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

201–210 of 264 posts

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

#201

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #188
Nursie wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, in what way did I second guess vets? I'm not making any special pleading here, the guardian piece is backed up by publications from the British Veterinary Association. I'm not impugning any vets, it looks like the entire profession is moving this way in the UK. You're reading things into my argument which just aren't there, and what's more it feels like you haven't fully read the article.

Once again: we discussed the issues of our breed in detail with our vet. Our vet, I think you can infer, does not agree with this advocacy piece. Your argument depends on the notion that only the veterinarians who agree with you are qualified to voice opinions. That's special pleading. It's not a complicated point. Also: please stop suggesting that commenters haven't read the article.

I can't infer anything, what did your vet say?

What do you think the article is advocating? Because AFAICT it's not euthanasia, it's to stop supporting breeders in their quest for ever 'cuter' brachycephaly.

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

#202

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #200
tptacek wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We own a rescue and a brachy purebred. We acquired the brachy dog due to the temperament and exercise requirements of the particular breed. Had our only option been to acquire a mixed-breed dog with typical dog exercise and attention requirements, our choice would almost certainly have been to acquire no new dog at all. I am having trouble making your argument cohere. I can't tell whether you think our brachy dog sho…

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 should be put down. You concede here that whatever suffering my dog endures due to its genetic defects, they don't make its life unbearable.

Thus, you implicitly concede that my dog obtains benefits from being alive.

I agree, my dog does not obtain all the benefits that a well-cared-for mixed breed dog of good health would obtain.

But since the alternative to the dog we have is not "a healthier dog", but in fact "no dog at all", I am still having trouble reaching the ethical problem you claim exists with these dogs. Some benefit is better than no benefit at all.

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

#203

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #201
tptacek wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again: we discussed the issues of our breed in detail with our vet. Our vet, I think you can infer, does not agree with this advocacy piece. Your argument depends on the notion that only the veterinarians who agree with you are qualified to voice opinions. That's special pleading. It's not a complicated point. Also: please stop suggesting that commenters haven't read the article.

I can't infer anything, what did your vet say? What do you think the article is advocating? Because AFAICT it's not euthanasia, it's to stop supporting breeders in their quest for ever 'cuter' brachycephaly.

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 for a purebred puppy is an ethically positive action. I think few people here would disagree with that. The fallacy in your argument is that the positive outcome of acquiring a rescue does not automatically imply that a acquiring a purebred is ethically negative; it can be --- and I think usually is --- ethically neutral.

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

#204

Post by jacamat »

SEJeff wrote: post #199
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.

This is why the Whitehouse and a lot of security companies are switching to the slightly smaller Belgian Malinoise: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/2...

And because of that, many pet owners now want Malinois* instead of Shepherds...because they saw one on TV and it looked super obedient and they think, well if the police are using them, it's probably just what I need to complete my apartment..!

You'll see the same problems in Malinois in - my guess - 3-5 years from now. Let a couple generations go by. Keep an eye out for phrases like "old world" and "large-boned" when you start seeing super-sized Mal's walking around Petsmart.

eternally SMH

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

#205

Post by coryfklein »

jacamat wrote: post #180
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.

Depends on the line and the particular confirmation of the dog. For German Shepherd's specifically, dogs from "working lines," tend to be absent of these issues because their breeders focused more on the dogs temperament and behavior than confirmation. Ergo, you have a sturdy, intelligent, willing dog with minimal health problems. I am a professional trainer. I have 2 German Shepherds, one is a "show line" and the ot…

Do you mean "conformation"?

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

#206

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #186
Nursie wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is far beyond that for many/most and if you read the article you might have picked up on that.

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 supprt the continued breeding of dogs to an aesthetic standard that is known to cause them problems?

It seems bizarre.

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

#207

Post by jacamat »

coryfklein wrote: post #205
jacamat wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the line and the particular confirmation of the dog. For German Shepherd's specifically, dogs from "working lines," tend to be absent of these issues because their breeders focused more on the dogs temperament and behavior than confirmation. Ergo, you have a sturdy, intelligent, willing dog with minimal health problems. I am a professional trainer. I have 2 German Shepherds, one is a "show line" and the ot…

Do you mean "conformation"?

Probably.

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

#208

Post by [deleted] »

jacamat wrote: post #180
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.

Depends on the line and the particular confirmation of the dog. For German Shepherd's specifically, dogs from "working lines," tend to be absent of these issues because their breeders focused more on the dogs temperament and behavior than confirmation. Ergo, you have a sturdy, intelligent, willing dog with minimal health problems. I am a professional trainer. I have 2 German Shepherds, one is a "show line" and the ot…

[deleted]

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

#209

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #203
Nursie wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't infer anything, what did your vet say? What do you think the article is advocating? Because AFAICT it's not euthanasia, it's to stop supporting breeders in their quest for ever 'cuter' brachycephaly.

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.

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

#210

Post by Perceptes »

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 properly: 1) some animals suffer much more than others due to selective breeding 2) we should not buy them. Perhaps the author actually intended this, but as written it doesn't go far enough: We should not be supporting animal breeders at all, regardless. Creating animals that are dependent on humans for survival is wrong, as is giving people a financial motivation for creating more of them. Animals are not a commodity—they are living beings that feel just like we do.

What I think we should do is take care of the lives we already have (adopt animals in shelters and rescues and take the best care of them you can) but stop breeding animals as human companions, and certainly don't support those who do financially.

This viewpoint goes hand in hand with my beliefs on a more philosophical level: veganism and antinatalism.

Post reply on HN