Permission granted to cross-post
Part one (this is too long to post in one section):
Part one (this is too long to post in one section):
Purebred Paradox Conference Notes and Observations Cross-posting
I have received so many requests for permission to forward this to clubs
and other lists and to put it in newsletters, that I decided to put the whole
thing on the Got50 blog at:
http://got50.blogspot.com/2011/05/purebred-paradox-conference.html
You're welcome to cut and paste from there or simply use the link. The blog
entry also has links to many of the reports mentioned in the post.
Sharyn Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders
The Purebred Paradox Conference (held on April 28th & 29th in Wash. D.C.)
Background: In 2008 the BBC released a documentary produced by Jemima
Harrison, called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. (PDE) The premise of the documentary is
that breeding practices, breed standards (or their interpretations), and
judging practices are seriously compromising the health of purebred dogs.
(Note: In England, a dog registered with the Kennel Club is called a pedigree
dog. In the US, we use the term purebred for any dog of pure parentage.)
The program generated such a public outcry that th_e Kennel Club made some
major changes_ (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2234/23/5/3) : reviewed
all breed standards and altered some of them. It also made changes in
judging practices, put restrictions on the number of c-sections bitches could
have, and prohibited extremely close inbreeding. The Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) presented a conference on the topic last month called
The Purebred Paradox: On the Health and Welfare of Pedigree Dogs.)
=====================================
With the support of the _Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders_
(http://www.virginiafederation.org/) Alice Harrington and I attended the
Purebred Paradox conference April 28-29 in Washington, DC. We discussed long
and hard whether to attend -- since it was hosted by HSUS, we obviously
were not interested in supporting the conference. But we felt someone needed
to go to find out what was said. AKC had decided not to participate, which
was the right decision for them. AKC and the parent clubs have much invested
in improving the health of our dogs and the disscussion and action is
ongoing. Nothing the animal rights organizations can do will help, unless they
would like to make a contribution to the AKC Canine Health Foundation or
fund a parent club health study. That is not likely to happen. However, if
they're going to be discussing the health of purebred dogs, we need to know
what they're saying.So in the end, our decision was to go. It was not the
first HSUS conference we've attended, and unfortunately, it won't be the last.
Mostly, however, we were pleasantly surprised by the content of this one.
The agenda was full, but some of the subjects were obviously "filler" and
were only very tangentially related to the genetic problems of purebreds.
The strictly on-topic presentations were fairly sparse.
First a few notes:
-- We counted only about 60 people in the auditorium, and as far as we
know, fewer than ten were actually breeders. The others were: 17 speakers,
Matthew Stander from Dog News, a double handful of veterinarians (including
Gail Golab from AVMA and Dr. Patty Khuly, who writes the _Fully Vetted blog_
(http://www.petmd.com/blogs/fullyvetted) ) a couple of vet students, two or
three experts in assistance dog training, two or three rescuers, two UKC
folks, and a slew of HSUS staff, including John Goodwin. (I was told that
HSUS staff received free registration and were encouraged to attend.)
-- Thuogh AKC was not officially represented, Patty Haines, former AKC
board member and a practicing veterinarian, spoke about the role of parent
clubs and how the breed standards are written and controlled in the US (The
Kennel Club in England owns the standards). Also at least three AKC club
delegates were in the audience.
-- Though we had some AR speakers the first day, the AR slant was not much
in evidence. Most of the presentations were largely factual. More on this
later
-- The final speaker was from Best Friends with the usual "evils of puppy
mills" rant, so we ended on a much less pleasant note than we began.
-- Jemima Harrison struck me as a sincere person who cares deeply about
this subject. I like her. While I still cannot agree with the sensationalist
aspects of "Pedigree Dogs Exposed," I do understand now why the
sensationalism was there. More on that later, too.
-- In addition to the predictable RSPCA, HSUS, etc representatives,
speakers included geneticists, veterinarians, behaviorists, and scientists. Some
had an AR haze around them but most did not
The bottom line delivered by most (not all) speakers: Every living being
has some genetic disease and dogs are no exception. Mixed breeds have about
as much as purebreds, especially designer breeds, since they are usually
mixes of breeds that share the same genetic defects. Genetic disease is made
worse by some common breeding practices:
-- Inbreeding, which includes linebreeding
-- Use of popular sires
-- Breeding for exaggerated characteristics that affect health or soundness
-- Acceptance by breeders of genetic disease as unavoidable (e.g., breeds
frequently affected by cancer at young ages)
-- About a dozen breeds are considered to be in serious trouble and I
think we can look for focused attention on their problems, both in the press
and possibly from other sources. They are, as well as I can remember: German
shepherd dog, pug, Pekingese, Cavalier King Charles spaniel, boxer, all the
mastiffs, Chinese sharpei, dachshund, English bulldog, Bernese mountain
dog, flat coat retriever. In addition, the other brachycephelic breeds,
others with lots of wrinkles, the giant breeds, and the achondroplastic breeds
will also be targeted.
-- Nothing legislative was mentioned specifically.
Several of the speakers were excellent. Some seemed to be there to fill
out the agenda and their topics had little directly to do with the seminar
topic.
SUMMARY OF THE PRESENTATIONS
Introduction was by Andrew Rowan, president and CEO, Humane Society
International; chief international officer and chief scientific officer, HSUS.
You have to give Dr. Rowan credit. He set the tone as nonconfrontational and
I detected no anti-breeder bias whatsoever. He pointed out the huge
reduction in euthanasia since 1970 (90 percent) and also asked the question that
if the US population needs nine million puppies a year, where are they going
to come from? Dr. Rowan's comments really got the meeting off to a good
start and I would have had a hard time placing him at HSUS and HSI if I had
not read his bio.
Context and Unifying Principles: Science and Policy
Bernard Unti
Senior policy adviser and special assistant to the President/CEO of HSUS.
His bio says he "works on a wide range of strategic, policy, program, and
communications priorities for HSUS and its affiliated entities.
The crux of his comments is that HSUS is "trying to build networks with
government agencies and NGOs" (non-governmental agencies)
Problems of dog-breeding and what to do about them
The keynote speaker was Sir Patrick Bateson, president of the Zoological
Society of London and author of the _Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding_
(http://breedinginquiry.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/final-dog-inquiry-120110.p
df) (2010) He was entertaining and funny and the first of many to tell
us about the_ silver fox study_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox) .
His own inquiry covered all types of breeders in Britain and his findings
were that the welfare problems in dog breeding come down to:
-- negligence (he's talking about substandard breeders)
-- inbreeding
-- breeding dogs with genetic problems
-- artificial selection for extremes and judges rewarding extremes
-- puppy sales to unsuitable homes (wrong breed for the situation)
He holds high coefficients of inbreeding responsible for reduced
fertility, developmental abnormalities, lower birth weight, higher infant mortality,
shorter lifespan, and loss of immune function.
Bateson talked about the problems of c-sections and stated some pretty
amazing statistics. The one that floored me was that Boston Terriers have a
92.3% caesarian rate in England.
The way forward, according to Bateson includes:
-- providing the best available science to breeders
-- rewarding good breeders and recognizing their efforts to improve health
-- educating the public about what constitutes good welfare/good breeding
and appropriate behavior (I assume he means behavior of specific breeds)
-- helping the public find good breeders
-- placing more emphasis on microchipping
-- and (here it comes) providing backstop of effective regulation
He stated that all three studies that followed PDE had advised setting up
an "_independent advisory council_ (http://dogadvisorycouncil.org.uk/) ,"
which has been done in Britain -- Sheila Crispin, described as a "leading
expert in the field of dog welfare" is the chairman.
He concluded that breeding brings a great deal of personal satisfaction to
humans, but the "cost in welfare to dogs has not been very happy." He says
he does not want breeding stopped, but we need some quality assurance.
--
Breed risks for disease in purebred dogs
Brenda Bonnett, BSc, DVM
Her complete bio (I am quoting the whole thing because she was an
excellent speaker, non AR, and extremely informative) "After years as tenured
faculty in the Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College,
University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, Brenda is now a Consulting
Epidemiologist and currently Lead Scientist for the Morris Animal Foundation Canine
Longitudinal Health Project. Her research has involved numerous species and
disciplines, with a focus on companion animals, population-based research
utilizing secondary data sources (most notably a large veterinary insurance
database in Sweden), human-animal interactions and medical communication."
The research we heard about has been primarily based on that insurance
database -- Why Sweden? Because our pet insurance companies won't share their
information due to "privacy concerns." Her studies were based on facts,
she did not condemn breeders, and she asked very interesting questions:
-- Which causes of death are acceptable? How about for humans? We all die
of something. Obviously causes of death that do not cause a great deal of
suffering are best.
-- Are there acceptable levels of disease within a breed?
-- How do we promote acceptable breeding practices and keep the good
breeders?
-- How do we create collaboration rather than confrontation (among
organizations, but individual people as well)
-- Is it okay for us to create/enhance breeds to suit our purposes? (She
answered this one: Yes, that is what domestication is all about) What are
the limits? Who decides the limits?
A few interesting points:
Mixed breeds are at slightly less risk of genetic disease but they're at a
higher risk of injury. Conditions causing death of purebreds and
crossbreeds are not very different in Sweden, however, she pointed out that most
crossbreds in Sweden are purpose-bred and/or a mix of two purebreds. They
don't have the "Heinz 57" dogs we have here.
Eighty percent of pet owners in Sweden have pet insurance.
The insurance companies provide "_breed profiles_
(http://www.agria.se/hund/artikel/agria-dog-breed-profiles-0) " free to the Swedish breed clubs so
they can see what their breeds are dying of. You'll have to get your browser
to translate if you don't read Swedish and apparently you can order the
profiles from the site.
Sweden is establishing (or has established -- my notes fail me) a "Breed
Specific Breeding Strategy." It is kennel cub and breed club driven -- no
legislation or government involvement. The breed clubs must provide a
description of the issues their dogs face and outline what is being done to
address them. Problems are evaluated: common? high risk? severe/fatal? age of
onset? control? prevention?
Efficacy of hip dysplasia screening: An animal welfare imperative
Gail K. Smith, VMD, PhD
Dr. Smith is Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery in the Department of
Clinical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine.
In 1993 he founded PennHIP (the University of Pennsylvania Hip
Improvement Program).
Maybe I'm a little cynical but the main take-away message I got from Dr.
Smith's address was that 1) he thinks PennHip is way better than OFA and 2)
artificial selection has had little to no effect on hip dysplasia, and 3)
as a rule, greyhounds do not get osteoarthritis
Brachycephalic airway syndrome: Etiology, treatment, and prevention
John R. Lewis, VMD, FAVD, DAVDC
This was a graphic and interesting talk on the problems our brachycephalic
breeds face due to their shortened (or nonexistent!)
muzzles--brachycephalic airway syndrome. Dr. Lewis made the comment that the market for designer
breeds might be partially driven by health concerns of pet owners -- as he
said, the puggle does give the pug more muzzle. (I've heard that theory
before, "hybrid vigor" being a reason people flock to the designer breeds)
We saw some graphic slides of various problems -- from narrow nostrils to
elongated soft palate to everted laryngeal saccules. As someone who has
never owned brachycephalic dogs, I found this presentation interesting and
somewhat alarming. He said we have reduced the muzzle until there is not enough
room in it for the soft tissue. But as with many of the "facts" presented
at this conference, no indication was given of what percentage of dogs are
affected with breathing difficulties or whether breeders are working to
address these problems.