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

71–80 of 264 posts

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

#71

Post by Declanomous »

mulletbum wrote: post #54
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.

I think your confusing breeding with tail docking.

I'm really not. Foot binding is similarly debilitating to the squished snout. It wasn't possible to choose an example that was literally the same because human's don't breed themselves for deformities.

If anything, now that we can test, many people take steps to make sure their children don't end up with debilitating traits. Having back issues when you are 60 isn't even remotely in the same league as the back issues these dogs end up with.

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

#72

Post by EliRivers »

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.

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

#73

Post by mikesickler »

Waterluvian wrote: post #58
weavie wrote: post #46

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. I well never get a pure breed again.

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 nigh…

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.

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

#74

Post by zeveb »

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.”"

'Dog' is also an insult, and for that matter so is 'bitch' (n.b. for non-English-speakers: 'bitch' is the English word for a female dog).

I don't think that there's anything wrong with calling things by their proper names.

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

#75

Post by elif »

1457389 wrote: post #66
arielweisberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I appreciate it. If a vegan made that point it would be instantly viewed as self-righteous and ignored. Source: I make that point a lot.

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

#76

Post by douche »

bdittmer wrote: post #18
adamnemecek wrote: post #3

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.

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.

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

#77

Post by maxerickson »

13of40 wrote: post #61
maxerickson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I imagine the thing to do would be to sell healthy dogs for $1500 (make sure lots of people say they are worth $1500).

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

#78

Post by pacaro »

jbmorgado wrote: post #50
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.

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.

I would rephrase this. The concern as an apartment dweller is less one of size, and more one of energy. I have a Bernese Mountain Dog (currently 110lbs/50kg) he's a great apartment dog, because he's low energy. Other residents in the building have much smaller dogs that pose a real challenge because the energy level doesn't match the space available

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

#79

Post by divbit »

hashkb wrote: post #32
divbit wrote: post #4

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.

I'm afraid you may be missing the point. The evidence you give (dog runs faster than you) doesn't really mean anything, and exercise does not affect anatomy. These are vets giving expert opinions and you are a (former) pug owner with an anecdote.

Ok I will take the bait - breathing, especially over the course of lets say ~45 minute run should definitely have some relation to the part of anatomy the article was talking about (specifically, the vets are claiming that the smashed nose shape makes it harder for them to breath, in relation to other dog breeds). Surely being able to breathe correctly is necessary to run for 45-50 minutes continuously? What I am claiming, with my anecdote, is that maybe exercise can help alleviate problems related to being out-of-breath (certainly it does for people!) Based on my anecdote, one might suspect that the vets conclusions do not hold true for 'all' pugs. Maybe their argument is statistical, based on an analysis of a large number of pugs. Personally, I have seen many more out-of-shape pugs than in-shape pugs. On the other hand, maybe they are specifically arguing against very inbred variations, in which case, they are making a point against very in bred variations, and not pugs in general.

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

#80

Post by steve_b »

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?

We aren't apes or monkeys.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans...

Post reply on HN