New Irish Kennel Club approach to brachy breeds

[DogsAndTheMob]

The Irish Kennel Club is taking a proactive approach to respiratory issues in some brachycephalic breeds.

https://www.ikc.ie/important-notice-for-breeders-of-bulldogs-french-bulldogs-pugs/

[Adrienne]

The only way to ensure an individual animal is not bred from is to have it spayed/neutered. Where is the strategy from the Industry as a whole to this area? Breeders are not well placed to hold animals through to a good spay/neuter age, owners are well placed but enforcement seems impossible - though for this breed it would be plausible to create an obligation in that there could be no argument made for wanting to keep an animal intact for drive in sporting/trialling disciplines… are these breeds involved in any type of activity? They don’t seem built for it!

 

Given that animals can be tracked now with microchipping and these breeds tend to have an increased need for healthcare interventions it might be more plausible to have an actual legal requirement for spay/neuter attached to individual dogs of the breed based on animal welfare grounds. If such a requirement was in place the introduction of it would make it very clear to buyers of these dogs that they are in fact buying an animal which is not fit to be reproduced based on the difficulties the dog itself will face over its life time because of it face. It might begin to dawn on people that they are actually buying seriously deformed animals - though I understand from research that owners of brachycephalic breeds seem to experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with their canine friend's physical challanges and what it means for their quality of life.

[Rebanne]

won't make any difference to the backyard breeding mob. The responsible ones would test their dogs anyway. The British Bulldog club here in Vic is regularly having testing days.

[tdierikx]

15 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Given that animals can be tracked now with microchipping

 

Ummm... not really. For dogs that are microchipped, the data may be somewhere in the registry database, but there doesn't seem to be any function that allows for extraction of that data to track what has happened to any particular animal, not to mention that the various agencies that access that data aren't actually interested in tracking a complete journey for any particular animal, say from pound through rescue to rehoming. This means that for any microchip number, it's impossible to find out whether that number has been through the system more than once (ie. failed adoption resulting in animal surrendered to another pound or rescue).

 

NSW are in the process of redesigning/rebuilding the microchip database, but it has been revealed that tracking what happens to any particular animal is not high on the list of priorities - unless that animal has come from a registered breeder, or is a racing greyhound (Victoria has recently introduced whole of life tracking specifically for racing greyhounds - but it remains to be seen how that is going to work in reality).

 

There is also the issue of those unregistered backyard breeders who don't microchip their animals, and owners who get animals from that source don't always chip them either. The staggeringly high percentage of animals finding themselves in pounds with no microchip indicates this problem, but to date, no effective remedy for the problem has been forthcoming, just more legislation that affects registered breeders who DO do the right thing.

 

Unfortunately, the only way for authorities to actually enforce the legislation regarding microchipping and registration of pets is to go door to door and demand to scan each dog/cat found on a property... something I don't think would be very popular with the general public, and would not be a vote winner for anyone who tried to legislate that sort of action to happen. I must say that there are reports of one Queensland council who were going to actually take that action, but no news yet on how that has been received by the residents in that LGA.

 

Let's also note that as companion animal management is a State function, each state has it's own microchip database, and those databases do NOT "talk" to each other. There are also privately run chip registries as well... including at least one that is supposed to be national. The general public are generally unaware of the fact that they can enter their animal's details on the national register - but again, this register may not necessarily be "consulted" when any chipped animal is found and there are no up to date details on the state register. Say a dog was found wandering in a state border area, and the scan came up with a chip number, but no details were found on the register of the state it was found in - you'd think that it would be par for the course in border areas to check the register from the neighbouring state, yes? Nope! That animal could be listed as "no details on chip", and considered free to be processed as unowned. Just consider the man hours required to manually check a chip number on all of the possible registries in the country, and you'll understand why pounds with relatively high intake numbers can't or won't do it.

 

T.

[Adrienne]

The lack of a single database to be used by all is ridiculous. We are an Island for *sake and it beggars belief that there is no genuine interest in knowing basic information about our Nation's dog population. Why is this so?  Perhaps each State is assessing the dollars the dog industry contributes each year and is reluctant to mess with that aspect? Perhaps the Pet Industry lobbyists are working hard to protect the supply of animals? Perhaps there are reasons which we are not privy to?

 

The more I look into dog genetics I realise that the dog is an important species for identifying genetic markers for heritable conditions in humans, and dogs are also great subjects for hip replacements, cranio-facial surgeries, cancer treatments, congenital eye disease, skin cancer etc etc.  Dogs contribute to our understanding of psychosocial disorders as well.

 

Taking a big picture view, the supply of genetically predisposed, genetically diseased, and physically challenged dogs into the general dog population is a boon for research. Dogs in research has always been a distressing notion for all people, we don’t like to think of dogs in research and as lab animals they are big and have psychosocial needs which are hard to provide for over time and they live so long … But now thanks to our canine population many many conditions and possible treatments are being researched through the contact these animals necessarily have with Veterinary practices. More and more diagnostics, more and more possible treatments etc.

 

Dogs will benefit too in the long run, but I don’t think we will have an end to congenital defects in dogs until there is no longer a use for them in research. In the mean time, each individual effected dog will be owned by an individual person or family who loves it very much and will spend lots and lots of money on it paying for tests, surgeries, treatments and palliative care, and experience distress and heartbreak at their pet’s suffering.

 

If you read some of the Industry literature, there is much excitement about the potential for research. I am excited too - the potential to bring our dog population to functional health is great, but I have a sinking feeling that there is still too much to be had from the current mess and it won’t be resolved until it has been wrung dry. In the mean time the show has its prescribed Villans' (breeders) and its prescribed Heroes’ (rescuers).

 

Responsible breeders will lead the way out for us all. Buyers rights seem to be the only thing that might put pressure on those selling faulty animals - can’t wait for someone somewhere to bring an action against a supplier of a faulty animal.

 

Fit for purpose is a thing. Companion animal is a thing. Database is a thing. Genetic testing needs to become a thing available to all at very low cost, and dna profiling should be funded for shelter and rescues. Shelter and rescue protocols should be standardised and quality data collected. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tdierikx]

Caught up with a regular dog walking mate yesterday while he was walking his young (20 month old) pedigreed standard poodle. His dog was bred in Queensland, and his microchip details are in a national chip database. He recently went to a local vet clinic to have his boy desexed, and because the chip details were not on the NSW state database, the vet declined to desex the dog until this has been rectified. Excuse me?

 

As the vet did not offer any assistance in how to get this dog entered into the NSW database, the owner was at a loss as to how this could be done, so I explained that he could download a P1A form from the state OLG (Office of Local Government), fill in all the details, and take it to council to have those details entered into our CAR (Central Animal Records) database. I also advised that he might also need to fill out a stat dec to accompany the P1A form to declare that dog as his, which is a fairly simple process. Depends whether council want to be difficult about things...

 

I also suggested he go to a different local vet where I did my vet nursing student work placement, tell them I sent him, and ask them to desex his dog while he waits for council to enter the details into the NSW database. Once he gets the confirmation that the dog has been entered onto the NSW chip database, he can then take his desexing certificate to council and register his dog... which was his intention all along.

 

Seriously though, how many vets will check the actual database detail of any chip found in any pet brought to them for desexing by an owner? The chip number itself is all they need to enter into their own system in order to satisfy their requirements. And to refuse to desex an animal because they can't see that number in a single state based database is just stupid IMHO. My friend even gave them the details of how to access the national register his dog's chip is listed in, but they refused to look it up there - the dog HAD to be on NSW CAR.

 

Is it any wonder that some people just give up on doing the right thing because it's all just too bloody hard? This is what happens when there is too much legislation, and not enough actual common sense involved in animal ownership matters.

 

Oh - and my mate was heading straight home to download the P1A form, and to drop into the vet I suggested to discuss desexing his boy after our chat... he is still determined to do the right thing, even though it's a stupid paperwork nightmare to do so.

 

T.

[Diva]

On 22/12/2023 at 10:22 AM, Adrienne said:

The lack of a single database to be used by all is ridiculous. We are an Island for *sake and it beggars belief that there is no genuine interest in knowing basic information about our Nation's dog population. Why is this so?  Perhaps each State is assessing the dollars the dog industry contributes each year and is reluctant to mess with that aspect? Perhaps the Pet Industry lobbyists are working hard to protect the supply of animals? Perhaps there are reasons which we are not privy to?

 

It’s just how our federated system of government works. It’s a state area of responsibility. Getting states to standardise  systems or harmonise regulations takes a heap of facilitation and incentive and I’d say that no govt  has seen a compelling enough benefit to drive it. States rarely self-organise to harmonise. Usually when it happens it is because the Commonwealth takes a lead and inputs effort and $$, and the Comm do so because there is a compelling national interest argument or they have to have the states help to deliver a legal responsibility of their own.

In dogs, there isn’t sufficient reason for the Commonwealth to make it their problem when they have no head of power and no economic or political driver. They have done their bit with the border and biosecurity controls. And the individual states can’t see enough benefit to drive it themselves. Lots of issues like that. 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Diva

[sandgrubber]

Brachy-ness isn't the only worry.  Pugs, bulldogs and Frenchies are near the top of the OFA list for bad hips, elbows and patellas.  Not to mention brain and spinal problems for cavvies, Apple headed chihuahuas etc.  Yes, the squashed face is 'cute', but...

 

It's good to see a KC beginning to take measures to reduce the negative effects of breeding for extremes.  In the future it would be better to see a whole dog approach.

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by sandgrubber
Typo

[DogsAndTheMob]

Somewhere (maybe on another thread), I saw the statistic that 0.4% of bulldogs have Excellent hips. I would be very interested to see what the bulldogs with excellent hips look like.

Edited December 29, 2023 by DogsAndTheMob

[~Anne~]

I’ve been around pugs my whole life. I don’t breed them and never have aside from a family byb litter when I was a young girl.

 

There is no such thing as a pug with a good respiratory system - only degrees of deformity. The fact that the dog has a flattened face means it has issues with respiration. Full stop.

 

The flattened features and skull also predispose the dog to eye dislocations and optical exposure issues.
 

The screw tail is another deformity we deliberately breed into them. The tail is an extension of the spine. 

 

The cranial and spine deformities mean the breed is prone to neurological issues. 

I have rescued and owned pure bred pugs and byb bred. There is no difference in the number of health issues.
 

It doesn’t matter what a kennel club or breed club does. You can not breed out these issues unless you stop breeding a flat face, broad forehead and curl tail. pure and simple.