Down the Path Toward Extinction

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.    Bernard of Clairvaux  (1090 – 1153)

As noted in a prior post, the British "Canine Alliance" foolishly has expressed a desire to work with the KC to promote health testing in the show setting, providing that such checks apply fairly to ALL participants.

However, the idea of testing all show entrants is not practical, admits pedigree dog blogger, TV producer and animal rights puritan Jemima Harrison, stating, "can you imagine the uproar, anyway, should vets DQ some top dog de jour that's just arrived after a 300 mile journey to compete?"

Been there, done that. Remember Crufts last week? These people probably would have preferred to escape the spotlight of winning and then being singled out for ridicule for having an undisclosed "health problem".  The popular lynch mob sentiment seems to be "why not release the results of their exam if they have nothing to hide"?  Why not indeed? Privacy be damned, none of that exists after the witch hunt and public lynching. What was the crime again? Who knows? "Guilty!" is all that matters.

When the Canine Alliance members mentioned their objections to the heavy-handed and unfair way they have been treated by the Kennel Club, Harrison criticized them for worrying more about themselves than the dogs.

The DOGS are more important than the people who breed them, in the eyes of the animal rightists.
The dogs don't care if they are in a show, she muses, and anyway, she wants dog shows to go down the tubes for good…to be banned, in her words. (Like as if we didn't already figure that one out). Besides, if poodles cared they would object to being groomed to be "embarrassingly ridiculous" according to Harrison.

No, dogs don't care at all if they are in a show, or how they are groomed. They are DOGS, not humans. Golly, that is hard to remember for those who prioritize the treatment of dogs over the treatment of human beings. 

Yes, dog shows are primarily a human activity. We make the choice to participate, for whatever personal reason we may have. For fun, for possibly starting a breeding program, for camaraderie with fellow hobbyists, for the sense of accomplishment, for the bond you establish with your dog, for receiving recognition for a job well done. Don't we all seek approval? That is basic human nature.  

But according to the ARistas, dogs have the right to not be exploited at the hands of the exhibitors, judges and breeders.

In a newly-released statement, the Canine Alliance states:

"The Canine Alliance was formed to represent everyone involved with pedigree dogs, and to negotiate when necessary with any related organisations in the interest of all breeds. Its aims are to protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs, to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding, to encourage health checking of all dogs and to allow the exhibition of pedigree dogs without bias or discrimination.... It pledges to be fair and totally transparent, always working to the benefit of pedigree dogs."

Any related organizations? Like who? YIKES! The Pedigree "exposers", perhaps? The RSPCA, an animal rights group?  The very group that has actual police authority? Don't they have enough power already to enforce their anti-dog breeding agenda on society? Guess not.

You don't negotiate with terrorists! Those with nothing to lose don't actually compromise very well. It's all take and no give. The demands just keep on coming!

Anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that if you give animal rights extremists an inch, they will definitely take a mile. But sadly, those whose country is overrun with AR laws and  bleeding-heart sentiment just don't seem to "get it". Exactly where do they envision this path to the future leading us?

Harrison, leader of the dog rights puritans, lays her cards on the table in her recent blog, as she mocks the published goals of the "Canine Alliance". Here is her plan for the path:

At last! An organisation that I can sign up to! After all, I'm involved with pedigree dogs and I can sign up to most of those aims. I also protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs; I am happy to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding and to encourage health checking of all dogs….

So what shall we do first, CA?

• Limits on popular sires and inbreeding?
•  KC registrations dependent on taking and actually passing breed specific tests?
•  Health reps educated in rudimentary genetics?
•  Proper breed health surveys?
•  Ban dog shows in their current form (I mean, didn't you say you were working to the benefit of pedigree dogs?)
  
  It's so exciting, isn't it? Together, we can achieve so much!

My my, someone who neither breeds nor shows dogs, but "involved" so intimately. So thrilled to have such "achievements" to crow about. "Together", eh? Unfortunately, with all the conciliating that the KC has done, I'm sure she does feel that such "achievements" are hers to boast about.

And, if I didn't know she was a pet owner rather than a breeder, this idea would clue me in immediately. Requiring PASSING breed specific tests simply to be registered? And what end, pray tell, would such folly serve? Do many people seeking out a purebred dog really want an unregistered dog? And when we move beyond registration to actual showing and breeding, shouldn't breeders have the license to decide whether or not they wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater? 

Oops, guess not. After all, in true AR form, these folks believe it is horrific to pass on any defective genes. Dogs must be 100% disease-free to bred. Or, in the case of the British, to simply be exhibited! Ah, make that, must be disease-free to even be registered!   

Is it any wonder that people resist health testing when there is such a social stigma attached to the "unhealthy" dog and its "bad breeder"? According to the events unfolding in the UK, health test results may adversely affect a breeder's ability for self-determination in breeding decisions. There just MAY be a bit of reluctance to participate when the end result is punishment and derision.

And, the problem with such simple-mindedness is that there is no 100% healthy dog. ALL dogs, just like all people, can and do suffer from health problems, and yes, many are genetic. All animals carry some genes for detrimental health traits. Geneticists believe so, and I think they probably know whereof they speak.

In "Removing the Stigma of Genetic Disease", Dr. Jerold Bell writes: "My hope for each breed is that there will eventually be so many testable defective genes that it will not be possible for any dog to be considered "perfect." Then we can put emotions aside and all work together on improving our breeds."*

Purebred dogs as well as outcrossed dogs all carry problem genes. And dogs with extremes of conformation…..excessively short legs or short noses, for example….are not necessarily inbred, PDE rhetoric notwithstanding.

Geneticists advise against automatic dismissal of disease carriers. Such practices further limit genetic diversity. Such practices give us the same result as popular sire syndrome! For some of the endangered breeds, narrowing the gene pool by eliminating dogs with whatever health problem you are looking at is not always a black-and-white decision.

What the devil is a "proper" breed health survey? Oh, I'm sure the omniscient ARs among us will be waiting in line to help craft such projects. The very people who believe that elimination of hip dysplasia in domestic dogs is a realistic goal.

If one is actually "educated in rudimentary genetics", they would not recommend such drastic winnowing away at breed gene pools. Eliminate every dog with borderline or worse hips, and a significant proportion of ALL dogs will be gone. Canine orthopedists know that few breeds are free of hip dysplasia, and many if not MOST breeds have significant numbers of affected dogs.

So there go most all the breeds on hip issues, with the possible exception of sighthounds and standard poodles. In some of the toy breeds, eliminating all dogs with patellar issues would mean entire breeds would be tossed out.

Eliminating every Clumber with a diamond-shaped eyelid, as the AR extremists wish, would eliminate, well, EVERY Clumber Spaniel, wouldn't it?  This from the KC breed standard:

 "Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. Free from obvious eye problems."

"Haw" shows with a mild degree of ectropion. Apparently this part of the standard conflicts with the stated goals of the newly-instituted health checks. Wouldn't it be grand if they could get their act together and coordinate the goals here?

The KC just released information on breeds that are in danger of extinction in their country due to low numbers and closed gene pools.** Twenty-nine breeds are now considered endangered species in the UK. The specific breeds are not listed except for the "top five". In keeping with current scientific knowledge of the benefits of genetic diversity for health and longevity, increased numbers of imports and judicious outcrossing are being presented as methods to help prevent breed extinction. This is fabulous!! I applaud the KC for such forward-thinking ideas that breeders definitely need and can use to move forward. However, before they get the chance to implement these ideas, they may just find that the anvil of the health crusade may kill of some of the very breeds they want to preserve. I wonder if the Clumber Spaniel is on that endangered list? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Way to decimate the gene pools of the breeds most in danger of extinction. Jolly Good Show! 

Ronald Reagan reportedly once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Substitute "Kennel Club" for "government", and you have the ten most terrifying words in the English language.

*http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_stigma.htm

**http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4185

Crufts - No good deed goes unpunished

One of the veterinarians who performed the health checks on the Crufts fifteen "high profile breeds" must be feeling the heat. Dr. Skipper (yes, that's really her name) released a lengthy statement, explaining her motives for involvement with this new program. She gladly volunteered, it seems, because she "supported the initiative and decided....to get involved."

"I'm not stupid" Dr. Skipper continues, " I knew it would be extremely controversial, and that I would probably have to make decisions that would be very unpopular."

Yes, this vet knew exactly what was being asked of her and she gladly volunteered for the seek and destroy mission. After all, she is altruistic and noble. She wants to "improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs." Eager to rescue the breeds from their breeders, she disingenuously claims to have "great sympathy for the owners of the dogs that were failed....It must have been disappointing, embarrassing and humiliating, and it gave me no pleasure at all to do it."

Yeah, right. Just like those teachers back in grade school didn't enjoy humiliating their errant students by banishing them to the corner with dunce caps. There was no sanctimonious pleasure involved there, either. 

Dr. Skipper didn't give a flying fig about humiliating the people involved. She knew the stakes involved....she volunteered for the job...she believed that the end of improving canine welfare justified the means of humiliation and degradation of the owners. Those owners had extensive testing done on their relatively moderate dogs who were stellar examples of their breeds. Why, those owners should be happy to spend untold thousands on their breeding program and competions, just so they could have the pleasure of reading all the complimentary notes Dr. Skipper wrote on their forms! Yet instead, they were upset due to being ultimately excused. Who'd have ever imagined such a thing? What poor sports. Why couldn't they just "take it on the chin" as was suggested earlier this week by AR blogger Jemima Harrison?

And the good Dr. further claimed she operated at "great personal risk; if I were found guilty of false certification I could be struck off the veterinary register and lose my livelihood".

HOGWASH! Just like the judges or a referee in a ball game, what the veterinarian sees at the time cannot be disputed after the fact. If she says the dog had a limp, or the conjuctiva was red at the time of exam, who can dispute that? Betcha she didn't administer any antibiotic eye drops or ointment, either to those she diagnosed with conjuctivitis. Taking a specimen for culture is necessary to properly diagnose an infection, but of course that wouldn't be necessary for the purposes of making a political statement about dog shows. Which the good Dr. then goes on to diss, stating "The world would still spin on it's axis if there were no dog shows." So I guess it's fine in her book to contribute to the demise of these insignificant shows because TO HER they are unimportant. Whether or not dog shows are important in the grand scheme of things is really inconsequential. People who wish to participate have the right to do so without harrassment by AR freaks.  

Dr. Skipper honestly believes that her input is needed to save "a Pug that struggles to walk along a path" or a dog with "chronic low-level discomfort" Nothing animal-rightist in those statements, is there? Such drama, as if the Pugs at Crufts were struggling to walk. Puh-leeze! And further, she casually drops the statement that that "There aren't enough good homes out there for the dogs there are already." Another jaw-dropping, blatantly ignorant mantra oft-repeated as part of the animal rights propaganda campaign against dog breeders. 

"One thing I am angry about is that the media coverage is focused so exclusively on the dogs who unfortunately failed." Dr. Skipper whines. Seriously? The world has noticed this travesty of justice, not surprisingly. So this supposedly unbiased, "independent" examiner, with no ulterior motives whatsoever beyond the purported promotion of good health, now is actually angered that her actions may have come under question in the wake of the dumping of several breeds at the biggest show of the year.

Anger is the trademark response of one who is biased and operating in crusade mode. Not the response of one who is "independent" and impartial.

I bet she wishes she could have gotten her hands on the BIS winner to DQ her as well. Wouldn't THAT have done volumes to improve the lot of those poor, suffering show dogs?

"The least we can do in return is to choose healthy body shapes for them to live their lives within" she concludes. It's becoming clearer and clearer that any sign of chondrodystrophy, brachycephalism, gigantism, diminutive size or other deviations from the feral canid will eventually come under fire. As the KC should hav learned by now, give an inch and soon that inch is stretched out for a mile.

And getting back to Jemima Harrison, the self-annointed "exposer" of purebred dogs, she waxes almost apologetic today. In light of the threats by some exhibitors to desert the kennel Club and their shows, to to give up as they are singled out for punishment, Ms. Harrison now proclaims her solution to everything.... that the dog show needs to be "reinvented". That dogs should receive "points" for such things as health testing and longevity in the family. Hey, not a bad idea, eh?

However, Ms. Exposer remains staunchly in defense of perfunctory vet exams...for winners only....that would completely invalidate such points. She also believes "...that by a certain date, certain health critera need to have been tackled and rectified....This should ensure progress without knocking the stuffing out of breeders who are doing the best."

There's an old saying that fits here. NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED. The more breeders attempt to health test and breed for moderation, the harder that AR hammer will fall on their heads.

Besides, we ALREADY have a system to encourage healthy breeding in place. It's called health registries and pedigree databases. Believe it or not, health registries and health tesing existed long before any nannying busybodies came on the scene. Demand from informed buyers is the market force that is pushing more breeders every day into participation in health testing. Again, the idea that health can accurately be evaluated in the show ring is ludicrous, to say the least.

A health DQ doesn't serve to "educate" or "improve" anything if the reason is not made public. Yet such a revelation would be highly unethical and unfair to the owner. As if the entire world did not know that their dog was DQd for a shameful "health" breach. The winners did not lose their Challenge Certificates, but were humiliated nonetheless. What was the whole reason for this charade again?

A bit too late now to worry about who is getting the stuffing knocked out of them, isn't it? This after her cavalier remark earlier in the week that even if a winner was DQ'd unfairly, the breeder should just meekly "take it on the chin". Why get soft now? It can only be due to the immense worldwide backlash against the harebrained actions of the Kennel Club, at the urging of AR extremists.

The Basset Hound club in the UK also released a statement, this one critical of the KC's actions at Crufts. Good that they caught on to the fact that the Kennel Club seems to want breeds to "conform to the generic shape of the standard canine." This is a real concern for all breeds. And, I'm glad they explained that the amount of "haw" that a Bassett possesses is not at the top of the list of health priorities. However, their main concern seems to be the KC allowing enough time for them to comply with the revised 2009 standard.

I'm still waiting for a club in the UK to really rebel! But since the KC sets the standards and literally runs the show, the individual clubs don't have a lot of say in the matter.

If the clubs would go independent of the KC, they could have their own specialty shows, produce their own standards, operate their own registries, and, in short, determine their own destiny.

Surely this is better than cowtowing to animal-rightist misanthropists.

It is, after all, a matter of preservation of human rights that is at stake here.

 http://www.bassetsrus.co.uk/CRUFTS%202012.pdf

A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way

This article originally appeared in the April 22, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way

Carlotta Cooper

I’ve been an anglophile most of my life. I grew up loving all thing British, or English, from the language to the history of the British Isles. I spent some time in the country when I was in school. Inevitably, I segued into animals that were developed in Britain. I enjoyed the time I spent in Britain and the people I met were universally pleasant, though I do recall a few cab drivers with some rather colorful language.

All that was a few years ago. Maybe things change. That was before I became aware of the animal rights movement and the RSPCA.

The RSPCA has a reputation in Great Britain similar to that of HSUS in this country and is known for seizing pets and other animals unreasonably, based on cases highlighted in the media. If you google “RSPCA seizes pets” you will find hundreds of such stories, including stories about the RSPCA seizing overweight pets from their owners. They are also on record in the infamous documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed with comments about purebred dogs such as then Chief Vet Mark Evans calling dog shows “a parade of mutants.” Evans is quoted extensively in the program.

In fact, the RSPCA received so much attention for their role in Pedigree Dogs Exposed that they had to set up Question & Answer pages for the public. On these pages you can find such comments about purebred dogs as these:

—The RSPCA is extremely concerned about the unacceptably high levels of

disability, deformity and disease affecting pedigree dogs.

— Hundreds of thousands of dogs are vulnerable to unnecessary illness, pain and

disability or behavioural problems because they’re bred primarily for how they

look rather than with health, welfare and temperament in mind...

—We believe that both the selective breeding of dogs primarily for appearance and

the intensive breeding of closely related dogs for anything other than

scientifically proven welfare reasons is morally unjustifiable...

—When choosing which animals to breed from, there’s often no merit attached to

an animal’s health, welfare or temperament - and often the attributes rated most

highly can result in disability or illness...

— Pedigree dog owners that show their dogs obviously want their animals to do

well at shows and/or produce popular offspring. So the dogs with the most

‘desirable’ attributes (i.e. those that most closely match the relevant breed

standard) are bred from most frequently. The selected features may easily

become exaggerated, causing dogs to suffer more health and welfare problems

and a reduced quality of life...

I think the impression left on the reader is that people who breed and show dogs only care for a dog’s appearance and give little thought to the dog’s health or temperament. There is certainly the impression given, in my opinion, that massive numbers of purebred dogs (or “pedigree dogs,” as they are called in Britain) are sick and deformed.

The RSPCA also commissioned a 76-page study which denigrated The Kennel Club in Britain and the breeding practices of pedigree dog breeders. “The Kennel Club, breed societies, and the pedigree dog showing community have formally endorsed the inbreeding of dogs,” it said. This was stated despite the fact that it was estimated that less than 1 percent of dogs registered with The Kennel Club were the result of first degree matings. “Much of the suffering which some pedigree dogs endure is unnecessary and a substantial part could be avoided with revised practices.”

Some of the suggestions that came out of the report included:

— The banning of first degree and second degree matings (e.g., parent and offspring, siblings, grandparent and offspring or half-siblings).

—Open studbooks.

—Conducting a full ethical review of the health and welfare of current breeds. This could inform decisions, such as to enforce rapid out-crossing or (as suggested by some), in extreme cases even to phase out some breeds.

—Make registration of pedigree dogs conditional upon both parents undergoing compulsory screening tests for prioritised disorders.

—Training and accreditation of judges to prioritise health, welfare and behaviour in the show ring.

—Development of schemes for calculating Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) for disorders influenced by genetic factors. The EBV of an animal for any trait predicts the average performance of its offspring for that trait.

The RSPCA isn’t an organization concerned with helping sad puppies and kittens. It’s an animal rights group of exactly the same ilk as HSUS, with a similar agenda and the same attitude toward dog breeders and purebred dogs.

I think it’s hard to judge just how the British dog-owning public feels about pets and pedigree dogs these days. Pedigree Dogs Exposed seems to have certainly had a very negative effect on the perception of purebred dogs and dog breeders. A list member of the Pet-Law e-mail group looked up the following comments following stories about dog shows or dog breeding in the British popular press, but comments like these are easy to find on British web sites:

*Dog show-breeding stinks. The people who breed these dogs don't give a toss for their animals' welfare, no matter what they say.

*The people who breed those dysfunctional monstrosities ought to be jailed.

*There's only one breed: DOGS (read: cross-breeds, mongrels). Those which are given the label "breeds" are inbred mutants (sic).

*These kennel clubs are disgusting. The poor creatures are just status symbols for the owners and nothing else; owners who are usually loners - childless, anti-social, eccentric, vain, pompous creeps who are completely ignorant of biology.

-------

And this one:

*Those dog breeders should be ABSOLUTELY ashamed of themselves!!!!!!!

*Crufts breeders can be disgusted all they like, the reality is the rest of the rational thinking public is disgusted with them for breeding dogs with deformities and health problems!

*These people are beneath contempt

*Then quite simply these people are not dog lovers, if they would rather have a sick and deformed dog than a healthy dog. I used to want to go to crufts as a child, as a dog lover, now i wouldnt touch the place.

*What utter morons these dog breeders are, more concerned with "correctness" than the welfare of the dogs they breed as usual.

*Some of these dog breeders really sound like a bunch of Nazis !!! Try to imagine if the same practices were applied to creating genetically pure breeds of humans . . . oh wait, that did happen, in WW2 by . . . the Nazis !!!

As mentioned, comments like these are by no means rare following stories about dog shows or dog breeders or breeding in Britain. There are virulent attacks online about pedigree dogs now, since the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Just how common this feeling was prior to the documentary, I don’t know, but Britain does not seem to be a friendly place for dog breeding these days. It’s possible this is a very vocal minority, but there are few people writing in defense of dog breeders or pedigree dogs, at least online.

As if this kind of bashing weren’t enough, it’s not unusual to see headlines like this one in the popular British press: “Nation of animal lovers? Study shows 10m pets suffer mental or physical stress.” Is that really possible, you may ask? Out of a nation with approximately eight million dogs, and eight million cats according to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association in Britain, this study claims that 10 million of these pets are suffering mental or physical stress? Of course, this study, conducted by the PDSA (Never heard of it? Apparently it stands for pets in need of vets, but I can’t figure out the acronym), claims far higher numbers for cats, and includes rabbits in the study. They also sell pet insurance. I’m not quite sure how they are a charity. They take people to task if they don’t feed a commercial dog food; and they are very unhappy if animals are left alone for more than four (yes 4) hours per day. I’m not sure how people are supposed to leave the home and work to buy pet food. They claim that rabbits are “neglected” and forced to live on their own, which leads to boredom and stress. In short, they have their ideas about how pets should be treated, and they want to bash millions of pet owners who have different ideas.

This sort of sensational report is common in Britain and it makes front page news. All too often it seems to lead to changes in the way people actually think about animals and treat them. It can even lead to legislative changes — all based on ideas that are pulled out of the air, with absolutely no science or experience to back them up. There can even be misstatements of facts in these reports, such as the disagreement about the pet population numbers above.

Could it possibly be that the RSPCA, groups like PDSA, and others are following in the footsteps of Jemima Harrison and Pedigree Dogs Exposed? They have seen that the more they can rile the British public about animals, the more they may be able to cash in on the public’s concern for animals? I think it’s true that the British are great animal lovers. It’s just a shame that they have been led so far astray that so many of them no longer recognize when they are being taken for a ride. They think dog breeders are their enemy, and pedigree dogs are mutants. They take advice about caring for pets from organizations like the RSPCA which seizes pets, and the PDSA which has very suspect ideas about how animals should be treated. Whatever happened to British common sense?