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

161–170 of 264 posts

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

#161

Post by jkaunisv1 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #147
Periodic wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 genom…

Be honest - "in dogs, its a matter of course". Lets not paste human social constructs on an animal.

Maybe I'm ignorant but my understanding was it's not really a social construct for us, it's often rooted in the understanding of genetics that makes inbreeding a bad idea.

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

#162

Post by [deleted] »

krastanov wrote: post #124
snerbles wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you "run genetic clearance"? It sounds quite ominous - do you kill the offspring that does not pass the clearance?

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #99
milesf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every responsible pug owns knows you should not run pugs _hard_ in hot weather. It can lead to organ damage. Pugs are not working dogs, they are companion dogs.

Because the poor beasts overheat and can't breathe properly! Part of the point of the article...

I think he understands the article, and that you're not following his point. He's saying: yes, due to genetic defects in the breed, his dogs can't run in hot weather. Solution: don't have the dogs run in hot weather.

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

#164

Post by mod »

kibwen wrote: post #144
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not sure why this was downvoted. "Free" isn't quite right, there are usually still nominal fees associated with adopting from a shelter, but compared to purchasing a purebred it might as well be free. I've owned mutts my whole life, mostly medium-large dogs that you'd expect would suffer from hip dysplasia and so on, but they've all lived to ripe old ages and they've all been smart as a tack. Hybrid vigor is awesome.

I have a mutt and a purebreed (Anatolian Shepherd).

The Shepherd isn't even a year old yet and she looks like she has trouble standing up when she's been laying down a while. Maybe her legs just fell asleep, I don't know.

She was free. Some family has them to keep with the livestock, and they bred them--I took the runt.

The mutt looks mostly boxer to me, the pound said boxer/shepherd mix. She's beautiful, very smart, and loyal, and just incredibly quick outdoors--best dog I've ever met.

Anyway, just my one data point.

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

#165

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #118
milesf wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since nobody is obligated to care for a dog of any sort, the bar is somewhat high for the claim that owning breeds with genetic defects is unethical. If you can support with evidence the claim that no matter how carefully the dog is kept, its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence, then you've made a powerful argument against those breeds. Otherwise, you probably haven't.

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

#166

Post by Periodic »

worldsayshi wrote: post #17
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or at least don't optimize for traits that are disconnected from the health and wellbeing of the dog, like pure looks? Optimizing on more practical or athletic aspects probably makes it more difficult to end up with a sick dog.

Dogsled racing is a working area that has seen trend away from pure huskies. There are still plenty of huskies in the sport, but mixed teams are very common in the Iditarod now. In 2000 there were only three all-husky teams in the whole race. The racers are crossing with other breeds and bringing in new dogs that are more optimized for the race. There's a danger that in the long run they could end up with something extreme, like what greyhounds are for racing, but right now it's full of healthy, diverse dogs.

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

#167

Post by sitharus »

djrogers wrote: post #152
Periodic wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 genom…

> 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.

Yes, but a working breed is vastly different to a domestic breed. Working dogs need to be intelligent, obedient, and free from health problems.

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

#168

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #116
divbit wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Responsible owners of pure bred dogs discuss these issues with their veterinarians. We own a rescue mutt and a brachycephalic purebred, and had this discussion with our vet. You're a commenter on a message board projecting authority from a few sentences from an advocacy piece in The Guardian.

I concede that the ethics of purebred ownership remain a live debate after this comment, but hopefully we can eliminate right now the notion you have that you can club down other commenters with the question "are you a vet?".

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

#169

Post by tptacek »

For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question:

Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?

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

#170

Post by oxryly1 »

tptacek wrote: post #169

For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question: Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?

No, the reduced quality of life for existing dogs isn't enough justification for euthanization (except maybe in extreme cases).

I'd say it's probably unethical to breed more brachycephalic dogs, and by extension unethical to purchase those dogs from breeders (unless maybe the breeders have ceased to breed these dogs).

Post reply on HN