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

111–120 of 264 posts

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

#111

Post by grive »

fixermark wrote: post #43

In all fairness, the author is probably right that his or her clients would change vets if they told the client to stop owning brachycephalic dogs, and the client would be right to do so. People are deeply emotionally attached to their pets; it'd be a bit like a doctor setting a kid's arm telling the parent "These extra-long arms are prone to breakage; you should consider having children with someone with the genes f…

That's not fair at all.

People are deeply attached to their pets, once those are actually born and part of the family.

Here the vets just need to stop working with breeders. Those are not emotionally attached to their pets, and they are the one considering making specific adults mate for some specific genetic material.

Stopping this market has nothing to do with telling some family that they should just give up on their dog. It's far sooner than that, before the animal is even born, that a change has to be made.

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

#112

Post by lightedman »

ebbv wrote: post #94
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.

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.

Very thorough research as many breeders will hide genetic inbreeding through confusing naming of sires and bitches.

Source: My father breeds GSDs for maximum diversity. Very few of his dogs suffer hip dysplasia or congenital heart defects.

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

#113

Post by Nursie »

Raphmedia wrote: post #102
Nursie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're arguing that you shouldn't buy a pug as at the moment because a large proportion of the population of pugs will suffer terrible health problems That you had a single individual that you believe did not suffer from the issues related to extreme brachycephaly doesn't really tell us much. The problems are only partly related to inbreeding - selecting for dogs with such squashed heads is bad in and of itself.

So get the ones that are fit like the one in the anecdote and breed them? This entire thread is such a non-issue.

That's not happening, breeders are breeding dogs that uave all sorts of problems and people are buying them in droves.

That's the issue!

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

#114

Post by vixen99 »

jdpedrie wrote: post #64
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).

Specific selection? Not with that knowledge in mind admittedly but some groups of people continue to inbreed regardless of the clear dangers of this for offspring. There is a country where 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins. The results are dire.

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

#115

Post by criddell »

milesf wrote: post #39

The article is misleading. I own two pugs, and it's a breed that must be kept fit and healthy. They can't be allowed to run hard in hot weather, and if it is hot they need a lot of water. The folds in their skin need to be kept clean as well. This is a very old breed, and the dogs do have a decent lifespan if they're cared for properly. I don't know about Bulldogs, but I've never owned one because they're only expect…

One of the dogs I have right now is a pug and it is by far the best dog I have ever had. I wish I could reliably get pug personality and behavior in a mutt. For me, one of the benefits of getting a dog of a specific breed is that it's a known quantity.

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

#116

Post by Nursie »

divbit wrote: post #104
Nursie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're arguing that you shouldn't buy a pug as at the moment because a large proportion of the population of pugs will suffer terrible health problems That you had a single individual that you believe did not suffer from the issues related to extreme brachycephaly doesn't really tell us much. The problems are only partly related to inbreeding - selecting for dogs with such squashed heads is bad in and of itself.

What I am trying to point out is that it should be impossible to enjoy prolonged daily aerobic exercise under the constant respiratory distress the article is claiming for 'all such brachycephalic dogs.' Let me quote directly from the article: "The only time these dogs are not in some degree of respiratory distress is when you have them intubated under anaesthetic." What I am claiming, as a proof by contradiction of…

Firstly, are you qualified to know if your dog was not in "some" degree of respiratory distress?

And again, your dog might have been ok. Hell, you might have got a classical pug with a longer snout and few issues.

The problem is that there are vast numbers being bred and sold that do suffer from these problems, and no amount of exercise is going to help them.

This is a solvable problem, if people stop selecting for dogs with collapsed faces.

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

#117

Post by city41 »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #97
feld wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are also many thousands of mutts in need of a good home for free.

and mutts, by their very nature, are far more genetically healthy than pure breeds.

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

#118

Post by Nursie »

milesf wrote: post #109
Nursie wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, cruel, deliberately bringing dogs into the world that are likely to suffer pain and discomfort throughout their lives due to their extreme deformities. What other word are you going to use?

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But pugs do not have to suffer pain and discomfort throughout their lives _if_ the owners are responsible. Many aren't, and sadly those dogs are going to experience pain and discomfort.

Wrong - many pugs and other breeds are anatomically disastrous, and will suffer throughout their lives regardless of their owners.

That's the whole point of the article.

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

#119

Post by criddell »

One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea of breed have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?

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

#120

Post by mikebenfield »

steve_b wrote: post #80
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?

We aren't apes or monkeys. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans...

That is a very long-winded and opinionated article just to make the point that "ape" is not a taxonomic term, and it's not used completely consistently.

In any case, please don't promote anti-science articles (this one begins by complaining about "those who accept and promote evolution").

Post reply on HN