Dogged Blog

The hypocrisy of the anti-AR right

I follow a few lists about animal-related legislation both because it's an interest of mine and because, obviously, it's a great place to get story ideas and keep up with things happening in other parts of the country.

And I know I should post a bunch of background here, and remind you of past posts I've made here and on Pet Connection about how aggravated the assumption of right-wingitude makes me -- in other words, the wide-spread acceptance of the entirely false idea that anyone who supports the preservation of working dogs, hunting dogs, and heritage dog breeds is a right winger.

Not true. What is true is that the whole issue of shelter reform has arisen out of a truly non-partisan pool of those who care about what's really best for animals, and about forging unconventional coalitions and throwing all the old polarized positions out as pointless and unworkable. This isn't a right vs left issue, and allowing the whack jobs at PETA to frame it that way is abdicating the very real progressive position on both individual freedom and true animal welfare to those same whack jobs.

Some of us have stood up to take back the progressive movement for shelter reform and real animal welfare, but you wouldn't really notice that on a lot of these lists.

And never has this been more clear to me as I watch a little army of pseudo-libertarians falling all over themselves in glee at the selection of right wing ideologue Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential nominee. Why? Because she's anti-AR and pro-hunting and fishing, of course. And they're all dancing around about this (even though in reality most Democrats are, in fact, anti-AR and pro-hunting and fishing, but that's not the "frame" we've been sold so they just ignore it), and neglecting to note the simple fact that Sarah Palin is not a libertarian and she's not interested in your freedoms and she's not about respecting our values or our beliefs.

No, she may be all for your choice to eat mooseburgers that you shot yourself, but she's violently opposed to a woman's right to have autonomy over her own body, or to use her mind to decide for herself when she thinks protoplasm becomes a person. If there's a more virulent anti-choice fanatic in this country, the only place you'll find them is outside a clinic putting firebombs in doctors' cars.

Hypocrites. You want your right to your guns -- which I support -- and your hunting and fishing -- which I support -- and to breed dogs and eat meat and all the rest, but you'll dance on the grave of my right to choose what happens to my own body, and make my own medical decisions.

Nice work.

Short is the new black

I've been living in a fool's paradise these last few years.

Long skirt and dress lengths have been in fashion for quite a while now, and although the knee-length skirt look came in around four years ago, there were still plenty of longer hems on the racks and in the catalogs.

Now, I'm tall. Very tall. So those skirts that were meant to be ankle length were, on me, already mid-calf, which is just about where I like my skirts and dresses to hit.

All that's over now. And before some well-meaning person says "Damn fashion! Wear what's comfortable for you!", well, yes, I agree, except when something is not in fashion, it ceases to exist in stores, and yo, I do not sew and never have and never will.

And while something too long can be shortened, something too short cannot be lengthened, because in this day and age even the most expensive clothes come with only a tiny little bit of a hem, presumably to save money in fabric costs, so I can't even have the hem taken down more than, say, half an inch. And frankly, even if we were talking THREE inches of hem, it wouldn't be enough. Because I'm very tall.

Woe.

And speaking of black, the new black is also chocolate brown and sometimes charcoal gray. Now, I like gray and brown but only in small doses, and I like black. I like it a lot. That will never change. And yet, more and more often, I go to buy something in a catalog -- a sweatshirt or sweatpants, a hoodie, a t-shirt, some kind of dog-walking basic like that -- and it comes in gray or brown or, you know, magenta... but not in black.

I'm aware there are things more important than this in the world, but I refuse to give in to the "sky is falling" crap about the crazy creationist whack job the Republicans just chose as their veep nominee... I shall leave that to every other cable news commentator and leftist blogger, because really, they have it covered.

I shall simply do what I always do when everyone is running around wailing and tearing out their hair, and donate to Barack Obama. Why don't you do it too?

The " new " parvo revisited -- and the sky is still not falling

A frantic email supposedly originating from the Humane Society of Kent County in Michigan started making the rounds this week. It warned of a "new" strain of parvo against which current vaccines didn't provide protection.



Sound familiar? It should. This is the same "new" parvo that's been around for 7 years now, but just last February there was an internet explosion of worry about it, due to a press release about a new lab test that came with some unfortunately inflammatory language and details.



The mass-forwarded email ostensibly came from a veterinarian at HSKC, and it was quite alarming, suggesting that many vaccines didn't provide coverage against this "new" strain of parvo, and that it was particularly deadly.



That email was, of course, considerably more alarming than the actual press release (PDF) from HSKC, which warned of a nasty parvo outbreak at the shelter and limitations on animal surrenders and shelter hours while they dealt with it.



Vets in the area where HSKC is located got together this week to discuss the outbreak, and they, along with the shelter, issued a new press release (PDF) yesterday:

There has NOT been an obvious increase in the number of canine parvoviral infections in properly immunized dogs this season. However, dogs that are not appropriately vaccinated may run a very high risk of parvoviral infection. This disease is a potentially devastating, life-threatening illness.



There have been no confirmed cases of the new C2 strain of canine parvovirus in Michigan. This strain of the virus has been isolated in Europe and in 12 other US states and has been present for 7+ years.



Currently, it appears that properly immunized dogs are protected from the C2 strain of parvovirus.



It is imperative that dogs be properly immunized in order to have the best chance of protection from all forms of parvovirus. All the vaccines currently being used by area veterinarians are protective against the 2C strain of parvovirus (providing the proper vaccination protocols are followed).



Unvaccinated puppies and unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated adults dogs are at greatest risk for parvovirus and should be seen by their veterinarian as soon as possible.

So there you have it. Just like last time, when I wrote about this same subject.



I realize these types of messages don't have the wings that the more alarming ones do, but hopefully when someone on your dog email list or at the dog park tells you the sky is falling, you can at least say, no, actually... it's not. Yes, there are testing issues related to this virus, but it's no more deadly than the already-deadly-enough parvovirus in dogs, and the main pets at risk are, as always with parvo, young puppies.



My original article on the "new parvo" scare is here. My interview with veterinary clinical virologist Dr. Melissa Kennedy is here. Spread the word!

Another post of scintillating wittiness

When Gina, my colleague at Pet Connection, shut down her personal blog, I didn't understand it.

And I'm definitely not shutting mine down. But I understand how it happened, because even right now, during a presidential election, I'm finding it hard to squeeze personal blogging into my schedule.

Which doesn't mean I'm not blogging -- I'm blogging my fingers off, but right now it's mostly over at Pet Connection, with occasional outbursts at DailyKos (although I do almost always post those here, too). I also blog sporadically at AfterElton.com and AfterEllen.com, although nothing recently.

So this is absolutely the most boring post in the history of this blog, but I just wanted to say yes, I live! I even blog! And I will try to do better.

I'm considering taking a semi-vacation for the last two weeks of December and the first week of January. Not going anywhere, just not working. No deadlines. Either getting ahead on my SFGate.com column, or skipping one. Making sure all my other deadlines are finished up by then, and no new ones are set until I've been back at work for a few days.

And anyone who knows me is going, yeah right. We'll believe it when we see it.

Excuse me, I have to go ice my fingers.

Paging Dr. Dog: How pets ' special senses can save human lives

There have been times in my life when, if it hadn't been for my dogs making me get up and walk or feed them, I might have spent the day in bed. Truth be told, although it was many years ago, a bout of depression once hit me so hard that walking and feeding them was all I could do.



But pets can do more than nudge us into getting out of bed; some of them can detect deadly diseases like cancer, seizure disorders, or sepsis. From Pet Connection's own Kim Campbell Thornton over on MSNBC.com:

(B)esides being man’s best friend, some canines also have a lifesaving sixth sense. Dogs’ keen ability to differentiate smells enables some of them to know we’re sick long before we might ourselves. Combine that with their 24/7 observation of us and some pets have proven to be skilled diagnosticians, even if we’re not always sure what they’re trying to tell us.

In the past few years, studies have shown that dogs can sniff out both early and late stage lung and breast cancers. The Pine Street Foundation, a non-profit cancer education and research organization, in San Anselmo, Calif., is even training dogs to recognize ovarian cancer.

Some dogs have also been shown capable of detecting skin cancer.

Riker, a 9-year-old Australian Shepherd who lives with Liz and Paul Palika in Oceanside, Calif., poked insistently at Liz’s father’s chest. “Dad, did you leave some of your dinner on your shirt?” Liz teased him. But Riker wouldn’t stop. To satisfy him, Liz and her mother took a closer look. There was a lump on her father’s chest. A trip to the doctor revealed a melanoma that had spread beneath the skin.

Other dogs have been taught to catch when diabetics’ blood sugar levels drop. And for about the past 20 years, “seizure dogs” have been used to alert their owners to a pending seizure and assist them to a safe place until it’s over.

The full story is here.

Honey over vinegar: Why pet adoption is like catching flies

You know the old saying, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"? I've been thinking about it lately, as I research an article I'm writing on how the foreclosure and economic crisis is affecting pets.



I'm amazed, for instance, at how many people who are horrified by collar jerks and scruff grabs in dog training keep doing the same thing to pet owners.



I mean that mostly metaphorically, of course. I'm not aware of an epidemic of shelter workers and volunteers actually throttling pet owners. But there's one thing I've noticed while working on this story: not much click and treat, lots of punishment.



I've read a lot of news stories about shelters from coast to coast and from north to south that are facing larger than usual numbers of pets being surrendered, an increase that's being attributed to economic hard times and difficulties finding housing. And many of the people interviewed in these stories keep complaining that people aren't adopting pets right now.



At the same time, many of those same people are ranting and raving about greedy breeders and mandatory spay/neuter being needed, and the horrors of pet store, internet, and puppy mill sales of pets, and screeching "don't breed and buy while shelter dogs die," and saying that "every time you buy a puppy, a shelter dog dies," and really, I just have to ask:



Does this work? Do you think it works? Would you modify a dog's behavior this way?



Rich Avanzino of Maddie's Fund has analyzed shelter and pet population statistics and concluded that a very minor boost -- from 21 to 24 percent annually -- of how many pets are obtained from shelters vs. other sources would put every dog and cat in America's shelters in a home. So I'm trying to understand why it is that so many animal advocates, from the intake volunteer at the shelter desk to the adoption counselors to the shelter directors, are making it so difficult for people to feel good about shelters.



What if instead of telling pet owners how much they suck, they told them how wonderful they are when they make the tiniest move in the right direction? What if they did all the things Nathan Winograd talks about, like having convenient hours and making shelters friendly, welcoming places for adoptors and volunteers? What if they swore off for, say, one year, telling people what not to do, and saying how terrible breeders and pet stores are, and instead devoted themselves to telling people how great shelter pets are, and how rewarding it is to give a new life to a rescued pet?



There's positive reinforcement available by the boatload to anyone who adopts a rescued or sheltered animal. And yo, shelters: doling it out is free.



Attacking your competitors -- because let's face it, breeders and pet stores and the guy down the street with the litter of lab mixes are your competitors for pet homes -- is a negative tactic that will, after a while, backfire. Ask any politician: relentless negative campaigning turns people off.



And while you talk a lot about pet overpopulation, the reality is, there are lots of people every year buying or being given dogs and cats. Why shouldn't they get them from you?



Sure, you can't compete on selection and instant gratification, but you have something to offer pet stores don't: a warm fuzzy feeling inside from saving a life. Why are so many of you wasting it?

Hidden allergens in your pet ' s food

There's a lot to be said about where allergies come from (hello, genetics and lots of insults to the canine immune system from stupid and unscientific vaccination protocols), but once you have a dog with allergies, the "where" question comes in a distant second to the "what now" question.



While pets can be allergic to many things in their environment, one of the most difficult and perplexing -- and hard to diagnose -- problems is the food allergy. While a dog can be allergic to only one ingredient in a food or their diet, dermatologists have told me that they're seeing mostly dogs with multiple food allergies now. And it can be very difficult to pinpoint those allergies and to eliminate those allergens.



There are blood tests for food allergies, and they've improved in recent years, but the gold standard remains the elimination diet. And vets often use commercial foods for such diets, even multi-ingredient foods, largely because most owners don't want to prepare a homemade diet, even for a few months or weeks for diagnostic reasons.



But even so-called "hydrolized protein" allergy diets can contain substances to which your pet can react. They work by breaking proteins down into particles, called hydrolysates, that the immune system isn't supposed to react to. But many dogs do react to them, which means the information you get from doing a food trial with such a food is useless, and they're also useless as a therapeutic diet, at least, for those dogs. Furthermore, the process of hydrolizing proteins can in and of itself release biologically active peptides, to which the dog may also be or become allergic.



Just ask all the moms and pediatricians who've become skeptical of the use of hydrolized milk for babies and kids with cow's milk allergies.



And if the "allergy diet" is a dry food, there's also that pesky little critter known as the food storage mite. These mites can be present in all kinds of cereals, not just pet food, but they're a potent allergen for some dogs -- and so are their feces. (They can also be present in cheese, and any food that can grow mold.) One study found nine of out ten bags of dry pet food contained food storage mites.



Homemade, grain-free diets still sounding crazy to you, allergies or not?

FDA to open offices in China

Didn't take much, just a few thousand dead pets, contaminated baby toys, and oh yeah, the heparin thing... but the FDA just announced it's opening three offices in China. From the Irish Times:

The co-operation is significant. It's a sign of how China's growing openness is combining with its need to improve its international standing in the pharmaceutical business, and Chinese health authorities hope the offices will also increase China's own capacity to produce safe foods, drugs and medical devices. Thirteen employees would be assigned to work there.



The move is also a reaction by the FDA to criticism over its lack of overseas inspections after heparin, a widely used blood thinner, was contaminated and imported from China earlier this year. Heparin has been linked to more than 80 deaths in the United States.



[...]



Beijing has been under pressure to do something about consumer safety, after a series of scandals in the past couple of years did serious damage to the "Made in China" brand. Billions of euro worth of counterfeit and substandard goods, including snack bars, liquor, medicines and face creams, are produced every year in China and there are regular horror stories.



In one of the most highly publicised scandals, China revealed in 2004 that 13 babies had died from malnutrition in the eastern province of Anhui after being fed fake baby milk powder.



In July last year, Zheng Xiaoyu, formerly China's drug and food safety czar, was executed for corruption.

Ah yes, I'll never forget listening to a reporter asking FDA food safety czar David Acheson what he thought about that sentence during a pet food recall media conference last year. Good times.



Full article here.



[Update] From the comments, h/t to Nadine L.: It must be the night for remembering the pet food recall. USA Today's Julie Schmit continues her tradition of excellent coverage of the issue with an update on the ongoing lawsuits against Menu Foods and other companies for harm suffered by pets who ate contaminated foods:

Almost 6,000 claims have been filed in a class-action settlement stemming from last year's massive pet-food recall.

Menu Foods, other pet-food makers and retailers in May agreed to set up a $24 million cash fund to compensate pet owners whose cats and dogs became sick or died after eating food that had a contaminated ingredient from China.

The filing period for claims began May 30 and will run until Nov. 24.

"I expect that number (of claims) will go up a lot. There's quite a bit of time to go," says attorney Sherrie Savett of plaintiffs' law firm Berger & Montague.

Julie apparently never drank the "13 confirmed deaths" kool-aid:

The Food and Drug Administration never identified how many pets were affected, but it received more than 17,000 complaints.

[....]

The recall grew to involve 12 pet-food makers and 180 brands of pet food and treats. Along with Menu, other defendants include Hill's Pet Nutrition, Iams and retailers such as Wal-Mart.

Menu Foods, which supplied most of the recalled foods, has pegged its recall costs at $55 million, some of which went to the settlement fund.

If there is money remaining after claims have been processed, it will go to charities that promote the well-being of pets, the settlement says.

A website has been set up at www.petfoodsettlement.com. The claims administrator can be reached at 800-392-7785.

Catch it here.

It 's the DNA, stupid: Purebred dogs, closed studbooks, and genetic minefields

If I read one more blog post, comment, or Angry Article™ about the horrors of purebred dogs, using photos of oddly-coiffed Chinese Cresteds or struggling-to-breathe Pugs shown in the arms of a woman who exceeds the U.S. Government Approved Body Mass Index, my head will -- yes, wait for it, readers; you know what's coming -- explode. Tiny bits of blobby gray stuff all over your monitors.

Setting aside the irony that the same people who think women not meeting the Vogue magazine standard of the ideal woman are the ones outraged about dog breeders being too obsessed with physical perfection, there's a much bigger issue here. And before you go, "Yes, Christie, we know what it is, too. Because you've got purebred dogs and you used to breed and show them and you're one of them, aren't you?", think again.

I'm actually a strong advocate of opening our studbooks, as well as of open genetic registries, and I think that the concept of "purebred" dogs has done both dogs and those who show and breed them a huge disservice.

But in all the hand-wringing and hair-tearing that's been inspired by discussions of the recent BBC program "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" -- and, for that matter, in the show itself -- there's an exaggerated emphasis on photo-op-ready images of extreme breed characteristics like bracycephalic faces and short legs and long, floppy ears that drag on the ground, at the expense of something that is both worse and far less visible.

"Pedigree Dogs Exposed" holds up the wolf as an example of what dogs should be, based on how they look. But wolves who look just like the ones they used in their video clip can be massively inbred. This is not about how dogs look. Because although those extreme traits might annoy you personally and can cause suffering for the dogs who have them, the problem with "purebred dogs" and the closed studbooks that define them is not something you can film and see and point to -- or laugh at. The problem is something you can't see, the genetic code of dogs who were never bred, who left no offspring: the genes we left behind.

Conformation traits that help dogs win in the show ring and give tabloid reporters and bloggers fodder for the outrage du jour are the product of selection on the part of breeders. Those observable problems that everyone is so eager to ridicule could conceivably be fixed by education and increased awareness. Lost genetic diversity causes far less fixable problems, like reduced litter sizes, reproductive failure, genetic disease, shorter life expectancies, lowered disease resistance, and greater rates of immune-mediated disease.

To put it another way, if your dogs can't reproduce because their heads are too big and their pelvises are too narrow, that can be fixed if you pluck your own head out of your own hindquarters, but fixing a problem of inbreeding depression in an entire species is a task that daunts the most ardent conservationists and scientists. It's the problem they warn us about as human development, pollution, and climate change send thousands upon thousands of species to the brink of extinction, and beyond, every year: genetic bottlenecks, inbreeding depression, loss of genetic diversity in a species and an ecology.

Genes, once lost, can't ever be recovered. Dogs who died without passing on their genetic heritage are gone forever, barring a few stray tubes of semen hanging out in a canine sperm bank somewhere. And by selecting from a small number of popular sires and focusing breeding programs on extreme conformation traits at the expense of preserving genetic diversity and health, genes are exactly what are being lost. Permanently.

So, is the canine species doomed? No. But many of our individual breeds may be "doomed," at least in the terms we in the United States and most of Europe understand the word "breed" today, breeds defined by closed studbooks.

Closed studbooks mean a registry, such as the AKC or its British equivalent, the Kennel Club, will only register dogs whose parents were registered by them as being members of that breed. It means breeders are deliberately limiting the genetic pool from which they'll select when they breed two dogs together.

Breeders do this to perpetuate the traits they desire. The best breeders do it with a thorough knowledge of a dozen or more generations of the dogs who come before the dogs they're breeding, with the assistance of whatever genetic testing is available to them, while most do it by "breeding the best to the best and hoping for the best."

The worst breeders just throw two dogs of the same breed (or with papers that claim they are) together and ship the pups off for sale before any possible negative traits can turn up, washing their hands of any suffering they're causing in those dogs or for their future owners, and then doing it all over again, all to make a few bucks.

The problem with even the "good" breeders is that the choice of dogs from which they can select in a closed studbook program is frequently so artificially constrained that they're reduced to choosing among the lesser of many evils. Few breeds, in this day of artificial insemination, overnight courier service, and jet planes, can obtain an influx of new genes from dogs in the breed's country of origin, or anywhere else. This is exacerbated by the fact that World War II created a genetic bottleneck for hundreds of breeds of dogs, as European populations dwindled or were shipped to the United States, where their lines died out or were intermingled with American dogs.

For other breeds, the situation isn't really hopeless. The "investigator" for "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" said in dire tones, "Being very inbred in and of itself has a catastrophic effect on the immune system," but that's not true. There's no magical threshold of inbreeding that in and of itself causes health problems or impaired vigor in an individual dog. Unless the dog has inherited genes for a detrimental trait, there won't be any negative effects.

But if there is a dog breed out there, of any size gene pool, that is free of negative genetic traits, I have never heard of it. Most breeds are plagued with all kinds of specific genetic diseases, and many are suffering the more generalized problems of inbreeding depression (lack of resistance to disease, reproductive problems, immune system problems, etc.). And for these breeds, nothing but new genes can save them. In the absence of an only distantly-related population somewhere else in the world, that means outcrossing.

This is something close to heresy, although it does happen. The AKC, to my surprise, just re-opened the Basenji studbook to unregistered Basenji-like dogs from certain parts of Africa. And years ago, they approved the registration of Dalmatian/Pointer crosses, as part of a project developed by the parent club to eliminate a widespread health problem in the breed. Although the parent club ended up changing its mind and asking AKC to rescind those registrations, and it's been bogged down in club politics for years, the Dalmatian Backcross Project still continues.

There are also breeds that have within them two or more pools of dogs that rarely mingle their genes, such as breeds with a strong field/show split like the Labrador Retriever, or breeds with a strong show/pet split like the Golden Retriever, or breeds with a performance/show split like the Greyhound.

If these populations of dogs within the same breed have genes that the others lack, then it's possible to dip into those genetic pools and increase genetic diversity in your lines. You might not win in the show ring with those dogs, but you can do a lot to overcome inbreeding depression.

Unfortunately, mixing distinct gene pools within the same breed brings with it another set of problems, too. One, if you outcross among unrelated lines of the same breed, you risk eliminating the very pool of genetic diversity you were trying to preserve. Where will the dogs not descended from Ch. Popular Sire come from, if all his offspring got bred to those "unrelated" dogs in previous generations?

You also risk introducing undesired traits. Some of those are trivial and threaten nothing more than the dog's ability to win at dog shows. But some of them are far more problematic. Take the AKC greyhound.

AKC recognizes the National Greyhound Association, the racing registry, which means AKC greyhound breeders can, any time they wish, dip into that very diverse gene pool. But AKC greyhounds have a very low incidence of osteosarcoma, while NGA greyhounds have a very high incidence. While the exact role genetics play in this difference isn't known, osteo definitely has a genetic component. If you go out to NGA greys, will you increase the risk of your AKC greys developing bone cancer? Good question.

So while show breeders getting over their aversion to breeding to non-show lines within their breed might help in the short run, it's not a longterm solution.

I also don't think the solution is the extinction of the domestic dog, as PETA would like to see, nor is it returning to the days of feral dog packs and the development of a genetically diverse pariah dog population from which we can pluck alleles at will.

No, the fix for this problem is a drastic one, and it's to stop breeding within limited gene pools, stop wasting genetic diversity, support open genetic registries, and adopt the practice of pedigree cat registries and many working dog registries by allowing breeding out to foundation stock, unregistered dogs of similar type and purpose, and other breeds.

And, you know, breathing underwater and flying like a bird. Because of course, none of that will happen, at least, not anytime soon.

But we as individuals can remove our craniums from our posteriors and stop perpetuating a broken system. The world of the purebred dog based on closed studbook breeding is not the only dog world. There are dogs out there bred to a work standard -- many stockdogs, lurchers and longdogs, lots of hunting dogs, and many sled dogs, too. Of course some people doing this type of breeding are stupid and careless, as is the case with show breeders, too, but selecting for ability -- herding, hunting, hauling -- automatically eliminates a great deal of genetic disease and freakish conformation.

And guess what? It doesn't destroy the very things we love about our heritage breeds, not their looks nor their temperaments, nor, if we begin or continue to select for performance, their abilities. The working Border Collie was developed with only a performance standard; do you ever have any doubt what the breed is when you see one? Isn't that the very definition of "breed type"?

I don't hate the show world, but I recognize its limitations and its harmful influence in ways some of my fellow dog fanciers don't. And I'm hopeful sometimes, as I see more and more breeders moving to less extreme types of dog, trying to implement and utilize genetic banking, counseling, and testing programs -- some clubs, such as the International Silken Windhound Society, require such participation for any dog they register -- and taking a new look at outcrossing.

But I'm pessimistic, too. The chase for show wins goes on, and I've seen a world of ugliness among breeders who have a lot of ego -- and money -- invested in their dogs. People keep buying and fetishizing dogs with the worst of extremes of size and conformation. And as new breeds are developed, even with the goal of fixing some of the problems inherent in limited gene pools, they almost invariably go down the same doomed path as all the rest, closing their studbooks and pursuing AKC recognition.

So I suppose for now I'll settle for suggesting we try something simple and achievable. Stop whining about doggie hair-dos and conformation extremes, and focus on the scientific and medical problems caused by closed studbooks. Stop perpetuating junk science about 'poo dogs and their "hybrid vigor"... excuse me, "hybred" vigor... and try digging into the real science of inbreeding depression, genetic bottlenecks, and popular sire syndrome.

Junk science is like junk food: it goes down easy, but it's not good for you. "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" plays on our love of dogs to whip up outrage over micro-tiny dogs with bulging eyes, titillates us with gasps of horror at brother-sister and father-daughter breedings, and uses images and descriptions of snooty elitist 19th century British upper class dog shows to imply that the people who get up at 4 AM every weekend to drive a hundred miles in their mini-van to trot a dog around the ring and then go through the drive-thru and eat a burger while driving home are the close relatives of Her Majesty the Queen.

Take this exchange between our intrepid "investigator" and a representative of Britain's Kennel Club, where she asks him whether he thinks mother-son breedings cause health problems in their offspring. He, quite correctly, replies that it depends on the mother and son.

Her response? "Do you have children? Do you have a daughter? Would you have a baby with her?"

He replies, with irritation far milder than mine, "That's a totally different issue."

"It's the same issue," she insists.

Of course it's not the same issue. The issue is degree of inbreeding, not human incest taboos. You can mate two dogs who aren't siblings, parent-offspring, or even first cousins and have a greater degree of inbreeding than in some full-sib matings. But that's not going to make all your viewers go, "Gross!" is it?

That's not even junk science, it's just tabloid sensationalism. So is using a photo of a Komondor -- a wolf-sized working dog who is among the healthiest of breeds -- in a segment on extremes of conformation that lead to health problems. Why? I guess because they're shown in a corded coat that the producers of the show found mockable. Well, newsflash: the hair-do isn't a genetic trait.

Breeders use junk science to justify their actions, too, of course. A few who were interviewed expressed outrage at the idea that a dog might be banned from the show ring for having a genetic health defect, but then they turn around and fight like the devil to preserve their right to disqualify dogs from showing for possessing a cosmetic genetic defect, like a ridgeless Ridgeback. The problem is, genetic traits are genetic traits, and having one set of rules for cosmetic traits and another for health traits is indefensible scientifically.

So, stop already. Both sides, break your junk science habit.

And oh yeah: open the studbooks. It won't hurt half as much as you think it will.

Komondor photo used under terms of Creative Commons licensing, found here. Black and white photos are the author's screen captures from "Pedigree Dogs Exposed."