I knew I would leave something behind in the town five hours from home where I did my shelter medicine externship. It was just a question of what. The answer: my wristwatch.
I hate wearing watches, but they are essential in the hospital for taking respiration rates and pulses. My friend is bringing my watch back to me this weekend, so I figured I’d try to tough it out watchless this week on large animal medicine. How many heart rates could I have to take? One a day? I could borrow a watch for that.
This morning I received my second patient, a foal aged 20 hours. His mom (a first time mother) was not letting him nurse. If baby horses don’t get a chance to ingest colostrum while their mom is still making it, before she switches to making normal milk, they miss out on essential antibodies and can die of infection. This is not true for human babies, who get their antibodies through the placenta.
We tested the baby, and indeed his IgG level, which is indicative of the amount of antibody in his blood stream, was almost nil. The solution: give him antibiotics, and give him a plasma transfusion.
I was enthused. I had never seen a plasma transfusion! And now I was going to get to actually do one! The tech said a little dourly, “You may find it a little less exciting once you see how it works.”
This is how you do a plasma transfusion in a neonatal foal: you hook it up to IV plasma and make a vet student watch it drip in for two hours. Every five minutes, the student has to — wait for it — take a pulse and respiration rate, to make sure the baby is not getting fluid overloaded.
It turns out that my cell phone doubles as a stopwatch. Not the most convenient thing to use around large animals, though.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Do not kidnap wild animal babies!
Since spring is upon us, at least in my part of the world, I offer a public service announcement: do not kidnap wild animal babies! If you see unattended baby birds, baby bunnies, etc., please do not pick them up and bring them in to a wildlife clinic. Their parents are very likely to return to take care of them after you leave, and they will do better in the wild than in a clinic. Moving them will probably do more harm than good!
Wild Baby Rescue Center, Inc. has a nice summary of how to know when baby wildlife needs your help.
Wild Baby Rescue Center, Inc. has a nice summary of how to know when baby wildlife needs your help.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
He’s a lover, not a fighter: outreach for the prevention of dog fighting
[This is the presentation I gave at a shelter staff meeting this week, as part of my shelter medicine externship.]
How can we redirect inner city kids away from using their pit bulls for dog fighting, and towards other activities? I looked into two programs that exist to reach out to youth and do exactly that. These programs focus on prevention of dog fighting, on educating kids before they decide that dog fighting is cool, rather than focusing on the punishment of dog fighters.
The first program I looked at is the End Dogfighting campaign from the Humane Society of the United States. The End Dogfighting campaign has several different arms:
I also looked into the Lug Nuts program, which is informal weight pulling contests in cities with dog fighting problems — again, providing alternative activities for people to do with their pit bulls. In a Lug Nuts contest, children’s sleds are loaded with food until they are very heavy. Dogs (not always pit bulls, although pits are very muscular and tend to be very strong dogs) are hooked to the sleds with special harnesses. The dog that pulls the farthest wins. The food can also serve as a prize, and the prize can be doubled for animals who are spayed or neutered. As the web page for the program says, there is excitement! Machismo! Thrill! The competitive aspect of Lug Nuts may be an important way to draw people in.
Sue Sternberg started Lug Nuts in New Haven in 2002. It is associated with a Training Wheels program, which brings pet supplies and veterinary services into underserved areas, and takes the opportunity to also bring some education about positive reinforcement training to dog owners.
So who should be going into inner city communities and telling people about these programs to change how they interact with their dogs? I am pretty sure that if I tried, I’d get laughed at. The End Dogfighting campaign solved this problem with the creation of Anti-Dogfighting Advocates (ADAs), graduated students from the program. They encourage people to come in to the weekly classes, and check in on them during the week to keep their interest up. There is definitely a bootstrapping problem here. Who goes out and convinces people to go to the first classes? But the approach of keeping community members involved even after graduation is a nice one.
I like the positive approaches of these two programs. Positive reinforcement works better than punishment! I’d love to see both programs expand to more cities.
How can we redirect inner city kids away from using their pit bulls for dog fighting, and towards other activities? I looked into two programs that exist to reach out to youth and do exactly that. These programs focus on prevention of dog fighting, on educating kids before they decide that dog fighting is cool, rather than focusing on the punishment of dog fighters.
The first program I looked at is the End Dogfighting campaign from the Humane Society of the United States. The End Dogfighting campaign has several different arms:
- The Pit Bull Training Team provides alternative activities for youths with pit bulls (or, presumably, other breeds). Set up as a weekly class, the PBTT introduces kids to obedience and agility, and also provides some socialization for the dogs (since fighting dogs, obviously, often have poor social skills with other dogs). For students who do well and stick it out to the end, there is a Canine Good Citizen (CGC) test that they can take. If they pass, they receive a CGC title for their dog from the AKC, certifying that they have a well trained dog. Graduates of the class are encouraged to stick around and mentor new students.
- The Humane Education arm of the campaign is an 8 week curriculum for middle school students. It’s intended to be a fun set of classes, with mock game shows, videos, and hands on projects. The message of the class is that dog fighting is a crime, it’s violent, and it’s animal cruelty.
- The First Responder Outreach arm of the campaign is aimed at postal workers, utility works, and public works employees — the people who are out in the neighborhood who might encounter signs of dog fighting rings. The HSUS provides posters with information about what to look for, such as how to recognize the fighting pit where dog fights occur. The HSUS may also provide a presentation if asked.
- The Law Enforcement Outreach arm of the campaign provides a $5,000 reward for tips leading to the conviction of a dog fighter; law enforcement training classes; a database with the names of known dog fighters; grants for handling seized animals (controversial, as the HSUS recommends that such animals be immediately euthanized); and prosecutor training.
I also looked into the Lug Nuts program, which is informal weight pulling contests in cities with dog fighting problems — again, providing alternative activities for people to do with their pit bulls. In a Lug Nuts contest, children’s sleds are loaded with food until they are very heavy. Dogs (not always pit bulls, although pits are very muscular and tend to be very strong dogs) are hooked to the sleds with special harnesses. The dog that pulls the farthest wins. The food can also serve as a prize, and the prize can be doubled for animals who are spayed or neutered. As the web page for the program says, there is excitement! Machismo! Thrill! The competitive aspect of Lug Nuts may be an important way to draw people in.
Sue Sternberg started Lug Nuts in New Haven in 2002. It is associated with a Training Wheels program, which brings pet supplies and veterinary services into underserved areas, and takes the opportunity to also bring some education about positive reinforcement training to dog owners.
So who should be going into inner city communities and telling people about these programs to change how they interact with their dogs? I am pretty sure that if I tried, I’d get laughed at. The End Dogfighting campaign solved this problem with the creation of Anti-Dogfighting Advocates (ADAs), graduated students from the program. They encourage people to come in to the weekly classes, and check in on them during the week to keep their interest up. There is definitely a bootstrapping problem here. Who goes out and convinces people to go to the first classes? But the approach of keeping community members involved even after graduation is a nice one.
I like the positive approaches of these two programs. Positive reinforcement works better than punishment! I’d love to see both programs expand to more cities.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Purebred Paradox, part four: What can be done?
(Continued from part three.)
Below are my musings on some of the talks at the recent conference, The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. Specifically, these talks delve deeper into ways some of the speakers thought we could move forward.
Professor Sir Patrick Bateson: “Problems of dog-breeding and what to do about them”
In his keynote address, Professor Bateson called for for “a public awareness and education campaign.” In his talk and in later discussions, the question of whom to educate was raised. Three interest groups were identified: dog owners, dog breeders, and judges of dog conformation competitions. Again and again, speakers at the conference returned with frustration to the question of how to educate dog owners. Once the bulldog has been purchased and the new puppy brought to the veterinarian for its wellness exam, it is too late. How do you educate people about healthy breeds before they bring home and bond with a new dog?
Patricia Haines, DVM: “Canine Genetics, Behavior and the role of the parent club”
Dr. Haines, a veterinarian and breeder of pointers, talked about parent breed clubs. Both the American Kennel Club (the AKC, the largest registering body of American purebred dogs) and the Kennel Club (the KC, the AKC’s British counterpart) are made up not of direct members but of member clubs, or “parent clubs.” These clubs mostly (but not entirely) represent breed specific clubs, such as the Golden Retriever Club of America.
Dr. Haines made the point that work for change would be more effective with the parent breed clubs, rather than with AKC judges. In fact, she said, many breeders joke that the judges don’t really know their breed well. It is the parent clubs which are the guardians of the breed standards, and, perhaps more importantly, the interpreters of them.
Dr. Haines’ insight highlighted, in my opinion, the usefulness of working with members of the dog breeding community. That community is a complex one which can be difficult to fully understand from the outside.
Gail K. Smith, VMD, PhD: “Efficacy of hip dysplasia screening: An animal welfare imperative”
Dr. Smith is the veterinary surgeon who designed the PennHip screening system for hip dysplasia. The more traditional Orthopedic Foundation for Animals screening system involves subjective judgement of a dog’s hips as poor, fair, good, or excellent. PennHip, on the other hand, provides an objectively determined “distraction index,” a numerical measurement of the amount of hip laxity (where more laxity implies worse disease). Dr. Smith explained that his PennHip system is particularly useful for genetic studies of hip dysplasia because it is a better measurement of phenotype, for use in correlation to genotype. In other words, if you want to study what genes produce hip dysplasia, an objective numerical value describing the individual animal’s anatomy is more useful than a subjective value like “fair.”
Of course, the question arises: can other characteristics be measured using numerical scales? How do you measure the flatness of a bulldog’s face? There is work to be done in this area.
Steve Zawistowski, PhD, CAAB: closing remarks
PhD behaviorist Dr. Sawistowski explicitly identified a fissure between those who breed dogs and those who identify themselves as members of animal welfare organizations. He said, “We are going to have to heal that fissure before we can heal the dogs that we all know and love.” This conference did a great job of outlining this goal and the current situation and identifying priorities to be addressed.
Below are my musings on some of the talks at the recent conference, The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. Specifically, these talks delve deeper into ways some of the speakers thought we could move forward.
Professor Sir Patrick Bateson: “Problems of dog-breeding and what to do about them”
In his keynote address, Professor Bateson called for for “a public awareness and education campaign.” In his talk and in later discussions, the question of whom to educate was raised. Three interest groups were identified: dog owners, dog breeders, and judges of dog conformation competitions. Again and again, speakers at the conference returned with frustration to the question of how to educate dog owners. Once the bulldog has been purchased and the new puppy brought to the veterinarian for its wellness exam, it is too late. How do you educate people about healthy breeds before they bring home and bond with a new dog?
Patricia Haines, DVM: “Canine Genetics, Behavior and the role of the parent club”
Dr. Haines, a veterinarian and breeder of pointers, talked about parent breed clubs. Both the American Kennel Club (the AKC, the largest registering body of American purebred dogs) and the Kennel Club (the KC, the AKC’s British counterpart) are made up not of direct members but of member clubs, or “parent clubs.” These clubs mostly (but not entirely) represent breed specific clubs, such as the Golden Retriever Club of America.
Dr. Haines made the point that work for change would be more effective with the parent breed clubs, rather than with AKC judges. In fact, she said, many breeders joke that the judges don’t really know their breed well. It is the parent clubs which are the guardians of the breed standards, and, perhaps more importantly, the interpreters of them.
Dr. Haines’ insight highlighted, in my opinion, the usefulness of working with members of the dog breeding community. That community is a complex one which can be difficult to fully understand from the outside.
Gail K. Smith, VMD, PhD: “Efficacy of hip dysplasia screening: An animal welfare imperative”
Dr. Smith is the veterinary surgeon who designed the PennHip screening system for hip dysplasia. The more traditional Orthopedic Foundation for Animals screening system involves subjective judgement of a dog’s hips as poor, fair, good, or excellent. PennHip, on the other hand, provides an objectively determined “distraction index,” a numerical measurement of the amount of hip laxity (where more laxity implies worse disease). Dr. Smith explained that his PennHip system is particularly useful for genetic studies of hip dysplasia because it is a better measurement of phenotype, for use in correlation to genotype. In other words, if you want to study what genes produce hip dysplasia, an objective numerical value describing the individual animal’s anatomy is more useful than a subjective value like “fair.”
Of course, the question arises: can other characteristics be measured using numerical scales? How do you measure the flatness of a bulldog’s face? There is work to be done in this area.
Steve Zawistowski, PhD, CAAB: closing remarks
PhD behaviorist Dr. Sawistowski explicitly identified a fissure between those who breed dogs and those who identify themselves as members of animal welfare organizations. He said, “We are going to have to heal that fissure before we can heal the dogs that we all know and love.” This conference did a great job of outlining this goal and the current situation and identifying priorities to be addressed.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Purebred Paradox, part three: Analyses of the situation
(Continued from part two.)
Below are my musings on some of the talks at last week’s conference, The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. Specifically, these talks delve deeper into what some of the current health risks are for purebred dogs, and why.
Brenda Bonnett, BSc, DVM, PhD: “Breed risks for disease in purebred dogs”
Dr. Bonnett is an epidemiologist who worked with “12 years of [health] data from over 200,000 dogs yearly,” obtained form Agria Pet Insurance in Sweden. Her talk was fascinating; placed as the very first presentation, it was a great introduction to the conference. She showed a series of graphs comparing the risk of different diseases in different breeds. Using the pet health insurance data, she could identify some risks as part of the risk of “being a dog” (diseases equally likely to occur in any breed) versus the risk of, for example, “being a German shepherd” (hip dysplasia, much more likely to occur in that breed than in most others). These graphs made the case very clearly that many breeds have risks of particular diseases.
The graphs were also an excellent way of demonstrating which diseases should be prioritized in particular breeds. She talked specifically about Cavalier King Charles spaniels, a breed which is prone to a particularly painful brain disorder called syringomyelia. Syringomyelia in CKCS was publicized in Pedigree Dogs Exposed and has been receiving a great deal of attention as a result. But her data suggested that another breed problem, heart disease, is much more prevalent. Syringomyelia, a disease in which your brain is squeezed out of your skull because your head is too small, is certainly very sexy, but if a CKCS is much more likely to die of heart disease, perhaps the issue of the heart disease should be addressed first.
But we already knew that different breeds get different diseases, right? When you are picking the breed of your next puppy, if you’re doing your research, part of your decision is whether you can deal with the risks of that particular breed. Is it more likely to get hip dysplasia? Heart disease? Cancer? Dr. Bonnett made the point that people will accept some types of risk, and some levels of risk, but not others. Life has some risks that you can't avoid; playing with sticks can be risky for a dog (GI obstruction! cracked teeth! splinters migrating into the sinuses!) but people accept those risks because they are part of being a dog. However, owners also accept the risks which are part of being a particular breed. Should they?
Dr. Bonnett concluded her talk by telling the story of a Bernese Mountain Dog (berner) owner who had come up to her after a previous talk. This woman had said that she had known that berners suffered from an increased rate of cancer, but had had no idea quite how bad the situation was until she listened to Dr. Bonnett’s presentation. However, this woman said, she would keep owning berners, because they were her breed. One of the themes of the conference was certainly the deep loyalty people have to “their” breed. (I completely understand it, as I feel that way about golden retrievers.)
Ilana Reisner, DVM, PhD, DACVB: “Unintended consequences of breeding for conformation: Owner-directed aggression in English Springer Spaniels”
Dr. Reisner is a veterinary behaviorist who presented a case study of an owner-agressive English Springer spaniel. This breed is particularly known for what has been called “springer rage,” sudden fits of aggression to the owner. The subject of Dr. Reisner’s presentation, Pluto, had bitten every member of the household, including the 80 year old grandmother. Dr. Reisner joked, “It wasn't too bad, just a few amputations.” She made the point that, while the conference was focused on dog welfare, when people live with dogs who are suffering or who have behavior problems, human welfare is also affected.
Frances O. Smith, DVM, PhD: “The development of dog breeds: Why and how people breed dogs”
Dr. Smith was a veterinarian, Labrador retriever breeder, dog show judge, and theriogenologist. (A theriogenologist is a veterinary specialist who has advanced training and board certification in breeding and reproductive problems.) She was clearly an exemplary breeder. She talked about the best dog she ever bred, who was a conformation champion and a performance champion. Dr. Smith emphasized again the importance of breed specific traits in the hearts of owners and breeders. The breeds must stay unique and recognizable. Any other solution to the problem is going to be very hard for many dog lovers to accept.
Dr. Smith seemed to have been asked to speak as a representative of the breeder side of the debate. I wish that we could have heard from some breeders at the show who were not cherry-picked to be non-controversial, however. The Labrador is a sporting breed, and sporting dogs tend not to suffer from breeding for extreme characteristics, as they are often expected to still be able to do work. (To understand what is meant by “extreme characteristics,” enjoy this post by the producer of Pedigree Dogs Exposed about the Neapolitan mastiff.)
Frank McMillan, DVM, DACVIM: “The impact of puppy mills on the welfare of purebred dogs”
Dr. McMillan is an internal medicine specialist and employee of Best Friends animal shelter in Utah. He talked about the widely publicized problem of puppy mills (high-volume, commercial breeders, who I’d argue are irresponsible by definition). He showed a number of disturbing photos of adult breeding animals taken from filthy and unhealthy circumstances at various mills.
Dr. McMillan’s main point was that the psychological damage done by lack of socialization to adult breeding animals in high volume breeding facilities is severe and should not be overlooked. Even dogs maintained at sparkling clean facilities are not given the socialization time they need as puppies to function properly once they are taken out of the puppy mill as adults. He read accounts and showed photos of these adult rescues, and demonstrated their complete inability to bond with their new owners after months, some even unable to be housebroken as they could not be approached with a leash to be taken outside. He argued convincingly that many of these dogs should be considered victims of post-traumatic stress disorder. No amount of regulation or oversight by the USDA will change this fundamental lack of socialization of dogs kept in situations where they do not get a chance to experience the world outside of their kennel.
(To be continued.)
Below are my musings on some of the talks at last week’s conference, The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. Specifically, these talks delve deeper into what some of the current health risks are for purebred dogs, and why.
Brenda Bonnett, BSc, DVM, PhD: “Breed risks for disease in purebred dogs”
Dr. Bonnett is an epidemiologist who worked with “12 years of [health] data from over 200,000 dogs yearly,” obtained form Agria Pet Insurance in Sweden. Her talk was fascinating; placed as the very first presentation, it was a great introduction to the conference. She showed a series of graphs comparing the risk of different diseases in different breeds. Using the pet health insurance data, she could identify some risks as part of the risk of “being a dog” (diseases equally likely to occur in any breed) versus the risk of, for example, “being a German shepherd” (hip dysplasia, much more likely to occur in that breed than in most others). These graphs made the case very clearly that many breeds have risks of particular diseases.
The graphs were also an excellent way of demonstrating which diseases should be prioritized in particular breeds. She talked specifically about Cavalier King Charles spaniels, a breed which is prone to a particularly painful brain disorder called syringomyelia. Syringomyelia in CKCS was publicized in Pedigree Dogs Exposed and has been receiving a great deal of attention as a result. But her data suggested that another breed problem, heart disease, is much more prevalent. Syringomyelia, a disease in which your brain is squeezed out of your skull because your head is too small, is certainly very sexy, but if a CKCS is much more likely to die of heart disease, perhaps the issue of the heart disease should be addressed first.
But we already knew that different breeds get different diseases, right? When you are picking the breed of your next puppy, if you’re doing your research, part of your decision is whether you can deal with the risks of that particular breed. Is it more likely to get hip dysplasia? Heart disease? Cancer? Dr. Bonnett made the point that people will accept some types of risk, and some levels of risk, but not others. Life has some risks that you can't avoid; playing with sticks can be risky for a dog (GI obstruction! cracked teeth! splinters migrating into the sinuses!) but people accept those risks because they are part of being a dog. However, owners also accept the risks which are part of being a particular breed. Should they?
Dr. Bonnett concluded her talk by telling the story of a Bernese Mountain Dog (berner) owner who had come up to her after a previous talk. This woman had said that she had known that berners suffered from an increased rate of cancer, but had had no idea quite how bad the situation was until she listened to Dr. Bonnett’s presentation. However, this woman said, she would keep owning berners, because they were her breed. One of the themes of the conference was certainly the deep loyalty people have to “their” breed. (I completely understand it, as I feel that way about golden retrievers.)
Ilana Reisner, DVM, PhD, DACVB: “Unintended consequences of breeding for conformation: Owner-directed aggression in English Springer Spaniels”
Dr. Reisner is a veterinary behaviorist who presented a case study of an owner-agressive English Springer spaniel. This breed is particularly known for what has been called “springer rage,” sudden fits of aggression to the owner. The subject of Dr. Reisner’s presentation, Pluto, had bitten every member of the household, including the 80 year old grandmother. Dr. Reisner joked, “It wasn't too bad, just a few amputations.” She made the point that, while the conference was focused on dog welfare, when people live with dogs who are suffering or who have behavior problems, human welfare is also affected.
Frances O. Smith, DVM, PhD: “The development of dog breeds: Why and how people breed dogs”
Dr. Smith was a veterinarian, Labrador retriever breeder, dog show judge, and theriogenologist. (A theriogenologist is a veterinary specialist who has advanced training and board certification in breeding and reproductive problems.) She was clearly an exemplary breeder. She talked about the best dog she ever bred, who was a conformation champion and a performance champion. Dr. Smith emphasized again the importance of breed specific traits in the hearts of owners and breeders. The breeds must stay unique and recognizable. Any other solution to the problem is going to be very hard for many dog lovers to accept.
Dr. Smith seemed to have been asked to speak as a representative of the breeder side of the debate. I wish that we could have heard from some breeders at the show who were not cherry-picked to be non-controversial, however. The Labrador is a sporting breed, and sporting dogs tend not to suffer from breeding for extreme characteristics, as they are often expected to still be able to do work. (To understand what is meant by “extreme characteristics,” enjoy this post by the producer of Pedigree Dogs Exposed about the Neapolitan mastiff.)
Frank McMillan, DVM, DACVIM: “The impact of puppy mills on the welfare of purebred dogs”
Dr. McMillan is an internal medicine specialist and employee of Best Friends animal shelter in Utah. He talked about the widely publicized problem of puppy mills (high-volume, commercial breeders, who I’d argue are irresponsible by definition). He showed a number of disturbing photos of adult breeding animals taken from filthy and unhealthy circumstances at various mills.
Dr. McMillan’s main point was that the psychological damage done by lack of socialization to adult breeding animals in high volume breeding facilities is severe and should not be overlooked. Even dogs maintained at sparkling clean facilities are not given the socialization time they need as puppies to function properly once they are taken out of the puppy mill as adults. He read accounts and showed photos of these adult rescues, and demonstrated their complete inability to bond with their new owners after months, some even unable to be housebroken as they could not be approached with a leash to be taken outside. He argued convincingly that many of these dogs should be considered victims of post-traumatic stress disorder. No amount of regulation or oversight by the USDA will change this fundamental lack of socialization of dogs kept in situations where they do not get a chance to experience the world outside of their kennel.
(To be continued.)
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Purebred Paradox, part two: What’s the problem?
(Continued from part one.)
I recently attended The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. These are my musings on a few of the talks at the conference, specifically those detailing what exactly the problem is with current methods of dog breeding.
David Sargan, PhD: “The RSPCA report on purebred dog breeding: Conformational selection and inbreeding in dog breeds”
David Sargan summarized the 2008 RSPCA report on purebred dog breeding. Before the release of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary, the RSPCA had not really focused on issues in purebred dog breeding. This report represents their initial attempt to grapple with how they were going to address these issues.
The report identifies two welfare issues: exaggerated anatomical features that reduce quality of life, and an increased prevalence of inherited disorders. It also discusses current screening practices. Standardized screening is available for eye and hip disorders, among others. These screens are used only by a self-selecting population, however, so are not useful for a description of the true prevalence of a particular disorder in the population. For example, dogs which are not intended to be bred — “pet quality” dogs — are less likely to be screened, though they may well have a genetic disorder. Dogs with unsubtle signs of disease may also not be screened, but simply treated. DNA tests are being developed for many diseases, but many diseases exist for which no DNA test has yet been developed. Of course, many diseases do not lend themselves to DNA tests, as they may be multifactorial in origin, due to many different genes, or to interactions between genetics and environment.
The report outlines possible ways forward. Among its many recommendations are more systematic data collection; an increase in genetic diversity, both by limiting inbreeding and by opening the kennel club stud books (allowing offspring of unregistered dogs to be registered as purebreds); and work to improve the screening tests available.
The report concludes: “the most important element is to ensure that all stakeholder groups buy into the process and fully support the action(s) they need to take. This is the challenge that lies ahead.”
Jemima Harrison: “Pedigree Dogs Exposed: The Aftermath”
The producer of the hugely influential Pedigree Dogs Exposed spoke on the aftermath of the film. Actually, she started by outlining the premath, noting that change has been called for in pedigree dog breeding for over 100 years, and including newspaper stories and other references. She wondered if her film had caused enough change to really get and keep the ball rolling — has the sea change happened? Or is there more work to do?
She wasn’t sure, but she did include a video of Fiona, “the first mongrel to be shown at Crufts.” Fiona is the first low uric acid Dalmation to be shown at the number one UK dog show. The LUA Dalmations are the product of a single outcross to a pointer, and subsequent selective breeding to remove the gene for a genetic predisposition to kidney stones whch is present in every Dalmation except for those with this pointer heritage.
(Continued in part three.)
I recently attended The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. These are my musings on a few of the talks at the conference, specifically those detailing what exactly the problem is with current methods of dog breeding.
David Sargan, PhD: “The RSPCA report on purebred dog breeding: Conformational selection and inbreeding in dog breeds”
David Sargan summarized the 2008 RSPCA report on purebred dog breeding. Before the release of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary, the RSPCA had not really focused on issues in purebred dog breeding. This report represents their initial attempt to grapple with how they were going to address these issues.
The report identifies two welfare issues: exaggerated anatomical features that reduce quality of life, and an increased prevalence of inherited disorders. It also discusses current screening practices. Standardized screening is available for eye and hip disorders, among others. These screens are used only by a self-selecting population, however, so are not useful for a description of the true prevalence of a particular disorder in the population. For example, dogs which are not intended to be bred — “pet quality” dogs — are less likely to be screened, though they may well have a genetic disorder. Dogs with unsubtle signs of disease may also not be screened, but simply treated. DNA tests are being developed for many diseases, but many diseases exist for which no DNA test has yet been developed. Of course, many diseases do not lend themselves to DNA tests, as they may be multifactorial in origin, due to many different genes, or to interactions between genetics and environment.
The report outlines possible ways forward. Among its many recommendations are more systematic data collection; an increase in genetic diversity, both by limiting inbreeding and by opening the kennel club stud books (allowing offspring of unregistered dogs to be registered as purebreds); and work to improve the screening tests available.
The report concludes: “the most important element is to ensure that all stakeholder groups buy into the process and fully support the action(s) they need to take. This is the challenge that lies ahead.”
Jemima Harrison: “Pedigree Dogs Exposed: The Aftermath”
The producer of the hugely influential Pedigree Dogs Exposed spoke on the aftermath of the film. Actually, she started by outlining the premath, noting that change has been called for in pedigree dog breeding for over 100 years, and including newspaper stories and other references. She wondered if her film had caused enough change to really get and keep the ball rolling — has the sea change happened? Or is there more work to do?
She wasn’t sure, but she did include a video of Fiona, “the first mongrel to be shown at Crufts.” Fiona is the first low uric acid Dalmation to be shown at the number one UK dog show. The LUA Dalmations are the product of a single outcross to a pointer, and subsequent selective breeding to remove the gene for a genetic predisposition to kidney stones whch is present in every Dalmation except for those with this pointer heritage.
(Continued in part three.)
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Purebred Paradox, part one: Background
In 2008, the BBC aired Pedigree Dogs Exposed, a documentary about breeding practices in purebred dogs. The documentary suggested that health problems are on the increase in purebred dogs, and that many of them are avoidable. Specifically, some problems are due to limited gene pools and unintentional fixing of traits such as predisposition to cancer; others are due to intentional breeding for extreme characteristics like flat faces or heavily wrinkled skin. This documentary triggered a strong reaction from the public, and the beginnings of some changes in how members of the UK breed clubs approach breeding dogs.
It also triggered a negative reaction from the British Kennel Club, and a great deal of controversy. The two sides of the debate are, in my own words:
One of the unstated goals of the conference seemed to be to get the two sides, breeders and advocates for change, to start a real discussion. In my opinion, the discussion was hampered from the start by the fact that the conference was not organized by breeders, and was by no means neutral ground. Representatives from the breeder camp were underrepresented, and seemed as well to have been selected to be not too controversial. Everyone was very civil, but I didn't feel like anyone’s mind was really changed.
That didn’t stop me from having two of the most enjoyable days I’ve spent in months or even years. About half of the speakers were veterinarians, and vets were very well represented at the conference overall, which surprised me. It has been my observation in veterinary school that veterinarians are as a general rule not greatly worked up by breeding practices — it’s part of the profession’s usual refusal to judge the husbandry decisions of an animal’s owner in public unless truly abusive. Apparently some vets are coming to see some breeding practices as crossing that line into abuse, and are interested in seeing change.
It shouldn’t need saying, but I will say it, just to be super clear: I have nothing against breeding purebred dogs in theory, and there are quite a few extremely responsible, ethical breeders out there — I met a lot of them at this conference. But there are breeders who do seem to be blind to the discomfort that breeding for extreme characteristics can cause dogs, and there are some breeds that I believe cannot be humanely bred under current practices, though could certainly be humanely bred with some conservative modifications to the breed standard (or to interpretations of it). I am not anti-breeder, but I am very much against certain breeding practices.
(To be continued.)
It also triggered a negative reaction from the British Kennel Club, and a great deal of controversy. The two sides of the debate are, in my own words:
- Dog breeds are part of our heritage and are important to us. Each breed has its defining characteristics (the unique color of the golden retriever’s coat, the size and shape of the Great Dane, the jowly face of the English bulldog). These characteristics are what make each breed unique, and should be celebrated and maintained. I’ll call the people on this side of the debate the dog breeders, at risk of a gross overgeneralization.
- The health of many purebred dogs is endangered both by consequences of inbreeding (such as overrepresentation of genes for cancer in Bernese Mountain dogs) or by breeding for extreme traits (such as the extremely flat face of the pug). We should start prioritizing the health of our purebred dogs over maintenance of breed purity. I’ll call the people on this side of the debate the advocates for change, although many dog breeders take this viewpoint as well.
One of the unstated goals of the conference seemed to be to get the two sides, breeders and advocates for change, to start a real discussion. In my opinion, the discussion was hampered from the start by the fact that the conference was not organized by breeders, and was by no means neutral ground. Representatives from the breeder camp were underrepresented, and seemed as well to have been selected to be not too controversial. Everyone was very civil, but I didn't feel like anyone’s mind was really changed.
That didn’t stop me from having two of the most enjoyable days I’ve spent in months or even years. About half of the speakers were veterinarians, and vets were very well represented at the conference overall, which surprised me. It has been my observation in veterinary school that veterinarians are as a general rule not greatly worked up by breeding practices — it’s part of the profession’s usual refusal to judge the husbandry decisions of an animal’s owner in public unless truly abusive. Apparently some vets are coming to see some breeding practices as crossing that line into abuse, and are interested in seeing change.
It shouldn’t need saying, but I will say it, just to be super clear: I have nothing against breeding purebred dogs in theory, and there are quite a few extremely responsible, ethical breeders out there — I met a lot of them at this conference. But there are breeders who do seem to be blind to the discomfort that breeding for extreme characteristics can cause dogs, and there are some breeds that I believe cannot be humanely bred under current practices, though could certainly be humanely bred with some conservative modifications to the breed standard (or to interpretations of it). I am not anti-breeder, but I am very much against certain breeding practices.
(To be continued.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
