Elongated Soft Palate in bird dogs

Elongated soft palate (ESP) is one of a set of conditions normally associated with brachycephalic syndrome, which is endemic to pug-nosed dogs. These breeds very often suffer breathing and other problems due to the truncation of their noses. What I did not know is that pointing breeds can suffer from the problem.

For a bird dog ESP is a huge problem - the rear of the soft palate extends down far enough to partially block the airway leading to the trachea and it makes full inhalation and exhalation especially difficult. Animals with elongated soft palates breathe heavily with a fluttering , gasping sound. They may also gag when they try to swallow, and may even have pale gum tissue from lack of oxygen in the blood after exercise.

My young pup, Little John or "LJ", has been with John McIltrot in Montana since last summer. John noticed that he ran well but tired much sooner than he should. John spoke with Dr. Terry Terlep, DVM of Thomasville, Georgia who felt that the symptoms were consistent with ESP. Subsequent medical examination revealed that his airway was restricted due to an elongated soft palate. "It was like he was trying to run a marathon while breathing through a soda straw" according to John. He just could not show us what we truly expected from him.

This is the first I have heard of this problem in pointing dogs. I spoke with Dr. Terlep hoping to learn more about ESP in pointing dogs. He told me that when he had his practice in South Florida he would see four or five bird dogs a year that were afflicted with ESP. "Owners usually came in saying the dog overheated or lacked stamina. The sound of dogs with elongated soft palate is distinctive, the dog breathes like a freight train after exercise and the labored breathing has a fluttering sound."

"The treatment for elongated soft palate is surgical, simple and effective. The operation takes only 30 minutes or so and when completed the difference in performance is dramatic. This problem can be present in all pointing breeds and is hereditary, but the genetics have not really been studied " Dr. Terlep continued. I think bird dog people, especially breeders, need to take this more seriously. Certainly they should learn to recognize the symptoms and seek treatment when they see it."

On January 4th, Dr. Rich Scherr, DVM, of Great Falls operated and corrected LJ's palate. It is a relatively simple procedure that employs a laser to cut away excess soft palate tissue and simultaneously cauterize the wound. Dr. Scherr also mentioned that LJ had robust aerobic capability comparable to the 'plumbing' of a larger dog. We are hoping that this correction helps LJ to reach his full potential.

UPDATE - February 7th. >>>> L.J. is running very well and his bird finding and endurance is much improved. I think the problem is behind us.

Here is LJ - sedated and ready for the procedure that will allow him to better do what he was bred to do.

Endurance in sled dogs

There is an informative article on the Science Daily website about research into the amazing endurance of Alaskan sled dogs.

"It is unclear how these racing dogs can keep running, despite heavy blizzards, temperatures as low as –40°F, and winds up to 60 mph. No other animal has been found to come close to the physiological attributes these dogs display."


The article goes on to quantify attributes that allow these dogs to perform so well, and for so long...

• Rapid adaption to exercise and the ability to sustain and recover
• Tremendous aerobic capability
• Ability to rapidly convert fat into energy
• Possible physiological attributes that enable endurance through high energy production and efficient use of energy

It's worth a read and may help us to make better bird dogs.
  

Line Breeding, inbreeding and COI

Berg Brothers Head Turner

There has been, off and on, lengthy discussions about 'line breeding', breeding related dogs. The discussion usually revolve around "how close is too close"? One side argues the idea that closely bred dogs are unsound, and that breeding unrelated dogs is a better strategy. Others argue that line breeding, when done properly, results in more consistent litters of above average dogs.  I am one who believes that line breeding has a lot of pluses when done intelligently, and within the framework of a defined program - one that aims at removing dogs that may be carriers of detrimental genetic traits, while taking advantage of positive traits to improve a line of bird dogs.


Scott Berg, of Berg Brothers Setters, has this to say on the subject of line breeding...

"In terms of what is an acceptable level of inbreeding, opinions are going to vary.  There is considerable empirical evidence that supports the position above that COI levels well into the 20s can be sustained.  Personally, I don’t find it necessary to push those limits.  However, the difference between .03 or even .06 and .25 is very wide and the practical implications are very substantial.  The practical implications would be that we would have to focus on diversity not performance to maintain levels at .03 or below.  This approach suggests that breeders have done such a good and consistent job in selection that the consistency we seek in narrowing the gene pool for a specific breeding is already present in the population.  This is a very uninformed position in my opinion.   For starters, 95% of breeders don’t evaluate and cut enough prospects to gain anywhere near this level of consistency.   There are substantial differences in size, build, gait, stamina, heat tolerance, intelligence, biddability, mental make-up, bird finding, manners around game and the traits that make for good companions.

We have always followed a pretty basic premise which is to put a significant number of prospects through a rigid selection process and only retain the superior individuals.  We have experimented with a large percentage of the available ES lines and have evaluated about 250 individuals of my own for breeding purposes.  That number is probably low because we have evaluated 90+ in the past 3 years.   Of course, we also get substantial feedback from clients, and we have trained, trialed with and observed a thousand (literally) other dogs.   Our experience would suggest line breeding produces a significant but not monumental increase consistency and the overall quality of the individuals produced.  We will continue to breed the best individuals and monitor our relative success. 

Line breeding is not very practical for the guy with 4-6 dogs in the backyard.  Actually, I think that is a considerable factor in this method being questioned.  That’s how guys that breed 1-2 litters/year constructs a position that their methods and understanding rival Bob Wehle.  I break par a few times a year but I sure as hell am not going to compare my knowledge of the golf swing to Butch Harmon. 

The relative benefit of line breeding is a constructive topic. I believe that good dogs can be produced in a heterogeneous litter as long as the ancestry consists of exceptional individuals throughout the pedigree.  We have produced many such litters.   However, our observations have been that modest inbreeding (half-sibs or less) produces with greater consistency.  This pattern will produce COIs well below what has PROVEN  to be tolerable levels."

The economics of quality breeding

In a recent exchange on one of the Internet bird dog bulletin boards, breeder Scott Berg replied to a poster who suggested that a 'free' pup from a  casual breeder is as good a prospect for the average hunter as a carefully bred pup form a conscientious and informed breeder. Here is his (edited) response...

The difference between free and $700 is $54/yr. The difference between the (pup from) a guy in the back yard and the most experienced, accomplished, and proven breeders as compared to a backyard breeder is about $300/pup or about $23/yr over a 13 yr lifespan.

Even the most conservative estimates suggest the average person spends $600/yr to feed and care for a dog. This does not consider training cost. And, even if you train the dog yourself, equipment, vehicle costs, birds, etc are not free. It’s quite reasonable to say that we spend $1,000yr on a dog. Therefore, the additional cost of buying a dog from the most accomplished breeders in the country vs a backyard breeder equates to 2.3% of what you spend on a dog annually. It’s rounding error.

Additionally, if we consider what we spend on hunting, training, and possibly trialing I put on 20,000 miles a year doing those things. If we use the IRS estimate of 45 cents a mile that’s $9,000/yr. For a modestly serious hunter, let’s say they don’t spend a dime at shooting preserves or have a lease, between vehicle costs, hotel, shells, license, equipment, what would you estimate they spend? Obviously, expenditures vary vastly but to estimate $2,000/yr would be conservative for anyone we could call a serious hunter with the possible exception of someone with unlimited land access in very close proximity to their home and no desire to travel to other places. Between the dog and actually hunting we are talking minimally $3,000yr. In this context, 23 bucks looks very insignificant. I guess if the individual has two dogs it’s 56 bucks.

Your position suggests that relative quality is somehow improved because a breeder has one or two litters each year. There is absolutely no relevance or correlation between number of litters and relative quality. That is determined by the degree of selectivity and the quality of the selection process applied by the breeder. 

For example, Breeder X could have two producing females and have evaluated four females to get those two females. This is quite common in the scenario you have posed. Breeder Y could have 10 producing females but evaluated 100 females to get those 10 females. Breeder Y has practiced 5X the degree of selectivity. Of course, the relative quality of the parents would be particularly important. I think it’s pretty logical to assume that if both breeders have been breeding for the same number of years, Breeder Y’s producing females will also be superior after having applied this degree of selectivity for a number of years. Breeder Y also will accumulate considerably more experience in the selection process over the years. Bob Wehle, taken as an example, was probably quite a bit better at this process than a guy with a couple dogs in the backyard..."

What do they say about opinions? Everyone has one... or something?

Merry Christmas!

Line breeding vs. inbreeding

A discussion emerged on an Internet BBS regarding inbreeding and line breeding, which terms seem to be used loosely and often, interchangeably. For what it's worth, I offer my own opinion...

A dog that is the result of a line breeding program is linebred. If a breeding program is, as many are, intended to fix and perpetuate characteristics of type within a related group of dogs, it is a line breeding PROGRAM, regardless of COI (coefficient of inbreeding) calculations. This type of breeding program is very common practice among bird dog breeders.

If you define 'line bred' by looking only at the DEGREE of relatedness (which is essentially what COI indicates) then you are talking about the degree of inbreeding.

Thus, there is a BIG difference between line breeding and inbreeding, IMO.

A biology lesson on AI breeding

I was recently involved in effort to assist in breeding of a setter bitch bred by my friend Mark Hume of Seattle. The owner is located in Wyoming, and I have no facilities for isolated housing of a female in heat - and quite a number of willing males. It seemed that a chilled semen breeding between Ted and this female was the simplest way to get it done. I have no experience with AI (artificial insemination), but located a clinic to assist us through trainer Sheldon Twer. Unfortunately for the owner of the setter female, one of his male Brittanies covered her in a brief moment of opportunity. This happens. We may try again next year.

While poking around on the subject of AI, I also had a conversation with Solon Rhode who offered this (edited) account of his experience breeding by AI.

One breeder’s experience.

We attempted unsuccessfully to breed our Small Munsterlander bitch Janni last June by natural cover. Both Janni and the stud were inexperienced and we did not get a successful tie until late in her cycle, which was over by day 17. I suspect the reason the mating didn’t take was because we missed the fertile window and this is a common cause of breeding failures.

So we decided on her next cycle to try an AI. There are some advantages to AI, one of the main ones is that it increases the choices of stud dogs. It avoids the expense and stress of shipping the bitch, which may not be possible during times extreme weather conditions. One can also use a stud that is no longer fertile or even still alive, if his semen has been stored frozen.

We selected a young male, Zip, imported from Germany as the stud, for he seemed to be a good complement to Janni. Zip lives 1300 miles away, but shipping semen express by air eliminates the distance factor. Near where Zip lives, we found a vet that was a small animal reproduction specialist to handle the semen collection. Because Zip had not been bred before, a test collection was done prior to Janni’s expected heat cycle to verify his sperm quality and its ability to be preserved. We elected to do a breeding with chilled semen, since Zip is a young dog and insemination with chilled semen does not require a surgical procedure, or even sedation of the bitch. Zip’s semen was high quality and stored well with the extender.

There are many logistical details to be worked out in advance at both ends of the breeding process. The stud owner and vet need to be available on off days for making the collection on sudden notice and I alerted them when Janni went into proestrus. This is important because the optimal time for the insemination is 2 days after ovulation has been determined by progesterone testing (more about that below). Frozen semen has the advantage over chilled semen in that it can be shipped well in advance and stored at the vet until needed. Its disadvantage is it takes a surgical procedure to endoscopically implant it into the uterus. Chilled semen can be put into the uterus trans-cervically using an endoscope too, but that requires some sedation. Our vet says that 90% of the time he can advance a small plastic catheter into the uterus to implant the semen without sedation.

When done by experienced people, AI provides just as high a conception rate and litter size as natural cover, maybe even better. see the Camelot Farms web site, which has a lot of useful information.

The chilled semen is preserved with an extender. We used CaniPro 5 made by Minitube and the Minitube shipping container. The shipping container will maintain the chill for 45 hours or more depending on the temperatures of its environment. The semen was delivered by the vet’s technician to a FedEx office. Be sure that the carrier can deliver overnight – holidays may cause a problem. The semen should be implanted 2 days after ovulation for chilled semen and 3 days after for frozen semen. The sperm has a viability in utero of 24 to 48 hours for chilled semen and only 12 hours for frozen. So with frozen semen, the timing is more critical.

Here is a useful link to the canine estrus cycle and other aspects of canine reproduction.

Determining the time of ovulation is done by tracking the blood progesterone level of the bitch - counting days or judging readiness by the bitch’s level of receptiveness is not very reliable. We did the progesterone testing with an ELISA kit obtained by our vet that cost $211 for ten determinations.

The other tricky part is getting the progesterone levels done. You want to do them in the early part of the day so they are ready for that day blood pickup if they are being sent out and also so you have time to act once ovulation has been determined. The ELISA test takes about an hour, but if you send blood out for a radioimmunoassay, you don’t get the result until the next day.

 Janni’s level was done first on day 4 and the result was at the baseline low value of less than 3 ng/ml. The same result was obtained on day 6 of her cycle but then it surprised us and jumped up to greater than 3 and less than 10 on day 8. The threshold of 5 ng/ml indicates that ovulation has occurred. So we were confident she was ovulating on Dec. 31st, day 8-not the best timing for shipping to be sure. Janni has a short cycle, which probably explains why the previous attempt to breed her didn’t work.

I had the blood drawn by the tech at the vet and she ran the tests on days 4,6,and 8. You can do the test every two days until it shows it is increasing and then you should do it daily. Since the day 8 ELISA for progesterone came back greater than 3 and less than 10, it meant ovulation was imminent. So phone calls were made to Zip’s owner and he was able to get the semen collection by that afternoon. Be sure someone involved has a FedEx account well in advance (6 weeks) so the shipment can be done when needed. FedEX has an expedited express service for $180 that will deliver door to door 365 days per year and 24/7. With normal FedEx overnight service the package will not move though on major holidays - as we found out.

The ELISA seems to be an adequate test, but if one is unsure, you can send the blood to an outside lab for a more accurate progesterone measurement. When it rises to 5 or higher, ovulation has occurred. The outside lab tests costs more, about $100 per test and you don't get the result until the next day. More details here.

I drew blood and ran my own progesterone ELISA New Years Day. Because Janni had ovulated so soon, I had plenty of extra sample wells, so I included some additional controls of 5 and 15 ng/ml. The higher the progesterone, the lower the level of color when the reaction is developed. Here is the result:


I read this test as Janni on day 9 was higher than 10 ng/ml and about the same as 15 ng/ml. This confirmed that she had ovulated on day 8.

Insemination: late Friday afternoon Dr. Jeff Meyers in Granville, NY did the first insemination and we repeated it again on Sunday morning. He verified by microscopy that the sperm were in good condition prior to the procedure, although by Sunday they were not quite as good, but adequate.

Dr. Meyers puts one finger into the bitch’s vagina and palpates the cervix while she stands on the examining table. The assistant (me) steadies the dog’s head and pulls her tail to the side. He then slides a long catheter along his finger and passes it well into the uterus, where he delivers the semen sample from a syringe. Afterward, you elevate her rear for a few minutes. That is it and it only takes about 10 minutes.

The total costs not including the stud fee was about $631. This includes $150 for the semen collection, $211 for the progesterone kit, $108 for the vet technician and three blood draws and tests for progesterone levels, $101 for the two inseminations, and $60.66 for the FedEx shipping. It would cost a similar amount to ship a bitch by air to a stud round trip or make a long drive to deliver her. If the breeder bought the Camelot Farms ELISA and did their own assays, that would save about $200 over the costs we incurred.

Unhappily, our effort failed and the breeding did not take. I think we did everything right, but biology is never 100%. The next time I think I will breed Janni by natural cover with a proven fertile male and really see if she is fertile.

Solon Rhode

This concludes our lesson in reproductive biology... it is not nice to fool Mother Nature. 

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I have been reading and watching the development of a phenomena. The term 'Purebred' applied to dogs is being transformed from a positive into a pejorative.

Since the airing of the BBC's exposé of pedigree dogs, an attack on the breeding of show dogs in the UK, the term purebred has begun to represent all that is bad in dog breeding and keeping. The BBC report showed that these bench bred dogs were being bred with high incidences of genetic diseases. It was illustrated with grisly and disturbing videos showing some very nasty stuff.

My dictionary tells me that purebred (when applied to an animal) means, “bred from parents of the same breed or variety.” Pretty innocent usage. But there is a potential threat when concerned people – knowledgeable and otherwise – suggest that something needs to be fixed and politics and regulation raise their ugly head. Animal welfare and animal rights organizations have joined in with condemnation and contempt for people who bred pedigree (purebred) dogs.

I would like to use this forum to try to sort the rat shit from the pepper.

What is a pedigree?

Simple – a record of an animal's ancestry showing it to be purebred. Without debunking this idea here, I'll simply say that in and of itself, a pedigree is meaningless – simply a tool for a breeder's use in tracking a dog's ancestry.

To get closer to the root of the controversy it is necessary to examine the breed clubs, registries, breeding pools, and, especially, the breeders of dogs, their practices and motives.

Breeding and breed standards

The AKC is a for profit registry for dogs. They codify breed standards that are developed by the member breed clubs. They maintain the registries for recognized breeds, and sanction shows and to a lesser extent, field and performance trials.

The standard for English setters, for example, states:

An elegant, substantial and symmetrical gun dog suggesting the ideal blend of strength, stamina, grace, and style. Flat-coated with feathering of good length. Gaiting freely and smoothly with long forward reach, strong rear drive and firm topline. Males decidedly masculine without coarseness. Females decidedly feminine without over-refinement. Overall appearance, balance, gait, and purpose to be given more emphasis than any component part. Above all, extremes of anything distort type and must be faulted.

It goes on to describe the desired physical attributes of an 'ideal' English setter. The standard was most recently ratified in 1988, after the breed had been in existence for at least 300 years. This suggests that the Breed Standard is subject to whim and revision.

What is missing? Any mention of function or capability – nose, endurance, intelligence, pointing and hunting instinct – the very things that motivated the development of the breed and allow it to do its job are nowhere mentioned in the AKC breed standard. A pity that the English setter's very reason for being has been so lightly discarded.

In this breed the bench (show) lines diverged from the field (hunting) lines long ago, and the gulf between them grows ever wider.

It has been seriously suggested that breed registries should be eliminated – that breed standards should not exist. Two different things, in my view.

If the goal is to breed healthy dogs, a registry is a critical tool in understanding and breeding sound dogs. It is the breed standards that need to be changed. The reliance on a physical description needs to be tempered, at least, with a minimum performance standard. The likelyhood of this happening is very low, indeed.

The Field Dog Stud Book is a registry of pointing breeds (open to any pointing breed) that has no breed clubs and no breed standards. This has been working well for the FDSB breeders for over 100 years, because these breeders are interested in a single goal – performance in the field. And field trials are the place where this performance is proved. That is their standard.

Open and closed book

Most registries are 'closed' – that is, they do not accept dogs of other breeds or unregistered dogs as breeding candidates. This is not harmful if the gene pool within a breed is large and diverse and breeders are working to breed sound dogs. If the breeding population is small and/or carries a heavy burden of negative genetic traits, it is not healthy.

Some people are calling for open registries with the idea that this would be good for an at risk breed. Perhaps it would... the red setter breeders interested in reviving the field capability of their breed proposed breeding to the higher performing lines of English setters were met with a hailstorm of protest from the AKC breed club, and ended up going their own way and registering with the FDSB. But if I breed my English setter to an Airdale, what do I get? Not an English setter, but a largely unknown mix of genetics. I cannot see how this helps me get a better setter or a better Airdale. Of course, the bird dog world is rife with suspicion that so-and-so breed pointers into his German shorthair or setter line. And it happens.

Fix the problem, not the blame

My take on this is that dog breeding is subject to Mendelian genetics. Breed junk and that is what you will get. Breeding run of the breed dogs will only result in producing the mean of genetics common to all dogs in the breeding population, and the overall quality of dogs will tend to decline over time. But breeding within a line of dogs and outcrossing for strong contributions from outstanding individuals in the breed, and culling (removing from the pool of breeding candidates) for sound dogs with desired performance characteristics will result in dogs that have less genetic faults than the general breed population and that will perform better. Over time, this breeding ethic, an overhaul or elimination of breed standards, and a strict registry will raise the overall level of the breed.

Political fallout

I sincerely hope that there are no attempts to further 'regulate' dog breeding. This only plays into the agenda of organizations who would like to eliminate the private ownership of animals by making dogs more difficult to breed, obtain, and keep. And believe me, these organizations are working at all levels of government to make this threat a reality.

John Yates on Ed Soph's Crockett setters

Crockett's Capriole - Owner, Joe Kormuth of Pennsylvannia

John has provided some interesting information (along with his point of view - TBE) about Ed Soph and his Crockett line of setters. I will quote his contribution - with minimal editing - below:

Ed Soph was one of the truly great setter breeders, and his Crockett dogs (along with the Commanders and Wonsovers) played a major role in restoring setters to competitiveness in all age stakes following the decades of domination by pointers since the 1930's.

Ed, while of modest means, devoted his entire life to improving setters. He is a great example of the importance of truly dedicated breeders.

He developed his own line of dogs by linebreeding on Eugene M, which possibly was the most prepotent setter sire in history.

Joe Kormuth became one of Ed's early disciples, and Joe's breeding program focused on Soph's ideas and linebreeding from Soph dogs for several decades. Probably Joe's best known dog was Hot Cell Man, which racked up roughly 50 horseback shooting dog wins around 1970; he was an all age dog, but Joe could get him around as a shooting dog.

Crockett dogs were noted from extreme toughness (both mentally and physically)and endurance. They were big dogs, as a rule, 60 pounds-plus. To be blunt, these dogs probably were far too tough for most people, and few people kept pure Crockett lines.

I started out with Crockett dogs, and loved them. But I wanted a more biddable dog, while retaining the toughness, and a somewhat smaller dog (50-to-60 pounds is what I shoot for). While Crockett dogs were my anchor, I also mixed in Sam L's Rebel lines (Crockett and Wonsover) through Sam L's Sequoia, Nabob and Rawhide, and Johnny Crockett (about a quarter Crockett, with more Wonsover). I also used Wonsup and Woncount.

Joe and I parted company about my liking for Johnny Crockett. Joe was utterly opposed to breeding to a small dog. Actually, I agreed with him, but saw true greatness in Johnny Crockett, and bred him only to big bitches.

Except for my use of Johnny Crockett, Joe and I maintained fairly similar bloodlines in the 20 years after Ed Soph's death.

Many of my dogs from this line wound up in the "too tough" category in the 1990's, and some were downright renegades. When I was younger, I liked this kind of dog. I've mellowed considerably with old age. I searched around and mixed in Tekoa Mountain Sunrise to give me gentler dogs that had a desire to please (but, of course, I couldn't resist mixing in more Johnny Crockett through Crockett's New Horizon).

I almost bred to one of Joe's males about five years ago, and, in retrospect, I think I made a mistake by passing up this opportunity. I had planned on breeding two Passenger's Blue Shadow b###hes to Joe's dog, Crockett's Capriole. Blue (which was about a quarter Soph-line Crockett)was as tough of a dog as anyone could ever want, and I was worried that breeding his daughters to Cappy would create beasts.

When I think of the setters I have had in for training over the past 10 years, especially from several grouse trial lines, I think we all could use a lot more toughness in our setters. We need a few beasts.

The Spay or Neuter decision

There has been much disinformation spread by proponents of spay and neuter as a method of population control, with claimed health benefits. Many vets also recommend the procedure, claiming health benefits without explaining (or necessarily understanding) the negative risk factors. Many adoption agreements require that a pup be altered by the age of six months.

This is a decision that should be left to the owner, and a good vet will understand and explain both the positive and negative aspects of spaying or neutering your dog, rather than proactively recommending it as standard procedure.

The following was forwarded to me by Dr. Charles Hjerpe DVM, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine. It does not address the demonstrated behavioral issues that have been seen in neutered or spayed dogs, which should also be considered.

-------------

At some point, most of us with an interest in dogs will have to consider whether or not to spay/neuter our pet. Tradition holds that the benefits of doing so at an early age outweigh the risks. Often, tradition holds sway in the decision-making process even after countervailing evidence has accumulated.

Ms. Sanborn has reviewed the veterinary medical literature in an exhaustive and scholarly treatise, attempting to unravel the complexities of the subject. More than 50 peer-reviewed papers were examined to assess the health impacts of spay / neuter in female and male dogs, respectively. One cannot ignore the findings of increased risk from osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and other less frequently occurring diseases associated with neutering male dogs. It would be irresponsible of the veterinary profession and the pet owning community to fail to weigh the relative costs and benefits of neutering on the animal’s health and well-being. The decision for females may be more complex, further emphasizing the need for individualized veterinary medical decisions, not standard operating procedures for all patients.

No sweeping generalizations are implied in this review. Rather, the author asks us to consider all the health and disease information available as individual animals are evaluated. Then, the best decisions should be made accounting for gender, age, breed, and even the specific conditions under which the long-term care, housing and training of the animal will occur.

This important review will help veterinary medical care providers as well as pet owners make informed decisions. Who could ask for more?

Larry S. Katz, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Animal Sciences
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901

INTRODUCTION

Dog owners in America are frequently advised to spay/neuter their dogs for health reasons. A number of health benefits are cited, yet evidence is usually not cited to support the alleged health benefits.

When discussing the health impacts of spay/neuter, health risks are often not mentioned. At times, some risks are mentioned, but the most severe risks usually are not.

This article is an attempt to summarize the long-term health risks and benefits associated with spay/neuter in dogs that can be found in the veterinary medical literature. This article will not discuss the impact of spay/neuter on population control, or the impact of spay/neuter on behavior.

Nearly all of the health risks and benefits summarized in this article are findings from retrospective epidemiological research studies of dogs, which examine potential associations by looking backwards in time. A few are from prospective research studies, which examine potential associations by looking forward in time.

SUMMARY

An objective reading of the veterinary medical literature reveals a complex situation with respect to the long- term health risks and benefits associated with spay/neuter in dogs. The evidence shows that spay/neuter correlates with both positive AND adverse health effects in dogs. It also suggests how much we really do not yet understand about this subject.

On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs, especially immature male dogs, in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.

On the positive side, neutering male dogs

• Eliminates the small risk (probably <1%)

• Reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders 

• Reduces the risk of perianal fistulas 

• May possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive) 

On the negative side, neutering male dogs 

• If done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis. 

• Increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6 

• Triples the risk of hypothyroidism 

• Increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment 

• Triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems 

• Quadruples the small risk (<0.6%)

• Doubles the small risk (<1%)

• Increases the risk of orthopedic disorders 

• Increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations 

For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds. 

On the positive side, spaying female dogs

 

• If done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors, the most common malignant tumors in female dogs 

• Nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs 

• Reduces the risk of perianal fistulas 

• Removes the very small risk (≤0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors 

On the negative side, spaying female dogs 

• If done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis 

• Increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of>5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
• Triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• Increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems
• Causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs
• Increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4
• Increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty
• Doubles the small risk (<1%)>

• Increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations 

One thing is clear – much of the spay/neuter information that is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that are exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Rather than helping to educate pet owners, much of it has contributed to common misunderstandings about the health risks and benefits associated of spay/neuter in dogs.

The traditional spay/neuter age of six months as well as the modern practice of pediatric spay/neuter appear to predispose dogs to health risks that could otherwise be avoided by waiting until the dog is physically mature, or perhaps in the case of many male dogs, foregoing it altogether unless medically necessary.

The balance of long-term health risks and benefits of spay/neuter will vary from one dog to the next. Breed, age, and gender are variables that must be taken into consideration in conjunction with non-medical factors for each individual dog. Across-the-board recommendations for all pet dogs do not appear to be supportable from findings in the veterinary medical literature.

Johnny Crockett

NC 3X CH Johnny Crockett with his trainer/handler W. C. Kirk.

Johnny Crockett was born on July 20th, 1964 in a litter bred by Claud Patterson of Mt. Pleasant, Texas by Wonsover's Crockett Jed X Patterson's Flying Lady. His handler, W.C. Kirk of Bowie, Texas, got "Boy" at about four months of age. He was owned during his Derby year by John S. Fisher of Garland, Texas. Hank Sheely became a owner of the dog early in 1966 . W.C. Kirk, his wife Mary, and Hank Sheely nurtured the development of the young dog.

He was small for a male setter – only about 34 lbs., but with tons of bottom and grit. He is renowned among setter enthusiasts as he was the last setter to win the National Bird Dog Championship, which he won in 1970 under his handler W.C. Kirk for owner Hank Seeley. ”Boy” is the only setter ever to win the Purina Top Field Trial Dog Award, and the only setter to win multiple all-age championships with heats longer than one hour since 1946.

Ed Soph developed and promoted the Crockett dogs in Texas. The line's foundation sire was Kid Crockett, who produced Eugene Crockett, who produced Eugene Crockett II. The Crocketts had a big impact on the setter breed as a whole. The Crockett line was built on Eugene M. linebred dogs with some Mississippi Zev blood added. By all accounts he was a thrilling dog to watch.. a great dog, with a ton of heart.

Editor William F. Brown when writing about Johnny Crockett’s performance at Grand Junction in the 1970 Christmas Issue of the American Field noted:

“It was not an easy assignment dog and handler faced. The going was rigorous, the footing difficult in places, but most worrisome was the fact that birds had been touchy on occasion, inactive a great deal of the time, inclined to tuck themselves away in sheltered places. The first week of running birds had been noted to flush well ahead of the dogs without provocation and fly into inaccessible recesses… Only a dog obsessed with finding birds, determined in his quest, oblivious of punishing cover could hope for success.
“Johnny Crockett soon proved he had the tools. He searched industriously, handled and got some results early...his fox-like gait indicative of the ‘route-goer’ got him through the grueling race. But it was his quail contacts at the very end of his long heat that earned him the title… he wound up with nine contacts and a back of his bracemate...” 



After an examination revealed that he had a malignant brain tumor "Boy" went to Canada to live out his last days in the household of his handler, W. C. Kirk. Johnny Crocket died in Canada on July 24, 1972. He was eight years old.

Before his death, his owner, Hank Seeley, had semen collected and frozen, which produced a litter of pups in 1980 - eight years after his death. His production record shows him to be the sire of 40 field trial winners with 147 wins. Among his descendants are the notable setters CH Crockett's New Horizon, CH See Johnny Run, RU-CH High Definition, and CH Jetsetter, among many others. His influence continues to be felt after more than 35 years. And setter people are waiting for another great dog to win the National.

Johnny Crockett was inducted into the Bird Dog Hall of Fame in 2008.

The Genetics of Pointing

The American Field has an article in the March 15th edition by Mark Neff, PhD. of the Center for Veterinary Genetics, School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California at Davis. The article, Genetics and the Natural History of Pointing, backgrounds the development of modern breeds, and pointing breeds in particular. Dr. Neff worked on the first Dog Genome Project at UC Berkeley.In the article he describes his current project to identify the major genes that contribute to pointing behavior. The genetic code of dogs was deciphered by a team from MIT and Harvard in 2005. This has provided geneticists with the coordinates of every gene in the canine genome.

According to Dr. Neff, the National Institutes of Health has a great interest in biological models of behavioral variation. This is well displayed in dogs, especially when looking at variations in  pointing behavior between breeds and individuals within a breed. Rather than try to summarize this excellent article, I prefer to quote some interesting comments made by Dr. Neff:

"The variation in pointing intensity that is observed today among breeds suggests an historical path that pointing genes took across Europe. Spanish and Italian dogs, for instance, exhibit a less intense point than English pointers (sic.) and setters. The former breeds may represent the origins of the instinct, whereas the later breeds may represent the full set of intensifying genes added over time."

"Samples from privately owned dogs is currently being recruited. We have classified breeds in a way that we believe reflects degrees of common ancestry and gene-sharing. The first class consists of breeds in which pointing instinct has been bred to fixation, such that all the dogs possess strong instinct... The second class consists of breeds with variation  in pointing instinct. Only the very best dogs are being recruited from these breeds. The third class consists of breeds with an even smaller fraction of dogs possessing true talent. These tend to be breeds that have become popular in the show ring, where just a few bloodlines appear to have retained the major pointing genes... These pointing genes are detectable with new DNA technologies that provide unprecedented power and resolution. "  The reason for this, according to Dr. Neff is to develop study groups with sufficient genetic variation to allow identification of the genes associated with pointing behavior.

Dr. Neff also poses these interesting questions, which may begin to be unraveled if his research is successful...

"What was the antecedent behavior in the wolf  from which pointing was derived?"

"Are there early experiences or environmental influences that strengthen the behavioral outcome?"

"Are there predictors of pointing intensity in puppies?"

Dr. Neff is soliciting DNA samples for the study. He may be reached via e-mail at: mwneff@ucdavis.edu

Line Breeding and Inbreeding

Line breeding means:"The mating of related animals less closely related than inbreeding."

Line breeders usually breed out every couple of generations to similar, but unrelated, line-bred dogs. This greatly diminishes the possibility of the 'deleterious effects' of inbreeding and overcomes breeding 'drag' - the tendency toward average over several generations.

Actually there seems to be no agreement among sporting dog breeders about where the line between inbreeding and line breeding is, exactly. There have been a number of very healthy and successful field trial dogs with COIs as high as 16.5. The average competitive setter is probably closer to 3.0 to 6.5 COI. I have one that has a 10 generation COI of 12.0 and is a very fine animal.

Line breeders do not breed brother to sister as an inbreeder might. They may breed a sire to a littermate's offspring to better fix characteristics that they value. The effects of in-breeding and at what level of COI they are manifested in dogs is not well explored with performance dogs that are bred and culled by breeders.

Carolina wild dogs are a small population that has apparently bred in the wild for many hundreds of years. As long as Darwinian principles are at work there appear to be no deleterious effects of inbreeding in this small population.

A useful discussion of Canine genetics by Dr. Jerold Bell, which defines out-breeding, line breeding and inbreeding may be found HERE

What is a 'breed' and who cares?

If you think about it a bit, you realize that a 'breed' is an arbitrary boundary drawn around a 'type' of dog - usually with shared ancestors that more or less define the gene pool.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that the Darwinian component that constrains the passing of non-functional genetic traits has been removed from our domestic dogs. So any dog, no matter how dysfunctional, has a chance to pass its genes along in the gene pool.

Breed clubs have tried to make the decisions that would imitate, in some ways, the natural pruning that Darwinian evolution does in nature. Mostly, they fail.

In my mind, the point of a sporting breed (or herding, or other working breeds) is performance of the work tasks they are given. Dogs have a richer genetic tapestry than humans - they are more dependent on innate abilities and characteristics than we are. So breeding must be tempered by culling based on performance. Without breeding based on performance, we are letting breeds go in the wrong direction.

Does it really matter? I would argue that it should matter to people who want their dogs to be intelligent, physically capable and trainable. Defining a gene pool (provided it is large and diverse enough to sustain breeding that is true to type) is useful when the breeder is striving for consistency and improvement in dogs when line breeding. There must, however, be enough genetic diversity within the type to sustain breeding for many generations without the effects of inbreeding.

On the other hand, I have no problem with those who, for a number of reasons, are trying to change or resurrect a type of dog (as was done with the field bred red setters) and who go outside the breed boundaries for contributions to type. THIS IS THE WAY ALL MODERN BREEDS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED.