Amy P. sent me a note about something she hoped I would address. She writes that she often hears people say:
"With an unknown mixed breed dog, who knows what kinds of problems are lurking there, and how many? At least with a purebred dog you know what problems you will be getting."
Ah, the old "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" case for Kennel Club dog ownership.
Too bad it's complete nonsense as far as canine health is concerned.
Just imagine someone telling you "Our family has hypertension, so we don't have to worry about cancer."
Eh?
Cancer and hypertension have nothing to do with each other!
If your family has a history of hypertension, you probably have the same chance of getting cancer as everyone else. And that chance is NOT zero!
Ditto for dogs.
If you own a breed with a seriously elevated chance of cancer, or a high incidence of epilepsy, that does NOT mean your dog will be free of heart disease, skin disease, liver disease, cataracts, or hip dysplasia.
Sorry, it does not work like that.
If you own a breed of dog with a particularly increased incidence of disease or defect, that negative health outcome is almost certainly ADDITIVE to the base of pathology which all dogs commonly face. One disease is not a "get out of jail card" for others diseases and congenital defects.
This is not to say that some genes are not linked.
A few are.
For example, we know that dogs with merle and spotted coats are more likely to be deaf than dogs with solid or big blocks of color on them.
That said, most diseases do not appear to be associated with linked genes. Those that are, are the exception rather than the rule.
In addition, when we do see linked genes, that link almost always points to an elevated incidence of something negative rather than something positive.
The reason for this is pretty simple: obvious disease, defect and deformity is much easier to tease out of the data pile than a reduction in an already rare pathology. One event is akin to a statistical loud noise; the other is simply a slightly longer continuation of the silence all around.
Of course no dog is born with a 100 percent guarantee of good health.
The health of dogs, like the health of all animals, is a roll of the dice.
Which is not to say that all dogs get the same set of dice.
To carry forward with the dice analogy, heavily outcrossed working dogs may be playing with a regular six-sided dice in which the chance of coming up with a pair of "snake eyes" (two ones) for a particular genetic defect is 1 in 36, or less than 2.8 percent.
A heavily inbred Kennel Club dog, however, may be playing with a six-sided dice that has the number ONE printed on three sides and the number TWO printed on the other three sides.
For that dog, the chance of coming up "snakes eyes" due to a "doubling down of genes" is one in four, or 25 percent.
In fact, many breeds have much higher rates of pathology than 25 percent.
Look at cancer for example. As I note in Making and Breaking Dogs in the Show Ring, more than 54% of Flat-coated Retrievers die of cancer, as well as more than 45 percent of Scotties, and 45% of Bernese Mountain dogs. Airedales have a cancer rate of 39 percent, Irish Wolfhounds 33 percent, English Setters 33 percent, Gordon Setters 29 percent, Irish Setters 27 percent, and Dobermans 26 percent.
All of these breeds have other problems too, of course.
There is a roll of the dice for every major body system: skeletal, circulatory, endocrine, and neurological, for example. A dog with a high incidence of cancer is not immune to other problems such as hip dysplasia, cruciate ligament injuries, heart problems, or epilepsy.
Today, scores and scores of Kennel Club breeds have serious health problems in which the probability of single-system defect is well over 25 percent.
Sometime this is is due to positive selection for pathology, as it is with dogs that have over-large heads which cause whelping issues, or dogs that have too flat a face (causing breathing and palate issues), or dogs that have achondroplasia (dwarfism) which is linked to both skeletal and heart issues.
Other times, however, it is simply a function of a small initial gene pool that happened to contain a regressive gene for one type of defect or another.
So long as the gene pool was large and otherwise diverse, the chance of that gene coming up in two rolls of the dice (one dice from the sire and one from the dam) was pretty low.
With a small population at the start, however, and progressive tightening of the pool through dominant sire selection and intentional inbreeding of the dogs to "improve" visible features such as coat color, coat length, and head size, defective genes are now much more likely to find each other.
The result is that defect and disease have reared up at startling rates in a huge number of Kennel Club breeds.
If you are looking to get a dog as a pet, do not swallow the blarney of a Kennel Club dog dealer who suggests that though his breed has a higher-than-average incidence of cancer or heart disease or cataracts, "you at least know what you are getting" in terms of problems.
In fact, all that Kennel Club dog dealer can REALLY promise you with his problem-riddled breed is that you are almost certainly buying into a higher-than-average chance of getting a dog with a serious, painful and expensive health care condition.
When buying dogs, caveat emptor is the watch word.
Do your research.
If a dog dealer tells you his "line" of dogs is free of all defect, assume you are being lied to, because you probably are.
When you read words like "cancer," "cataracts," epilepsy, heart defect, hip dysplasia, deafness, and skin disease, do not bounce too quickly to the next paragraph.
What is being promised here is that a lot of money will be hoovered out of your wallet, and a lot of time will be spent in veterinary offices.
Yes, a bad roll of the dice may occur with any dog, but remember that not all dogs are playing with the same set of dice. With many Kennel Club dogs, the dice are loaded for defect, deformity and disease.
- Other Links That May Be of of Interest
** Genetic Dog Diseases by Breed
** Individual Breed Health Survey Results (UK Kennel Club)
.
5 comments:
I always thought that non-pedigree dogs were meant to be much healthier. In Britain this is accepted common knowledge.
I believe it is because many defective genes are recessive so are less likely to become apparent when a there is a wider gene pool.
Out of interest I wonder if these problems are more prone in dogs than bitches. Many human genetic disorders are more common in males due to the presence of XY chromosones. This different pairing forces some genes to be used even when one is defective whereas for females (XX) there is a backup gene which can be used instead.
I enjoy the blog and have been reading regularly for a couple of months. Keep up the good writing!
Sam Chapman
sam_acw @ yahoo .co .uk
woodcraft in poland
Hi Sam -
Thanks for actuall reading the directions about posting!
You would be surprised at how many do not, and who then slam up entirely anonymous comments, and then expect me to take the time to answer them when they have not even taken time to read!
Yes, as a general rule, a large pool of randomly-bred non-pedigree dogs is going to be healthier than a large pool of "pure bred" pedigree's dogs, but that does not *necesssarily* have to be be so.
It is, in theory, possible for a purebred stock of dogs to be HEALTHIER that a random-bred dog population. It is simply not possible under the current Kennel Club structure.
Let me explain.
The Kennel Club will tell you they are all about "selective breeding," but what they fail to mention is that they are NOT selecting for health nor are they selecting for work.
They are selecting for looks, or to put a finer point on it, they are selecting to win a blue ribbon.
But suppose the Kennel Club rules were different? Suppose only adult dogs (over age two) were registered (as individuals, not as litters) and only if the dog in question was the progeny of a sire and dam over age three that had passed a veterinary heath check?
Would the resulting pool of highly selected pedigree dogs be healthier or less healthy than random-bred dogs?
Healthier!
But, of course, that is not the Kennel Club system or the Kennel Club history.
Most Kennel Club breeds entered the Kennel Club with a very small number of dogs after which the Kennel Club registry was closed. In some cases, the initial Kennel Club registry was effectively no more than 50 dogs!
After closing the registry, most Kennel Club breeds further narrowed down their genetic pool through popular sire selection in which ribbon-winning sires covered dozens (perhaps hundreds) of females producing hundreds (perhaps thousands)of pups. Non-ribbon winning sires, however, may produce no pups at all, effectively allowing that line to die off or "choke down" in number within the overall gene pool.
As I note in "Inbred Thinking," (see link on this blog) the perpetual choking down of a gene pool is NOT needed to maintain a species, and when a breed pool is small to start with, it quickly leads to an expression of genetic defect and a rising rate of infecundity.
So how does Mother Nature do it?
Pretty simply.
Ducks, owls, wolves, bears, and other species not only have huge gene pools, but they are perpetually outcrossing to oher (non-related) members of their species through the process of long-distance migration.
You will note that no only do most birds migrate (and a huge number of fish and insects too), but so too do almost all the males of large carnivores. When a male tiger, fox, wolf, coyote, zoro, black bear, bobcat, cougar, lion, or lynx reaches sexual maturity, it is generally driven out of its natal territory (which may be one square mile or 200 square miles) at which time it is has go some distance to find an "open" space on the map. A wolf or coyote (the nearest living relatives to the dog) typically have to travel several hundred miles before they can set up shop on their own -- one reason wolf (and cougar) populations are spreading so rapidly in the U.S. today.
And yet, if you look at ducks, wolves, sharks, owls, cougars, coyote, or fox from from one side of the country to another, most people cannot tell one animal from from another despite all of the hybrid vigor that is going on.
What is particularly interesting in the arena of many duck and owl breeds, and the wolf and coyote populations, is that not only is genetic material being shared within widely separated, non-related, members of a species, but very occassionally these animals cross what we think of as "the species barrier" to infuse even more genetic variability into their pool. Withing every Mallard on the pond, for example, is a little Black Duck DNA, and within the gene pool of most American wolf and coyote populations is a little wolf or coyote or farm dog DNA. By the same token, most of the Bison we see in America today contains a little cow DNA beating under the skin, while the gene pool of the Barred Owl and the Spotted Owl is so close that the animals freely interbreed where their paths cross.
And yet, we still have animals we recognize (instantly!) as wolves, coyotes, bison, mallard ducks, and spotted owls. Cross overs are rare enough that the water is never too muddied, and the hard dashes of extreme variety are further diluted (and preserved) through long distance migration.
What is interesting in the Kennel Club community is that so many folks think their breed of dog is a species, and that their "species" is ancient and unchanging. In fact, all dogs are the same animal (one species) and most of the breeds are of very recent origin (less than 150 years).
Take the Bull Terrier, for example. Here's a breed that was effectively created in the life of one man (James Hinks) and which has been changed morphologically so much in the years since that photos of its changing skull shape are used as a show-and-tell of how rapidly changing Kennel Club breed standards can screw up a dog.
The Bull Terrier not only entered the KC with very few (nonworking) animals, it was further shattered into even smaller gene pools as the breed was split by size and coat color. It is no accident that the AKC says the bull terrier is the MOST inbred dog in the Club today!
But it did not have to be so.
Not only should the Bull Terrier have been held back from Kennel Club registration until it had a larger gene pool, but the breed did not have to split by size and coat color, nor did "the standard" (which has not been a "standard" at all, but a very changing thing!) have to be so narrow as to preclude dogs that did not have an egg shaped head.
Furthermore, when congential problems such as cancer (23%), kidney problems (14%), and heart problems (14%) cropped up at alarming rates, the Kennel Club could have required veterinary inspection of dam and sire and only registered adult dogs (over age two) from dogs born to healthy adult dogs (over age three) should have been allowed. At the same time, the Kennel Club should have allowed a few approved outcrosses to dogs of the type that served as the original pool of dogs from which Hicks created the bull terrier. All those breed exist today no matter what anyone says; smooth non-pedigree working terriers and small pit dogs are as common as smooth gravel.
But of course, when you start with a small pool in a closed registry, split the breed a few times and then toss in popular sire selection, you get a messed up dog, don't you. This is "selective breeding," I suppose, but it is NOT selection for either health or function.
Patrick
I never understood the 'splitting by coat color' thing. I'd noticed just recently how many breeds do it, and it's just such a bad idea on multiple levels... also I think separating by coat type (wire vs smooth) is also unhelpful.
The more I learned about the purebred show world, the more I realized how very clueless about genetic reality so many of the people involved in it are. They've shown they can't even police themselves because they are so kennel-blind they don't even see what's wrong with what they're doing... and frankly they've played right into the anti-pet AR movement with their stupidity.
Pai, here's an older post you might enjoy about hair color etc.
It's called "Tits Teeth and Trophy Wives" and talks about the forces at work on terriers and setters. >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2007/08/tits-teeth-and-trophy-wives.html
Patrick
Hi, I am a long-time reader and I loved the can of brains you had on a few days ago. Yikes! Anyway I get infuriated when the AKC show crowd goes off on a tirade about intentional crossbreeding, puggles, labradoodles, etc. Their argument is that a cross breed will have all the genetic defects of both parent breeds. Well as you addressed above, a crossbreed will also have increased genetic diversity, and I would rather take my chances with a crossbreed bred by a moron, than with a show dog bred by someone out to win in the ring, any day of the week! I am trying to start a collie breeding program and I've had the worst time finding a healthy dog in the show crowd, not to mention the personality of show dogs I personally believe has been deteriorating over the years. I wish people would bring this to the public's attention more--not only is show breeding ruining the health of purebred dogs, it's taking the distinct personalities of every breed and turning them all into a generic "show dog" personality which basically is stupid and enjoys staring at treats being waved around and trotting endlessly around a ring while looking "flashy." I was so sad when my other favorite breed, the anatolian shepherd, was admitted to the AKC and became a show dog. Much like a border collie, an anatolian has NO PLACE at a dog show. So, they quickly began breeding them for uniformity of type and for a flashy personality, which is completely the opposite of what makes a proper anatolian. I'm rambling. Anyway thanks for another great post!
Kate in Camas, WA
Post a Comment