Dogs and Wolves

Test time here!

"True" or "false": 

Dogs are not wolves.

If you said "True"....oops, you flunked. While there are minor differences, dogs and wolves actually belong to the same genus and species.

But you certainly would not be alone in this belief. Plenty of conventional authors and canine "nutritionists" are calling attention to an article published in "Nature" magazine Jan 23, 2013. This article claims that dogs have only recently developed the ability to digest carbohydrates. We now see many canine nutrition websites blaring the headline: "DOGS ARE NOT WOLVES"! The purpose of such sensational and misleading headlines seems to be to justify the pet food industry's continued abuse of dogs' digestive systems by intentionally feeding them a carbohydrate-based diet like kibbled dog food.


What this study does not highlight, however, is the fact that, genetically, dogs ARE wolves. Based on genetic research done by evolutionary and molecular biologist Dr. Robert Wayne at UCLA, in 1993, dogs were re-classified from Canis familiaris" to "Canis lupus" ssp "familiaris"

In other words, dogs are the same genus and species as the gray wolf. They are merely a subspecies of the grey wolf and do not differ significantly from the grey wolf. All breeds of dogs are still just variations on the grey wolf.

Let's repeat that again, for emphasis. In all significant ways, there is no meaningful difference between the grey wolf and the dog. The gray wolf and the dog share 99.8% of the same mitochondrial DNA. For comparison, the gray wolf and the coyote only share 96% of the same mitochondrial DNA. Dogs are directly descended from the gray wolf, sharing their anatomy and physiology.

The basic definition of a species is the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring, and dogs bred to wolves produce fertile offspring.

Simply because selective breeding in dogs has produced various types and colors, sizes and shapes does not mean that dogs are a separate species from wolves. It's been long established that dogs and the gray wolf have the same genes, and the same basic anatomy and physiology. Based on appearance alone, dog breeds are more dissimilar from each other than these breeds are from their prototype ancestor, the grey wolf. Are Chihuahuas a different type of animal than a Scottish Deerhound? Nope. Any difference wrought by human selective breeding could be wiped out in just a generation or two of breeding back to the grey wolf.

However, let's examine the digestive tract, which seems to be the "proof" that is spurring this recent claim that because dogs can digest carbohydrates, they are therefore separate and distinct from wolves. Dogs and wolves both have jaws that move only up and down, not side to side, with teeth that mesh in a scissors-type fashion. Their sharp pointed teeth are meant for shearing, not grinding. They are carnivores. Omnivores and herbivores have flat molars and jaws that can move in a side-to-side fashion designed for grinding grains, fruits and vegetables. Neither dogs nor wolves have saliva that produce amylase (the enzyme that begins digestion of starch in the mouth). Dogs and wolves both have short intestinal tracts, designed for quick digestion of proteins and fats. Vegetable matter takes many hours to digest and process in an animal's gut. Unless carbohydrates in the diet are highly processed and refined, they are not able to be digested and absorbed by dogs.

And we all know how much valuable nutrition is left in processed, refined foods, right? Think white flour or white rice. Nothing left there but "empty calories"....or so dieticians have informed us for years. Virtually no vitamins or minerals remain after processing. But now, we are supposed to believe that empty calories are beneficial for our canine pals.

The dog's liver produces all the vitamin C he ever needs. No need to derive that from fruits. There is, however, a significant need for specific amino acids in large quantities in the diet, particularly during growth and development. Proteins that are complete, in significant amounts, are necessary to keep a dog healthy. Rather than try to keep complete proteins at the essential bare minimum, dogs should be fed more in line with their natural diet which is protein-rich. No need to feed your dog on the "minimum wages of nutrition" that are so stingily provided in commercial foods.

It is well-documented in multiple studies that unless a dog has kidney or liver disease, protein in the diet does not pose any sort of health risk whatsoever. Even elderly dogs with compromised kidney function related to old age do better with higher protein than was currently believed to be "safe".

The fact that dogs (and wolves) can ingest some carbohydrate-based foods is not a secret, nor is it any new development. Check any scientific wolf website and you will find that wolves do eat fruits, vegetables and berries in small amounts. However, at issue is the huge percentage of carbohydrates that we feed the domestic dog in the way of commercial dog food. (Usually well over 50% carbs). No wolf or indeed any canid can remain healthy on a diet that is primarily grain-based carbohydrates.

In fact, recent studies on HUMAN diet demonstrates that high amounts of carbohydrates are unhealthy for us, too. Since mankind began to farm, and agriculture "improved" our lives to provide us a diet based on grains, the human brain has become significantly smaller. Vegetarian humans also have smaller brains than their omnivorous counterparts. Hmmm. Why even herbivores like cows are said to thrive more healthily on diets where they graze on natural grasses and vegetation instead of being fed strictly grains in a feed lot.

Evolution over 10,000 years of domestication has failed to produce any significant mutations that separate dogs from wolves to the extent that they have evolved into a different species.

For some reason, folks out there....veterinarians, dog food companies, canine "advisors"...are just itching to turn back the clock of genetic science and molecular biology and convince us that dogs and wolves are DIFFERENT. After all, you can tell just by looking at them...it's obvious, right?

Wrong again. Looks only show us the characteristics that man has intentionally bred for. All those characteristics had their potential in the genetic makeup of the wolf. THAT is what should be obvious to anyone with a background in science.

It's convenient for some to attempt to justify the recommendation for feeding a cheap diet based on grains, and to try to support the status quo of using inferior foodstuffs from the dregs of the human food chain, but it also is disingenuous to our claim of caring enough about our dogs to want to provide them with optimal nutrition.

Down the Path Toward Extinction

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.    Bernard of Clairvaux  (1090 – 1153)

As noted in a prior post, the British "Canine Alliance" foolishly has expressed a desire to work with the KC to promote health testing in the show setting, providing that such checks apply fairly to ALL participants.

However, the idea of testing all show entrants is not practical, admits pedigree dog blogger, TV producer and animal rights puritan Jemima Harrison, stating, "can you imagine the uproar, anyway, should vets DQ some top dog de jour that's just arrived after a 300 mile journey to compete?"

Been there, done that. Remember Crufts last week? These people probably would have preferred to escape the spotlight of winning and then being singled out for ridicule for having an undisclosed "health problem".  The popular lynch mob sentiment seems to be "why not release the results of their exam if they have nothing to hide"?  Why not indeed? Privacy be damned, none of that exists after the witch hunt and public lynching. What was the crime again? Who knows? "Guilty!" is all that matters.

When the Canine Alliance members mentioned their objections to the heavy-handed and unfair way they have been treated by the Kennel Club, Harrison criticized them for worrying more about themselves than the dogs.

The DOGS are more important than the people who breed them, in the eyes of the animal rightists.
The dogs don't care if they are in a show, she muses, and anyway, she wants dog shows to go down the tubes for good…to be banned, in her words. (Like as if we didn't already figure that one out). Besides, if poodles cared they would object to being groomed to be "embarrassingly ridiculous" according to Harrison.

No, dogs don't care at all if they are in a show, or how they are groomed. They are DOGS, not humans. Golly, that is hard to remember for those who prioritize the treatment of dogs over the treatment of human beings. 

Yes, dog shows are primarily a human activity. We make the choice to participate, for whatever personal reason we may have. For fun, for possibly starting a breeding program, for camaraderie with fellow hobbyists, for the sense of accomplishment, for the bond you establish with your dog, for receiving recognition for a job well done. Don't we all seek approval? That is basic human nature.  

But according to the ARistas, dogs have the right to not be exploited at the hands of the exhibitors, judges and breeders.

In a newly-released statement, the Canine Alliance states:

"The Canine Alliance was formed to represent everyone involved with pedigree dogs, and to negotiate when necessary with any related organisations in the interest of all breeds. Its aims are to protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs, to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding, to encourage health checking of all dogs and to allow the exhibition of pedigree dogs without bias or discrimination.... It pledges to be fair and totally transparent, always working to the benefit of pedigree dogs."

Any related organizations? Like who? YIKES! The Pedigree "exposers", perhaps? The RSPCA, an animal rights group?  The very group that has actual police authority? Don't they have enough power already to enforce their anti-dog breeding agenda on society? Guess not.

You don't negotiate with terrorists! Those with nothing to lose don't actually compromise very well. It's all take and no give. The demands just keep on coming!

Anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that if you give animal rights extremists an inch, they will definitely take a mile. But sadly, those whose country is overrun with AR laws and  bleeding-heart sentiment just don't seem to "get it". Exactly where do they envision this path to the future leading us?

Harrison, leader of the dog rights puritans, lays her cards on the table in her recent blog, as she mocks the published goals of the "Canine Alliance". Here is her plan for the path:

At last! An organisation that I can sign up to! After all, I'm involved with pedigree dogs and I can sign up to most of those aims. I also protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs; I am happy to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding and to encourage health checking of all dogs….

So what shall we do first, CA?

• Limits on popular sires and inbreeding?
•  KC registrations dependent on taking and actually passing breed specific tests?
•  Health reps educated in rudimentary genetics?
•  Proper breed health surveys?
•  Ban dog shows in their current form (I mean, didn't you say you were working to the benefit of pedigree dogs?)
  
  It's so exciting, isn't it? Together, we can achieve so much!

My my, someone who neither breeds nor shows dogs, but "involved" so intimately. So thrilled to have such "achievements" to crow about. "Together", eh? Unfortunately, with all the conciliating that the KC has done, I'm sure she does feel that such "achievements" are hers to boast about.

And, if I didn't know she was a pet owner rather than a breeder, this idea would clue me in immediately. Requiring PASSING breed specific tests simply to be registered? And what end, pray tell, would such folly serve? Do many people seeking out a purebred dog really want an unregistered dog? And when we move beyond registration to actual showing and breeding, shouldn't breeders have the license to decide whether or not they wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater? 

Oops, guess not. After all, in true AR form, these folks believe it is horrific to pass on any defective genes. Dogs must be 100% disease-free to bred. Or, in the case of the British, to simply be exhibited! Ah, make that, must be disease-free to even be registered!   

Is it any wonder that people resist health testing when there is such a social stigma attached to the "unhealthy" dog and its "bad breeder"? According to the events unfolding in the UK, health test results may adversely affect a breeder's ability for self-determination in breeding decisions. There just MAY be a bit of reluctance to participate when the end result is punishment and derision.

And, the problem with such simple-mindedness is that there is no 100% healthy dog. ALL dogs, just like all people, can and do suffer from health problems, and yes, many are genetic. All animals carry some genes for detrimental health traits. Geneticists believe so, and I think they probably know whereof they speak.

In "Removing the Stigma of Genetic Disease", Dr. Jerold Bell writes: "My hope for each breed is that there will eventually be so many testable defective genes that it will not be possible for any dog to be considered "perfect." Then we can put emotions aside and all work together on improving our breeds."*

Purebred dogs as well as outcrossed dogs all carry problem genes. And dogs with extremes of conformation…..excessively short legs or short noses, for example….are not necessarily inbred, PDE rhetoric notwithstanding.

Geneticists advise against automatic dismissal of disease carriers. Such practices further limit genetic diversity. Such practices give us the same result as popular sire syndrome! For some of the endangered breeds, narrowing the gene pool by eliminating dogs with whatever health problem you are looking at is not always a black-and-white decision.

What the devil is a "proper" breed health survey? Oh, I'm sure the omniscient ARs among us will be waiting in line to help craft such projects. The very people who believe that elimination of hip dysplasia in domestic dogs is a realistic goal.

If one is actually "educated in rudimentary genetics", they would not recommend such drastic winnowing away at breed gene pools. Eliminate every dog with borderline or worse hips, and a significant proportion of ALL dogs will be gone. Canine orthopedists know that few breeds are free of hip dysplasia, and many if not MOST breeds have significant numbers of affected dogs.

So there go most all the breeds on hip issues, with the possible exception of sighthounds and standard poodles. In some of the toy breeds, eliminating all dogs with patellar issues would mean entire breeds would be tossed out.

Eliminating every Clumber with a diamond-shaped eyelid, as the AR extremists wish, would eliminate, well, EVERY Clumber Spaniel, wouldn't it?  This from the KC breed standard:

 "Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. Free from obvious eye problems."

"Haw" shows with a mild degree of ectropion. Apparently this part of the standard conflicts with the stated goals of the newly-instituted health checks. Wouldn't it be grand if they could get their act together and coordinate the goals here?

The KC just released information on breeds that are in danger of extinction in their country due to low numbers and closed gene pools.** Twenty-nine breeds are now considered endangered species in the UK. The specific breeds are not listed except for the "top five". In keeping with current scientific knowledge of the benefits of genetic diversity for health and longevity, increased numbers of imports and judicious outcrossing are being presented as methods to help prevent breed extinction. This is fabulous!! I applaud the KC for such forward-thinking ideas that breeders definitely need and can use to move forward. However, before they get the chance to implement these ideas, they may just find that the anvil of the health crusade may kill of some of the very breeds they want to preserve. I wonder if the Clumber Spaniel is on that endangered list? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Way to decimate the gene pools of the breeds most in danger of extinction. Jolly Good Show! 

Ronald Reagan reportedly once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Substitute "Kennel Club" for "government", and you have the ten most terrifying words in the English language.

*http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_stigma.htm

**http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4185

Designer Dogs

DESIGNER DOGS:

COMMENTS ON DELIBERATELY BRED INTERBREED CROSSES

By Bonnie Dalzell, MA

 

October 3, 2011. I corresponded for a brief time with one of the main Aussie Labradoodle breeders. As I recall from my correspondence, the F1 cross inherits the lab type coat so you have to back cross the poodle or breed to another F1 to get the non-shedding coat. In the first case you get a 3/4 poodle in the second you would need to have two different relatively unrelated labs and poodles to get decent genetic diversity in the F2's and of course only 1/4th of the F2's would have the desired non shedding coat.

Once you start breeding poodle coat to poodle coat you will keep it, of course, as it is recessive. Still, in order to have a viable breed, you should start with something like 20 lab - poodle pairs of relatively unrelated dogs or you are going to have an even more inbred "new breed" than the most inbred of the foundation breeds.


What prompted my correspondence with the lady in Australia was that the local rescue I help with was encountering some very aggressive male labradoodles. What is not appreciated by the general public is that some male standard poodles can be rather dominant and aggressive on maturity if not raised by a fairly strong minded, pack leader type owner.

Well, it seems that rather than getting the trainability of the poodle and the laid back (although full speed ahead energy) personality of the lab, many of the Labradoodle males were showing the strong, dominant personality of the poodle and the full speed ahead high energy personality of the Labrador. Just what you do not want in a dog that may be going to some owner who is attracted to the dog because it has a cute name.

As a dog trainer I have had two instances of personal experience with very strong-willed Labradoodles. In the right home they would have been fine but neither of them were suitable for the soft-tempered people who were their owners.


I have also met delightful Labradoodles. When I talked to the different owners of those dogs, all of them were Australian Labradoodles and had many generations of breeding for working seeing eye and assistance dogs behind them. These latter dogs represent "a breed in the making" - not first and second generation crosses made for the cute dog market without selection for suitable temperament and trainability.


My impression is part of the marketability of these inter breed crosses is that the name needs to have double vowels in it or have a diminutive form to make it sound appealing and cute.

Around 20 years ago a close friend of mine who bred bearded collies and afghan hounds died rather unexpectedly of ovarian cancer. One of her best Afghan bitches was pregnant at the time and I promised to help find homes for the pups when they were an appropriate age.


When the pups came it became obvious as they matured and turned out to have mustache faces that they were bearded collie - afghan crosses, so at an appropriate age we advertised to find pet homes. I called them "Culligans". The cute label helped and we did find good homes for all but one of them. More about that one later.


These dogs were actually part of a traditional "gypsy dog" cross which is called a "lurcher". Note this is not a cute name so people do not fall all over themselves to get or breed lurchers. Lurchers are the cross between a sight hound and a herding dog (specifically a drovers dog - one that moves the flock) or a sighthound and a hunting terrier.


The aim - which does show up in the first generation of the cross - is to get a dog which is a keen hunter but is highly biddable (that is pays attention to what the owner commands). If you breed a greyhound to a border collie and you have your prize lurcher you would breed it back to one of the parent breeds for the next generation and then after that to the other parent breed or to a small terrier. Back and forth between the parent breeds. And since they are bred for hunting (specifically poaching) you only breed from the ones that are good workers.


How did a gypsy or other person hunt with a lurcher? Until a few hundred years ago in England it was illegal for anyone lower in aristocratic rank to own a full-blooded hunting dog such as a greyhound. And anyway, all the game belonged to the aristocrats (remember Robin Hood).


So you strolled along the main road and sent your lurcher into the lord of the manor's fields to fetch you a fat hare (the poorer people were always protein deprived in their diets) and if the dog was returning with the hare and the gamekeeper came up to converse with you - the dog had been trained to hide with his prize in the bushes and not be seen.


A full-blooded greyhound would have caught the hare and perhaps eaten it or charged back to you with the hare no matter who was with you, and then things would have gone very badly for you - a mere peasant or a gypsy.


A number of or modern sight hound breeds have lurcher heritage - whippets are the most obvious, but the Borzoi goes back to crosses between Saluki (Tazi) from Turkey bred to native winter hardy Russian herding dogs with an infusion of the husky-like hunting Laika of Northern Russia. Even the aristocratic English Greyhound had a documented cross in 1770 to the ancestral bulldog. According to Lord Orford who was responsible, the intent was to improve the pluck and courage of the greyhound. As far as I can determine, all modern greyhounds have some ancestors that trace back to this cross because a 4th generation dog from the cross was a highly successful coursing hound.


This is basically a discussion of how a new breed can be formed by crossing breeds. It is important to know how things are inherited. Of course, breeding to select for specific functions not seen in breeds that are otherwise available is very important. In addition, having a number of healthy, vigorous and temperamentally fit dogs from the founding breeds present as parents of the founding population is necessary in order to avoid founding a breed on too small a population and producing dogs in which health is at risk due to inbreeding depression.


Simply doing F1 crosses to produce cute dogs with cute pseudo breed names to appeal to novelty owners in order to make money is against the long term well being of dog breeds as such.


Dogs deliberately bred for specific purposes need to be selected from parents talented for those purposes. This includes breeding dogs to be pets. One selects for a loving pet personality as well as general health and vigor in order to have puppies that will be successful as pets and companions. This is why the parents of dogs bred to be pets and companions need to be integrated into a home where their ability to function as pets and companions can be observed.


Especially with small-breed dogs, dogs that are kept crated as breeding stock all their lives have never been "tested" in the pet and companion venue. Could they be house trained? Will they be comfortable with visitors? Will they be trustworthy with children? Will they easily allow you to groom them and care for them? Who knows if all that was experienced by generations of their ancestors was sitting in a small cage.

Bonnie Dalzell, MA

mail: 5100 Hydes Rd PO Box 60, Hydes, MD,USA 21082-0060

EMAIL:bdalzell@qis.net

Freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog
breeder, computer nerd & iconoclast…

Borzoi info at www.borzois.com

http://www.batw.net

http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/doku.php

"Why Dogs Die Young"

Dr. Karen Becker interviews Ted Kerasote regarding his book "Why Dogs Die Young". Some excerpts from the interview...

 

Ted had seen some data that indicated dogs in Europe tend to live about a year longer than dogs in this country....But European dogs do receive fewer vaccinations. Rabies has been essentially eradicated in Western Europe, so dogs that don't travel aren't required to get rabies vaccines.

 

Ted goes on to explain that probably the biggest difference between how dogs in Europe are raised versus dogs in the U.S. is, Europe doesn't spay or neuter at nearly the rate we do in North America....sterilization seems to have a significant impact on both the endocrine and immune systems of dogs.

 

Ted explains that when he talks about the spay/neuter difference in front of groups, he receives a lot of concerned feedback and even angry responses, particularly from folks in the shelter community. People in the shelter community make the point that sterilization is how we control the dog population in North America.

 

So Ted went on to research the effectiveness of U.S. shelter operations. He wanted to know why we're still euthanizing an estimated two millions dogs each year. What are the key factors?

 

Ted talked to a lot of people in shelter leadership positions, and it seems the problem is becoming more one of supply and demand rather than that no one wants those two million homeless dogs. It's more a problem these days of connecting people with the dogs they want – getting the right dogs to the right shelters for the people who want to adopt them.

 

Dr. Becker goes on to comment: I worked at a kill shelter as a younger person, and we firmly believed owners who didn't spay or neuter were simply uneducated. And I could do enough talking as an employee of the shelter to convince people they must spay or neuter. At that point in my life, I believed pet owners couldn't necessarily be trusted to know what to do, and I also believed dogs were healthier if they were spayed or neutered.

 

These days, I have to re-educate a lot of my clients … after I apologize. I've cried many tears in my exam room as I apologized for creating some endocrine-related disease or other by insisting a pet be spayed or neutered, many of them before puberty.

 

I just didn't know then what I know now. And it saddens me.

 

Ted reveals that another cultural dynamic he sees operating here is in regard to breeding dogs.

 

Ted might tell someone: 'Pukka's got good genes. I spent a lot of time looking for genes like his. He's clear for centronuclear myopathy. He's clear for PRA (a genetic eye disease). He's got good hips and good elbows. It might be nice to pass these genes on.'

 

The response is almost always 'You want to breed him?' in a tone that says clearly this is not a good thing. There is a small but vocal minority of the dog-owning population in this country that thinks breeding any dog is morally reprehensible.

 

Ted's response is, 'If you carry that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, there are no more dogs.'

 

To alter every dog sounds crazy to Ted. It also takes a lot of genetically healthy dogs out of the population.

 

Ted feels what spay/neuter has done in the shelter population is what narrowing the funnel of purebred dogs to those with exaggerated anatomical features has done in the purebred population.

 

Both strategies have decreased the genetic diversity of dogs. Choosing only certain popular sires in the purebred world, and spaying or neutering everything that moves in the shelter world, has created fewer and fewer good sets of dog genes out there. At the same time, it has increased the incidence of disease because we are providing ever greater opportunities for recessive genes to meet.

 

Ted doesn't believe people are thinking through the issue of long-term canine health when they take the approach to 'Spay and neuter everyone.'

 

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/09/06/one-two-possible-reasons-dogs-live-longer-in-europe.aspx

 

Let the message spread throughout the land! Amen, hallelujah!

Crufts Medical Center

Crufts dog show is upon us, and of interest this year is that the Kennel Club of the UK is implementing a new protocol, effective 2012. A news release from January reads:

The Kennel Club has announced that all dogs of the fifteen high profile
breeds which win Best of Breed at Crufts 2012 and at General and Group
Championship Shows after that, will need to be given a clean bill of health
by the show veterinary surgeon before their Best of Breed awards are
confirmed and before they are allowed to continue to compete at the show.
"... AND..."
In addition, before the Champion title of any dog or bitch within these
breeds can be confirmed, that dog will have to undergo a successful
veterinary examination at a Group or General Championship Show."

What exactly does this mean? You will have a complete history and physical done at a dog show? And get your lab results for thyroiditis back before the end of the day? Where do health exams have any place as a prerequisite to dog show competition? Obviously it is impossible to do a full health exam and proclaim a "clean bill of health" for a dog at a dog show.

If the Crufts Medical Center really wants to follow through with this idea, then why not insist that ALL dogs be screened for common health problems PRIOR to being shown? Why take awards away after the judge has made a carefully considered decision?

The fifteen "high profile breeds" selected were based on the presence of extremes of appearance.....short nose, excess skin, poor gait and the like. And all visual characteristics which, if so extreme as to threaten general welfare of the dog, should be apparent to a judge if doing the job properly. Lameness, tearing eyes from malpositioned eyelashed etc...all just as obvious to the judge as they would be to a vet. If judges cannot do this, then the "show" should fold up its tent and leave. It seems inappropriate to expect a vet to decide where breed standards are exceeded to an extreme....that is not a matter of better health per se. This is a matter of judge's education and should be handled by the individual breed clubs.

The critics of the KC and Crufts are intermingling the issues of breed standards, physical health screening and assessment of inbreeding, all of which are separate issues, and all of which should be addressed by the individual breed clubs in guidelines for ethical breeding.

Why not form a new organization to do health certifications, independent of The Kennel Club? It would be well-received by the public in this day and age. Look at the success of the OFA, CERF and the AKC's Canine Health Foundation. Breed-wide health surveys should be done to determine the prevalent problems that need to be screened for in each breed and then just do it! Breeders who participate could have some pride in that.

If a dog has a medical problem, should he be barred from exhibition when he might otherwise be a nice specimen of his breed? Part of the reason for dog shows is to allow the public to see typical specimens of various breeds. Should a participating dog be disallowed due to health matters that may not be obvious? Even more disturbing, should veterans be disbarred from exhibition if they have less than perfect physical condition at an advanced age? The law of unintended consequences....

"Optimal Selection"

Mars is now marketing a canine genetic diversity test that they call "Optimal Selection". Apparently they were promoting this at Westminster KC. You send in blood samples from your bitch and prospective mates and they will tell you which mating would likely promote more heterozygosity (rather than having identical copies of the same chromosomes paired up in the offspring). Heterozygosity is a good thing from the standpoint of better general health and a stronger immune system in comparison to dogs with much homozygosity (that's when paired genes are identical rather than different).

 

There are cases in some breeds where a problematic, disease causing gene is suspected to be located on a specific chromosome. With the identification of different variations of the same chromosome, you can select mates with an eye to avoiding that certain suspicious chromosome, or at least avoid doubling up on it. Really interesting where science is taking us!

 

http://www.marsveterinary.com/breederservices.html

Inherit the Wind

Heredity is the means by which traits (distinctive features) are passed on to the next generation. Physical traits include such things as eye shape and color, body size, and coat color. Behavioral traits involve characteristics like herding or retrieving instincts. Some traits are not readily apparent, like blood type or predisposition to a disease. All these traits are inherited.


We talked a bit about chromosomes in a previous post. Chromosomes carry the genes that determine the traits that are inherited. Chromosomes are string-like ropes made up of thousands of genes. Chromosomes occur in pairs; one from each parent. Every gene has a partner on the opposite chromosome, and these partnered pairs of genes determine the traits of an individual. There are some exceptions to this rule. For instance, the female sex chromosome contains more genes than the male sex chromosome, so some traits are linked to the sex of the individual. Other genes might be composed of extra material created through mutation or insertion, and those might not always have a partner on the opposite chromosome.

But most genes do have partners. There are many different forms of a gene that can exist at any given location. These different forms are known as "alleles". For example, at one certain location on the chromosome, an individual could have a gene for sable, or for tan-point pattern, or for black. These are three alleles that might be found at that particular location. You will inherit only one allele from one parent, and one from your other parent.

How do we know how this all works? Let's take a brief look backwards at how our knowledge of genetics developed.

Way back in the 1700s, a man named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck developed some theories about how evolution occurred. Lamarck observed that organisms adapted to their environment. He believed that bodily features were gained or lost through use or disuse. He also believed in something known as "soft inheritance"...the idea that the effects of the environment on an individual's traits could be passed along to their offspring. While this idea has generally been discounted, science is now beginning to delve into the area known as "epigenetics". We now know that sometimes environmental factors (nutrition, toxins, radiation etc) can indeed affect the genes that are passed on to offspring! Lamarck may have been on to something after all!

In the 1850s and 1860's an Austrian monk named Gregor Mendel did experimental hybridizing on thousands of peas. Mendel showed that the inheritance of traits followed certain patterns and laws. He was the first to postulate that traits could be dominant or recessive, or in some-cases co-dominant. Mendel also developed the theory of independent or random assortment of traits. The importance of his work was not realized during his lifetime, but Mendel is now regarded as the father of modern genetics.

During this same time frame, Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection. (Darwin knew nothing of Gregor Mendel or his research). Darwin's observations led him to the idea that organisms adapt and change through "survival of the fittest". Darwin's theory of natural selection is widely accepted today. In the early 20th century the ideas of Mendel and Darwin were combined to form the basis of genetic science and evolution.

We can see examples of how evolution occurs in an artificial, man-made manner by looking at the results of selection in domestic animals. Man can change a species form and function by selecting for certain traits that we find valuable. Traits less valued are selected against and do not survive. For example, we rarely see a thirty pound Pomeranian today....small size has been selected for and the genes that produce larger body size have almost disappeared. We also attempt to produce an almond-shaped eye, small ears, a high tail set and a relatively short back. Although this is a man-made selection process, and not "natural" selection, it's a good example of how evolution occurs.

But organisms are not simply the product of their genes. Scientists are finding that traits determined by genes can often be greatly influenced by environmental factors. Hip dysplasia is a good example of this phenomenon. The genes that predispose to hip degeneration can be influenced by the effects of nutrition or stress on the joint.

Another example is coat color which is determined by genes, but can be changed under the influence of the sun or hair dye.

A non-canine example of environment affecting expression of genes is the coat color of the Siamese cat. The Siamese cat has a form of partial albinism due to an enzyme that blocks melanin, but this enzyme that produces light coat color is inactivated by cooler body temperature. The coat color of the Siamese cat's tail, legs, ears and face (which is cooled by the nasal passages) remains darker than the rest of the body because these regions are not as warm as the rest of the body. The gene for blocking dark coat color depends on warmth (an environmental factor) to be activated and expressed.

We learned from Mendel that some genes are "dominant"; others are "recessive", and still others are co-dominant. But only a few traits are determined by a single gene. Most traits in complex creatures like animals are created by the actions of multiple genes. This is what we call a “polygenic” trait; one that is the product of many genes interacting together. Even a fairly simple trait such as coat color is produced through the interaction of multiple genes.

Traits like the size and shape of the ear, or the croup, or the front, are examples of polygenic features. This makes it difficult to predict with any certainty what sort of offspring will be produced from any certain mating. Remember, there are literally millions of different combinations of genes that each animal can possess. Selection of individuals who possess the traits you wish to perpetuate is important. This is actually more important than looking back at ancestors in a pedigree, because some genes that produce certain traits can be lost through the generations.

How can we stack the odds in our favor to produce the traits that are important to us in our breeding program? One tried and true method used by dog breeders has been inbreeding or linebreeding. This system involves breeding together dogs who are closely related or who descend from a meritorious common ancestor.

Inbreeding and linebreeding help to preserve certain valuable traits. However, inbreeding may also preserve undesirable traits at the same time. Another problem with inbreeding is that any hidden “problem” recessive genes that the admired ancestor possessed stand a relatively high chance of being doubled up and expressed in the offspring, because each parent has a higher than normal probability of sharing some common genes. These problems then become nearly impossible to eradicate from a line and in some cases from an entire breed.

Breeds that were founded on only a few ancestors or breeds that use a few popular sires extensively will almost always eventually develop a few problems that become characteristic of that breed. Another problem with inbreeding and linebreeding is that along with producing a more uniform type, the inbreeding process can also result in a lack of variability in the genes needed for optimal immune system function. Unfortunately, impaired immunity can mean a greater susceptibility to infection, higher rates of autoimmune diseases, lower birthrates and decreased lifespan.

Breeding outside the line, or “outcrossing” serves to introduce more genetic variability and improve health and vigor, but the downside is a lack of predictability of type. Most physical characteristics and even most diseases are produced through the interaction of multiple genes. Many disorders of the immune system such as autoimmunity or allergy may be caused by something as simple as lack of a variety of genes in the immune complex. Such problems can often be corrected in the next generation by outcrossing.

Usually an outcross must be carefully planned for certain features that the breeder wishes to introduce or to eliminate, and several generations are required to refine those features to reach a certain goal. This might require more patience than many of us possess, and there is no guaranteed pot of gold at journey's end. However, the rewards of improved health and vigor may make your “surprise” outcross experiment very worthwhile.

There are a few diseases produced by a single, identifiable gene, and some of these are able to be tracked by DNA identification of that gene or a closely located “marker”. Carriers of certain diseases may be identified in this way. Identification of problematic genes does not necessarily mean that we should eliminate the carrier from the gene pool. That animal probably has other very valuable genes to contribute as well. Judicious selection coupled with rigorous testing can result in the reduction of incidence of a genetic problem down through future generations once the genetic carrier status is readily identifiable.

The dramatic production "Inherit the Wind" chronicled the events of a teacher in the 1920s who was arrested and tried for teaching his students about the science of evolution and heredity. One great line from that play sums up our general knowledge of genetics: 

"The man who has everything figured out is probably a fool. College examinations notwithstanding, it takes a very smart fella to say 'I don’t know the answer!'"

Chromosomes-Get Yer Genes On!

CHROMOSOMES-GET YER GENES ON!

by Geneva Coats



Why is Spot larger than Rover? Why does Trixie have a golden coat while Muffie’s is black? And why are Muffie’s ears floppy while Rover’s stand upright?

Specific characteristics of living organisms are determined by their “GENES”. Genes are “coding” segments made up of a substance called DNA. The DNA in your genes is arranged in specific patterns. Different genes are strung together in long rows to form a rope-like chain called a “chromosome”. Each chromosome contains thousands of genes.


Chromosomes are instruction panels; they provide the blueprint to make an organism what it is. They carry all of the information necessary to help living things grow, survive and reproduce. Chromosomes are located inside the cells of the body in a central control area called a “nucleus”. These chromosomes determine not only what you look like, but also how your body functions and, to a large extent, how you act, think and feel.


The DNA that makes up genes and chromosomes is like a computer code of instructions. Chromosomes in the nucleus build an instruction copy of themselves and send that instructions to other parts of the cell, the ribosomes, and the ribosomes in turn manufacture proteins according to instructions provided. These proteins might be enzymes for body metabolism, or proteins for building body tissues.

During normal cell division for growth or cell replacement and repair, chromosomes double and then split apart to form two cells form from one. Now both of these cells will end up with identical chromosomes within their nuclei. However, there is a special type of cell division that happens to produce the unique reproductive or “germinal” cells. Instead of doubling, the germinal cells are produced by by splitting up the original chromosomes. These reproductive germinal cells, the sperm and the eggs (ova), therefore will contain only HALF the number of chromosomes as do the other cells of the body. When a sperm cell combines with an ovum, VOILA! there is then a complete set of genes with a full set of instructions to create a new living being. This new creature will have half his genes originating from his father’s sperm, and the other half will have been contributed by his mother’s ovum.

This process involves something known as “random fertilization”. What does that mean?

The chromosome combination contributed by a sire to his offspring is random, and can vary considerably. Half his chromosomes will end up in that sperm cell…but how many different possible combinations of chromosomes can there be in any one sperm cell?

Let’s check it out. Humans have 46 chromosomes, arranged in 23 pairs, that divide and split up to form germinal cells, and they assort independently. To form a germinal cell, there are 2^23, or 8 million, possible different assortments of chromosomes that could be inherited for each individual cell!! The ovum also has 8 million possible different chromosome combinations. 8 million X 8 million = 64 trillion possible unique combinations of chromosomes for every human offspring created from any given mating! See how unique you are! Even your siblings may have quite a different genetic makeup than you do!

A human cell has 46 chromosomes, arranged in 23 pairs. A dog cell, however, has 78 chromosomes, arranged in 39 pairs. Each sire can produce roughly 550 BILLION different assortments of chromosomes in their sperm cells. Multiply that by the 550 billion possible combinations of chromosomes in the dam’s ova, and there is a possible 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 DIFFERENT combinations of chromosomes that can be produced for any individual dog created from any specific pairing.

WOW! that’s a lot of zeros. How do you read such a number? It is 30 billion trillion....roughly the same number as the estimate of the number of stars in the visible universe! Each dog from any certain mating is as unique in his genetic makeup as a star! That's a very nice comparison, I think.

But wait! There is another factor that can further increase genetic variety in offspring. This is the phenomenon known as “genetic crossover”. Crossover commonly happens during cell division to produce sperm and ova. What does “crossover” mean? Let’s see….remember we said that each chromosome has a partner chromosome with similar genes on it. During cell division, part of one chromosome may break off and swap material with its partner. This means that sometimes the chromosome that you inherit is totally different from the original one your parent has. The crossover process “shuffles the deck” so to speak, to produce even more variety in offspring. It would be impossible to estimate how much more variety this effect produces! But we would need millions more universes filled with billions more stars to get close to the number of unique combinations of chromosomes possible to achieve with any specific mating.

This vastly inconceivable number implies a rich potential to produce dogs who have a very unique and highly individualized genetic makeup. This inherent variety in the dog genome is how man has been able to create so many different breeds with characteristics as different as those noted between a Chihuahua and an Irish Wolfhound. Compare the variety in dogs to that of humans, who all look remarkably similar….even people of different races. We have fewer chromosomes to reassort and recombine, and less chance of isolating and promoting different specific traits.


Now do you still think that one or two litters is enough to judge what your dog can produce? Although, I am sure there are animal rights “overpopulation” handwringers out there who believe that every intact dog will produce billions of puppies in just seven years. Hmmm, I only wish I could get more than three or four in a litter to select from!


And just think, each and every chromosome contains thousands of individual genes!

Diagram of a chromosome, (looks like an "X"). It's looks chubby because it is composed of tightly coiled strands of DNA (see detail portion showing unravelled strand of DNA)

The Tail Wags The Dog!

THE TAIL WAGS THE DOG!



National Pomeranian club adds new pattern description to breed standard based on minority vote

AKC suggests a 2/3 supermajority vote to approve any changes to important documents like a breed standard. Most clubs include such a stipulation in their by-laws. One would assume that to ADD a new pattern description into a standard, the membership would have to approve the measure with a 2/3 majority vote. Right?

Well, throw that assumption out the window. In this case, a very vocal minority was allowed to prevail. The American Pomeranian Club recently approved a revised breed standard. The club members are being told by the APC board of directors that the updated standard will include this statement in the pattern section:

Merle – Blue, Chocolate, Sable. A base color with contrasting lighter and darker areas giving a mottled appearance on allowed colors or patterns.

APC members are being TOLD, not ASKED, that this merle description will be added to the standard....without any vote of approval! This is in direct violation of the club's constitution and bylaws.

Since the beginning of the modern breed in the late 19th century, a merle pattern description has NEVER existed in any written standard; and there has NEVER been historical documentation to suggest that merle Pomeranians have existed until recent years. Neither is merle an allowed or described pattern for Pomeranians in any other country in the world!


In the recent standard revision balloting, a line-item vote was taken on the issue of a disqualification for merle. A whopping 59% of the club members voted for the disqualification for merle. A landslide! Not only do these members not wish to have merle described in the standard, but they felt strongly enough about this issue that they actually voted for merle to be a disqualification.


Ignoring the will of the overwhelming majority of club members, a minority opinion was apparently sufficient justification to add in new verbiage describing blue merle, chocolate merle and sable merle. (Sable merle? Which color class do I enter?) Claiming direction from AKC, the APC board of directors added a completely new pattern description into the Pomeranian breed standard WITHOUT a vote of approval! How was this accomplished? In fine print on the ballot we find:

PLEASE NOTE: If the Merle DQ does not pass the following will be added to Allowed Patterns: Merle: Blue, Chocolate, Sable and the merle description will be added to the pattern descriptions

Lack of disqualification does not equate to acceptable. A DQ that fails to attain supermajority vote status does not legitimize an existing problem, it merely spotlights the issue.Mari-Beth O'Neill is AKC's Assistant Vice President of Special Services and was the club's advisor for the standard revision process. When questioned regarding the legality of the addition of this pattern description, Ms. O'Neill responded:

'The membership was provided with the description of the merle pattern as it is what was voted on as the DQ on the ballot. The statement that followed explained if it failed that description would be added to the Pattern description. I realize what a controversial issue this is for the breed, and fully appreciate your concern.'

Supporters of merle Pomeranians observed what happened with the recent Chihuahua standard revision. They noticed how the DQ for merle was narrowly defeated by presenting it as a separate, line-item vote. The APC board polled its club members and discovered that they fell short of a 2/3 majority support for a DQ for merle...and so, "Monkey see, Monkey do".... the standard ballot was presented with separate line-item votes for ONLY the color section items. Seemingly the APC board wished to avert a very controversial DQ by presenting it as a separate item, as they were aware from polling that it was unlikely to attain a 2/3 vote as a stand-alone measure.

APC's board of directors is composed primarily of a group who ran as an independent slate in the last club elections. Proclaiming a "commitment to communicate", some of the current board members have instead revealed their true agenda....control of the standard revision that was in progress at the time of the club elections nearly two years ago.

This board has sliced, diced and served up a rather different recipe than the standard revision committee originally presented. Several membership polls were taken, but there was no poll regarding adding a completely new pattern to the standard! And now, nearly two years later, just as their term is about to expire, they present the standard for a vote....waiting as long as possible for newer, more "progressive" members to join the club. (There is no waiting period, new members may vote immediately.)

Thankfully, there is no other country that allows or describes merle Pomeranians in its breed standard; including all FCI countries, The Kennel Club of the UK, and the Canadian Kennel Club. Merle Pomeranians have only recently been seen in the breed, and even more recently in the show ring. The current AKC standard states that all colors, patterns and variations thereof are allowed. The patterns are then described in detail, but merle is not described. Thus, merle breeders and owners have "pushed the envelope", showing merle Pomeranians under a loophole in the current standard. Efforts to penalize the pattern were stalled by threats of lawsuits, and a parliamentarian was brought in by merle proponents to challenge a club election.

Merle brings with it several distinct health problems into the breed....the strong probability of eye defects and deafness when a dog is born with a "double dose" of the merle gene. While most caring and educated breeders would not intentionally breed merle to merle, the gene can be visually undetectable in some dogs with excessive white coat, or in the red, orange, cream or sable colored specimens who comprise the majority of the Pomeranian gene pool. Accidental or perhaps even intentional merle-to-merle breedings have already happened, as evidenced by double merle Poms recently entering Pomeranian rescue. We will likely see more of these cases in the future, particularly if the pattern is legitimized by inclusion in the breed standard.

The Pomeranian standard has always called for DARK eyes, not the light blue eyes that commonly accompany merle. In a move that preserves dark eyes as an essential component of breed type, 67% of the APC membership agreed that light blue eyes should be a disqualification. The newly approved standard includes a disqualification for "eye(s) light blue, blue marbled, blue flecked".

Citing concerns about crossbreeding that likely brought this new pattern into the Pomeranian breed, APC member Mari Iffland noted:

"This issue will not end with the vote. It has divided the club in half and it's unlikely things will ever be resolved. Regardless of how the vote went . . . it did not change my mind about where the merles originated, and I'm sure I am not alone in this. All it does is destroy our faith in the parent club and the AKC."

This revised standard has been submitted to AKC and is slated for discussion at the October board meeting. The voters have spoken and their voices should be heard. However, should the APC insert a merle description into the standard when the majority of club members are opposed? Such an addition should only be allowed upon approval by a 2/3 majority vote of the club members.

This standard revision represents years of hard work by many people. All that is needed to rectify the situation is an additional ballot on ONE item. The AKC board should direct the American Pomeranian Club to conduct a separate ballot on the merle pattern description issue prior to finalizing the new breed standard. Such action would exemplify the AKC motto:

"We're more than Champion dogs. We're the Dog's Champion".

Submitted by Geneva Coats

Words of Wisdom

Hellmuth Wachtel, PhD, was born in 1925. He studied agriculture at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna with emphasis on animal breeding and genetics. For over forty years, he kept dogs and was a particularly involved in Agility. He is committed, above all, to the dissemination of knowledge about genetic health maintenance and improvement of the dogs and their breed populations.


He has worked for the past 25 years as as free consultant of the Austrian Kennel Club (ÖKV), is a regular contributor to "Our Dogs" magazine, and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board Vienna Schönbrunn Zoo, and is a writer of articles and books on canine issues particularly regarding dog breeding. Here are Hellmuth's words of wisdom on June 28,2010 (posted here with his permission).

"There are good breeders and there are bad breeders. But whatever

they do, it won't change the system. And the system is wrong.

It was made when population genetics was unknown.

So today not the least inbred dogs, not the best performing dogs,

not the healthiest ones are highly rewarded, but the "best quality" dogs,

i.e. the best conforming (or overconforming) to the standard.

In some breeds these cannot breathe, run, let alone work.

Many have a short livespan. Many can not normally

whelp or even mate. This is what happens if appearance

is the Number 1 for success. Even if many try to do their best

for the dogs, this does not change a bad obsolete system."



Hellmuth Wachtel

"I'm just not Breed Quality"

"I've got a bad hip, irritable bowel and wear glasses" a dog friend recently complained. "Gosh,I guess I'm not really breed quality...don't tell the kids!" she giggled.


She's right; she is not breed quality. And neither am I, or anybody else. And none of our dogs are either. You know why? Because every individual carries some bad genes.


It’s a fallacy to believe that perfection of health exists, and an even greater delusion to believe that we can produce that perfection if only we would eliminate dogs with health problems from our breeding programs.


This fallacy has been perpetrated by the soft-hearted animal rights people, believed as gospel by the general public, promoted by short-sighted veterinarians and bought into by AKC and breeders at large. We “test”, we cull, we sell on co-ownership agreements, spay neuter contracts and on limited registration.


Never mind that when you eliminate a dog from breeding, you also could be eliminating very valuable genes along with him! Never mind that breed standards have absolutely NO relationship to function, health or fitness. We dutifully linebreed to achieve a “look” that fits the standard and of course that WINS above all else…. And then wonder why robust health and immune function are just a distant memory in our breed.


Never mind that the dog with one testicle may be the absolute healthiest in the group. He’s outta there!! Never mind that bigger dog with great teeth; his cute brother who had to have all his puppy teeth pulled under anesthesia is more likely the champion whose genes will be carried forward.


Dog shows are fun, but why are points and championships and all that sort of fluff so almight important to people who SUPPOSEDLY want to breed good dogs? Is it the dogs you are concerned with or your own ego?


A question we do well to ask ourselves from time to time.

Dial "M" For Murder

Dial M for Murder....a 1954 Hitchcock thriller. Intrigue and deception abound as a man connives and conspires to murder his unfaithful wife.


But that's not like real life, is it? Chilling, callous behavior is the exception, not the rule.

Isn't it?
For sure, this sort of activity would not be common in the dog world. Politics exists; but heck, no actual physical harm is done as the crawdads climb over each other to reach the top of the bucket.

Right?
Well ordinarily I could give a rat's patoot about who reaches the top of the dog show heap. But when show success becomes a justification for promoting a downright dangerous gene, it's time to speak up.

I have heard it said on several chat lists lately, that it would surely be a shame if the breeders who show merle Chihuahuas and merle Pomeranians were eliminated from the ring. They have done so much work to bring the qualities of the merle in these breeds to perfection.

 HUH? I thought the idea was to select for the better DOGS, not to reward the breeders and handlers based upon the degree of hard work.

Hmmm. Well, ask any poodle or bichon person; a striking appearance and artful grooming can take you a long way. So perhaps it IS mostly about rewarding people for their hard work.

But, if we believe it is truly about the dogs, and selecting breeding stock, how is this a progress toward perfection? A gene that reliably produces some serious birth defects is the polar opposite of "perfection".


In 1968, UK Chihuahua breeder-judge Hilary Harmer wrote the book "Dogs and how to Breed Them", wherein she noted:

"The merle colouring is interesting, because it is connected with a semi-lethal gene, and, when it occurs in a double dose, the offspring may be blind, deaf or sterile. For obvious reasons, therefore, two merle dogs should on no account ever be mated together. In fact, it would be better for merle to be a disqualified colour in all breeds."

Problem is, many people are blissfully unaware of the potential dire consequences of working with this cruel factor. Add it to other genes for white coat, and the odds for defects just multiplied. Add it to the gene pool of breeds that allow all colors, and it can lie undetected under a light-colored coat, just waiting to pair up with a partner to produce it's crippling effects.

And once the pattern becomes acceptable in a breed, there will be people who INTENTIONALLY try to produce double merles...because the double merle parent will produce 100% merle puppies.
Even among the more ethical breeders, an accidental breeding between two merles is not unheard of. Stranger things have happened, and the results can be shockingly horrific. Ask any Aussie, Sheltie or Collie person who would honestly admit it. However, that might be a bit tricky, because speaking honestly regarding this topic is not politically correct. The proof is in the many blind and deaf dogs of these breeds who are sent to rescues.

OK, we have to admit that merle is NOT simply a benign, pretty factor. So, how are breeders justifying the recent infiltration of some genepools with this dangerous bit of wayward DNA?

First off, the fans of this popular color pattern join the "Cleopatra" club... as in "Queens of de Nile".

"We have plenty of health problems in our breed, why be concerned about a color?"

     "Merle is perfectly harmless, and very attractive."

"Deafness? That's not a painful affliction."

"Eye defects, even missing eyeballs? A bit more serious, perhaps."

"No problems occur unless you breed merle-to-merle and just HAPPEN to double up on the merle gene."

"Hey, not ALL double merles have problems."

"Those problems happen with other colors, too....health problems come in all colors!"

"Why punish the breeders who breed merle responsibly?"

"Too late to lock the barn door now, it's already been opened."

"Lethal whites? If most don't survive to birth, then we don't have to worry about them."

And of course there's that ultimate dog show person's rationalization:

"All colors are allowed in our standard! Any questions?"

Once the rationalization phase is complete, on to stage two, manipulating members of the breed club. Let's see, how can we block any standard revision that intends to close our loophole allowing for merle?

• 
  
  Launch an aggressive PR media blitz featuring merle puppies in magazines articles and ads
• 
  
  Organize a well-planned election campaign to install sympathizers into the breed club board of directors
• 
  
  Call club members to inflame with red herring alarmism: "Your favorite color may be next on the chopping block!"
• 
  
  Get a member of the AKC board of directors to send out letters written on AKC letterhead, urging the breed club members to reject any merle penalty in their standard revision vote. (And the guy doesn't even belong to your club or own a single dog of your breed!)
• 
  
  Strongarm the parent club to include references to merles on their website. Judges are then referred to the parent club website if they have any qualms about putting up merles!

Of course it would be an insult to the new merle champions, and so unfair to their owners, to penalize the pattern now! Particularly after we've had our professional handlers remind every licensed AKC judge that ALL COLORS are permissible! Why that would be absolutely criminal, to deny someone their hard-earned opportunity to capitalize on this exotic color!

Connive, contrive, convince and conquer!

It's been working oh so well, so far. Merle is at an all-time popular high...so much so that you can now also find merle Jack Russell terriers, merle Cocker Spaniels, merle Poodles, merle Schnauzers, merle Rat Terriers, merle Miniature Pinschers. Why malign a simple color pattern that is so widely sought after??

And, as long as breeders succeed in that ultimate measure of "quality" and success, the dog show competition, end of discussion! No concern about the future of the breed or your role in promoting a blatant health hazard.

As Hitchcock would advise,

"When murder calls, hang up!"