KateH, the better idea is to do what the rescue dog, therapy dog, and even various companion dog organizations do and that is forgo full bred dogs and just use shelter dogs for the purpose at hand.

Which "purpose at hand" ?

Yes, the only qualification for being a therapy dog is having the correct temperament. But therapy dogs can't take themselves to the site, or manage the details, and they are normally primarily someone's pet. In my dog's case, my pet. And at that point, what's a suitable pet for the pet owner kicks in--and shockingly enough, my local shelters are not bursting at the seams with small dogs of moderate energy level, well-socialized with cats, and hair coats rather than fur coats. Maybe your local shelters are different. Or maybe you think that I should be satisfied with a dog of the right temperament and energy level, and not sweat the "small stuff" like size and coat.

Frankly, I don't much care. You don't get to decide what's the right pet for me, or where I'm allowed to get it.

You're also ignoring KateH's point about the multitude of breeds that do "exactly the same jobs" as your favored border collies and GSDs, whom you graciously concede should continue to exist. All those different breeds exist because herding sheep is not the same thing as herding cattle, and herding in Scotland is not the same as herding in the American midwest, the American west, Australia, or New Zealand.

They are more than up to the challenge.

Depends on which challenge you're talking about. Hearing assistance dogs are often shelter dogs, with a pretty high rate of success. For guide dogs, even with purpose-bred dogs, the washout rate is high, and with shelter dogs the washout rate is off the scale, completely unsustainable.

We recently donated to the rescue dog organization that went to Heiti and yes, their dogs are from the shelter. I recently got my dog fully qualified to do Therapy work. We had six dogs in the test. Two were pedigree, the other four were mutts from the shelter.

That's nice. What do you think it proves, given that SAR (which is what I assume you mean by "rescue dogs" is a relatively new job for dogs, and not one for which we've been breeding dogs for several centuries? At least one guide dog organization is finding higher rates of success with Golden/Lab crosses--purpose-bred Golden/Lab crosses, not shelter rescues, which have incredibly high washout rates.

Well-planned, responsible breeding produces more suitable dogs for the purpose for which they're bred, not less suitable. There is a major problem with genetics of current purebred breeds, but that's not because of the idea of planned, purpose-driven breeding. It's because of the closed stud book, which is an idea that has to go. And, little though you may like it, while the demand for herding dogs is real but declining, and likewise hunting dogs, the demand is on the rise for good household companion dogs of various sizes and coat types, some for families and some for single people or retired people, is on the rise.

EDIT ABOVE:  I meant "shaped like a pretzel rod IE telephone pole IE does not branch at all.  Think "Deliverance."

KateH, the better idea is to do what the rescue dog, therapy dog, and even various companion dog organizations do and that is forgo full bred dogs and just use shelter dogs for the purpose at hand.  They are more than up to the challenge.  We recently donated to the rescue dog organization that went to Heiti and yes, their dogs are from the shelter.  I recently got my dog fully qualified to do Therapy work.  We had six dogs in the test.  Two were pedigree, the other four were mutts from the shelter.

I don't have a problem with preserving breeds, but that's not the medical issue.  The issue is that the AKC and other stupid organizations have stupid goals, and that is making the breeds in appearance meet a very small window of acceptiblity.  This is cloning, and this is where the medical issues have come.  Show me a champioinship line of dog breed and I'll show you a family tree that is shaped much like a pretzel.

I also have very little respect for anyone that is so locked into getting a specific breed for a companion that they will not give their local shelters or petfinder.com a shot.  Our local shelter killed right at a dog a day due to overpopulation (does not include the sick and untrainable dogs).  It's getting old, and yes, 70% of those dogs, according to the county animal warden, were purbreds.  I am sure regardless of one's need for a dog, they can find it on petfinder or at the shelter, that is unless they are so locked into have a specific dog breed IE papers, appearance, etc.  In that case, I just have to shake my head.

German Shepherds do not serve a purpose that can't be filled by 6 other breeds, so I think we should just pick the Dutch shepherd and get rid of the rest of them.  English shepherds can do all the sheepherding necessary, so Border collies, Aussies, and at least 15 more breeds can go away.  We don't need more than one breed of setter, and I'll pick the Gordon, so the other 5 can disappear.  Actually, we don't need setters either, so they should disappear.  Goldens, Chessies, and flat-coats can all be replaced with Labs (with 3 color choices!).    Companionship can be taken care of by various mutts, and all racing/chase hunting is barbaric, so we don't need any sight or scent hounds, except bloodhounds.  We can keep one small breed to do vermin control - and it can be trained for drug work and search and rescue in small spaces, so we'll keep the rat terrier (other SAR work can be done by the 4 breeds and the mutts that are left).  There, 4 purebreds and a bunch of mutts.  By careful breeding, adding judicious outcrossings with all those healthy mutts, any genetic problems in the purebreds can be cured, I'm sure.  That's a perfect world for dogs and people, and dang it, that's what real dog-loving, responsible people should want!  Right, EAB?

There's been exactly one almost-well-designed study comparing purebreds and mutts, in Europe. I say "almost well-desdigned" because in fact it selected for a reasonable cross-section of purebreds, including dogs from BYBs and puppy mills, while selecting for a mutt population that favored healthier examples. And yet, even with that built-in bias, it showed in each body size class, only a small advantage for mutts over purebreds.

And yeah, I know, EAB, my little Chinese Crested who has no purpose except being a good companion, which to people like you is the same thing as having no purpose at all, is by definition a blight upon dogdom--but she's friendly, affectionate, healthier both physically and temperamentally than most GSDs, and as recently as Saturday demonstrated her excellence at her breed purpose--with a much-welcomed therapy pet visit to a nursing home.

Once upon a time, I had a border collie whom I deeply loved, and who was a wonderful companion for a healthy, active, but somewhat socially isolated teenager. Border collies will always occupy a special place in my heart--but I can't keep up with a border collie anymore, or provide what one would need, and yet I still want the companionship of a loving and clever dog. So sue me.

I have issue with the statement that Dr. Bell sees as much in mixed breed dogs as in pure bred dogs.  Unless he's figuring on the percentages, IE I have x amount of mutts, and this is the percentage of how many contracted "X" condition.  Furthermore, all life forms will die of something.  Can you really say when granny contracts cancer at age 92 that she died of cancer, or perhaps just old age?  To say that her cancer is the same as someone contracting cancer at 32 years old is flawed thinking.  I am not saying a mutt won't contract one of the "top 10" but I would bet a mutt (not a mixed "two or three breed", but a true mutt) has a better shot all around at living a good long life prior to any of the "top 10" being a concern.

As far as loss of the purebreds, I would hate to see a "purpose" breed go away IE Border Collie, German Shepard, and the like.  They are still bred for purposes that serve man and I respect that.  However, if it's the loss of the "Gee Wiz Spaniel" complete with a 3.25 inch wide head and specific tail length, height, and such; I see it as a very small loss of an unnatural mutation by man.  But then, I am fairly radical in my beliefs on this and recognize there are many who would disagree.

The "popular sire" syndrome hasn't helped in any breed either.

Breed formation seems to have always focused on the trivial (coat color/length/texture) and the harmful (intentional disease and exaggeration). There seems to be little point in having a divided gene pool and declaration of separate breeds for so many dogs; i.e. Golden Retriever and Flatcoats, the Corgis, the Collies, etc. But the good Dr. Herself owns breeds that would likely be declared suspect.

I can appreciate the argument that many breeds should simply not exist given that they are essentially a glorified freak-show. This will require a shift in the demand, not the supply, no laws are going to bring this about in any way that wouldn't make all dogs susceptible. We haven't seen BSL that's worked for Pitbulls, I doubt any could work for wobbly GSDs or squish brained Spaniels, etc.

I don't believe in the ethic of breeding diseases out: has this ever worked? Not that they should be bred for--as they are now, but immeasurable harm has been done in the name of getting rid of disease, so much so that I think it's probably true that more disease expression has been caused by the practice than removed.

My only answer is preserve genetic diversity for as long as possible until science can save us. Targeting disease alleles with precision while maintaining and even inserting diversity elsewhere is the only way this is ever going to work. Even your "three generations and done!" doesn't work for complex heritance diseases.... which MOST are. You aren't going to get rid of hip dysplasia in 3 generations, no matter what you do. And really, what are you going to breed to? I don't see a single breed or near dog relative that doesn't have HD!

The breed clubs are hopeless. If they can't salute something as beneficial as the Dalmation Backcross, they are lost souls. Their concept of "breed" is so short sighted, twisted, absolutist, fundamentalist, and stupid, they are beyond enlightenment. Regime change is the only solution.

Lin wrote: "I could see that, yes, you would get puppies that wouldn't look exactly the same as their sires and dams,"

You were speaking of outcrossing dogs of similar breeds, but to a practiced eye, even purebred pups often don't look much like their parents. Sometimes breeders breed to a not-so-sensational looking or non-typey dog hoping to capture some other great quality the dog has (like good health or good working ability) and hoping that looks might come out as a throwback to a fabulous looking ancestor. It happens.

That's why it's so important to know what the dogs back in the pedigree were like — and siblings of the dogs back in the pedigree — not just the sire and dam.

To give you an example, in "working ability" I'm a bit of a throwback to my uncles on my mother's side of the family. I have some musical, artistic and mathematical talent that my mother doesn't possess. But her brothers do. :-)

If a particular problem is genetically recessive, isn't the answer to breed "away from" it (as in, don't breed affected individuals and definitely don't breed affected individuals to each other)? In some breeds that sprung from very small gene pools, eliminating entire lines would further decrease the pool — which might cause other problems to arise. Breeding away from a problem won't eliminate the problem right away, but in the interest of keeping as many good, healthy genes in the pool as possible, it's the best way.

Also, Dr. K., you goofed on Flat-Coats. Cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer and cancer are the numbers 1 thru 10 problems in the breed. It was mentioned in your article, but it really needs to be emphasized more. The lifespan expectancy is 7 - 9 years. My dog was diagnosed at age 6. Many are diagnosed and die at even younger ages. 

I agree with whomever said don't paint all breeds with one brush. I want to vomit when I hear of someone breeding parents to offspring or first degree relatives to each other. (And I think I heard a Kerry Blue Terrier person say exactly that in a Westminster interview!) I'm not opposed to careful line-breeding, but I don't like to see the same dogs, or siblings of the same dogs, any closer than 3 generations back. (Great, great grandparents.) And only once on each side of the pedigree. Any closer than that feels like in-breeding to me and screams BYB. Or inbreeding is breeder laziness — which is an even bigger reason to look elsewhere.

Anyone who breeds needs to have incredible knowledge of the dogs behind the dogs as far back as possible. Health issues, temperament, conformation (yes, it does matter for a working dog) and working ability. Anyone who acquires a purebred dog should try to gain the same knowledge. 

My "All-Americans" have just as many problems as my purebreds; the difference is cancer is deadly and takes them at a young age whereas my A-A's have manageable chronic diseases. I love them all equally.

Brooke, Sarah: That is the point. No one knows immediately what traits go hand-in-hand, so bad traits (health) often do not show up for generations OR might have been there from DAY 1.

So, yes and no, inbreeding will cause the doubling of good and bad, but complete out-crosses can still double up on the bad, because the bad gene is so widespread that it is "hiding" everywhere!

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Bell, and have attended his seminar. He is truly a "dog man" that is aiding many breed clubs to assess "risk factors" in pedigrees , until a genetic test can "insure" a risk-free breeding.

Breed clubs do not want to (for the most part among the ethical) intentionally saddle themselves or another with a health problem, and unfortunately a lot of them do not make appearance known until 2-3 yrs or later! If it were apparent at birth or puppy-hood, it could be dealt with swiftly  and assuredly to eliminate.

But to automatically assume that a hybred or mix-bred is "problem-free" is also a MISNOMER.

That has been tried : Lucas Terriers (Sealyham & Norfolk) Cesky Terriers(Sealyham & Scotttish) --- the breeds developed share the pitfalls of "both" breeds.

@EAB That was kinda my point!

If you breed for a specific physical trait (long nose, spots, ect.), you will invariably select for associated other traits, good and bad. Mostly bad, because you're encouraging in-breeding. Any breed registry that doesn't accept this in the age of the $10K genome is taking the head-in-the-sand defense. In any population--human, dog, or cat--the most outbred representatives have the best chance of being healthy. This is one of the reasons why human geneticists prefer inbred populations (Quebec Founder Population, Ashkenazi Jew, Icelandic) for genome-wide association studies.

I read recently somewhere about in England where they crossed boxers with corgis (the tailless ones) and then the offspring with boxer, and the next gen. with boxer etc., to get a dog that looks and acts and "is" a Boxer, but is naturally born without a tail since docking is no longer practiced there.

Genetics are interesting, and it makes no sense to me to breed things in, intentionally, that will harm the animal.

Something that depresses me is the story of UK sheepfarmers trying to reduce incidences of Scrapie (a disease not unlike BSE)-there was a programme (funded by the government, or the EU, I can't remember) to stop using rams that had the genotype that was scrapie-sensitive and a push for using rams that had the genotype known to be scrapie resistant.  What happened was that we subsequently discovered "Atypical Scrapie"-which was MORE prevalent in sheep descending from the rams that were thought to pass on scrapie resistance.

This depresses me because whenever I start thinking about trying to breed out genetic disease in companion animals, I start thinking of the unintended consequences.  I still support trying to breed out genetic diseases-but we should generally try to keep gene pools as diverse as possible to keep these chances down.

Basenjis are a good example of the problem of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The basenji fancy agressively removed all HA affecteds and carriers from the gene pool.  They did such a great job that HA is now quite rare in basenjis. But, they limited the gene pool so much that they brought on fanconi.

I can't speak for the basenji fancy, as I am only just getting into basenjis, but I think that the BCOA has done a wonderful job of realizing their mistake and working hard to correct it by opening the studbooks and importing the African Basenjis at great expense and hardship.  They also have done a great job of funding and working with scientists to find a genetic test for Fanconi, and encouraging their breeders to use the test.

As far as peer-pressure goes, every basenji breeder I know is horrified when they learn of someone who breeds without testing. There are a few holdouts, but they are decreasing.

Salukis have a registry allwing desert-bred saluki genes to be incorporated into their studbooks.

I think you are painting all parent clubs with the same brush. Just like there are responsible and irresponsible breeders, I think there are differences in the concerns of parent clubs.

Use the good ones as examples rather than smearing them along with the bad ones.

2 of my most recent rescues have been purebreds.  Never again unless they are dumped at my door like my cocker.  My cocker has a host of issues (yes he's a senior); my vet and I are astounded he's still with us.  My rescued Persian never got over 4 lbs; her lengthy illness almost made me decide to never own another pet ever.

Yes, my rescued terrier mix had his share of issues but he had the strength to deal with those issues and overcome them easily.  Even the purebred Airedale I had in my childhood barely made it to 10.

Sorry, but I don't think every fool who wants to "breed" pedigreed dogs or cats should be allowed to.

Wonderful post, Dr. K. More importantly, thank you for your wonderful effort to inform pure bred dog owners about the health problems in their chosen breed/s. Too many "responsible" breeders fail to adequately educate their puppy buyers about the problems in lateral and vertical pedigrees of sires and dams and/or in the breed generally, often with disasterous consequences. A good example is Addison's disease in standard poodles - its waxing and waning symptoms are often misdiagnosed until the dog crashes and is, sometimes, misdiagnosed for the final time as having kidney failure. An educated poodle owner would know to ask for an ACTH stim test which could, quite possibly, save the dog - and most assuredly save the owner a boatload of money if the correct diagnosis is made.

IMNSHO, too many "responsible" breeders focus far too much on "testing" to the exclusion of disclosure as if "testing" is the best possible guarantee of better health when, in fact, there are far more highly heritable diseases for which there are no tests. For many of those diseases, until some kind of tests are available, it seems to me the best way to start breeding away from the problems is to know where the problems are - IOW, to require/encourage/pressure breeders and owners to disclose diagnosed genetic disease in a public registry.

Good luck with that, eh? Open, honest, public disclosure runs counter to the show culture that dominates most of the pure bred dog world. One notable exception is the Soft Coated Wheaton Terrier Club of America, which has an open health registry here - http://www.scwtca.org/openregistry/index.htm  A notable example of an utter and inexcuseable failure support open, honest, public disclosure is the Poodle Club of America - which neither funds nor even mentions the extremely credible, privately developed, privately funded and operated Poodle Health Registry, found here http://www.poodlehealthregistry.org/ If at all possible, Dr. Khuly, please include links to these registries in the Embrace Pet Health Center....

Just to be clear, I am not "bashing breeders" here - I am bashing a breeding culture that still cares more about points and ribbons and hair and winning than about improving the health of pure bred dogs.

Finally, the Bateson Report on Pedigree Dogs is a must read (although it doesn't go far enough) for anyone who truly cares about the health of pedigree dogs. http://breedinginquiry.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/final-dog-inquiry-120110.pdf

Do types of dogs tend towards the same genetic diseases? Do Shepherds, Malinois, Belgian Shepherd all tend towards hip dysplasia? Do greyhounds, borzois, Afghans all share similar diseases? Could you outbreed dogs to a similar breed to depress the occurrence of the disease? I could see that, yes, you would get puppies that wouldn't look exactly the same as their sires and dams, but some would, and wouldn't the whole litter be healthier? And how many champions matings produce a whole litter of champions now? Aren't you lucky to get two?

It's been done with Dalmations, backcrossing to pointers to reduce the high level of uric acid found in Dalmation urine to normal canine levels, and thereby eliminate their high rate of urate crystals. After several generations, the resulting dogs were distinguishable from "purebred" Dalmations only in having normal canine levels of uric acid in their urine. The AKC agreed to register two fifth-generation backross puppies--and then rescinded the registration rights of their offspring after the Dalmation breed club voted to reject the backcross project.

More detail here: The Backcross Project

@Lin...what a great statement.  You seem to see things the way I do.  I see these full breeds at the dog park and while some of them are OK, I have to say that the majority of them aren't "wired" quite right.  Then you get their owners talking and OMG, they have more behavior and health issues, and it makes one feel for the dog.  These wonderful spirits did not ask to be this way.

As you know, I'd love to take my Tina to Westminster and show these puffed up suits what a real dog is.  Shame is, they wouldnt' even let us in the door.  Eh, there loss <GRIN>

@James:  There is nothing to be made extinct except for a mutation that man created.  Nature didnt' create dog breeds, man did.  So if by bettering the health of a dog we elliminate a man made breed or creation like a toy whowatitz terrier or a minitature German SuperRetriever, so be it.  I really have no concern.  I am more concerned about dogs having a happy, healthy life.  That's why most states don't let you marry your mother.

Sorry, Misplaced parenthsis.  The sentence should have read:

But as I learn more, I come to look uponconformation showsas I do fashion and entertainment models (painfully skinny wraiths, with sometimes impossibly big chests): pity, sadness and a faint touch of horror.

Do types of dogs tend towards the same genetic diseases?  Do Shepherds, Malinois, Belgian Shepherd all tend towards hip dysplasia?  Do greyhounds, borzois, Afghans all share similar diseases?  Could you outbreed dogs to a similar breed to depress the occurrence of the disease?  I could see that, yes, you would get puppies that wouldn't look exactly the same as their sires and dams, but some would, and wouldn't the whole litter be healthier?  And how many champions matings produce a whole litter of champions now?  Aren't you lucky to get two?

When I didn't know much about dog and cat shows, I was enthralled as anyone by Westminster.  But as I learn more, I come to look upon conformation shows as I do (fashion and entertainment models, painfully skinny wraiths, with sometimes impossibly big chests): pity, sadness and a faint touch of horror.  At least the girls chose to look like that.

EAB, that's a great point about Border Collies. It's not that uncommon is it for show animals to be quite distinctly different from their working cousins, if not quite to the point of being a distinct breed.

Outbreeding may be one solution to some of these problems, but how far can you push before eliminating a genetic flaw results in the extinction of an entire breed or two? Brachycephalic syndrome, for example. How do we move towards solving problems where the very breed spec calls for welfare-compromising conformation? Simply passively educating potential/current owners doesn't seem to work that well.

I like what Terrierman has to say about inbreeding.  I don't want to have a dog with a 10G COI much over 10%, even if the breeding looks otherwise spectacular.  My whippet with a 25%+ COI was a sweetheart but also, erm, mentally challenged, and he died of IBD at the very young age of 10.  His companion and close cousin had a 16ish% COI, and outlived the 25% COI dog by a good 4 years.

It's funny what breeders will do for type.  One thing Terrierman didn't mention is that performance folks can get hung up with inbreeding too.  There are successful performance whippets that get overbred just as there are successful conformation whippets.  Not to the same degree, but still.  There is most certainly dominance of a small handful of sires in the whippet racing world, which makes it exceptionally difficult to find a good match with a low COI.  And now that the world is getting smaller, and more dogs are imported and exported, well, there aren't many super options out there.

Dr. K, I'd like to note that Embrace's webpage for the whippet doesn't really get into much detail about the health problems of the breed.  (Nor does it like to whippet rescue's website.)  Deafness is an issue for sure, but so is PRA and myostatin deficiency (my 16% COI fella is in Figure 1).  The Whippet Health Foundation does an excellent job keeping tabs on such problems.  LMK if you'd like more deets.  =)

I sure did waste a lot of time writing when this guy already put down my thoughts in words better than I ever could:

http://www.terrierman.com/inbredthinking.htm

We need to sort out a few things here.  First of all, breeds were, at first, for certain types of temperment.  In Border Collies, this is much the same way.  In fact, the Border Collie "enthusiests" pressed the AKC not to recognize a specific look for a Border Collie and instead focus on the dogs working abilities for certification.  But just over the last few hundred years, dogs purpose has taken a back seat to appearance.  The reality is that if you breed to make every dog meet a very VERY specific set of physical parameters, you are doing some pretty serious inbreeding, so much so that you are creating something that is unnatural.  There is no way to do it "safely."  That is a pipe dream.  When I hear the term "responsible breeder" I feel like throwing up.  I saw a show a while back where the most recognized breeder of these little toy dogs was saying where a head can be 1/4" too wide, or a nose is a bit out of wack, and the dog is a failure.  In America, where most of us are a genetic mash up, I find this mindset very dissapointing.

Many hundreds of years ago, a dog was bred for and used for a specific purpose and the dog's long term health and wellbeing was never a concern.  You hunted with the dog, it gets sick, you shot it and moved on.  And while health was never a primary concern, neither was appearance in most cases.  Relatively recently, breeders and associations have been preoccupied with breeding "clones" and the result has been these emotionally, mentally, and healthily (is that a word??haha) messed up dogs.

It starts with the breeders dropping a bit of the arrogance and sorting out that, for a companion animal, a good ole mutt is every bit as good as a pedigree.  Breed for a certain size, temperament, or purpose, or feature IE non shedding and the like, but enough with the cloning of dogs, eh?  The closer you get to a mutt, the better.  The AKC just recently opened up the CGC test to mutts.  While I commend them for this move, they need to go further.  Animal support groups and breeding associations need to sort out that they have created a major health issue with these overly inbred pedigrees.

I hear it all the time from owners:  "Wish my dog behaved like that, you must have got lucky" or "My dog has been back to the vet 10 times for this horrible medical issue; I guess you got lucky" or "wow, your dog's coat is so healthy and your dog has so much energy, you must have got lucky."  I didn't get lucky.  I got a dog.  A mutt is defined in most cases as a dog that is 35 to 60Lbs, black or brown in color, and healthy.  That's the breed I got.  She is not a natural mix of breeds but rather has no breed.  Breeds are not natural.  A mutt of 1000 characteristics and such is natural.  As a result, our dog, this natural 1000 breed mongril, most likely wont' suffer from all of the medical issues listed in Dr. K's thread because she is a dog as nature intended before man got involved.  Furthermore, her mental and emotional energy is more balanced than an inbred pedegree.  Truth hurts, I know, but it is what it is.

We created this mess of pedigrees being in some way superior to a good ole dog.  We can fix it, but we have to get away from the idea that you can "responsibly" breed litters of dogs that look like clones.  Like properties are fine, but what most call "responsible breeding" I call cloning and it really needs to be stopped if we serve the long term health of these animals.

Dr. Khuly, you have certainly conveyed the impression in the past (at least to me), that a frighteningly high percentage of your clients are either BYBs themselves, or are bringing BYB, pet store, or internet puppy mill dogs. Certainly Florida is, sadly, a hotbed of crappy BYBs. :(

In other words, your "purebred" patients are from the worst kind of breeders. Their "designer breed" mutts aren't any healthier--a point you have also made clear. And in some ways I think the most telling indicator what kind of breeders are producing your patients is the bulldog girl you mentioned (maybe last year?) who had orthopedic problems. You said she had come from a "responsible" breeder, but the breeder wouldn't take her back.

Responsible breeders take their dogs back, at any time, for any reason.

Poodles, Cresteds, and some other breeds are afflicted with Progressive Retinal Atrophy. The version of the gene most common in poodles and Cresteds is late-onset, so that normally, a responsible breeder would have shown a dog to its championship, bred it, and then retired and neutered it, before the first signs presented themselves.

What they did was CERF every dog every year, track the pedigrees--and the poodle breeders funded genetic research to find the gene. There's now a test that can identify a dog as normal, carrier, or affected--and good breeders use it. Even some so-so breeders use it.

And they still CERF and track the bloodlines, because there are other versions of the gene they can't test for yet. And there are still breeders who delay breeding, till the age that PRA would normally present itself. That's controversial because it means keeping the dogs intact longer and breeding the females at an older age, but it is also an added layer of protection, of weeding out the problem without cutting off whole lines in a breeding system that mandates closed stud books.

How about instead of demanding that responsible breeders toss out the genetic-diversity baby with the dirty genetic bathwater, you rail against closed stud books and call for responsible, controlled, planned outcrossing, especially in the most threatened breeds?

"And yes, I get the 'limiting the gene pool' argument. Problem is, some breeds were built so badly its not an issue of gene pool anymore, it's a question of 'is this trait fair to the pet'? Come on, now, does it not stand to reason that some breeds deserve to be laid to rest once and for all?"

How about judicious use of outcrosses?  Expand the gene pool and you might have enough healthy, sound individuals to actually improve the breeds.  If it looks like a Norwegian Bat Hunting Dog, acts like Norwegian Bat Hunting Dog and is healthy and temperamentally sound why not include it in the breeding population?

Wow, what an interesting post. Ideally and optimistically, breeders assume the role of such concerned and responsible hands in screening and testing for genetic diseases to ensure a self-sustaining breed gene pool. However, is this really the case? How many of these prominent genetic diseases have late onset that could arguably be accused of resulting from infirmity? How many breeders will defend their practice by playing the chance card and attribute genetic disease occurances to mendelian fate? I'm not entirely familiar with dog breeding practices; am I wrong in my assumptions? And, is there actually a way to advocate for something as extreme as eliminating certain breeds altogether when I'm sure breeders of that line would strongly beg to differ? Just some questions that came to mind while reading this.. thanks :)

Dr. K; Please don't misunderstand. The health of every breed is in the hands of the breed clubs. Reform? You bet your boots!

And it can be done. And it is the breed clubs that really step up with the $$$ and research.

Ok, now in your neck of the woods---aren't you seeing more "purebreds" as patients? That does have an effect on views too.

(sort of like the anecdote that more "black" Scotties get TCC---when the majority bred ARE black or produce black!)

Doe I think some of the British breeds, heck the GSD are in trouble??? YES, without a doubt!

Sorry, I messed up the format of the above post!

Having Sealyham Terriers, a breed once hugely popular in the 20's - 40's and now on the endangered British breed list, to "eliminate" entire lines or known "carriers" would have decreased the gene pool to almost extinction.

I am happy to say as of now, the much sought genetic test for primary lens luxation has been developed (not a marker) after serious devotion for years to funding this research.

Now the Breed Club can move on to its next challenge, and perhaps IVDD will be at the top of the list.

It's so discouraging reading all the extremist statements above regarding pure-bred dogs and purebred dog breeders. What no one seems to admit is that there are NO well-designed studies that show that mixed breed dogs are healthier and/or longer-lived than purebred dogs. NONE, ZILCH. No one has looked at the purebred dog populations and their structure and accounted for what responsible purebred dog breeders are producing. The AKC has reported that ONLY 10% of purebred dogs are produced by the "fancy". The fancy are those breeders who are participating in dog shows, obedience trials, field events, agility, etc. ONLY 10% OF REGISTERED PUREBRED DOGS CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS COMING FROM BREEDERS WHO LIKELY CARE ABOUT THE BREED AND THE DIRECTION IT IS GOING IN. The rest of the purebred dogs therefore are coming from make-a-buck breeders, commercial kennels, and one-tine breeders (the largest number). The very breeders who are unlikely to have performed any pre-breeding screening tests to determine if there are any unseen genetic or structural issues. Make no wonder there are so many purebred dogs around with health problems. Responsible breeders research the dogs in the pedigree to find out about health/structure/temperament etc. They avoid doublingup on problems and do prebreeding screening. When I started in the breed that I have had for 30 years I encountered epilepsy which is known to occur in the breed. I ended the breeding line and started over with well researched lines. I have not had any more epilepsy or any of the other health issues that the breed is known for. In fact my purebred dogs have been healthier and longer-lived than the few mixed breed dogs I have had over the years (that had terrible allergies and autoimmune problems). The most I have spent on vet bills was for a mixed breed. I have more trust in the potential health and soundness of the purebreds that I breed than to risk adopting a mixed breed ever again. Breeders who care about the breed and who do their best to research lines and try to produce healthy and sound dogs are not the enemy despite all the derogatory statements in this forum. One has to know a dog's origins. When was the last time that a vet asked to see a pedigree for a purebred dog to ensure it came from one of those "dreaded show breeders that are producing sick dogs". They don't. Responsible breeders are tarred with the same brush despite all they do to produce healthy dogs. Meanwhile the one-time breeders, commercial kennels, and back-yard breeders rake in the money for every "crop" and provide no follow-up support, health guarantee, or return should the owner have to give the dog up. I make no money on a litter and keep most of what I breed to the extent that I can. I know what I am working with in my dogs and that it is unlikely that I will incur massive vet bills. Which is a good thing since I am on a single salary and have a lot of dogs.

Terrierman is all OPINION-BASED with nothing of substance to back it up. He twists studies to suit himself but censors all commentary on his site so you won't get the "other side". Some of the inaccuracies of the opinions found on his site have been uncovered at:

http://terriermanuncensored.blogspot.com/