Mapping of initiatives to prevent inherited diseases and exaggerated phenotypes in dogs

Organized dog breeding involving closed-breed populations has existed since the nineteenth century. In most countries, the national kennel club organizes the breeding and maintains the studbooks. Most of the national kennel clubs are associated with FCI.

The organizational work has to a large extent been driven by volunteers and enthusiasts. The dogs have therefore been selected by individual dog owners and generally in great loyalty to the traditions and culture prevailing in each breed and show community.

An important, negative consequence of breeding within closed-breed populations is inherited disease. Moreover, exaggerated phenotypes have become a problem. The most problematic of these is seen in the brachycephalic breeds such as the Pugs and the Bulldogs. Dogs of these breeds can have excessively flattened muzzles/skulls, which may result in “brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome” (BOAS) as well as a number of other secondary problems with eyes, ears, skin and so on. Over the past few decades the number of dogs with a studbook has declined. This development is seen especially in popular breeds. Thus, in breeds such as the Chihuahua and the French Bulldog the proportion of Danish dogs with a studbook is now below 15%. At the same time, there is an ever-increasing trade of purebred dogs across national borders.

Research is crucial in order to generate knowledge about all aspects of breeding-related impaired health, including inherited diseases, clinical signs and the validity of DNA tests. The traditional Nordic collaboration between the kennel clubs and the universities provides valuable, applicable information that is used to improve breeding programs, and to improve our understanding of the nature of inherited diseases, and so on. Moreover, epidemiological studies are important in tracking the prevalence and distribution of diseases in each breed. In order to undertake epidemiological studies, sufficient and reliable data on the prevalence and distribution of the various diseases is required. Some studies have been performed on some diseases, but they are limited to specific samples taken at particular time points. In view of this a common, central registry of health data from veterinarians is needed in order to create an overview of the health status of various dog breeds – both pedigree dogs, non-pedigree dogs and crossbred dogs. This would also allow the effect of breeding programs and other health improving initiatives to be assessed.

In Denmark, a registry of this kind has been in development for more than 10 years. One obstacle is that, if it is to be useful, the veterinarians need to implement a new diagnostic system from which the necessary data can be harvested. However, the veterinarians’ duty is to promote animal health and welfare, relieve pain, treat diseases, and the like – not only at an individual level but also in a broader population perspective. The Danish Veterinary Association has recently taken steps towards establishing such a diagnostic registry.

It has become clear that if we are to respond to the challenge presented by inherited diseases effectively, additional health-focused selection criteria will be necessary in several breeds. However, stringent breeding rules focusing on health are not always welcome in the breeding communities – maybe due to a lack of insight into the scientific background of the recommendations. Thus, in the breeding community, traditions like coat color, skin folds and specific conformation measures seem to be at least as important as the dogs’ health and welfare. Another limitation on imposing stringent health criteria is the lack of genetic variation in the breeds. In some breeds various breed-related diseases are so prevalent that selecting only the healthiest dogs for breeding would jeopardize genetic variation even more and create problems with inbreeding and new inherited diseases.

It should be acknowledged that the breed clubs and kennel clubs have taken some effective initiatives against several inherited diseases in their breeding programs. In numerically large breeds with only a small number of inherited diseases this strategy does not cause problems. This is, however, a balancing act, because breeders who see no need to abide by the breed club’s requirements may choose to produce puppies without a studbook.

Although the kennel clubs have developed breeding restrictions in an attempt to contain several inherited diseases they have not reacted sufficiently vigorously to the problems created by exaggerated phenotypes. Both FCI and the kennel clubs have taken various initiatives to discourage unhealthy conformation. However, in most cases – e.g. in the short-muzzled breeds – no notable improvement has been achieved.

Breeders of short-muzzled breeds are in general aware of the risk of breathing problems created by BOAS, but some signs of BOAS such as conspicuously loud breathing and snoring are perceived as normal for the breed. Therefore, exaggerated phenotypes persist. They continue to be a serious problem.

The breed standards must be approved by FCI. Therefore, FCI plays an important role in this matter. Statements drawing attention to what is required for healthy conformation have been added to some breed standards by FCI. However, a more thorough reformulation of the most critical breed standards with some clear limitations seems to be necessary.

A BOAS grading program developed at Cambridge University is being implemented in several countries. However, the brachycephalic dogs are burdened with other inherited diseases in addition to BOAS, including spinal diseases, gastro-intestinal problems and skin diseases. Were these to be factored in as criteria for breeding, the remaining healthy population to be used in breeding would become far too small – at least, unless the studbooks are opened.

Opening the studbook – i.e. allowing non-pedigree individuals of a desired phenotype to be enrolled in the breeding population – is an effective way to increase genetic variation and at the same time preserve the key characteristics of a breed. An open studbook strategy has been adopted in connection with the Danish-Swedish Farmdog, and it appears it would be effective in other breeds, including those burdened by several inherited diseases and/or exaggerated phenotypes. A higher number of dogs in the breeding population allows for selection against inherited diseases without jeopardizing genetic variation.

It should be underlined that initiatives taken within the organized breeding sector can only benefit registered dogs. Some form of accompanying action would need to be taken to extend the benefits to unregistered dogs as well.

As long as there is demand, there will also be supply. Therefore, initiatives to make dog buyers aware of the health and welfare issues in several breeds, and care about them, are of great importance.

The campaigns run by animal welfare organizations with, among other things, flyers, You Tube videos, information on web pages and social media, have so far not had a major effect. The commitment made by veterinarians to speak up and inform owners about their dogs’ health issues has probably not had any real effect either. At any rate, the breed-related health problems have remained largely unchanged.

As already mentioned, many prospective dog owners are aware of the health issues seen in, for example, the brachycephalic dog breeds. Still, the dogs’ health is not always given first priority. Thus, the vast amount of information on the significant risk of disease in some breeds seems to have had minimal or no effect. Instead societal influence, trends and fashion appear to affect buying decisions powerfully. Therefore, more complex instruments based on social marketing should be used to steer the way dog buyers think and act when choosing a dog.

In most countries, general legislative instruments have been developed in an effort to ensure healthy breeding in dogs. In Denmark, however, the minister has so far chosen not to use the authority given by the Animal Welfare Act 2013 to introduce such regulations. A legal framework would, however, be an important lever with which to implement and enforce initiatives to prevent unhealthy dog breeding.

The legislative initiatives taken in Germany and the Netherlands to improve dog breeding illustrate very well the difficulties of enforcement. In general, enforcement is easier with registered dogs, because the legislation can be incorporated into the existing rules and breeding programs. However, a side-effect of the legislation in the Netherlands has been that people have left the kennel club. Any legislation aiming at improving breeding-related health and welfare should therefore be equally enforceable in relation to dogs with and without pedigree.

The Norwegian lawsuits detailed in this report brought against breeders of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and English Bulldogs signal the very limited success so far in improving the situation in pedigree breeding. Even if the English Bulldog breeders have won their case, a strong signal has been sent that the limit has been reached.

In light of this, it would be a good start if all countries in which there is organized pedigree dog breeding – including Denmark – had clear, general, pieces of legislation stating that unethical breeding causing discomfort, pain and/or disease is illegal.

The advantage of using legislative initiatives to move us towards healthier breeding is that they can be drafted so as to apply to all dogs, not just those registered with a kennel club. Still, it is difficult to administer and enforce such rules with such wide scope. Legislation should not, therefore, be relied upon alone. It must be mobilized together with the other initiatives presented here.

A considerable amount of research into dog health is being conducted. It is, however, characterized by a focus on specific problems. Only to a limited extent does it offer a more general overview of the disease or health condition in our dog breeds.

We recommend one tool that would be very beneficial for future research in this area:

1. Establish a health registry recording diagnoses made by veterinarians (both for pedigree and non-pedigree dogs).

Data collected in this registry would provide a solid basis for epidemiological research. The studies issuing from this research could deliver an overview of disease and health in our dog breeds and allow breeding programs and other health-improving initiatives to be evaluated.

The breeding of certain dog breeds has without doubt had some seriously negative impacts on the dogs’ health and welfare.

We recommend three specific tools that would move dog breeding in a healthier direction:

1. More consistent enforcement of the health-oriented guidelines that have already been added to the breed standards.

2. Changes to the standards of those breeds burdened with exaggerated conformations.

3. The opening of the studbooks for breeds with numerically small populations and breeds with several breed-related health problems.
   

In relation to 2), we would like to stress that, since FCI is an independent international organization, and that the owner country of each dog breed proposes the breed standards to FCI, it is difficult to influence this process unless it is addressed at EU level. In relation to 3), we note that only the respective owner countries can open the studbooks.

The initiatives taken by animal welfare organizations and veterinarians do not seem to have had any noticeable effect on the way people act and think when buying a dog. We therefore recommend that more complex instruments based on social marketing are used to steer the way dog buyers act when choosing a dog.

The legislative initiatives in the Netherlands and Germany show that it is difficult to devise and accurately formulate relevant legislative criteria, and equally difficult to administer and enforce those criteria. We recommend that:

1. As has happened in other countries, general legislative instruments are developed in Denmark in an effort to ensure healthy dog breeding.

2. The effect of the legislative initiatives in the Netherlands and Germany are monitored closely.