Interventions for anatomical soundness and

avoidance of extreme phenotypes

Interventions for anatomical soundness and avoidance of

extreme phenotypes

Dr Göran Bodegård. The Swedish Kennel Club

The 1rst Int Workshop on Enhancement of Genetic Health in Purebred Dogs, 2-3 June 2012

Should a new quality grade at shows conceptualize and

emphazise the respect for breed type exaggerations?

Very good Excellent

?????

Good

Insufficient

Basic assumptions

• The phenotype (what the judge can observe in the ring!) is genetically determined!

• The dog show winners are the preferred breeding stock.

• The genotype is influenced by the selections by show judges.

Do dogshows really lead to

breeding of unsound dogs?

Are exaggerations in breed type rewarded by show judges so

development towards defects is promoted?

A magnificent Best of Breed dog!

But…??!!

The standard asks for:

Eyes shall be dark, oval

in shape and

middle sized and sound.

No standard describes an unsound dog!

”Skin supple and elastic without any exaggerations” Is this open to interpretation??

” not excessively coated…coat not obscuring the shapelines of

body..”

Breed standards never ask for exaggerations

But are they good enough to protect

breeds against type exaggerations? Descriptions of type are easily misused

and overinterpreted

Can internationally accepted breed standards improve the protection?

Yes but only if they are adequately respected!

The boxer breed standard is ”international” and explicit enough

The muzzle shall be one third of the length of the head

Perfekt

But do judges sufficiently respect the standard or are the extremes preferred?

1/3 1/4

<1/4

1/5 These four dogs are all champions

Dog shows have exaggerated the brachocephalic characteristics

• This leads to increased risk for developing the brachocephalic syndrome

• Judges (and breeders in an unhealthy alliance!) at present obviously lack in respect for the fact that the basis is a defect gene and that exaggeration of type is dangerous.

The aims of FCI

are to encourage and promote the breeding and use of purebred dogs

whose functional health and physical features meet the standard set for

each respective breed …

Thus all FCI-accepted breeds should be supported and

a breed cannot be discarded because

its type is due to a defect-gene causing

undsoundness….

But the society (polititians - laws) can

prohibit ”unsound” breeds.

We ( breeders, judges and clubs) have

to save the situation.

Are changes of standards necessary?

• The English KC has implemented revisions of standards regarding health detrimental breed type characteristics.

• The FCI has the same ambition but the process is slower since the countries of origin of the breeds own the standards and must agree.

Charmigt eller tragiskt?

Charming or miserable?

• Some exaggerations are apprehended ( by breeders, judges and loving owners) as normal breed characteristics when they in fact are symptoms of - as in this case - the brachocephalic syndrome caused by selecting for a genetic defect. ( R Packer et all 2012)

• This is primarily a human psychological problem creating canine misery.

• How to change the human needs for emotionally based myths when they create cynological misery?

Is it possible to make the Dog Show Sport a sustainable support for healthy purebred dogs? As long as judges disregard the standards and breeders idalize the type exaggerations?

The responsibility for the influence (good

or bad) of the dogshows on the breeding is

shared by:

1. Judges - their knowledge regarding typ and health

2. The kennel clubs: education of judges, policies for

invitation of judges and increasing number of shows (

causing dog show ”addiction”).

3. Show committees in their choices of judges. Are

commersial ambitions prevailing?

4. Breeders and Breed Clubs. - Their integrity can

provide a protection against show trends and

glamorous merits. – Is the attitude to ”breed

characteristics” adequate or idealized?

We have to focus the responsibility of the show

judges!

Judges shall judge for excellent type but must be

educated to assess the health and soundness aspects

which can be observed in the ring.

Other genetic perspectives do not concern the judges’

responsibility

What is the best goal for the contemporary education of show judges?

• To make the judge able to pose a question in front of a dog in the ring: ” How is this dog coping with the legacy of its breed type and at the same time living up to the biological demands of being a healthy and sound animal?”

• Does this make him a pseudo vet? Or can he continue to practise ”the art of judging dogs”? Is there necessarily a conflict?

The alternative…

• is to place the responsibility for health and soundness on the veterinary medical expertise and institute a censorship similar to the principle at present introduced by the K C.

The FCI show judges code of committment to the wellfare of purepred dogs

Sets the new frames and mandate for the show judges.

This actually states a new paradigm!

This code of commitment was approved by the FCI General Committee in Dortmund, October 2010 and cames into force as from January 1 2011.

The new paradigm

• The show judge shall not any longer only evaluate the result of breeding

• The judge must also integrate the health and soundness aspects with regard to a dog’s potential value (or harm!) for future breeding

Judges can fight the negative

development

• By early identification of undesirable trends and exclude

animals with exaggerations from high awards.

• By guarding the characteristics of each breed within the

frames of the standards and never at the expense of

soundness and health.

• By integrating the new view regarding

breeds whose types are based on

defects- genes.

How to create an international

unanimous language and respect

for the deletarious effects of

exaggerations in showdogs?

The best and fastest ways?

• The dog show sport is global and is thus ( principally )a fast and practical channel for consensus ambitions?

• Aiming for internationally valid breed standards? Which are completed with

• Breed Specific Instructions (BSI) for judges regarding areas of risk due to exaggerations in pedigree dogs?

• Different lists of high profile risk breeds are already used in several countries since many years. – Do they work?? - No

• Structured evaluations and reports of what judges have observed are essential to make such lists functional. So far only two countries practise such routines..

• The Swedish Kennel club will advise the FCI to instruct all member countries to create a detailed instrument (BSI) in which the judges’ responsibilities against trends of unhealthy breed type exaggerations are focused.

• The Swedish model for how to construct a BSI can be recommend

• But each country shall make the detailed list and instructions regarding high profile risk breeds which is reflecting the specific problems in each country

The BSI-instrument si at best based on

five pillars.

• A group of experienced judges select a number of high

risk breeds

• The pertinent breed clubs are approached for initiating a

(continous) dialogue

• Veterinary expertise and insurance statistics are

consulted and this information is updated

• The national judges collective is approached for

commenting on the selected breeds.

• compiled information from the judges’ evaluations.

The BSI document is accessible to all and is thus

containing

1) The list of the high profile breeds

2) The detailed information regarding each of the

selected breeds. This is formulated in agreement with

the breed club.

The BSI

• Aims at raising the awareness about the areas of risk

due to exaggerations in breed type prefered at shows.

• These Breed Specific Instructions shall be

recommendations and not rules and are not a

manual linking faults to certain awards.

• The BSI respects at the same time the ”art of judging

dogs” and the demands to inspect dogs for health and

soundness

The BSI routines

• Judges are contracted to make a report/evaluation after each assignment of any of the listed breeds.

• The reports are compiled and statistically worked through and also sent to the breed clubs

• The list of breeds and the text are regularly updated based on the four basic pillars and the compiling information from the reports.

Possibilities

• A continous survey of the occurence and changes of the areas of risk in the show population of the high profile breeds.

• A survey of changes in quality awards in these breeds.

• A survey of the compliance in judges to the BSI and thus their respect for the risks of exaggerations.

Advantages

• Everybody has access to the document!

• The ”democratic” dialogue between the kennel club authorities, the veterinary expertise, the judges and the breeders fosters a common attitude towards reparation and consensus is built up and authoritarian decrees are avoided.

• Internationally comparable information can be achieved

Is a centralised FCI BSI initiative at

all possible?

• The Swedish method is not possible to apply centrally from FCI since it demands intimate cooperation with the breed clubs in each country

• But FCI can recommend the members to apply the Swedish method nationally for creating their own version of the BSI with the pertinent national breed list and information

• A homogenous system (and terminology!) is then built for guarding show dogs soundness and international comparisons are made possible.

A new quality grade at shows ( ”Excessive”) conceptualizes the

breed type exaggerations and the risks of idealizing them.

Very good Excellent

Excessive

Good

Insufficient