Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[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.

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

I disagree. If a breeder is not free to choose a mating based purely on the value it offers, even if that dog will be ineligible for registration, then they are breeding to meet needs of the pedigree system 1st.

No if they have needs which are over and above or outside of that particular pedigree system they still have freedom to do any mating of their choice - just as most breeders do and either resign their membership or never take a membership in the first place.

[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.

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 .

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

That criteria surely doesn't include the kid slept with must come from the same family or cultural doctrines for any value they bring to the family to be recognized.

Surely a persons value as a human being is recognized before cultural doctrine or identity?

You disappoint me . Of course the criteria I have for my children is different to those I will have for my dogs. They are still my dogs and my kids ,that makes them my business and I don't have a desire to get involved in how someone else manages their kids or their dogs any more than I welcome someone else telling me what I should or should not do with either. If I do see a person who might be suitable for my kids being recognised by some crappy thing you dont agree with its still not your business.

The ANKC is not involved with nor does it have any need or desire to control a group of people or dogs outside of its criteria.

Breeders hold the power to leave, not to breed to extremes, put the welfare of their dogs and their breeds over and above all else whether they are within or outside the system.

And the very huge majority of those who are breeding dogs to extremes and which are unhealthy are not now nor have they ever been under the FCI purebred system.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

Disapoint?

I don't see how you get a personal criticism from that. I don't care what your personal criteria is for dog or human, and of course they would be different.

The point was, no matter what you know of back ground, pedigree or culture, The value is in the person, or dog in front of you. Or it isn't. What ever personal criteria or back ground info.you have. And that it SHOULD be personal. With room for it to be personal, as long as others aren't forced to pay a price for your personal choices.

As for the rest, I think you underestimate the abilities of a culture to influence direction of the environment that holds it over time. I am not talking about a conscious 'plan' but an unconscious direction taken by introducing a form of 'doctrine' into constitution or rules that has no bearing on goals set.

A cultural doctrine that favors elimination of imperfection to achieve a perfection that can never be universaly agreed.

It can only ever appeal to an ever decreasing audience.

Because individual, personal values can have no influence on long term direction.

Edited April 26, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

Moosmum this is pointless - its the same tap dance.

I don't underestimate abilities of a culture to influence direction of the environment that holds it over time- in fact I have some nice though old certificates to show that I get that bit as part of my degree - but a long time ago as I learned about the international purebred dog system I came to a conclusion that any change that saw results coming from change within the system without certain other things impacting on education and stimulating breeders and dog owners to question what they think they know that change would be too slow for me and the dogs.

Debating with you about whether individual,personal values can have an influence in changing an environment over time or chatting about constitutions and rules which you think are there that you think need to be changed in order to create a cultural change, discussions on whether the ANKC should give a damn about dogs or people outside of their group etc is a nice distraction but it offers me nothing toward analysis and identification of the problems caused by individual decisions and possible realistic solutions I believe I might see in my lifetime.

[DZaak]

A lot of well-intentioned pedigree Bracchy breeders here are getting defensive and quick to put the blame on BYB.

At the end of the day, the breed standards that have developed over many decades have turned bracchy breeds into health risks.

I'd argue that for the welfare of these gorgeous animals, proper breeders (not BYB) should actually move away from the proper pedigree breed standard and start breeding bracchies to have longer snouts, smaller eyes and less skin folds. This would be a several decade evolution, but it needs to bedone to keep these beautiful breeds in happy healthy conditions in the long term.

[Steve]

A lot of well-intentioned pedigree Bracchy breeders here are getting defensive and quick to put the blame on BYB.

At the end of the day, the breed standards that have developed over many decades have turned bracchy breeds into health risks.

I'd argue that for the welfare of these gorgeous animals, proper breeders (not BYB) should actually move away from the proper pedigree breed standard and start breeding bracchies to have longer snouts, smaller eyes and less skin folds. This would be a several decade evolution, but it needs to bedone to keep these beautiful breeds in happy healthy conditions in the long term.

The breed standards are not responsible.They are the same as they were when the breeds were first presented and there are few breeds which have remained as the founders of each breed ever intended them to look . The interpretation of the breed standard is another matter because moderately short to me [a beagle breeder] is obviously different to breeders who are breeding dogs with heads like bowling balls. What is moderately short ?

There is an argument which blames the judges because if a certain type with really moderately short muzzles begin to win then the theory is that all of the breeders who show and puppy buyers want to have dogs that look like the ones that are winning.

However, if breeders didn't breed dogs with heads like bowling balls in the first place no judge could show a preference for them.

We need critiques of the standards written which define such things and we also need a better definition of "betterment of the breed" because to me its pretty hard to justify how anyone is "bettering the breed" if each generation produced doesn't have a better [ rather than worse] quality of life.

[Willem]

A lot of well-intentioned pedigree Bracchy breeders here are getting defensive and quick to put the blame on BYB.

At the end of the day, the breed standards that have developed over many decades have turned bracchy breeds into health risks.

I'd argue that for the welfare of these gorgeous animals, proper breeders (not BYB) should actually move away from the proper pedigree breed standard and start breeding bracchies to have longer snouts, smaller eyes and less skin folds. This would be a several decade evolution, but it needs to bedone to keep these beautiful breeds in happy healthy conditions in the long term.

...??? so BYB should stick with unhealthy breed standards???

[_PL_]

A lot of well-intentioned pedigree Bracchy breeders here are getting defensive and quick to put the blame on BYB.

At the end of the day, the breed standards that have developed over many decades have turned bracchy breeds into health risks.

I'd argue that for the welfare of these gorgeous animals, proper breeders (not BYB) should actually move away from the proper pedigree breed standard and start breeding bracchies to have longer snouts, smaller eyes and less skin folds. This would be a several decade evolution, but it needs to bedone to keep these beautiful breeds in happy healthy conditions in the long term.

...??? so BYB should stick with unhealthy breed standards???

....???and what is wrong with you???

You can't read a post within context and the way it was meant?

edited to delete the rest BYB stock comes from breeder's lines so there's a trickle-down.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Powerlegs

[sandgrubber]

A lot of well-intentioned pedigree Bracchy breeders here are getting defensive and quick to put the blame on BYB.

At the end of the day, the breed standards that have developed over many decades have turned bracchy breeds into health risks.

I'd argue that for the welfare of these gorgeous animals, proper breeders (not BYB) should actually move away from the proper pedigree breed standard and start breeding bracchies to have longer snouts, smaller eyes and less skin folds. This would be a several decade evolution, but it needs to bedone to keep these beautiful breeds in happy healthy conditions in the long term.

The breed standards are not responsible.They are the same as they were when the breeds were first presented and there are few breeds which have remained as the founders of each breed ever intended them to look . The interpretation of the breed standard is another matter because moderately short to me [a beagle breeder] is obviously different to breeders who are breeding dogs with heads like bowling balls. What is moderately short ?

There is an argument which blames the judges because if a certain type with really moderately short muzzles begin to win then the theory is that all of the breeders who show and puppy buyers want to have dogs that look like the ones that are winning.

However, if breeders didn't breed dogs with heads like bowling balls in the first place no judge could show a preference for them.

We need critiques of the standards written which define such things and we also need a better definition of "betterment of the breed" because to me its pretty hard to justify how anyone is "bettering the breed" if each generation produced doesn't have a better [ rather than worse] quality of life.

The breed standards may not be the problem, but they could be part of a solution. Eg., if 'moderately short' is defined in terms of, say, anatomical ratios, it becomes much harder for judges and the fancy in general to incrementally shift preferences to shorter and shorter snouts. I'm glad the Rottweiler head has not been favored in Labrador circles, but I could imagine an interpretation of the standard that would allow it to become fashionable. Subjective words like 'balance', 'moderately', 'powerful', 'deep', 'thick' etc. make standards vulnerable to progressive change in the direction of unhealthy extremes.

[Jed]

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

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

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

As a vet nurse the ones you see are at the vets for a reason. The % presented here are 50%

IF brachy breeds are bred according to the standard, they should have no problem - according to an experienced all breeds international judge who carefully explained the standard to me. I have been breedig dogs for better than 40 years and I very much doubt that I have enough experience or talent to interpret the standards and breed healthy dogs.

So, I would never try. Some things are just too hard.

Yet people who have been "in dogs" as they say, for a year or two are breeding frenchies and pugs. I have friends with (show) pugs which run around like Ferraris on speed!! Well and carefully bred by experienced breeders.

Bulldogs' health has improved enormously over the past 20 years.

And please remember, you can't just say "expelliamus" and fix everything in a generation. If you want long noses and use a long nosed dog - you MIGHT get some long nosed pups, but you may not - so you may have to keep some of that litter to mate to ANOTHER long nosed dog. Is the long nosed gene recessive or dominant? No one knows.

And while you are doing that, some other problems may surface. Not for the faint hearted!! The other problem, of course, is obtaining a suitable dog or bitch and using it.

Its not about health, it's about Animal Rights via Dr. McGreevey wanting to sound the death knell of purebred dogs, and then the 50% of brachy dogs who have problems and the 50% who have none will disappear.

[Jed]

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

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

Because there is NO proof of the cause of SM. It was believed to be syrinxes - but plenty of dogs have syrinxes and no SM> Zillions have been spend on MRI's- and the numbers affected are the same as they were 12 years ago.

Scanning may be mapping the way to go to breed SM free dogs, but it is doing nothing for the current dogs.

As many breeds are afflicted by this wretched disease, no one has any idea whether x-ing will improve matters or make them worse. Cavaliers, poodles etc. And people all have SM.

I think finding the cause might be more productive than the scatter gun approach. The incidence in Aus is believed to be 2%. A gr.ch dog which has about 100+ progeny, has ONE pup which had SM. The dog himself is still alive at 16 and very well. Neither parent had SM.

Spotted Devil - the reaction by breeders to the introduction of genes from other breeds is quite disturbing - but many do not understang genetics at all, and do not understand what has been done Boxer people are still calling boxers with the bob-tail gene Dorgis, or x breds, because they do not understand what happened. Note - I have no, and have never had any dogs with the bobtail gene so I have no personal interest.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Jed

[Willem]

A lot of well-intentioned pedigree Bracchy breeders here are getting defensive and quick to put the blame on BYB.

At the end of the day, the breed standards that have developed over many decades have turned bracchy breeds into health risks.

I'd argue that for the welfare of these gorgeous animals, proper breeders (not BYB) should actually move away from the proper pedigree breed standard and start breeding bracchies to have longer snouts, smaller eyes and less skin folds. This would be a several decade evolution, but it needs to bedone to keep these beautiful breeds in happy healthy conditions in the long term.

...??? so BYB should stick with unhealthy breed standards???

....???and what is wrong with you???

You can't read a post within context and the way it was meant?

edited to delete the rest BYB stock comes from breeder's lines so there's a trickle-down.

...obviously I had - and still have - problems to understand what the poster wants to say wrt BYB - so why don't you just help me out and explain it to me?

[*kirty*]

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

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

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

As a vet nurse the ones you see are at the vets for a reason. The % presented here are 50%

IF brachy breeds are bred according to the standard, they should have no problem - according to an experienced all breeds international judge who carefully explained the standard to me. I have been breedig dogs for better than 40 years and I very much doubt that I have enough experience or talent to interpret the standards and breed healthy dogs.

So, I would never try. Some things are just too hard.

Yet people who have been "in dogs" as they say, for a year or two are breeding frenchies and pugs. I have friends with (show) pugs which run around like Ferraris on speed!! Well and carefully bred by experienced breeders.

Bulldogs' health has improved enormously over the past 20 years.

And please remember, you can't just say "expelliamus" and fix everything in a generation. If you want long noses and use

We see dogs for eye problems. The fact is that every brachy dog has BOS. The degree may vary, but it's there. I know there are a few brachy dogs running around with good airways but they are the minority. And again, as long as breeders convince themselves that there isn't a problem, nothing will ever be done.

[denali]

We see dogs for eye problems. The fact is that every brachy dog has BOS. The degree may vary, but it's there. I know there are a few brachy dogs running around with good airways but they are the minority. And again, as long as breeders convince themselves that there isn't a problem, nothing will ever be done.

I have Cavaliers, they are a brachy breed. Yet none of mine have shown any evidence of BOS, dont have stenotic nares, eye issues etc.

As a breed they have their fair share of issues. But none of the dogs i have owned have those.

note: maybe they do have issues, can't really ask them if they breathe like a "normal" dog, but its nothing obvious if they are there.

Edited April 29, 2016 by denali

[asal]

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

a test which has been proven to be very wrong several times here on DOL

so true, remember the case of the pure bred german cooli whose owner was told it had labrador and golden retriever in it, forget the other breeds listed, none of the breeds mentioned included german cooli

[asal]

This was emailed to me yesterday.

cant copy and paste as its copywrite. I think I met this chaps like in 1978 her name Phil Burgess, apprently there are more like her, just need an awful lot more to learn and apply, think this chap is in america.

http://www.thedogplace.org/GENETICS/DNA-Smokescreen_Andrews.asp

pity the braci's couldnt go back to what they were instead of the faces improved off them

in 1950 my uncle bred Champion Persian cats. they had faces. Today such Persian's are referred to as chocolate box persians because thats the only place you can see them now. In the 80's a friend Brenda Hotop tried to stop the removal from the standard the words "pleasant expression" which up to then had prevented the gargoyle like ultra flat faced from winning. The vote won to delete it.

a Himalayan kitten bred in early 1980 won best in show with a face, she actually had a muzzle. now the poor Himalayan has gone the flat faced route too. up until then its siamese roots had preserved it a face.

Edited April 29, 2016 by asal

[Willem]

This was emailed to me yesterday.

cant copy and paste as its copywrite. I think I met this chaps like in 1978 her name Phil Burgess, apprently there are more like her, just need an awful lot more to learn and apply, think this chap is in america.

http://www.thedogplace.org/GENETICS/DNA-Smokescreen_Andrews.asp

pity the braci's couldnt go back to what they were instead of the faces improved off them

in 1950 my uncle bred Champion Persian cats. they had faces. Today such Persian's are referred to as chocolate box persians because thats the only place you can see them now. In the 80's a friend Brenda Hotop tried to stop the removal from the standard the words "pleasant expression" which up to then had prevented the gargoyle like ultra flat faced from winning. The vote won to delete it.

a Himalayan kitten bred in early 1980 won best in show with a face, she actually had a muzzle. now the poor Himalayan has gone the flat faced route too. up until then its siamese roots had preserved it a face.

a quote from the link:

"

And then, doggone it, when one of us shares something of great consequence like "did you know they developed this new DNA test to identify that fatal CHG disease in puppies?" someone like Bill Andrews grins and says "Well I reckon if it’s fatal in pups, it pretty well eliminates itself. If you don’t breed the same dog and bitch again, it won't happen again."

...the further information provided on the same website (see also part 2 and 3) indicates that both parents need to be the carrier to allow for 'natural' extinction. Therefore the adopted attitude of B.A. seems to be contra productive regarding producing a healthy stock.

[asal]

This was emailed to me yesterday.

cant copy and paste as its copywrite. I think I met this chaps like in 1978 her name Phil Burgess, apprently there are more like her, just need an awful lot more to learn and apply, think this chap is in america.

http://www.thedogplace.org/GENETICS/DNA-Smokescreen_Andrews.asp

pity the braci's couldnt go back to what they were instead of the faces improved off them

in 1950 my uncle bred Champion Persian cats. they had faces. Today such Persian's are referred to as chocolate box persians because thats the only place you can see them now. In the 80's a friend Brenda Hotop tried to stop the removal from the standard the words "pleasant expression" which up to then had prevented the gargoyle like ultra flat faced from winning. The vote won to delete it.

a Himalayan kitten bred in early 1980 won best in show with a face, she actually had a muzzle. now the poor Himalayan has gone the flat faced route too. up until then its siamese roots had preserved it a face.

a quote from the link:

"

And then, doggone it, when one of us shares something of great consequence like "did you know they developed this new DNA test to identify that fatal CHG disease in puppies?" someone like Bill Andrews grins and says "Well I reckon if it’s fatal in pups, it pretty well eliminates itself. If you don’t breed the same dog and bitch again, it won't happen again."

...the further information provided on the same website (see also part 2 and 3) indicates that both parents need to be the carrier to allow for 'natural' extinction. Therefore the adopted attitude of B.A. seems to be contra productive regarding producing a healthy stock.

as the arabian world discovered in the case of SCIDs, eliminating all carriers is not sensible, carriers are "healthy stock". As long as no carrier to carrier matings are done there will never be affected offspring and you havent eliminated those that otherwise in many cases are the best of their generation.

although it was found although there is a low incidence across the population when it came to selecting the top of their generation it was discovered to have been the majority in many cases the ones selected turned out on testing to be carriers.

far better to keep the gene pool from contracting , never put carrier to carrier and the incidence of the defective gene will reduce by 50% per generation anyway

To put carrier to carrier means yes two patterns mean death and "natural" extinction of that offspring, but the surviving leaves 1 in 4 clear of the defect gene and 2 in 4 carriers

Edited April 30, 2016 by asal

[Willem]

...so how do you prevent 'carrier to carrier mating' without testing?....if I would be breeder, and would choose sperm from oversee just to find out that - bad luck - my own bitch and the sperm donator are carriers I would be pretty upset...and pretty stupid if I had the chance for a test and didn't use it.

[Steve]

...so how do you prevent 'carrier to carrier mating' without testing?....if I would be breeder, and would choose sperm from oversee just to find out that - bad luck - my own bitch and the sperm donator are carriers I would be pretty upset...and pretty stupid if I had the chance for a test and didn't use it.

You can with somethings that show up at birth or soon after but for things that a really horrible such as PRA , Degenerative Myelopathy etc if you don't test by the time you find out you have a carrier is when you get an affected - in the mean time the dogs have been used for years for breeding and spreading the good news all around. This is only about recessives anyway. Lots in this day and age have DNA tests available but you have to know what to test for and you have to be prepared to do test matings to identify carriers for things that don't have a DNA ID.

I dont know any breeders who would balk at breeding carriers to clears so not sure what we are talking about with limiting gene pools in this way. Gene pools are limited much more by selection for conformation.