Dr. Cattanach claims puppies like this don't exist. It's a homozygous NBT bobtail corgi without a tail, no anal opening, structural defects, and an opening to the spine. Defective puppies like this are the direct result of breeding bobtail x bobtail and are sometimes carried to term and born alive.
I am somewhat amazed at the positive responses to this [Toller x Aussie] cross. I have had 20 years of vitriol against my Corgi x Boxer cross for every reason imaginable, but I kept it going as I felt that to give up – and so failing – I would damage the leverage it gave to the concept of breed crossing for health reasons. So the seemingly easy acceptance of the Toller cross is perplexing even if done for a different reason.
– Dr. Cattanach
Those of us in the dog world who support the free and open application of outcross breedings within a registry system have previously looked to the work of Dr. Bruce Cattanach’s natural bobtail boxer program with interest. Along with the LUA Dalmatian project, it served as a go-to example of a practical out cross with good documentation that could quell the fears of the Pure-Blood-Brigade™ regarding instant and permanent breed ruination should someone anywhere breed two dogs that weren’t pedigreed in the same breed. It still stands as an excellent example of how quickly you can restore breed type even with an extreme outcross.
But as the movement matures I think it’s advisable to retire Dr. Cattanach as a spokesman for the moral implications and justifications for outcross breeding. It must be noted that despite claiming that he persevered criticism of his program to one day help others who would outcross for health reasons, his Steynmere Boxer x Corgi program is exactly the opposite of this ideal. He purposely inserted a gene which causes dysfunction into a breed which did not have this gene and he did so for the explicit purpose of evading a ban on manual tail docking. This is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed and I don’t think this action squares ethically.
No tail, no rectal opening, open hernia leading to spinal canal.
Compare a surgical procedure with very few complications or side effects that can be carried out with skill and efficiency and which leaves no permanent genetic mark on the breed vs. a semi-lethal gene which is implicated in a plethora of complications and negative side effects which can’t so easily be removed and which is far from precise in presentation. The gene doesn’t even solve the issue 25-33% of the time and it will never breed true. If tail docking is thought to be overly cruel simply for the momentary pain it causes, how can the basket of crap that comes along with the bobtail gene be considered more humane?
The greater theme of the outcross for health movement is to combat and repair the damage done by questionable breeding practices done in the name of conformation. Isn’t inflicting the bobtail disfigurement gene on a breed so that they can still be made to fit a conformation ideal (and for no other reasonable purpose) the exact sort of breeding scheme the outcross movement is against? The Cattanach boxer-corgi cross was not done for health, it was done to promote disease. It was not done to add or preserve diversity, it was actually done to preserve a conformation ethic and subvert an animal cruelty law. This is not an outcross done for noble reasons, it was done to replace surgical scissors with a genetic hammer for the shallowest of reasons: historical aesthetics. New research and understanding of the T-box mutation also casts doubt on Cattanach’s assertion that there’s “nothing to worry about” with a single copy of the bobtail gene, that all homozygotes are harmlessly lost before birth, and that litter sizes are not affected.
Whatever the correct interpretation of the discordant evidence, the molecular data establish that the homozygous Corgi bob-tail is a lethal condition. The term, lethal, has an ominous ring to it. It suggests something totally undesirable. Yet, having pondered the issue at length I have to conclude that while the evidence of lethality is disappointing, it is not an ethical problem. Without any detectable ill-effects, the only undesirable feature of the bob-tail condition is that it will not breed true. There will always be a 25% expectation of long tailed pups appearing. That we now know why this occurs simply means that, in a sense, we now know too much.
So! If there are no ill effects, if litter sizes are not reduced, if the only unwanted feature is the persistent appearance of some long tailed pups in litters, is this acceptable in the event of a docking ban? I suggest that it is now up to individuals to decide on this, and as I am now content that there is nothing nasty about the gene, I see no ethical reason for continuing to keep total control over these bob-tail Boxers. The situation is no different from that for all other breeds having this bob-tailed gene.
– Dr. Cattanach
The arguments Cattanach makes for bobtail don’t hold true in the light of more evidence: Litter sizes are reduced, there’s actually up to a 33% expectation of long tailed pups making this scheme considerably less effective, and ill effects from a single bobtail gene can not be ruled out in good faith.
For the Swedish Vallhunds [who have the same mutation as Corgis and Bobtil Boxers], analysis of the litter sizes from short-tailed x short-tailed crosses revealed a 29% reduction in litter size, further supporting recessive embryonic lethality of the mutation.
Hytonen, et al. Ancestral T-Box Mutation Is Present in Many, but Not All, Short-Tailed Dog Breeds, Journal of Heredity 2009.
Another survey study of bobtail Australian Shepherds which share the same gene also documented a reduction in litter size in NBT x NBT matings:
Avg. # pups in NBT X NBT litters = 5.83
Avg. # pups in Full-tail X NBT litters = 7.55
Avg. # pups in Full-tail X Full-tail litters = 7.22
This documented reduction in litter size is consistent with homozygous NBT puppies being killed and not being harmlessly replaced as Cattanch suggested: “The hypothesis for the bob-tails is therefore simply that homozygous bob-tail loss replaces natural loss. Their loss in effect enhances the chances of other embryos surviving.” There is no documented evidence that loading up a uterus with fetuses that will mostly die at some point before birth is in any way beneficial to the dam or the other puppies. Frankly, this idea is ridiculous and opens the door to lesser minds and breeders with questionable ethics using Dr. Cattanach’s words to justify doubling up on any sort of lethal genes for aesthetic purposes while claiming that they’re helping the surviving puppies and that small litter sizes are good.
Cattanach also downplays the failure rate of NBT to achieve bobtail dogs: “There will always be a 25% expectation of long tailed pups appearing.” This is only correct if every homozygous NBT is born and thrives, but we know this isn’t the case. If all homozygous pups are nonviable, then we have a resulting ration of 2/3 bobtail and 1/3 normal tail because the original homozygous NBT population doesn’t appear and thus can’t be counted. A breeder who doesn’t realize this change in expected ratios would expect only 1 in 4 puppies to be long tailed, but nature will actually produce up to 1 in 3 undesirable long tails. This is not an insignificant difference and makes the NBT gene solution a less attractive option.
The Australian Shepherd study confirms the ~33% failure rate:
% Full-tailed pups in this study = 66.25%
% NBT pups in this study = 33.75%
Cattanach is aware of the Norwegian study which shows the same effect:
Norwegian Corgi data indicated a shortage of bob-tail pups (66%) relative to the 75% expected from bob-tail x bob-tail matings, suggesting that the homozygotes are lost before birth.
This clearly means a failure rate of 34% versus 25%.
The final claim Dr. Cattanach makes is that a single copy of the bobtail gene is “Without any detectable ill-effects.” While no study to my knowledge has intended to look specifically at lumbar disease within breeds comparing no copies to one copy of the bobtail gene, there is too much lumbar disease in T-box breeds to rule this out in good faith without further investigation.
The Australian Shepherd study documented that NBT puppies were 7 times more likely to have kinked tails than normal puppies (5.76% versus 0.8%), and that 1.6% of the NBT puppies were born with imperforate anuses and all three died before 8 weeks. No non-NBT puppies had imperforate anuses. Of the 6 NBT x NBT litters in the study, one litter of 5 puppies was born premature and nonviable. No other litters were premature.
The survival rate of NBT x NBT litters was also lower (the study did not publish individual dog data):
8 week survival rate NBT x NBT: 77.14%
8 week survival rate NBT x full: 97.99%
8 week survival rate full x full: 94.58%
Pembroke Welsh Corgis, the breed Cattanach turned to for his outcross are noted for their “High” risk profile for Intervertebral Disc Disease, which is consistent with the malformations of the spine that have been documented both in dogs and in the many other species which have a T-box mutation.
A discussion this week on a Swedish Vallhund group also suggests that the bobtail gene causes problems in housebreaking single copy NBT puppies:
Barahwolfe Kennel
Rose Madsen believed that sometimes the bobtailed or no-tailed examples of the breed could be hardest to toilet train taking longer than the dogs with tails.November 12 at 12:29amLucy Smith They [bobtails] toilet differently too.
November 12 at 12:31am
A survey of the other breeds with the same T-box mutation shows a consistent pattern: even a single copy of the bobtail mutation might have adverse health effects in regards to musculature, bone structure, and vasculature of the lumbar region. Possibly related conditions include: degenerative myelopathy (disease of the spinal nerves leading to muscle weakness and lack of coordination and paralysis), cervical spondylosis, narrow intervertebral space, vertebral osteophytes, hemivertebrae, incontinence and delays in housebreaking, Legg–Calvé–Perthes syndrome (necrosis of the hip joint due to underdevelopment in the lumbar region, also consistent with the abdominal wasting seen with T-box mutations.), etc.
The last assertion Dr. Cattanach makes is that the homozygous NBT puppy is never born and absorbed harmlessly very early in the pregnancy. Not only is there zero evidence (due to a lack of scientific inquiry) of when homozygous puppies become nonviable and die nor their direct effects on the health of the dam and womb mates, there have been documented homozygous bobtail puppies now that there is a DNA test and a few rigorous inquiries looking for them.
A homozygous NBT puppy born alive but without a tail or an anal opening.
Here is an x-ray of a Pembroke Welsh Corgi puppy (distinct from the one pictured above) that was tested homozygous for bobtail and was born alive. The puppy presented without a tail and atresia ani. You can see air in its lungs and the build up of gas in the intestines. A stillborn normal tailed puppy from the same litter was x-rayed above and to the right of the double NBT puppy for comparison and you can see not only how much smaller the NBT puppy is but also the deformity of the spine and the significant rear wasting in muscle mass. The puppy was euthanized.
Unlike our state of uninformed ignorance when Dr. Cattanach first made his proclamation of a harmless NBT gene and worry-free NBTxNBT breeding, time and more rigorous examination (including a DNA test for NBT which was developed with assistance from Dr. Cattanach) has begun to document that Dr. Cattanach’s bases for concluding that there was no ethical considerations no longer hold true and never did. Homozygous NBT puppies ARE born alive and they are a mess. Litter sizes are smaller and not in an insignificant way. NBT as a substitute for tail docking is largely ineffective with up to a third of puppies having long tails and some percent more of heterozygous NBTs having shorter but not stubby tails. And even a single copy of NBT is not cleared as harmless, certainly not less than a manual tail docking procedure.
Given that Dr. Cattanch’s assertions are now documented false, his conclusion is invalidated and the ethics of breeding NBT to NBT is not so cut and dry. Should Dr. Cattanch choose not to revise his position, invoking his name in the movement to open stud books and demystify the routine practice of outcrossing is a poor strategy and unjustly opens the movement to criticism that should be reserved for those who stubbornly seek to avoid outcrossing–namely that the opponent’s advocated breeding scheme increases disease and disorder within the breed for little to no apparent gain solely to attempt to conform to an historical aesthetic.
This is the sort of breeding scheme we should seek to avoid, not one we should hold up as an example.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
You don’t need to be told that there is something wrong with that homozygous natural bobtail.
Even in profile, the back end looks totally effed up.
retrieverman recently posted..Another Mesocricetus hamster
It’s almost like a mutant hyena with a huge head.
retrieverman recently posted..Another Mesocricetus hamster
So let me get this straight:
It’s okay to crossbreed for cosmetic purposes, even if the reason why you’re crossbreeding is to introduce a trait that can produce severely deformed puppies.
But it’s not okay to crossbreed to increase diversity in MHC/DLA haplotypes into a breed that has very real problems with autoimmune diseases.
It’s okay to crossbreed to produce cosmetic changes, but it’s not okay to crossbreed to better health.
This is bizarre reasoning.
The only thing the bobtail boxer program showed was how quickly a breed can return to phenotype through backcrossing. Just a few genes do indeed separate all these different dog breeds.
But that was known in the nineteenth century, when the bulldog/greyhound breeding experiment was established. They may not have been Mendelians. They may not have had an understanding of genes.
But they knew that if you outcross once to a very different breed, it doesn’t take many backcrosses to one of the parent breeds before you have a dog that has the exact conformation one desires.
I have not seen Retrieverman on blog for quite awhile, but this comment was outstanding in my opinion. What is the problem in correcting a health issue and returning by backcrossing to acquire breed phenotype? This is addressed like someone is being sacrilegious by so many varies pure breeds it does not make sense to me.
As I understand the mutation has been found and this source states
‘BT/BT Lethal The dog carries two copy of the mutant gene. This condition is lethal in utero. ‘ Breeders can test to be certain not to produce the known death and health issues. It would also provide larger litters. It can not be a good condition for the female to have puppies die inside of her, or what affect on growing puppies near the dead ones. I have questioned this reproduction issue but have received any acceptable answers.. We have heard the stories of women who have had a baby die inside of her, but it is like our canines it is no big deal? This is a lethal gene with knowledge it is known to produce death in utero. In woman, this can cause permanent damage to the reproduction ability. Pyometra and cystic endometrial hyperplasia which if cervix is closed, it can be a life threatening condition requiring immediate medical attention. Pyometra is a bacterial infection of the uterus due to hormonal changes in unspayed female dogs for example is stated. Usually happens as far as I know with middle age females. Could something such as having carried dead puppies create the bacteria and death if closed pyometra with an emergency spay?
As I understand the mutation has been found and this source states
‘BT/BT Lethal The dog carries two copy of the mutant gene. This condition is lethal in utero. ‘ Breeders can test to be certain not to produce the known death and health issues.
http://www.animalgenetics.eu/Canine/Canine-color/canine-color-short-tail-bobtail
I am just amazed how messed up the rib-cage is. It’s almost like it got compressed… like a Pug:
http://yourownvet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/hemivertebrae_xray.gif
The above is more extreme than most examples of the screw-tail NBT, but still…
The tail is an extension of the spine and spinal cord. Why some folks don’t accept that messing with the spinal column (breeding tight kinks and no tails) can result in serious health risks is beyond me.
Ifc you would bother to look at Dr. Cattanach’s website you would find that he did not breed a white Boxer bitch to a Corgi:
http://www.steynmere.com/ARTICLES2.html
AFAIK white boxers are banned in England because of sensorineural deafness.
I’m not sure what your point is, Dorothea, could you clarify? I don’t see where I [or anyone else] said anything about breeding a white Boxer bitch to a Corgi.
So two ‘flashy’ boxers are not allowed to be bred together in England?
The desire for flashy markings still exists in England, and flashy brindles and fawns don’t breed true.
White boxers still exist in the UK, unless Scotland has finally seceded: http://www.boxerwelfarescotland.co.uk/
White boxers cannot be shown anywhere, but they still exist.
The only way to get rid of them is to say in the standard that only solid fawns and brindles are allowed– or only those with very little white on them.
retrieverman.wordpress.com recently posted..Chat room
So in other words, white Boxers are hardly ‘banned’ since the type of breeding that creates them is allowed and even encouraged by ring fashion.
That would be correct, Pai.
retrieverman.wordpress.com recently posted..Chat room
Dorothea –
I think you must be referring to Retrieverman’s blog. He said:
And, if you “bothered to look” at Dr. Cattanach’s website you’d see that Scottie at Retrieverman is not wrong at all:
Here’s a nice picture showing the white boxer and the corgi:
Yes he did. The first cross was a Corgi and a WHITE Boxer, fact ! , there was even a double page spread in our weekly dog paper Dog World, entitled Genetics can be Fun. The Boxer world did not support this experiment, but he went ahead anyway, and for some ( connections ) reason the KC registered back as pure bred Boxers after the fifth generation, without any consultation with the Boxer Breed Council .
I guess these dogs don’t exist then:
http://www.ukboxerdogs.co.uk/white.html
retrieverman.wordpress.com recently posted..Chat room
I have bred Swedish Vallhunds apr 23 years now, produced a bit less than 100 puppies during that time. I have also seen a couple of SV puppies without anal opening and open spine. However, they all have been from tail x bob or tail x tail combinations!
Fascinating Oili, did the tail x tail dogs ever produce a bobtail puppy? Did the tail x tail puppy without an anal opening/open spine have a tail? And did you DNA test any of these dogs or are you just relying on phenotype to determine which carry the bobtail mutation? Did you submit any of these puppies to researchers?
No, these tailed parents never produced a bobtailed puppy as far as I know and yes, the tail to tail puppies did have tail, too. These puppies were born at time when no tests were available and not from litters I had power to take them to any researches. I just can tell what I have seen. I am not any kind specialist in genetics, just a simple breeder who can only tell about ones own experiences.
Anecdotes are important until someone can document them statistically, scientifically, and genetically. Some breeders choose to ignore any possible defect that might happen that hasn’t been scientifically studied, I think it’s more wise to take all information into account and not make declarations of harm-free breeding or assume such.
Facts are what they are, they will not bend to what you want them to be.
Are you aware that dogs with half, third, and quarter tails are “bobtail,” right? Only some bobtail dogs have a stub or no visible tail at all.
Atresia ani is rare but seems to run in some breeds (notably Poodles, which have tails.) Spina bifida is also not unknown, though I couldn’t find any links between the two on a cursory search.
Most whelping books warn breeders to check for atresia ani in newborn pups using a rectal thermometer. Since it does tend to run in some breeds with different tails (Boston Terriers are also over-represented) there may be some different genetics going on there.
Plus you have your simple developmental fuck ups.
Jess recently posted..Goodbye, Zora
By bobtailed, do you means stubbed?
Some people don’t consider the half-length tail as NBT– even though it’s the same gene.
Christopher, I must offer some words of support for Bruce Cattenach. Bruce has spent most of his life working for Boxer health and his ability to provide a bridge between the science and dog-breeders has been invaluable. In the 1980s his determination to highlight the emerging problem of progressive axonopathy in the breed led to the condtiion being dealt with promptly and effectively – a story we hope, in fact, to feature in PDE2 as an example of just what can be achieved when breeders pull together. I am not oblivious to the comments you make regarding the cosmetic drive of his bobtail breeding programme, but I don’t think you should underestimate how incredibly pivotal it has been in showing the dog world what is possible. Yes, you can argue that there might have been a more “worthy” outcross programme, but remember it came at a time when feelings of purity were even more entrenched than now and there was little or no incentive or will to outcross for health. Bruce’s position and enthusiasm managed to get the project sanctioned by the Kennel Club and the acceptance of it has paved an important way. Of course, the KC’s endorsement of the project was because of the impending threat of the docking ban; which the anti-dockers would argue is not the most worthy of motives. But still, don’t underestimate how important it was. Really.
Jemima
I don’t harbor any deep animus toward Dr. Cattanach or his work. I think it’s an amazing amount of effort to put together a multi-generation breeding program the way he did, and yes I’m thankful for the pioneering aspects of his work. Frankly, I’m sad that there are so few additional examples of outcross programs even though it’s been decades since Cattanach began his work (this of course is in no way his fault, I’m just pointing out how unique he is). I envy the Good Doctor and one day I hope that I will be in a position to do what he did: to have the time, resources, and connections to hybridize my lines and evaluate the results.
But I don’t think Dr. Cattanach has evolved to meet the current issues in the movement and his comments now are doing more harm than good. Take, for example, his comment on your own blog post about the Toller x Aussie cross:
There are numerous problems with this comment and he does a great disservice to Toller health in making it. He’s also propagating poor health information regarding the bobtail gene for breeders in breeds that already have it established. He’s overly supportive of anecdotal evidence that speaks against NBT problems and overly dismissive of evidence of NBT disease.
Why should we continue to place this man on a pedestal not even question and challenge his views? My further thoughts on his comment on your blog are now reaching post length, so I’ll make them a new post instead of continuing them here. But can you read his comment and NOT have serious reservations?
Although breeding for the natural bobtail is indeed selecting for genetic a defect, the high level of intervertebral disk disease in Corgis and other short limbed dogs is probably due to the link between the chondrodysplasia gene and defective intervertebral disks – for example see:
The canine intervertebral disk. Part Two: Degenerative changes–nonchondrodystrophoid versus chondrodystrophoid disks
http://www.jaaha.org/content/34/2/135.short
The chondrodysplasia gene is yet another of the dominant semi-lethals that dog breeders have incorporated into dog breeds. One dose gives shorter limbs, but the shorter limbed dogs do not breed true. Two heterozygotes will produce 1/4 normals, 1/2 shorter limbed and 1/4 homozygous very short limbed. In the 1800’s many of the chondrodysplastic breeds were still heterozygous but now all of them are probably homozygous and there is a real danger of dogs as young as two years of age becoming crippled from jumping off a couch or human bed or even running down stairs.
The normal form of the gene is relatively unstable with new mutations occuring fairly often. In humans in the US some 75% of “little people” are new mutations. In humans the homozygous condition is lethal so human “little people” are all heterozygotes. However even the heterozygotes humans are subject to spinal problems at an much greater risk of traumatic spine damage that people who do not have the mutation.
Sadly many people who desire to own a small dog do not realize that they should seek a breed with “square” body proportions (for example a Border Terrier, rather and a chondrodysplastic short legged breed (such as a Scottish Terrier).
Bonnie Dalzell recently posted..Interactive Genetics Tools Websites
That’s absolutely true, achondroplasia is many times more transformative and destructive than bobtail appears to be, and there is plenty of joint and disc disease in breeds that have achondrplasia and don’t have bobtail, like Dachshunds. There just isn’t a lot of long term and comprehensive data on bobtail breeds as a whole so that we can distinguish bobtail specific issues.
Achondroplasia is a cartilage and bone disease and bobtail is a midline defect so they likely are operating on very different systems, and it’s very possible that they can overlap and both cause an increase in certain diseases. German Shepherd dogs don’t have either bobtail or achondroplasia, but they also have disc disease and rear-end wasting similar to what we’d find in a double bobtail or an achondroplastic dog.
I’m putting this link out there because I think it deserves to be looked at and documented scientifically instead of anecdotally. I don’t believe that a gene that is capable of removing a tail (a rather complicated and substantial structure) will in all cases magically stop there and not cause unwanted side effects.
Except dwarfism in humans is not being selected for.
The same achondrodysplasic gene in dogs can also be found in wolves. Even moreso, all the non-proportional short-legged breeds, to date, have been shown to carry the locus.
So while it is fascinating humans have de novo mutations, the selection pressure is different.
There is an interesting debate in the Swedish Vallhund circle regarding leg lengths ever since Eko, who looked more like a Corgi than a Vallhund, came to the scene. A lot of the old guards in Sweden are scared foreigners will turn them into another corgi-look-alike.
Could anyone figure out how to send the scientific data and studies of these lethal T box C189G genes to ignorant breeders who do not seem to understand genetics and follow old or nonexistent data.
Here’s the Pembroke Corgi breeder who believes it is possible and entirely safe to breed bobtails with no possible loss to litters, or puppy health. It’s stuff like this that is hard to read.
http://www.freewebs.com/annwn/breedingforbobtails.htm
Re visiting your NBT posts since I found that some English Shepherd breeders intentionally breed for NBTs. I found this to be extremely disappointing.
I have a question. Above you explain a ratio of 2/3 bobtail aussies to 1/3 tailed which is a result of homozygous NBT pups never being viable, and never being born as a result.
A little later in the post, you write this paragraph:
“The last assertion Dr. Cattanach makes is that the homozygous NBT puppy is never born and absorbed harmlessly very early in the pregnancy. Not only is there zero evidence (due to a lack of scientific inquiry) of when homozygous puppies become nonviable and die nor their direct effects on the health of the dam and womb mates, there have been documented homozygous bobtail puppies now that there is a DNA test and a few rigorous inquiries looking for them.”
To me it seems like stating there is a DNA test that has confirmed the existence of some homozygous bobtails, conflicts with stating that homozygous pups are nonviable and are never born.
Is it that the ones that make it to live birth are very few, as far as anyone has documented so far?
I see this overall as a great statement against messing with nature and taking risks that we don’t know everything about and that can have lousy consequences. Thank you!
Yes, the 2/3 to 1/3 ratio only manifests itself if all the NBT pups just disappear. But no one, to my knowledge (and having looked), has done a comprehensive look at what the ratios are in the population and no one has looked at, using DNA, the REAL incidence of NBTxNBT births.
So it’s inane for people like Dr. Cattanach to argue from ignorance on this issue.
So has anyone an opinion on WHY some people want their dog to not have a tail?
Paddyannie recently posted..Robin Flys Away.
Hi Paddyannie:
All I know like in Collies originally tails were cut off to save taxes, and identified a working dog which were not taxed. However, it all seems to me just part of a Show Dog Standard in varies breeds. There was a show breeder of Boxers, who many of us remember. She took a Boxer without a bobtail to its championship when obviously there were AKC Judges agreed with her decision…Not to Bob the Tail. There has been as far as I know others regarding other issues such as Standards for ears etc.
These individuals were not accepted regardless of the quality of the Breed by fellow Breed Club Organizations. I asked several Vets how often they see pure breeds born without an anus. They have replied, “Too Often”. “”Oh, but I have learned through surgery which a procedure that one can learn to create an anus”. I said, Yes, but my understanding there a babies being born without an anus? The long term prognosis entails many health issues. ” Well, yes there can be is their reply.” Why would a Vet support Breeder’s of Canines in such a way? Not a question any seemed to want to answer. My final remark is UGH.
I think it is time to admit that the bob tail gene is harmful to many dogs and helpful to none. Perhaps there might be a few hunting breeds with a problem that is addressed by amputating the puppy’s tail at birth.
But a puppy can’t give consent to this operation. It is harmful to human society to let people believe that it is OK to mutilate puppy tails. People should not force harm on others.
Should a puppy go his whole life without a tail just because his owner wants to use him for hunting occasionally?
Worse, most dogs whose tails are amputated, lose there tails because of conformity to show standards. Sick people. A dog talks with his tail. It’s like the losing your tongue. Most people wouldn’t even want to lose their typepad or keyboard.
Paddyannie recently posted..Robin Flys Away.
When Chris first wrote of the no tail, I was not aware of this condition going as far that they could be born with no anus. Death will occur without surgery to create and anus. There is a genetic test to prevent this occurrence. Animal Genetics is one lab that I am aware has this testing.
When the Brachyury mutation is homozygous science confirms: This Brachyury mutation is lethal in-utero. Therefore, for this reason breeding two dogs w/the bobtail gene generally results in somewhat reduced litter sizes. However, I know from asking Vets they are born also quite often.
The test seems to work for the breeder to identify if a dog will have a naturally long or short tail. This test can also identify if the dog’s tail is naturally short or has been docked. The conditioned known as Bob Tail or Short Tail is caused by the Brachyury mutation. The inherited trait is autosomal dominant which means that dogs who carry one or two copies of the mutation will have a natural short tail. Dogs with two copies of the normal non mutated gene will have normal tail length.
Seems either breeders should use the test to me.
Link for testing to interested breeders: http://www.animalgenetics.us/ABIUKNew/horse-dna/canine/Bobtail.html
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/2/236.full
Who says they just hunt occasionally? Wouldn’t it be forcing harm to hunt with a dog in the brushes despite the constant injuries? That one small snip as a pup that is less invasive than spaying a bitch is not worth that continuous pain?
Plus a dog without a tail is not tortured,they can still run fast,play hard,live full lives and work hard. They can still communicate with their voice,facial expressions and basic posture. Thus if you know anything about dog language their still easy to read and other dogs can still read them as well. They can even still wag it if you can believe it.
Also dogs cannot really give consent to anything but if it makes the hunting dog happier in the long run or makes the owner happier and more likely to stick with their dog does it really matter?
I was aware of this in Manx cats. What really goes on in the brain of a person who wants a cat without a tail so bad that they will put up with cats that can’t control their poop, just to have a cat with no tail?
Like, it’s OK if the cat poops all over the house, so long as he doesn’t have a tail.
Admittedly, not all Manx cats are rumpies. (It’s called “variation of expression of the gene”, and is common in many co-dominant genes like fox13 in hairless dogs, and Merle color). But the cat shows are for the tailless Manx cats, not the tailed or half tailed.
One Manx breeder told me that the best Manx cats are the Surgical Manx Cats. The kittens born with a normal tail, but the owner of the mother cat, amputates their tail at birth.
Crazy isn’t it? The gene is harmful, so she surgically makes kittens without tails. Does anyone else see how this is a mirror image of the same thing in Boxer Dogs? With Boxer Dogs, the powers that be in Britian outlawed chopping off dog’s tails unless there was a medical need, so a Boxer Dog was crossed with a Welsh Corgi to get Boxer Dogs that naturally had no tail.
Fascinating photo study online of the generations gone through to get a breed champion Boxer Dog who was born with a tail stump.
With Manx Cats, the reverse was found. That breeding for the tailless gene often produced unhealthy cats, so some Manx breeders went for Surgical Manx Cats, believing these were less crippled and less pained than those born with the tailless gene.
The truth is simple. Cats are suppose to have a tail. So too are dogs.
Don’t amputate healthy tails. Don’t have cat shows with contest for only tailless cats because people will breed more tailless cats to use them in cat shows. The losers aren’t usually wanted. And the show cats often don’t get to run loose in the house, or anywhere else, but are kept in little cages in a basement, back bedroom, or garage which is hot in summer and cold in winter.
Cruel people. And these same show people are usually the ones trying to monopolize cat breeding, using naive cat lovers to volunteer to get pet owners to spay their pet cats, so that the show breeder (with stacks of cats in cages in her basement) can send kittens to a relative’s home to be sold as if these kittens were the babies of a beloved pet, instead of the product of captive basement breeding.
I am 100% for regular cats (moggies, farm cats, alley cats, house cats) , NOT cats segregated and forced to inbreed with their relatives to get different looking cats (called a “breed”).
Do you really believe somebody with 20, 30, 40 or more cats should have more right to breed their cats than a family with just one cat?
Should a person who keeps the show winners and the breeding cats in cages be producing more inbred cats, while the family which shares one pet cat per house is told to have their cat spayed?
Clearly animal shows encourage inbreeding, and the unique but often disabled animals are collected in cages, their breeding controlled and exploited, and the most extreme become show animals. These breeders then often scorn people not buying their inbred form of cats.
Do yourself, and the cats, a favor, don’t be part of this exploitation. You can usually get cats from animal shelters or government places for stray pets, you can adopt a pet cat online, and in spring and summer you can still often buy house cat kittens cheap from neighbors, ads, or newspapers.
Paddyannie recently posted..Robin Flys Away.
Hi Paddyannie: Guess it does not matter if it be a cat or dog. Guess of they are not cutting off the tail some breeds of dogs traditionally are recognized
by cropped ears and is the trademark. Doberman Pinschers and Great Danes come to mind right away. Many smaller breeds such as the Miniature Schnauzer have traditionally had their ears surgically changed to give them a distinctive appearance.
The first time I saw Dobie Puppies who had just had this surgery my stomach turned. I could never do this to any animal. I have a hard time with dew claws when rear dew claws pop up from time to time in a breeding.
Most dogs don’t get their tails all bloody from hunting in the woods. Why would some dogs have such fragile tails? Why just the tail? Doesn’t the rest of the dog encounter the same weeds and thorns?
If the area is so bad that ALL dogs get injured, but only their tails, why just the tail? If I understand it correctly, the issue is that SOME dogs have fragile tails, which might be why breeders began cutting of their puppies’ tails.
But I don’t live where regular dogs get bloody tails from hunting in the woods. Please explain about this problem.
Paddyanniehousedogs recently posted..Tracking Hounds