1096

GOODBYE PEDIGREE BREEDS!
By David Hancock

   I believe that our pedigree breeds of dog will not last beyond 2050. I write that with immense sadness and deep regret. But the combination of closed gene pools, show ring excess, weak kennel clubs and, mainly, human folly, will achieve this profoundly regrettable and entirely avoidable fate for acclaimed and widely-admired types of dog. If asked to allocate blame, I would place the closed gene pools, the lack of real direction from kennel clubs and human indulgence close behind a strange reluctance for any organisation with responsibility to exercise that mantle of authority. Some breeds, like the Bulldog, were ruined before I was born but in my lifetime, I have witnessed the destruction of far too many: the Mastiff, the Bull Terrier, the Dachshund, the Basset Hound, the German Shepherd Dog, the Skye Terrier, the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and the Bloodhound, to name but half a dozen or so. Some of the registered pedigree breeds are dying out from a lack of numbers, with 25 of our native breeds already listed as being 'vulnerable' on numbers alone. The sporting breeds were brought to us by enthusiastic, knowledgeable sportsmen, who drew up word pictures, known as Breed Standards, to guide show ring fanciers. But those word pictures were soon altered by show ring devotees who couldn't maintain the standards passed down, with the word changes to the Breed Standards for the Bull Terrier's head shape and the Golden Retriever's coat colour regrettable examples.

   Am I alone in prophesying the end of the pedigree dog? What are the experts saying? "The next hundred years look rather bleak for the pure bred dog industry unless dramatic changes are introduced. We have a problem which if not addressed and speedily rectified may destroy for all time many beautiful breeds of dog. All dog lovers share the blame for not acting..." This strongly-worded statement comes from a source not exactly renowned for publicity-seeking or prone to over-statement. It was one of the conclusions from a wide-ranging study into the state of the pedigree dog scene by four distinguished veterinary surgeons at the Ontario Veterinary College. The situation which they highlighted has arisen because over the last hundred years or so, and for the first time in the two millennia of the unique man-dog partnership, dogs have become valued not for what they can do but for their appearance.

    For perhaps twenty thousand years the unique partnership between dog and man has undergone many changes. The introduction of firearms and then "shooting flying" altered the way in which what are now called gundogs were utilised. The preference for "hunting cunning" led to scenthounds with their noses down being preferred to par force or "fleethounds" which went like steeplechasers. The change to moving sheep and cattle by rail and truck meant a change in role for the old drovers' dogs and some of the sheep herding breeds all over Europe, leading to new employment for breeds like the Beauceron, the Bouvier des Flandres, the German Shepherd Dog and the Malinois with the police and army.

   But the advent of dog shows, the breeding of dogs principally for their physical appeal and the subsequent reverence for the pedigree has in the last hundred years or so, resulted in pure-breeding in both a highly-selective and a deliberately exclusive manner which is having a marked effect on the health and performance of the domestic breeds of dog. The awe in which the pedigree is held has achieved such a level that when pure-bred dogs are advertised for sale it is more common to find the words "excellent pedigree" than excellent dog. Yet in historic terms this is a very recent innovation in dog-breeding, mainly coming from show breeders line-breeding for identified show points. Sportsmen, of course, have known for centuries that good dogs come from good ancestors, that prowess runs in families and that field performance is passed on through the blood. It is nevertheless a fact that the 20th century saw a dramatic change in how dogs are valued, as John Holmes, the distinguished dog-trainer has pointed out in his perceptive "The Family Dog" (1957)..."a dog that could win in the show ring might be of greater value than a good worker.”

  In other words, for the first time in history, a dog that could do nothing, which had hitherto been regarded as useless, could be worth more money than one which would work". I believe it is fair to say that the British have been the greatest influence in this trend, giving dog-fanciers of the developed world not only the dog show as a public event but also producing the greatest number of pedigree breeds of dog. Each year nowadays over 350 conformation dog shows are held in Britain. Over 200,000 pedigree dogs are newly registered with the Kennel Club each year; one hundred and fifty years ago there were no pedigree dogs by modern definition.

    I strongly support the view expressed by the same four veterinary scientists at the Ontario Veterinary College, also quoted above, which read: "The advantages of hybrid vigour in a pure-bred line could be realised in a carefully controlled breeding program making use of outcrosses." The American veterinary surgeon Leon Whitney found seventy years ago better disease resistance in his crosses between two pedigree breeds. Also in north America, a study by Scott and Fuller (1964) indicated that the high puppy mortality characteristic of matings within a breed was greatly reduced when two different breeds were crossed. Another study by Rehfeld (1970) showed that the frequency of neonatal death in pure-bred beagles increased with the degree of inbreeding. Paradoxically, however, it was only by cross-breeding and out-crossing that the different terrier, herding, hound and gundog breeds were produced in the first place. Our ancestors never hesitated to out-cross in pursuit of an enhanced field performance. The celebrated Colonel Thornton in the 18th century experimented with a Foxhound-Pointer cross to improve the scenting powers of his shooting dogs. The French have constantly brought new blood into their scenthound breeds as their contemporary breed-names indicate: Anglo-Francais Tricolore, Grand Gascon-Saintongeois, Basset Artesien-Normand, etc.

  Some breeds have been specifically developed for a particular role or function like the Korthals Griffon, the Airedale and  the Sealyham Terriers, the Bullmastiff, the Whippet and the Boulet Griffon, but always by the planned intentional use of the contributing breeds. Over the years too, we have overtly introduced outside blood into some breeds like the Irish Wolfhound, Mastiff, St Bernard, Rough Collie, English Basset, Field and Sussex Spaniels. Less overtly, Fox Terrier blood has been introduced into Welsh Terriers, Foxhound blood into Labradors, Rough Collie blood into show Border Collies, Greyhound blood into some Pointer lines and Pug blood into Bulldogs. But whether admitted or not, such measures nowadays are exceptional; in all recognised pedigree breeds of dog the gene-pool is closed. Most pedigree dog breeders resort to close line-breeding when they realise that such a programme is more likely to produce uniform animals of predictable merit. Then to their dismay, a few animals having recessive disorders begin appearing in the line-bred progeny. When the first abnormal puppy is born, the initial reaction is to deny that anything heritable is at fault in their line. It is regarded as a freak and the puppy disposed of. When further abnormal births occur, the cover up continues.

 The veterinary profession and geneticists know well that in-breeding is usually accompanied by an increase in defects: smaller litter sizes, increased post-natal mortality, general lessening of body size, lower reproductive performance, less robustness and behavioural problems. It is not inbreeding per se which brings about these defects but the presence of deleterious recessive genes which are being carried in the stock. Yet it is consistently argued by pedigree dog breeders, and regrettably even by some with veterinary training, that our pedigree breeds of dog are just as healthy, virile and robust as any cross-bred dog, mongrel or mutt. This is in spite of the  weight of empirical evidence, especially from north America, over the last fifty years in particular. There are of course plenty of perfectly healthy pedigree dogs and far too many ill-kept mongrels and pitiful pi-dogs in the world. It is in the area of planned dog breeding where action can and must be taken to conserve the famous breeds handed down to us.

    From the point of view of desiring that all dogs in a breed look like the others, this can be understood. But it has coincided with and almost certainly contributed to there      being not only well over 400 different inherited physical abnormalities in dogs but defective temperament too, such as excessive shyness in a number of breeds, brainlessness or an inability to think for themselves in others, a dangerous instability in some pedigree breeds and a wild-eyed unsteadiness in a number of breeds, some of them sporting breeds. And to the better-known inherited diseases such as hip dysplasia, progressive retinal atrophy, entropion, hereditary cataract, lens luxation and retinal dysplasia can now be added some more recently encountered, such as copper toxicosis, juvenile pyoderma, achondroplasia, canine wobbler syndrome, ischemic mylopathy and osteochondritis dissecans.

  On moral grounds we can find much to resent in the pursuit of fad breed points beyond historical precedent which discomforts the breed concerned: the sunken eyes and ground-dragging ears of the show Basset, the excess of loose skin in the Bloodhound, the over-abundance of forehead skin in the St Bernard and Clumber Spaniel, the respiratory problems of the Bulldog and the physical weakness of Great Danes bred for great size. Such problems could so easily be overcome or lessened by outcrossing, say with the Basset to the Harrier (as the hunting fraternity already have), the Bloodhound to the Dumfriesshire Foxhound (as the Bloodhound breeders in the packs once did), the St Bernard to its sister breed the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog and the Bulldog to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (which is far closer to the old bull-baiting dogs than the former). But this will not happen, not so much from a lack of concern over the well-being of the dogs involved but almost entirely because of a slavish reverence for pedigree-breeding.

  The famous master-breeders who gave us these superb breeds in the first place would have never hesitated to outcross in order to obtain and then retain  the desired characteristics they were seeking. Laverack produced outstanding English Setters but not from solely English Setter blood. When Sir Everett Millais found that the Basset Hound was deteriorating through inter-breeding, he quickly introduced a Bloodhound outcross. Who in the show-dog world today would have the guts or the vision to do that? Yet he is revered by the Basset Hound fraternity. How can you revere the work of a master-breeder unless you honour his method? I doubt if there is the moral stuffing in today's breed clubs to produce a sounder healthier dog at the expense of show ring success but those who use dogs that earn their living ought to be giving this matter some thought.

  The lurcher and terrier men have of course long ignored the sanctity of the pedigree and pursued productivity i.e. performance in the field. Shooting men sadly seem to copy their show ring counterparts, despite the unprecedented occurrences of inheritable diseases in the gundog breeds, the loss of 'type' in so many Labradors, English Springers looking more like Cockers, the loss of the true colour in Golden Retrievers and yellow Labradors and the deterioration in field performance of the minor breeds. How long ago it seems that very competent cross-bred retrievers competed at field trials. The genetic health of a pedigree breed depends a great deal on the genetic status of the top stud dogs. Time and time again the occurrence of defects is traceable to one prepotent sire, the outbreak of "trembler" in Bernese Mountain Dogs for example coming from one Swedish import. Genetic disease of the recessive kind is not something we merely endure; it has to be countered. Culling of even the very best dogs if they carry diseases is necessary if long term soundness is to be attained. Such culling, not surprisingly, demands expert advice if we are to avoid the risk of increasing another heredity disease present in the genes. But do we have an objective geneticist and a resolute vet advising the host of pedigree dog breed clubs with problems in their stock ?

 There are two bodies that could take action more or less immediately to control the inheritance of genetic defects. The registration of pedigree dogs in Britain is the self-appointed task of the Kennel Club, which also officially authenticates all breed clubs. If identified carriers of inheritable diseases were refused entry to the KC stud book, a dramatic advance could be made. And if veterinary surgeons declined to remedy umbilical hernias, patella luxations, entropian, etc., unless the patient was concurrently speyed or castrated, another equally dramatic advance could be achieved. There are signs that each could happen one day but the impetus, most noticeably, is not coming from the top.

 There is surely an Alice-in-Wonderland situation in dogdom when dogs bred accidentally or by intentional cross-breeding, (as with lurchers and working terriers), can be more robust and sounder, mentally and physically, than many of those bred to a written blueprint by experienced and sometimes wealthy breeders. But when you breed, deliberately, for great size, crooked legs, long backs, soppy looks, loose skin, absurdly short legs, prominent eyes, rugger-ball-shaped heads, diamond eyes, anteater skulls and needlessly long coats, you also breed for physical unsoundness. When you ignore problems of temperament or known inherited defects in your breeding stock, you are knowingly and wickedly producing sick dogs.

 This is essentially a moral dilemma; but those in authority and scientists in general are the last people to solve moral issues. Historically, it always takes one tough-minded, absolutely dedicated and utterly resolute individual, usually dubbed a trouble-maker, an odd-ball or an eccentric to step forward and put such matters right.  I believe that pedigree dog breeders, not all but far too many, have lost their way. Why stick to a closed gene pool when it produces unsound stock? Breeders of French hounds of the chase have always sought the best blend. Our hunting Basset people have outcrossed to the Harrier in pursuit of a better hound. Edwin Brough is revered as the developer of the modern bloodhound but he insisted on an outcross in every fifth generation. Graham in re-creating the Irish Wolfhound, Moseley in stabilising the Bullmastiff, Van Rooyen in developing the Rhodesian Ridgeback, Edwardes in breeding the Sealyham, Korthals in evolving his pointing griffon and Dobermann bred from the best ingredients they could get, with no slavish regard for pedigree, to give us some of our finest breeds of today.

 Yet no contemporary show breeder would, off his own bat, introduce outside blood in the pursuit of a better sounder dog. What a difference a century makes! One hundred years ago the pursuit of a better dog was considered a higher motive than the pursuit of prizes. Are we today worthy of this heritage?  If we really intend to honour the dedicated work of the master-breeders of the last two hundred years and conserve the distinguished breeds now in our care we must heed the wise words of 'Ikey' Bell, perhaps the greatest Foxhound breeder of all time:

    "Remember that your stewardship

     Spells trustee to our race.

     The duty now before you

     Is not to 'mess us up,'

     And not going running riot

     To gain some silver cup."

What hope for 21st century dog ?