Reducing Breed Defects

(as featured by Canine Chronicle Online)

by Carmen L. Battaglia, PhD

In most instances science and technology in one way or another have had a profound influence on the course of history. Both have contributed to our material progress, the evolution of our social attitudes and many of our public policies. On the other hand, folk lore and popular beliefs have also played important roles in how events have been shaped and how attitudes about progress have evolved. Given the events of the past 50 years one can not help but notice that science, technology, folklore and popular attitudes have each effected their share of events. For example, it is fair to say that a long time and common belief shared among breeders is that the majority of dogs are genetically normal, meaning that when an abnormal puppy or a disease occurs there should be reason for concern.

Because most breeders believe that dogs are genetically normal, when an abnormal gene expresses itself in the form of structural defect, heart abnormality, cataract, missing pre-molar or something else, most avoid talking about it because it is considered to be an admission that those affected are less than average or are abnormal. According to geneticist, Dr. George Padgett, it is these beliefs which are passed along from one breeder to another that provides one of the major reasons why diseases have not been easy to breed out. According to Padgett (1991) "Most humans carry 3-5 defective genes and most dogs carry at least the equivalent number, perhaps more." Since reliable estimates have not yet been developed for each breed, health histories have become the best alternative until other methods become available. One of the by-products to health histories is that they also serve as a good technique for calculating the differences that exist between breeds, and a means for understanding how diligent breeders have been in their own efforts to interpret and use information about recessives and diseases. By observing the number, kind and frequency of serious faults found in litters, one can estimate the skills of breeders and the problems within their breeds.

FOLKLORE AND SCIENCE

At the root of the problem is the misguided belief that most dogs are without defective genes, and it is that notion which causes most breeders to be secretive about abnormalities, health and temperament problems when they occur. In other words, it gives them a reason to hide their problems or to correct them by means of cosmetic applications or surgical procedures. After years of this kind of behavior the impact upon some breeds becomes predictable.

National Clubs with few exceptions have not addressed these issues or the problems involving defective genes, health histories, structural problems or weak temperaments and unfortunately there has been an absence of strong educational programs with the increasing number of novice breeders who rely primarily on outdated trial and error breeding methods, the number of carriers continues to increase along with the number of recessives that are being passed into the breed’s gene pool. As the frequency of carriers begin to increase, more dogs become affected until the problem becomes so prevalent that it is recognized as "another major problem of the breed".

Because there is a widespread belief that most dogs are normal, it has become difficult for veterinarians to convince breeders that carriers are on the increase or that defects need to be addressed. Coupled with the lack of leadership, ignorance and apathy, the opportunity for novice breeders to learn about problems and possible solutions has been closed out. This combination of events, in part, also supports the tendency to avoid talking about breed weaknesses, disease or recessives when they occur. Such a scenario has proven to be the best way to hide rather than solve problems and it also reduces the chances that breeders will address problems in their own breeding programs. The net effect is that breed problems continue to grow at the expense of the breed.

FOUR TIERS

Understanding a breed’s dilemma means that attention must be given to its genetic history. Such a task includes understanding how popular and unpopular stud dogs and brood bitches affect the future. It can easily be demonstrated that the better dogs in any breed including the superior ones, are those that have influence over future generations. At the same time these animals also can be shown to have contributed a disproportionately higher number of defective genes into the gene pool of their breed. In the case of a major stud dog, that is, one who has sired 200 puppies (30 or more litters), there are four reasons to explain why they have produced higher numbers of defective genes. First, stud dogs become popular because they have several winning offspring which are observed by many exhibitors and breeders. Within such a large group of youngsters which are being exhibited, it is hard to keep problems a secret, and gossip usually spreads quickly about the faults, qualities, or the lack of them. On the other hand, there are other stud dogs of lesser popularity who will be used less , and thus produce fewer litters. Their offspring will be fewer in numbers and they will be seen less. These less popular studs may well have produced the identical number of defective genes and health problems as the popular studs, but the gossip about them is controlled and minimized because fewer breeders are involved and there are less offspring that become competitive. A second reason persists which is related to the first. For a genetic disease or a recessive to exist in a breed there must be three kinds of dogs. Those that are affected, the carriers, and the normals. Suffice it to say that the dogs which are widely used, have a better chance to come in contact with carrier bitches and hence, a better chance to produce genetic problems than dogs only bred a few times. This is true even if the popular and the less popular stud dogs were both bred to an equal number of carriers.

The point here, is that once a dog has produced an abnormal defect, each puppy thereafter has a 50:50 chance of being a carrier for that particular defect. Therefore, within each breed there will always be a few popular stud dogs who are used more than others, and they will be called the dogs of influence because they will have more puppies born than others. For these reasons breeders and exhibitors will always be able to point to them as the ones that are known to produce recessive traits. While this may be true, a better explanation is that because they are popular and being they are used more often than the others of lesser status, they will have produced more winning offspring. The facts suggest that those sires who produce large numbers of winning progeny are the ones that generally add quality to their breed which again explains why they have become so popular. Anyone who doubts this should be reminded that stud dogs only become popular because the owners of the bitches choose to use them. If many of the offspring of certain stud dogs are of poor quality, or if they should turn out to be abnormal, the bitch owners will learn to avoid them and sharing of the information even on a small scale will soon leak out to others who will also avoid using them. When this happens the offspring of these stud dogs will soon be excluded in future breedings.

There is yet a third explanation that adds to the complexity of this problem. While many exhibitors may win show ribbons and championship points, only a fraction of them will win enough points to become a champion. Therefore, as the number of shows increase, so do the numbers of breeders, exhibitors and losers. Since the object of the show is to compete and win, there sometimes develops an attitude that winning is everything. Such an attitude grows in its intensity when the number of show entries begin to increase, the number of exhibitors who win decreases. Too often the "winning at all cost" attitude develops as a result of frustration. In the show ring, judges award ribbons to the first four placings. They do not critique or provide evaluations and none of the remaining entries are ranked. Because the judging process does not provide feedback to the exhibitor except at the speciality show, the exhibitor enters to win points toward the championship which becomes the goal. In such an environment the primary motivation of breeders and exhibitors shifts to winning rather than the betterment of the breed. Out of this scenario comes an unspoken form of peer pressure which leads breeders to forgive more than they should when it comes to the selection of sires and dams. As these events begin to repeat themselves, breeders see the clock as their enemy in their race to win. They begin to cut corners in order to produce their next litter and hopefully their next winner. The fourth reason is related to the first three. It is the false notion that breeders have about most dogs and that is the belief that most are normal, and not the carriers of defective genes, health problems or structural weaknesses. Because these owners have invested large amounts of money in their sires and dams, they do not wish to discover any defects in their investment which has become part of their breeding program. As these attitudes begin to prevail and become widespread, the results become predictable. The pattern of behavior that they practice can be found in the scenario which Padgett calls, the "Code of Silence", meaning it becomes unethical to discuss the defects, health or temperament problems found in the pedigrees of their sires or dams or in their progeny. Consequently, breeders who openly discuss the defects in their dogs are anathema and unfortunately their openness has a price to pay. It usually results in their being labeled by others as "poor breeders". This labeling process eventually affects their reputation, and their breeding stock becomes known as inferior. Too often, those who choose to share information about the defects or health problems they have produced are hounded by others no matter the quality of their better dogs. This sequence of events, over many years, results in what breeders do best to one another, they LIE TO EACH OTHER or they prevaricate.

Today, there is an overcrowding of inexperienced breeders, exhibitors and dog lovers who are all trying to practice the art of breeding, owning and showing dogs. Because of their circumstances they avoid at any cost talking about the sires and dams that have produced health, structural or temperament problems. Hence, when the opportunity presents itself to notice one or more trends that may be occurring in their own pedigrees, the results are kept secret. When this occurs the carriers of the defective genes continue to be bred. In effect, they are ignored but more often they just go unnoticed. While the knowledgeable breeders select against those who are carriers, they work in isolation. The result is that little or no impact is made on their breed outside of their own kennel.

DILEMMA

Most professional dog people agree that the major share of responsibility will be shouldered by the owners of the bitches since they control the matings that make stud dogs popular. As a group they will also produce most of the puppies that will influence the future generations of their breed. The first dilemma comes when they try to find out what a stud dog or a brood bitch has produced. In an environment of secrecy, it is at best difficult to learn about breed problems, unless one is willing to invest time in contacting the owners of the bitches who breed to the popular sires. Some have tried to use show catalogs which identify the owners of the offspring who are being exhibited as a means to find their names and addresses. the greatest dilemma comes in finding the pet puppy buyers who do not show or exhibit their dogs. Experienced breeders who attempt to gather this kind of information have found that there are generally three kinds of questions that should be asked:

1. Were you satisfied with the puppies?

2. Did the litter have any health problems?

3. Would you repeat the breeding?

The owners of the bitches and those who purchased the promising pups have everything to gain and nothing to lose by sharing this kind of information about the progeny produced. As a group they are usually the most willing to share information. Put into practice the process of searching for the breeders, and those who are the puppy buyers only produces a limited and ineffective form of openness and in the end, only a small amount of pressure occurs to improve the breed. The worst dilemma facing breeders is the fact that there is no easy way to determine who among the stud dogs and brood bitches are the carriers. Sometimes the only way to know which dog is in a pedigree is through laboratory tests available to detect them. Unfortunately, even when these techniques are used, the results are not shared with others who have a need to know. But even if the results were made known, there is not a central place for this kind of information to be collected. Therefore, in the absence of a central data system, the problem of knowing the carriers continues and little progress is made to improve the breed. After years of breeding blind and without a sufficient amount of information, we have a situation in which it is virtually impossible to find a major sire in any breed that has not produced some or all of the defects known to affect his breed.

While individual breeders can make progress in their own breeding program there is little they can do to improve the problems of their breed. Out of this strange set of events comes a breed’s greatest dilemma which can be stated in the form of a three part question.

Who is responsible for a breed’s:

1. Direction?

2. Priorities?

3. Plan for the future?

History shows that if a breed is to make progress, their national breed club must eventually face these three issues. No matter what the reputation is that a breed has earned, sooner or later there comes the reality that each must address their defects and seek to find ways to identify the carriers of defective genes with health problems and the producers of poor temperament.

The answers needed to solve these problems are not in having information about the carriers, but rather the reluctance to approach breed problems in an open manner, with a plan and a set of priorities.

THE IDEAL SITUATION

Even if the ideal situation could be created, and if every breeder were given absolute and complete control over all of the genes, it would still take several generations or about 20 years to reduce the incidence of a disease by as much as 75% (Padgett 1991). For some breeds, health problems and structural weaknesses might take less time. This of course assumes that nothing else occurs to interrupt the process such as the introduction of a mutation. If all of the information needed were known about those who were affected, which ones were normal and who were the carriers and if all of this information were shared, total control would be possible. In this situation the rate of change would still be slow because of the time it takes to breed out genes that are undesirable, and the time it would take to educate all of the new breeders who enter a breed each year. As a group, the novice breeders slow down the process because of the errors and omissions they make in the learning process. However, as information is shared, and as the novice becomes trained, the results become deliberate and predictable, and over time the breed improves.

Education

In the final analysis, it is the owners of the bitches that control the destiny of each breed, not the owners of stud dogs, not professional handlers and not the judges. Because the bitch owners select the stud dogs to be used on their brood bitches, they control the future of the breed.

There is a time-tested principle which states that the strength of one’s breeding program is based on the quality of it’s bitches. Time and again this principle has again been supported by many notable researchers (Hedhammer, Swanson, Brass) and more recently in a study of over 400 litters of GSD pups the principle was demonstrated in yet another way. In this study it was reported that the dam plays a greater role for improving structural soundness of hip joints by as much as ten percent. This principle might also be expanded to include other muscular skeletal improvements. These findings and the information presented, which are based on Stein’s work, Principles of Human Genetics, and Hutt’s book, "Genetics for Dog Breeders" demonstrate that the research is now available to support placing emphasis on the quality of the dams in a breeding program.

The principle suggests that the qualities of the dam and her littermates are of great importance in establishing a sound breeding program, and they are central to making improvements. Unfortunately, this concept has been overlooked by the growing number of novices who continue to use trial and error breeding methods. They do so because they have been taught to believe the notion that if the newly acquired female doesn’t turn out to be a show dog, they can always breed her. This kind of misinformation and the folklore that it gathers has been passed along from one novice to another. Coupled with a lack of training and understanding, the growing number of poor quality dogs being bred continues.

MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM

Many alternatives and quick fix proposals have been suggested to solve the health, genetic and temperament problems of a breed involving those associated with the pet problem. Proposals to solve breeding problems and those of unwanted pets usually begin with some form of restrictive dog legislation, and all seem to typically come from those who do not understand the complexity of the problem. Too often these quick fix proposals have come from the impatient or those with political ambitions. Sometimes because progress is slow and time consuming or because other problems develop which impact a breed, short cut methods are proposed to hurry things along. The most popular ones have placed limits or bans on breeders and owners. The facts suggest that those who have tried to solve what some consider to be social problems through limitations or mandates typically have used restrictive proposals which in the end have not solved their problems. Instead they have caused breeders and pet owners to hide their animals. In general, the bans against breeding and ownership has traditionally been resisted because most of them have been punitive and unreasonable. History shows that rules and mandates when proposed, on the surface, offer simple solutions to complex problems. In the end, however, it requires more bureaucracy to manage them, and large expenditures of time, money and other valuable resources. there are no good measures or estimates regarding the number of ongoing and related problems. Thus, it is fair to say that the number of defective genes in a breed probably has increased over the past decade as high as fourteen "defectives" (Padgett). When taken by itself, an average of 14 defects does not seem to be of concern to most breed clubs, however, this figure will take on more meaning when comparisons are made with other breeds. For example, The German Shepherd Dog has at least 7 defects, while the Beagles are known to have 31 reported defects, which is more than twice the average, but is significantly less than the highest, which are the Cocker Spaniels with 52 and the Bulldogs with 44 reported defects.

APPROACH TO THE FUTURE

In order to learn from the mistakes of the past we need only to look at a breed’s history. Without an understanding of the past, ignorance will continue and informed judgements about the future will not develop. Surprising as it may seem, the problems for most breeds are not in teaching their goals but in establishing them. To do this, health problems and disease must be seen as they are instead of how they could be. Hard questions must be asked such as:

What are the problems to be solved?

How are breeding decisions being made?

What information and tools are available?

What can be done to make improvements?

What must a breed do to gain the reputation for excellence?

Popular and fashionable traits also enter into the equation for understanding problems. For example, sometimes a fashionable trait becomes popular in the show ring which would diminish the value of what enhances a breed’s function. At other times, the fashionable trait coupled with the desire to win interferes with a breeders judgement and the importance of guarding against structural weakness, faulty temperament or some disease. Set against a backdrop of years of popular fashions and relaxed attitudes about the selection of mates; and when coupled with a denial that there exists serious temperament, skeletal and health problems, many breeds have lost control of their recessives. Some have ignored the reality of their breeds’ problems as unimportant while waiting for research to solve their problems. One cannot help but notice that in such a climate, with only the hopes that the academic world and research will find the answers, it can take years for answers to be developed. This long delay occurs in part because one of the main functions of the academic world and its research responsibilities, is to enrich the quality of teaching. Past experience shows that those who choose to wait for research to find their solutions will further the hindrance of their breed.

Priorities and problems

Important too, is the care that is taken to correctly frame the problems a breed should address. The issues to be considered and the setting of priorities come about from the debates engaged in by breeders. In the end they will define the problems to be addressed. A key factor in this process is the generosity with which the breeders are willing to understand the problems of disease and the importance of health history. And finally, how they shape the future will depend in part on their appreciation and understanding of the past.

FUTURE ROLES

The experiences of the 1970’s and 80’s have been called the decades of the consumer and it seems likely that the decade of the 90’s will promise to be an era of adjustment to the omissions of the past. Since we do not live in a world of only dog shows, obedience trails and performance events, the future of "man’s best friend" most likely will be shaped by the slow but steady evolving of pressures to change in a world where survival depends on how well breeders and breed clubs define their roles. It is likely to be a time when there was clear and present danger. Those who study and predict the future of things have suggested that leisure time, health care, quality of life and environmental protection will be the driving forces that will shape national policy, public law and the social attitudes of the future. By the year 2000, dogs and other pets will in some places be seen as a luxury for those who can afford the space and taxes required to keep them. It is also likely that they will be used with increasing success in commercials, movies, sporting and performance events. Dog events will begin to be organized into national, international and world championships. Racing, weight pulls, agility, obedience, tracking, herding and field trials will significantly increase in popularity. At the same time the healthiest will be used to support rehabilitation projects as the population continues to age. Pets of all kinds and particularly dogs, will be viewed as important health aids to suffering children, the blind and the informed. What has been called a social problem of pet "overpopulation", will be re-labeled and called the problem of the unwanted pet. Spay-neuter programs which have already proved to be successful in the control of these problems will be expanded.

The past, which has been a successful teacher for those interested in the future, suggests that what we have learned and passed along seems to be based on certain principles. Our society seems to be deeply rooted in an old saying about the future:

" We will save those things that we cherish

What we cherish will be the things that we love,

What we cherish and what we love will in the end depend on

What we understand, and in the end

What we understand, will always depend on how well we have learned from our past."

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It seems fair to say that solutions to the problems rests with breeders, clubs and stud directories. How they define their roles, assess problems and develop plans for their future. Out of their efforts hopefully will come realistic plans that will shape their future and time tables set so that a strategy can be developed that will target breeders and especially the novices with tutorial kinds of advice and information. Sticking to a plan and not changing it is easier said than done because of the length of time required to implement most plans. Because the show ring allows for only a few winners, other dogs in the class tend to be ignored. The show ring has not been the place for testing health, genetic or temperament problems. The future will require imaginative programs supported by leaders with the courage to see it through. Programs are needed that will encourage breeders to select sires, dams and offspring based on realistic goals and actual tests of performance.

National clubs should begin with an effort that must formally be recognized by their governing board and supported by their membership. Goals must be clear and priorities must be set with time tables for accomplishments. Few clubs have used their energy and resources widely to focus on the process needed to implement programs. Most have been concerned only with their products or the contents of the publications. However, once goals, priorities and time tables have been developed and direction given, the process by which the plan (goal, priorities, time tables) are achieved will depend on breeder and membership involvement.

But even if the best of conditions were present, these well designed plans would not be a panacea for success. Clubs and their leaders must be sufficiently trained to understand that in volunteer organizations, their officers and directors need to learn how to maintain the level of commitment. The lack of continuity from one group of officers to the next each year holds back most plans from ever being accomplished.

A small but growing number of clubs have initiated plans that includes education, recognition and awards for performance. Along with these efforts they have developed a regular series of articles and educational materials with guest speakers who can reinforce their goals. When period reports are used to distribute the success stories and list the awards and recognition projects, an esprit de corps results among breeders who believe in the purpose for implementing the plan. Some clubs have established a system of awards and recognitions for those who demonstrate success. Some involve awards for breeding, obedience, performance, versatility and management activities, others have included publishing lists of certified animals clear of a disease. The progress that has closely linked their plans to specific objectives such as those to reduce genetic, health and temperament problems, usually have involved one or more veterinary colleges interested in conducting research for their breed.

Special incentives have also been used to encourage members to participate in these programs. The most popular programs are called the versatility awards because they promote a greater awareness and understanding among the members about a breeds’ multipurpose. One of the most common methods of establishing versatility criteria is to establish a point system based on a rating schedule for performance. Points are weighted in relation to the difficulty of attaining the achievement; thus, in obedience the U.D. which earns more points than a C.D. In tracking, points are awarded based on consistency and concentration. Levels of difficulty have also been used to test a trait, and combinations of scores for two or more events have been used to determine the functional desirability of the animal.

Most versatility awards are set up in a two tier fashion so the dog must attain a minimum number of points combined for a total score such as in the working dog trials where tracking, obedience and courage scores are combined for a total score. Clubs have developed special programs. For example, the Weimaraner Club of America’s Versatility (V) and Versatility Excellent (VX) awards and the Golden Retriever Club of America which has closely patterned their criteria to that of the Weimaraner Club but includes three areas of competition - conformation, obedience and field work. The Basset Hound Club of America has a point schedule that recognizes five areas - conformation, field trialing, obedience, tracking and hunting. Herding breed clubs such as the Pembroke Welsh Corgi Club of America has a (VC) and the Versatility Corgi Excellent (VCX) which involves conformation, obedience, tracking and herding.

At another level there are Attainment awards which uses the versatility awards as the base. Thus a point system is created from a minimum level of success in a number of areas to qualify for the award. The Gordon Setter Club of America recognizes the multipurpose Gordon with an award called the Brains, Beauty, and Bird Sense Award. The Irish Water Spaniel Club of America has an All-Purpose (AKC) Irish Water Spaniel Award. The Welsh Springer Spaniel Club of America recognizes with a Versatility Certificate and Versatility Certificate Excellent which involves two levels of achievement in three areas of competition -conformation, obedience, and field work. The VC is used to guage a dog’s potential and the VCX confirms a dog’s well-roundedness. The Vizsla has a Versatility Certificate that has three AKC titles, obedience, conformation and field work.

Working breed clubs have also developed similar programs. The Newfoundland Club of America has the Versatile Newfoundland Certificate which includes four activities, the AKC championship, a C.D., the NCA Water Rescue Dog and the NCA Draft Dog title. The West Highland White Terrier Club of America offers an award program for the Westies called the Versatile Dog award which involves four levels of competition in conformation, obedience, tracking, and working. The American Fox Terrier Club offers the Cracker Jack Award (named after the first Fox Terrier (Wire) to earn three titles). The German Shepherd Dog Club of America also has added a new dimension to versatility with a program called the Award of Excellence (AOE). This is a program that awards those dogs that have certified OFA hips and elbows, and received the AKC Championship title, a select rating at their national, and have earned one of the AKC performance titles.

The Clumber Spaniel Club of America developed an award system designed by the Australian Jan Irving, which gives points to the dog/owner that amasses the greatest number of points. The Borzoi Club of America offers a Triathlon award at the national speciality each year in a non-regular competition class. In this class, points are given based on the individual performance in each of three areas: conformation, obedience and lure coursing. Those that have previously earned their AKC championships in any of these activities are accordingly awarded extra points.

Another area of recognition is progeny requirements. The Field Spaniel Society of America (FSSA) awards a Hall of Fame award to only a few select dogs for their performance in three areas: conformation, obedience and field work. It differs from the versatility awards in that it is a progeny requirement. Not only does the Field candidate earn points toward the award but also his/her first-generation progeny must contribute a substantial portion of the earned points in each section. The FSSA also awards points to owners/breeders who test their dogs for genetic health problems. Points are given for testing normal for von Wildebrand’s and thyroid diseases, OFA, GDC, OVC, of BVA number and a CERF number.

Return Home