Monday, July 27, 2015

Chromosomes-Pull Up Yer Genes!

CHROMOSOMES-Get your Genes On!
Why is Spot larger than Rover? Why does Trixie have a golden coat while Muffie’s is black? And why are Muffie’s ears floppy while Rover’s stand upright?
Specific characteristics of living organisms are determined by their “GENES”. Genes are “coding” segments made up of a substance called DNA. The DNA in your genes is arranged in specific patterns. Different genes are strung together in long rows to form a rope-like chain called a “chromosome”. Each chromosome contains thousands of genes.
Chromosomes are instruction panels; they provide the blueprint to make an organism what it is. Chromosomes carry all of the information necessary to help living things grow, survive and reproduce. Chromosomes are located inside the cells of the body in a central control area called a “nucleus”. These chromosomes determine not only what you look like, but also how your body functions and, to a large extent, how you act, think and feel.
The DNA that makes up genes and chromosomes is like a computer code of instructions. Chromosomes s build a copy of themselves and send those instructions to other parts of the cell, the ribosomes, and the ribosomes in turn manufacture proteins according to instructions provided. These proteins might be enzymes for body metabolism, or proteins for building body tissues.
During normal cell division for growth or cell replacement and repair, chromosomes double and then split apart to form two cells from one. Now both of these cells will end up with identical chromosomes within their nuclei. However, there is a special type of cell division that happens to produce the reproductive or “germinal” cells. Instead of doubling, the germinal cells are produced by by splitting up the original chromosomes. These reproductive germinal cells, the sperm and the eggs (ova), therefore will contain only HALF the number of chromosomes as do the other cells of the body. When a sperm cell combines with an ovum, VOILA! there is then a complete set of genes with a full set of instructions to create a new living being. This new creature will have half his genes originating from his father’s sperm, and the other half will have been contributed by his mother’s ovum.
This process involves something known as “random fertilization”. What does that mean?
The chromosome combination contributed by a sire to his offspring is random, and can vary considerably. Half his chromosomes will end up in that sperm cell…but how many different possible combinations of chromosomes can there be in any one sperm cell?
Let’s check it out. Humans have 46 chromosomes, arranged in 23 pairs, that divide and split up to form germinal cells, and they assort independently. To form a germinal cell, there are 2^23, or 8 million, possible different assortments of chromosomes that could be produced for each individual cell!! The ovum also has 8 million possible different chromosome combinations. 8 million X 8 million = 64 trillion possible unique combinations of chromosomes for every human offspring created from any given mating! See how unique you are! Even your siblings may have quite a different genetic makeup than you do!
A human cell has 46 chromosomes, arranged in 23 pairs. A dog cell, however, has 78 chromosomes, arranged in 39 pairs. Each sire can produce roughly 550 BILLION different assortments of chromosomes in their sperm cells. Multiply that by the 550 billion possible combinations of chromosomes in the dam’s ova, and there are 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible DIFFERENT combinations of chromosomes that can be produced for any individual dog created from any specific mating.
WOW! that’s a lot of zeros. How do you read such a number? It is 30 billion trillion. This is roughly the same number as the estimate of stars in the visible universe. Each dog from any certain mating is as unique in his genetic makeup as a star! That's a very nice comparison, I think.
But wait! There is another factor that can further increase genetic variety in offspring. This is the phenomenon known as “genetic crossover”. Crossover commonly happens during cell division to produce sperm and ova. What does “crossover” mean? Let’s see….remember we said that each chromosome has a partner chromosome with similar genes on it. During cell division, part of one chromosome may break off and swap material with its partner. This means that sometimes the chromosome that you inherit is totally different from the original one your parent has. The crossover process “shuffles the deck” so to speak, to produce even more variety in offspring. It would be impossible to estimate how much more variety this effect produces! But we would need millions more universes filled with billions more stars to get close to the number of unique combinations of chromosomes possible with any specific mating.

This vastly inconceivable number implies a rich potential to produce dogs who have a very unique and highly individualized genetic makeup. This inherent variety in the dog genome is how man has been able to create so many different breeds with characteristics as different as those noted between a Chihuahua and an Irish Wolfhound. Compare the variety in dogs to that of humans, who all look remarkably similar….even people of different races. We have fewer chromosomes to reassort and recombine, and less chance of isolating and promoting different specific traits.
Now do you still think that one or two litters is enough to judge what your dog can produce? Although, I am sure there are animal rights “overpopulation” handwringers out there who believe that every intact dog will produce billions of puppies in just seven years. Hmmm, I only wish I could get more than three or four at a time to select from!
And just think, each and every chromosome contains thousands of individual genes! In the next issue, we’ll talk about how those genes combine and recombine to work their magic!

Head for the Spa!



You know you need a spa weeked away from the dogs when.....


You Know You Need a Spa Weekend Away From the Dogs When......



You’d rather walk into PetSmart than Sephora.

You notice that ChalkMate leaves your hands oh, so silky soft; and it smells just divine too!

You’ve stopped using lipstick because it has the annoying habit of transferring onto your bait.

Your grooming smock doubles as a bathrobe.

You can't remember which shampoo you bought for the dogs and which you bought for yourself.

You start to imagine how you'd look with a just a little trim around your ears.

While at Victoria's Secret, you wonder which perfume would be just the perfect name for that cute little girl in your latest litter.
You make an appointment to have your nails trimmed....er, I mean, have a pedicure.

The correct conditioning formula for your show dog involves great scientific study, but you figure the family can use a VO5 combo shampoo/conditioner from the 99 cent store.

Your favorite cologne is eau de Crown Royale Magic Touch Conditioner.

Your closet is overflowing with sensible shoes and you can't find an outfit without huge patch pockets.

The phrase "optical brighteners" intrigues you!! To cover your gray, you decide to personally test the dog's color enhancing conditioner.

On a show morning, you blow dry the dog's hair first, then yours…but only if there is enough time.

Your dog brush is Mason Pearson 100% pure boar bristle, and his comb a "Greyhound", mail order from England. Your personal brush and comb are "Goody" brand from a bin at Walmart.
You think that if you wear dark nail polish to match your lipstick, along with thick black eyeliner, that your lovely pigment might make a better impression on today's judge.
You check behind you in the mirror as you head out the door in the morning, but then suddenly remember, you are NOT the one with the plumed tail!

---Geneva Coats for the Pomeranian Review

Seven False Premises of Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws

Seven False Premises of Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws


Testimony of Dr. John Hamil regarding AB 1634. The phrase "mandatory sterilization" is substituted for "AB 1634" in some sentences. The rest of the text is unaltered.







Twenty five years of experience in trying to find solutions to the problems of animal relinquishment and euthanasia leads me to request that you reject this ill-conceived bill which can not solve these problems and, more likely, will worsen them.

AB 1634 is based on seven

false premises:

1. That current policies and programs are not working.


The numbers of dogs entering and being euthanized in California shelters has dramatically decreased over the last 30 years in the face continued population growth. Unfortunately, the number of cats impounded and euthanized has not decreased significantly in the last 10 years. We have two entirely different dynamics which require very different approaches if we are to be successful. Mandatory sterilization does nothing to reduce the numbers of cats in shelters.


2. That the numbers of animals impounded and euthanized is

due to a “Pet Overpopulation Problem.”


The study done by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy found that the top five reasons for animal relinquishment were moving, landlord issues, cost, lack of time for pet and inadequate facilities. None of these factors are influenced by the purported “overpopulation” of pets. Mandated sterilization does nothing to help pets remain in their homes. If the animals in the shelter were due to “overpopulation;” we would find desirable puppies available in shelters, there would be no market for internet and pet store puppies, there would be no need for shelters to import puppies and puppy smugglers and brokers would be out of business due to market saturation. There is, in fact, a shortage of healthy, well bred and socialized puppies and kittens in California.


3. That being sexually intact equates to being bred.


We know that for personal reasons many owners choose not to surgically alter their pets and they are never bred. It is improper that the government impose its will on these responsible citizens in the absence of any public benefit.


4. That neutered animals are healthier physically and behaviorally.


Recently published data indicates that for a significant percentage of dogs this is not the case.


5. That mandatory spay/neuter will significantly reduce shelter impounds and euthanasia and that Santa Cruz is an example of its success.


MSN is a documented failure. Analysis of the Santa Cruz data and the rejection of this policy by its originator; the Peninsula Humane Society, the No Kill Community, Best Friends Sanctuary, and many other groups refutes this assumption.


6. That mandatory spay/neuter will greatly reduce the Animal Control costs.


Analysis of animal control data indicates that most costs are the fixed costs of facilities; administration, equipment, staff and retirement benefits. The continuous rise in California animal control costs in the face of decreasing numbers of animals impounded refutes this assumption.


7. That the law will not involve veterinarians in enforcement.


The requirement for veterinarians to write letters of exemption and to turn in rabies certificates indicating the reproductive status of the animal to animal control identifies the owners of intact animals. The public will correctly view veterinarians as enforcers.


SPECIFIC VETERINARY CONCERNS


• This law would intrude into the Doctor/Client/Patient relationship. This is an invasive procedure accomplished under general anesthesia with significant risk to the patient and there are significant physical and behavioral consequences for some animals. For these reasons this decision should not be mandated by the state but, rather, be made by the owner after discussion with their family veterinarian.


• In many jurisdictions with mandatory spay/neuter owners have tried to drop out of the system by not licensing their animals. Many owners know that veterinarians are required to turn in copies of rabies certificates and may decide to forego needed rabies boosters, thereby creating an increased public health risk.


• The contentiousness of this bill has driven apart the groups that contribute to and desire to solve this dilemma. If we are to be successful in solving this problem, we need to bring these groups together in developing innovative programs in the future.


If passed, this law will be unfair to the economically disadvantaged. They are the least likely to neuter their pets, see animal control as a threat, and have limited access to low cost clinics. We need to find ways to help this group enjoy the benefits of pet ownership.


If passed, communities in California will no longer have access to Maddie’s Funds. It is their policy to not provide funding for mandatory governmental programs. “Maddie’s Fund is committed to volunteerism” and is intended to foster innovative, collaborative programs like the CVMA Feral Cat Sterilization Program that resulted in the sterilization of almost 200,000 cats over a 3 year period. To date, Maddie’s Fund has provided over 19 million dollars to communities in California.


If passed, this bill will eliminate many local sources of healthy, well bred and socialized pets. Because it will not decrease the demand for puppies and kittens, the bill leaves the people of California vulnerable to puppymills, unregulated internet sales, sellers of smuggled animals and unscrupulous brokers of animals from out of the US. These poor quality pets will be a burden and an expense and many will end up in our shelters.


Finally, it is my belief that locally developed, voluntary, collaborative, supportive and science-based programs always out perform punitive coercive ones.


Thank you for your kind attention. As a veterinarian, past president of the CVMA and an animal advocate, I ask you to vote AGAINST this bill.


(Adapted from Dr. Hamil's testimony at CA AB 1634 hearing)

Pigment and Health

Pigment and Health

Merle and White Spotting Genes


This article was originally written in 2005, just prior to the identification of the merle gene and the subsequent development of the DNA test for merle, and the 2007 discovery of the MITF as the gene responsible for "S" white spotting. It has been updated to reflect these discoveries.

The Relationship of Pigment to Health
by Geneva Coats, R.N.
Rare and exotic colors...one of the most attractive and exciting features of our Pomeranians. Variety is the spice of life! Different styles appeal to different breeders. However, there are some important pigment-related health issues to consider.
BREED STANDARDS
Since the inception of purebred dog registries, standards have been established for all breeds. The standard serves to protect a breed from fashion whims. It strives to maintain a breed's traditional "look" and purpose. The standard establishes desirable conformation goals, temperament characteristics, and suitability for the original purpose of the breed. The standard provides a goal for breeding practices. This is why standards are written in the first place, to act as guides for breeders and judges. You don't need to understand all the details and theories of genetics, but you do need to abide by the standard when breeding and judging.
Our Pomeranian standard was changed in 1997 to allow all colors, patterns, and variations thereof. This may serve to promote some breeding practices which might ultimately be detrimental to the health of the breed. We need to examine this issue carefully. The direction we take in breeding is the path to our future. The desire for health and concern for future generations must always take precedence over the desire for aesthetics.
Why is a color or pattern so important to the stewards of a breed? Breeders have always been keen scientific observers, even before genetics became an established field. They have worked tirelessly toward a goal of producing healthy dogs. Dog with health issues are in limited demand as companions, and often unsuitable for work. Some breed standards disallow excessive white, dilute colors or merle. Many breed standards specify that parti-color dogs have a certain proportion of color to white, or that they must have color extending over both eyes and ears. Most all standards call for full, dark pigmentation of nose, lips, eye rims and pads. Albinism is generally disallowed. These guidelines were not established for aesthetics' sake, but because certain colors, patterns, and lack of pigmentation were known to be associated with an increase in certain specific health problems. There is much documentation and information related to the merle and white spotting patterns, and they will be the focus of this article.
COAT COLOR DEVELOPMENT
The process of coloration and color patterns in dogs starts with embryonic development. The cells which become melanocytes (pigment producing cells) are derived entirely from the neural crest of the embryo. Pigment cells develop from the same cells that give rise to the nervous system. Defects in certain color genes can be associated with defects in the nervous system, as evidenced by vision and hearing problems. Color provides a logical genetic indicator, and explains why it is likely that certain patterned dogs, such as extreme piebalds (>90% white) and merles may be at risk for specific health problems. In studies to date, the coat patterns resulting from genes producing white are significantly associated with deafness. In addition, suppression by "white genes" of pigmentation in the iris of the eye is also associated with deafness. On the other hand, the presence of pigmented, colored patches in the coat is associated with reduced risk of deafness.
WHAT IS MERLE?
Merle is regarded as a coat pattern, not a color. The merle gene works like other dilution genes, in that it lightens whatever color is already there. Whatever the basic color of the dog-unless he is all white-the merle gene will cause dilution and splotching imposed on the base coat color. The appearance is a speckling or marbling, like when bleach is splashed on your clothes. The pigment cells are affected individually in the fetus. Some are disabled completely, leaving white areas. Some cells allow partial expression of pigment, leaving merled or dappled areas. Some cells are unaffected, leaving the coat color normal or non-merled. The amount of dappling or merling can vary. The dog can have perhaps just a small dappled spot somewhere, or perhaps just a light eye with a nondappled, normal coat. Or, it might display dappling throughout the coat. The effect is most noticeable on a black coat; where the black is diluted to grey, the color is called "blue merle".
Merle appears at first glance to be dominant, because if a dog carries one gene for the merle factor, he will be affected by it. However, merle is different, because it is incompletely dominant. A single merle gene, inherited from one parent, produces what is known as a "heterozygous" or "single" merle. This single copy of the gene will usually cause the affected dog to display merling somewhere in the coat. This can range from light dappling to extensive dappling. Sometimes the effect on the coat is not evident, and there is no way to tell at maturity that the dog carries the merle gene. Sometimes, blue flecks in the eyes are the the only sign that a dog carries the merle gene.
If two heterozygous merles are bred together, statistically 25% of the offspring will inherit two merle factor genes, one from each parent. When this happens, we produce what is known as a "Double (homozygous) merle". The effect of the gene is then doubly intense. There is so much color dilution that the dog is usually predominantly white, and almost always has impaired hearing or vision-or both.
In Great Danes, merle interacts with another gene called harlequin, which bleaches the gray areas of the coat to white. In the pure homozygous form, harlequin is lethal. In Danes and Aussies, the tweed pattern is a variation on merle which adds a third, intermediate shade to the coat.
Many double merle dogs are so defective that they do not survive to birth. (estimates are as high as 50% mortality in utero). Those that survive are the ones with "just minor" defects...minor enough to handicap rather than kill. A gene that destroys half of those carrying it in a double dose in utero cannot be dismissed or ignored.
In French, the word "merle" means "blackbird", and "le merle blanc" ("The white blackbird") is an expression, meaning something that is impossible or something that cannot exist. This is an admirable goal for the white merle dog!
HOW MERLE WORKS
Merle is a gene that is inherently unstable. It is a "transposon", or transposable element; a mobile parasite segment of DNA in the chromosome. Transposons usually originate from viruses. A virus is a particle containing DNA which inserts itself into the host cell, thereby infecting it. If the virus does not kill the host cell, it can leave behind a piece of its genetic material in the DNA of the host cell. When this happens in the sex or germinal cells, the particle can become a part of the genetic makeup of some of the offspring. This is a way that mutation occurs.
Transposons have also been called "junk DNA or "selfish DNA", as they rarely provide any benefit to the host cell. Transposons are also often referred to as "jumping genes." The transposon can move to different positions in the cell in a "cut and paste" process. In so doing, it may cause mutations, or alter the amount of DNA in the genome. The merle transposon segment may lose some of its DNA particles during cellular replication during early embryonic development. Coat color in that area will then be less affected by the gene, or even unaffected, and the underlying true coat color will be expressed. This explains why there are some areas of the coat which are NOT dappled, and other areas which ARE.
The decorative variegated Indian corn is produced by transposon elements in the corn gene. Many viruses, such as those responsible for AIDS and feline leukemia, function as transposons. In humans, hereditary diseases such as hemophilia A and B, predisposition to colon polyps and cancer, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, are all related to inherited mutations produced through the transposon process. Genetic engineers sometimes use transposons to try to intentionally introduce certain genes into an organism.
There are also documented cases of homozygous merles producing non-merle offspring ("germinal reversion"). This is further evidence of the instability of the gene. Not only can you sometimes get non-merle pups (which should not happen according to the rules of Mendelian genetics), but worse things can happen. The "cleft palate syndrome" is a rare and isolated Aussie defect that has been the subject of numerous scientific journal articles and symposia presentations. It is a sex-linked (on the X chromosome) defect, in which females have minor abnormalities, like extra toes, while males die of massive skeletal abnormalities and a cleft palate. This disease started with a homozygous merle bitch that was kept for coat color research.

PIGMENT PLAYS A ROLE IN HEALTH
Many breeds have the white spotting and merle factors in their gene pools. These genes are not colors per se, but do affect the expression of coat color. In breeds which have traditionally included the merle color pattern, the predominantly white (double-factored) merle has been disallowed in the show ring, as well as selected against in the whelping box. And with very good reason. The gene which produces the merle pattern is associated with some very serious health defects. Both the white spotting gene and the merle gene are known to sometimes affect hearing. The merle gene, however, is unique in that it interacts in an as-yet undetermined manner with genes for eye features.
MERLE AND EYESIGHT
There is a complex of eye defects associated with the merle gene. These defects can be superficial in nature, such as a difference in color between the iris of one eye and the other. The example of this is a dog with one brown eye and one blue eye. (Note that this trait is not necessarily indicative of possession of the merle gene, because it can also be found in dogs with extreme white spotting). In addition to superficial indicators there are also major effects, such as absence of the reflective substance which lines the back of the eye, resulting in reduced ability to see in low light. There can be lack of retinal pigment, which directly reduces vision. Small or absent eyeballs, irregular or starburst pupils, and clefts in the iris can occur, as well as persistent pupillary membrane, strabismus (cross-eyed), lens luxation , and juvenile cataracts.
THE MERLE LINK TO MICROPHTHALMIA
The term "microphthalmia" means a smaller than normal, tiny eyeball due to a defect in early development. Microphthalmia is a defect very commonly associated with merle; particularly homozygous "double" merle, it even rarely occurs in heterozygous or "single" merles. Complete absence of the eyeball in the eye socket sometimes occurs. This is known as anophthalmia.
MITF, or "Microphthalmia Transcription Factor", was discovered in 2007 to be the location of the gene that affects pigmentation, causing white spotting (otherwise known as the particolor or piebald pattern).
The merle gene is believed to affect eye development through some sort of interaction with MITF. Now, why would microphthalmia occur in association with merle and not just with white coat color in particolor dogs? I've asked several canine geneticists, but have received no answer! This relationship is still a mystery. The exact mechanism by which merle interacts with the white spotting gene and produces the defect of microphthalmia is still waiting to be discovered!
MERLE AND HEARING
Hearing impairment can occur in merles due to a lack of melanin or pigment in the inner ear. Not all merles will develop problems with hearing, it all depends on whether or not the inner ear is pigmented. If the inner ear isn't pigmented, the nerve cells responsible for hearing can't develop as they should. Then, the nerve endings atrophy and die off in the first few weeks of the puppy's life, resulting in partial or total deafness. The deafness is neither dominant nor recessive, but is linked to the merle gene which disrupts pigmentation and secondarily produces deaf dogs.
White outer ear color is often associated with lack of inner ear pigment and deafness. However, sometimes deafness occurs even with patches of color on the ears. Mild to moderate hearing impairment may never be noticed, and is rarely tested for.
ONE COPY OF THE GENE HARMLESS?
The popular belief is that heterozygous merles are completely normal, and that only homozygous merles have health defects. Heterozygous merles can have expression of lesser defects of the eye such as clefts in the iris, and a thinning of the retina (similar to what is found with Collie eye anomaly). There are also rare cases of microphthalmia in "single" merles. Deafness can also sometimes occur, if the merle gene prevents pigment deposition in the nerve cells of the inner ear during embryonic development.
Heterozygous "single" merles often have reduced eye pigment which produces the characteristic blue eyes. Interestingly, the amount of white even in homozygous merles does not correlate to severity of eye defects. In a study of the embryonic origin of merle eye defects, Dr. Cynthia Cook, of the University of California, San Francisco, observed that the severity of eye defect and amount of pigment were not related. This is in contrast to hearing impairment in merles; the likelihood of deafness increases with increasing amounts of white in the hair coat.
The Hannover Veterinary School in Germany conducted studies on Dapple (merle) Dachshunds. Their studies demonstrated eye problems, sperm imperfections, and hearing impairment. These problems were found in homozygous merles, and also heterozygous merles. Hearing faults, ranging from slight hardness of hearing to complete deafness, occurred in 54.6% of homozygous merles and 36.8% of heterozygous merles. As a result of these studies, in 1986 it was suggested that FCI restrict the breeding of merles on welfare grounds. These studies, however, are now generally considered outdated. Future testing of vision and hearing in merle dogs will hopefully paint a clearer picture for us.
GENETIC LINKAGE CAN CAUSE SPREAD OF DEFECTS
Genes on the same chromosome are usually inherited together. However, during cellular division and replication, sometimes chromosomes will randomly break and recombine. Genes that were formerly associated with each other can then become separated and inherited independently. This process is known as genetic linkage. We have already mentioned the Aussie cleft palate syndrome which originated with a merle bitch. Iris coloboma, or missing part of the iris, is being reported in non-merle Aussies. Coloboma appears as a notch at the edge of the pupil, giving the pupil an irregular shape. This sight-altering defect is believed to have been brought into the breed through linkage with the merle factor. This trait is now inherited independently from merle.
It is likely more than coincidence that breeds in which merle is most common are also breeds which are heavily plagued with a variety of eye defects. Yearly CERF testing by a veterinary ophthalmologist can help screen out heritable abnormalities. Further studies in merle dogs are needed to observe the frequency and exact methods by which eye defects are produced. It is theorized that some mutations are produced by damage done to portions of the chromosome located near to the erratic merle transposon.
BREEDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MERLE
Sometimes a dog is genetically carrying the merle factor gene, but there are no outward signs (cryptic or phantom merle). This dog could easily be inadvertently bred to another merle and result in the production of homozygous double merles, so for this reaon it is usually recommended to avoid breeding merle to brindles or any purely phaeomelanin (orange-red-gold-yellow) coat colors.
It is almost universally recommended to NEVER breed two merles together, to avoid producing defective double merles. But, unfortunately, some breeders will intentionally breed merle to merle, hoping to produce a higher percentage of merle offspring. This is sadly a misinformed idea. Others may breed merle to merle in an attempt to produce a double merle sire to use for future breeding. Such a double merle dog (even if vision or hearing impaired) will produce 100% merle offspring. There is a demand for the unusual merle color. Although this method of breeding may be considered unethical, it does happen in many breeds, by uneducated or uncaring breeders.
A merle dog should be bred to a dark colored mate, preferably black or black and tan. A dominant black dog will only produce black offspring half the time, unless he carries two copies of the dominant gene for black. Couple a black with a merle parent, who will produce merle offspring 50% of the time, and the odds just dropped to 25% for producing a blue merle from a black to merle mating...the same odds of producing a sable merle or hidden merle from such a breeding.
Black and tanpoint pattern is recessive and would breed true. If one parent is also merle, you have a 50/50 chance for producing blue merle offspring, and 50/50 tanpoint who are not merle. Recessive black would also breed true, just as black and tan does, but recessive black seems to occur only very rarely in our breed. Also, In our breed, there is a widely carried recessive gene "e" which suppresses all black pigment in the coat. This gene can double up in the offspring to hide the visual appearance of merle.
Here is part of a statement by canine geneticist Sheila Schmutz, written for the Pomeranian standard revision committee in April 2006:
"Yet another gene in the "blue" family that can cause health issues is merle. Merle can not be seen in dogs with an e/e genotype. This e/e genotype occurs commonly in Pomeranians since orange, red and white probably account for the majority of Poms. The problem is that M/M (homozygous merle) dogs are always deaf based on our studies. We recently genotyped 24 mostly white Australian Shepherds and all tested M/M (based on the Clark et al. 2006 PNAS published test) and all were deaf. A proportion of these dogs were also blind in one or both eyes since microphthalmia is another common side effect in M/M dogs. Although in many breeds it is possible to educate breeders to never breed two merle dogs together this advice is not possible to follow in Pomeranians since e/e dogs would not show the merle pattern. It would therefore be necessary instead to advise all persons who breed a merle dog to use only a black or sable mate or to have DNA testing done on their red, orange or white mate prior to breeding to be sure it did not carry merle."

Further complicating the picture is the case of breeding a merle to any dog with excessive white in the coat. Breeding merle to parti-color dogs with more than 50% white coat is advised against; especially if the merle parent also carries genes for particolor or "white spotting". It would be difficult to determine if the resulting puppies were merle or extreme piebald white-or both-without DNA testing! In either case, hearing can be affected.

DNA TEST FOR MERLE
We now have a DNA test for merle! This is a wonderful tool for breeders who choose to avail themselves of the technology. A cheek swab from the dog is sent to the lab, and they can tell you if your dog is merle or not. This test can also tell you if your dog carries one copy or two copies of the gene. Unfortunately, the US company offering this test closed its doors in March 2009. However, another company (Idexx) is poised to take over this service.
Here is the link to the Idexx website:
Unfortunately, the merle test costs close to $100, so some breeders will not o use the test, even when available. These breeders continue to try to guess the merle status of their dogs solely by appearance, noting the amount of dappling and/or white coat color.
AKC registration for Pomeranians now allows for designation of color as merle. However, this will remain an inaccurate system unless breeders DNA test all questionable offspring from their merle parents. Currently, merle is uncommon in the Pomeranian breed. However, as the pattern becomes more popular and widespread, it will more likely show up when least expected in a breeding program.
WHITE SPOTTING AND HEARING

Another pattern gene strongly associated with deafness in dogs is the "S" series-commonly known as white spotting, Irish spotting, or piebalding. Breed examples are the Bull Terrier, Samoyed, Greyhound, Great Pyrenees, Sealyham Terrier, Beagle, Bulldog, Dalmation, English Setter, Papillon and Fox Terrier.
The recessive "S" gene covers the coat color with white, and when weakly expressed allows patches of color. This process is believed to be related to the path of migration taken by the pigment cells in the embryo. During fetal development, the melanocytes (cells that produce pigment) are concentrated in the neural crest. The neural crest is the area which eventually becomes the brain and spinal cord. From the neural crest, the pigment cells migrate to the peripheral areas of the body, such as the head, legs and tail. However, sometimes the melanocytes don't travel completely over the body. Any areas where the pigment cells fail to migrate will remain white. This is why sometimes dogs will have a white spot on the end of the tail, the tips of the toes, or on the chest. If pigment-producing melanocytes fail to reach the inner ear, deafness will result.
White color on the head is often, but not always, associated with lack of inner ear pigment. Patched-colored dogs with dark eyes have been selected for in many breeds. These dogs have reduced incidence of hearing impairment when compared to dogs which are almost totally white.
Not all breeds with the "S" -extreme piebald pattern have been reported to be affected with deafness, and there is also inherited deafness in several breeds which is totally unrelated to coat color.
HEARING TEST

The only way to know for sure if your dog is hearing impaired is through a Brainstem Auditory Evoked Response Test, or BAER test. This testing is only available at select facilities and can be expensive. It need only be performed once in a dog's lifetime (preferably at a young age) to rule out hereditary hearing impairment. A complete list of BAER testing facilities can befound on Dr. George Strain's website: www.lsu.edu/deafness/deaf.htm. Selective breeding for hearing dogs, as evidenced by normal BAER testing, can reduce the incidence of deafness in dogs, including those with high risk factors.
OTHER PROBLEMS
Other health concerns associated with lack of pigmentation are skin allergies, skin cancer and sunburn, demodicosis (immune-mediated hair follicle mange), follicular dysplasia (coat which is dull and breaks), reduced fertility and sterility, and photo-induced epilepsy.
CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION OF HANDICAPPED DOGS
Some animal welfare specialists endorse humane euthanasia for all dogs deaf in both ears (bilaterally deaf). Hearing can not be accurately assessed before 5 weeks of age. At this age, euthanasia can be an agonizing decision for any caring, ethical breeder.

Deaf or blind dogs require special placement arrangements. A breeder is morally and ethically responsible for care and placement of handicapped dogs. We may see in the future an increase in handicapped Pomeranians turned over to rescue or to shelters. As there are always so many healthy dogs in shelters and rescue who cannot find homes, the odds of finding homes for handicapped dogs are even greater. Support for rescue from our parent and regional clubs will likely need to increase.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Many people have voiced concern that the merle pattern has only recently been introduced to our breed, through crossbreeding with merle dogs of other breeds. However, all breeds have been created through such methods at some point in their history. The concern is not so much HOW the pattern appeared in our breed, but rather WHERE it will take us in the future.
APC is the parent club for the Pomeranian, and as such, should serve the breed with the commitment and resonsibility that the word "parent" implies. It is a responsibility of a parent club to discourage breeding that is known to increase the probability of dogs with health problems. This can be attempted through education of breeders and the public. Such education can be provided on the club website or through the person designated as health and genetic liaison. Education should include factors to consider in selecting a canine companion, as well as methods of developing a breeding program with an emphasis on producing healthy offspring. Public awareness of health issues may eventually create an increased demand for dogs bred as much for good health as for physical beauty.
Many breed clubs promote responsible breeding through the breed standard Itself. (For instance, our Pomeranian standard stipulates that eyes must be dark).
Guidelines can also be provided through a breed club's code of ethics. The guidelines might contain recommendations such as:
1. Yearly CERF testing for all breeding stock, particularly merles. (Clinics should be made available at national and regional specialties).
2. BAER testing should be performed once in a dog's lifetime prior to breeding. This is especially important in merle and extreme piebald patterns.
3. All dogs from merle litters be sold only to knowledgeable breeders or transferred to new owners after being spayed or neutered. This will help prevent uneducated breeding and the production of handicapped dogs.
4.Vision and hearing health should be guaranteed in all puppy contracts, Dogs so affected should be readily taken back by their breeder at any point in their lifetime.
5. Any puppies from a litter with a merle parent who do not appear to be merle should be DNA tested to determine merle status, (unless of course they are going to be sterilized, in which case DNA merle testing would not be necessary).

As breeders, we need to avoid the ostrich syndrome. Let's not stick our heads in the sand and hope problems will go away....they might get worse if we do!

STUDY!! We should learn all we can about genetics and heredity-of all breeds, not just our own. The other guy's problem today may well be ours tomorrow.
SUMMARY
Our breed already has some health concerns. It would seem unwise to encourage an increase in defects purely for the sake of novel color patterns. Through education and personal responsibilty, risky breeding practices can be minimized. We should strive to produce puppies blessed with the gifts of normal vision and hearing. If this article serves to prevent the birth of just one handicapped dog through heightened breeder awareness, it will have been worthwhile.
PIGMENT-RELATED DISORDERS IN HUMANS
One in 17,000 persons in the USA has some type of albinism, as indicated by little or no pigment in their eyes, skin, or hair. People with albinism always have problems with vision. This results from abnormal development of the retina and abnormal patterns of nerve connections between the eye and brain. It is the presence of these eye problems which defines the diagnosis of albinism. Albinism may be limited to the eyes or involve hair and skin to varying degrees.
Waardenburg syndrome is an inherited disorder in humans characterized by varying degrees of hearing loss and changes in skin and hair pigmentation. This syndrome was named for the Dutch ophthalmologist who noticed that people with pigmentation abnormalities of the hair, eyes and skin, often had hearing impairment.Those with Waaardenburg syndrome may have two differently colored eyes, one brown and one blue. Sometimes, one eye has two different colors. Others may have unusually brilliant blue eyes. People with Waardenburg syndrome also have distinctive hair coloring, such as a patch of white hair near the forehead, or they might have white patches of skin. Waardenburg's is associated with other birth defects such as spinal or intestinal disorders or cleft palate.
After doing this research, I finally realized why I reach for sunglasses each and every time I go outdoors on a sunny day! I have blue eyes, and cannot tolerate the bright light. My eyes lack sufficient light-blocking pigment!

Sincere thanks to TAMU's Leigh Anne Clark, PhD for answering my many questions. You are wonderful!
Thanks to Sheila Schmutz, PhD for her expert advise on canine color genetics:
Thanks to JP Yousha for her color genetics expertise! Your input was invaluable.
www.chromadane.com
REFERENCES
Anderson, Cheryl, "Theories of Color and Pattern Dominance in Shelties"
Bowling, Sue, "Canine Color Genetics", "Elementary Merle Genetics for Newcomers", "Basic
Genetics, the Relationship of Genes to Traits"
Cattanach, Bruce M., "The Dalmation Dilemma: White Coat Color and Deafness"
Chopson, Jane, "Inheritance of Great Dane Coat Color" Sept 1992.
Dowd, Scot E, PhD, "Health and the Merle Pattern", American Dog Breeders Association
Little, Clarence C,. The Inheritance of Coat Color in Dogs, 1957.
Sharp, C. A., "Can You See? Inherited Eye Diseases in Aussies", "Genetic Nightmares", "The Trouble with Merle", "White Fright".
Strain, George M. "Deafness Prevalence and Pigmentation and Gender Associations in Dog
Breeds at Risk". May 15, 2003.
Strain, George M., "Hereditary deafness in Dogs and Cats: Causes, Prevalence, and Current
Research." Oct 2, 2003.
"The Merle", United States Border Collie Club Newsletter, Winter 1995.
Willis, Malcolm B. Genetics of the Dog, 1989
Willis, Malcolm B., "Merle Chihuahuas-Time to Call a Halt" Our Dogs, Feb. 17, 2005.
Yousha, J. P., "Whites; is it Worth the Risks?"
Yousha, J. P., "The Harlequin Family of Dogs: Harls, Merles, Blacks, Whites and More."
INTERNET RESOURCES

Copyright 2005. Revised 2009.This article may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express written consent of the author.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Summer Haircuts

Reasons to NOT cut or shave your dog's coat.
Most breeds of dogs naturally have a double coat. There is a longer outer coat composed of guard hairs, and a fluffy soft undercoat. The dog's coat insulates him from heat in the summer and cold in the winter. It protects his skin from sunburn, insect bites and environmental allergens. Brushing the coat regularly will remove the undercoat in the summer when it sheds naturally, leaving the guard hairs which help to keep him cool.
Cutting the coat will not make your dog cooler. Dogs don't perspire. They cool off through their nose and mouth, and a bit through the pads of their paws, not their skin as humans do.
Cutting down the coat will NOT make him shed less. The undercoat will shed twice a year whether he is cut down or not.
Cutting down the coat will NOT protect humans from dog dander allergies. Dander is produced by the skin, not the hair. Cutting down the coat will actually increase the amount of dander production, inducing more allergic response in susceptible humans.
Cutting the coat often permanently damages the condition of the coat. Besides the poor esthetics of removing the beautiful, glossy longer outer guard hairs, this outer coat protects the undercoat from becoming brittle when exposed to air and UV rays of the sun.
Cutting the coat interrupts the natural hair cycle, makes shedding time unpredictable and can leave the coat sparse and just plain ugly. In severe cases, the coat may never grow back.
Regular brushing and grooming are all that is necessary and advisable to keep your dog's coat in its best condition. As long as your dog isn't shaved, cut down or severely matted, his coat will do its job and keep his temperature regulated in all seasons. Regular bathing and brushing will reduce the amount of dog dander in the environment and hair on your furniture.
I cringe when I see popular culture dogs like “Boo” the Pomeranian with the coat cut down. With so many breeds to choose from, if you don't like the look of a big coat, then select a short-coated breed or a breed that has little to no undercoat that will satisfy your craving for hairstyling, like a poodle, Yorkie, or Maltese.
Well groomed on the left. Assault by clippers on the right. Get a stuffed animal if you want "cute" more than "cared for properly".

Monday, June 22, 2015

Reappropriation, Baby

PUPPY MILL!!

This derogatory slur has been popularized in the media. It's been hurled at us by misanthropist animal extremists in a very successful effort to marginalize the good work of all dog breeders. The term has also unfortunately sometimes been used by dog breeders to slur the competition. After all, the more one breeds, the better one's breeding skills become, and the more likely one is to become successful (whether that success is measured in quality of dogs and/or in the ability to profit financially). What better way to marginalize the competition than to tar them with a nasty label?

After decades of use, the "Puppy Mill" slur has been picked up and accepted by the general public, and is often quoted by the media in evening news stories. It's become part of the popular culture. Everyone seems to believe they have an understanding of what it means. "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it." Much like other offensive and sordid crimes like murder, theft and rape, evil grubby animal-abuse and exploitation for profit can be identified by sight. We Know a Puppy Mill when we see one, right?

Or do we? Is it someone who breeds "too much"? Heaven forbid they MAKE MONEY! from their dogs! Those poor bitches never get a rest! They never have any human contact! Their feet never touch the ground! They never see a veterinarian! Blah blah blah, with every other ridiculous lie that can be cooked up.

In a futile effort at self-defense, dog breeders have attempted to define the "puppy mill" term. It's a place where dogs are abused. Or, they explain that  the phrase "puppy mill" shouldn't be used at all since it really doesn't apply to 99.999 % of the dog breeders out there.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the wrong approach. It's not working.

On the other hand, I hear from many sage voices in the dog world that we should NEVER, ever, utter this term. Using it, they say, only promotes the cause of the enemy; the animal fanatics like HSUS's Wayne Pacelle, who don't ever want to see another dog or cat born. We are facilitating their goal of entrenching the term into popular culture by using it more and more.

Unfortunately THIS approach isn't working either. The phrase "puppy mill"  won't go away simply because we ourselves pretend it doesn't exist or that it is not Politically Correct.

What to do? Can't explain that we are the good guys, and can't even mention the phrase they are calling us, as if our not mentioning it will make it go away. HA! Fat chance!

You will be called a Puppy Mill from here unto eternity because you are a dog breeder, and those who don't like dog breeders will continue to sling nasty slurs your direction.

That's a fact, Jack. You can count on it! Animal rights nuts are relentless in pursuit of their goal of making dog breeders go the way of the dinosaur. If calling us "puppy mill" works, they WILL continue the campaign.

I firmly believe we need a new, proven approach. There is only ONE course of action that can work to mitigate the damage that the tactic of name-calling inflicts.

The only way to neutralize this phrase is for us to embrace it.

REAPPROPRIATION, BAY BEE!

Much like racial slurs that have been embraced by those they objectify, and sexually derogatory slurs that have subsequently been embraced by women and gays, the only way to neuter this term is to embrace it. Bathe in it! Say it often and say it loudly! Be PROUD that you, a fine dog breeder, are a puppy mill!

Repeat after me, slowly and proudly:

YES, I AM A PUPPY MILL!

I am PROUD to mill puppies. My mill is the FINEST on the west coast. My mill produces the most EXCELLENT dogs in all the land! My milled puppies are the BEST you could ever find! They will smother you in kisses!

Looking for a new kennel name? How about "Puppy Mill Acres"?

Perhaps set up a billboard along the highway:



PUPPY MILL
NEXT EXIT
FINE QUALITY PUPPIES AVAILABLE!

My puppy mill dogs are excellent pets, fine hunters, fabulous guardians, wonderful herders. Thank goodness I breed plenty of fantastic dogs here at my top-class puppy mill!

Embrace your unique contribution to mankind. Be proud to be a puppy mill! 

Wikipedia: 
A reclaimed or reappropriated word is a word that was at one time pejorative but has been brought back into acceptable usage—usually starting within the communities that experienced oppression under that word, but sometimes also among the general populace as well.[(The term "reclaimed word" more often implies usage by a member of the group referred to.)
This can have wider implications in the fields of discourse, and has been described in terms of personal or sociopolitical empowerment.
Reclaiming or reappropriating a word involves re-evaluating a term that in the dominant culture is, or at one time was, used by a majority to oppress various minorities of that same culture.
In some cases, this reappropriation is so successful as to turn a previously disparaging word into the preferred term: for example, gay, previously an insult, is now strongly preferred to "homosexual", both as an adjective and a noun.
One of the older examples of successful reclaiming is the term "Jesuit" to refer to members of the Society of Jesus. This was originally a derogatory term referring to people who too readily invoked the name of Jesus in their politics, but which members of the Society adopted over time for themselves, so that the word came to refer exclusively to them, and generally in a positive or neutral sense, even though the term "Jesuitical" is derived from the Society of Jesus and is used to mean things like: manipulative, conspiring, treacherous, capable of intellectually justifying anything by convoluted reasoning.
Reclaimed words differ from general reclamation outside of language because of their deliberately provocative nature. In addition to neutral or acceptable connotations, reclaimed words often acquire positive meaning within the circles of the informed

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Emotion Influences Perspective

Two commercials. Both feature dogs lost by careless owners. In both ads, both puppies manage to make their way back to their respective homes after braving multiple perils. In the Budweiser commercial, the puppy comes back home to stay, while in the Go Daddy ad, however, the puppy comes home only to be put onto another truck, having been sold by the owner or breeder as a result of advertising on GoDaddy. 
AKC and animal rights groups protested the Go Daddy ad, and GoDaddy consequently pulled the ad. No one, however, found any criticism for the Budweiser owner who carelessly loses his dog in traffic. 
Now, I don't much relish the "greeder evil breeder" stereotype presented in the GoDaddy ad, but seriously? We are offended because.....the dog is sold and shipped to a new home? Not to mention, this was meant to be a spoofy ad making fun of the pollyanna-esque Budweiser stuff, like their sappy "dog adoption" ad from last year. Come on AKC, lighten up. Don't over-react to the crime of selling and shipping a dog. It's OK. Really, it is. Let's leave the righteous indignation to the animal rights nuts. 

 




Sunday, December 21, 2014

Purposefulness Creates Contentment

This morning I caught a glimpse of a show on "Super Soul Sunday" about Large Guardian Dogs. The show featured a family of Great Pyrenees dogs.. The older dogs were socializing the pups and introducing them to the flock. They were becoming bonded with the sheep and the lambs, even helping groom the lambs. The farmer remarked: " I watch them care for something outside of themselves and that purposefulness creates contentment."
This is something that farmers know, and people who are d
eeply connected to their animals know, but animal rights fanatics can never truly understand. Animals, just like people, need direction and purpose in their lives to be happy and content, whether it be having a job to do, a family to raise or a protective role of some sort.
I can't imagine a world where we divorce ourselves from our domestic animals. Such a world would provide only a sadly soulless existence for humans. For the animals we are bonded with in spirit, it would spell extinction.
Domestic animals exist only because of the purposes for which they serve mankind. Companionship is one purpose, but there are more practical associations such as horses who pull carriages or allow ranchers to traverse their territory, or cows and chickens who provide a major source of high-quality nourishment for humans in the way of dairy products, eggs, and yes, meat. Without the express purpose of helping us with our work or providing us with a food source, these animals wouldn't exist at all.

Man was only able to develop his brain and evolve to a high level of mental capacity through his consumption of high-quality protein and high-fat animal-based foods beginning thousands of years ago.
More rural and agrarian human societies have always understood this animal bond and been thankful for it. It's only in recent times, where our largely urban populace seldom thinks about nature and our connection to it, that we have seen people object to "using" domestic animals and insisting that animals have "rights". If so, humans have the same rights, including the right to produce and eat the foods our bodies need to thrive through humane stewardship of animals.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Animal Law Writing Contest

From an AKC press release:
AKC has joined with the AVMA, the Cat Fanciers’ Association, and the Animal Health Institute to establish the Animal Law Writing Contest for Law Students .

The contest is part of a shared effort by concerned mainstream animal welfare groups to ensure access and familiarity with a broad range of perspectives on animal law. The contest launches this month and welcomes all scholarly viewpoints.

Students currently enrolled at ABA-accredited law schools located in the United States are invited to write a 10-20 page scholarly paper on the constitutionality of one of two preselected animal law topics. A committee with relevant experience will judge all properly-submitted entries received by Noon on February 15, 2015 . The winner, who will be notified by April 1, 2015 , will receive a $2,500 cash prize and a trip to the American Veterinary Medical Law Association’s Annual Meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, next July. The second place author will receive a $1,000 cash prize.


What the heck? Why do all these animal groups want to encourage MORE animal laws and lawyers to deal with them? What am I missing here, are we playing right into the hands of the ARs? Somehow I doubt these folks are taught how to exercise conservative restraint in the legal arena.

I received some opinions that "moderate voices" in law schools should be encouraged, and indeed, if by hinting at constitutionality of these new laws they are seeking a conservative viewpoint to win this contest, that would be great. But how many "animal law" students out there are actually conservative instead of progressive?

Thoughts from one well-educated person:
This upsets me so much. Guess where most of the submissions will come from.....Lewis & Clark Law School or Tufts? Or how about these suggestions from the ALDF:

 
There is no possible upside for the AKC or people in the dog fancy from this contest. All it will do is provide arguments for A/R advocates. I can see it now....."This argument was supported by the winning paper in the AKC Animal Law Writing Contest."

This contest is yet another boneheaded idea from the AKC. (And the selection of topics was boneheaded, too.) What if the only submissions are from A/R-influenced lawyers-in-the-making who find "support" for the ban in Chicago or MSN in LA?

 And here's why I think an AR-only outcome is highly likely . . .

 The largest percentage of law school students want to end up in firms or businesses -- no one enters law school burning to fight against AR tide. Animal law probably won’t add to those students’ resumes. (Hey, I went to professional school in the ancient past (Northwestern, MBA, ’85), and I would never have written an extra-curricular paper or undertaken an internship in the non-profit sector. Why would an MBA student serious about working in the corporate sector divert his attention from the brass ring?) Why would a lawyer-in-the-making divert his attention from getting a job at the end of three years, especially to enter a contest with a modest payout and regarding a sector of the law with no active, high-profile suits.

 Those students really interested in animal law are ideologues interested in working for advocacy organizations, like the HSUS, ASPCA, PeTA, ALDF, prosecutors’ offices and others further down the food chain. A great paper could get these students a job and “stick it to those animal abusers” at the same time.

 When I hear commenters holding out for the pipe dream of moderation, I really become concerned. Where does moderation fit into this contest? This isn't a discussion. Writers will bring their positions to the table through the strength of their citations and analyses. Will there be a killer argument presented? Probably not. (The constitutional analyses will probably focus on "reserved powers,""illegal taking," and possible "interstate commerce.") But I can hear it now from the city attorney of LA or Pasadena or Long Beach, "The analysis posed by the winner of the AKC Animal Law Writing Contest completely supports our position." Note the use of AKC in the previous sentence.

 In summary, I believe that this contest will only provide a forum for AR advocates and will ultimately hinder those of us in the field actually fighting MSN and various seller bans.

An experienced lawyer expressed his opinion:

As an attorney who has practiced law for over 50 years; who once was a law student; and who has devoted over 23,000 hours to studying and documenting the “brainwashing” efforts of the HSUS and Mr. Pacelle - - (who described his book, The Bond, as “part memoir, part manifesto”) - I have grave, grave, grave concerns that the contest will ultimately lead to unexpected, irreversible and devastating consequences because Mr. Pacelle and the HSUS have expended over ONE BILLION DOLLARS in their unrelenting efforts to “brainwash” all segments of our American society. That includes, but is not limited to, the American public, news media, elected officials at all levels of government, government agencies, such as USDA (which hired Sarah L. Conant, a former HSUS ligitation attorney, who, when a law student at the University of Virginia Law School, organized a law school sanctioned animal law group), the Department of Justice, (which hired Ethan Eddy, a former HSUS litigation attorney who tutored Sarah L. Conant), law enforcement officials at all levels of government, our churches, and our pre-schools, elementary middle and high schools, and yes, the American Bar Association, and law schools!


MY TOP REASONS FOR CONCERN:
  • Be careful of what you ask and wish for…………….. especially when the ever present shadow of the HSUS has infiltrated and influenced the “process.”
  • Three years ago, I documented how the HSUS had “hijacked” and was infiltrating the legal profession, which started nearly 10 years ago at law schools. And this effort was not limited to Sarah L. Conant! EACH YEAR MORE AND MORE LAW SCHOOLS ESTABLISH “ANIMAL LAW” CURRICULUMS THAT ARE INFLUENCED BY THE INPUT OF THE HSUS!!!
  • In March of 2009, I attended a Workshop at the Georgetown Law School that was Co-Hosted by the HSUS. Opening remarks of the Dean of the Georgetown Law School predicted that the growth of “Animal Law” would mirror the growth of Environmental Laws and Regulations that followed the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in 1969. And the growth of Animal Law Curriculums has continued to grow each year at more and more law schools, which are being “guided” by the clandestine efforts of the HSUS.
  • A Co-Moderator of the Workshop was Jonathan Lovvorn, an Adjunct Law Professor at Georgetown Law School, who also serves as the HSUS VP and Chief of the HSUS Litigation Division, and who also was a named defendant in the Feld Lawsuit for his role in the alleged “money laundering” and RICO Violations.
  • The other Co-Moderator of the Workshop was Nancy Perry, the Wife of Jonathan Lovvorn, and who then served as the HSUS VP for Government Relations (Lobbying) and now serves as the Senior VP for Government Relations (Lobbying) for ASPCA.
  • One of the Panelist on the Workshop was Congressman Whitfield, who is now the subject of a Congressional Ethics Investigation because he purportedly allowed his wife, who serves as the Chief Lobbyist for the HSUS, to use his Office to Lobby other Members of Congress to support the HSUS Legislative Agenda.
  • Yet another panelist on the Workshop was a Senior Official within the American Veterinary Medical Association. And when he was asked why the AVMA was not more supportive of the welfare and rights of animals, he prophetically responded that the demographics of the Leadership of the AVMA would change over the next 5 years as the older vets retired and were replaced by younger vets who focused on the care for dogs and cats.
  • Yet another 2009 HSUS Workshop Panelist was a USDA Attorney, who co-authored an HSUS 2009 Workshop Handout, and who currently is the immediate supervisor of Sarah L. Conant!
  • As a result of the HSUS efforts, the American Bar Association has established an “Animal Law Section,” that is operated by young attorneys who have drunk the HSUS “Kool-Aid.”
  • In 2013 Mr. Pacelle was a featured speaker at the Annual Conference for the 50 State Attorney Generals.
  • In the last 11 Years more than 2,000 attorneys have provided tens of thousands of pro bono (free) hours of legal services to the HSUS Legislative and Litigation Agendas of the HSUS. In short, the Billion Dollar Brainwashing Campaign of the HSUS has been supplemented by the equivalent of Tens of Millions of Dollars of free legal services. And many of the young attorneys, who were recently “law school students,” and who are providing these free legal services to the HSUS work for some of the largest Law Firms in the U.S. which freely have designated young attorneys to work full time for the HSUS for up to a year so that the Law Firms may report to the State Bar Associations that they provided thousands of hours of pro bono services. These pro bono services are a major reason why Wayne Pacelle has been able to claim that the HSUS was responsible for the passage of over 1,000 laws at the Federal and State Levels of Government, and that number does not include the State Ballot Initiatives nor the Federal Regulations, such as the Retail Pet Store Rule.
Let's hope that the winner is NOT a lackey of the HSUS, but that seems rather unlikely.

Monday, December 8, 2014

AKC: "Despite Poor Record, Mandatory Spay/Neuter Proposals on the Rise"

 
  
 
What do Pasadena, California; Augusta, Georgia; Madison, Wisconsin; New York City and the state of Rhode Island have in common?
      
Each of these places has recently advanced legislation to require that all dogs or certain classes of dogs within their jurisdictions be sterilized.
 
After what appeared to be several years of declining interest in mandatory spay neuter (MSN) policy by animal activists, AKC has observed resurgence in MSN proposals in the last several months, mostly at the local level.
 
MSN laws can take a variety of forms. They're regularly offered by activists as a quick fix for a myriad of canine issues ranging from dangerous dogs, to shelter intakes, to roaming pets, and even concerns about substandard kennels in other communities. Still, cities that have established MSN have not only found it to be ineffective; it has also created a host of new problems. For example, after Dallas, Texas, implemented MSN in 2008, the city experienced a 22% increase in animal control costs and an overall decrease in pet licensing compliance.  AKC Government Relation's Issue Analysis on Mandatory Spay Neuter presents more information on why MSN is ineffective.
 
Tragically, some activists push for mandatory sterilization laws even as mounting scientific evidence demonstrates that spay/neuter surgery (ovariohysterectomy and castration)— especially when performed on a young puppy—can have serious long-term negative health consequences. Recent scientific studies reveal that juvenile sterilization may lead to increased incidences of cancer (including osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, lymphosarcoma and mast cell tumors), hip dysplasia, ligament disorders, chronic incontinence and even shortened lifespans. These and other emerging studies contradict commonly-held beliefs about the effects of spay/neuter.
 
Ironically, many animal rights activists who push for government-mandated sterilization for all dogs also adamantly seek to outlaw minor procedures such as tail docking or dew claw removal. It's not clear why some find it logical to ban these minor procedures, but don't question passing  laws to require major spay/neuter—in some cases only a few weeks after a pup has opened its eyes and learned to walk.
 
According to the American Pet Products Association, 83 percent of U.S. pet dogs are already spayed/neutered. In many communities, local rescues and shelters have so few adoptable dogs available that they are importing puppies and dogs from other communities and states to offer in their facilities. Ironically, many of these communities are the same ones that are considering MSN.
More here: