Another reminder Pedigree Dogs Exposed BBC America

[Denise Wall]

Shows at 8PM and 11PM Dec 10, 2009

 

Check listings here:

 

http://www.bbcamerica.com/404.jsp

 

This hard hitting documentary prompted an impressive number of changes in the purebred dog breeding world. I asked Jemima Harrison, who produced this film, to list some of the most important changes that have come to pass since this documentary first aired in the UK. Here's her answer:

 

The most changes to date have come in the UK.

 

The KC will no longer register the progeny of father/daughter; mother/son

or full-sib matings (unless convinced of a strong scientific reason for

doing so).

 

The KC is running a prominent "fit for function, fit for life" campaign

It has made changes to 78 breed standards in order to discourage/reverse

exaggerations and has added the following clause to every breed standard:

 

 

"A Breed Standard is the guideline which describes the ideal

characteristics, temperament and appearance of a breed and ensures that the

breed is fit for function. Absolute soundness is essential. Breeders and

judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or

exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare

or soundness of this breed. From time to time certain conditions or

exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some

breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the

Kennel Club website for details of any such current issues. If a feature or

quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure."

 

 

the KC has commissioned an independent enquiry into dog-breeding that will

report in January. Headed by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson (a descendant of

William Bateson who coined the term "genetics") it is expected to make

strong recommendations regarding the need to preserve/improve genetic

diversity.

 

 

The APGAW report is downloadable from here:

http://www.apgaw.org/reports.asp

 

 

The RSPCA report is downloadable from here:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/issuesindepth/pedigreedogs

 

 

two other independent enquiries - one from the RSPCA and one an all-party

parliamentary group - have come to the same broad conclusions as the film -

that there are serious welfare problems that need to be addressed urgently.

Both have favoured self-regulation rather than new legislation and also

recognise that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

 

the KC has just signed up to the following welfare principles:

 

 

1) every dog should be born with the best possible chance of living a

healthy and happy life, well suited to its intended lifestyle

 

 

2) all those who breed dogs should prioritise health, welfare and

temperament over appearance when choosing which animals to breed, in order

to protect the welfare of both the parents and offspring

 

 

3) all those who benefit from dogs have a collective responsibility to work

together to protect dog welfare

 

 

the KC has announced that it is keen to allow the registration of the LUA

Dals and that objections from the breed club (requested by Dec 31) can only

be on the grounds of health and welfare (ie.not on the grounds of breed

purity). Although the KC has allowed some limited outcrossing in the past,

it is definitely being more proactive in this area. See also:

http://www.bsdaofgb.co.uk/inter-variety_breeding.htm

 

 

The KC has launched a new Canine Genetics Centre based at the Animal

Health Trust (the main developer of DNA tests in the UK)

 

 

The Animal Health Trust says it has had a "huge increase in breeders"

wanting to help in the development of new DNA tests since the programme.

 

 

The KC has improved judge's training inc that judges of gundog breeds must

attend field trials before being allowed to judge at Ch show level.

 

 

Breed clubs' Code of Ethics are no longer allowed to condone the culling

of healthy puppies that don't meet the breed standard.

 

 

The KC has withdrawn the allocation of CCs from GSDs in 2012, demanding

evidence that conformation problems in the breed are being tackled.

( http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2791/23/5/3)

 

 

Many more cavaliers are being MRI scanned for syringomyelia. (A three-fold

increase in the number of MRI-scanned dogs listed on the UK Club's website)

 

 

The KC has promised breed health plans for every breed. Part of this will

be an assessment of the genetic diversity of every breed. (Bit sceptical

about this last bit but they'll be nagged if they don't do it...)

 

 

The RSPCA is funding the University of Sydney to develop a

veterinary-based disease-surveillance scheme.

 

 

Just in case this sounds quite a lot, it isn't really. Mostly it's just

words. But the words ARE welcome and it feels like a corner has been turned

here.

 

 

AUSTRALIA

ANKC has said it will adopt the UK breed standard changes

ANKC is funding the Uni of Syndey to assess the level of inbreeding in

Australian dogs.

 

 

CANADA

the promise to review the amended UK KC breed standards of breeds of UK

origin (but don't think they've done anything!)

 

 

USA

AKC forms Health + Welfare Adivsory Council

(can't prove it but I think it is pre-emptive)

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3909

 

Jemima

[Sue R]

Thank you, Denise, for all this information and for all your time and effort in researching and compiling it. Let's hope that the outcome of Pedigree Dogs Exposed is, in the long run, beneficial to dogs worldwide.

[Denise Wall]

Thanks Sue but to be fair Jemima wrote the list for me. I've known her for several years through a couple of canine genetics lists. Her research was solid for this piece. It's stood up to scientific scrutiny and started or brought about many needed positive changes. As with anything this controversial, naysayers spread a lot of misinformation. I just wanted to provide information on some of the positive effects it's had. It's amazing how much impact this documentary has had in the UK.

[Mark Billadeau]

Denise,

 

I have provided Patrick Burns (Terrierman) a link to this thread; he may be inetrested in reading this list of changes.

 

Mark

[Denise Wall]

Thanks, Mark. I'm sure he's interested.

[Mark Billadeau]

He responded indicating that he frequently talks with Jemima.

[ejano]

I watched this documentary last night and I am glad to see that some good is coming out of it. The plight of the King Charles Spaniel as related in this piece is particularly sad. They are such a sweet little dog and their needless suffering is heart breaking. It continually amazes me that anyone would deliberately breed and sell a dog with so many health problems and, thanks to the efforts of the ABCA, I remain thankful for my wonderfully, happy, healthy dogs.

 

This is by no means the worst horror story about the AKC world, but it drove the point home for me: One of my obedience classes had a nice Aussie puppy from a rather popular breeder. Her owner proudly explained to me that this pup's mother had won breed and best in show titles even though one ear wasn't tipped correctly. They tried a number of things to get the ear pointed properly, including glue and clothespins (!) but eventually discovered if they pinched the ear quite hard just before the dog went into the show ring, it stayed tipped over just long enough for her to earn her titles and them the opening to sell some very expensive puppies, some of whom will have non-regulation ears, I'm sure. While he was snubbing his nose at my Brodie for his non-Tuxedo coat and his little bat ears, I had to wonder how many of that dog's progeny would be suffering similar treatment just for cosmetics.

[mum24dog]

I watched this documentary last night and I am glad to see that some good is coming out of it.

 

The KC and breeders whinged about being unfairly treated by the programme and this was the judgement of the regulatory body -

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8404169.stm

 

Pam

[bc friend]

Having had a cocker spaniel with numerous genetic problems, I'm glad to see the genetic health issues being brought out in a forum where more of the public can be informed. Although my Cassie did not have temperament problems and lived to the ripe old age of 17, there were many times I considered putting her to sleep might be the most humane thing to do - constant ear infections (misshapen ear canals), dry eye, eye ulcers, systemic yeast, luxating patellas, large papilloma warts, etc.

 

I have a lhasa rescue that has malformed heart valves - which I understand are common in his breed - and his prognosis is likely sudden death.

 

I plan to have another pb border collie when I feel I'm ready (too soon after losing Sara right now) - but health and temperament are two of my highest priorities.

 

Although I usually stay away from politics in the dog world, the description of these very ill dogs being best of breed or best of show kind of defeats the AKC's stance that show dogs can't be neutered since they are the best breeding stock!

 

I only wish the documentary had been shown on more mainstream U.S. broadcast channels.

[Debbie]

Just a little update on what is happening in Australia.

 

It is my understanding that any laws brought in to combat issues of inherited disease in dog breeding, would have to apply to all breeders and all dogs being bred. The government can not single out just kennel club breeders. So every breeder in the country is starting to feel the impact of this film and the related RSPCA push against dog breeding.

 

Some the states have already acted on this film with the assitence of the Uni of Sydney and the RSPCA to control and regulate dog breeding and it is directed at all dogs and breeders.

 

For example in the state I live in, there are now 40 pages of regulations on dog breeding. It reads as if it were about a large puppy mill breeding businesses, but it applies to any person of any litter of pups where any pup will be sold. It covers everything from the whelping boxes to when you can feed pups, health of parents, and responsibilities of breeders to buyers.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd...of-practice.pdf

Inherited disease is included, requiring all dogs bred to have current screening for any known inherited disease in the breed. I inquired as to what tests were required for border collies and they suggested I check with my vet. It is suggested that if legal action was brought against any breeder, that the disease in question would be researched by the prosecution to see if it occurred in the breed. They would not be supplying any lists, it was the breeders responsibility to know what diseases occur in the breed. If no exact tests were available for a particular disease, the dog should have a vet screening prior to any breeding for that disease with a written statement the dog was free of that disease. There was no answer on how clear by parentage information should be supplied to the buyer, and no information if dogs being bred to a DNA tested Normal dog had to also be tested. So far for working border collies, it is felt that Hips, Elbows, CEA, CL, TNS are required on both parents, with deafness, eye certs and a slew of other diseases all up in the air as far as prosecution would be applied towards breeders.

 

In the works

There is currently a move to impose the use of EBV for all breedings. All pedigrees of KC dogs have been data banked, so far there has been no move to acquire the pedigrees of breeds outside of the KC like the kelpies and working border collies, but it is felt this will happen. Over 200 vets in the state are now linked to the Uni and DX's made are sent to the Uni. It is suggested this information along with data collected from DNA testing will be data banked on each dog. EBV's of any planned breeding would be generated from this data bank. As I understand it, you would not be held to make or not make any breeding based on EBV results, however if something went wrong (pup with inherited disease)and you were prosecuted, the evidence of the EVB could be used to show recklessness in breeding.

 

There is also work in progress on breeders haveing insurance coverage on breeding stock from throwing inherited disorders, this is to protect the buyers who can then claim against the breeder. No mention of the cost to breeders and it is suggested they would only insure dogs that had certain health clearances and only litters with favorable EVB scores.

 

Working dogs are also under study at the moment, mainly focusing on welfare issues. The study has already shown that sheepdogs are often trained incorrectly, that modern positive training methods are not used, socialization and early training are often lacking. More information is due to be released soon.

 

So at least in Australia the film has been very effective. All breeders are now under very intense scrutiny to insure and to be held responsible for inherited disease. Laws have been made with more pending. Working border collies are part of the process and all we can do is wait to see how far all this goes and how it affects the future of the working dogs.

 

Some other related issues in the past weeks.

A breeder was raided by the RSPCA for showing a dog in public that had been debarked. Her dogs were seized and held for over a week so they could document the some of the dogs were debarked which the owner admitted to freely. She is awaiting prosecution.

There is move by the RSPCA to make a law that all owners must walk their dog every day for a period of time.

Flyball was banned at a recent RSPCA fundraiser due to it being a animal welfare concern, dogs could choke on tennis balls.

State legislation that would require all dogs be desexed unless owned by a registered breeder or was a registered dog was knocked back, but is going to be revisited. This would have made all farm bred unregistered sheepdogs to be desexed (which are the majority of working sheepdogs in this country). This same sort of law is under review in 2 other states. As I understand it this would make control of dog breeders much easier as they would all have to record their information as a registered breeder, who they are, dogs and litters and who bought their pups. All this information would all be available to the RSPCA and government.

 

 

Happy Holidays.

[bc4pack]

Can anyone say " The government is way too much in your business."?

 

Sometimes genetics can still be a crapshoot no matter how well the tests come back.

 

And some of this stuff is asinine... Trying to LEGISLATE walking your dog? Flyball is too dangerous? Puhleeeeeze!!!

 

Regulate breeders clear out of existence and S/N everything else.

 

Geesh!!!!

[Pam Wolf]

Can anyone say " The government is way too much in your business."?

 

Sometimes genetics can still be a crapshoot no matter how well the tests come back.

 

And some of this stuff is asinine... Trying to LEGISLATE walking your dog? Flyball is too dangerous? Puhleeeeeze!!!

 

Regulate breeders clear out of existence and S/N everything else.

 

Geesh!!!!

 

 

P.E.T.A.

[Denise Wall]

Just because some governments have gone way overboard in their reaction to PDE does not negate that the facts presented in the documentary are worthy for the public to know. Government over-reaction is not the fault of the documentary, it's the fault of the governments involved.

[Debbie]

Downunder Pedigree Dogs Exposed, Christmas Day Cheer, in the holiday news paper

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/hip-pain-a-...91223-lder.html

 

They are really exposing these show breeders big time for hip dysplasia! About time these show breeders took the blame for this disease and it made the news. I am pretty sure almost every ANKC dog breed can get HD too, not just the long back breeds (like border collies) they mentioned! The show border collies can get HD. So all the breeders can come under the Parliamentary Inquiry they want to have for this disease!

 

Thank goodness working border collies never get HD, so we have nothing to worry about.

 

 

Happy New Years

[Eileen Stein]

Debbie, I'm not sure I get your point (possibly because it's obscured by sarcasm?). If "dog breeds with relatively long bodies for their height were significantly more prone to hip dysplasia," as these researchers apparently found, wouldn't it make sense to discourage breed standards that specify and reward elongated bodies? Breed standards are totally arbitrary; why shouldn't they be set with health considerations in mind? Working border collie people would have nothing to worry about not because working border collies never get HD, but because we do not breed for "exaggerated physical traits," which is the practice being addressed by the documentary.

 

Also, you wrote:

 

For example in the state I live in, there are now 40 pages of regulations on dog breeding. It reads as if it were about a large puppy mill breeding businesses, but it applies to any person of any litter of pups where any pup will be sold. It covers everything from the whelping boxes to when you can feed pups, health of parents, and responsibilities of breeders to buyers.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd...of-practice.pdf

Inherited disease is included, requiring all dogs bred to have current screening for any known inherited disease in the breed.

 

I read the link you provided, and it does indeed sound like a lot of regulation if applied to people who breed just a litter or two a year. However, it is all general animal welfare stuff; none of the regulations seem to have anything to do with the subject matter of "Pedigree Dogs Exposed." True, there is one provision -- 10.1.2.2 -- which speaks about screening for any known inherited disease in the breed, but that is a Guideline, not a Standard. According to the Interpretations and Definitions section, "Standards describe the mandatory specific actions needed to achieve acceptable animal welfare levels. These are the minimum standards that must be met under law," whereas Guidelines are designed "to promote or encourage better care for animals" than what is legally required by the Standards. Thus, Sec. 10.1.2.2. would not be compulsory, and no screening for heritable diseases is required under the Standards. Who is telling you different?

[Debbie]

Debbie, I'm not sure I get your point (possibly because it's obscured by sarcasm?). If "dog breeds with relatively long bodies for their height were significantly more prone to hip dysplasia," as these researchers apparently found, wouldn't it make sense to discourage breed standards that specify and reward elongated bodies? Breed standards are totally arbitrary; why shouldn't they be set with health considerations in mind? Working border collie people would have nothing to worry about not because working border collies never get HD, but because we do not breed for "exaggerated physical traits," which is the practice being addressed by the documentary.

 

Hi,

I guess I am being sarcastic, really I am just very concerned.

 

<< If "dog breeds with relatively long bodies for their height were significantly more prone to hip dysplasia," as these researchers apparently found, wouldn't it make sense to discourage breed standards that specify and reward elongated bodies? Breed standards are totally arbitrary; why shouldn't they be set with health considerations in mind? Working border collie people would have nothing to worry about not because working border collies never get HD, but because we do not breed for "exaggerated physical traits," which is the practice being addressed by the documentary.>>

 

 

I can not find the study that is mentioned on the length of back having a direct relationship to HD. It is true that dwarf (long back short legs) breeds have a higher rate of HD, like bassets and corgis. Someone I know has asked for the information on the study, if I get it I will pass it on.

 

Both Kelpies and working border collies are longer than tall, so what exactly is an exaggerated long back?

 

Some of the breeds he says are longer backed which has a direct relationship to HD in these breeds. Taken from descriptions in the standards he wants changed.

Lab = Strongly built, short coupled (body).

Dogue = The length of the body, measured from the point of the shoulder to the point of the buttock, is superior to [greater than] the height at the withers, in the proportion of 11:10.

Saint = Important proportions: " Ideal relation of height at withers to length of body (measured from the point of shoulder to the point of buttocks) = 9:10

 

Taken directly from the Working Kelpie Council breed standard, not the KC standard.

Length to Height Ratio 10-9

The body measured from the point of the breast bone in a straight line to the buttocks should be greater than the height at the withers, as 10 units is to 9 units. e g a dog 18 inches in height should measure 20 inches in length. Comment- It is better for the dog to be too long than too short. Any tendency to squareness in a working dog is undesirable.

 

So if these breeds he mentions have exaggerated long backs (and some of them have shorter backs than kelpies or border collies) and this needs to be corrected by breeding shorter backs. Why would that not apply to border collies and kelpies which are just as exaggerated long back as these 3 other breeds he uses to prove his point? They are all purebred/pedigreed and they have about the same length back and they all get HD. I find no comfort in thinking that some how purebred working dogs will be treated differently. After all if long backs are directly linked to HD, then all long backs should be bred out, in the KC or in ABCA or WKC right? Facts are facts, long back = HD.

 

We really do need to see this study.

 

Just out of interest, McGreevy is an animal behaviorist but he is very involved in any subject about purebred dog problems. He bred a cross bred litter, koolie kelpie border collie cross (all long backed breeds) and he also offers a koolie kelpie cross for stud and AI. Maybe he does not know the Kelpie working standard says 'Any tendency to squareness in a working dog is undesirable', which is directly opposed to what he said in the newpaper 'Taller and more square-shaped dogs were less likely to suffer hip dysplasia', he said. Maybe he needs to be cross breeding to a short back square dog like a boxer and breed out that exaggerated long back connected to HD.

 

Rubbish!

[kelpiegirl]

Being both a Kelpie, and BC owner, thusly having a vested interest- I have seen Kelpies with backs I consider too long- so long they are sway backed- that concerns me more for the mechanics of the back, than for the hips. But, the resounding theme in working dogs, is that their conformation is so varied, because they are not bred for this- except in that they will be culled for not being able to work without breaking down, and low endurance, so you see better dogs coming from these crosses- most of the time, I hope anyway...

[mum24dog]

It's impossible to breed out HD because it isn't purely a genetic condition.

 

As the ACBA says

 

Causes

Causes of hip dysplasia are considered to be multifactorial; including both hereditary and environmental factors. Rapid weight gain and growth through excessive nutritional intake may encourage the development of hip dysplasia. Mild repeated trauma causing synovial (joint lining) inflammation may also be important.

 

All genetic testing can do is to try and reduce the risk factor - and even then it isn't foolproof.

Someone I know bred a litter of GSDs with both sire and dam from lines with very good hips for several generations and the majority of the litter had bad HD. This wasn't an ignorant BYB who didn't know how to raise pups either.

 

Pam

[Eileen Stein]

I guess I am being sarcastic, really I am just very concerned.

 

I can not find the study that is mentioned on the length of back having a direct relationship to HD. It is true that dwarf (long back short legs) breeds have a higher rate of HD, like bassets and corgis. Someone I know has asked for the information on the study, if I get it I will pass it on.

 

Both Kelpies and working border collies are longer than tall, so what exactly is an exaggerated long back?

 

Some of the breeds he says are longer backed which has a direct relationship to HD in these breeds. . . .

 

It would be interesting to see the study, but bear in mind that this is just a newspaper article. It was very likely written by a reporter who knows nothing about dogs (at least if my experience with newspaper articles is any indication) and who thought it would be an interesting angle to tie the research to PDE. As I read it, the researcher (McGreevy) is not saying that the breeds listed in the article are longer backed, or that he wants the standards of these breeds changed. (For example, pugs are supposed to be square according to their breed standard, aren't they?) It is just a list of breeds where HD is prevalent; it may have come from the reporter's research and not from McGreevy at all. It may have nothing to do with the study -- it's impossible to tell from the article.

 

Taken directly from the Working Kelpie Council breed standard, not the KC standard.

Length to Height Ratio 10-9

The body measured from the point of the breast bone in a straight line to the buttocks should be greater than the height at the withers, as 10 units is to 9 units. e g a dog 18 inches in height should measure 20 inches in length. Comment- It is better for the dog to be too long than too short. Any tendency to squareness in a working dog is undesirable.

 

The only comment I can make here is that working border collies in the US and the UK do not have a breed standard that specifies how long they should be. I'm kinda surprised to learn that working kelpies in Australia do. We do not breed working dogs here to be any particular length-to-height ratio. Breeding to an appearance standard is one of the principal differences between the kennel clubs and us.

 

So if these breeds he mentions have exaggerated long backs (and some of them have shorter backs than kelpies or border collies) and this needs to be corrected by breeding shorter backs. Why would that not apply to border collies and kelpies which are just as exaggerated long back as these 3 other breeds he uses to prove his point? They are all purebred/pedigreed and they have about the same length back and they all get HD. I find no comfort in thinking that some how purebred working dogs will be treated differently. After all if long backs are directly linked to HD, then all long backs should be bred out, in the KC or in ABCA or WKC right? Facts are facts, long back = HD.

 

I just can't see that the article reads this way at all. Again, he doesn't say that the breeds listed have exaggerated long backs. He is not using them to prove his point. And neither he nor anyone else is saying that "all long backs should be bred out." The Parliamentary Group in the UK simply recommended that conformation breed standards not mandate extreme physical characteristics, and that show judges who apply these standards place an emphasis on health over appearance. Sounds good to me. McGreevy is saying he agrees with that -- he too would recommend that breed standards be modified to permit show judges to reward dogs with healthier shapes. To say "You should not encourage X" is not the same thing as saying "You must eliminate X."

 

The whole thrust of this study and McGreevy's comments seem to be directed at conformation showing and breeding to a conformation standard. To me that is a crucial distinction, and a sensible one. If you are breeding only for show -- i.e., for appearance -- then it seems to me there is good reason to make those show standards consistent with good health. The standard is arbitrary anyway; there are no countervailing considerations. OTOH, if you are breeding for stock-working ability, you are selecting for criteria which necessarily include good health, and there are competing considerations which need to be balanced. I just don't interpret this as a threat to working dogs. Even supposing the Working Kelpie Council were to drop the Length to Height Ratio section from its standard -- which I don't see anyone suggesting they be required to do -- I guess I can't see how that would really affect the working kelpie. But maybe working kelpie people in Australia breed rigidly to the Council's breed standard? Can that be true??

 

Just out of interest, McGreevy is an animal behaviorist but he is very involved in any subject about purebred dog problems. He bred a cross bred litter, koolie kelpie border collie cross (all long backed breeds) and he also offers a koolie kelpie cross for stud and AI. Maybe he does not know the Kelpie working standard says 'Any tendency to squareness in a working dog is undesirable', which is directly opposed to what he said in the newpaper 'Taller and more square-shaped dogs were less likely to suffer hip dysplasia', he said. Maybe he needs to be cross breeding to a short back square dog like a boxer and breed out that exaggerated long back connected to HD.

 

Well, to me this is just more evidence that he is not saying what you are interpreting him as saying in the article. I am always hesitant to conclude that I know what the political and legal situation is in other countries, but from what I see here your concern is unwarranted.

[geonni banner]

Quote from Debbie:

I can not find the study that is mentioned on the length of back having a direct relationship to HD. It is true that dwarf (long back short legs) breeds have a higher rate of HD, like bassets and corgis. Someone I know has asked for the information on the study, if I get it I will pass it on.

 

It is my understanding that contrary to what your eyes tell you, a Corgi or a Basset does not have a long back - it has very short (read malformed) legs on a normal body. It would seem likely that since the legs are malformed, the place where they connect to the theoretically normal pelvis would be problematical.

 

The dog that I immediately think of as having a long back is the GSD - Long neck, long back, and often incredibly long tail. They also seem to have a really exaggerated angulation, heavy bone, and long pasterns. The ground-eating, energy efficient trot has degenerated into the laborious coiling and uncoiling of a quartet of slinkys! And boy, do they have a problem with hip displaysia...

 

I often think of the difference between Aussies and collies in terms of the difference between the conformation of the average Quarter Horse and the average Arabian. The Arabian generally has a short back, high tail-set and a flat croup, while the QH has a long back, low tail-set and a sloping croup.

 

I tend to think of Aussies as having a more square height-to-length ratio and BCs as having a more rectangular H-to-L ratio. I also tend to think of BCs as having slightly more angulation - especially in the rear legs. Of the rescue dogs I've had in my care, the Aussies seemed to be more comfortable loping than trotting, and when they dropped out of a lope they tended to pace rather than trot. I always assumed that this was because the shorter "transmission" tended to make them "strike" at a fast trot. But then I've seen pacing dogs which had longer backs too. It may be that some pacing is simply inherited rather than adaptive.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say that there was probably a higher incidence of hip displaysia in BCs than Aussies, based on this notion of the height-to-length thing. But I wouldn't predict a high incidence in either breed as they tend to be of moderate size/weight and in general have a much less extreme overall body shape than say a GSD or a St. Bernard.

[mum24dog]

The only comment I can make here is that working border collies in the US and the UK do not have a breed standard that specifies how long they should be. I'm kinda surprised to learn that working kelpies in Australia do.

 

That was my reaction when I read that too.

 

This is the explanation the WKC gives -

 

http://www.wkc.org.au/Characteristics.php

 

I suppose there is somewhat of a parallel with the JRTGB club. It too is opposed to KC recognition of the JRT (as opposed to the PRT) and wants to keep it as a working breed, but does have a breed standard.

Even so, most working and non working Jacks bear no relation to the standard and just carry on doing their job as they always have.

 

Pam

[kelpiegirl]

Please remember, Aussies are NOT Kelpies, no where close.

 

Quote from Debbie:

I can not find the study that is mentioned on the length of back having a direct relationship to HD. It is true that dwarf (long back short legs) breeds have a higher rate of HD, like bassets and corgis. Someone I know has asked for the information on the study, if I get it I will pass it on.

 

It is my understanding that contrary to what your eyes tell you, a Corgi or a Basset does not have a long back - it has very short (read malformed) legs on a normal body. It would seem likely that since the legs are malformed, the place where they connect to the theoretically normal pelvis would be problematical.

 

The dog that I immediately think of as having a long back is the GSD - Long neck, long back, and often incredibly long tail. They also seem to have a really exaggerated angulation, heavy bone, and long pasterns. The ground-eating, energy efficient trot has degenerated into the laborious coiling and uncoiling of a quartet of slinkys! And boy, do they have a problem with hip displaysia...

 

I often think of the difference between Aussies and collies in terms of the difference between the conformation of the average Quarter Horse and the average Arabian. The Arabian generally has a short back, high tail-set and a flat croup, while the QH has a long back, low tail-set and a sloping croup.

 

I tend to think of Aussies as having a more square height-to-length ratio and BCs as having a more rectangular H-to-L ratio. I also tend to think of BCs as having slightly more angulation - especially in the rear legs. Of the rescue dogs I've had in my care, the Aussies seemed to be more comfortable loping than trotting, and when they dropped out of a lope they tended to pace rather than trot. I always assumed that this was because the shorter "transmission" tended to make them "strike" at a fast trot. But then I've seen pacing dogs which had longer backs too. It may be that some pacing is simply inherited rather than adaptive.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say that there was probably a higher incidence of hip displaysia in BCs than Aussies, based on this notion of the height-to-length thing. But I wouldn't predict a high incidence in either breed as they tend to be of moderate size/weight and in general have a much less extreme overall body shape than say a GSD or a St. Bernard.

[geonni banner]

Please remember, Aussies are NOT Kelpies, no where close.

 

Sorry, never meant to imply that they were. I know even less about Kelpies that I do about BCs or Aussies. I've never had the pleasure of knowing a Kelpie, so I didn't have anything to say about them. Just thinking about hip displaysia and rambling...

[Eileen Stein]

This is the explanation the WKC gives -

 

http://www.wkc.org.au/Characteristics.php

 

I suppose there is somewhat of a parallel with the JRTGB club. It too is opposed to KC recognition of the JRT (as opposed to the PRT) and wants to keep it as a working breed, but does have a breed standard.

 

Thanks for the link. I found it interesting, but also pretty lame. I can cut some slack for the JRT folks when it comes to having a conformation standard, because when all is said and done a Jack Russell needs to be able to fit down a foxhole, but I think having any appearance standard -- even a purely structural one -- for a working stockdog is taking a turn down a dangerous and ultimately detrimental path. Why substitute the theoretical for the actual, when you don't have to? It's so much easier to follow a physical recipe than to train yourself to see and balance the complex of qualities that really matter in a stock dog, and it's human nature to take the easy way if it's offered.

 

You're probably right, though, that not much attention is paid to the standard by working breeders, which IMO is the next best thing to not having it at all.

[mum24dog]

Thanks for the link. I found it interesting, but also pretty lame.

 

Me too.

 

I think having any appearance standard -- even a purely structural one -- for a working stockdog is taking a turn down a dangerous and ultimately detrimental path.

 

-------

 

You're probably right, though, that not much attention is paid to the standard by working breeders, which IMO is the next best thing to not having it at all.

 

It does say elsewhere on the WKC site that stockmen looking for a good worker ignore conformation so I don't see the point of having a breed standard.

 

I see quite a few kelpies around but they are all agility dogs. Most are red and tan but I'm sure that that's because the most successful dogs that are being bred from are that colour.

The main agility breeders register their dogs with the WKC and import working dogs from Australia to widen the gene pool.

There's no incentive here to concentrate on conformation since our KC doesn't recognise the kelpie and there is a wide range of shape and size from small and light, through stocky (reminiscent of ACDs) to tall and beefy or tall and spindly.

One of the smallest I know is a sub 17 in bitch that was from an accidental farm litter in Wales and she and her littermates were rescued from being drowned.

 

Pam