Showing posts with label Dalmatians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dalmatians. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

The Norfolk Terrier Is a Nice Pet Dog



This dog, Winston, won the terrier group.

This is a generally healthy breed, without exaggeration.

Created as a pet, it’s a fine little dog.

Not every breed is a basket case full of contrived histories and pretension: the Norfolk is not.

This dog's origin are well known. During the late nineteenth century some of the undergraduates at Cambridge University bought small terrier dogs from a dog dealer named Charles (Doggy) Lawrence. These small terriers, generally red or black-and-tan in color, were popular pets and were sometimes known as Trumpington Terriers -- the name of the street in Cambridge where so many students lived.

Just prior to World War I, a Norwich huntsman introduced the short-legged terriers to the USA, calling them the "Jones Terrier" after Frank Jones who was a breeder in England who exporting a lot of dogs to America at the time.

In 1932 the dog was pulled into the American Kennel Club as the "Norwich Terrier," and a drop-eared version of this same dog was declared a "new breed" and labeled a "Norfolk Terrier" in 1979.  The dog entered the show ring at Westminster that very same year.

Thursday, February 04, 2010

The Dalmatian Club Hopes You Won't Read This



The British Dalmatian Club does not want you to read their response to the fact that the British Kennel Club has green-lighted the admission of Low Uric Acid (LUA) Dalmatians.

Over on their web site they write:

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all rights including those in copyright in the content of the following accessed webpages are owned by or controlled for these purposes by the "Joint Dalmatian Clubs". Except as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law or the "Joint Dalmatian Clubs" Terms of Use, the content of the following pages may not be copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast or transmitted in any way without first obtaining the "Joint Dalmatian Clubs" written permission or that of the copyright owner." For the purpose of this statement the expression "Joint Dalmatian Clubs" shall collectively consist of the "British Dalmatian Club" the "North of England Dalmatian Club" the "Dalmatian Club of Scotland and the "Northern Ireland Dalmatian Club"


To which I can only say, "riiiiight."

The Dalmatian Club then goes on to give us a blithering statement cranked out by an organ-grinder's monkey (PDF).

Of course, I promptly set out to find something to quote from, just to prove the "fair use" point.

But damn if they did not make it hard. Go ahead and read the entire thing and try to find even one intelligent line!

I am serious. It is stream of consciousness, with nothing to say, and run-on sentences to boot.

No matter. I will quote from it anyway just to make the point that fair use is fair use, and typing organ-grinder monkeys be damned.

The five years restriction before the issue of an export pedigree is in marked contrast with the Kennel Club’s previous reference to such a restriction for a period ten years. No explanation is given, or basis provided, for this change in the relevant press release. Attempts to speak with Mrs Caroline Kisko to clarify this point have not met with success, nor have telephone calls been returned, but Mr James Skinner (Mrs Kisko’s PA) stated that he had been instructed to say that the five year term is ‘a General Committee decision, and the Kennel Club does not want to discuss it further’. Such apparent contempt towards a valid and objective enquiry from KC-registered Breed Clubs is deemed arrogant and unacceptable.


So there it is.

What's it all mean? I think it means they are pissed off at the Kennel Club!

Do you get that sense too? But so what if they are? Let them be pissed off and sulky. Maybe they can go off into a corner and play "connect the dots" with a magic marker on the side of their dogs. Who cares?

As for the Kennel Club, let me say congratulations for bravely standing up to these chattering chimps. The first step in the right direction is always the hardest -- and the most important.

Good things may yet come about. We shall see ....



Related Links:
** The Dalmatian Club Embraces Purity and Pain
** Dalmatian Back Cross Gets Greenlight in UK
.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

For Veterinarians, Silence Has Been Golden



The American Kennel Club is moving to co-opt the veterinary trade by forming alliances between themselves and the pet insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

The goal of this cross-marketing: To make the AKC a veterinary referral and insurance service.

By doing this it is hoped that veterinarians will be beholden to the AKC, both collectively and individually, and continue to "whistle pass the graveyard" as far as the impact of Kennel Club policies that result in diseased, defective and deformed dogs.

And why not, thinks the average veterinarian?

Yes they got into the vet business because of concern and compassion for animals, but it's a free country and people will do what they want to do.

Besides, taking a stand might cost business. People get easily offended if you talk about their broken dogs and suggest that they might be complicit in the problems, either through omission or commission.

And silence sure has been lucrative!

Pencil it out, and the big money in veterinary care is not in once-a-lifetime vaccines, but in the big stuff: shot hips, wrecked eyes, recurring skin conditions, Cesarean births, and mounting rates of cancer.

Best to shut the hell up and pocket the money!

Do all vets feel this way? No, of course not!

But enough do.

And there's no denying that, taken as a whole, the veterinary profession has been extremely timid at challenging the Kennel Club in the past.

Just go to your vet and ask if he or she has a written list of breeds they actively caution against.

It's not going to be there.

Fact sheets on heartworm? Check. Even vets in Maine will have that in hope of maybe making a sale to a gullible customer.

But a fact sheet that says "avoid these breeds which are walking cancer bombs?"

A brochure that says "just say no to anchondroplastic dogs and brachycephalic breeds?"

Not there.

Yet every veterinarian knows that certain breeds are a sack of trouble with predictable (and generally rising) rates of pain and veterinary expense.

  • Dachshunds have serious back problems; fully 45% end up with herniated discs.
  • Collies have a huge incidence of eye problems (retinal degeneration, cataracts, retinal detachment, progressive retinal atrophy).
  • Bernese Mountain dogs, Scotties, Flat-coated Retrievers, Deerhounds, and all the Setters have jaw-dropping levels of cancer.
  • Nearly every toy breed (and especially Yorkshire terriers) have dental problems from too many teeth crowding too-small jaws.
  • German Shepherds, Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, and St. Bernards commonly have life-limiting hip dysplasia.
  • American Cocker spaniels are besotted with cataracts, glaucoma, dry eye, and ingrown eyelashes.

This is just a smattering of the common canine problems out there.

Vets KNOW what these illnesses cost in terms of cash, and they know the PAIN these diseases, defects and deformities inflict on the animals themselves.

And yet the vets are silent.

There is no wall poster in your Vets Office indicting breed clubs for embracing exaggerated and contrived standards.

There is no petition or tract being handed out at your vets office advising patients to boycott the American Kennel Club until that organization turns away dogs with high Coefficients of Inbreeding.

The vets are nearly silent about the litany of pain, suffering, shortened life, and rising expense from breeding dogs within a closed registry system.

And yet, in this case, Silence Equals Death.

Why isn't the American Veterinary Medical Association at war with the American Kennel Club?

They aren't.

And I can tell you why; they are too busy "partnering" and "cross promoting" with these folks.

Imagine a computer virus maker sitting down for breakfast every morning with the folks from "Geeks On Call," and you have the idea.

Now add in long term physical pain and suffering on the part of the mute and helpless, and simmer for 30 years. That's the American Veterinary profession and the American Kennel Club: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

So what if a significant proportion of Doberman Pinschers have a bleeding disorder?

Never mind that a mind-numbing percentage of Dalmatians are deaf.

Who cares if scores of thousands of Toy Poodles with epilepsy are on powerful meds to control their seizures?

Why even mention that thousands of Boxers that are put down every year due to tumors and bone cancer?

You've got a dog with a serious genetic disorder?

Too bad. Bad luck.

No, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with breed standards that monumentalize deformity or small closed registries that result in rising levels of inbreeding.

Not that. Think of something else.

And don't talk about puppy mills either, as the AKC is dependent upon them financially, as they have admitted in their own board meeting minutes.

It must be something else.

It must be nameless, faceless "bad breeders."

It's their fault!

But have no fear, because American Kennel Club breeders are only too happy to sell you another dog just like the one you just "lost."

And have no worries, because the American Veterinary Medical Association is only too happy to tell your vet how he or she can maximize your bill while your dog is being treated.

In the "dash for the cash," both sides have come to the same conclusion: Silence is Golden.


.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Dalmatian Back Cross Gets Greenlight in UK

On the eve of what is likely to be a groundbreaking report about the dysmal state of pedigree dogs in the U.K. (commissioned by the British Kennel Club itself, it should be said), the Kennel Club has moved to greenlight Low Uric Acid Dalamatian dogs imported from the United States.

This is good news, and places the British Kennel Club ahead of the American Kennel Club, which has seen its registration numbers drop 55% in the last 15 years as word has gotten out that AKC dogs, as a group, are are NOT healthier or smarter than cross bred dogs.

As for the American (non-LUA) Dalmatian, it remains a mess. As I noted in an earlier post:

Who speaks for the dogs in America? Not the AKC, that's pretty clear.

Just look at Patti Strand if you have any doubt. Here you will find not only an AKC Board Member, Dalmatian breeder, and dog show judge, but an open apologist for puppy mill registrations, pet-shop sales, and ribbon-chasing within a closed-registry system.

Stand for the health of the dog? Sorry, but at the Dalmatian Club of America and the American Kennel Club that idea seems to take a back seat to blue ribbons and green cash.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Dog Disorders Related to Breed Standards


T-Shirt Available - Perfect for Crufts and Westminster.

The George Fleming Prize winner for 2009 has been announced, just in time for tomorrow's 150th Anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. The Fleming prize, which commemorates the founder of The Veterinary Journal, is awarded for the paper of the greatest merit published in the Journal during the previous year.

The winners for 2009 are Lucy Asher, Gillian Diesel, Jennifer F. Summers, Paul D. McGreevy and Lisa M. Collins of the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, University of London for their article entitled 'Inherited Defects in Pedigree Dogs. Part 1: Disorders Related to Breed Standards' (VJ, August 2009).

A few excerpts from the paper:

The issue of pedigree dog breeding and its consequences for welfare has recently been brought to the attention of the general public. The main sources of inherited defects are (i) deleterious inherited recessive traits expressed as a consequence of closed stud books and inbreeding practices; and (ii) dog breeders aiming to meet the breed standards for multiple aspects of physical conformation.

We carried out a review of inherited defects in the 50 most popular breeds of dog in the UK, according to Kennel Club registrations .... Every one of the 50 most popular pedigree breeds of dog in the UK were found to have at least one aspect of their physical conformation which predisposes them to a heritable defect. Conformation characteristics such as short heads, short legs, excessive facial skin folds, pendulous ears, long backs and curly tails are likely to predispose, or are genetically linked in presenting breeds, to a range of physical problems such as occipital dysplasia, malocclusion of the jaws, hip dysplasia, eye ulceration, chronic otitis, intervertebral disc disease, and spina bifida, respectively.

In many cases, there is an overlap or interaction between conformation and inherited diseases. For example, the spot colouration specified in the breed standards for Dalmatians has a genetic link with deafness. Certain defects were found to cluster by breed type – e.g. the tendency to develop patellar luxation is particularly common in the Terrier and Toy dog breeds, and the potentially fatal condition of gastric torsion is common to the working dog breeds such as Rottweiler, Dogue de Bordeaux, Doberman and Great Dane. . . .

. . . . This report has shown that every one of the 50 most popular pedigree breeds of dog in the UK were found to have at least one aspect of their physical conformation predisposing it to a heritable defect. Conformational features form a large proportion of these problems. From musculoskeletal diseases, such as hip and elbow dysplasia to brachycephalic airway obstruction syndrome, eyelid defects, excessive skin folds and predisposition to gastric dilatation-volvulus in barrel-chested breeds, these defects affect all body systems across a variety of breeds. The association of some of these conditions with official breed standards and the high maintenance implications of some breed features (such as a prolific coat or pendulous ears) makes conformational extremes an important area for consideration when discussing the problems of the purebred dog breeding industry. Also highlighted by this report are the diverse and often severe genetic conditions suffered by dogs of these 50 popular breeds. Inbreeding, population bottlenecks, the use of strictly closed stud-books and breeding towards features genetically linked to deleterious conditions (such as the link between spot size and deafness in Dalmatians) have all contributed to the current situation. . . .

Summary: There are 209 different breeds of pedigree dogs recognised by the UK Kennel Club. In this report, we focused on the top 50 most popular breeds, according to the number of KC registrations in 2007. For these breeds, we found a total of 322 inherited disorders. Of these, 84 were either directly or indirectly associated with conformation.
.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

UK Kennel Club to Greenlight LUA Dalmatians


Yippee!

It appears the Kennel Club of Britain is about to greenlight LUA Dalmatians into their registry, which means when that happens, the American Kennel Club will be increasingly isolated in its death-grip on racial purity at the expense of canine health and function.

Who speaks for the dogs in America? Not the AKC, that's pretty clear.

Just look at Patti Strand if you have any doubt. Here you will find not only an AKC Board Member, Dalmatian breeder, and dog show judge, but an open apologist for puppy mill registrations, pet-shop sales, and ribbon-chasing within a closed-registry system.

Stand for the health of the dog? Sorry, but at the Dalmatian Club of America and the American Kennel Club that idea seems to take a back seat to blue ribbons and green cash.

I have been hard on the Kennel Club of Britain (for very good reasons), but let me say that they have at least moved forward under the whip.

The shame of the Dalmatian Club of America and the American Kennel Club is now palpable. Leadership? Not a hint of it.

But there is good news: AKC registrations have declined 55 percent over the course of the last 15 years, even as the population of the U.S. has increased by 45 million (17 percent), and the AKC has added 22 new breeds (a 15% increase in dog breeds shown) in an attempt to pad out its sagging membership numbers.

Bottom line: The AKC is a failing institution because the public is no longer buying the failed eugenics theories of the 19th Century.

I count that has a very positive thing in the world of dogs!




.

Monday, October 12, 2009

So You Want a Dog?

This piece is from the July issue of Dogs Today.


Terrierman's Top Ten Tips for Avoiding Expense & Misery


Two stories recently crossed my desk almost simultaneously.

The first was how the tallest dog in the world, a Great Dane living in Southern California, was dead at age 7.

The second was about how the oldest dog in the word, a cross-bred Jack Russell in Louisiana, was still kicking at age 26.

I was not too surprised by either story.

You see, the health and longevity of dogs is directly related to such things as size, breed, and gene pool diversity.

Pick the wrong breed of dog to love, and heartache and jaw-dropping veterinary bills are likely to follow.

Follow a few simple rules, however, and you may save a lot of money, as well as avoid a lot of pain and heartache.


10 simple tips for selecting a happier and healthier canine companion:

  1. Rethink the dog.
    Do you really want a dog? This is the first question that needs to be asked. You see, most people want a puppy; they do not want a dog. A puppy is cute and triggers both maternal and paternal instincts. They seem like no problem at all. A dog, on the other hand, will get you up at the crack of dawn, will bark in the back yard, will eat your couch, and may occasionally urinate or defecate on your rug. Here's a test: If you will not consider getting an adult dog from a local shelter or over-stocked breeder, you do not want a dog. You want a puppy. And what you need is a cat.

  2. Don't become breed-fixated.
    Having decided to get a dog, most people start flipping through the pages of an all-breed book trying to decide which breed. Big mistake. Deciding to get a specific breed can dramatically increase your chance of getting a dog with serious health issues. Dog insurance records show pedigree dogs are less healthy, as a group, than cross-bred dogs. Canine health surveys show that 40 percent of Kennel Club dogs in the U.S. have genetic defects of one kind or another -- hip dysplasia, heart murmurs, deafness, cataracts, spinal problems, glaucoma, Cushings disease, autoimmune disorders, hypothyroidism, epilepsy, congenital skin conditions, polyarthritis, progressive renal atrophy, and genetic predispositions to cancer, to name a few. Instead of focusing on a breed of dog, consider focusing on a broad type of dog: a terrier, running dog, lap dog, guard dog, herding dog, retriever, or pointer, for example. After that, look for either a cross breed of the type, or get the healthiest breed of that type.

  3. Avoid giant breeds.
    The larger the dog the shorter the life, and the more expensive the care and maintenance. This is particularly true for giant breeds like Wolfhounds, Deerhounds, Great Danes and Mastiffs, which often come with expensive veterinary bills and short lives due to cancer and gastric torsion (bloat). Other common health issues associated with giant breeds are heart problems, and spinal injuries due to massive heads being supported on overly long necks. Along with sobering veterinary bills, also expect to pay more for fencing, crates, food, and boarding. Finally, after shelling out a lot of money, expect a really giant dog to be dead by age seven or eight.

  4. Avoid "tea cup" dogs.
    Tea cup dogs generally come with a host of problems. Their jaws are almost always over-crowded with teeth, and their bones can be so small and brittle they may break if the dog jumps off the couch. Another common problem is hydrocephaly (water on the brain) caused by too much cerebellum crammed into too-tiny skulls, leading to domed-shaped heads and skull plates that do not completely close over.

  5. Try to get a dog weighing less than 40 pounds.
    Cruciate ligament and other expensive joint problems are far less likely in dogs that weigh less than 40 pounds. By going with a dog that weighs less than this limit, you remove some of the most common, and most expensive, health care problems from the table.

  6. Avoid dogs with misshaped bodies.
    Dogs that are out of proportion tend to have higher-than-normal health care issues, whether these dogs have massive heads (like English Bulldogs), or tiny legs (like Dachshunds and Basset Hounds). A lot of truly misshaped dogs suffer from a kind of dwarfism called "achondroplasia" which not only stresses joints, but is also associated with serious back and heart problems.

  7. Avoid flat-faced dogs.
    Dogs that have extremely flat-faces are called brachycephalic breeds, and they typically have a hard time breathing, get winded and overheat easily, and often have soft palate issues which may require corrective surgery. In addition, due to the flatness of their faces, English Bulldogs, Pugs, Pekingese and other flat-faced breeds are especially prone to eye injuries.

  8. Avoid merle-coated dogs, dogs with pure white coats, spotted dogs, and dog with blue eyes.
    The genetics here are complicated, and change a bit from breed to breed, but as a general rule dogs that have spotted coats (such as Dalmatians), merle coats, pie- bald coats, all white coats, or blues eyes, are best avoided if you want to decrease your chance of getting a deaf dog.

  9. Avoid dogs with exaggerated features.
    Exaggerated features are almost always maladaptive, which is why they are not found in natural dogs. Dogs with deep skin wrinkles, long pendulous ears, and extra long backs all come with health problems associated with those conditions. As for "hair dresser dogs" with long, thick coats, remember that they rarely look as good at home as they do when on display at ringside or in a book. Do you really want to spend more time and money on your dog's hair than on your own?

  10. Avoid any breed with a disease named after it.
    If the breed under consideration has a disease named after it, consider that fair warning! Almost all breeds carry a genetic load of some kind, but some loads are much heavier than others. The last thing you want to discover is that your breed is "really prone" to cancer, hip dysplasia, heart problems, "eye anomaly," epilepsy, or congenital skin conditions.


What about that Great Dane, dead at age seven?
He was euthanized after coming down with cancer -- a very common outcome for this breed.

Of course the sadness with this dog probably started right at birth. You see, this was a Harlequin Great Dane. About one in four Harlequin Great Danes are born deaf, and most of these dogs are put to sleep -- something a professional breeder might "take care of" on their own by simply slipping a new-born puppy into the freezer.

Buy a Harlequin Great Dane or a Dalmatian, and you become complicit in the routine and predictable euthanasia of puppies born with these kinds of preventable problems. Who wants to be part of that?

And what about that cross-bred Jack Russell?

Most terriers are small dogs and, as noted, smaller dogs live longer. Cross-bred working terriers like Jack Russell's are particularly hearty due to their genetic heterogeneity. When small size, genetic diversity, and a low-calorie diet are combined, a terrier's lifespan routinely reaches 15.

A 26-year old dog? Clearly, this dog is a very special case. That said, it's no surprise that the world's longest-living dog is not Kennel Club registered, is a moderately small dog, has a normal body shape, has a pointed face, and does not have a spotted or merle-coat.

Bottom line: Canine health and longevity are not an accident. By following just a few basic "rules of thumb" when selecting your dog, you and your family can avoid a lot of unnecessary pain, heartache and expense.
.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Who Speaks for the Dogs?


When watchdogs need watching.

Who speaks for the dogs? A lot fewer organizations than you might imagine!

In the world of dogs, mixed motives, hidden agendas, and naked economic self-interest are the watch word.

A lot of people, for example are shocked to discover that the American Kennel Club has a 50-year track record of profiting from puppy mills, embracing breed standards that create dogs that are defective by design, and embracing crackpot 19th century eugenics theories.

What? The AKC? I thought this was an organization for dogs?

Nope. This in an organization built around rosettes and salaries. The way to keep the business going, so far as they can see, is to double down on puppy mill registrations while maintaining a closed registry system which too often results in rising coefficients of inbreeding.

The welfare of dogs? It never enters the picture.

Mandatory health tests? They're not only not required, they're prohibited!

Pet shop sales? The AKC supports that!

Puppy mills? They are a major source of AKC registrations, and always have been.

All of this comes as new information to some people.

The good news is that other bad players in the world of dogs are a little easier to spot coming down the road.

Take the Pennsylvania Professional Dog Breeders Association. This is the trade association of Pennsylvania puppy mill dog peddlers.

Their sponsors are the "American Canine Association," "America's Pet Registry Inc.," "Universal Kennel Club International," "GoPetsUSA" (a maker of exercise wheels frequently used by puppy millers), and Valley Proteins (an animal rendering company).

Right. I do not think you need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows here, eh?

But not everyone claiming to represent dogs is quite so obvious.

Take the National Animal Interest Alliance, for example.

This organization bills itself as an "animal welfare" organization, but in fact the National Animal Interest Alliance does not represent animals; it represents the economic interests of people who profit from animals.

Board members of the NAIA are also board members of the the American Kennel Club, representatives of laboratories that use animals (including dogs) in bio-medical research, representatives of farmers and corporations that raise animals for food, circus and animal performance industries, and even puppy mill apologists.

I have no problem with the NAIA representing commercial interests. Every industry deserves representation.

That said, let's not act as if the NAIA is about animal welfare, eh?

The NAIA is no more about animal welfare than the Save Our Species Alliance is about saving endangered species, or Working Families for Wal-Mart is about working families.

The NAIA is about what's good for business. They salute the AKC's business plan of puppy mill registrations, pet-shop sales, and ribbon-chasing within a closed-registry system.

They salute whatever is good for drug and medical device companies, and whatever is good for the food, race track, circus, and rodeo industries.

Just take a look at who sits on their board, and you will know where they stand on the issues. Here's a hint: it's always next to the money.

The National Animal Interest Alliance is headed by Patti Strand, a Dalmatian breeder and AKC judge who has been on the AKC's board of directors since 1995.

Dalmatians? The person in charge at the National Animal Interest Alliance is a Dalmatian breeder?

How can anyone concerned about animal welfare breed and show Dalmatians? After all, this is a breed hammered by congenital deafness and painful uric acid stones.

Then there is Julian Prager, who is listed on the NAIA web site as the organization's "legal analyst and legislative coordinator." Prager is an English Bulldog breeder.

An English Bulldog breeder? Really? Hmmm. I wonder if his dogs require rape racks?

The English Bulldog is a breed so defective by design that it has been a laughing stock for more than 100 years. Its legs are so deformed it can only waddle. Its jaw are so undershot it cannot grab a Frisbee. Its face is so bracycephalic it often has trouble breathing.

This is the breed that is owned and bred by the legislative coordinator and legal analyst for the National Animal Interest Alliance? Wooo-eeeee!

Sadly, this is the kind of world we live in these days.

The sewage lobby is called the"Water Environment Federation."

Why should the "National Animal Interest Alliance" be any different?
.


Of course, if we are going to talk about disingenuous representation in the world of dogs, we cannot forget PeTA and the Humane Society of the U.S.

These two organizations are not identical, but they have a commonality in that their business plan is based on convincing folks they are something they are not -- animal welfare organizations.

To put a point on it, neither of these organizations help dogs by funding local shelters, taking in strays, or rehoming abused animals. PeTA, in fact, runs one of the most notorious kill shelters in the U.S.

The real business of PeTA and HSUS is direct mail.

Their real interest is not animal welfare, but direct mail return rates.

Regular readers of this blog know I have not been shy about my criticism of these groups. New arrivals might want to use the search engine on this blog, or read a few of the "related links" at the end of this post.

What about local animal shelters? These are a mixed bag. Almost all started out to do good, but most ended up doing harm.

The good news is that things have starting to turn around on this front.

No-kill shelters are the wave of the future, and it's a wave that is clearly building speed and height.

Though there are still a lot of grizzly on-the-ground stories, the direction and velocity of change is quite good thanks to Maddie's Fund and folks like Nathan Winograd.




And what about PetPAC, the start-up organization that appeared on the scene in 2007, just as a new California mandatory spay-neuter law was being introduced?

Well, it turns out that William Hemby, the founder, Chairman, and chief lobbyist for "PetPAC," has been named in a lawsuit filed by California's Attorney General. as part of a nationwide crackdown on fraudulent charities. The eighteen-page complaint can be read here.

This lawsuit does not deal with PetPAC, it should be noted, but instead deals with another organization called the Law Enforcement Apprenticeship Program (LEAP).

Hemby is named as a defendant director of LEAP, along with its for-profit fundraiser, Rambret Inc., for falsely promising contributors that their donations would be used to operate an apprenticeship program for at-risk youth.

In fact no such program was initiated, and no students were ever enrolled. Instead, the donations were used to pay for fundraising expenses, the personal expenses of the charity's directors, and for the purchase of a 30-foot sailboat.

Mr. Hemby is also connected, though not named, with another police charity being sued for fraud by California's Attorney General.

It seems that for more than 20 years, Mr. Hemby has been employed as Legislative Director of a San Bernardino-based organization called the "California Organization of Police and Sheriffs" (COPS).

The California Attorney General's Office alleges COPS falsely represented that donations to the organization would be used to benefit law enforcement officers, and that 100 percent of each donation would be received by the charity.

The organization said that contributions would be used to purchase bullet-proof vests, make grants to families of officers killed or injured in the line of duty, provide veterinary treatment for service animals injured in the line of duty, and for mentoring at-risk youths.

In fact, of the $30 million raised from 2005 to 2007, more than $25 million was spent on fundraising, and no money was spent on bullet-proof vests, no grants were made to families of officers, and less than $7,000 was spent on veterinary treatment for service animals. You can read the thirty-two page complaint here.

COPS operates out of offices in a strip mall shared by two other scam charities created by the same fundraising firm -- the "Disabled Firefighters Fund," and the "American Veterans Relief Foundation." All three "organizations" are named in the California Attorney's General's complaint alleging conspiracy to defraud California donors.

Kelley Moran, PetPAC's Campaign Director was also an employee of the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS). In fact, he was "Director of Political Affairs" for that organization for more than 10 years -- another link between PetPAC and COPS.

Make of that what you will; one thing is for certain: a lot of dog clubs have given money to PetPAC.

According to published reports, in FY 2007 PetPAC raised more than $424,000, and Mr. Hemby (who is listed as "owner" of the organization) was paid over $67,000.

What happened to the rest of the money?

Nothing nefarious is being suggested here, but under the circumstances, some of the donor organizations might want to ask for a thorough accounting.

It should be stressed that Pet PAC is not named in any current investigation, and has not been accused or implicated of wrong-doing by any government agency.

However, even if no financial problems are found with PetPAC, the fraud allegations that face Mr. Hemby and other LEAP defendants have implications for Mr. Hemby's new organization.

The reason for this is that along with damages and civil penalties, the State of California is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Mr. Hemby from controlling or directing the operations of any California nonprofit organization.

If the State prevails with that request, Mr. Hemby will be forced to disassociate himself from PetPAC -- if the organization survives at all.

Mr. Hemby's response to the California Attorney General's fraud charge is to say that it is all a smear campaign by Judy Mancuso, co-author of a proposed mandatory spay-neuter law in the California Senate (a law that this blog opposes, by the way)

If so, then Ms. Mancuso is more than a magician; she is also a time-traveler.

You see, there is no other way she could be responsible for Mr. Hemby's 20-year involvement with not one, but two organizations now charged with millions of dollars in fraudulent fundraising.

Bottom line: If you are interested in animal welfare organizations of any kind, be sure to really look into them. Who is the group speaking for? What is their track record? How much money has been raised, and where is it going?

A simple test is to ask yourself this: Is this organization more interested in the welfare of dog breeders, or is it more interested in the welfare of dogs? Has this organization stood up and spoken up to end exagerated features and inbreeding that lead to so much defect, disease and deformity?

Remember: The happiness of dogs has never been dependent upon the rights claims of dog breeders; it has always depended on an expanded sense of responsibility to do right by the dogs.

Sunday, August 02, 2009

The Kennel Club's Dalmatian Test



A while back, Ron Zimmerman wrote a very nice post for this blog entitled "The Dalmatian Club Embraces Purity and Pain."

Then in the August issue of Dogs Today, Claire Horton-Bussey had a very nice piece entitled "Pointing the Way to Better Health for Dalmatians."

That piece, it seems, has led two of the U.K.s largest newspapers to focus on the issue of Dalamatian health and the failure of The Kennel Club to allow healthier animals into the gene pool.

In a piece in today's The Daily Mail entitled "Spot the difference: One of these Dalmatians Will Be Healthy for Life So Why are Dog-lovers So Furious?, the reporter writes:


Around a quarter of the beloved animals - or 25.25 in every 101 - will suffer serious health problems during their lives, leaving them in agonising pain and facing an early death.

Now, with a little bit of cross-breeding, a healthy 'new' dalmatian, free from the defective gene that causes high levels of uric acid in their blood, has been created.


In another piece in today's Telegraph, entitled "Can Kennel Club Change Its Spots Over New Dalmatian?" the reporter notes


The Kennel Club is coming under growing pressure to accept the new dalmatian as an official pedigree, in its first major test since a row over allegations that inbreeding was creating 'deformed and disabled' dogs led the BBC to boycott this year's Crufts show.


Kennel Club spokesperson Caroline Kisko says a decision on whether to admit the new healthier Dalmatians will be made at The Kennel Club's September board meeting.

With Patrick Bateson's report due in December or January, this will be an early test of whether The Kennel Club can do the obviously right thing. Stay tuned!
.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Coffee and Provocation

Dogs More Like Us Than Chimps?
Are dogs more like us than chimps? Maybe. Jozsef Topal of the Institute for Psychology at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences says so, in any case: "In my view, pet dogs can be regarded in many respects as 'preverbal infants in canine's clothing,'" he says, adding that many dog-owner relationships mirror human parental bonds with children. >> More here

Healthy Dalmatians?
Healthy Dalmatians? There's an idea! Here's the back story for those trying to keep up. Want to help set things right? Here's a start: an ipetition to the AKC asking them to allow backcross Dalmatians to be registered.

The Sibley Guide to Birds is Now Online:
Good news: the Sibley bird guides are now on line. Yes! Yahoo!

The Ironic Death of an Organic Farming Guru & Health Nut:
Jerome Irving Rodale was the founder of the organic food movement, the publisher and creator of Prevention magazine, and the author of a huge book on composting that my father used to own. In 1971, he told interviewer Dick Cavett that he'd live to 100. Moments later, the 72-year old Rodale slumped dead in his chair from a heart attack. That episode of The Dick Cavett Show was never broadcast.

Gouldian Finch:
There are now far more Gouldian Finches in captivity than there are in the wild. How many other animals is this true of? The Siberian Tiger, and most other subspecies of Tiger I think. The Hyacinth Macaw, I am pretty sure. Cotton-top Tamarins. Anything else??

Different Strokes:
The opening of the old TV show, with different music. Yes, music does make a difference!

50 Things Every 18-year-old Should Know:
Basic stuff we should all know. Now, what are the 50 things a 50-year old should know?

God Hates Figs!
Yes, you read that right. God hates figs. See Mark 11: 12-14 and Matthew 21: 18-20 and Jeremiah 29:17 for conformation. I am pretty sure God loves everything else, however!

First Gorillas, Now Orangutans:
National Geographic says a large population of over 2,000 Orangutans has been discovered in Borneo. This follows the new discovery of a very large (100,000) population of Lowland Gorillas found in the Congo last year.

.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Psychology and Politics of Breed Clubs



Ron Zimmerman, a previous guest blogger on Dalmatians, writes this week about the psychology and politics of breed clubs:


Two years ago, Terrierman Patrick wrote a review of the movie "Best in Show" that was also a brilliant commentary on the psychology of people who show dogs. I strongly recommend you read that piece as preface to what I am about to say.

For people who breed show dogs and show them, a very large part of their lives is consumed by that activity, and a tremendous attachment to the dogs develops. Winning becomes proof that one has value in life for producing this wonderful animal. Winning becomes practically a reason to exist. Making money isn't the objective. I have seen people spend hundreds of thousands, with little if any return expected, just for winning. You could call it the thrill of winning, or the prestige of winning, but it is more than either of these. It is a validation, a vindication. The degree of prominence one achieves in showing becomes an important aspect of one's identity.

When showing a particular breed in a particular region, one is going to be competing against the same people - show after show after show. It becomes kind of a closed culture. Dogs not worthy to compete are referred to disdainfully as "pets". And the people who own them are similarly devalued as "pet owners".

The psychological criticism of dog show people isn't as much about them (I should say us) being so different from the "normal" population, as it is some kind of barometer of where we all stand as a culture and society. Even the ones who pride themselves as "not being a joiner" live in a context of desperation regarding their own form of the sacred blue ribbon. I wrote a retrospective once of my favorite aunt which included the observation that - it was very important to her for people to think that it wasn't important to her what people think. We are all blind to our own efforts and our own motivation to be thought of in the way we want to be, and we all deny that's what we're doing.

50 shows per year is not uncommon (2 or three shows in a weekend). And spending a thousand dollars per weekend is not uncommon - with gas, hotel, food, entry fees, grooming products, the pro-rated cost of having a special vehicle for that purpose, etc. Of course you can save by buying a hundred thousand dollar RV, which uses several times as much gas, and the hookups cost about the same as a motel room.

No, it's not about making money, but it is about getting value from the money you spend.



About Breed Clubs

First, you should understand the role of the parent or national breed club. Each breed has one - sanctioned by the AKC in America or the KC in Britain. This group in a very real sense has responsibility for the design of their breed. The clubs control this by being the repository of the standards for conformation and to a somewhat lesser extent for performance competition (depending on how restricted various types of performance are to particular breeds).

So, you and I, as the owner of a purebred dog, are at the mercy of the parent breed club for the form, function,and health of our dog.

Control of the standard is very important, and most clubs have on-going discussion and arguments about this (sometimes heated), although standards are rarely changed - mostly because of the difficulty to reach consensus.

Why is it difficult to reach consensus? Because any change is going to favor the "lines" of some breeders and disfavor other lines. And success in the show ring has a lot to do with power in the breed club. Those who have been successful under the current system, the ones with power, are generally the guardians of the status quo.

In fact, with regard to exaggeration in breed characteristics, it might be said that breeders look at what characterizes their breed, and usually want to make the distinctive features more pronounced. They phrase that as an objective and then keep making it more and more extreme. It could also be said that the breeders who shape the breed are always looking for a competitive advantage, and one way to do that is to give more importance to what characterizes their line.

The breed club has responsibility for the health of the breed in many obvious and non-obvious ways. Not only does the standard dictate health, but the parent club gets to decide what research is supported and pursued relevant to the issues and problems of that breed. Most parent clubs have a charitable arm or "foundation" which among other things approves money for research, and is one of the first places researchers go when looking for money.

What role does the AKC and KC play in this drama? Historically very little. Why should they? Their objectives are primarily financial, and the relationship between breed health and income are very tenuous in the short term. If you've worked for a company, you know that this year's income is much more important than next year's income. The KC has recently taken more of an interest in breed health, with a little encouragement, at least according to their press releases, but the AKC doesn't yet seem to have gotten the message at all. They think it is right and proper to leave the design of the breed in the hands of the wonderful people in the parent breed club.

The breed club is charged with acting in the interest of the breed, and each one has a statement of purpose or vision which at least pays tribute to that objective. In reality, people are much more motivated by self interest.

So how are self interest - and the welfare of the breed in conflict? Patrick has alluded to this being about money, and I want to say that it is much more about prestige and power than actual money.

Most research into health issues is related to genetics. And studying the relationship between genetics and health problems, is among other things almost invariably going to result in a recommendation to not breed dogs that are affected by the health condition or closely related to dogs affected. Actual genetic tests for a condition are rare, and expensive to develop, so breeding away from affected individuals and relatives is, in most cases, the best that can be done - if the condition is known to be genetically influenced.

This of course restricts genetic diversity in a scenario where genetic diversity is very limited to start with, and some will make that argument as a reason to remain uninformed about cause and effect.

Resistance to genetic research, information, is incredible. And note that the "charitable foundation" for a breed club is controlled not by the members, but by the governing body - those with power and prestige under the status quo.

In the Dalmatian club, for example, there was an initiative for research into a certain condition suspected to be genetically distinguished. The resistance in the club to genetic research and the arguments against it were incredible in my opinion.

Some people said - it's more likely to be related to nutrition and environmental conditions like stress, so we should put our research money there, not into genetics.

Others said - as far as we know all are equally at risk, therefore there's no reason to not breed even affected individuals, because most likely the risk is the same.

My breed club has an election coming up very soon, and on the official club email list, "campaigning" or making references to candidates candidacy or their qualifications is forbidden. I guess it's not considered polite, in the same way the AKC doesn't consider it polite to criticize judges and actively discourages that.





For the record, I completely agree with Ron that showing dogs is mostly about the human need for competition and the self-identification and ego gratification that comes with that. There is not a lot of money in breeding show dogs. Breeding show dogs will not help you pay for your mansion.

That said, there is some money to be made in breeding dogs. Though it it not enough money to attract people like me (or you, I will bet), it does attract some folks who are lower on the economic food chain, and it does attract the American Kennel Club which is only too eager to attract and recruit commercial puppy farm breeders if for not other reason than to help prop up their failing economic model. And, of course, someone is paying for all those kennel ads at the back of all those canine publications.

Though show dog breeders may not be getting rich, my experience is that many are breeding dogs to defray their show ring expenses -- payments to professional handlers, payments on motor homes and hotels, veterinary expenses, etc.

With "hobby" expenses of several thousand dollars a year, selling puppies is a significant part of the economic engine driving the show ring model. If show ring folks could not sell their current crop of dogs because an AKC standard had been changed in order to improve canine health, that would be a serious economic hit.

Finally, I think there is another reason Clubs are resitant to breed standard changes and a focus on health issues; it is a negation of their own life and their own expertise.

What does it say about the breed club and its breeders that the dog they claim to love so much is now in such dismal shape?

Dogs are not dying young and in pain because they are committing suicide.

Entire breeds have not been wrecked by accidental vehicle impacts.

No, the story here is quite a bit sadder than that.

It is a story about a lot of people with misplaced priorities intentionally breeding dogs, and the horrific results they have achieved despite decades and decades of putative expertise "in the breed."

For these folks to admit that the results achieved have been a collective disaster has a huge emotional cost attached to it.

They are in the same position as the person who has given this or her entire life to a company only to be fired in humiliation, or the wife who has been married for 25 years who comes home to find her husband in bed with another man. Was the whole thing a joke? A charade? A huge waste of ? Did this investment of my life mean nothing?

Little wonder that a lot of people are willing to do almost anything not to have to face those questions!

.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Barack Obama, Ordinary Consumer



Sometimes you are President of the United States, and sometimes you are just one more confused guy on the bus.

That's what Barack Obama is learning as he struggles to select the only Presidential appointment which has a better-than-zero chance of crapping on his carpet in the oval office.

Like most good consumers, Barack and family have gone out and gotten an all-breed book to help them with the selection effort. Because Malia has allergies, and because Barack does not want a small yappy dog, the choice has predictably come down to two breeds: a Portuguese Water Dog and a Labradoodle.

Both dogs are, at their core, curly-coated hunting retrievers of nearly identical lineage.

In 1981 the Portuguese Water Dog was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the rarest breed of dog on earth. It was just about that time that an American vacationing in Portugal discovered the dog, brought a few back to the U.S., bred them, got them registered with the America Kennel Club, and their number skyrocketed.

What happened next is predictable: the dogs became deeply inbred, and a doubling down of recessive genes resulted in congenital defect and disease bubbling to the surface.

The first disease to rear its head was Gangliosidosis, or storage disease, which attacks the nerve cells of young puppies and causes a loss of coordination and body functions which kills the dog.

No sooner was this recessive gene discovered, than Addison's Disease reared its ugly head -- an endocrine disease in which the dog loses weight, energy and muscle mass.

As bad as these two problems are, more health care problems lie in wait for the Portuguese Water Dog as inbreeding within the American Kennel Club's closed registry system is required for a dog with so few numbers.

And yet, the Labradoodle and the Portuguese Water Dog look so much alike than one is hard pressed to differentiate one from another.



Why is this?

The answer lies in the fact a Portuguese Water Dog is little more than an unimproved Standard Poodle, while a Labradoodle is nothing more than a Standard Poodle that has been crossed with a Labrador Retriever to degrade the dog back to its less refined prototype -- a Portuguese Water Dog.

So how are the dogs different?

Simple: their registry (or lack thereof).

While the Portuguese Water Dog is a American Kennel Club registered dog that started with less than two dozen members bred within a closed registry system, the Labradoodle is a planned hybrid, with many scores of thousands of potential dams and sires on each side of its family tree, and no inbreeding at all as a consequence. The result is, by and large, a healthier dog that is unlikely to be burdened by a doubling down of negative recessive genes leading to epidemic levels of congenital defects. The same cannot be said for the Portuguese Water Dog.

The genetic benefits of hybrids -- both in terms of health and production -- are widely known, and in fact most of our agricultural plants and animals on our farms are hybrid animals for that reason.

Why hybrids? Simple: A long time ago, it was found that purebred animals kept in closed gene pools suffered drops in production over time. In some cases, the animals became unfecund, in others they ended up with weak hocks, thin structure, or a propensity to die from minor illnesses. A simple outcross generally put things right again.

But outcrosses are banned in the American Kennel Club which still embraces a "not a drop of foreign blood" theory of breed purity. The fact that this phrase sounds so much like that used by white supremacists, is not an accident.

The U.K. and American Kennel Clubs are built on the eugenics theories of Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin.

The American Kennel Club simply copied the structure and standards of the British Kennel Club and added their own eugenics man to help sell the deal -- Leon F. Whitney, a veterinarian and prominent dog writer who went on to become head of the American Eugenics Society.

Whitney is so important to the history of the AKC that when the American Kennel Club published Our Dogs: A Century of Images and Words from the AKC Gazette in 2003, they specifically included an essay by Whitney despite the fact that the 151-page book was already crowded with more than 100 color photos. Rarely said: Whitney was so focused on eugenics theories that he called for the sterilization of one in twelve Americans -- an idea that was praised by no less a sociopath than Adolph Hitler.

Science, of course, moves forward, and the eugenics theories of Francis Galton and Leon F. Whitney did not survive World War II.

But the American Kennel Club has held on to its closed registry system.

Why?

The answer is largely economic.

Let's look at the Dalmatian, by way of example. Here is a dog with very serious health problems, chief among them a jaw-dropping level of congenital deafness, and also a tendency to build up uric acid crystals leading to blockage which often requires veterinary attention. In chronic cases in male dogs, a uresthrostemy is necessary. This is a procedure in which the scrotum of the dog is removed and the urinary tract of the dog is permanently relocated to the base of the penis so that the male dog urinates like a female.

Ouch!

The good news is that about 30 years ago, a backcross program with Pointers was put in place in order to create a dog that is visually and temperamentally indistinguishable from Kennel Club registered Dalmatians, but which do not have the same deafness and uric acid problems.

Though these dogs are healthier -- and are Dalmatians in every way -- the Kennel Club will not allow these dogs to be registered. Why? Simple: allowing "healthy Dalmatians" into the marketplace would make the less-healthy dogs that are owned by the top breeders of the Dalmatian Club less valuable. What customer wants to buy a dog from an "unhealthy" gene pool? No one!

And yet, today so many Kennel Club dogs are unhealthy that most Americans are now turning elsewhere for pets.

The graph below shows Kennel Club registrations.




Over 15 years, there has been a 53 percent decline. This is due to many factors, but a large part of the problem has been of the Kennel Club's own making.

For decades, the Kennel Club has ignored or stiff-armed critics who point out that dogs that were once working breeds are no longer found in the field.

AKC Greyhounds cannot be found at the track, AKC Huskies are not valued in Alaska, show ring terriers are laughed at by true diggers, no sheep man would think of buying an AKC collie to tend his flock, and entire registries have been developed to preserve working gundogs against the vagaries of show ring pretenders.

At the same that the working ability of AKC dogs has plummeted, rates of disease and congenital defect seem to have leaped through the roof.

Today breed after breed of AKC dog is riddled with serious health problems ranging from congenital heart and liver disease to juvenile cataracts, shot hips, and epilepsy.

Added to this stack of problems are serious health problems caused by intentionally breeding dogs for defect: brachycephalic dogs with faces so flat they cannot breathe (Pugs, Boston Terriers, English Bulldogs, and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels for example) and dogs suffering from achondroplasia, a kind of dwarfism linked to heart defects and joint ailments (Dachshunds, Bassetts, Glen of Imaal Terriers for example). And then we have the giant breeds, which are cancer bombs on four legs and which routinely die from gastric torsion, as well as the tiny "tea cup" breeds as their associated neurological, bone, and dental problems.

The AKC has fended off all critics, on both fronts, with a single line: "We are just a registry."

If there are problems, AKC officials sniff, then complaints should be directed to the breed clubs.

But the breed clubs are largely powerless within the Kennel Club's structure, and they are dominated by show dog breeders more interested in blue ribbons and green cash than they are in long-term canine health and welfare.

To hear these breeders talk, the health problems of pedigree dogs are never in their own kennels; they are in their competitions.

Oh sure, a dog or two of their own may come down lame, have juvenile cataracts, or die of cancer or liver disease at age three, but those problems are generally waved away. These things happen, they will say, ignoring the fact that they happen a LOT with Kennel Club dogs.

Ironically, the Kennel Club's "just a registry" defense sounded a lot like a business plan to many small-time entrepreneurs in middle America.

Armed with personal computers, and offering nothing more than a scrap of paper and no health guarantees, these new registreis said they would provide exactly that the AKC did -- a piece of paper -- for less.

And they did. And so, as quick as you can say "Bob's your uncle," dozens of new canine and pet registries sprang up.

Today, along with the American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club, we have:



  • The National Kennel Club

  • The Continental Kennel Club

  • The American Canine Association

  • The American Hybrid Canine Club

  • American Rare Breed Association

  • The American Dog Breeders Association

  • The American Canine Registry

  • The American Purebred Association

  • America's Pet Registry Inc.

  • The World Kennel Club

  • The Animal Research Foundation

  • The Universal Kennel Club International

  • The North American Purebred Dog Registry

  • The Dog Registry of America

  • The American Purebred Registry

  • The United All Breed Registry

  • The American Canine Association

  • The World Wide Kennel Club

  • The Federation of International Canines

  • Animal Registry Unlimited

With the American Kennel Club offering no health guarantees for their dogs, there did not not appear to be any reason for the public not to turn to these registries.

Adding fuel to the fire was the advent of the Internet. Dog owners and concerned dog breeders could now find each other through an endless litany of list-servs, breed bulletin boards, web sites, and blogs.

There was no longer any hiding the defects in Kennel Club dogs, even if the general public did not yet know the full extent of the problems.

A game changer occurred in August of 2008, however.

The good news for the American Kennel Club is that it happened in Britain.

The revolution was sparked by a BBC documentary called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. This television documentary did little more than put on film what canine experts had been talking about for decades, but putting it on film made all the difference.

Now the general public -- dog owner and non-dog owner alike -- could see what the Kennel Club had done done to the German Shepherd, a once-proud dog that in its show ring manifestation cannot walk around a ring without a wobble.

A Crufts-winning Pekingese was exposed as being so seriously compromised by its flattened face and excessive coat that at the ringside trophy photo-shoot, it was sitting on an icepack so it did not overheat.

Disturbing pictures of breeds suffering from serious and widespread congenital neurological defects were also shown. And though the producers of the BBC have been castigated by the Kennel Club for being "sensationalistic," the producers, in fact, held back.

They chose not to show the "rape racks" that female English Bulldogs are put into because they and their stud dogs are so grossly out of shape they cannot have sex unassisted or whelp without a veterinarian being present.

They did not show the fox terrier which is now so large in the chest it cannot reach its fox in the hole, nor did they make mention of cancer, which now strikes down over 40 percent of some breeds such as Scotties and Bernese Mountain Dogs.

But apparently they showed enough.

Due to the tremendous public response to the BBC special, the British Kennel Club has found itself reeling and on the ropes.

First denying there were any problems at all, they then said they had long known there were a few problems within a few breeds -- an obvious lie underscored by the finding of their own breed health surveys.

Now the U.K. Kennel Club has come out with mild modification to dozens of breed standards, and has also banned incestuous father-daughter/mother-son/brother-sister matings.

But here in the United States, the American Kennel Club has not taken even these baby steps forward.

Instead, AKC Chairman Ron Menaker has said that the American Kennel Club intends to aggressively reach out to back yard breeders and the puppy mill community.

Menaker says there is nothing wrong with puppy mills or dogs sold in pet stores or department stores -- he himself got started in dogs with a puppy purchased at Macys.

And as for puppy mills, he notes that the AKC has been registering puppy mill dogs "for the past 122 years" and "we have collected millions of dollars" as a result. Nothing new here! Full speed ahead, and never mind if it is into the rocks.

Which brings us back to Barack Obama and his lovely family.

If they choose a Portugese Water Dog, not only will they be choosing a seriously inbred dog at significant risk for health problems, but their choice is likely to speed up the incidence of those problems due to overbreeding which will occur to fill the market of "copycat purchasers".

On the other hand, if the Obamas chose a Labradoodle, they will be stepping outside of the closed-registry eugenics-based Kennel Club system to embrace a dog which cannot be damaged by that system, as it is not a registered breed.

It will also be another signal that the American Kennel Club has to change its business model -- something that the very top of the AKC seems to realize, but which it is nonetheless confused by.

In his missive to the American Kennel Club in September, AKC Chairman Ron Menaker noted that:

Today, we are losing market share at an alarming rate, especially in the retail sector. We are being challenged competitively and financially. The declining registrations and associated core revenues, if allowed to continue, will fundamentally change our organization going forward. Make no mistake, the very future of the AKC and our sport is at risk.

We can all remember some of the premier “name brands” and companies of the past, leaders in their field. The ones that we thought would be around forever. These giants, these household names, held the same standing as the AKC. Companies such as: Westinghouse, Pan American Airlines, Standard Oil Company, EF Hutton,
Woolworth’s, Montgomery Ward, just to name a few.

Sadly, Chairman Menaker seems to have no good idea of how to fix the problem,

Put out a better product? You must be kidding!

Only register adult dogs that have passed basic health tests? Good Lord NOoo!

Require lower Coefficients of Inbreeding? What's wrong with inbreeding?

Scrap standards that require deformity? But exagerations and deformities define so many breeds!

Open up closed registries so that healthy genes can be allowed to come in? But then we wouldn't have a purebreed --we'd just be selling .... mutts!

And so it goes, around and around, proving once again that the problems at the Kennel Club are deeper than inbred dogs.
.