Assisting the media to "put your view across" has not proved all that wise historically has it? :)  As I say, you claim to wish to "educate" people towards something that the breed clubs have demonstrably taken in hand anyway. 

Well, the film is going ahead anyway, so I guess you would rather have input than not..? And I'm not rabidly anti-pedigree (in fact the opposite), so presumably you'd rather have us make the film than someone with an animal rights agenda who believes pedigree dogs should be banned and that breeders of them are ripe for ridicule? (As has happened in the past.)

As for "educating people towards something that the breed clubs have demonstrably taken in hand anyway" - well, there are canine geneticists who are keep and breed pedigree dogs who argue that much more needs to be done. Also, we're making the film for everyone who is interested in dogs - which includes those pet owners who perhaps might think twice about unthinking breeding if they were more aware of the dangers?

We make science films. The arguments in the film will be rooted in hard facts, not conjecture or my particular unfounded prejudices.

I've gone back to geneticists this morning to question them on some of the points raised here. I'll continue to bounce back and forth until I'm sure that we've got our facts right.

Jemima

>Well, the film is going ahead anyway, so I guess you would rather have input than not..?

I believe this is the tack the tabloid press take when doorstepping :)
Make your film, you are going to anyway.  It doubt it would have any effect on the output of the animal rights people who have an entirely different agenda regarding the entire question of breeding any animal as a pet.
I don't know that it is a case of much more needs to be done regarding the health and well being of breeds it is a continuous ongoing exercise and is clearly already firmly on the agenda for breed clubs who also use the services of geneticists. I don't really think it needs a documentary to make them appreciate any further the importance of these issues.  As to the public there are already campaigns encouraging the purchase of pedigree dogs from responsible breeders plus they are already subjected to considerable hype about the "failings" of pedigree dogs you can hardly expect us to assist you in introducing more.

Inserting smileys after comments like "I believe this is the tack the tabloid press take when doorstepping" doesn't really make them any less hostile.

I'm clearly not going to convince you of our integrity, and I'm disappointed by your response which is to engage me on agenda rather than on the issues. I hope that others will feel they can contribute.

I am sure some breed clubs use the services of geneticists for nailing particular mono-recessive traits/developing specific tests  - but my impression is that most feel that individual mating decisions should be left to those who really know the pedigrees and the dogs. I buy this argument as it happens; the "doyenne" of my particular breed always astonishes me by her in-depth knowledge of almost every dog in the breed (and it's not a paper-knowing - she's met them). But my worry is that there is still too much line-breeding going on and that the emphasis is still too much on looks rather than vigour.

There are lots of good things happening - more open-ness about faults in a particular sire or dam, for instance, and greater awareness of popular sire syndrome. But it's by no means universal and I think there probably are more and different avenues to explore - such as real outcrossing for instance in breeds suffering severe genetic drift (this being considered on a limited scale already, I know).

Jemima

The smile was to indicate my understanding of what lies behind that sort of comment and yes, I am hostile to such tactics.  I'm sure there are more avenues to explore but I don't think producing documentaries along the lines of the sensationalism shown in producing one on a diasabled Turkish family is of any value in advancing that.  Addressing your comments to the breed clubs or the dog press would serve a far more useful purpose.

This is the first thing that you've said that I feel that I can actually agree with.  Breeders with true indepth knowledge of their breed (as you say actually knowing/met the dogs in the pedigrees) are generally doing a good job in maintaining/improving the quality and health of their chosen breeds.

I have met a number of different groups of people at shows like your doyenne. 
Those with fantastic in depth knowledge gained over many years.
Those who have been around for 20 years but have learned nothing. 
Those who learn and listen to those with genuine experience.
Those who've been in the breed for 12 months and 'think' that they know everything!

The latter group seem to produce the most problems, along with the pet breeders who produce more puppies in some breeds than the serious enthusiasts do.

Line breeding will only bring out problems that are already there in the line, if recessive.  There would be no point in a breeder deliberately bringing health problems into their kennel for the sake of looks because it will just bring with it expense and grief.  But genetics isn't an exact science - the experts are learning all the time, and sometimes problems will arise which were not anticipated.  As an ex veterinary nurse, I have seen mongrels with dreadful health problems.

Out crossing is not a panacea and is actually a very dangerous thing to do unless, like your doyenne, you genuinely 'know' every dog and their siblings on the new pedigree, in which case you are likely to produce more unknown problems.

Ignorance and lack of indepth knowledge IMO cases the biggest problems for most breeds.

Isabel, surely you being a dog lover would appreciate someone researching the health of our dogs?
Maybe not!!  Can't understand you!

Thankfully there are many people researching health issues in dogs.  The issue here is whether a documentary, perhaps of the type previously produced by the company, will be of benefit or not to that end.

From most of your posts it would appear that you are against the general public finding anything out for themselves, but you seem to soak up all the information that's given to you by the 'professional bodies' !   Somethimes they only tell us what they want us to know Isabel (nanny state and all that).

Exactly :)  Let there information come from quality sources.

I think it's brilliant idea to do the film Jemima!  I love pedigree dogs, I have golden retriever 8 weeks old and did have had a golden retriever who died in March at 3 years old. So any research that can help make the pedigree breeds healthier is good news to me!! (He died from a severe reaction to his booster)!  He was my first dog and very special to me.

Spangler suffered with severe hip displaysia and luxating patellas, apparently in large breed dogs the hip displaysia will normally cause the patella luxation!  He had 3 operation last year on one of his knees - 2 went drastically wrong, we then found a brilliant surgeon who saved his leg by putting him in an external fixator, which he had on for 8 weeks.  His pedigree was fine with a Crufts background etc etc...

Here is hoping this time that our 8 week old will not suffer with the same problems!  I do think a lot is to do with genetics, but I also think feeding and exercise plays a crucial part in how they turn out.   I'm not an expert, these are just my views.

Good luck with the project and if you need any info on luxating patellas, just post me!

Maria

Spangler suffered with severe hip displaysia and luxating patellas, apparently in large breed dogs the hip displaysia will normally cause the patella luxation!

I've had Goldens for 25 years and never heard of one with luxating patellas, it's not a big breed problem, it is a small breed problem. What were the hip scores of the dog's parents?

Hi Goldmali
Yes, I know it is mostly a small breed problem, but as our othapeadic surgeon advised us when larger dogs have severe hip displaysia it can, and did in spangler's case cause patella luxation!

Just keeping my fingers crossed my new 8 week old puppy will be OK

I have Spangler's pedigree with all the info 'tucked away' can I get back to you with the parents hip scores ?  if you pm me to remind me I'd appreciate it!
Maria

You can have a wide gene pool which includes those with hereditary conditions, or remove them and narrow the gene pool. HD and epilepsy, for example, are found in all breeds and crossbreeds and mongrels.

It sounds as though this is going to be another 'gawp at the freaks' show, not a balanced programme, highlighting the difficulties and stressing the best way forward. :( Another tabloid turn-off. Please convince me I'm wrong, Jemima.

Well in that case endangered species or any species within a closed gene pool is doomed.

The creatures of the Galapagos islands and other closed eco systems would seem to dispute this.

Well in that case endangered species or any species within a closed gene pool is doomed.

The creatures of the Galapagos islands and other closed eco systems would seem to dispute this.

2 words: SYRIAN HAMSTERS!
EVERY single Syrian hamster in captivity (and there are many, all over the world -you just need to visit your average pet shop to see several) are descended from just 3 hamsters captured in the wild -and those 3 were littermates!

It is strange then that some of the most populous breeds of dogs have the most health problems, yet many breeds with quite Small gene pools manage to be pretty healthy?

In the one case you have the vast majority of randomly bred without health testing, and in the latter you have breeds that are almost entirely bred by enthusiasts that care deeply, so keep on top of the problems despite restricted gene pool.

It is strange then that some of the most populous breeds of dogs have the most health problems, yet many breeds with quite Small gene pools manage to be pretty healthy?

VERY good point Barbara. I have one very rare breed and one very popular, and that's exactly the case with them.

exaggerated sloped backs in GSDs

Being a GSD owner/enthusiast for over 40 years I really object to statements like this

If you want an inside into responsible breeding look to the German governing body for GSDs

Their rules are extremely strict for registration & breeding protocals

1. All breeding animals must have been hip X rayed(dogs with bad hips cannot have progeny registered)( plus the males Haemophillia tested) & have been assessed against the breed standard as being correct & pass a working test as part of the Korung or breed survey

2. All dogs have to tattooed & DNA profiled for identification purposes

3 All show dogs over a minimum age must hold a working qualification

4 Dogs are restricted as to the number of bitches they can be bred to in a year

5 Bitches from the UK must now have a working qualification before being bred to a German dog in Germany(this qualification can be obtained in the UK & is the the lowest of the German working tests

Compare this to the UK dogs No restrictions as to colour/health/character/number of bitches bred to/working ability/resemblance to the breed standard & those "level/straight backed dogs"are rarely health tested by their enthusiasts & supporters. A scan of the BRS shows the dogs tested & bred from & the difference between the two "types" is obvious few if any "International"type are bred from without being health tested whereas the"UK"it is the opposite

Just to add that the problem of a small gene pool can be overcome by using dogs from overseas - with the pet passport system this is becoming far more common and allows for a greater flexibility in breeding programmes. Again though this is largely only done by the dedicated show breeder - the expense of importing new lines or taking bitches abroad to be mated is seen as an investment by those who are truly 'in it for the breed' and it is the pet breeders or puppy farms that tend to care little about the effects of inherited disease and who use a very limited gene pool to produce their pups.

The myth that crossbreeds or mongrels are all inherently healthier is just that - a myth - the fact is that their health status is unknown and generally untraceable after the first generation or so , it does not mean that they do not suffer from epilepsy/heart problems/structural faults etc - just that these are not widly known or recorded in the way tha BVA health tests for pedigree dogs are.

Yvonne

The problem with that Trevor is that it sees that maybe the scoring for certain health tests aren't the same as BVA scoring over here.  One of my SWD's was scored in his native country of Spain as excellent his hip score done over here under the BVA is less than excellent!  So it means that when importing you will still have to carry out the necessary health tests over here to ensure that you are happy with the country of origins, or you have to ensure that when they've had their health tests over there that all the details are on the tests such as x-rays so that you can send them off to be scored in the UK!

Regarding your bit about myths of mongrels totally agree.  I've also wondered whether the real reason that vets say that they don't have as many problems is that I think people from poorer families own them (of course this isn't meaning that all cross breeds are owned by people less well of than others) and that they are unable to take them to the vets as often due to the prices charged, so a lower accountability of problems?  Haven't a clue if this is right but I feel that it may be a factor??????

Here's a couple of provocative GSD links:

http://www.interpines.f2s.com/banter/history_gsd.jpg

http://www.aniwa.com/en/chien/Grand_Public/document/101809/103053/auto=0/index.htm

I've been told that the German showline GSDs are the ones with roached toplines, like this
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/89.html

And that a typical working line GSD topline looks like this:
http://www.sontausen.allk-9.com/nansjaydn.htm

I've also heard criticism of the GSD working test as being very basic and no real test of working ability.

I'm genuinely really interested to hear your reaction. To me, the roached topline looks pretty awful and it's hard to see how it doesn't compromise function. But am I reading this wrong?

Jemima

Well I don't know much about GSDs, but look at this:
http://hem.passagen.se/cecbj/tr-blaze.jpg
I assume you'd say this was another dog that couldn't possibly work? And sure enough, he was overall Best in Show at Sweden's largest international dog show about a decade or so ago, so a successful show dog.

He was also a working police dog.

Very interesting thread but I am concerned as to how this documentary (if it proceeds) will slant opinion. The OP started off with what seemed to be a skewed view of breeding and genetics.  Is the OP looking for evidence that selective breeding causes problems?  If concensus shows that selective breeding by the majority of breeders is to breed out problems will the documentary use this as the point of the programme?

Most  breeds were bred for specific purposes and whilst there are a small minority of breeds that appear to have problems related to their breed characteristics (Bulldogs and whelping) these should not be used to sway public opinion about the majority of breeds who when carefully bred and carefully raised are a credit to their breed, breeders and owners.

We say that wild animals are healthy with no problems etc?  How do we know this?  Are we sure that they have just not adapted to the health problems that they may have?  How many of them have been hip scored eye tested? :d

My dad ran around playing football for 50 years, having to have a hip replacement in his late 60's.  He must of had the problem early in life but only had the warning signs for a couple of years!  :d :d

I was quite happy at the thought of the film until I too read that comment of yours that <<Well, the film is going ahead anyway, so I guess you would rather have input than not..? >>

Maybe its just journalese speak - but every time I have had experience of anyone assisting a journalist AFTER a comment such as yours, that the assistance has been "slanted" or made to appear ridiculous if it, in any way, detracted from the pov of the journalist :(

Sad - it could have been a good opportunity to show just how irresponsible some of the fancy crosses are :(

Margot

We say that wild animals are healthy with no problems etc?  How do we know this?

The ones that are NOT simply don't survive.

And the ones that do don't live long, just long enough generally to pass their genes on.

As long as an individual lives a healthy life until it can produce sufficient numbers of, and rear the next generation nature does not really care about longevity past the useful reproductive age.

You will note than quite a few hereditary diseases in otherwise fit and healthy breeds are late in their onset.

This is another reason they are hard to eradicate as they don not manifest until after the animal may have been bred from, and why one cannot then simply undo the generations bred from them, throwing the baby out with the bathwater..

Okay, here are some ideas (not necessarily in order of importance!) of what should be included in a programme to make an interesting and valuable contribution to the efforts of people trying to make sure that all pets are healthy pets.

1) Stress the importance of not breeding without beforehand testing the prospective parents for any hereditable condition that might affect their breed. In an ideal world crossbreeds and mongrels wouldn't deliberately be bred until all the rescue centres in the country are empty, but in their case tests would be needed for all the breeds that are in their make-up. This would apply to the prospective stud as well as dam, of course.

2) Ensure that dams are neither too young nor too old (ie, between 2 and 5 years for a first litter).

3) Be aware that breeding a litter means that the breeder and the stud dog owner are responsible for the welfare of all the pups for all their lives, and should be prepared to take back any that need rehoming for whatever reason at any stage of their lives.

4) Show that crossbreeds and mongrels are equally susceptible to hereditable conditions such as HD, PRA, epilepsy etc as purebreds.

5) Have a good reason for breeding a litter in the first place - "Pippy's so sweet" simply isn't a good enough reason for possibly killing her - bitches and puppies still die during whelping.

6) Point out that breeding 'only pets' implies that these are second-rate animals for people who aren't worthy of quality. Breeders should aim high; in an ideal world all puppies should be capable of top-level success if their owners were interested in going down that route. However in the real world a top-quality litter will have a percentage of pups that, although healthy, haven't got all the finer points required for the showring - mismarks etc fall into this category. However these pups, from the same litter as the Champions, are the ones that are sold as 'purely pets'. Their quality is invariably higher than pet-bred pups.

7) Point out that breed clubs have codes of ethics that their members adhere to regarding the welfare of their animals, and so these are the breeders from which to buy a puppy.

8) Stress that 'rescuing' a puppy from a puppy farm because you feel sorry for it condemns another whole litter to be born into the same circumstances.

9) Point out that, just because a dog has a pedigree, it doesn't mean it's good enough to breed from. Only about 10% of dogs are worthy of having their genes passed on to the future! Those who buy a bitch puppy and mate her to a random stud (albeit of the same breed) just to produce another litter are doing incredible harm.

10) Show (as they did on Animal Hospital etc) that any bitch of any breed might need a caesarian section for any one of a number of reasons. A small litter can result in primary inertia; a pup could be too big (especially if the sire was a larger breed than the dam); a pup could be mispresented ...

I'm sure there are many other equally important items which could usefully be employed to show the average person that there are enormous responsibilities in breeding, and the random 'puppy producer' is doing dogdom no favours at all.

Thank you. That's exactly the constructive response I was looking for and a big help.

Could I push you further on how best to strike a balance when choosing which dogs to breed from? The concern I hear from geneticists is that if you over-restrict, you are narrowing the gene pool further with the danger that more bad recessives are going to collide. At the same time, you don't want to breed from obviously 'bad' examples.

I'm also interested in the crossbreed genetic health issue - and of course it is easy (and perhaps wrong) to make the assumption that they are inherently healthier because they are more genetically diverse. I'll check it out.

I have one purebred and one x. The x is two years older - but costs me less to insure. On my list is my tasks is to ask the pet insurance companies why this is so. Is it because they think they are healthier? Or perhaps because people are less likely to opt for expensive ops in crosses?

Jemima

>Or perhaps because people are less likely to opt for expensive ops in crosses?

I think that has a lot to do with it. Rightly or wrongly, there are many people who won't spend more on a dog than it would cost to replace. A labrador with rubbish hips crossed with a GSD with rubbish hips (for example) is highly unlikely to produce sound pups; the act of cross-breeding doesn't eradicate bad genes.

Likewise close in-breeding won't create bad genes - it'll only expose what's there already. If you're not adding genes from an outside source you're not adding possible problems. But that's a very risky thing to do, and most people don't know anything like enough about the genetic background of their dogs to risk it. Mating together two unrelated animals from the same breed (if you can find them - most are related 10-15 generations back due to the limited breeding during the War) is a complete gamble, because you have no idea what recessives are lurking within each. If you're lucky you'll get a mediocre litter with no stars and no disasters! The safest bet, assuming that the animals have passed their breed-relevant health tests, is to mate dog and bitch who share a few ancestors 3 or 4 generations back - as long as those mutual ancestors were known to be healthy!

>how best to strike a balance when choosing which dogs to breed from?

The six-million dollar question! One tries to get as many unbiased opinions as possible (naturally everyone thinks their own animal is the best created since God was a boy ;), which generally means showing the dog, and having it judged against others. A dog that consistently comes nowhere when appraised by maybe 10 different people is probably too far from 'breed type' to be of much benefit to the breed; that doesn't mean it's a lovely animal, just not breeding stock.

Of course one needs to look at the animal as a whole - a fabulous pair of hips is of little use if the animal's shoulders are so upright, or its feet so spread, that it can't move freely anyway! Likewise vision or hearing - all vital (hearing actually more so because canines generally use scent and hearing more than sight when hunting) for the health of the dog, not as a particular breed, but simply as a dog.

Personally I've had one mongrel and several pedigrees of varying breeds, all medium-sized. The mongrel died at 10. One pedigree died of hardpad many years ago. One pedigree died of anaesthetic allergy at 8. The other pedigrees no longer with us died at 16, 15, and 13. I currently have one aged 13, one 11, and two nearly 7. In my experience it seems that pedigrees are likely to live longer ...

I work part-time at a vets' surgery, and it's been quite an eye-opener! The 5-year old mongrel who collapsed with heart failure and died three days later ...

I also think it's important that dogs have a good temperment - regardless of whether they stand square, have a perfect bite  etc etc....

Very true - the best looking dog is only good for being six feet under if it's unsafe. I must admit I foolishly take it as read that nobody would contemplete breeding from a dodgy-tempered animal, but I realise that's a very silly and dangerous assumption. :(

I really dont think, if someone has insured their dog, cost comes into it when having treatment, regardless of if its a cross or not. Maybe its more of an incentive to insure if a lower price is asked for a cross, as maybe people who have them believe that they are less likely to be ill. The perception being that mongrels are healthier than pedigree. Right or wrong, I was bought up to believe that. thing is, a mongrel can be hit by a car, or break its leg jumping off something with a huge drop behind the same as a pedigree, or cause an accident to which the owner is liable. The trouble is, people tend to think insurance is only for illness. Perhaps thats something you could bring out in your film, that ins covers for 3rd party liability (that the house insurance may not) and accidents, as well as illness.

I see no problem with this film, so long as all sides are shown in an equal manner, and not 'cut up' as TV can sometimes do. It would be good for viewers to see the oldies in breeds, especially the 'short lived ones' by reputation, where they can and do live to a good old age if looked after correctly. Some of the 'vetrans' of the show and working breeds would be good too, if only to show that pedigree dogs can roll into old age as fit and active as any cross breed. There are many large show kennels that should certainly have many generations on hand to show the 5 gen pedigree in the flesh. Perhaps seeing is believing?

How much time will be given for this film? I ask, because it will be one heck of a thing to put together, and I can't see an hour covering it, not if all opinions are to be fully aired. An epic, or many instalments? It will be good if you can get a good round of breeders, all breeds, because their input will be essential to balance out the film, if they are not open and dont come forward I can see it being unbalanced and yet another dig at breeders and pedigree dogs, which would be such a shame. Would it be possible for you to contact all the breed clubs, personally rather than email or fone, actually talk to a rep from each club, tell them what you want to do, and see if any members would be willing to participate?

Please keep ON topic. This is not a discussion about insurance or the pros / cons of pedigree/mongrels

Thanks

Two linked issues that provoked protest earlier in this thread were the extent of natural inbreeding in the wild and the health of very small wild populations.

In this article...

http://www.doghobbyist.com/articles/Inbreeding.html

...the author argues that "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. Wild animals have a variety of behaviors which will eliminate or severely restrict inbreeding."

This was met here with cries of "nonsense", but there is good evidence that wild wolf populations (presumably the most relevant when we're talking about dogs) DO avoid inbreeding. Here's one article I found:

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/wfincst/intro.htm

Cheetahs, hamsters and the Galapagos Islands were suggested examples of wild populations forced to interbreed which were genetically healthy. But sadly this doesn't seem to be the case. Cheetahs, for instance, are under severe threat of extinction because of low birth rates, high infant mortality and compromised immune systems. These are the three features of continued inbreeding in any animal population whether human, mice, dog etc.

Worsening the problem is that there is one huge difference between wild and domesticated populations. In the wild, natural selection endures. That means the weak and sick do not breed. Only the strongest and fittest pass on their genes - giving even inbred populations a fighting chance. But this is often not the case in pedigree dogs where breeders select for looks as much as vigour and function.

"Tea-cup dogs" are one example of this which has involved breeding runts to runts to achieve the miniaturisation. What do people here think of this trend?

For those interested, in was this article that sparked off my interest in canine genetics:

http://seppalasleddogs.com/documents/pbdb21c.htm

Jemima

Are pedigrees more prone to adverse reactions from booster?  The reason I ask is Virbac (the drug company that manufacture Canigen DHPPI and Lepto 2 - the vaccines that caused Spangler's reaction and subsequent death) seem to think they are!

What reason did they give for that conclusion Maria?

Are pedigrees more prone to adverse reactions from booster?

Again you'll find more pedigrees are vaccinated..........

I'm slightly surprised to hear this. Isn't vaccination fairly universal these days?

This touches on the area of mongrel v pedigree health which was raised earlier on this thread. I didn't know the answer so went back to the canine geneticists to ask and this was the reply from one:

"Of course mongrels can get inherited diseases from the purebred parents,
but they are of course much less likely to get the same recessive disease
alleles from different parent breeds than purebreds. Even if the parents have the same disease, say PRA, it often is due to a different mutation in either breed (some breeds
seem to have already more than one type of PRA!) Mongrels will enjoy hybrid vigor that makes them on average healthier than the purebred parents and they will escape
any inbreeding depression that may riddle them. Only polygenetic diseases e.g. HD, seem to be about as frequent in mongrels as in purebreds. So, on average mongrels are on average distinctly healthier and more longlived than purebreds,  as shown by an overwhelming
majority of studies confirming the population genetic rules. Only purebreds with very low COI and few defect alleles may attain comparable longevity and fitness"

I need to cross-check this with others, but it's food for thought.

Jemima

>Mongrels will enjoy hybrid vigor that makes them on average healthier than the purebred parents and they will escape

any inbreeding depression that may riddle them.
This seems very strange to me, because it's impossible for geneticists to determine breed from a DNA sample.

As it happens, I had a call from Waltham (Pedigree) a few weeks ago telling me that they were developing a DNA test which could tell you what your crossbreed is and that it would be commercially available I think next year. I have a cross here that I think is probably a black lab/golden retriever but I'd love to know for sure! 

Regardless, I think hybrid vigour is a a fact of basic genetic principles rather than something specific to dogs.

Jemima