From: Subject: Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First Century: Achieving Genetic Health for Our Dogs by Jeffrey Bragg Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:25:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/bragg.htm Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First Century: = Achieving Genetic Health for Our Dogs by Jeffrey Bragg

 

 

=0A= =0A=

=20
Home

 


=0A= =0A=

Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First = Century:=20 Achieving Genetic Health for Our Dogs by Jeffrey Bragg

Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First = Century:=20 Achieving Genetic Health for Our Dogs

Jeffrey Bragg

Contents

What is=20 a Canine Breed?=20
The=20 Origins of Dog Breeds=20
The=20 Healthy Continuation of Breeds=20
The=20 Fallacy of Breed Purity=20
The=20 Demise of Typological Thinking=20
Abandoning=20 Natural Selection=20
A=20 Century of Nineteenth-Century Dog Breeding=20
Lessons=20 from Population Genetics=20
The Crux=20 of the Problem=20
An=20 Example from One Breed=20
The=20 Holistic Breed=20
New=20 Structures for the Dog Fancy=20
A=20 Healthy Balance, for Breed Identity=20
Can=20 it Really Work?=20
A=20 Canine Revolution?=20
Postscript=20
Bibliography=20
Glossary=20
Afterword=20

What is a Canine = Breed?

What is a breed? To put the question more = precisely, what=20 are the necessary conditions that enable us to say with = conviction, "this=20 group of animals constitutes a distinct breed?"

In the cynological world, three separate = approaches=20 combine to constitute canine breeds. Dogs are distinguished first = by=20 ancestry, all of the individuals descending from = a=20 particular founder group (and only from that group) being = designated as a=20 breed. Next they are distinguished by purpose or = utility,=20 some breeds existing for the purpose of hunting particular kinds = of=20 game,others for the performance of particular tasks in cooperation = with=20 their human masters, while yet others owe their existence simply = to=20 humankind's desire for animal companionship. Finally dogs are=20 distinguished by typology, breed standards = (whether=20 written or unwritten) being used to describe and to recognize dogs = of=20 specific size, physical build, general appearance, shape of head, = style of=20 ears and tail, etc., which are said to be of the same breed owing = to their=20 similarity in the foregoing respects.

The preceding statements are both obvious and = known to=20 all breeders and fanciers of the canine species. Nevertheless a = correct=20 and full understanding of these simple truisms is vital to the = proper=20 functioning of the entire canine fancy and to the health and well = being of=20 the animals which are the object of that fancy. It is my purpose = in this=20 brief to elucidate the interrelationship of the above three = approaches, to=20 demonstrate how distortions and misunderstandings of that=20 interrelationship now threaten the health of all of our dogs and = the very=20 existence of the various canine breeds, and to propose reforms = which will=20 restore both balanced breed identity and genetic = health=20 to CKC breeds.

In order for canine breeds to fulfill their = destinies=20 effectively, the three distinct axes along which breeds are = distinguished=20 must have equal importance and consideration, otherwise serious = problems=20 arise. Breeds cannot be distinguished by ancestry alone, by = purpose alone,=20 or by typology alone. Unless these three vectors of breed identity = interrelate fully and cooperatively, the fullness of that identity = is=20 missing or marred. Unfortunately, this full and cooperative=20 interrelationship is a rarity in our contemporary dog world. The = criteria=20 of ancestry are applied rigidly and mechanically; the criteria of = purpose=20 and utility are subordinated or not considered at all; the = criteria of=20 typology are applied in a highly exaggerated, obsessive fashion. = The=20 interaction of the three approaches is seldom considered and = almost never=20 is a sustained effort made at the integration of the three.

The Origins of Dog = Breeds

Canine breeds come into existence in many = different ways=20 and their beginnings are very often shrouded in obscurity. Let it = not be=20 thought that the three or four hundred-odd dog breeds now extant = are the=20 only ones possible, or that there cannot be any more truly new = breeds.=20 Such is the genetic plasticity of the dog that there is no end to = the=20 possible unique variations of which the species is capable. New = breeds are=20 born and old breeds die periodically. The genetic transformation = of the=20 dog goes on ceaselessly, and for that reason it is impossible that = any=20 breed should remain frozen, with all its characteristics fixed and = unchanging, for any appreciable length of time. It must be = realized that=20 canine breeds are manmade, created by artificial election out of = the=20 endless diversity of the canine gene pool. Breeds must not be = confused=20 with species or even subspecies, which occur naturally under the = influence=20 of natural selection; dog breeds are only unstable manmade = varieties which=20 would not survive unchanged in the natural world without human=20 management.

An important characteristic of breeds is that = they are=20 created by breeders -- not by registries or protective = organizations such=20 as The Canadian Kennel Club. The origin and course of a canine = breed is in=20 the hands of its breeders, first, last and always. It is the = business of=20 cynological associations to facilitate and support the work of dog = breeders and not vice versa. The purposes of the Animal = Pedigree=20 Act, under which CKC is incorporated, are the promotion of breed=20 improvement and the protection of those who breed and purchase = animals;=20 such is the mandate of the Act and therefore of the Club [Animal = Pedigree=20 Act, =A73(a,b)]. All else is secondary.

Ordinarily a breed has already existed for an = appreciable=20 length of time before it reaches the point of becoming a = recognized breed=20 served by a registry. Nonetheless, the event of its "recognition" = by a=20 registry such as CKC is always a crucial one in the history of a = breed. As=20 things now stand, breed recognition is far more crucial (and = ultimately=20 damaging to the welfare of the animals) than it need be or ought = to be,=20 but more of that anon. First let us examine what is needed to = start a new=20 and unique canine breed.

Four essential characteristics usually = distinguish the=20 origin in the genetic sense of a new breed (as opposed to the = discovery,=20 popularization and "recognition" of, for example, an autochthonous = breed=20 which may have existed in a particular region for a long time = without=20 connection to formal cynological structures). The first and most = crucial=20 characteristic is the founder event in = which a=20 finite number of individual canines is chosen to contribute = genetic=20 material to found a new and unique canine population. They may all = be=20 quite similar, or they may be widely divergent one from another = (as when=20 Bulldog and Mastiff specimens were used to create the Bullmastiff = breed).=20 What matters is that a finite and sometimes quite small number of=20 individuals are selected from the existing canine population and = set apart=20 so that their genetic material alone forms the gene pool for the = new=20 breed. That is in fact the next characteristic:=20 isolation. If the founder group = continues to=20 exchange genetic material at random with the general canine = population, a=20 new breed will not result. Without genetic isolation of the new = founder=20 group, the differentiation that creates a new breed cannot take = place. The=20 logical consequence of this isolation is the next characteristic:=20 inbreeding. If the founder group is of = small or=20 moderate size, such inbreeding cannot help but occur. Even if the = founder=20 group should be quite large, ordinarily those who guide the = breeding which=20 creates the new breed will find it necessary at some stage to = employ a=20 strong degree of incest breeding or inbreeding, to facilitate the=20 weeding-out of undesired characteristics and the fixation of = desired=20 traits. Particularly if individuals of widely divergent type and = physique=20 are involved, inbreeding will be required to set up a stable = genome in=20 which random variability is kept within limits defined by the = breeders.=20 The final essential factor is artificial=20 selection, since inbreeding alone will not serve to = fix type=20 characteristics and to eliminate unwanted traits. The breeders = must select=20 among the individuals produced in early generations so that only = hose=20 displaying the desired characteristics are allowed to produce = subsequent=20 generations. Without the four factors of the founder event, = isolation,=20 inbreeding and artificial selection, new breeds ordinarily do not = come=20 into existence. These four tools are used to define a new genome = which,=20 hopefully, contains only the traits desired by the creators of the = new=20 breed and is able to reproduce itself, with its distinguishing=20 characteristics, to a fair degree of stability and = consistency.

The Healthy = Continuation=20 of Breeds

Purebred dogdom is even now in serious trouble = through a=20 general failure to distinguish between what is necessary to=20 establish a breed and what is desirable to continue that = breed in=20 perpetuity. Most registered breeds are less than a century old as=20 registered breeds; many are but fifty or sixty years old. Yet = nearly all=20 breeds now show levels of expression of genetic defects that must = be=20 considered unacceptable. Over 500 distinct genetic defects have = been=20 cataloged in various breeds of purebred dogs and more continue to = come to=20 light regularly. Some of these have reached very high levels of = incidence,=20 creating problems for breeders and dog owners, threatening the = health of=20 entire breed populations. What is worse, in many instances = organized=20 control programs seem relatively ineffective. Although such = programs=20 successfully identify affected animals, in some cases individuals = with=20 several generations of "clear" ancestry stubbornly continue to = produce=20 affected stock. Let us try to examine what has gone wrong and what = must be=20 done to correct the situation.

First of all it must be recognized that = practices which=20 were essential for the differentiation and establishment of a new = breed=20 may not necessarily be desirable for its continuation over time = and may in=20 fact be prejudicial to a breeds continued existence over the long=20 term.

Let us take isolation, for example. Without = genetic=20 isolation, it would not be possible to control the genome of a new = breed=20 still few in number. It takes time and careful breeding to fix a = new=20 combination of characteristics; while that is being done, the = regular=20 addition of new genetic material would generally be = counterproductive. Yet=20 in the long term, if genetic isolation is maintained, it will = necessarily=20 lead to degeneration through genetic drift. Similarly inbreeding, = if it=20 continues to be practiced after the need for it is past, will lead = to a=20 steadily increasing state of homozygosity which may well destroy = the=20 genetic health of the new breed. Even artificial selection, if = carried on=20 too strongly for too long, can combine with isolation and = inbreeding to=20 reduce drastically the effective breeding population, thus eroding = the=20 genetic health of the breed.

The Fallacy of Breed=20 Purity

The present structure of The Canadian Kennel = Clubs=20 studbook registry (and others like it) embodies a fallacy which is = directly responsible for the current genetic crisis in purebred = dogs: the=20 fallacy of breed purity. The ideal of the purified lineage is seen = as an=20 end in itself; accordingly, the studbook has been structured to = reflect=20 and to enforce that ideal rigidly and absolutely. This insistence = on=20 absolute breed purity arises from nineteenth-century notions of = the=20 "superior strain" which were supposedly exemplified by human = aristocracies=20 and thoroughbred horses; this same ideal, pushed to an illogical=20 conclusion on the human plane, resulted in the now discredited = "scientific=20 racism" of the Nazis, who tried through selective human matings to = breed=20 an Aryan superman. The idea of the superior strain was that by = "breeding=20 the best to the best," employing sustained inbreeding and = selection for=20 "superior" qualities, one would develop a bloodline superior in = every way=20 to the unrefined, base stock which was the best that nature could = produce.=20 Naturally the purified line must then be preserved from dilution = and=20 debasement by base-born stock. There is no support for this kind = of racism=20 in the findings of modern genetics -- in fact, quite the opposite: = population groups that are numerically limited and closed to new = genetic=20 inflow are now thought practically certain to be genetically = inferior.=20 Certainly towards the close of the nineteenth century it became=20 embarrassingly obvious that the human aristocracies of Europe were = degenerating rapidly under their own version of the "closed = studbook."

The ideal of breed purity as applied to = purebred dogs has=20 resulted at the end of the twentieth century in a subculture that = holds=20 "purebred" registered animal stock to be qualitatively superior to = crossbred or "mongrel" stock. (The word "mongrel" is in fact part = of the=20 vocabulary of racism, being applied equally to canine stock of no=20 recognizable breed, to animal crossbreeds and to persons of mixed = race!)=20 In this subculture -- presided over in Canada by the CKC -- it is = thought=20 to be of paramount importance that purebred stock be maintained = unsullied=20 by any genetic influence external to the supposedly superior = strains that=20 are produced by registered breeding in a closed studbook from a = small=20 group of foundation stock. New members of the CKC are required to=20 subscribe to "Conditions of Membership" whereby they promise to = have=20 nothing to do with "dogs which are not purebred" (with the = exception of=20 family pets and boarders), "purebred" being specifically defined = as=20 referring only to dogs "registered individually or eligible for=20 registration in records of the CKC." Litters which are made the = subject of=20 complaints that they may not be purebred are investigated and in = many=20 cases ceremoniously withdrawn from the registry by resolution of = the Clubs=20 Board of Directors. Whether you like the word or not, this is = effectively=20 a special variety of racism in concept and in practice.

Not all dog breeders are in agreement with the=20 proposition that breed purity is more important than anything = else,=20 particularly when they are confronted with the problem of breeding = dogs to=20 demanding performance standards. Mostly such dissenters are = obliged to=20 carry on their breeding without the benefit of centralized = pedigree record=20 keeping and official certificates of registration -- for example, = those=20 who breed "Alaskan huskies", the high-performance racing sled-dogs = that=20 dominate both short and long distance dogsled racing, keep = pedigree=20 records and maintain sophisticated breeding programs, but only as=20 individual breeders. Yet sometimes even participants in = established=20 purebred registries engage in a subtle kind of rebellion, quietly = breeding=20 according to their own judgment in defiance of formal = restrictions. Thus=20 the Racing Greyhound Club of Australia, when it recently subjected = a broad=20 sample of stock from its registry to DNA testing, is rumored to = have=20 discovered that many pedigrees failed to match DNA ancestry = findings and=20 that considerable interbreed crossing had apparently occurred. = Similarly=20 most Siberian Husky fanciers are aware that some CKC bloodlines = may have=20 received surreptitious infusions of genetic material from = non-purebreds or=20 from other breeds. In some circles one even gets the distinct = impression=20 that "its OK to crossbreed occasionally if you have a good reason = for=20 doing it and you manage it in such a way that no embarrassingly = obvious=20 mongrels are produced" -- i.e., "just don't get caught!" Thus the = sanctity=20 of breed purity may sometimes be less than inviolate in actual=20 practice.

Population geneticists insist that limited = populations=20 under strong artificial selection, subjected to high levels of = incest=20 breeding - such as our own CKC purebreds -- simply cannot maintain = genetic=20 viability and vigor in the long term without the periodic = introduction of=20 new and unrelated genetic material. They are referring, moreover, = to true=20 outcrossing, the introduction of stock unrelated to the breeding = line, not=20 merely the use of a dog which might be from someone else's kennel = but is=20 derived from exactly the same foundation stock some generations = back.

The Demise of = Typological=20 Thinking

DNA research has radically changed zoological = concepts of=20 species, subspecies and varieties. In the nineteenth century and = the first=20 half of this century it was thought that a species could be = represented by=20 a type specimen, that the vast majority of individuals of a = species were=20 virtual photocopies of the type specimen, genetically speaking, = and that=20 the genetic norm for most species was homozygous at most loci. In = the mid=20 1960s the credibility of that idea was shattered as = electrophoresis=20 protein studies revealed extensive protein polymorphism that had = not been=20 previously suspected [Carson 1983]. Today the concept of a species = in a=20 satisfactory state of genetic health invokes a state of "dynamic = balance"=20 in which the species genome contains an array of genotypes with a = high=20 degree of heterozygosity, with multiple alleles at many gene loci. = Natural=20 selection is now thought to favour heterozygotes in a way which = tends=20 toward a high state of natural variability, preserving the = greatest=20 variety of possibilities with which a species can meet new = environmental=20 challenges. Conversely, species which have lost most of their = genetic=20 diversity, often through accidental population "bottlenecks" = similar to=20 those which regularly occur in purebred dogs, are held to be in = high risk=20 of extinction through the loss of adaptive capability. (The most = notorious=20 example is the cheetah, which is almost totally homozygous and is = thought=20 to have undergone at some time a bottleneck reducing its = population to a=20 tiny handful of specimens.)

There is no reason why dog breeds also cannot = be=20 maintained in a balanced state of heterozygosity, analogous to = that of=20 healthy wild animal species, if typological thinking in the dog = fancy=20 could somehow be replaced (or at least tempered) with population = thinking.=20 Fanciers will generally admit that no dog conforms perfectly to = its breed=20 standard. Thus the concept of the perfect type specimen, to which = an=20 entire breed ought to conform as closely as possible, is really as = foreign=20 to dog breeds as it is to animal species in the wild.

The fanatical pursuit of breed type to the = exclusion of=20 other more important factors (more important to the dog, to his = owner, and=20 to his veterinarian) has led to a distinctly unhealthy situation = in most=20 breeds. Since the majority of breeders within CKC seem to direct = their=20 efforts toward the production of a winning exhibition specimen, = and since=20 many breeders therefore breed their females to the males that do = the most=20 winning at dog shows, a situation has arisen in which continued = effort to=20 produce show winners leads consistently to greater and greater=20 exaggerations of "type", that being the factor most susceptible to = the=20 off-the-cuff three-minute analysis of the breed ring. It is an = accepted=20 fact that strong incest breeding is the fastest route to this kind = of=20 "success"; here is one successful show breeder's recipe for = "excellence"=20 [de Boer and de Boer, DOGS in Canada, April 1994]:

 

"My approach would be to identify an = outstanding,=20 dominant stud dog. Let's call him 'Shadrack.' To improve the = odds I'd=20 buy or lease three bitches whose grandsire on the dam's side was = the=20 same as Shadrack's sire. Let's call the grandsire 'Fashion = Hint.' I=20 would breed the Fashion Hint bitches to Shadrack. Assume, in = this first=20 generation, that I get three nice bitches. For the second = generation,=20 I'd breed them to a half-brother of these three bitches = (Shadrack's son,=20 also a dominant sire). For the third generation, several 'mix = and match'=20 options include going back to Fashion Hint or Shadrack. I could = also do=20 brother-to-sister or father-to-daughter breeding." Thus the = quest for=20 more and more refined breed type leads directly to a state of = advanced=20 homozygosity, rising inbreeding coefficient, low effective = breeding=20 population and consequent impoverishment of the gene pool in = most CKC=20 breeds, through rampant uncontrolled incest = breeding.

The show ring has also been largely responsible = for the=20 decline of breed purpose, working ability and temperament in a = great many=20 breeds, notably sporting breeds, herding breeds and sleddog = breeds. The=20 quick and easy gratification of blue ribbons and gilt trophies all = too=20 readily supplants the hard work necessary to preserve and advance = canine=20 working abilities. If our dog breeds are to conform to the ideal = of "a=20 sound mind in a sound body" (as advocated by the proponents of the = Advanced Registry), the fancy must find some way of ensuring that = less=20 dog-breeding takes place along the lines of least resistance and = cheap=20 gratification, so that greater attention is paid to working=20 characteristics, temperament and trainability. A balanced outlook = on breed=20 identity must be restored by integrating canine function with the = ideals=20 of conformation, beauty and "type." All kinds of dogs, toy breeds = not=20 excepted, can perform useful functions and respond to training. = Those=20 aspects of the fancy should be accorded an importance at least = fully equal=20 to that of type and conformation instead of being regarded as = merely=20 optional. For example, breeding and exhibition of utility breeds = such as=20 gundogs and sleddogs merely for sale as pets and for dog shows, = with no=20 effort made to maintain and advance their working capabilities, is = an=20 obvious abuse which must lead inevitably to mental and physical = degeneracy=20 in those breeds.

 

Abandoning Natural=20 Selection

The breeder of domestic stock often assumes = that he has=20 abandoned the realm of natural selection and that only artificial=20 selection plays a significant role in his breeding programme. = Nothing=20 could be further from the truth. The breeder may attempt to = abandon=20 natural selection; natural selection, however, will not abandon = his stock.=20 As one geneticist puts it:

 

"Man-imposed characteristics, however, like = the flower=20 colours and forms selected by the plant breeder, usually do not = perturb=20 the deep-set genetic variability systems of the species. Most = such=20 changes are reversible when a less restricted gene pool is = restored. The=20 'balance' system appears to be retained by natural selection, = which,=20 perhaps paradoxically, pervades most systems of artificial=20 selection."

(Hampton L. Carson, The Genetics of the = Founder Effect.=20 l983)

Those who attempt to set aside the balanced = genomes=20 arrived at by natural selection must struggle thereafter to attain = and to=20 maintain fitness in their stock. There is more to this than = mouthing=20 platitudes about "soundness." Artificial selection alone, such as = that=20 used to produce winning exhibition dogs, involves breeding in a = way which=20 flagrantly disregards most of the gene loci in the canine genome. = Since=20 genes assort in groups on chromosomes (a phenomenon known as = "linkage"),=20 inbreeding and selection for desired traits of superficial = appearance=20 unavoidably affect many other genes which are inadvertently = selected and=20 often fixed in a homozygous state in total ignorance of what is = happening.=20 This may be a major factor in the current prevalence of genetic = diseases.=20 Thus natural selection, baulked for a season by artificial = selection,=20 high-level nutrition, and advanced veterinary care, reasserts its = primacy=20 at a deeper and more serious level when the new genome as set up = by the=20 breeder proves flawed through genetic unsoundness, so that healthy = and=20 hardy animals can no longer be produced, however typey and = attractive to=20 the eyes of the judges the result may be.

Declining vigour caused by the inadvertent = fixation of=20 sublethal and subvital alleles will not be made up for by breed = points.=20 Fitness criteria may not be replaced with impunity by aesthetic = criteria.=20 The animal's environment is the ultimate arbiter of its fitness = and will=20 not be denied its say. You may vaccinate the dog and dose him with = antibiotics, feed him with vitamins and minerals as you like, = enclose him=20 in a sterile pathogen-free laboratory environment if it comes to = that!=20 Still natural selection may not be avoided; it only emerges at a = deeper=20 level. In a sense the dog's environmental includes his own = physical body;=20 if the genes which blueprint his physiology are flawed, then the = dog is=20 doomed regardless of his beauty and classic breed type. The truth = is that=20 the "superior strain" cannot be produced by manmade breeding = programmes=20 and artificial selection; the breeder's decisions are subject to = nature's=20 veto at all times.

With what, then, will the breeder replace = natural=20 selection? If he replaces it with profit, the degeneracy of his = stock will=20 in the end put him out of business as veterinary costs and death = eat up=20 his profit margin. If he replaces it with beauty contests, in the = end his=20 beautiful contest winners will engender weaklings and degenerates. = If he=20 replaces it with screening programmes for the "elimination of = genetic=20 defects," in the end his stock will succumb to inbreeding = depression as=20 bitches fail to whelp naturally and puppies die in the nest. If he = replaces it with veterinary care, in the end his stock will die=20 prematurely of incurable cancer, or the young will fall prey to = viral=20 diseases despite repeated polyvalent vaccinations. If he replaces = it with=20 work and austerity, his stock may endure awhile longer, but in the = end it=20 will turn out to be afflicted with genetic ills that slipped = through his=20 demanding programme, or its performance will mysteriously decline = as the=20 inbreeding coefficient creeps upward. In the end, natural = selection cannot=20 truly be replaced with artificial criteria. The breeder must find = a way to=20 work with natural selection, within the framework of what is now = known=20 about the biological operation of the natural world. We in the = canine=20 fancy must begin to take lessons from wildlife biologists, from=20 evolutionary biologists, from population geneticists.

In our quest for breed purity, the superior = strain, and=20 classic type, we have made a sad mess of our dogs - with unhappy, = neurotic=20 temperaments, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, immune system = weakness, skin=20 diseases, blood disorders, endocrine system malfunctions, = crippling blood=20 disorders, deliberate deformity, and often even the inability to = reproduce=20 their kind without breeder and veterinary intervention. How clever = we have=20 been!

Can we not now take a clear-sighted view as the = millennium turns slowly over, of what we have done - of our own=20 pitifully-flawed creation in our world of purebred dogs and, like = mature,=20 intelligent people, clear away the mess and try to do better? Can = we not=20 learn from bad experience? If we would be truly clever, we might = attempt=20 to imitate more closely the methods of nature, to work within the = natural=20 system, albeit for our own ends. That would indeed be clever. I = think that=20 that is now possible, if we would but step outside our own = incestuous=20 little purebred world and learn something of what people working = in other=20 zoological fields of endeavour have already learnt.

 

A = Century of=20 Nineteenth-Century Dog Breeding

How, then, may we set about correcting the = accumulated=20 errors of over a century of what we might call nineteenth-century = dog=20 breeding? First of all it might be wise to attempt a short-list=20 cataloguing the errors and abuses of which we are aware, the areas = known=20 to be deficient in one way or another.

 

  • Dog shows must come high on the list. They began as an arena = for the=20 evaluation of breeding stock, they continued in the form of the = "bench=20 show" as a public showcase for purebred dogs. Both functions are = now=20 illserved if not virtually abandoned. Championship shows are now = just=20 that, mills for the production of Champions, Best in Show and = Group=20 winners, little more. They contribute almost nothing to the true = welfare=20 of dog breeds; they have few lasting positive values to offer = breeders,=20 only ephemeral fads and fashions.=20
  • Breed purpose and the cultivation of canine utility have a = low=20 status in the fancy compared to what one author called the glitz = and=20 hype of the show world. Those who concern themselves with the = working=20 ability of their dogs exist mostly in ghettos where little = communication=20 takes place with other branches of the fancy.=20
  • Obedience work, begun as a way of initiating dog owners into = the=20 fascination and technique of training one's pet to be a = pleasant,=20 well-behaved companion, has become largely ritualised and = sterile. The=20 pursuit of "Club 200" (the perfect point score) has become an = obsession.=20 Intelligent and useful training on the owner's part, intelligent = obedience on the dog's part, are now beside the point. What = matters all=20 too frequently now is the minutely-perfect performance of a set = ritual.=20 Here again we find a canine ghetto.=20
  • The worship and exaggeration of type, as already noted, is=20 responsible for a multitude of ills.=20
  • Modern registries based on a rigidly-closed studbook are = throttling=20 the genetic health of all registered dog breeds. Genetic = impoverishment=20 is now a real and present threat. Many breeds now bear a genetic = load of=20 defects which has grown totally unmanageable as their respective = gene=20 pools have become more and more narrow through imprudent = breeding and=20 selection practices.=20
  • Incest breeding, once a convenient tool for the rapid = fixation of=20 type in newly-registered breeds, has become virtually standard = practice=20 for those who seek success in dog breeding. The net effect has = been the=20 decimation of gene pools, widespread homozygosity and the = unintended=20 fixation of unknown scores, hundreds or thousands of alleles, = many of=20 which are proving to be harmful or lethal to the animals that = bear them.=20
  • The CKC, born in the height of the Victorian era, seems to = cling to=20 cumbersome structures, making it difficult for the Club to = respond in a=20 timely fashion to external challenges or internal needs. The = entire=20 By-Law and Amendment structure could do with modernisation. Many = members=20 feel there is little justification for such practices (for = example) as=20 the three-year member apprenticeship proviso, under which new = members=20 (or old ones who for whatever reason have let their membership = lapse for=20 a year or more) are completely disenfranchised for anywhere from = three=20 to five-plus years (inasmuch as elections and referenda are = triennial),=20 costing the Club dearly in lost members and wasted talent. Many = members=20 also feel that Board of Directors initiatives are frequently = arbitrary=20 and undertaken hastily, with insufficient grassroots = consultation, while=20 initiatives from the general membership must go through a slow = and=20 cumbersome multi-stage routine before they can be acted upon. = One feels=20 a general atmosphere within the Club of elitism and = ultra-conservatism,=20 as if those in power felt that only they themselves, the "old = hands,"=20 knew what is good for purebred dogs and the fancy, and that = newer=20 members should not be entrusted with the franchise.=20
  • Breed clubs seem to possess little real power to represent = breeders=20 or their breeds effectively. Special measures which they may = feel=20 essential for the health, development, and protection of the = breeds=20 whose breeders they represent must be put through the centralist = CKC=20 system and approved by the Board before they become effective; = often=20 such measures have little chance of approval because they are = felt to=20 conflict with the rigid all-breed norms of the Club. Since breed = clubs=20 have relatively little real power, they often tend to be less = than fully=20 representative of all breeders of a particular breed. Frequently = they=20 are more or less run by cliques; they waste much time and effort = in=20 wrangling and personalities, being perhaps inadequately = supervised and=20 not taken terribly seriously.=20
  • Breeders, as well, are sometimes far from free to make their = own=20 responsible decisions for the best interests of their own dogs = and=20 bloodlines being closely constrained by CKC Bylaws and by the = Animal=20 Pedigree Act. Little discretion is given them regarding matters = such as=20 the withholding of registration papers, delaying registration of = stock=20 until it reaches physical maturity, the introduction of new = genetic=20 material when in their judgment it is needed for genetic health, = etc.=20

Many of the abuses and deficiencies not rooted = in=20 outmoded attitudes such as racism and elitism arise from = misunderstandings=20 of genetic realities. Let us now examine briefly a few points of=20 up-to-date genetic theory as they relate to purebred dog = populations.

 

Lessons from = Population=20 Genetics

Gene Frequencies

Much of the work of population genetics = involves=20 estimating or calculating gene frequencies, which quantify the = relative=20 commonness or scarcity, within a particular population, of alleles = at a=20 particular gene locus. If there is only one version of a gene in = the=20 population, then the entire population is necessarily homozygous = for that=20 gene. Gene frequencies are expressed as decimal fractions which = must add=20 up to unity, so a gene without alternative alleles has a frequency = of 1.0.=20 The gene frequency figure is a ratio of the number of copies of = alternate=20 versions of a gene in the population, independent of the number of = animals=20 involved and of whether they have the gene in homozygous or = heterozygous=20 form. An individual may have two copies of the same allele or it = may have=20 one or none. For example, if a locus has two alleles, and the = population=20 involved consists of fifty animals, and there are 25 copies of one = allele,=20 then the frequency for that allele is 0.25; therefore the = frequency of the=20 other allele must be 0.75, with 75 copies of it in the same = population. It=20 must be emphasised that gene frequency by itself says nothing = about=20 relative heterozygosity or homozygosity; it deals only with = quantitative=20 aspects of alleles in the population, not the diploid genotype of=20 individuals.

 

Founder Events

Perhaps the most crucial concept in population = genetics=20 for dog breeders is the founder event, for its theory describes = perfectly=20 what takes place when a breed is "recognised" by CKC or a similar=20 registry. Whatever may be the state of genetic balance or the = frequency=20 with which particular alleles are found in the general canine = population,=20 it all changes when a founder event occurs. In nature such events = happen=20 when individuals of a species occupy and reproduce in territory = new to the=20 species, losing contact with the source population of the migrants = (as=20 when small birds are deposited by hurricane winds on mid-ocean = islands).=20 The founder event describes the establishing of a small = population,=20 although later on it may grow to be a large one. When a finite = number of=20 individuals found a new population group, the genome of the new = group will=20 necessarily reflect the genes brought to it by the founder = animals; gene=20 frequencies within that population will reflect the gene = frequencies=20 within the founder group rather than that of the source = population. In=20 this way, when a founder event occurs, a gene quite rare in the = source=20 population may have a much higher frequency in the new population; = conversely, genes common in the source population may be = infrequent or=20 even absent from the new population. It all depends on the genes = of the=20 founders! Thus a genetic defect extremely rare in the overall = canine=20 population can come to be common in a particular breed simply = because one=20 or more individuals of a small breed foundation carried that = gene.

 

Hardy-Weinberg Principle

The Hardy-Weinberg Principle states that under = certain=20 specific conditions (random mating, very large population group, = no=20 mutations, absence of selection pressure, for example), the = relative=20 allele frequencies of genes at a given locus will not change from=20 generation to generation and can be described by an equation, = allowing the=20 geneticist to create a mathematical model of gene frequencies = within the=20 population. Without trying to explain the equation and its = operation here,=20 we can still say in general that the net result is that = heterozygote=20 organisms will be much more numerous than homozygotes in a = Hardy-Weinberg=20 population. Many natural populations can be described in this way, = although purebred dog populations cannot, since they are subject = to=20 inbreeding, artificial selection, non-random mating and small = populations.=20 Nonetheless, the principle has a certain significance, in that the = overwhelming preponderance of heterozygotes in natural populations = means=20 natural selection tends to favour the heterozygote. Thus the = natural=20 genetic balance systems of most species include a high degree of=20 heterozygosity [Carson, 1983]. When we as dog breeders use incest = breeding=20 and artificial selection to fix characteristics arbitrarily, we = are=20 therefore quite likely to upset the natural genetic balance of the = canine=20 species in our breed populations. Moreover, the natural = preponderance of=20 heterozygotes is rendered even more important by overdominance = effects,=20 described below.

 

Genetic Drift

Small populations, such as most purebred dog = breeds, are=20 subject to a condition known as genetic drift. This is a situation = in=20 which gene frequencies change at random from generation to = generation,=20 varying from statistical expectations because of sampling error. = (Sampling=20 error occurs when too small a number of trials departs from the=20 expectations of probability, as when someone flips a coin six = times and=20 gets five heads and one tail - if he flipped it 600 times, the = results=20 would be close to 300 heads, 300 tails, but in a small sample, = chance can=20 cause a departure from the expected result.) This happens also = when=20 gametes unite to form zygotes in reproduction; the union of = gametes is at=20 random by hazard. A dominant black dog, whose dam was white, when = bred to=20 a white bitch should in theory produce equal numbers of white and = black=20 pups, but few breeders would be very surprised to see 2 whites and = 6=20 blacks, or vice versa. Yet when such sampling errors occur in = small=20 populations, over subsequent generations gene frequencies can = change,=20 taking a random walk that leads finally to the loss of one allele = and the=20 fixation of the other! The smaller the population, the fewer = generations=20 this result is likely to take. In a very large population, it will = not=20 happen at all. Genes are lost and other genes fixed completely at = random=20 in this way by genetic drift.

 

Generation Time

Since in limited, genetically isolated = populations such=20 as CKC breeds a certain amount of genetic diversity is lost with = each=20 reproductive event through the action of genetic drift, inbreeding = and=20 artificial selection. The number of generations from the founder = event=20 becomes an issue. The average time between one generation and the = next is=20 a convenient yardstick to help us realise the relative rate of = genetic=20 attrition. A few instances exist in which certain bloodlines - = working=20 dogs, usually - are bred conservatively enough that the generation = time is=20 as much as an average six or seven years.

But this appears to be exceptional. Many = exhibition lines=20 seem to operate on the following model: "Phoo-Phoo" starts his = show career=20 at six months of age in Junior Puppy class, is heavily = "campaigned" and=20 has all his Championship points by ten months of age. The owners'=20 immediate "bragging ad" in "DOGS in Canada" or the breed club = newsletter=20 recounts his triumph, adding that "puppies from Ch. (subject to = CKC=20 confirmation) Phoo-Phoo are eagerly awaited next month". In such = lines the=20 average generation time may be two years or even less. This = reproductive=20 rush has two implications: first, a greatly accelerated rate of = loss of=20 genetic diversity; second, an implicit selection for early = maturity which=20 carries with it an elevated risk of joint disease and a lowering = of=20 average longevity.

 

Effective Breeding Population

The population figure that matters in = situations such as=20 random genetic drift is not the total number of individuals alive = at any=20 one time. Nor is it even, as one might think, the actual number of = individuals that contribute progeny to the next generation. = Variations in=20 breeding population from one generation to the next have a marked = effect,=20 such that the effective breeding population, especially where = variations=20 in number are extreme, tends to be only modestly greater than the = lowest=20 number. Another factor which makes a great difference and is = crucially=20 important in purebred animals is the sex ratio of successful = reproductors.=20 The effective breeding population can never be greater than four = times the=20 number of males, no matter how numerous the females may be, since = gametes=20 must come from both sexes. Thus anything that limits the number of = males=20 in use drastically restricts the effective breeding population. = Overuse of=20 popular sires is a tremendous factor in the genetic impoverishment = of=20 purebred dogs. One of the major drawbacks of the proposed CKC = Advanced=20 Registry is the virtual certainty that the existence and promotion = of a=20 few "elite" sires, titled, temperament-tested and certified = "clear" of=20 major hereditary diseases, will further dramatically reduce the = effective=20 breeding population in many breeds, causing further declines in = breed=20 vitality and viability and leading to the loss of vitally-needed = breeding=20 lines which happen not to be among the elite group.

 

Linkage Disequilibrium

Genes found on the same chromosome will fail to = assort=20 independently in accordance with Mendelian principles. Such genes = are said=20 to be in a state of linkage disequilibrium. This simple fact has a = devastating effect in artificial selection, since it means in = practice=20 that when a breeder selects for or against any single-gene trait = whatever,=20 whether he is aware of the fact or not he is also selecting for or = against=20 every other gene located on the same chromosome. This is how = genetic=20 defects become rapidly fixed in inbred populations subjected to = artificial=20 selection. Since dogs have only 78 chromosomes (diploid number) = but many=20 thousands of genes, obviously linkage disequilibrium can be = tremendously=20 influential. Genes that are linked eventually become unlinked over = time=20 (except in certain special situations) through crossing over, a = process=20 whereby chromosome pairs exchange segments of their DNA structure = during=20 meiosis. The unlinking process however, is slow and unpredictable; = it=20 offers little hope of remedying the linkage disequilibrium problem = in a=20 few generations and of course is no help at all where deleterious = alleles=20 have already become fixed.

 

Overdominance

Situations exist in which a heterozygote = individual=20 enjoys a survival advantage over both the recessive homozygote and = the=20 dominant homozygote of the same gene; this is called overdominance = or=20 heterozygote superiority. As yet not much seems to be known about = this=20 mechanism and proven examples of specific overdominant genes are = rare.=20 Nonetheless this mechanism may be one reason (apart from their = usually=20 recessive nature) why genetic defects are persistently found in = genomes=20 despite their apparent fitness disadvantage in the homozygous = state. While=20 on this subject it is worth noting that population genetics offers = mathematical models for various forms of selective breeding, = including the=20 selective elimination of individuals bearing homozygous recessive = genes=20 for harmful traits. These models demonstrate that the elimination = from the=20 breeding population of individuals homozygous for unwanted traits = has only=20 the smallest effect in changing the allele frequency! It has been=20 calculated, for example, that to reduce the expression of the = recessive=20 albino gene in humans from one in ten thousand to one in one = million,=20 simply by prohibiting albino (i.e. homozygote) individuals from = having=20 children, would require nine hundred generations of such selective = breeding to accomplish! This is one of several reasons why = screening=20 programmes, although perhaps profitable for the veterinary = profession, are=20 of questionable effectiveness, since they identify only affected = (usually=20 homozygous) individuals.

 

Heterosis

More commonly known as hybrid vigour, heterosis = is a=20 situation in which a cross of two or sometimes three highly-inbred = bloodlines displays enhanced performance for some desired trait, = as for=20 example higher yield in corn. It works best in plant species = capable of=20 self-fertilisation, but has been amply demonstrated in domestic = livestock=20 species. It is worth noting that in practice many different inbred = lines=20 must be developed at the same time, that most of the inbred lines = become=20 so unfit that they must be discarded as they become non-viable, = and that=20 considerable random trial of different crosses must be done to = establish=20 which lines will actually yield the desired result. Although the=20 seed-grower's methods are unsuited to purebred dogs, the overall = principle=20 is of interest, since it is thought that heterosis works because = of the=20 heterozygosity of the hybrid generation, probably through the = action of=20 both dominant and overdominant genes. Geneticists are now starting = to=20 realise that the balanced-heterozygote systems of many wild = species=20 involve a heterosis effect which gives them a high degree of = fitness.

 

Inbreeding Depression

As genetic variability diminishes and = homozygosity rises=20 through inbreeding, a syndrome known as inbreeding depression sets = in. It=20 is characterised by a reduction in viability (survival of = individual=20 progeny), birth weight, fecundity (number of young) and fertility=20 (reproductive success), among other things. Much of it is caused = by the=20 homozygous presence of rare, deleterious recessive alleles. Part = of it may=20 also be due to the relative absence of overdominant heterozygote=20 combinations. As inbreeding depression becomes more severe, highly = inbred=20 lines tend to become extinct through the loss of ability to = reproduce=20 successfully and / or inability of the young to survive. It varies = somewhat in intensity from species to species, due probably to = variations=20 in the number and nature of lethal, sublethal and subvital alleles = involved. Some wild mammals which show almost no juvenile = mortality when=20 bred in captivity without inbreeding, exhibit 100 percent juvenile = mortality when inbred! A survey of captive breeding records for 44 = species=20 [Ralls & Ballou, 1979, 1982] showed that juvenile mortality of = inbred=20 young was higher than that of noninbred young in 41 of the 44 = species for=20 which records were analysed.

 

Genetic Load

The difference between the fittest genotype of = a=20 population and the average fitness of that population is known as = genetic=20 load. [Muller, 1950] It is, of course, caused by the presence of = lethal,=20 sublethal and subvital alleles. The more such alleles found in a=20 population, the greater the genetic load. Genetic load is = sometimes=20 measured by the number of lethal equivalents, and the severity of=20 inbreeding depression can be quantified in this way. Humans in = general=20 normally carry in a heterozygous state from 5 to 8 lethal = equivalents per=20 person - genes or combinations of genes any one of which, if = homozygous,=20 would cause the death of the organism. It should be emphasised = that=20 genetic load is present in every population, since never are all=20 individuals maximally fit. The presence of lethal, sublethal and = subvital=20 genes is a normal state of affairs in all species. Homozygotes for = such=20 genes are usually so infrequent as to have little effect on = species=20 fitness. It is only when founder events and inbreeding occur that = the gene=20 frequency of deleterious alleles rises and genetic defects start = to become=20 a problem as the growing genetic load degrades the fitness of the = inbred,=20 limited population. Thus in the case of purebred dogs the problem = does not=20 inhere in the presence of "defect" genes, but in the registry and = breeding=20 practices of the purebred dog fancy!

 

Balanced Heterozygous Population Structure

In recent decades growing evidence from DNA = studies of=20 protein polymorphism conclusively disproved the "classical" view = of=20 species as being homozygous at most loci, with the phenotypes of = all=20 individuals of a species conforming to that of a type specimen. = Population=20 geneticists and evolutionary biologists now realise that = typological=20 concepts are useless in a natural world in which populations may = best be=20 described genetically not as individuals conforming to a type but = as=20 arrays of genetic variability. Some of the implications of the = "balance=20 view" are elucidated by one geneticist as follows:

 

Species that are diploid and cross-fertilised = [this=20 includes all mammals]... characteristically carry large stores = of=20 genetic variability in a balanced state in their populations... = Genetic=20 recombination naturally generates diverse genetic types from the = large=20 field of variability in the gene pool. In order to meet = environmental=20 challenges, natural selection in many such organisms tends to = develop a=20 system based on the higher fitness of heterozygotes. These are=20 maintained under regimes of selection that exploit the = advantages of=20 heterozygosity for many alleles simultaneously. In these, the = large=20 amount of genetic variability is continually being recombined as = balanced hybrid vigour is maximised...

The genetic system is not a fixed and frozen = entity but=20 is dynamic and variable... By its very nature, this genetic = system is=20 inimical to the perpetuation of sameness. At each reproductive = event an=20 enormous field of genetic variability is produced. Most of the=20 variability is held in sexual populations by a complex balancing = selection based on the superiority of fitness of = heterozygotes...

The biological conserver, short of putting = the DNA into=20 liquid nitrogen, cannot hope to freeze the characteristics of = any=20 natural population, be it a deme (local population), a = subspecies, or a=20 species.

Hampton L. Carson. The Genetics of the = Founder Effect,=20 1983

Efforts at artificial selection and breeding = which=20 attempt to defy this system of balanced heterozygosity and = variability=20 will almost certainly fall foul of the kind of difficulties we are = now=20 encountering in purebred dog breeds. It is hopeless to attempt to = freeze=20 the genetic characteristics of small populations and even the = attempt,=20 which is doomed to eventual failure, is quite costly in terms of = the loss=20 of hardiness and viability. Artificially selected populations, = too, can=20 and should be maintained in a state of dynamic heterozygous = balance. Thus=20 the entire problem of genetic defects would be minimised.

 

Assortative Mating

Assortative mating is a method of selective = breeding=20 capable of creating homozygosity for desired traits without having = as=20 great an effect on overall homozygosity as does inbreeding. It = consists of=20 mating phenotypically similar individuals that are not closely = related.=20 This method of selective breeding would be capable of maintaining = a=20 reasonable range of breed type in a balanced-heterozygosity breed = system=20 with an open studbook.

Having now acquired a few of the more crucial = concepts of=20 population genetics, we are prepared to examine in a new light the = nineteenth-century system of dog breeding and registration which = we have=20 inherited. As we prepare to enter the twenty-first century, = perhaps we can=20 conceive a renewed system which will serve our dogs and their = breeders far=20 better than the present one.

 

The Crux of the = Problem

As we face the millennium, the one problem = which most=20 concerns the entire purebred dog fancy is genetic defects. = Breeders used=20 to worry about overshot/undershot bite and cryptorchidism. Not = much else=20 of a genetic nature was cause for concern; fanciers were a lot = more=20 worried about distemper, hepatitis and internal parasites. = Breeding=20 programmes concentrated on individuals' visions of canine = excellence. Then=20 in the 1960s the tip of the genetic iceberg emerged as concern = grew about=20 a joint disorder called hip dysplasia. A control programme = involving the=20 examination of hip xrays by a skilled scrutineer and the = maintenance of a=20 registry of animals "cleared" of the defect was established at the = Ontario=20 Veterinary College at Guelph, Ontario. Now after three decades of = the OVC=20 programme it has been pretty well established that "clear" animals = with=20 several generations of "clear" ancestry can nonetheless produce = dysplastic=20 progeny [Chidiac-Storimans 1995]! Hence the OVC control programme = would=20 seem to be of questionable effectiveness. As the generations of=20 closed-studbook breeding have advanced, a panoply of other = inherited=20 problems has emerged in purebred dog breeds. There is no need to = list them=20 here; the list would be on its way to obsolescence in a month or = so;=20 veterinary research continues to define more inherited disorders=20 regularly. Many breeders now run four-way screening programmes; = some may=20 screen for even more problems. Many breeders' selection programmes = for=20 various kinds of canine excellence must now be at a standstill - = all the=20 selection is going into the effort to produce stock "clear" for = eyes,=20 hips, elbows, blood disorders, endocrine dysfunction, etc. Yet = thirty=20 years of xrays have not eliminated hip dysplasia - it is now = widespread in=20 breeds in which it was not a problem thirty years ago.

In December 1994, Time = magazine=20 published a scathing indictment of the American Kennel Club and of = purebred dogs and their breeders, targeting in a cover story the = problem=20 of genetic ills, suggesting that the best use of pedigree papers = was for=20 housebreaking the puppies and recommending that the public satisfy = its=20 desire for canine companionship with mongrels. Since then, most of = us have=20 known we have an untenable situation on our hands. Our reputation = as=20 breeders of purebreds is now in tatters; we are caricatured in the = media=20 as greedy, uncaring producers of degenerate animals. The CKC's = main=20 response to the situation was a Board policy statement that = "reputable=20 breeders will provide a detailed written guarantee of the present = and=20 future good health of the dog and will not hesitate to uphold = their=20 guarantees." The policy statement, far from helping the situation, = only=20 saddled breeders officially with a heavy responsibility without = enacting=20 measures which might assist them in living up to it.

It is time for us as dog breeders to stand up = for=20 ourselves and for our dogs, to reject the imputation that we = ourselves are=20 individually to blame for the problem of genetic defects, and to = demand=20 swift remedial action by the Club and, if necessary, Agriculture = Canada.=20 The crux of the problem is the closed studbook and with it, the = ideal of=20 breed purity, the worship of type and the preeminence of the = championship=20 show as goal and arbiter of most breeding programmes. Armed with = the=20 concepts of population genetics, we can now examine the last: = century of=20 nineteenth-century dog breeding, ascertain what has gone wrong, = and=20 establish ways and means to correct the situation.

Earlier we stated that the recognition of a = breed by a=20 registry was a crucial event in its history, more crucial than it = need be.=20 That is because the usual practice has been to open the registry = to=20 foundation stock for a limited period, to inspect and register a = small=20 population of foundation animals, and then to close the registry = to new=20 genetic inflow forever after, with the sole exception of animals = of the=20 same breed imported from other registries and derived from the = same or=20 closely-related foundation stock. In recent decades there has = usually been=20 no unique Canadian foundation stock except in the case of = indigenous=20 breeds; CKC merely accepts registered stock from other = jurisdictions.=20 (Actually the relationship of CKC foundation stock to that of = other=20 registries has never been clearly defined, so far as I know. CKC = accepts=20 registration papers of other studbooks which it considers to be=20 "reliable." So long as the export pedigree shows three generations = of=20 registered, numbered ancestry; import stock seems to be eligible = for CKC=20 status without question. The criteria involved are clerical, not = genetic.)=20 Most of the breeds we are familiar with were founded from sixty to = over=20 one hundred years ago. In those days Canada's population was much = smaller=20 than it is now; the canine population was correspondingly smaller, = too.=20 Thus the number of dogs accepted during the open-registry periods = was=20 rather limited.

The canine species possesses tremendous genetic = diversity=20 as a whole. Like most species, that diversity includes a genetic = load, a=20 wide variety of more or less deleterious alleles, probably quite a = few of=20 them held in a state of heterozygote superiority, so that although = natural=20 selection tends to eliminate homozygote recessives when they = segregate,=20 the bad alleles themselves maintain a strong presence due to the = selective=20 advantage of the superior heterozygote. What happens when a = founder event=20 occurs? Then it is possible that bad alleles, uncommon in the = canine=20 population as a whole, may achieve a much higher frequency of = occurrence=20 owing to their presence in a small founder population - especially = since=20 the foundation stock of a newly-recognised breed will already be=20 considerable inbred from the breed development process. Inbreeding = and=20 selection together raise homozygosity levels dramatically through = the=20 wholesale elimination of alleles from the genome. Those alleles = may be=20 unwanted by the creators of a new breed; nevertheless their = elimination=20 raises the allele frequency of whatever remains.

 

An Example from One = Breed

Thus the recognition of a breed creates a = founder event=20 when the registry is opened; a limited number of breed foundation = animals=20 are selected, often from a population which has already undergone=20 considerable inbreeding and selection. Let us take for an example = the=20 Siberian Husky breed. Registered in 1939, the initial CKC = population=20 consisted of 47 animals, all belonging to or bred by one kennel! = Of those=20 47, nine were foundation stock of the kennel whose dogs were = registered.=20 Two of those were males imported from Siberia - littermate = brothers! The=20 other seven were mostly related to one another. (Two were = seven-eighths=20 Siberian and one-eighth Malamute.) The other thirty-eight were all = progeny=20 and grand-progeny of the founders. Of the nine foundation animals, = two=20 were not bred from at all. Two were mated - once only - to each = other: one=20 only of their progeny contributed to further breeding. Of the two = Siberia=20 import males, one brother was always bred to the same bitch, = producing a=20 large number of progeny of identical pedigree; the other brother = was=20 usually bred to daughters of the first brother. Today Siberian = Husky lines=20 that trace directly back to the Canadian foundation stock owe 25% = of their=20 pedigree lines to the first brother, 15% to the second brother, = and 27% to=20 the first brother's invariable mate! Two-thirds of the genetic = heritage of=20 these modern Siberian Huskies derives from only three foundation = animals!=20 This is not an exceptional situation, it is a fair example of the = early=20 breeding history of CKC breeds.

In the case of the Siberian Husky, then, (which = happens=20 to be my breed, with whose early history I am reasonably well = familiar),=20 The Canadian Kennel Club opened a registry in 1939, inspected one = kennel's=20 dogs and admitted four dozen closely-related individuals to the = registry,=20 which was then closed permanently. No effort was made to ensure a = broad=20 foundation, nor a numerous one, nor a genetically diverse one.

Just how permanently the registry was closed I = recently=20 found out when I imported from Russia a dog bred to the Siberian = Husky=20 standard! The dog was born in the Ural Mountains well within the=20 boundaries of Siberia from parents of Chukotkan village origins; = he had=20 three generations of known ancestry (without registration numbers = since=20 there is no official "Siberian Husky" registry in Russia). I was=20 immediately told that the Club "did not know what to do" about my=20 application to register the dog, that the protocols used to = register breed=20 foundation animals in 1939 were no longer valid, and that my dog = "should=20 not be used for breeding because it would probably be a long = process," in=20 spite of the fact that the dog had a valid FCI Export Pedigree = from the=20 Czech Republic (through which he was exported). A year and a half = later=20 after repeated in camera discussions, the import was refused = recognition=20 by the Board and Registration Committee on grounds of inadequate=20 information (no ancestral registration numbers). Repeated calls = for Club=20 inspection of the import and offers to submit the animal to DNA = tests and=20 progeny testing were ignored. The registry is closed - even to new = Siberia=20 imports!

For the past fifty-six years, then, all = Siberian Huskies=20 bred in Canada have stemmed from the 1939 registrations, or from = American=20 imports, which mostly stem from the same dogs CKC registered, plus = perhaps=20 three additional animals. The original foundation animals were = poorly=20 utilised and subsequent generations were so closely inbred that = the two=20 Siberia import males plus one bitch are even today still = statistically=20 equivalent to grandparents of every single Siberian now = registered!

Thus the original founder event in my breed = plus the=20 closed studbook has resulted in a state of forced inbreeding for = Siberian=20 Huskies. There is no such thing as an outcross mating in Siberians = in any=20 genetically meaningful sense. A sire can be found, perhaps, who = may have=20 no ancestors in common with a bitch for the last 5 or 6 = generations - if=20 one knows all Siberian bloodlines well enough and doesn't mind = going a few=20 thousand miles to find him - but he will not be an outcross, = because all=20 of his ancestors and all of the bitch's ancestors are the same = animals,=20 once the pedigree is taken back far enough. It would be difficult = to=20 calculate inbreeding coefficients for fifteen to thirty = generations of=20 ancestry; software to handle calculations of that nature doesn't = seem to=20 be generally available to breeders. (After all, a = thirty-generation=20 pedigree would contain over two billion names.)

Thirty generations of breeding all going back = to ten dogs=20 or fewer represents an impressive feat of sustained inbreeding!=20 Predictably enough Siberian Huskies, which eighty-five years ago = were=20 probably the toughest, hardiest variety of dogs on earth, now = suffer from=20 the same gamut of genetic defects that afflicts other breeds. Few = if any=20 registered Siberians are now able to perform as sleddogs on = anything=20 approaching the level of the 1910 dogs imported from Siberia. = Probably=20 this is mostly due to the decline in heterozygosity and loss of = vitality=20 through inbreeding. What is worse, unmistakable signs of = inbreeding=20 depression are surfacing in the breed: rising numbers of Caesarean = births,=20 smaller litters, lower birth weights, delicate nestlings prone to=20 infection, etc. Breeders of domestic livestock - cattle, poultry, = sheep -=20 manage to run registries and maintain breed type without imposing = the=20 concept of absolute breed purity. They inbreed to fix desirable = traits, as=20 do dog breeders. Livestock breeders, however, do not try to = pretend that=20 they can inbreed forever without ill effects. Thus when inbreeding = depression or genetic defects threaten, they outcross - = repeatedly, if=20 necessary. They can do so because they do not have closed = studbooks. I do=20 not suggest that we slavishly copy the procedures and registry = structures=20 of livestock associations, because I think they, too, might = benefit from=20 some restructuring in the light of modern genetic knowledge. = Nonetheless I=20 would make the point that we in the canine fancy are in a minority = when we=20 cling to absolute ideals of breed purity and insist on rigidly = closed=20 studbooks.

As a dramatic contrast to the foregoing example = of the=20 CKC's Siberian Husky breed foundation, let us examine for a moment = the=20 standards which Agriculture Canada now applies to new domestic = animal=20 breeds in this country, as set forth in a three-page leaflet = entitled=20 "Establishment of a New Breed of Animals in Canada." Agriculture = Canada=20 now requires that breed foundation stock (that is to say, the = first=20 generation of registered animals of a new breed) be selected from = the=20 third filial generation (F3) or later of the "evolving breed" = which=20 precedes the actual, registered new breed. It lays down no = parameters for=20 the founder generation of the evolving breed, but it does = state:

 

The standard used for the creation of a new = breed is as=20 follows:

  • Minimum number of animals to constitute the foundation = stock of=20 the new breed (F3): 200 animals (unique genotypes).=20
  • In order to reach the required 200 F3 animals and in order = to=20 provide a sufficiently wide genetic base, it is recommended = that the=20 minimum number of animals to be produced in each F level be:=20
    Fl : 60 animals=20
    F2: 100 animals =

It also stipulates that "the F3 generation is = the=20 earliest generation to become eligible for inspection as = foundation=20 stock... In practice most evolving breeds will evolve over many=20 generations before having developed a significant population of = foundation=20 animals."

These modern standards are at least somewhat = influenced=20 by population genetics considerations, in an attempt to establish = a basis=20 for genetic health and stability for new animal breeds in Canada. = Yet (in=20 all probability very few of our existing CKC dog breeds, which are = arguably of much greater economic importance than any new breed, = would=20 come anywhere near to the foundation stock numbers now enforced by = Agriculture Canada. The sole exceptions would probably be breeds, = like the=20 Canadian Eskimo Dog, accepted for registration during the last = decade or=20 two. As for the Siberian Husky, its actual genetic founders (those = whose=20 genes contributed to future generations, leaving aside those which = did not=20 reproduce) numbered 6 only; the Fl generation which actually = reproduced=20 numbered 8 individuals; the F2 generation which actually = reproduced=20 numbered just 5 animals; no F3 animals were registered in the = first year=20 of CKC registrations -- original founders. F1s and F2s were all = registered=20 together in the first year.

Thus it is obvious that the Siberian Husky, at = least,=20 could not begin to satisfy current Agriculture Canada standards = for an=20 appropriate number and variety of foundation stock to establish a = new=20 breed, when traced to its historic foundation. In all probability, = few CKC=20 breeds could do so. Yet the registry norms that are rigidly = enforced by=20 CKC, backed up by Agriculture Canada make the acceptance into the = studbook=20 of badly-needed new foundation stock a complete impossibility! = Presumably=20 Agriculture Canada has good and sufficient reasons justifying its = standard=20 for new breeds -- that being the case, then it is a curiously = irrational=20 situation that older, existing registered breeds not only are = exempt from=20 any such standard, but are actually prohibited from enlarging = their=20 founder group by the acceptance of unrelated primitive stock.

 

The Holistic Breed

Now I would like to evoke a vision of the = future -- but=20 not the distant future. I want to describe how dog breeds might be = in the=20 twenty-first century. Instead of all breeds being subjected to = arbitrary=20 structures not equally well suited to them all, each breed would = get=20 whatever special measures its breeders thought necessary. Instead = of a=20 fragmented canine fancy with ghettos of show, fanciers, obedience = buffs,=20 and working-dog specialists, dog breeds would have the benefit of = a=20 holistic outlook, integrating the various aspects of canine: = activity and=20 producing well-rounded, versatile, mentally stable animals. Let me = stress=20 that the suggestions which follow will be fully practical and=20 down-to-earth. They involve no technology we don't already = possess. They=20 require no knowledge that isn't already generally available. All = that is=20 needed is a proactive attitude and the will to make necessary = changes in=20 an obsolescent structure. This vision could become a = reality=20 within ten years time.

At the beginning of this brief I stated that = the three=20 distinct axes along which breeds are distinguished -- ancestry, = purpose,=20 and typology -- had to relate fully and cooperatively, or the = fullness of=20 breed identity would be missing or marred. Let me now describe how = such a=20 relationship might he achieved.

To begin with, we absolutely must open CKC stud = books, in=20 every breed, to new genetic inflow. There can be no long-term = genetic=20 health in small populations such as our registered breeds without = the=20 periodic infusion of new genetic material. The one big "sacrifice" = we=20 shall have to make, if it is really a sacrifice, is to abandon = racist=20 attitudes and the concept of rigorous breed purity. We must = recognize that=20 first of all, a dog is a dog, species Canis familiaris, = and that=20 is his true identity. He is a dog first, before he is a Siberian = Husky or=20 a Foxhound or a Doberman; breed identity is subordinate to species = identity. We must stop treating breeds as if they were species, = abandon=20 the rigidity and narrow typological thinking which has heretofore=20 characterized the canine fancy. We must recognize that dogs are = unique=20 individuals and that there is no positive value in trying to = create groups=20 of dogs which are all clones or photocopies of a type specimen = represented=20 by a breed standard. This should not be too hard, since breeders = and=20 judges have never been able to arrive at agreed and consistent=20 interpretations of breed standards anyway. Why, then, should we = pretend=20 that a standard, which as it now exists evokes a different = imagistic=20 interpretation in the mind of each individual breeder and judge, = describes=20 a single ideal type?

Canine breeds can and should be differentiated, = bred and=20 maintained on a dynamically balanced, heterozygous population = basis=20 without restriction to a closed, historic founder group. The = closed=20 studbook and the breed purity concept are, from a genetic point of = view,=20 simply unnecessary. Indeed, as we have seen, from the standpoint = of=20 maintaining a genetically healthy limited population, they are = thoroughly=20 counterproductive. Where is the logic in submitting each and every = CKC=20 breed to a registry system which guarantees ongoing, progressive = genetic=20 degeneration, loss of species vigor and hardiness, and saddles = every=20 breeder with the unwanted, unhappy responsibility of producing = more and=20 more unhealthy, flawed stock as time goes by? The notion that = genetic=20 disease can be controlled, much less eliminated, by screening = programs and=20 selection has not been borne out by general experience. Those who = promote=20 such a notion are engaging in a cruel, self serving deception. It = may be=20 that a breeder can sometimes improve his odds against producing = defective=20 stock in a given mating by screening the parents, but experience = has=20 proved that screening will not solve our genetic problems in any = wider=20 sense. Despite generation after generation of "clear" stock, = bloodlines=20 can still produce more and more affected animals. That is because = our=20 problems are inherent in the closed studbook/incest breeding = system. In=20 order to restore genetic health we shall have to adopt a different = system.

It will be asked, "Just how will the opening of = our=20 studbooks to outcross stock bring about the elimination of genetic = defects?" The answer is that it will not eliminate = genetic=20 defects. That need not be the end in view. If we could somehow = eliminate=20 all the various genes now known to produce harmful anomalies, plus = all of=20 those yet to be discovered, we would almost certainly find that = the=20 remaining genome was non-viable, that healthy reproduction and = growth to=20 maturity could not reliably take place. Genetic defects are not=20 "eliminated" in nature. Instead random mating and behaviour = patterns that=20 discourage inbreeding take care of the problem by ensuring high = levels of=20 heterozygosity and the consequent rarity of defective homozygotes. = If we=20 take steps to set up similar patterns in purebred dogs, we shall = be able=20 to reduce the level of expression of = defective=20 genes greatly, which is all that is required. The end in view is = healthy=20 stock, not "racial purity." Purged and purified bloodlines would = be weak=20 for other reasons, as has been explained. As the mapping of the = canine=20 genome progresses and RFLP allozyme or microsatellite "markers" = for common=20 genetic defects are found, we shall probably then be able to use = DNA=20 studies to recommend matings that will avoid the production of = defective=20 homozygous progeny -- provided that we have made enough genetic = diversity=20 available through outcrossing to give us the genetically distinct = lines=20 from which to choose! As things stand now, most breeds are so = homozygous=20 that it could prove extremely difficult to find matings which = would avoid=20 one genetic defect without reinforcing another!

 

New Structures = for the Dog=20 Fancy

Very well, then, if we eliminate the closed = studbook, how=20 shall we decide what stock to admit for registration? One must = begin, of=20 course, with the existing body of registered stock. Thereafter, = one way of=20 proceeding might be to strengthen and empower the breed clubs. = They should=20 be granted responsibility and autonomy: responsibility for the = welfare of=20 their breeds, and autonomy to make the judgments and decisions = necessary=20 to fulfill that responsibility. It should also be ensured that the = breed=20 clubs are fully representative of all breeders, by making breed = club=20 membership a requirement for anyone wishing to register stock he = has bred=20 or imported.

The first task of the breed clubs would then be = for each=20 of them to determine what sources of genetic inflow might best be = employed=20 in their breed. Breeders alone can command the collective = expertise to=20 make that decision and it ought to be theirs alone, but the = designation of=20 outcross sources should be obligatory, not optional. The Siberian = Husky=20 Club of Canada, for example, would have to decide where outcross = animals=20 might best be obtained for restoring heterozygosity to that breed; = they=20 might decide, for example, that dogs imported from Russia and = perhaps even=20 an occasional outstanding individual carefully selected from the = present=20 "Alaskan husky" gene pool of racing sled dogs (which was derived = largely=20 from 1910-era Siberia imports that remained in Alaska) are two = logical=20 sources. Breeds which do not have their origins in autochthonous=20 populations would have to seek outcrosses in similar related = breeds, as=20 Spaniels (English Springer) and Spaniels (Welsh Springer), or = Retrievers=20 (Labrador) and Retrievers (Flat-Coated). They would then have to = set up=20 inspection and test-breeding procedures for admitting outcross = animals.=20 Once the outcross sources had been designated, selection of = candidate=20 animals would in most cases be best left to individual breeders, = who might=20 then apply to the breed club for preliminary inspection of their = outcross=20 -- which inspection ought not to be excessively rigorous. General=20 soundness, reasonable temperament, proven working ability, = approximate=20 size and physique, and acceptable overall type should be adequate=20 criteria, none of the foregoing to be rigidly interpreted. The = outcross=20 should then be registered provisionally by CKC, subject to breed = club=20 inspection of two generations of its progeny. The registry should = remain=20 permanently open to new outcross animals. It might prove desirable = to set=20 limits to the number of outcross dogs registered in any given year = proportionate to the overall breed population, in order that small = populations not be swamped by excessive outcrossing. Some = regulation of=20 the process would obviously be necessary, but the best regulation = would=20 probably be breed club oversight and guidance of the process, = backed up by=20 CKC supervision.

Advantage should be taken of DNA analysis = techniques by=20 using them to monitor heterozygosity and relative kinship in major = breeding lines. (It would also be a good idea for the Club to = offer DNA=20 profile parentage certification.) This technology already exists = and is in=20 use: it is rapidly becoming much more affordable. Limits should = definitely=20 be set on inbreeding, preferably by the breed clubs, but CKC = should decide=20 maximum allowable limits of inbreeding as a default setting. Only = by the=20 outright prohibition of excessive degrees of inbreeding will it be = possible to make the transition to a balanced-heterozygous state = for=20 purebreds; otherwise old ways will continue through inertia and = persistent=20 typological thinking. Assortative mating can and should become the = norm=20 for the preservation of type, mating individuals which are = phenotypically=20 similar but unrelated or at least not closely related. The Club = would have=20 to monitor registrations, possibly performing occasional DNA = spot-checks,=20 to ensure that inbreeding does not take place; otherwise many = would=20 continue to breed from whatever dogs were in their own backyard = rather=20 than seeking breed club advice to find suitable individuals from = unrelated=20 lineage.

 

A Healthy = Balance, for=20 Breed Identity

The responsibilities of the breed club should = not end=20 with the designation of outcross sources and the inspection of = outcross=20 candidates. If the fullness of breed identity is to be achieved = overall in=20 each population, then the breed clubs should take on = responsibility for=20 balancing the various facets of that breed identity. Realistic, = meaningful=20 and workable systems should be introduced for monitoring = temperament, for=20 proving working ability and trainability, and for evaluating, type = and=20 appearance. Championship shows would then become breed-club = events, since=20 the methods of evaluation and the various events required to test = such=20 qualities as temperament, vigor and endurance, working ability, = and=20 trainability would be breed-specific and under the breed clubs = oversight.=20 That is not to say that a number of breed clubs might not band = together to=20 stage events for several breeds simultaneously at the same venue, = but the=20 all breed show with all-rounder judges, under CKC rules for CKC=20 Championship points, would eventually be history. To ensure = wholehearted=20 support and participation by breeders, it would probably be = necessary for=20 CKC to evolve some means of making clear on the papers of every = dog the=20 extent to which that animal had been submitted to the testing and=20 evaluation procedures of the breed club and with what result. = Breed club=20 input of information to the Clubs database could be done by e-mail = on the=20 day of the event. Strong incentives for participation should be = arranged=20 and breed clubs should be so structured that they could not be=20 autocratically ruled by individuals or cliques.

Registration certificates produced by CKC would = carry=20 much more detailed information under the new system than they now = do. The=20 computer power is now available to make this quite feasible. A = certificate=20 of registration should once again carry a pedigree of at least = four=20 generations. A two-tier certificate system would be necessary, as = no dog=20 would be eligible for breeding registered progeny until it had = been=20 inspected and evaluated by the breed club. Rating and measurement=20 protocols are already being worked out by proponents of the = Advanced=20 Registry proposal. Broodstock certificates should carry a summary = of the=20 breed clubs rating and evaluation of the animal, together with = evidence of=20 proof tests for temperament, working ability and trainability. All = certificates should identify outcross lines and bear a = quantitative=20 estimate of the relative heterozygosity of the animal identified = by the=20 certificate.

Breed standards would require revision under = the new=20 system. The concept of disqualifications should probably be = dropped in=20 favour of a detailed rating system in which all breeding stock = would=20 participate. In the case of quantitative characteristics such as = height=20 and weight, a simple Bell curve statistical description of the = desired=20 mean and range ought to be sufficient, without disallowing = occasional=20 extreme examples. Working abilities ought to be clearly defined in = the=20 breed standard and a basic performance standard given where = possible.=20 Clearer and more detailed descriptions of desired temperament and = of=20 qualities bearing on trainability ought to be part of the new = standards.=20 Prescriptive minutia should be minimal; it should be sufficient = merely to=20 describe the general distinguishing features of a breed, without = an excess=20 of cosmetic and conformation restrictions, except where = indispensable=20 breed points are involved. Type stringencies should be relaxed=20 considerably, allowing most breeds to become moderately = heterotypic; if=20 qualities of working ability, hunting instincts and similar traits = achieve=20 greater emphasis, there will be correspondingly less need for = extreme type=20 requirements to distinguish breeds. Standards should be holistic=20 descriptions of the breeds they identify, brief statements of = essential=20 breed qualities, rather than typological blueprints. It is = imperative to=20 subordinate typological thinking to considerations of utility, = genetic=20 health and hardiness. First a dog should be healthy, balanced, of = sound=20 mind in a sound body, able to fulfill his breed purpose; after = that can=20 come points of beauty and type but never again in the bizarrely=20 exaggerated fashion that now prevails in the breed rings of = championship=20 shows.

It might eventually be found desirable to = quietly merge=20 scarce and consistently unpopular breeds, as well as closely = similar=20 breeds, with populations nearest to them in general = characteristics,=20 possibly initially designating them as breed varieties. Reasonable = numbers=20 are necessary for the maintenance of a healthy population. The = number of=20 breeds recognized has continued to grow, yet the total number of = dog=20 owners in the country may not have grown proportionally. A rare = breed is=20 not the same thing as an endangered species; breeds can come and = go=20 without damage to the canine species as a whole. Breeds known to = be of low=20 viability due to their dependence for breed identity on anomalies = such as=20 achondroplasia, may have to be dropped from the registry unless = evidence=20 is advanced that they can be upgraded to certain minimum standards = of=20 health and structural soundness.

 

Can it Really Work?

I can hear someone objecting, after having = thought about=20 the idea of a breeding and registry system in which outcross = breeding was=20 actually encouraged, "Surely this system will produce some dogs = which are=20 not even recognizable representatives of their breeds! What = happens then?"=20 Typological thinking dies hard. I used to worry lest my Siberian = breeding=20 program should one day produce a dog or dogs whose ears were not = fully=20 erect. It never happened. Instead something much worse happened = when I=20 found that I was producing some dogs who ran a high risk of being = unable=20 to lead a healthy, normal canine existence, through endocrine=20 malfunctions, immune system weakness, and the risk of blindness. = To think=20 I had worried about the possibility of a tipped ear, something = which would=20 not handicap or bother the dog in the least! Let me say the = following,=20 then, to those who worry that a balanced-heterozygous breed will = engender=20 "untypical" examples. It is far better that our breeding = occasionally=20 engender a dog deficient in breed type, than that we should = consistently=20 produce large numbers of dogs guaranteed to lead lives of = suffering,=20 creating anxiety, large veterinary bills, frustration and = unhappiness for=20 their owners. That is what we are doing now. Over sixty percent of = Golden=20 Retrievers, for example, will suffer from hip dysplasia, = osteoarthritis or=20 osteochondritis in their lifetimes. Is that to be preferred to the = possibility of producing an occasional robust "mutt" lacking in = breed type=20 but who will nonetheless still make someone an excellent happy, = healthy=20 companion? I am sure that it would take awhile for all of us to = learn how=20 to breed in this new and different way; I suppose we might produce = occasional oddities in the process. Yet I am absolutely convinced = that the=20 good results we would quickly achieve would more than make up for = the=20 embarrassment of our failures. At the very least we should all = have clean=20 consciences once again, knowing that we were making our best = efforts,=20 using up-to-date genetic knowledge, to produce sane, healthy, = robust=20 canine companions. Let us not forget that as DNA mapping = procedures=20 advance (there are at least two canine genome mapping projects now = under=20 way) our tools are going to improve and our ability to predict = what our=20 breedings may produce will be greatly enhanced.

As things now stand, the dog fancy is in a = position which=20 is frankly untenable. The CKC Board of Directors has unilaterally=20 committed "reputable breeders" to the proposition of guaranteeing = the=20 "future genetic good health" of the dogs they sell. Yet those same = breeders have no means of protecting themselves from the looming = specter=20 of financial ruin should they be held to such a guarantee, = otherwise to=20 the loss of public credibility. Other than the continued = elaboration of=20 screening programs and the Advanced Registry proposal, both of = which are=20 somewhat like applying an adhesive bandage to a severed artery, = nothing is=20 being done about making guarantees of genetic health a workable=20 proposition. At present, purebred breeds -- all breeds -- show = levels of=20 genetic defects totally inconsistent with the practical = maintenance of the=20 Boards policy. Many honest, caring breeders are racked by torments = of=20 guilt and self-reproach brought on by the suffering of defective = dogs, yet=20 it is really no fault of the breeders themselves! The fault, as = has been=20 demonstrated in this brief, lies with the closed studbook and the=20 inbreeding system. If the consensus of the Club is truly that = purchasers=20 of purebred dogs have a right to expect genetically healthy = animals, then=20 the Board has no choice other than to do everything in its power = to change=20 the existing system so that healthy animals may once again be = reliably=20 produced! That will never happen just through Advanced Registries, = higher=20 Championship point requirements, more screening programs, and = Board policy=20 pronouncements. The Club must take to heart the lessons of = population=20 genetics. It must open its studbooks to outcross stock on a = permanent=20 basis. It must take measures against the obsessive pursuit of = breed type=20 and the worship of breed purity, measures which will increase the = health,=20 utility, trainability and sanity of purebred dogs, measures which = will=20 balance the elements of breed identity. There are no credible = "soft=20 options" left.

One unfortunate reality which must be faced, = however, in=20 order to bring about any major changes involving the CKC will be = the=20 conservatism and resistance to change of the Board and of the "old = hands"=20 -- the ruling oligarchy of the Club. The CEO and the Board will = almost=20 certainly aggressively defend the status quo no matter = how urgent=20 the need for change. At present, for example, they turn down = requests for=20 the registration of new foundation animals with statements such as = this=20 one: "The CKC takes pride in registering dogs based on accurate = and=20 complete information and we will continue to strive for these high = standards." Yet when that statement was written, the Club was = still=20 registering Canadian-bred litters whose parentage information was=20 supported only by a signed registration application form filled = out by the=20 owners of the dam and sire. Under that system of information = gathering it=20 is regularly necessary for the Board to cancel litter = registrations when=20 it becomes evident that the parents of some litters are not both = of the=20 same breed. No one knows how many litters go unchallenged which, = although=20 purebred with both parents of the same breed, have their parentage = misrepresented because the actual sire of the litter is not the = dog=20 entered on the application form. In the absence of DNA testing, = how can=20 the substitution of sires be detected?

Meanwhile the United Kennel Club, a "dissident = registry"=20 in Kalamazoo, MI, USA, which now registers about a quarter of a = million=20 dogs annually, has already instituted a process for the = verification of=20 parentage by DNA profiling! This is the first time that DNA = profiling has=20 been made routinely available to dog breeders, and UKC is the = first canine=20 registry in the world to offer such assurance of verified = parentage.=20 Innovations such as this make the Clubs defensive statements about = its=20 high standards sound rather hollow.

Anyway, those of us who seek reform will have = to contend=20 with a Club establishment which will attempt to make a virtue of = the very=20 things which most threaten the genetic health of CKC dog breeds: = the=20 closed studbook, the breed purity concept, the endless inbreeding, = the=20 constant refinement of type, the preeminence of the Championship = show,=20 Those who dare to challenge the existing system will have to put = up with=20 being made to look foolish or even villainous by the solemn = pronouncements=20 of the old guard. We should all realize that the Club = establishment is=20 unlikely to initiate serious action for change in the absence of=20 grassroots pressure from the general membership. It is up to us to = initiate serious dialogue along the lines outlined in this brief, = to=20 research ways and means to promote a different, healthier method = of=20 purebred dog breeding, and to raise the consciousness both of = novices and=20 of old hands regarding the genetic dilemma which now faces us.

Deep structural change cannot occur without = widespread=20 debate among fanciers, because new and different concepts sound=20 threatening when they are first described. Once the reasoning = behind them=20 has been adequately discussed, the threat often disappears. = Someone may=20 ask, for example, "What about these open-ended Breed Standards? A=20 Bell-curve statistical description of a breeds height standard may = be an=20 adequate formula, but what if the mean is set at 22.5 inches and = you don't=20 disqualify the 25-inch dogs. Then maybe in a few years the mean = may drift=20 upward to around 24 inches, with hardly a single dog under 22 = inches. What=20 then?" My answer would be that the whole point of the=20 balanced-heterozygous system is its healthy flexibility. A = stubborn=20 insistence on narrow tolerances in matters such as height at = withers=20 usually involves the sacrifice of other worthwhile qualities = anyway, as=20 too many otherwise good animals must be discarded only because = they are a=20 shade over standard. In the balanced system described, nothing at = all need=20 be lost. If the height mean of a 22.5-inch breed should drift = upward to 24=20 inches, it would be because most of the breeders wanted a taller = dog!=20 Since the breed club would be advising breeders, measuring and = rating=20 dogs, maybe even suggesting matings, this sort of gradual change = would=20 occur only with the knowledge and acquiescence of the breed club,=20 representing all active breeders. Under a heterozygous plan with = mainly=20 assortative matings, nothing whatever is lost in such a gradual = change.=20 Should the height drift upwards and, later on, the breeders decide = upon a=20 return to the original mean, a simple shift in the emphasis of = assortative=20 mating will accomplish such a return easily, smoothly, with no = genetic=20 loss and no disturbance of other traits.

The whole idea of a dynamically balanced = heterozygous=20 breeding system is the retention of as much healthy genetic = diversity as=20 possible. Such diversity makes it easy for a breed to develop and = progress=20 in whatever direction its breeders wish. It also ensures that = genetic=20 problems are kept to a minimum no matter what changes of standard = may=20 occur. In the statically balanced homozygous system now in force, = the more=20 homozygosity increases with time and selective breeding, the = harder it=20 becomes for major change to occur naturally and easily, and the = more=20 pronounced genetic problems become. Once an allele has been = "fixed" in=20 homozygosity, no amount of selection can change that trait; only = radical=20 outcrossing can restore the lost alleles and such outcrosses will = always=20 upset the static balance completely, necessitating years of = remedial=20 inbreeding and selection, probably creating new genetic problems. = I am=20 convinced that a system based on a dynamic equilibrium of healthy = dominant=20 genes must inevitably be better than one which throws away most of = the=20 healthy genetic diversity in order to achieve static stability for = homozygous recessive traits.

It is worth noting that the new system, if = carried out at=20 all conscientiously, would mean more work per dog for everyone. = Breeders=20 would necessarily invest more time and effort in their breeding = stock in=20 order for it to pass breed club requirements. This is by no means = a=20 negative factor. One ongoing problem in our society is that of = large=20 numbers of unwanted pets. Another related problem for the purebred = fancy=20 is substandard dogs produced by the non-serious "backyard" breeder = and the=20 puppy-mill profiteer. The suggested reform measures would = discourage=20 exploitative factions and reduce considerably the overall number = of=20 purebred dogs, while raising greatly the overall quality levels = and=20 ensuring that practically all purebred dogs were valuable, = cherished, and=20 wanted by their breeders and owners. The new system would greatly = increase=20 the inherent value of purebred canine stock. Purebred would then = mean much=20 more than just a paper certificate!

 

A Canine Revolution?

The foregoing prescriptions may sound like a = canine=20 revolution. If so, the revolution would consist mainly of = integrating many=20 facets of the fancy which now exist in ghetto isolation, or of = importing=20 good ideas from other parts of the cynological world. In Europe, = for=20 example, many breed clubs have long held responsibilities for = their breeds=20 similar to those described above. The only really revolutionary = features=20 of this new vision of purebred dogdom are the permanently open = studbook=20 and the abandonment of incest breeding, and those represent = simple,=20 inevitable acquiescence to genetic reality. If there is one thing = we can=20 do which will be of lasting benefit to the dogs we breed, it is to = endow=20 each and every one with a healthy, heterozygous genetic outfit. If = that is=20 to become possible, the closed studbook must go and inbreeding = must go.=20 There are no effective alternatives.

These reforms would require considerable = cooperative=20 effort on the part of breeders, breed clubs and the CKC in order = to bring=20 them into being. A major part of the job would be to convince = Agriculture=20 Canada of the desirability and feasibility of these proposals, = followed by=20 amendment of the Animal Pedigree Act to facilitate them. Yet when = we=20 consider the threat to the very existence of purebred dogs posed = by=20 genetic disease, the economic loss caused by genetic defects, and = their=20 widespread unhappy effect, on peoples lives, can we deny that = radical and=20 decisive remedial action is required? The goals of a = balanced-heterozygous=20 breeding system producing healthy, hardy dogs and a balanced breed = identity structure coordinating all the delightful activities of = purebred=20 dogdom, would be worth any amount of effort. Let us begin work now = to=20 bring those goals into existence! Future generations of breeders = and=20 fanciers will be grateful to us for so doing and what is more, we = shall be=20 doing the best and kindest thing for our very best friends - our = dogs.

 

Postscript

Inevitably some will feel that the suggestions = contained=20 in this brief are unrealistic and impracticable, that ideas such = as breed=20 autonomy and balanced-heterozygous breeding "will never fly" in = Canada. It=20 may be that this brief is slightly ahead of its time; = nevertheless, we are=20 about to embark upon a new millennium. Already this country has = seen the=20 acceptance and adoption of many concepts that would never have = been=20 practicable fifty years ago. The Charter of Rights, settlement of=20 aboriginal land claims, the Internet, the Quebec referendum -- = none of=20 these current realities would have been acceptable or seriously=20 foreseeable in the first half of the twentieth century.

Many breeders will reject outright the mere = idea of=20 deliberately trying to increase heterozygosity, after so many = years in the=20 pursuit of homozygosity through "linebreeding" and frank incest = breeding.=20 Others will be horrified by the thought of dismantling the = apparatus of=20 the CKC Championship Show. Almost everyone, myself included, will = be=20 nervous and dubious about increasing the power and autonomy of = breed=20 clubs, based on the past performance of many such clubs. Yet needs = must=20 when the devil drives! The genetic situation is dire and the = present=20 outlook for many breeds is grave. Something will have to be done. = Just now=20 most of the hope and effort rests upon research towards detection = of DNA=20 markers for major genetic diseases. Yet those who promote this = approach to=20 the problem of genetic defects invariably seem to have a very = narrow=20 outlook, treating each defect in isolation. The approach is no = different=20 from that of traditional hip x-rays and eye examinations, except = that it=20 may be more efficient. The proponents of disease marker detection = do not,=20 however, explain how we are going to deal with the problem of = diseases=20 which are already widespread throughout a breeds population, or = how our=20 gene pools will stand up to successive waves of severe culling as = we=20 strive to "eliminate" one widespread genetic disease after another = in our=20 small populations bred from tiny founder groups. The population = genetics=20 aspect of marker detection, screening and subsequent selection is = simply=20 being ignored. As we have already found to our sorrow, those = aspects of=20 breeding and genetics which we ignore as being inconvenient at the = time=20 emerge later to work us woe.

Now is the time when we must begin a full and = open=20 dialogue among ourselves on the topics that have been mentioned in = this=20 brief. Now -- before we embark upon a devastating new wave of = genetic=20 attrition which could be the "killer wave" that sinks the ship of = purebred=20 dogs.

If the more advanced reforms suggested in this = brief=20 prove too unpopular for implementation, then so be it. What cannot = be done=20 now we may perhaps achieve in time. But at the very least, an = irreducible=20 minimum of reform must take place soon if we are to have any hope = for the=20 future of our dogs. The most critical item is relaxation of the = closed=20 studbook to allow for admission of new foundation stock. We cannot = go on=20 selecting rigidly forever and a day from a closed foundation, = particularly=20 not if we are to embark upon an era of new selection criteria = based on=20 marker research. A breeds gene pool may be likened to a bank = account: one=20 cannot go on making withdrawals forever without an occasional = deposit (no=20 matter what deficit-spending politicians may think). That some = breeders=20 are dead set against outcrossing does not imply that the rest of = us should=20 be prevented from introducing new genetic material if we feel it = is needed=20 in our own bloodlines. Likewise I think that the restoration of = balanced=20 breed identity is also a high priority item, which many people in = the=20 fancy are already well-prepared to welcome. Fanciers interest, for = example, in useful working dogs instead of mere beauty contestants = has=20 never been higher than it now appears to be.

It must also be pointed out that it would be = extremely=20 unwise for the CKC to ignore the need for genetic renewal. The = Clubs=20 adoption of a hard-line position would carry a high risk of major = schism=20 within the ranks of purebred dog breeders. Already independent = breed=20 associations and alternative registries exist, promoting genetic=20 excellence and asserting the need to "protect their breed from the = kennel=20 clubs"! CKC terms these organizations "dissident registries" = although the=20 associations themselves seem to feel it is questionable who is = more=20 dissident in view of the hostile position CKC adopts towards their = pedigrees and stud books! In any case, the absence of a proactive, = cooperative and open-minded response from the Club to the genetic = crisis=20 will almost guarantee the creation of alternative associations and = stud=20 books, dedicated to the pursuit of genetic excellence on a more = practical=20 basis than that offered by CKC. This author, for instance, fears = that in=20 order to incorporate new Siberia import stock into his bloodline = of=20 working sled dogs he may ultimately be obliged to adopt an = "evolving=20 breed" scenario under an independent association. Schism of this = kind is=20 perhaps in no ones best interests, but may be unavoidable should = the CKC=20 prove intransigent in refusing to reopen stud books to new = foundation, as=20 it has done to date. If more "dissident registries" should in fact = arise=20 and succeed in producing canine stock to a higher standard of = genetic=20 excellence than can be done within CKC, it would greatly damage = the Clubs=20 credibility in the public eye.

What is of paramount importance is that we all = recognize=20 the true dimensions and gravity of the problems we now face. It is = far too=20 easy to ignore genetic diseases, to make excuses, to pay the vet = bills and=20 say nothing for fear that others will accuse one of breeding = defective=20 stock -- I think practically all of us live in fear of the smear = tactics=20 that are so common in the dog world. Yet the truth is that we are = all=20 breeding defective stock; the system itself virtually guarantees = that. If=20 we believe that to breed defective stock is a bad thing, then we = simply=20 must discuss ways and means of altering that system to allow us to = restore=20 genetic health. Too many breeders are now reluctantly deciding = that=20 "health must be the paramount concern" and abandoning their usual=20 selection criteria in favour of breeding for hips, eyes, blood, = etc. A few=20 decades of that sort of breeding will surely do greater harm to = breed=20 characteristics than could ever be done by outcrossing. We must = now seek=20 to evolve a system which will naturally, almost automatically, = produce=20 healthy animals -- so that we may continue on with, or return to, = our=20 selection for temperament, working ability, conformation and breed = type.=20 Most of all, it is imperative that we start now to discuss and = work on the=20 new structures that are needed to facilitate genetic health for = our dogs.=20 The next millennium, close as it is, may be too late.

 

Bibliography

Animal Registration Officer, Establishment = of a New=20 Breed of Animals in Canada. Agriculture Canada. Ottawa, ON, = Canada,=20 1991.

Bragg, J. Jeffrey, The Seppala Siberian: A = Breeders=20 Manual. 1976. Self-published. Vicksburg, MS. USA.

Bragg, J. Jeffrey, "C.K.C. Doesn't Know What to = Do About=20 New Siberia Import Dog." Siberian Husky Club of Canada=20 Newsletter. March-April 1995.

Bragg, J. Jeffrey, The Canadian Kennel = Clubs 1939=20 Siberian Husky Breed Foundation. 1996. Self-published. = Whitehorse,=20 YT.

Canadian Kennel Club, By-Laws, 1994, = Etobicoke,=20 ON.

Carson, Hampton L., "The Genetics of the = Founder Effect,"=20 in Genetics and Conservation: A Reference for Managing Wild = Animal and=20 Plant Populations, Ed. Schonewald-Cox. Christine M., et al., = 1983,=20 The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. Inc., Menlo Park. CA, = USA.

Chambers, Steven M., "Genetic Principles for = Managers,"=20 in Genetics and Conservation, Ed. Schonewald-Cox et = al.

Chidiac-Storimans, Barbara, DVM, "Beating the = System."=20 Dogs in Canada, October 1995. p. 15.

de Boer, Shirley, and Ben de Boer, "How to = Breed to Win=20 -- Summary." Dogs in Canada, April 1994, pp. 30-31, = 100.

Futuyama, Douglas J., Evolutionary Biology = 2d=20 Ed. 1986, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, USA.

Goodenough, Ursula, Genetics, 2d Ed. 1978, = Holt, Rinehart=20 & Winston, New York, NY, USA.

Hartl, Daniel L., and Andrew G. Clark. = Principles of=20 Population Genetics, 2d Ed. 1989. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,=20 Sunderland, MA, USA.

Lemonick, Michael D., "Flawed Beauty." = Tlme, 12=20 December 1994. pp. 52-58.

Queens Printer for Canada, 1988, Ottawa, ON. = 35-36-37=20 Elizabeth II, Chapter 13, An Act Respecting Animal Pedigree=20 Associations.

Ralls, Katherine, and Jonathan Ballou, = "Extinction:=20 Lessons from Zoos," in Genetics and Conservation, Ed.=20 Schonewald-Cox et al.

"Siberian Huskies Registered." Kennel and = Bench, December=20 1939.

Templeton, Alan R., and Bruce Read, "The = Elimination of=20 Inbreeding Depression in a Captive Herd of Spekes Gazelle," in=20 Genetics and Conservation, Ed. Schonewald-Cox et al.

Tudge, Colin. Last Animals at the Zoo = 1992,=20 Island Press, Washington. DC., USA.

Wachtel, Hellmuth, "The Evil Might of Hazard." = Our=20 Dogs, 21 April 1995. p. 12.

Weir, Mary Jane T., "Proposal Aims at Building = Confidence=20 in Purebred quality." Dogs in Canada, April 1994, pp. 25, = 27.

 

Glossary

In the hope of helping the reader to understand = certain=20 genetic and other terms which may be unfamiliar, I have included = this=20 Glossary. It does not explain terms or concepts that have already = been=20 explained elsewhere in the brief, as for example, the concepts = treated in=20 the section headed "Lessons From Population Genetics." I have = included=20 here mostly terms which are technical enough to be omitted from = most=20 dictionaries. If the reader finds other unfamiliar words in the = brief,=20 their definitions will be found in any good collegiate = dictionary.

achondroplasia - a genetic = syndrome=20 producing skeletal development resulting in a semi-dwarf phenotype = with=20 shortened and distorted limbs; occurring in some breeds (Alaskan=20 Malamutes. e.g.) as a genetic defect, it is selected for as a = breed point=20 in others (Basset Hound, e.g.).

allele - an alternative form = of a given=20 gene producing a difference in the trait controlled by that gene; = some=20 genes have only one allele, some have two, some have multiple = alleles for=20 the same trait.

allozyme - enzymes differing = in=20 electrophoretic mobility (i.e., which migrate different distances = through=20 the substrate when an electrophoresis test is performed) as a = result of=20 allelic differences in a single gene; allozyme variation thus = indicates=20 genetic variation. One of the oldest lab tests for genetic = analysis.

autochthonous - "sprung from = the earth,"=20 native to a particular region from a very early time. The Siberian = sled=20 dog is an autochthonous dog in Siberia. (Pronounced = "aw-TOC-thun-us.")

chromosomes - structures = within the=20 nuclei of living cells which are made up of nucleotide sequences, = the=20 biochemical information carriers which we call genes. All genes = exist as=20 tiny portions of chromosomes; although we may speak of particular = genes=20 individually, in isolation, they do not exist as separate = entities, but=20 are always found as subunits of chromosomes.

cynological - of or pertaining = to the=20 knowledge and study of dogs.

deleterious =B7 harmful or = injurious.

diploid - the body cells of = most complex=20 animal organisms such as birds and mammals all have their = chromosomes in=20 pairs derived from sexual reproduction, such that one chromosome = of a pair=20 comes from the father, the other from the mother. The sex cells = from only=20 one parent have only half the number of chromosomes of cells in = other=20 parts of the body: the normal chromosome number is known as the = diploid=20 number, the chromosome number of sperm and egg cells is called the = haploid=20 number.

disequilibrium - imbalance or=20 instability.

dominant - said of an allele = which by=20 itself alone will produce a particular phenotype regardless of = which other=20 allele may be present on the other matching chromosome of the = diploid=20 pair; thus it takes only one copy of the chromosome to cause a = dominant=20 trait to be expressed in the phenotype.

electrophoresis - one of the = most useful=20 lab techniques for revealing genetic variation. which came into = widespread=20 use in the 1960s. It involves placing sample material (blood, = e.g.) on a=20 gel substrate. An electrical field is then applied between the two = ends of=20 the substrate, causing protein molecules to migrate through the = gel.=20 Proteins with different ionic charge will travel different = distances=20 across the substrate. Staining subsequently makes bands of protein = in the=20 substrate visible, so that various samples can be "read" in much = the same=20 manner as a supermarket bar coded label.

expression - not all genes = possessed by=20 an organism will result in detectable physical traits or = differences in=20 that organism; the genes that do are expressed. Dominant genes are = always=20 expressed, but recessive genes may be present for many generations = without=20 physical expression in the phenotype.

fecundity - the number of = progeny=20 produced by animals when reproducing.

fertility - the relative = degree of=20 reproductive success, i.e. the frequency with which mating is = followed by=20 pregnancy.

gametes - the sex cells of = sexually=20 reproducing organisms, i.e. spermatozoa and ova.

genome - the total genetic = information=20 possessed by an individual, a breed or a species.

genotype - the invisible = genetic makeup=20 of an individual organism, which includes alleles which may be = recessive=20 and therefore have no visible physical expression.

heterotypic - displaying = different=20 types. A breed which has more than one distinct and recognizable = set of=20 "type" characteristics is heterotypic.

heterozygote - an organism = that=20 possesses different alleles at a given gene locus.

heterozygous - possessing = different=20 alleles at a given gene locus.

holistic - relating to or = focussing on=20 the entirety of a thing or an organism and the interrelationship = of its=20 component parts, instead of emphasizing different aspects or parts = in=20 isolation without considering their interactions.

homozygote - an organism that = possesses=20 identical alleles at a given gene locus.

homozygous - possessing = identical=20 alleles at a given gene locus.

inbreeding coefficient - a = number used=20 to quantify the probability that an organism will have identical = alleles=20 from the same ancestral source, usually computed by analyzing the = pedigree=20 for "loops" in which the same ancestor is found on both the male = and=20 female sides of a mating.

lethal - likely to cause or = capable of=20 causing the death of an organism. A lethal gene is one which could = either=20 cause an aborted fetus or the death of the organism at some later = stage of=20 its life.

locus (pl. loci) - the = physical location=20 of a given gene on a particular chromosome.

meiosis - the kind of cell = division=20 which produces spermatozoa and ova or gametes and which reduces = the=20 chromosome number to half the normal complement.

microsatellite - a kind of DNA = testing=20 which detects short DNA sequence variations at particular highly = variable=20 sites; used in so-called "DNA fingerprinting."

phenotypic - the visible = physical=20 expression of an individual organisms invisible genetic = makeup.

polymorphism - difference or = variation=20 in form, diversity. Molecular geneticists study protein = polymorphism,=20 different forms of proteins in an organism indicating different = alleles.=20 Polymorphism studies show that from 20 to 50 percent of gene loci = in most=20 species have two or more allele forms.

recessive - a gene which = contributes to=20 the phenotype only if it is present in homozygous form. It takes = two=20 identical copies of a recessive gene to produce the trait it = governs in=20 the phenotype. In practice many genes are neither clearly dominant = nor=20 recessive, in which case geneticists speak of variable = expressivity or=20 incomplete penetrance.

RFLP - "restriction fragment = length=20 polymorphism" -- a DNA analysis technique which involves the use = of=20 enzymes to break the DNA chain at specific nucleotide sequences: = the=20 resulting "restriction fragments" are then analyzed by the use of=20 electrophoresis and blotting techniques. RFLPs are used as markers = for=20 known genetic traits and can be employed for genome mapping.

sublethal - having known = deleterious=20 effects which by themselves will not usually cause the death of = the=20 organism but which handicap it in some way. Several sublethal = genes may=20 nevertheless combine to form a "lethal equivalent."

subvital - having known = effects which=20 work to reduce the overall vitality and health of the = organism.

typology - the study of types = or groups=20 of distinguishing characteristics. Typological thinking involves = emphasis=20 on visible superficial characteristics, often mere cosmetic traits = which=20 have little to do with the health and viability of the animal = possessing=20 them.

viability - the relative = survivorship of=20 the fertilized ova resulting from a reproductive event. = Nonviability may=20 involve ova which simply fail to develop, fetuses which abort, = nestlings=20 which die or juveniles which fail to survive to maturity.

Afterword

The author most sincerely hopes that the = foregoing brief=20 has in one way or another stimulated or inspired your thinking = about the=20 breeding and selection of purebred dogs into the twenty-first = century. Our=20 fancy badly needs a responsible long-term perspective, both for = our own=20 good as breeders and for the good of our animals.

If you should wish to comment on this brief, or = if you=20 should have some urgent unanswered question, the author will be = happy to=20 receive your letter at the address given below.

Should you feel indignant or upset after = reading this=20 brief, please put it aside for a few days, then read it again. I = have=20 introduced some ideas which, although they are becoming = commonplace in=20 other parts of the dog world, have largely failed as yet to reach = Canada.=20 Those who have accepted the gospel of breed purity inbreeding, and = type=20 above all, as published in a multitude of magazine articles and = "how to=20 breed" books, may well feel betrayed or insulted! It is not my = wish to=20 insult or to upset anyone, but I have nothing against disturbing=20 complacency. We shall all have to rise above our own narrow = individual=20 interests and perspectives if we are to save our purebred dog = world from=20 genetic disaster.

If this brief -- as I hope it will -- leaves = you feeling=20 that The Canadian Kennel Club should be approaching the matter of = genetic=20 health in purebreds in a different way or should be considering = new ideas,=20 I hope that you will make your feelings clearly known to the Board = of=20 Directors by writing to the CKC Director for your region, whose = name and=20 address will be found on Page 2 of the "CKC Official Section" = which is=20 mailed every month to CKC members along with their copy of "DOGS = in=20 Canada."

In closing, I wish the best to all of us as we = carry our=20 breeding programs forward into the twenty-first century.

 

=A9 Jeffrey Bragg, 1996
P.O. Box 4124, = Whitehorse, Yukon=20 Territory, Canada YlA 3S9

Permission is granted to freely reproduce and = distribute=20 this document providing that the content is not altered.

Scanned into electronic form by Jolanta = Jeanneney.=20 Initial formatting and editing by Martin Vuille. HTML formatting = by John=20 Armstrong (jbarm@uottawa.ca).

 

[an error occurred while processing this = directive]


Search SiriusDog.com =20  
 =20

Copyright=20 Disclaimer

=0A= =0A=

 

Books Articles Home Contact = Us Classified=20 Ads

Links
This file last modified
Sunday December 28, 2003=20 17:56

=0A= =0A=

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/siriusdog/border-spacer.gif R0lGODlhlgACAIAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAACWAAIAAAIPhI+py+0Po5y02ouz3rwAADs= ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.siriusdog.com/amazon/templates/version2/images/box_cornertop.gif R0lGODlhmQAOAMQUAESMy0WMzPX5/EqPzZe/4pW94kuQzWCd02eh1fD2+6fJ50mPzWii1XSp2Xer 2ZrB42qj1leX0fr8/kOLy////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEA ABQALAAAAACZAA4AAAV3ICWOpIIMy6SubOu+cCzPdG3f7TIgCun/ooQDgCsaj8ikEuBIAH+EgHJK rVqLAcJzxLh6v+ArYxsJm8/oWgQISbvfb4ivAK/bwYWRQHrv+5EBAiINf4WGNg0UEkSHjY4sAAIP j5SPDweVmYYHBpqefQaMn6NuACEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.siriusdog.com/amazon/templates/version2/images/bullet01.gif R0lGODlhBQAJAIABAP///0OLyyH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAAFAAkAAAIKRI5olrfBFGwuFQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.siriusdog.com/amazon/templates/version2/images/box_cornerbottom.gif R0lGODlhmQAOAMQUAESMy0WMzPX5/EqPzZe/4pW94kuQzWCd02eh1fD2+6fJ50mPzWii1XSp2Xer 2ZrB42qj1leX0fr8/kOLy////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEA ABQALAAAAACZAA4AAAV5IDCNZGmeaKqubOu+cAwDhmzfeK7vrHHwwKBwmDs8iMikkviQiJbQqHQF EFAa06w22qBQBIGteMwLWL0FsnoNK3jfELZ8XoK87xG6Xh25+xl7gVkMfoUEYYKJRAEEhY4JDk+K kzgADgmOmV4KCAMLlKArCwMICpoUIQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/menu/home.gif R0lGODlhRAAUANU9AEpjl2qN2m2Q3F18wFl5vIGg4aq+6nSV3Y6p5Gh9q4Si4UFclDtPeYun44Ce 4LLF7TFMhHGR05Gs5GGCyIKg4b/O732c4Hma3/X3/a3B683Z836d4Iil4qvA66zA6+vw+rnK7n+f 4Zy056zB69fh9X+e4eHo+MPS8bfI7n6e4Co4V09qo1RsoKG46K+/4TVRjEFXhoGWxD1RfYek4pew 5pGp3GeK1DVHbpqx4Zqy55GjyrDD7GV8rC1IgP///2qO2yH5BAEAAD0ALAAAAABEABQAAAb/wJ5w SCwaj8ikcolcABK8qHRKrVqv2CqBtUgmXBXUY5QZjTyeM9rQYRvenbgnbs7Y7/i8Pj834HgQRToV HTQNCgoFBSEljYwlKSkbk5IpDiGYmYqbnJ2enhQKMw0cES9DMSgiGwcBP6+wsbKztLW2tgEHugRC AA85F7fCw8TEAgITXTEtBa7Fz9DFyAA9NRIH0CQksRgg0d+vARMwPRIK2M8YGLE+GuDgAzI9CA7O xers7hsa6t4/Gic+dOP3QcQrEOo0bCg2gMG8hdAw+NhBcUe7HxJNSHTnw4eJjj5IdPxxwgcGkeuI NXwYTSLIjho4XMTo44ePDz8setNQ0+QrhJ4cVDpEADFdylftLO742dOd0n89X04UyjLiUZsanv74 iDXnVJ42P1Q8UfTWSqItr17syMEizotPwX6YuGFu0GFnyxLDB+siiJcG4X6tKeKlO6pooYkwCGvH 3Q0UGweFvLBtY8fPVjaw8K6zZwIOFVyw57k0sQAEbvSI0Mq062E2VqgIAgA7 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/menu/articles.gif R0lGODlhRAAUANU9AEpjl2qN2m2Q3F18wFl5vIGg4aq+6nSV3Y6p5Gh9q4Si4UFclDtPeYun44Ce 4LLF7TFMhHGR05Gr4WGCyIKg4b/O732c4Hma363B683Z836d4PX3/Zy054il4rnK7uHo+Ovw+qvA 66zA63+f4dfh9azB63+e4cPS8bfI7n6e4D1RfTVRjHuSw67C7Co4V09qo1RsoKG46K+/4Zew5kFX hoek4pqx4Zqy52eK1DVHboyfyLDD7GV8rC1IgP///2qO2yH5BAEAAD0ALAAAAABEABQAAAb/wJ5w SCwaj8ikcolcABK8qHRKrVqv2CoBtkgmZBXUo4UplUSiM9oQYhveobgobsbY7/i8Pj832HgQRToV ITMNCgoFBSMmjYwmKSkak5IpDiOYmYqbnJ2enhQKNQ0dEStDLCgcGgcBP6+wsbKztLW2tgEHugRC AA83F7fCw8TEAgITXSwxBa7Fz9DFyAA9OjMHxB0bO7UcHj8cGxy0G9/RsQETND0zCtjDJD4+tRsb Px0ZHbQ+GeeyAyp6IHDgTJgPED7G3cvwYYM8Hx7w6ePQEMQ4fj80ZKhnjgOIDRZvDWAgUAMxDz46 +Pjwaoe8DyfkkXC5Q4O8DPJs9kP4AWG/wJvyRJJEYHJYvR84Tbo0d5QmSm47QKjMh/GHwx8+xO0w V2tkyWEqs8r7RvNVUx87cMri5/Jh0Hg3hX4VFi+D3aBlrdqjmfQV1QwuAW/9xoFDzIS2vBIdthIW Sg55r9LksFIjRIzyOoSlzDImt65Di9p6Csvmh7wf5JWFmxVrP5QPuaWWB0Lu4lsdPsMqrKEmrB01 fd/boXCHvozARUNWmJhkAwv+okuHRYCkggsFp2snFoBAjh4RWm0fPwzHCxdBAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/menu/classifieds.gif R0lGODlhRAAUANU9AF18wFl5vIGg4aq+6nSV3Y6p5GqN2mh9q4Si4UFajztPeYun44Ce4LLF7TFM hHGR05Gr4WGCyIKg4WyQ3L/O732c4Hma301lma3B67nK7uHo+Jy059fh9evw+qvA68PS8azA63+f 4azB63+e4bfI7n6e4GyP22+S3Jqy53uSw0hhlk9qo1RsoKG46K+/4So4VzVRjK7C7Jew5pqx4Yyf yGeK1DVHboil4n6d4PX3/c3Z82V8rLDD7C1IgP///2qO2yH5BAEAAD0ALAAAAABEABQAAAb/wJ5w SCwaj8ikcolMXA67qHRKrVqv2GqApUoeXBRSI4YRiUCgM3rgYQ/enjgobsbY7/i8Pj8fzHYORTQU HjILCAgCAiEjjYwjJSU4k5IlDCGYmYqbnJ2enhIINws3DzBDKSQbOCcGP6+wsbKztLW2tgYnBCcB QioNKBYmt8TFxsUTExGnKS0Cw8fR0sfKXTQyBK84Gj7dGjg/GTnTsRwcPzgdOT45G8U5GbMRCj0y CCev3To8Ouw//eRgZYjXjwO/G8V86JgFIEGPAgxcZfDBA1a/DQB/8FCXo+K/HDkWagT5LVwGHut0 3FD544aGHB08bnjJbSHKHN8A0CsA7kcH/x+0APLQ1+3GxA4/M9zoxsGHhh8gJ7IbygMH025Vrypc 6qOpBp0Pe4IMChQluIn8fGTAoXIoB6MVxwqliBad07pD93WFC5bnq3Vk0XHrRpGrjw7uCFOEOm5u WsUhgeZbqJhH3579EL5amgEgN4MfKOLYwINbB40bmgKVW5ZiPx6wP6QFZ9Vm6m6XN7OjXRTgOhxc N/pYxS50vJ+M/7XmscEpjqEamn+radynj9yvpK5Tq1yjYrXNCWcl/CG54x+qiyonrMMqeeybP+hg 2dLjDdgaET6vCgu25g3u3IcOf/V5tBkP92nm3w9gLVBBQBBGCEsA9CBggSsSZhiNAQHY0A7DAwRg qOGIt9SwwgtBAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/menu/forums.gif R0lGODlhRAAUANU9AGqN2m2Q3F18wFl5vIGg4aq+6nSV3Y6p5Gh9q4Si4UFclDtPeYun44Ce4LLF 7TFMhHGR05Gr4WGCyIKg4b/O732c4Hma301lma3B636d4Iil4py056vA6+vw+rnK7qzA63+f4azB 69fh9X+e4eHo+MPS8bfI7n6e4H+e4Ehhlk9qo1RsoKG46K+/4XuSw2R/tjVRjIek4pew5pqx4Yaa xWeK1DBAYz9UgpGjys3Z8/X3/bDD7GV8rC1IgP///2qO2yH5BAEAAD0ALAAAAABEABQAAAb/wJ5w SCwaj8ikcolUXF68qHRKrVqv2OpglUoiWhSTI4QJhT6fM7rAYRfenPgnbsbY7/i8Pj8vzF4PRTgU HDIMCQkEBCAjjYwjJycZk5InKCCYmYqbnJ2enhMJMQwaEDBDNCYbGQYAP6+wsbKztLW2tgAGugNC KQ4yFrfCw8TEAQESCj0uLASuxdDRxchdODIGtRs629zS3sIAEjc9MgnYtDs+JDnsOd/vtQLjBw3P s+k7sx7bORk/Hjl0dNjh7oeGHBoIBhzYQUfBHdtI+BMmYEGPAxPR+cgXK4cPHSQ+/tDho6HHV/g8 +hDh42MHHx40tGRJYljFixnvtdyZT+QPrI8aSL46+SOljw0/Wr7ykSOdCA0eON66idFWuhI7svpj inLjtqE+uhIMO1LHUnc7N9q0WLUWPlkrX3nwavYnWaOvviZ1t2MDS7JT2eaU9TbWyx0yw+r1uCMD ybF56zItAfPHy7U4raqNtSGth7KvEvMkqpdphrQlMLellaExOtc/NiCFpbVxwleyUWpAiZjYTQYV 4Al/N8BiAgv2hisHN8BGDwitlku/VUOFjSAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/menu/books.gif R0lGODlhRAAUANU9AEpjl2qN2m2Q3F18wFl5vIGg4aq+6nSV3Y6p5Gh9q4Si4UFclDtPeYun44Ce 4LLF7TFMhHGR05Gs5GGCyIKg4cDP8H2c4Hma363B67DD7H6d4M3Z85y057nK7uvw+oil4qvA66zA 63+f4azB69fh9eHo+H+e4bfI7n6e4D1RfZGp3H+e4Co4V09qo1RsoKG46K+/4UFXhjVRjJew5oek 4pqx4Zqy52eK1DVHboGWxJGjyvX3/WV8rC1IgP///2qO2yH5BAEAAD0ALAAAAABEABQAAAb/wJ5w SCwaj8ikcolcABK8qHRKrVqv2CrBtUgmYJXTY4QZjUKhM9oAYhveoHgobsbY7/i8Pj831HgQRToV IDMNCgoFBSImjYwmKCgak5IoKyKYmYqbnJ2enhQKNA0fETJDOSccGgcBP6+wsbKztLW2tgEHugRC AA82F7fCw8TEAgITXTkvBa7Fz9DFyAA9KhIHzzva2hXQJCTRsgETMT0SCtjFPjsbGzs+G9k74bID KT0IDs7E8LDrrx20bdAAUCBBbT84bOjwwx27YgMY4CP4rN+PDD5KNFxX4t8Gjv+0cfDhg0MHHx48 +GA4LOJEaCRjlvzxb+OHmh8/vCPJYWMHkQ0bPhBziYCiuhIZMpycZxEjxngXfWTYOe/HTZIeeraU WBQm1I00wf04iVEs2XckVv7QwCFDRw9DuRrlB/XqD5UZ7OK1i/CdBpWragojOneYTJIZEspkODIm Q4Q3s8pMvPXls6SYZSWdu/kVB61t13aO26OBBXqoU8MiIFHBhX2qYxMLQABHjwitZOsedqMFiyAA Ow== ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/menu/newsletter.gif R0lGODlhRAAUANU9AG6R3F18wFl5vIGg4aq+6nSV3Y6p5GqN2mh9q4Si4UFclDtPeYun44Ce4LLF 7TFMhHGR05Gs5GGCyIKg4b/O732c4Hma30pjl63B64il4uHo+LnK7py059fh9cPS8avA6+vw+qzA 6n+f4azB63+e4X6e4LfI7myP23uSw09qo1RsoKG46Iek4jVRjD9Ugpew5pqx4YaaxWeK1DBAY67C 7JGjypGp3GR/tvX3/X6d4M3Z82V8rLDD7C1IgP///2qO2yH5BAEAAD0ALAAAAABEABQAAAb/wJ5w SCwaj8ikcolUXG67qHRKrVqv2KpApUgiQhSTg4YZjT6fcwhD+LQJcPQHgzZj7vi8fq9HE2A3D0U1 FB8vDAkJAwMiJI6NJCUlOZSTJQ0imZqLnJ2en58TCSwMGRAtQzEmHDkFBz+wsbKztLW2t7cHAAUA AkIXDi8WJ7jFxsfGACcSXSgrA8TI0tPIyxc9NhEFsBs4PLEdHdS0HDgctjzfOTrHEi49EQkAsDo+ PjmwODjjszw+37V8sKt3LMA7Aw1e/ajnQ9wPfdz06cjBg93CDT8y6MiQQ4O+b/6+ZfAI4tsGH95w CPyxTh/GhR1waAiwoIcBfPQa+jgH0QPK/w4oT3LIYO+Hz5E6fWQImcMe0H9PQdjbJ1WDVHb2NMys eTNWvaY+Hu5DmZOojpM7VT78l8EDxX8n1fnQ8GMlQbP5ws6FRdMmzoVh/emAaK/wv6z26rHzl/Vt RcNk7QaGrNdi3645YWmYWrdkOrc+k+7MyKGbDw8h66XjgbruwMk60m3AuPLH5b8EWXKWyiOH1AxE /20OW/ceB4Ehj2t4S7chYHz2gBetfdsr8R/+9h0vbDH6SYdo7Tn+8TR6cQ1oM4T/55ov179LZfE4 Bytdhlgc1PWOtRQgRZz9xULROfnhQ9F+2N1nW00MVMDPgxDGIkBNCVigUIQYInOAADP0AAuBKxmG aIwMKcwQBAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/cards.gif R0lGODlhwAAaANX/AJaIif/IzuUCI6YIKuRKbfSasv3s9P/3/+3X/0I5TgAAQSYnZCIlYgINbwIs cvD1/AAzZgFChPn7/QNVjCx2o1mTt32sxgBlltfs9u3y9LnT3dDg5p+/yvX7/Zmnqubr7M74/n2b ner+/wM1NWaZmV+AgNvj4/z///z9/fr7+87t433EqDqgd19kYgF4QwBbHv//9////f/97f3CAf7Q Vf7rtffv3/+YAK5gDszLymgtC/VoHScUDf7z8v///wAAACwAAAAAwAAaAAAG/8CfcEgsGo/Ioc+3 YDif0Kh0SnUuk9hscnnper/gcPiqLZt/y7R6zW67r8vmtAlx2Bny56LZ6DfwVHBvg4RsaD5iiYpe goWOhEI+EJOUlZaXmJcRPod5UHcJoQt2Dk58f6EJC35TjY+OEjkbaoeLtmOcPiS7vL2+v8DBnGiZ xcaYm51RdgkDAs/QAwylfQk7M9jZOAx/nq6vbBk5LTxELWm1t+oXcCQY7/Dx8vP08yTDksf6xslx enbQAgYc0OcGthsIE2LD0SfPt1cfACTIgo7Lulvt6mncSO9epH0gkeViYspBAoEooR1MyBIhtoZW RjryQO7MDxSCLmLM5Q5DCP8OHDQEHaqBI0ePaBQoXcq0qdOnThuMbDLqZEqUOwS03Gpwxp+Yh9rk kFjODA8dO3hwAAAgp85FGTEEDaGhLlGjG5GC20vL37SrWJ9d48pyBsMmjT54AFDzjA60O9CinZjA 7dtEcfHaC7brnd4OoDtIeJAGdCHRa0J3ELTHgTPAAWcg3EG45YxVDATZPPsDx44fO3wLSfv7B4+c EyZESM68ufLnyZc/75JZc7x7bnrqXWMheYUlGRxwqBCBgw8KfRxoWEIhgoYK69cocwAbtuzaCRss gDMxi8He2vwmYHA4+FaWIBRUsMFQF+RQF3xABaWBBUMRRR1PGGzAWTAWaLj/oWf4sFFBAxQs4YBU Jz4QQQMWaMCiDy42UAEHs8gXh0kCEEBAjjumdN99CNVAA21b0eBVbrm0YIQOwN3wAzY64LAScTgA N5wOPBQnSIubUFBieRS0WIEFYZKZwwQxWHABDONNUJ111m23BgckwqgAjDJm0MAmajgQQQQlttGJ awOAEMMAPgRAQADPFFBADj4I4CiPbWlgAw01IETDDTQAIMIM3MABgHE7lAqccE8OsZKTwfVW6mNE zHIImRckWOsEFUxA4wReVuDAeV0kCEGbb8KJl5xq0FliA26uuN6eDnywhAUNfOBAoIbcKACiBXjg Qwvw+dADCC1s8EEBGohA/0AHIIBAAw46wGeDt+yC4MMNCUiVSw4/oNVbgWjdoMMMqmpjHJNJtDVr BRlUUCIFH4xngQocxDCjBglm0J0PE2xQATsYZqjBBiTXJXJRxsKDbBoujqmvHRnAaEcDEvjQgHl+ ujHoAASAwAFoOpLMQQ8DiMCtCN5WllAOH+TwAAAg3HAOvvoeQuqVTOpwg5TY/IuwFscdQgEHEwhV wdkWWHA22mqPGUHaY1qwXFxA/cQBCXXjLc+GvYAYCRsaXCsjnnwuMUED75GoXOE2MuFaARyI8KgP BQAggw72+oAoAAN4EIMOHWzqQw4ekIaDuzXIQLVuVkoWXKtR2jREZbUw9//n2hRc0PbZCfLu+5jF ppxXiGsE/id7N3MQ6OHUhkmeAzVn6/gAimlQaOQigNCBCFB7UEEHCGhQwAAViCDCzyJokAEOFmQv pAJIHjJRqWn1K7sQPCTQAqQ+nDDSF7h6z5gycIExvSdtavvA2TbgvOAJrx4rW0KMSCOBPvigAgpI DwdWlIYT1ahxcnjGAEZIQhJu6xkFKhBtopTCAhmmQAj5gyBGdb/ZecAASxDBCljgghe84H9ewJXD ZEABB2yggLnrVQVUkCDlna0dfItiFImXGv8t4QGrWcIGYuYDLi5hNDrzB33qIxj60QZIhJlBC/Qj CA/YJAEAqFEHNLDDHvr/0AV4dAEQuyDEAo6pgDnoAcRyBx8mwgdXD1GDOMDDP0cskhZh4Qs45mMV MgYEPyzRT/y0iAUetMADB/BBB1RQRzve8QV5tOMeL8CrDABFKByAwds+oIEPbKBFE4rYeBK5hBH4 cgQ+CAEwHyFM+aABk8hE5lSc4BpLDgaNaUyAAhAjkyLozwNMy54GeHhHHrpgBdvk4QpcwIJylnOV rJwAHyOQzubw8Z3JaYQwRwApYaYgmIoZAQdG4K1g+pJ/JfClDzwATA60ACeRSKZCuTKDZTLzNWQc DH7UqMlNLqEFn/zACU5ASm7eMY8s8MEKOuoDFaznmxJgwQpWgM7LfEEQ/8XMATBHUJk0EHSe/hzd TEdgghLk0wf8JMO9FkpUlzj0oWRsQAtWZZsZ5MshMjlBKT+aylSyQFqkXOkKOADOHfrAhy116YUO 8UuBCtSmBd3pL4HaSIKOoAToOGZRidpQZXxiAYAZwMwY0JVsaAMmT2jECn7gw8Ia9rCHJadhWYBK VaZDrGAQRAuGKa19eiAFCSAdMAn6LcoCdZgZIOg+uRgJv5r2tKhNrWmPWpJSNIOECbgDHvrAgAS0 MF/diIIrVMDb3vr2t7zVQHCF21vh1oW3YRVrIybrSxMMdK3FJMEwmTsCaUF3p0KV5F7sOgVSkCIK cvADKwIhE+0+4rGQZR5Eec3riBq69xBViC9490DfKpDhvTaxSHrVi9/7BQEAO+WvI3ZI4ENU4cD2 3YOCq0CGAtvEv/9tq4NvFwQAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/siriusdog/center-spacer.gif R0lGODlh9AECAIAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAD0AQIAAAIehI+py+0Po5y02ouz3rz7D4bi SJbmiabqyrbuCzsFADs= ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.siriusdog.com/amazon/templates/version2/images/bg_heading.gif R0lGODlhmQATALMAACVgliJkoSZglSRhmSJknyRimyFloiFkoiJkoCRimiVhmCNjnSVhlyFlowAA AAAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAACZABMAAAT/kIEJmL046827/2AojuRGVYAgVErrvnAsz3Rt33iu77Kk TivGIEEsGo/IpHLJbDqf0Kg0OfBRhIWFdsvter/gsHhMLpvP6G+heh1kCYi4fE6v2+/4vH7P7/v/ dAQLaxIMCgkLBAEBB42Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmam46LggkKFocLCAEGDaipqqusra6vsLGys7S1tqkG AQgLoKKICAe3wsPExcbHDQe7vYa/wcjQ0dLTsMq8oc2kz9Tc3d631syjwN/l5uep4djj2+ju78jq vqSm8Pb3trnL64iKjJwAAwocSHCgp2uF3CQCxLChw4cQIyIQRKhNljQYM2rcyLGjlopAKCoMmUKy pMmTKFMSYbMiRRAeMGPKnEmzpgsfQU6U2Mmzp8+fQC/ojAAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://siriusdog.com/images/siriusdog/style.css BODY { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } H1 { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 18pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: "Times = New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white } H2 { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: "Times = New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #6a8edb } H3 { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #6a8edb; = BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #6a8edb; COLOR: #6a8edb; BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #6a8edb; = FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = transparent; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #6a8edb; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: solid } H4 { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: "Times = New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent } H5 { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: "Times = New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent } H6 { FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", = Georgia, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent } LI { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent } TH { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: "Times = New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent } TD { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Georgia, sans-serif } A:link { COLOR: #990000; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A:visited { COLOR: #294984; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A:active { COLOR: #990000; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A:hover { COLOR: #990099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js google_ad_url =3D '';=0A= google_random =3D (new Date()).getTime();=0A= google_org_error_handler =3D window.onerror;=0A= =0A= function quoted(str) {=0A= return (str !=3D null) ? '"' + str + '"' : '""';=0A= }=0A= =0A= function google_encodeURIComponent(str) {=0A= if (typeof(encodeURIComponent) =3D=3D 'function') {=0A= return encodeURIComponent(str);=0A= } else {=0A= return escape(str);=0A= }=0A= }=0A= =0A= function google_write_tracker(tracker_event) {=0A= var img_url =3D window.google_ad_url.replace(/pagead\/ads/, = 'pagead/imp.gif');=0A= var img_src =3D img_url + '&event=3D' + tracker_event;=0A= var img_tag =3D '';=0A= document.write(img_tag);=0A= }=0A= =0A= function google_append_url(param, value) {=0A= if (value) {=0A= window.google_ad_url +=3D '&' + param + '=3D' + value;=0A= }=0A= }=0A= =0A= function google_append_url_esc(param, value) {=0A= if (value) {=0A= google_append_url(param, google_encodeURIComponent(value));=0A= }=0A= }=0A= =0A= function google_append_color(param, value) {=0A= if (value && typeof(value) =3D=3D 'object') {=0A= value =3D value[window.google_random % value.length];=0A= }=0A= google_append_url('color_' + param, value);=0A= }=0A= =0A= function google_show_ad() {=0A= var w =3D window;=0A= w.onerror =3D w.google_org_error_handler;=0A= w.google_ad_url =3D 'http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?' = +=0A= 'client=3Dca-' + = escape(w.google_ad_client.toLowerCase()) +=0A= '&random=3D' + w.google_random;=0A= =0A= google_append_url('hl', w.google_language);=0A= google_append_url('gl', w.google_gl);=0A= google_append_url_esc('hints', w.google_hints);=0A= google_append_url('adsafe', w.google_safe);=0A= google_append_url('oe', w.google_encoding);=0A= google_append_url('lmt', w.google_last_modified_time);=0A= google_append_url_esc('alternate_ad_url', w.google_alternate_ad_url);=0A= =0A= if (w.google_ad_format) {=0A= google_append_url_esc('format', w.google_ad_format.toLowerCase());=0A= }=0A= =0A= google_append_url('num_ads', w.google_max_num_ads);=0A= google_append_url('output', w.google_ad_output);=0A= google_append_url('adtest', w.google_adtest);=0A= if (w.google_ad_channel) {=0A= google_append_url_esc('channel', w.google_ad_channel.toLowerCase());=0A= }=0A= google_append_url_esc('url', w.google_page_url);=0A= google_append_color('bg', w.google_color_bg);=0A= google_append_color('text', w.google_color_text);=0A= google_append_color('link', w.google_color_link);=0A= google_append_color('url', w.google_color_url);=0A= google_append_color('border', w.google_color_border);=0A= google_append_url('kw_type', w.google_kw_type);=0A= google_append_url_esc('kw', w.google_kw);=0A= google_append_url_esc('contents', w.google_contents);=0A= google_append_url('num_radlinks', w.google_num_radlinks);=0A= google_append_url('max_radlink_len', w.google_max_radlink_len);=0A= =0A= w.google_ad_url =3D w.google_ad_url.substring(0, 1000);=0A= w.google_ad_url =3D w.google_ad_url.replace(/%\w?$/, '');=0A= =0A= if (google_ad_output =3D=3D 'js' && w.google_ad_request_done) {=0A= document.write('');=0A= } else if (google_ad_output =3D=3D 'html') {=0A= if (w.name =3D=3D 'google_ads_frame') {=0A= google_write_tracker('reboundredirect');=0A= } else {=0A= document.write('');=0A= google_write_tracker('noiframe');=0A= document.write('');=0A= }=0A= }=0A= =0A= w.google_ad_frameborder =3D null;=0A= w.google_ad_format =3D null;=0A= w.google_page_url =3D null;=0A= w.google_language =3D null;=0A= w.google_gl =3D null;=0A= w.google_hints =3D null;=0A= w.google_safe =3D null;=0A= w.google_encoding =3D null;=0A= w.google_ad_output =3D null;=0A= w.google_max_num_ads =3D null;=0A= w.google_ad_channel =3D null;=0A= w.google_contents =3D null;=0A= w.google_alternate_ad_url =3D null;=0A= w.google_color_bg =3D null;=0A= w.google_color_text =3D null;=0A= w.google_color_link =3D null;=0A= w.google_color_url =3D null;=0A= w.google_color_border =3D null;=0A= w.google_adtest =3D null;=0A= w.google_kw_type =3D null;=0A= w.google_kw =3D null;=0A= w.google_num_radlinks =3D null;=0A= w.google_max_radlink_len =3D null;=0A= }=0A= =0A= function google_error_handler(message, url, line) {=0A= google_show_ad();=0A= return true;=0A= }=0A= =0A= window.onerror =3D google_error_handler;=0A= =0A= if (window.google_ad_frameborder =3D=3D null) {=0A= google_ad_frameborder =3D 0;=0A= }=0A= =0A= if (window.google_ad_output =3D=3D null) {=0A= google_ad_output =3D 'html';=0A= }=0A= =0A= if (window.google_ad_format =3D=3D null && window.google_ad_output = =3D=3D 'html') {=0A= google_ad_format =3D google_ad_width + 'x' + google_ad_height;=0A= }=0A= =0A= if (window.google_page_url =3D=3D null) {=0A= google_page_url =3D document.referrer;=0A= if (window.top.location =3D=3D document.location) {=0A= google_page_url =3D document.location;=0A= google_last_modified_time =3D Date.parse(document.lastModified) / = 1000;=0A= }=0A= }=0A= google_show_ad();=0A= =0A= ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C3F490.4B35F080--