This month’s AKC Gazette has a feature on Merle to Merle breeding in Collies written by Marianne Sullivan.
Considering the source and the venue, I see this as a positive step toward the breed club forbidding merle to merle breeding strategies. Greater attention being paid to the merle issue is encouraging given that much of the recent furor in the breed has been about another color issue (one which has little moral implication but significant competition implication): the push to get sable merle their own color class at conformation shows and have the color combination officially enshrined in the breed standard.
Those defending merle-to-merle breeding argue that it creates genetic diversity, that it is the only way to preserves certain qualities, and that breeders must be able to remain autonomous in their decisions.
These are all poor arguments in favor of merle to merle breeding. This strategy in no way creates genetic diversity, in fact it is designed specifically to limit diversity of the colors of the puppies. It is about conformity and uniformity, not diversity. In practice, the merle to merle breedings I have documented don’t promote breed-wide genetic diversity either: no one can claim that making the highly inbred Wyndlair Avalanche or Shadow Hill’s Double Trouble into matador stud dogs that dominate their generation leaves their breeds more diverse genetically.
Merle to merle breeding is also not “the only way” to preserve any qualities, nor is it a particularly good way to preserve any qualities. In fact, it’s a great way to destroy diversity and other wanted qualities given the the smaller litter sizes due to the lethality of double merle. You’ll note that when you breed a single merle to another single merle, half the fetuses will be single merle. This is the same as breeding a single merle to a non-merle. You gain no advantage, you just create double merle monsters out of half the normal dogs.
Whether we like it or not, however, those of us who champion the purebred dog take on additional burdens of responsibility that the invisible breeders of shelter dogs never have to face.
I’m amused with this language. People breed shelter dogs? But the point about responsibility is apt: if you claim to be a superior breeder, you have to be superior, and how can someone who breeds merle to merle claim to be superior in any way?
Groups that share a common interest and the same objectives also share the same ideology and form a culture around those ideologies. Sometimes ideologies go too far, though.
This is essentially evoking a code of ethics, and any such code that speaks to advancing the health and welfare of the breed would be diametrically opposed to breeding merle to merle. Many have argued that there’s no “rule” that prohibits merle to merle in the US, and that somehow the Collie Club of America and the AKC’s code of ethics simply don’t apply if there isn’t specific ban on the action. This is confusing ethics with bureaucracy and legislation.
When we use our intuitive, instinctive sense of right and wrong, we must come to the conclusion for ourselves what is good or bad, what will be tolerated, regardless of where the criticism comes from, regardless of what ideology is promoted.
This is a vast improvement over the initial reaction from the establishment when my posts first went viral. I was labeled an Animal Rights activist when I’m actually at the other extreme, a social and fiscal libertarian. My motives were questioned as if I were a Rough Collie breeder who was miffed that my dogs weren’t winning enough ribbons–this is the tactic they use to suppress calls for reform from within the breed–but the Collie establishment has no such leverage over me. So now I’m a meddling outsider who has no right to comment. But this isn’t about me, it’s about the truth and strength of my argument, and that exists on its own merits.
It's about time that we return the favor to Lassie and save him for once.
These people fail to process that I am motivated by actually doing what is ethical and right for the dogs they claim to be the stewards of. I don’t want them burning down the same house I live in as an owner and breeder of purebred dogs, I don’t want stupid and overreaching legislation impinging on my freedoms and rights to ethically and expediently breed my own dogs, and I don’t want the actual AR lobby backlash to sink my little ship along with these fools who are torturing dogs through their breeding practices.
Moral and ethical questions evolve with the times, but shouldn’t common sense tell us that breeding dogs who can’t breathe well, breed or whelp naturally, walk normally, or see or hear is wrong?
Aside from the breeder’s perspective, what about the person willing to take on a blind or deaf dog, or even the dog’s point of view? The argument that these dogs live good, happy lives ignores the fact that they are still unnecessarily handicapped and have a compromised life.
The dog’s quality of life is restricted as a consequence of human actions. Because a dog can adapt or because we say we accept responsibility for our act is not an absolution for their existence in the first place.
This is excellent. Compassion, common sense, and the guts to call out the fancy from a person who has a lot to lose should the powers-that-be decide that righteous criticism is not welcome.
Public perception will not go away, and it is time for us to start taking control of the message. If we don’t behave consistently and clearly as though the health of our dogs is of primary importance, there are those who will take control of the message for us. As someone with the experience of owning a blind and deaf Collie said recently, “Each dog should have the expectation of a quality of life.” Let’s not be afraid to discuss and debate these issues and keep an open mind.
This is all true, and I highly recommend that you read a much more in-depth analysis of what is at stake here and what the consequences will be of losing control of the message and of our ethics. The Cynoanarchist covered this very issue in an excellent post. And if you’re interested in understanding why the fancy is traditionally so backwards on the issues of breeding ethics, this excellent post at Chatham Hill Dogs will explain what’s driven another pedigree ex-pat to leave the idiocy behind and forge a new path.
* * *
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.
* * *
Anton
Christopher
Lawrence Dillard
Lech
Stephanie
Essere
Breed your merle to merle because it creates genetic diversity!
What kind of argument is that?
Retrieverman recently posted..Scapegoating backyard breeders to hide the fancy’s sins
A very stupid one. But I’ve seen it made several times, often in the form of “if we’re not allowed to breed merle to merle it limits our options and this will lead to a loss of genetic diversity!” Never mind that having many children and having many of them have children is a crucial part of maintaining genetic diversity and killing off 25% of your offspring has much more serious effects against that goal than “I can’t breed two merles together!” does.
Ask these same “we need the freedom!” breeders if you can breed a mongrel and register it in their registry and see how far the limits of “genetic diversity” and “breeder freedom” really go.
Well, you know that there’s always going to be that one certain bitch that is so peculiar in her conformational deficiencies that there is ONLY ONE DOG IN THE WORLD that will complement her, and if that one is merle and you cannot do a merle x merle breeding, then those poor puppies are going to be horribly unsound and blah blah blah.
Jess recently posted..Yum! Velociraptor Eating a Pterosaur
It really is amazing how all those funky bitches are just perfect matches for the exact same matador dog!
Well, yay! The fact that this article was published in the AKC Gazette gives me a modicum of hope for the future!
Kate it does give one a glimpse of hope but this is Millknock Collies?
Never would have happened if not for blogs like this & out spoken people willing to take a stnd for nothing but a dogs right to a healthy life.
Good first step, I hope next you will be doing a post on the banning of mrle to mrle matings.
Sam let us hope that I am not the only “old dog learning new tricks. Words are cheap, and actions breeding for normal eyes not colobomas us equally important.
Yep words are cheap but they will look pretty bad if they do nothing now surely although I’ve been surpriced before. My fingers are crossed though & i hope it reachs across the board to all breeds where merle is allowed.
Hi Chris,
Great reading!
Just to inform you, as our collie eats Purina I emailed my contact in Sweden who contacted their headoffice in Switzerland, in regard to the blind collie that is a “help-dog”. If it is a result of inproper breeding I don´t know but the Swiss HQ has reacted and will contact their office in the US as they do not want to be connected to this horror!
Keep up the good work! Best from Sweden//Ewa
Thank you Chris for paving the path to this debate. Is Ms. Sullivan Collie breeder? If so she is to be commended for bravely speaking despite the almost certain risk of personal attack by some members of the breed club.
I’m very proud that the American Pomeranian Club (for which I am the legislative liaison) has added a clause to their Code of Ethics that bans merle-to-merls, merle-to-brindle, and merle-to-white breeding. At the time I didn’t realize that we were trendsetters in that area.
Yes, shelter dogs have breeders; that comment is not amusing in the least. In general we don’t have feral dogs roaming about in this country breeding indiscriminately. Any bitch with an owner also has an official “breeder”. I do believe that ALL breeders are under attack, not just the purebred breeder. In Los Angeles, one cannot legally breed a crossbred dog. One must belong to a breed club, with an enforced code of ethics, and have dogs registered by a sanctioned registry, in order to qualify for a breeder’s permit. Oh, yeah, and your dog must be “shown” on an ongoing basis or have some sort of title in order to remain intact.
C’est la vie in the People’s Republic of Los Angeles.
Geneva, yes I am a collie breeder. So far the response from the collie community has been 100% supportive of my column. However, I am not so naive to think everyone will agree. and thanks for the clarification on shelter dogs; if a bitch is owned and has puppies, regardless of where those puppies end up, that owner is the breeder.
Great article Marianne, you’re very brave to write it and I hope that it starts those with the most to lose (and win) in Collies talking about ethics and about public perception of what some in breeding consider acceptable.
It’s a good day for Collies.
It looks like a great article! I let my subscription to the Gazette lapse a couple years ago, but now I think I might restart it.
It’s so good to hear breeders talking about the importance of ethics and openness. Till now, almost every breeder I’ve heard from has trotted out the “freedom to do what we want” line.
Full text is available at the AKC’s website:
http://www.akc.org/pubs/gazette/digital_edition.cfm
I’ve always liked the breed column feature. It allows authors a good bit of free rein to discuss issues that may be controversial within the breed – sort of like blogging before there was blogging.
Jana I agree that it could paralleled in some respects to blogging, but in my opinion since the writer is appointed the writing position by the Breed Club hardly the same type of non bias journalism. As M’s Sullivan states she has had 100% acceptance. This does not answer the question WHO? We know the large number of Breeder Sable merle supporters…so they are likely not part of this 100%?
With freedom COMES responsibility. That’s something parents used to teach to children. Not so sure anymore.
I am horrified to hear this. Now dogs will go on the black market! Prohibition never worked and it won’t work now.
Kate Williams recently posted..How Far Should the Dog Shelter Movement Go in Refusing Placement of Rescue Dogs?
For ARs, illicit pet ownership is the ONLY pet ownership there is. They’re just working on manipulating naive voters to make that view supported by law.
El Paso, Texas amended their animal ordinance last year so that it is now illegal to cross breeds, only dogs registered with approved registries may be bred or sold, and you cannot charge more than your expenses or fifty bucks for each pup under a year old.
This is because ‘people were going to buy puppies from the Petland and breed them and then dump the pups at the shelter.’
When they passed a litter permit some years ago officials were explicit in that the intent was to ‘punish breeders.’
Last time I checked, there was an increase in whole litters being turned in to the shelter.
Jess recently posted..Yum! Velociraptor Eating a Pterosaur
Wow, that is beyond ridiculous. This country is getting stupider every day. :/
Breeders are under attack and likely the most important message this Blog site could rally up the millions of voices.
Yes sheltr dogs where breed by someone but I’m afraid at least in my country many shelter dogs come from registered breeders not just your so call “byb” or cross breeder so making it illegal to breed unless your a registered breeder would not stop there being any shelter dogs. Besides that just because something is illegal dose not mean a damn thing to many & if anything it will just make it harder to educate all breeders. My goodnes imagine the mess all breeds will end up in if ONLY dogs that have been shown are allowed to breed. The genetic pool is shrinking by the day as it is & to have breeders who put type & colour before health,function & work ability being the only 1’s allowed to breed is madnes.
You should also note the adjacent article on the German Shepherds where the author is discussing creating a “long coat” class – primarily to avoid the issues they feel come from breeding strictly for the shorter coat and to increase numbers. A good sign when a characteristic present from the beginning and which is irrelevant to form or function is finally given acknowledgement with the primary reason being health. AKC is, I think, moving in the direction of better concern for health and function of the dogs, if only at glacial speed. Wherever they do so, they should be commended. Geneva is correct about breeders of shelter dogs (they don’t just spontaneously generate. Someone had their mother) and the fact that not just Los Angeles, but many locals (including Texas) now restrict or ban outright doing more than an F1 crossbreeding. The scientists in the dog world need to point out that this eliminates the opportunity to even try to do open registries (or even “limited open registries” as with the LUA dogs).
Peggy, I’m not clear on something. The long coat is being considered acceptable for entry because it’s always been there, and if you’re saying they are considering it for health’s sake, that makes me think they want to include it for the sake of not excluding long haired GSDs with health and structure qualities that support truly healthy movement. But in my experience when the AKC speaks of a “class”, like a long coat class, that would mean only long haired GSDs could compete in that class. I’m not sure working GSD breeders use long haired dogs often. I don’t know the folks well but all the pics I ever see online of SCH or FR dogs, and nearly all police dogs, are short haired. But in show, wouldn’t this certainly just continue segregation by coat and therefore not contribute to diversity any more than before? Honestly, I don’t know.
I assumed the long coats would be a class in the sense that sable, tri, merle, and white collies are show classes (as opposed rough/smooth, which are varieties). They’re shown separately, but everything can breed with everything.
If it were done like collies, it would increase diversity, because the long coats wouldn’t be automatically excluded from competition, and therefore be more valuable from a show/breeding standpoint.
IMO, it’s a much better solution than splitting them off to become a separate breed with a smaller gene pool, like the CKC did with the White Shepherd.
So breeders of smooth vs long coated collies breed both? I hit a lot of websites where breeders seem to only have one or the other. My impression is that humans tend to lean towards and aesthetic and if they prefer one to the other, they will usually keep a majority of one. I expected a gene split from this. I could be wrong. Is long hair dominant to smooth?
Smooth is dominant. A smooth dog can carry the rough gene and produce rough puppies, but two roughs can’t have smooth pups. There aren’t “in-between” coats, either – although some smooths carry more coat than others, a thicker coat doesn’t mean a dog carries for rough.
Most breeders do have a preference, some only breed one or the other. Personally, I just like the look of the roughs better, although I’d happily breed to a smooth. One advantage of smooths is that they’re easier to place as service dogs.
Roughs are more popular among pet owners, a lot of them don’t even know that smooths exist. But show people, even if they have a preference for roughs, can appreciate a good smooth (much harder to hide physical flaws!).
So you’d have to separate out the breeding roughs in order to get them, wouldn’t you? A breeder would have to really see something in health, temperament or functional structure he/she likes in a rough to breed one with a smooth.
BTW, there has been an interchanged use of “rough” and “long” hair here regarding GSDs. Given what you say about pet owners vs service dogs, now I am not even sure I know the diff between roughs vs smooths. And when I asked about dominance it was regarding long hair and you answered with smooth, yet you say most pet owners prefer “roughs.”
If “rough” were the same as “long” I’m not sure I’d agree with you about pet popularity. I see more long haired GSDs now than before, but not THAT many at all. Not compared to shorter haired dogs.
At any rate, I am confused now. Are we saying there are three coat types? Long, rough and smooth?
Sorry. Short correction. I asked what was dominant? Long vs smooth. The response only covered rough and smooth. This made me think “long” and “rough” were being used interchangably for the same coat type for GSDs, but you said originally that you’d hoped long would be a separate class, whereas rough/smooth were varieties.
Now THAT makes me think again, what’s the diff then between a “class” and a separate breed for show purposes?
And is long dominant to smooth? Sorry to be repetitive but the first answer only said smooth is dominant to rough. If rough and long hair are not the same then I don’t think I got the right answer.
Oy vey! 🙂
Sorry for the confusion!
There are only two varieties of coats in collies. Smooth is short haired. Rough is long haired – think “Lassie”. There’s no in-between for collies.
In showing, “varieties” are variations within the breed. They may be bred together, but are shown in the ring separately.
One example is American cocker spaniels. The three varieties are parti-color, black, or ASCOB (any solid color other than black; including buff, red, chocolate, etc). They may be bred together, and may occur in the same litter.
The advantage is that while there may be three cocker spaniels in the ring, but only one Lab (the different colors are not considered varieties). No particular reason, only that the breed club decided it should be that way.
It’s not consistent for all breeds that have varieties, though – Poodles are considered varieties of the same breed, but they’re in different groups (toy and non-sporting), and nobody breeds them together.
That’s why I like obedience and agility – much simpler, and the same rules for everyone!
LOL! Yeah, I thought most of this was still referring to gsds with just a brief ref to collies for comparison.
Got it now.
GSD and Collie coat genetics are not the same genes regarding length of hair.
GSDs have a semi-dominant length gene, so there are 3 states of length: short, medium, long.
[short, short] = short
[short, long] = medium
[long, long] = long
Collies have “rough” recessive to smooth.
[smooth, smooth] = smooth
[smooth, rough] = smooth
[rough, rough] = rough
Thank you Christopher.
So how is that expressed if you
cross a med to a med dog?
In GSDs, a Medium x Medium would produce:
50% Medium puppies
25% Short puppies
25% Long puppies
I’m not sure how the two different genes would interact if you bred a GSD x Collie.
Have a look at Punnet squares(http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm) for how those probabilities are calculated.
LOL! I have to laugh at myself because here I have up to a Master’s in biology and for whatever reason, the combining of long, short, med and it’s outcome was not hitting me. I was Punnet squared to death in school but this just goes to show how when you don’t use it, you lose it. After genetics I went on to look at a lot of animal behavior studies that actually dealt little with genetics. Even in molecular genetics class, we never spoke of squares. I guess it was considered something we had studied in basic class and now we had to move forward. This blog has really made me appreciate just how out-of-practice I am because of my lack of quick recall yesterday morning.
That, and/or I needed some extra coffee!
At any rate, I think I’m ordering a new text.
Just a thought crossing my mind, there are varieties but hair type has also resulted in breed splits in America, such as with the Belgians. In Europe the different coat types with Groenendael, Tervuren, Malinois and Laekenois were historically not separated out, and thusly were considered varieties of the same breed. In America they were split. Things like this are why I fear classification by superficial matters such as coat color, coat type ( smooth, long, rough), because you never know which way it will go. I can at least understand the preference of the police force for shorter coats; ease of maintenance on a working dog. The show ring just doesn’t have the same reasons for why they do things.
Chris! You have a lever and you are moving the (dog) world! Congratulations on using critical thinking skills to out-think and think circles around, the dummies of the dog world.
You unleashed a tempest, but it won’t damage you in anyway. Just let the winds howl…..
I am a huge fan of what you are doing!
Kate Williams recently posted..How Far Should the Dog Shelter Movement Go in Refusing Placement of Rescue Dogs?
This is a great day for the collie and for all with the wisdom of new breeding aids now available to bring our collie from the mouth of extintion. Old theories regarding merle to merle breedings just are not supported by molecular and genetic facts. The merle gene
is a lethal gene with modifiers such as harlequin. The brindle modifer a work in progress only further expresses a need for new color charts and ethical breeding responsiblies. I have read that there could be yet even other modifers of expression of the merle gene.
There is no justifications or scientific findings to support statements such as “You can breed a blind deaf double dilute to a solid…” “All puppies will be able to see and hear” is just plain hogwash.
Kathy, curious as to what the issue is with brindle. From what I’ve seen in the literature, there isn’t any issue with brindle regarding health and I can’t find anything on brindle + merle as a health issue (other than the merle itself). Is it just because like sable merles it can be hard to spot? I’m starting to lean towards doing DNA color checks prior to breeding given the rather iffy record of identification one has (not intentionally. Some merles are cryptic and some folk really can’t tell a fawn ay from a ee red in some dogs) Brindle is a modifier on the K gene and appears to be more like EM mask than like the b or d dilute genes in that it adds rather than subtracts color.
My guess is there is a high chance of cryptic merles. Especially with the coat type of most Poms, I’d bet most merle brindle dogs are pretty muddy looking.
Raegan recently posted..Adam’s Task II: Preface
Raegan posted “My guess is there is a high chance of cryptic merles” in regards to brindle merles. Probably so. But I would be inclined to support DNA testing for color in such breedings rather than restrict brindle breedings. The same would apply to sable & merle. If one DNA tested the dogs, then it would be easy to avoid a merle/merle breeding regardless of how “cryptic” the merle coloring might be. I suspect that a breed club could probably get a quantity discount if they had a “DNA color test” swab deal at a speciality or some other supported event where a number of the dogs would be present. If one has the technology, it’s unfortunate to ban breedings that are in and of themselves benign (sable x merle is a problem because of the cryptic nature of the merle, not because there’s any evidence of sable merles being less healthy than “blue” merles. But DNA testing would resolve that).
Peggy I agree DNA could end all the mystery of the cryptic nature of the merle gene and answer so many old questions rather than banning. Example there was once a beautiful male tri who was stated to produce PRA carriers. Strange however if he was bred to a blue merle it was stated he did not produce carriers? However, when he was bred to a sable he produced carriers of PRA it was stated?
came across this (sadly not open access) Prevalence of Deafness in Dogs Heterozygous or Homozygous for the Merle Allele
G.M. Strain1, L.A. Clark2, J.M. Wahl2, A.E. Turner1, K.E. Murphy2Article first published online: 3 FEB 2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0257.x
Copyright © 2009 by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Issue
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Volume 23, Issue 2, pages 282–286, March/April 2009
from the abstract: “Deafness prevalence in merles overall was 4.6% unilaterally deaf and 4.6% bilaterally deaf. There was a significant association between hearing status and heterozygous versus homozygous merle genotype. For single merles (Mm), 2.7% were unilaterally deaf and 0.9% were bilaterally deaf. For double merles (MM), 10% were unilaterally deaf and 15% were bilaterally deaf. There was no significant association with eye color or sex.”
so there is documentation regarding deafness being higher in merles than in the general population and significantly higher in MM merles. As a health issue, breeds where merle exists ought to include this kind of information for breeders if they don’t include comments in their code of ethics. At the very least, I feel a breed club ought to provide those involved in the breed what medical genetic information is out there. It’s hard to plead ignorance if the information is openly and clearly provided with the documentation to validate it. Here’s hoping that this kind of information finds it’s way to Corgi, collie, BC, Aussie, etc club websites.
Unfortunately, this study has a few problems. First, it called upon owners to volunteer their merle dogs for this study, so the samples were skewed in favor of individuals who did not appear adversely affected by merle. The sample size was tiny, only slightly more than 150 individuals participated and in one breed studies there was just one individual dog, a heterozygous merle cocker spaniel who was deaf. Another problem is that correlation with white spotting and deafness was not considered…so that dogs with both genetic factors were lumped right in there with breeds like the Catahoula who don’t have white spotting in their gene pool (and who also have very little incidence of merle-related defects, even in their double merle specimens).
Science has a long way to go but the long and the short of it is that breeders need to be aware of the risk of deafness in excessive white dogs, whether they be merle or piebald-factored. And in merle in particular, the risk of ocular defects is very strong.
The American Pomeranian Club health and genetics chairman (a merle breeder with a background in art and interior design) forwarded my comments about the study to George Strain. I had repeated some of his own stated concerns with the study, but here is what he responded: <>
<>
I had his paper “peer reviewed” by several canine genetics and biology experts and they agreed with my analysis.
This is simply more merle apologist propaganda. Dr. Strain is an unbiased researcher though, right?
Oops the response did not come across, let me post them separately (as edited by the person who contacted Strain for his remarks:
….nothing she has said can disprove the observations I made in my study – the only scientific study of hearing and the merle gene since the publication of a paper in German about dappled Dachshunds in 1977. That German paper, once translated into English, proved to have a poor design and grossly incorrect conclusions that led many to overestimate the impact of merle on hearing. The English abstract of that paper, the only part that most people ever read, incorrectly led readers to believe that merle causes significant hearing loss in almost all dogs. This is false. The errors in that study are explained in my paper.
It is true that dogs with merle can be deaf. However, my study showed that the prevalence of deafness in merle dogs is no more than that of most breeds with the piebald gene and less than the prevalence rate of deafness in Dalmatians. Would she have Dalmatian breeders stop breeding completely also? Pomeranians and Chihuahuas have a variety of genetic health issues, certainly more than I am aware of. Should they not be bred because of the possibility of PDA or bad elbows or patellas? There have been no studies that have examined hearing in more dogs with the merle gene than my paper – in fact none at all that I am aware of. It underwent rigorous scientific peer review and was accepted by and published in one of the most prestigious research journals in the entire field of veterinary science (The Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine). The study met the high standards expected of research in science.
(George Strain signature)
The point of science is that a theory can be challenged. If one doesn’t like how the study of George Strain was done, it wouldn’t be that hard to randomly collect merle and MM dogs. It ought to be a good project for a vet student (masters project maybe)? if you don’t feel the number is statistically significant, it’s probably pretty easy to test 1,000 or more dogs. Since the article isn’t open access, I didn’t get to it’s details. But it seems like one could validate or refute the findings with a second study. The Dalmation club of America has a whole section on deafness http://www.thedca.org/hearing.html It includes the following: One study of phenotype done through time by George M. Strain, Ph.D., evaluated 5333 Dalmatians. In the general population of Dalmatians, this study would show that 70.1% are bilaterally hearing dogs, 21.9% are unilaterally deaf, and 8.0% are bilaterally deaf. 1 Another study of phenotype done through time by Susanne A. Hughes, DVM, evaluated 1046 Dalmatians. In the general population of Dalmatians, this study would show that 78.3% are bilaterally hearing dogs, 17.9% are unilaterally deaf, and 3.8% are bilaterally deaf. — I would presume that the George Strain of the article I referenced might maybe be the George Strain PHD referred to in the DCA article. So I’d say that there was data to use to compare MM and Mm dogs to Dals. The bull terrier club of America is a little less up front, but they have a link that goes here: http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/deaf.htm
So frankly, Kudos to both clubs for doing what CCA hasn’t yet done. Made a point of alerting folk about a possible health issue that should be considered when breeding and buying a dog of their particular breed. Don’t, by the way, see it in the American Border Collie Association web page http://www.americanbordercollie.org/Health%20and%20Genetics%20of%20Border%20Collies.htm — and while merles are still fairly uncommon in BCs, there ought to be a comment about the issue.
I see Dogs 101 is having an episode this morning featuring collies. I think it’s new for this year. Also BULLDOGS, as in English! Wow! Two breeds this forum has been centered on for all fantastic reasons. I can’t wait to see what is said about each. I wonder if they will even remotely touch on the negative aspects. Generally they don’t, any more than briefly saying, oh, “With that shoved in face, the bulldog DOES have certain health issues………but it makes a GREAT family pet!” Hm.
Hah! I have to retract. I don’t think that was a new Dogs 101 one at all. Just one they hardly replay. I walked out on the bulldog review though. One look at Uggie and all I could think was “Ugh!” Anyway, my bad.
They go through an Uga every 3-4 years or so, apparently. The dogs keep dropping dead young and yet the team keeps buying them from the same breeder. Talk about willful stupidity!
3-4 years is abominable. Someone who knows the full story should publish some sort of commentary via the PDE blog and/or write a statement to Dogs 101.
The KC is banning all merle to merle matings from 2013. (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4303)
My God, reading about how some of the states are passing legislation and infringing on the rights of people to own, and to do as they see fit with their personal property, is another sign that this country is becoming a police state. I can’t see how the states are getting away with overwriting federal law. Dogs are personal property in all fifty states, pass into law in the late 1800’s by our U.S. Supreme Court. They are protected by our
4th amendment. Dogs are personal tangible assets of their owners, we own then as we do money or jewelry, and there should be no laws written against them.
Restrictions of the powers of the State Governments:
(1) State constitutions and laws may not conflict with any provision of the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws pursuant to it.[7]