The Price Of A Pedigree

[cycas]

I came across this report: http://www.advocatesforanimals.org/pdf/The...ofapedigree.pdf

 

It's about the many breed-related diseases and argues that current pedigree dog breeding practices are making things worse.

 

There's a table of vet costs for some popular breeds against a typical mongrel, and it also mentions the European Convention on Pet Animals, which I'd never heard of but apparently a number of other European countries are signatories, but not the UK.

[Trallwm farm]

Excellent article that confirmed what I and Nettie knew already

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEERHOUND LONG DOGS IN BLUE ARE PERFECT

[cycas]

DEERHOUND LONG DOGS IN BLUE ARE PERFECT

 

Hmm, my blue longdog just cost me 300 quid in vet bills... Must be because he's missing the deerhound bit !

[~Canis-Equus~]

Ive only skimmed it I'll admit...

 

it seems to say that pedigrees are vastly unhealthier than none pedigrees - which isnt really the truth, because any non pedigree is the product of its parents, who are products of their parents and so on... and since we have no idea what Mongrel A has in store, genetically for his new doting owners.... you really cant say 'ooh mongrels are healthier'...

 

A typical 'mongrel' youll find in any rescue, collie x gsd with varying degrees of collie, gsd, the odd splattering of retreiver or terrier...

 

Highly unlikely to ever be the product of Mr Posh Extremely Healthy GSD and his lady love Mrs Terribly Conformationally Correct (for soundness, stuff the breed standard) Collie...

 

My own 'im nearly a collie sort of with a gsd daddy and some spaniel'...

 

Has horrendous hind leg conformation, he is cow hocked (his hocks point at one another and mostly touch), he walks with a waddle that suggests highly to me that his hips are horrendous, he has little lung capacity or heart room due to his extremely deep and painfully narrow chest, which leads to his front legs appearing to come out of the same 'hole', his front pasterns are very long and sloping which will long term cause front leg problems.... he has a wonky eye v similar to those seen in badly inbred collies (especially in merle to merle matings despite the fact he is not merle)...

 

I would expect him to suffer eye problems later in life, i will guarantee he will get some degenerative hind leg problem or hip problem...

 

Thats just one, if i list the rest of MY dogs, plus my best friends dogs...

 

1: Leela, collie x probably spaniel

 

Poor hind leg conformation leading to cruciate ligament damage, she will likely need both operating on soon. Several thousand pounds worth of surgery for that.

Rapidly going blind due to dry eye and some as yet unknown eye condition. On going treatment needed to keep her pain free, cannot halt or reverse the damage done.

 

Shes 2.

 

2. Rocky - lip fold infection due to conformation (short blocky face, long wiry fur). Requires on going medical treatment, possibly expensive surgery in the future.

 

3. Dilly - life time treatment required for various allergies.

 

So far, Abby is the healthiest dog... if we excuse the repeat removal of possibly cancerous lumps.

 

I dont doubt that narrowing gene pools, highly contradictory breed standards, bizarre ideas from breeders... all contribute towards unhealthy pedigree dogs.

 

But I will say that the idea that pedigrees are LESS healthy than mongrels is flawed, simply, we know what to expect from our pedigrees where we we are more or less in the dark with our mongrels.

[redditchlady]

My computer doesn't like the linky sorry. But if it's what I think it is getting at then breeds have been wrecked by "trying" to get the best "specimen."

 

As an example Max is a GSD, long coated. My lad is 13 next month, he has perfect hips, excellent temperament, but no good in the show ring, as he is long coated, a huge fault. He is from good stock however.

 

He did agility and obedience until he was 8 years old then he got bored and he wasn't enjoying it so that was it. I will still say the GSD breed has been wrecked by "breeders" trying to get that perfect specimen.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Sorry if I have got the example wrong as I couldn't see it.

 

Kazz xx

 

Edited to add that Max now is on wheels for CDRM, not a fault from his breeding.

Edited October 14, 2007 by redditchlady

[cycas]

Ive only skimmed it I'll admit...

 

it seems to say that pedigrees are vastly unhealthier than none pedigrees - which isnt really the truth, because any non pedigree is the product of its parents, who are products of their parents and so on... and since we have no idea what Mongrel A has in store, genetically for his new doting owners.... you really cant say 'ooh mongrels are healthier'...

 

See, that's what I had thought (mongrels will also have inherited diseases, just you don't know what they are), BUT - they quote the average vet spend / costs per year for an 'average' mongrel (data from Churchill Insurance), and it's waaaaay lower than any of the breeds they quote (there may of course be breeds not mentioned that are comparable with mongrels in terms of vet treatment).

 

Mongrel average spend is £403 per year on a life expectancy of 16 years : average spend for a lab is £505, £732 for a Boxer. £768 for a Rottie, and average age for most of the dogs quoted is only 12, and that includes the JRT, if you were thinking that it was the size difference. (Great Dane as you'd expect is way up with £1697 average spend per year)

 

This does rather suggest that the old 'mongrels are healthier' thing really does have some legs to stand on - considering dogs on average, rather than individuals- obviously there will be exceptions to any rule. We look at a mongrel and see, as you say, GSD or collie or springer or whatever, but I think there is an argument that in fact sometimes what we are seeing there is just dog, the basic stock - rather than anything of any particular breed.

 

(slight detour, but I read up on the theory of soundness=conformation, and I was interested by this: http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm It's about the difference between function and conformation in Salukis. )

 

Kazz, there is a section on hip dysplasia and yes, you have the gist I think: this is part of it:

"Since hip and elbow dysplasia are known to be inherited, the ethical approach to breeding policy would surely be

to breed only from dogs that do not have the condition. A study by the Animal Health Trust on the effectiveness of

the scheme for Labrador Retrievers concluded, in 2002: "Offspring hip scores could be reduced substantially by using only

parents with zero hip score". However, breeders are free to decide whether or not to breed from a dog after screening.

The BVA restricts itself to recommending that only dogs with scores "WELL BELOW the breed mean scores" should be

used for breeding by breeders wishing to reduce the risk of hip dysplasia, and that only dogs with grade 0 or 1 for

elbow dysplasia should be used for breeding.

 

In the case of hip dysplasia it is obvious that, if the breed mean score is high, a dog with a score well below the mean may still be affected by the disorder."

 

It goes on to say that the official mean may actually not be correct, as particularly bad examples probably get screened out before they are seen by any central authority.

 

They also looked at a study that researched inbreeding and hip dysplasia in German Shepherds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Rough Collies, Rottweilers, Bernese Mountain Dogs and Finnish

Hounds and found that "for hip dysplasia, genetic trends between the years 1983 and 1998 were favourable only for the Rottweiler. and that 'the inbreeding of Golden Retrievers and Labrador Retrievers had actually increased quite markedly over the period studied... It was found that for the Labrador and German Shepherd Dog, there was a considerable effect of inbreeding on hip dysplasia, such that the most

heavily inbred dogs had the worse joints."

Edited October 15, 2007 by cycas

[khanu]

Having said on one hand that not all dogs are hip scored, how can they then draw any real conclusions from the hip score data?

 

I find it hard to believe that any "normal" pet dog owner will have their dog (pedigree or not) hip scored. So how they can possibly draw conclusions from it I don't know. I'm surprised it states that hip/elbow dysplasia is known to be inherited as all the stuff I've read suggests that it is unlikely to be purely hereditary but a combination of factors (as most things are), personally I would think environment has an awful lot to do with hip scores. Then there's the added problem of a hip score changing over time, scores are supposed to be done at 12months, but depending on the breed and intentions of the owner (maybe they decide to take up agility with an older dog, then decide to hip score) many will be done older than this and have a worse score than they would at 12 months etc etc.

 

The fact is a dog will inherit from it's parents, pedigree or not. At least if the parents are health screened you have some idea of what may be produced. I have known GSDs that come from generations of very low hip scores and have incredibly high hip scores themselves. It isn't as easy as the article would suggest to merely breed from zero scored parents.

 

Say your parent dogs have zero hips scores but high elbow scores, or the male tested positive for haemophilia - do you breed from them because their hip scores are zero - of course not! You choose the best all round dogs - and ones that compliment each other, in the hope that their progeny will inherit the best of both. Of course it is just a hope as genetics are far far more complicated than that, but good breeders will look far back into the history of the intended parents to see what they are likely to carry etc. And that is probably the biggest problem we have for dogs health. Most people will not be buying their pedigree puppy from a breeder that has done extensive research, had dogs health screened etc. Most will be buying from the bloke down the road who has 2 labs, or the puppy farm, or the pet shop, where lets face it long term health issues aren't exactly top of the priority list, or maybe they might go to the rescue centre where you have even less of an idea of what you're getting since the parents for the most part will be completely unknown.

 

As for statistics from insurance companies I suspect they'll be scewed by the number of dogs in each breed category anyway, plus the fact that most dogs will have come from BYB and puppy farms -plus the article is obviously in favor of mongrels and has chosen data to verify their findings, from looking at that data I would suggest that GSDs came lower as they have left out a popular breed from the list and one they have mentioned in the article itself, I expect a few breeds came out lower..... They also say that breed dispositions are a problem for modern life, and it can be I'm sure. Personally though I'd rather have a idea of what a dog might be like to live with - with a mongrel puppy you'd be pretty hard pressed to make a judgement unless you had some idea of what the parents were like. I like shepherds, they fit with my life style and what I wish to do with my dogs. Bull breeds wouldn't, I like them and all but they aren't for me - I know this and therefore don't' have any bull breeds! Problems occur because people don't' bother to look into what living with a particular dog would be like, not because the breed themselves are the problem.

 

"Advocates for Animals believes that many veterinary practitioners are concerned about the health and welfare implications of pedigree breeding but feel unable to voice these concerns in public, since a large proportion of the dogs they treat are pedigrees."

That reads to me that they have perhaps spoken to one or two vets (presumably one is Emma Milne, since the xrays are credited to her, who is well known for her dislike of pedigree dogs and her opinion of "healthy" mongrels) and had their own views confirmed, they certainly don't give an evidence for this sweeping statement.

 

But I'm in camp of well researched, health tested breeding is ok (with a whole load of other provisos, but that's the gist). Certainly it would be helpful if the breed standards left less room for interpretation, if health screening was enforced. If dogs had to pass health, confirmation and temperament tests (like Germany) before they were allowed to be bred etc. However I think the real difference would be seen if only people would only buy from decent breeders. It's all very well blaming those that show their dogs and the Kennel Club, but really most of the pedigree dog population has come from BYB and puppy farms.

 

If you take their argument to it's logical conclusion where all dogs are mongrels, as pedigrees as we know them are outlawed, you would still get the same problems. The genes for these problems exist, they will always exist, you'll get some lucky dogs that have no problems, some that have loads - just like you do now with pedigrees. Puppy farms will still exist, probably BYB will be more rife as everyone will have the right "type" of dog (there being no type anymore) and since it isn't necessary to health screen anymore as mongrels are always healthy we will probably have a crippled dog population. Brilliant!

[~Canis-Equus~]

Mmm.... you can make statistics say anything you want though really.

 

My maths is unfortunately rubbish but id bet there are more pedigrees insured than there are mongrels which skews things in favour of mongrels for starters.

 

Then, i wonder how many pedigrees got treated for conditions their owners were aware they are at risk of, compared to mongrels whose owners were unaware of such conditions and didnt think they were serious .... for instance... limpy sore leg in a 7 year old Deerhound.. Id be thinking 'eek, bone cancer'...... limpy sore leg on a 7 year old mongrel, that owner more than likely wouldnt.

 

(im not for a second suggesting mongrel owners dont treat their dogs as well as pedigree dog owners)..

 

I have to say the fact Emma Milne is involved does put me off.. thats not sensible of me, but BOY has she got an axe to grind about pedigree dogs and how horrific they are (coming from a person who thought it wise to buy two working collie type litter brothers from a farm with no health checks, and then let them get fat..... she doesnt talk 'dog sense' to me!)

[mum24dog]

Max now is on wheels for CDRM, not a fault from his breeding.

 

I'm not sure how you can say that.

He is a GSD because of his breeding.

GSDs are extremely prone to CDRM.

If there were no inherited element then GSDs would not be at higher risk than any other breed.

 

Pam

[Laurel n Hardy]

mine seem to be allright with no such 'breed related problems' so far

 

Cliffy is a minature wire haired daschund (which are prone to back weakness from overbreeding to get the length required) which is why he is not allowed up and down the stairs or to jump on or off anything

 

Archie & Tessie are both pure Westies and have no issues or health problems to date.

 

I know of plenty pure breeds with lots of inherited problems as well as crosses or mongrels.

 

but is this a result of the breed itself, or a mismatch of the breeders desiging dogs to suit their purposes and not the poor animals

 

when I was born we had an Alsation (still cant call them GSD's) who was tall, had a straight back and supple hips, looked perfect in every way, she would stand out like a sore thumb these days when you see how the breed has been allowed to degenerate in the last 30 years or so.

 

Mongrels are no different either some are fit n fine with no health issues, others are weak from the start and just get worse as they age.

[redditchlady]

I'm not sure how you can say that.

He is a GSD because of his breeding.

GSDs are extremely prone to CDRM.

If there were no inherited element then GSDs would not be at higher risk than any other breed.

 

Pam

 

 

Fine I understand that. All GSD's have a chance of it. After having Sheps for 20 odd years I would imagine I know that!

 

And of course he is a GSD because of his breeding like we are humans because of ours.

 

It isn't like he has HD though is it. Edited to add I knew his parents and they died of old age, not CDRM.

Edited October 16, 2007 by redditchlady

[AmandaUK]

It should be kept in ind that plenty of mongrel/crossbred dogs are also sufferring from what would be considered hereditary problems. I have 2 friends who each have out and out mongrels sufferring badly with epilepsy. Another friends has a crossbreed which looks to have a little GSD in it and she has a severe heart murmur at only 2 years old...prognosis not good.

 

I also know of JRT cross with early heart problems and severe alergy.

[mum24dog]

It isn't like he has HD though is it.

 

I would say yes. They both have a higher incidence in some breeds than in others.

And they're both conditions from which dogs don't actually die. They are usually pts when their quality of life deteriorates to an unacceptable level.

 

Pam

[Ingrid]

Genetics is a otal minefield !

 

I know someone who has 2 GSDs, full brothers but 2 years apart, both parents had tested clean for everything, yet the older one has severe HD whilst the younger is totally ok.

 

From my own experience a few years back I had 2 dogs, one a pedigree and one an out and out mongrel, the pedigree hardly went to the vets whilst the mongrel cost me a fortune due to having several congenital problems.

[redditchlady]

I would say yes. They both have a higher incidence in some breeds than in others.

And they're both conditions from which dogs don't actually die. They are usually pts when their quality of life deteriorates to an unacceptable level.

 

Pam

 

And Max has quality of life, he walks for 10 to 15 minutes 3 or 4 times a day. Longer walks to keep up with Mandy and Korky are about an hour or so.

 

But off the record I have had Max from 8 weeks old and he will live forever. When he isn't happy with his quality of life, then then is the time, but it isn't now.

 

Kazz