Not just Pugs. I had a German Shepherd. Beautiful dog, but everyone who I met who had had a German Shepherd in the past told me their dog had to be put down around 10 years of age due to their back legs failing.
Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According to the vet this is another common problem with the breed.
We got two spaniels (years apart) from the same breeder. Both died suffering of a number of abnormalities that became pronounced when they got older.
Later we found that the breeder was forced to stop altogether because the dogs were so consistently damned.
I can still hear what I can only describe as "screaming" by our first spaniel the night she came home after an emergency operation. She had to be let go that night. Nothing in my life has haunted me the same way. That was it for dogs for me. I have two wonderful cuddly cats and I'm delighted by how genetically unremarkable they are.
We had a cocker when I was in college that, at about age 8, became aggressive toward my mom and brother, biting them both on the neck hard enough to draw blood. Obviously we had to euthanize him. The vet told us that the tan-colored cocker spaniels were especially prone to problems, as their light color was a result of very close breeding.
Your "German Shepherd" today is nothing like the purebreeds from the WWII era. They were bred afterwards for looks, nothing else. The inherent intelligence remained and was left unchanged, everything else was selectively bred, so you get to enjoy cardiac failure and hip dysplasia as a result.
Is there some connection between the breeding of the German Shepherd and WWII? My impression is that the breed dates back at least fifty years before that.
Depends on the line and the particular confirmation of the dog. For German Shepherd's specifically, dogs from "working lines," tend to be absent of these issues because their breeders focused more on the dogs temperament and behavior than confirmation. Ergo, you have a sturdy, intelligent, willing dog with minimal health problems.
I am a professional trainer. I have 2 German Shepherds, one is a "show line" and the other is a "working line." The showline dog has congenital health issues and grew up with terrible confirmation. The working line dog last weekend rolled about 150 feet down a mountain while chasing his ball and just walked it off.
Having a mixed breed dog can be a great thing, but it is no more a guarantee against confirmation and health issues than any other dog. The real issue, IMO, is that clients/buyers don't know nearly enough about dog breeding to know if what is being advertised is actually a good thing.
I'm glad you used the phrase "get a pure breed" as opposed to "purchase a pure breed". There are far to many amazing dogs that need a home to spend money buying a dog.
If you want a rough story, look at the Bernese Mountain Dog. Twenty years ago the life expectancy of the breed was only 7 years due to congenital heart problems. Breeders have been working to breed it out of them and introduce more variety in the genome of the breed for some time and their life expectancy has been going up.
The key is to at least get a diverse line, though I don't think there's any reason to get a pure bred dog unless you want to show or breed it yourself.
My father recently purchased a Sharpei. It's father was also it's grandfather because it was basically the product of two kennels interbreeding. In humans go as far as to outlaw that in many countries. In dog breeding it's a matter of course.
> I don't think there's any reason to get a pure bred dog unless you want to show or breed it yourself
There is one other reason - working dogs. Livestock guardian for example is a job that's very poorly suited for mutts due to the genetic personality traits involved. An LGD with chasing, shepherding, or tracking instincts would be at best worthless, and at worst a danger to your animals.
There are acknowledged problems with pure breeds of all kinds, but not all pure breeds suffer from such extreme problems. It's possible to find a breeder with a strong bloodline free of many defects but it is not going to be cheap.
And because of that, many pet owners now want Malinois* instead of Shepherds...because they saw one on TV and it looked super obedient and they think, well if the police are using them, it's probably just what I need to complete my apartment..!
You'll see the same problems in Malinois in - my guess - 3-5 years from now. Let a couple generations go by. Keep an eye out for phrases like "old world" and "large-boned" when you start seeing super-sized Mal's walking around Petsmart.
German shepherds frequently carry the gene for Degenerative Myelopathy. Genetic testing for it has only become available in the past 5-7ish years. A reputable breeder will test their dogs for this prior to breeding now that the test is available.
You can get things like hip replacements for dogs now, but it isn't cheap. We had a knee replacement for our rottweiler that cost about $10K all up, but he was only 4 when it happened, had he been 8 we probably wouldn't have paid.
Holy cow! As a Rotty owner myself (beautiful Ruby),and shes had plenty of damn problems, but 10k, holy shmoly man, I can afford it too, but ahhh, thats so killer. For the record, I probably woulda done it too.
List of problems: suffered from Panosteitis until she was 2, tore ACL when 1.5 years old, had eye entropy surgery. The toughest was the ACL. Shes 7 now, suffers from pretty terrible arthritis which I combat with different stuff.
Tomorrow, my brother is taking his doberman shipped to the US from Serbia 3 hours away to the doggie dentist, where he has the most fucked up teeth you have ever seen. They are made of glass. My brother is already in over 7g's on the teeth, the dog is about to turn 2...
Anyways, you are a great human being and I am glad rottys are getting love like that.
Not all pure bred dogs have health problems. If you take the time to find a breeder who cares about the dogs more than money then you can find dogs that are healthy and well cared for. This takes effort though and research.
There was a great video I saw about how "purebred" dogs are essentially a cesspool of genetic disorders, and how we need to start taking active steps to bring back genetic diversity in our dogs. It was eye opening to see that the pedigrees we put on a pedestal are actually putting our dogs through a host of abnormalities and health complications.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can manage to retain breed traits without damning the dogs.
If I had to slap down a guess on what is going on.
The #1 issue is targeting cosmetic traits that are anatomically not functional.
The #2 issue is breeders not prioritizing health over conforming to the breed standard. Pet grade purebreds may not look quite perfect to a discerning eye, but they can be very robust especially if they are a working dog.
If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues? Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch? Is it an ethical issue? Maybe. I mean I eat animals. I can't put myself on some high horse. At some point we make them to use so there is a balancing act going on.
The fallacy to watch out for is conflating breeder behavior and outcomes with outcomes for the breed if bred "properly."
> I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can manage to retain breed traits without damning the dogs.
> If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues? Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch?
You just answered your own question. Is it theoretically possible for any species (including humans) to be purebred/inbred while still avoiding the whole host of genetic disorders and health complications? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? Of course not. The video does a pretty good job of showing how so many purebred dogs have worse health compared to their mutt counterparts.
You bring up a good point about eating meat. Most of us are willing to trade off animal welfare/suffering for human pleasure and aesthetics, so why not apply the same principle to dogs. One argument is that most people who adopt dogs do so with the genuine intention to love them and care for their welfare/health. In fact, people get so attached to their dogs that they spend a great deal of money to promote their health, and deeply mourn their suffering/death. Given this, it only makes sense for dog owners to adopt mutts.
Genetic clearances are much more common in the world of working breeds, since there is a market pressure to have dogs that can actually function in their job. Demand for working titles (search/rescue, agility, hunting championships, etc) also selects for more physically capable animals.
The problem is population size, breeders rarely have more than a few hundred dogs and lose diversity though selection, which given short lifespans quickly leads to problems.
My family trains and breeds hunting retrievers as a hobby. Hip displaysia, heart disease and eye disorders run rampant in the breed, particularly in show lines where the dogs are expected to be pretty and not be particularly athletic. Organizations like the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (http://ofa.org/) maintain public databases of genetic clearances for dogs in the effort to combat these problems.
If you want a purebred, adopt a rescue or buy one from a breeder that properly runs genetic clearances.
It wasn't mentioned there is a 23andme for Dogs called Embarkvet (Austin, TX the DNA is sent to Canada for processing strangely enough)
We got our dog from craigslist due to timing and waitlist issues with purebred breeders. At first we were worried and got a DNA test. She's a mutt and now that I know I am happier albeit lucky there is nothing identifiably wrong with her. I think many prospective owners are afraid because there is a higher risk of uncertain behavior and characteristics from mutts. The DNA tests took 2 months however, most people buy puppies at 8 weeks and no breeder wants to shell out $150-$200 dollars and puppies are harder to sell the older they get sadly.
I think the cheaper and quicker these DNA test are the more the dog community will be able to open their eyes in a more transparent light. I've sadly met owners who want returns/discounts for defects in their purebred huskies which leaves me with mixed feelings.
Suppose there was a breed of, say, monkey, that was popular as a household pet. They were considered to be quite clever and could be trained, over some years, to use a toilet, fetch things from the fridge, even manage primitive forms of communication. The only problem is that they're a genetic trainwreck. They've got a pronounced, gourd-like head with a snout so compact that it's common to have to surgically remove some of their teeth. They've got limited ability in their front legs that forces them to spend their entire life in an abnormal posture, resulting in a cornucopia of spinal and joint problems that cause many of them lifelong pain. On top of all this, all of their natural defenses (claws, canines, protective fur) have been bred out and disease traits bred in (myopia, hemophilia, diabetes, and so on). Now, knowing all of this, suppose your sister, who already has three of these things running around her house, calls up and gleefully announces that they're getting another one. What do you tell her?
I mean, I know you're being ironic, but that's really an inaccurate view of people. Sure, we have certain diseases, but we're hardly unique in that regard. We live decades longer than our closest relatives, even without medical intervention. In terms of natural defenses, we are an apex predator, and have been even in the hunter-gatherer days. Even ignoring the fact that we are the most intelligent species on the planet, we're also one of the greatest distance runners in the animal kingdom.
What if you sister called and said there was a safe, cheap and effective way to remove, say, the myopia from her spawn (in the case of dogs, stop inbreeding, in the case of humans, currently imaginary)? Would you tell her not to do it?
I've had good success with telling people about how the industry works. These people probably like dogs (which is why they are getting them) and showing them that dogs suffer quite a bit due to their choices can be convincing.
But comparing humans to dogs in that matter is kind of ridiculous. This is more like if your sister called and said "I just read about chinese foot binding, and I think it's a great idea so I'm going to do it to my children!" That's basically what people who only accept dogs who have debilitatingly short snouts, etc. are doing.
Probably nothing. Monkeys are a telling example: almost nobody cares for a monkey, so in the absence of some genetically compromised monkey bred for suitability as pets, there not only would be no pet monkeys, but also fewer monkeys overall, as humans edge monkeys out of their habitats more and more every year.
Well, when the monkey gets older it can use tools to defend itself, as well as keep itself alive. However, I would perhaps suggest teaching it abstinence, sterlilisation if it has one of the particularly debilitating genetic diseases
This is why mutts are the best. Genetic diversity is good. Anecdotal, but growing up my two mutts lived to the ages of 16 and 18...well past the life expectancies you see in the purebred world.
I grew up with a mutt that I loved dearly. My parents got her because my Dad had read something or other in (I think) Popular Science about how the "dog of the future" would be a mutt, and the mutting of genes would suppress bad recessive traits. Then she got sick as a puppy, had an allergic reaction to her medication, and suffered permanent brain damage. That having been said, she was a perfect house pet; lived to be a very ripe old age and was good natured, just a little slow to respond to things.
If you're a breeder and there's something wrong in the genetics of the dog you're breeding, stop breeding that dog. But resolving genetic issues isn't as simple as just throwing mutts together; you really just roll the dice on a new set of strengths and weaknesses when you do that.
That's one of the reasons I like Australian Cattle dogs. They are still mutty enough that there aren't a whole lot of genetic issues in the breed.
Of course, they are also very smart, tough, low-maintenance, and tend to live for a very long time. Some are a little over-active, but mine will happily lay in her bed all day and sleep, as long as she gets a good walk in the morning.
Well, the only problem with mutts (for me) is that you have no good idea on what size they will have as adults.
Living in an apartment I can't really have a big dog and by getting a breed dog (even if it's not really pure bread) I know it will not get too big for the space I have available.
Totally agree! The only counter argument I've heard ist that purebreds also have predictably the same character traits, which is important if the dog has to fulfill a job. But to private owners health and longevity should matter more.
Mutts mostly, maybe a few different kinds of pure breeds. Might offend someone's aesthetic sensibilities (though I can't see why), but that seems like a worthwhile trade.
Not breed to optimize for certain traits. But that's what dogs (and the current 'breeds') are all about anyway, both pugs and what most people consider 'anatomically correct' dogs.
Realise that the incarceration (physically and/or psychologically) of animals for a purely comforting or entertainment purpose is an affront to proper morals.
Border collies were extremely functional dogs, and a subset of border collie owners did not at all want their dog breed to be part of the American Kennel Club, lest they start being bred for appearance or some other random irrelevant attribute.
I have mused on occasion about the consequences if, given a world in which the only dog breed was a kind of domesticated wild dog bred for nothing in particular, someone created dog breeds such as we recognise today and presented them to the world.
I reckon that person would get lynched. We put up with an awful lot of things just because that's how they were when we got here.
The problem is that for the last two centuries we've been breeding for conformance with an æsthetic standard, rather than breeding for conformance with a work- and health-based standard. My understanding is that many of distinct traits found in show breeds were originally working traits, but have now become exaggerated & useless.
Personally, I don't care for the idea of breeding show dogs. It's one thing to breed dogs for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting or herding): then the negatives of particular trait are the cost of its benefits. There's no (IMNSHO) valid benefit to a non-productive trait.
Readit News
Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According to the vet this is another common problem with the breed.
I well never get a pure breed again.
Later we found that the breeder was forced to stop altogether because the dogs were so consistently damned.
I can still hear what I can only describe as "screaming" by our first spaniel the night she came home after an emergency operation. She had to be let go that night. Nothing in my life has haunted me the same way. That was it for dogs for me. I have two wonderful cuddly cats and I'm delighted by how genetically unremarkable they are.
I am a professional trainer. I have 2 German Shepherds, one is a "show line" and the other is a "working line." The showline dog has congenital health issues and grew up with terrible confirmation. The working line dog last weekend rolled about 150 feet down a mountain while chasing his ball and just walked it off.
Having a mixed breed dog can be a great thing, but it is no more a guarantee against confirmation and health issues than any other dog. The real issue, IMO, is that clients/buyers don't know nearly enough about dog breeding to know if what is being advertised is actually a good thing.
Deleted Comment
If you want a rough story, look at the Bernese Mountain Dog. Twenty years ago the life expectancy of the breed was only 7 years due to congenital heart problems. Breeders have been working to breed it out of them and introduce more variety in the genome of the breed for some time and their life expectancy has been going up.
The key is to at least get a diverse line, though I don't think there's any reason to get a pure bred dog unless you want to show or breed it yourself.
My father recently purchased a Sharpei. It's father was also it's grandfather because it was basically the product of two kennels interbreeding. In humans go as far as to outlaw that in many countries. In dog breeding it's a matter of course.
There is one other reason - working dogs. Livestock guardian for example is a job that's very poorly suited for mutts due to the genetic personality traits involved. An LGD with chasing, shepherding, or tracking instincts would be at best worthless, and at worst a danger to your animals.
A "pure" gene pool can only get smaller, never larger.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/2...
You'll see the same problems in Malinois in - my guess - 3-5 years from now. Let a couple generations go by. Keep an eye out for phrases like "old world" and "large-boned" when you start seeing super-sized Mal's walking around Petsmart.
eternally SMH
List of problems: suffered from Panosteitis until she was 2, tore ACL when 1.5 years old, had eye entropy surgery. The toughest was the ACL. Shes 7 now, suffers from pretty terrible arthritis which I combat with different stuff.
Tomorrow, my brother is taking his doberman shipped to the US from Serbia 3 hours away to the doggie dentist, where he has the most fucked up teeth you have ever seen. They are made of glass. My brother is already in over 7g's on the teeth, the dog is about to turn 2...
Anyways, you are a great human being and I am glad rottys are getting love like that.
Source: My father breeds GSDs for maximum diversity. Very few of his dogs suffer hip dysplasia or congenital heart defects.
Deleted Comment
Be more careful when you buy.
https://youtu.be/aCv10_WvGxo
If I had to slap down a guess on what is going on. The #1 issue is targeting cosmetic traits that are anatomically not functional. The #2 issue is breeders not prioritizing health over conforming to the breed standard. Pet grade purebreds may not look quite perfect to a discerning eye, but they can be very robust especially if they are a working dog.
If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues? Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch? Is it an ethical issue? Maybe. I mean I eat animals. I can't put myself on some high horse. At some point we make them to use so there is a balancing act going on.
The fallacy to watch out for is conflating breeder behavior and outcomes with outcomes for the breed if bred "properly."
> If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues? Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch?
You just answered your own question. Is it theoretically possible for any species (including humans) to be purebred/inbred while still avoiding the whole host of genetic disorders and health complications? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? Of course not. The video does a pretty good job of showing how so many purebred dogs have worse health compared to their mutt counterparts.
You bring up a good point about eating meat. Most of us are willing to trade off animal welfare/suffering for human pleasure and aesthetics, so why not apply the same principle to dogs. One argument is that most people who adopt dogs do so with the genuine intention to love them and care for their welfare/health. In fact, people get so attached to their dogs that they spend a great deal of money to promote their health, and deeply mourn their suffering/death. Given this, it only makes sense for dog owners to adopt mutts.
Well I must say it is rare to see someone sliding down their own slippery slope, bravo.
If you want a purebred, adopt a rescue or buy one from a breeder that properly runs genetic clearances.
https://embarkvet.com/dog/eevee2 (my dog's public results)
- 74.7% Siberian Husky - 7.7% German Shepherd Dog - 11.4% Alaskan Malamute - 6.2% Doberman Pinscher - clear of 160 genetic conditions
- https://embarkvet.com (non referral link) - http://fbuy.me/e2c-9 (my referral link for $30 off)
There is a BBC documentary on this https://vimeo.com/17558275
What if you sister called and said there was a safe, cheap and effective way to remove, say, the myopia from her spawn (in the case of dogs, stop inbreeding, in the case of humans, currently imaginary)? Would you tell her not to do it?
But comparing humans to dogs in that matter is kind of ridiculous. This is more like if your sister called and said "I just read about chinese foot binding, and I think it's a great idea so I'm going to do it to my children!" That's basically what people who only accept dogs who have debilitatingly short snouts, etc. are doing.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
I grew up with a mutt that I loved dearly. My parents got her because my Dad had read something or other in (I think) Popular Science about how the "dog of the future" would be a mutt, and the mutting of genes would suppress bad recessive traits. Then she got sick as a puppy, had an allergic reaction to her medication, and suffered permanent brain damage. That having been said, she was a perfect house pet; lived to be a very ripe old age and was good natured, just a little slow to respond to things.
If you're a breeder and there's something wrong in the genetics of the dog you're breeding, stop breeding that dog. But resolving genetic issues isn't as simple as just throwing mutts together; you really just roll the dice on a new set of strengths and weaknesses when you do that.
Of course, they are also very smart, tough, low-maintenance, and tend to live for a very long time. Some are a little over-active, but mine will happily lay in her bed all day and sleep, as long as she gets a good walk in the morning.
Living in an apartment I can't really have a big dog and by getting a breed dog (even if it's not really pure bread) I know it will not get too big for the space I have available.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
I like the term 'natural dog'. "I'd like a medium sized natural dog with a long coat because it's cold here."
https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Wars-Border-Battled-American/dp/0...
Border collies were extremely functional dogs, and a subset of border collie owners did not at all want their dog breed to be part of the American Kennel Club, lest they start being bred for appearance or some other random irrelevant attribute.
I reckon that person would get lynched. We put up with an awful lot of things just because that's how they were when we got here.
Personally, I don't care for the idea of breeding show dogs. It's one thing to breed dogs for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting or herding): then the negatives of particular trait are the cost of its benefits. There's no (IMNSHO) valid benefit to a non-productive trait.