31–40 of 264 posts
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. https://youtu.be/aCv10_WvGxo
Before I had to give my pug up this past summer - I used to take him for good length jog daily, and he would frequently out pace me. If a pug is in shape, it will do great. If you just feed it hotdogs all day and only infrequently give it proper exercise, then yes, I could see it being an anatomical disaster. Compare this dog's fitness http://imgur.com/a/doIi9 with the dog in the linked article.
These are vets giving expert opinions and you are a (former) pug owner with an anecdote.
Vast majority of purebreds have some serious generic issues. I'm hoping that we as a society will solve this whole situation soon. There is a BBC documentary on this https://vimeo.com/17558275
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.
Vast majority of purebreds have some serious generic issues. I'm hoping that we as a society will solve this whole situation soon. There is a BBC documentary on this https://vimeo.com/17558275
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the solution here?
Eliminate purebreds. Can you imagine we did the same with humans? Selecting for only one characteristic is a recipe for genetic disaster.
Purebreds carry common genetic weaknesses. They also carry common genetic strengths. How confident are we that we can preserve the strengths as we mitigate the weaknesses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the solution here?
Eliminate purebreds. Can you imagine we did the same with humans? Selecting for only one characteristic is a recipe for genetic disaster.
I can! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalt...
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. 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."
I've owned many different breeds over the years, and it's true that mutts are generally better health wise. They also tend to have better temperaments. I have pugs because I love them, but I also think too many people get them just because they're cute.
As a dog lover, it's going to be headlines like these that are going to get some well-needed discussion going. So on one hand I disagree with the thrust of the article that pugs are anatomical disasters, but on the other the whole 'purebred' arrogance needs to be taken down a few notches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
https://xkcd.com/1650/ 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.