“CANINE HEALTH – WHAT ARE THE FACTS?” - J.S.F. SMTIH

"We print here an article written and sent to Dog World on the 2nd September 2008.  However because they have chosen not to print it, which of course is their prerogative, we thought visitors to our site might be interested in reading it, so have reproduced it here.  It is of course our personal Point of View"

I wrote this article prior to the current debate about the BBC documentary. The subject matter here, in touching on canine health and genetics, is related to some of the issues raised, but this is pure coincidence. It is not proposed as criticism, nor to “add fuel to the fire”, but rather hopefully to be constructive. Four and a half years ago I wrote an article which was published in Dog World entitled “ Turning a blind eye could prove dangerous and costly to the breed” (copy Feb 6 th 2004)

We all know gastric torsion is regrettably founds in a number (if not all) deep chested breeds. In the time that has elapsed, I would ask if we are any further forward in tackling this distressing condition? As breeders we remain today without a means of knowing if ‘the instance' of gastric torsion or any other condition in any breed has increased or decreased. We do know that gastric torsion occurs and it is not uncommon or rare. What continues to be a source of concern is to what extent is the condition invasive and how it is inherited or why it manifests itself. The fact that, be it a genetic fault or not, the mode of inheritance remains unknown. This should not mean that “the instance of the condition in various breeds” continues unmonitored and speculative.

My point is easily summarised by the more than somewhat illogical position of the KC requirement to seek approval to show a dog that has undergone surgery for a genetic fault like” entropion” to prevent discomfort (which is quite understandable and reasonable), however the same dog/bitch can suffer gastric torsion, (if they survive it). have surgery with banding of the stomach to discourage re-occurrence, can be bred from or used at stud and because it is unseen can compete and even win CC's at Championship shows. Where is the logic in this? Both conditions require to be controlled in the interest of a breed's future health, but the second comes with great trauma and suffering for the animal. The extent of “torsion” which exists currently, we cannot even assess in terms of numbers or statistics. Some means must be found to deal with this position. Clearly the integrity of the owners, exhibitors and breeders alike is involved and you would earnestly hope to find an open-minded approach but regrettably this cannot be relied upon The existing position does not address the problem….so something has to be implemented on this disease and indeed all serious canine conditions, to control or even monitor where we stand. The Veterinary world and the KC have at its centre the same interest at heart, namely the health, welfare and care of “the dog”. What more do you need beyond co-operation and the initiative, I know it appears to over simplify the issues involved. It may seem glib and impractical to those who face trying to introduce fundamental changes. I well appreciate it would be far from plain sailing…and I know it is easy to pose questions…but surely it is right to query, or at least try to float ideas that could alleviate possibly a great deal of suffering. In human terms would it be acceptable not to have records of the instances of death from infection in hospitals, or heart disease however unpalatable or high profile? Would the public accept a situation where nobody kept records of how many cases existed? Why are Veterinary Practices not willing or required to provide such data as a matter of course and somebody appointed to hold this data on record. At least we would know somewhat where we stand, be it in various forms of cancer, liver failure, heart problems, epilepsy, anticipated life-spans etc.…Why not a death certificate like a birth certificate or a KC registration document. I just do not get it…it doesn't make sense to me. If it is deemed necessary, wise and advantageous to know which pedigree dogs are born and where and by which dam and sire, isn't it logical to record for the same dog, by obligation how that registration terminates especially if the information can be of use or in any way helpful in tracking or researching veterinary problems/conditions. I wish someone would give me some rational effective reason, what prevents this being initiated. It will not happen without action or intervention.

Where pedigree dogs are concerned Vets could as a matter of course keep KC registration numbers on their records and have “a simple date and cause of death form” cross referenced to the KC registration number. The information could be forwarded electronically on a monthly or quarterly basis to the KC Registration Dept, who would add the data by computer to the registration/breeder records. I would imagine that a very high percentage of pedigree dogs are euthanased at home by a Veterinary Surgeon or at the Veterinary Surgery, whether they belong to pet owners or breeders alike. The relatively small percentage that die from old age at home may not get recorded in every case but the data would be fairly comprehensive and would be collected impersonally by a professional and could establish valuable statistics. The information submitted would be nothing more than purely factual.

There is a great deal made of “Irish” achievements in eradicating “PRA” and “CLAD” with the advent of DNA tests. Indeed these successes were singled out again as KC answers to questioning on canine health advances on the melodramatic BBC documentary. I do not belittle these successes but they are now part of past history belonging to the 1980's and 1990's and earlier test mating practices. The principal reason these conditions were tackled was to a great extent a case of “necessity is the mother of invention”. Both conditions threatened the breed's intrinsic health and possible existence. Other conditions will no doubt evolve and similarly pose possible genetic threats. Why not at least know where you stand and be able to monitor, or be forewarned to some extent if new mutations and problems occur in the future, as assuredly they must. Doesn't it make sense?

The current furore in the Dog Press, resulting from the BBC Documentary shown recently highlights in a rather exaggerated unbalanced manner the excesses and health issues surrounding a small number of breeds. It is difficult to refute the criticism entirely levelled at the world of pedigree dogs, where extreme breeds, displaying uncomfortable physical conformation, result in exaggerated deformities, which in turn (however reluctantly) are tolerated and bred and being shown under KC rules. Anybody who regards themselves as even a “novice breeder” would know the difference between “line breeding” and “in breeding” I would certainly hope so…but may be this is a naive view. Knowledge of pedigrees and genetic backgrounds normally runs hand in glove with experience and there is no short substitute for that, it comes with time and education. Predictably the Kennel Club as the official body at the centre of the UK dog world becomes the target for comment. I do not wish to add fuel to the fire, nor appear to marginalise KC efforts implemented to try to address problems. However, two aspects mentioned by the KC in their response to the documentary appear relevant. “Setters” were highlighted as a breed subject to DNA testing but what about other conditions and genetic defects in Setters? If Irish Setters are singled out as notable in this respect just how bad are genetic faults in other breeds? The second point relates to the whole point of this article- namely that there appear to be” no statistics” which can be quoted and no evidence to enable anybody discussing “genetics” to be able to identify just what is a problem or when problems are controlled. Since this documentary does not present a true picture of pedigree dogs in general terms, wouldn't the KC be less exposed if they could challenge or refute irresponsible statements with facts and figures! It is my personal opinion and not therefore necessarily a shared view that to quote the ABS as a way forward and as representative of responsible breeding belies itself and is unrealistic when from any standpoint it is largely ignored if not rejected by all but a relatively small number of breeders – How many established breeders throughout the breeds have joined the scheme? It does not engender confidence if, despite “high profile hype” and advertising there is still seems to be a steadfast refusal to face reality, however disappointing that may be. The ABS scheme does not seem adequately to resolve problems nor sufficient (even with its later refinements) to protect the future of breeding pedigree dogs. It has to be correctly pitched or loose credibility. To simply say the ABS is “a move in the right direction” isn't really good enough, and to use this as a response when so many breeders, despite having had three years to contemplate joining, just do not seem to support it. In my opinion the ABS is not wrong it is inadequate and does not represent established or experienced breeders who are the vital core of dogdom - if it did they would have supported it and embraced it with enthusiasm. If you think comments of this nature are unhelpful, provocative or negative, then I would suggest the KC pole all Breed Clubs across the board to complete a census of what proportion of their respective membership are ABS registered or indeed what proportion of KC members are ABS registered.

Is gastric torsion more prevalent than say 25 years ago? Was it always a problem in deep-chested breeds of dog? Is it less in evidence today or more so? How would you even know unless data is recorded in some way. Another aspect is an increasing number of pedigree domestic pets are covered by insurance. Insurers naturally require to know the basis of any claims which have to be supported by a Veterinary statement. Insurers must already be privy to or hold an increasing amount of information. As insurers they have a vested interest in knowing what they can cover and “pay out” on. With major supermarket chains like Tesco, Sainsbury, M. & S. etc., as well as the KC getting involved in this niche market, insurers would want to know “serious disease facts”. For this reason insurers, if for no other reason than balancing their books, may well want to support any initiative to obtain such information.

In human terms would it not be held as logical, sound common sense and vital to know if say a form of cancer showed itself to dramatically increase over a period? Even if you did not know or understand why this was taking place…nonetheless accurate figures would be considered essential to be known. If the graph showed a steady and dramatic rise, the concern and need to act would announce itself. Alarm bells would ring to suit the scale of the problem. All I am suggesting in animal terms (and in this case, canines)… in the relatively small world of dogs….this knowledge and being able to evaluate figures must make sense. If the only thing that stands in the way of obtaining such statistics is either professional as veterinary/client/patient confidentiality, or the practicality of somehow collating the information, neither should render it unworkable. With the computer systems at our elbows, it ought to be possible. Who better to supply and hold this information than the BVA and the KC.

Maybe it could be funded as an initiative via say the Charitable Trust with the BVA.

Can anyone explain to me in simple logical terms how client/patient/owner confidentiality benefits the dog in any way at all?

I almost apologise for seeming to harp upon the subject…but inaction may exacerbate the problem making it year by year more difficult to address. Veterinary science, the BVA the KC/BSAVA Scientific Advisory groups must all review such matters. As I say 4 ½ years have elapsed and it would be good to know if we are making progress on torsion for example? I do not know of any new moves afoot. We do not seem to have any energy left in the tank at breed level to further attempt to address the problem of “torsion”. It is as if, because we do not know how to combat or deal with it, we can but accept the situation. Maybe the instance of the condition will abate, lessen and recede into obscurity. It is unlikely to happen but could do so. Should one take the view commonly expressed that it is a syndrome found in many deep-chested breeds, without a clear mode of inheritance and therefore has to be “lived with”. The obvious distress involved and especially if the attack is terminal, a sense of resignation and stop the distress at that point seems to pervade….its over and we need to put it behind us…..we don't want to dwell on it, and we must accept the situation and “move on”, as they say. The condition isn't rife but what is the factual position in Irish Setters or indeed any other breed? Does anybody know? Is it uncommon or rare enough warrant indifference? It seems incredible to me that despite all that we have at our disposal in the form of computers and data banks nobody even holds statistics and reliable records on diseases, particularly if they are serious enough to be potentially fatal…I am sorry to invade your comfort zone…but it does not make sense. The BVA and the KC are ideally placed to collect evidence between them to enable them to record such data.

My object here is to lobby for some initiative to establish schemes to amass (if nothing else) accurate records affecting “serious conditions” threatening canine health. The list of what “serious” implies is open to discussion and review by the professionals involved and to suit the degree of severity and the current concern on the level of incidence. The technicality about how to gather or collate such data is a practical problem – the principle and the use of such records to aid and improve canine health (if that be the case) is another matter. I believe that documented data must be of incalculable value to future scientific research. I am sure those involved in their careers with canine health at various levels must have reviewed the feasibility and practicality of gathering such information but found it difficult and impractical. In effect I ask what makes it impractical and therefore maybe a “non-starter”? To any Veterinary Surgeon the future well being and health of an animal is fundamentally to them as caring and vocational professionals. The KC and the BVA have at their very core the interest of “pedigree dogs” and their future development. Wouldn't collated records represent a move in the right direction? It appears plausible.

It does just occur to me in closing that somebody reading this in a Dog Paper, might think the subject matter quite reasonable – but one has also to be aware that to another non-doggy person as part of the general public they would see it as eccentric and quite extreme viewed against human disease and poverty in the third world. The BVA and the KC must have a bias towards the extremist viewpoint because they are in the business of animal welfare and the canine world specifically.