CAWC strong message

From Dog's Today

Tuesday, 25 November 2008

Ethics and extinction

A very strong new report from the Companion Welfare Animal Welfare Council (CAWC), issued yesterday, has concluded that an independent advisory body needs to be set up to decide on genetic welfare issues on a breed-by-breed basis.
It considers that this advisory role could be fulfilled by CAWC and that it should look at ethical and practical concerns to decide if continuing to breed from some of the unhealthiest pedigree dogs could be justified. And if there are valid arguments for continuing - it will outline what the appropriate breeding strategies need to be.
If any breeders needed another boot up the backside to put health higher up their agenda this will certainly provide it.
CAWC simplified things considerably by saying there are three possible approaches in every breed:
1. Breeding to reduce prevalence or eliminate within the breed
2. Outbreeding to reduce prevalence or eliminate
3. Ceasing to breed at all from potential carriers

Click to expand...

Much more on this at website
http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/2008/11/ethics-and-extinction.html

Thanks for that!

I've been scratching my head trying to make sense of all this.
I know some people are already heralding the demise of the cavalier on foot of this report.
Can someone help clarify this for me.?
CAWC are a welfare group in the UK who do research and produce reports of companion animal welfare.So they have not ruled out the possibility of discontinuing a severly compromised breed of dog.
How would you go about "decommissioning" a breed?
Would it not require legislation and the backing of the KC to do this?
Finally this I presume would have no influence outside of the UK and you could continue to breed any type of creature you wised in The USA, Ireland or Sweden?
I mean where are they going with this???
I can understand the points about breeding to reduce prevalence or eliminate within the breed.
But with all the advances made in medical and gene technology isn't it very premature to even suggest allowing some breeds to die out?
Wouldn't it be a shame to lose a breed of dog in 2009 when the technology to save it may come along in 2012??
*scratches head again*icon_nwunsure
Sins

sins said:

I've been scratching my head trying to make sense of all this.
I know some people are already heralding the demise of the cavalier on foot of this report.
Can someone help clarify this for me.?
CAWC are a welfare group in the UK who do research and produce reports of companion animal welfare.So they have not ruled out the possibility of discontinuing a severly compromised breed of dog.
How would you go about "decommissioning" a breed?
Would it not require legislation and the backing of the KC to do this?
Finally this I presume would have no influence outside of the UK and you could continue to breed any type of creature you wised in The USA, Ireland or Sweden?
I mean where are they going with this???
I can understand the points about breeding to reduce prevalence or eliminate within the breed.
But with all the advances made in medical and gene technology isn't it very premature to even suggest allowing some species to die out?
Wouldn't it be a shame to lose a breed of dog in 2009 when the technology to save it may come along in 2012??
*scratches head again*icon_nwunsure
Sins

Click to expand...

Excellent post, I wish this group would concentrate on wiping out the puppy farmers!

Must admit I had exactly the same problem trying to figure this one out. Some bits just dont quite make sense do they?. I thought at first I must have misread it. I decided to leave it to the experts on this board to figure it out, and check back again in a few days, when hopefully someone on here will have come up with a 'Version for Thickos' like me.

But animal welfare isn't just about puppy farms. And puppy farms are a well known, well understood problem and an issue individuals and existing organisations can campaign on and already campaign on. The RSPCA just launched a major campaign a few months ago. The issue is surely not whether puppy farms are a welfare issue or how to address them; it is a matter of enforcing existing legislation, providing the resources to do this, and also expecting the RSPCA and KC to do more and/or providing it funding to do so, the KC for example gives KC registration to hundreds of puppy farm bred dogs annually and is a silent if accidental partner in the whole system. Only about a fifth of all registered litters are from breed club registered breeders, for example.

While there is obviously a difference in intent, I can't see that there is strategically much difference in the KC deciding to reconsider breed standards and CAWC considering whether some breeds should not be recognised and breeding same should be disallowed if the breed suffers serious health problems and/or disabilities. How is it moral to keep breeding animals on a competitive or financial basis, where a high number suffer simply to suit a human desire for a dog or cat that looks a certain way? The way in which animals are bred, and whether any regard is taken towards overall breed health, has to be as central to welfare as whether someone abuses an animal. I cannot see the difference between knowingly breeding animals carrying a serious health problem and physically abusing an animal. It wouldn't require KC support though -- national legislation trumps what the KC wants or does not want. The KC itself already argues it cannot even require the most minimal health standards because it has no authority to require or enforce anything.

Many countries have differing approaches to welfare and legislation and just because one country allows a practice, that surely is no excuse not to act in another jurisdiction. For example the UK doesn't allow docking etc and the US does and that obviously will affect Crufts entries for example but that is something breeders have to deal with. And already some breeds are recognised in some countries that are not recognised in others.

Finally breeds disappear all the time due to simple disinterest from the public and breeders. And on the flip side, many breeds are actually of fairly recent origin -- cavaliers, like wolfhounds and many other breeds, are an artificially created breed with a 'history' of less than 100 years. And they have changed quite a bit in appearance even since the 1970s much less the 1930s when a lot of them looked like small springers, with longer noses and often with heavy ticking. A widespread genetic problem is actually very difficult to remove -- you are relying not on the gene tests and guidelines but on breeders using them. Again, only a fifth of registered litters come from club breeders likely to care about spending a penny extra on health and using EBVs. All those others obviously just breed to sell puppies and make money off them. They sure are not going to be matching the best EBVs! Or heart testing. Or MRIing. Or doing eye tests. Or caring about dry eye/curly coat.

I don't think anyone wants to see breeds lost. But surely, something besides a laissez faire approach to breeding is needed and a broader welfare approach needs to be considered and debated by all interested parties. CAWC is opening up that discussion.