Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[Steve]

The whole point of breed registries is the keeping of a stud book and issuing pedigrees.

If someone can find a breed registry in ANY domestic animal that permits breeding outside it, please provide an example.

I honestly am beginning to wonder what people want from pedigree breeders, beyond not breeding pedigree dogs.

No Australian breeder is a member of the ANKC. Breeders are members of state bodies which in turn are members of the ANKC.

I breed miniature horses.

I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose.

So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size?

I have NOT insisted on banning OR out crossing.

Health issues identified: Before progeny from my stallion can be registered, he must undergo and pass a veterinary inpection. If he shows any signs of having those conditions, or of having surgery to correct those conditions, He will not pass inspection and his progeny will not be eligible for registration.

D.N.A on file. ( my choice)

We have the same problems with 'newbies' or those who see big dollars and think if they pay lots, they can ask lots. That problem is evening out ( very slowly, since horses are so much more long lived than some other species) as the market is flooded with inferior types and people do start to realize there is more to "big money" than male + female = multiply. They are also moving on to the newer 'fad' in American Shetlands.

Its a common modern problem with any animal that doesn't ( relatively) need much room.... The more money people see asked for, the more they want part of that. When the money is less, the interest is more genuine and mostly more responsible because of that.

I have also bred milking goats, long before they were considered worth any thing to Australian farmers, through the popularity phase when people would pay big money for anything and more for pedigree, and finaly the market settled down to achieve relative stability. The problems encountered early are mostly wiped out today, or confined to small pockets. There may be other new problems for all I know since I no longer breed dairy goats. My need for them is gone.

But similar deal to other live stock.

No restriction on what I could breed my animals with. If the results don't meet certain criteria they simply aren't eligible for registration.

And thats fine.

There seems to be an assumption that if a pedigree, registered DOG though, is used for breeding, the breeder must expect resulting progeny to also be eligible for registration in some sort of stud book no matter what that animal was bred to.

That is not what I am arguing.

There is no rule, in registries I have been involved with for any of of the mentioned species, that I can NOT breed a registered animal with any thing but another registered animal of the same breed.

The breeder simply accepts that animal may not be eligible for registration if certain criteria is not met.

Registration and/or eligibility for show is not the only value or direction recognized. I believe though not problem free, for the most part those species are in much better shape than domestic dogs of either pedigree or mutt heritage. A breeders decisions (weather they end up right or wrong) are based on value adding for the individual conditions or environment that breeders must work with.

A goat farmer with pedigree stock and a goat breeder with unregistered stock both recognize the same values in GOATS to achieve the purpose of a Goat. The husbandry requirements are shared and discussed equally. The heath issues are shared and discussed equally, and tackled equally. The value of healthy stock is a shared responsibility.

A breeder of cross breed goats has access to healthy stock and an understanding of what to look for, what to avoid and how to find a breeder matching his requirements, with advise to do that readily available. ANY breeder has access to stock with predictable traits and health status.

A pedigree goat has likely gained value because of that. A cross breed goat has likely gained value because of that. Over what was being produced here 30 years ago.

Steve,

" So it is true that some state C.Cs have it in their regulations and code of ethics that the Registered Dog can't be used with an unregistered dog"

THANK YOU!!

I am not aware that that rule is 'new' or not pretty universal to pedigree dogs. I noted it in at least 2 overseas registries when I started this research, but it has never been formal research so no notes to confirm which. Will have to check.

I do know it was part of Regs. in at least one country overseas 45 years ago.

As to the fact people are doing it anyway contrary to rules and regs. They sign up to a code and disregard it, doesn't say much for their character.

Some do all sorts of shonky things but the real argument against what you are saying is that there are thousands more people breeding unregistered purebred dogs or registered purebred dogs that they choose not to register than there are those who register them In many cases the only criteria for registration that is missing is that the breeder doesn't want to be a member of their states purebred organisation. Often the breeder provides a copy of the parents registered pedigrees or a hand written pedigree. I believe that even in your mini horse org you have to be a member to be able to register a horse. I have to be a member of the sheeps org to register my stud sheep. The people who are breeding purebred dogs which they dont register with a state CC are in just as much hot water [ more if you go with the accusation that its them and not us] so I just really dont get what it is you believe will be changed for the welfare of the dogs due to their conformation if this were to happen.

I have never seen another registry which restricts the ability for a breeder to allow their purebred dogs to be mated in this manner

This is the Dogs NSW one - note the date it was introduced July 2013.

12 . A Member shall not knowingly permit the mating of any dog or bitch which is not registered on the Main Register of ANKC Ltd or with an organisation on the listing of ANKC Ltd Recognised Working Dog Associations/Kindred Bodies as being eligible for registration onthe Sporting Register.

13. A Member shall not knowingly permit any of that Member's pure bred dogs to be mated toa dog of a different breed, to a cross-bred dog, or to any unregistered dog of the same breed or to a dog not on the Main Register unless:-i) such mating is for the health, welfare and/or the development of a breed or an aspect thereof; andii) The Member has obtained the prior approval of the Board of Directors.The prohibition against crossbreeding contained in this clause shall not apply to guide and working dogs.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

So in other words what you are advocating is for members to be able to breed their registered pedigreed dogs to dogs which are not registered and if the progeny meets certain criteria you want them to be able to be admitted into the pedigree system. Is that right?

No.

I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs.

A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction.

Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable.

The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can.

A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more.

IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards.

When you are a member of a state CC which has this ruling you agree that the state CC has jurisdiction over dogs you own which are registered with them. If you as a dog owner want to mate your dog with any other dog the CC has no jurisdiction over you or your dog but it does have jurisdiction over a members purebred dogs. They don't want to have any say over what a dog not their business is able to do. I believe I have a similar situation with my kids. I couldn't care less what someone else's kid does or what some other parent allows their kids to do but I do what I can to control my kids . I couldn't careless if someone else's kid has sex with someone else kid but I sure as hell care if my kid has sex with someone else's kid that doesn't fit my criteria. That's not because I have or want jurisdiction over someone else kid but because I have jurisdiction over my own . Your bias makes you see that it is the CCs wanting or having jurisdiction over dogs which are not registered with them but that's just not the case.they only want control over their members dogs which are registered with them.

So if the registry is not ruling against something outside their jurisdiction and only ruling about dogs belonging to their members and there is provision for the stud book to be opened if necessary why the constant focus on placing the blame for what we are dealing with on that rule?

Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Steve

[Two Best Dogs!]

Here's an article on the current ongoing Brussel Griffon outcross/backcross study I mentioned earlier. It's nice to see the MRI scans will be helping both dogs and humans. Can't wait for the full study to come out with all the details.

My link

Here's the text:

New research shows it is possible to prevent Chiari malformation in toy dogs by cross breeding

Chiari malformation is found in toy dogs and affects 1 in 1,280 humans

University of Surrey researchers say findings give insight into the inheritance of Chiari malformation and should be used in new breeding guidelines

In a new study published today in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists from the University of Surrey, working with an experienced breeder in the Netherlands, examined how the skull and brain of toy dogs change when a Brussels Griffon with Chiari-like malformation is crossed with an Australian Terrier. The succeeding hybrid puppy is then back crossed to a Brussels Griffon to give some of the features of the Brussels Griffon, but keeping the longer skull of the Australian Terrier.

The results from the study showed it is possible to breed a dog which had the external features of a short-nosed Brussels Griffon and reduce the risk of Chiari malformation, a debilitating condition found in toy dogs and affecting 1 in 1,280 humans. The disease is characterised by premature fusion of skull bones forcing parts of the brain to push through the opening in the back of the skull causing fluid filled cavities to develop in the spinal cord. Chiari malformation causes headaches, problems with walking or even paralysis and has become prevalent in some toy breed dogs as a result of selective breeding.

The breeder, Henny van der Berg proposed the project idea after an accidental mating between two of her dogs. The four-year study analysed five traits on magnetic resonance images (MRI) scans and how they changed generation by generation in the family of 29 dogs. Using a careful selection of head shape and MRI scans over two generations, the findings revealed it was possible to breed a dog which had the external features of a Brussels Griffon, but is less susceptible to Chiari malformation.

“This is a true collaboration with breeders and researchers working together and using their expertise to improve the health of dogs,” said Dr Clare Rusbridge from the University of Surrey.

“Our study investigated how the characteristics of this disease is inherited in the family. Such knowledge could help in tackling this debilitating disease in toy dog breeds. We hope our research will help develop more sophisticated ways of screening and improve breeding guidelines by creating robust breeding values.”

The team at the University of Surrey is now collaborating with geneticists at the University of Montreal, and correlating the skull and brain traits visualised on magnetic resonance images with the dog genome. This information will then be translated to humans.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Thistle the dog

[Salukifan]

The whole Frenchy/Pug?Bracchy Breed debate has produced an interesting reaction from the wider public. Nothing. No reaction.

The dogs are appearing as regularly as ever in advertising. I think it's an interesting perspective for us all to keep in mind. There may be a storm in our teacup but the wider population seem unconcerned. Takes a bit of the urgency out of getting health issues sorted but we must still push on.

[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.

I think you mean the Neopolitan Mastiff? :) Cane Corsos aren't too bad in terms of wrinkles and saggy skin.

I think you're right. yep they're the ones. they lumber along dragging their skin behind them like an old blanket. slight exaggeration.

[WoofnHoof]

The Australian warmblood horse registries operate a "semi closed stud book", so for the registry I am in crosses are allowed for entry into a performance registry which also allows full showing rights including geldings, but they have to have known parentage for at least 4 generations, so pure breeds from other stud books such as Arabians and thoroughbreds are accepted but they don't go straight into the studbook they are in a seperate book and can only be accepted into the full studbook once they are assessed or classified as suitable for breeding. This is because the breed in this country is still in development and the type is not as strict being a largely performance centric registry.

With dogs it's a bit trickier as it's difficult to have performance testing for many breeds as their original purpose has become obsolete or changed, but certainly I feel it can't hurt to pursue that option in breeds where it may be practical to do so. I have no idea how you'd assess brachycephalic traits though, perhaps a revised standard with minimum dimensions?

I wouldn't rely on genetic breed testing at this point, they are at best an educated guess, too few markers for too many traits, and so many possible variants, pointless to even speculate at its usefulness in the future.

[moosmum]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. Not as clearly stated, but amounting to the same. That was done before 2013.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment reacts to both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by looking for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

I have been hoping I could get the K.Cs and others to see what I see with out that. I see it as urgent because if correct it means the constitution has set up a biological process that gains momentum towards to an end goal of removing dogs from the environment.

It amounts to new direction in biophysics for human culture and physical processes of learning, language psychology and other fields. I have no formal qualifications and doubted my ability to write a paper like that.

Seems its a sparse field anyway. Hopefully I have learned enough to do that.

It amounts to new directions in biophysics so should be demonstrable if correct.

Edited April 15, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

Well there are some points I would like to make

Its common to blame the ANKC ,the rules of their affiliated clubs ,the standards and the show scene. the value placed on how the dog looks and the desire for show ribbons. We can toss over possible solutions and causes but no matter what the solutions may be at the end of the day if the breeders don't get it its going to be a long slow agonising process.

There are no rules within the ANKC or affiliated clubs which have compelled breeders to breed their dogs to extremes. .The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

Judges within the show system are pretty easy to blame as well but at the end of the day they couldn't award dogs which presented with extremes if the breeders were not breeding them. The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

The wording of the breed standards may be lacking in exact detail of what is moderately short ,providing exact measurements etc but The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

Large part of the problem is that traditionally breeders are educated on how to select breeding dogs and build breeding programs from breeders who don't really know themselves and have become desensitised to the potential issues etc.

We can talk about breed politics, bullying, power ,egos, control etc and we can also take into account that conformational changes have been pretty slow so they crept up on us before we realized that they would create such health problems but The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

The ONE thing that needs addressing so that all else follows as a natural , so that any changes or strategies decided on will be effective and as swift as possible is the reversal of desensitisation to the impact on health caused by the breeder's decisions, education and desire to be part of truly working toward better health of the dogs by the breeders and a genuine desire to primarily focus on what is best welfare outcome for the dogs they breed.

In my opinion if you Address this then the opportunity to turn it around and prevent it happening again is more achievable and will create a snowball effect so everything else will follow.

[Steve]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. That was done before 2013. Maybe not a clearly stated.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment acts on both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by watching for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs.

As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. That was done before 2013. Maybe not a clearly stated.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment acts on both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by watching for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs.

As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark.

I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise.

I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there.

Edited April 15, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Well there are some points I would like to make

Its common to blame the ANKC ,the rules of their affiliated clubs ,the standards and the show scene. the value placed on how the dog looks and the desire for show ribbons. We can toss over possible solutions and causes but no matter what the solutions may be at the end of the day if the breeders don't get it its going to be a long slow agonising process.

There are no rules within the ANKC or affiliated clubs which have compelled breeders to breed their dogs to extremes. .The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

Judges within the show system are pretty easy to blame as well but at the end of the day they couldn't award dogs which presented with extremes if the breeders were not breeding them. The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

The wording of the breed standards may be lacking in exact detail of what is moderately short ,providing exact measurements etc but The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

Large part of the problem is that traditionally breeders are educated on how to select breeding dogs and build breeding programs from breeders who don't really know themselves and have become desensitised to the potential issues etc.

We can talk about breed politics, bullying, power ,egos, control etc and we can also take into account that conformational changes have been pretty slow so they crept up on us before we realized that they would create such health problems but The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

The ONE thing that needs addressing so that all else follows as a natural , so that any changes or strategies decided on will be effective and as swift as possible is the reversal of desensitisation to the impact on health caused by the breeder's decisions, education and desire to be part of truly working toward better health of the dogs by the breeders and a genuine desire to primarily focus on what is best welfare outcome for the dogs they breed.

In my opinion if you Address this then the opportunity to turn it around and prevent it happening again is more achievable and will create a snowball effect so everything else will follow.

The person who bred them, and the environment and culture that favors them.

Edited April 15, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. That was done before 2013. Maybe not a clearly stated.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment acts on both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by watching for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs.

As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark.

The culture does influence the environment it exists in and what values are recognized.

While breed comes before species any direction other than BSL is limited.

Once achieved, there is precedence in law.

Edited April 15, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. That was done before 2013. Maybe not a clearly stated.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment acts on both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by watching for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs.

As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark.

I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise.

I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there.

And all it takes is removal of one rule out of a couple of Australian state's code of ethics which does not exist in any constitution ?

[Steve]

Well there are some points I would like to make

Its common to blame the ANKC ,the rules of their affiliated clubs ,the standards and the show scene. the value placed on how the dog looks and the desire for show ribbons. We can toss over possible solutions and causes but no matter what the solutions may be at the end of the day if the breeders don't get it its going to be a long slow agonising process.

There are no rules within the ANKC or affiliated clubs which have compelled breeders to breed their dogs to extremes. .The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

Judges within the show system are pretty easy to blame as well but at the end of the day they couldn't award dogs which presented with extremes if the breeders were not breeding them. The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

The wording of the breed standards may be lacking in exact detail of what is moderately short ,providing exact measurements etc but The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

Large part of the problem is that traditionally breeders are educated on how to select breeding dogs and build breeding programs from breeders who don't really know themselves and have become desensitised to the potential issues etc.

We can talk about breed politics, bullying, power ,egos, control etc and we can also take into account that conformational changes have been pretty slow so they crept up on us before we realized that they would create such health problems but The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them.

The ONE thing that needs addressing so that all else follows as a natural , so that any changes or strategies decided on will be effective and as swift as possible is the reversal of desensitisation to the impact on health caused by the breeder's decisions, education and desire to be part of truly working toward better health of the dogs by the breeders and a genuine desire to primarily focus on what is best welfare outcome for the dogs they breed.

In my opinion if you Address this then the opportunity to turn it around and prevent it happening again is more achievable and will create a snowball effect so everything else will follow.

The person who bred them, and the environment and culture that favors them.

If its any environment and culture which favours them it's one created by the media and up until now animal welfare and even some animal rights propaganda until they got to a point where the registered breeders believed the sales pitch.

Until recently every "how to buy a puppy" where to buy a puppy" was "Go to a registered breeder, especially one that shows their dogs because they are involved in activities ,they health test and operate under a code of ethics [ one that is less strict regarding welfare issues than state codes of practice]

[Willem]

...it might be a long stretch, but the scenario could be compared with the automobile industry: I remember when the first discussions popped up regarding the danger of lead in fuel. The automobile industry stated that it would take years to develop motors that can run without lead in the fuel....government issued the laws and suddenly every brand could offer the right motors ...same with fuel efficiency, safety...emissions. Too much bureaucracy isn't good, but sometimes it can help to overcome the 'laws of inertia'...

[Steve]

Here's an article on the current ongoing Brussel Griffon outcross/backcross study I mentioned earlier. It's nice to see the MRI scans will be helping both dogs and humans. Can't wait for the full study to come out with all the details.

My link

Here's the text:

New research shows it is possible to prevent Chiari malformation in toy dogs by cross breeding

Chiari malformation is found in toy dogs and affects 1 in 1,280 humans

University of Surrey researchers say findings give insight into the inheritance of Chiari malformation and should be used in new breeding guidelines

In a new study published today in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists from the University of Surrey, working with an experienced breeder in the Netherlands, examined how the skull and brain of toy dogs change when a Brussels Griffon with Chiari-like malformation is crossed with an Australian Terrier. The succeeding hybrid puppy is then back crossed to a Brussels Griffon to give some of the features of the Brussels Griffon, but keeping the longer skull of the Australian Terrier.

The results from the study showed it is possible to breed a dog which had the external features of a short-nosed Brussels Griffon and reduce the risk of Chiari malformation, a debilitating condition found in toy dogs and affecting 1 in 1,280 humans. The disease is characterised by premature fusion of skull bones forcing parts of the brain to push through the opening in the back of the skull causing fluid filled cavities to develop in the spinal cord. Chiari malformation causes headaches, problems with walking or even paralysis and has become prevalent in some toy breed dogs as a result of selective breeding.

The breeder, Henny van der Berg proposed the project idea after an accidental mating between two of her dogs. The four-year study analysed five traits on magnetic resonance images (MRI) scans and how they changed generation by generation in the family of 29 dogs. Using a careful selection of head shape and MRI scans over two generations, the findings revealed it was possible to breed a dog which had the external features of a Brussels Griffon, but is less susceptible to Chiari malformation.

“This is a true collaboration with breeders and researchers working together and using their expertise to improve the health of dogs,” said Dr Clare Rusbridge from the University of Surrey.

“Our study investigated how the characteristics of this disease is inherited in the family. Such knowledge could help in tackling this debilitating disease in toy dog breeds. We hope our research will help develop more sophisticated ways of screening and improve breeding guidelines by creating robust breeding values.”

The team at the University of Surrey is now collaborating with geneticists at the University of Montreal, and correlating the skull and brain traits visualised on magnetic resonance images with the dog genome. This information will then be translated to humans.

My link

[moosmum]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. That was done before 2013. Maybe not a clearly stated.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment acts on both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by watching for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs.

As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark.

I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise.

I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there.

And all it takes is removal of one rule out of a couple of Australian state's code of ethics which does not exist in any constitution ?

If it has ever existed in the parent bodies constitution before the split into affiliate bodies, I believe so.

I guess that is some thing I will need to confirm.

[moosmum]

The Australian warmblood horse registries operate a "semi closed stud book", so for the registry I am in crosses are allowed for entry into a performance registry which also allows full showing rights including geldings, but they have to have known parentage for at least 4 generations, so pure breeds from other stud books such as Arabians and thoroughbreds are accepted but they don't go straight into the studbook they are in a seperate book and can only be accepted into the full studbook once they are assessed or classified as suitable for breeding. This is because the breed in this country is still in development and the type is not as strict being a largely performance centric registry.

With dogs it's a bit trickier as it's difficult to have performance testing for many breeds as their original purpose has become obsolete or changed, but certainly I feel it can't hurt to pursue that option in breeds where it may be practical to do so. I have no idea how you'd assess brachycephalic traits though, perhaps a revised standard with minimum dimensions?

I wouldn't rely on genetic breed testing at this point, they are at best an educated guess, too few markers for too many traits, and so many possible variants, pointless to even speculate at its usefulness in the future.

Unless its also been changed, even the closed stud books of one of our oldest breeds, The Arabian, allow for environmental influence with registries for horses derived from the breed.

[Steve]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. That was done before 2013. Maybe not a clearly stated.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment acts on both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by watching for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs.

As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark.

I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise.

I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there.

And all it takes is removal of one rule out of a couple of Australian state's code of ethics which does not exist in any constitution ?

If it has ever existed in the parent bodies constitution before the split into affiliate bodies, I believe so.

I guess that is some thing I will need to confirm.

O.K. To some extent regarding the environment of the traditional system I agree with you but your language confuses me and your insistence on constitutions being in the mix just doesnt fit for me .

If you leave out the word constitutions and get a bit closer to the real environmental impacts of purebred dog world we a bit of a push we might even be on the same page.

If you want to look at the agreements made between the FCI and all other countries, taking into account that the FCI will only recognise one affiliate per country and a whole heap more that may take you further in your argument than constantly speaking of a constitution.

The entire world of the FCI affiliated registered purebred is based on their management and rules.This creates problems for the purebred dog but its not because that rule exists in any constitution because only a couple of small sub groups have that rule and all the above reasons .

Its based around the agreements and the rules of the FCI. this is true but thats only a part of it all. Constantly referring to that rule and how you believe things would change if it were removed just isnt sitting logically with me.

[Steve]

The Australian warmblood horse registries operate a "semi closed stud book", so for the registry I am in crosses are allowed for entry into a performance registry which also allows full showing rights including geldings, but they have to have known parentage for at least 4 generations, so pure breeds from other stud books such as Arabians and thoroughbreds are accepted but they don't go straight into the studbook they are in a seperate book and can only be accepted into the full studbook once they are assessed or classified as suitable for breeding. This is because the breed in this country is still in development and the type is not as strict being a largely performance centric registry.

With dogs it's a bit trickier as it's difficult to have performance testing for many breeds as their original purpose has become obsolete or changed, but certainly I feel it can't hurt to pursue that option in breeds where it may be practical to do so. I have no idea how you'd assess brachycephalic traits though, perhaps a revised standard with minimum dimensions?

I wouldn't rely on genetic breed testing at this point, they are at best an educated guess, too few markers for too many traits, and so many possible variants, pointless to even speculate at its usefulness in the future.

Unless its also been changed, even the closed stud books of one of our oldest breeds, The Arabian, allow for environmental influence with registries for horses derived from the breed.

You have to remember the Purebred dog is under an all breeds umbrella not individual registries for each breed. Depending on which country you are in you get more or less ability to do this.

Also in some countries there are no members and they are not interested in the people who own them or breed them only the dogs and only if you want to register them.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Steve