Documentary "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" airing in US

[vjw]

I'm a purebred/pedigree dog lover (I have two purebreds), but I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the health of these dogs with all that's being aired and published about canine genetics.

I know this is a highly emotional and highly controversial topic, so please try to look at this objectively. I know that there's a lot of breeders out there who are doing their best to diversify the gene pool of pedigree dogs, but allegedly there's still many breeders who aren't.

I debated on whether or not to post this forum, but since it's being aired in the US, I know some of your clients will be discussing it. Just wanted to give you a heads up.


BBC America (BBCA) will be airing "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" on America's
stations this Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 8/7c PM. The channel number
for BBCA depends on what cable/satellite channel you have. On my dish
network it's 135. I viewed the first part on youtube and it's one of the
saddest and hardest to watch programs I've ever seen.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/29...gs-exposed.jsp


When this program was originally shown on BBC, it created much controversy
and caused various sponsors and trade exhibitors including Pedigree, Hill's,
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and UK's
largest dog welfare charity Dogs Trust to withdraw their participation
from Crufts dog show. The BBC withdrew its coverage of Crufts for 2009
and 2010.


I've been researching to see what studies I can find on purebred or
pedigree canine genetics and have found some interesting articles.


Here's a link to a couple of studies which I think all purebred dog owners
should know about:


This is a summary of a study by the Imperial College London published in
August 2008 which was the impetus for the BBC documentary and public
outcry that led to the cancellation of the airing of Crufts.:

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandev...8-2008-12-22-2

If you want to read the technical version of the Imperial College study,
which was published in Genetics in 2008, you can find it here:

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/...tics;179/1/593

[DBT]

i have seen this program several times ,and quite frankly was alarmed at the discussion going on in the pure breed dog community afterwards.
The people featured on this program deserved what they got IMHO
I just hope some good can come of it and that it was a massive wake up call to breeders and clubs everywhere that the only way to stop this rot is to be honest with ourselves,to step back and look at the bigger picture,not just at the dogs in our yard and the ribbons on our wall......

[gr8danlvr1]

I saw that story online a while back. I do find it quite disgusting. HOWEVER: I don't feel like they spent enough time explaining that breeders need to health test and remove these specimens from their breeding program. It merely felt like a bashing of pure bred dogs and showing enthusiasts. I would be afraid that the uneducated masses would take that as a perfectly good excuse to go buy designer breeds and such. Dont' get me wrong, there is nothing wrong w/ a mixed breed dog, but there is also nothing wrong w/ a well bred, health tested purebred. I felt like they should have spent just as much time on education as well as putting a spot light on the problem. What happens to all the dog breeds when most of America thinks that anything purebred is not a good thing? They start to disappear, what a huge shame that would be.

[SwissNChow]

There definitely are bad dog breeders, even in the show world. However, it is completely off base to paint all show dog breeders with the same stroke. Some of us do put a lot of time and work into making sure our show dogs are extremely healthy and structurally sound. If some breeders are breeding unhealthy and unsound dogs, it is no one's fault but those breeders who are using such practices. Yes, there are bad judges too, but those judges can only judge what they are presented with, it is the breeders that put those dogs in the ring.

It does make sense that the documentary was made looking at the worst cases. If they didn't focus on the worst cases, they would never have been able to prove their point. We all know that documentaries are virtually always produced with a point of view and the intent to prove their point. If they didn't have a point to prove, they wouldn't make the film. The fact is that the majority of purebred dogs are not seriously inbred. While they may have been inbred to develop the breeds, responsible breeders today are careful about that. It's also important to remember that no matter how tightly bred a dog is, it isn't the tight breeding that causes health issues...those health issues have to be in the genetics for them to be expressed. Yes, there are diseases that do run in one breed or another, but if it were not for the studying of purebred dogs with known ancestry, there would be little advancement in treating those diseases. Virtually all diseases found in purebred dogs are also seen in the mix-bred dog population. There simply are dog diseases. However, tests have been developed and responsible show dog breeders utilize those tests in attempt to breed away from those health problems. I don't know too many mix-bred dogs that have their eyes, ears, and joints tested before they are bred, yet I sure have seen many dysplastic mix-bred dogs with cataracts and deafness.

I do find it interesting that people think only great dogs are exhibited at Crufts. That is a show that is open to non-champion dogs and that show is HUGE. The average dog show in the US has less than 2000 dogs competing, Westminster is limited to an entry of 2500 Champions. The AKC invitational is also well under 5000 dogs and they keep loosening the entry requirements to build a bigger entry. The entry at Crufts in 2009 was around 28,000 dogs! Many non-champions, and many dogs entered will never obtain their Championship. The dog population in England is way smaller than the US, and while some of those dogs are from foreign countries, there simply are going to be a lot of dogs that lack quality when the entry of the show is 28,000.

We live in an age that seems to treat all documentaries as the Holy Truth. Perhaps we should not be so gullible. If someone were to make a documentary that painted the grooming industry in a horrible light, we'd be up in arms about how incorrect it was. But it always seems that if people see a documentary on a subject they don't know much about, they are sudden experts once the credits roll.

I'm going to venture out and say that the National Breed clubs are the main groups out there promoting responsible breeding practices. You just don't get good breeding education from your average vet. While I think everyone who breeds dogs should take the time to educate themselves, if they don't know where to get that education, and their vet can't (or won't) lead them in the right direction, they only have their neighbor to listen to, and that neighbor may be one of the worst people to listen to.

[fiveoclockdog]

I'm not going to repeat everything SwissnChow said, I'm just going to agree with it.

[fiveoclockdog]

Just had to add...

After watching the footage of the GSDs in the show ring I can tell you that I would NEVER EVER have a dog with rear movement like that in my breeding program. It was a disgrace. It's possible to have a dog with angulation and a nice turn of stifle without sacrificing soundness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW5-n_wSEuo

[Poodleluv]

The sad thing about that program was what it didn't say. It certainly did a good job of exposing everything that is wrong, However it made no mention of the many dedicated breeders who are doing everything right and consistently producing sound,long lived dogs.

[SwissNChow]

The sad thing about that program was what it didn't say. It certainly did a good job of exposing everything that is wrong, However it made no mention of the many dedicated breeders who are doing everything right and consistently producing sound,long lived dogs.

Good news would have been against their message. We have to remember, the Animal Rights movement wants ALL breeding to stop. They want dog ownership ended and no breeding at all. They can't accomplish that by promoting breeders that are actually doing things right. Their goal was to paint what is supposed to be the "best" as "shockingly horrible."

The sad thing is that the British really caved to them. Crufts was not shown on TV and subsequently, several breeds have had their breed standards changed, and many breeds are now on restriction as to what they can and cannot import.

Now, over here, when NBC was being pressured to take Westminster off the air, NBC basically gave them the middle finger. Go NBC! Apparently people like watching the dogs on TV. Good thing for the Westminster coverage is they try to make it more and more educational every year.

[SwissNChow]

I was wondering last night about why the sudden resurgence of this documentary? Why am I seeing it on multiple dog lists at this particular time? And then it dawned on me, why, the AKC Invitational of course! The best of the best are in California at the Invitational this week! Of course the timing is not a coincidence!

[D'tails]

That complete series is available to watch on Youtube in 5 or 6 parts.

I have seen it and while I believe they do have a point in some areas. The series is HIGHLY slanted and agenda based.

Animal Rights people are waging an assault against all breeders so it is no surprise that they chose to devote their energy into filming a biased piece against purbreds instead of highlighting the good work that goes on in purebred dogs regarding health foundations, etc.

You also have to remember that this was filmed in Europe where they have caved to an AR agenda and banned tail docking, ear crops and hunting.

We all know negative stories get the best ratings.

[Helly]

I Dont' get me wrong, there is nothing wrong w/ a mixed breed dog, but there is also nothing wrong w/ a well bred, health tested purebred. .

Actually, there can be a LOT wrong with mixed breed dogs. And usually there is. Breeders (either intentional or the litters that are an OOOPS) are most often not using good quality, sound individuals to produce these mixed breed dogs. They have bad hips, bad knees, bad skin, heart problems, diabetes, liver shunts, and hypothyroidism just as much as purebreds. Maybe more.

Bad genes are bad genes, whether they come from parents of the same breed or different breeds. And most often, the purebreds with the good genes are being used to produce more purebred puppies with good genes. It's the dogs who should never be bred to any other dog that go into the genetic pool of most mixed breed dogs.

[doggydivas]

I have to agree with Helly on this. Mixed Breed aka Designer Breeds, for the most part, are not using good quality dogs. At least not in my area. These breeders are getting any ole poodle and any ole "other" breed and breeding them. Now, don't get me wrong, I know there are a lot of good, well meaning Designer Dog breeders out there. Just like there are a lot of good, well meaning Purebred breeders out there. BUT I am seeing a lot of serious health problems and behavioral problems coming from designer dogs. Even more so than Purebred.
I mean, is the average DD breeders doing all the health testing? Are they spending the money to get good healthy breeding stock? if they are getting good, healthy breeding stock where are they getting it from? A good Purebred breeder? Prolly not!
Case in point, a good friend of mine got a Maltichon. I asked her WHY she wanted a designer dog. Her response was "they have less health problems than purebred". Her DD's name is Bella. For the first 2 years of her life the dog was everything a dog should be. Healthy as healthy gets. All of a sudden she became really lethargic, chewed and chewed on her ears an hocks making them bleed. She would just sit and stare at things as if she wasn't there. Now her face is numb to the point she has chewed half of her tongue off, has a big hole in her lip from biting, is blind in one eye and wears a cone 24/7 because of the chewing. My friend has spent half of their savings on this dog. No one can figure out what is wrong. They have been to Michigan State and had neurological specialists do every testing under the sun. No one can figure it out. The only option now is putting her to sleep. Apparently the DD isn't any healthier than the same quality bred Purebred.
Also keep in mind Documentaries are very one sided and meant to change your thinking on the particular topic at hand. The people that put these types of shows together only want you to see their way of thinking. That is how it works. Just like that one movie on corn and it's affect on Corn Fed cows (I think it was King Corn" or something like that). It made all farmers who raise cows look like Hitler. It was disgusting!
Every time I watch a documentary I have to tell myself that the instances shown in the documentary are the worst cases out there. That is why they are featured in the show. I mean, what is the percentage of purebreds that REALLY have serious health problems VS. mixed breeds? No one can breed the perfect dogs every time. No one.
Now what would really cut down on health problems within the dogs is to have every dog in the world fixed that wasn't of good breeding qualifications. Mandatory screening done of every breeding thereafter. If a person wants to breed there dog it has to be "approved" by someone. That "someone" would verify that there is no inbreeding or linebreeding, make sure all health testing has been performed and the tests come back excellent. That "someone" would then make sure that all dogs that go to pet homes have their dog fixed. All show homes have to go through the same things as the breeder if they want to breed.....But really WHO is going to do that?
This epidemic isn't going to go away. There are too many breeders that are in it for the money and don't care about the dogs health. I know of a few breeders in my area that will breed dogs KNOWING they have serious health problems. They don't care about passing on hereditary illnesses at all. It's a shame. These same "breeders" will sell the dogs with full breeding rights. Then the people who buy them breed those dogs. It goes ON and ON. It gives the good breeders a bad name.

[vjw]

Do any of you have links to canine genetics articles in veterinary journals you'd like to share?

I know there's a WHOLE lot of genetic studies going on and some veterinary schools are archiving DNA samples of dogs and evaluating the genetics in those dogs who are diagnosed with illnesses via diagnostic tests.

I found a couple of studies this past week and this one in the Canadian Veterinary Journal really concerned me, especially the part on pages five and six about Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding (COI) in purebred/pedigreed dogs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950109/



Joy

[SwissNChow]

Joy, That article is yet another very slanted arguement. Inbreeding and linebreeding does not cause disease. The disease can only occur if it is in the genes of the parents. If the parents don't have it, you could breed siblings together and they still won't produce it.

Now, I don't recommend the breeding of siblings. Very, very few do. That is more often a tactic of a poor breeder who cares nothing about the dogs they produce that lacks access to a non-related male. Yes, there are breeders who carefully do some linebreeding. It is normally well studied, done for a specific reason, and then future generations are purposely bred in a different direction. Linebreeding can have a very legit purpose and done well with the right dogs does indeed produce very healthy individuals who are a true credit to their breed.

The COI of the vast majority of mix-bred dogs has remained 0% for generations. Yet, breeding 0% COI never has and never will eliminate disease in the canine. It is true that most purebred dogs stem from a very small gene pool originally that first developed the breed, yet now through time and breeding there is indeed a reasonable gene pool for most breeds. There are some rare breeds that are still in what you would call a "bottleneck" but most breeds are not in that situation.

COI can be very confusing as well, and the mathmatics do not always tell the whole story. I could take my girl with a high COI (12.5%) and breed her to a non-related male with a COI of 12.5% and their puppies would have a COI of 0%. That doesn't really tell the whole story, but the mathmatics of a 0% COI sounds great.

While I appreciate the attempt to make breeding a mathmatical equation, it just isn't that simple. By gosh, if breeding were a simple thing, we would all have the "recipe" by now. Take one CH quality male with good hips, elbows, eyes, ears, thyroid, blood, etc and breed him to one CH quality female with good hips, elbows, eyes, ears, thyroid, blood, etc and you create 8 little CH quality puppies with good hips, elbows, eyes, ears, thyroid, blood, etc But, it just isn't that simple. Breeding is hard. The plan sounds good, but it just doesn't work out that way.

There are countries that utilize "Breed Wardens" to regulate the breeding of dogs. One of my breeds is the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog and Switzerland is its country of origin. They have a breed warden that must approve all breeding stock and determines which dogs can be bred to which. They limit how many times a dog is allowed to be used, how often and even have limited litter size. The results of that breeding approach is not that impressive. My last trip to Switzerland looking for a potential dog to bring to the US was very dissapointing and I didn't find a single dog I even considered half as good as our dogs here in the US where we are allowed to make our own decisions. Their dogs are not healthier, they have not eliminated any breed common disease, and many are far from what you could consider physically sound. Sad really. Here in the US, we have a much larger gene pool to choose from for breeding and we seem to be doing better with our overall quality. Interesting since we are all allowed to make our own decisions and we all approach it with different points of view.

[vjw]

Joy, That article is yet another very slanted arguement. Inbreeding and linebreeding does not cause disease. The disease can only occur if it is in the genes of the parents. If the parents don't have it, you could breed siblings together and they still won't produce it.

Now, I don't recommend the breeding of siblings. Very, very few do. That is more often a tactic of a poor breeder who cares nothing about the dogs they produce that lacks access to a non-related male. Yes, there are breeders who carefully do some linebreeding. It is normally well studied, done for a specific reason, and then future generations are purposely bred in a different direction. Linebreeding can have a very legit purpose and done well with the right dogs does indeed produce very healthy individuals who are a true credit to their breed.

The COI of the vast majority of mix-bred dogs has remained 0% for generations. Yet, breeding 0% COI never has and never will eliminate disease in the canine. It is true that most purebred dogs stem from a very small gene pool originally that first developed the breed, yet now through time and breeding there is indeed a reasonable gene pool for most breeds. There are some rare breeds that are still in what you would call a "bottleneck" but most breeds are not in that situation.

COI can be very confusing as well, and the mathmatics do not always tell the whole story. I could take my girl with a high COI (12.5%) and breed her to a non-related male with a COI of 12.5% and their puppies would have a COI of 0%. That doesn't really tell the whole story, but the mathmatics of a 0% COI sounds great.

While I appreciate the attempt to make breeding a mathmatical equation, it just isn't that simple. By gosh, if breeding were a simple thing, we would all have the "recipe" by now. Take one CH quality male with good hips, elbows, eyes, ears, thyroid, blood, etc and breed him to one CH quality female with good hips, elbows, eyes, ears, thyroid, blood, etc and you create 8 little CH quality puppies with good hips, elbows, eyes, ears, thyroid, blood, etc But, it just isn't that simple. Breeding is hard. The plan sounds good, but it just doesn't work out that way.

There are countries that utilize "Breed Wardens" to regulate the breeding of dogs. One of my breeds is the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog and Switzerland is its country of origin. They have a breed warden that must approve all breeding stock and determines which dogs can be bred to which. They limit how many times a dog is allowed to be used, how often and even have limited litter size. The results of that breeding approach is not that impressive. My last trip to Switzerland looking for a potential dog to bring to the US was very dissapointing and I didn't find a single dog I even considered half as good as our dogs here in the US where we are allowed to make our own decisions. Their dogs are not healthier, they have not eliminated any breed common disease, and many are far from what you could consider physically sound. Sad really. Here in the US, we have a much larger gene pool to choose from for breeding and we seem to be doing better with our overall quality. Interesting since we are all allowed to make our own decisions and we all approach it with different points of view.

You have a good point that disease won't be eliminated by mixing breeds or in breeding mutts. As it stands currently there's always a chance that something will crop up. Hopefully in the future, it'll be possible to eliminate most of the genetic disorders though. One reason so much time and money is being put into canine genetic research is so it'll help with human genetic disorders. I thought they were studying canines because the gene pools are limited and because of inbreeding. (???)