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

141–150 of 264 posts

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

#141

Post by arielweisberg »

snerbles wrote: post #122
arielweisberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can manage to retain breed traits without damning the dogs. If I had to slap down a guess on what is going on. The #1 issue is targeting cosmetic traits that are anatomically not functional. The #2 issue is breeders not prioritizing health over conforming to the breed standard. Pet grade purebreds may not look quite perfect to a discerning eye, but they…

Genetic clearances are much more common in the world of working breeds, since there is a market pressure to have dogs that can actually function in their job. Demand for working titles (search/rescue, agility, hunting championships, etc) also selects for more physically capable animals.

I have seen so many working GSD with hips so bad they are quivering. They stick out like a sore thumb. The selection process for working dogs is not perfect either. It's always been security theatre where I see these dogs. Granted I also see perfectly good dogs with great temperments some of the time.

Where working dogs are not status symbols, but a means to an end I agree there is market pressure. Assistance dogs in particular.

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

#142

Post by csours »

criddell wrote: post #119

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?

This touches on Eugenics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

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

#143

Post by Filligree »

illumin8 wrote: post #101
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…

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

> Parents of children can't choose their genetic traits.

In many cases they can, through genetic screening of eggs and artificial insemination. Few things make me sadder than seeing a kid with some genetic disorder, whose parents knew that was a possibility.

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

#144

Post by kibwen »

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.

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.

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

#145

Post by statusgraph »

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?

Most likely you can only breed sufficiently healthy animals.

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

#146

Post by Periodic »

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.

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 genome of the breed for some time and their life expectancy has been going up.

The key is to at least get a diverse line, though I don't think there's any reason to get a pure bred dog unless you want to show or breed it yourself.

My father recently purchased a Sharpei. It's father was also it's grandfather because it was basically the product of two kennels interbreeding. In humans go as far as to outlaw that in many countries. In dog breeding it's a matter of course.

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

#147

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Periodic wrote: post #146
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.

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.

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

#148

Post by richmarr »

Periodic wrote: post #136
criddell wrote: post #119

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?

All dogs can still interbreed, so they're still the same species. They're different enough from wolves that they're given a different sub-species, sort of like Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. However, the variety within domesticated dogs is similar to race. What makes dogs breeds so different is that the dog genome is extremely plastic: it has a lot of room for variation as evidenced by how fa…

> What makes dogs breeds so different is that the dog genome is extremely plastic

Is there evidence that dogs genome is more plastic than humans?

To my (very limited) knowledge we've not tried selectively breeding humans within bloodlines in anywhere near the same way that breeds of dog have been selected. Are there other domestic animals that have recieved the same degree of breeding but not reached such variation?

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

#150

Post by criddell »

Nursie wrote: post #126
criddell wrote: post #119

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?

Breed in dogs is a product of selection by humans on dogs. So no, no real analogy.

What about in communities that are basically closed by custom or by geography? Is how differences arise more important than the actual differences when it comes to talking about breed?

I'm thinking about aboriginal communities, Pygmy peoples, or even groups like the Ashkenazis.

Post reply on HN