Jumping into the lion's mouth here, but following on from our "Can Dogs Smell Cancer?" film for the BBC last year, we are now tackling the thorny subject of canine genetics - and particularly the health problems that have resulted from the selective breeding of pedigree (and other) dogs. We're approaching the film from a dog lover's point of view and particularly exploring the science of what can be done to improve the genetic health of our breeds, particularly those which have very small gene pools and are therefore prone to problems.

We're in the research stage at the moment, so keen to hear all views, particularly from those who breed dogs for a living or who feel they have a dog which is suffering as a result of an inherited problem.

The Companion Animal Welfare Council is currently lobbying the government arguing for a curb on "freak pets" - i.e. breeding which has compromised welfare - head-size in bulldogs; exaggerated sloped backs in GSDs; breathing problems in the squashed-nose breeds etc. Are they right? Do breeders need to change their ways? Or should they be left alone to do what they think is right for their individual breed?

I'd be particularly interested in hearing from UK breeders/owners who would be willing to let us film dogs which illustrate the concern. And is there anyone who would let us  film their english bulldog delivering pups via having C-section? (I know this is a difficult thing to ask but the aim is not to apportion blame, but to educate in a positive, non-hysterical way and to encourage sensible debate).

Please feel free to email me directly if you'd prefer: jem@pasionateproductions.co.uk.

Jemima Harrison

Admin: permission obtained.

Jemima, there seems a misconception in your post.

Those that breed dogs for a living (we here would call them puppy producers) rarely have any interest in health or welfare only the mark up on their expenditure.

Real breeders breed for love of their breed, and certainly it costs them an awful lot to pursue the hobby, part of which is screening for inherited health problems where such tests are available, or trying to get such tests developed.

Inherited disease is not a result of selective breeding, but from the natural tendency for like to beget like and members of a bred oir race to share common traits, including some negative ones that creep in either originally as mutations, which are generally of a recessive nature or occur after the normal age when breeding woudl commence, so that breeders are often trying to bolt the door after the horse has bolted.

I would endorse the statement that few ethical breeders do so 'for a living' and those that use dog breeding as their main source of income rarely have the breeds best interest at heart and are therefore least likely to bother with health testing etc- most of us on here for instance are passionate about 1 particular breed and spend hours/days/weeks  poring over pedigrees - researching the health status of any dogs we are considering using and being ruthless about not breeding from those that throw up any genetic problem.

However I do think that there IS a tendency to breed for a particular trait that may seem to exemplify 'breed type'. this can lead to over exaggeration of that feature - whether it be flat faces, head wrinkles/abundant coat etc and this can certainly have a detrimental effect on the breeds soundness. If you look back over the years many many breeds have changed due to the influence of breeders trying to enhance a particular feature - in my own breed the tendency is to breed  a much finer animal than would have been seen 20 years ago - the breed standard in BSD's says " skull and muzzle roughly equal in length, with, at most ,a SLIGHT bias in favour of muzzle" - I can tell you that any dog with this type of head proportions is very unlikely to win in the show ring nowadays and most breeders aim to produce a fine head with a very long muzzle in comparison with the skull. this can have a  knockon efect effect on construction  as this narrowness is echoed in the overall structure of the dog and fronts are affected and so then is movement .

Breeders DO have to take responsibility for exaggerating type to the detriment of soundness and guard against it -but I do hope that your proposed programme will not turn out to be a witch hunt against show  dogs and their breeders - we are the group MOST likely to breed ethically. Perhaps a good starting point would be to contact the breed clubs of the breeds you are interested in and ask them what initiatives thay have in place to prevent genetic problems from occuring ( I know that the bulldog Clubs for example have been workibg hard to eradicate some of the problems in their own breed).

Yvonne

I would agree that breeders may change type to one that will be rewarded in the ring or even in the field when it may not be strictly what the breed standard actually requires, but I feel that judges actually bear an equal responsibility here.

It is the judges that give awards to exaggerated dogs encouraging the breeders to continue on this path.

It is often breeders in their early days who are overly influenced by show or working results using these as a barometer to judge quality and make breeding decisions.

Many once they gain more in depth knowledge of their breeds, and those who have been involved in their breeds for several decades are often able to stand back and evaluate things for themselves and thankfully some can see what is happening and strive to moderate matters, as they have seen fashion trends come and go.

Apologies for poor wording. What I really mean is that I'm keen to hear from those who breed not for money but because they are passionate about their breeds. (And as opposed to politicians/campaigners who have never bred a dog in their life.) I'm aware, of course, of the difference between indiscriminate puppy farm/mill breeding and the responsible breeders here.

I am interested to hear that you don't think inherited disease is a result of selective breeding. Of course no one consciously chooses to perpetutate a nasty genetic disorder, but by narrowing the gene pool by, for instance, breeding from popular sires or by selecting for looks/conformation, isn't there a risk you will compromise health - as, indeed we HAVE seen in many breeds?

Jemima

jemima..........perhaps, with regards to genetics, if you want factual and documented evidence regarding genitics, perhaps you would be best advised to contact leading scientists in genetics? They are the best to answer such a deep and involved subject. it may well be that the KC will help you find one.

Selective breeding, by those that care, is to breed out problems, and to stamp the breed to look as it should, rather than a poor copy. And, by looking as it should, (good conformation) and being fit to do the job its bred for, that in itself should make it healthy, and health wise they stand a better chance of being fit and healthy all their lives if their parents/grandparents are tested healthy. Why do you think people, here especially, constantly advise people to only breed from health tested dogs, who are fit, well and excellent specimins of their breed? Any breed club will advise, no insist, on that too. breeders that look deep into a pedigree wont use this years popular dog just because its popular if the lines behind are not what they want. The less experienced may.

The irresponsible breeder may have very little care for long term health, and many churn out puppies by the sack load. These are the dogs that people hear of, that make the press, that end up in rescue kennels, that carry on breeding, putting their genetic diseases into the next generation. These are the pedigree dogs, what people refere to as show dogs, that give the truely responsible show breeder a bad name. The fashion today for cross-breeding is doing nothing to help either the dogs or their health and wellbeing. To some, its as if 'by magic' any health problems will disapear if two unrelated, different breed dogs mate.

a lot of problems come when someone who only really cares about the money, buys a bitch with an 'excellent pedigree' (which means a bit of red) and, not knowing what is in the pedigree of the bitch, finds a dog to use as a sire that also has a fantastic ped (again, a bit of red) but its not related so it has to be an excellent match. They breed having absolutly no idea of the health and temp behind both dogs. No idea of the implications one dog in the pedigree may have if used with another dog in a pedigree. Experienced breeders will have researched the pedigrees of dogs in their breed, know which ones may have had problems, will talk to others for advice, will 'know' the pedigree of their dog/bitch so well they could be a relation! They will know, almost before mating, what to expect. A healthy (as far as can be possible with any living animal) dog that will have a good conformation, lovely nature, and be a good colour and breed specimin.

I see what you mean regarding GSD backs, and the other breeds that have breeding problems. This I personally cant understand, and feel a sadness that dogs are bred keeping these problems, rather than breeding them out.

Thanks for the reply. We are, of course, talking to the geneticists, in the UK and US. But I want to get as rounded a picture as possible and that means talking to lots of different people - scientists, breeders, pet owners, vets, the KC, even extremists who feel pedigree dogs should be banned (a view I don't share, but I'm interested to hear their arguments).

I'm not convinced that good conformation necessarily means a fit and healthy dog - because what constitutes good conformation is so often such an arbitrary decision.

I do believe that people who care about their breeds go to a great deal of effort to try and make the right decisions, but certainly at this stage of my research, it feels that there does need to be more awareness of the problems, such as popular sire syndrome, and less "let's just wait until a genetic test comes along" attitude.  I went to see a dog the other day which had a particular Crufts winner all over its pedigree and wasn't terribly surprised to hear he suffered from luxating patellas. This wasn't a puppy-farmed dog. The breeders involved are/were leading lights of the breed who had made conscious decisions in their matchmaking. Other breeds, meanwhile, have a foundation stock in single figures which makes it incredibly difficult to maintain genetic health, however careful one is.

Our film really is keen to find answers. I love and keep pedigree dogs myself and feel that it must be possible to have the best of both worlds - fit and healthy, long-lived animals that breed true to type and do the job they were bred to do (whether that's to enthrall us with their beauty, guard our homes, herd our sheep or retrieve game).

Jemima

Jemima, great to read that you are someone who seems to love dogs of all types and not just doing it one sided!

Well, I have to admit that I'm not passionate about all breeds but I am, indeed, a dog lover and the film has been prompted by concern for their future.

We also take a great deal of care to properly research our films. At the end of the day, they inevitably reflect our view, but I hope that's a fair view arrived at after a lot of research, input and discussion.

Jemima

>wasn't terribly surprised to hear he suffered from luxating patellas.

Jemima, this is actually a very common complaint of the (non-recognised) short-legged terrier commonly known as the Jack Russell. I'm sure you've seen plenty of them 'skipping' as they move - it's so common that many people don't realise it's evidence of luxating patellae. These are often randomly-bred pets, and show without any shadow of doubt that it's very wrong to suggest that it's only pedigree dogs that have congential problems.

A geneticist who recently wrote a very interesting article on the incidence of HD in the newly fashionable crossbreed, the 'Labradoodle', is Malcolm Willis. I'm sure he'd make a valuable contribution to the programme.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will talk to Malcolm Willis.

Another would be Bruce Cattanagh, both are not only world famous geneticists, but practical dog breeders, so can give both sides of the debate.

Bruce definitely on my list and I have been following his contributions on the yahoo canine genetics forum.

Jemima

To me, good conformation means the animal is well constructed, can move freely, and can do the job to which it is intended. as well as be a good companion, lay by the fire and be sound all its natural life.

Edited to say, this has fallen out of place to where I wanted it again :(

Ahh but do we always see it in certain breeds?  Sometimes I feel it is a perception put across by people who know nothing about the breeds involved or their true health.  They will see a few in their lifetime of being a vet and call the breed as a whole.

Sorry it's just that we have a certain vet in the country who calls all "pedigrees" and says that they all have health problems but I'm sure that she has as many "cross breeds" with exactly the same ones!

I know that both of my breeds are on the list of breeds that certain groups want changing or to go in extinction and they are Pomeranian's and Spanish Water Dogs.  I've owned Pomeranian's now for 26 years and SWD's for almost 14 and up until now my Pom's have lived until 16 years of age on average and I've not had time to know the full life expectancy of my SWD's but up to now they are living around 12 years of age, the longest living one here was 15 and I have his daughter now who is nearly 13. 

Both my SWD's and Pom's have rarely had to visit a vet and have hardly had a days illness in their lives, but if it was up to certain groups they wouldn't be around!

Might I suggest that you contact an American lady by the name of C A Sharp?    She is well-known for her work in genetics in the breeding of Australian Shepherds.  Her findings are very, very interesting!   If you google, you will find her contact details!

I think that you will find that on this forum you ARE preaching to the converted - or to those are evangelists in the ethics of good breeding!  But then we get shot down in flames for condemning people who do breed from untested and poor examples of the breed.

Might I suggest that in order to bring these problems to the majority of the British People that you get someone onto something like the Paul O'Grady show? ;)

Margot

I found this interesting article by C A Sharp:

http://siriusdog.com/articles/inbreeding-diversity-crossbreeding-outcrossing.htm

Jemima

Quote from the article:
Nature goes to great lengths to discourage inbreeding. Related animals rarely mate, which prevents genes for diseases and defects from coming together with any great frequency.

What a load of rubbish! :rolleyes: I can hardly believe what I just read!!!

I found this article interesting and agree with many of it's points - I do think that we need to allow for more diversity within a gene pool - however it seems to me that as breeders we may be face with a catch 22 situation. The increased use of health testing actually reduces the choice of breeding animals responsible breeders are able to use. For example I know of an excellent example of my breed - a Champion bitch with outstanding construction and temperament, she has already had a litter which produced dogs able to work succesfully and win in the show ring. However she has just failed this years eye test - in all other respects she is a valuable addition to the gene pool within a relatively small breed - her owner has decided not to have a subsequent litter from her so this means that her lines will be lost . Before testing became the norm she would have undoubtably been bred from . With more genetic faults being tested for this will become an increasingly common picture in many breeds.

To be able to breed clear of ALL faults including those of temperament - the most important aspect of any dog in my opinion- and still produce animals that look like their breed will be well nigh impossible - All animals (including humans) carry some degree of genetic faults - it is unrealistic and unfair to expect the dog world to be able to totally eradicate these even with the extensive use of outcrossing.

Yvonne

>Nature goes to great lengths to discourage inbreeding. Related animals rarely mate, which prevents genes for diseases and defects from coming together with any great frequency.

Nonsense! Take the case of cheetahs, for example. Their degree of genetic closeness is described as if there was a single mother and her cubs survived the last Ice Age - the species seems pretty fit on the whole, yet there aren't two genetically unrelated cheetahs on the planet.

Jumping into the lions den, I'm sorry but I am one of those people who does not give a hoot for what a dog looks like, all I care about is that a dog should be healthy, be able to breathe, lead a long life, have legs to substantiate the body weight and head weight.  The way that some dogs are bred nowadays is ridiculous The Companion Animal Welfare Council has my backing on the 'freak pets' but............... I am also against the breeding of some of the pedigree dogs, who also can not breathe, walk substatialy, have heart problems, hip problems and am all for introducing some selective breeds to right the problems, that is a debate in itself! Everything needs to keep evolving and lets be honest a lot of pedigree dogs out there are not healthy even with good breeding some breeds suffer greatly from inheirant health problems.

A lot of dedicated people work hard to erradicate these problems, but for some breeds now is the time to re-evolve, genetics need to be re-introduced and changed all the time, we have not done right by many breeds of dogs.

So my view on it is we need to make some changes with the backing of all the offical bodies.

Where is the real proof though that x-breeds are any healthier?  It's always banded around but I've never actually seen any evidence!

I actually have a breed where we do do health tests which I think is the way to go with every breed.  Until all breeds and even x-breeds are tested then I don't think anyone can say how either are healthier than the other!

I feel that the Companion Animal Welfare Council is doing what is now becoming the norm for most "lobbyists" and latching on to what Jo Public can try to get involved in. There are many more health problems in dogs and other animals which cant be outwardly seen. To concentrate on whether the animal "looks" like it may not be healthy because it has a big head, sloping back etc. is only the tip of the iceberg. It is the inherited diseases which cant be seen that should be the main criteria, and which are much more a problem. In that respect, the average mongrel/srossbreed is an entirely unknown quantiity as far as being "healthy"

To be fair, it was me, not the CAWC, which singled out head-size and sloping backs. Nevertheless, these traits do result in serious health concerns (c-section whelping/hip problems), as do other looks-based issued such as squashed muzzles which compromise respiratory function.

The CAWC is not just concentrating on these - they're exploring a broad range of hereditary problems exascerbated by close breeding.

Jemima

To be fair, it was me, not the CAWC, which singled out head-size and sloping backs. Nevertheless, these traits do result in serious health concerns (c-section whelping/hip problems),

Why would a sloping back result in HD?? Last thing I heard HD still wasn't fully understood as it is not fully genetic, can actually be CAUSED by bad management (i.e. over exericse for instance) and nobody has come up with a definite answer.

I'm sure the programme (because of course you won't be doing a 'tabloid'-type jobbie, but will be taking a serious look at the issues) will also point out that those who breed a litter "because Pippy's so sweet, and Scamp up the road would be a lovely dad for her babies" without any health tests or research into their genetic background are causing enormous problems, with reputable breeders generally paying (through funding breed rescues) to pick up the pieces.

Of course, those who breed 'only pets', so ignoring the breed standards, are implying that people who buy these puppies are somehow second-class citizens who can take their chances with the health of their new pet.

This got me thinking about the comparison with humans. We are, largely, free to reproduce with who we want and we do so without care for genetics - unless there is a known inheritable problem. But then free choice is natural selection, something today's pedigree dogs don't often get a chance to do.

If left to their own devices, dogs would probably not choose the mates we choose for them, which means we have a big responsibility to get it right.

It isn't black and white. Of course pet-only breeders DO cause problems - and, boy, I've seen some rotten examples of the breed I cherish. But there are lots of "well-bred" dogs out there with big problems, too. I have a bitch here at the moment who's a sweetie and bred by a fantastic breeder who produces wonderful dogs, but this one isnot really good enough to breed from and I've recently had her spayed. That said, I am also aware that by removing her genes from an already small gene pool, I may be causing problems, too.

It's a really tricky issue. I don't have the answers. But the film has been prompted by the real concern that many pedigree dogs are in trouble and that more needs to be done - education, I hope, rather than legislation - to ensure we can enjoy pedigree dogs for many years to come.
Jemima

The comparison with humans is indeed interesting. Isn't it true that there are more known hereditary ailments/conditions in humans than any other species? HD is certainly known - in humans it's called 'congenital dislocation of the hip' and all newborn babies have their legs flexed shortly after birth to see if they have it.

One of the worst examples of a dog crippled with HD I've ever come across was a large brown mongrel of unknown parentage.

>I have a bitch here at the moment who's a sweetie and bred by a fantastic breeder who >produces wonderful dogs, but this one is not really good enough to breed from<

Oops, I need to qualify/correct this - and not least because some people here will know the breeder I'm referring to! There's nothing much wrong with the bitch physically and she's a fantastic working dog, but this particular line has thrown one too many premature litters and, after discussion, it was felt best to not run the risk again. Her working genes will be sorely missed, though.

To me, looks and conformation are the same thing, and both should be good. if the conformation is good, hopefully the main frame..skeleton...will be sound also. You make some very good points, and Im right behind you in that some breeds need to change. i think it is awful that some dogs cant breath correctly, have sore skin from so many wrinkles, cant whelp normally because of head shape and size. No matter how many heath tests are done, saying the dog is good or average, these problems persist, and in many cases if you look at pictures of the breeds from years ago they look so different now as to be no relation at all.

Edited to say reply to carrington

>one of those people who does not give a hoot for what a dog looks like

However dog breeds were designed for certain tasks, with appropriate attributes. A hunting dog (and people have needed to hunt food since the Stone Age) needs to be pretty fast and with more stamina than one which was designed to haul heavy loads on its own. It's only the toy breeds which were bred with pet ownership in mind.

Could we expect the programme, not to mention the promotional stuff to be any less sensationalised than this one?

Ah... was waiting for someone to make this connection!

The Family That Walks on All Fours was, indeed, our last film and, sadly, it resulted in some incredibly sensational press coverage. The Daily Mail even ran a banner headline which screamed: "The Truth About the Monkey People".

The film itself was a sensitive and I hope intelligent examination of why this family walked on all fours. We certainly got lots of correspondence from people who praised it (but who hadn't expected it to be anything other than sensationalist rubbish because of the awful press coverage). We made the film because a Turkish professor had proclaimed the family to be "pre-human" and that is, indeed, the point at which the film starts. But the film then goes on to give the much more likely (and much less sensational) explanation for why they walk on all fours.  Sadly, many newspapers and magazines never got beyond the Turkish scientists' view of the family and in doing so it looked like the film itself supported the view - very much not the case.

I have to say we did expect the tabloids to go down the "missing link" line - but we were astonished at how even 'serious' papers deliberately misreported the story.

Jemima

So what was the point?  What educational interest was it to the world at large to look at one family of sadly disadvantaged people?

I think there is a great deal to learn from this family - and, while it's unlikely that they are any kind of genetic throwback, studying the way they walk and the resulting stresses and strains on their body could be enormously helpful in various scientific and medical fields. I think the film was also insightful in the way it presented science and scientists who can be just as guilty as leaping to the wrong conclusion as the rest of us.

I should add that the family themselves are really happy with the film. For them, making it was an overwhelmingly positive experience and they have benefitted financially too - a percentage of overseas sales is going to them.

Jemima

>a percentage of overseas sales is going to them.

Morally at least 50% of all sales income should go to them - after all, it wouldn't have been made without them!

Scientist could have studied them without the need to display them to the public although I am not sure what value the studies would be to anybody not so aflicted.  As to their financial gain perhaps we should bring back the freak shows that provided a very good living to similar folk in times past.  There are other ways of assisting people in need other than making exhibits of them.

I must confess I didn't watch that programme because I feared it might be simply a 'gawp at these strange people' show, and I hoped modern society had moved on from there. Did it reach any conclusions as to what their condition was and how it could be treated?

I am sad that the publicity put some people off. We are really proud of the film. The most likely reason they walk on all fours is because a) they suffer from a genetic condition that makes it very difficult for them to balance on two and b) several cultural and environmental factors have conspired to prevent them standing up. These include lack of health resources/poverty in a culture which teaches acceptance/a body shape that makes it marginally easier for them to walk this way than it would be for most of us and a childhood predisposition to what's known as bear-crawling (something a small percentage of perfectly normal children do). In fact all 19 children in this family (I know - huge!) including the 12 perfectly normal ones, crawled on all fours as babies.

Jemima

It would make very interesting TV to film a bulldog giving birth naturally (there are several lines where this is normal) to prove the point that you can have a correct-looking dog which can also do 'normal' things, and help scotch the misconception that all bulldogs are born by caesarian. :)

It certainly would JG, and to have the stats as to how many give birth naturally as opposed to those that cant. bearing in mind, a caesr can occuer, like in humans, in any dog that can get into a problem.

That's right. Caesarians are becoming more common with humans (I had to have one myself) - it isn't always down to bad breeding! :D

So what's the difference between the two lines? How come some can whelp naturally and some cannot?

Jemima

For that you'd need to talk to the breeders themselves. :)

Certainly self whelping were necesary traits before veterinary intervention became as safe as it is now.

You seem to think there is a need to step in and bring about quality standards in breeding practices that are already in the conciousness of the dog breeding world anyway.  I think you would be hard pushed to find any registered breed club whose code of ethics did not tackle the issues of healthy and ethical breeding.  As others have indicated the greater damage to breeds  is the proliferation of pet breeders who are not generally members of breed clubs and do not trouble with these isssues but whether that would make a programme interesting enough to the public........

I don't doubt the good intentions of those who know and love their breeds. I know that these good intentions have done a terrific job of ridding certain breeds of certain problems. But everything I read tells me that long-term you are battling against basic genetic principles: a closed breed is by its nature a problem. Many breeders don't really want to hear that because the implication is that one may need to make some quite big changes to sustain long-term genetic health in our breeds. As far as I understand it, one can't put diversity (the key to genetic health) back by continuing to breed from within a narrow gene pool.

But I'm looking forward to talking to the canine geneticists for their views and hopes for the future.

Jemima

Sounds like you have already formulated the way your documentary is going to go,as I say I don't think the real problems with dog breeding would make much of a crowd puller.

I'm here to ask for your input and to give you the chance the shape the film. The response here has already highlighted areas I need to consider that I hadn't thought much about/didn't know before - such as the issue of indiscriminate pet breeding/the extent of inbreeding in the wild (something I will check given the howls of protest here)/that there are bulldogs who whelp naturally etc. That's really useful.

I've learned a huge amount, too, from the yahoo canine genetics group which is populated by concerned owners/breeders, many of them scientists. I'm mostlly bringing you points that have been discused there.

So please keep telling me what you think and what you would and would not like to see in the film.