UK

Partly Sunny with Showers 4° London Hi 7°C / Lo 3°C

The Big Question: Is the breeding of pedigree dogs leading to cruel abnormalities?

By Archie Bland
Wednesday, 20 August 2008

null

Independent Graphics

Why are we asking this now?

It's long been known that pedigree dogs are more likely to suffer from health problems than their mongrel brethren. But a study by scientists at Imperial College, which featured in a BBC1 documentary last night, has revealed just how severe those problems are.

What does the study say?

In a nutshell, that pedigree dogs are much more heavily inbred than had previously been demonstrated, and that that inbreeding causes serious birth defects and abnormalities that can make the animals' lives a misery.

How seriousis the problem?

That depends on the nature of the abnormality: for some breeds, though, their breeding can have appalling consequences. Perhaps the most startling ailment is that suffered by a third of cavalier King Charles spaniels, syringomyelia, which is the result of their brains being too large for their skulls. "The cavalier's brain is like a size ten foot that has been shoved into a size six shoe," says veterinary neurologist Clare Rusbridge. "It is described in humans as one of the most painful conditions you can have, a piston-type headache... If you took a stick and beat a dog to create that pain, you'd be prosecuted. But there's nothing to stop you breeding a dog with it."

Many other breeds suffer similar problems: golden retrievers are prone to cancer, while boxers often suffer from heart disease and epilepsy. The Kennel Club claims that 90 per cent of the British canine population is healthy, and that these kinds of genetic diseases are actually more common in humans than dogs. But there are concerns that the problem will get worse, as an increasingly concentrated gene pool makes the abnormalities even more likely to be passed on.

Some are concerned that dog breeders show little regard for the health of their charges. "I defy anybody to say that they would approve of brother-sister mating or father-daughter mating [in humans]," says geneticist Steve Jones. "And yet if you speak to dog breeders, father-daughter or father-granddaughter mating is common. They must know that this is going to cause problems."

Why are the dogs inbred?

The whole point of the pedigree designation is that it applies to animals which have not had their breed's natural characteristics diluted by cross-breeding with another. The Kennel Club maintains strict pedigree standards that competition dogs are compared to, and, for obvious reasons, breeding close relatives makes it easier to keep dogs close to that template – and helps encourage features that go down well with judges at shows like Crufts. The role Crufts and other competitions have played in encouraging dog breeders to mate close relatives has led the BBC to consider whether it will continue broadcasting the show. "When I watch Crufts, what I see is a parade of mutants," says Mark Evans, chief vet of the RSPCA. "It's some freakish, garish, beauty pageant that frankly has nothing to do with health and welfare."

What other problems do the pedigree standards cause?

As well as the genetic defects like heart disease and epilepsy, the exaggeration of prize-winning features can cause health problems in themselves. These features are often not natural to the breed, but have been exacerbated by years of selective breeding between two dogs that share the same strong characteristics.

The folds of flesh on a bassett hound's legs cause skin complaints; flat-faced pugs have difficulty breathing; prize bulldogs are so oddly proportioned that they often find it impossible to mate or give birth without help.

How long has this been a problem?

The problems began in the 19th century, when dog fanciers began to set down particular physical features that were deemed to be ideal for the breed in question.

In 1864, for instance, Birmingham breeder Jacob Lamphier created the 'Philo-Kuon' standard for bulldogs, decreeing it essential that a bulldog have a deep furrow between its eyes, a recessed nose, and a short, thick neck. Before then, dogs had simply been bred with their practical uses in mind, meaning that their physical capacities were more important than their aesthetic appeal; now, inbreeding is so ubiquitous that the Imperial College researchers estimate the UK's boxer dog population of 20,000 to have the variety of genetic material you would expect to find naturally in a population of about 70.

The Kennel Club, which now governs the pedigree standards in the UK, has been roundly criticised for failing to do enough to solve the problem.

Why is the Kennel Club under fire?

Critics argue that it has not done enough to change the way pedigree dogs are bred. It is against club rules to cross-breed a pedigree dog with a different variety, which makes it hard to see how the gene pool can diversify.

And while many other national kennel clubs have changed their rules to bar incestuous breeding in the face of mounting concerns over the health ramifications, it is still perfectly legitimate in the UK.

In its defence, the club says that inbreeding is an essential tool for the development of breeds. And it points out that it amended pedigree standards 20 years ago to discourage breeders from placing a dog's aesthetic appeal above its health.

In theory, too, unhealthy dogs should not be able to win prizes at dog shows, although many are sceptical about the practical application of that principle. "We recognise the problem," says Club secretary Caroline Kisko. "But it is far less common than it ever was in the past... We are the ones that are trying to put things right."

So how can the problems be solved?

The Imperial college researchers suggest three crucial changes. Since successful competition dogs are likely to be particularly popular breeding stock and will therefore concentrate the gene pool still further, they argue that there should be a limit on how many times any one dog can father a litter.

To combat the problems that arise from a severely limited pool of available animals, they suggest encouraging owners to mate their dogs with animals from abroad. And they say that the breed rules should be relaxed to allow animals to breed outside of their pedigree.

Failing to take such actions may exacerbate the health problems suffered by purebred dogs. "If dog breeders insist on going further down that road," Steve Jones says, "I can say with confidence that there is a universe of suffering waiting for many of these breeds."

Should we be ashamed to watch Crufts?

Yes...

* It has been known for years that the in-breeding of dogs causes health problems

* Even without scientific evidence, some of the health problems of are obvious

* The dogs have no say in whether they want to be shown, so it's cruel if they're sick

No...

* The scientific evidence is new, and the Kennel Club has promised to consider it

* Ninety per cent of the dogs are said to be healthy – a higher proportion than in humans

* We allow human beauty pageants even though size zero is proven to be unhealthy

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

56 Comments

No, we shouldn't be ashamed to watch Crufts. There are very many healthy beautifull talented dogs there that are a credit to their breeds and owners.

What we should be ashamed of is that there are so many others who suffer and have inherited defects which could have been avoided. I could not believe that the cavalier owner actually allowed her dog who was a case of a potentially terribly painfull illness father many litters of puppies.

The Kennel Club could stop a lot of this and their Chairpersons view that all controls would do would be to drive breeders away was a spurious argument. The KC continue to register puppies from close family matings and from stock either not tested for diseases where there is a test or even worse having the disease. This means they are condoning what is happening.

There are manydogs bred from health tested stock but this does not negate the need for control. The irresponsible and the just plain ignorant need to be brought into line.

Posted by Maary Lindsay | 22.08.08, 20:30 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

As an avid dog lover and having watched the BBC Documentary 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' I will NEVER again watch Crufts. I've always had my doubts about some of the dog show fraternity but this has really cemented my disgust at malpractice and abuse in the pursuit of perfection.
I hope to find some major petition that we can register our objections to this inhumanity to the government.
This is the thin end of the wedge, as a layperson I didn't even realise until I thought about it how friends & acquaintances owning dogs with good pedigrees have had such devastating health catastrophes with them.
I was left in tears, let's hope this documentary will be the start of action for those poor silent victims.

Posted by Lisa Turner | 22.08.08, 14:39 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

I had to turn over towards the end of the show on the BBC the other night, as i was shouting abuse at the screen, aimed at the breeders and the Kennel Club.

How can breeders justify destroying healthy dogs who are born without defects, and keep those who are born with defects, and then continue to breed from these sick animals? The sight of the dog having a fit, and the thought of others with various problems made me weep. We are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers (i have three adopted cats from three different rescue charities, and i donate to three animal charities).

Why are these breeders allowed to inbreed their dogs so much?

I do hope the BBC drops Crufts, they wouldn't broadcast shows about fox hunting, so why show this. (i know it's a lot different from fox hunting, but this is a slow form of torture for these so called 'breeds')

My heart goes out to all owners, who paid for a pedigree breed, and now have to watch it suffer, and slowly die.

Posted by Alison | 22.08.08, 11:31 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

How dare we dictate what our dog breeds are 'supposed' to look like. They look like freaks, some suffer considerably as a result, and for what? What exactly do we achieve from this appaling practice aside from mountains of cash?
Animal cruelty to the extreme, and nothing has been done, surely in this day and age, some kind of legislation must be put into place!

A comment below states that the program was 'sensationalised', well thank god, these poor creatures cannot speak for themselves, and finally they have a voice.
I dont deny that many of the dogs are happy and live great lives, but what about those that suffer in silence? You only have to look at them to see how disgusting and out of hand pedigree breeding has become.

Posted by abi buxey-brown | 22.08.08, 10:00 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Yes, we should be ashamed of Crufts and the values behind it.
Some of the scientific evidence is not new. It is ignored.
There is no real way of confirming the percentage of pedigree dogs that are healthy. 90% is a guess. A good looking figure.
Pedigrees generally live shorter lives than mixes. Well accepted.
Humans can choose to participate in pageants and we have the right to ruin our own lives but to do this to animals is sickening. To spectate, ghoulish.
In response the KC speak of their Charitable Trust providing means to sponsor research to improve the health of breeds but if you look at their own figures, over 21 years only 2/3rds of their grants have gone anywhere near research institutions. Some 2.3 million in 21 years - around £2000 a week.
That’s not going to buy a lot of research.
It is not in the interests of the KC or breeders to change their ways. Winning a show mean money at any level - fees for stud or higher prices for pups. Thats what its about - money.

Posted by Mike Cooke | 22.08.08, 06:54 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

well this is a lively discussion,reading the views of everyone the kennel club needs to be investigated and new rules enforced,but this will all be too little too late.
i know from personal experience from my parents recent purchases of bull terriers from supposedly reputable breeders,that their vet bills now exceed the payment of the dog.skin problems,dietary problems the list was endless.these dogs were not bred properly in my view.

something needs to change.has the RSPCA been involved as they are keen to prosecute for animal cruelty.
is in- breeding classed as cruelty????

surely it must be....................

Posted by willie eckislike | 22.08.08, 00:03 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Unfortunately, it is the people who believe the show portrays anymore than 1% of the reputable breeders out there, that may have the size 10 brain in the size 6 skull. I own four Cavaliers ranging in age from 3 to 8. Not one of them has SM or MVD. However, I fully anticipate that at least a few of them will develop heart disease as they grow older. SIXTY percent of ALL dogs do (including mutts) just as 58% of all elderly humans develop the disease. Why one would think dogs would not develop disease just as humans do is beyond me.

Though I believe some of the breed standards should be brought back into line to equate with a healthy dog, most of this program was sensationalist rubbish. Particularly disturbing were the SM Cavalier owners who were walking their dog with a collar. The first thing an SM owner is told is NEVER to walk the dog on a collar; a harness should be used. Those owners used a collar for the sole purpose of provoking an episode to film

Posted by LuvsDogs | 21.08.08, 20:18 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

If the director of the national institution The Kennel Club shuns the advice of leading vets and geneticists with regards to safe breeding, how are uneducated breeders and dog owners (who believe the look of their dog more important than its health and quality of life) going to view their message? Owners, breeders and judges involved in dog showing should revere rather than deny and shun the advice of experts on breeding to ensure the future of healthy dogs and ultimately, their occupations. Perhaps we should go back to dog owners requiring a licence to possess a dog. This would help protect the public from dangerous dogs but perhaps more crucially, protect dogs from in-breeding, inherited conditions and abusive breeders and institutions!

Posted by Kimberlie and Buttons, Leicester | 21.08.08, 19:11 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Although I am sure that there are many good and responsible dog breeders, the 'Industry' needs to be brought to the Courts.

If you beat a dog, don't feed it or torture it then you are breaking the law. To breed a dog which is almost certain to have severe health problems and distress throughout it's life is not the actions of a dog 'lover' and theose responsible should also be prosecuted.

It was clear from watching the programme that the worst offenders did not care for their dogs but only their reputation as a breeder.

Well you can keep your fancy dogs, I've always had mongrels which I'm sure these breeders would have destroyed at birth. My dogs are fun loving, healthy and have all the love they could want!

And if that woman who destroys her non-Ridgebacks doesn't know what to do with her non-ridged dogs then I'll have them off her!

Her and the vet who destroys them should be banned from their professions.

I'd like to rant now but I don't want this post deleting

Posted by Paul Landreth-Smith | 21.08.08, 17:13 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

you never see bulldogs in shelters because they are so expensive to keep with the vet bills and are usually put down because the owners cant afford the bills . i know this because i have 1 and after never being away from the vets now face £1000 pound bill for eye surgery and the annoying thing is the breeder admitted to useing a stud with very bad eyes but the pedigree was good she said.all breeders should be made pay for any hereditary ailments in puppies they produce.the king charles woman on tv should well look uncomfortable when questioned breeding that many litters of pups from a known faulty dog is unforgivable.the suffering of the animals and owners doesnt bare thinking about this greedy woman should be made to refund all money made from this dog and pay for all pupies vet bills for life.because that is what it is greed it certainly isnt for the health of the breed.

Posted by neil heaps | 21.08.08, 16:10 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

56 Comments

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date