Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog

10/3/2025

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cu5ILt4O6KF Dear Lewis You're a seven-times world champion - some say the most successful Formula One driver in history. It’s a passion that’s endured across three decades and every continent. But, arguably, the real love of your life has been your Bulldog, Roscoe. When Roscoe died in your arms last Sunday night, millions of fans across the world mourned with you,  Roscoe has been at your side through glory and heartbreak for the past 12 years  - one of the very few dogs ever allowed trackside at Formula 1. Your love for Roscoe shone in every picture, every post, every trackside cuddle. He was your shadow, your friend, your family. But, Lewis,  if you truly love dogs – please don’t get another Bulldog. Because being a Bulldog is the pits. During WW2 the Bulldog became a national symbol of pluck, perseverance and triumph over adversity. But the Bulldog’s battleground has never been foreign fields.  Its enemy is its own body.   Roscoe has wanted for nothing, other than, perhaps, a few slivers of fillet steak since you switched him to a plant-based diet in 2020.  But, it wasn't able to protect Bulldog from being a Bulldog.  In December 2015 on the Jonathan Ross show you revealed that Roscoe, when just three years old, was at the vets for "bad breathing".  Photos from around this time show that Roscoe had his nostrils widened to help him breathe. "He always had health issues and would struggle with things like his breathing and his walking,” you told People.com in October 2024.   He has been hospitalised several times and it is only your deep pockets that have kept him alive for so long.  It is not unusual for Bulldogs to be dead by six - the age at which you lost your beloved Bulldog girl, Coco, to a suspected heart attack in June 2020. And yet Roscoe was not a "backyard-bred" dog. You told Vogue earlier this year that Roscoe came from champion stock. Although you often tell people he was "adopted" leading people to think that you rescued him, you revealed to Vogue that you got him at eight weeks and found him by trawling through a pet-sales site on the internet.  Click to enlarge. Source: https://www.vogue.com/article/lewis-hamilton-dogue-2025 I highlighted the issues in my BBC documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed in 2008 and I have continued to lobby for Bulldog reform ever since, via this blog and my social media campaign, CRUFFA . Bulldogs competing at Crufts now have to pass a breathing test to compete. But many Bulldogs continue to live short, blighted lives - even "well-bred" Bulldogs, because the basic template is a recipe for problems. It isn’t just their compromised respiratory system which no amount of money or ‘supervet’ surgery can properly fix.  Bulldogs are vulnerable to heatstroke that can kill. A dip in the sea or a river to cool them off is just as lethal because many can’t swim. Breeders will tell you that, in times of old, their protruding bottom jaw helped them hang on to a bull’s nose; that the wrinkles on their face helped channel the bull’s blood from the dog’s eyes.  But this is pure… bullocks.  The bull-baiting dogs of the 18th century looked more like today’s pitbulls - tall, sturdy, supremely athletic, with big, powerful, aligned jaws. Today’s Bulldog’s mouths are so deformed  that one enterprising pet food company makes a kibble for them that  has been specially adapted to make it easier for them to pick it up. Although there have been some improvements in recent years, many can't mate or give birth naturally. “Too posh to push!” laugh breeders. They can’t reach round to clean their own bums or alleviate an itch.  Breeding for a short, screw tail is linked to back problems. The distinct “rolling gait” required by the Kennel Club breed standard, has been achieved by breeding for disproportionately broad shoulders and malformed hip joints. The strain of living this way is why they have the dubious honour of being one of the shortest-living breeds in the world.   Roscoe died from the complications of a breed-typical problem, a condition called aspiration pneumonia caused because their deformed structure risks food going into their lungs  where it causes life-threatening havoc. Breeding Bulldogs has now been banned in Norway on welfare grounds and restricted in an increasing number of countries. You and Roscoe have been so inseparable that, in 2014, Roscoe was registered as a service dog with the United States Service Dog Registry  (USSDR) in order to be able to join you in the cabin on a commercial flight. Dogs over a certain weight usually have to travel in the hold but service dogs get a free pass. Pctures of you at Heathrow airport at the time show Roscoe sporting a service dog harness with the USSDR logo.   The USSDR is widely used by people who want their dogs with them on flights, in shops and other places where dogs are not usually allowed - because it allows people to self-certify their dog as a service dog.     I was able to register my own dog in a few clicks and with no checks. Actually, I also managed to register a stuffed toy called Spunky. Spunky is still singing (if quietly) his service dog credentials on the USSDR website today. What should be your next dog?   Thankfully, Bulldogs are not as popular as they are - Kennel Club registrations have dived with the greater awareness of their health issues.  But the small ads are full of a horrible new trend in very extreme, “extra-plushy” Bulldogs with excessive wrinkling and very short legs.  I dearly hope you won’t be tempted. The current fad is also for miniature smooth-haired Dachshunds - a dog small enough to fit in your cockpit. But beware - 25-30% of them suffer from agonising IVDD (intervertebral disc disease) and some end up paralysed.  Very recent UK research shows their average of death at seven - very young for a small dog (small dogs tend to live longer than bigger dogs). There's a wonderful new initiative led by Professor Dan O'Neill at the Royal Veterinary College, in collaboration with the All Party Group on Animal Welfare, called the Innate Health Assessment.     The Innate Health Assessment (IHA) tool for dogs is a visual checklist of 10 key conformational criteria to help breeders, dog owners and prospective dog owners make good decisions. It's free and when it launches later this month you will be able to find it on the new Innate Health Assessment website.  In the meantime, you can read all about it here.  Lewis, I am so sorry you have lost your friend. Money, fame, devotion: you gave him everything. But ultimately you couldn’t save him from being a Bulldog. With your voice, you could help stop that suffering for others.

11/6/2023

Kennel Club registered - Britishbullz Fat Jack Last year, the UK Kennel Club registered over 60,000 Bulldog, French Bulldog and Pug puppies  and fewer than five per cent of these puppies were born to parents whose breathing had been tested before they were bred. This despite respiratory issues being their number one health issue.  Today, Bulldogs, Frenchies and Pugs make up one in five of all the dogs registered with the Kennel Club - an increase from one in fifty in 2005. Thousands more untested dogs are bred outside of the Kennel Club. There is, currently, an appetite for very extreme, freakish looking dogs - some sold for £100k and more by unscrupulous breeders. As many people know, these breeds suffer from many health issues as a result of being bred for a flat (brachycephalic) face, with one of the most serious being Brachycephalic Obstructed Airway Syndrome (BOAS).  A conservative estimate suggests that 67% of Bulldogs, 54% of all Frenchies and 75% of all Pugs in the UK exhibit some degree of BOAS.  The true figure is likely to be higher. The 'air hunger' these dogs  experience has been described by experts as a significant welfare concern - in the same category as drowning or being deliberately asphyxiated. At best it is unpleasant; at worst terrifying. The health issues suffered by short-faced (brachycephalic) dogs are considered so serious that the Netherlands has now banned their breeding . Other countries are now considering introducing their own measures - from an outright ban to strict breeding rules. In 2019, in response to increasing concern from veterinarians and welfare bodies, the Kennel Club introduced a breathing scheme for Bulldogs, Frenchies and Pugs. The scheme grades dogs' breathing between 0 and 3, with Grade 0 being unaffected and Grade 3 being severely affected.  The scheme is only mandatory for breeders signed up the KC's elite Assured Breeder Scheme but there are very few of these (just 11 assured Pug breeders in the whole of the UK) and there is no pass or fail. For all other breeders/owners, it is voluntary and uptake has been slow. While some of the more health-conscious breeders are now testing, the vast majority of Bulldogs, Frenchies and Pug puppies registered by the Kennel Club have not been tested and are at an increased risk of suffering significant breathing issues. This dog above ,for example, is registered with the Kennel Club. He has not been BOAS tested and it is likely from his conformation that he is severely affected. His pups, all Kennel Club registered, are currently being offered for sale on Gumtree.  His pedigree name is Britishbullz Fat Jack - born in the UK on 9th June 2022 (incorrectly registered as fawn).  Here's what he looked like as a pup: Here is his sister: Fat Jack was exported to the US earlier this year and, thanks to the reciprocal agreement between the UK Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club, Fat Jack is now registered with the AKC.  Fat Jack's sire is Jackpot of Cheshire - a dog that sired 19 KC litters until his death in June 2022 at the age of just 18 months.  Jackpot's sire is four-year-old Topboy Bully, still only four years old. He has sired - wait for it - 80 KC-registered litters. And Topboy Bully's sire is Burleybulls Nemesis, who has sired 160 KC-registered litters. "We're just a register!" is the KC's defence. And indeed, the KC makes it clear in their small-print that KC registration is no guarantee of a quality dog.  "Think of us as the DVLA for dogs," said a spokesperson for the KC recently. But cars have to meet manufacturing guidelines before they can be sold and they require annual tests to ensure their road-worthiness.  I have always been sympathetic to the argument that it is better to register these dogs than not. After all, if the KC had not registered them I couldn't give you the above info.  But it is deeply shocking that dogs like Fat Jack and his relatives are being bred and legitimised through KC registration.  Being able to breathe is something just SO fundamental to quality of life - and the situation is now just SO serious that we need to do something. I am calling on the Kennel Club and ultimately the Government to make pre-breeding breathing tests mandatory in order to prevent the legitimisation of dogs like the above, and I am also asking that only dogs graded 0/1 are bred, as has recently been ruled by the Supreme Court in Norway. Most health-conscious breeders in the above breeds would be in full support of this move. Please sign the petitition urging the Kennel Club and the UK Government to take action now! Together we can make a difference to these dogs' lives. https://chng.it/K6LstFX6CK

3/11/2022

(Click to enlarge) Eleven years ago, I wrote a post featuring the Neapolitan Mastiffs at Crufts 2011. It highlighted the dogs in the ring that year - so horrendous that I headlined it "A Parade of Mutants".  The dog top-left above won Best of Breed that year - just heartbreaking. And the dog on the right won Best of Breed at Crufts today - Tommaso Goffredo's Taro.  It's a world of difference, isn't it? The dog on the right isn't perfect but oh boy he was sound on the move. The picture captures that this dog is comfortable in his own body; not the painfully-hunched bag of excess skin that won in 2011.  Of course it takes more than a gobby blog to effect change - but it WAS the spark in this breed.  It led to public outrage and the bad publicity made the Kennel Club wince. Breed reps were hauled over the coals by the Kennel Club after Crufts 2011 and told in no uncertain terms that the dogs had to improve. The following year, Crufts introduced vet checks.  That said, change can't happen if breeders don't step up to the mark - and that's what happened in Neapolitan Mastiffs. One breeder in particular, in fact -  former breed health rep, Kim Slater-Mafi whose husband Mateaki won in the ring today with Tomasso Goffredo's Taro, who is 4.5yrs old.   I salute you both  Although I would love you to go further ;-) .  Below, on the left, is your boy, photographed today; in glossy show condition, slobber-free, I can see that his eyes are not red raw as we've seen in the past and.. lovely nostrils!. But check out the Neapolitan Mastiff from the 1970s.  Leaving aside the cropped ears, the dog on the right has such a handsome, noble head. Less skin, cleaner face, better eyes. All the more imposing. This morning, I put up a post on my campaign group CRUFFA asking people attending Crufts to send in pictures of dogs that catch their eye at this year's show - examples showing improvement and/or those where it is obvious improvement is still needed. I actually do this every year - and every year it provokes outrage from those who feel people should be able to exhibit their dogs at Crufts without me highlighting issues.   "Do your own dirty work and don't expect others to do it for you," wrote one commenter. " "How about you put your energy into helping the dogs in Ukraine?" asked another.  Many were keen to highlight the 'rules' re photography that are posted on the Crufts website (see here) Bottom line, Crufts makes it clear that it is perfectly fine for members of the public to take photographs at Crufts and, as it happens,  a condition of entry for exhibitors is that they grant permission to be filmed/photographed for TV/press.  That said, the Crufts website does does include this extraordinary statement. No film/photographs/recordings to be taken or published which....may be to the detriment of the dogs taking part in the event, The Kennel Club or any visitors; or which may be prejudicial to the good image of The Kennel Club or which would if made public lead to adverse publicity for The Kennel Club or cause damage to The Kennel Club or bring the reputation of The Kennel Club or its members and/or visitors into question This is essentially saying that if you, say, got some footage of a judge whacking a dog or a Bulldog dropping dead in the ring (which very sadly happened one year), then you would not be allowed to publish it.  This is at best nonsense and at worst a clear attempt at censorship. Legally enforceable it is not. Worse, it does the dogs themselves a disservice. Why did the Kennel Club (finally) act on the dreadful half-dog-half-frog German Shepherds? Because one particularly awful one won in 2016 and it got a LOT of publicity. The footage of the dog moving was edited out of the TV coverage - censored by some Kennel Club hand - but I tracked down the unedited footage and published it here. It got over half a million hits and the resulting outcry finally led to the Kennel Club acting.  The GSD that won Best of Breed at Crufts today is night and day better than the 2016 winner (although there, too, still a way to go). We all need outside scrutiny to keep us honest. And the dogs sound.

10/16/2021

Source Last month, the above GSD bitch won Best of Breed at the delayed 2020 French Championship in Dijon, France. Am sure she's a lovely dog but, oh boy, that backend 👀  Perhaps it's just a bad photograph? Here's the link to the same dog being put through her paces in a working test in August this year - shocking for the the degree of disability that is evident for all to see. Now it's a novice test, but it is also sad to see how unethusiastic/anxious she looks too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwyrjBWVTkk Is there no one in France doing anything about this?

7/20/2021

Personally, I think the BBC should have been brave and gone with the original title for this programme: "Will My Puppies Make Me Rich?" But when the programme was announced last November (see here), the dog world lost its shit, convinced the BBC was going to produce a get-rich-quick guide for wannabe dog breeders. The two young women who secured the commission as part of a pitching competition were bombarded with abuse online. Even the RSPCA, which should have known better, called the programme "irresponsible".   The BBC was forced to put out a statement condemning the abuse and confirming their commitment to producing a well-researched, responsible programme (read that here). But, disappointingly, the Corporation bowed to pressure and changed the title to something that was not going to offend anyone but is rather dull/worthy in comparison. That matters because it's the very people who might have been drawn in by the original title who needed to see what proved to be a good film. The programme was always going to include cautionary tales about how breeding dogs can go tits-up - such as the couple who decided to breed their Bull Terrier bitch because it would be nice to have puppies during lockdown and, admitted wife Jo, because "my husband wanted some dollar". They ended up two grand out of pocket. The bitch, Ginny, needed an expensive emergency C-section; there was only one pup and judging by the way Jo was coo-ing, he may never be sold. "He's outstandingly beautiful," she says, cradling the all-white puppy. All I could think was: I hope the puppy doesn't turn out to be deaf (a significant risk in all-white Bull Terriers). But of course some people do make money from dog breeding. A lot of money. In Manchester, photographer Rosie who specialises in snapping the currently fashionable bully breeds, told us that some breeders are copping £60k from a single litter of pups. That figure continued to ring in my ears and I suspect in the lugholes of many other too, in spite of the precautionary balance the programme included - which of course is what the welfare organisations and others feared. But the fact is that this kind of breeding is out there and it is a perfectly legit subject for a documentary. I thought it was great, actually, to have the issues raised for the younger, BBC Three audience. There wasn't much evidence here of "good" breeders, certainly not in the sense touted by the Kennel Club which was thanked in the credits but whose influence was unfelt.  I don't think the KC was mentioned once, perhaps considered as irrelevant by the programme makers as it clearly is to the young breeders who are doing things their way.  This will have infuriated many traditional breeders who will complain that the programme didn't feature one of their own; instead choosing to feature breeders such as 21-yr-old Hayden,  a young man who had crossed his palms with Silver - the name of his American Bully, who he'd mated with his Old English Bulldog bitch to produce a whopping litter of 12, nine of which survived.  There was no mention of any health-testing (so presumably none) although the pups looked in chunky good health. Their mum, though, seemed very subdued,  skinny from the effort of raising all those pups and with signs of irritation round her eyes. Click to enlarge Presenter, vet Fabian Rivers did not delve too deeply - although perhaps he did and it was edited out by the  programme-makers wary of being too tough on those who had been good enough to speak to them.  Rivers, who is very personable on screen, did spell out that fashionable breeds can make a big dent in your wallet (in vet fees) way beyond their £3k+ purchase price, but the programme was rather thin on detail about inherited defects - even allowing a Dachshund rescue person to wax lyrical over Dachshunds ("they make absolutely amazing pets") with zero mention that 25% of them suffer from spinal issues that can leave them paralysed or that there are huge concerns about the number of them being bred to meet the current demand.  Still, I guess there's been a previous film or two that has focused on this aspect...😀 The programme was journalistically at its meatiest when it came to exploring canine fertility clinics - a relatively new phenomenon in the UK and currently unregulated. We've been highlighting them on my campaign group CRUFFA for the past three years as they're often run as a profitable sideshoot by breeders who specialise in breeding overdone Bulldogs + Frenchies.  This was not obviously the case with clinic owner Rosie in Stockport and my hopes were raised when she told Rivers that there were some things she wouldn't do. Aha! So she would not, perhaps, facilitate the breeding of dogs that anyone with eyes in their head should never be bred? Nope, that wasn't the issue.  Rosie just reassured us that, unlike some others, she wouldn't take a £200 artificial insemination fee off unwitting owners when the timing meant there was no chance of puppies. She also told us that a natural tie (you know, when dogs just get on with it without human interference) was "dangerous" - something that should have been challenged given the programme's target audience was people who are new to dog breeding. We do not need a new generation of breeders who think this is normal. The programme sent an undercover reporter into the biggest fertility clinic chain - SmartBreeder - to attend a course advertised as "being covered by a fully qualified vet". Except the person who ran it - a guy called Dave Holt who was very full of himself - was neither a vet nor a veterinary professional. The camera caught him teaching his students how to draw blood (something that can legally only be done by a veterinary professional in the UK) -  and he also recommended the illegal use of the human mini-pill as a contraceptive in dogs.  SmartBreeder has yet to issue a formal statement, other than to claim that Dave Holt provides the courses via his own business. I'll add it here if one is forthcoming.  Regulation of these fertility clinics is way overdue and I hope the focus will encourage the Government into action. Same for the coverage of ear-cropping, incredibly fashionable at the moment, despite being illegal in the UK for more than 100 years. Britain's Puppy Boom: Counting the Cost is available online now and you can watch it here  - although only if you are in the UK I'm afraid.

5/8/2021

You're looking at a CT scan of a Chihuahua featured in a new study from researchers at the Universities of Helsinki and Surrey. The red circles mark where there are holes in the skull exposing the brain underneath and it raises big and urgent questions about the breeding of the world's smallest dog.  A linked paper from the same authors (currently in pre-print) reports that more than 90% of the Chihuahuas they examined have these holes - known as persistent fontanelles - along what are known as the suture lines of the skull. It's a result of the skull not fusing properly. The holes are likely linked to the miniaturisation of a breed that can weigh as little as 1.5kg and sometimes less; also to the shape of the skull, which has become shorter and more domed over the years, particularly in show-bred dogs. The consequence is a high disposition to head trauma. One vet recalls a Chi that died when a tennis ball dropped on its head. Devastating for the kid that threw it. Until recently, an open fontanelle in the middle of the head (called a molera by breeders) was actually a mark of purity in the breed - a neurological jewel in the crown. Breeders denied there was a problem with them. Today, the breed-standard demand for a molera has been dropped by all forward-thinking kennel clubs - ie not the American or Canadian KCs, both of which still mention a molera as being permitted in their luddite breed standards.  In fact, it's very clear from this statement by the Chihuahua Club of America that a molera should not be considered a handicap:.   "Historically, the Chihuahua developed in Mexico and the United States has displayed a “soft spot” on the top of the head. In the Chihuahua this spot, or fontanel, is known as a MOLERA; and is the same as that found in human babies. In the past, this molera was accepted as a mark of purity in the breed, and it is still mentioned in most Chihuahua breed standards the world over. It is important to note that while many Chihuahua puppies are born without the molera, there are probably just as many born with one and its presence is nothing to become alarmed over. As shown in the illustration below, the molera in a Chihuahua will occur on the top of the head and may vary in shape and size when present."  Further, it goes on to maintain: "... the presence of a molera does not mean the Chihuahua has a medical problem." This is what the researchers set out to find out, prompted in no small part by the knowledge that syringomyelia (fluid-filled cavities in the spinal cord) and other brain abnormalities are found in the breed. Hydrocephalus is also common - although it is true that it does not affect every Chi with a persistent fontanelle and breeders fiercely deny that it is linked.  The UK Kennel Club standard no longer includes any mention of a molera and the FCI standard lists an open fontanelle as a disqualifying fault. Progress. Indeed, many Chi breeders have recognised that a hole in the head is as undesirable as, well, a hole in the head. In a recent discussion, one UK breeder told me: "The majority of adult Chihuahuas in the UK show ring have no molera at all." The British Chihuahua Club says: "These days few Chis have permanent molera which persist into adulthood." But these new papers show that this is not true. The researchers found that even if a central molera is absent, some Chi skulls are littered with these holes, something I imagine is going to come as a shock to most Chi breeders and owners.   Significantly, the scientists found that persistent fontanelles (PFs) are more numerous and larger in smaller Chihuahuas and they also found an association between PFs and syringomyelia, overcrowding at the junction where the brain meets the neck (known as the craniocervical junction - CCJ) and ventriculomegaly (enlargement of the brain's ventricles).  The authors write: "Although their concurrent occurrence does not prove causality, our findings suggest that PFs are associated with the occurrence of these structural abnormalities... Because SM and CCJ overcrowding may cause neuropathic pain and motor deficits, our findings challenge the current conception that PFs are a clinically irrelevant finding not associated with other structural abnormalities." The suggestion is that the dogs may suffer less if we allowed them to be a little bigger - and in the interests of health, we probably need to moderate their heads, too. We know now that excessive miniaturisation is problematic. We know that brachycephaly and domed skulls are a problem, too (the latter now well documented in Cavaliers as being strongly associated with the endemic syringomyelia in the breed). Many of today's Chihuahuas have domed heads, short, narrow muzzles which leave limited room for teeth/tongues, and foreheads that fall off a cliff into an abrupt, 90 degree stop. Breeders have selected for a short cranium which overcrowds the brain, pushing the structures upwards into the desired "apple-shaped" head. The UK Kennel Club standard asks for "an apple-dome skull", sets an upper weight limit of 2.7kg (6lb) and suggests a minimum weight of 4lb (1.8kg). The AKC disqualifies dogs over 6lb (2.72 kg), with no minimum. The FCI standard disqualifies dogs weighing less than 1kg (2lb 3oz) or more than 3kg (6lb 10oz). Interestingly, today's show-bred Chi looks very different from the Chihuahuas of old. This champ dog from 1949 is admittedly rather weedy-looking but note how the forehead flows into his muzzle from both the top and side. Added bonus: his eyes are well-set into his head. This European modern Chihuahua (over 40 Bests in Show) is an improvement structurally from the neck down but just look at this head - almost a ball, with a sharp stop and a much shorter, stuck-on muzzle that's beginning to look like an afterthought. Not all of today's show dogs have muzzles this short but it is a trend and there really is no historical rationale for it. Link Almost unbelievably, the AKC illustrated standard (NB this is a link to a direct download on dogwellnet.com - the only place I could find it online) features these heads as examples of a correct head. I mean.... the bottom right 😱 Pet-bred Chihuahuas  split into two camps - tiny"teacup" Chihuahuas bred by breeders with zero regard for health and bigger/heavier dogs (often up to 10lbs) which tend to  have less extreme heads and longer muzzles. When breeders are not actively selecting for small size, nature tries to normalise.  The dogs with more moderate heads/longer muzzles are often referred to as "deer-head" Chihuahuas. It's a term show breeders loathe. ("There's no such thing - it's not a Chihuahua if it doesn't have an apple-shaped head"). These dogs would never win today, but they were the predominant type in the early show-ring. 'There is little doubt the Chihuahua has improved since the breed was first recognized by the AKC in 1904," write two American doyennes of the breed here. 'Chihuahuas shown prior to 1940 were generally of the "deer" or "fawn" type, a bit leggy and longer bodied, and - too frequently, roach backed. Also, well into the 1930's the breed was still showing the results of mixed breeding. The year 1940 brought a marked change for the better, with more breeders recognizing the true Chihuahua type. The strength of the Chihuahua rests entirely in the hands of the dedicated breeders who strive, with each breeding, to produce dogs meeting the breed standard. We think this is a pretty good testimony of the Chihuahua today!' Nevertheless, "deer-head" Chis are the ones still found in much of Mexico  - and they tend to be more popular with pet owners not involved in the pursuit of rosettes. It is also impossible to find anything like the dogs above in the photographic archive. The closest I can find is this 1903 dog featured in the book "British Dogs" by WD Drury. I posted this graphic on CRUFFA a few weeks ago to illustrate the difference.  NB: I'm reliably informed the Crufts winner posted top left does not have an obvious fontanelle - certainly not one that can be felt by a judge. The skulls beneath are from a dog with the same type of head that did have a molera.  The Chi breeders on CRUFFA objected to me calling the dog on the right a "deer-head", saying the dog still has an apple-shaped head. They did however recognise the dog as a Chihuahua (not always the case when I post more moderate dogs) and although a dog like this would not win in the show-ring today, it gave me some hope that show-breeders could be persuaded to to start selecting for a more moderate head like this one. Aesthetically it is so much more attractive. The KC's Breed Watch scheme does ask judges to monitor the following in Chis: Incorrect dentition Wry jaw Retained puppy teeth Misplaced teeth Protruding tongue as a result of incorrect teeth Missing teeth Incorrect bites Excessively short muzzles But here's the bitch that won BOB at Crufts in 2019. This bitch's head makes me wince. There's a significant indent between her eyes (which of course helps give her the desired apple-shaped head) and the muzzle shoots off at less than a 90 degree angle. The tear-staining also suggests a problem with tear-drainage, often seen in Chihuahuas and other brachy breeds and linked to the skull confirmation/shallow eye sockets. Dogs' eyes shouldn't weep. "Frontal bossing" is a medical term used to describe a prominent forehead and it is often seen in Chihuahuas. In humans - and dogs - it is associated with a number of genetic abnormalities (see here). It is also associated with Hydrocephalus, one consequence of the enlarged brain ventricles documented in Chis in this new study. But back to the problem of those holes in the skull. In their upcoming paper, the authors conclude: "[Persistent fontanelles] are almost ubiquitous in the examined group of Chihuahuas. They are located at dorsal, lateral, and caudal surfaces of the cranium, and hence are not all recognized reliably by palpation in adult dogs. Though the pathogenesis of the PFs described here is unknown, bone-deficient lesions may occur due to congenital defects in cranial bone ossification, delayed closure of cranial sutures, or bone resorption, as is observable in children with craniosynostosis (premature cranial suture closure). Because the imaging findings described in the Chihuahuas of this study are similar to findings among children with craniosynostosis/premature cranial base synchondrosis closure, this growth disorder may be a predisposing factor for the PFs described here." Research comparing apple v deer-heads in terms of predisposition to persistent fontanelles or neurological issues has not been done.  We also have no way of knowing how numerous PFs have been in the breed historically - clearly at least one has been a mark of the breed for a long time.   This skeleton, dating from 1910, shows a Chihuahua skull with several holes in it.  There were no really tiny "teacup" dogs in this study cohort - the smallest dog in the study was 1.4kg (and the largest 4.3kg), and it would be good to look at those too (there's certainly a rationale for thinking that their skulls could be even worse).  It should also be said that persistent fontanelles have been documented in other toy breeds such as Yorkshire terriers (although there are no studies elucidating how common they are). This suggests that they are likely a consequence of miniaturisation.  The authors conclude: "Further studies are necessary to evaluate the pathogenesis and clinical relevance of these lesions." You bet your bippy and as a matter of urgency - hopefully funded and supported by kennel clubs and breeders. If breed standards, or the interpretation of them, are found to be the cause, major changes in the breed must follow.   References Persistent Fontanelles in Chihuahuas. Part II: Association with craniocercival junction abnoramilies, syringomyelia and ventricular volume Persistent fontanelles in Chihuahuas and inter- and intra-rater reliability of fontanelle area measurement in computed tomography images Molera Statement - The Chihuahua Club of America Syringomyelia and Craniocervica Junction Abnormalities in Chihuahuas

3/19/2021

I was so sad to hear of the passing of cynologist/writer/canine historian Colonel David Hancock MBE last weekend. I met him at his home in Oxfordshire in early 2008 where we interviewed him for Pedigree Dogs Exposed.   I remember climbing up the stairs to his office which was lined floor to ceiling with dog books, many very rare, and feeling acute library-envy. I am pleased to read that his collection - along with the books and over 700 articles he wrote himself - is now safe with the Kennel Club.  For now, his extensive writing is also still available on his website. Please do check it out for some of the most informed writing on dogs you will ever read. See here. I am not sure there's anyone in the world who knew more about dogs.  One reviewer called him "perhaps the most important living writer about dogs." He also, along the way in a full life, was a professional soldier, ran a rare breeds centre and wrote the breed standards for the Sporting Lucas Terrier, the Plummer Terrier and the Victorian Bulldog. What I liked most about him was that although he looked and sounded like someone from the Establishment, for him it was always the dogs that mattered most. He was a well-known critic of the Kennel Club and a great champion of breeders who fought for change, his opinions always rooted in a real understanding of both dogs and history. I got this email from him a few years back: "Jemima, You’ll be amused to learn that I’ve produced a new breed standard for the Mastiff that is going to annoy a lot of people who deserve it! It’s on my web site, attached to serial 803 in the archives bit. The OEMC and the MA are being invited to comment – so watch their space with interest. Do keep well and combative! Regards, David" Sadly, the Club declined to adopt David's suggested new standard which would have promoted a more sporting dog. I have, however, made a point of following his advice to keep being combative. Fittingly, one of David's last articles graphically documented the decline in his beloved Mastiffs - check out the deeply depressing images here. We were only able to use a few snippets of our interview with him in Pedigree Dogs Exposed - notably one of the most compelling soundbites in the film ("We are, in effect, breeding them to death."  Here, for posterity, is a lightly edited transcript of the whole thing. I know many will find it fascinating. Q: What is your opinion of the state of health of purebred dogs today? I don't think the state of purebred dogs is anything worth boasting about. I think we have breeds that are more refined, or the dogs in that breed look much more like each other, there's an evenness within a breed.   I think quite a lot of breeds that are heavy-coated have become excessively heavy-coated; breeds that were short-faced have become damagingly shorter faced. Breeds that had long backs, short legs have been exaggerated to the detriment of the dog. And this has all come as a result at the pursuance of breed points, trying to make a breed look so much like itself, that it can almost become a caricature of itself. Q: And what has the cost of that been? I think the cost of exaggeration in dogs is that it shortens their lives and in the case of short-faced dogs it affects their breathing, it affects their scenting capability. With the long-backed breeds you have a dog that could be two years old but its back is the equivalent of five years old. You also get slipped discs and problems of extremely painful arthritis. The bent leg breeds also get bone problems, and the excessive bending of those legs and the shortening of those legs puts great stress on the rest of the dog.  Anything that exaggerated would not happen if dogs were bred by dogs. The exaggerations come because dogs are being bred by humans to suit humans.   Pedigree dog breeding today needs remedial treatment or it will end in disaster. In breeding dogs without their best interests in mind we are, in effect, breeding them to death. They're shorter lived, they lead limited lives. That is not good for dogs, and it's also not good for the moral conscience of man. Q: That's a very strong statement. Do you really feel that? Yes I do…A bulldog that cannot breathe properly, a dachschund whose keel is almost on the ground, a bassett hound with such severe arthritis in its legs that every time it moves it groans. This is not good. Q: Are there other examples which have shocked you? The excessive weight in mastiffs means that there have been occasions when a mastiff has jumped down from an estate car at a show, damaged itself because of the sheer weight of the body… that's been bestowed on it by man. It's been put back in the car and taken home because it was unfit to continue. And when you breed dogs too heavy for their own good, that is a sad reflection on the moral values of the breeder of that dog.  Q: Could you talk a bit about the reflection of us as a dog loving society… Britain is thought of as a nation of dog lovers. We were the first to introduce animal welfare legislation.  Are we now leading the way in terms of animal welfare for our dogs? I don't think Britain leads in animal welfare at all, certainly not in pedigree dogs. I think we started, we were the first nation to have a kennel club, we have created more breeds of dog in the pedigree dog world than any other nation. But we have not built safeguards into the perpetuation of those dogs.. We've allowed some breeds to become too heavy, some too short faced, some too heavy coated, some too short legged, others too short lived. All in the pursuit of cosmetic points, not sound anatomical points, and that is a reflection again on the breeders and their standards of… that which they bring to life - not to their love of dogs. We're a nation of dog owners, not a nation of dog lovers. Q: That's a terrible indictment.  I think it's not so much an indictment but a reflection on how far we've come away from the original purpose of dog breeding within breeds. The original purpose of kennel club shows were like the livestock shows, where you show animals and you admire their fitness for purpose, their soundness, and their anatomical soundness above all. We've drifted away from that. We are now breeding them for prettiness, for cosmetic design, to please judges. Now this cannot be right, and every time we change a breed we have to ask ourselves two questions: are we bringing in these changes to make the dog look prettier, or are we bringing it in because previously the dog was inefficient?  If the answers to those questions are not in the best interests of dog, we've lost our way.  Q: Who or what is to blame? I think the blame for the current situation in the pedigree dog world is spread across a wide field. But in every element there's a human hand. Kennel clubs across the world have a lot to answer for because they've not shown leadership. They've shown patronage, but they've not shown leadership.  They should be showing pedigree dog breeders the way ahead… how to breed sounder dogs, how to breed dogs that lead a healthy life. There's no need to lose breed points, but there's certainly no need to exaggerate breed points. If you look, throughout history, of how these breeds evolved and how they developed, they weren't exaggerated in the past.  And they have become more exaggerated since showing dogs became popular. That in itself is a reflection on whether the breeders like their breed, or just like winning.   I think breeding to, for perfection, is very questionable. I think the original purpose of livestock shows was in pursuance of a purpose for that breed. For example, function has always ruled form. The gun dogs were developed for a purpose, the hounds were developed for a purpose, as were the terriers and the shepherd dogs.   In other words, the gun dog men were behind the very first dog show held in the middle of the nineteenth century. They didn't want to see exaggerated dogs, they wanted to see the best examples of the dogs that could excel in the field.   Part of the reason was to identify future breeding stock. Now, shows are held where the breeding stock is chosen entirely because it wins, not necessarily because it's the best. A bad judge can lead to the wrong dog being bred from, and that is not good for the future of that breed. Q: How aware do you think the kennel club is and why is it that they're not being stronger? Kennel clubs, I think by their nature, are self-regarding. They tend to operate through committees, and they don't have one strong person who's got a mission, a life's purpose, to make things better. As long as the thing's going along, and big shows like Cruft's pay their way, and attract high attendances, they do not think - or always have at the front of their thinking - the best needs of the dogs.  The dogs are why all this happens. And if you allow certain breeds to become so exaggerated that it harms them, or breeding is conducted so closely by inexpert people - inbreeding, in other words - that it results in inherited diseases being spread more widely, if you allow dogs to be bred without any health checks… this is not pedigree dog breeding, this is reckless dog breeding.    Q: Was there a moment of revelation for you? When you see foxhounds going flat out in pursuit of quarry, when you see coursing greyhounds being used in the field, when you see terriers going to ground, when you see shepherd dogs operating in the pastures, you begin to realise that these dogs were purpose-bred in pursuit of function and that's why they look like the way they did when they were brought into the show ring.  When you get to the stage when dogs can no longer carry out their original function, because breeders - who claim to love the breed and respect it - have bred them that way, you begin to realise that they've lost their way.  Unless there's a functional test along the line, for terriers, for shepherd dogs, for gun dogs, or for sight hounds - unless you can match their appearance in the show ring with some kind of functional test of their ability, then you are not going to breed dogs as functional creatures, you're going to breed them as ornamental objects. Q: But there's lots of breeds that don't have any jobs anymore, no? I think the fact that a breed is no longer used for its original purpose is a lazy way out for breeders to say we don't need to breed them to look like that anymore. If you look at a collie that, where its coat is so heavy it would not last very long in the pastures in a winter… If you look at greyhounds where their hind legs are so heavily exaggerated and over-angulated, that they get hip problems, then… there's no way that that dog could run fast anymore.   And without tests, and without the design being tested - after all, most designs are tested - the designs of many breeds now have been forgotten. And as a result, the breeders are losing their way, the show ring rules, and in many breeds the dogs simply don't look like their prototype. Q: A lot of breeders maintain they're improving their dogs - are they? The improvement of dogs needs a definition. The kennel club have their overall leitmotif… “the general improvement of dogs.” What do they mean? Are they breeding sounder dogs? The fact that you have 45,000 Labradors newly registered every year, are they being bred better now than when that breed was first promoted here in the 1920's?  It is an astonishing success story in that Labradors were hardly known at the end of the 19th century. But has the breed actually gained? Are they still functional dogs? A lot of the working dogs don't look like the show dogs at all. They are lighter, they are quicker, they are smaller-headed, they are lighter boned. Which is the correct Labrador, the one that can operate in the field, or the one that can win prizes in the show ring? The improvement of dogs in the last 123 years, or however long the kennel club has been operating, could have been so much better. If the kennel club from the very start had said 'We are not just going to allow dogs to be shown and judged on cosmetic points, we're going to match that test with a field test'. You could have developed function and form at the same time.  I think too, by neglecting to have mandatory health schemes, they have woefully neglected the health of dogs. Now when you're closely breeding dogs within a breed, you need skilful breeders. It is not the job of animal breeders in a backyard. Brother-sister, mother-son matings may produce dogs that look like the breed. But they… don't have the genetic virility and the genetic diversity to ensure that their progeny in due course lead healthy and sound lives. Now the kennel club could have done more to make sure that dogs were functional, respecting their original design, and been aware of the problems of closely breeding within a closed gene pool. After all, the closed gene pool is the result of kennel club recognition. It is an imposed sanction on dog breeders. If they don't breed registered dog to registered dog, they cannot register the progeny. Now you cannot insist on that without being responsible for the outcome. And I don't believe they have been as responsible as they could have been over the prevention or the reduction of the incidents of inheritable defects in dogs. Q: Some people will say they're just dogs. Why should we care? I think we should care about pedigree dogs because in the hands of the wrong people - unskilled breeders - you can produce dogs that lead short lives, lead hampered lives, with their sight impaired, their bones impaired and their ability to lead a reasonably contented life seriously affected. In other words, they can be handicapped by their own breeding If you look at breeds that for centuries were bred to a function, like mastiffs - not just the English mastiff  but that group of dogs, they were powerful gripping breeds that in the days of primitive hunting before the invention of firearms were used to pull down big game so that man could collect his quarry.  They were immensely valuable before the invention of firearms. They had to be strong necked, strong headed, immensely determined - but still hounds. If you now cast your mind to today, the mastiff, sometimes weighing in at 20 stones, has been bred for bulk, almost like breeding a short-horn dog.  And it serves absolutely no purpose. The mastiff was never intended to be that heavy, it was never intended to be that immobile. Dogs with that lack of agility who tried to operate in the boar hunting field twould not have lived long. Now they've come a long way entirely because of man's insistence that the mastiff should be a giant dog - heavy and huge.   It never was. And the mastiff experts of 1880 like M. B. Wynn, who wrote the standard book on the mastiff, always said the English mastiff was traditionally never a huge dog. It was breeder intent: 'My dog is bigger and heavier than your dog'.  Now unless a kennel club steps in and stops breed clubs from going down that kind of line, of breeding dogs excessively for weight, or in the case of the bulldog where one breeder boasted he had the shortest faced dog in London - did he care about the welfare of the dog? No. The boast was more important to him than the dog. Q: You mentioned before an owner who boasted about a mastiff that had died at four? There are breeds that are shorter lived than they should be. I know of breeders of what they call 'alternative bulldogs' - Dorset old time bulldogs, Victorian bulldogs, or in Canada, old time bulldogs -  that live to 14,15, and are still swimming. I know of many kennel club registered bulldogs that do not live past the age of four. That is not acceptable.  The kennel club has been operating for what, 130 years. Now is the time, before it's too late, for them to say to breed clubs: 'Mandatory health schemes start now, excessive exaggeration in breed design stops now'.  So many breed standards use words like 'feet massive', 'head massive', 'coat long', um, 'back short'… Dogs bred by dogs would not have those kind of stipulations. Function decided form, function never went in for exaggerations. The dachshund - that was the badger terrier, the badger dog - was not as close to the ground, as long backed and as short legged as it is now.  There are plenty of depictions of the breed in the last 200 years to prove that point. The bassett hound is now shorter legged, longer backed, and closer to the ground, heavier boned, than it was ever in the past. If you look at the bulldog, the dogs in the baiting rings had jaws. If they didn't have jaws they could not bait bulls, they could not cling. The idea that a short faced dog can go on breathing while it's gripping… a bull, is not borne out by the fact that all the dogs used in the boar hunt had long, strong jaws. They were heavy headed dogs, but they had ample jaw length.  Q: We've had bulldog breeders say to us 'that roll on the face is to channel the blood from the bull' - could you talk about breed points like that? If you look at the bulldog, and the way in which breeders aim or try hard to justify the short face, the excessive wrinkling, … and the physique as being traditional - it is simply untrue. Alken produced famous prints of the bull baiting ring, and not one dog in his depictions - and he was a very accurate illustrator - not one of those dogs had a short muzzle.  Not one of them was over-boned. If they were not agile, the bull killed them. That is a pretty severe test. And so it's absurd to try to justify things that were introduced by man into the breed as being there for an original purpose, it is simply not true.  What is true is that in the 19th century and 20th century some bulldog breeders were so anxious to breed a short-faced dog, they crossed their dogs with pugs - and six different Victorian authorities have testified to that - and they also produced contraptions which they clamped on the dog's head to stop its jaw growing. They also tied its back legs together whilst the pup was growing. Q: But we wouldn't see that level of cruelty today No but you wouldn't see cruelty like that today, but you're seeing the result of that cruelty. They weren't doing it for the well-being of the dog. The dog had no say in this.    And if you take a breed like the bull mastiff, where dogs - they can have a short face, or they can have a longer jaw - the ones with the short face are the ones that get out of breath. And I know of a bull mastiff breeder that has both types in their kennel. The ones with the shorter muzzle and the ones with the longer muzzle. The ones with the short muzzle are the ones that cannot run a long way without getting out of breath and suffering respiratory problems.  The longer jawed dogs do not have that problem. That is a perfect illustration of the handicap which too short a muzzle can give to the dog. It can also affect the dog's scenting ability.  Now scent to a dog is like sight to human. What you are then saying is that if a bulldog has only 20% of the scenting ability of another, longer faced breed, it's the equivalent of breeding a human being with one-fifth the sighting ability of a normal human. Is that acceptable?  Q: Could you project into the possible futures and where this could go? DH: About 10 years ago a group of Canadian vets got together and produced a report. And their conclusion in a phrase was 'unless something is done, we are going to lose pedigree breeds in the next 100 years'. Now that's a fairly long time… if they'd be more precise they might well have said that some breeds would be lost in 25 years. Q: How does the UK Kennel Club compare to others? All kennel clubs have a role to play in the healthy breeding of dogs and the welfare of dogs. You cannot just pay lip service to that. If you take, say, the Finnish kennel club - … their kennel club is much more open to membership, and it has rules on breeding dogs. Mandatory health checks are essential, and they do not allow what I call reckless breeding - where you can mate any dog to any other dog and register the progeny.  That is not a serious breeding exercise, it's certainly not a scientific exercise. All it's doing is wallet chasing and producing an almost a kind of puppy farming. It's condoning the production of dogs just because they are pedigree. And it's wrong to assume that the word pedigree means quality. Pedigree and quality in the world of dogs are two terms that should not be used as being synonymous because they're not. 'Pedigree' gives that slight cache of quality. A pedigree dog can have no quality at all.  Q: Are you a kennel club member? I am not a kennel club member. And I wouldn't wish to be one because I am not a breeder of dogs. I do not show dogs. But my interest in dogs is that they are sentient creatures, and whether they are bred to a breed design or whether they are mere pets and to no design at all, their well-being matters.  There is far too much assumption in the pedigree dog world that because breeds are being perpetuated as breeds, they must somehow have some quality and they must therefore have some people looking after them.  And not enough thought is given, from kennel clubs down to the breed clubs, to the dog. Far too much is done with the whole business of showing, owning, breeding, ah, proliferating, litters and so on. In the end the idea that we're all in it for the love of dogs does not withstand scrutiny.  Q: What should people expect from a pedigree certificate?  You should be able to obtain a pedigree form which shows you how the dog was bred, who its ancestors were. It should be able to tell you whether the dog's been hip scored, elbow scored, has its eyes tested - and if in certain breeds they have a problem - whether that dog has been identified in that line or not.  It should also give you an idea of how the dog's ancestors have been judged by knowledgeable judges. On the continent they have a grading system. Our kennel club will not allow it to be introduced here. I would like to know if I was going to buy a pedigree dog whether it was going to go blind, whether it was going to live a long time, and whether its ancestors had been graded excellent. Because knowledgeable judges grading dogs excellent in some countries, they're the only dogs that can be bred from. Q: Isn't there a fundamental problem with the whole notion of kennel club breeding as it is at the moment? You're operating within a closed gene pool, isn't it a road to nowhere?    Kennel clubs could have a most valuable role in the breeding of pedigree dogs if they chose to. If they were to agree to mandatory health schemes, if they would limit the exaggerations in dogs in certain breeds. And if they were to make sure dog breeding was the pursuit of excellence, not the proliferation of dog shows.  It's the dogs that matter, not the shows.  I don't know of any pedigree breed of dog that does not have inheritable problems. And of course mongrels and cross-breds can have inherited problems too. But I think when you're selling a breed and selling a pedigree dog for £500 you are in effect deceiving the purchaser of that dog if it is going to one day develop a condition which is inheritable and is harmful to the dog. Nobody wants to buy a dog which in four years' time is going to be lame, is going to blind, or indeed, dead. Or, is going to keel over from a diagnosable heart disease. There are certain breeds, like the cavalier king charles spaniel - a superb companion dog - that's so quickly being overwhelmed with inheritable conditions affecting its heart, for example. Far too high a percentage of dogs in that breed are dying from heart conditions or affected by heart conditions. Now without a mandatory health scheme which forces you only to breed from dogs that are free of those conditions is the way forward…to go on breeding dogs just because they happen to belong to a breed is no way forward. Q: How do you think the kennel club perceives attention from the European Parliament or our own government? Do they welcome it, do you think? DH:  The kennel club - certainly the English kennel club in Britain - is far too self-regarding and far too smug. If Cruft's is a success, the kennel club somehow feels it is a success in itself. But if you look at the rate at which inheritable conditions are affecting dogs, if you look at the way in which the design which has been allowed to develop in some breeds are affecting its well being, and if you look at the way in which dogs are being over-produced - this is not good news. The kennel club boasts about how many dogs it registers each year because its whole funding system is based on money received for the registration of dogs. That's why- how it pays its way. But in a way, that encourages people to over breed. If they are saying 'the more shows we have, the more entries we have, the more dogs we can register, shows that were successful' - that is not a judgment, that is a commentary. A judgment is how many good, sound dogs of high quality are being produced in Britain.    Now, we started dog showing. We started pedigree dog breeding. We created more dog breeds than any other nation. We, of all nations, should now be looking to our conscience and saying 'Ok, we started this particular human interest, what we must do now is set standards that the rest of the world admire'. At the moment, certainly in Europe, they are setting standards which we do not emulate. Q: Do you think the kennel club is aware of the need to change?  Kennel clubs and clubs like that, by their very nature, resist change. There's a complacency about them. And they measure success, in my view, by the wrong criteria. How many dogs live a long time? How many dogs lead a contented life? How many dogs can still carry out their original function?  Are we breeding livestock - which dogs are - to a degree in which the public admire? Or are we just perpetuating dogs because they look like the breed whose title they claim? Now, it's a matter of personal conscience here, and clubs don't have consciences. They are self-perpetuating, they're self-congratulatory, and they do not question themselves at all. Dissidents, critical voices, are poo-pooed. At Cruft's time, anyone that criticises the pedigree dog industry, criticises the way in which judging is carried out, dog breeding is carried out - are considered to be heretics. That is not healthy. They should look towards dissident voices - especially if they're well-informed - and say 'perhaps these people have a point.  Perhaps we should take on board some of the points they've been making. Do they have some validity?. Now what are we going to do to move forward? You cannot keep a club which is responsible for living creatures… stuck in time. They have got to take advantage ofa dvances in veterinary science, and in genetic knowledge. And that they are not doing.  Q: They would say that they are. So do you think there should be a independed body overseeing and providing leadership?  I think a kennel club which has a monopoly is in a dangerous position - from a dog's point of view. Because they can do what they like. What you need is healthy competition, or for the existing kennel club to say 'have we got this right? Should we not change? In what way should we change?'. But it's disappointing too, that the vets, the veterinary surgeons, don't speak up.  Do they speak up because the sicklier dogs are, the more patients they get, the more money they make? That's a cynical statement, but why do veterinary surgeons not speak up? They are scientists. They are in possession of facts.  But there is no feedback, there is no, survey being done by the veterinary profession to say, oi - this kind of incidence of eye disease in collies has got to be more than just coincidence. We must report it, we must have a reporting system, so that we can breed out these faults, we can reduce their incidence, and aim to produce a healthier dog.  Is not the purpose of veterinary science to produce healthier animals? Or is it to produce as many patients as you can? Q: I have to say a lot of vets we've spoken to feel increasingly strongly about this… But how do you convince breeders? They think that they've got healthy dogs. They see critics as outside interference. While that's going on are we not beating our heads against a brick wall? There are some breeders of pedigree dogs who are extremely honourable, very well-informed, and are contributing quite wonderful dogs to the world of dogs. But they are the minority. I would like to hear them speak out more, but how can they speak out more if they become pariahs? Their dogs will be penalised at dog shows, people will not recommend their pups, and they will be unable to continue. And so there's a self-defeating side to this - … dog breeders who set out to breed better dogs and obtain better specimens in their breed stand to be penalised in many ways. What you must do is go along with the current trend.  And if you take, say, the bull terrier - the bull terrier was designed by a man called Hinks up in Birmingham in the 20th century - they did not have egg shaped heads… If the egg shaped head was a benefit, he would have bred a dog with an egg shaped head. But we decided, we the great, the dog breeding fraternity, decided that the bull terrier was to have a sheep's head, or an egg shaped head, relatively late on in the development of the breed.  That shows you two things: one is that the breed clubs did not have the true interests of that breed at heart - otherwise they'd have not allowed it to happen - and secondly, there was no guardianship. Where was the kennel club when a bull terrier with an egg shaped head was patronised, fashioned, and considered to be the example of the breed.  Those were the dogs that won in the ring - if you took a bull terrier in the ring today without an egg shaped head it wouldn't win. And yet, the bull terrier without an egg shaped head is the correct bull terrier, the correct example of that breed. And people like Hinks must be turning in their graves. Because all their work has been betrayed.  Q: What do you think of Cruft’s? You must take away the razzmatazz and the fact that it's become a dog food show, and a dog accessories manufacturers’ show.  If the dogs that turn up on the day are not good enough to win, the judges have the ability under kennel club rules to withhold prizes. They never do. But if you read the judges' critiques after the show - this is Britain's premier show, it's called the greatest dog show in the world, and it might well be - but if you read some of the judges' critiques, they make comments like:  'How on earth did they qualify?', 'I am distressed to see the way my breed is developing', 'This is a distressing sign and we must do something about it', 'The dogs were displaying upright shoulders, they were too short in the back, they were unsound in feet.' Many of them, time and time again, say how unfit the dogs were. They were overweight, they were in no condition, they lacked muscularity.  Now, if the TV presenters at Cruft's time ever read the critiques of the Cruft's judges, they would be a bit more humble in their endless fawning, sycophantic praise of what is going on there.  It is a livestock show, not a razzmatazz puppy outing. And I think the light-hearted, all-admiring, uncritical comment that Cruft's receives by the TV coverage is quite shameless.  Q: If they were more truthful, what kind of commentary do you think we'd have? I think there's a need for truthfulness over the commentary on any human involvement with animals. Dog breeders need people to criticise them. Not unfairly, but to make sure that they listen to another voice. Because within breed clubs, within the kennel club, if there's not dissent, if there's no critical voice, all sorts of terrible excesses can go on and with some breeds have gone on. Q: Talk to me about your hope for the future, and how realistic you feel about that hope. DH:  I think the breeding of pedigree dogs in particular needs a lot of remedial action, now. I think the kennel club must introduce mandatory health schemes. I think it must… do more than just alter the written breed standards, to stop the exaggerations that have crept in, in many breeds.  I think it must re-introduce a system of breeding within the show ring so that if you're identifying future breeding stock, you can say 'this dog has been graded excellent by three different judges' or 'this dog has been graded merely satisfactory by three different judges'. The idea that every pedigree dog is worth breeding from is not a good way to proceed.  But unless you have some kind of curbs on dog breeders, they will purely go on breeding pups. And you could argue, the cynic might say, the shorter the life of the dog the sooner the future owner needs a puppy. And so there is some self-interest in dogs not living a long time.  But the insurance companies are not stupid and they are now charging far more breed on breed, and far less for cross bred dogs. Now cross bred dogs need not be healthier than a pedigree dog, but if the insurance companies think they are, are they completely wrong?  Q: How hopeful are you really, David, that enough is going to be done to save pedigree dogs?  Unless kennel clubs, breed clubs, those involved in the pedigree dog world, develop and evolve into a more dog-led, dog-conscious organisation, in the end they're going to be forced to introduce dramatic change by activists. The kind of people who have led to the Hunting With Dogs Act.  Which is better, reorganisation and rethinking from within, by people who are in the dog game, have knowledge and can apply it, but choose not to. Or for somebody outside, some do-gooder, somebody who sees what's going on and doesn't like it coming in, crashing about. Is that better than self-imposed rethinking, reorganisation, and saying 'we can't go on like this, we're not moving at a fast enough pace'. But unless kennel clubs, unless breed clubs, unless the pedigree dog world sorts itself out, then one day - I would like to think that vets would be more outspoken - I think the dog welfare activists almost certainly will be.  And is it not shaming for the European Council to produce a long list of British breeds which they feel are breeding dogs which are not leading a contented, long, happy, stress-free life. Is that not shaming?  And to just say we'll do it our way and these people are totally wrong - 20 countries have signed up to ETS 125. Britain is being advised not to by the kennel club. Is that vested interest? Or what? If you leave the kennel club with its current philosophy to make changes, another century will go by without those changes.  They need a visionary leader who says: 'look, this is all very comfortable, but we are not improving dogs. There are well over 400 inheritable conditions in the breeds we promote. We are not going to allow this. We are not going to allow an unsound dog to win a prize. We are not going to allow a dog to be bred from when we know that it's going to be blind one day'. That kind of moral guidance is needed from somewhere. If the kennel clubs can't produce it, then either a rival kennel club will be created by some group of well-meaning and probably well-funded people. And the kennel club will disappear because financially it's very fragile. Or, government will step in - and you can see from the Dangerous Dogs Act, a discredited act, written by ignorant people - and if you think that the kennel club was one of the two bodies that the Home Office consulted in the drafting of that act… The kennel club has got a lot of soul-searching to do. They've got to ask themselves lots of fundamental questions - have we truly improved dogs? Do we truly just carry on as we have been for the last 125 years? Or should we rethink what we're doing? Unless they have that kind of fundamental reappraisal of… the business they're in, I really do fear for the future of the pedigree dog. The pedigree dog industry regards any criticism as coming from outsiders who are producing ill-informed comment. They should stop saying that and say 'Are the points these people making, are they correct?  Is it correct, is it morally correct for us to be breeding, and judging, 20 stone mastiffs that can't lead an active life? Or bulldogs with such a short face they can't lead a stress-free life?'.  Q: What sort of response have you had from speaking out on this issue? Well, it's interesting because I do a great deal of research, and I study breeds and have for half a century. But if you write in magazines, you write books as I do and at Cruft's time you appear or are heard on BBC programmes - people talk in the pedigree dog world to protect their own interests.  They try to make you sound ill-informed, not really knowing what you're talking about. Or, they try to give the impression that they are the experts, they're in charge, and nothing is going to change. That's very unhealthy. Every theatre values its critics.  Every activity which is purely self-regarding and regards itself as untouchable, frankly… is not going to last very long. Because all it's doing is perpetuating the same old problems, not solving them. The kennel club needs, and the pedigree dog industry needs, to start solving some of its problems and not writing off all criticism as ill-informed. Q: You’ve made me feel rather depressed about the prospects of changing things. Is that how you feel? I do about quite a lot of the show dogs. And the sadness of the Hunting With Dogs Act, is that it is already affecting already hound breeding. The effect of the Dangerous Dogs Act has been to drive the strong-headed dogs that will persist into the hands of semi-criminal people. There is another way of doing this, not by banning, not by prescribing, but by realigning - making sure that people who like the use of dogs in quarry pursuit, or the use of dogs that look tough and macho - there's a way of handling that. And it's not by identifying breeds and by banning things, but redirecting it. And we talked about hound training - hound training produces extraordinarily fit, wonderfully well-bred dogs. And gives a lot of humans and a lot of dogs healthy exercise. What can be wrong with that?  Q: I'm not sure how comfortable you feel talking about it, but do you see anything that equates to overt racism in dog breeding? There's a kind of scorn for crossbred dogs, or mongrel dogs, which defies comprehension, really. Because there are many crossbred dogs and quite a lot of mongrels that are healthier than many pedigree dogs. And that shouldn't be so. If it is so, why are pedigree dog breeders so inefficient? But if you look at, foxhounds… the dogs in the pastures, the sheepdogs - they're not bred to a closed gene pool. They are bred by gifted breeders in pursuit of function. And their health, their soundness, and their ability to lead long lives are built into that system. What shepherd wants to train a dog to see it die at two or four or six? He wants a dog that lasts ten years. There is absolutely no point if you use dogs in having short-lived dogs. But there is every point in the pedigree dog industry in wanting more puppies or puppies sooner. That's not just a cynical point - if you are breeding dogs for money, it's a straight point of financial forecasting. Q: Is there a snobbishness in purebred dogs? If yes, is there a justification for it? In the pedigree dog world, even within the pedigree dog world, there is a snobbishness. For years, people who bred bulldogs were considered the villains. People who bred bull terriers were considered to be semi-criminals. People who kept gun dogs were considered to be slightly upper-class. The people who kept hounds were considered to be slightly more countrified. And I think certain breeds - Staffordshire bull terriers - have long been associated with working class owners. So there has been a built-in, snobbishness I suppose is the word, a class consciousness in it. People who kept Borzoi were very different than people who kept Staffies. And, it may be true from the point of view of their level of income - but it certainly is not reflected in the quality of the dogs. Q: Is there a level of disdain that the show world has for working dogs? The racier, faster working Labrador is often looked upon as sort of a black whippet, and scorned. But some years ago when I was making a video on the Labrador retriever, I spent some time with a very famous Labrador breeder – Gwen Broadley - who bred dogs that were not only extremely appealing but could function in the field. And she didn't have that attitude at all. She admired Labradors because of what they could do as well as what they looked like. And she was very anxious that her dogs perpetuated a type that could work and had working ability. If you showed a mastiff breeder a dog that had been crossbred between two similar breeds, say an American bulldog and a Presa Canario, and if it looked like an English mastiff but was actually a better dog they wouldn't announce their concern and worry that somebody could produce a better example of the mastiff, they would say 'it isn't purebred' as though that was some kind of defence. Well nobody says if you're not a noble family you aren't any good. In human terms, why is it that pedigree dogs have been elevated to have some kind of quality purely because they are purebred? It's totally irrational. Q: Could you talk to me about the pedigree breeder’s pursuit of "perfection"?  People who admire and patronise a particular breed, whether it's a cocker spaniel or Borzoi, are looking to produce the best specimen of that breed that has ever been produced. Seeking perfection, you could say. But in so doing, if they produce it, say with a nobler head, is that a better dog? It might look nobler, but does the shape of it allow the dog a healthier life? Or is it too narrow, too long, its eyes too… sunken, is there too much loose eyelid and so on. If it is overfurnished as a setter, and has excessive feathering on its legs, or its tail is overfurnished, that is a handicap in the field. Therefore is it still a setter? If it's a spaniel and its ears drag on the ground, is it still a working dog?  If it's a bulldog and will be killed by the bull within 30 seconds - and yet is still claimed to be perpetuating the dogs of the ring - is this a pursuit of perfection or is it misguided? And whenever people seek perfection, they introduce… subconsciously imperfections as well.  And I think in the end, with living creatures, it has to be function. Function decided form - that's why the breeds… resemble the dogs they do. But function also meant that the sight hounds of the world - no matter where they are - all look very similar. The pastural dogs, the herding dogs, all look very similar.  The mountain dogs, the flock guarding dogs, all look the same. From Spain, across to Russia, they're all of a similar conformation. Is it not therefore worth respecting that function that produced breeds right across the globe and gave us the breeds we have today?  And so what we should be looking for is soundness in dogs, not perfection in breeds.  There is a terrible human arrogance in thinking that we can, in an artificial arena - like a show world - improve on all those pioneer breeders, those dedicated, devoted people who produced these wonderful breeds of dog for us to enjoy.  That arrogance in the end overlooks the best anatomy to suit purpose, and it also tends to denigrate the well-being of the dog.  Because perfection becomes the goal.    The outline of the setter, the stance of the fox terrier in the ring, the way in which the sight hound moves confidently across the ring, the way in which a chow stands haughtily, looking slightly oriental… these things have become prized, but to the detriment of the dog. The Chows' over-straightened stifle does not lead to healthy gait in the dog. Sunken eyes in any breed is not a good idea. The… loose lidded dogs, where you get what is called 'haw', where the dog can get red0rimmed eyelids which grass-seed can get in - certainly if they're gun dogs like the Clumber spaniel, or hounds like the bassett, grass seed in your eye is - you would know it from your own experience - is extraordinarily painful. When the eyelid almost collects grass seed because it's so loosely fitting - and has been bred and allowed for in the breed standard - that is a kind of pursuit of perfection which is almost surreal. It's saying that the description we've given these dogs - even if it harms them - must be adhered to. That is an irrational act. In the past, the kennel club has allowed out crossing when it has been necessary. The field spaniel to the English springer, the deerhound to the greyhound, the miniature bull terrier to the full-size bull terrier. And there are other examples. I think that enlightened outcrossing is an answer to some of the ways of reducing exaggerations in dogs.  But on the other hand, when you see dogs with over-angulated hind-quarters in the show ring and winning, that's not good for anybody - except people who get paid to treat hip problems.  ____________________ David - thank you, Sir, for all you did for dogs. My sincere condolences to David's wife, Susan, who is fund-raising for David 's favourite charity.  Please see here if you would like to contribute something in this wonderful man's memory.

1/31/2021

On Friday, the Royal Society of Medicine hosted a webinar exploring the parallels between obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in humans and brachycephalic obstructed airway syndrome (BOAS) in flat-faced dogs. It was eye-opening - and profoundly sad.  "I was almost in tears listening to the extent of suffering in dogs with BOAS," admits Dr Felicity Vidya Mehendale who co-chaired the event.  Likewise, the spelling out of the widespread debilitating, sometimes life-threatening, consequences of obstructed breathing in humans left me feeling sick about the likely systemic cost in dogs. Sleep research in dogs is in its infancy, but that some brachycephalic dogs struggle to sleep is not news.  It's recorded in the veterinary literature ((Hendricks et al., 1987; Hendricks, 1992; Hobson, 1995; Koch et al., 2003; Hendricks, 2004). I've highlighted the issue many times - including in 2016 via this YouTube video and, more recently, with this poster illustrating the extraordinary compensatory lengths to which some of these dogs go in order to catch some shut-eye. Of course, dogs are masters at falling asleep in funny positions and sometimes with toys in their mouths. If your Labrador does this, you shouldn't worry. You don't even need to worry if you have a brachy dog that does this, unless it happens frequently and it's obvious that it helps your dog sleep.  The dogs on the poster have all been diagnosed with BOAS and all actively seek out an object in order to sleep. Some of them have stopped doing it post-surgery. Pugs, Frenchies and Bulldogs are often as fleshy internally as they are on the outside and when they fall asleep this tissue relaxes - in exactly the same way as in (often overweight) humans, resulting in snoring and sleep apnoea. Frenchies and Pugs in particular often have narrow/blocked nasal airways. When they're awake they can compensate by breathing through their mouths. But when they're asleep, dogs are obligate nose breathers. They cannot mouth-breathe.  It means they have to wake up to take a breath - unless they prop open their mouths open as the dogs in the poster have learned to do.  It's an extraordinary adaption - but, unfortunately, not all dogs are as smart as the ones above and some are chronically sleep-deprived as a result. The veterinary speakers yesterday included Dr Sean Wensley (PDSA), Dr Jane Ladlow (Cambridge BOAS Group) and Dr Rowena Packer (Royal Veterinary College).   Revealing the cost of OSA in humans were Dr Renata Riha, Consultant in Sleep and Respiratory Medicine at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and  Dr Catherine McDougall, a consultant in paediatric intensive care and respiratory medicine at the Royal Hospital of Sick Children in Edinburgh. Sleep science is a relatively new discipline in humans but the consequences of obstructive sleep apnoea are now well-known. Children with OSA have a higher incidence of cognitive and behavioural problems. Adults are four times more likely to have a car accident. Untreated OSA leads to inflammation and an increased risk of a stroke and heart attack. It is illogical to think that there isn't a profound impact on dogs too, even if we haven't measured it yet. It may not be a coincidence that heart problems are common in Bulldogs.  We heard yesterday that in adults and children, OSA can result in hundreds of micro-wake-ups every night interrupting the sleep that is so vital to our physical, emotional and mental wellbeing. Many owners of brachycephalics report that their dogs are restless in sleep - a phenomenon that is marked on this infographic from the Cambridge BOAS Group. Many years ago, on the old Pedigree Dogs Exposed Facebook group (now closed), someone swapped out an image of a Pug on a billboard for a child with Crouzon syndrome - essentially to make the point that Pugs suffer from distressing cranial deformities. It caused uproar but, as we discovered yesterday from Catherine McDougall,  there are indeed parallels between brachycephalic dogs and children with cranial deformities, including that children with Crouzon, Apert and Pfieffer syndromes suffer from sleep apnoea.  A study in 2019 from the Royal Veterinary College entitled Great Expectations, Inconvient Truths and the paradoxes of the dog-owner relationship for owners of brachycephalic dogs found that around three per cent of owners reported that their brachy dogs had problems sleeping.  That might not sound that many but, given their current popularity, it adds up to thousands of affected dogs.  Certainly, YouTube is awash with videos of Bulldogs, Pugs and Frenchies showing obvious sleeping problems, mostly presented by doting owners as their dogs doing something funny and cute. This 2013 paper found that over half the Pugs and Frenchies treated for BOAS at the University of Leipzig suffered from sleep problems, with the authors suggesting either than their prevalence has been underestimated in the past or that they have "severely worsened over recent generations of dogs." The problems documented included only being able to sleep with the chin in an elevated position (31%); sleep apnoea (27%); attempting to sleep in a sitting position (24%); choking fits during sleep (11%); only being able to sleep with the mouth open (6%), and being almost unable to sleep or not sleeping at all (6%). That's right.  Some of these dogs don't sleep at all.  If you want to get some sense of what that is like, here's a video of one severely affected dog whose every waking hour was sheer hell. Note how as his head drops in exhaustion, which causes his airway to block, his body begins to heave.     Pimped on Insta for some years by his owner as being cute and funny and featured here before (see here)  - this dog has recently died. I have never wished more for a dog's release. Of course, for all the similiaries between human OSA and BOAS in dogs, there is one glaring difference: obstructed breathing in dogs is a direct consequence of the deliberate breeding of animals with very flat faces.  As the veterinary presenters articulated the problem yesterday, with wincing examples of dogs gasping for breath, there was palpable disquiet among some of the human medics present that such predictable and preventable suffering should be allowed to continue.  #dontignorethesnore

6/19/2020

National Purebred Dog Day, which describes individual dog breeds as "museum pieces with a pulse" claims it celebrates diversity.... between breeds, not within-breed genetic diversity. supported by the Irish Kennel Club, is not a huge leap. The Irish Setter and Irish Red + White Setter were all one and the same breed until the 1970s. But, still, it has met a lot of opposition within the show community - see here and here. Click to enlarge To its credit, the UK Kennel Club supports the initiative and, today, outcrossed IRWS are proving successful both in the field and in the show-ring. It's great news for the breed.

6/17/2020

Until recently, concern about Bulldog health has focused mainly on the their breathing problems. But other health problems in the breed are well-documented.  Now, a new study from Finland confirms that Bulldogs suffer from serious orthopaedic disorders - including an abnormal gait, slipping kneecaps, spinal malformations, elbow dysplasia and severe hip dysplasia. The radiographic study, of 24 ostensibly-healthy young Bulldogs registered with the Finnish Kennel Club, found the prevalence of orthopaedic disease, particularly hip dysplasia, so high in the breed that "no healthy individuals exist".   All but one of the dogs had moderate or severe hip dysplasia.  Three-quarters had at least one malformed vertebra. Thirty-three percent had luxating patellas and almost half of the dogs in the study had elbow dysplasia.  The orthopaedic abnormalities are linked to kennel club  breed standards which ask for a large head, a broad and heavy front end and lighter, narrow hips, all of which result in extra stresses on the dog's skeleton. Worryingly, the research suggests owners are unaware of the problems and that the iconic British breed may be enduring significant undiagnosed and untreated pain. "One of the most worrying points of our study actually was, that the owners of the dogs we studied, did not feel that their dogs were sick or poorly, which is alarming"  says lead author Anu Lappalainen. "It is important to note that many of the 'everyday behaviours' of these dogs are often actually symptoms of pain or discomfort, but due to the amazing but at the same time hard to interpret, stoical temperament of these dogs, these symptoms are often not noticed or understood." Based on her clinical experience as a vet, Dr Lappalainen says she was expecting to find a number of issues but "the severity and amount of them was surprising to us." The study, funded in part by the Finnish Kennel Club and supported by the Finnish English Bulldog Club, is actually the third published using this cohort of dogs. The first found that every Bulldog in the cohort (aged 2-5) showed some signs of breathing difficulty, almost half of them moderate or severe. The second found that all showed abnormal dermatological findings, too - 37% unrecognised by their owners.  So to sum up, every single one of a cohort of Finnish Bulldogs reported healthy by their owners was diagnosed with breathing, joint or dermatological issues - and all but one suffered from all three.  Asked if the sample was large enough to be able to draw conclusions about the breed in Finland as a whole, Dr Lappalaeinen says: "Considering our research methodology, the sample size was sufficient, and our findings are noteworthy. Regarding the sample size, the key word is 'sufficient'. Modern clinical research aims to achieve reliable results by using as low numbers of animals as possible, so that we do not stress any more animals than we absolutely have to. This research was a prime example of how the examinations that the dogs were subjected to - albeit it was only walking for a kilometer, or lying on their side - were very strenuous to some of them, and thus, the less animals needed to be subjected to these tests, the better." Even allowing for the fact that some of the conditions were mild in some dogs, and of course these were just Finnish Bulldogs, it is an astonishing finding - and little wonder the authors conclude: "For the future of the English bulldog breed in Finland, it seems unlikely that any changes in breeding could produce healthier individuals when taking into account that the prevalence of orthopaedic diseases is high and in some conditions like hip dysplasia, no healthy individuals exist. In addition, orthopaedic problems are not the only condition that plagues this breed. At this point, the chances for selective breeding are lost and probably the only option towards healthier dogs would be crossbreeding." They are not the first to conclude this. A study from UC Davis in 2016 found that despite their huge numbers, the breed had such low genetic diversity that it would likely be impossible to breed away from their myriad of health issues without outcrossing to a healthier breed. The study provoked uproar from Bulldog breeders who claimed lead scientist Professor Niels Pedersen had got it wrong.  And that, sadly, is likely to be the response from Bulldog breeders to this research too.  Here's one comment I saw about the study. I do think it's important to recognise that some Bulldogs breeders are working hard to produce healthier dogs.  We've seen that some do lead reasonably active lives; that some even do agility and other dog sports.  There's more health testing too - and clearly they are much loved by their owners. But it is ethical to continue to breed dogs that suffer this much? The answer, surely, is no. See also: Bulldog breeders attack owners of Supervet's "Molly" Death of the Bulldog UC Davis challenge: prove your Bulldog is healthy and we'll diversity-test for free Raging Bull

6/16/2020

As she's slightly turning away in the top pic, here are a couple more showing that her face really is very flat. These winners are from around that time, too. There are three main reasons. First is the pernicious effect of the show-ring which too often leads to exaggeration over time. Second is the cult-like lure of brachcycephaly that has transformed several breeds (and threatens several others). The third, slightly more surprising one, is that the breeders have full-on fucked-up in their reading of the breed standard. Here's how it happened... The Boston Terrier was first recognised in the US in the 1890s. Below is a contemporaneous report and illustraiton of the 1898 Boston Breeders Club Dog Show (in Boston itself, I believe),where muzzles, albeit of various lengths, are very much in evidence. In the 1910 breed standard it states this:  "MUZZLE - Short, square, wide and deep, without wrinkles.... the jaw broad and square, with short, regular teeth" my bolding). "MUZZLE - short, square, wide and deep, and in proportion to skull;' free from wrinkles; shorter in length than in width and depth, not exceeding in length approximately one-third of length of skull; width and depth carried out well to end; the muzzle from stop to end of nose on a line parallel to the top of the skull" "HEAD FAULTS - Skull "domed" or inclined; furrowed by a medial line; skull too long for breadth, or vice versa; stop too shallow; brown and skull to slanting... Muzzle wedge shaped or lacking depth; down faced; too much cut below the eyes; pinched nostrils; protruding teeth; weak lower jaw; showing "turn-up" "The face is intelligent, rather square, the nose, while short, is not pushed in, and the jaws are even, broad and fairly deep. He is in every sense a good practical dog." "Conforming to outline to nearly every other part of the Boston's head, the muzzle must be square. It should be as perfect a square as possible, its width and depth and length being about equal; the "about" meaning that the slight deviation will probably take place in its length because, inasmuch as blockiness is a true requisite, the aim has ever been toward a short nose.  The muzzle should come out squarely from the stop, its length not exceeding one third of the entire head, that is, the distance from tip of nose back horizontally as far as the set-on of the ears, should measure three times the length of the muzzle."  "The muzzle is short, square, wide and deep and in proportion to the skull. It is free from wrinkles, shorter in length than in width or depth; not exceeding in length approximately one-third of the length of the skull." "The jaw is broad and square with short regular teeth. The bite is even or sufficiently undershot to square the muzzle" layback - essentially a nose that recedes into the head like this, aided and abetted by the removal of an upturned jaw as a fault being removed from the standard.  On my Facebook group CRUFFA yesterday, a US Boston breeder interpreted the proportions of the Crufts winner at the top as being correct with this illustration. Leaving aside the fact that "muzzle" cannot possibly mean just the mandible (lower jaw), it is a plain wrong interpretation of the breed standard.  A dog's skull is not just from occiput to stop - it is the whole head, as E J Rousuck made clear in 1926, writing:  "The muzzle should come out squarely from the stop, its length not exceeding one third of the entire head, that is, the distance from tip of nose back horizontally as far as the set-on of the ears, should measure three times the length of the muzzle."   To suggest otherwise would be considered a nonsense by any anatomist. But sadly, we've seen this error also appear in other breeds where it has also been used to justify increasingly brachycephaly - "brachy creep" as we've dubbed it on CRUFFA. Now it is true that there has been some variation in muzzle length over the years, and it is possible to find past Champions with a very short muzzle, only recently has it led to dogs as extreme as this dog, a show champion in the US. And dogs like these in the UK show-ring. The irony is that if they had stuck to muzzles the length of the dog on the right, the breed would not now be one of the 12 extreme brachycephalics whose breeding has been restricted in the Netherlands.  In fact, Bostons like this (and yep, they do still exist) are fine to be bred in the Netherlands because they meet the demand for a muzzle that is a third the length of the whole head. It's perfectly within-standard, too, but show breeders would dismiss this dog as "pet-bred"... the wrong colour... and far too "snouty" But this is not just about breathing (although some Bostons do struggle). Dogs' muzzles are where you find their cooling system. Crush them and the dogs overheat. Brachy mouths are also almost always a mess with rotated/crowded/mismatched teeth - an under-recognised cause of trauma and pain. A lack of a muzzle also makes eyes very vulnerable - as admitted by the Boston Terrier Club of the USA.  "Because their eyes protrude and their muzzles are short, there is an increased chance over other dogs that they will scratch their eyes by accident. When walking with your Boston never allow them to come into contact with thorny plants." POINTS OF ACTION: Breedwatch for the Boston (and other breeds where it is evident - eg Dogue de Bordeaux, Boxers, Newfies and sadly many others). Brachycephalic Working Group a kick up the bum. Set up in 2016 by the Kennel Club after a veterinary petition calling for brachy reform was signed by over 40,000 veterinary professional), progress has been glacial - particularly re changes to breed standards that were reported to be imminent more than a year ago.

5/29/2020

@Dier&Recht The story broke last week that the Netherlands had banned the breeding of Bulldogs and other short-faced breeds (and crossbreeds), prompting outrage from some dog-lovers - and a standing ovation from others. To many in the show-world, the news seems to have come as a massive shock. New Facebook groups and petitions have sprung up overnight in the hope of preventing a slippery-slope spread to other countries. Dozens of international breed clubs have issued statements of condemnation and on Wednesday, the FCI (the umbrella group for many overseas kennel clubs) held an emergency webinar  (a separate blog to come on that). In fact, the president of the FCI, Dr Tamás Jakkel, has even gone so far as to write an extraordinary open letter charging the Dutch KC (Raad van Baheer) with negligence in letting the Dutch Government implement the new legislation. (Read Dr Jakkel's letter here.) Last week, the Pug Breed Council in the UK accused the Dutch KC of “being happy to see the demise of historic breeds that have existed for hundreds of years." The Dutch government's decision, it says, is "beyond our comprehension." In reality, it has been a very long time in coming. And the 'ban' is both not a ban - and it's not new.  Legislation introduced in the Netherlands in 2014 forbids the breeding of pet animals "in a way that harms the welfare and health of the parent animal or the offspring." It spells out that breeding should prevent, as far as possible, serious hereditary disorders/diseases or welfare-impacting conformation being passed on to offspring. The hope was that it would be enough to encourage breeders to make changes, And, indeed, in 2015, the Dutch Kennel Club became the first in the world to mandate a 1km walking test for Bulldogs before they could be bred. Not much changed, though - and certainly not in terms of breeder willingness to change the look of their dogs. The legislation proved to be too vague to be of much to those wanting to bring prosecutions against breeders producing dogs that contravened the law. Faced with continuing high-profile media attention on the plight of brachycephalics, the Dutch government commissioned a report from the University of Utrecht entitled "Breeding Short-Muzzled Dogs" which was published in January 2019.   It provided the basis for six new breeding criteria that Carola Schouten, Minister for Agriculture, introduced in March 2019. Click to expand These cover eye conformation, nostril stenosis, abnormal breathing, excess skin folds and - most controversially -  that all dogs bred in the Netherlands (crossbreeds as well as purebred) must have muzzles at least one third the length of their head (and, in time, half the length of their head). As you might imagine, it was met with uproar - other than from one Pug club, Commedia, which advised its members to stop breeding and announced it would be willing to consider outcrossing in order to meet the new criteria. (A stance that was subsequently overturned by the members who ousted the Club officers who wanted to take this route.) However, the Dutch KC itself broadly welcomed the new criteria - with the exception of the muzzle-length rule. In August 2019, along with its brachycephalic breed clubs, the Dutch KC submitted a counter proposal in the hope of overturning it. It failed - although it has won a last-minute concession that allows, in the short-term, for one parent to have a shorter muzzle if other criteria (which includes an exercise test) are met. Last week the Club announced that it will no longer issue full pedigree certificates to the following ‘extreme’ brachycephalic (short-faced) breeds - unless the parents have passed an independent vet-check confirming that at least one of them has a muzzle the required length.  As there are very few of the above that meet this criteria, die-hard Dutch brachy breeders are seeing it as the end of the road.   The Dutch KC says it has plans for a separate registry where dogs that don't meet the criteria can continue to be recorded/tracked - but they won't be accepted on to the stud book and they cannot be shown.  The Dutch KC also says it is hopes to set up a separate registry for outcrosses bred to to bring in eg a longer nose from another breed (something that has been done in Germany with the retro-pug; although not in a way that's been embraced by the German KC).   The hope is that descendants of these dogs might, down the line, be considered acceptable enough to incorporate back into the stud book. This has prompted horrified calls of "mongrelisation" from some breeders.  "The head is one of the hallmarks of the breed and its change in this manner will cause the breed's essence to be eliminated," wrote the French Bulldog Clubs of America and Canada in a statement last week. "This mandate will significantly change the head shape, ratio of muzzle to skull, and the dentition." infuriated by the dentition reference. We know that French Bulldogs and other brachcyephalics have awful teeth - the result of squishing the normal number of canine teeth into a much smaller jaw. Veterinary dentist Dr Fraser Hale maintains he has never, in a 30-yr career, seen an entirely normal brachycephalic mouth. The teeth are always crowded/rotated. A longer muzzle should help normalise this, if not completely resolve the problem. GSD v Pug The Dutch KC now finds itself at the centre of an international dog fight, with many breeders blaming it for what's happened. Many are also furious that the Club agrees with the legislators that at least some change is necessary. As a Kennel Club, we have repeatedly urged the breed clubs of extremely short-muzzled breeds to include additional health measures in their breeding policies," says a spokesperson. "At that time there was no will to adapt, at least not enough." The Dutch KC is also frustrated by the deflection by many breeders to "lookalikes" (ie puppy mill/BYB-bred dogs). It knows that this argument doesn't wash with legislators when the scientific literature links the problems to the phenotype not the provenance of these dogs. Sure, "responsible" breeders are the most likely to health-test and their dogs may be pampered - but they are also often the ones breeding the dogs with the flattest faces because that is what wins in the show-ring.  In fact, the most cursory of Google searches proves that many brachyephalic dogs have become more extreme over the years, not less, and that it is the show-ring that has driven much of this exaggeration. "If we look at some old photos of these breeds from the last century, which is not that long ago, should we not ask ourselves who we are to say that this is the only correct type? " asks the Dutch KC. "How would breeders at the time react to the breeds as they are today?" In response to the the FCI's claim that the Dutch legislation is an attack on breeds that should be considered "national heritages" the Dutch KC suggests: "So let us take a good look at the books and the available photo material from that time and use these photos as a standard. If we showed these photos to the public in the street from about 60 years ago and now, which would be their favourite?"  1878-80 Minnie + Sally from The Royal Collection Or that Bulldogs used to look like this... Donald - the first Bulldog to be shown i America ... they'll tell you that these examples were mongrels or can otherwise be discounted. I'm not often in the habit of defending kennel clubs and I can understand why some believe the Dutch KC could have done more. But I don't think the international dog 'fancy' fully understands the strength of public opinion in the Netherlands - and indeed in other countries where brachycephalic health has continued to be highlighted by scientists, animal welfarists and the media.  Bottom line, the Dutch KC's hands are now tied. It can no longer continue to sanction illegal breeding any more than the UK Kennel Club could register breeds such as the Japanese Tosa that are banned by law in the UK.  Of course now the fear among breeders is that other countries, emboldened by the Dutch move, might follow suit.  In fact, I would be very surprised if we saw a  ban in the UK any time soon and, let's face it, the USA is the breeding wild-west where any attempts at control is considered an infringement of constitutional rights. But there are certainly some murmurings in Finland, Norway, Germany and Austria. It is now over 70 years since the first surgeries were done to correct airway abnormalities in these breeds. Today, much of the workload of thousands of vets worldwide is taken up trying to fix both their breathing and a myriad of other issues in these dogs.  “I am genuinely horrified by some of the patients that walk into my clinic,” says veterinarian Dr Gert ter Haar who contributed to the report commissioned by the Dutch Government and until recently ran the Brachycephalic Clinic at the Royal Veterinary College. “I don’t know where to start to try and make them feel better.” We now know that brachycephaly confers a host of pathologies on these dogs. Hundreds die from heatstroke every year because their anatomy impairs their ability to thermoregulate; they have the same number of teeth as a Labrador squished into a third or less of the space; a foreshortened skull which can cause the brain to rotate; eyes liable to damage by the lack of a muzzle to act as a buffer; painful ear problems, gastro-intestinal issues, difficulties mating and giving birth, compromised genetic diversity and a reduced lifespan - particularly for the French Bulldog and Bulldog (5-8yrs old depending on which data/studies you look at). Dr ter Haar says he is “thrilled” by the Dutch Government’s decision. “The only reason breeders have bred towards a shorter and shorter nose/face is that they look very cute and more childlike. Have we become so superficial that the look of our dogs is more important than their welfare? In my opinion this gives us a way, finally, to stop breeders who do not have the welfare of the dogs they breed at the top of their priority list.” Others believe a ban is a mistake, pointing out that simple solutions for complex problems can have unintended consequences.  “Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we have enough evidence to say that increasing the length of the nose alone will make the difference that they are hoping for,” says Dr Jane Ladlow, a brachycephalic specialist who is is one of only a few in the world doing advanced surgery on these dogs. Dr Ladlow, believes that the right approach is to work with, rather than against breeders. Along with colleagues at Cambridge University she was instrumental in the setting up of the UK Kennel Club's new respiratory grading scheme. “I'm concerned that the ban will stop reputable breeders who are concerned about health but won't stop puppy farms as imports from other countries are still allowable. There is obviously considerable demand for these breeds because of their personalities and popularity on social media.” Dr Ladlow also points to the Cambridge research which found factors such as head-width and neck girth may be more significant than muzzle length. She is adamant that there are healthy dogs out there. Indeed, the Cambridge research found that around half of Bulldogs, Frenchies and Pugs had no significant breathing issues. But that leaves 50% who do. And, again, hardly a week goes by without a new paper identifying yet another problem. Two weeks ago, a Finnish study of ostensibly healthy Bulldogs found that that almost all had problematic joint issues (blog post to come). Dr Rowena Packer, author of several key scientific papers exploring the impact of brachycephaly on dogs, broadly supports the Dutch move: “Many millions of dogs with longer muzzles already enjoy the freedom to breathe, see, walk and play freely, with no need for invasive surgeries or laborious daily husbandry to achieve this. “Although ‘banning’ may not be an optimal solution for many parties, given the lack of success seen with other breed bans, the Netherlands are sending a clear message to dog breeders that this issue simply must be taken seriously.” I'm not that keen on bans either. But I welcome the Dutch move. Not enough has been done to address these dogs' problems and breeders continue to resist even minor tweaks to their breed standards.

2/10/2020

The Supervet on 30th January - and many wept when five month-old Bulldog puppy, Molly, was put to sleep.  Molly had been rushed to Fitzpatrick Referrals in Surrey because she had been hit by a car. But it wasn't the accident that led to her death, it was what orthopaedic specialist Professor Noel Fitzpatrick referred to as "unscrupulous" breeding. Initially, Bulldog breeders on social media showed sympathy to grieving owner Lisa Hook. But, last week, some turned on her. The reason? Miss Hook began asking questions about Molly's breeding. creme de la creme. There will even be several close Molly relatives being shown at Crufts next month. But, as is the case with most Bulldog breeding in the UK, neither of her parents have been tested for hip dysplasia or respiratory issues, despite both problems being endemic in the breed. Hillplace Showdogs) posted this. There was then a heated online exchange with the Lampens, who bred Molly's sire. First, the Lampens accused Miss Hook of negligence in allowing her dog to be run over. They then called her "stupid" and "a liar" - and then claimed they weren't the owner of the stud dog, despite their name clearly being on show results for the dog in 2017.  (In fact, their name is also on Molly's vaccination certificate so they were clearly closely involved with the litter.)  When Miss Hook persisted on asking why no health-testing had been done, she was told to "f...off". "The bullying has left me confused and intimidated" says a shocked Miss Hook. "I will never buy another Bulldog. It is obvious that want to shout down anyone that is trying to find out the truth in order to protect their friends but more importantly their pockets." Click to expand You'll see that some of Molly's antecedents have been tested for HUU - a condition called hyperuricosuia that is common in Bulldogs and can cause painful urinary stones which can sometimes need surgery. Even some truly shitty breeders do this DNA test - because it's cheap and enables them to claim that their dogs are "health-tested". any meaningful health tests, and they were done in Belgium seven years ago. They include a fitness, eye, heart and trachea test - all great. But despite the claim, the hip test listed here is limited because it did not involve an x-ray - just a physical exam by a vet. Upshot: this does not rule out hip dysplasia. You need to x-ray to do that. should Bulldog breeders be doing by way of health tests? any health tests for the breed.  The vast majority of the 10,000 Bulldogs it registered last year - even those bred under the auspices of its supposedly-elite Assured Breeder Scheme - have undergone no health-tests at all. Clck to expand But the Breed Council bronze level Breed Council does not test for respiratory issues or hip dysplasia - two of the breeds' biggest problems.  And although the Silver and Gold tests do test for respiratory problems, there is no requirement to x-ray hips. (See Breed Council health scheme requirements here.) why isn't hip-screening a breed requirement? Because it requires an anaesthetic and Bulldog folk consider this too risky because of the breeds' respiratory issues.  It's also why so few are checked for trachea hypoplasia too (this too requires sedation). Of course most Bulldogs are born via C-section and an anaesthetic is needed for that but, hey, that's different. have been some improvements. who are really trying to breed healthier dogs are being let down by others and the whole thing is absolutely impossible for puppy buyers to navigate. It remains unsafe for anyone in the UK to buy a Bulldog.  this statement on its Facebook page.

1/4/2020

Apparently oblivious to the welfare concerns of breeding an extreme brachycephalic dog utterly swamped by its coat, Wasabi the Peke won Best in Show at the 2019 AKC Nationals in Orlando - which took place last month but aired on Animal Planet last Wednesday. That is all. Well not quite all. grandfather is Malachy, who won the Westminster Dog Show in 2012. great-grandfather is Malachy, who won the Westminster Dog Show in 2012. great-great-grandfather is Malachy, who won the Westminster Dog Show in 2012. Wasabi's great-great-great grandfather is, in fact, Danny the Peke (Ch Yakee A Dangerous Liaison) who won Crufts in 2003 (and who, as we revealed in Pedigree Dogs Exposed, had been diagnosed with BOAS and had undergone surgery at Glasgow Vet School to alleviate his breathing problems before his BIS win). This is what lies beneath the coat of a champion peke - a skeleton deliberately deformed to ensure the breeding typical "rolling gait" enshrined in a breed standard written long ago. 1910 Ch Broad Oak Beetle Kylin Faithful and Fearless 1909-1924 his on Good Morning America as a cringing example. AKC's Facebook post about the win (please do hop over there to comment if you feel strongly about this issue) Barely-walking dust-bunny in fact. I have rarely seen a less animated dog than Wasabi. Perhaps hoping that if he keeps his head down, it will all go away. EDIT 5/1/20: The AKC has now removed Vicki Brusellis Hummel's comment on its Facebook - likely because it had got so many likes that it was by default showing as the top comment.  They have deleted other 'negative' comments too although it's heartening to see that comments from those expressing concern/dismay still far outweigh the positive ones.

11/30/2019

© NBC clipped from here Too strong? Here's Thor playing with a puppy at home, the obstruction obvious.  EDIT 3/12/12: This video was embedded from Facebook and its owner has now taken it down.  It showed Thor playing with a puppy and I posted it because Thor's breathing was noisy/raspy.  This video is from around two years ago.  Given that BOAS is a progressive condition, I am surprised that Thor was not noisier trotting round the National Dog Show ring but then the mic was not close to him most of the time and the crowd was loud. Now Thor is actually better than most other Bulldogs we've seen in the US show-ring - he moves quite well (for a Bulldog), he has tight eyes and there are no obvious skin issues (although the judge did not lift his large nose roll to check). He's heavy but at least not grossly obese. He has terrible teeth compared to a normal dog, but they are better than most Bulldog teeth (you can, at least, see all six incisors even if they are higgledy-piggledy and largely buried in the gum).  Most Bulldog teeth look like this. Thor has a very short, recessed screw tail (a mutation that we now know is associated with spine issues). The tail does not appear to be mobile, robbing him of that mode of expression,  and it doesn't come anywhere close to covering his anus. And that nose!! Tilted backwards under the large nose roll, Thor's nose is dry and dull and his nostrils are almost closed.  Remember that dogs are as near-as-dammit obligate nose breathers. And yeah.... that underbite... It's a demand in the breed standard; codified therein in the erroneous belief that, back-in-the-day, it better-equipped the Bulldog to hold on to a Bull. It leads, inevitably,  to soft-tissue trauma in the mouth and a vastly elevated risk of periodontal disease because of cramped/rotated teeth and the mismatch between upper and lower jaws.  I say it a lot but I will say it again... an underbite is a deformity (a Class 3 malocclusion in veterinary terms) and it has no place in a modern breed standard. Or, indeed, in a modern dog. Thor has been quite extensively health-tested - and I'm genuinely pleased to see that he has good hips given that the Bulldog is the worst breed for hip dysplasia). This is a bit of progress.  But you'll note that there is no result here for respiratory health and that's because despite poor breathing being the single biggest health issue for Bulldogs and other extreme brachycephalic breeds, there is no official scheme in the USA, unlike here in the UK, Scandinavia and an increasing number of countries in Europe. for a Bulldog, he is a disaster for a dog and I despair that any judge could have chosen him over the other dogs (all with normal canine conformation) in the Best in Show ring.  I mean, award him Best of Breed if you have to -  but the Best dog overall? Finally - a question to US vets and the American Veterinary Association: Why are you not doing more to address brachycephalic health in the US?  Why are you not even talking about it publicly when the Bulldog is now the 5th most popular dog in the US (and the French Bulldog - arguably even worse - is the 4th)? Here in the UK, in Scandinavia and in parts of Europe, there is progress being made because veterinarians have stood up and said enough is enough. US vets: your silence increasingly suggests tacit approval of the breeding of dogs that struggle to mate, whelp, breathe, thermo-regulate and are dead by, on average, six old.   Please, please, please get more involved in shaping a healthier future for these dogs.  They need you. EDIT 2/11/19 Here are some pictures which prove they are one and the same dog - on the left, stills from the home video, compared with, on the right, stills of Thor from  the National Dog Show TV footage. Join in on the brachycephalic debate on CRUFFA.

9/11/2019

Pedigree Dogs Exposed was seeing a young male show male Basset squat to have a pee and see the urine splash all over the dog's belly. No dog should have so little ground clearance that they risk damaging their penis when going for a walk on anything other than green baize.  Originally a hunting hound, today's show Basset is short and heavy and in no way fit for its original purpose, even if the mind is still willing. We know this, because there are still Bassets that do hunt out there - and they look like this. Woolaston working Bassets In the aftermath of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the Kennel Club introduced vet checks at championship shows for what were then known as "high profile breeds" - essentially those with the worst conformation problems. The Basset was one of them.   In 2012, this dog (Ch Buzz Lightyear at Dereheath) won Best of Breed at Crufts but was then disqualified after failing his vet-check, albeit for an eye problem, not his resemblance to a badly-fitting valance. Even better, the following year,  this dog won best of breed at Crufts 2013. Result! © The Kennel Club © The Kennel Club Which brings us back to the dogs featured at the top of this post. On the left is this year's Crufts winner,  Ch Switherland Smart Image (Danny to his friends) and on the right is Malrich Paris Carver. This pic was taken last weekend at Richmond Championship Show where Danny won BOB under breed specialist judge Judith Murray.  The UK Kennel Club has something similar guarding against excess skin and too little ground clearance. So I am guessing that six-year-old Danny looks good on the move for a dwarf breed. Breed Health + Conservation Plan notes: breed feature not a disease. Moreover, it's something us humans have deliberately bred for - a handicap initially designed to slow them down on the hunting field and, more latterly, because it wins pretty ribbons. heck of a burden to impose on a dog. And no surprise then that they suffer a number of muscoskeletal issues as a result.  In the US, 40 per cent of more than 200 Bassets that have been tested have been found to suffer from hip dysplasia and 15% have elbow dysplasia. In a recent UK breed club survey, almost 20% of the breed were recorded as having conformation-linked disease. four Bassets have been hip-scored in the UK in the past 15yrs. And only six dogs have had their elbows tested - with only one having normal elbows. (See the breed specific stats here.) some movement on Basset health since Pedigree Dogs Exposed - their eyes are considerably better than the droopy red wells that were almost ubiquitous in 2008. We also much less often see the Queen Anne legs of yesteryear.

3/16/2019

incredibly depressing that we are still seeing Pugs like this being rewarded at the very highest level in the show-ring. Here's what the KC standard says re eyes. So how did this dog win Best of Breed? Perhaps eye tests should be mandatory not just for Pugs (they're not btw) but for Pug judges, too? any progress? Well sure... this dog was carrying a bit less weight than those in the past and he moved OK.  Oh, and we now have a Pug Health Scheme ... But it shows that 70% of Pugs that have been tested aged 3-7 are clinically affected with Brachycephalic Obstructed Airway Syndrome. Read that again... thousands and thousands and thousands of Pugs suffer from air-hunger. Now on the main Pug Health website those results are only up to the end of 2017. Maybe things have improved since then? Well who knows... no one has bothered to update the results since then.  And I can't tell you if this particular dog has passed any breathing because it doesn't list the names of the dogs.* In early February, the KC announced the launch of a new respiratory grading scheme for Pugs (and Bulldogs and Frenchies) which should mean the results will be made available. Unfortunately the KC hasn't actually bothered to update its website to reflect that this scheme is actually up and running. *The Northern Pug Club does list some health-test results here.

3/11/2019

CRUFFA,  is simple: to try to reduce visibility and, therefore demand for dogs that are very well-documented as having a lot of health issues. here. new guidelines for advertisers to help them make better choices in all the animals (not just dogs) they use to market their stuff. less stuff than it was when we started. mea culpa statement offered zero explanation as to the backstory, making them look like they were recoiling in horror at their hideous mistake. removed this statement, either preparing something a little less bald or perhaps bowing to pressure from breeders. I suspect the latter given that the Bulldog breed health rep met with Royal Canin and the Kennel Club at Crufts yesterday. Mrs Collins-Nattrass is a member of the Brachycephalic Working Group but it would seem that the display removal is a step too far for her. pauvre undershots to pick up. (You'd think, wouldn't you, that a dog once celebrated for being able to hang on to a bull would be able to manage a bit of extruded kibble but hey...) comme ci.   Yeah, I didn't know where to start, either. Well, perhaps with a little vowel substitution.

3/3/2019

today's Telegraph, by journalist Val Elliott who has bought hook, line and sinker a Kennel Club-fed story that some unscrupulous breeders are trying to pass-off white German Shepherds puppies as more rare (= more expensive) Swiss White Shepherd pups. Here's the real story: Kennel Club breeders used to kill German Shepherds that were born white. Why? Because white is now a disqualifying fault in German Shepherds, despite the colour having been in the breed from the start. this site maintains that some breeders still cull white puppies. not go for a well-bred white German Shepherd puppy instead? Choose wisely and it's pretty much the same dog. And hey, it may even ensure that a puppy isn't killed based on its colour. Puppy Sophie... Swiss White Shepherd? Or white GSD?

9/16/2018

Goodbyeeeeeeeee In a landmark move, the Dutch Pug Club has responded to bad publicity, unrelenting pressure from campaigners, a wealth of science elucidating the breed's many health issues and strengthened animal welfare laws in the Netherlands. statement here if you understand Dutch (and if not you'll need to pop it into Google Translate). If an official translation into English is made available, I'll add it here. More importantly, a move like this really paves the way for other breeds, and a new wave of younger, more science-savvy breeders,  to follow. And, technically, if registered in Germany they can be registered in other FCI countries and any countries that have a reciprocal arrangement with the FCI (such as the UK Kennel Club). Great news for the breed - and possibly many others, too.  Well done the Dutch Pug Club! 1895

9/14/2018

They're not.  This one shows a very exaggerated puppy with a purple tongue. here is the dog's KC pedigree - totally legit (well in terms of it being a genuine KC pedigree). They are not. before, also KC-registered. The second are exaggerated "pocket" American Bullies which actually often have half-decent heads and tails but whose shoulders are in the next county, cantilevered on to compressed, dwarfy frames. They usually have cropped ears (illegal in this country ) and are often very inbred to the point of looking not-quite-with-us. The dogs are often sold to other wannabe-breeders who are tempted by the get-rich-quick promises. You too don't have to get a real job if you buy and pimp an extreme stud, wank him to exhaustion while he's still alive, dunk the filthy liqueur into a freezer in volume and flog it all over the world for a grand a time (and often a lot more) to people who have shit for brains. Too strong?  • Puppies that were conceived by artificial insemination or born by a C-section. You are perpetuating the breeding of dogs that nature is saying should not be bred.   before you visit because the moment a little ball of wrinkle has been popped into your hands, man, you are lost.  Some will DNA-test for colour and some will also DNA-test for HUU because it's cheap and easy and makes them look like a good breeder.  One has posted this on his website which makes it look like they are health-focused - but there is zero mention of any tests other than those for colour. Ironically, puppies from health-tested stock are invariably cheaper than ones from the breeders I am highlighting here.  Further reading: Warning:don't buy into the designer Bulldog bullshit.html

9/6/2018

Miss E. Rumball’s basset hound "Laval Of Lohaire" Have a good look at the Basset Hound above - I am not sure what year this is (anyone?) but would guess 1930s/40s? © The Kennel Club But while welcoming the moderation we've seen in the last decade,  I think the dog of old is just SO much better put-together than the 2018 Crufts winner: no dollops of flesh hanging off his hocks or neck (well anywhere really);  smaller ears, greater ground-clearance, a lovely rounded bum (honestly, dead straight top-lines are completely unnatural), and that whole rear-assembly is just so much more natural. You can really imagine the dog doing a day's work - running freely without leaving most of its body half a second behind.  And of course, today's true hunting Bassets look like the old dog, not the Crufts winners. Upshot: there is progress but show Bassets still need more leg and less flesh - and the only dollops we need are of common sense.

9/2/2018

(For the historical lowdown, see this clip from Pedigree Dogs Exposed: Three Years On)  We just wanted to all let you know that LUA Dalmatians are huge NO in Croatia, mother land of Dalmatians." Vaterland... Any similarity to German wartime rhetoric is of course, entirely coincidental. here and, rather amusingly, having stated that the dogs are 'inferior' and not to the standard, it turns out that one of Croatia's top breeders and judges gave one a great critique at a recent show. Krunoslav Brčić-Kostić. You can read that here and frankly I don't know where to start. The man should be ashamed of himself. But basically, these are the reasons for advising that allowing the LUA Dals would be a bad thing. the high probability that the LUA population possess Pointer genes closely linked to the SLC2A9 gene, and among them are breed specific genes responsible for the development and quality of spots  the possibility of introducing some deleterious alleles from Pointer and the well known fact from population genetics that it is very difficult to eliminate deleterious recessive alleles. I've already addressed the spotting issue, above. Re the possibility of introducing some deleterious alleles... well nothing has popped up yet and the outcross was done 45 years ago.  And finally, if he was a conservation biologist worth his salt, he would know that there is no need to "eliminate deleterious recessive alleles" - every living thing has them and they really are just fine unless you increase the chance of them meeting up by inbreeding inside a closed gene pool.  For a start, these alleles are rarely discrete entities that only code for one thing (eg the mutation for sickle cell anaemia also confers protection against malaria).  Nope. This has nothing to do with health and no one should be fooled.  It is all about purity at all costs.   And as for this... "The Dalmatian Dog breed was not established in 1975 nor in 2005. It is a historical breed which traces to a distant past, and this should be respected. The formation of the Dalmatian breed was accompanied with the acquirement of genetic load for deafness and metabolism of uric acid. This was the only option since without that the Dalmatian breed would not be possible." Makes my skin crawl. The reasons so many Dalmatians are deaf is because of human selection for a dog that is too white - and a specific requirement that they should not have coloured patches on their ears (which would be protective against deafness.) Plus it's perfectly possible that it is relatively recent selection for ever more perfect spotting that resulted in the the HUA gene in normal Dals becoming fixed. Historical images show a very different-looking dog. 1854 Brenda Bonnet and the team at the International Partnership for Dogs would be well-placed to do this - perhaps with the support of Danika Bannasch who did so much of the original gene research on this issue, plus any veterinary associations willing to add their name? Further reading: http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/07/we-are-dal-lighted.html http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2010/11/uks-first-gm-dalmatian-and-shes-winner.html http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2014/06/lua-dalmatians-still-clubs-resist.html http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2010/11/and-akcs-decision-re-accepting-spotted.html http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/03/dalmatian-diehards-would-be-disgusted.html http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2012/01/fiona-dalmatian-ongoing-battle.html http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/01/dalmatian-club-of-america-last-throes.html http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2010/12/dalmatian-club-of-america-kills-dogs.html http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/03/fiona-at-crufts-win-for-breed.html

8/19/2018

Pedigree Dogs Exposed was broadcast on BBC1 in the UK 10 years ago tonight.  It laid bare dog-breeding practices that had caused a great deal of harm to dogs - harm that had been overseen by a Kennel Club that should have known better.   Indeed it did know better. Even its own genetics advisor, Jeff Sampson, had written in 2004 in an article for a symposium that: "Unfortunately, the restrictive breeding patterns that have developed as part and parcel of the purebred dog scene have not been without collateral damage to all breeds."   Like many before him (and since) the answer for Sampson (who was clearly not stupid but had been subsumed into the KC culture) was to advocate gently from within in the hope that something might change.  He and the Kennel Club could fairly point to money put into research to developing DNA tests for the ever-spiralling number of genetic diseases. It's just that nothing was being done to tackle the root problem.   When I first walked through the steel and glass doors of the Kennel Club's Clarges St headquarters in London’s Mayfair in early 2008 - past oak-panelled rooms, fine art and chefs in starched whites pandering to the Members, I smelled complacency. Despite the KC's literature claiming that the primary objective of the Kennel Club was 'to promote in every way, the general improvement of dogs',  it had actually overseen a criminal genetic neglect of man's best friend. It was the Kennel Club that had endorsed the breed standards, that sanctioned the dog shows, approved the judges, green-lighted inbreeding, refused to mandate health checks and had continued to register puppy farm dogs. It had done next to nothing because the problem was - and remains - that the people who run the Kennel Club are part of the whole self-serving system.  Group-think had persuaded them that it was OK... convinced them that a show-ring rosette was prima facie evidence that they were doing something good for dogs.  For those that don't know, Pedigree Dogs Exposed was prompted by the death of my Flatcoated Retriever, Fred. That's us at the top. Fred was born in 1987 and I lost him in 2003, aged 15.  I had thought he was going to live forever and my heart broke into a thousand shards when he died.  Truly, I  had never felt grief like it - and I write as someone who had already lost their mother and father before their time, my mum when she was just 46 to a brain tumour. It was after Fred died that I discovered that Flatcoats, typically, die of cancer around the age of 8/9 and I was horrified. I felt cheated enough that I had lost Fred at 14.  And I asked: why do so many flatcoats die of cancer so young? It opened Pandora's Box. It wasn't just Flatcoats. It was breed after breed after breed, with some paying a horrendous price in terms of genetic disease, wounded immune systems and lifespans that, for some, average just six or seven years old.  I started making Pedigree Dogs Exposed with an open mind but the more we researched, the more we learned and the more shocked we became.  By the time the film aired,  I felt completely justified in calling it one of the greatest welfare scandals of our time.  What grated most was the pomposity; the arrogance with which crippled German Shepherds were being wobbled round the show-ring by breeders who to their core believed their dogs were superior to any randomly-bred mixed breed when the scientific evidence spoke so strongly to the contrary. Inbreeding was seen as a good thing ("as long as you knew what you were doing" - which mostly they didn't).   The KC happily registered pups born of mother/son + full sibling matings.  Breeding  from a top-winning dog as often as possible in order to pass on those champion genes to as many of the next generation was seen as a way of improving the breed.  The show-ring was busy selecting for ever-more extremes - gasping Pugs, bulbous Shar-peis, German Shepherds that were dragging their back ends,  all on the watch of a Kennel Club that enjoyed Royal patronage and a respect in higher places that, frankly, it did not deserve. As many will remember, I was the villain for highlighting that a top-winning Cavalier had been diagnosed with syringomyelia  rather than the owner for continuing to show and breed a dog with such a hideous inherited condition. I don't think I'm exaggerating in saying that Pedigree Dogs was a "water cooler" moment.  There had been many others  before PDE - notably vets Simon Wolfensohn and Emma Milne,  and writers/such as Pat Burns (Terrierman) and J Jeffrey Bragg, but it's hard to beat the power of 9pm prime time BBC and the international sales that followed (the film made a particularly big impact in Sweden and Australia).  The issue hit the headlines - and continued to dominate front pages in the UK for months to come, fuelled by the three high profile reports into dog-breeding that followed,  the desertion of Cruft's main sponsor, Pedigree;  the BBC dropping the broadcasting of Crufts after more than 40 years, and the setting up of the Dog Advisory Council as a canine watchdog (sadly now defunct). For my part, having lit the blue touch-paper, I found I couldn't walk away. I wrote articles, did interviews, started this blog (almost 7 million page views to date) spoke at conferences and dinners, chivvied the great and the good behind the scenes and embraced social media to continue to spread the word.  In 2012, I made a follow-up (you can view it here) which highlighted the need for more to be done.  Rather more recently, driven by deep concern about the lack of reform for the extreme brachycephalics, I started CRUFFA in an effort to tackle that particular issue from a different angle.  So, 10 years on, where are we now?  The good news • There is much greater awareness of the dangers of selecting for extremes - whether for very flat muzzles, or short legs,  excessive skin or size.  If you compare the dogs that won Crufts in 2008 with the dogs that won Best of Breed in 2018, there is a perceptible swing towards moderation in some of the worst breeds. Crufts 2008    ©The Kennel Club   Crufts 2018  ©The Kennel Club • There is widespread acknowledgment that inbreeding is a bad thing.  Most breeders now know what a co-efficient of inbreeding (COI) is and that a high number is a bad number.  Some are going beyond the COI worked out from paper pedigrees and using tools such as Embark or MyDogDNA to check diversity and disease status at a DNA level. Some - heaven forfend - are even doing some thoughtful outcrossing. • There is a wealth of new science on the issues. Make something a hot topic, as did the film, and the research interest and funding will follow.  • I had the devil of a time trying to persuade the veterinary profession to speak out when I made PDE. Today, they are among the strongest and most determined advocates for reform at both an individual and profession level. Thank you. • The RSPCA was always on board, in no small part due to their then Chief Vet, Mark Evans who spoke out extremely strong in the film. Since then, all the main animal animal welfare organisations in the UK have played a part in maintaining the impetus for reform. A big thank you to them, too. • Legislation: October 1st sees the introduction in the UK has of legislation that makes it a criminal offence to breed from a dog "if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype, phenotype or state of health that breeding from it could have a detrimental effect on its health or welfare or the health or welfare of its offspring."  The proof of this will be in the pudding but my hope is that a few high profile cases will act as warning shots over breeders' bows. There are similar laws now being enacted in Europe/Scandinavia, too. • Social media: nothing to do with PDE, but Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others today act as an effective watchdog. Pictures of extreme show-dogs proliferate quickly and attract widespread censure.  Brands that use exaggerated breeds to flog their stuff are now contacted - and very often respond quickly. This morning on Twitter I collared both Body Shop (Cruelty Free International) and supermarket Waitrose for using a Frenchie and a Bulldog respectively in their marketing. I am hopeful of a good response. Everyone can help here by doing the same - it really works. Brands in the main do not want to be associated with animal suffering. • The Kennel Club has come quite a long way since 2008. After initial denial, it quickly bowed to public opinion  (the then Chairman of the KC, Ronnie Irving, described it at the time as "a tsunami of hate") and began making changes. These included the banning of first-degree-relative matings; better training for judges; a review of breed standards (and changes to more than 70);  the introduction of Mate Select;  educational tools for breeders and the public; vet checks at major shows; the establishment of the Kennel Club Genetics Centre at the Animal Health Trust.; a limit on the allowed number of C-sections; increased funding for research and the news that it would consider well-thought-out outcrossing.  The KC's Assured Breeder Scheme is now policed much more strictly.  The KC supports a peer-reviewed journal which publishes useful research in the field. More recently the KC announced breed health and conservation plans which are intended to take a more holistic view of breed health - although the huge delay on these being publicly available suggests these may be proving contentious with breeders/breed clubs.  Sounds a lot, doesn't it? The bad news • Exaggerations are always in danger of sneaking back in.  This Peke has just won the Toy Group at the World Dog Show in Amsterdam.  Bottom line, if we'd seen true reform, the Pekes winning in the show-ring would look more like this little one from 100 years ago - a dog today that would be thought to be a Tibetan Spaniel. And at Crufts this year, although there were some more moderate dogs - and better breathing  than we saw 10 years ago - it was depressing that this young dog had qualified. There has been zero progress in terms of moderating faces in the extreme brachycephalics.  Deleterious underbites are the norm with jumbled mismatched teeth the inevitable consequence. There are still no restrictions on popular sires, either - and little impetus when this is where the serious money lies in dog-breeding.  This year's top Bulldog, Ch Sealaville He's Tyler,  has sired around 200 litters. At at least £500 a squirt, this is where breeders claw back the expense of raising top show dogs and it's an income stream few would willingly forego. • Inbreeding is still rife.  The KC may have banned actual mother/son, father/daughter and full-sib matings, but they still register puppies from matings that are far more inbred than this because of cumulative inbreeding. They also chose to not also forbid grandfather/grand-daughter matings - a pairing Sir Patrick Bateson, who chaired one of the reviews into dog-breeding, thought was particularly pernicious. • We've seen outcrossed Dalmatians and outcrossed Irish Red + White Setters registered by the Kennel Club - but this has been entirely due to individual breeders fighting for it; not something initiated by the Kennel Club or the breed clubs, which in the main remain deeply conservative. As such, outcrosses are extremely rare and the norm is still to breed dogs in closed gene pools with the inevitable consequences. • Breeders continue to convince themselves that they can health-test their way out of problems.  They can't. • Progress has been made in raising awareness of the health deficits associated with particular breeds, but the popularity of some of our most deformed and disabled breeds - Bulldogs, Pugs, French Bulldogs - has soared.   The Frenchie is now the UK's most popular KC-registered dog - knocking the far more sensible (and more sound) Labrador off the top-spot it has held for decades. Now, we're seeing a surge in miniature smooth Dachshunds - seen as a cute "easy-keeper", at least until they bugger their backs. They have a muzzle, I guess.  Just no legs. • There remains disdain for crossbreeds, despite the science telling us that they tend to be healthier and live longer than their purebred cousins. The comparing of purebred dog breeding to eugenics in PDE was uncomfortable for many, but the parallels are obvious. And they remain. Everyone who still looks down their nose at a labrador x poodle and refers to them as a "labramongrel" needs to take a long hard look at what's driving how they feel. How depressed am I by this?  In truth, at times, very.  But it is not as lonely a place as it was. There were times when I've felt like I was the only person shouting that things must change and now I am not. The conversation has started - and it continues. Ten years is the blink of an eye and there has been change. It is heartening to see the progress made by European and Scandinavian kennel clubs in particular. But it isn't yet the root and branch reform in the way we breed dogs that's needed to protect our dogs and it could so very easily slip back. There is also much work to be done in helping puppy buyers to make better choices. The dogs still deserve better.

12/10/2017

The above dog - Mr Chubbs - is currently being pimped as a desirable stud by a Bulldog breeder called Adam Roche from Manchester, a man very happy to feed a new demand in the UK for 'extreme' Bulldogs regardless of the cost to the dogs. Rare Bulldogs Facebook page and weep. It's a bizarre world where breeders call the dogs they breed "productions" and the worth of a Bulldog is measured in the size of its nose rope, the shortness of its back and legs and how thick-set they are. A quick trawl reveals loads of people in the UK posting really dreadful-looking Bulldogs, including its two British admins. Elvis isn't KC registered (despite the claim in the blurb above), but many are. ... and so on I have had brief exchanges with both Sanchez and Roche on Facebook - begging them, frankly, to not breed dogs like this. But of course what does my opinion matter when they can charge so much money from peddling deformity to a gullible public buying dogs by the wrinkle? If Sanchez is health-testing, he is keeping it quiet. The only tests advertised on the Dezinerbullz website are DNA tests for colour - because his speciality is rare' colours, and chunky, squat dogs like this. Well, we could urge people to not buy them - hell, no one should buy any Bulldog (unless one of the more moderate alt-Bulldogs)  - but that's clearly not working. Registrations continue to rise. We could urge people to not breed them? Not while they can make so much money out of them we can't. We could ask the Kennel Club to no longer register them, perhaps?  This is a stance I've taken in the past, but the reason I've been able to find out that Mr Chubbs is not health-tested and has had 21 KC-registered litters is because the KC keeps records and makes them publicly available. It enables us to track them. Plus, this crowd is ahead of the game - they've recently launched a brand new Kennel Club promising to register any breed of any colour. (Click and wince here.) We could make it illegal to breed dogs like this? Well, good luck with that - where on earth would you draw the line? Truth is, there IS no single answer as much as I would love there to be.   That doesn't mean we just give up.  We need to keep publicising the problems. We need to encourage those who have bought one of these dogs and paid a heavy price to come forward and talk about it.  My CRUFFA campaign and vets need to continue to persuade advertisers to not use any extreme dog (and that includes KC standard Bulldogs, Frenchies and Pugs) Although it's impossible to make their breeding illegal, it is not impossible to beef up legislation to financially clobber breeders who sell a dog that goes on to suffer or die from a breed-related issue. This is something that I understand is being worked on and it can't come a moment too soon. Finally, a note about those 'rare colours'.  Frankly, I don't care what colour a dog comes in - even if it's evidence that there's been some sneaky cross-breeding (most breeds need all the diversity they can get).  But, with the flat-faced breeds in particular, buyers should consider non-recognised or rare colours a red flag by default - as is any advert that lists which colour genes the dogs carry. While there is rarely a health problem associated with the colour itself (whatever the 'conventional' breeders claim), it is very often a sign that the breeder cares more about colour than health.