UK BBC "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

I don't doubt it's made waves there. I doubt it's very balanced...most things like this aren't. I probably would give it a miss...being compared to N**i's isn't really on my list of things to accomplish on a given day.

One thing that I'm very concerned about is that shows and articles like this, with their flavor of "OMG PUREBRED DOGS ARE ALL DYING YOURS TOO!" is that they really, really encourage John Q Public to think he's getting something 'better' when he gets a deisgner dog. I'd take a downright INBRED dog with some health testing over a complete outcross of two breeds with no health testing in the pedigree! And I'd rather take an UNTESTED or minimally tested dog from a generally healthy breed (oh, say, a greyhound, or a Dalmatian) than a 'genetically diverse' 1st generation crossbred from two breeds with most of the same health problems! Plus, I'd really like to see some studies done on breeds which have small gene pools which HAVEN'T been hit with popularity. I mean... Cardigan Corgis would be the first that comes to mind. OFAing hips and elbows and PRA testing (which you don't even need to do, most dogs are cleared by pedigree) and CERF are what are required for CHIC status. And the German Spitz is an healthy breed considering how tiny the gene pool is outside Germany- and it's not large IN Germany, either. But the breed has almost NO incidence of any health problems- the main one is retinal dysplasia.

Pwca

I'd really like to see some studies done on breeds which have small gene pools which HAVEN'T been hit with popularity. I mean... Cardigan Corgis would be the first that comes to mind. OFAing hips and elbows and PRA testing (which you don't even need to do, most dogs are cleared by pedigree) and CERF are what are required for CHIC status. And the German Spitz is an healthy breed considering how tiny the gene pool is outside Germany- and it's not large IN Germany, either. But the breed has almost NO incidence of any health problems- the main one is retinal dysplasia.

As the topic is on UK here are 2 recent The Kennel Club health study survey report summaries on the 2 breeds you mentioned that are in the UK:-
 
Welsh Corgi Cardigan
Note - A total of 416 forms were sent out and 95 were returned, representing 312 live dogs.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1638/hswelshcorgicardigan.pdf
 
German Spitz
Note - A total of 165 forms were sent out and 55 were returned, representing 230 live dogs.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1560/hsgermanspitz.pdf
.

Interesting news article prior to this TV documentary going to air and the following from this link:-
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_15-8-2008-12-22-2?newsid=42674
 
Imperial College London
Friday 15 August 2008
Extent of inbreeding in pedigree dogs revealed in new study
Study explores inbreeding, which puts dogs at risk of birth defects and genetically inherited health problems - News
By Laura Gallagher
 
The extent of inbreeding in purebred dogs and how this reduces their genetic variation is revealed in a new study by Imperial College London researchers. Inbreeding puts dogs at risk of birth defects and genetically inherited health problems.
 
These issues and the researchers' findings are highlighted in an upcoming TV programme entitled "Pedigree dogs exposed," which will air on BBC One on Tuesday 19 August 2008 at 21.00 BST.
 
Particular dog breeds are believed to be prone to particular health problems and birth defects. For example, Dalmatian dogs are predisposed to deafness, many Boxer dogs have problems with heart disease, and disproportionate numbers of German Shepherd dogs have an abnormal development of the hip joints known as hip dysplasia.
 
Inbreeding in pedigree dogs arises because certain dogs, prized for exhibiting the characteristics desirable for that breed, are used to father many litters of puppies. When dogs from these litters come to be mated, some will be paired with dogs having the same father from other litters. Over generations, more and more dogs across a particular pedigree are related to one another and the chances of relatives mating increase.
 
Recessive genetic variants only have adverse health effects such as deafness when an individual carries two defective copies of the gene. If a popular sire carries just one defective copy, he will not show the problem himself and nor will his puppies. However, the defect may become common in later generations if his grandpuppies and great grandpuppies are mated with each other, rather than introducing new genetic traits by breeding outside their relatives.
 
Although the problems associated with inbreeding have been known for many years, prior to the new study it had not been systematically measured. For this study, researchers from Imperial used mathematical modelling to analyse how dogs were related to one another within ten different dog breeds including the Boxer and Rough Collie.
 
They looked at the parentage of eight generations of dogs, using records collected from 1970 to the present day by the UK Kennel Club.
 
The researchers' analysis showed that, for example, Boxer dogs were so closely related to one another and had such little genetic variation between them that genetically, 20,000 dogs looked like a population of about 70. In the Rough Collie breed, 12,000 dogs looked in genetic terms like a population of about 50.
 
Such small effective population sizes mean that the chances of a dog breeding with a close relative, resulting in birth defects and genetically inherited health problems, are high. The researchers argue that those involved in breeding dogs should encourage breeding from a larger pool of potential mates in order to create greater genetic variation and lessen dogs' chances of inheriting genetic disorders. They suggest measures such as limiting how many times a popular dog can father litters; encouraging mating across national and continental boundaries; and relaxing breed rules to permit breeding outside the pedigree.
 
Professor David Balding, the corresponding author of the research from the Division of Epidemiology, Public Health and Primary Care at Imperial College London, said: "The idea that inbreeding causes health problems in particular dog breeds is not a new one, but we believe ours is the first scientific study to explore this issue and analyse the extent of inbreeding in a systematic way, across many breeds. We hope that following our work, dog breeders will make it a high priority to increase the genetic diversity within different breeds. Otherwise, we will see growing numbers of dogs born with serious genetically inherited health problems."
 
The researchers carried out their analysis as part of an effort to explore how understanding disease in dogs can help inform research into human disease. The research was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
 
Further information about the research is provided in the study, which is published in the journal Genetics:
 
"Population structure and inbreeding from pedigree analysis of purebred dogs," Genetics, 179(1): 593–601, 2008. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.084954 Calboli FC , Sampson J, Fretwell N, Balding DJ
.

Quincy - have those. Unfortunately, they lumped in the mittel and the klein together; the two aren't interbred at all and since they didn't separate them statistically, the data is a LOT less useful than it could have been.  

well the majority of you know how i feel about this... so i'll just say "ITS ABOUT TIME!"

.. if you didnt or couldnt watch the show you probably saved yourself some tears of grief for the suffering these highly prized purebreds go through....

i am an advocate for outcrossing RESPONSIBLY.. and i believe in the working dog... not the exclusively bred show dog. 

 Dumdog - well, what work is a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel SUPPOSED to do? Looking beautiful really IS their breed purpose. (And has been since their inception- the breed was created in response to a challenge to recreate the English toy spaniels from a previous era as pictured in various paintings.) Obedience? Sure, but the way the British obedience trials are structured, you'd need to totally change the Cav's temperament to make it competitive. Agility? They're not SUPPOSED to be speed demons. Therapy work? Sure, they're naturals, but it doesn't really require anything in the way of physical soundness.

I'm not saying conformation showing is the end-all and be-all of a breed. I think it needs to be set in conjunction with everything else- and not seen as the goal. An excellent dog is the goal- one who looks exactly like the breed should look, is blindingly healthy, long-lived, and with temperament appropriate to the breed. (I would be pretty disgusted with a Doberman that acts like a lab, and I'm appalled at the people who seem to want Aussies to behave like merle golden retrievers.)

 Part of the problem is, I think, that we have this kind of weird double standard for breeders. You MUST prove your dogs in order to be reputable (I agree with this, strongly)- but if you prove your dogs and win, you're 'breeding just for (looks, speed, temperament- the quality most prized in the venue you're proving in)' and 'ignoring breed type'. If you *don't* prove your dogs by showing in something, you're 'just a BYB' and/or 'kennel blind'. Breeders can't win one way or the other! If you linebreed, you're 'limiting the genepool', if you outcross, you're 'just randomly breeding without a goal'.

I think it was in John Yates' article "IN Defense of Dog Breeders" but it might have been somewhere else, that it was pointed out that we've somehow allowed the AR organizations to define an increasingly narrow definition of responsible breeder. I think it's good to raise our standards- but I really do get angry at programs like this who paint all show breeders with the same brush. It's trendy right now to bash show breeders. Are working breeders going to get it next? After all, they make their dogs WORK. They could get hurt in the field!
 

This post may not make a ton of sense. I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I *would* like to see some discussion on these points.  

Pwca

Quincy - have those. Unfortunately, they lumped in the mittel and the klein together; the two aren't interbred at all and since they didn't separate them statistically, the data is a LOT less useful than it could have been.  

Maybe if you contact The Kennel Club they might be able to separate the Mittel and Klein statistically on their computer and send you copies of each. I noted that in the summary results they lumped every breed into an ALL BREED summary report, maybe they might have had some reason to do so, but then they also separated the breeds where they may even separate the "German Spitz" into subtype of the Spitz called Mittelspitz and Kleinspitz.

History - The Kennel Club in the UK agreed that there would be two sizes of German Spitz to be called Klein (small) and Mittel (middle) and any progeny from the 'First four dogs' could be added to the German Spitz register. Those 'First four dogs' were called Tum-Tum van Het Vlinderhof of Lireva, Venestein's Mauricia of Lireva, Tefanra-Leona's Lady Xabrina, Prinz Schneeflocke von Cottas. The puppies to be registered as German Spitz who had only one of the four in their breeding would be put on a development register, whilst puppies with two of the first four as their sire and dam would be registered as full German Spitz in one of the two sizes. The owner to decide which size. Once registered there was to be no interbreeding of sizes and an agreement was required that the newly formed German Spitz Club would agree to no colour/markings barred. You now have our present day German Spitz in two sizes in the UK.
 
ALL BREEDS summary results
Approximately 56,938 forms were sent out, 13,773 forms were returned of which 13,741 were useable and represented 36,006 live dogs. This was an overall response rate of 24%. See via this link:-
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1333/summaryresults.pdf
.

Pwca

 Dumdog - well, what work is a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel SUPPOSED to do? Looking beautiful really IS their breed purpose. (And has been since their inception- the breed was created in response to a challenge to recreate the English toy spaniels from a previous era as pictured in various paintings.) Obedience? Sure, but the way the British obedience trials are structured, you'd need to totally change the Cav's temperament to make it competitive. Agility? They're not SUPPOSED to be speed demons. Therapy work? Sure, they're naturals, but it doesn't really require anything in the way of physical soundness.

Many people do hear comments like that, but some have heard different comments where some of these decided to give their Cavaliers a go. Around the world Cavaliers have obtained titles not only in Obedience but also in other performance events. As for Agility some certainly are speed demons with physical soundness and temperament for competitive Agility, and in the AKC last year Cavaliers obtained the following quantity of AKC Agility titles, more were obtained on other Registers in the US, and yet more were obtained around the world.
 
From AKC Event Title Stats for 2007
AKC Agility title abreviation - quantity awarded to Cavaliers
NA - 29
OA - 25
AX - 23
MX - 16
NAJ - 34
OAJ - 37
AXJ - 29
MXJ - 16
MACH - 11
MACH2 - 5
MACH3 - 1
MACH5 - 1
MACH8 - 1
MACH9 - 1
MACH10 - 1
 
This looks interesting and note it's a Cavalier, I wonder how many AKC dogs obtained an AKC Triple Champion title.

 

things like this have less to do with the quality or soundness of the dog...and more to do with the owners competitve interest and interest in training.

NO title, in any arena guarantees physical soundness...that is just fantasy. Health tests do...and even those can miss things.

Again, speaking generally...

when folks want to discuss dog breeding without using Na*i in their vocab we'll talk...when people want to discuss without furthering their own agenda which amounts to nothing more than an opinion on how they think things should be done...we'll talk. I don't see that happening...anytime soon. Til then the proverbial wall can stand there without me talking to it.

Pwca

Part of the problem is, I think, that we have this kind of weird double standard for breeders. You MUST prove your dogs in order to be reputable (I agree with this, strongly)- but if you prove your dogs and win, you're 'breeding just for (looks, speed, temperament- the quality most prized in the venue you're proving in)' and 'ignoring breed type'. If you *don't* prove your dogs by showing in something, you're 'just a BYB' and/or 'kennel blind'. Breeders can't win one way or the other! If you linebreed, you're 'limiting the genepool', if you outcross, you're 'just randomly breeding without a goal'.

 

I'm in agreement here.  Frankly I don't much care if BYB's/puppy mills are between a rock and a hard place (they're not the ones showing, anyway) but for responsible breeders I really do think that breeding their chosen breed to the best of their ability is really the lesser of 2 evils.  Would they prefer that no one tried to breed pedigree dogs, and to let the idea of "breeds" die out?  Somehow I think not, especially given the efforts to "rescue" certain breeds which are threatened with extinction.  Everyone's idea of "responsible" varies, when it comes to breeders, but how much of a shocker is that?  Everyone's idea of "responsible" when it comes to teenagers or politicians varies, too. 

rwbeagles

things like this have less to do with the quality or soundness of the dog...and more to do with the owners competitve interest and interest in training.

NO title, in any arena guarantees physical soundness...that is just fantasy. Health tests do...and even those can miss things.

Again, speaking generally...

Generally speaking I tend to think that work/performance tends to compliment health testing and may help to give some indication towards physical soundness. Say like a dog may have something wrong with it's back that may not show up on an xray or any health testings, but it may become obvious whilst the dog trys to do a number of weaves and jumps at speed say like in Agility, and if something does show up in such situations I think about what you mentioned.

 

Drive makes up for a lot of structural faults, Quincy.

and "something wrong with it's back" might actually have nothing to do with it's genetic soundness...injuries occur and not every dog who is injured in work or heck...as a housepet is a genetically flawed animal that should not be used for breeding.

Because along with the ability to perform these fabulous feats of strength or agility or speed...comes the drive to do it better, more, faster, regardless of it their body can take it that particular day...and injuries result.

Some things are obviously to a dog's detriment...and obviously inherited...and some things are less clear...IMO who gets to make those calls is something that should be considered EXTREMELY carefully. IMO it should never be anyone outside the Parent Club or breed community...and it certainly should never be a government or animal rights entity.

I again...do not think there is ANY true measure of a dogs inherent, genetically gifted mental and physical soundess or lack thereof than when it draws it's last breath as an old dog having fulfilled whateve jobs its owner required of it. There is no way to breed without some degree of risk....none.

Pwca

 Dumdog - well, what work is a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel SUPPOSED to do? Looking beautiful really IS their breed purpose. (And has been since their inception- the breed was created in response to a challenge to recreate the English toy spaniels from a previous era as pictured in various paintings.) Obedience? Sure, but the way the British obedience trials are structured, you'd need to totally change the Cav's temperament to make it competitive. Agility? They're not SUPPOSED to be speed demons. Therapy work? Sure, they're naturals, but it doesn't really require anything in the way of physical soundness.

 

yes that spaniel looked beautiful writhing around on the floor.... i'm sure he'd make an ideal therapy dog. he only has to lie there and be petted.

if the dog is just going to lie there like a stuffed animal to be petted then why not use a stuffed animal instead of breeding a dog to suffer with that sort of sickly life? i dont think thats very pretty.... and the breeds purpose for creation makes me sick too.

So they are designer dogs... old world designer dogs? but because they have a historical origin they deserve to be bred and shown? and ruined?

i see a double standard with breeders getting angry at "designer dog breeders" but think its perfectly fine to have Dobermans(no one really knows the complete mixture!), Irish Wolfhounds(great dane, scottish deerhound and small amount of the original dog), English Bulldogs(strong pug mixture) and Borzois(sight hounds and collie mixes.. the same thing they hunt with today in the UK)

with toy breeds if the only thing that matters is being beautiful then i see absolutely no problem with outcrossing to improve health.

the other problem i see that most breeders have with outcrossing is its too much work..... yeah you have to actually wait till the pup is older to see what traits he inherited.. you cant just assume from the moment of conception that.. while his stifle might be wrong, or his coat not plush enough, he'll still look 98% like a pure bred... he'll just be "pet. and heaven forbid they should have to actually CULL any of the non-show dogs because they dont meet the standard.....

i'm not saying all KC breeders are doing this. there ARE plenty of healthy dogs in there (mostly in the working/sporting group) but the ones who are perpetuating ASSISTED breedings and birthings, the ones who dont mind if the breed only lives seven years, as long as he's GIANT and docile.... those are the ones that should hang their heads in shame. even if a dog is bred to be pretty and nothing more it still has a right to a healthy life. these dogs arent children born with random defects... they being bred on PURPOSE and its just a fact of the breed if they cant tolerate humidity and heat, or if they have to have their tails amputated because of poop getting stuck in the folds, or that the extremely bugged eyes are constantly at risk for punctures... its the breed standard!

Where has the common sense and compassion gone!?