[accmemberdiscussion] Crufts Follow-Up: Vet Checks & Purebred Health - National Animal Interest Alliance
- From: Baba Monk <babamonk@xxxxxxx>
- To: accmemberdiscussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:30:05 -0600
NATIONAL ANIMAL INTEREST ALLIANCE For the welfare of animals, to safeguard the
rights of responsible animal owners.
Home
Archives
Profile
Subscribe
« NAIA Feedbag: 1/18/11 | Main
01/24/2011
Crufts Follow-Up: Vet Checks & Purebred Health
Our post and ensuing discussion on the Crufts vet checks several days ago
inspired the following guest follow-up:
On Crufts Vet Checks & Purebred Health
This discussion was spawned by the emerging decision of Crufts officials to
hold winning dogs to an additional level of scrutiny beyond the official dog
show judges selections. This second level of judging is unprecedented in the
world of dogs. To the dog show spectator or consumer/owner of dogs, this may
seem like an idea whose time has come to help protect the dogs and the
prospective dog owners. But to those who participate in this type of event,
this second level of judging fails to serve the purpose of protecting the dogs,
the breeders, the consumer, or the sport.
There are several reasons this approach is destined to fail.
First, the breeds and breed traits selected by Crufts were merely based on
extremes of appearance. Appearance is what makes the breeds what they are in
the first place. Whether we approve or not, extreme body characteristics are
how these dogs were selected for breeding and competition. If we decide the
extremes are too extreme, we should go back to the source and limit ourselves
to more moderate body types. We should not allow this to be rewarded, and then
snatch away the reward based on a veterinarian's opinion after the fact. There
are better ways than this to move breed standards to where Cruft's officials
think they should be.
Second, they are asking specially selected veterinarians to overrule the
judge's decision after the judge has awarded the dog a winning place. If it is
determined that this type of health screening is appropriate, it should be done
before, not after, the dogs have been selected as winners. It would be far more
fair to all exhibitors to screen the pool of participants prior to judging so
the final decision is made by the judge. The point in all animal judging is to
pick the winner based on its appearance or performance.
Third, a veterinarian's opinion is merely one more opinion. It is just as
subjective as a dog show judge's opinion when appearance is the standard. As a
veterinarian, I would not want to have to make a heavily scrutinized decision
to take away a win without objective criteria. There is not a way to develop
objective criteria – measurable characteristics – for the traits the Crufts
officials seem to be targeting. In other words, there is no test that can be
held up to be repeatable, for these traits. There is no equivalent to a blood
sugar test to say what is normal and what is abnormal in this setting.
Fourth, they have decided to start with 15 breeds with the most "troublesome"
characteristics. This group of dogs seems to be somewhat arbitrarily selected
as we all have an opinion of which breeds have the most worrisome traits.
Fifth, the selected breeds seem to have been discriminated against based only
on appearance. Appearance is an obvious health concern, but in no way does it
reflect the real potential health concerns we experience in the world of dogs.
Many of the biggest health threats we see in dogs cannot be seen with the naked
eye, only with advanced diagnostics. We should be putting our efforts into
eliminating disorders such as epilepsy and cruciate ruptures from the gene
pool, not into telling judges how to do their jobs.
------------------------------------------
The purebred versus hybrid dog argument clearly has no easy answers. I will use
"hybrid dog" as the term for any dog with more than one breed of dog in its
background. There are many small studies, but no comprehensive studies on
either side. It is unlikely there ever will be one of the scope that would help
in this debate as there is no financial gain for either side that would make
the expense of the study worthwhile. Patching together bits and pieces of
retrospective studies does little to answer the big question of which is
"healthier." As dog people, I am not certain we could even agree on what
"healthier" means.
It is probable that many disorders we see today will be known in the future as
having a genetic basis. There is probably a genetic basis that explains a
tendency to develop or be resistant to bacterial, viral, and parasitic
diseases. We know there are genetic tendencies to the development of certain
types of cancer. Certain behavioral traits also play a role in the development
of disorders, and these probably have a genetic basis as well. For example,
there are risk-taking dogs – the ones who like to run, who are more likely to
suffer trauma than the dog who won't leave the owner's side long enough for the
owner to visit the bathroom.
Most disorders we see in purebred dogs were not created by the breeder or the
breeding program. They are the result of a mutation or a magnification of a
trait by combining genes. All dogs have at least one genetic disorder and
usually have many, purebred or hybrid. No dog is perfect. If there is a genetic
disorder in a breed, it is one that was in the foundation stock as a mutation
or magnification, most that occurred hundreds to thousands of years ago. But
that disorder happens to have traveled along generation to generation by being
linked to another trait that was desirable and was perpetuated, intentionally
or unintentionally.
Many purebred dog breeders have not only put themselves under the microscope in
an effort to breed dogs with fewer defects, they have bought and paid for the
microscope. By this, I don't mean they are paying for biased research. I mean
they are the people who are trying to understand their breed's disorders and
deal with them responsibly. The breed clubs are funding excellent, independent
research to understand the disorders that may plague their breed. They are
supporting the development of DNA and other tests to aid in their ability to
screen for disorders, to work their way out of disorders that have occurred in
their breed. So this is a double-edged sword for this group – the same tool
that they have helped to develop to "improve" their breed is now being used
against them to take them down. Does this seem unjust to anyone besides me?
Not all purebred dog breeders are created equal. Not all breed for conformation
– some breed for performance, such as field work or herding – functions that
still serve society today. Some purebred breeders screen and appropriately use
the data they collect by screening. Some don't screen. Some don't use the data.
Some don't use the data correctly and haphazardly slash dogs with valuable
genetics from their lines because they may carry a trait or have a trait of
relatively minor health consequences, further narrowing the gene pool in a
breed of dog with too little genetic diversity to begin with.
Not all hybrid breed dog breeders are created equal either. Some (but not all)
are every bit as careful with their genetic screening and selection as those
who apply it to purebred breeding programs.
We should not paint all breeders with the same broad brush. Nor should we paint
the expectations of dog buyers and owners with the same broad brush. Each has
their own set of needs and goals. If a dog buyer wants to purchase a dog with a
predictable appearance, size, temperament, and skill set, they should have that
opportunity to do so. If they prefer to purchase a dog with such a varied
genetic background that they cannot predict what they are likely to look like
or act like, that too should be their option.
Every day in our veterinary clinic, we see purebred dogs and cats as well as
hybrid dogs and cats. If only purebred dogs and cats became ill, what would
veterinarians and their staff do all day? Hybrid dogs and cats fill the exam
and surgery rooms of veterinary clinics all over the country as they too suffer
from illnesses and injuries.
Farmers must have figured out along the way that there is something to purebred
animals. Most production animals are purebred – such as Holsteins or Angus
cattle. They are used for production because of predictable genetic
performance, not to impress the neighboring farmer or for their own ego.
Farmers do outcross animals when there is a trait they are specifically looking
to perpetuate. But if they had severe health problems in purebreds, they could
not be financially successful and would no longer use purebred stock as the
backbone of their production program.
The human species is the most outcrossed species on the planet, due to our
freedom to travel and mate with minimal restrictions. If simply outcrossing
genetics made all the bad genes "fall out" of the gene pool, humans would be
free of genetic disorders. Unfortunately, as we all know, this is not the case.
So the same is true in dogs and cats – a mere random outcrossed breeding does
not lead to freedom from genetic diseases.
In short, this approach to judging is too little too late. It may make Crufts
officials and the general public feel warm and fuzzy – that somehow they are
trying to move the agenda of protecting the dogs and consumers forward, but as
you can see, it is merely window-dressing and does not truly address the
problems of dog genetics.
-Dr Marty Greer, DVM, JD, NAIA Board Member
Dr Greer has run the Brownsville/Lomira Small Animal Clinic in Wisconsin since
1982. In 2002, she opened the International Canine Semen Bank-Wisconsin, which
allows breeders to preserve their dog’s semen for use at another time or a
remote location. A specialist in her field, she has contributed to
pharmaceutical and nutritional research as an investigator and was appointed to
the Wisconsin Veterinary Examining Board. Dr. Greer also trains service dogs
for CCI, and recently earned her law degree from Marquette University.
Posted at 08:05 AM | Permalink ShareThis
Reblog (0)
COMMENTS
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this
post.
POST A COMMENT
Comment below or sign in with TypePad Facebook Twitter and more...
(URLs automatically linked.)
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with
the comment.)
National Animal Interest Alliance
0
Following
13
Followers
CATEGORIES
Animal Legislation
Animal Welfare
ARCHIVES
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
SEARCH
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Donate!
Support NAIA!
BECOME A FAN
Blog powered by TypePad
Top pages
No top pages right now.
chartbeat
National Animal Interest Alliance
Powered by TypePad
Other related posts:
- » [accmemberdiscussion] Crufts Follow-Up: Vet Checks & Purebred Health - National Animal Interest Alliance - Baba Monk
