Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 264 posts

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#61

Post by 13of40 »

maxerickson wrote: post #25
13of40 wrote: post #19

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…

Humans are apes not monkeys. 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 had some in-laws at one point who had a kid with cystic fibrosis, and they decided to roll the dice and have a second one. (Murphy's Law won that round.) I can't imagine convincing those people to get their $1200 purebred pug[1] neutered for the good of the species.

[1] https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/much-pugs-87fd8b209ca...

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#62

Post by imjustsaying »

whyileft wrote: post #10
ethagknight wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats the solution here?

Ban breeding. There are plenty of dogs available for adoption. Once we run out of those we can reconsider the ban. Pretty simple stuff.

>Ban X

the username checks out

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#63

Post by zeveb »

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.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#64

Post by jdpedrie »

imjustsaying wrote: post #49

What is the author implying? Imagine if the topic were about people predisposed to cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. What's his solution?

The ethical issues surrounding dogs are entirely different from those surrounding people. Additionally, humans didn't specifically select for traits in other people which caused genetic disorders to become rampant in an entire bloodline (with some accidental exceptions I suppose).

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#66

Post by 1457389 »

arielweisberg wrote: post #38
whack wrote: post #28

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

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…

> 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

Well I must say it is rare to see someone sliding down their own slippery slope, bravo.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#67

Post by imjustsaying »

freehunter wrote: post #60
imjustsaying wrote: post #49

What is the author implying? Imagine if the topic were about people predisposed to cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. What's his solution?

Well we're not purposefully breeding humans specifically to give them cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. I'm sure if we did, the author would be calling for us to stop breeding specifically to get these genetic disorders.

I see what you're saying.

But I just rechecked the article and nowhere does the author call for us to stop breeding pugs.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#68

Post by maxerickson »

zardo wrote: post #40
Declanomous wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People aren't binding pug's snouts. They just grow into hideously deformed beasts all on their own like people do.

The successive generations of pure breeding are pretty artificially imposed.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#69

Post by [deleted] »

tetrep wrote: post #44
kharms wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Natural dog" is a silly term. Dogs are a domesticated animal and breeds have been around for almost as long as writing. [1] I call mine a "mutt" - it's inoffensive and gets the point across. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed#History

Mutt is intended to be an insult. While I'm fairly confident I've never heard it used as such first hand, it's still the 2nd definition on whatever Google uses for defining things: a person regarded as stupid or incompetent. "“Do not give me orders, mutt.”"

[deleted]

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#70

Post by rjsw »

fixermark wrote: post #33
bdittmer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's really a case-by-case basis thing. 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,…

A mutt could still be the offspring of two pure bred dogs and have inherited genetic problems from both.
Post reply on HN