Pedigreed Dogs Exposed

Sangmort

Pedigree dogs are suffering from genetic diseases following years of inbreeding, an investigation has found. A BBC documentary says they are suffering acute problems because looks are emphasised over health when breeding dogs for shows. The programme shows spaniels with brains too big for their skulls and boxers suffering from epilepsy. The Kennel Club says it works tirelessly to improve the health of pedigree dogs.

Pedigree animals make up 75% of the seven million dogs in the UK and cost their owners over £10m in vets’ fees each week. The programme, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, says dogs suffering from genetic illness are not prevented from competing in dog shows and have gone on to win “best in breed”, despite their poor health. It says physical traits required by the Kennel Club’s breed standards, such as short faces, wrinkling, screw-tails and dwarfism, have inherent health problems.

Other problems occur because of exaggerations bred into dogs by breeders trying to win rosettes, it adds. The programme shows a prize-winning cavalier King Charles spaniel suffering from syringomyelia, a condition which occurs when a dog’s skull is too small for its brain. It also features boxers suffering from epilepsy, pugs with breathing problems and bulldogs who are unable to mate or give birth unassisted.

It says deliberate mating of dogs which are close relatives is common practice and the Kennel Club registers dogs bred from mother-to-son and brother-to-sister matings. Scientists at Imperial College, London, recently found that pugs in the UK are so inbred that although there are 10,000 of them, it is the equivalent of just 50 distinct individuals. Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, said: “People are carrying out breeding which would be first of all entirely illegal in humans and secondly is absolutely insane from the point of view of the health of the animals. “In some breeds they are paying a terrible price in genetic disease.”

------> WARNING! Some parts of this video documentary may not be for the faint of heart. Wraith's breeder shared this video on FB & I thought it was intersting so passing it along here. This is the first ten minutes, the rest can be found on YouTube. ~

Kevin

SURPRISE!
Not really. Kennel Clubs, on the whole, do not exist for the betterment of dogs. Look at Dalmatians. Tell me that's a healthy breed. They're not the only example.
Dogs bred for show are bred to an arbitrary standard invented by someone with an eye for aesthetics--a subjective eye. Dogs bred for conformation rather than for health and working ability will invariably have genetic issues. Utility, my friends. Dogs make good pets. That's their downfall.
I wish more people worked their dogs. I think if more people USED their dogs for function, this would be the equivalent of a market demanding a fundamentally different product--a healthy dog that actually does something.

sjp051993

Very true. I see it all the time in the shiba ring. My male will often get overlooked because of his build and muscling. But, My male can still do what the shiba was originally bred for. He goes out and hunts in the fields all the time. I prefer a healthy dog that can still hunt over a dog that wins in the ring all the time. When I do present him to a judge that knows shiba structure and purpose, he wins easily.

ayk

Problem is, what is the working function of a toy breed? For some it's just being around so fleas are drawn from the human to the dog.

Are working dogs healthier? Or specifically, are trial dogs healthier? No, they can be just as inbred as conformation dogs. Competitiveness at all costs, in any venue, leads people to inbreed.

http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/intellectual-honesty-on-the-effects-of-trials-and-shows/

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2010/10/the-bc-bottleneck.html

dlroberts

@ayk - I agree completely. Competitiveness at all costs does lead to poor breeding practices. However, it's harder to cover up poor health in a dog that has to work than it is in a dog that only has to look good and have good conformation.

As for toy breeds, I think they have a "job" too. They need to have the temperament that makes them affectionate and loyal pets. And they need to have the health to back it up. A conformation show is not the ideal place to evaluate a toy breed either.

shishiinu

I also have to agree with ayk, inbreeding was and still is used in NK breedings in Japan. Its just sad that the UKC/AKC still will not recognise these issues and mae changes. Its not even about the dogs but a competition of egos.

Heidi

MOST dogs are companion dogs, and what people realistically want from their companions is not for them to have life-threatening deformities that cause tremendous pain and cost an arm and a leg at the vet. People want healthy dogs.

As for dog shows, they are basically mutant parades.

The existence of breeds has great utility, but obviously there needs to be a level of logic and responsibility in breeding. We know deformities are bad, I mean really. Can you imagine if humans were bred for those extremes? It would be a catastrophe. The only reason dogs have gotten along for so long is because they essentially have to purpose other than to be what we want them to be.

Heidi

Also, whenever they show the old version of the breed (before being mutated beyond belief), I always think the old ones are way better-looking. I wonder why people are attracted to these handicapped dogs.

shibamistress

I'm always kind of baffled when people who have purebred dogs are so adamantly AGAINST dog shows and the breeding of pure bred dogs. I understand that there are bad breeders out there who have bad breeding practices. I understand that some breeds, in particular, have been bred to standards that are unhealthy for the dog, and frankly, just ridiculous as well (English Bulldogs, for an example of the latter. GSDs for the former). But I think Ann nailed it: what is bad, is competitiveness at all costs. That doesn't mean all breeders are bad, nor does it mean all people who show dogs are bad or producing bad dogs, and it certainly doesn't mean that shows are "mutant parades."

I'd say there are may be problems with shows. There may be problems with some breeders who breed for show, but there are also problems with breeders who breed working dogs. More in show? Maybe. And I dod agree that most people want a companion dog, neither a show dog nor a working dog. But that doesn't mean that they might not want a dog that really conforms to breed standards....and if they do, and pick a good breeder, what's wrong with that?

and some people show dogs more for their love of the breed than for anything else. It's a way to be involved with a breed they love. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Anyway, my reaction was more to the generalizations about dog shows than it was to the article, but....And that doesn't mean that I don't think a lot can be done to change some bad breeding practices and the way kennel clubs are run, but....

dlroberts

@shibamistress - I think the idea of shows and titles in the abstract is a good one. My issue is with the way it has evolved. The incentives are not to produce healthy companions or healthy working dogs. The incentives are for breeders to produce dogs that show well and that's it. The way that dogs are evaluated doesn't do justice to what they are: life-long companions and possibly working partners. I'll also point out that conformation rings are not the only place we see these issues. Field trials are just as bad. The "win at all costs" mantra is just as prevalent there. Any time you have a competition where dogs are compared against each other or a standard that doesn't take the "whole dog" into account, there is an incentive to ignore the big picture.

I have no issue with pure bred dogs. I have no issue with people who choose to show their dogs. Nor do I have a serious issue with breeders who live and die by the show ring. My issue is with the for-profit parent organizations that incentivize competition that doesn't promote the best practices. I think those organizations (AKC, UKC, NIPPO, even the KKA (Sorry Shigeru!)) are the failures, not the people who do their best to thrive in that "economy."

BradA1878

The only part of the show, working, or pet world I have issue with is their short sighted focus on any one area.

A hunting breed, like the Kai Ken, Kishu Ken, Akita Inu, Shikoku Ken, and the Hokkaido Inu, should meet their standard, be able to hunt, and make a good companion. If they fail at any of those things then I think one can/should question the breeder's goals (I don't mean judge, I really mean one should ASK the breeder why they focus their program on such a narrow view of the breed).

The working world produces just as many disgustingly inbred, unhealthy, and dysfunctional dogs as the show world and pet. You cannot blame that on the kennel clubs or the standards, its the people producing the dogs that is to blame.

____

@dlroberts - What about your bird-dog hunting orgs and clubs, they hold working trials, do you blame those clubs for the state of all dog breeds too?

dlroberts

@brada1878 - In short, yes I do. They are just as guilty as the general kennel clubs of creating an "economy" that doesn't encourage the best possible practices for breeding.

With regards to assigning blame to the breeders that produce dysfunctional dogs, I wholeheartedly agree that the ultimate responsibility for those animals is the breeders who "produce" them. But, I stand by my comments from before that the real culprit is the underlying cause: the environments setup by the kennel or breed clubs that don't incentivize ensuring that doesn't happen enough.

Heidi

The fault is fairly broadly distributed, in my opinion. Breeders, buyers, dog show enthusiasts, kennel clubs, and so on, all exist to support each other, so you can't really pin it on any particular group. They all have a responsibility to be ethical in their decisions and dealings.

Sangmort

I'm with Heidi. It's sort of a catch-22, methinks.

If breeders deviate from the standard, but breed healthy-non-standard dogs...they are considered "non-reputable" & buyer's don't buy. Furthermore, other breeders won't sell them dogs knowing what they're doing.

If buyers do buy from breeders who deviated from the standard, the buyers are considered bad people for supporting non-reputable breeders & get slack from people who do support unhealthy "standard" breeds.

If the kennel club changes the standard to allow better health requirements in place of aesthetic qualities, the breeders would rebel against the club for dictating & changing the breed without their say.

If a GROUP of breeders decides they want to change the standard because of health reasons / whatever, that group becomes isolated by other breeders & eventually forms off to create it's "own" breed.

Sort of a vicious circle. ~

shibamistress

Yes, I see what you mean about the vicious circle.....Which is really sad, as it doesn't help dogs.

My feeling was that it's hard to lay blame on one group (whether that is kennel clubs or what have you) because it is much more widespread. And I'm also willing to cut breeders some slack, because I've only lately been discovering how damn hard it is to cover all the bases. Brad's hypothetical breeding thread got me thinking a lot, and just reading about issues everyone has had with dogs....it makes me aware that even in people who are trying to breed the very healthiest dogs possible, there is a lot that can go wrong, that we can't know or control. (I've been reading about microphthalmia, for example, which I very much hope my boy doesn't have, but it has given me some idea of how complicated genetics can be and how much you need to know).

What is more frustrating, though, is the people who simply don't care, and who don't try to take into consideration health issues. There are plenty of those people out there, unfortunately. And I also think sheer ignorance can do a lot of damage to dog breeds--people who may not have bad intentions but don't bother keeping up on canine health and genetics.