Documentary on canine genetics

[jemima harrison]

I'm a UK-based TV producer researching an international film about dog genetics. I'm also a pedigree dog owner (flatcoats..) and would like to reassure everyone here that I am not in any sense anti-pedigree.

But the film has been prompted by concern for the future of our pedigree dogs. My own breed suffers from several genetic problems and life expectancy has fallen, despite the best efforts of those who know and love the breed

My fear is that the pedigree dog world is battling against a fundamental problem: long term health is hard to maintain within a closed gene pool, especially when there has been a genetic bottleneck in the breed's past or it was established with few founding members.

The canine geneticists present compelling scientific evidence to support the above view. They worry that the show ring produces exaggerated dogs and that conformation matters above all else (when, really, vigour should be top of the list); that popular sire syndrome is further narrowing gene pools and that if breeders don't change their habits (particularly that of line-breeding), many breeds face long-term extinction.

One of the big criticisms I hear, I'm afraid, is that the situation is worse in the USA than anywhere else - and that after decades of leaving it to the breeders (who've pleaded that they're the ones best placed to improve things) that there is barely a single breed which could claim any overall genetic improvement.

A big subject, I know... But what are the views here? And if you were making this film, what would you like - and not like - to see in it?

Jemima Harrison

[Novel]

I agree that you have some principles that could definitely be explored... however, what is a "closed gene pool" There is always a finite gene pool, if it be 500 dogs or 5 million. I think it's more accurate to describe the numbers in the gene pool.
And, if you are going to do a film on conformation only breeders, OK, but that is just one type of breeder. Many breeders that compete in the conformation ring do so as a part of their overall testing of the quality of their animals.
True, some breeders may be causing damage to the breed as a whole, but there are many breeders that understand the danger and risk in breeding for one thing alone, and do their best to produce dogs that will build up the breed instead of drag it down.

[Raised By Wolves]

Purely a personal observation here, but I think the German Shepherd Dog is very symptomatic of asthetics over working function.

The sloping backend has been very accentuated in the American lines and looks deformed, even in the top US show ring dogs. It is a sad sight to see for me, as I have always loved this breed.

[sammy]

That's a very interesting topic. I's love to watch your documentary.
I'd like to see a good explanation of what line breeding is and some fact based information (backed up by scientific research if that exists in this situation) about hybrid vigor.

I think everyone cares about the health of dogs and especially preserving our heart breeds. I guess what I want most is to separate fact from personal opinion when it comes to what will better a breed.

[linnie]

I think you will find that every breeder on this site is a responsible breeder and therefore the breeding they do is to make the breed stronger and stable.
I also agree that some breeders are in it for the money and so have no care about the genetics they are breeding.
I would like to see scientific reasonings and proof in your documentary

[jemima harrison]

For those interested, much of my background research was drawn from this link:

http://www.canine-genetics.com/

The links on the page vary in complexity, but there should be something for everyone!

Jemima

[DaisySunshine]

This is a really interesting topic! I can't wait to see what all our breeders here say!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jemima harrison

And if you were making this film, what would you like - and not like - to see in it?

I heard there is an animal welfare bill being passed in the UK that may impose some breeding restrictions based on a report by the Companion Animal Welfare Council. Legislation and regulations concerning dog breeding have been under formal discussion in other europeans countries as well. I also think a convention for the protection of pet animals has been put into force by the EU.

I'd like to see an in-depth coverage of these attempts by governments and kennel clubs to regulate dog breeding. More specifically I'd like to see what prompted the attempts, what proposals were made, what the reactions were and what happened in the end.

I'd also like to hear views from breeders and scientists on the various aspects concerning animal breeding and welfare.

[rmci]

Originally Posted by Novel

I agree that you have some principles that could definitely be explored... however, what is a "closed gene pool" There is always a finite gene pool, if it be 500 dogs or 5 million. I think it's more accurate to describe the numbers in the gene pool.

The closed gene pool refers to the purebred standards we have come to know all come from the same ancestors and therefore the gene pool is "closed" or in other words inbred since outside gene sources (other breeds) are not allowed. Yes, there maybe 500 to 50 million dogs in a breed now, but they had to start somewhere and are probably related, even though it may have been 100+ years ago.
Question for those of you with documented purebreds: How far back can you trace your dogs ancestors? Can every purebred be traced back to when the breed first came about? As an owner of nothing but "mutts" I'm curious about this.

[jemima harrison]

Some breeds have foundation stock in single figures. Sadly, this is almost certainly a recipe for disaster because it is near-impossible to maintain health when animals are this inbred (something we know instinctively when it comes to humans but often ignore when it comes to our dogs). That's why, say the canine geneticists, we're seeing such an increase in genetic disorders in our purebred dogs.

In the wild, some small populations do exist - but of course in their case, natural selection has exerted a beneficial effect. Natural selection ensures that only the fittest survive to father the next generation. Plus, in the wild (for instance in grey wolves, the dog's ancestor) there is little inbreeding. Nature encourages them to seek out the most unrelated mate they can, which ensures genetic diversity and health. In contrast, pedigree dogs are often closely related.

All dogs (whether purebred or mutts) carry "bad" genes. That's OK, as long as they don't mate with a dog that carries the same bad gene (because it takes two copies for the problem to manifest). The more related they are, the greater the chance is that they carry the same bad gene.

Many breeds were established by close breeding, to "set" the type. That's OK for a couple of generations but long term it's bad news.

Of course many breeders are aware of problems and make real efforts to breed them out. This can rid the breed of a particular problem but unfortunately it narrows the gene pool further.

The only way to bring back diversity (and health) is to bring in fresh genes. That means outcrossing to unrelated lines within the same breed - or where that's not possible, outcrossing to a different breed. But this is often considered heresy by breeders.

Jemima

[Carrie]

Yes, our purebred dogs are in serious trouble. There's another thread somewhere here which I started a while back about it. Just the very act of inbreeding or even line breeding IS what causes the genetic defects due to genetic drift, a phenomenon which occurs from breeding relatives. Since gene pools are small and all purebred dogs come from a relatively small/same ancestoral background, it is unavoidable. Mixing in another breed or mixes without those genes from those lines would be necessary to break up this genetic drift which, in and of itself causes defects; cancer, cardio problem, blindess, Von Willebrands, dysplasia, propensity to skin problems, collapsing tracheas, luxation and on and on.

So, no matter how good and responsible a breeder is, as long as purebreds are kept so "pure," bred with other purebreds, (even when it looks like they're not related closely....somewhere back there, they are most likely).... this phenomenon will continue and probably be even more prevelent as time goes on.

[jemima harrison]

Wow. Carrie, this is the first post on any of the dog lists that so wholeheartedly embraces the issues. (Well, apart from the canine diversity list - but then its whole purpose is to spell out the problems.)

Did you always think like this? Or did something prompt you to change the way you thought about purebred dogs?

[Carrie]

No, I didn't always think like this. I thought that as long as breeders were careful to not breed bad dogs...did their health checks etc, these health problems would not be seen as much, but that is not the case. It's better than breeding known lousy dogs, but it won't irradicate the health problems.

It wasn't until I started doing some genetic research (not a lot) that I came to understand in part, what is really happening. Some kind of plan really needs to be started and it will probably involve some kind of mixing in of other breeds. Our breeds may lose some of their sameness, their uniformity. But something has to be done. I just don't know what. We don't want all dogs to be mongrels either. These purebreds have their functions. Maybe changes in the standards, but still have standards. So there would be some branching out effect, a widening of criteria.

[Raised By Wolves]

This thread came to mind when I watched a documentary on cats last night.

They discussed how much the appearence of purebreed cats had changed and showed footage from some cat shows back in the 1950s. The difference in both the Samese and the Persian were striking. Didn't even look like the same breed anymore.

The cats seemed changed to meet our visual preference for accentuating to a more "extreme look".

I know cats are not bred to perform a function, as dogs are. But the going for a certain "look", sure showed where a human being can take an extreme.

I'd like to see some really old footage of some dog shows, and compare where we've taken the "look" of a dog, and if it actually has helped their "function".

I guess this is fascinating to me, but a little off-topic in this discussion!

[Carrie]

The design of a dog....their conformation, their look, most certainly influences their function. For example, the GSD's angulation (before it got so extreme) serves a trotting dog, which, as a herder, he is. He has to be able to cover a lot of ground with the least amount of effort, good reach. A stocky Labrador Retriever needs the coat (the way it looks) to repell cold water, needs that otter tail to help it swim so fabulously efficiently, needs webbed feet, needs strength and a little bulk to bust through brush. A Doberman Pinscher needs his look...to serve his function. He needs to be agile, quick, muscular without being overly bulky, his jaws need to be the way they are etc to do his work. A Bloodhound, with those wrinkles and huge ears uses them to capture scent. The look of any breed is there for a reason, be it working function or a companion function.

Of course, in recent years, some of the conformation has probably deviated so drastically as to interfer with their designed function. ie: the extreme angulation seen in many GSDs. It's so extreme that it's defeating it's own purpose. And that is the same thing, probably in lots of breeds with various problems.

So, if breeds were changed or diluted in order to reduce defects, there would be a conflict with maintaining the specific traits so desired in the individual breeds. It's a real dilemma.