Editor's Note: Although this is written from a dog breeder's perspective, it applies equally to the cat breeder.

Mafia and Breeders

What do most modern-day breeders and the Mafia have in common? What a strange question, you may say. It is, sadly though, a very real commonality. The answer is simply what Padgett, a well-known geneticist refers to as the "Code of Silence" for breeders and, perhaps, more commonly discussed as "omerta" for the Costa Nostra. Both are deadly silences. It is easy to understand the reasons for the conspiracy of silence when it refers to criminals, but what reasons can a breeder possibly have for maintaining "omerta"?

The reason most often given for not sharing genetic information is the fear of being made the object of a "witch hunt." It lies much deeper though. It begins with ownership and the human need to see what one owns as being the best. Remember the "keeping up with the Jones" mentality? Everyone wants the very best and the accolade of owning the best. Admitting that what one owns or has bred may have faults is difficult for most people. Also at fault is the huge financial and emotional investment that breeders have in their dogs. Discovering that there may be defects in the sires and dams that breeders have so much of themselves invested in becomes frightening and causes many to refuse to even contemplate that their dogs may possess defective genes. Egos and fear of being labelled "poor breeders" are ultimately the reasons for breeders maintaining this detrimental code of silence.

Defective Genes

Even more dangerous than the Code of Silence though is the refusal to contemplate defective genes may exist within a breeding program and be present for generations, quietly meshing through many bloodlines before manifesting itself. Could it be possible that dogs which appear healthy can actually be spreading dangerous, sometimes lethal genes throughout the breed community until finally two healthy, but gene-defective, carriers combine to produce that first tell-tale affected offspring? Of course it is, and time and again the geneticists tell us how this is possible.

Simplistically, breeders cannot see defective genes and what they don't see must not exist. Therefore, using that logic, all the untested dogs must be as beautifully healthy inside as they are structurally beautiful outside. If only that logic were true! Unfortunately, far more emphasis is placed upon structural and superficial beauty simply because it is something that is easily seen, acknowledged and obtained. It's also something without any "unnecessary" financial investments. One doesn't need to pay for x-rays or blood tests or specialists' knowledge in order to evaluate how a dog conforms to a physical standard.

The real danger, though, comes not from those dogs who are tested, but from those breeders who keep their heads in the sand and refuse to believe that their dogs could be less than 'perfect'. We can begin to fix that which we reveal, but that which remains hidden is a threat to the future. But here omerta, that "Code of Silence" is very evident. Not only do these breeders hold fast to the belief that their dogs are untainted by defective genes, structural defects or temperament problems, but they also believe that no dog that they choose to bring into their breeding program through mating with their dogs could possibly be carriers either. After all, they only "breed to the best," and, of course, that best just has to be perfect.

Show Ring Success

Now the truly criminal act occurs. These breeders are quite often very successful in the show ring; their dogs are thought to be the best - after all, they have ribbons and placings and titles to prove how worthy their dogs are! Because of their show ring success, they are seen as breed authorities, people that newcomers to the breed trust for knowledge and information. And, the information these newcomers get is that there are no genetic problems to be concerned with, no need to do that "expensive testing when the dogs are all healthy." Even more disastrous to the breed's future is that these breeders' attitudes begin to prevail. The newcomers see the success of these breeders' dogs and buy them (even though few, if any, have had even the most rudimentary testing for structural faults, poor health or defective genes). The newcomers then have a financial and emotional investment to protect which begins to spread this attitude, with predictable results. Soon, because these breeders are the "powers" within the breed (quite often judges, people selected to discuss the breed at seminars, breeders who command respective prices for puppies and stud fees, breeders seen winning), they use this "power" to ensure that it becomes unethical to discuss any defects, in either health or temperament, found in any of the pedigrees of their sires, dams or progeny of their sires or dams. All too often one hears "I don't dare say anything if I want to win" or "there are three lines with epilepsy (or heart or eye or pick a health problem), but you don't need to know about them." Of course, we need to know about them, how else are we to make intelligent decisions about which dogs would best benefit the future we plan for our dogs unless we consider not only the structural beauty, but also the hidden genetics that we are attempting to also improve?

What about the breeders who openly discuss the defects found in their own dogs? Unfortunately, they are all too often labelled as "poor breeders" and their dogs said to be "defective". They are shunned and spoken of in whispers and sneers. The very fact that these breeders are striving to share knowledge openly and to scientifically test their dogs make these breeders the subject of witch hunts by the very people who are either too cheap, too unconcerned, too egotistical, too uncaring about the future to even test their dogs, much less have the courage to honestly discuss their dogs. Instead of applauding these breeders who choose to share information, these breeders become shunned and hounded. As a result, and because human nature makes us want to be part of a group instead of outside the group, breeders begin to do what they do best - they maintain silence and lie or refuse to admit what they do know.

"Poor Breeders"

As more and more newcomers join a breed and inexperienced breeders and exhibitors all jump on the bandwagon of showing, owning and practicing the art of breeding, they turn to the breeders who are winning, equating winning with superior quality dogs. The breeders are, therefore, more determined to have nothing bad revealed about any of their dogs, further establishing in their minds the perfection of the dogs they breed and further increasing the financial and emotional investment that they have in perpetuating this theory. Winning in the show ring has nothing to do with genetic health. Indeed, a number of the winning dogs are carriers of genetic disorders at the least and, in some instances, are known to have genetic health disorders. While a genetic disorder itself, depending upon type and severity, should never preclude the dog from the genetic pool, it is absolutely mandatory that people be aware of any area of concern in order to breed intelligently. At the very least, the dogs that the dog is bred to must be tested and their backgrounds looked at carefully to limit the possibility of affecting more dogs or making more dogs carriers of the disorder. Yet, because the winners don't want to be labelled as "poor breeders" and lose the accolade of being the best (as well as possible financial loss in not being able to sell puppies or stud fees at as high a price), the "Code of Silence" becomes even more firmly embraced.

The newcomers, because they want to be accepted, avoid talking about the sires and dams that produce poorly, whether it is structure, health or temperament problems. Also, they too now have a financial and emotional investment in addition to wanting to be accepted into the "winners club." They may even recognize trends in one or more lines in their own pedigrees, but refuse to acknowledge these trends and keep them secret for fear of being labelled.

Often, the breeders, while not openly acknowledging that there are any problems, will attempt to dilute the possibility of the disorder rearing its head by out-breeding to another totally different line. Dr. Jerold Bell, a well-known geneticist, has this to say about this method: "Repeated out-breeding to attempt to dilute detrimental recessive genes is not a desirable method of genetic disease control. Recessive genes cannot be diluted; they are either present or not. Out-breeding carriers multiplies and further spreads the defective gene(s) in the gene pool. If a dog is a known carrier or has high carrier risk through pedigree analysis, it can be retired from breeding, and replaced with one or two quality offspring. Those offspring should be bred, and replaced with quality offspring of their own, with the hope of losing the defective gene."

Fear

Unfortunately, refusing to acknowledge or test for genetic disorders doesn't make them go away. What we can't see still has a huge impact on the breed and continuing to breed these carriers of defective genes allows the defect to take a firmer hold in the breed. Those breeders who try very hard to breed healthy dogs and take every scientific precaution to ensure genetic health are shunned for the very passion that should be applauded; the efforts they take are trivialized at best and more often ridiculed as "unnecessary" or "fear-mongering." As a result, these breeders work alone and, outside of their own kennel, their efforts make little impact on the breed as a whole.

Omerta can only be broken by people who have the courage, conviction and passion to ensure that the breed as a whole becomes stronger and healthier. Instead of witch hunts for those who have the heartache of dealing with the problems, the goal of applauding those with the courage and determination to speak out openly should be taken up by every breed club in every country. Awards in addition to those given to breeders who have the most winning dogs should be given to those breeders who work tirelessly to improve the breed. Prettiness and beauty doesn't improve a breed; genetic health and the ability to live a pain-free, healthy life far surpass beauty, but are more difficult to obtain.

The Cost

The cost of genetic testing is not high when one looks at the effects that refusing to test may have on the breed. Ask any knowledgeable breeder whose breed has rampant heart, blood disorder, eye or hip problems whether they blame the lack of foresight and the refusal of past breeders in making a further financial investment in the breed for the almost insurmountable problems now and the answer is predictable. In the UK, it is possible to do testing by certified specialists for hip, elbow, eye, heart, blood, immune disorders for around a total investment of £295.00 (far less in the United States), less than a cost of a puppy or a stud fee. It's possible to do far less testing, but at what cost? Will the breed suffer from heart problems in the future because a simple £7.50 stethoscope test (done through one of the breed-sponsored heart clinics, in this case the Boxer) was not important at the time? Will the breed be faced with trying to eradicate blindness years from now because a £16.00 eye exam (done through one of the many eye clinics held each month or free if done at Crufts dog show at the clinic they hold each year) was thought unwarranted? Will the descendants be filled with pain from bad hips and/or elbows because the breed moved well in the show ring and didn't look dysplastic to the naked eye? (X-rays necessary for hip and elbow evaluations are the most expensive testing at a cost of approximately £110 for hips and an additional £80 for elbows when done with the hips; unfortunately it takes six different films to evaluate elbows and the cost reflects the number of films necessary.) Testing for things such as von Willebrand's Disease (vWD) and thyroid testing (immune system) can be done inexpensively as blood tests at perhaps £30 and £50 each. Granted, testing for these genetic disorders won't guarantee that a problem won't occur in future breedings, but testing will greatly reduce the chances of problems and that is a good place to start.

If a breeder cannot provide proof in the form of veterinarian-issued certificates or reports that genetic testing has been done, the buyer should be aware that they purchase at their own risk! Caveat emptor! Breeders may claim that their dogs have never limped or that there is no need to do any testing because the breed is healthy. Some may even claim that their veterinarians have said that genetic testing was unnecessary. Those stances are irresponsible. Once again, genes are not visible and carriers of defective genes may themselves appear healthy to the naked eye. It is only with testing that we really know whether our dogs are effected or not and only then with honest evaluation of pedigrees having tested or effected dogs that the potentiality for carriers are realized.

Break The Silence

What can we do to break the deadly Code of Silence? The majority, if not all, breed clubs have a code of ethics that require members to breed healthy dogs. One of the places to start is with the clubs. Instead of being social institutions or "good ole boy" clubs, these breed organizations could begin upholding the very real goal of protecting the future of the breed by demanding and requiring that genetic testing be undertaken prior to breeding. Far more serious than breeding a sixteen-month old bitch is the practice of breeding without taking every possible safeguard that genetic health is a priority. Yet, in many clubs "poor breeders" are identified by the age at which they breed or the frequency in which they breed rather than the very real criteria that proof of health be mandatory. Take the emphasis off winning - how many clubs determine "breeder of the year" based on the number of progeny that wins? Are there clubs that actually require that the breeder also must show proof that they are doing all they can do to ensure the future of the breed?

We can break the silence by commending those with the courage and determination to talk about problems, share successes and knowledge instead of ostracizing them. Omerta fails if every puppy buyer and stud dog user demands that proof of genetic testing is shown. The Code of Silence fails when we realize that it is not enough to breed winning dogs or to command the highest price for puppies or to have a stud dog that is used fifty, sixty, a hundred times; we must take back the passion with which we all first embraced our breeds and passionately work with determination toward a future where the numbers of genetic disorders are reduced each year.

If those you know breed without testing, ask yourself why - is it lack of courage in perhaps finding a carrier within their breeding stock? Is it because they fear a financial loss if they test? Is it because they truly believe that their dogs couldn't possibly be less than perfect? Is it because they fear they will lose their "top breeder" standing if they admit that there are problems that need working on? Is it because they fear that it will be harder to breed beautiful and healthy dogs? Or have they lost the passion with which they first loved the breed while they were climbing the road to winning success? Or, more sadly, is it because they really just don't care about that which they cannot actually see?

Better Future

It is hard work and takes great courage to develop a breeding program using scientific methods and tests, but the hope of a better future should drive us all to that very commitment. The key is being able to work together without fear of whispers or silence. Omerta, the code of silence, can be broken if more of us decide that we are not going to tolerate the quiet any longer.

© 2004 Sierra Milton, Stormsong. Please contact the author at "sierra.milton@ntlworld.com" with comments and for permission to reprint.

Top Head

The standard describes the head/skull as: "Round, broad and full-cheeked in both males and females. Round underlying bone structure with no flat planes." This is one of the hardest areas to evaluate in a young cat and in a cat with a lot of ruff. As a young cat, the head should appear to be a slight vertical oval. While this may make the head appear too narrow, the breeder/exhibitor should realize that as kittens mature (especially males), the heads have a tendency to get wider rather than taller. When the head is a vertical oval, the widening makes the head into a good round shape.

A head that starts out as a hortizontal oval also widens out and leaves the cat with an even more oval head when mature. The way to evaluate the head is to slick back all the hair away from the face so that the underlying structure can be seen as well as felt. Use one hand to slick the hair back. Use the other to place the thumb under the chin and the forefinger on top of the head to measure the height. Then do the same to measure the width. This can give you a good idea on whether the head is taller than it is wide or vice versa.

One way to judge a cat is to take a variety of pictures face on and then trace the outline of the cat's head on the pictures. You can get a good idea on how round the cat's head is this way, and learn to evaluate your cats without the use of pictures.

Muzzle

The standard describes the muzzle as: "... medium width. The underlying bone structure is rounded with well-padded whisker pads to give the impression of squareness. The length is equal to 1/2 the width."
The problem is defining "medium width". What is medium to a Persian breeder is different than medium to a Tonkinese breeder, for instance. Looking at a variety of muzzle widths can help determine an acceptable width that will balance the head. Also, remember, the muzzle length is 1/2 the width, so a wider muzzle needs a longer nose. A narrower muzzle needs a shorter nose. A short nose on a wide muzzle presents a Persian-y look. A long nose on a narrow muzzle presents a more "Maine Coon-ish" look.

Chin

"Firm and well-developed, balanced in proportion to rest of head."
Here, we don't want a huge chin, one that is extremely obvious. Neither do we want a weak chin that disappears underneath the upper lip. Currently, more cats seem to present the former problem than the latter.

Ears

"Medium in size, broad at the base, tapering, set well apart. Should fit into (without distorting) the rounded contour of the head. Furnishings, if present, are curly."

Here are some pictures of ears, ranging from large, to medium, to small. The description of the size is related to the size of the head. Small ears on a small cat may look medium size. Large ears on a large cat may appear medium sized.

Large Ears

Medium Ears

Small Ears

Eyes

by Donna Bass
This year's CFA Annual Meeting was held at the Coronado Springs Resort in Orlando, Florida. The Coronado Springs Resort is on the Disney World resort property, so there were a lot of "Mickey Mouse" things going on there. It was also extremely hot and even more humid, especially for this left coast girl, used to moderate temperatures and moderate humidity. Even my naturally curly hair didn't appreciate the extra humidity and heat. Trish Simmes and I roomed together and spent Wednesday at the Epcot Center. If you go to Disney World, you really must go see the "Mission to Space" and the "Test Track" rides. Really hot!

The Breed Council Secretaries' meeting with the Board of Directors was on Thursday morning. On the agenda for this meeting were the following items:

1. Breed Council requests for pedigree requirement changes.
   This item involved a lot of discussion about the benefits/costs/downside to the various breeds requesting/desiring 8-generation pedigrees. Since CFA is not able to provide 8-gen pedigrees, it was felt that requiring 8-gens from other associations who are even less able to provide pedigrees was detrimental to the well-being of CFA and especially the International Division, where many associations are not pedigree-generating registries. This is an issue that will probably not be decided soon, but the reasons on both sides were aired.



2. Since the CFA yearbook will be listing "top ten" breed awards, should CFA recognize these cats officially with an award?
   After some discussion, it was decided that awarding certificates to the top ten kittens, premiership and championship cats in each breed would be appropriate. Since the Yearbook will have recognition of all those cats, something in writing from CFA (and not just each individual breed council) would be appreciated.



3. What is the best way to provide breed councils a forum to discuss standards and breed issues with judges without waiting for a scheduled juding school or educational seminars that are breed specific
   The Judging Association and the Breed Council Secretaries both have group email lists and Joann Cummings and Norm Auspitz volunteered to "forward" anonymous emails between the two lists (to individuals as necessary) so that Breed Councils could let the judges know the "Top Two" complaints/issues they have with judges (for instance, with Selkirks, running their hands down the back as they do with Cornish and Devons and flattening the curl). In the other direction, the judges could let the individual breed councils know the complaints/issues they have with the individual breeds on a breed-wise basis, rather than on an individual cat basis. If you have any complaints/issues about judges and the way they handle Selkirks, let me know and I'll pass it on to the Judges Association list.



4. When and why does the CFA Board turn down a request from a breed council if it was supported by the required majority of members and did not conflict with a CFA regulation or cause harm to the breed?
   This seemed to be a matter of perception. Many times what is approved by the members may be technically flawed, and the BOD cannot vote for the item as it is written. They recommend changes that they could support and all agreed that any item that is included on a breed council ballot should be something that could be passed or not on it's own merit without affecting another section.



5. CFA Breed Outcross Program Updates
   The Havana Browns began an outcross program a few years ago to increase the size of their gene pool. Resulting offspring from this program have started to appear in the showhall and are doing well, so the program is succeeding and will continue



6. Status of CATS
   CATS is the "registry" for cats that would like to be registered in CFA but cannot, due to the lack of the required number of generations of "allowed" cats, or for cats from countries that may not have a registry that can provide the necessary number of generations, or from a country that is just beginning and doesn't have any sort of registry as all (such as China, just opening up).

The Breed Council Secretaries also met later with the Breeds and Standards Chair, who stressed some of the issues that were brought up earlier. One of the issues that she covered included the recognition of catteries of importance to a particular breed. The idea was that a "cattery of importance" could have it's name permanently saved so that no one would ever be able to use that name, even 100 years from now (making assumptions here), since it is important to a specific breed.

Three of the catteries that need to be protected in our breed are Lil'BoPeep and NoFace from Jeri Newman and Oaktree from Nancy McMullen. If you have any others, let me know.

Because of the afternoon BC Secretaries meeting, I had to miss the Winn Foundation meeting where various health issues were discussed.

Friday morning, the Annual Meeting began, with reports from all the various committees. The most interesting was the Legislative report which had various people discussing what had worked or not worked in their areas. There were some wonderful successes discussed, along with a few potholes. This is something that needs to be worked on by all of us.

The results of the CFA Officers and Regional Directors election is as follows:

• President
  
  • Pam Delabar - 294 votes - Elected
  • Donald Williams - 180
  • Abstain
• Vice President
  
  • Kitty Angell - 213 votes - Elected
  • Walter Hutzler - 127
  • Liz Watson - 144
  • Abstain - 6
• Secretary
  • Rachel Anger - 453 - Elected
  • Abstain
• Treasurer
  • Kathryn Calhoun - 448 - Elected
  • Abstain - 42
• Regional Directors:
  • Region 1 - North Atlantic
  • Debbie Kusy - 43 - Elected
  • Abstain
  • Region 2 - Northwest
  • Richard Kallmeyer - 60 - Elected
  • Abstain - 1
  • Region 3 - Gulf Shore
  • Betty Haden - 19
  • Paul Huff - 3
  • James Watson - 32 - Elected
  • Abstain - 0
  • Region 4 - Great Lakes
  • Loretta Baugh - 45 - Elected
  • Lori McClain - 19
  • Abstain - 1
  • Region 5 - Southwest
  • Carmen Martino - 20
  • Regina Shaffer - 26 - Elected
  • Abstain - 1
  • Region 6 - Midwest
  • Linda Berg - 53 - Elected
  • Brian Pearson - 22
  • Abstain - 1
  • Region 7 - Southern
  • Karen Helmold - 24
  • Peg Johnson - 43 - Elected
  • Homer Stamper - 2
  • Abstain - 2
  • Region 8 - Japan
  • Kayoko Koisumi - 29 - Elected
  • Wakako Nagayama - 16
  • Abstain - 3

The voting on the pre-noticed resolutions produced the following results:

1. Adding "CFA" to the Association's objectives: Failed
2. Changing the registration fee for delegates to $20 from $10: Passed with a 2/3 majority (which means it goes into affect without the board having to consider it.
3. Splitting Southern Region into two parts and adding one board member: Failed
4. Kittens for sale may be 3 months old. May not be shown until 4 months: Failed
5. This one had to do with "Qualifiers" for the International. A straw poll was taken if Qualifiers should be required. Failed.
6. Grand Certificates would be 8-1/2x11, instead of the 1/2 page size: There was some discussion about the cost difference between large and small sizes. Passed with 2/3
7. This creates a new title between Grand and RW: Withdrawn, will be studied by a committee and will be presented later.
8. Securing of judging cages: Discussion of specifics to be used. Failed.
9. 15 Rosettes for Championship and Premiership when specific counts have been reached (like Kittens are now): Passed, but not 2/3. Favorable vote for Board to consider.
10. Cat or kitten owned by Judge or family member may not be shown for Regional/National awards: Lots of hard feelings about this one. Failed.
11. A judge will not accept gifts from exhibitors: Withdrawn. Will be studied by JA ethics committee.
12. Cats and kittens winning National awards will not be eligible for Regional awards: Failed.
13. Breed points for Kittens and Premiership cats: To date, to get regional/national awards in Kittens and Premiership, you had to make a final. This gives larger breeds a chance to have breed points count also. Passed with 2/3.
14. Where to count a kitten's points if it crosses April 30 line during it's kitten career: Withdrawn
15. Ditto on 14, only a different way: Failed
16. Referral program only for breed council members: Passed
17. Blue slips when kittens are sold to broker or third party: Failed
18. Cattery of Achievement: Failed

Non-Prenoticed Resolutions (from the floor):

1. Only points earned in the region of final assignment will be scored for regional awards: Failed.
2. Raise judges fees: Failed
3. NW should be 25 CH, 25 PR, 25 Kittens: Passed

If you have any specific questions about the resolutions, let me know.

The Annual next year will be in Atlantic City, NJ. In 2006, it will be in Reno, NV and will be celebrating CFA's 100th year. Hope you all can make it!