1101

CRUELTY BY DELAY
By David Hancock

 For far too long, the bad breeding of dogs in Britain has gone unpunished, with those charities daring to sue bad breeders ending up with high legal costs as judges misinterpreted the law. The only sufferers from this scandal, apart from the brave charities merely seeking the backing of the law, were the unfortunate owners of such dogs and, even more scandalously, the wretched dogs themselves. In the autumn of 2017 however, after questions being raised in the House of Lords, Defra (the Department for Farming and Rural Affairs) has clarified the wording of the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 so as to include breeding. This interpretation means that anyone 'knowingly breeding animals with genetic defects could be committing an offence.' That word 'knowingly' might test the lawyers but this is a big step forward. In time, a puppy farm breeding puppies that later develop deformities or inherited defects, can end up in court - as they have in countries abroad like Sweden for a decade or two. We are catching up but cruelty by delay is still cruelty. Breeding exaggerated dogs is the appliance of inheritance at the expense of the dog. A dog bred with too long a back, too long a coat, too short a muzzle or bulging eyes is still being bred knowingly with defects that are inherited - how else?

  Darwin started it, no, not the study of evolution but drawing attention to exaggeration in dogs, when he wrote that Scottish Deerhounds ‘with their great development their muscles become atrophied’. This is essentially a moral dilemma; but those in authority and scientists in general are the last people to solve moral issues. As long ago as 1945, a vet, Major RCG Hancock gave a talk on dogs on the BBC, which was reproduced in The Listener. His aim was the holding of a meeting, involving his profession, geneticists and the KC to put pedigree dog breeding on a surer scientific basis, at a time, immediately after the war at ‘an ideal moment, with the dog population at its lowest ebb and about to be increased ten-fold, to have issued some authoritative guidance to dog breeders and fanciers on genetical facts.’  He was roundly condemned in the dog press at that time; a lost opportunity.

 A century after Darwin spoke out, Hodgman in research conducted by the BSAVA at the request of the Kennel Club, identified over a dozen breed-associated defects. This was in 1963 and swift action then would have offset an awful lot of suffering in dogs. In 2008, one TV programme created more action in the breeding of better dogs than any Kennel Club committee, veterinary body or animal charity ever has to date. An even louder voice should now declare a future year, say 2012, the year to ‘rescue’ all dogs without a home, and there are plenty of them. For one year no litters would be born, as a strategic plan, but dog homes made the only source of canine pets. It really isn’t good enough to allow the unrestricted breeding of dogs and the unrestricted dumping of them. Dogs need protecting from us, pedigree breeds especially.

 I strongly support the view expressed a quarter of a century ago by four veterinary scientists at the Ontario Veterinary College 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 fifty 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.

 In the wake of the well-publicised exposure provided by the BBC programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed in 2008, we had the RSPCA report, the Parliamentary report, the RVC report and then the Bateson Inquiry. All their findings could have been pre-empted by timely action by the Kennel Club many years ago. To call the KC approach over the years ‘ostrich-like’ for its refusal to face reality or even more damningly ‘Stalinist’ for its unyielding dogma would be understating their stance; ‘killing me softly’ would be spot-on in describing their supine reaction to canine dilemmas. It is almost a death-wish to ignore mounting evidence over the best part of a century; why would such a body wish to ‘kill softly’ the pastime of thousands of dog-show enthusiasts? Self-interest could be argued but what has been the result? The public now consider that pedigree dog breeding is quite often cruel. Some result!

 It is comforting, if you like dogs, to think that in 2020 the same pedigree breeds of dog will be around as those of 2010. These breeds are, apart from some comparatively recent importations like the Shar Pei, the Kooikerhondje, the Nova Scotia Duck-tolling Retriever, the Spinone, the Akita and the pointer-retrievers from Germany, very similar in name to the breeds displayed at the early dog shows at the end of the 19th century. Breeds like the Cocker Spaniel, the Pointer, the Fox Terrier, the rough Collie and the Mastiff have become part of our heritage, symbols almost of the stability of our nation. We may have made the Bulldog less athletic, the Dachshund too low and too long, the Bloodhound's head too loose-skinned, the Basset Hound too exaggerated and the Mastiff too massive, but it is unthinkable for breeds like these not to be with us at some stage in the future. Or is it?

 Our breeds of domestic dog are in unprecedented danger, not from one single distinct threat and not next year or the one after, but from a multiplicity of menaces over the next two decades. Some breeds, like the Sealyham Terrier, the Sussex Spaniel, the Cardiganshire Welsh corgi and the Field Spaniel could simply fade away because of lack of numbers. Already there is concern over their immediate future. Their registrations in 2009 reveal the cause of this concern: 47 Sealyhams, 60 Sussex Spaniels, 79 Cardigan corgis and 51 Field Spaniels; each is now an endangered species. Unlike some countries, Denmark, Portugal and Japan for example, we lack a society devoted to the perpetuation of our threatened native breeds of dog. We have already lost the English Water Spaniel, the English White Terrier, the Smithfield sheepdog, the Welsh Hillman and the Llanidloes setter and only just saved the Irish Wolfhound, the Mastiff, the Field Spaniel and the Lancashire Heeler.

 Paradoxically, another serious threat comes from the unwise over-breeding of certain over-popular breeds: Cocker Spaniels (22,000 registered annually), Labradors (40,000), English Springer Spaniels (12,000), German Shepherd Dogs (10,000) and Staffordshire Bull Terriers (nearly 9,000). I don't recall seeing as many badly bred specimens in these breeds as I do these days. Too many under-standard bitches are being bred from; too many faulty or weedy pups are being retained.

 Human whim plays its part too. The construction of the German Shepherd Dog now seems to merit some adverse comment from the Prince of Wales; far too many are built unwisely in the modern style, will not stand the test of time and are certainly not traditional. Why should a breed which had a level topline when introduced to this country nearly a century ago now require a roach back or the hindquarters of a cat? Why does a lovely breed like the Labrador need the head of a Rottweiler, hard cruel eyes and, in the once rightly-named yellow variety, any old off-white, biscuit or caramel coat colour? Why should the Yorkshire Terrier, once a famed ratter, become an animated tea-cosy? Does it suit the dog? The physically beautiful Golden Retriever is no longer golden but a washed-out pale cream colour. The Dobermann, purpose-bred by a skilful breeder, now comes in such a variety of temperaments that any family wishing to own one should choose the breeder and the line very carefully indeed.

 In those breeds of dog favoured as companion dogs, temperament must come first. Statistics indicate that a quarter of our pet dogs are abandoned or put down because of unwanted misbehaviour. In a study recently conducted in America, 40% of pet owners considered at one time getting rid of their dog because of its temperament. The now massive numbers of inherited mental and physical problems in pure-bred dogs bring not just large veterinary bills but also great discomfort to the dogs and great distress to their owners. 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.

 It is significant that very old breeds such as the Saluki, the Pekingese and the Basenji only rarely express a severe genetic abnormality and then probably from a new mutation. Breeders of past centuries would never have tolerated the flawed stock that we strive to justify today. Another ancient breed, the standard Poodle, has been highly but skilfully and successfully inbred and now possesses a relatively clean genotype. Younger breeds, some with ancient origins but lacking the distinct physical identity of the Saluki, the Pekingese and the Basenji, seem to carry a high content of genetic 'junk' and breeders need the help of informed geneticists in planning their breeding programmes.

 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 which 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 registration by the KC,  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, ruggerball-shaped heads, diamond eyes, ant-eater 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. Delay in preventing the infliction of cruelty on dogs knowingly by bad breeders is cruelty by neglect - by those in authority yet claiming to have animal welfare high on their list; it isn't!