Regeneration with health in mind by Kevin Colwill

Created: 20/08/2014

Last month I touched on the widespread misreporting of the recent VetCompass paper on the relative health of purebred and crossbred dogs. Ive had a few people contact me to complain that Im the one guilty of misreporting  and deliberate misreporting at that.

Im the first to admit that Im no scientist but I dont need to be. Its not me whos crunched the numbers and produced the conclusions. The Veterinary Companion Animal Surveillance System, VetCompass, has done that.

It took data from around 4,000 dogs attending UK vets to determine the most common reasons for needing veterinary treatment. It then asked whether or not these disorders occurred more frequently in purebred dogs. At the risk of repeating myself, VetCompass conclude that, "Purebreds showed significantly higher prevalence values for 13 of the 84 (15.5 per cent) disorders and syndromes evaluated. No instances were identified in which prevalence values were significantly higher in crossbred than in purebred dogs.

We should also remember that the paper relates to the most common reasons why dogs went to the vet. Things like overgrown nails and dog bite injuries were included. It was not focusing exclusively on diseases and disorders where genetics or inheritance plays a significant role. Even then VetCompass is at pains to point out that purebred dogs fared worse in a significant number of conditions. Hardly a ringing endorsement of pedigree breeding.

As for Hybrid Vigour, the VetCompass paper didnt address it directly but a piece of research it published last year concluded crossbreeds lived an average of 1.1 years longer than pedigree dogs  13.1 and 12 years respectively. Border Collies and Jack Russells were listed as the second and third longest lived pedigree breeds. I suspect VetCompass took a looser interpretation of what constitutes a purebred example of these breeds than the Kennel Club would. If that is the case the results would look worse for pedigree dogs.

The commentators that represented VetCompass as disproving the idea that crosses are generally healthier were, being charitable, getting a little ahead of themselves. Its ironic that after decades of assuming that purebred dogs are superior to random crossbreeds we now seize on any opportunity to claim that at least theyre not inferior. Generations of breeders devoting their lives to improving pedigree breeds and were delighted to hear that theyre no worse than a good old Heinz 57. Shouldnt we be aiming much higher than that?

Ill never accept that any dog can be a better example of its breed if its a worse example of a dog as a dog. We obviously shouldnt reward exaggerations that make any breed less healthy  Id hope that was pretty much universally accepted by now. Id also argue that we shouldnt endorse breeding practices that make our breeds more susceptible to disease or welfare compromising conditions.





No more ignorance

In the past we could claim ignorance about genetics and the potential downside of close breeding. We cant claim that anymore. We know what the settled scientific consensus is. Turning our face against that consensus may still bring rewards in the ring but it doesnt make it sensible for the long term future of our breeds.

Some breeds are incredibly lacking in genetic diversity. Their entire genetic make-up can be expressed as equivalent to just a handful of unique individuals. You can forget the morality of cloning dogs, weve all but reduced some whole breeds to clones.

It must be right for the KC to try to preserve what little diversity remains. If that goes against the grain of some breeders then, frankly, tough. If breeders are serious about being custodians of their breed then they should be focusing on the breeds long-term viability rather than their own chances of grabbing dog show honours. If they cant see that then Id respectfully suggest taking off the blinkers.

Id go much further than the KC is currently willing to contemplate. I dont think bringing in lines from overseas or relaxing the registration process to allow previously unregistered dogs into the KC fold will be enough for a lot of breeds. Were reached a point where the obvious answer, the answer those practical people who first created most of our breeds would choose, is to outcross.

Im on record as saying our pedigree breeds are human achievements to rank with any work of art, literature or architecture. I believe that with all my heart. I also believe no great building is diminished by careful repair, no painting is lost by sympathetic restoration and no book or play suffers from thoughtful reinterpretation.

Breed character is nowhere near as fragile as some maintain. I work with a not for profit community dog training group, I see a lot of dogs from across a range of breeds and crosses. Ive seen plenty of dogs that appear to be excellent examples of their breed until you learn theres a rogue outcross just a generation or two back. Breed character re-emerges fast and strong, even after a random outcross. If the outcross was not random but well considered and with a related breed then the original breed character would return even faster.

Showing and pedigree breeding are at something of a crossroads. The KC has taken much of the health agenda on board without ever looking fully committed to it. Stalwarts of the championship show scene, sometimes mistakenly referred to as the grassroots, are divided. A few are enthusiastic about change, some grudgingly accept the need for it, many try to totally ignore it in the hope the reforms will go away and a vocal minority kick hard against it. The real grassroots, those without a CC to their name, are left cold by the whole thing. They continue much as before, adapting where they have to.





Internal critics

The KC could decide that its internal critics are more of a problem than external pressures. It might think its done enough to push the health message and its time to back off and leave the show scene to get on with it. Thats certainly what a lot of people hope for.

Anyone who loves the vast diversity of dogs in all their shapes and sizes owes a debt of gratitude to dog showing. Showing has saved many breeds that would have otherwise gone the way of the English White Terrier or the St Johns Water Dog. I believe in dog showing but I believe the challenge we face now is about making showing relevant to the modern world of dogs.

We all know there are clear examples where weve lost sight of the fundamentals of what makes a sound functional dog and got too caught up with cosmetic details. I believe were also guilty of the bigger crime of stripping too much genetic diversity out of our breeds. No one likes being tapped on the shoulder and told theyve gone too far but sometimes its necessary.

We regenerate our hobby as we regenerate our breeds  through a focus on health and welfare. We need to fully understand what research from VetCompass and others are telling us rather than just ignore anything that doesnt fit with our own view of dogs.

We need to radically reassess the aims of dog showing to refocus on the functionality of the dog and the sustainability of the breed. Even if we have to drag some exponents of dog showing kicking and screaming in this direction.