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

211–220 of 264 posts

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

#211

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #209
tptacek wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the article isn't advocating euthanasia. I think that, too, is a flaw in the logic of the article. I think it's totally fine to exhort people who don't have strong dog preferences to select non-compromised dogs. It also makes sense to me to advocate rescues. We own a rescue, too. Where you lose me is when you suggest that it's unethical to purchase a purebred dog. Acquiring a rescue when you have a preference…

No, I'm suggesting to you that it is unethical to breed dogs that will suffer predictable, known, severe health problems. Further that purchasing from such breeders is also unethical.

I understand that to be your argument. I'm saying, you haven't made a coherent case for it.

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

#212

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #206
tptacek wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you like to try rebutting again, this time with a civil argument? The one you just made is so on-its-face uncivil that it's actually called out in the site guidelines. I'm happy to delete or alter this comment when you do.

Would you like to address the points raised by the article, that a lot of dogs from these breeds live their entire lives unable to breathe properly, and are likely to suffer other brachycephaly-related problems? Given that many of them will suffer like this, when that suffering is unnecessary and a choice made by breeders and those that buy from breeders, what do you feel the ethics of that choice are? Why would you…

I'm unwilling to respond to a comment premised on the notion that I need to prove to you that I read the article. You shouldn't have written that earlier comment in the first place.

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

#213

Post by jnordwick »

Pure breeds that are bread with no caring for genetic issues shouldn't be allowed.

And you shouldn't be purchasing from a puppy mill anyways when there are so many dogs that need homes.

Small plug: If you are in San Diego this Sunday Feb 12th there is a large dog adoption event with hundreds of dogs and cats looking for homes. (I'm volunteering there.)

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/events/2017/feb/12/11th-annual...

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

#214

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #202
Nursie wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At no point have I or would I advocate putting your dog down unless or until its life became unberable due to pain. What the article covers and what I agree with is that people should think very carefully before buying such a dog from a breeder, as breeders are engaged in breeding dogs for extreme looks that are very likely to experience considerable health problems. By buying such a dog you are incentivising the bre…

My purebred brachy dog isn't a rescue. It's very difficult to acquire the breed of dog we own through rescues. The middle ground you say we should be on doesn't apply to me: you've made a continuous thread of arguments that what my family did was unethical, and I'm challenging you about that. Clearly, you don't believe my family was obligated to acquire a second dog. Clearly, you don't believe my brachycephalic dog s…

In which case yes, I believe what you did was unethical, in suporrting the continued production of dogs known to suffer severe health problems.

You chose, deliberately, a.dog breed that would suffer, when there are others that would have suited the situation just as well.

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

#215

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #211
Nursie wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm suggesting to you that it is unethical to breed dogs that will suffer predictable, known, severe health problems. Further that purchasing from such breeders is also unethical.

I understand that to be your argument. I'm saying, you haven't made a coherent case for it.

I'm not sure I should have to, you're advocating unnecessary suffering.

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

#216

Post by dukeluke »

Perceptes wrote: post #210

Pug parent here. As many other comments have mentioned, brachycephalic dogs are only one kind that suffers largely as a result of selective breeding by humans. I have the (somewhat) unfortunate opinion that brachycephalic dogs are also by far the cutest. Nothing makes me happier than being with my pug. I think this particular article brings up two important things about dogs as pets, but fails to connect them properl…

I disagree. From an evolutionary standpoint right now, the best thing an animal could do would be to be liked by humans. If we disband our love for cats and dogs and stop using them as pets, then after a while the only remaining ones would be seen as pests and would be suppressed or eradicated.

With that said, I agree that our breeding of purebred pets should be stopped. It hurts the pets with no benefit to us other than bragging rights.

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

#217

Post by jacamat »

Perceptes wrote: post #210

Pug parent here. As many other comments have mentioned, brachycephalic dogs are only one kind that suffers largely as a result of selective breeding by humans. I have the (somewhat) unfortunate opinion that brachycephalic dogs are also by far the cutest. Nothing makes me happier than being with my pug. I think this particular article brings up two important things about dogs as pets, but fails to connect them properl…

Well, we invented dogs. So while it is a good morale argument that breeding co-dependency into a species and infantilizing an otherwise very self-sufficient predator is a bad thing, its probably not going to happen. At least not in our lifetime.

Which brings us back to improving the standards for breeding that we have today. Some dogs, such as Dalmatians and Bulldogs, are genetic atrocities and should not be bred in the way that they are right now. Not only is it irresponsible, it results in a very poor quality of life for the resulting litter.

Standing firmly against these practices as an industry - as pet lovers, as professionals - is a difficult, but remarkably achievable goal.

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

#218

Post by redblacktree »

Asooka wrote: post #153
13of40 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> humans don't breed themselves for deformities. Except maybe intelligence, I fail to see how the traits we breed for could be considered anything but deformities if a baboon had them.

Right now the only thing people are selecting for is wanting to breed and ability to provide for one's family. Sometimes. A study of who fucks who would be really interesting, but kind of useless because what would you do with the information?

That second part "ability to provide for one's family" means something though, doesn't it? Our societies aren't perfect, but "ability to provide for oneself/family" does generally mean that they have certain desirable traits.

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

#219

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #212
Nursie wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you like to address the points raised by the article, that a lot of dogs from these breeds live their entire lives unable to breathe properly, and are likely to suffer other brachycephaly-related problems? Given that many of them will suffer like this, when that suffering is unnecessary and a choice made by breeders and those that buy from breeders, what do you feel the ethics of that choice are? Why would you…

I'm unwilling to respond to a comment premised on the notion that I need to prove to you that I read the article. You shouldn't have written that earlier comment in the first place.

As it appears you didn't fully read and digest it, I suppose we are at an impasse.

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

#220

Post by feld »

paulddraper wrote: post #176
tomjakubowski wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

German Shepherds were the dog of choice on both sides in WWII, and capture the public's emotion. 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.)

Germans extensively used Giant Schnauzers as well. In WWI as medic dogs, WWII as guard dogs. The breed was annihilated by the Russians as they extinguished almost every kennel and took home prime specimens to breed for size. This is why Giants have two types: German soft coats and Russian hard coats which are also physically larger.

I have it on good authority from a couple Giant breeders in the USA that the Russians went on this kennel extermination campaign because the German soldiers were feeding dead Russians to the dogs. I have not seen this specifically documented anywhere though. It would be nice to know the true motivations behind the ruthless killing of these dogs by the Russians.

Post reply on HN