Working Towards The Future

[DogsAndTheMob]

Firstly, thank you to all the dedicated dog breeders. At one time, I thought I would join you, but I don't think I'll ever have the time, money, energy or emotional stamina needed to do so. I attended my first dog show over 50 years ago, when I was three weeks old. (My mother - an RASKC registered breeder - got pneumonia after waiting in the rain before taking her collie into the ring.)

I fear for the future of pedigree dogs in Australia: I fear that my grandchildren may be forced to buy pedigree puppies imported from a second-world country with lower standards of animal management than Australia's.

Pedigree dog breeding has improved in many ways in recent decades. There are still problems, such as the issues around extreme type discussed in other threads, but I believe these to be outweighed by the following:

• Judging by discussion here, breeders are more knowledgable about genetics. They also have access to online resources and information such as My link
• Breeders routinely screen for deleterious genes and genetic defects. This is a huge advance. (I believe the failure of some - not all! - poodle breeders in the 1970s to address the (at that time) substantial problem of early blindness due to PRA and cataracts was one reason why the public became enthralled by the clever marketing of oodle cross-breeds.
• Breeding has generally improved conformation. Cow hocks and straight shoulders were commonplace in the show ring in the sixties. Now, I rarely see these defects even in cross-bred dogs in the street.
• Fewer breeders constantly kennel their dogs. Setting aside the welfare issues of constantly kennelling dogs, I used to wonder how breeders could judge their puppies' fitness to be sold as pets, if they never brought their dogs into the home or introduced them to children, old people etc.
• Judging by the experiences of my friends, by breeders' websites and by the discussions here, breeders are making greater efforts to ensure that their puppies go to suitable homes. I also now see little evidence of the attitude that the pet market is merely a "waste basket" for breeding failures, which was implied by the past use of terms like "pet-quality puppy".

Unfortunately, I don't think the public is aware of the improvements in purebred dog breeding. So, how do we maintain the impetus of improvement in pedigree dog breeding, how do we address the aspects where there is room for improvement, and how do we ensure that the public is aware of these improvements, so that our grandchildren can buy healthy, behaviourally-sound puppies from Australian breeders?

Edited July 15, 2016 by DogsAndTheMob

[RuralPug]

There have been improvements in pure bred dog breeding.

Unfortunately these have not been across the board, and we now have large commercial scale breeding that, more often than not, does not share those improvements. We call them puppy farms. In years gone by, show breeders bred frequently enough that there were plenty of purebreds unsuited for the showring that made excellent pets.

We need a way for the general public to differentiate between greeders and breeders. Personally, I think that the MDBA was formed and continues to run with that as one of its basic precepts, because the ANKC affiliates have not, in any major way, sought to make the "brand" of pedigree breeder trustworthy. I believe that MDBA does seek to ensure that its breeders are trustworthy.

We need to educate, educate, educate the general public. Animal liberation groups constantly bombard the general public with the "breeding is bad" message. We need to be able to say "some breeders are bad. Don't buy from them. These breeders are good - this is how to tell a good breeder from a bad breeder."

We need to continue to fund research that will help us to identify and isolate unwanted genetics. To continue to learn about puppy socialisation etc.

We need to be able to demonstrate that dogs from breeders are a safer bet than dogs from greeders.

Just my two cents!

[DogsAndTheMob]

1468639136[/url]' post='6831547']

There have been improvements in pure bred dog breeding.

Unfortunately these have not been across the board, and we now have large commercial scale breeding that, more often than not, does not share those improvements. We call them puppy farms. In years gone by, show breeders bred frequently enough that there were plenty of purebreds unsuited for the showring that made excellent pets.

We need a way for the general public to differentiate between greeders and breeders. Personally, I think that the MDBA was formed and continues to run with that as one of its basic precepts, because the ANKC affiliates have not, in any major way, sought to make the "brand" of pedigree breeder trustworthy. I believe that MDBA does seek to ensure that its breeders are trustworthy.

We need to educate, educate, educate the general public. Animal liberation groups constantly bombard the general public with the "breeding is bad" message. We need to be able to say "some breeders are bad. Don't buy from them. These breeders are good - this is how to tell a good breeder from a bad breeder."

We need to continue to fund research that will help us to identify and isolate unwanted genetics. To continue to learn about puppy socialisation etc.

We need to be able to demonstrate that dogs from breeders are a safer bet than dogs from greeders.

Just my two cents!

[Jed]

There will no bo dogs in the future. There will be some sort of mutt and x-breds for a while and then nothing.

Once people figure it out, it will be too late. There will be nothing left to breed with.

[DogsAndTheMob]

I agree, RuralPug, although there have always been "greeders".

I work in performance monitoring and improvement. I applaud breed clubs for the work they have already done to promote breed improvement, but I think measurement is the next important step. One method might be the adoption and monitoring of a few, carefully selected, key performance indicators. For example, in breeds where genetically identifiable health defects are prevalent, breed clubs might set and measure a KPI that 100% of puppies bred by their members should have at least one parent genetically clear of the defect, and that an annually increasing percentage should have both parents clear. An annually decreasing median hip score for parents of litters bred by members might be another KPI. (I know that many organisations aim to decrease hip scores across the breed, but this is influenced by environmental variables, so parental hip scores are more controllable.)

In terms of public profile, I think we all need to communicate more effectively with vets. I get tired of vets blaming every problem on "in-breeding", or assuming that any lameness or hind-quarter weakness is likely to be due to hip displasia -despite the parents' or even the dogs' own impeccable hip scores. Conversely, when my son took his puppy to the vet for the first time, he took the health-related documentation provided by the breeder with him. The vets were impressed, but had apparently never previously seen this quality of documentation. Perhaps breeders could provide puppy purchasers with a summary of the puppy's, the litter's and the parents' health profiles, to be passed on for the vet to keep in the puppy's files.

Edited July 16, 2016 by DogsAndTheMob

[DogsAndTheMob]

I think that the genetics of canine behaviour will be the next frontier in dog breed improvement. Many behavioural characteristics are likely to be genetically multi-factorial, but time and again I have observed behavioural quirks that are passed down the generations in certain strains of dogs. The ability to identify and, if desired, eliminate these quirks could transform dog breeding in the way that the identification and elimination of the genes responsible for health problems is already doing.

[alpha bet]

As someone who has been involved with breeding since the early 80's I have learnt much over the years..... I also have concerns for the long term availability of good sound pedigree dogs for future generations.

DNA testing is a great tool... however it is not the "be all and end all" for the future of breeding. Just as Show Titles or Competition Titles are considerations when it comes to breeding, we should not assume that these Titles will ensure success in the breeding world. One of the traps to relying on the DNA (or any other single factor) is that we can end up discarding dogs from the breeding pool because of a perceived problem... which hence reduces the breeding pool for a breed. As I have learnt from breeders over the years, we must remember that there can always be serious health/confirmation issues that are not always obvious at the current time.

It is possible that future DNA tests can be discovered for serious issues like epilepsy or such - which may prove to even further reduce the gene pool especially for some breeds. Hence it is important that breeders remember to be diverse in their breeding and to share the gene pool to keep diversity alive for the future. Perhaps a big issue is that now we have many breeders who closely guard their 'perceived lines' and hence information about breeding issues and the use of varied genetics are not shared.

Until breeders and the associations can work together in a more flexible way it seems that we will have difficulty every convincing the public that ANKC breeders are necessary.

[Redsonic]

I think that the genetics of canine behaviour will be the next frontier in dog breed improvement. Many behavioural characteristics are likely to be genetically multi-factorial, but time and again I have observed behavioural quirks that are passed down the generations in certain strains of dogs. The ability to identify and, if desired, eliminate these quirks could transform dog breeding in the way that the identification and elimination of the genes responsible for health problems is already doing.

One of the biggest barriers to dogs being accepted in rental and high density accommodation is the perceived noise problem. To the extent that barking is genetic, it would be great to see breeders selecting against this trait. In effect, producing an "urban" dog; one who's behaviour would more closely match the requirements of a good pet.

[LisaCC]

Pedigree dogs, especially certain breeds have a serious PR problem.

Instead of breeders and the Kennel and Breed clubs sticking their heads in the sand they need to be proactive and do something BEFORE there is more uproar and calls for regulation.

[DogsAndTheMob]

It's great to have input from a breeder, alpha bet. Maintaining genetic diversity is essential, and I have wondered how breeders cope with the reduced pool of dogs available for breeding. Even in the past when, I think, many breeders seemed to keep more dogs and were less constrained by limitations imposed on the number of litters bred from a bitch, breeders had trouble maintaining genetic diversity. I knew of breeders who recovered from unexpected set-backs such as the early death of a dog or its elimination from their breeding program for other reasons, by breeding to dogs they had sold as pets. Now, when most pet dogs are de-sexed early, how do breeders recover from such set-backs, particularly in breeds which have small numbers and smaller gene-pools?

I agree with both comments, Redsonic and LisaCC. I should like to add, however, that breeding good quality dogs is challenging, and I can understand why breeders may not have the passion to spare for PR.

Edited July 16, 2016 by DogsAndTheMob

[dog_fan]

There will no bo dogs in the future. There will be some sort of mutt and x-breds for a while and then nothing.

Once people figure it out, it will be too late. There will be nothing left to breed with.

How about the problrms get fixed instead of people having a victim mentality?

[Sheridan]

Pedigree dogs, especially certain breeds have a serious PR problem.

Instead of breeders and the Kennel and Breed clubs sticking their heads in the sand they need to be proactive and do something BEFORE there is more uproar and calls for regulation.

I've been saying this for years and it's only in the last year that a few people have started to agree with me. Quite a lot of prominent DOLers lambasted me for saying so because I'd never bred a litter and didn't show dogs. I didn't know what I was talking about.

[Steve]

There will no bo dogs in the future. There will be some sort of mutt and x-breds for a while and then nothing.

Once people figure it out, it will be too late. There will be nothing left to breed with.

How about the problrms get fixed instead of people having a victim mentality?

[Jed]

Thank you all for illustrating my point. :laugh:

[Lhok]

I'd like to see health testing results made public on the pedigrees of the dogs. Don't say this can't be done because I have seen it on pedigrees of dogs in Europe. Yes I know health testing doesn't mean a pup will be clear but at least it is a visible start.

I'd also love to see DNA profiling done too. I don't care if it adds an extra charge on the breeder of the dogs.

In the Akita many breeders don't health test and they openly stated they don't health test as they state that their dogs are healthly, they should as the breed is riddled with health problems but they don't and won't. If it was made mandatory to see that health testing was done and traced it would be a good thing.

In Sweden, the Jamthund is considered a working dog (it hunts elk,bear and other large game) they have to pass a working trial and place before they can be considered a champion. I think that is a good idea too for dogs that do have a working background which still do have a job they can do.

The Hovawart one club the International Hovawart Federation has it written that to be considered to be a champion you also need to be cleared of HD and provide the results before champion status is given. This is also the breed that many pedigrees I have looked at display the results of the hip screen. In fact the Hovawart clubs feel so strongly about the issue it is written into the breed standard.

From the Hovawart breed standard:

In the country of origin very great importance is attached to the health of the Hovawart. Especially the presence of hip dysplasia has been reduced to a small percentage by selecting, for decades, breeding stock free from dysplasia. It is to be expected that all other Hovawart breed clubs will aim for this exemplary goal.

But trying to get this implemented will be hard, as most don't want to change.

--Lhok

Edited July 16, 2016 by Lhok

[Simply Grand]

Pedigree dogs, especially certain breeds have a serious PR problem.

Instead of breeders and the Kennel and Breed clubs sticking their heads in the sand they need to be proactive and do something BEFORE there is more uproar and calls for regulation.

I've been saying this for years and it's only in the last year that a few people have started to agree with me. Quite a lot of prominent DOLers lambasted me for saying so because I'd never bred a litter and didn't show dogs. I didn't know what I was talking about.

But you have had only negative things to say about the development of a new breed specifically developed to be predictable, family pet friendly, healthy, PR positive and pedigree registered through the MDBA, the Australian Cobberdog.

There is support out there for healthy, happy, well cared for, predictable, manageable dogs. We, as knowledgeable dog people, know that can only come about from pedigrees, health testing, careful breeding and good early socialisation. What we need to convey is the benefits to pet buyers in finding someone that takes all those thing into account.

[Steve]

Pedigree dogs, especially certain breeds have a serious PR problem.

Instead of breeders and the Kennel and Breed clubs sticking their heads in the sand they need to be proactive and do something BEFORE there is more uproar and calls for regulation.

I've been saying this for years and it's only in the last year that a few people have started to agree with me. Quite a lot of prominent DOLers lambasted me for saying so because I'd never bred a litter and didn't show dogs. I didn't know what I was talking about.

Because doing something and being proactive needs more than trying to defend why we breed them or how registered breeders are beyond being accused of cruelty.

Its going to take identifying the selection errors and being seen to be doing something and demonstrating how what they are doing is making progress.

The greyhound people cannot see how what they do is seen by others as being so cruel they are being shut down and ANKC breeders are no different and will still be saying we dont get it when it comes.

[DogsAndTheMob]

I believe that many ANKC breeders are doing a lot to address the problem of hereditary disease in purebred dogs, I've been looking through breeder websites because I'm planning to get another dog in the next few years, although I haven't yet decided on the breed. Most of the websites state that their dogs are health screened, and many include their dogs' hip and elbow scores as well as genetic profiles. (As feedback for breeders, I find "motherhood" statements about health-testing annoying; if the results are acceptable, publish them. If they are not, state that you have withdrawn the dog from your breeding program. If there is a good reason to breed from a dog despite a poor health report, outline the reason and the steps you are taking to manage the risk.)

I think we need to consider:

• What incentives can be used to induce all ANKC breeeders to screen their dogs?
• How do we publicise the efforts that breeders are making?

I agree with Llok that health testing needs to be linked in some way with Championship awards. Is a dog with a disabling or debilitating genetic disease truly worthy of the title of Champion? The methods decided upon need to be flexible enough to adapt rapidly to changes in each breed's health profile, but also have enough impact to influence breeders' decisions.

There will always be those who defy pressure for improvement, so publicity is essential, not only to sway public opinion on purebred dogs and their breeders, but also to persuade purchasers that it is worth spending the extra dollars and effort required to get their puppies from breeders who health screen their dogs.

Edited July 16, 2016 by DogsAndTheMob

[RuralPug]

I believe that many ANKC breeders are doing a lot to address the problem of hereditary disease in purebred dogs, I've been looking through breeder websites because I'm planning to get another dog in the next few years, although I haven't yet decided on the breed. Most of the websites state that their dogs are health screened, and many include their dogs' hip and elbow scores as well as genetic profiles. (As feedback for breeders, I find "motherhood" statements about health-testing annoying; if the results are acceptable, publish them. If they are not, state that you have withdrawn the dog from your breeding program. If there is a good reason to breed from a dog despite a poor health report, outline the reason and the steps you are taking to manage the risk.)

I think we need to consider:

• What incentives can be used to induce all ANKC breeeders to screen their dogs?
• How do we publicise the efforts that breeders are making?

I agree with Llok that health testing needs to be linked in some way with Championship awards. Is a dog with a disabling or debilitating genetic disease truly worthy of the title of Champion? The methods decided upon need to be flexible enough to adapt rapidly to changes in each breed's health profile, but also have enough impact to influence breeders' decisions.

There will always be those who defy pressure for improvement, so publicity is essential, not only to sway public opinion on purebred dogs and their breeders, but also to persuade purchasers that it is worth spending the extra dollars and effort required to get their puppies from breeders who health screen their dogs.

I don't think that it is fair to expect that judges will have x-ray vision or veterinary training, so linking health defects (some of which may not be visible to the eye) to conformation exams isn't practical.

What IS practical is for each breed club at national level (or group club where there is no breed club at that level) to actively work with ANKC to determine compulsory health tests and minimum scores required before progeny can be put on main register for each breed. Depending upon inheritance mode, dams or sires carrying or affected by a health problem MAY be permitted to be mated only with those who do not carry or have that condition. It may take longer to eradicate diseases that way, but you will have a larger gene pool. It wouldn't be long before the health scores were recorded for five or six generations, which will be a massive help in planning compatible matings.

And the scores of sire and dam should be recorded on the registration certificate (there is probably not room to record the scores of grandparents etc. but breeders may choose to provide that information on a separate pedigree document (verifiable by the registration numbers of the grandparents etc.))

A health score document should be provided to puppy purchasers and they should be encouraged to give a copy to their vet.

If all breeding stock are DNA identified, there can be no doubt about parentage and therefore the health scores of ancestors will be reliable, verifiable information.

Personally I like the idea of breed wardens as well as health scoring. The wardens to enact breed specific temperament and fit for purpose tests on each and every main register dog and bitch before they are permitted to have main register progeny, but I expect to be howled down on that one again. Between that and the health scoring, ANKC registration would come to mean quality and eventually the public would refuse to pay more for cross breeds unless those breeders had similar rules to meet.

Edited July 16, 2016 by RuralPug

[Steve]

But you are still not hearing it .The types of health screening you are talking about reduce recessives and ensure that a dog used for breeding is in good condition for her breed etc

All dogs can get these types of issues no matter what they look like and no one is disputing that these things will help in reducing these types of things.

The things that are being targeted or at least targeted first are things that are unique to specific breeds that cant be fixed unless they LOOK less extreme.

One Example

British Bulldog - Country of Origin has changed its breed standard - Australia wont accept the amendments because of ANKC policy .

Specific example of one of the differences is

British has been changed to "Skull relatively large in circumference" Source The Australian one says "The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Source

The ANKC is not demonstrating that it is doing anything to lower the incidence of dogs suffering due to their conformation. The stuff they say they are doing doesn't count because they cant see what it is that people other than them are seeing as cruelty.

Most other countries have adopted the amended breed standard and some have introduced mandatory testing such as the one the MDBA has for brachy head dogs to test their fitness level before during and after exercise so we can gauge where they are and demonstrate how we are getting improvement even if it means they dont quite fit the Australian breed standard

Have a look at these breeds 100 years ago and accept we are looking pretty bad - stop defending the indefensible and REALLY become proactive put in place action plans,mandatory breeding protocols to enable us to demonstrate that WE GET IT and what we are doing and what progress we can demonstrate we are getting as we proceed

There are currently half a dozen breeds which have to have mandatory testing to register a litter with the ANKC - mickey mouse tests which do not have anything to do with how the dog's welfare is compromised by its looks or its selection.

Even if a breed club recommends them a recommendation means nothing.

Purebred breeders will spew forth "why would you breed a dog that isn't a good example of the breed standard" and no dog that is out side of the current standard is going to get a shot at a championship.

These dogs were never intended for racing etc

The MDBA has health results on every pedigree and it records health issues such as allergies etc. Data is collected from several sources especially puppy buyers. We have introduced fitness tests for brachy head dogs pre,during and post exercise we are in the process right now of introducing breeding protocols across the board which are about health and welfare.

We intend to show that we get it and what we are doing about it, be seen to be doing something about it. Show that it can be done before its at a point where some things we take for granted are banned.