Anti Brachycephalic Dogs Campaign

[mita]

The Europeans & UK stakeholders have bluntly outlined the problem.... where exaggerated features in bracchy dogs have gone too far & caused significant health problems. But there is not any move from the significant stakeholders (including the RSPCA in the UK) to ban such breeds.

Why? Because not all bracchy dogs have the problems, it's when the features are exaggerated to an extent health problems are caused. So all those stakeholders have honed in on identifying those features, working on tools that will allow a science-based assessment of which dogs to breed from....& in the case of Kennel Clubs like the NKK & its breed clubs, educating & bringing on board both breeders & judges under a summary slogan. 'Health is beauty!'

The purebred world has features which lend themselves to such a plan & work. The registering of pedigrees is a researcher's dream allowing breadth & depth of tracking dogs, the organisational structure enables common standards to be tweaked, judging brings objective scrutiny to individual dogs & the administering bodies can cooperate with other stakeholders. And there's the enormous value of being an international scene.

The Conference this thread is about, appears lacking in an attempt to channel, discuss and disseminate such a proactive, cooperative approach. Which is the best antidote to mindless reactivity, like banning breeds.

Edited October 30, 2016 by mita

[HazyWal]

Another celebrity vet all set to push an agenda on Brachy breeds, there are brachy specialist vets that could have been approached but they may not have supported the agenda of the organisers.... grrrr.

Toss the baby out with the bathwater seems to be the AR platform. Badly bred brachy breeds can and do have problems - so lets get rid of them all, and then the short legged breeds and then the coated breeds and then the sighthounds and the giant breeds. And so it goes.Let us not fix the problem by encouraging health first in breeding programmes, let's ban anything that is not a Dingo.

And our commonwealth taxes are paying for this seminar!!!

But the sighthounds, as a group, are very healthy. I don't think you could honestly say the same of brachy breeds?

If your dog needs its nostrils widened and its soft palate trimmed just to be able to draw breath like a normal dog, I think you have a massive problem with conformation and the standard that isn't going to be fixed by telling people not to be idiots.

100% agree. Are you of the assumption that well bred brachys need nares and palate surgery before they can comfortably be walked around the block? This is not true. Only poorly bred ones do. It is as simple as that.

Long lived, problem free brachys do exist - although there are vets that will happily do nares and palate surgery where it is absolutely not needed. We can point to flyball and agilty champion brachys, but these will be thrown out with the bathwater if those behind the push get their way.

And don't for an instant assume that the animal rights people will not find an excuse against sighthounds - it will be something. Too much prey drive for recall training perhaps?? It is never safe to assume that your own breed is comfortably safe against AR driven legislation. Consider that historically, greyhounds had the earliest BSL in Victoria against them (thankfully gone at long last.)

What do you mean "thankfully gone at long last"? The muzzle and off leash laws for greyhounds in Victoria is still very much in place, the government has decided to further review it and there is, at this stage, no idea when or if they will decide to lift that legislation. The fact that independent "rescue" groups here refuse to obey the law and encourage others to do the same tends to blur the lines on what is fact.

[Maddy]

Maddy, please read my posts again. I am not denying that there is a problem. I am denying that changes to standards is the way to approach it.

I am saying that the problem will not be rectified by concentrating on ANKC breeders, and banning or barring entire breeds.

What I am trying to say, and obviously too clumsily to be understood, is that if your let the AR mob get their way and bar particular extremes then the precedent has been set to bar other extremes.

The end of that road is undifferentiated breeds. You can stick your head in the sand all you like and say "my breed is safe", no one can stop you - but don't complain later if you hear "I told you so".

The best breeders can achieve a brachy that fits the standard without health problems, just as the best breeders can do in every breed.

The answer to the problem is to ensure that ALL breeding stock, no matter what the breed or cross, passes fitness tests. Why would you find that a problem? Surely you feel that your breeds can pass with flying colours?

AR people have had success with the "divide them to fall" strategy (the PDE show proved that). Saying that all brachys suffer from extremes of brachy syndrome is akin to saying that all pitbulls are vicious and untrustworthy - the same principle applies. It is the individual fitness that should be the measuring stick and not generic typing.

You're still missing my point. The pug's extreme head shape causes it problems, the greyhound's extreme head shape benefits it because it occurred "naturally" (as in, was not selected for specifically) as a result of selecting for a certain function. No one wants pugs changed just because they look extreme. Looks have nothing to do with it. In fact, I think most people would agree that the squished faces of the brachy breeds are pretty cute. What is not cute is the resulting health problems. Claiming that it's all AR conspiracy to do away with purebred dogs doesn't help because it's ignoring that there are massive welfare issues that need to be addressed. The AR movement may well want dog ownership done away with but that doesn't change the fact that many brachy breeds suffer health issues as a result of form.

What do you mean "thankfully gone at long last"? The muzzle and off leash laws for greyhounds in Victoria is still very much in place, the government has decided to further review it and there is, at this stage, no idea when or if they will decide to lift that legislation. The fact that independent "rescue" groups here refuse to obey the law and encourage others to do the same tends to blur the lines on what is fact.

And thank god for that. Laws concerning animals need to be based on science and our understanding of their behaviour, not on personal preferences of people who don't know enough about the breed but still claim to know what's best for the dogs.

[Steve]

The MDBA ran a health survey on all breeds which collected data for 3 years and separated the dogs to enable us to identify those who were bred by registered breeders. Some bracy head breeds are not doing THAT bad but there are a couple where those suffering and bred by registered breeders were up around the high 80% .Its hard to see there is much reality in blaming the pet breeders who are not registered as the stats simply don't show that . Less affected % of dogs were bred by non registered breeders.

However, who is mainly responsible isn't the real issue. Its an acceptance that there is a problem and making sure we are part of the solution and not refusing to accept our part it it - or it WILL be deemed cruel and unable to be fixed by breeders and the right to breed them will be removed.

Where was that survey published?

And did it constitute self-reporting of problems?

Any further information on this? You've reached a conclusion, from your survey, that up to 'around' 80% of dogs in a 'couple' of bracchy breeds were suffering AND had been bred by registered breeders. While those from non-registered breeders registered 'less'' effect (% not specified).

It's not 'the' stats'.... it's stats you've gathered in your particular survey. So a reader looking for evidence needs to know: which breeds, what was your survey method, how was the data gathered about the nature & extent of 'suffering', how were participants recruited, how many were there? If you publicly give your conclusions, the survey context also needs to be made available.

I clearly said it was the stats we gathered in our health survey however I will edit that one part where I said the - the surveys have not been published yet for a number of reasons which I'm not prepared to go into here. The health surveys were run over three years and there was an individual survey for every pure breed. The data was gathered by asking australian participants if their dogs had been diagnosed with any health issues with lists of all known canine health issues. The participants were recruited from this site, social media, our website word of mouth , google, our membership etc. As each response came in individually per breed I can't tell you how many overall respondents there were but I can say the brachy head breeds respondents were between 30 and 1200 depending on breed. Breeders and owners participated and those who were bred by registered breeders were identified as a separate group to those who purchased their puppy from other breeders. To be specific the breed I was referring to statistics in our survey for reported as being affected by brachy head syndrome was 78.3% registered and 61% non registered.

With or without this survey or any other whether there is evidence that one type of breeder is or is not as responsible as any other the fact that registered breeders do breed dogs with Brachy head syndrome is as plain as the nose on their faces and they are going through vet surgeries in numbers that are too high to deny if this is going to turn into a denial that some purebred dog breeders are just as responsible as any other then we may as well simply give up now.

They will not be interested in the same excuses and the same denials that have been going on now for years.Even if they are true - they will not listen and will not agree . The ONLY defence is to say we get it we accept we are a part of the problem even if its only a small part and this is what we will do about it.

What will it take for people to see that world wide they have dumped the responsibility for this on the Show ring and the breed standards and continuing on in denial is why we are where we are.

[Steve]

Seriously looking at the position of brachy breeds, with intention to gather evidence, review breed standards and set up monitoring processes, is not necessarily anti-brachy breeds. Nor a step towards eliminating breeds in opposition to national kennel clubs.

I have a lot of respect for the Norwegian Kennel Club who have a fine track-record and on-going program re improving the situation for brachy breeds (see the link). Sweden, next door, also accepts the veterinary recommendations that better management is needed.

I see a lot about these Nordic kennel clubs because my breed of interest, tibetan spaniel (a brachy breed), is among the most popular breeds there & so there are numerous breeders from those countries on our international list. My own imported tibbie was registered with the Swedish Kennel Club & has Norwegian & Finnish dogs also in her pedigree.

http://www.dogworld....cephalic_breeds

In this article, a spokesperson for the UK's Kennel Club praises the Norwegian work as positive & says, approvingly, they're leading the way.

I would hope this Australian Conference picks up on this sterling work.

Well lets hope they can find something the Australians are doing that is in this arena.Better not mention how they wont accept breed standard amendments for the British Bulldog or that there are no mandatory testing or breeding strategies and protocols in place because so far the Australians haven't admitted there is a problem.

[RuralPug]

What do you mean "thankfully gone at long last"? The muzzle and off leash laws for greyhounds in Victoria is still very much in place, the government has decided to further review it and there is, at this stage, no idea when or if they will decide to lift that legislation. The fact that independent "rescue" groups here refuse to obey the law and encourage others to do the same tends to blur the lines on what is fact.

And thank god for that. Laws concerning animals need to be based on science and our understanding of their behaviour, not on personal preferences of people who don't know enough about the breed but still claim to know what's best for the dogs.

I stand corrected. I hadn't realised that had not gone through. I know you think it is best because of the high prey drive of greys, but there are many dogs NOT greyhounds that have just as high a prey drive and there aren't any muzzle laws for them, unless they first demonstrate a problem. Not all greys are unsafe in public, whether or not they have undergone the GAP green collar program.

I don't understand why you think that it is fair for one high prey drive to be singled out, and others (plus greyhound crosses) to go scot free. And I do worry also that some public think the muzzles mean that the greys are human aggressive due to muzzles and there go some potential good homes. But this is not the right thread to discuss this I apologise for off topic.

[HazyWal]

What do you mean "thankfully gone at long last"? The muzzle and off leash laws for greyhounds in Victoria is still very much in place, the government has decided to further review it and there is, at this stage, no idea when or if they will decide to lift that legislation. The fact that independent "rescue" groups here refuse to obey the law and encourage others to do the same tends to blur the lines on what is fact.

And thank god for that. Laws concerning animals need to be based on science and our understanding of their behaviour, not on personal preferences of people who don't know enough about the breed but still claim to know what's best for the dogs.

I stand corrected. I hadn't realised that had not gone through. I know you think it is best because of the high prey drive of greys, but there are many dogs NOT greyhounds that have just as high a prey drive and there aren't any muzzle laws for them, unless they first demonstrate a problem. Not all greys are unsafe in public, whether or not they have undergone the GAP green collar program.

I don't understand why you think that it is fair for one high prey drive to be singled out, and others (plus greyhound crosses) to go scot free. And I do worry also that some public think the muzzles mean that the greys are human aggressive due to muzzles and there go some potential good homes. But this is not the right thread to discuss this I apologise for off topic.

The answer is quite simple, greyhounds are the fastest dog on the planet. I'm not talking about crosses I'm talking race bred greyhounds and when you are the custodian of the fastest dog on the planet with virtually no recall you have a responsibility to keep them safe first and foremost. That old chestnut about muzzles lessening the chances of greys finding homes just doesn't cut it anymore although the anti racing people still trot it out on a daily basis. Greyhounds are everywhere now and through the good work of places like GAPVIC, many people now know what the muzzle is intended for and has nothing to do with them being aggressive. It's simply the law and I, like Maddy, hope it stays in place because as she said people just simply do not know enough about the breed. They are adopting them because the media tells them (fuelled by those AR's you speak of)that they are hit on the head with hammers and thrown into shark infested waters on a daily basis. They are not your average dog and in the wrong hands can be a lethal weapon...I know this full well as I own one..... Maddie.

Edited October 30, 2016 by HazyWal

[Maddy]

What do you mean "thankfully gone at long last"? The muzzle and off leash laws for greyhounds in Victoria is still very much in place, the government has decided to further review it and there is, at this stage, no idea when or if they will decide to lift that legislation. The fact that independent "rescue" groups here refuse to obey the law and encourage others to do the same tends to blur the lines on what is fact.

And thank god for that. Laws concerning animals need to be based on science and our understanding of their behaviour, not on personal preferences of people who don't know enough about the breed but still claim to know what's best for the dogs.

I stand corrected. I hadn't realised that had not gone through. I know you think it is best because of the high prey drive of greys, but there are many dogs NOT greyhounds that have just as high a prey drive and there aren't any muzzle laws for them, unless they first demonstrate a problem. Not all greys are unsafe in public, whether or not they have undergone the GAP green collar program.

I don't understand why you think that it is fair for one high prey drive to be singled out, and others (plus greyhound crosses) to go scot free. And I do worry also that some public think the muzzles mean that the greys are human aggressive due to muzzles and there go some potential good homes. But this is not the right thread to discuss this I apologise for off topic.

The answer is quite simple, greyhounds are the fastest dog on the planet. I'm not talking about crosses I'm talking race bred greyhounds and when you are the custodian of the fastest dog on the planet with virtually no recall you have a responsibility to keep them safe first and foremost. That old chestnut about muzzles lessening the chances of greys finding homes just doesn't cut it anymore although the anti racing people still trot it out on a daily basis. Greyhounds are everywhere now and through the good work of places like GAPVIC, many people now know what the muzzle is intended for and has nothing to do with them being aggressive. It's simply the law and I, like Maddy, hope it stays in place because as she said people just simply do not know enough about the breed. They are adopting them because the media tells them (fuelled by those AR's you speak of)that they are hit on the head with hammers and thrown into shark infested waters on a daily basis. They are not your average dog and in the wrong hands can be a lethal weapon...I know this full well as I own one..... Maddie.

This.

They are an amazing breed and I couldn't think of any other breed that quite measures up to them but at the same time, I also understand their flaws and their traits. On my couch, Bosley was a gentle angel but with small dogs, I could never quite trust him. That didn't make him (or Hazy's Maddie) a bad dog, they are what they were bred to be- coursing dogs. The vast majority of greys are lovely dogs with moderate (for the breed) drive. But many people don't know or understand the drive or how to manage it. Part of the problem is rescues who refuse to acknowledge the drive, as if turning it into That Which Shall Not Be Named will somehow make it go away.

The topic is going somewhat off topic of brachy dogs but there are parallels- you have to acknowledge issues to be able to manage them. The dog world is full of this particular problem, with entire groups of people desperately trying to protect their breed/group by pretending nothing is wrong or it's all someone else's fault. I can totally understand the motivation- my greys have been my life and I feel incredibly passionate about them- but we have to stop and consider that maybe certain things have to change, going forward. As to what, exactly.. there are many possibilities. For show dogs, basic fitness tests, veterinary assessment and scoring, itroducing function tests (where applicable) and so on and so forth. Lots of possible fixes. Implement change and ANKC dogs will be healthier. If pedigreed dogs do trickle out of the system to backyard breeders and crossbreeders, at least those people will have healthier stock to start with. Seems like a win/win to me, for the people who love the dogs and for the dogs, themselves.

[RuralPug]

Maddy, please read my posts again. I am not denying that there is a problem. I am denying that changes to standards is the way to approach it.

I am saying that the problem will not be rectified by concentrating on ANKC breeders, and banning or barring entire breeds.

What I am trying to say, and obviously too clumsily to be understood, is that if your let the AR mob get their way and bar particular extremes then the precedent has been set to bar other extremes.

The end of that road is undifferentiated breeds. You can stick your head in the sand all you like and say "my breed is safe", no one can stop you - but don't complain later if you hear "I told you so".

The best breeders can achieve a brachy that fits the standard without health problems, just as the best breeders can do in every breed.

The answer to the problem is to ensure that ALL breeding stock, no matter what the breed or cross, passes fitness tests. Why would you find that a problem? Surely you feel that your breeds can pass with flying colours?

AR people have had success with the "divide them to fall" strategy (the PDE show proved that). Saying that all brachys suffer from extremes of brachy syndrome is akin to saying that all pitbulls are vicious and untrustworthy - the same principle applies. It is the individual fitness that should be the measuring stick and not generic typing.

You're still missing my point. The pug's extreme head shape causes it problems, the greyhound's extreme head shape benefits it because it occurred "naturally" (as in, was not selected for specifically) as a result of selecting for a certain function. No one wants pugs changed just because they look extreme. Looks have nothing to do with it. In fact, I think most people would agree that the squished faces of the brachy breeds are pretty cute. What is not cute is the resulting health problems. Claiming that it's all AR conspiracy to do away with purebred dogs doesn't help because it's ignoring that there are massive welfare issues that need to be addressed. The AR movement may well want dog ownership done away with but that doesn't change the fact that many brachy breeds suffer health issues as a result of form.

My italics. I keep saying that it is quite possible to breed Frenchies, Pekes, Pugs, Bulldogs, Bostons etc that don't have breathing problems and you keep saying that it is impossible - that it is inherent in their construction. Do I really have to list the flyball and agility champions etc to get this fact through? The truth is that popularity and careless breeding to cash in on popularity, plus that percentage of show breeders who do not put health first have exacerbated the potential potential problems which can occur with this popular head shape.

You are sounding like a person who is saying that if the head shape wasn't allowed, then the problem wouldn't occur, therefore disallow the head shape. I keep saying this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Should we change the GSD standard because of the high incidence of dysplasia? Should we change the standards of all the giant breeds because of their short life spans? Change the standards of long backed breeds because of their propensity to spinal injuries? Or does it make more sense to concentrate on breeding for good health within the standards? If you insist on changing standards, that is the road to eliminating individual breeds until you are left with no extreme anything, no different anything.

It is harder, but certainly not impossible to select for breeding stock which neither display nor produce offspring with extreme brachy syndrome and this is what should be happening. I suppose we could tackle it the same way we tackle dysplasia, heart problems, inherited eye problems etc etc. - although health testing for these things doesn't seem to be very popular outside of the ANKC. (which, remember is only a small percentage of puppies bred in Australia in any given year.)

Why not sort out a simple fitness test across the board and hit ALL the problems, (or as many as can be tested for in a breeding age adult) including extreme brachy syndrome, and make a pass a requirement before any puppies are permitted to be sold - by anyone? Whether you are a puppy farmer, a BYB, an ethical breeder or anything else, if your broodstock has heart problems, loose patellas, breathing problems or hip or elbow dysplasia etc etc etc - it will not pass the fitness test. Better minds than I can sort out carrier, severity and clear by parentage genetics for problems where full knowledge is available.

Yes it will cost breeders money to have their stock tested. Ethical breeders are already doing these tests and ensuring that health problems are not perpetuated. Perhaps this is a chance for them finally to be recognised for that.

Concentrating on extreme brachy syndrome won't necessarily cut down on the numbers of puppies being produced with colour dilution alopecia or hip displaysia. If something needs doing, let it be done across the board and not singling out any one group of breeders, or any one group of breeds - or any one health problem.

I can't figure out any other way to say these things. I am really just repeating myself, and won't comment further unless I have something different to add.

[Maddy]

My italics. I keep saying that it is quite possible to breed Frenchies, Pekes, Pugs, Bulldogs, Bostons etc that don't have breathing problems and you keep saying that it is impossible - that it is inherent in their construction. Do I really have to list the flyball and agility champions etc to get this fact through? The truth is that popularity and careless breeding to cash in on popularity, plus that percentage of show breeders who do not put health first have exacerbated the potential potential problems which can occur with this popular head shape.

You are sounding like a person who is saying that if the head shape wasn't allowed, then the problem wouldn't occur, therefore disallow the head shape. I keep saying this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Should we change the GSD standard because of the high incidence of dysplasia? Should we change the standards of all the giant breeds because of their short life spans? Change the standards of long backed breeds because of their propensity to spinal injuries? Or does it make more sense to concentrate on breeding for good health within the standards? If you insist on changing standards, that is the road to eliminating individual breeds until you are left with no extreme anything, no different anything.

It is harder, but certainly not impossible to select for breeding stock which neither display nor produce offspring with extreme brachy syndrome and this is what should be happening. I suppose we could tackle it the same way we tackle dysplasia, heart problems, inherited eye problems etc etc. - although health testing for these things doesn't seem to be very popular outside of the ANKC. (which, remember is only a small percentage of puppies bred in Australia in any given year.)

Why not sort out a simple fitness test across the board and hit ALL the problems, (or as many as can be tested for in a breeding age adult) including extreme brachy syndrome, and make a pass a requirement before any puppies are permitted to be sold - by anyone? Whether you are a puppy farmer, a BYB, an ethical breeder or anything else, if your broodstock has heart problems, loose patellas, breathing problems or hip or elbow dysplasia etc etc etc - it will not pass the fitness test. Better minds than I can sort out carrier, severity and clear by parentage genetics for problems where full knowledge is available.

Yes it will cost breeders money to have their stock tested. Ethical breeders are already doing these tests and ensuring that health problems are not perpetuated. Perhaps this is a chance for them finally to be recognised for that.

Concentrating on extreme brachy syndrome won't necessarily cut down on the numbers of puppies being produced with colour dilution alopecia or hip displaysia. If something needs doing, let it be done across the board and not singling out any one group of breeders, or any one group of breeds - or any one health problem.

I can't figure out any other way to say these things. I am really just repeating myself, and won't comment further unless I have something different to add.

If it is physically possible to breed a pug that enjoys the same quality of life as something like a border collie, then the only other reason left is that many breeders (by Steve's information) are choosing to breed to extremes and ill health. To be honest, if it was my breed, I think I'd rather accept that changes needed making in the breed standard for the conformation, rather than it be an issue of the custodians of the breed doing the wrong thing :/

Having said that.. I'm still not really buying it, I guess. We know that when skull is dramatically shortened, certain structures are compromised, this is the nature of the head shape. I suppose it's a question of how much compromise can we agree is okay and at what point does it negatively impact not just on health but on overall welfare.

As for mandatory health/function/veterinary testing across all breeds.. I'd absolutely support that. Do I think standards should be changed in breeds prone to serious health issues or abnormally short lifespans? Absolutely. Isn't improving the dogs the entire point of breeding them? And by improve, I mean improve, not fitting in with whatever is currently fashionable. I would love to own a wolfhound but never will because breeding them for extreme size has seriously damaged life expectancy. I'd rather have a somewhat smaller wolfhound that lives to twelve years, than a horse-sized monster, who dies of crippling, agonising bone cancer sometime around its seventh birthday.

I'm not picking on brachy breeds, I think this stuff needs to be applied across the board because it's just common sense. Brachy breeds are just an obvious starting point because positive changes in those breeds will have very obvious benefits to the dogs and if more breeders can see the good that is possible from better practices, more breeders might be willing to actually change what they do.

Alternatively, everyone just keeps doing what they're doing and eventually, they will have their breeds lost to them by force when it is decided that if clubs can't prevent cruelty amongst their ranks, the government will simply shut them down. It really is simply a choice of being proactive or reactive.

[Steve]

Maddy, please read my posts again. I am not denying that there is a problem. I am denying that changes to standards is the way to approach it.

I am saying that the problem will not be rectified by concentrating on ANKC breeders, and banning or barring entire breeds.

What I am trying to say, and obviously too clumsily to be understood, is that if your let the AR mob get their way and bar particular extremes then the precedent has been set to bar other extremes.

The end of that road is undifferentiated breeds. You can stick your head in the sand all you like and say "my breed is safe", no one can stop you - but don't complain later if you hear "I told you so".

The best breeders can achieve a brachy that fits the standard without health problems, just as the best breeders can do in every breed.

The answer to the problem is to ensure that ALL breeding stock, no matter what the breed or cross, passes fitness tests. Why would you find that a problem? Surely you feel that your breeds can pass with flying colours?

AR people have had success with the "divide them to fall" strategy (the PDE show proved that). Saying that all brachys suffer from extremes of brachy syndrome is akin to saying that all pitbulls are vicious and untrustworthy - the same principle applies. It is the individual fitness that should be the measuring stick and not generic typing.

I agree that the problem will not be solved by concentrating on ANKC breeders or the ANKC. But to have a hope if they don't show they are accepting there is a problem and are seen to be doing something about the part they play in it they will not shrug off the focus that is on pedigreed dogs because the whole world blames the standards and the show ring. It wasn't BYB dogs or people's back yards that featured in PDE it was the show ring and in this country the ANKC have a monopoly on dog shows.

[moosmum]

Passing fitness tests before breeding for for any breed :

While it sounds like a solution, I think that it even needs considering just illustrates our failure to promote dogs, the purpose of breeding them, and our responsibilities in doing that.

What other species bred for their purpose to Man, do the breeders need to be governed in selection of stock to be ensure its fit for purpose?

I think when we get the stage we need to govern selection of any breeding stock for even basic functional fitness, A.R have won by default.

I think the answer is rather to start promoting the many purposes for dogs to familiarize people with the requirements a dog needs to fill those, and the responsibilities of breeders in meeting them.

I see it as a massive failure to promote the value and purpose of dogs if even their breeders need to be forced to recognize they should have basic functional ability.

And I believe formal recognition from the K.Cs that Dogs are a species, not a just a standard, would go a long way to achieving that.

Edited October 31, 2016 by moosmum

[~Anne~]

Many years ago I was banned from debating anythign related to the issues with pugs when I stated that a pug, regardless of who bred it or why, is inherently defective simply due to the very fact that it has a brachycephalic skull. Now we can say that with ease. How times change. :laugh:

Troy, are you reading this?

[Katdogs]

Poor pug at the park yesterday had a tongue almost touching the ground. Just like that one I remember seeing ads for on Bondi Rescue that had to have surgery to put its tongue back in/together a few years ago. There's no way it would ever fit naturally. So I googled and it appears not an uncommon thing for pugs to have excessively long tongues?

[Maddy]

Poor pug at the park yesterday had a tongue almost touching the ground. Just like that one I remember seeing ads for on Bondi Rescue that had to have surgery to put its tongue back in/together a few years ago. There's no way it would ever fit naturally. So I googled and it appears not an uncommon thing for pugs to have excessively long tongues?

Or a normal length tongue with an excessively short head to keep it in.

[~Anne~]

Poor pug at the park yesterday had a tongue almost touching the ground. Just like that one I remember seeing ads for on Bondi Rescue that had to have surgery to put its tongue back in/together a few years ago. There's no way it would ever fit naturally. So I googled and it appears not an uncommon thing for pugs to have excessively long tongues?

Or a normal length tongue with an excessively short head to keep it in.

Bingo.

I absolutely adore the breed and have had a very long association with it, but I'm realistic to the problems that smoochable face has.

[Steve]

Well the ANKC and state Canine Orgs knew it was coming and the petition which clearly addresses the ANKC has now been out for over a week and I haven't heard a single whisper that they know what is going on and what they are doing about it.

Here is the statement from the MDBA .

My link