Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason given for the Aussie BD breeding program was to enable less conformation issues and less whelping problems. It depends on which group of breeders you are looking at as there are 3 distinct groups at least one has been able to bring down the conformation issues which negatively impact quality of life, and lessened but not eliminated whelping issues.

When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results.

Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke.

it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge.

It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals - assuming of course that the pedigree doesn't just record the name and whether the dog is a champion and it also keeps detailed record of the important things required to breed healthy well temperamented animals that represent good examples of the breed.

Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized

It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Steve

[*kirty*]

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.

[Xyz]

100% agree with *kirty*. I have been nursing for almost 20 years and almost every day see the suffering of brachy dogs, so often requiring corrective surgery to even function... I always ask the owners where they got their dogs/puppies and are almost always registered breeders, some even ex show and breeding dogs. The poor dogs and the poor owners often having to spend big dollars having corrective surgeries. I just with we could do more for public education so there was less demand for these types. And like someone else said, the cross breeds may be better in one area, but require attention to another... (for example 'aussie' bulldogs are much more over-represented than british bulldogs.) :(

[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.

Please cite scientific studies which prove this?

[Jed]

100% agree with *kirty*. I have been nursing for almost 20 years and almost every day see the suffering of brachy dogs, so often requiring corrective surgery to even function... I always ask the owners where they got their dogs/puppies and are almost always registered breeders, some even ex show and breeding dogs. The poor dogs and the poor owners often having to spend big dollars having corrective surgeries. I just with we could do more for public education so there was less demand for these types. And like someone else said, the cross breeds may be better in one area, but require attention to another... (for example 'aussie' bulldogs are much more over-represented than british bulldogs.) :(

If you are a vet nurse, you would see a great many suffering brachy dogs. How do you know they are pedigree? Do the owners produce the papers for the surgery to see? The dogs which are fine are at home; but they are not adding to the big picture so the only dogs which vets and vet nurses see are the sicko ones.

I do think we need some proof of all of this - you see a small part and so do I.

I think we could do more for breeders, so they could understand how to breed to the standard to eradicate these problems at mating. After that it is too late.

[moosmum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results.

Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke.

it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge.

It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals

Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized

It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum.

Man has been selecting dogs for centuries with out a pedigree system and it worked well enough to bring us distinct types and unofficial 'breeds'. Steady improvement and reliability was achieved because the dogs allowed to thrive were those selected by the environment that supported them- Based on Values demonstrated. Those dogs who brought best value were most sought for breeding. Those with less value were not. It was a value adding system.

It allowed for INDIVIDUALS to focus on their own priorities and add value to the whole as it applied to their own situation and specific purpose/environment.

Domestic Dogs only environment is humanities communities and society. Thats what governed the selection process to give rise to the species. There was nothing artificial about that selection process. I was driven by environment. Its demands for demonstrated value.

Its wasn't perfect, 'Mistakes' occurred. But because of the broader selection allowed, and the value seeking nature of environment, those mistakes were 'mostly' short lived.

A pedigree has great potential to show its benefits and value in tracing both negative and positive values to speed up and make more efficient that NATURAL selection process. Great value to be had from a pedigree, no doubt about that.

When applied to specific groups of dogs classed now as pure breeds, a pedigree has incredible potential to add to the values for purpose of that dog.

Those values for purpose are ALWAYS decided by environment, and will depend on what values the ENVIRONMENT can recognize as worthy of support. The only successful response of a species is to make sure it adds value to its environment to earn that support and favor that will allow it to thrive. Value adding.

It becomes UN-NATURAL only when environment is excluded from that process. As happened when K.Cs ruled members must not breed a dog ineligible for registration. That took pedigree dogs out of their NATURAL environment and placed them into an un-natural environment we call the K.Cs. The K.Cs become a distinct environment of their own with that rule in play. Not just a natural variable in the many different environments available and supportive to domestic dogs.

Purpose of the breeds is no longer to serve the varied environments that grew them, and MUST support them for viability, but to serve the K.C 'Owning' that pedigree.

Independent of the environment that supports the species as a whole.

Its a SEPARATION of values and purpose.

Where ever the current K.C cultural priorities lie is where the focus will take the breed in any given time period.

Disregarding environmental priorities which are always individual specific to allow for the whole range of environmental values at any one time.

The species purpose to mankind, his environment, will always be secondary to the K.Cs own purpose and priorities. So yes. It is a joke to expect Pedigrees breeders under the current rules to be able to work on more than one thing at a time, when current trends in the show ring replace environmental values for purpose. For a tiny groups priorities to replace the purpose dog fill in their environment.To replace variable environmental selection with one of variable timing.

A dog either has a pedigree, or it doesn't. The ruling that forbids recognition of any value in dogs with out a pedigree is superfluous to that system and draws a line of separation in/of environment.

Be careful what you ask for.

Its no longer 'just' a closed system. Its an encapsulated system with out that recognition of value for species before 'breed'. Whats out side of that line- is to be kept out. Its a system that defines itself BY that separation of values. So instead of a value adding system it becomes a value reduction system.

A negative instruction can only limit value.It can never add value.

That instruction limits values to those contained in the K.C specific environment.

So apart from a pedigree, what are they?

Those values CAN"T be about the dog 1st. Not while its pedigrees alone that represent membership to that encapsulated environment. Not while K.C values must be held distinct from the common values inherent in the species to its natural environment.

K.C member breeds under that rule are forced to constantly redefine what its own environment, membership and values DO include, to keep that unwelcome environmental influence at bay. An impossibility. There is no pedigree with out species. There are no pedigree dogs with out an environment to hold them..

It narrows priorities (and knowledge) in breeding to what IS already contained in a pedigree, known and recorded. Demands are timing variable, rather than environment variable. The more time passes, the fewer values available to select from to meet current demands.

If the only values recognized must be in pedigrees to begin with, "Improvement" must be through elimination of fault or imperfection. Its a closed system. Nothing CAN be added.

Protocols may be there, but the culture is set, 'fixed' on value reduction, not value adding. Its a culture programed to define its purpose (the pedigree) by what is excluded.

The only thing that can be excluded from environment must be more environment or parts of it. No matter how you logicaly CHOOSE to look at it, the reality of the language in that instruction means the purpose of the K.Cs is Pedigree. NOT dogs. Its not dogs that define them. Its pedigree.

The problems faced by the K.Cs in adapting to demands are less to do with the closed stud books than they are with the closed culture that holds them.

That rule closes the culture to influence from the whole of their environment, restricting it to only those who value the pedigree above the species itself.

The environment that holds that culture is unable to influence direction and choices.

Does not matter if you tell me YOU believe other wise. The truth is in the language of the instruction, for the CULTURE.

To make that a positive instruction, You would say 'We will protect pedigrees from dogs'. Positive instruction gives a clear direction of purpose that make implications easy to predict.

A negative instruction gives NO direction or purpose. You aren't choosing a direction. Its the opposite of direction. It can only limit into the mirror image of a direction. By giving implication.

Its harder to see the direction an implication will take you.

Any signator is bound by that instruction, to that culture. That is a signators choice.

K.C members are NOT victim to the world or environment they inherited. Only a victim of the environment they choose to separate from it.

That culture COULD choose to respond. Removal of that rule allows response. If it chooses not to, it WILL suffer the environmental attrition of not being able to do so, by the environment IT exists in.

That rule is what allows and even encourages the attrition of signators who attempt change. Those who do try to change can not be favored in a K.C environment. Not under a rule that restricts environment to what is known to be there, yet improve on it.

Edited April 10, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results.

Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke.

it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge.

It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals

Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized

It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum.

Man has been selecting dogs for centuries with out a pedigree system and it worked well enough to bring us distinct types and unofficial 'breeds'. Much more slowly, yes. But steady improvement and reliability was achieved because the dogs allowed to thrive were those selected by the environment that supported them- Based on Values demonstrated. Those dogs who brought best value were most sought for breeding. Those with less value were not.It was a value adding system.

It allowed for INDIVIDUALS to focus on their own priorities and add value to the whole as it applied to their own situation and specific purpose/environment.

Domestic Dogs only environment is humanities communities and society. Thats what governed the selection process to give rise to the species. There was nothing artificial about that selection process.

Its wasn't perfect, 'Mistakes' occurred. But because of the broader selection allowed, and the value seeking nature of environment, those mistakes were 'mostly' short lived. Thats where a pedigree realy shows its benefits and value.In tracing both negative and positive values to speed up and make more efficient that NATURAL selection process. Great value to be had from a pedigree, no doubt about that.

When applied to specific groups of dogs classed now as pure breeds, a pedigree has incredible potential to add to the values for purpose of that pure breed.

Those values for purpose are ALWAYS decided by environment, and will depend on what values the ENVIRONMENT can recognize as worthy of support. The only successful response of a species is to make sure it adds value to its environment to earn that support and favor that will allow it to thrive. Value adding.

It becomes UN-NATURAL only when environment is excluded from that process. As happened when K.Cs ruled members must not breed a dog ineligible for registration. That took pedigree dogs OUT of their natural environment and placed them into an un-natural environment we call the K.Cs. The K.Cs become a distinct environment of their own with that rule in play.

Purpose of the breeds is no longer to serve the environment that grew them, and MUST support them for viability, but to serve the K.C 'Owning' that pedigree. Independent of the environment that supports the species as a whole.

Where ever the current K.C cultural priorities lie is where the focus will take the breed in any given time period. Disregarding environmental priorities which are always individualy specific to allow for the whole range of environmental values.

The species purpose to mankind, his environment, will always be secondary to those priorities. So yes. It is a joke to expect Pedigrees breeders under the current rules to be able to work on more than one thing at a time, when current trends in the show ring replace environmental values for purpose.

Yes it has worked well enough to bring us distinct types and official and unofficial breeds but this is 2016 and we are talking purebred dogs and what is required to improve their health and welfare .No breeder then or now could ever work on more than one thing at a time and get as good a result as timely toward their goal.

[Steve]

Its much easier for those who are saying there is a problem and that some purebred breeders are at least as much if not more responsible than the BYB etc than it is for the registered breeders to offer proof. its not them. Be careful what you ask for.

Sadly purebred breeders cant prove how much healthier their dogs are than unpapered ones because there are no mandatory tests for registration with the ANKC for most of these breeds, information is not shared and often actively concealed so asking for proof works both ways. If thats they way this is going to be fought better start gathering some proof of our own. From day one I have complained that the stats they are collecting don't determine which dogs are bred by registered breeders and which are not. So far thats not been corrected and unlikely that it will be. I wrote an open letter to the ANKC asking that they with hold funding to the LIDA program until such time as this was able to be a part of the data collection.

Many registered show breeders websites showcase dogs which clearly have problems, there are hundreds of studies and people can see for themselves that at the very least it IS happening within the registered breeder group.Hell people that attend shows can see it .

Sure we breed smaller numbers but that makes it even a worse look when numbers of those suffering turn up at the vet which are bred by us. The other aspect of this is that breeders have become so desensitised they don't recognise it when they see it anyway.

My link

[corvus]

Study that looked at the incidence of upper respiratory tract disorders in brachycephalic breeds: http://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-015-0023-8

Another one that looks at the relationship between muzzle length and Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137496

[Steve]

Brown and Gregory (2005) - most brachycephalic dogsare affected by upper airway obstruction to some degree. The severity of theproblem depends on the number and severity of the anatomical abnormalities.

Stenotic nares - occur in 46 to 77% of dogs with BAOS(Lorinson et al 1997, Harvey 1982a, Fasanlla et al 2010).

Disproportionately large soft palate - 96 to 100% ofbrachycephalic dogs have an overlong soft palate (Harvey 1982b, Dupre 2008,Fasanella et al 2010).

Everted tonsils - were seen in 56% of dogs with BAOS(Fasanella et al 2010).

Nasopharyngeal turbinates - are found in somebrachycephalics, most commonly pugs (Ginn et al 2008).

Laryngeal collapse is common in pugs with BAOS. Surgicaltreatment is more challenging than in larger dogs (Harvey 1982d). Fasanella etal (2010) reported that 66% of dogs with BAOS syndrome had everted laryngealsaccules.

Trachea hypoplasia is seen in some pugs in conjunction withBAOS (Eom et al 2008), but is generally believed to be rare in pugs. Theoccurrence of laryngeal problems apparently varies from 30% to 64% (Harvey 1982c, Harvey 1982 d, Dupre 2008). In one study of 73 cases of BAOS, 97% were foundto have oesophageal, gastric or duodenal anomalies and 74% had gastrointestinalproblems classed as moderate or severe (Poncet et al 2005).

Harvey (1989) states “It seems likely that all pugs haveBAOS to some extent, although some people may consider them “normal” and “The breathing problems caused by theseabnormalities [bAOS] are so commonly recognised by breeders of bulldogs andother short-faced breeds that some carry oxygen cylinders with them to shows,and routinely arrange for caesarean section birth of puppies so as not to causeasphyxiation of the whelping bitch“.Meola, S.D. (2013). Brachycephalic airwaysyndrome, Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, 28, 91-96

Dupre G (2008) Brachycephalic Syndrome: New Knowledge, NewTreatments. Presentation at WSAVA Congress, Dublin, Ireland, 20-24th August2008 (On-line). Available athttp://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2010&Category=&PID=56236&O=Generic.Accessed 20.7.10.

Dupre G and Freiche V (2002) Ronflements et vomissements chezles bouledogues: traitement médical ou chirurgical? Proceedings of the AFVACAnnual Congress. Paris, France, November 10, 2002. pp 235-236

Eom K., Moon K., Seong Y, Oh T, Yi S, Lee K and Jang K(2008) Ultrasonographic evaluation of tracheal collapse in dogs Journal ofVeterinary Science. 9 401–405.

Fasanella FJ, Shivley JM, Wardlaw JL and GivaruangsawatS(2010) Brachycephalic airway obstructive syndrome in dogs: 90 cases(1991–2008). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2371048-1051

Njikam, D.V.M., Huault, M., Pirson, V. and Detilleux, D.V.M.(2009). The influence of phylogenic origin on the occurrence of brachycephalicairway syndrome in a large retrospective study, International Journal ofApplied Research in Veterinary Medicine, 7(3), 138-143.

Wolfgang, K., Sabine, B., and Marion, O. (2002).Morphological and functional implications of the selection on brachycephalicfeatures in feline skulls, Proceedings of the WSAVA Congress, Spain.

[moosmum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results.

Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke.

it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge.

It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals

Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized

It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum.

Man has been selecting dogs for centuries with out a pedigree system and it worked well enough to bring us distinct types and unofficial 'breeds'. Much more slowly, yes. But steady improvement and reliability was achieved because the dogs allowed to thrive were those selected by the environment that supported them- Based on Values demonstrated. Those dogs who brought best value were most sought for breeding. Those with less value were not.It was a value adding system.

It allowed for INDIVIDUALS to focus on their own priorities and add value to the whole as it applied to their own situation and specific purpose/environment.

Domestic Dogs only environment is humanities communities and society. Thats what governed the selection process to give rise to the species. There was nothing artificial about that selection process.

Its wasn't perfect, 'Mistakes' occurred. But because of the broader selection allowed, and the value seeking nature of environment, those mistakes were 'mostly' short lived. Thats where a pedigree realy shows its benefits and value.In tracing both negative and positive values to speed up and make more efficient that NATURAL selection process. Great value to be had from a pedigree, no doubt about that.

When applied to specific groups of dogs classed now as pure breeds, a pedigree has incredible potential to add to the values for purpose of that pure breed.

Those values for purpose are ALWAYS decided by environment, and will depend on what values the ENVIRONMENT can recognize as worthy of support. The only successful response of a species is to make sure it adds value to its environment to earn that support and favor that will allow it to thrive. Value adding.

It becomes UN-NATURAL only when environment is excluded from that process. As happened when K.Cs ruled members must not breed a dog ineligible for registration. That took pedigree dogs OUT of their natural environment and placed them into an un-natural environment we call the K.Cs. The K.Cs become a distinct environment of their own with that rule in play.

Purpose of the breeds is no longer to serve the environment that grew them, and MUST support them for viability, but to serve the K.C 'Owning' that pedigree. Independent of the environment that supports the species as a whole.

Where ever the current K.C cultural priorities lie is where the focus will take the breed in any given time period. Disregarding environmental priorities which are always individualy specific to allow for the whole range of environmental values.

The species purpose to mankind, his environment, will always be secondary to those priorities. So yes. It is a joke to expect Pedigrees breeders under the current rules to be able to work on more than one thing at a time, when current trends in the show ring replace environmental values for purpose.

Yes it has worked well enough to bring us distinct types and official and unofficial breeds but this is 2016 and we are talking purebred dogs and what is required to improve their health and welfare .No breeder then or now could ever work on more than one thing at a time and get as good a result as timely toward their goal.

Appologies Steve, my post was incomplete at the time of your response. Has been Edited because it takes me time to formulate my thoughts.

Should be much clearer now, but I am limited in eloquence.

No individual breeder can do it faster, I agree.

Its the cumulative effects though of MANY individual priorities ( or environments) all at once that drive direction of the whole.

This is not allowed under present rules of constitution, where only a single environment at any one time is able to be recognized. The overall needs and demands will be the same, but that environment is only able to have limited focus at any given time.

Edited April 9, 2016 by moosmum

[sandgrubber]

Maybe breeders need to be seen to be breeding away from these undesirable and unhealthy problems.

If this is not done then these dogs will be legislated against.

The best way to 'be seen to be breeding away from' the problem would be to move the goal post. CHANGE THE BREED STANDARD and have BOB's that have at least some nose, open nostrils, and no bug eyes.

[dog_fan]

Maybe breeders need to be seen to be breeding away from these undesirable and unhealthy problems.

If this is not done then these dogs will be legislated against.

The best way to 'be seen to be breeding away from' the problem would be to move the goal post. CHANGE THE BREED STANDARD and have BOB's that have at least some nose, open nostrils, and no bug eyes.

Yes I agree.

[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.

Edited April 11, 2016 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

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.

[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.

Here we go again. This is Rubbish when we are talking about purebred dogs .There is no insinuation that there is some danger in dogs without a pedigree. I do not work with that assumption and not once in 40 years have I considered that any other dog without a pedigree is a danger.

It simply doesn't help my goal. And even. If I was breeding dogs without a pedigree which most people do in this country you still get tens of thousands of dogs with poor quality of life due to conformation, health and temperament.

What separates a dog with a pedigree and one without one? Knowledge of its ancestral history to enable a breeder to know its type and health and temperament in order to try to breed a healthier predictable dog generation after generation.

Yes that can work against us and selection for nothing more than what is popular via conformation that takes it to extremes is the danger and needs to be addressed. In 2016 everything regarding breeding domestic dogs is artificially selected in some way - pedigreed or not. Putting arguments forward regarding natural law is pointless.

If the purpose of a discussion is to identify a problem and discuss possible solutions and your solution to anything that ails the dog world [health or political] is always change that rule you have as much chance of getting anyone to take notice of that as a viable potential solution as those who are saying "its not us. or where is the proof"

Unless its an outcrossing program is used by infusing another breed [ unlikely] then selecting for dogs which show in the pedigree to have the desired characteristics or at least moving toward the desired characteristics is part of the answer - whether the pedigree is a registered pedigree within the ANKC system or not. The pedigree isn't the problem - its the way it is used [ to produce champions] and the culture bullies those who want to select for what they believe is best for the breed by selecting animals which will have greater quality of life, that is different to what is currently being awarded.

If we can find some pedigree purebred breeders who are brave enough to strive for better conformation within the system then later on it would give those who dont want to budge somewhere to go for breeding dogs when the healthier ones begin to get awarded over the current models.

If we can show in say 5 generations how this has radically improved then we may have a chance of saving the breeds but either way the constant hit by media will lessen the demand and make those breeding them the bad guys.

[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?'

Edited April 11, 2016 by moosmum

[Sheridan]

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

Edited April 11, 2016 by Sheridan

[Steve]

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

My base comment is not about whether someone or some group is all at fault Sheridan. My point is that there is no point in trying to deal with it and fend off the potential conclusion by denying that it is not us when the whole wide world can clearly see that some of us are as guilty if not more guilty of breeding dogs which suffer due to their conformation.

No one is saying every single dog with these features is completely unhealthy but the information and science tells us that every single dog with these features is less healthy than it could be due to the way they look. Thats not me saying this its straight out of the discussion paper .

Shutting me up and taking swipes because you want push that I may have a vested interest isn't going to change the information that the public is going to be getting day after day. My vested interest is in the desire to focus on what is best for dogs and finding realistic solutions not just going along in the belief that pedigree breeders will be exempt because "its not us" .

I am a pedigree dog breeder and every single one of our members is a pedigree dog breeder, many breed brachy head breeds, I bred boxers for 20 years our board members own pedigreed brachy head breeds - to suggest that I have a stake against pedigree dog breeders is ridiculous.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Steve

[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.