171–180 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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).
With that stipulated:
If the benefit a dog obtains from living outweighs --- in all but the most extreme cases --- the suffering that dog will have due to its genetic defects, AND people are entitled to make a rational decision not own a dog, are they not ethically entitled to select any breed they want? How would it be more ethical to create no benefits for any dogs than to create compromised but net-positive benefit for some dogs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's not even the ethics of purebred ownership in general - it's the ethics of selecting for known harmful traits, and people buying them in droves due to little more than fashion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Alternate solution - don't breed dogs with extreme anatomical features that mean if they get overexcited in hot weather they can suffer organ damage.
I think I can speak for the entire thread when I say we all agree that one downside of the pug breed is that their genetic defects prevent them from performing in hot weather.
My question to you is: so what?
Surely we all agree that it would be cruel to buy a pug and then put it into circumstances that exacerbate its defects. But the person you're arguing with is a responsible pug owner, and is careful not to subject their dog to those conditions. So: why am I meant to care about whether that dog can run in the heat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your "German Shepherd" today is nothing like the purebreeds from the WWII era. They were bred afterwards for looks, nothing else. The inherent intelligence remained and was left unchanged, everything else was selectively bred, so you get to enjoy cardiac failure and hip dysplasia as a result.
Is there some connection between the breeding of the German Shepherd and WWII? My impression is that the breed dates back at least fifty years before that.
Disney made a historical drama "Chips, the War Dog" in the 90s. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099262/ (Though FYI, Chips was actually a Sherperd-Collie-Husky mix.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And responsible vets and veterinary associations are now starting to publicly say that there are problems with these breeds. It's not even the ethics of purebred ownership in general - it's the ethics of selecting for known harmful traits, and people buying them in droves due to little more than fashion.
What is the author implying? Imagine if the topic were about people predisposed to cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. What's his solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 have…
I'm not sure one needs to prove that its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence - merely that a sufficient amount of suffering is likely, and the benefits are equally obtainable from a dog without these problems.
It is unethical to bring into existence a dog that will suffer pain every day of its shortened life, even if it is a happy dog and brings joy to ita owners, if the alternative is to bring one into existence with a slightly less deformed head that does not suffer so.
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.
I am a professional trainer. I have 2 German Shepherds, one is a "show line" and the other is a "working line." The showline dog has congenital health issues and grew up with terrible confirmation. The working line dog last weekend rolled about 150 feet down a mountain while chasing his ball and just walked it off.
Having a mixed breed dog can be a great thing, but it is no more a guarantee against confirmation and health issues than any other dog. The real issue, IMO, is that clients/buyers don't know nearly enough about dog breeding to know if what is being advertised is actually a good thing.