Oblivuary

Apparently February is a month of general obliviousness. Oblivuary is a sister occasion to Opposite Day, where down is up and boy bands play instruments. Unfortunately, while this month also features down as up, the difference is that nobody notices.

And you know what brought this on: dear old Westminster.

Take, for example, the Dogue de Bordeaux, finally recognized as a breed by the AKC in July '08 ... and decried by the UK KC several months later. If you've been following the doggy dailies, you know of the BBC's ultimatum to Crufts, Westminster's British counterpart: Remove 14 disease-riddled breeds from the show, or be booted off the network. Crufts was dropped like a hot potato. And can you guess who featured among those 14 at-risk breeds?

Duh, says Brickface McDewlap.

Not only does the AKC not even acknowledge the studies by the Kennel Club across the pond - they can't wait to show off their new breed.

Sigh.

Don't even get me started on PETA.

Actually, do, because this still makes me laugh. PETA takes a stand against purebreeds by dressing up as the KKK outside Westminster. For real!

"Their goal, according to a post on the PETA website, was to draw a parallel between the KKK and the American Kennel Club. "Obviously it's an uncomfortable comparison," PETA spokesman Michael McGraw told the Associated Press.
But the AKC is trying to create a "master race" when it comes to pure-bred dogs, he added. "It's a very apt comparison.""

Okay, that is definitely not the message I got. Just me, or ...?

Moving past this bizarro-world logic, PETA once again shuts its eyes to the real issues: Genetic health disorders and inbreeding. Nope, the AKC is trying to cleanse its - er, race of dogs. Because all purebreed breeders want, of course, is to see the mutts of the world gassed or machete'd or lynched or enslaved to serve the conformationally perfect dogs! (Wouldn't that last one be just a little bit cool to see, though?)

And so once again we tiredly realize that PETA cares far more about publicity than it does about animals.

I hereby counteract fueling this loonie-bin fire by proclaiming Adopt a purebred if you want to! and Buying from a breeder does not make you a bad person/a shelter-dog killer! Also, EAT A SEA KITTEN! They're delicious and they have no soul!

As for the AKC... Well, there's not much to be done there until they open their eyes, take their hands away from their ears and stop humming loudly. Ho hum.

Taking the Spark Out of Sparky

Sweden thinks your dog is dumb.

Whoa, whoa, hold the phone! My dog may lick bookshelves as a hobby, but who are you scientists to call him stupid??

Actually, I kind of have to agree.

No, it's not like what the cats have been telling us for years. Not every dog is dimming down. When you think about it, you can guess the likely culprits. You got it - that parade of primped-up pooches who trot around the show ring every year at Westminster.

Look at it this way: If Paris Hilton and Kevin Federline had babies, and we bred those babies to each other, you wouldn't exactly be expecting rocket science from those offspring.

Also, the study did only cover 31 breeds, out of about 158 registered with the AKC. But they took care to examine some of the breeds that were once prided for their working ability, now too dull to investigate an unfamiliar object when they find one. Yikes. This is why we fought so hard to keep Border collies out of the Kennel Club!

Pete the Vet ends the article on an optimistic note: "Will we now start to see a swing towards healthier, smarter pedigree dogs?" I certainly hope so. But the road to healthier, smarter pedigree dogs might prove too strenuous for the AKC. After all, we're talking about abandoning that tired old "we're just a registry" excuse, breed standard revisions, opening the closed registry system, and now, perhaps, asking for working performance from our show dogs instead of just good looks. Madness!


(Poor breeders. I know some of you out there are rockstars ..!)

The End of an Era

I'd like to call it the end of the Dogs With Dewlaps era, because while that doesn't begin to cover the deformities of the pedigree dogs, the dewlaps really do embody all of that which appalls me.

I could give my own cheer about the [UK] Kennel Club revising breed standards and tossing out inbreeding (nothing about linebreeding though), but I'll just pimp out this post of Terrierman's. Because I'm lazy and T-man is very concise and cynical.

The revised standards are definitely worth a look - check out all the revisions under English bulldog. And here's what I like to see:

Shar Pei
Head & Skull: Moderate wrinkle on forehead and cheeks. [Delete ‘continuing to form dewlaps’].

Neapolitan Mastiff
Characteristics: Some loose fitting skin over body and head permitted, not to be excessive. [Delete ‘with a double dewlap’].
Neck: Fairly short, stocky, very muscular. [Delete ‘dewlap from lower jaw reaching mid-point of neck’]

Bloodhound
Characteristics: Skin relatively loose. [delete ‘especially noticeable about head and neck and where it hangs in deep folds’].

(Seriously. Dewlaps = gross.)

They've also tossed out screw/twist tails, the removal of dewclaws, and such ridiculous statements as (under Chihuahua), "If two dogs are equally good in type, the more diminutive preferred".

So have a look through, pick out your favourite amendments, and cross your fingers for the AKC to get its act together. Knowing Canada, we will probably wait a week to assert our independence, and then do whatever Britain's doing.

The Changing Tides...

Did you ever see that movie North County? And the end, when all the women stand up one by one alongside Charlize Theron in agreement on men in the mines being gross and sexist?

Well, I stood up - now, entering the New Year, I think I'm seeing others stand up too...

Here's a well-written article by an Atlanta dog trainer about adopting a new dog into your family, and the points the not-so-dog-savvy class don't always consider. This is what she has to say about designer breeds:

"Intentional mixed breeds, or "designer dogs," are trendy, though that trend seems to be cooling a bit. Think long and hard before plunking down a lot of money on the same mixed breed you can adopt from the local animal shelter. Intentional mixes are generally no more healthy or allergen-free than any other breed or mix, they just cost more."

From the mouths of the savvy!

Now another article about "hypoallergenic" dogs. Who'da thought even the selection of Obama's dog could get so political? We know he's never gonna go with a purebreed, because that would make him out to be an oh-my-God-elitist, but this person has some suggestion anyway.

""Designer dogs," often mixed with poodles, are not recommended for allergy suffers due to their unpredictable coat.
Each dog in a litter of mixed breeds is unique in its size, coat type, temperament and energy level, making the high prices unjustifiable and the claims these dogs are ideal misleading at best.
A "designer dog" lacks predictability and could pose a problem for Obama's allergy-suffering daughter."

For what it's worth, I do agree to some extent; though bear in mind that this writer's main source is the AKC, and we know they've got an agenda...

There is another big war kicking up in the dog world, my friends! And it started with Pedigree Dogs Exposed. But it's not as cut-and-dry as the Kennel Club vs. dog people. There are all kinds of groups getting wrapped up in this.

There's the Kennel Clubs and conservative breeders who don't think there's anything wrong or don't make it their business.

There are the purebreed breeders who accept that something's up with their dogs and want to help - though they run the risk of being practically booted out of the parent club...

There are the "abandon ship" breeders who give up purebreds as a lost cause (or as a cause no longer bringing in enough cash) and move on to mixed breeds.

There are the designer breeders who, unintentionally or not, take advantage of the insecurities being whipped up by promoting the hybrid vigour effect.

There are responsible breeders out there who, regardless of breed, just want to produce a happy, healthy pet, and do their best to do so - unfortunately, they seem to be underrepresented in this war...

And of course you've got the dog owners - the oblivious (who will probably dump their puppy as soon as they buy a new carpet), the uneducated (who don't know about this "war", or else just buy into whatever breed they think looks attractive). The "elitist" breed devotees and the others who stoutly swear by their muttpuppies. And, of course, that group I affectionately refer to as the dog-savvy, who do their homework and don't need designer breeders or the AKC to make up their mind for them.

I suppose all we can do is wait and watch and wonder. I've no idea who's going to win this war, if anybody can "win". But I will predict this: I think we may be about to see the extinction of a couple old breeds. Soak up the Neapolitan mastiff while you can...

And now for something completely different.

Today I'm going to do something a little backward on MoT. In fact, let's talk about the merits of mixed breeding by design.

Wait wait, don't stone me!

I want to talk about outcrossing. This is something I touched on briefly in this post, but I've started looking into it a bit more since...

We know there's a problem in the dog world (and if you'd rather think there isn't, move on because this blog ain't for you). Purebreeds are becoming increasingly defective and thanks to closed registries we're whittling the gene pools down to puddles. What's to be done? How can we fix this mess we've created? Two solutions should be staring us in the face - the third remains a little hazy. I'm talking, of course, about:

A) Changing the AKC breed standards

B) Switching from closed to open registries

C) ...And outcrossing.

To start with, let's cover the history of the bobtail boxer. International Kennel Clubs recognize more than fifty breeds currently, the boxer included, with docked tails. Tails are docked for reasons of hygiene (hair matting under the rump), or for practical reasons, mainly in gundogs (whose tails can become tangled, torn and injured in the field) and working terriers (who have to maneuver in tight spaces). And, of course, we dock to meet breed standards. There are plenty of people on both sides of the docking fence, but recently breeders have been under more pressure to stop docking and cropping. There are people who'd rather be left alone to dock their dogs, people who recognize that only trained and competent professional should dock puppies, and people who think it should be banned altogether.

In the face of such a ban, one boxer breeder decided not to sit at home and complain, but to do something about it. There are a handful of breeds with a natural bobtail gene: these include Boston terriers, Pembroke Welsh corgies, Polish Lowlands, English bulldogs and Australian Shepherds. Dr Bruce Cattanach, breeder and geneticist by profession, took one of his boxer bitches and crossed her with a Pembroke corgi. This was the result:

Dr Cattanach then began backbreeding with typey purebred boxers. By the fifth generation, he had produced this:

This article can tell you about the whole process and give a play-by-play of each generation. Ultimately, Dr Cattanach introduced the natural bobtail gene and managed to breed back to "show quality" boxers. Ta-da! Somebody smart and qualified saw something going on with his breed, and had the perseverence to change the situation. More bobtails. Not only are these boxers being spread across Europe and Australia, they're recognized by the UKC.

There are other backcross projects going on. Breeders have been trying for several decades to eliminate uric acid defect in Dalmatians, a breed riddled with genetic defects. Dalmatians have suffered from uric-acid stones for over a century now; no other breeds are affected. High levels of uric acid can result in bladder stones - this is an emergency. These stones often need to be removed surgically, and high uric acid hits up just about every Dalmatian.

In the 70s, Dr Robert Schaible, a geneticist and breeder (not unlike Dr Cattamach), bred a Dalmatian bitch to a champion pointer dog in order to introduce normal levels of uric acid back into Dalmatians. The resulting pups, though they didn't look a whole lot like Dalmatians, all excreted normal uric acid levels. Dr Schaible started backcrossing, selecting one pup from each resulting litter for Dalmatian traits and low UA levels. Only the one pointer has been used, but the AKC refuses to register the backcrossed dogs in spite of the project receiving support from the Dalmation Club of Northern California (home to the Backcross Project). This project quietly persists, producing more and more Dalmatians with normal UA levels; the AKC continues to ignore it. In September 2008 the very question of discussing registry for these dogs was shot down by the parent club.

Seventh-generation backcross.

I can't help but wonder why it is the backcross developed for largely aesthetic purposes is embraced so much more widely than the backcross designed to cut back on health issues...

Should more backcrossing projects be encouraged and nurtured? Is this really an alternative, in the hands of gene-savvy, qualified breeders? Are these problems ones that could be eradicated by changing the breeding policies of purebred dogs?

Until somebody changes my opinion, I'd like to see more careful, controlled, supervised-by-scientists out- and back-crossing projects for our "emergency" breeds. The pug may be too far gone to save itself; maybe beagle genes really are the answer. Maybe the Shar-Pei needs a serious face-lift in the form of a non-wrinkled mate. Maybe this is the only hope of the Neapolitan mastiff. Who knows?

It can't hurt our breeds more than we already have.

Salvation in sight?

First off, thanks so much to Terrierman for linking MoT in his blog! MoT is still just a baby blog, and any publicity it can get is appreciated. But hang tight, I'm not done singing your praises yet.

Today I want to talk about open registries, which are - apparently - little-known in the dog world. Stand still so I can condemn you (despite not fully understanding the concept myself until recently). If you already knew about open registries, you move to the front of the class. If you're a breeder and you work with open registries, you get a gold star! Two more and I'll let you pick something out from a box of garage-sale trinkets at the end of the week.

The concept of open vs. closed registries can be difficult to grasp if, like me, a lot of the medical genetical jargon goes over your head and genetic pedigrees reeling off numerous abbreviations and symbols lose you somewhere around the third generation. Just to double-check I had my facts straight, I did some extra research a couple days ago and - hallelujah! - at last, found an article I could understand, that cleared up a couple things for me. And then I reached the bottom of the article and guess who it was by! T-man, have I mentioned lately that you're my hero?

Anyway, I wanted to talk about registries because they tie in nicely with what I've been yammering on about lately; the health problems in purebreds. It goes like this:

Closed registries will tell you what health checks an individual dog passed. Think OFA and CERF: these are closed registries. If the dog was screened for health problems and is sound, it'll show up in the registries. So, obviously, you want to breed a dog that shows up sound.

Open registries don't just tell you what the dog passed. They tell you what the dog failed. They also tell you that, although this dog is free from eye problems, one of his parents has glaucoma, and so does his sister. (GDC is an open registry.)

So you see why open registries are becoming more favoured.

Inbreeding is indeed a raging problem in purebreds. And by using closed registries to select the dogs we breed, we are increasingly tightening the noose already wrapped around the doggy gene pool, slowly making that pool smaller and smaller - and more unhealthy. Switching to open registry flings open the door to a whole new pool, a big, diverse one. Open registry doesn't mean cross-breed and it doesn't mean lower your standards either. It means toss out this useless traditional method and breed healthy - I mean really breed healthy.

I searched long and hard for a pro-closed argument that would explain to me why we're still using this system if open is that much better. Terrierman can explain it much better than I can, but essentially: it comes from an old, outdated idea about genetics that we're still seeing now - that the best genes will out. The idea behind the closed registry goes along with the idea of "survival of the fittest". Problem is, of course, dogs aren't wild animals, and we choose their mates. The lesson here, basically, is that just because something's been done one way for a long time doesn't mean it's all good (hello, America! Letting gays marry won't cause Russia to invade).

So why hasn't it changed?

That's thanks to the AKC - that tall guy in the cape, twirling his moustache, over there. The AKC's closed registry policies are strangling our gene pools to puddles. They make the rules and we follow them so our dogs can go on proving their quality by trotting around the show ring and stacking nicely. Our dogs are WAY TOO UNHEALTHY and the AKC isn't facing up to that. We need an open registry system now.

On a similar note, could cross-breeding be the solution? NO. I'm tired of people pretending that they mix dogs up for the good of dogkind. Yes, F1 hybrids can be healthier than their parents, but they can also inherit the genes for defects from both sides. Mutts can be a disaster in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing.

Crossing and back-crossing, on the other hand... I'm inclined to say this could help the situation, when I think of especially unhealthy dogs that need change NOW. My thoughts always go to the pug and the Shar-pei first, but that may be just because I hate their Ori-pei offspring almost as much as I hate those stupid square blocks in Tetris that only show up exactly when you don't need them. Are we really on to something with mixes like the puggle? Could breeding in proper airways and breeding back to pugs be the breed's salvation? Or can they hang on till the Kennel Club gets its collective ass in gear and starts thinking about the dogs?

(Find out next week, on ...!)

I guess this forum is now open for discussion - I'd love to hear some opinions on this one, especially if you're more involved in registries than I am.