PDA

View Full Version : Independent report calls for 'drastic' measures for pedigree dogs



Karlin
10th February 2009, 02:33 AM
From Dog World: http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/7-RSPCA


RSPCA report recommends 'drastic measures'
10 Feb 2009 12:02


Urgent action is needed to safeguard the welfare of pedigree dogs, according to the contents of the independent scientific report commissioned by the RSPCA and revealed today.

It welcomes the Kennel Club’s decision to refuse to register puppies from close matings, but wants to go a step further and ban matings between grandparent and grandchild and half-sibling.

It states: “Changes in breeding practice are urgently required, and for some breeds more drastic measures will be needed.”

The report concludes that limited record keeping, lack of transparency in the breeding and showing world, and the absence of sufficient research mean that the ‘full extent of the problem’ is difficult to assess. It calls collection of disease prevalence data ‘unsystematic’.

It also suggests that dogs of certain breeds are born with a ‘high likelihood’ that they will not be granted at least one of the five freedoms considered necessary for their welfare.

“Dogs may suffer discomfort and be prevented from behaving normally without likely injury and/or have a high likelihood of developing a disease that can lead to pain, fear and distress,” it reads

“Most dog breeding is a hobby conducted by ‘dog lovers’ rather than truly utilitarian. Much of the suffering which some pedigree dogs endure could be avoidable with revised breeding practices. Human control of breeding has contributed to the problem. For these reasons, society has a strong moral obligation to solve this problem.”

Three of the measures considered to be of greatest priority are:

• Systematic collection of data on the diseases from which all dogs suffer, and causes of death;
• Changes to current registration rules to allow new genetic material to be introduced into breeds;
• Monitoring of the effectiveness of any changes to breeding strategies.
The report calls for a ‘summit’ of key stakeholders to take place following completion of the enquiry being held by the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.
For the full story see Friday’s DOG WORLD.

Ciren
10th February 2009, 03:03 AM
i feel an emotion i rarely feel, hope for the future.

wotton12000
11th February 2009, 01:35 PM
Hi All

The full RSPCA Report on Pedigree Dog Breeding and Executive Summary can be found on www.rspca.org.uk/pedigreedogs (http://www.rspca.org.uk/pedigreedogs)

It's a massive document (76 pages) and massively important for the future of pedigree dogs. Have now read and I'm starting the second read through (with highlighter pen).

It will go to all vet schools and other educational establishments. The Executive Summary will be sent to all breed clubs registered with the KC with the request that it be disseminated to rescue organisations associated with each breed club.

Understandably, the Report nor Exec Summary can be sent to all veterinary practices, so could I suggest that group members take or send a copy of the summary to their veterinary practices.

This Report has also had an emotional impact on me after the years of campaigning. No-one can ignore it, or claim that it is unscientific, or too generalised. Its authors are the most highly qualified in their field and they support the findings of 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' that the current system of pedigree dog breeding has caused serious harm to dogs and actions to address the welfare concerns are urgent.

February 10 2009 was a very good day for pedigree dogs.

Carol

HollyDolly
11th February 2009, 11:41 PM
As well as the RSPCA report in Dog World this week there is a Canine health supplement titled "What the breeds have achieved already"
I have been unable to find a link to these articles but briefly.
"The Cavalier Club welcomes the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the health of the breed. Members and Cavalier owners made the CKCSC aware that SM should be recognised as a problem in the breed and the club actively supported the research conducted by Clare Rusbridge"
It does not say it condemns the matings of SM affected dogs as many other breed club states when major health problems are discovered. Many Breed clubs have registers with named dogs on who either have or carry the genes for the disease that is problematic. The Briard breed club have a problem with night blindness and the Club states "No Briards were to be used in any breeding programme wiith night blindness" The Tibetan Terrier Club also have some health problems one famous Champion Dog was IMMEDIATELY withdrawn from stud when it was discovered he had a genetic disease. They too have a register that gives full details of affected dogs. Many other Breed clubs write that NO dogs are used in a breeding programmes when major diseases are found, this seriously affects the gene pool, but they would rather have that than breed puppies that might eventually succumb to disabling health problems.
It is a great pity that the CKCS Club to not follow the clubs mentioned above.

Nanette

diddy
12th February 2009, 12:32 AM
Sadly they have only 'recommended' breeding practices - a take it or leave it situation. There is no real effort coming from this club to sort out the mess. Its left to individual members own conscience..... and that is why 20 years on we STILL have MVD, Hip Dysplacia etc etc.

HollyDolly
12th February 2009, 10:53 PM
Sorry I meant the Tibetan Spaniel and not the Tibetan Terrier.

I now have the Dog World in front of me and here is what Jane Lilley says (breeder of Tibetan Spaniels)
Quote;-
"Maureen Sharp heard in 1990 that she had bred the granddam of a newly diagnosed case of PRA. The sire was a well know champion stud dog, whose owner was extremely responsible and not only removed him from stud, but gave the case wide publicity"
It is a great pity that the owner/breeder of the best in show at Malvern did not follow this wonderful, honourable example.
In West Highland White Terriers they state:-
In general the most undesirable health issues should be contained or controlled, as it is expected that breed club members follow a strict code of ethics, and abstain from using dogs at stud or mating bitches that dogs from lines know to carry serious inherited disease should not knowlingly be bred from.
Will the CKCS Club ever follow these examples?

Jan Bell
13th February 2009, 02:21 PM
Diddy: There is no real effort coming from this club to sort out the mess. Its left to individual members own conscience


This is the bit that worries me. I hear that many more breeders are scanning, but still the culture of the club is that of secrecy and denial. Who now is going to counter this?

I read today good news of a breeder who not only scans, but re-scans her dogs later. Yet when applauded for this she says she only does this because of her inexperience, and implies that more experienced breeders are "more likely to turn to their wisdom". Oh dear.:(

harleyfarley
13th February 2009, 02:27 PM
I think it will make this worse to be honest, good breeders that have their dogs tested for (i think it 5) inherited health problems will have to charge a lot more for their puppies as its going to cost the earth which means people will unbeknowingly by dogs who are cheaper not realising its gonna cost them long term and prob breed from those dogs before they even realise. All dogs showing problems should be neutered or spayed. di

EddyAnne
13th February 2009, 03:25 PM
Regarding the Report there is now audio interviews on Dog World, hear a lengthy audio of the KC representative then the RSPCA representatives via this link address, and where very brief text appear on the page.
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/7-interview

Interestingly Sydney University in Australia is mentioned, and where I know something about the 238 participating veterinary practices that have been collecting data for quite some time. It appears that the UK RVC is mentioned in the interview regarding this plus the Report, and I heard Caroline mention something about Legislation if to include ALL breeders into the ABS. Well things like these tend to arouse my interest, particularly when things from my part of the world are mentioned in the UK.
.

sins
13th February 2009, 04:38 PM
One quote that caught my eye was

However, what the KC would resist was the bar being set at one height for KC-registered dogs while being set at ‘probably non-existent’ for others.

As puppy buyers,wouldn't we all prefer to buy a KC reg pup,secure in the knowledge that the bar was in fact significantly higher for KC registered dogs.That way the puppy farmers could be more effectively sidelined by the buyers.
I'd happily pay more for a pup from health tested parents, even with the full understanding that there's no guarantee the dog is defect free.But I'd be happy to support that breeder who did all that was "reasonably practible" to assure the health of their pups.
Sins

Justine
13th February 2009, 06:56 PM
better late than never.

Margaret C
13th February 2009, 07:30 PM
Regarding the Report there is now audio interviews on Dog World, hear a lengthy audio of the KC representative then the RSPCA representatives via this link address, and where very brief text appear on the page.
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/News/7-interview

Interestingly Sydney University in Australia is mentioned, and where I know something about the 238 participating veterinary practices that have been collecting data for quite some time. It appears that the UK RVC is mentioned in the interview regarding this plus the Report, and I heard Caroline mention something about Legislation if to include ALL breeders into the ABS. Well things like these tend to arouse my interest, particularly when things from my part of the world are mentioned in the UK.
.

I have just listened to this. It is long, and I personally was not impressed with the KC response in the first half of the recording, but it is well worth listening to for the intelligent and measured description of the report by Mark Evans, the RSPCA chief Vet.

It was good to hear the importance of pet owners acknowledged.

The scientific assessment of the results of the hip dysplasia scheme so rang warning bells. Responsible breeders spending lots of money, but making little difference, because the scheme is not compulsory.

I am going to have to sit down & read the report thoroughly over the weekend.

Margaret C

Jan Bell
17th February 2009, 06:00 PM
I read today good news of a breeder who not only scans, but re-scans her dogs later. Yet when applauded for this she says she only does this because of her inexperience, and implies that more experienced breeders are "more likely to turn to their wisdom". Oh dear.:(

I posted this last week with genuine distress, partly due to my own experience when asking breeders about MVD when I was looking for another cavalier 2 years ago, but the original author on DW has said that I quoted her out of context:



As I have no opportunity of redressing this quote, taken ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT, on the forum where it's written, I feel I have to use this site. I have infact only rescanned one bitch over 5 but intend to continue with others.......I stated that I intend to use it as ONE TOOL IN MY ARMOURY as a breeder. If you all wish to listen to Mr Mark Evans podcast again..CAREFULLY..you will hear him clearly state that this problem need worked at from 3 sides like an equalateral triangle....one side SCIENCE...one side.....EXPERIENCE..and one side COMMON SENSE (his quote not mine).


I had no intention of upsetting this lady, to whom I originally only posted as I was so pleased to hear about her scanning, but have obviously done so, hence the post here.

HollyDolly
17th February 2009, 07:08 PM
Jan
I do not think you had posted anything at all that could be misinterpreted or misquoted or taken out of context. Her words were that more experiended Breeders would probaly use their wisdom. They constantly deny there is a SM problem with the breed, do not follow Club protocols, use SM affected stock for breeding and belittle anyone who they class as the SM police, where is the wisdom in that?
It was good to read that she scans and is going to continue to re-scan and I applaud her for that, but to use wisdom and experience to offer up a defense for NOT scanning is ludicrous.:bang:
I also feel she should stay away from forums where she is likely to read something that she does not agree with, this forum is PRO Cavalier health and anyone who does not like it then stay away.

Nanette

Jan Bell
18th February 2009, 09:54 AM
Nanette

I'm pretty upset about all this, to the point I am bowing out of the internet posting all together. I think perhaps it's a world I am not tought enough for, but will continue to raise funds for the SM collection fund etc.

Best wishes,

harleyfarley
18th February 2009, 10:26 AM
jan,

I dont know you that well and am new to this forum, but from what ive read ive found all your posts informative and to my knowledge correct, lets face it most of what we post is our point of view or how we see things. You are passionate about what you believe in and why shouldnt you say something that upsets someone else otherwise we would all be posting things that we didnt believe in.

I just hope you continue to post as i think your experience and knowledge is invaluable your certainly an inspiration to me. di

Sabby
18th February 2009, 12:54 PM
Hi Jan
I feel the same then Di. You are on this forum and help out a lot of people.
It will be our loss if you don’t post on here anymore not a loss to the people on Dog World they just be smiling. You made a genuine mistake so don’t beat yourself up over it. I have read real nasty things on Dog World and do you think they have sleepless nights? Don’t think so. So do all of us a favour and keep posting. We all genuinely care what happens to the cavaliers and their owners on here.

sins
18th February 2009, 02:07 PM
Hi Jan,
I've Pm'd you.
If you don't want to post on DW then it's probably a wise decision.One piece of good advice is when something upsetting happens to you on another forum or message board,don't let it carry over into this forum, which you clearly enjoy and I hope you will continue to share our company for a very long time.
You and "Marmar" seem to have cleared the air and sorted out any misunderstandings which is very good to see.
Sadly it's the idiots who use the DW facility to abuse,threaten and intimidate people who cause more damage the reputation of breeders.Ironically many of them may not even be breeders.
There is no witchhunting going on.
Sadly the list of members posting in the SM forum here continues to grow but the focus is on having the dog treated effectively and supporting the owner who is doing their best for their beloved pet.Noone asks these people who is the breeder?The more pertinent questions are related to medictions and treatments.
Now I can be as caustic as the next person,but if a breeder had a cavalier scanned and it does not have SM I would be genuinely pleased for him/her.
If a breeder scans a cavalier and it's found to be affected, my first thought is for the dog,my second would be sympathy for the breeder who's faced with a sick dog that they may care deeply for.
Now where I start having a problem is if that dog is bred with either an unscanned dog or another dog that isn't graded "A".
As hard as I try to examine all sides of the argument,I can't get my head
around the idea that a breeder who(with the help of club voucher schemes) has access to low cost scans for little more than the price of a decent pair of shoes can decide not to scan.I'm bewildered,even if it is just to contribute an Mri and a cheek swab to the EBV scheme surely it's worth doing.

Karlin
18th February 2009, 02:58 PM
As puppy buyers,wouldn't we all prefer to buy a KC reg pup,secure in the knowledge that the bar was in fact significantly higher for KC registered dogs.That way the puppy farmers could be more effectively sidelined by the buyers.

Agree! This has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments the KC and the CKCS Club makes -- that if they have any kind of standards at all, breeders will no longer join the club or get KC registration.

Well, if that is the case, it is a tacit admission that both clubs are toothless and inconsequential and serve more as social clubs and organisers of dog shows than protectors of dogs and breeds, which is supposed to be one of their primary roles (or so they both say).

And perhaps they are totally clueless about the fact that the public WRONGLY already assumes that KC registration and CKCS Club membership is of itself a kind of quality kite mark! How pathetic that neither leverages that real, live bit of positive reputation each has to actually do something that would really make a difference, rather than use this weak and sorry excuse to not get a spine and do something for the dogs.

Unless registration and club membership and showing dogs is linked to health compliance, no change will come.


As hard as I try to examine all sides of the argument,I can't get my head
around the idea that a breeder who(with the help of club voucher schemes) has access to low cost scans for little more than the price of a decent pair of shoes can decide not to scan.
:xctly:

So let's say a breeder does a 100 pound scan at 2.5, then rescans at say, 4 or so. If that bitch has a couple of litters, say 3-4, of even just two or three puppies each, this adds maybe a whopping 25 pounds to the cost of a puppy...

But all this is also forgetting that breeders soon will not have to scan every dog once the EBVs become available. So they will have NO excuse not to be using SM information to shape their breeding plans. Scans will continue to help shape and refine EBVs but every dog in the UK with a pedigree already has an EBV as they can already be calculated from the initial pool of hundreds of scans. If you have scanned a dog with a pedigree PLEASE submit it to Dr Sarah Blott to help shape the EBVs.