Mea culpa. Awhile back I hastily posted a Here Here! on Facebook about the new USDA regulations targeting internet sales of dogs. The regulations narrow the definition of “retail pet stores” in order to regulate the sales of animals sold “sight unseen,” an increasingly common situation given the vast reach of the internet, and the increase in the number of puppies purchased by buyers who have no idea how they were raised. The responses to my FB post came in fast and furious and can be summarized by the following examples:
“Oh, Trisha, it makes me so sad that you think that is what they have done. Please educate yourself further. This is not a step forward for the reputable breeding community.”
“Yes and by doing so, they are requiring everyone with 4 intact females to raise their puppies in a kennel building with no furniture, a floor drain, sprinkler system, etc. So they are ensuring the only place you can buy puppies from IS FROM PUPPY MILLS!”
I should have known how controversial this issue would be; I attended a hearing about a similar bill in Wisconsin and heard the testimony of a great many small breeders who were extremely worried that they themselves would be put out of business, while the larger ‘mill’ type of operations would get away unscathed. The only good thing that I can say about my posting hastily and somewhat thoughtlessly (ouch) is that it motivated me to look into this issue in depth. I’ll go into the details below, but here’s the bottom line:
Are the proposed federal regulations perfect? No, absolutely not. Are they going to shut down puppy mills and end all suffering of dogs living in misery? Nope, not that either. Are they going to prevent some suffering in helpless dogs? Yes, all the evidence suggests that they will improve things for some dogs. Are they going to ruin the lives of responsible breeders and force them out of business? No, I truly don’t believe they will, although they might make life a bit more difficult for a very small number of breeders, but only ones who have 5 or more breeding females and only ones who want to sell puppies sight unseen to pet homes. Will home breeders have to move their beloved dogs out of the home into sterile rooms with cement floors and drains? Not a chance.
Let me start by first talking about my own state of Wisconsin’s decision to require some people who sell dogs to be licensed and regulated. The laws differ to some extent, but the same concerns that are being raised about the USDA regulations were raised here several years ago. What’s helpful about Wisconsin is that the licensing is now in it’s second year, so we have had enough time to gauge it’s effects. In some ways, the Wisconsin regulations are stricter than those proposed by the Feds: Anyone “selling at least 25 dogs a year, from more than 3 litters that they have bred” must obtain a license, as must shelters and rescue groups who shelter or foster at least 25 dogs a year. (Versus the USDA, whose proposed regulations are only relevant if one has over 4 breeding bitches. If the dog is to be sold as a pet, and if the new owner is unable to see the dog in person.)
When these regulations were first proposed in Wisconsin, I remember a tremendous amount of fear and in many cases, anger, about how these restrictions would impact well-meaning breeders, shelters and rescue groups. Curious about how this law has actually impacted dogs and breeders of all kinds, I recently talked at length with the person in charge of administering the licensing program, Dr. Yvonne M Bellay, DVM, MS, the Animal Welfare Programs Manager and Epidemiologist for the State of Wisconsin. I asked her whether she felt the licensing program was overall a good step, and whether people’s fears were or were not justified. (Obviously, this is from her perspective; I’ll report what some breeders have to say a little later.)
Her answer was definitive: “The law has done a world of good.” Dr. Bellay wishes that people could see what she has seen–some “shelters” with dogs held in deplorable conditions, some breeders with dozens of breeding bitches living in squalor (some of who call themselves rescues), and cases of needless suffering that may or may not be called a “puppy mills” by the rest of us. Out of sight of most of us, whether we like it or not, lots of people breed dogs, and without any regulations at all, too many dogs suffered terribly because of it. After the law was passed, Dr. Bellay reports that her inspectors have seen some wonderful improvements in terms of housing and enrichment, and sometimes come to her with reports of huge changes for the better in terms of living conditions for the dogs, both in terms of health, socialization and in enriched environments.
Do these laws create a situation in which all breeders breed super responsibly, all breeding dogs live an ideal life and all puppies are happy, healthy and perfectly placed? Of course not, but in her opinion, the costs, in time and money, to responsible breeders are small, and well worth the improvements that have resulted in kennels that have historically been, well, less than responsible. However, because of all the suffering she has seen over the years, Dr. Bellay fought tooth and nail for this bill for years, and one might argue that she is not an objective source. What about the perspective of the breeders? The ones we would call responsible breeders, who breed carefully and selectively, whose dogs live better than 95% of the people in the world, and whose puppies are all but guaranteed to go to good homes. How has the law effected them?
I spoke to several Wisconsin breeders, who each said that the regulations weren’t burdensome in any way. One said “If you are a good breeder and care about your dogs, there is simply no problem at all.” The inspectors were courteous, and there were no requirements that caused anything but minor problems. In one case the inspector explained that the working Labradors in one kennel needed chew toys in their kennels, even though the dogs run on 35 acres 4 times a day, are trained every evening for field trials and spend a lot of time in the house. The owner explained to me (and the inspector) that finding toys the labs wouldn’t destroy in minutes wasn’t easy, (and I personally would argue are unnecessary) but still feels that otherwise the regulations are clearly designed to improve the welfare of dogs, and are not a burden to people who truly care about their dogs.
In other words, all the disastrous consequences and fears expressed years ago when the licensing bill was being debated in Wisconsin don’t seem to have come to pass. The regulations are not perfect, and do not turn every breeder into one as responsible as you and I would wish, but the fact is, thousands of dogs in Wisconsin are better off for it. Although the laws don’t make everyone a responsible breeder, or encourage adoptions from good shelters and rescues, they have forced many a sloppy breeding operation into cleaning up their acts (and yes, put a few out of business who had no intention of housing dogs in anything but nightmarish conditions). The impact on responsible breeders has been minimal, and surely is a small price to pay for improving the living conditions of thousands of dogs.
How does the Wisconsin law compare to the proposed USDA licensing? Wisconsin’s law requires licensing of anyone selling over 25 puppies from four or more litters a year. The proposed federal license relates less to the number of dogs sold and more to the number of breeding females on the premises (I’d argue that’s a regrettable change… just because a female is intact doesn’t mean she is producing puppies). Only breeders who satisfy all of the following three conditions are subject to licensing: Owning 5 or more breeding bitches, selling any dogs sight unseen, and selling the dogs as pets. The intent is to catch up with the change in how many puppies are purchased now–on line versus in a retail store. The feds are not worried about high quality breeders who treat their dogs like family, provide high level health care and carefully screen buyers; they are trying to stop the tsunami of irresponsible breeders who have dozens or hundreds of dogs who sell unhealthy and poorly bred puppies, sight unseen, over the internet. The biggest impact that I can see on responsible breeders is the case of a breeder who has lengthy contact with a potential buyer–phone calls, videos of the parents and the pups, etc, and on occasion will ship a pup across the country without the buyers every having seen the pup in person. These regulations, IF the breeder has over 5 breeding bitches (I’m not clear yet on how that is defined), AND if the pup is being sold as a pet rather than a performance dog or a breeding potential, would make those breeders have to get a license. The cost of the license depends on the income derived from the sales. For example, if the gross sales are between $1,000 or $4,000, the license costs $70. All dogs must wear ID tags and the feds estimate approximately 10 hours of paperwork and record keeping a year. I can well understand a sigh from an affected breeder: good breeders want to spend their time and money taking care of their dogs. But overall, the law appears to be designed to do good things and will affect a very small number of breeders while trying to clean up some of the worst abuses in states where there are virtually no other regulations. That doesn’t sound like such a bad thing to me. Are the regs the ones I would write if I were queen? Not at all. Are they going to devastate the lives of responsible breeders? No. And so, after careful consideration and many of hours of research, I repeat myself: “Here Here!”
[Added 10-24-13] Just announced: USDA Animal Care announced today that they will host a series of webinars on the new Retail Pet Store Rule this November and December. You are invited to participate in any or all of these webinars to speak directly with USDA about how the rule may or may not affect you as a small/hobby breeder.
Webinars will be held Thursdays from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST for a four-week period. The schedule of topics for the webinars is as follows:
▪ November 7 – Am I regulated under USDA’s Retail Pet Store Rule?
▪ November 14 – How will USDA implement the Retail Pet Store Rule?
▪ November 21 – What is USDA’s inspection process in a home?
▪ December 5 – How will USDA enforce the Retail Pet Store Rule?
For more information and to sign up for these webinars, visit the USDA Animal Care website below.
http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/bulletins/913e0e
MEANWHILE back on the farm: Willie and I spent most of three days at a sheep dog clinic with Patrick Shannahan. Truth in posting: If I could retire right now and just work dogs on sheep, that’s what I’d do. We learned so much, and had so much fun, it’s hard to come back inside and work on a computer. (I expect just about everyone who works their dog in any way will understand.) Primarily we worked on Willie using his eye rather than his body to move the sheep; it seems like a fine point but actually it is the difference between having total control versus “off and on control” that gets the farm work done but won’t get you through a trial course. It’s also much more fun for the dogs, because they learn that they can keep control of the sheep at every moment, rather than working a kind of prevent defense all the time. It is also tiring for the dogs… think of maintaining total focus and intense presence at every single moment while you’re working. One might think that this comes naturally to dogs… we all know about the “Border Collie Eye,” but the dogs actually have to learn how to use it correctly, and are prone to taking the easy way out and using just their bodies to manage the sheep. (It’s the difference between “Go Here” and “Don’t Go there! Don’t Go There! Don’t Go There!) When I say “using their bodies,” I of course don’t mean they come in contact with the sheep, but manage the sheep by placing their bodies where they don’t want the sheep to go, rather than maintaining a kind of mental connection from farther back that says, with laser intensity “This Way is the Only Way.” I hope that makes sense! Maybe I can get a video of Willie using each method to show you exactly what I mean.
Willie’s shoulder did indeed begin to bother him the night of the second day, so we worked very little on Sunday, but nonetheless made great strides. By the way, all trainers will understand this: On Saturday, while we were working on Willie using a different method to move the sheep (his eyes versus his body), Willie began to drop his head and truly control the sheep with his eye and intensity… and when doing so, virtually everything else went to hell in a handbasket. At one point he stopped at the top of an outrun and wouldn’t move. He just sat there (yes, he was actually sitting at that point) and wouldn’t walk up on the sheep, but wouldn’t come back to me. A rain/sleet storm was starting, but I think it was more about “I have no idea what “right” is anymore, so I’m just going to sit here so that I don’t do anything wrong.” Luckily, Patrick knows dogs and knows training really well, and said “Don’t worry about it for a minute, you are right to work on just one thing at a time.”
I didn’t get any good photos of Willie working, but here’s one of my favorite friends, the lovely little Shae, owned by my good friend and Border collie buddy, Donna. Shae, of course, was watching another dog working sheep. I loved sitting in a line of chairs in a gorgeous field, with all the dogs sitting quietly and watching another dog work the sheep. I do wonder what the dogs are thinking while they are watching.
Here’s where we were working, too bad it’s not pretty or anything, hey? Actually, those beautiful cloud formations turned into sleet/rain while Willie and I worked right after I took the photo, but most of the time the weather was cold but relatively dry, and the surroundings could not have been more colorful. Thank you Laura for hosting the clinic!
xx
Carrie Cabrera says
I have several issues with the new APHIS regulation, but the primary one is that I don’t see how having a face-to-face meeting with the buyer would ensure a healthier puppy when there is already a requirement to get a vet issued health certificate in order to ship. It would seem to me that the vet would be in a better position to identify health concerns in the pup than John Q Public.
Sue says
Thank you for such a thorough explanation of the law. It sounds like it is designed to help the welfare of dogs and I’m all in favor of that.
I find it regrettable that fear mongering about such regulations so frequently takes root quickly and deeply and suspect that folks who represent the real targets of these regulations (aka, puppy mills and bad breeders) are to blame for the misinformation as they try to gin up opposition to anything that would even marginally improve the lives to the dogs whose misery they profit from. It’s unfortunate when that fear causes responsible breeders to then join the cause of the millers by opposing regulations that set a floor on dog welfare that they already surpass.
If you’re a breeder reading this, please, stop lumping yourselves in with the puppy millers! You do yourselves such a disservice by doing so!
Carla says
Thank you so much for covering this issue in such detail!
Shana R says
Thank you so much for posting on this topic! Within my two breed circles, Tibetan Mastiffs and Great Danes, there was a huge collective freak out on FB when the law was finalized and imminently going into effect.
I come from a school of thought that says government regulations are generally good. They are sometimes burdensome to good people, but they are important. However, I was so worried about the housing requirements, that people would have to move their dogs to kennels instead of raising them in the house. This would be a huge detriment if the regulations required this and there was no room for better treatment than this minimum standard.
I actually posted a dissenting comment on the HSUS president’s blog, which although not published to the comments, did result in an email from the director of their Puppy Mill Campaign. Through a few back and forths, she provided some information from the USDA that assuaged my fears – No, the USDA won’t require dogs to move from the home to kennels. “Breeding female” will only apply to those females deemed capable of being bred and “should not” include elderly females. And a few other issues of clarification.
Most of the breeders I know were still very upset, but at the end of the day, as long as responsible breeders can continue home rearing and housing their dogs, and the cost is minimal, it really is for the best. As long as inspectors are able to use some common sense and there are a range of conditions that are acceptable to account for the variety of ways dogs are cared for (your example of the toys and Labs is an excellent one) then it should do far more good than harm.
I am planning to breed my first litter next year, and I have only 3 dogs total, only one an intact bitch, and until I buy property I seriously doubt I will ever have 5 intact bitches in my city home, so this law won’t apply to me any time soon. But it will apply to several people I know. They are against it, but I hope they will come around to see it isn’t so bad, and I hope that their experience is such.
Personally, beyond puppy mills and horrific breeding conditions of small scale operations, I hope one day we can find a sensible solution for the Joe Neighbor “breeder” who accidently, or randomly intentionally, breeds his female with whatever male is around. There are a LOT of puppies produced from people who aren’t in it for money (though probably enjoy the small amount they bring in) but are still not doing it in the best interest of dogs. They might grow up in sanitary conditions, but they often go on to be shelter dogs later in life.
mhll53 says
Love the picture of Shae and the field!! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on your blog!
Beth with the Corgis says
More later, but quickly wanted to say that AKC ran a BIG campaign against this and I, frankly, was very disappointed in them. But they will register mill dogs, so….
Dave says
“suspect that folks who represent the real targets of these regulations (aka, puppy mills and bad breeders) are to blame for the misinformation as they try to gin up opposition to anything that would even marginally improve the lives to the dogs whose misery they profit from”
If you look real hard at the lobbyists, you will find Hunte Corporation amongst one of the backers of the new APHIS regulations. One should be suspicious if the biggest commercial broker in dogs sold in petstore is involved with the draft. It’s nothing more than crony-capitalism at work.
The regulations does nothing to help small-time breeders or hobby-breeders. In fact, it further cater to corporate welfare by allow giant puppy-mills hide behind a USDA licence while non-working or non-hunting kennels are forced to shut down regardless of the number of litters produced. I know two or three breeders who keep more than four intact bitches but they only produce one litter once every half decade– if not once every decade.
If the regulations focused on how many litters are produced (not how many puppies since retrievers and sighthounds are notorious for producing huge number of puppies in one litter) or by number of intact bitches (not every dog get bred. It’s quite a common-practice in some breeds such as Saluki to delay breeding until 5-8 years old). Instead, we just got handed a bunch of rules which allow the true puppy-mills to be exempted from the law.
Dana Fedman, CPDT-KA says
I’ve come to same conclusions. Thank you so much for posting this. People will listen to you.
Margaret McLaughlin says
Here in Indiana we have a lot of puppy mills, many Amish. Our state government has picked this one up from the other end, & is going after the direct-sales people who are not paying income tax. Someone from the AG’s office was quoted as saying, “That’s how they got Al Capone.” Whatever works….
I agree that regulation is necessary & this sounds like a good place to start. I am also glad that it specifies pet puppies, since I think it’s fairly common in the performance-dog world for the breeder to select what she feels is the best puppy for you from the litter; this was certainly true of Nina. Her breeder is a long-time friend who had moved from the area. I had never seen Nina till her breeder’s husband dropped her off at my house on his way to Chicago for a business trip.
Dave says
If lyou looked under “Housing” and “Husbandry Standards”:
http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Education-Training/introductory-course-for-commercial-dog-breeders.php
The requirements in order to meet the Animal Welfare Act ‘s standards to be a licenced USDA-kennel are not very nice.
RebeccaW says
I have said all along that we need some regulation with breeding, one of my main concerns that I did not see here, and have not seen anywhere so far (true i may have missed it. i admit after awhile legal talk looks all the same…) the concern is the TRAINING for the people coming in to ‘interview’ the breeders… if you get one to many people who are in the mind set that no breeding should be going on *cough* Peta *cough* but if they get involved in the training, then every time we turn around they will be closing more and more breeders, be they good, bad, or in between.
(and i don’t know about you guys, but some of the worse back yard breeders don’t sell that many puppies so this law doesn’t stop any of them! Love the fact that they are trying to get the puppy mills, don’t get me wrong.. but i wish the backyard breeders would be controlled too)
Susan Clark says
This is a nice overview and perspective. As a dog fancier, I received many fearful emails from breeders asking for grassroots support to oppose this law. As a skeptic, I saw the campaign waged by AKC, as orchestrated by NAIA, and thought the source of misinformation and fear mongering was easily traced. As a lawyer, I read the law and concluded it was not harmful to the responsible breeders in my state. As someone who has helped draft and propose animal-related legislation, I saw the Hunte name and concluded that this corporation’s cooperation was needed to get the law passed. And, I would wager that several concessions were made to the original draft, in order to keep Hunte from throwing a wrench in the process. Having the opposition at the table is necessary to pass any law. As a dog lover, I am pleased to learn from your article that the law has passed. Thank you for addressing this topic sensibly.
UrbanCollieChick says
ALthough I don’t work for investigative services, animal care or animal welfare, I do work for APHIS and have learned enough about how most of the people are within such facets, to know how the letter of the law and spirit of the law are typically handled. So I can honestly say – and believe me I disagree with a lot of what APHIS does and can say so since I’m off-hours now (I just have to say I do not represent them with these statements) – that I honestly do doubt any APHIS personnel are going to come to a pristine, large, well managed home of nothing but healthy dogs, and “shut them down” if they find 5 intact bitches.
Depending on the chain and the law, and the discretion of many supervisors and personal judgment allowed APHIS inspectors depending on the program, I will wager most people visiting breeders from the USDA will not be quick to fine those who know what they are doing, are knowledgeable and clearly care about their dogs.
A lot of these laws are written, with the holes in the plan only seen in hindsight. Perhaps in time the kinks will be ironed out since so many have commented. I suggest people keep commenting so this can happen.
Now, having said all of this I DO have to commiserate with those who see unfairness in licensing costs to small breeders who have done nothing wrong. The larger, licensed, clean and organized warehouse “mills”, are certainly not on par with these people. It paints everyone involved with far too broad of a brush. If I were a devoted hobby breeder, I would be anrgy too! It leaves the image of many breeders tarred and feathered for no good reason, implying they are no better than a warehouse, and AR is rampant enough without this fodder.
Is this a plot to simply collect more fee revenue? I have no idea either way. I really don’t. I’m not privy to such information. I have it under consideration as much as any other taxpaying citizen. I may be a fed, but I’m a taxpayer too, and a cog in the wheel.
Susanne says
I have to admit my biggest problem with this the UDSA, I do not feel they care a hoot about the well being of animals, if they did there would not be USDA puppy mills as we know them today. They are no place for any dog to live, the conditions are NOT acceptable, and now this organization wants to judge me by the same standards as those people? The ones that say that a sow can live her entire life in a gestation crate and that battery hens can live their entire live in a cage so small they cannot even open their wings, crammed in with 4 other hens? The ones that say horses can be crammed into slaughter houses made for cattle? How dare they presume to control how I, or any breed fancier, care for dogs.
And all this trouble is needed simply because pet people cannot stop buying mill dogs? In my work I see the vast majority of doodles, bulldogs, and toy breeds (to name a few) are from puppy mills. This is a problem caused by pet people, and yet breed fanciers are now being grouped in with the millers. So unfair.
And I don’t think the USDA regulations will affect bad rescues, shelters, and sanctuaries at all? I guess those dogs don’t matter to the USDA, they can suffer and who cares, but watch out if you have 5 intact females (because we all know that any female with reproductive organs can only live if she is popping out puppies all the time, at least in USDALand), have ever sold a puppy to someone who did not come to your house even if it had a great vet exam, screened them, and followed up, and if any dog you ever bred is placed with a spay/neuter agreement, on limited, or as a pet because we all know that dogs are so much better off when they are never going to be any ones companion.
I hope the lives of some dogs are improved, so they can be sure to get that 6 inches of space the USDA requires for them. But the USDA cannot improve the life of my dogs because they know nothing of love, breed preservation and improvement, and ethical business practices.
D.C. says
I did once purchase a pup without ever meeting the breeder or her dogs. It turned out to be the best decision I ever made. I was looking for a pup from stock dog lines, with appropriate health testing, a lack of line breeding and parents who had proven working ability. I found my boy in Texas, a long way from my home in Canada. However, prior to his being shipped, the breeder and I had many discussions, exchanged videos etc. He arrived a strong, healthy pup with a fabulous disposition. Perhaps I was lucky, or perhaps it is a case of doing your research first. Had these rules been in place I might not have been able to welcome my wonderful boy.
Meeting the breeder and seeing the pup first is not always going to be a solution to internet purchases, as most people have to provide a non-refundable and often sizable deposit first. It isn’t easy to walk away from that deposit if the pup doesn’t quite measure up to your expectations. This is something that needs to be addressed.
A vet certificate is not always proof that the pup is healthy. Many of the large volume breeders provide a huge percentage of a rural veterinarian’s practice. The certificate doesn’t reflect hip dysplasia, genetic diseases etc. It just means that on the day the dog was seen there wasn’t a fever, or any obvious signs of illness. I once picked up a pup across the border and went to the breeder’s vet to get the health certificate. He handed me the certificate in one hand and medication for coccidia in the other. Telling me not to mention the medication at the border! Seriously.
I’m not sure what the solutions are to the current problems with people making a living off of the reproduction of dogs. But, I sincerely hope that there is a way to improve the lives of canines. They have improved my life and the lives of so many humans. We owe them the effort.
Caroline says
<>
This is exactly the situation that has me worried. I am about to get my second puppy from a wonderful breeder across the country from me. She is VERY knowledgeable about selecting breeding pairs from pedigrees. She spends a lot of time posting photos and information about the litter. She has set up a yahoo group for people who have her pups. So we all know a lot about the dogs she produces. Many are in performance homes (some in other countries), some are in pet homes. I will be flying out to pick up my pup thanks to credit card points, but some can not do that for a variety of reasons. I am just hoping that these regulations are not too onerous for this wonderful breeder. And I hope they actually have the intended effect of closing down the real puppy mills
BorderWars says
It’s unfortunate that you’d use your prominence as an author to weigh in on a rule that you clearly have not read given how many factual errors you have made in your defense of it.
If you can’t be bothered to read it, let along the associated AWA regulations (which you make no mention of at all and which are the real teeth of this rule… not some licensing fee), let along the associated interviews and conference call transcripts, why are you so confident in your proclamations?
You should be distilling accurate information for your readers, but here you have failed to do an even basic reading of the rule or any due diligence. This article needs a serious fact check.
Beth with the Corgis says
I have a longer thought about how they determine the number of breeding females, but I have a few other questions:
1) How do they look at co-owns? The breeder we got ours from has lots of co-owns. Her name is on the papers, but the dogs are not “hers” in the sense that they live with someone else, campaign for someone else, and if they have puppies, those puppies are born and raised with the co-own; she also has her own dogs.
2) My other concern is for rare breeds. If I want a pet lab, honestly I should not have to look at shipping sight-unseen. But if I want a Swedish Vallhund, there is slim chance I’ll find one within reasonable driving distance.
3) How do they define a pet? If I have a working line English Springer Spaniel who lives in my house, sleeps on my feet when I watch tv, and plays fetch with the kids four days a week, and I take that dog hunting 5 times a year, is that a “working dog” or a “pet”? If I buy a show-quality puppy and he grows crooked and I decide not to go on with him, but I love him to death and keep him as a pet, has his breeder sold me a pet, or a performance dog?
UrbanCollieChick says
D.C. I agree overall but nothing would stop anyone from doing their own health and pedigree research either, just by virtue of a vet certificate either. They are separate items, as evidenced by your own examples.
If you were looking at working dogs, those people would be exempt anyway.
Now, re-reading this a bit I don’t like the example of a $70 license fee for sales between $1k and 4K.
$70 is too close to ten percent of $1k for my taste.
Andy says
While I never intend to obtain a dog from a breeder, I had developed a guarded respect for hobby and working dog breeders who keep their dogs healthy and out of the shelter. Then I read all the awful NAIA propaganda and basically lost any sympathy I had for hobby breeders. Thanks to you, Patricia, and all the ethical breeders on this thread who recognize that there is a problem and, while these regulations may not be perfect, something needs to be done. We *can* work together to improve companion animal welfare and reduce shelter killing.
Trisha says
I agree that how co-owned dogs fit into the picture complicates things. I think (not positive) that the rules apply to dogs in the same household, but am not positive. I share Beth w/ Corgi’s concern too about “pet dogs.” What makes a dog a pet dog versus a performance dog, and why would dogs sold as breeding dogs or working dogs be exempted anyway? And it does look like there will be some good breeders who on occasion fly their dogs across the country to really good homes who will be affected. But again, it doesn’t mean they can’t ship their pups, it just means that if they have over 5 breeding females in their homes (more on that in a minute) they have to get a license. My biggest complaint about the federal proposed regs are that they don’t concentrate on the number of dogs bred or dogs sold, which is the case in Wisconsin. What if someone had 5 intact females and raised one litter a year? And one pup was shipped across the country to a good home? It seems unnecessary at best to ask them to apply for a license. If I could lobby for a change, that would be the one I think is most important.
To Border Wars: We’ll just have to agree to disagree. The AWA standards are minimums, as in, things can’t be any worse than what is described. If dogs live in lovely, clean homes, there is virtually no reason for anyone to be concerned. Again, these EXACT same complaints and fears swirled all over Wisconsin 3 years ago. That’s why I took the time to interview Dr. Bellay and 3 breeders, who all agreed that none of the fears running rampant all over the state have come to pass.
Rocky says
I totally reject the notion of not having the freedom of picking the breeder or purebred puppy of my choice.
mgr says
Wow, Shea really is lovely – those are both great shots!
UrbanCollieChick says
Coming back to my APHIS site, the Q&A includes this phrase, regarding dogs raised inside homes, which was left open-ended and vague, in a disturbing way.
Q. Will regulated breeders who keep their dogs in
their homes have to put them in a kennel?
A. Generally not. The AWA regulations define a
“primary enclosure” to mean any structure or device
used to restrict animals to a limited amount of space—
which means that a home can be considered a dog’s
primary enclosure. If a room of a house is used as a
dog’s primary enclosure (for instance, a whelping room
or nursery), AWA regulations and standards apply to
that room.
However, if a dog breeder allows his or her dogs to
have free run of the entire house, we have to determine
whether the home can house the animals within AWA
standards. If the breeder has a kennel or cages that
the dogs can stay in inside the home that meet AWA
standards, the breeder has satisfied the primary
enclosure requirements. A number of currently licensed
wholesale breeders maintain their animals in their
homes.
From: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2013/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf
This isn’t even the actual text of the AWA law.
I again do say that the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are, in my humble experience, often poorly connected when it comes to the way the USDA writes things up. Its’ a politcal move to leave things open ended, and a lot of agents are trusted to use their discretion when judging situations. On average, employees here try to do the right thing. And leaving something open can make it possible for USDA employees to leave hobby breeders alone on a lot of the details, as much as it can make it possible for them to make hobby breeders’ lives difficult.
Nevertheless, I will look into this more.
BorderWars says
*alone x 2
Comparing this APHIS rule to the Wisconsin law is weak. The Wisconsin law did not compel breeders to follow FEDERAL AWA regulations or anything similar.
And no, they (AWA regs) are not “minimum standards” as you keep saying. Not at all, and this is important.
See, you seem to think that this rule is somehow applying humane treatment laws that are not already on the books. That’s not the case. Almost every egregious sin you could imagine from a hoarder-mill or slovenly torture breeding operation already breaks a dozen laws that could be enforced against those establishments already.
No, this RULE (and it’s not a law, this hasn’t been voted on by any representative of the people, it’s bureaucracy making new rules with no accountability at all, save to the President), does one thing: it brings small-to-medium breeders under AWA regulations which were designed for the production of laboratory animals in a commercial environment.
This is not a minimum standard, it’s a prohibition against socializing your puppies with any dog other than their mother.
“Except when maintained in breeding colonies, bitches with litters may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with other adult dogs, and puppies under 4 months of age may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with adult dogs, other than the dam or foster dam.”
It also means that even if you turn your house into a shelter with concrete floors and apoxy everything with trains and no sharp corners and nothing that can’t be steam sterilized every two weeks…. that you need to own an entirely separate facility to raise a litter if you have more than just the mother!
MAY NOT BE HOUSED IN THE SAME PRIMARY ENCLOSURE.
That’s not a minimum standard of “lovely homes” that’s forcing factory farming on home breeders.
“General requirements. The surfaces of housing facilities– including houses, dens, and other furniture-type fixtures and objects within the facility–must be constructed in a manner and made of materials that allow them to be readily cleaned and sanitized, or removed or replaced when worn or soiled. Interior surfaces and any surfaces that come in contact with dogs or cats must:
(i) Be free of excessive rust that prevents the required cleaning and sanitization, or that affects the structural strength of the surface; and
(ii) Be free of jagged edges or sharp points that might injure the animals.”
“Hard surfaces of primary enclosures and food and water receptacles must be sanitized using one of the following methods:
(i) Live steam under pressure;
(ii) Washing with hot water (at least 180 [deg]F (82.2 [deg]C)) and soap or detergent, as with a mechanical cage washer; or
(iii) Washing all soiled surfaces with appropriate detergent solutions and disinfectants, or by using a combination detergent/disinfectant product that accomplishes the same purpose, with a thorough cleaning of the surfaces to remove organic material, so as to remove all organic material and mineral buildup, and to provide sanitization followed by a clean water rinse.”
Explain to me how you’re going to sanitize your carpets and bed and drapes and carpets to fit these regulations in a home environment.
Robin Jackson says
@Tricia,
I am not 100% sure but I believe the distinction between pet dogs and specialty dogs has to do with the presumed level of knowledge of the prospective buyer. This is common is US laws regarding commerce. “consumer protection” laws are all about general retail, not purchases by persons engaged in a particular industry. There the assumption is that both sides will work things out through contract law.
A couple of tiny technical notes from the overall thread…Wisconsin passed a state law regarding the sale of dogs and also covering shelters and rescues. State legislative branch. The USDA adopted a rule, which is an executive branch action defying how a law, in this case, the Animal Welfare Act, will be interpreted. The law already existed. But the definition of “retail pet store” was changed by the new rule.
This type of thing happens all the time in Washington. For example, there’s no mention at all of service dogs in the actual federal laws, the ADA and ADAAA. Everything regarding them has come about through the implementing regulations from the Department of Justice.
The distinction between enacted law and adopted rules matters either not at all or a great deal, depending on exactly what you’re trying to do. But worth noting that the new USDA rule is not a new law. It’s a new set of definitions for an old law.
One of the reasons that matters is because you do tend to run into odd bureaucratic contortions as they try to fit new ideas into the framework of an old law. Some of that is happening here, as “pet store” is being applied in ways that make no sense in English–but may make sense in court.
Here is the APHIS fact sheet on the new rule. They address the issue of co owners, and say what triggers the need for a license is four breeding females on the same property. If you co own 10 but they’re kept two to a residence, you won’t need a license.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2013/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf
They are also going to allow the use of a stand in agent to physically view the dog, which they feel will help alleviate the issue of people who cannot travel. The stand in could be a friend, family member, trainer, etc. but not the transport agent. And not an “intermediate handler,” whatever that is.
As far as why the federal rule went for number of bitches vs number of puppies sold, that one seems pretty simple to me: they’re going for things they can catch in a onetime inspection. If you’re doing Internet sales of, say, purple pit bulls (not AKC recognised), how easy would it be to say you sold 24 puppies in a year instead of 25? Number of dogs on the premises is a lot easier to verify. It also allows them to require a license in the first year of operation, before any animals have been sold.
Note also that the fact sheet specifically says the dogs can live in the home, a separate building is not required.
As for hunting dogs, search dogs, etc who live like pets most of the time, courts have generally looked specifically at that individual dog’s training to make the distinction, not breed or living conditions. A dog is a hunting dog if she has been trained to hunt, even if you only go out during pheasant season. And again, my own guess is that the distinction in this rule has to do with the assumption that the specialty buyer is more knowledgeable than the general pet buyer. That would also apply to a dog purchased for a specialty career who develops a fault later on and ends up as just a pet.
Just a FWIW…
Shana R says
Here is a link to an APHIS website answering many of the questions people have posed. It helped convince me that the biggest legitimate concerns (namely, how the animals are required to be housed) are not something to actually worry about. It also clears up confusion about who it applies to and what is required of them.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2013/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf
Shana R says
Also, just to further address the housing issue – I recently tore out the carpet and some older tile floors on one floor of my house. I live in the city, and am planning a litter next year. Its my first litter, and as I mentioned in my first comment, I don’t have enough intact bitches to fall under the law here. In any event, I knew I needed to have a space to raise the puppies that I could sanitize. I don’t have a way to build an indoor/outdoor type run enclosure, which would be my preference for handling a litter once they are 5+ weeks old. My house is on a hill, I will have a hard time even setting up a secure outdoor pen for them to safely play in. So we tiled the floor, have a specialty grout that has epoxy in it so it is water and stain resistant and can be sanitized. I will have to carry the pups outside to potty, and I know this will make my life rather unpleasant for a couple of months. But its the best I can do. This bedroom in my house will be able to maintained per USDA standards, and the tile we chose is beautiful and looks fantastic, enough so that we are going to tile the second floor of the house too, because I’m just tired of dog related messes all over carpet 🙂
Were I to fall under the new rule, I expect I might have to make a few modifications to the room, namely that the baseboards and walls are normal that you would find in a house. They might make the room not be in compliance. But I suspect I could modify those in some manner if required. Still, I suspect any USDA inspector that came in would just sign off on it, since its obviously a heck of a lot nicer than what a miller has set up.
My point is that the USDA is going to allow a wide range of “enclosures” and the inspectors will be given freedom to use a little common sense. We should stay vigilant to ensure that common sense is prevailing, and we don’t have secret PETA people inspecting and shutting down anyone who breeds. But that seems highly unlikely and shouldn’t result in a law being scrapped because of a bunch of what-if fears.
Robin Jackson says
@BorderWars,
The 3 cleaning options apply only to “hard surfaces.” Not beds, drapes, and carpets.
And even for hard surfaces there is a choice of 3 cleaning options, and third one allows for basic household options:
“(iii) Washing all soiled surfaces with appropriate detergent solutions and disinfectants, or by using a combination detergent/disinfectant product that accomplishes the same purpose, with a thorough cleaning of the surfaces to remove organic material, so as to remove all organic material and mineral buildup, and to provide sanitization followed by a clean water rinse.”
http://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federal-laws/animal-welfare-act
My understanding regarding the puppy issue is that many house based breeders with more than just the mother meet the definition of “breeding colony.” But do breeders usually leave 3 month old puppies in unsupervised proximity to unrelated adult dogs? All the breeders I know have separate areas for young litters, but I don’t know if other practices are common.
Beth with the Corgis says
@Robin Jackson,
Your clarifications were very helpful. Thank you.
@Borderwars: you are using layman logic to try to interpret legal-ese, IMO. I think Robin Jackson’s interpretations sound more reasonable.
*****************************
Sorry for the interrupted posts, but I was at work and had limited time to finish my thoughts, so I left the main part til I got home.
In general, I think some sort of regulation was long overdue; not so many pet stores sell dogs any more (too many do, but nothing like it used to be). But lots and lots of people are buying puppies online. SOMETHING had to be done to regulate this. I live in a huge puppy mill state, and you can go online and visit all the lovely “farm-raised” puppies and see pictures of them frolicking with the owners’ children. Ugh.
However, I hope that they are open to tweaking the law to meet situations on the ground. To the casual person, having more than five “breeding bitches” sounds like a lot. But really, it isn’t. Let’s say I’m a hypothetical Pemmie breeder, who shows and dabbles in agility:
I have a three-year-old bitch who had a litter earlier in the year. I hope to breed her again next spring, and I have a 16 week old puppy bitch from her litter that I plan to run on with.
I have a four-year-old bitch who I bred once last year, and wanted to breed again one more time, but I’m having some trouble finding just the right stud for her– she is a carrier on a couple recessive genes I don’t want to pass on, and I want a total outcross on her line-bred pedigree, so my choices are relatively few. She has been my part-time agility dog, and if I can’t get the right stud before spring, I’ll place her in a full-time agility home because she’s quite good.
I have a 28-month old whose hips came back “good” and I will breed when she comes into season, hopefully January.
I have a 20-month old who just finished her conformation title and is started in agility, but I am waiting to do her hips til she’s two and I won’t know til them if I’m breeding her.
I have a 13-month old on a co-own who is living with me full-time because I’m the show handler. If she matures out well, she will be bred, but when she’s done showing she’ll go back to the co-own who raised her, and live out her days there.
How many breeding bitches do I have? Hmmm. I had one litter last year, one this year, and hope to have one or maybe two litters next year. By all definitions I am a small hobby breeder. My dogs live with me, in my home. Do I have one breeding bitch? Two? SIX??? Good grief.
Well, none of this matters because I always meet my puppy people and have them come to the house. Except now, I just got off the phone with one of my former puppy people. She’s had two dogs from me over the years. She lost one a few months ago and is ready for a puppy. She has moved 300 miles north of anywhere, and is asking if I can get her a puppy. We can make arrangements for transportation, maybe with one of my handler friends who travels to all the big shows. And I’d love to, but if I do, does this expose me to licensing?
Now let’s say I’m an actual puppy mill. I keep my breeding dogs in a big shed out back. I have Doodles and a-Poos coming out the wazoo; if you can breed it with a poodle and give it a clever name, I’ve probably got it in my shed. But I don’t ship to pet stores. Oh, no, I’ve found a much better market. I live two hours outside a huge city, and I advertise my “farm-raised” puppies all over the place. Come to my house! See them play with my kids!! Appointment only, because I’m so busy doing dog stuff. And every time someone comes to my house, I haul the poor bitch and her litter in from the shed that they never see, and set them up in my kitchen, and there you have it. Lovely home-raised puppies. Don’t mind the bitch shivering; she always gets a little nervous when she has people around a litter because she loves the puppies so much, you see.
The fact that the law might (or might not) sweep up the first breeder but not the second troubles me greatly.
The fact that ambiguity about the law might cause the first breeder to not ship a pup even if it would NOT impact her is also troubling.
So the law will, in the big picture, do good I think. I also think it will cause a chilling effect on some really good breeders who are doing everything right.
Trisha says
Here is another link that will also help to clear up some of the confusion. http://images.akc.org/pdf/governmentrelations/documents/APHIS_transcriptSept2013.pdf. Pay special attention to the top of page 3, where the regulations (not “law” as Robin aptly pointed out) are summarized. And Robin, I especially wanted to thank you for your clarification that new conditions sometimes result in old laws being modified, often not in particularly elegant ways. Sort of like evolution, which can only create adaptations to changing environments by working on the genes it has in its tool box.
And to Beth: I absolutely agree that the licensing as it stands is not ideal. But I’m not so sure about a “chilling” effect on good breeders. Really, if one breeds rarely and has one pup out of 5 years that needs to be sent sight unseen, is that really a crisis? Buyer and seller meet in the middle? Arrange for a pick up by a “stand in?” Decide not to sell that one pup to that one buyer? Decide to go ahead and pay $70 or so, get a license? I say this with a background of having bred Border collie puppies years ago, and so I do understand very well many of the complications here. But given the overall good of the regulations, I think they are a small price to pay. And again, will they eliminate the kind of places that Beth w C’s describes above as “farm-raised” puppies? No. Then again, will it also eliminate all the pain and suffering I’ve seen dogs endure because of ignorant owners, or ones who said they cared but didn’t? Not enough anyway to protect their dog from their children, or house their dogs anywhere but a feces-filled kennel in the back of the estate’s ground (my riches client by far)? No… of course not, but we can’t judge regulations designed to ameliorate some abuses because they don’t eliminate all abuses.
Robin Jackson says
OK, found out that under APHIS definitions, “intermediate handler” is a transportation company. So as far as the stand in rule goes, the breeder can’t count the commercial delivery guy who shows up to pick up the puppy as an in person viewing of the dog. But the prospective buyer can get anyone they trust to go see the puppy in person, they don’t have to go themselves. And the viewing doesn’t have to be at the breeding site, it can be at a dog show, vet’s office, or any agreed upon location.
If the buyer arranges for a vet exam by a vet local to the breeder, that would probably count as an in person viewing, although I’m not 100% sure. Certainly a friend’s visit would.
Beth with the Corgis says
BorderWars, I read the rule and I don’t see how it prevents people from socializing puppies. If you have more than five dogs in the house (even if you have two), you’d darn well better have a safe place where the puppies can be kept away from the other adult dogs; I think most breeders of any size have that.
Trisha, I don’t disagree with what you say. Having spent years on Corgi discussion groups where quite a lot of Cardigan pet puppy buyers are getting puppies shipped (because they are rare), I can also understand where some small breeders are legitimately concerned. In rare breeds, shipping (or delivering) is common. Truly if I breed once or twice a year I don’t want inpsectors around, even if everything is flawless, because it’s nerve-racking. I think just some small tweaks to the wording that deal more with the number of puppies sold and less with the number of intact dogs (which is indicative of nothing) would have made the rule a lot better.
For myself, who lives in a densely populated part of the country, I can’t imagine getting a pet shipped (maybe if I needed a specialized working dog, but of course the regs would not apply to that situation). But again, in online forums there are lots of people who live many hundreds of miles away from anyone. If you life in Alaska, of course you can’t meet anyone half way. If no one wants to sell to me because they don’t want to get involved in licensing, then that is a big impact on that one person. I have had conversations with someone who had a Cardi shipped to France, where she lives, because there are virtually no Cardi breeders there. Coming here to pick up the dog seems excessive. Rare breeds already deal with tiny gene pools. Knowing they either have to deal with only relatively local buyers or open up to licensing may drive some breeders away from some of these rare breeds completely.
That’s why I mention a chilling effect. If I am thinking of starting to breed the above-mentioned Vallhunds, I go into it knowing that even if I’m small there is a good chance I need to get into licensing and inspections. Yet people who keep dogs in sheds and sell in person (and there are lots of those in my state, if my local classified ads are to be believed) are able to continue on their merry way.
Do I think the rule change does more good than bad? Yes, I do. But I also think that more than a few breeders who don’t need to be impacted will be, and way too many awful breeders won’t be touched. That’s why I say I hope the wording gets tweaked. If you are selling 100 puppies a year, you should be open to inspections whether people are coming to your property or not, because many buyers are not informed enough to keep an eye on all the trade ads and notice that the “breeder” says the specialize in golden doodles this week, but last month they said they specialized in teacup Yorkies and next month it will be puggles, and then something else the month after that. Having the big barn in back on a large farm does not raise suspicion; puppy people don’t ask to see every building on the property and the fact that the pups are brought into the house for staging is enough to trick the modestly informed puppy buyer into thinking that what they see (one or two dogs and a litter in the house) is what they are getting.
I’d rather see this rule than nothing, but even better would be a wisely written rule that went after mass producers and their increasingly sophisticated methods of deceiving buyers.
D.C. says
Could someone please clarify the following for me. I see that breeding stock will be exempt. How will the criteria be defined? I am concerned that unscrupulous kennels will now be selling all of their dogs as breeding dogs. Which will certainly make the problem worse. I also worry that BC’s will become the breed of choice by such kennels, since working dogs are also exempt. I am hoping that there are controls in place so that this won’t be the case. Could someone set my mind at ease in this regard? Thank you.
Trisha says
Yeah again to Robin for digging through the mire. The definition of “stand in” then sounds very easily accomplished. I would imagine that would be a huge relief to many breeders.
And to Beth with Corgis: I couldn’t agree more about wishing there were regulations that simply shut down mass producers of dogs. Maybe someday….?
D.C. asks a very good question. Maybe our eagle-eyed legal-speak translater has an answer? (Robin? :-))
Sharon Woolman says
I love that farm and wish they still had trials there! Patti Sumner took some very pretty photos as well. I too could quit my day job and do herding full time :c).
BorderWars says
There ARE no definitions for vital terms here, folks, and it doesn’t matter what anyone says in their “FAQs” or clarification questions or phone calls. It only matters what is written in the Rule, and things like “breeding bitch” aren’t even defined, let alone any exemption for what a “stand in” even is or can be and how that would need to be documented.
I’ll note that people who ship puppies ALREADY have to have a Vet issue a health certificate. This would seem to nullify the effect of the rule entirely.
And why are so many of you unclear on the number of bitches? It’s not “more than 5.” Nor is it even clear if 4 is across all species at one location or individually.
(And heck, there’s not even a definition of what an applicable breeding bitch even is, so if you keep a litter to breed out to a few months, you could very well trip this condition and be in violation).
Robin Jackson says
@DC,
If you read the transcript Trisha linked to, you’ll see the inspectors will take many factors into account when determining if someone is trying to get around the rules. They give the example of a breeder who says the dogs are not being sold as pets but also advertises online saying these are “great family dogs.”
Remember the ultimate goal is to protect the unsuspecting buyer who lacks expert knowledge during a sight unseen purchase. So if APHIS receives a complaint, they’re going to look into how that breeder finds customers. If they’re advertising breeding stock, the typical pet buyer likely won’t be attracted to them. They’re going to be looking at a discrepancy between how the breeder describes their dogs to APHIS and how they describe them to the pool of unknown pet buyers, somebody who just finds them with a google search.
We might also mention that APHIS has already said someone can put down a deposit before the in person inspection without triggering the license requirement, as long as the sale isn’t yet final. They use the example of a grandmother who makes all the arrangements with the breeder, including Skype and paying a deposit, then sends her grandson to see the puppy in person and finalise the sale and take the puppy back to her. That would count as an in person sale for the breeder.
BorderWars says
I don’t think you people understand the genesis of this at all. The USDA AWA regulations used to only apply to people who bred and sold wholesale, as in puppy peddlers, puppy mills, the Amish who sell to intermediaries who then bundle and sell to pet stores. All the people who sell to Hunte, etc. who then either wholesales them again to retail stores or sells retail directly.
All the horrible puppy mills you think this is regulating, are already either covered or exempt. This does NOTHING to bring any of those horrible methods of raising companion animals under new scrutiny. Raising puppies like livestock is 100% supported by this regulation, before and after.
So I think you’re going to have to publish some of the evidence you cite here:
“Are they going to prevent some suffering in helpless dogs? Yes, all the evidence suggests that they will improve things for some dogs.”
What exactly is that evidence and how do you have any specific knowledge of what “breeders” were NOT covered before and ARE going to be covered after, and why this is so important to sweep all the rest of us under licensing as well.
Because I haven’t seen it. The USDA certainly hasn’t published ANY evidence that this is actually a problem and that the rule change will actually CHANGE that problem for the better. In fact, under the old regulation there WAS a fancy exception, but all of that language has been removed. Why?
Debbie Schoene says
“The biggest impact that I can see on responsible breeders is the case of a breeder who has lengthy contact with a potential buyer–phone calls, videos of the parents and the pups, etc, and on occasion will ship a pup across the country without the buyers every having seen the pup in person. These regulations, IF the breeder has over 5 breeding bitches (I’m not clear yet on how that is defined), AND if the pup is being sold as a pet rather than a performance dog or a breeding potential, would make those breeders have to get a license.”
I do not understand why the law applies only to the rather vague “pet” designation. What is different about the performance or breeding customer who buys sight unseen (as I have done on more than one occasion)?
BorderWars says
@DC –
Re: the “working” and “breeding stock” exemptions
You’re missing the boat. Border Collies are NOT going to be exempt from this at all. The “breeding stock” exemption is for wholesalers who supply puppy mills (in dogs), it’s not some out for people who might sell a dog without a spay neuter contract (if you read all of the communications with APHIS you’ll realize that they have no idea how hobby breeders even operate nor our culture).
Breeding stock peddlers are more common in other species (also covered under all of these rules), such as people who breed lab rats to sell to labs and people who breed rabbits to sell to commercial rabbit producers, etc. They are providing literal breeding stock.
“Working” animals are not defined. But any examples given do not include shepherd dogs (plus, I can’t name a single BC breeder in the country who does not sell at least 1 puppy to a pet home).
===========
WORKING DOGS
Q. Does this final rule bring working dogs sold at
retail under regulation?
A. Working dogs are generally understood to be dogs
that are not sold for use as pets but for purposes such
as hunting, breeding, and security. Dogs sold at retail
for these purposes do not come under regulation
under the AWA.
Q. Will APHIS require working dog breeders to be
regulated if they occasionally sell an animal as a
pet that has proved unsuitable as a working dog
due to birth defects, poor temperament, or other
flaws?
A. Individuals who intend to breed and sell dogs at
retail as working dogs may occasionally raise a dog
that lacks the characteristics that would enable it to be
sold or used for its intended working purpose. As long
as the individual originally intended to raise and sell
the dog at retail for that purpose and the individual
continues to market his or her dogs for that purpose,
the individual could sell the individual dog at retail
without needing to be regulated by APHIS.
===========
So unless you’re selling to people who run BUSINESSES, like an official hunt that has clients that come in and use the dogs and pays money, not merely “I sold a lab to a guy with a gun who hunts.” Or operates a security firm, not “I sold a dog to a family who wants a dog to keep the wife company and act as a “guard” dog, but he’s not been given formal training by a company who then sells his services or the dog itself at retail, it’s not “working.”
The vast majority of BCs sold will have nothing to do with “working” in this regard. Taking your dog out to play on sheep doesn’t count. Even if you attend trials. Nnng. If you’re not an actual working business, your dogs are not “working” simply because you use that word.
In fact, this rule is more likely to catch “working” BC breeders as retailers are treated just like wholesalers now (before you could be a wholesaler and have 3 bitches), now even being a retailer or wholesaler with 4 is the limit. Under the old rule, you could be a retailer who even occasionally had a wholesale sale (such as putting up one of your dogs for auction at a stock show, a common practice that technically makes you a wholesaler), and still NOT be licensed as a wholesaler.
Now retail are made to behave like wholesalers.
Robin Jackson says
@BorderWars,
Forgive me, but I don’t understand why you think a dog is counted as a hunting dog only if it’s sold to a hunt club? There’s a huge amount of case law on hunting dogs in the US, as well as on AWA cases from before this new regulation, and the definitions always applied to individual owners, not just hunt clubs. Judges have historically looked at specialty training, not the number of days a year a dog hunts. Many states have laws exempting hunting dogs from leash laws while on the hunt, which is why it’s come up so often.
Similarly lots of case law on guard dogs for the opposite reason: many jurisdictions require them to be registered as weapons, sometimes limit who can own them (as in felons can’t) and frequently require police to be notified of their presence. Again, it’s always come down to the individual dog’s training, not how many days a month she works.
I don’t see anything in the regulation you quoted that indicates the established definitions are being changed. Do you have some correspondence specifying the hunt club example?
Robin Jackson says
Oh, and I would agree both on your comments on border collies and on the “guard dog” who had received no formal training. To most judges, no training = not a working dog. But again lots of case law that for most purposes owner training is acceptable provided it’s specific and specialised.
Beth with the Corgis says
I posted this in the wrong discussion earlier:
Thank you again, Robin.
The reason I mentioned Vallhunds is that there are about 20 breeders in the whole country. I had briefly looked into them (I would prefer a dog with a tail, Cardis aren’t the right personality for me and I find them a bit low and heavy, and Vallhunds seemed like a nice alternative— similar to Corgis, but apparently a bit more Spitzy).
Here is the breeder list. You can see that shipping would be likely for most people.
http://www.swedishvallhund.com/breeders/breeders-list
I suppose if you can meet the dog at a show, that would be ok for a lot of people, though not for the Alaska or overseas situation I mentioned before.
Hopefully the breed clubs will do enough educating to alleviate fears of breeders where possible and give feedback to USDA where necessary.
– See more at: https://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/mris-and-dogs#comments
Beth with the Corgis says
Robin, I wanted to address this comment, which BorderWars also touches on:
“If they’re advertising breeding stock, the typical pet buyer likely won’t be attracted to them.”
Honestly, while I agree with most of what you say, this gives me pause because that so does not reflect puppy buying. The average hobby breeder will have breeding/working quality pups and pet quality pups in the same litter. Hobby breeders don’t “advertise” breeding stock per se, but they do indeed sometimes sell breeding stock. They’d be considered “show quality” or “trial quality” or whatever.
And this is where I think the regulation falls flat. The nature of the good small breeder is such that they don’t know who they will and will not breed for years; they are keeping intact animals that may or may not be breeding bitches. And how do they get counted? In my example above, the hypothetical Pem breeder has 6 bitches, all of whom have been or may be breeding bitches, but only one of whom was bred this season.
And the part quoted by Border Wars gives little comfort when it says that working dog breeders may “occasionally” sell a dog as a pet. Good working dog breeders routinely sell dogs as pets, because in any litter you will have some with the drive to work and others that don’t really have it. So a show breeder might, out of a litter of 8, have between one and three show-quality pups. another 2 or 3 that are athletic enough to compete in some venue but not typey enough for the show ring, and one or two who probably won’t stand up to any serious work but would be great pets; they might be a little crooked or a little heavy or something else that prevents them from working hard.
A field trial breeder with a litter of 8 might similarly have 2 or 3 field trial quality pups, with most of the rest being suitable for companion hunting, but would certainly place with someone who wants a jogging buddy or barn dog.
Heck, even guide dog organizations bat around 50 or 60%.
So the idea that a working dog breeder might “occasionally” sell a dog as a pet is honestly total nonsense.
Honestly between the poor definition on what constitutes breeding animals and very little definition of what constitutes working animals, this will require a lot of clarification before breeders feel comfortable, I think. Of course, not being a breeder, there may be clarifications out there that I have not seen. Your example of a breeder who claims they have working dogs but advertises them as “great family dogs” as if this is a problem is also alarming; any lab or springer or setter breeder worth their salt will hype their dogs suitability as family dogs, even if they will work, because historically these dogs lived with families while they worked….
Robin Jackson says
Sorry, one more comment. (Trisha, if you can combine all 3 of these, please do.)
First, a vet employed by the breeder doesn’t negate the rule. They’re a seller’s agent, not a buyer’s agent. It would have to be something arranged by the buyer. But I agree, it’s starting to feel a little redundant, so I’m not 100% sure on the vet.
As to this: “There ARE no definitions for vital terms here, folks, and it doesn’t matter what anyone says in their “FAQs” or clarification questions or phone calls. It only matters what is written in the Rule, ”
It’s a bit more complicated than that when it comes to federal laws. (I used to work for a Congressional Representative in DC, then as a paralegal in a big firm, so I’ve always been interested in legislative processes.)
First the law gets written. In this case the AWA. Then the executive agency responsible for enforcing that law publishes its formal Rules, which get published in the Federal Register. And then the agency issues “guidance” in the form of official documents, many of which give specific examples of different situations. Even a form may have additional explanation on it.
Judges have continually held in this century that unless the federal agency says the equivalent of “don’t rely on this” on the official documents, citizens MAY rely on them as long as they expand on the rule rather than conflict with it. (There’s also the possibility of precedent and judicial orders.)
I agree that the transcript of a talk may have inaccuracies. But the official FAQ from the official site is in a different category.
However, it’s always best to get guidance in writing about your specific case from an official, in case there’s some tiny detail that changes things.
Beth with the Corgis says
I am reading further, from the link to the regulation:
“APHIS has to assume that a female that is capable of breeding may be bred. However, in determining whether an animal is capable of breeding, an APHIS inspector will take into consideration a variety of factors, including the animal’s age, health, and fitness for breeding.”
So in my example above, the breeder who had one litter this year does indeed have five breeding females, and in a few months will have six.
I have to say that the weight of what I am reading is tipping me in the other direction, and I don’t know that these rules are good or fair. Most good breeders won’t breed a bitch til she is at least 2, usually a bit older, but most are sexually mature by one year of age. A show or performance breeder who is competing intact dogs will almost always go over the threshold of 4 at some point.
Robin Jackson says
I had a long note with quotes but it vanished and I’m too tired to recreate it, so…
Read the comments in the official Federal Register docket (link below). They discuss why APHIS didn’t just want to use a count of puppies per year, who counts as a buyer’s stand in, why they don’t think the current veterinary certificate is enough, and a very long discussion of the breeding female definition which comes down to they think their inspectors can figure that one out on a case by case basis. Which I agree makes planning very difficult.
On the local veterinarian exam, BorderWars was right and I was wrong. The buyer stand in must take custody of the dog after the sale finalises, so a local vet exam won’t work if the puppy leaves with the breeder again. The vet would have to be a buyer’s agent who examined the dog, finalised the sale, and kept physical custody of the dog and then sent it to the ultimate owner. So my apologies if I confused the issue at all. It’s not impossible that someone who has a friend who’s a vet might use that option, but it would have to be more than just a local exam.
Here’s the link to the full docket:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-003.pdf
Beth with the Corgis says
What I find sadly ironic is that the USDA seems to think that seeing the puppy in person is the line in the sand here, when in fact the worst abuses come from puppy mills that sell to pet stores or in person to begin with.
I get what they are trying to do, but a set of regs that so easily sweeps up hobby breeders while leaving so many commercial breeders untouched is just not a good ruling, IMO.
Small hobby breeders will very likely make changes to avoid having to be licensed. These changes will not necessarily be in the best interests of dogs, buyers, or breeders, but will keep the inspectors out.
People who live in more remote areas may find it hard to find good hobby breeders who will ship to them, which may shift marginally informed buyers over to larger internet breeders. Will lives improve for the large-scale internet breeders’ dogs? Well, yes. But if the end result is more puppies produced in big kennels and fewer produced by small hobby breeders, than I’m not seeing how that will improve things overall for dogs in general.
I was more on board before I read the discussion in the USDA link. It seems they almost intentionally disregared the concerns of hobby show/performance breeders.
HFR says
Trish, thank you so much for taking on yet another hot-button subject. The discussion is very enlightening. I feel, tho, that at the bottom of the issue is this: Creating life is a heavy responsibility. We humans have the power (and opposable thumbs) to manipulate and dictate bringing lives of another species into this world. If those who choose to do this are burdened and inconvenienced, I think that is not much to ask in order to safeguard the lives that are brought into this world by the determination and planning of those who choose to do so (and I am the owner of a rare breed bought sight unseen and imported from a foreign country). Those breeders who are willing to sacrifice their normal ways of doing business in order to hopefully lessen some suffering are good breeders indeed. Breeding should be treated as a privilege, one that is difficult to do but incredibly honorable when done well. It’s way too easy to do now and anything that will deter even slightly those with lower standards than the best is a good thing.
Robin Jackson says
@Beth with Corgis,
My apologies for being unclear. I agree with everything you said. My point was that if the breeder was trying to falsely claim that they were not required to get a license for their sight unseen sales, their web page would have to say they ONLY sell breeding stock sight unseen. They could still sell all the other puppies you mention in face to face transactions.
Right now there are many websites that offer “ship anywhere” service for pet puppies. Those are the ones that would need a license under the new rule. If the website said “We don’t ship puppies purchased as pets” I do think there would be fewer sight unseen pet buyers for that particular site. Remember you can sell the puppies for any purpose and still not need a license as long as none of them are shipped sight unseen.
Personally, I expect someone to sue on the “breeding female” definition and probably win, in the sense that a judge is likely to say “Our inspectors will know it when they see it” does not provide enough regulatory clarity for planning. However, that’s a be careful what you wish for situation–they could create clarity by coming down in the most restrictive version, if a female is capable of being bred, she’s a breeding female for purposes of the rule, even if it would be in advisable to do so. That’s where we’re back to square one, trying to explain hobby breeders to an agency who mostly deals with commercial breeders.
Also personally…I think the Wisconsin state law is better than the USDA rule because in Wisconsin they started from scratch and wrote something specific to dog breeding. In DC, they took an existing law and tried to shoehorn a new concern into it and, to be honest, it doesn’t fit very well.
I haven’t seen anyone mention it, but the new rule isn’t a quota by species. I believe if you had a hobby breeder with three kids, each kid has a pet female guinea pig, and the breeder has two intact female dogs, that breeder would have to get a license to sell even one pet puppy sight unseen. Even though the family had no male guinea pigs and no intention of ever breeding them or selling guinea pigs. Yes, an inspector would probably let it slide. But that’s not what the rule says.
This is completely different from the Wisconsin law, which only counted puppies actually sold. The difference is that as a new law, Wisconsin could claim jurisdiction over everyone selling puppies. The USDA has a problem because their existing law, the AWA, specifically denied them jurisdiction over “retail pet stores.” So get out the shoehorn.
I personally feel this issue needed a new law, not a new rule, and should have used the number of puppies sold standard. I think the focus should be on who needs a license, not on how the drapes get cleaned in a family home. I think if someone can prove that at the time the AWA was written a husband might have picked up the phone, called the local pet store, and asked them to send over a poodle puppy for his wife’s birthday and Congress still intended that store to be exempt from the AWA, the whole argument about “retail store” definitions falls apart.
But I’m not sure how this can be changed at this point without the involvement of Congress, and good luck with that. 🙁
Trisha says
FYI, I just saw this announcement, and added it to the post itself, but here it is here too:
USDA Animal Care announced today that they will host a series of webinars on the new Retail Pet Store Rule this November and December. You are invited to participate in any or all of these webinars to speak directly with USDA about how the rule may or may not affect you as a small/hobby breeder.
Webinars will be held Thursdays from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST for a four-week period. The schedule of topics for the webinars is as follows:
▪ November 7 – Am I regulated under USDA’s Retail Pet Store Rule?
▪ November 14 – How will USDA implement the Retail Pet Store Rule?
▪ November 21 – What is USDA’s inspection process in a home?
▪ December 5 – How will USDA enforce the Retail Pet Store Rule?
For more information and to sign up for these webinars, visit the USDA Animal Care website below.
http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/bulletins/913e0e
Beth with the Corgis says
Thank you, Robin, for taking the time to wade through some of the language and give it context.
This is tough for me because I really so strongly feel the breeding industry needs oversight. But I also can see long-term negative impacts from doing it wrong.
My dad got his hunting dog from a prominent kennel. The main owner (she has co-owns) field trials, shows, has stud service, judges, and all the rest. As best I can tell, dogs are her full-time (more or less) pursuit. She specializes in two similar breeds. They are large dogs, so she has kennels/runs in addition to bringing dogs in the house. She sells started dogs. She sends dogs into performance homes on breeding contracts (to come back to her to be bred). She may have a dozen studs and as many bitches at any time.
For her, I would gather, licensing may not be a big deal. One more set of rules to follow when she’s already following dozens. She has a bigger facility, she moves in professional dog circles.
Then I think of our Pemmie breeder, juggling a small stable of dogs around a full-time professional job, working hard to socialize pups, interview puppy people, show her own dogs, judge, participate in the breed club, do breed rescue.
My guess (and I may be totally wrong) is many of the second type of breeder will alter their practices to avoid going through licensing. Not because they are doing anything wrong, but because it’s human nature to not want inspectors in their private houses. If the FDA said that they needed to inspect anyone who served dinner to more than ten non-residents in their home, I think there would be way fewer house parties. Again, human nature.
So small breeders may very well either decide to never ship, or bring down numbers. Many may say “So what?”
But if I’m that person living in Alaska who wants a certain breed, it’s not “so what” if no one will ship to me.
And if I’m a very small breeder whose kennel partner normally handles my dogs at shows because I can’t travel much and can’t really afford a professional handler, but that partner now doesn’t want to handle my dogs because it brings her number of bitches in residence up to high, I might just stop breeding.
If I normally manage my crew so I always have young dogs coming up as older ones are retiring out, I might have to curtail that if shipping is part of the norm for my rarer breed. I might have gap years with no litters. Again, some might say “so what”, but considering the alarmingly tiny gene pools of many not-so-popular purebreds, that’s a problem. We need MORE small, good breeders, not fewer.
I could give more examples that are not far-fetched. But I feel I am probably just repeating myself.
I agree completely with your assessment. I think the Wisconsin law sounds much better. I think new rules were required and the shoe-horning you mentioned was done instead.
It almost sounds like the existing puppy-mill industry–based around pet stores, farm sales, and staging supported by classified ads— wrote the rules not to make life better for dogs, but to stop competition from the rapidly rising internet market.
Beth with the Corgis says
And Trisha, thank you for raising this issue and being brave enough to wade in. I think it’s very complicated and you make some excellent points.
Ben says
I hate even thinking about puppy mills.
Trisha (and others here who are knowledgeable), if you get time, what do you think IS the best way to go about getting rid of as many puppy mills as possible? I don’t like the idea of “people have to stop buying dogs irresponsibly” because society sucks and thats not going to happen. *sigh* but then again I guess I don’t have much faith in government either.. oh humanity..
Rebecca Golatzki DVM says
Sadly, hobby breeders are already breeding less and less in response to a variety of laws including mandatory spay/neuter, higher kennel license fees, etc. 20 years ago when I first bought my practice I would guess 50% of new puppies we saw came from shelters, 30-40% from responsible breeders, and the remainder from puppy mill or backyard breeders. I had a number of good breeder clients and always knew where to send someone for a nice quality puppy of most any breed. Now, virtually all the purebred puppies I see come from high volume breeders or backyard breeders. I can’t even remember the last one I saw with AKC papers- they all have Continental Kennel Club “papers”. And most of my breeder clients are either not breeding at all anymore, or breeding less and less. Nowadays even in my own breed where I know most everyone it’s hard to find a referral to a good breeder to send someone to, the litters are so few and far between that the average person is never going to wait long enough. There will ALWAYS be puppy mills because there will always be a market for cheaply produced, readily available impulse buy purebred puppies. Sadly, the financial, emotional, and legal cost of producing well bred, healthy purebreds gets higher and higher each year while the incentive/desire to own one and the ability to understand the difference gets lower and lower. So sad, not good for the dogs, certainly not good for the breeds, and not good for the new owners. It’s unfortunate we have to punish the people doing a good job to try and weed out a small percentage of those who are not.
Trisha says
I hear you Rebecca. When I bred Border collies I found it to be extremely taxing, although I loved many parts of it. But to do it right takes tremendous commitment. I don’t think any of the regulations or laws would have been a problem, it just takes so much energy and time and money to do it right. As importantly, I think, “breeders” have been vilified; even though I would argue that responsible breeding (as I define it) would keep dogs out of shelters. I wrote a blog post that if we educated the public what a ‘responsible’ breeder is (takes responsibility for the dog the rest of its life, will take it back anytime, no questions asked) then no dogs would be in shelters. That is not a popular view (understatement), however, I still argue that eliminating homeless dogs means encouraging people to adopt from shelters as well as keeping dogs out of shelters in the first place. The fact is that many people want to buy puppies, and always will. I do hope the new regs won’t discourage yet more responsible breeders to give up, but I think there are a lot of forces on good breeders to hang it up. A shame, I agree.
D.C. says
I know that some people are against micro-chipping, so I expect this wouldn’t be accepted. But, it seems to me that if every puppy who was sold was micro-chipped, it might go a long way in reducing the problems. A micro-chipped dog shows up at a shelter and is then returned to the breeder. It would certainly reduce the numbers of dogs bred for pure profit, if the breeders knew that they would actually be held accountable for their dogs, for life. Responsible breeders already do this. If the dog isn’t micro-chipped it can’t be sold, whether by a BYB, pet store, miller or responsible breeder. Enforcement might be difficult, but not impossible, as other countries have this type of legislation in place.
Robin Jackson says
@DC,
The problem with the microchip ID is that those who see dogs simply as commodities will take the dog back, try to sell it again, if it can’t be sold simply declare it unadoptable and kill it. It wouldn’t slow their businesses down more than a microsecond, I’m afraid. Sending a mill dog back to the mill will not solve any animal welfare issues. It would be like finding a runaway human in a child prostitution ring and sending it back to the parent whose abuse caused the child to run away in the first place.
This is always the difficulty in designing laws. The same law gets applied to the person with the best intentions and the one with the worst. But you can’t legislate a person into caring.
D.C. says
I understand what you are saying. There just has to be a solution. Northern European countries don’t have this issue and there must be something they are doing right, that could be employed in North America.
Mireille says
Uhm… Living in a 100×300 km size country I am somewhat overwhelmed by the heated shipping debate … Then again, we have a small country on our southern border with practically no regulations for puppy mills, so we can have all the rules we like, they are so damn easy to avoid for anyone. We would need European rules – and even then. One of the major problems now is rescue / puppy mill mix-up form eastern European countries (with a bad rabies scare last week, 2 puppies imported from Bulgaria were found to have rabies. I truly hope they did no attend a puppy class…,
Sorry, digressing, from your heated debate… Have nothing really to add, except maybe that for the general public it might be good that the rules make it less acceptable to ‘just order a pupy online’ which is too damn easy to do for christmas, if you get my drift
@Trisha ; working with a dog, doing that with them which they were born and bred to do.. Yup, know the feeling :-). Saying that, we sleddog owners are probably the only ones grumbling about the unseasonally warm weather… With 15-20c it’s too hot to start fall training (in our case with the scooter).
Beth with the Corgis says
Ben (and others) your question does not have an easy answer. I personally know at least two people (and “know” several others on line) who bought pet store puppies even though they know better, because they walked into a pet store and saw them and felt they were “rescuing” them to get them out of the cages. Hard as it is to say, this just empties the cage for the next puppy.
The “staging” issue is even harder to stop; mills send a whole litter at a time to a third-party stager who keeps them in a house and advertises them as “home-raised”.
I know this is a hugely unpopular thing to say, and I will preface it by saying I absolutely support the tireless work of shelters and rescues, but a certain segment of the rescue industry has a strategy that has backfired. There is a massive effort to convince people that where the dog comes from just does not matter; it’s the individual and how you treat it that matters. There is a push to say that breed doesn’t matter. Bloodline doesn’t matter. Love is what matters. Well, if breeding doesn’t matter, if only love matters, and breed traits don’t matter either, then how do you convince people that the breeding and crucial first weeks matter so much that you need to research breeders thoroughly?
The fact is, genetics do matter tremendously, and every rescue dog who has a bomb-proof personality DOES have those genetics, but has them by chance instead of by someone’s choice. Every time I see a video on Facebook of a pittie rescued from a fighting ring, and now licking someone’s face “in spite of” his awful treatment, I want to scream “He’s like that because he’s been bred for generations to be kind to people even in the middle of a fight!!!” Fighting dogs are selected to be tractable with people even when injured; it’s what can make them lovely dogs for young children in the right hands. To use that story as an example of how breeding doesn’t matter, when in fact it’s a perfect example of why breeding does matter, just confuses the whole issue.
That is not to say that people should not rescue; that is not at all the case. BUT you can advertise rescue and use factual evidence to do so. “Rescues have many dogs who happen to have been born with sweet, stable personalities and many others who have quirks that are manageable or even assets in the right home. If you are looking for a new puppy, be sure to use an involved breeder because no one can tell for certain how a puppy will mature, but good genetics and a good early start with proper socialization before the puppy goes home with you will go a long way toward ensuring your puppy grows into the adult dog you want it to be.”
Rescues and vets euthanize too many randomly bred, or poorly bred, dogs for intractable behavior problems. This gets reduced by promoting good breeding practices, NOT by trying to convince everyone they should only rescue and never buy. As Trisha mentions, breeders have been vilified. This is in large part to a certain segment of the “rescue only” industry, which has strong ties to the AR movement. It is in smaller part due to a minority of breed clubs who have created genetic train wrecks of dogs; when your “best” breeders are producing dogs who are sick by genetics, it can unfortunately cast the majority of breeds that are healthy in a poor light. Mills that make “designer hybrids” take advantage of the resulting publicity to claim their cross-breeds are healthier alternatives, which in most cases is not true.
Finally, I think some of it is due to the instant gratification trend in our culture. My husband and I had years to think about what kind of dog we wanted, because we were house-hunting. This forced a waiting period on us. We did an awful lot of research into breeds. When we finally got a house, I started with the breed club and e-mailed the breeder closest to me. She had no litters planned, but did have five adult dogs in her house and invited us to meet them. We drove almost an hour one way to see them and spend a couple hours with her. She watched us with the dogs, determined we would be good owners, and referred us to another breeder a few hours away. I e-mailed her, she asked me to call, and discussed her upcoming litters. We had phone conversations totaling probably about 5 or 6 hours over a half-dozen conversations. When the litter was 7 weeks old, we drove two hours one way to meet them. At that point, she did not even know for sure who she was keeping and who she was placing. We had another conversation or two with her on the phone, and she said she had two pups she felt would suit us perfectly. So when the litter was 10 weeks old, we drove out a second time. Turns out we saw the first pup and squealed and cooed and loved him and never even looked at the second.
But in all, between two breeders, we spent 10 hours in the car, an hour or so on e-mail, about 7 hours on the phone, and another several hours in breeders’ houses, over a period of about 5 months, all to get one puppy. Other people need to wait a year or two to get a dog, depending on what happens with the breeder and how common the dogs are.
So for many people, no matter how well-intentioned they start out, puppy fever takes over and they end up at the pet store or with the backyard breeder who has a puppy NOW.
For myself, I would like to see a multi-pronged approach to stop puppy mills:
1) Meaningful laws that prevent the warehousing of dogs.
2) The recognition by rescues that good breeders are not part of the problem. When we got our Maddie from the breeder as an adult, the breeder mentioned she was bringing in an adult neutered male who she’d sold a few years before. The owner had a drastic and unforeseen change in circumstance. The breeder, per contract, took back the dog for assessment and rehoming. Good breeders don’t have dogs that end up in shelters. Period. If something happens to the breeder, one of their colleagues would take any of her dogs back in a heartbeat. Rescuing and breeding should complement each other, not set out to take the other down.
3) Education of the extreme importance of early socialization. If you understand how important the first 14 to 16 weeks are, you would never buy a puppy who spent 10 of those weeks in a cage.
4) Education of the importance of genetics in the ultimate personality of the adult dog. Randomly bred dogs can have good genetics by chance; saying genetics are important does not therefore imply that a cross-bred dog is genetically inferior. But when you are picking a puppy, you want one from someone who knows enough about the parents and grandparents and aunts and cousins to be able to predict, with something more reliable than chance, what the adult will be like. I’ve mentioned it before, but when Jack was with us only a week or so, I had him out early on a Sunday when I saw a large group of army reservists out on weekend training. There were maybe 15 to 20 men running up a steep hill in our direction, shouting encouragement. I looked down to see how my puppy would face this, expecting him to be somewhere near my feet. Instead I found him standing 6 feet in front of me, his entire back end wagging, ears forward, eagerly anticipating the running arrival of a dozen new friends. Compare that to the number of puppies I’ve met in the park, tail between their legs and shivering when confronted with two new dogs and two new people, all of whom are friendly with relaxed body language. THAT is what genetics and early socialization do for you. And if I were the queen, that is the message I’d want to spread: let’s love the genetically fearful dogs now, while working towards a world where more puppies greet the world the way Jack did And we only get there by encouraging good breeders, not condemning them.
Sorry for the long spiel. I feel very passionately about this.
Robin Jackson says
@DC,
IFAW has estimated that over 90% of imported puppies in the Netherlands come from East European puppy mills. Most are traveling a distance of less than 1,000 miles, about the same as the distance from New York to Missouri.
Lots of things help a little. The only thing thing that makes a major difference is requiring all breeders who sell puppies to register with a local authority and be subject to random inspection–something that hobby breeders have understandably resisted.
Margaret McLaughlin says
@ Beth,
Your rant is my rant. Thanks.
Both my flat-coats came from people I know well–members of my obedience club. A couple of years ago I thought about switching breeds (the risk of inherited cancer was already scaring me), & was referred to a breeder of Irish Red & White Setters by an owner running her dog in the same agility trial. We exchanged lengthy emails & spent hours on the phone, & had I bought a puppy from her it would have involved an 8-hour drive each way, plus border crossing to & from Canada. It didn’t work out for a number of reasons–a singleton litter, & then my shoulder replacement–but I would happily have bought a puppy sight unseen from someone I had never met face-to-face.
My first dog, Cobie, came from Keeshond Rescue. I was very fortunate in that he had a lovely, stable temperament, apart from severe separation anxiety. I got great support from Kees Rescue with all my new-owner questions. The downside of rescue took a few years to show up–being a puppy-mill, pet-shop dog he was a hot mess of genetic issues just waiting to show; hypothyroidism, luxating patellas, insufficient pancreatic enzymes, inherited cardiomyopathy, & corneal dystrophy. He only lived to be 11, which is a short life for a Kees, & we spent a good bit of that life at Purdue.
My point here–& I do have one–is that almost all dogs from purebred rescue come with the same issues you would have if you bought a pet-shop puppy directly. Double that for “designer dogs”, whose breeders are idiots by definition. Even a mixed-breed from a back-yard litter isn’t going to have the right kind of handling & socialization. Except under very unusual circumstances, the dogs from what we would all agree to be ‘good breeders’ don’t show up in rescue.
So I don’t have an answer, either. I’ll agree that education is key, but a cute puppy seems to trump sense every time, especially if the person just wants a pet. Several people I know have asked my advice about getting a dog, & then blown it off, going to an Amish puppy mill & paying $5oo for a something-poo that bites, & that they eventually give away or take to the shelter.
Sorry for the ramble. Not enough sleep, too much coffee.
Kerry M. says
Beth, Hear hear. I honestly wanted to slow clap your entire post. I’ve never bought a dog from a breeder, but I want good breeders out there because I love dogs. While I prefer to adopt, I’ve never understood how people can say puppy mill and backyard breeder dogs are a genetic mess, but shelter dogs just need some TLC, missing the logical connection that shelter dogs are most likely either puppy mill and backyard breeder dogs.
It’s a complicated issue and when we pretend it isn’t, we lose sight of the real issues and the real fixes. Good breeders and good rescues need to be supported.
Robin Jackson says
@MargaretMcLaughlin,
I agree with much of what you said particularly on genetic issues, but I do think there is a small but important area where a good rescue is likely to be a great improvement over a typical pet shop dog, and that’s socialisation. First of course, the acknowledgement that just as with foster homes for human children there is a great deal of variation in rescue organisations: the good, the bad and the ugly. So you do have to research the Organisation as well as the dog. But there are good rescue organisations doing very good work.
Where the socialisation varies most from a pet shop dog is with the very young and relatively old. Rescues that foster pregnant dogs in individual family homes can have puppies from those litters that are nicely socialised for family homes.
Our own family has one of these dogs. She’s 13 years old now, 3/4 border collie from a litter where the original owner passed away, the mother had been a farm dog who got pregnant during his illness, and the city relatives were trying to sell the farm and had no interest in a pregnant country dog. She went into foster care with a farm dog rescue, and eventually had 3 puppies. All four were placed, the mother and one puppy on another farm. We see the 3rd family around town occasionally, and their dog, like ours, has done very well in a semirural family home.
Senior dogs who are 8 years old and up from a single family home who were surrendered due to a change in owner’s circumstance (death, moving, or sometimes new human household member) generally do much better if they come through a good rescue than a shelter.
Granted, many 0f these dogs, like mine, aren’t true purebreds–they’re 7/8 or 3/4 or maybe even 1/2. But they have physical attributes and breed traits associated with that breed, and often do best with prospective owners who like that profile.
And granted also that just as many, if not more, of the dogs that most good rescues handle come from much more traumatic backgrounds, including shelters, mills, abusive situations etc.
I should say, also, that none of the good rescues I know ship dogs sight unseen. In fact, they all require much more intensive screening than most of the good breeders, often including home visits before the dog is placed. They want to see all family members, including other dogs, meet the new dog before sending it home.
So for an “easy” dog, the best breeders are still the best source, where you can get generations of history on temperament and medical issues. But speaking just for myself, for an unpedigreed puppy, I would definitely choose a good rescue over a pet shop.
Respectfully,
Robin J.
Margaret McLaughlin says
@ Robin,
Your point about both young & older dogs from rescues is well taken. Our local shelter fosters puppies as you have described, & I think it’s great.
My Cobie, I was given to understand, was surrendered to rescue because his family had had a major financial disaster & could no longer afford to keep him. He had certainly been loved–he bonded with me instantly, & could not have done that if he hadn’t known how:). They also thought enough of him & his welfare to place him with a reputable rescue organization rather than dump him at the pound. The bush I was beating around was that if he HAD come from a good breeder rather than a pet store he could have been returned to said breeder rather than ending up in rescue when his family was no longer able to keep him.
I’m not trying to suggest that people should not adopt from rescue organizations, & would never, ever want to imply that anyone should buy from a pet store, be it brick & mortar or virtual. Just know that the genetic issues in your breed or mix have a good chance of raising their heads at some point.
And of course, all the screening in the world from the most careful breeder may not save you. Lia’s parents were OFA excellent, CERF clear, cardiac normal, & for 5 generations back had been cancer-free at age 10, or younger but healthy when the parents were bred, & she still has osteosarcoma. Not fair. Not at all. You can do everything right & still be caught by something where the inheritance is not understood, & for which no test exists.
Ben says
As always, so many good comments. Thanks for responding Beth. I think pretty much everything you said makes sense to me. And as always, Robin seems spot on.
This blog is the (second) best resource for learning about dogs, I swear (can’t really beat Trisha’s actual books, but still).
I’m still struggling with the moral dilemma of rescue dog vs dog from a responsible breeder. I plan to get a dog soon after I get out of school (in about 3 years). But I’ve already thought lots about rescue vs breeder, and I don’t know that 3 years is long enough to figure this one out! I might feel like I’m not doing my part if I just go the “easier” (easier in the long run) route of a breeder. But at the same time, it seems unfair to have to try to clean up the mess some of the world makes. But its not the dogs’ faults… sigh
The other thing I need to figure out in 3 years or less is what breeds of dogs would be good for me. I think intelligence ranks really high for me. Theres something about smart dogs that I just love. I guess the only other thing is that a dog with minimal needs would be good for me. You know, a dog with a real laid back personality. I can do a decent amount of exercise, but not a lot. The dog needs to be able to be independent – I will be busy. Its hard to put a number on it, but I would guess only 1-3 hours a day spent specifically on fulfilling the dogs needs (mental + physical games, walks, obedience training, grooming, etc) and another 3-4 hours just hanging out with the dog around – playing if I feel like it, but not playing if I don’t feel like it. Like, I want to stay far away from the spectrum where you start to even get close to Border Collie, etc.
So intelligence, laid-backness/dependence, and a nice bonus would be a dog less prone to bother my allergies. My parents’ dog doesn’t bother me very much at all though, so no big deal. I think she is a spaniel rottweiler mix (no one knows) if that means anything about allergies.
A guess an asterisk on the independence trait is that I still want a strong bond with the dog.
Beth with the Corgis says
Ben, (and I hope Trisha doesn’t mind me pointing toward a specific book here), I found the book “Your Purebred Puppy” a great resource for narrowing down a breed. I recommend the book over the website because you can go through it and actually score dog breeds. It’s how I landed on Corgis, and I had never even heard of them at the time (this was before they took over the internet).
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Purebred-Puppy-Second-Edition/dp/0805064451
For ourselves, we considered rescuing, but I soon realized my “must have” list was too long, especially when I developed a health problem that eliminated any dog over about 40 pounds— and I don’t personally prefer anything under 20 pounds. It needed to be energetic enough for hiking but couldn’t need hours of running, needed to be good with cats, ok being home alone for hours, not require extensive grooming or stripping, smart, trainable, not too independent (but not prone to separation anxiety), and then when we bought a house near a park that meant it had to be good with kids, strangers, crowds, etc. I quickly realized that for ME, the chances of finding that in rescue were fairly slim.
It’s a personal choice, and what you are looking for in a dog will help make that choice apparent. Other people’s list is much shorter (won’t eat the house, won’t bite the neigbhors, can walk on a leash and likes to play ball on Saturday).
Kat says
@Ben, you might take a look at English Shepherds, also known as farm collies, not an AKC recognized breed but been around for a very long time. The tend to be very smart, but also pretty laid back especially so for a herding breed.
Robin Jackson says
@Ben,
My 3 kids are in their mid twenties, as are my 4 nieces and nephews, so have recently gone through the post college transition. It differs for everyone, but all of them found their lives really unpredictable for a year or two. New job, new place to live, new commute, new friends…a 9 to 5 job often turned into a 6 in the morning to 10 at night schedule. So far only one of them who lived alone had a dog in the first year, and she taught elementary school with a very predictable schedule. So I think you’ll have time to figure it out.
Many adult dogs (but not border collies or other working farm breeds) are crepuscular, meaning most active at dawn and dusk and happy to sleep in between. But the most important first step is to know your own lifestyle, and that’s going to be hard to predict until it happens.
doug williams says
I agree 100 percent with Border Wars.. there is no “tweaking” of these rules for you because you are “special” There is no “oh I only sell a pet on occasion” rule that gives you an out..there is no “oh my house can be cleaned with Lysol so I am ok” NONE.. there is no “interpreting” the rules. The rules are written for AWA standards for lab animals and large kennels. 180 degree water is scalding hot.. most normal water heaters that means turned all of the way up.. There is no ‘Oh my bitch is only one and I am not going to breed her yet so don;t count her” rule. the rule is four or more BREEDABLE ANIMALS on YOUR premises including ones who are “visiting” and that includes ALL of your animals even livestock that you sell as pets.. pot bellied pig.. yup.. pet goats.. uh huh ..have a few female guinea pigs and two “breedable bitches’ you are over the limit and require a license.. that license is not just about 70 bucks.. it means your home or wherever you house your animals has to meet ALL AWA rules and regulations.. ALL OF THEM..and you might want to check your local zoning laws .. most people will not be allowed to build a new kennel building or open a business in your suburban neighborhood if you dare to have say.. 5 Pomeranian bitches or 5 Chihuahuas that fit comfortably on your couch or sleep in your bedroom
and Susan Clark if you really are a lawyer you should note.. this is not a law as you stated but a rule/regulation change that involved NO congressional oversight..in fact I would be that if you asked your representatives if they knew about the rule change .. they would give you a very blank look..
it is very sad to see how many people just don’t “get it” about this rule and how dangerous it is to ALL breeders of pets, and that any exemptions you have today can be gone tomorrow with stroke of the pen..
and Andy if you own a dog.. you got it from a breeder.. someone bred two dogs together to get your dog.. haphazard of not .. dogs do not come by the puppy stork
Internet sales are just an excuse for this HSUS/ASPCA/PETA driven rule.. “face to face” transactions done by “stand ins’ and “proxy’s ” or even the purchaser accomplish NOTHING to advance the welfare of animals ZIP NADA Zilch.. think a regular person can tell if a puppy has giardia.. or parasites when they pick it up.. or when their friend does? please if you believe that I have a bridge for sale..
The ideal way to really advance the welfare of dogs is to require a through veterinarian check for every pup sold..which already happens when animals are shipped.. all shipped with health certificates signed by USDA certified vets..so if APHIS/USDA does not trust it own.. why should anyone trust them
this rule is bad for ALL breeders and has been shoved down our throats by animal rights fanatics… don’t think for one minute they will stop here. They will give you just enough rope to hang yourselves from those “loopholes”
Ben says
Beth and Kat: Thanks for the info, I will look into it. Beth, good point about specificity of needs.
chienblanc4csi says
Thank you for covering this. I do think you have missed some of the most significant consequences to the Big Picture of the world of purebred, purpose-bred dogs. As legislative liaison to my breed club I have been pretty much consumed with this thing for the past year, but the past month has been quite a burden on me. I cannot shake a deep sadness, fear that we are going to lose our heritage, many valuable traditions in the dog world due to the infiltration of the USDA by some nefarious influences – namely the Animal Rights movement leaders.
I appreciate hearing from you, your position of trust in the dog community must be maintained, the voice of reason on many fronts. But . . . you may not be seeing ulterior motives – my fashionable tin foil hat notwithstanding. I truly hope that you will keep your eyes and ears open, that you will continue to follow the consequences of this rule and speak from your considerable high profile.
The Law of Unintended Consequences could hit the dog fancy hard, starting with the potential demise of the source of what we all know to be the best sound and socialized family pets – the artisan breeders. Please take Rebecca Golatzki DVM’s comment to heart, she and I are seeing the same phenomenon, although from different perspectives. I really wish we could stop following so many rabbit trails, discussing anecdotes and trying to discern intentions, fussing about so many ‘what ifs’, and get back to looking at how this might play out over over time. I am worried, not by the letter of the law, but by the fuzziness and lack of clear definitions. As in anything new, we will find over-zealous enforcement.
Can great breeders live with this? Yes. Should they have to concede their rights and give up their hard won privileges and sacrifice because of a few bad apples? Personally, I don’t think so. There are some very simple features of this rule that indicate the hidden intent, the political pressure that gave it to us:
1) the number of “breeding females”, as yet undefined, is an indication that the USDA has no useful knowledge (or ignored what they do know) of how the dog fancy operates. Of course “we” know that no one would breed every intact breeding age female they own, but a commercial kennel would not keep any intact females who were not producing puppies. When asked about why the USDA chose 3, and now 4, “breeding” females as the threshold for licensing, they state that “in their experience, they have found that people who keep fewer than 4 or 5 intact females” generally take good care of their animals. Where did they get this experience? From inspections. This is comparing apples and oranges.
2) “covered species” – this could get dicey for families whose kids participate in 4-H animal husbandry programs. Even if the only species someone is involved with is dogs, kids in Junior Handling could easily bring the family’s total of intact bitches to more than 4 if parents are breeders. Calming fears with platitudes only sets people up for inadvertently becoming law breakers. Don’t recommend that. Don’t even get me started on professional handlers who also breed and how risky this could be for their livelihood. And people with what they USDA calls “mixed business” – handlers, boarding kennels, grooming, training, hunting dog ‘camps’ – who also breed an occasional litter.
3) breed club rescue volunteers who also breed. In my breed, which is quite rare in America, the majority of our rescue committee is made up of breeders, and more than once the committee has rescued numerous dogs from substandard breeders, taking in breeding stock for rehabilitation – this could a problem. Just because it might only affect one or two people doesn’t make it right. What are the chances that the USDA would make “rescue” an exemption? Slim to none.
4) the most important of all: Home Raised Puppies. There have been rather flippant remarks made to the tune of “if you can’t stay under the threshold, ‘just’ get a license”. Don’t even THINK about that for a home based, residential breeder. It can’t be done. Period. There is far more to consider than the number of dogs – too complicated to go into here, but take my word for it, it is impossible for the vast majority of current show breeders to set up a qualified kennel.
5) “breeding females” vs number of puppies sold. Hmmmmm, that is a tough one. Our WI Act 90 bases the license on # sold, and it seems to work ok. Why, I wonder, did this rule never seem to consider that basis? I am very suspicious, because of the involvement of former HSUS high level employees within APHIS and the USDA, and the political pressure that goes along with that. The trend in America these days to disparage purebred dog breeders, and the intense pressure on the public to get their dogs “only” from shelters and rescue groups is out of control.
6) a limiting affect on breeds already deemed “endangered” by their registries. Rare breeds don’t have local markets, it may be necessary to ship puppies occasionally, and limiting the number of bitches to 4 may make outcrossing and other breeding decisions moot. What a shame for endangered breeds. Yet the family I see every fall at the Princeton flea market selling Lab puppies from a coaster wagon is going to be unregulated.
“We” need to take back our power, our prestige, if you will. Not as snob appeal (the marketing of shelter dogs is reverse snobbery), but to counter the techniques of the animal rights movement that will eventually squeeze dog ownership in general. The dog fancy, with its collection of most of the experienced and dedicated and knowledgeable breeders, isn’t getting any younger. People my age are not finding anyone to mentor any more. It’s as if the whole country has decided that buying a well bred, temperamentally sound puppy from a dedicated experienced breeder is a sin. What have we allowed to happen? Twenty five, thirty years ago when things began to improve for shelter dogs (I was there, rolling up my sleeves) we all promised that we wanted to work ourselves out of a job. But now, rescue IS the job, and often highly profitable. Talk about greed and exploitation. But I digress. This is one area where I see this rule actually doing something positive, by licensing some of those shameful “rescue transport” businesses pulling at our heart strings all the way to the bank.
Forgive me if I don’t find this rule to be so very positive. Yes, we should keep up with the changes that affect the welfare of animals, but why do we ALWAYS seem to throw the baby out with the bath water! I am not young any more. I am tired. The past two months with the flood of work – in addition to my business responsibilities – had been extremely stressful. I’ve had to talk a few people off a ledge, and I pray I won’t hear “we told you so”. Will we find this dangerously vague and subjective rule to be worth it in a couple of years? Maybe. Probably not. Stay tuned.
And, not to throw a wet blanket over your general optimism, but it is expected that HSUS will file a lawsuit against the USDA/APHIS based on enforcement of this rule. They didn’t get everything they wanted either, and they are notorious sore losers. They would prefer that anyone breeding even ONE LITTER be licensed and inspected, among other roadblocks to breeding at all.
Carolyn says
I have been thinking about this and in the end, I don’t know if it will make any difference. It will depend on who gets to define if the dog will be a show/working/hunting/performance dog.
When an outrageous forum post leads me to one of those puppy broker websites, I see ads for pups that claim that the pup is show quality (especially funny when advertising a white Golden pup in the US since cream and white are not allowed colors in AKC and white is not allowed anywhere) even when the pup has no realistic show potential. Except for disqualifying faults and neutering, any registered purebred can enter a dog show, are they show dogs? So if these greeders claim that all their pups are “show quality” are they subject to licensing?
All dogs have the potential to do obedience or rally at the lower levels, whether they ever do it is another thing. Is entering Rally Novice at one show and not qualifying or intending to enter Rally Novice enough to qualify as a performance dog? Mix breeds can compete in AKC performance events and in other performance venues, so breeders of doodles and other designer mixes can claim they are selling performance dogs.
I live in a county where the sale of dogs and cats in a retail establishment is not allowed, but there are two pet-stores very close but just outside the county boundaries that do sell pets. One is an insidious new kind of pet store called Family Puppy, very upscale, in a new expensive strip mall, very limited stock but still the same old thing. The other is a more old-school pet store that sells lots of little dogs. I realized one day when I was grooming one of their products that was an odd mix of poodle and a breed the owner could not remember, that people one day decide they want a puppy and go to the store to get one that day. They have NO preference or concern as to breed, they just chose the cutest available puppy there.
Finally, I wonder how much of the new regulations are constrained by the federal governments authority. That is, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, so it can regulate internet sales through the fact that it is possible that internet sales can go across state lines. However, they have no right to regulate sales within a state, so if someone goes to the kennel to pick up the dog, the sale is not across state lines and the federal government has no authority to regulate.
The federal government has authority to regulate kennel conditions not necessarily for the sake of the dogs, but for the elimination of communicable (to humans) diseases. I believe this is an extension of their right to regulate the food industry (livestock) to eliminate potential problems in the food supply.
I think the sale of dogs is caught up in a netherworld between livestock and consumer product sales, not a place that I envision my pups who are my best friends and family members, but the reality in the legal system.
Kerry M. says
Ben, If you are lucky enough to find a healthy dog, you will change generations with your pup. I was shocked a few years ago when I realized my barely in my 20s dog was with me until I was in my late 30s. The dogs I have now are hopefully my 40s dogs, and I’m kind of hoping I won’t be looking for another pet dog for at least 10 more years. While I agree life is too short for dogs, they can be with you for significant chunks of your life. Forget about what you should do (excepting the obvious of don’t support puppy mills) and do what you think will be the best fit for the next 15+ years of your life. If you’re lucky, you’ll have this dog until you’re an age that seems really distant to you right now.
And if you’re open to fostering, that is a great way to meet your match. When I next have a space for a permanent dog, I will likely foster first. Not because I think it’s the moral choice, but because I want to make sure the dog that stays with me is a great fit for me.
Robin Jackson says
@Carolyn,
If you read the comment section in the Docket published in the Federal Register, you’ll see that APHIS is not going to exempt dog sport dogs from the rule, but considers them the same as pets. They also are not exempting show dogs, which they also treat as pets. Only “breeding stock,” which means they’re going to consider the buyers a potential commercial breeder also.
They are going to exempt hunting dogs and guard dogs (which means dogs with specific training, usually to the level that police must be informed of the dog’s presence).
There have been unofficial comments about exempting some other types of working dogs such as working herders, but nothing official yet.
But definitely no exemption for performance sports.
When in doubt, they will assume the dog is being sold as a pet, which is one of the things that has rare breed groups very concerned.
One mechanism for situations involving very small numbers for a rare breed is to set up a charity to reimburse costs and simply not sell the puppies.
Remember it’s not shipping a puppy that triggers the rule, it’s shipping one that you sold sight unseen.
Robin Jackson says
@Carolyn,
“Finally, I wonder how much of the new regulations are constrained by the federal governments authority. That is, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, so it can regulate internet sales through the fact that it is possible that internet sales can go across state lines. However, they have no right to regulate sales within a state, so if someone goes to the kennel to pick up the dog, the sale is not across state lines and the federal government has no authority to regulate. ”
A VERY large percentage of current US federal law and regulation is based on the assertion that something that happens inside one state’s borders “affects” interstate commerce. I don’t want to open up that whole complex digression here, but any law school will have much published discussion of this issue. See, for example:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
So it’s unlikely a geographical jurisdiction argument will win out in this case. The AWA has already been held to apply to laboratories whose acts are confined to one city, indeed to one building. But read the Cornell article for history of the commerce clause in the US.
Robin Jackson says
@dougwilliams,
I agree that many people are assuming that common sense will prevail, and that has rarely been the case in government regulation.
My personal expectation based on past events is that the “breeding stock” exemption will only be applied when the buyer has a commercial breeders license. I haven’t seen that written anywhere, but I have heard it discussed, and it fits APHIS thinking on other matters.
I do think hunting dogs will be allowed to be sold to individual buyers and still fit the exemption as that fits existing case law. I agree the definition lacks precision, as it does for “working dog.”
I also agree this is likely to be pretty messy while clarification is being established.
Ben says
Yeah thanks for the extra input. I get what you are saying Robin, I just thought it would help to start thinking about this early and get familiar with a good chunk of breeds. And there are some things I know for sure: I won’t want to do the amount of work required for some dogs, even if I did have the required free time. I don’t want a dog breed known for excessive barking. I don’t want tiny tiny dogs. Etc etc. But yeah, I will remember to first have a steady lifestyle before making any commitments. Thanks again.
Carolyn says
Robin, thanks for the clarification. I am a Golden person, so I guess Golden “Greeders” will claim they are breeding hunting dogs. But once again I assume it will be for the breeder to decide if the puppies are hunting dogs or pets.
Beth with the Corgis says
Margaret, so sad about Lia. Flatcoats (and goldens) in my mind must have higher risk for cancer in the founding gene pool, since it seems prevalent in all lines. I’m not sure the answer. Only breed dogs over 5 so you can see what the grandparents do, maybe? But that leads to other issues, and in your case would not have mattered. I’d be open to careful outcrossing; I think it’s unnecessarily controversial to do so but others disagree strongly.
I know with Maddie, no one in her family tree has seizures, yet here we are. However, being able to e-mail the breeder and hear back from her the very next day about the health of her dogs was a huge psychological help to me, and in many cases can be a practical advantage as well. Most of us take for granted that we can ask about our own family histories when we are asked medical questions. It’s nice to be able to do that for our dogs as well.
ABandMM says
@Ben,
If you are able, volunteer at a local shelter. You will get to know a wide variety of dogs probably mainly mixed breeds, but maybe some purebreds), become better at observing dog behaviors and hopefully help a dog learn some skills (sit, wait walk nicely on leash) that will help it get adopted. You will also learn about some of the “issues” that some shelter dogs have. Also, based on your name I’m assuming you are a male (pardon me if I’m wrong), and that would be helpful because some dogs that are in shelters are wary of men and you can help them overcome that wariness. Even an hour or two a week can make a big difference to the dogs.
As someone else mentioned above, fostering is a very good way to experience taking care of a dog on your own without a long-term commitment. Fostering and volunteering will help you better define your “must haves” for a dog (age, activity level, size) and give you a better idea of where to find that dog.
Depending on the shelter/foster group, they might have some sort of training program (or mentors) for the volunteers to help you teach the dogs life skills, how to identify and solve common behavior problems etc. Then when you do get your dog, you will have a good knowledge base to help you with your new friend, be it a puppy, adolescent or older dog.
I got my first dog while in grad school in my early 20’s and yes I was busy and had an erratic schedule and lived on my own. However, having a dog also helped me organize my time better and there were days that the daily walk with my dog saved my mental health :). My dog and I did 2 cross country moves; leaving her behind wasn’t an option. It was more effort on my part (finding a place that took large dogs rather than being able to take first available decent place), but so worth it in the end.
Ben says
Yup I’m a guy. Hmmm I think you have a grand idea here. I think I might just take your advice and try volunteering at the local shelter at some point before I look into getting a dog.
Wow a dog in grad school? Impressive! If I had my own place (and less travel time from/to school..) I might be able to handle a low maintenance dog. But I’m only an undergrad :). I think I will be fine time management wise once I get my degree. I totally agree that walks are great. Totally clear your mind and calm you down.
Good stuff.
Nic1 says
‘I’d be open to careful outcrossing; I think it’s unnecessarily controversial to do so but others disagree strongly.’
Genetic diversity is the key to evolutionary success. Population geneticists tend to agree that continuing to breed dogs within a paradigm of closed gene pools is seriously compromising their future health. Long term, it isn’t sustainable.
Limited populations, like ‘purebred’ dogs, under strong artificial selection, subjected to high levels of incest breeding simply cannot maintain genetic viability and vigor in the long term without the periodic introduction of new and unrelated genetic material. This requires true outcrossing i.e. the introduction of stock unrelated to the breeding line and not the use of a dog which might be from someone else’s kennel but is derived from exactly the same foundation stock some generations back. Most farmers work hard to ensure that their livestock are carefully outcrossed to maintain health and vigour. Their livelihood depends upon it and we don’t want to eat sick animals. So,why do we want to breed sick companion dogs?
“People are carrying out breeding which would be first of all entirely illegal in humans and secondly is absolutely insane from the point of view of the health of the animals. In some breeds they are paying a terrible price in genetic disease.”
Dr. Steve Jones. Professor of Gentics UCL
My own research and discussions with some ‘good’ pedigree dog breeders led me straight to the shelter to adopt a mutt. We should be breeding dogs to suit our needs for the 21st Century and I found some people stuck in the 19th century. The KC assured breeder scheme did not assure me of anything. COI isn’t everything of course, but it should be a good start. I don’t really care if a dog doesn’t live up to the ‘breed standard’, as long as he ‘s healthy with a stable temperament. I just want a companionable dog as a pet. Just because the canine genome IS so malleable, that doesn’t mean we can continue to abuse it to suit our own desires. However, breed standards should be focusing on what the pet dog requires to be able to thrive in the 21st century IMO. We don’t need as many dogs to work in the field hunting and herding for example, and we don’t need dogs to simply look ‘good’ (beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder when it comes to the definition of canine beauty). We need genetically healthy companions who are emotionally and temperamentally robust to be able to cope with modern 21st century life.
Easier said than done?
There is a flawed psychological meme or fallacy at work, that a purebred dog is therefore a better dog because it has a pedigree or a history of show champions. It has resulted in a subculture that holds purebred registered animal stock to be qualitatively superior to crossbred or “mongrel” stock. Like any problem, we need to address the root cause but it’s tricky when it is so deeply entrenched in the human psyche.
If you outcross carefully – especially when focusing on health and temperament – you are absolutely not committing heresy.
Yikes. A rant. Apologies, but it is at the heart of sensible breeding IMO.
Beth with the Corgis says
Nic1, I have heard many sides of this issue and it’s not so simple. A simple outcross to fix one bad gene (like in Dalmatians) is one thing.
The kind of outcrossing you are talking about (to improve diversity) is very different. You can’t just cross in a handful of dogs, because first of all, if you are breeding for certain characteristics you will quickly breed those new genes back out as you breed back for the other genes that give those characteristics. Second of all, to get meaningful new genes you have to have a much larger number of “new” dogs brought in. Third of all, many breeds are very closely related and so share some genes already.
It’s all very complicated. I’m not a geneticist, but sheer numbers is part of the issue. Different types of finches are capable of interbreeding but don’t, yet maintain genetic health. I agree the close line-breeding we saw to establish breeds should not be maintained. But I don’t think just opening the studbook is the answer either.
In all honesty, just about every dog we have ever had is healthier than most people I know. When you look at the disease risk for things like heart disease, diabetes, alzheimer’s, cancer in people and compare to dogs, the dogs win hands down. There are a few breeds with many and severe problems, but most are healthy and in most you are not seeing the kind of immune suppression or small litters sizes you would see with true unhealthy levels of loss of genetic diversity. My Jack has never needed to see a vet except when the cat scratched his eye. Maddie was perfectly healthy and now she has seizures but it does not appear to be genetic (meaning none of her relatives have them). Jack was one of a litter of 9, the breeder had another litter that was 8 at around the same time.
You still see lots and lots of working dogs (farm dogs, hunting dogs, police dogs, assistance dogs, drug dogs, military dogs). While it is true that most dogs are “just pets”, it’s also true that many people have certain requirements for size, coat type, and activity level and that is why they still want purebreds.
I am glad going to the shelter worked for you. Don’t assume it’s a guarantee of a healthier dog. I have known many cross-bred dogs with serious genetic health problems.
Finally, I would submit that I know so many people, in person or online, who have been verbally attacked for buying a purebred puppy; I don’t think the idea that purebred dogs are “superior” holds true in our culture any more at all.
Nic1 says
Beth – You simply can’t compare dogs to humans. Dogs don’t smoke, drink alcohol or have the ability to gorge themselves senseless on junk food. Secondary health problems related to obsesity are the major health challenges for humans in western civilisation. Genetic health burdens are rare in comparison. For dogs, it’s genetic diseases that are of primary concern. This is due to inbreeding depression in some breeds. You may not like that but it’s a fact.
There are no guarantees in life with regard to the health of dogs or humans. ANY dog or human can fall ill. That is the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction. But continuing along a path of genetic self destruction with regard to breeding is hardly good sense, even when humans continue to justify why they want the dogs. Working breeds are generally bred for function and not form as the work tends to be the breed standard. Breeders simply can’t afford NOT to have health and vigour at the top of the list. Less focus on breed, more on type, such as the farmcollie for example.
http://www.farmcollie.com/breedingdogs.htm
With regard to adopting, I’m certainly not naive and I make no assumptions about anything in life. Let alone a dog that I have no history about. The number one killer of dogs is cancer – mutts included as well as purebreds and their crosses. My decision to adopt a mutt was a personal one based on my knowledge, education and lifestyle. For somebody else, it will be entirely different choice based on their own wants and needs. I’m certainly not insisting everyone adopts a mutt or verbally bashing anyone who decides to buy a purebred. You pay your money and you make your choice. Each to their own. etc.
You refered to the backcross project in Dalmations with regard to protein metabolism and uric acid levels. It took a 30 year battle to get LUA dogs registered in the US as I understand, despite the empirical evidence. Or, science. We had awful problems with KC in the UK up until recently to register these dogs.
http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/about/nash_research.htm
A (rather long) quote from this website sums up the mentality of some breeders:
‘We in the purebred fancy are our breeds’ protectors, we hold the sanctity of the stud books dear, and we are determined to maintain the purity of our breeds. Although fanciers of animals such as horses, cattle, and cats do intentional crossbreeding with regularity, we dog people neither carry on nor approve of such practices. A purebred is a purebred, we say, and that’s that.
We forget sometimes that the purebred, registered dog is a recent development, that while many breeds have been around since ancient times, no one was keeping exact track of breedings until the last hundred years or so. We don’t like to acknowledge that early breeders used judicious crosses with other breeds to help establish desired traits. And we are hesitant about suggestions that certain breed problems might be solved through judicious introduction of blood from outside the breed’s stud book …’
As I mentioned earlier, it’s a human problem more than anything else. The RSPCA have listed pedigree dog breeding as a welfare concern so please don’t try and convince me that the culture has completely shifted in this regard.
http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/pets/dogs/health/pedigreedogs
I work in health research and have a post graduate degree in molecular pathology so I have a working knowledge of the genetic mechanism of disease. I’ve also witnessed in my work how continued inbreeding in some human cultures creates the genetic depression and bottlenecks that we are also seeing in pedigree dogs.
Bulldogs for example, can’t give birth naturally. What does that tell you? What is nature telling us, importantly? That it is OK to carry on doing what we have always done?
The definition of that in the light of a known problem is called insanity.
Robin Jackson says
Cancer rates in dogs are about the same as in humans. Cancer rates in cats are lower.
http://www.wearethecure.org/more_cancer_facts.htm
Golden Retrievers have a much higher rate of cancer than most breeds, yet their lifespan is still about the same as Labs, who get less cancer but more heart disease.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704342604575222062208235690
UC Davis recently published a study on genetic disorders among mixed breeds vs pure breeds, with some very interesting results. They evaluated more than 90,000 dogs, based on medical records from 15 years.
http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10613
Beth with the Corgis says
Nic1, there were two extensive conversations of inbreeding on this site which you might find interesting:
https://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/inbreeding-in-dogs
https://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/inbreeding-in-dogs-part-ii
Nic1 says
Mutts, on average, live 1.8 years longer than most purebred dogs. Given the average lifespan of dogs, that’s about 20% longer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ted-kerasote/in-search-of-a-longerlive_b_2819334.html
Thanks for the link Beth and Robin. I did appreciate the cancer statistics but there are several causes – molecular and environmental influences – all at work in humans and dogs. The more we learn about the genome, proteomics and epigenetics, the more we will understand about the molecular mechanism of all cancer. There are several genetic translocations in humans that predispose people to certain types of cancer and interestingly these markers can also predict the effectiveness of certain types of treatment. Inbreeding fuels a lack of MHC diversity. In nature, we choose our mates through scent mostly. Our MHC genetics are at work here too, almost unconsciously, to ensure healthy immunity. Dogs aren’t allowed to chose their mates of course. Sensible selective breeding focusing on health and temperament requires greater attention and discussion IMO, because we can’t let dogs randomly mate and we can’t continue along the purebred (closed stud book) route either.
I was chatting to a representative of Guide Dogs UK this evening and they are using more crosses and mixes in their breeding programme.
http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/aboutus/national-breeding-centre/nbc-revealed/our-breeds/#.UnFp0GtYCK0
Apparently, they are seeing fewer cases of hip dysplasia in the most popular cross, labrador/Goldens. They also ensure to screen for SA in their breeding bitches too. It’s this sort of sensibility that is so encouraging as it based on function more than form.
So many dogs (working or show lines) end up in pet homes. I’d love to know what percentage. Therefore, pets really deserve a breed standard of their own. Health is paramount and sensible outcrossing to prioritise welfare of dogs should not be the ‘elephant in the room’.
When you look at some of the breed standards under temperament, there are many euphemisms mentioned that generally mean ‘hard to socialise’ such as: ‘independent, loyal yet aloof’; ‘dignified, courageous yet aloof; tends to show dominance over other dogs.’ Dogs like these don’t stand a chance in the future if they end up with owners who don’t manage them appropriately. The law tends to be reactive to dogs with bad owners before the dog breeding world enacts change. Hence BSL, of which we know there really isn’t any evidence to suggest it should exist. The law in the UK is changing to have the power to imprison owners up to 14 years if they possess a dog that kills. If their dog attacks another animal such as a service dog, they can be sentenced to 4 years in jail. They can also be prosecuted if their dog attacks somebody, anybody, on their own property. Be it the postman, the utility worker or a screaming child retrieving a stray football. As a side note, the definition of attack in some reports, has included the words ‘bite’ and ‘bark’…….However, if the dog attacks a burglar, no problem. You won’t go to jail. When did dogs suddenly get the ability to discriminate between which strangers it can or can’t attack? Does the average owner understand that dogs are incapable of this? The ‘hard to socialise breeds’ do not have genetics on their side in this regard if people continue to accept current breed standards as the holy grail.
A renowned trainer wrote about her experience on visiting a breeding centre for guide dogs. She was told the tale about a dog from the breeding programme who went off to a pet home in the countryside where it wasn’t socialised, taken out on visits to new places, rarely had left the home and they rarely, if ever, had any visitors to the home. A trainer assessing the dog as an adult noted that she was mildly reactive to novel stimuli. Thereby lies the importance and the power of genetics.
Margaret McLaughlin says
Nic!, in my area there are 2 groups–the Amish & the Wisler Mennonites–who do resemble (no disrespect intended) inbred/linebred dogs, because their gene pools are small & essentially closed. Both groups suffer from severe inherited diseases; there is a 6-finger dwarfism among the Amish, for example, which can be traced to 1 individual a couple hundred years back, & Maple Syrup Urine Disease & other similar metabolic diseases among the Wislers. Both groups are a medical researcher’s Paradise, since they have kept accurate family records going back, in the case of the Amish, for centuries. Children of individuals who leave these churches & marry “out” are not affected unless there’s a common ancestor lurking in the background, recessive genes being what they are.
Beth, the unanswerable question at this point is whether we’re talking a higher incidence of cancer in flat-coats, or better data. The over-all numbers of flat-coats is much, much lower than Labs or goldens, & no one is cranking them out in back yards & puppy mills, & the national breed club is very active in health matters–the also have a cancer support group, which has been very helpful to me, & breeders know where their puppies are. As you probably know, both Labs & flat-coats were descended from the Lesser Saint Johns’s Dog, with other things mixed in when they were taken to England–Gordon Setter, in the case of the flat-coat–& the golden was developed from the flat-coat, with the addition of the now-extinct Tweed Water Spaniel, & probably something else. The Newf, which came from the Greater Saint John”s Dog, also has a high incidence of osteosarcoma. So yeah, common ancestors.
Another issue I haven’t seen addressed here yet, is that the gene pools of many European breeds were reduced drastically by World War 2 & its aftermath. A lot of breeds were down to few breedable individuals by the time there was enough food available to resume breeding programs. 6 years + is a long time in the life of a dog. Even those breeders with good intentions have had much less choice since 1939.
Beth with the Corgis says
Nic1, I have argued vociferously on this and other forums that we need to rapidly breed away from the sorts of extreme conformation that make bulldogs unable to whelp, pugs unable to breathe properly, produce skin folds that are virtually guaranteed to cause infections in the absence of constant care, etc. I think that using the most extreme breeds to represent all of dogdom, though, is not really being fair to all the many dozens of breeds that don’t have those issues.
Your comment that the genetic health burden in humans is small is interesting in that the exact opposite is being shown by genetic research.
Something like 8% of the population has some sort of auto-immune disease, and I believe just about all auto-immune diseases have genetic factors (though clearly there is something else involved, since not everyone with the risk gets the disease and most of them are polygenic to the tune of dozens of genes).
http://www.gene.com/patients/disease-education/autoimmune-disorders-fact-sheet
There are several genes that play a key role in Alzheimer’s disease (again, there are other risk factors). Alzheimer’s will affect about a third of people if they live long enough (85, I think).
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alzheimers-genes/AZ00047
There are strong genetic links for heart disease
http://www.webmd.com/heart/news/20110308/new-genetic-links-to-heart-disease
Cancer, diabetes, and many other human diseases have strong genetic risk factors. Again, many appear to be polygenic and require certain environmental triggers, but the same is true of many inherited dog diseases. Hip dysplasia is more likely with obesity, CCL tears seem more likely in “weekend warrior” dogs who exercise sporadically, there are studies showing strong differences between intact and neutered animals in certain injuries and cancers, and so on.
The genetic disease burden on people is actually quite large if you add it all up. And yes, definitely people from some countries or ethnic backgrounds have much higher rates of certain diseases than others.
Robin Jackson, thanks for the link. Very interesting!
HFR says
This is kind of interesting from the UC Davis study when considering the new research that indicates a higher occurrence of CCL problems in spayed/neutered dogs given that probably more mutts than purebreds are neutered, no?
“She noted, for example, that elbow dysplasia and dilated cardiomyopathy, a heart condition, appeared more frequently among purebred dogs. But rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in the knee was more common in mixed breeds.”
Robin Jackson says
Regarding autoimmune diseases, there’s undeniably a genetic component, but it’s smaller than you might expect. If one of identical twins has multiple sclerosis, there is a 25% chance that the other will. That’s about 100 times more likely than a random person, but still gives a 3 out of 4 chance that the other twin won’t have it.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.1780360902/abstract
LisaW says
While it’s true that dysplasia is a polygenic trait and can skip generations, obesity is not the main trigger. As well as jumping, running on hard surfaces, overstressing the joints at a young age, hip dysplasia is exacerbated by feeding a very high-calorie diet to growing dogs as well as a diet with an imbalance of calcium and phosphorous.
One of my dogs has severe hip dysplasia and has never been overweight. She came from someone out west whose son bred her mom as part of a 4-H project, she was then bought by people who moved east and was kept in a crate 24/7 until we got her. She was 4 months when we took her in and about 5 months when we got the diagnosis. When I finally tracked down the “breeder” to tell her the severity of my dog’s hips so that she would not breed the mom (or dad) again, she was argumentative and said her son had such a good time with the first liter, he would probably do it again for a second badge or whatever they give out in 4-H. Now there ought to be a law against that.
Our other dog has compromised joints as well and has had a CCL injury. Again, possibly polygenic, and she is not overweight or large and not a weekend warrior. She is a tank-of-a-terrier who had the same amount of controlled exercise 7 days a week. More studies are finding a link between CCL injuries and compromised immune systems and dysplasia rather than being caused by a one-time trauma or over-doing it.
I think that what both these dogs share is a less-than-ideal early start and questionable early handling, feeding, socialization, etc. My hunch is they both may have predispositions to their various health issues and were not given a chance to develop the strong bone and muscle structures and resistance.
What this discussion on breeding and closed gene pools and confirmation and pure vs. mixed leads me to of course is my two current dogs. Did I adopt them because they had health issues? No. I didn’t know they had some serious challenges. Do I regret my decision? No. I can’t imagine living without them. Have I had “purebreds” with health issues? Yes. Osteosarcoma, osteoarthritis, mild hip dysplasia, allergies to name a few. Does speculating on their future health ever influence my decision to take in a dog for the rest of their lives? Never.
Do I find breeding for looks and form rather than health or function extremely troubling? Yes, it too closely parallels the eugenic experiments done in the 1900s, and I see no reason to create unhealthy and in some cases suffering animals solely for a ribbon. Hmm, circled right back to the 4-H back-yard breeder. How do the new rules help regulate these scenarios of breeding for extreme confirmation and back-yard, 4-H “breeders?” Or is the health and welfare of the animal not really at the heart of these regulations?
Beth with the Corgis says
If it helps, AKC has been talking a lot (or at least giving lip service) to genetic diversity. Breeders didn’t line breed heavily because they didn’t care; they did it because they were following guidance of others who told them that was the way to ensure no nasty surprises.
Genetic research is in its infancy. In trying to find peer-reviewed papers (instead of just someone’s opinion) in regards to purebred dogs, it seems things are both better and worse than we thought. Worse, because in some breeds with relatively high numbers we have the genetic equivalent of 8 or 10 individuals.
Better, because pedigree not withstanding, when you actually map the DNA (as opposed to the pedigree) they are finding more variation in many breeds than family tree or phenotype would indicate. Of the breeds they’ve mapped, only a few seem to be in immediate dire straits. Genes are funny. They mutate on their own, for one. For two, they tend to come in clusters.
There is a fundamental difference between upticks in deleterious recessives and a general loss of health due to immune suppression caused by limited diversity. There are not necessarily the same genes.
To bring it back to the original discussion (and it does matter), any regulations that might discourage the very small hobby breeders can’t possibly help the problem of genetic diversity. If there is a plus, it may be that more breeder-competitors choose to keep more studs and fewer breeding bitches; popular sire syndrome is one of several common causes of genetic bottle-necks. So if you decide to outcross by shipping semen instead of shipping puppies, that might be an unforseen plus.
Robin Jackson says
Also back to the original topic: most people don’t expect their hobbies, whether it’s golf or English country dancing, to cover costs. From a public policy standpoint, it’s hard to argue that the “hobby breeder” category needs to cover those who sell over the Internet. If someone is interested in preserving a rare breed, they can do that, they can send a puppy to France or Alaska, they can let their dogs sleep on the couch and leave the water heater set to any temperature they want and they never have to let the USDA into their house. As long as they don’t charge for the puppy they ship sight unseen.
If it’s a question of all the costs and inconvenience involved with passing a USDA inspection vs occasionally not charging for that very rare circumstance as has been described in this thread, why not just not charge? Why not run a hobby as a hobby?
These aren’t intended as rhetorical questions, just a sincere observation. I agree that the USDA doesn’t understand hobby breeders, and as I’ve already mentioned I personally would much rather see a number-of-puppies-sold definition of who needs a license. I much prefer the Wisconsin law. But I’m just not sure why hobby breeders have a public policy argument for being exempted from licensing if they are selling sight unseen.
Respectfully,
Robin J.
Beth with the Corgis says
HFR, you bring up an very good point that we are not necessarily comparing like to like. It may be true that purebreds are more likely to be intact (breeding and competition animals). Then again, it may be true that mixed breeds are more likely to be intact (free or cheap dogs obtained from litters of friends and family, with no one in the picture stressing the importance of spay/neuter). The number of mixed breed dogs in shelters compared to purebreds (at least in my area) would make me tend to think there are more intact mixed breeds, but that may not be true.
LisaW, my impression is the law is designed to protect puppy buyers, not dogs.
Robin Jackson, I have followed genetic research on auto-immune/auto-inflammatory diseases very carefully (have even shipped off tubes of blood and had my family send saliva swabs to take part in some of that gene mapping) because I have an auto-inflammatory disease.
It basically seems that you are much more likely to get a disease if you have certain combinations of genes, but most people with the genes are not going to get the disease. There are marker genes and then genetic “switches” and it seems that certain unknown environmental factors turn the switches. It may be exposure to certain pathogens; mice bred to carry a gene for a particular sort of arthritis don’t get it if raised in a sterile environment but that begs the question of whether there is a certain pathogen trigger, OR if it’s just the fact that the unchallenged immune system never heats up enough to go haywire. There have been interesting results indicating gut microbes may play a role, others indicating that intestinal worms of all things may “train” the immune system to ignore minor intrusions and behave itself— which would mean the lack of intestinal worms in people living in developed nations might contribute to these types of diseases. Still other studies seem to show there is a defective gene that prevents the immune system from clearing cellular debris from minor infections and so the immune system still “sees” the debris and never stops attacking.
Moreover, true auto-immune disease involves auto-antibodies, where auto-inflammatory disease involves the more primitive immune system firing and catching the body’s own tissue in friendly fire, so to speak.
Or maybe not. The research is still so early. But it does seem you need the genes to begin with.
In dogs, DM is a good example (though not auto-immune per se; it’s degenerative and similar to ALS in people). Something like 50% of all Pems carry two copies of the marker gene for DM and are therefore “at risk” for developing the disease. But only about 1.5% of Pems DO get the disease. So that means that most who are genetically susceptible never get it, and they already believe there are other genes involved. There may be environmental factors as well.
Nic1, regarding lifespan of mixes vs purebreds: I accept the evidence as presented, but would like to see more studies done that compare like to like. Are we comparing similar numbers of intact to neutered dogs? Age of neutering? What about puppy mortality? In all of dogdom, my understanding is puppy mortality can run anywhere from 15% to 30%. But the experience of the owner of the whelping bitch can have a huge impact on that rate. For instance, the breeder we got ours from had a whole litter who had to be bottle fed from the beginning due to a problem with the bitch. Knowing what I know of nursing vs bottle feeding in many animals, I would expect that over large numbers of dogs, bottle-fed pups would have slightly higher risks of all sorts of things than pups who nursed. Are we comparing similar cohorts as far as issues such as that and extreme measures taken to save failing pups (whose failing might mask other health problems)? If Dog Group A lost 25% of its least healthy members at birth (before they got counted) and Dog Group B only lost 10% of its least healthy members at or soon after birth, comparing the outcomes of the surviving adults would not be a fair comparison.
Whether or not that is the case is not something we know, because the studies that have been done (or the ones I have seen) only look at average age of death of the dogs themselves and don’t correct for relatives who never survived to be counted.
Since owners of whoopsee litters are less likely to have the resources to help troubled pups than professional or serious hobby breeders, AND since many serious breeders can recount stories of tubing and hand rearing and heating pups, I find it difficult to believe this has no impact on long-term outcomes across populations.
I completely agree that close inbreeding over generations is bad for the genetic health of dogs. I’m not disagreeing with that. I think though that the questions of what is acceptable and isn’t is still open to debate, and we need better studies that compare like to like more carefully than they do. While it is true that each breed has lost genetic variation, I believe I read that the dog as a whole has more genetic variation than the wolf. So again, how much is “too much” to lose? I think we’ve crossed the line in several breeds, but I think that we can maintain sufficient diversity in many others and that increased education is slowly starting to happen in some of the clubs.
Beth with the Corgis says
Another question I have is how do life expectancy studies correct for all the many dogs who were adopted as adults and whose ages are therefore uncertain?
And how do the surveys correct for dogs who go through shelter systems and are euthanized there due to health issues? Certainly neither veterinary hospital surveys nor questionnaires to owners would capture any of these dogs?
That’s why I’d like to see studies that followed large numbers of litters from birth to death, but that would take some amount of money and time to complete.
Robin Jackson says
Regarding this:
“my impression is the law is designed to protect puppy buyers, not dogs. ”
This is part of the inconsistency surrounding the new regulations.
The actual law, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was intended for exactly what the name says: to protect the welfare of animals in labs and wholesale breeders. Because “retail pet stores” were specifically exempted, there were no real consumer protection concerns regarding purchase of a new pet. It was all about setting minimum standards for animals mostly housed in longterm facilities who weren’t covered by existing laws that dealt with agricultural animals. There was also a huge fear at the time that pets were being stolen and sold to laboratories as research subjects. So the individual ID and sourcing record requirements were intended to address that.
http://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federal-laws/animal-welfare-act
“That, in order to protect the owners of dogs and cats from theft of such pets, to prevent the sale or use of dogs and cats which have been stolen, and to insure that certain animals intended for use in research facilities are provided humane care and treatment, it is essential to regulate the transportation, purchase, sale, housing, care, handling, and treatment of such animals by persons or organizations engaged in using them for research or experimental purposes or in transporting, buying, or selling them for such use.”
Since then it has amended multiple times, mostly to address animal fighting and to set additional standards for shelters to make sure that brokers who sell animals to labs for testing could not acquire them from lost pet shelters for that purpose.
“(1) “(D) the name and address of the person, pound, or shelter from which the dog or cat was purchased or otherwise acquired by the dealer, and an assurance that such person, pound, or shelter was notified that such dog or cat may be used for research or educational purposes.”
However…the USDA has said that the motivation for the newest regulations is the number of complaints they have received from ordinary consumers who had bought pets unseen off the Internet who had puppy mill type problems of health or temperament. So again, shoehorn: a law that was originally intended to set animal husbandry standards is being stretched to serve consumer protection concerns. And a law that specifically exempted retail pet sales is being stretched to apply specifically to…retail pet sales. Which it does by redefining “retail pet store” so that a sight unseen pet sale is no longer counted as a retail pet sale. :0
That brings us back to the things that make no sense in English, but may make sense in court.
Nic1 says
‘Or is the health and welfare of the animal not really at the heart of these regulations?’
LisaW – No, I don’t think it is, hence my rant. The regulations seem like sticking plaster as opposed to addressing the root cause which is to breed more for function, health and temperament. What is the point of regulating the practice when the raw materials and blueprints are fundamentally flawed in so many breeds?
The breed standard for the Standard Poodle, for example:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=4097
This has totally screwed them based on the eugenics principle that ‘strong colours’ are only considered ‘robust and healthy’. Essential genetic diversity has been lost due to the emphasis on breeding for colour. A lot of these rtpes of dogs have also been used in ‘healthier’ crosses, such as Labradoodles, Cockapoos. etc.
http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/7/post/2013/09/an-open-letter-to-the-canadian-poodle-club-and-others-that-love-the-breed.html
Pugs are the 9th most popular dog breed in the UK and the most popular of the toy breed, yet so genetically homogenous that it’s the equivalent of about 20 individuals. Unfortunately, syringomyelia has started to crop up in this breed too.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/128950/quarterly_breed_stats_-_toys.pdf
As you can see, from the KC data, Pugs are increasing in popularity too.
Beth – If there truly are ‘many dozens of breeds with no issues’ then this will not always be the case if breeding practices continue as they are. The issue is surely to emphasise effective measures to maintain genetic diversity in these breeds? Particularly if they are to survive in the future. ‘Good’, progressive breeders who embrace science and empiricism should be supported and encouraged, not ostracised by breed clubs and kennel clubs
In dogs, the only really useful marker for immune system function that I am aware of is the TGAA test (thyroglobulin autoantibdy).
http://rrcus.org/rhodesianridgebackhealth/resources/lymphocyticthyroiditis.html
In humans, auto antibodies can be raised for months or years before any disease progression takes hold and therefore while people are asymptomatic.
If you screened your breeding bitches for TGAA , it may not be a good idea to use her as a dam if titres were raised? The nature of auto immune disease means that you often end up with more than type anyway so it may be a good marker for the general health of the immune system, particularly in the absence of any other tests.
http://www.akcchf.org/canine-health/your-dogs-health/major-histocompatibility.html
I can’t see the point of breed clubs spending time and money fruitlessly searching for genes where changing the selection criteria for breeding would help. For example, the miniature dachshund and the quest for an IVDD marker.
http://www.ufaw.org.uk/intervertebraldicdiseasedachshunds.php
Why not select for slightly longer legs and shorter bodies and move away from dwarfism to enable better spinal health? Again, select more for function as opposed to form. After all, most of them aren’t sent down badger holes these days…..
Not exactly easy to find health information on the breed club website either:
http://www.dachshundclub.co.uk/
Of course, breeding dogs is an extremely difficult process to get right. But I think it is important for breed clubs and KCs to actually research what traits people want in their dogs, as opposed to continue to do what they have always done. Breed standards require a radical overhaul for the 21st century IMO.
On a lighter note, this made me smile. Who thought dogs had their own dialects?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/10418004/How-your-dogs-wagging-tail-can-reveal-its-emotions.html
Beth with the Corgis says
Robin Jackson, to answer your question: “But I’m just not sure why hobby breeders have a public policy argument for being exempted from licensing if they are selling sight unseen.”
To me, it falls under “reasonableness.” To require licensing of people who sell more than a certain number of dogs from more than a certain number of litters passes a reasonableness test. Regulating based on the number of intact dogs you own (with only one puppy needed to be sold sight unseen) does not seem reasonable. People who compete keep intact dogs. It penalizes people for having a hobby, rather than regulating economic activity.
Let me put it this way. My husband very rarely does some web design work, for compensation, from home. Should that trigger OSHA inspectors? Surely if he ran a big design firm with 25 employees he would expect to comply . But do we expect our house to comply? And if we were a big family and had 12 people living here, why would that make any difference as to whether or not OSHA inspected his workplace?
Similarly, if I sometimes hire someone to cut my grass, someone to trim a tree, someone to walk a dog, etc, does that mean I have “employees” and should have my house inspected?
If I have a side job baking cakes, that is in addition to my full time work, mostly word-of-mouth, but on rare occasion I ship a cake to a cousin’s graduation in Wyoming, does that mean FDA should come in and inspect my home baking facilities? If I have some backyard hens and sometimes sell eggs for $2, and offer to set up a home delivery service in the off-season when the farmers’ market closes, should that trigger inspections of my facilities?
Now, I consider myself a political liberal and am generally not opposed in principal to rules and regulations. But even I think that the government inspecting my home any time I hire someone to clean my windows or accept a few dollars (or trade) for small quantities of food I produce is taking things way too far.
Other commerce is regulated based on quantity of the business produced. Why they picked this random tipping point (shipping + number of females who possess ovaries) for dog breeding inspections defies any sort of logic.
Your question about “giving” away puppies is interesting, though it might attract scrutiny. I guess my question is, how would a breeder go about advertising that, or publicizing it, and not open herself up to all sorts of problems? Even rescues won’t give away dogs because they feel that it encourages people who want dogs for nefarious reasons to be less than truthful. While a scheme might be worked out, I could see that it would be difficult in terms of advertising, fairness (“I live two hours away; why can’t I have a free dog if you ship it to me? Or ship it to my aunt in Maine and then I’ll go get it from her there”), legal glitches in ownership, etc.
Ben says
Beth, excellent points about the life expectancy studies. Thats the problem when you start throwing studies’ results around: it takes enormous effort to truly understand the methodology of just one study. Even then, you still have to wonder: has this study been replicated? And then there is the “who is funding it?” Even in human health studies, theres a lot of evidence that there are a huge number of studies that don’t get published if the funder does not get the result they want. Meaning the ones which are published may be obtained by repitition/chance. So, reading one news article that summarizes a study’s findings doesn’t convince me of much.
Regarding the role of autoimmune disease and gut microbiology, the Old Friends hypothesis is where its at! I think the gut microbiome plays a significant role in lots of things 🙂
I’m not following this regulation very closely at all, but it seems to me that most people are in agreement that a number-of-puppies-sold measurement is better than a number-of-breeding-bitches measurement.
Ben says
Oh and also: breeding dogs for looks and not functionality is just stupid IMO. As much as I think people underestimate the impact the environment and gene expression, I think it is so important for us to start breeding dogs with healthier genes.
Nic1 says
‘While it is true that each breed has lost genetic variation, I believe I read that the dog as a whole has more genetic variation than the wolf.’
There is more phenotypic diversity in dogs compared to wolves. Deleterious mutations occur faster in populations where natural selection is relaxed (as in dogs), resulting in a decline in fitness. We’ve strongly selected dogs for such a wide variety of traits that it’s possible we’ve induced a level of functional genetic diversity throughout the domestic dog’s genome including individual genes and factors affecting gene expression. However, these artificial pressures of selection has led us both to the wide variety of phenotypes as well as the wide variety of diseases. Gray wolves certainly don’t have that problem.
Nic1 says
Margaret – that’s fascinating regarding the Amish. I saw similar levels of genetic disease in an elite ruling family from the Arabian peninsula – thalassaemia, SCD, infertility, SLE, inborn errors of metabolism, dwarfism, schizophrenia etc. were rampant unfortunately. The Islamic world has strong traditions of marrying first cousins, particularly in families where there is an emphasis on keeping economic and powers trauctures in place, not unlike the European royal families back in the day. Again, Dr. Steve Jones has offended a whole other set of people (as well as dogdom) by speaking up about this in our own culture:
http://marranci.com/2011/05/31/genes-marriages-cousins-and-upset-british-muslims/
I’d also like to see A LOT more research done on dogs in lots of different areas. But then there’s no point trying to prove whether a mixed breed really does live longer than a pedigree dog if you practice and then regulate functionally sound breeding practices in the first place.
Robin Jackson says
@Beth with Corgis,
Your OSHA examples are very good, and a good argument for the number of puppies standard. Again, though, no one is being “penalized for having a hobby”–it’s not breeding per se that triggers the licensing requirement, but only the specific instance of SELLING a puppy sight unseen.
The “selling cakes as a side business,” though, is actually an example of the opposite argument, although subject to state jurisdiction, not federal. In most jurisdictions now in the US, as a matter of public welfare, if you sell even one cake, you will be subject to local food preparation rules, many of which may be hard to meet in a home kitchen. Consequently there has grown up a new and thriving business of schools and churches which have commercial kitchens renting time to individual home cooks. I know one artisan cupcake baker who rents kitchen time from a local hotel kitchen for 4 hours a week so she doesn’t have to deal with code issues. So this would actually be an example supporting local regulation of any breeder selling even one puppy. No business is considered too small.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/start-cupcake-business-home-259.html
The interesting thing is that baking also provides an example of the other model I mentioned: setting up a charity for rare breeds to support the small breeders. In the same communities that require a commercial kitchen for people selling even one cupcake, there is often an exemption for bake sales for churches and schools and other charities.
This is less true than it used to be–some jurisdictions now do require that all the bake sale goods be produced in a commercial kitchen, so the parents do their baking at the school rather than at home. But there are still jurisdictions where you can bake at home and have the goods sold in a bake sale to benefit a charity.
The legal keys are that the baker does not receive the money, the charity does. And the goods are identified as home baked.
I believe that breeders of rare breeds could offer pet puppies free to a charity operated by their breed club, that charity could screen prospective pet homes, and not trigger the licensing requirements. You’d have to consult an attorney, but I think there would be no problem with the prospective adopter being required to buy a 10 year veterinary care insurance policy and pay all shipping costs. I don’t think that as the new rule was written the charity could require an adoption fee for that specific puppy, but they could accept general donations as all charities do from anyone interested in seeing rare breed puppies end up in quality homes.
How much financial support they could in turn give an individual breeder without triggering the new licensing requirement would get very complex legally. But certainly you could have one place where the hypothetical Alaska resident could go to find a quality puppy that could be shipped sight unseen. And note that as long as the charity doesn’t charge the eventual adopter it might even be possible legally for the breeder to sell the puppy to the charity who does have someone physically view it. But again, legally complex.
As long as the hobby is “breeding,” not “breeding for sale,” there will probably be some options. But as with the cake example, there are some situations where even one is enough to trigger oversight regulation. A research lab in just one building with one animal subject, a gorilla learning sign language, is still subject to the welfare part of the federal Animal Welfare Act.
So it’s tricky. You can find legal examples supporting every level of “reasonableness” for some oversight regulation.
I personally think a case could be made for “effective use of public resources.” That it’s more sensible from a public budget point of view to limit inspections to breeders selling more than two dozen puppies per year. However, the counter argument to that is the welfare one.
So no simple answers, because we’re mixing multiple goals: animal welfare, consumer protection, and commercial oversight.
LisaW says
Nic1, I don’t think so either, hence my question! Is this a puppy lemon law?
I am at a loss as to how these rules would actually be enforced (regardless of whether I agree with them or not). With so many USDA rules and regs about our food supply, how we grow/process our food is making us sick (not to mention how the animals are handled). So, what is this really about?
One thing Robin wrote really caught my eye: “Since then it has amended multiple times, mostly to address animal fighting and to set additional standards for shelters to make sure that brokers who sell animals to labs for testing could not acquire them from lost pet shelters for that purpose.”
Animal fighting, a whole new can of worms. . .
Years ago my methodology teacher told us to always ask: Who is it that’s telling you something? What are they really saying? and What do they have to gain?
Robin Jackson says
The enabling regulations for the AWA are handled by APHIS.
An inspection is scheduled, sometimes random, sometimes because of an investigation, sometimes at the request of local law enforcement, sometimes as the result if complaints (usually from neighbours or customers, but sometimes from utility company employees or others who happen to view the property).
An inspector does a walkthrough and notes anything not in compliance. What happens next varies on the severity of the problems. In many cases there’s just a warning and a second inspection later to see that problems were fixed. If there are serious animal welfare issues, more serious action is taken.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/content/printable_version/fs_compliance_inspection.pdf
Aphis does have authority to do unscheduled inspections in some cases. If they come to your house and an adult is not home, I believe current procedure is a warning for failure to be available. I have no idea if they intend to change that process for hobby breeders.
As I mentioned early in the thread, I suspect one of the reasons for using the “number of breeding females” standard is that’s something an inspector can determine on a one time walkthrough.
And a little more history:
In May 2010 the USDA Inspector General issued an audit indicating APHIS was not effectively inspecting large commercial dog breeders.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/content/printable_version/fs_compliance_inspection.pdf
The next year legislation called the PUPS Act was introduced in Congress to provide more oversight of breeders selling 50 or more puppies in one year, HR 5434. However, it never made it out of committee. That’s true of most bills, so not that surprising.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR05434:
It used this definition:
`(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.”
And also said:
“Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act preempt any law (including a regulation) of a State, or a political subdivision of a State, containing requirements that provide equivalent or greater protection for animals than the requirements of this Act or the amendments made by this Act.”
Which I think meets Beth’s reasonableness criterion, in that anyone selling that many dogs probably already has special kennel facilities. This mostly made sure the breeder couldn’t get around local humane regulations by only selling out of state, a loophole that did exist in some jurisdictions.
But, as I said, it didn’t get out of Committee. Hence the Executive Branch shoehorn approach.
Beth with the Corgis says
Robin Jackson, the bill you linked to would be a much better bill, but alas with Congress unable to function… well, I won’t go down that road.
Nic1, I found this and thought of you (Trisha, you might find it interesting as well, since I know you blogged about genetic diversity). If I read this correctly, most dog breeds currently have a genetic diversity that is similar to humans; they are not nearly as genetically at risk as has been made out to be BUT there is a caution that we can’t continue down the road where heavy line-breeding is considered positive forever:
http://www.border-wars.com/upload/Bateson-2.pdf
I linked to this because it gives interpretation to the studies I’d read which meant very little to me because of the total lack of perspective. By comparing diversity to humans, we have a point of understanding. I’d like to see a comparison to wild animal populations.
“However, one of the very important aims of the quote is to highlight the fact that even though dogs are, typically, more inbred than humans, they have CoIs that are far closer to those found in humans (i.e., ranging mainly from 0% to 6.25%,3 but with documented cases as high as 25.4%4) than to the inbreeding coefficient of isogenic lines (in effect, 100%).”
“Another important parameter of genetic variation is breed- average heterozygosity estimated from microsatellite markers. Estimates of this parameter for dog breeds range from 0.39 to 0.76 across 28 USA breeds (Irion et al., 2003); 0.40 to 0.77 across 61 French breeds (Leroy et al., 2009), and 0.47 to 0.75 across 13 of the most numerous UK dog types (pedigree breeds and non- pedigree individuals) (Mellanby et al., 2012). Comparable human estimates range from 0.50 to 0.78 (Rosenberg et al., 2002).”
em says
I have stayed out of this discussion so far, though I have been reading it with interest, because I don’t feel I know enough about how this legislation will impact dog breeders, whether they be the targeted offenders or innocent hobbyists, to offer anything of substance beyond what has been said. I would like to chime in (late as usual) on a couple of points, though.
On the number of puppies thing- I think that one of the objections to going by puppy number is the huge variation in litter size between different breeds. Large dogs have more pups, as a rule, with deep chested dogs most likely to produce large litters. This is, as I understand it, mostly a function of anatomy and the fact that puppies don’t entirely match the scale of the adult dog (tiny dogs have relatively larger puppies, compared to their own size, while giants have small pups, relatively speaking). I CAN say for certain that great danes average eight pups in a litter and frequently have 12 or more. A cap of 24 pups could put a dane breeder at reasonable risk of going over the top with only two litters. In contrast, a Chihuahua or Shih Tzu breeder, averaging 2-4 pups at a time would have to be absolutely churning out litters to hit 24 pups. It would probably make more sense to limit the number of litters, rather than pups, if we were going to go that route, though we would encounter the same problem with burden of proof when it came to enforcement.
On the topic of genetic variation and health in purebred populations, I can only offer my personal perspective from the research I did after adopting Otis. Great danes are a genetic nightmare. Inbred, and overbred for extreme physical characteristics with health, longevity, and temperament relegated to second fiddle, they are associated with enough genetic disease to reduce their average life expectancy to seven. Seven. That number doesn’t reflect a common age for death, mind. It’s as low as it is partly because so many dogs die before their third birthday- Wobbler’s, heart conditions, osteosarcoma, HOD, autoimmune problems. Bloat is the biggest killer of danes, and no one is entirely sure whether there is a genetic component or if it is purely physiological (In that the anatomy of a dane puts them at risk so some lines with particular anatomical traits may be more so, but the problem isn’t genetic per se) . The only word I can use for it is nightmare. People shouldn’t be breeding danes at all, in my view, without access to some very serious genetic testing and a strong background in genetic health. If I were queen, I’d require some coursework and a hippocratic oath before breeders could be certified.
Do I want the breed, or any breed, to disappear? No. And there is no reason that it should. It is, after all, a medieval “breed” (read, type), formed by a direct cross of ancient “breeds” and refined in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Until that refinement, the images of early danes and their likely predecessors show tremendous variation. Size, short-coats and an athletic builds were about all they had in common. Selected for function, some had narrow, tight-lipped, sighthound-y muzzles, some looked almost exactly like modern dogo argentinos.
Would outcrossing, selecting for health and temperament rather than physical type, even just removing the unique line in the great dane breed standard that favors the taller dog in an even contest run the risk of diluting the qualities we associate with the great dane? Would it change the lovely, elegant look of the modern dane? Would it make it more difficult to predict exactly what characteristics one is likely to get? Maybe. Probably, even. Tough. Something has to be done.
Beth with the Corgis says
em, you’ve brought up some interesting points. One of them is breeding for extremes. I think the modern Dane qualifies as an extreme dog. I don’t know much about the, but it seems that some of their problems come from their impossible build.
It is true that in dogs, there is an inverse correlation between size and longevity. While there are individual massive dogs that life a longer life, the fact is almost all the giant breeds have short life spans. Should we therefore not breed giant dogs? I’m not sure of the answer to that. Lifespan is not necessarily as important as quality of life. Surely the dog has no concept of how long he “should” live, and lacks a sense of being “cheated” out of years. It’s is hard on the people, though; by the time the dog is out of his youthful hijinks period he is already a senior citizen.
On the other hand, tiny breeds have the longest lifespan but also have health problems strictly related to size.
Danes also seem plagued with more than their share of genetic health problems, though, that are perhaps independent of size. That is where careful breeding comes into play.
I think when we are reading information we must know the goal of the author; I have read too many articles that conflate a whole lot of loosely related issues (recessive health problems, overall lack of vitality due to an overly limited gene pool, and conformation extremes that guarantee health problems) as if they are all the same thing. The fact is, many breeds have none of the three issues at any sort of level that is higher than the whole of dogdom, a few have two of them, and a cluster have all three. The cluster that has all three has gotten a lot of publicity, and that is a good thing. On the flip side of that coin, some of that publicity has used the worst examples as if they represented all (or at least a significant number) of pure breeds, which is not the case.
Beth with the Corgis says
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23535614/
It is true that very big dogs LOOK old at a relatively young age (greying, loss of muscle tone, etc)
Nic1 says
LisaW – a ‘puppy lemon law’ indeed. However, do these regulations support people who may want to take legal action against a breeder for knowingly breeding a ‘defective’ pup? Seems unlikely if there is no way to enforce breeding with genetics and health at the forefront.
em – my heart ached reading your post. An ethical, moral and emotional nightmare. I agree with your philosophy if you were Queen em. Education and evidence of continuing professional development are what breed and kennel clubs should be asking from their breeders. Dogs poor health and owners heartache is too much of a price to pay IMO, simply for the way the dog looks. I guess the only thing you can do is vote with your feet but if you love the breed it’s so difficult to not share your life with them.
http://www.akcchf.org/canine-health/your-dogs-health/bloat/
GDV is terrifying. There is some research going on with regard to bloat though in order to have a better understanding of the mechanism of the disease. What leads to bloat is most certainly not going to be a single gene disorder, but there may be a polygenetic predisposition given that large size/deep chest is a common factor. In the link above there is a brief mention of researching contractile properties of the stomach in large breeds and also a webinar about signs and symptoms of bloat which looks useful. One common association with bloat is stress apparently – it would make sense given the effect of the nervous system on the GI system.
Beth with the Corgis says
I have a friend who lost a young dog to bloat. He was a lab cross (maybe some hound in there)
Beth with the Corgis says
Wolves can bloat.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090102/NEWS03/301029953
I always thought of it as just one of those quirks of the digestive system, like colic in horses, that seems to be a by-product of the captive lifestyle. Though certainly generics may play a role. I honestly never heard if it til my friend lost her dog. So important to know the signs and act immediately.
Beth with the Corgis says
Also from what I’ve read, it may well be that the reason big dogs bloat is simply the volume of kibble they get at one meal. Great info here.
http://www.dogster.com/forums/Dog_Health/thread/627546
em says
@ Beth and Nic1, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Beth, the Great Dane life expectancy is rather like those shocking numbers that one reads for ancient and medieval humans, where the life expectancy was 37 or thereabouts. It’s not that (or at least not just that) giants age at an accelerated rate. A ‘natural’ lifespan for a well dane (free of conditions like Wobbler’s, HOD, heart problems, etc.) who doesn’t succumb to GDV is pretty comparable to other large dogs, (10-13ish). We get that shockingly low life expectancy because genetic (or likely genetic) conditions take out many dogs quite young (as many as one in 25 will be diagnosed with Wobbler’s, for instance) while bloat strikes many otherwise healthy dogs down in mid-life and normal age-related problems like arthritis are more likely to lead to a shorter old age in danes, since most owners don’t have the option of lifting and carrying a dane with mobility issues the way that they might assist a smaller breed.
The thing that frustrates me so deeply about the plight of great danes and dogs like them is that mindful breeding should be able to help them. Everyone gives lip service to this idea. Every breeder on with a web page will assure you that they “breed for soundness, health, longevity, temperament, etc.” Some of them really, truly do. But many, many don’t. One only has to go onto a great dane rescue page to see the evidence.
I challenge everyone to do this: Pick the great dane rescue nearest you, and scroll down through the available dogs. Count how many predominantly white dogs you see that are blind, deaf, or both. (A quick poke around this morning seemed to turn up a rate of about 10% of the available dogs in the four or five rescues nearest me.) One will find a higher proportion of these dogs in rescue than in the general population, since they are hardest to place, but the number is still staggering when you consider that each and every one of those dogs was 100% avoidable. Genetic white danes, who have inherited two copies of the dominant merle gene, almost always show hearing or vision loss, and often both. The genetics that create this problem are WELL understood. It is possible to avoid breeding double merles VERY easily- using phenotype alone, since these are dominant genes affecting color.
The problem is that a single copy of the merle gene is necessary to produce the flashy and popular harlequin color, so it can’t be ‘bred out’ without sacrificing that color option. If we could bear to part with the spotty coat, we could be rid of the gene and the attendant risk of birth defects in one generation. But even if we decide to keep the harls, double merles can STILL be easily avoided. All one has to do is breed harlequins (who have a single copy of the merle gene) only with dogs who do NOT have a copy -like mantle (Boston terrier colored) dogs. The only down side to the breeder is that only about 25% of the puppies from this cross will be harlequin, compared to a probability of about 33% of live pups (since a double copy of the harlequin gene is lethal and that combo won’t produce a viable pup) from a harl/harl breeding that runs the risk of producing double merles by putting two copies of the merle gene into the mix.
Each and every genetic white, double merle dog was produced by a breeder who chose, out of greed or ignorance, to run the chance of producing a litter in which 25% of the puppies are likely to be blind or deaf. And great danes drop 8-10 pups in a normal litter. I don’t know and don’t want to know how many dogs like this have been born in the last twenty years. Too many. This is a simple issue with an obvious cause. Responsible breeders know this, of course. Well-informed puppy buyers know it. But as the dogs in rescue can attest, relying on responsible breeders and a well-informed public has gotten us practically nowhere in eliminating this problem. The national breed club could do something about it. The AKC could do something about it. Any number of animal welfare or dog fancy or veterinary associations could do something about it- even just an awareness campaign. They haven’t.
And don’t even get me started ear cropping and the bogus justifications that come pouring out of the same corners when it is suggested that dogs shouldn’t be subjected to cosmetic surgery. (And yes, it absolutely is purely cosmetic. If cropping were done out of concern for health or respect for tradition, danes would be given their traditional working crop- the close, fighting dog cut. They aren’t because it’s ugly and doesn’t create the optical illusion of a taller dog with a longer neck as the ‘show crop’ does.) Cropped dogs look taller and more elegant, and tall elegant dogs win shows. It’s as simple as that.
It would be great if all breeders were well-informed and well-intentioned, and were all working diligently for the betterment of the breed and the well-being of dogs, but they’re simply not. All the great breeders in the world -and I do personally know several- can’t help the breed if there is nothing stopping the people who choose to do it badly.
I don’t know how the legislation proposed might help or hurt the situation of purebred dogs, their breeders, or buyers, but I do strongly feel that some sort of regulation is a very good idea. I only wish that more substantive changes about how dogs are bred and evaluated for use in breeding (I’d love to see something more rigorous and comprehensive than conformation shows, for example) could be made. I would love to see some real scientific rigor introduced or given more precedence in the breeding circles where it is already found. I’d like to see less 19th century pseudoscientific totemization of “purity”. I am just frustrated. If even obvious, completely avoidable defects can’t be eliminated from a breed population, what chance do we have with more insidious, polygenic disorders? Or “invisible” problems like temperament troubles? The current system, where anyone can breed dogs with no education, licensing or certification to do so, with minimal or no regulation, no reasonable standard of genetic and health testing, and then sell those dogs for top dollar as registered ‘purebreds’, clearly isn’t working.
Some (most, I daresay) breeds are obviously doing better than danes. You are absolutely right, Beth, that they get the triple whammy- extreme conformation, lack of diversity, and genetic disease. But I fear that breeds like the dane, on the more vulnerable end of the physical spectrum, are bellwethers, or canaries in the coal mines if you will. The path that led them to disaster will bring everyone there eventually, unless we make a serious effort to watch our collective steps.
em says
Just in case there are people whose eyes have not glazed over at my last post- I should have explained that the harlequin color in great danes requires two separate dominant genes. A single copy of the harlequin gene, and a single copy of the merle. Double harlequin doesn’t happen, since it is 100% lethal. Double merle makes for blind, deaf dogs who are mostly white in color.
Single Harlequin, no merle gene makes Mantle colored dogs.
Single Merle, no Harlequin gene makes Merle colored (bluish and speckly) dogs.
D.C> says
The kennel club in the UK won’t register dogs from a double merle breeding. I’m not sure if these rules are enacted in North American clubs, but they should be.
Ben says
Yeah I don’t really have much to add, but thats fascinating (and angering/saddening) stuff. I agree, the general population is not going to solve this problem without government intervention of some sort. IMO, breeding solely for looks or for profit pretty much encapsulates everything that is wrong with humanity. Okay, minor exaggeration. But still, we need to focus on the stuff that matters: health, temperament, skills (if a working dog), exercise needs, etc. To do that we need to stop greedy soulless people from running puppy mills. If a reg is “inconvenient” for responsible breeders but shuts down puppy mills, that is much better than doing nothing. Its not like we have a shortage of dogs… As long we improve the ratio of good:bad breeders, and we have enough dogs, it seems good to me.
Now, probably no one agrees with me here, but I think the “exaggerated” dog breeds with exceptional health problems should potentially be bred less or not at all, compared to healthier dogs. I guess I just think we should not focus on “preserving every single breed at all costs” and more on breeding healthier individuals, while maintaining enough “breeds” to meet the different needs that dogs fill.
Nic1 says
@em – I absolutely concur. Just because some breeds of dog are apparently healthier than others, that does not mean it is sensible or ethical for breeders to carry on down the same old path to potential genetic ruin.
‘Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.’
Charles Darwin
I think with regard to people breeding extreme conformations of pedigree dogs, we need to try to understand why there is such cognitive dissonance in this regard.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15084038
The above paper references tail docking and why breeders who claim to love their dogs continue to do it in light of the empirical evidence that it causes suffering to the animals that they purport to love. I was drawn to this because an ex colleague insisted on docking her spaniel puppies’ tails, despite that they were all sold to pet homes. I just couldn’t understand why she would do this when they wouldn’t be worked in the field. But importantly for the dog, the tail is so important for social signalling, communication and balance. She saw her practice as ethical I think because she was following the breed standard – ‘TAIL – customarily docked’. She was simply following the blueprint as supported by her breed clubs and the KC.
Fact is, we are all subject to cognitive dissonance and it’s a real challenge to actually recognise it in ourselves. I’d argue that it is at work in ‘extreme conformations of’ pedigree dog breeding.
Bennett and Perini argue that “… ethical disagreements are best resolved by using the person’s own ethics to extract the desired conclusion, primarily by making individuals’ relevant beliefs salient, and by encouraging them to realise that their actions are not consonant with these beliefs.” Think civil rights, bull fighting etc.
Also, ‘dominance’ based dog training……Changing attitudes and the culture is very difficult and requires grass root education. Not easy but essential.
em says
Double merles and single merles without the harlequin gene (phenotypical merles), are ineligible for showing here in the US, on the principle that they should not be used for breeding (even though the single merles are genetically no more risky than harlequins). I’m not sure exactly what their status for double merle registration is, but breeding two registered Harlequin dogs who each have a copy of the merle gene is not against any rule that I am aware of here in the U.S., and there is no block to registering any pups who inherit “proper” color from such a breeding. There’s not even a mention of it in the code of ethics on the national breed club page.
Barring double merles from registration or from participation in dog shows doesn’t seem to be decreasing their numbers, sadly, since they are produced as an unfortunate side effect, rather than a goal. Years ago, breeders producing harls simply “culled” these pups at birth, but rising popular distaste for this practice (for obvious reasons) has not prompted enough of a change in behavior to stop the practice of harl/harl or harl/merle breedings that create these dogs. It has, however, seen the numbers of them in rescues and pet homes sharply rise.
Margaret McLaughlin says
@ Ben,
This may get me lynched, but I agree with you. There are a number of breeds that have me banging my head against a wall every time I see one–English bulldogs being Exhibit A. Can’t breathe, can’t breed, can’t whelp–what about them is worth “preserving”, at least in their modern form? (And why, in the name of whatever deity you want to invoke, are they so popular as pets?)
If I were queen (I’ll share with you, em) I would add to the list those breeds which consistently produce nasty-tempered dogs. Doubtless I am embittered by the years I spent dodging teeth as a groomer, but there would be no chows, no shar-peis, no Lhasa apsos, no buff American cockers…..
,Except for the American cocker, those are all breeds ( would add Pekes) which have both extreme conformation & nasty temperments, with the additional disadvantage for those required to handle them, that it’s very difficult to safely muzzle a smush-faced dog. Give me a pit bull any day.
A lot of pet owners, as well as show people, seem to place appearance above all other considerations.
Beth with the Corgis says
em, I don’t know much about Danes but can’t disagree with any specifics you’ve posted. I do know I was stunned and disappointed a few years back when I found that that double-merle breedings are not frowned upon in the Dane world. There are lots of things we can’t avoid, but there is no reason to intentionally breed a litter with such a high risk of sight or hearing problems, UNLESS possibly it is an occasional breeding to bring in other positive genes that directly impact more serious health problems (and that should be rare). Pems don’t come in merle, but Cardigans do and the code of ethics says blues can only be bred to blacks, period.
The thing with Danes that I don’t know though is if those other problems are mostly related to size or if it’s something else. None of the giant breeds have long life spans, at least none that I’m aware of. Would, say, a 20% reduction in size significantly increase health overall? The fact that some Danes live to be over 10 does not mean that size ISN’T the issue, in much the same way that the fact that some smokers live to be 95 does nothing to negate the fact that smoking is a serious risk for all sorts of life-shortening diseases. Based on the info we have, it sure seems like smaller dog = longer life, across many breeds from many countries.
It’s not just Danes with a laundry list of problems. I no longer watch dog shows because the GSD’s, with their wobbly back ends, make me cry, and yet they so often win group in a group that is filled with balanced, non-extreme breeds that are mostly healthy. English bulldogs just should not exist in their current form. There are a few others.
That being said, more breed clubs than not (from what I have seen) DO put a premium on health. The Pembroke Welsh Corgi Club has put a lot of money into research for DM, this a disease that impacts something like 1 or 2% of Corgis. The Chessie club has started putting inbreeding coefficient numbers on their pages, and has lots of lectures (from what I’ve seen) from geneticists. And so on.
The current system did not set out to be problematic. Conformation shows used to be part of the story when more dogs still did their traditional job, but as traditional jobs changed, they became something else entirely. Breeding just to win in shows is of course an issue. But that is perhaps a separate issue from genetic health; there are some working lines that are very line-bred and have their own issues. Regarding color, In some cases, we see the opposite problem of what you describe with the merle issue in Danes. In Pems, “Mismarks” that show too much white are always petted out and can’t be shown. Pems, which are flashily marked dogs, not infrequently have a pup with a half-white face. This is not allowed, and one can only assume it’s because lots of white in some dogs can equate to deafness. However, from everything I understand, the type of white markings found in Pems does NOT actually contribute to deafness. So in this case, you are eliminating dogs from the gene pool based on what was quite likely a good intention that probably in the end has no function. Logic would indicate perhaps we should get rid of that rule, but on the other hand I’ve seen what happens with breeds that can have flashy coats and it seems some breeders take advantage of that and create other problems. So is it better to leave the rule stand?
When it comes to complex genetic disorders, we must proceed with great caution, especially in light of some of the new research out in humans. Stress in a grandmother can lead to a change in gene expression that increases the chance of depression in a grandchild. Obesity in a mother greatly increases the risk of obesity in a child, but not if she has stomach surgery before she has the baby. I just saw today that exposure to DDT may be linked to obesity two generations down the road (but not in generation one or two). And so on. With so many genes apparently able to change expression based on environmental factors, do we want to remove lots of dogs from gene pools if we find instead that, say, just feeding from a metal bowl instead of a plastic one (this is pure hypothetical) has the same impact on health as removing the gene altogether? Looking at bloat, some simple husbandry changes can make a huge impact on the risk. Surely feeding a dog 3x a day and mixing table scraps is simpler than weeding out every family who bloats?
I wish AKC would take some bolder stands, but then of course people could just form another club. As far as government regulating who gets to breed what to whom, that sounds fine at first glance but what shape would it take? Who the heck in government would have the knowledge or authority, and how would it be enforced? What about “whoops” litters? Who would decide what trade-offs to make, and how healthy is healthy enough? Again, more people suffer from chronic health problems than dogs, but surely we don’t regulate reproduction schemes for humans. And what we think we know now is often reversed years down the road as we find out what we thought is simply dead wrong. Dog fighting is illegal but it’s estimated there are tens of thousands of people breeding and fighting dogs in the US. If we can’t stop this (and a huge side-industry in “rescue” for what appears to be the cast-offs), how can we stop double-merle breedings from the top down? Better to keep people who feel strongly against it in the breed and try to put pressure from within on clubs to simply move away from the practice.
IMO, the best we can do is encourage the breed clubs to not breed for extremes, and continue to educate about the benefits of genetic diversity, while having sensible laws about the housing and humane treatment of the animals in our care. In the meantime, lumping all breeds in with the worst (and I know that you haven’t done so) just drives people away. I used to participate in a popular blog about problems with dog breeds, and after suggesting occasionally for years that some focus be placed on the many breed clubs who are going out of their way to learn best practices and put them in place and never seeing that happen, while article after article was posted about the same few extreme breeds, I threw up my hands and left.
I’ve gone on forever. A final story. When my parents were looking for a new hunting dog for my dad, they went to an out-of-state breeder and put a deposit on an upcoming litter. The breeder then got word from a puppy person that a dog from a previous breeding had epilepsy. She’d never had it in her lines (though it’s known in this breed). She started making lots of calls, found the stud she’d used had thrown at least one or two other pups with epilepsy, and promptly cancelled the litter plans even though the litter was already basically sold. She followed up with the puppy people, gave them the option of backing out or moving their deposit to a new litter down the line, and went forward from there. THIS is also typical of many dog breeders.
Beth with the Corgis says
Margaret, I too puzzle over why bulldogs are so popular. Need a/c just to function, a list of health problems as long as your arm. It’s one of the breeds that infuriates me. Clubs will talk about “improving” breeds nd I have asked on several occasions how having a dog who can’t free-whelp is an improvement over a dog who can. Needless to say, no one can answer the question.
Beth with the Corgis says
Nic1, I would prefer to see dogs with tails be allowed by the breed standard of all dogs, and let individual breeders make the choice. I don’t think I feel as strongly about it as you do, but I personally believe if the option were given you’d see a lot more breeders move away from docking. I’d prefer a dog with a tail, but won’t shy away from a breed (obviously) that is docked. On the other hand, I would never, ever crop ears.
Still, I always find such discussions interesting. We routinely castrate male dogs for our convenience (as opposed to vasectomy), and we know removing testes has all sorts of impacts on behavior and health (both good and bad). Indeed, we routinely circumcise male children, and until very recently that was done with no pain control at all. Sometimes I think when we focus on an issue in isolation without looking at the wider context in which the issue occurs, it is seen in a different light, for good or ill.
It reminds me of the outrage of the general British public against fox hunting, while many of those same people merrily let their well-fed cats out every morning to wreak havoc on the critters of the garden. Having dogs chase an animal for sport is the height of cruelty, but letting your cat chase animals for sport is just a normal day….
em says
@Beth- A decrease in size, or shift in build toward a more solid, less lanky dog might well help to resolve many issues that plague great danes. Unfortunately, in the current climate, that is unlikely to happen, since the breed standard actively favors taller dogs over shorter ones, with no upper limit set and no appetite, in the either the conformation show clubs or pet buying public to privilege shorter dogs, even if such dogs are potentially healthier.
HFR says
Just a couple things: I’m not sure castrating is a good analogy for docking tails or ears as the latter is purely cosmetic (assuming you aren’t hunting with your dog).
Also, when I learned a few years ago about the Dalmatian club forbidding the introduction of outcrossing to eliminate the urinary problems almost all Dals have, that’s when I really threw my arms up in disgust. Not sure what they are doing now, but for the life of me, I couldn’t understand how you could possibly argue against saving the lives of their beloved breed just for the sake of “purity”. (From what I remember, the KC did it long ago.)
What I see is that, like most things, it is not a black and white situation. It’s not like there is a group who are breeders who are the standard for what all good breeders should be and then the other group are horrible breeders who breed indiscriminately. What I find is that there are “good” breeders who bend the rules sometimes. They may breed their dog with a dog who may not have the best hip scores, but tested negative for an inherited disease. Maybe this dog is a bit too closely related to my dog, but their hip scores are good. And let’s not even discuss the horrible divisive fights that go on among even responsible breeders. I’ve known many good breeders who have dropped out because they just couldn’t take the back-biting in that world. It’s brutal.
I can’t help but be reminded of parenthood again. We certainly can’t legislate that stupid people can’t have children, but we can have laws that try to prevent them from abusing their children. Does it work? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. But we need the laws so that when an abuse is discovered there is a road that can be taken to try and solve the problem. (Take a lesson from Toronto, from what I understand there is no system in place to oust their crack-smoking mayor. Somehow I think there will be shortly tho.)
Beth with the Corgis says
em, I thought I remembered reading that tall people don’t live as long as short people, and indeed it seems cancer and heart problems have a correlation to size in people.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/07/height_and_longevity_the_research_is_clear_being_tall_is_hazardous_to_your.html
As you mention, though, those drawn to extreme dogs seem to have little desire to make them less extreme to improve health.
Nic1 says
HFR – agreed regarding comparing castrating to ear cropping and even tail docking if you don’t work your dog. However, castrating as opposed to vasctomising may well be an example of dissonance in the whole spay/neuter debate if we continue to do it in the light of evidence that the latter is a better option for the health of the dog.
Beth with the Corgis says
HFR, not disagreeing (and agree completely on the gray areas). Just a point about tails… we had a lab when I was a teen who obviously, as a swimming dog, would have a tail. My dad also sometimes took him out hunting grouse or whatnot. One year while in the woods he got scratches on the tip of his tail. He was a big tail-wagger, and several winters from then on my poor mom spent a fair amount of time wiping blood off the walls. When the air would get dry the tip of the tail would sometimes open back up as he thumped it against walls and then blood (not copious amounts, just little spatters) would splash around the place. Never seemed to bother the dog and he never licked it or chewed it or anything. Still, it was a royal pain for all involved.
I have no idea how common this type of injury is. Since it was not a major issue, it didn’t warrant medical intervention per se, and so when I see vet statistics on how rare tail injuries are, I’m not sure if they are only referring to major injuries that require veterinary attention.
But I can understand where the procedure began.
http://www.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/content/gamekeepers-urge-end-tail-docking-ban-4
So I can’t entirely agree that dockign is purely cosmetic. Again, my own position is I would like to see it removed as a requirement in breed standards. All else being equal, I would choose a tailed dog. The other day though as I stepped on my cat’s tail for the upteemnth time, to send her running hissing and hurt, it did occur to me that there are some upsides as well.
em says
Beth- that is interesting, but I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at. I hope that you are not implying that the health problems faced by great danes are purely a function of their size and not indicative of problematic practices within the breeding community.
It might be nice to imagine that that were so, but unfortunately, the genetic health issues that afflict great danes are not limited purely to those that correlate with size, nor would would a mixed breed of comparable size (they do exist, though they are not very common) be expected to have the same seriously foreshortened life expectancy or predisposition to heritable health problems.
In addition, I am inclined to think that given our vastly different lifespans, lifestyles, and anatomies, rates of disease among human populations may not offer fruitful corrolaries to rates of disease among dogs. If we are asking whether pedigreed breeding negatively impacts the health of the dog population, surely the pertinent comparison is between purebred and non-purebred dogs, not between purebred dogs and humans or purebred dogs and wild animals.
I am not a hard-liner. I don’t see anything wrong with selective breeding of dogs in and of itself. I don’t even have a problem with some of the “extreme” breeds, as long as those extremes do not include qualities that are inherently painful or detrimental to the dog’s quality of life, like the inability to whelp or breathe normally. Many dogs with short legs run and play very happily, and there is nothing inherently painful about the build of the dane, either. They actually show lower rates of some orthopedic problems, like hip dysplasia, than many smaller dogs.
But when breed standards and show judges encourage the exaggeration of these qualities to the point that the dogs start to suffer, I think those breed standards ought to be altered, and judges admonished to reward moderation. A more function-based evaluation system might help. Greyhounds are an extreme phenotype, but they escape most of the health issues that plague other purebred dogs of their size. I have to think that part of that is because breeding stock is selected mostly from the best performing dogs, without concern for uniformity in their appearance.
I think the dog fancy in general has a responsibility to be strong advocates for the health and well-being of dogs, whether that means supporting reasonable breed standards or drawing upon genetic science to establish best-practice standards to protect diversity and health. Where breeds are succeeding (Bravo!) in avoiding some of the pitfalls and problems that beset others, real effort should be made to learn from their example, and where breeds are struggling, REAL pressure should be brought to bear to change the status quo. I don’t relish the notion of rule by fiat when it comes to what are often subjective decisions, but I strongly suspect that the dog fancy as a whole is not going to have the option of doing nothing for very much longer and will have to seriously re-examine their role in creating some of the problems, directly or indirectly, that plague many dog populations if they want to survive.
There has already been a serious public perception shift from a generation ago. Beth, you yourself have often commented on the negative reaction that you encountered from some quarters when you chose a purebred puppy. It wasn’t nice, and it wasn’t fair, in my view, but in the court of public opinion, every blind, deaf, dysplastic, epileptic, cocker-ragey, puppy-milled or backyard-bred dog with a godawful temperament that one meets or reads about is another witness against the purebred dog world, and people will be judged by the company they are percieved to keep, whether they deserve it or not.
Kennel and breed clubs have two choices. They can dig in their heels and push back against every suggestion that something may be wrong or that their practices ought to change, or they can take the lead and work WITH government and animal welfare organizations to figure out how to sort out the bad apples, promote good, scientifically sound breeding practices and effectively sanction bad ones. No one expects them to solve every problem or achieve a perfect world, but the obstructionism and resistance that is the typical response now is just not sustainable. At some point, the dog fancy will have to get its house in order, or someone will step in and do it for them.
LisaW says
If I were King (not queen, not prince, not earl), I could be one of two kinds of King.
The first King would fancy a dog for himself that has short legs, short hair, short muzzle and folds of skin, and is brave enough to guard the castle. A big head is a must because the King imagines certain attributes go along with size. I would breed and breed and breed until I got the dog of my imagination. In my wake would be litters of dogs that might not fit my imaginary standard but some may become common pets and some may be destroyed and some may only live a few years. But I have the dog I imagined I wanted.
Or I could be the second type of King that understood the balance that goes along with a relationship built on mutual needs and desires and thus wants a dog that could sleep by the hearth, run with the horses, alert to something amiss in the castle, and have the good judgement of a sound animal. I would look around the kingdom for dogs that had those multiple attributes, and being King, I would also need to appreciate their appearance. I would breed a litter maybe two and have my pick and live happily ever after making sure the sire and dam had a good life as well.
I know which kingdom I’d want to live in (and rule).
And as far as cropping tails, one of our dogs came with her tail cropped, and while we will never know who did it or how or why, for the first year or so she would whip around in a panic and look at her docked tail as if someone was pulling it. She was very sensitive about her tail and rear end. I asked our vet and there is such a thing as phantom tail syndrome. It’s taken her more than two years to trust us around her tail, and she is still a little worried about that part of her. I’ll take a little splattered blood any day over that. It’s about much more than our fancy or convenience or at least it should be.
Beth with the Corgis says
I mentioned castrating because if our main concern was birth control, we would vasectomize. However, castrating brings behavior changes that vasectomy does not, and we find those changes convenient. In the horse world, hardly anyone keeps intact stallions as strictly riding animals and indeed it would not be safe to do so for most breeds. Even among the vet community I find there is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance as to what is “acceptable” and what is “cruel.” We greatly modify dogs’ life choices every day. Which do they miss more, the tail or the chance to mate? I can’t say for sure, but I think if Jack could vote between the two, he’d love to have a go at the ladies and does not seem to miss the tail— at least that’s what his drooling and deaf behavior tell me when a female in season is around.
I find circumcision perhaps the better analogy to tail docking. It was at one point common here (not in Europe) and very few people even asked why. Then it became popular in the medical community to decry it as unnecessary with no real benefit. Now they say there are reduced disease risks after all. If we listened JUST to culture we would never question anything, but if we listed JUST to the doctors we would have circumcised, then not, then maybe done it again. And each group would have been totally convinced that only their point of view had merit.
http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm
“In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that “there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.” In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.
Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised. This number, of course, varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.
Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future, and there is significant pressure for the AAP and ACOG to reconsider their positions.”
Tail docking (which is I believe still common in lambs?) was not even thought of as controversial. Then when people began to think of it, they saw it as cruel with no real purpose. But then again, those breeds that have always been docked weren’t running around with tails enough to see what WOULD happen. Surely they were docked for a reason, since it’s easier NOT to dock.
There is clear evidence that some hunting breeds get at least nuisance tail injuries on a fairly regular basis if undocked. The argument that some hunting breeds are NOT docked is bogus because they cover different terrain and with a different style; a spaniel goes in the brush to flush while a setter stays outside it and sets the bird for the hunter to flush.
It’s easy to say that a working springer can be docked but no need for the pet. However, two problems are that the breeder does not know what the adult dogs will do until they are well past the docking age, and secondly if I have a pet springer and go walking in woods and fields, surely it will behave similarly to the hunting springer? No one tells the dog it’s “just a pet” and when it’s instinct is to follow its nose into the bushes, it will do so, whether or not the owner carries a gun.
The reason I’d be happy to see Corgis not docked is, as best I can tell, it was a taxing issue and not a working issue that caused them to be a docked breed to begin with. They are a spitz-lined breed and carry their tails high like a spits when excited, so they are not likely to be stepped on or get it caught. Their Cardi cousins sport lovely tails. However if I had a springer spaniel, I’d want it docked.
Beth with the Corgis says
em, my apologies if I made it sound like Danes had no issues but size. I think my point was sort of the opposite side of the same coin: no matter how carefully Dane breeders might decide to breed for health (and I’m not saying they currently do or don’t, because I don’t know), I don’t think it is really totally possible BECAUSE of the size. You can give lip service, or even action, to testing and only breeding healthy dogs, but the size alone is an obstacle. When we see the huge difference in health in people, we are talking a matter of a few inches in height. In dogs, the size difference is many times that and there is no escaping the fact that ALL massive breeds are short-lived and riddled with health problems. I pulled out my most-trusted breed book and we have here
Bullmastiff 7-9 years
Bernese Mountain Dog 8-10
Dogue de Bordeaux 8-10
Greater Swiss Mountain Dog 6-10
Mastiff 6-10
I work with someone who bred Mastiffs and is phasing out because she just had a dog drop dead at 4 after losing others at young ages.
I’m not saying that they lack other problems; as I mentioned, I know little about them so can’t say one way or the other. I AM saying that I don’t think it’s possible to breed for a massive dog and breed for a healthy dog, any more than it’s possible to breed a totally flat face and breed for a healthy set of teeth.
I have long argued that some breed clubs need to clean up their act or there will be heck to pay, one way or the other. I have been on various forums saying that we all need to open our eyes to train wrecks like English Bulldogs, modern show GSD’s. poor sweet Cavs, and a few others.
However, no legislative body will want to touch such a thorny issue because how can you regulate breeding practices? You can’t demand that breeders use health tests when some of them need such extreme care to use (I’ve discussed DM at length, for instance). You can’t make it illegal to breed close relatives without making loopholes for mistake litters, and if there are loopholes people will drive a bus through them. AKC sits on its hands and it infuriates me, but then again when they do try to act, the worst offenders just leave and so now you have puppy mills “registering” dogs with ACA and the like.
As far as the court of public opinion, call me a cynic but I don’t always have a tremendous amount of faith. I cannot tell you the number of people who have told me over their factory-farmed hamburger with cage-raised bacon that they can’t understand how anyone can hunt because it’s so cruel. I’m sure there are many areas where I don’t know enough to have a well-formed opinion, yet I have one anyway. We are all guilty of that; it’s human nature.
I’m not making excuses, I’m expressing my frustration and lack of good ideas about what to do. Public opinion is shifting but I’m very frightened that what we are seeing is the worst offenders are so in the bubble that opinion has zero influence, while the good breeders of healthy breeds who DO care what people think are feeling tremendous pressure that is truly not deserved. It’s not all the fault of outside influence and the AKC clubs tend to be closed little communities that don’t go out of their way to bring in new young people— and I’ve raised that issue with the appropriate people too. But you can’t deny the fact that for whatever reason, good breeders however you define them are feeling the pinch. And singing the praises of the purpose-bred dog has become something to sneer at. I’m afraid this legislation is just one more nail in the coffin. People who are 100% pro-rescue and nothing else claim they don’t like intentionally breeding dogs, but I don’t think our culture will like the result if the carefully bred dog becomes so hard to find. Look at all the flack the President got for not rescuing a dog. It’s gotten out of control.
Beth with the Corgis says
By the way, I’ve also argued that AKC should push for performance standards and more moderate standards. Check out the Chesapeake Bay Retriever club for some cheering idea that there is a way to do it right. The sad truth is that several breeds have just totally split when their own dogs don’t match the rules, and many popular breeds that still do their traditional work have three distinct lines: working, show, and byb/mill dogs. Never underestimate the ability of human ego to override all logic.
Nic1 says
@em – you’d get my vote as Queen of dogdom. 🙂
My main issue with tail docking (apart from the obvious discomfort) is that the dog’s communication system is compromised. Indeed, Trisha mentioned the recent research regarding dogs’ tails and sociability communication on her tour this week (link to paper in the article below).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24746107
Isn’t the dog’s internal and social world an important consideraton? I know it is to me. Perhaps docking, irrespective of that concern, reflects a different attitude some people who work dogs may have towards their animals?
You could certainly justify that fewer injuries and vet visits may well be better for the dog in the longterm but the nature of the dog’s work is the root cause of that – not the tail. My personal ethic would be not to buy a puppy from a breeder who docks. A tail is an essential part of the dogs’ anatomy IMO.
Interesting dicussion on this below though.
http://totallygundogs.com/why-do-we-dock-our-working-gundog-puppies/
HFR says
Em, a really good point. Something needs to be done and breeders need to be on board.
Beth, I feel your frustration and I think we all agree that we have no solutions (let alone dreams of an easy one). But, I don’t think that means we can’t try. We must try to solve these problems. Will there be issues and complaints with any ideas, of course, but at some point everyone needs to give up something. (Are you listening, Washington?)
One thing that puzzles me is the feeling you have about being “victimized” by the dog world. I totally believe you, and assume there is a side of this to which I haven’t been exposed. But I honestly feel that responsible breeders have never been so respected as right now. Slowly, and I mean slowly, given how long we’ve known this stuff, people are realizing that puppy mills and backyard breeders are to be shunned and responsible breeders are the go-to place to buy your pup. Designer dogs have never been more popular and they require breeders too. And, let’s be honest, a purebred dog is still a signal that you have enough expendable income to spend on a dog.
Consistently what I run into are people who have been burned once and then become educated. They bought their dog at a pet store or from an internet breeder only to be burdened with costly health problems. Now they are experts on what a good breeder is. The hardest people to convince are those that buy from a disreputable source and get a great dog, which does serendipitously happen once in a while.
Yes, I think rescuing (even the word has a charitable air about it) has become much more accepted as more than a middle class choice (the growing group of celebs who now rescue are helping this view in a big way). When I was growing up NO ONE in my world could afford a purebred dog. Mutts were just the accepted norm if you chose to have a dog, no noble cause behind it at all. And, yes, there are people who are snobs about it, but in my small, very competitive dog world, well-bred dogs are still admired greatly.
As to the tail docking. I know a breeder who loves to send me pictures of bloodied tails to show that tail docking is kind. Here’s my problem with that reasoning. It’s still a convenience. As you said, Beth, it’s an annoyance. Should we also crop all floppy ears because they are so much more prone to chronic ear infections? Neutering is not a convenience, in my mind. If you don’t want an oops litter of dogs and don’t want to keep your dog inside all its life, there is an urgency to neuter. Yes, with males there is a behavior component, but I would argue that trying to avoid aggression or marking is not a choice of convenience either. (As to castration vs. vasectomy, I’m not informed enough about that, but if that is more humane then, yes, we should examine doing that instead.) But I think we can’t deny that tail docking for a large, large part is done because that is how the breed is “supposed” to look. Note how the Boxer has gone from looking strange with floppy ears to a dog that now looks strange with cropped ears. I think the same is happening with Dobes now. And in the agility world, Aussies with tails are becoming more and more common. I guess what I’m saying is, anything surgical that is done for appearance ought not to be done. Outlawed even. Animals have no say in what is done to them and we can’t take advantage of that.
Also, good point about judges. I’ve often thought that judges, as a group, are the key. They are the ones that control what is accepted and not. I know they are often of an older generation and very set in their ways (not all, but most). They also often have a vested interest in who they deem to be placement worthy, which always seemed to me to be a contradiction of the definition of what a judge is supposed to be. Talk to a breeder and they will tell you that they compete in a show based almost solely on the judge. Imagine if we could get the judges on board with correcting the horrors that are in some breeds. It would be such a wonderful step in the right direction. We wouldn’t have to convince breeders it was the right thing to do. They would do it because a longer nosed bulldog would have a better chance of winning. Possible? Not sure. But it seems like such a good solution. Perhaps the next generation of judges will do better.
Just want to say how much I’ve learned from this discussion and how incredibly knowledgeable everyone is on here. If only the rest of the world were so civilized and informed! 🙂
Beth with the Corgis says
Lisa W, I don’t think docking was originally about fancy or convenience and if your dog’s tail opens up every time you take him in the woods, there is certainly a quality of life issue there too, no? Having lived with hunting dogs for years I can attest to the fact that not being taken along on the hunt is extremely distressing to them; they cry and bark and then pout the entire day.
Tails don’t heal is the problem, due to both circulation and the fact that certain dogs are enthusiastic waggers and thump them against walls and furniture every day.
We are not talking about a short one-time problem that healed, we are talking about years of wiping blood off walls on a regular basis. Worse, some dogs have infection set in and the wound won’t heal at all; occasionally they need to be amputated as adults which is a much more painful surgery. Curious, I looked it up and found there is a name for it: “Happy Tail”.
I’m sorry about your dog’s experience; I’ve lived with quite a few docked dogs and never experienced personally any indication they knew anything was meant to be there at all, though of course that doesn’t mean it never happens. If you got her and don’t know how it happened, it’s entirely possible she lost it in an accident or had an amputation at a later point for some reason, which would be different.
However, I recognize that I won’t change minds if people’s are made up. I will also continue to castrate, though in future I’ll probably wait til a dog is a year old if possible rather than 6 months.
Patrice says
I bought my rare, purebred dog sight-unseen from a reputable breeder half-way across the country from me. Before she chose and shipped my puppy to me, we had a lot of phone calls and emails about what she had and what I was looking for. Getting that dog has been the most wonderfully life-changing event of my life. And I fear that had these regulations been in place, I would never have gotten him.
I have now co-bred two litters of that same breed. I do not have 5 breeding females, but depending on how that number is come to, my co-breeder might. Our breed is rare, and you often have to go out of state to get one. Of my two litters, about half the puppies were shipped elsewhere in the USA, to Canada, and overseas. Each of those puppies were chosen specifically for those people, but were sold without the buyer seeing them in person. We had plenty of photos, videos, emails, and phone calls, but no personal visits from those far-flung buyers. And we have totally happy puppy owners, and well-loved and well-cared-for puppies.
The other half of the buyers came on-site and saw their puppies ahead of time, but that’s only because they lived close by or were able to fly out. I would hate to think that future puppy owners could not get the puppy of their dreams from us because they can’t come to our site and see their puppy beforehand.
LisaW says
Beth w/Corgis, thanks, I’m sorry about her tail, too. She and her littermates were dumped at a shelter in the night so I don’t think her tail was amputated for medical or humane reasons. Her dew claws were removed, too, something else that is an odd custom of ours. Interesting that someone would do all this and then dump the litter. Insult to injury.
Tail amputation is done without anesthesia, a clamp and a few stitches. It is also banned in many countries. The AVMA is formally against tail amputation and even cites the difference in working long-haired pointers (not amputated) and short-haired pointers (amputated).
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/FAQs/Pages/Frequently-asked-questions-about-canine-tail-docking.aspx
Phantom tail syndrome is real: “Dogs may suffer pain from neuromas caused by tail-docking. Severing nerves in mammalian species produces physiological and biochemical changes, including spontaneous nerve tissue activity. One result is the formation of neuromas, swollen bundles of regenerating nerve fibres that develop when nerves are severed. These can persist for weeks or indefinitely, causing spontaneous nerve activity that could be perceived as pain. Dogs may therefore have increased sensitivity or pain in their tail stumps for long after the stump has apparently healed. Neuromas have been observed in lamb stumps when the lambs were slaughtered six months after docking and
have also been reported in dogs.
“Anecdotal accounts strongly suggest that tail stumps can cause long-term pain. In one study three dogs with docked tails were euthanised for perceived behavioural problems, and all of them were found to have neuromas, even though they had been docked many years previously. It is possible that these dogs were seen as having a bad temperament when in fact their behaviour was a subtle sign that they had chronic pain. A 2003 review of tail docking in the Australian Veterinary Journal commented: ‘While researching this paper the authors obtained several anecdotal accounts of docked dogs with extremely sensitive tail stumps and other odd, stump-associated, behaviours.”
From: http://www.onekind.org/uploads/publications/tail-docking-dogs.pdf
I am also curious as to your examples of your Labrador, traditionally with tail intact, and your argument for amputating working or hunting dogs’ tails due to getting nicked or torn when working. Why then aren’t Labs’ or Goldens’ or long-haired Pointers’ tails removed? They seem to be used for the same hard running, pricker-brush, thorns and thistle environments as short-haired Pointers, hunting Spaniels and the like? Why are only a percentage of the hunting/gun/working dogs having their tails removed?
I’m certainly not trying to change your mind, but I think it’s good to ask hard questions to see where we are and why.
Beth with the Corgis says
HFR, I agree we must not give up on making things better. I think part of the problem is that we are just at the cusp of truly understanding genetics. There is an overwhelming feeling that there is so much to learn. The big problem is in finding meaningful evidence. There is so much politicking in the dog world (as in so many things) that it is difficult to find unbiased sources that put the evidence in a realistic light, and there are always some who want to jump on every new thing and change everything, and others who don’t want to ever change a thing. I would never say I feel “victimized” but there is a very outspoken portion of society that is against breeding dogs. I don’t breed myself, but I hear enough comments. Of course there are still plenty of people buying purebred puppies too. And I agree there is reason for hope as well.
I am a tail-docking agnostic. Again, show me some research. Tail injuries are not uncommon. I was actually surprised when I started poking around and every dog thread that brought up bleeding tails drew lots of responses including some horror stories. Docking an adult dog is terribly difficult. The wound is hard to get to heal, and I saw quite a few different stories of people who needed repeat surgeries before healing took place.
Here’s what I’d like to know:
1) How much pain DO neonate pups feel, and for how long? If pain is similar to having a tail stepped on, certainly that is not a worthy argument against docking. If it’s excruciating, then it is a worthy argument.
2) What percent of properly docked dogs experience long-term problems from the dock?
And then the other set of questions is:
1) How common are tail injuries in previously docked dogs once docking is banned?
2) What percent of those injuries are serious (i.e., take more than a few months to heal and/or require surgery?)
One study in the UK is used by both supporters of the ban and detractors from it. Of 52 vet clinics, something like “Only” 280 dogs in a year had tail injuries that required treatment. That was used by supporters of the ban.
But then supporters of lifting the ban extrapolated that out because apparently there are 3000 vet clinics in England. Assuming the sample in the study was a representation of a typical clinic (and that may not be the case), that would extrapolate out to something like 16,000 tail injuries serious enough to require treatment, and 5,000 adult amputations. Spaniels were something like 7 to 8x more likely than other breeds to have injuries. Honestly, that seems like an awful lot of injuries. It’s very hard to keep a tail bandaged, and it takes ages to heal.
So in my mind, if routine docking only causes short-term pain and can significantly reduce the risk of what is a painful and prolonged injury in adult dogs, it is worth it. If it causes severe prolonged pain AND there is serious risk of post-docking trauma anyway, then it is probably not worth it.
In a smaller study, something like 30% of undocked German Shorthair Pointers had reportable tail injuries by the time they were about 3 years old. Again from personal experience, they are almost impossible to EVER get to heal because once the skin is brittle it just breaks back open over and over. Does that study hold over time? I’m not sure.
So again, if a relatively low-pain simple procedure can prevent that level of injuries, then it’s worth it. If the procedure is very traumatic, it might not be. It should be easy enough to do the study. Problem is, it’s hard to get agreement on what level of pain neonate puppies are capable of feeling.
Ear cropping is an entirely different matter because it involves a surgery at an older age and lots of “setting” afterwards, which is handling the raw area. That is too much pain for too long, in my opinion.
I just love that at this site so many of us can discuss controversial, emotionally charged topics without things getting out of hand. If there were more of that in the world, it would be a better place. 🙂
Beth with the Corgis says
Lisa W, labs and goldens were traditionally retrievers and often water dogs; they use their tails as rudders and also don’t frequently work the brush as heavily as spaniels and the like. Some people will use a lab to flush, but it was not his primary purpose. A good spaniel will automatically head towards the heaviest cover, because that’s where the birds are likely to be. The retriever was sent to grab the bird after it was shot. If you look at the historical gun dogs that were and were not docked, you will see differences in hunting style and terrain, as well as tail type. The reason I used the lab as an example is that was the dog we had who had a bleeding tail. I don’t know why German Shorthair Pointers are docked and English Pointers not, but looking at pictures most English Pointers have a relatively short tail in proportion to the body to begin with.
Beth with the Corgis says
Nic1, you raise an interesting point regarding communication. My Corgis have the very short show dock, which is no tail at all, and I do miss seeing the tail. Again, I’d like to see people have more of a choice here; I’m not so much in the pro-docking camp as the “let’s not ban it until we give serious consideration to all the evidence” camp. I think you definitely lose something in communicating between dogs and people when you lose the tail.
On the other hand, my Corgis have much more expressive faces than any of the drop-eared dogs we had in my family, and we once had a spaniel–known for their expressive eyes. Part of that is the ears, true. But a huge part is the eyebrows and lips. Corgis have almost human-like mobility in their facial features, especially around the eyes. I have often wondered if the fact that they have been tail-less dogs for so long (they are a very old breed, and at least some sources say the natural bobtail was much more aggressively bred for in the pre-docking era) means that people just naturally were more inclined to select dogs with expressive faces? It is so easy for me to read not just excitement or joy (which are easy), but worry, minor annoyance, confusion, ambivalence, and a host of others. I never realized how much drop ears are a handicap in communication til I had a dog with upright ears; an ear flick is much easier to notice when the ears are up.
Which brings me to the point about dog-dog communication. Yes, it must have at least some impact on communication to be tailless. But what of the permanently curled-over-the-back pose of the spitz? What of the bobtails?
And as I mentioned above, what about ears? A prick-eared dog is much clearer in communication than a drop-eared dog, especially when viewed from a distance when most dogs are already sizing each other up. Saying we should not dock dogs just because of communication would then lead to logical discussions about ear type.
If communication was our primary objective, dogs would still look like wolves. 🙂 Proper tail, proper ears, full range of facial expressions.
So I think it’s an interesting point that adds value to the decision-making process, but it should also be discussed within the context that we have done many things to dogs’ physiology that compromise their natural body language.
Of course we are also influenced by personal experience. Jack is better with dogs than probably three-quarters of dogs out there and his lack of tail certainly doesn’t seem to impede him. Madison is iffy, but I don’t know that it’s her tail so much as the fact that she stares— another trait of selective breeding, though certainly plenty of herding dogs learn not to stare at other dogs as they would at a cow.
As an aside, when docking was banned, in at least some countries Corgi breeders started breeding more intensively for bobtails again, which brings up a whole new set of issues….. Things are complicated, there are lots of grey areas and no easy answers, I guess. 🙂
Nic1 says
‘So I think it’s an interesting point that adds value to the decision-making process, but it should also be discussed within the context that we have done many things to dogs’ physiology that compromise their natural body language.’
Exactly Beth. We have manipulated the genome to the detriment of the dogs’ welfare in some breeds in this regard. If we have deliberately bred exaggerated physiology and we understand it is compromising natural social signalling and communication, then that’s a welfare issue. Add a double wammy of docking and breeding for bobtails and screw tails in the light of our understanding about the dogs’ internal world and it’s clear to me that we have to start questioning our own behaviour in this regard.
http://www.ufaw.org.uk/HEMIVERTEBRAEENGLIGHBULLDOG.php
http://www.border-wars.com/2011/11/without-a-tail-to-sit-on.html
Since the research on left and right tail wagging has been published, I am finding myself looking at dogs’ tails a whole lot more than I used to, to see if I can deduce sociability and whether they are feeling comfortable in their environment. We have no idea how a dog may feel if he is unable to read another dog in this regard. We also have no idea how dogs feel about not having a tail. Anecdotally, some dogs with naturally high tail carriages can have a few ‘status’ related issues with other dogs (Huskies, PRTs for example). The tail is as important for dog to dog communication as it is for dog to human IMO. I do concur, things are complicated and there are never any easy answers whenever traditions and culture are challenged. It’s important to keep challenging the status quo and questioning our own actions.
LisaW made some good references with regard to dogs who have experienced phantom tail syndrome and neuromas – dogs can and do suffer, physically and emotionally, when their tails are amputated. Dogs deserve to have a fully intact and functioning communication system in place given the nature of their body language and sociability. The risk of an occasional injury to a tail does not justify amputating it.
LisaW, it seems that there are some veterinarians who are taking the welfare issues with regard to cosmetic procedures seriously.
http://dogtime.com/advocacy-column-cropping-out-the-cruelty.html
Nic1 says
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10423474/Queens-favourite-corgi-endangered-due-to-Labour-law.html
Beth – looks like the Animal Welfare Act, which bans tail docking here, has led to a fall in Pembroke Corgi registrations. They are on the
Nic1 says
KC ‘watch list’ and may end up on the ‘vulnerable native breeds’ list unless registrations hit 300.
Interesting that it is reported that a lot of breeders have given up on the breed as they feel that being unable to dock spoils the look of the dog!
HFR says
Beth: I do admire your open-mindedness and insistence on seeing all sides. A trait that is rare and desperately needed more than ever in these times. But I do think there comes a point where wanting answers to every possible argument (it’s one of the reasons why I am so skeptical of “research” to begin with even in my work life) can be paralyzing. Of course, there is an argument to every point of view and probably research to back up every one of them. As much as I love science, I think at some point we need to come to a conclusion that weighs all the information but also factors in not only our minds but our hearts. My heart tells me that cutting off a dog’s tail at birth is wrong. Just wrong.
Beth with the Corgis says
HFR, I suppose that growing up with a houseful of working hunting dogs probably seriously colors my view; these are not arbitrary, hypothetical issues for me, if you see what I mean. That’s why I say that all our own experiences color what we choose.
Beth with the Corgis says
Here’s my final thought on tail docking: In human medicine, it is routine for best practices to be determined by a survey of evidence. Every procedure has risk, there is always an upside and downside to every possibility. We don’t make decisions based just on the emotional side, or what we “think” might be the case, because common sense is often wrong (I still have trouble beliving that, excepting for aerodynamic differences, a block of foam will fall at the same speed as a block of lead, even though I know it must be true).
I would love to see that applied to animal welfare decisions in general. We need studies, on things like docking and diet and breeding practices. What we have now is tiny amounts of evidence and a whole lot of us with opinions based just on hunch and limited anecdote.
I have, in my life, seen enough examples of legislation that was meant to help actually making things much worse; unintended consequences can sometimes be worse than the problem we set out to solve.
It is not fair to dismiss experiences of things like phantom limb symdrome, nor is it fair to dismiss those who have spent a year or more trying to heal a constantly bleeding tail before finally being forced into an adult amputation. Look at internet discussions and you will find someone saying “If I had known this would happen, I never would have docked” and others saying “God, I wish the breeder had docked these tails!”. Anecdote matters, but decisions—as in human medicine— should be based on accumulated data. Anesthesia is risky but we undergo it because it beats the alternative. That doesn’t make it any easier when someone dies from anesthesia complicaitons.
Let me see some numbers, and then I can make up my mind. But when it comes to our beloved dogs, there are too few numbers to be had. So things like docking, and raw feeding, and breeding, and even vaccination become sources of endless controversy with no good answers and lots of strong emotion.
HFR says
I think all of our arguments have credibility. I think we’ve reached the point of just back and forth with the same points being made.
Again, just wanted to say a big thank you to Trish for being brave enough to bring up such controversial topics and creating a forum where they can be discussed respectfully. Very rare on the internet…
Nic1 says
I’m thankful that when I find a fascinating piece of research on neuroscience, I can share it here!
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.3594.html
This is fascinating. I think Trisha may have touched on this before but I can’t recall where?
We show imprints of our ancestors in all sorts of ways, including behaviour. More evidence for the rigours of good breeding practices in animal breeding programmes.
What about cumulative generational effects in puppy farms?
Ruth says
Old conversation, but I have to input.
If they REALLY wanted to stop the breeding and selling of unhealthy dogs they’d ban internet and petstore sales. Both of those are really how puppy mills make their money. But you know what? Puppy mills are big money makers, so yah, thats not going to happen.
As for the shipped vs not shipped puppies? Anyone breeding a less than common breed dog or cat is going to be shipping pups/kittens. Thats basic fact. Take my Tibetan Mastiff. He was 1 of a litter of 10 pups. The breeder was keeping her pick of the litter, and we made a 10hr drive to pick up our pup rather than ship him. Every single other puppy in the litter was getting shipped to their new home. We were the closest puppy buyer. Two of them went overseas!
And the max number of breed-able bitches part? Stupid stupid. You have your just retired bitch, lets say she’s 6-8 yrs old. She’s had a couple litters, you don’t plan to breed her again, but for any one of a number of reasons she’s not been spayed. You have your current bitch, lets say she’s 4-5, she’s had one litter, and you’re considering breeding her one more time. You have your currently showing/working bitch who’s 2-3, assuming she passes all health checks and gets her championship you may breed her. You have your youngster, who’s 1.5 yrs old, just started showing or working, haven’t even looked at her breeding prospects yet till you know how she matures. Thats 4. You have your female pup from your last litter, just turned 6 months, shold be having her first heat anytime now……and because you’re an ethical breeder you have the intact female from a couple litters ago who was just returned to you. Whoops, thats 6 intact females who’re potentially breedable. And here comes the inspector cause one of your prissy neighbors got pissed cause your dogs barked at the full moon last night. And yup, you breed a less than common breed of dogs so some of your pups get shipped out. Better get ready to comply with the regulations for lab kept dogs and pay for a license! All while the BYB down the road who pumps out litter after litter from their single bitch till she dies of it never gets a second look cause the only have the pair of dogs, and the puppy mills can afford to pay for whatever permits are needed……