Merle dogs have something to smile about today.
The Kennel Club has announced today that 2012 will be the last year the club will register the offspring from two merle parents.
Bravo, Kennel Club, bravo!
If you’re curious why breeding merle to merle mating strategies are unethical and worthy of a ban, check out the following posts:
- Lethal Semi-Dominant: Merle
- The Unfortunate Case of the Wild Australian Shepherd
- Something is Rotten in Harlequin Danes
- The Burden of Blindness
- The Deaf Mute Blind and Lame Sheltie
- Parasite Breeders
- Odds of a Double Merle Puppy
This issue is obviously not limited to dogs in the UK, which I’ve documented extensively in this series of posts:
- Who’s Your Double Merle Daddy?
- Double Merle Breeders Don’t Want You to See This
- Double Merle Breeders: In Their Own Words 1
- Double Merle Breeders: In Their Own Words 2
- If thy Collie Eye offends thee
- £10,000 Pounds Sterling
- Sheer Force of Will
- Double Merle Progeny at Westminster
- Westminster Rewards Cruelty
- The Blind Collies of Westminster
- Westminster’s Double Merle Sheltie BOB
- AKC Gazette: Merle Dilemma
As perhaps the most vocal online advocate for ethical merle breeding, today is a victory and gives me hope that kennel clubs in America will soon follow the lead of the KC and curb this dangerous and unnecessarily cruel practice.
Are you listening, AKC? It’s time you ended the merle without mercy practices of your membership too.
Merle to merle mating in dogs
Following a recommendation from the Dog Health Group, the General Committee has agreed that, with effect from 1st January 2013, the Kennel Club will no longer accept the registration of any puppies for any breed that are produced as a result of mating two merle (dapple) coloured parents together.
The merle mutation is a dominant mutation that causes the characteristic merle or dapple colour pattern in a number of breeds. It is also known that there can be associated health risks in those dogs that have the merle mutation.
Many breeds have lived with the merle gene in their population and have avoided merle to merle matings for many years. Some breeds have successfully requested formal banning of such matings and the Kennel Club will not now accept any litter for registration where both parents are merle for Shetland Sheepdogs, Dachshunds (all varieties) and Beaucerons (although these are called tricolour).
In the breeds where merle is proven to not occur naturally, the Kennel Club will not register any dogs that are merle coloured – these include Chihuahuas (Long and Smooth), Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers and Bull Terriers (Miniature). In addition, the Kennel Club will not register litters from Chihuahuas where one parent is merle coloured.
Merle patterning, patches of lighter colour appearing in the coat, is the result of the M gene in the dog. There are two alleles of this gene: MM (merle) and M+ (non-merle), with merle (MM) being dominant to non-merle (M+). In some breeds, the effect of the merle allele (MM) is termed ‘dapple’.
Unfortunately, the effects of the merle allele (MM) are not confined to coat patterning and we know that there can be an increased risk of impaired hearing and sight associated with it, particularly in dogs that are homozygous for MM (dogs that carry two copies of the MM allele).
Due to the associated health concerns, it is not believed that serious breeders would intentionally mate a merle to merle but the commencement of this restriction in January 2013 allows breeders time to readjust any planned breeding programmes.
* * *
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.
* * *
why did the KC only list some of the merle breeds? (Kennel Club will not now accept any litter for registration where both parents are merle for Shetland Sheepdogs, Dachshunds (all varieties) and Beaucerons (although these are called tricolour).) — there are collies, Border collies, etc.
NOT TRUE THEY ARE STILL ACCEPTING REGISTRATIONS
OF MERLE TO MERLE LITTERS…..
DOUBLE MERLE TO DOUBLE MERLE IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE…..THEY HAVE BLUE MERLES SABLE MERLES
DOUBLE MERLES…….
Jonas, You should really have your doctor adjust your meds. The KC has banned merle to merle matings. It says so in their press release. I doubt anyone in the history of dogs has bred a double merle to a double merle. What would be the point?
I believe those are breeds that already have a merle to merle ban in place.
I have no doubt your deep genetic studies on this subject has had an influence! You just kept banging away, laying your foundation, then topping it off with your many merle to merle catastrophe posts. I have been waiting for enough people to take notice that something moves in the kc world.
Congratulations! Kudos! It is a small move, but the crack has opened. I can see no one else on the landscape but you that has stuck with the merle genetics like some kind of really old fashioned bull dog.
Keep it up! I can hardly wait for what comes next! Lethal semi-dominants?
Kate Williams recently posted..WaWaWatch 5-20-2012
This article is dated May, 2012 but the merle to merle breeding continues. Risky breeding practice continue to produce handicapped pure breeds. When will the AKC take a stand?
Thank you Chris for keeping this topic on your Blog site. He reveals to his readers as a Border Collie fancier his deep knowledge and understanding of common health issues shared by varies breeds. There is not any difference in the merle gene health issues in his breed the Great Dane, Collies and others if this gene is present in the breed
Scientific Research studies have tested merle dogs in numerous breeds. The findings revel that all merle dogs have the same gene, insertion at the identical location. One must continue to study so that the Great Dane problem of Harlequin today is not the Collie, Aussie’s, Shetland Sheepdog, Pom and Border Collie problem of tomorrow. Do Border Collie fanciers want the problems and cost of DNA marker of CEA or testing for the merle gene, or piebald? .
There is no question from findings in these studies in a wide variety of breeds this is an old dominant mutation of the SILV gene. All merle dogs have a common ancestry.
This is a fragile, mobile, jumping gene that links to varies diseases besides vision and hearing. The preponderance of documental results of health issues phenomenon that is staggering in my opinion of observations and study.
Combine studies of Homozygous merles can also have vision problems up to and including total blindness. The use of Homozygous merles by planned breeding far too often but the cryptic, ghost or phantom lack of identification grows as a Danger Zone of highly risky breeding develops in gene pools of varies breeds. Could this be nothing more in Collies but revealing where the CEA of over 80% of the breed originally came?
Merle Ocular Dysgenesis refers to a group of eye problems associated with merle to merle breeding. Scientific study now reveals regrettably the same gene that is responsible for the desirable coat and eye appearance is often responsible for many developmental eye defects .
This list includes iris coloboma or other deformations of the iris, cataracts., retinal detachment, persistent pupillary membrane, lens luxation (displacement of lens), equatorial staphloma (protrusion occurring in the area of exit of the vortex veins) and lack of a tapetum licdum (reflective surface at the back of the eye) resulting in night blindness and poor sight in low light conditions. We also need to address study findings of “Germinal Revision” if anyone believes a Breed should have a ROM stud should be able to register as a White Merle, or a Harlequin registered as a Blue merle.
I’m delighted that the KC have taken this stand. A great step forward…especially following the health check fiasco at Crufts 2012 and the pressure they have been under in recent months because of the health checks. I really do think that having a Veterinarian as Chairman is the best thing that has happened to the UK Kennel Club. It’s not often I come out in praise of the KC but, just lately, I have found myself giving credit where credit’s due! Well done UK KC. I’m proud to be British! I hope the AKC follows in their footsteps very soon…
I have little faith that the AKC will follow any time soon. In fact, their actions are so tone-deaf that I’m considering dropping them as an option for my breeding program.
When Crufts took steps toward reform, the AKC and Westminster doubled down on stupid. The dogs they put up look like an intentional thumbing of the nose at the reform movement.
Frankly, I don’t have much use for a registry, I know more about my dog’s history than all the registries put together.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you Chris. Banning merle x merle will be seen as an affront to “FREEDOM!” It will be grouped with such things as proposed bans against tail docking and ear cropping which. Which of course will be a ludicrous comparison as those impositions of breeder “rights” cannot be inherited, and, assuming it’s done properly and professionally, do not cause lifelong harm.
I do believe in freedom and minimal legislation but adults in America today are so concerned about freedoms, they seem to forget that with freedom comes responsibility. That’s why children aren’t given full freedoms; why parents, as they see their children grow and mature, slowly release restrictions steps at a time, until they see their kids can handle freedoms with sense, restraint and good temper.
When the first cry of freedom applies to the wish to pursue the most selfish and irresponsible of actions, it is not even about ego. It is far less evolved. It is about one’s inner ID and reveals the person has never developed beyond that ID.
I don’t think the AKC will take action on it anytime soon; changes like that don’t come from the top down. The impetus would have to come from the breed clubs – if they chose to recognize the perils of merle x merle, and wrote that into their code of ethics, that would be different.
The AKC calls itself a registry only (at least when it’s convenient). The only “must” is that both parents must be purebred, and of the same breed. The parents may be dysplastic, blind, deaf, aggressive, shy, ugly, or deformed – just so long as they’re pure.
The ban raises a lot of questions. Do any US breed clubs have verbage about merle x merle breeding written into their codes of ethics? Particularly the Beauce, Sheltie, and Dachshund, since they were the only three pointed out by the KC. Did the UK breed clubs petition the KC for the ban? It makes me wonder about the other merle breeds – do they want to be included, or not?
In most breeds, the risks of merle-to-merle breeding have been known forever (IOW, this is not a new issue–I’m always surprised when people express shock and horror about it). Nonetheless, there have always been breeders who did the occasional merle-to-merle breeding in order to get a healthy white dog to be used in their breeding program (look up Sheltie Shadow Hills Polaris for an example). Bred to non-merles, these dogs produce flashier blues (I’m not defending the practice AT ALL, just saying what the rationale is).
Now, there is a problem that shows up in Agility dogs of many breeds (including Border Collies and Shelties) known as early takeoff syndrome. It SEEMS to have something to do with a dog’s depth perception, and is characterized by stutter-stepping before jumps, jumping very early (sometimes crashing jumps, sometimes not) etc. The dog’s performance tends to deteriorate over time. This wouldn’t even necessarily be noticed in conformation dogs, pets, or even say an Obedience dog who only jumps occasionally, or a herding dog–but obviously it’s a big problem for Agility people. Nobody knows what causes it, or what the actual problem is–dogs will CERF clear, eye exams will be normal–but it does tend to run in lines, and there is SOME suspicion in Shelties that the (over)use of certain double merle dogs in breeding programs is contributing to it.
For this reason, many people with Shelties who do Agility and other dog sports are avoiding these lines. It’s a small thing, but perhaps could influence breeding decisions in the future (and eventually the AKC itself).
Just as an FYI I asked the KC if this new merle policy will apply to harlequin great danes and was told no, it would not apply.
That’s deeply unfortunate.
So two dogs that are already double merle can still be bred together, then? Two double merles being bred raises all the risks of two single merles being bred, so if banning single merle breeding was the result of ‘health’ than to omit Harlequin Danes makes no sense.
If nothing else, they should at least allow Merle Danes in the standard.
I have been in Bull Terriers for well over forty years. I have read all the old books etc. I have never ever heard of a merle BT! There were rumors of a blue dog way back when but nobody was able to verify it. I always assumed if they existed they would have been blue like blue Amstaffs. But MERLE Bull Terriers? I think the KC fell down the rabbit hole on that one.
“In the breeds where merle is proven to not occur naturally”
I guess they’re saying they won’t register bull terriers from dodgy breeding.
That picture is creeping me out, Christopher. It gets creepier every time I see it.
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
I think they are saying across the board no registry of merle to merle breedings based on now know genetic problems?
It seems the UK kennel club has banned harlequin to harlequin danes or is it Germany alone who bans?
http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/Merle-Rebuttal-Curran-0802.asp
http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/Merle-Rebuttal-Curran-0802.asp
http://merlecockers.com/MerleUpdate.html
Now read what about the Cocker on this issue
All that will happen for breeders is that they’ll register them as mismarks so they can be bred from so what is the point. Will this be followed up on.
You really think that some breeder is going to have the foresight to mis-register a puppy on purpose just so they can potentially breed Merle to Merle in the future? Wouldn’t registering a puppy that is Merle as Mis-marked ruin its show chances?
Lady, if you think pedigree fraud doesn’t happen in various breeds from time to time RIGHT NOW, I don’t know what to say. A dishonest breeder can easily fake a pedigree for any reason.
Banning MxM sends a message that it is no longer socially acceptable to do that type of breeding. Like everything else in the show breeding world, the final enforcement of it will be via peer pressure.
Exactly Pai the hardest negative impact on Champion show dog pedigree breeders will come from the pet owners. Vet cost and medications and finally lost is already taking its toll on a number of breeds. Cost to pet owners can be $500.oo or more a month.
show Dogs will be public opinion by the greatest number of dogs …the pet owner on Show Dog pedigrees
The Danish Shetland Sheepdog club has also managed to instate a ban on merle/merle AND merle/sable combinations for the Sheltie in the Danish Kennel Club in 2012.
Hopefully the other relevant breed specialty clubs will apply for a similar ban.
To my knowledge, this kind of breeding is not prevalent in Denmark, but the ban is intended at a preemptive warning to potential buyers/breeders, due to a sudden rise in interest in merle markings in all kinds of dogs.
Small countries feel it quickly when people start screwing around with their breeding programs.
No scruples, no shame:
http://belmarkshelties.com/dash.htm
I have a new Q. Okay, so merle is being described to me by the same Coolie breeder that I posted a link to in another post, with an Irish trim dog ( I THINK), as something that can be a pattern with NO white or very little, and that she sometimes breeds merle x merle with dogs that have NO white or very little.
I think some of the dogs here might constitute what she speaks of, if you can find one with little or no white
http://www.germancoolies.com/BMerle.html
Now this same person has a link to this abstract on her site.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/5/1376.abstract
ANd it describes merle as a dilution of color in a pattern.
Soooo can one have “dilution” but no white? And if so, does that mean a dog merle dog that is diluted and has no white is safe to breed to another such dog?
The same breeder also says there is no “greying” gene in the coolie, which came up in a Facebook forum when I mentioned that greying can mask merling.
I mean, if you dilute black, to my thinking, that is some sort of “grey.” Or can you have what appears to be “grey” but not have an official “greying” gene? I am not sure of what defines the greying gene. I have a link to it but it is not in front of me at this time.
I just cannot help thinking I recall somewhere where there is more to the merle pattern that causes issues than just the white hairs created. After all, what about the eyesight issue? That’s not connected to lack of pigment in hair, as hearing problems are about white hair. Or is simple dilution of color enough of a lack of pigment to cause issues anyway.
PDF copy of that study:
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC1360527/pdf/pnas-0506940103.pdf
One of your answers is in the abstract itself: “Dogs heterozygous or homozygous for the merle locus exhibit a wide range of auditory and ophthalmologic abnormalities…”
I think the amount of white on the dog is a red herring. What you are interested in is the developmental effect of the merle gene itself, how it affects the actual physical development of the eyes/ears. How big an effect it has in what breeds needs to be better studied.
Yes, you can have ‘dilution’ with no white. ‘Blue’ d/d in IGs is a dilution of black, white markings are inherited separately. ‘Blue’ in Afghans is EG affecting the expression of black, KB, also a ‘dilution’ but not on the same locus as d/d, which dilutes ALL black including the skin. The interesting thing about merle is that it can produce completely diluted unpigmented areas on it’s own, you don’t need the spotting gene.
There is a greying gene, which is not the same as EG or d/d, it’s present in breeds that are born dark and progressively grow lighter. This is not the same as old dog greying.
http://homepage.usask.ca/~schmutz/greying.html
Until there are better studies in various breeds showing the effects of the merle gene you cannot really say ANY merle x merle breeding is ‘safe.’ IMO, anyways.
Jess recently posted..An Assload of Moderately Crappy iPod Sky Photos
Thanks. This person is asking “So explain why nothing seems to happen with dilute browns and blacks?” This section is on her site.
” “M/M” – Homozygous or Double Merle alleles produces almost white dogs: These dogs have more white
than is normal for the breed (they are almost all white). They may also have hearing losses and/or vision
problems. If “M/M” is present, along with the spotting gene, these physical problems seem to be much
worse. When breeding merle to merle if any of the offspring are non-merle, then neither parent is a
homozygous (double) merle. It is much better to breed a merle to a non-merle to avoid producing puppies
with impairments. If a person is set on breeding merle to merle, then is it safer to breed a self merle to self
merle. A self merle is a dog with base color + merle pattern and does not have any white on them (they
could, however; carry the irish, piebald, or extreme piebald alleles).
** NOTE: The homozygous merles that are almost all white or have much white is due to the “doubling”
effect of the merle genes on the Spotting genes (irish, piebald or extreme piebald). Deafness and vision
impairments are thus caused by the LACK of pigment (white) and are not solely caused by the effects of the
merle dilution gene in the homozygous form. ”
http://www.germancoolies.com/WhatColor.html
I know I’m being redundant but I guess I’m finding it frustrating to see people trying to bring back a breed with has far too many merle individuals, without taking more of the risks into account.
“So explain why nothing seems to happen with dilute browns and blacks?”
This shows they don’t understand the different dilution effects. These all have the effect (dilution of black or red pigment) but the mechanism is likely different, which can be seen in the expression. These are black Salukis, the expresson of black is being affected by the presence of EG, or the grizzle gene. This affects only the hair and not the skin, the produce black pigment in the skin:
http://www.elriyah.com/Mishmish/Karun2.jpg
http://www.elriyah.com/Mishmish/Mishmish122407.jpg
http://www.elriyah.com/Indivar/Feb18-Indy-B.jpg
These dogs are blue, caused by d/d, where ALL expression of black is diluted, skin, hair, eyes, etc:
http://www.abcdefpuppy.com/image/greatdane/image2.jpg
http://animal-world.com/dogs/Hound-Dog-Breeds/images/ItalianGreyhoundWDH_UwD8.jpg
http://www.ourgreyhounds.co.uk/large-2005-01to06/2005-04may-blue-greyhound-Img0114%201.jpg
Neither of these dilution effects produce unpigmented areas. Nor does whatever causes reduction of red pigment to make cream dogs. There is no effect on the development of the puppies organs. (Color dilution alopecia is considered to inherited separately from d/d at this point.)
White spotting seems to have an additive effect but the merle gene itself causes abnormalities because it fucks with the actual development of the puppy. Whether there is white on the dog or not, merle is a problematic gene, and it’s expression is extremely variable. There is a reason that you see speculation about there being a separate, ‘protective’ gene in Catahoulas. There is a reason you see a lot more defective merle dogs in some breeds than in others, and it isn’t just ‘white spotting.’
http://www.abneycatahoulas.com/issue_merle.php
Just like white spotting and extreme spotting can be associated with deafness in some breeds, but not others. Extreme partis are very common in Salukis; deafness simply hasn’t been a problem and there are so many of them that if it was a problem it couldn’t be covered up.
It is ‘safer’ is a relative term (safer than what? show me the numbers.) It also sounds like the same sort of excuse making that show breeders use (it’s ‘safe’ to produce double merles if ‘you’re experienced.’)
Here is a tip for all the breeders out there. Don’t make shit up. Somebody asks you a question that you don’t know the answer to, look it up. If the answer is an unknown, SAY SO. “I don’t know” is not that hard to type or speak. Otherwise it will eventually come back to bite you in the ass.
Jess recently posted..An Assload of Moderately Crappy iPod Sky Photos
” White spotting seems to have an additive effect but the merle gene itself causes abnormalities because it fucks with the actual development of the puppy. ”
YOu hit the nail on the head here, in terms of what info I am seeking. I will keep looking online for any studies showing developmental effects on pups outside of sight and hearing problems caused by merle x merle breedings, but if you or anyone has anything handy on it, I would LOVE to see that.
The abneycatahoulas link seems to connect the protective modification of their merle genes to merle x merle breedings resulting in dogs with color. I THINK this is a lot like the Coolie breeder’s argument about why dilute black and brown merles bred together do not seem to have adverse effects.
In fact, one person told me that some suspect she has added Catahoula to her lines and refuses to acknowledge it. I cannot say one way or the other if that is true. THe dog world is fraught with people talking shit about each other, and even if it WERE true, it would not really be a problem IMHO in the great scheme of real problems in this world. It only becomes a problem for one person if they do it and then deny it, thus discredting onesself as an honest breeder.
I guess if she were the only person to have dilute brown and black merle x merles constantly coming out fine no matter how many litters were bred, while others did not have such good luck, THEN one might have reason to think Catahoula was in there, IF the Abney link claim is true.
And that’s not considering the fact that merle, apparently, has a reputation for being quite modifiable. Things could STILL change?
I should modify one of my questions here:
Does anyone, have handy, a link to a SCIENTIFIC study of how the Merle gene affects development of organs other than hearing and sight issues?
I have already googled a few links here and there that just briefly mention that merle can affect development of things such as, but not limited to, the immune system and skeletal system. WHat I have found so far does not go further into details on those problems, and the overwhelming majority of writeups involve hearing and sight issues.
I agree majority of articles address sight and hearing wih some mention of skin relationships and skeletal system. The primary relationship to internal organs seems to be in the category of changes within the protein and amino acids that reflects organ diseases.
Genes are comprised of DNA sequences. These sequences serve as templates for messenger RNA, which directs protein synthesis. It seems genetic defects ultimately result in the manufacture of abnormal proteins — and likely enzymes, biological receptors or structural proteins comprising cell membranes and connective tissues. These genes, which direct growth, development and function of the body’s organs throughout life.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002759
I believe this is an example of a dilute that many of the Coolie folks has far less risk than merles w/white if you breed merle x merle.
You cannot predict the outcome of any merle x merle breeding but I’m getting the impression
that these breeders, believe that choosing these dilutes for merle x merle lowers the risk to less than 1 in 4 odds
and while not a zero risk, since even single merle carries risks around the 2%, 4% and similar ranges in some studies, it seems they find this type of dog allows what they consider “acceptable” risk.
I’m not defending the practice. As someone replying to this blog said elsewhere, it could be that this is the result of having a preponderance of merle individuals in the gene pool. It certainly seems like more than half of the dogs in this breed are merles.
One Coolie breeder told me this breed was “Known for merle.” I spoke of that one in another post/thread.
Seems not one of them wants to fess up that what they are doing poses risk.
I think a lot of dog breeders have a kind of bizarre perception of risk. I see a lot of them that do not worry at all about doubling up on bad recessives or losing genes when breeding closely, but absolutely lose their shit about outcrossing or crossbreeding bringing in ‘unknown genes OMFG!”
There is risk and there is risk. Merle x merle is frankly a pretty well defined risk.
Jess recently posted..Lies from APHIS Rule Change Proponents about the ‘Fancier Exemption’