Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

101–110 of 264 posts

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

#101

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…

This is a false equivalence. Parents of children can't choose their genetic traits. Pet owners have the choice of what breed to adopt.

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

#102
post #91
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cla…

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.

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

#103
post #44
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.”"

If you wish to be pedantic, "mix" and "mixed breed" are fairly neutral terms.

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

#104
post #91
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cla…

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 sorts, is that with proper exercise, it is possible that such a dog will not suffer from respiratory distress all the time, like the article is clearly claiming.

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

#105
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.

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.

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

#106
post #56
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…

> and it's a breed that must be kept fit and healthy. Are you saying that human intervention is needed to overcome the genetic flaws created by weird breeding? Your comment persuades me that the article is right, and not that the article is misleading.

There are many dog breeds out there, and some have been bred strictly as companion pets for human beings. So yeah, human intervention is needed to overcome the genetic flaws brought about by the desire to maintain certain genetic traits.

Being that I'm of two minds on this subject, I think it's reasonable for people to take a side here. I still think the article is a bit misleading, but it is accomplishing something important: discussion.

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

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we're not purposefully breeding humans specifically to give them cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. I'm sure if we did, the author would be calling for us to stop breeding specifically to get these genetic disorders.

I see what you're saying. But I just rechecked the article and nowhere does the author call for us to stop breeding pugs.

If people stopped buying them, it would have that effect.

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

#109
post #100
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh stop! Breeding them is cruel? Let's have a rational discussion without trying to lay a guilt-trip.

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.
Post reply on HN