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

51–60 of 264 posts

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

#51

Post by nailer »

kharms wrote: post #20
nailer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe: we stop using terms like 'purebreed' and 'mongrel'. Or reclaim 'mongrel' I like the term 'natural dog'. "I'd like a medium sized natural dog with a long coat because it's cold here."

"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

A natural dog's parents picked each other because their butts smelled good.

An unnatural dog's parents were chosen by someone looking to make an animal with a squashed snout.

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

#52

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

milesf wrote: 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…

Are you implying you know more about it than a veterinarian and an organization of veterinarians?

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

#53

Post by freehunter »

erentz wrote: post #23
nailer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe: we stop using terms like 'purebreed' and 'mongrel'. Or reclaim 'mongrel' I like the term 'natural dog'. "I'd like a medium sized natural dog with a long coat because it's cold here."

Start calling purebreds "GMO dogs" instead.

Did you know purebreds contain chemicals?!

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

#54

Post by mulletbum »

Declanomous wrote: post #29
13of40 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose there was a breed of, say, monkey, that was popular as a household pet. They were considered to be quite clever and could be trained, over some years, to use a toilet, fetch things from the fridge, even manage primitive forms of communication. The only problem is that they're a genetic trainwreck. They've got a pronounced, gourd-like head with a snout so compact that it's common to have to surgically remove s…

https://xkcd.com/1650/ But comparing humans to dogs in that matter is kind of ridiculous. This is more like if your sister called and said "I just read about chinese foot binding, and I think it's a great idea so I'm going to do it to my children!" That's basically what people who only accept dogs who have debilitatingly short snouts, etc. are doing.

I think your confusing breeding with tail docking.

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

#56

Post by DanBC »

milesf wrote: 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.

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

#57

Post by maxxxxx »

fixermark wrote: post #35
maxxxxx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliminate purebreds. Can you imagine we did the same with humans? Selecting for only one characteristic is a recipe for genetic disaster.

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater in that approach. Purebreds carry common genetic weaknesses. They also carry common genetic strengths. How confident are we that we can preserve the strengths as we mitigate the weaknesses?

Again, imagine we bred humans that need to have their back shaped in a certain form, nose of a certain length and so on. It won't work in the long run. Even worse, they breed for genetic defects like the hips on German shepherds. You can select maybe for certain personalities or physical attributes but you need to allow for other variations. The guidelines for purebreds are just stupid.

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

#58

Post by Waterluvian »

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.

We got two spaniels (years apart) from the same breeder. Both died suffering of a number of abnormalities that became pronounced when they got older.

Later we found that the breeder was forced to stop altogether because the dogs were so consistently damned.

I can still hear what I can only describe as "screaming" by our first spaniel the night she came home after an emergency operation. She had to be let go that night. Nothing in my life has haunted me the same way. That was it for dogs for me. I have two wonderful cuddly cats and I'm delighted by how genetically unremarkable they are.

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

#59

Post by throwaway729 »

13of40 wrote: post #19
adamnemecek wrote: post #3

Vast majority of purebreds have some serious generic issues. I'm hoping that we as a society will solve this whole situation soon. There is a BBC documentary on this https://vimeo.com/17558275

Suppose there was a breed of, say, monkey, that was popular as a household pet. They were considered to be quite clever and could be trained, over some years, to use a toilet, fetch things from the fridge, even manage primitive forms of communication. The only problem is that they're a genetic trainwreck. They've got a pronounced, gourd-like head with a snout so compact that it's common to have to surgically remove s…

I mean, incest is illegal in many places. One of the major justifications (although perhaps not the main driver) is birth defects. So.

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

#60

Post by freehunter »

imjustsaying wrote: post #49

What is the author implying? Imagine if the topic were about people predisposed to cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. What's his solution?

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.
Post reply on HN