if it turns out to be correct, as I have no doubts it will.

Physics governs life. Human cultures mimic and repeat 'Laws' laid down at the cellular and genetic level. This ties together various science disciplines. We are talking cultural evolution. A cultural imperative, as much as any genetic imperative. I don't see you getting any where with out changing that.

You do realize I am not promoting the opening of stud books, I hope? Because I believe this solution in most cases would mean an end to increasing 'red tape' and restrictions, as well as increasing genetic variability without that. It does not ask the K.cs to be any more than the registry they set out to be. It does not force them into a greater role. Or to 'police' anyone more than current rules allow. It doesn't COST them anything. It only brings value, unless they believe a pedigree has MORE value than the dog it represents and I prefer to hope thats not a reasoned position.

You want realistic solutions based on faith? Right up until theres no life left?

Be careful what you ask for.

I don't believe you can health test, "experimental breed", blame or even out cross your way out of this. Not with out addressing the cause.

Yeah, you have to know which battles you can win. And which will cost most. And what the prize is.

Then take responsibility for your choices.

So lets be clear I don't speak for any KC org. I speak for what I believe is best for the dogs and the long term viability of the various breeds. I dont believe they have been silent but I dont agree with how they have responded. If what turns out to be correct?

No I don't realize you are not promoting opening stud books. Not that I would want to fight you too much if that's what you were advocating .I think there may be a viable reason in some breeds to do exactly that and as Ive explained before the KC have provision for that to happen if they deem that to be in the breeds best interest. Breeding dogs with longer noses ,less heavy chests, finer necks, less skin folds etc isnt really that hard to do and is easier than keeping to the current models. the breed standards allow for this as they are with a different interpretation on what is moderately short etc.

I have no real idea of what you think the solution is. I also have No idea what you are getting at by saying I want real solutions based on faith because my opinion of what is required is based on science and Ive been in the dog world long enough to know how far faith alone would take us.

I dont see us getting anywhere without changing the culture and clearly the welfare orgs think the same because they have a strategic plan to change the way the public view breeding practices which impact quality of life ,for that to put pressure on the culture until it changes to ensure its survival or until they can render them weak enough to go in for the kill.

The cause and the base culture is much more complicated than you give credit for including the fact that National Kennel Clubs worldwide have cut deals internationally with the FCI to protect themselves financially under the guise of protecting the breeds that are now 100 plus years old.

[Two Best Dogs!]

I stumbled across this today (trying to find the shih tzu project similar to the retro mop pugs but unfortunately i cannot remember the name, it was swedish or german program if anyone knows it), which seems to mirror this report (they could be linked? I can't find the original petition. Probably because it's in Swedish...)

swedish_vets_call_for_radical_health_plan_for_brachycephalic_breeds

But here's the Norsk Kennel Club's response(it's been run through google translate, sorry if it looks funny)

Be interesting to see what works, what doesn't work, the changes that occur in the breeds.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Thistle the dog

[Jed]

If the breed standard is not encouraging selection for healthy traits,

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard.

Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - proving that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions.

16% in a survey is not too many.

moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose.

Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Jed

[Steve]

We see it on here all the time - anytime anyone dares to criticise a breed's traits or appearance or health, some breeders and breed supporters cry foul. The back and legs if the GSD are a prime example.

And the fact that brachy breeds continue to suffer from these issues is proof enough for me that the majority of breeders are not doing anything. I have heard of a handful of breeders that strive for fit, healthy brachy dogs but most seem to strive for show winners which display the extreme features.

Another example is the Shar Pei. If a registered breeder tells you it is normal for your dog to need surgery in order for it to SEE, then something needs to change.

And the issue I have is that people have lumped every single pedigree dog breeder into the 'bad' basket. Never mind all those who health test their dogs and pour money into health research. Never mind all the pedigree dogs that die of old age. Nope, a few people see some unhealthy dogs of a few breeds and therefore every pedigree breeder is responsible even though they're not and that most dogs are not pedigree dogs.

What on earth are you talking about - no one has said or suggested that every single pedigree dog breeder is in the bad basket and its clear that part of what the CCs are using as defence for what they do is about telling about the research and testing etc.

Of course we are mindful of what is done on a positive level . The point is that everyone in the whole wide world can see that some pedigree breeders are breeding dogs which have poor quality of life and in order to get something done about it and defend their right to continue to carry on that its going to take something other than "Its not us" because sometimes it is. You are the only one in this thread making assumptions.

The ANKC's rebuttal statement to the ABC report.

ANKC Ltd are disappointed with the comments in the ABC article attributed to Assoc. Prof.Zuber and Dr.Crawford which continue the relentless attack on purebred dogs, amongst some of the inaccuracies in the article is the age to which Bulldogs can live, healthy Bulldogs from caring and responsible breeders can live to in excess of 10 years.

It is regrettable that, in articles on the state of pedigree dogs health there is no acknowledgment of the multi thousands of dollars spent by ANKC Ltd Breeders on health testing and support of ongoing research into Canine Heritable Diseases . The Canine Research Foundation (CRF) is the official vehicle for funding ANKC Ltd research programs, it is an independent public charitable trust and is funded by a $1 levy on every puppy registered with the ANKC, A good proportion of the funds have been allocated to researchers at Sydney University a fact which Prof.Zuber and others choose not to acknowledge. Since 2000 CRF grants to researchers at Sydney University have totalled $324,000 they include: Dr Christine Griebsch for Evaluation of serial thromboelastography and platelet mapping in dogs with immunemediated haemolytic anemia treated with aspirin or clopidogrel. Assoc Professor Peter Williamson for research into Genetic management of canine lymphoma and Primary immunodeficiency in Australian German Shepherds, and a study of integrated genomics source for the health and well-being of dogs in Australia. Dr.Chris Weir for Efficacy of a personalised tumour vaccine to treat dogs with cancer. Dr.Katrina Bosward for Coxiella burnetii (Q fever): is this an important agent of disease in Australian dogs and reservoir for human infection?. Dr.P.Sheehy, Generation of 'clinic ready' canine induced pluripotent stem cells for regenerative medicine. Dr.Govendir Improving therapeutic control of seizures and Long term use of phenobarbitone in idiopathic epilepsy. Dr.A.Dart Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of stifle pathology in naturally occurring cruciate ligament disease in dogs.

In a recent interview with the ABC on the subject of brachycephalic breeds ANKC Ltd President Hugh Gent OAM conceded that the whelping of Bulldog puppies was a problem with a large percentage requiring caesareans, however, further information on research into the problem, given to the ABC in the interview has yet to be presented.

What is not recognised by many commentators on the health of pedigree dogs is that there are two sources for obtaining puppies, in Australia, Registered Breeders and those who are not constrained by codes of ethics regarding health testing and programs to eliminate hereditary diseases, the majority of whom sell their puppies through the Internet. Of the estimated 341,000 puppies bred in Australia in 2015 only 20% (66,000) came from ANKC Ltd Breeders, it is from the 275,00 non registered puppies that most of the problems associated with BOAS are found. A separate posting will be made regarding important research in to BOAS.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

If the breed standard is not encouraging selection for healthy traits,

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard.

Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions.

16% in a survey is not too many.

moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose.

Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool.

Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog.

But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away.

It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin.

Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing.

Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity.

The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs.

So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job.

As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today.

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs.

Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

[Steve]

If the breed standard is not encouraging selection for healthy traits,

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard.

Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions.

16% in a survey is not too many.

moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose.

Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool.

Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog.

But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away.

It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin.

Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing.

Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity.

The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs.

So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job.

As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today.

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs.

Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems?

[melzawelza]

Norwegian KC admits "we went too far" and pledges to revolutionise 'brachy' health

In an extremely strong statement regarding brachycephalic health, the Norwegian Kennel Club (NKK) has today admitted that the breeding of short-faced breeds has gone "too far" and has pledged to reverse the damage.

In response to what it refers to as the "well-documented" health problems associated with a short nose, the NKK has committed to exploring/initiating the following measures for Bulldogs, Pugs, French Bulldogs and other brachy breeds:

- outcross projects designed to improve anatomy of the most extreme breeds without compromising genetic diversity

- a further "extensive" revision of breed standards to remove clauses which predispose for health problems/reduced functionality - to include those breeds that are edging towards being brachycephalic

- a pre-breeding endurance test for brachycephalics (treadmill and heart-monitor).

- registration of puppies dependent on a statement that neither parent has undergone airway surgery

- profile photographs of all dogs being shown in order to monitor trends.

he NKK has also determined to ensure the issue is discussed at FCI level and says it may contact the UK Kennel Club direct as the KC is the country of origin for several brachycephalic breeds

Edited April 12, 2016 by melzawelza

[dog_fan]

Norwegian KC admits "we went too far" and pledges to revolutionise 'brachy' health

In an extremely strong statement regarding brachycephalic health, the Norwegian Kennel Club (NKK) has today admitted that the breeding of short-faced breeds has gone "too far" and has pledged to reverse the damage.

In response to what it refers to as the "well-documented" health problems associated with a short nose, the NKK has committed to exploring/initiating the following measures for Bulldogs, Pugs, French Bulldogs and other brachy breeds:

- outcross projects designed to improve anatomy of the most extreme breeds without compromising genetic diversity

- a further "extensive" revision of breed standards to remove clauses which predispose for health problems/reduced functionality - to include those breeds that are edging towards being brachycephalic

- a pre-breeding endurance test for brachycephalics (treadmill and heart-monitor).

- registration of puppies dependent on a statement that neither parent has undergone airway surgery

- profile photographs of all dogs being shown in order to monitor trends.

he NKK has also determined to ensure the issue is discussed at FCI level and says it may contact the UK Kennel Club direct as the KC is the country of origin for several brachycephalic breeds

Now that's what I call getting on the front foot. Good on them for recognising there is a problem.

[melzawelza]

Norwegian KC admits "we went too far" and pledges to revolutionise 'brachy' health

In an extremely strong statement regarding brachycephalic health, the Norwegian Kennel Club (NKK) has today admitted that the breeding of short-faced breeds has gone "too far" and has pledged to reverse the damage.

In response to what it refers to as the "well-documented" health problems associated with a short nose, the NKK has committed to exploring/initiating the following measures for Bulldogs, Pugs, French Bulldogs and other brachy breeds:

- outcross projects designed to improve anatomy of the most extreme breeds without compromising genetic diversity

- a further "extensive" revision of breed standards to remove clauses which predispose for health problems/reduced functionality - to include those breeds that are edging towards being brachycephalic

- a pre-breeding endurance test for brachycephalics (treadmill and heart-monitor).

- registration of puppies dependent on a statement that neither parent has undergone airway surgery

- profile photographs of all dogs being shown in order to monitor trends.

he NKK has also determined to ensure the issue is discussed at FCI level and says it may contact the UK Kennel Club direct as the KC is the country of origin for several brachycephalic breeds

Now that's what I call getting on the front foot. Good on them for recognising there is a problem.

Agreed! I'm really impressed.

[mita]

Mel, posted:

In an extremely strong statement regarding brachycephalic health, the Norwegian Kennel Club (NKK) has today admitted that the breeding of short-faced breeds has gone "too far" and has pledged to reverse the damage.

And was, rightly, impressed with it.

What is even more impressive ... but not made clear in that summary .... is something that is key to managing risk in the breeding of pedigree dogs.

That is, the Norwegian Kennel Club works in cooperatively with one of their major universities in looking at genetic & functioning problems among pedigree breeds. Breeders allied with the NKC make their dogs & histories available to scientifically constructed studies & survey,

How do I know this? My breed of interest, Tibetan Spaniels, are not only a milder version of a brachy breed, but bred & kept as pets in large numbers in the Nordic countries (shades of Tibet!).

A genetic tendency towards an eye condition has been studied by the Norwegian University .... with full cooperation with the registered breeders.

Results were immediately made available .... both to other researchers & to the registered breeders. They were faithfully passed on to registered breeders internationally via their Tibetan Spaniel Health network which has contact people in most countries. Yes, we have an Australian member so the information came thro' here. Reassuring for pet owners/buyers like me!

Other British researchers extended these findings to produce a screening tool.... again with full cooperation of registered breeders.

Steve made a fair point in posting our (national) RSPCA's comment in talking about 'risk' in relation to brachy breeds. However, 'risk' is not something determined, set in stone. 'Risk' is something to be managed. Which is not limited to dogs.... our world is full of measures developed to minimize or eliminate 'risk'. Like women in pregnancy taking folate.

A welfare organization like the RSPCA tends to see & focus on the blunt, nasty end -products of human intervention choices along dogs' lives.

What they need to acknowledge is that measures to understand & manage risk for dogs form the other half of the equation for health & welfare. It'd be good to see Australian Kennel Clubs & the RSPCA working cooperatively.

Just like the Norwegian Kennel Club do with their university.

Yet, the same thing has been done here.... but getting very little public exposure. Registered breeders from the Australian Cattle Dog Club of Qld worked in with the University of Qld on research relating to incidence of deafness (results of which helped humans as much as dogs).

Also registered breeders, generally, cooperated with UQ to look at 'raising puppies' practices & any links with later behaviour problems (or not). Behaviour problems are the biggest reason for dogs being dumped. Results showed that registered breeders tended to socialize their puppies/dogs better, leading to less later severe problems.

Both above are very good reasons for our national RSPCA to be interested & supportive of measures designed to lessen or prevent certain risks for dogs' health & welfare. And looks like registered breeders have shown a willingness to be involved in productive partnerships. Should be more of it!

Edited April 12, 2016 by mita