Responsible breeders have long considered health testing of potential breeding animals one of their distinguishing characteristics. At the time I bred my first litter in 1975, x-raying of hips was not uncommon. By the 1990s, standard operating procedure included x-rays of hips and elbows and an eye exam. During that time, if a dog “failed” a health check, it was considered not to be a breeding quality animal, regardless of merit in any other area. Mentors suggested that there were other options that would be preferred to breeding an animal with a known health problem. Reputations were based (at least in part) on thorough testing and breeding only “clear” stock.
The concept of a preservation breeder has only recently been embraced in the world of purebred dogs. Preservation breeding is a logical extension of the ideas, research and projects that began in the 1960s with the budding environmental movement. As our society struggled with the damage being caused by rampant development and use of chemicals, as well as increasing awareness of the rapidly vanishing species of wildlife around the world, preservation and management became a subject for study as we attempted to bring balance to our world. Agricultural interests followed the lead of wildlife preservationists working to preserve gene pools from Heirloom tomatoes to Highland cattle. Inherent in the concept of preservation breeding is an understanding of the importance of genetic diversity to the continuing sustainability of any population.
This evolution from responsible breeder to preservation breeder offers an opportunity to re-examination our thoughts about producing healthy animals. Since the completion of the canine genome mapping in 2005, an explosion of canine genetic tests has become available with new ones being added at an astonishing pace. The AKC Canine Health Foundation shows over a hundred health tests available and that does not include available testing for variations in coat color and pattern. The numbers of purebred dogs being registered (and bred) have been plummeting for decades. While some purebred dog populations are threatened with extinction because of their small numbers, other breeds have plenty of numbers but are plagued by unacceptable percentages of individuals carrying or producing serious disease. A preservation breeder needs to be less concerned with their reputation for producing only healthy dogs (nobody does that!), but instead hold a steadfast commitment to the health and welfare of the gene pool of entire breed.
Total honesty is required for this paradigm shift. As people who cherish and want to protect our breed(s), we must recognize that dog breeding is a team sport. We must get past our differences and join together to enhance and utilize diversity in our gene pools. To adopt the label of preservation breeder, we must be completely open and transparent about the conditions that we have encountered in our breeding programs and supportive of other breeders who are experiencing similar challenges (if not necessarily the same disease processes). Facilitating the exchange of information and cooperation between all interested parties is part and parcel of our dedication to our dogs. Knowledge is power. Use it wisely and share it without malice.
Formalized opportunities for information sharing are available through a variety of channels. The Canine Health Information Center (CHIC) is a database of consolidated health screening results. The CHIC database is sponsored by Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), and works with participating parent clubs to establish testing recommendations for each breed. Individual dogs receive a CHIC number once the recommended test results are registered and made publicly available. Privately managed open registries for the sharing of significant health information are also available for some breeds. Entries in these registries need to be viewed carefully. Lack of information from a particular kennel does not mean those dogs are more or less healthy than others. It may mean that a particular breeder is not making all test results public on the OFA website. On the other hand, numerous entries indicate transparency and honesty, trademarks of dedicated breeders. Often dedicated breeders post health information about their dogs on their personal websites in a concise and organized fashion. Again, a critical perspective is useful. If no negative information is posted about any dog, that breeder is probably not telling the whole story.
Continued utilization of various tests is necessary and important. However, the increase in numbers of tests available, as well as, current issues related to genetic diversity within our breeds requires that we critically analyze how we use those test results. If every non-normal test result leads to the elimination of that individual as a breeding candidate, we will shortly have nothing left to breed. Results of health tests and analyses of available information about health conditions for which no test exists must be integrated with physical and temperament characteristics to make a breeding decisions based on the whole package. In his paper titled, The Effects of Genetic Testing: Constructive or Destructive?, Jerold S. Bell, DVM, of the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine argues against eliminating individuals from breeding because of test results. “…once a genetic test is developed that allows breeders to positively determine if a dog is a carrier of a defective gene, many owners are likely to remove carrier dogs from their breeding stock. Although doing so is human nature, this temptation must be overcome.” Every dog that we choose to breed has health issues that must be addressed in an ethical breeding program. A test result, regardless of outcome, may complicate the process, but it gives us information that we didn’t have previously. In the same way that we take into account a physical fault like incorrect eye color or a weak rear, these health concerns must be integrated into the mate selection process.
Our job as breeders is not to produce perfect dogs, but to minimize the risk of producing offspring with what Dr. Carmen Battaglia calls dreaded diseases. He says “…all health problems are not the same; some are worse than others. At the top of the list are those called the dreaded diseases. These are the disorders that can cripple, kill, cause early death or blindness.” As a result, we need to carefully consider the effect of each condition on the quality of life of both the owner and the dog. Ideally, each breeder will have a priority list of health concerns that may include one or two conditions that are “avoid at all costs” problems. Other disorders should be ranked in descending order of importance. While each breeder’s list will vary, it is important that we stop throwing otherwise lovely dogs out of the gene pool because of minor health issues. The telephone rang the other day and a gal asked for my thoughts about breeding her bitch with a vaginal stricture. Before we even got to health, we talked about general temperament issues, and specifically, the loss/degradation of herding instinct in her breed. Then we talked about health problems including epilepsy, progressive retinal atrophy and hip dysplasia. After an honest discussion of the bitch’s merits and shortcomings, we agreed that while the stricture was a matter to be addressed, it did not, in and of itself, eliminate her as a breeding animal. We will all have differing opinions, but we must move toward being more accepting of imperfection in pursuit of a vigorous and sustainable gene pool within our breeds. As Carol Beuchat Ph.D. of the Institute Of Canine Biology said to me recently, “It is both immoral and unethical not to move in the direction of healthier dogs.” As we evolve the terminology that we use to describe ourselves, we must simultaneously educate ourselves about scientific advances and new sources of information, and we must be willing to adjust our attitudes to make the best possible use of the information we now have available.
© Peri Norman 2016