Whenever this debate arises, the first reaction seems to be attack. All breeds of course have their problems, and some crossbreeds too. The point is, instead of turning the argument against the poster why not consider the question that a longer muzzle may help with a brachycephalic breed, who do have various problems due to the flat face?  The question of saying that ALL pugs have the problem is I think not the same as saying that breeding certain features encourages said problems, which is how I would say it. It is a case of accepting that certain breeds as a whole have problems.

As someone else said, there is no such thing as the perfect dog. The sole purpose though should be improving the dog's welfare, and if that means considering a change in the 'fashionable' construction then so be it. 

> Yes we want the breed to improve, but you are always going to get, not matter what happens in the future some dogs that will end up with problems.

Ah, but the future has not yet happened. This is what is being shaped now, and it might be that a change of construction in certain breeds eliminates some of the problems and you end up with vastly reduced issues. On the other hand it might not. What we DO know is that we are at a stage where many breeds have both hereditary and constructional health problems, undoubtedly encouraged by overexxageration of certain features. Good breeders are screening and breeding appropriately for the former, but will not countenance the latter. Do any of the breed councils/clubs ever raise the question of construction?

Look forward to the day then that every other species including us are bred the same then (doubt that that will happen)  Shame that the government looks as though they will be jumping on this bandwagon, shame that they don't do the same with people then and stop us breeding, maybe it would help the NHS and stop people breeding with bad temperaments etc. and make the world a better place?  Sorry just being philosophical (and can't spell today).

I do worry that maybe by concentrating on certain aspects that new ones may arise in the dog world that said breeds may not of had before.  Time will tell and I'm sure similiar debates will happen in 50 years time but maybe with new health problems.

shame that they don't do the same with people then and stop us breeding, maybe it would help the NHS and stop people breeding with bad temperaments etc. and make the world a better place?

Indeed! One thing is for sure, my dogs are FAR healthier breeding stock than I am (was), and better than my husband. I carry a blood disease, hubby carries a gene for bad eyes, his mother has severe HD and it looks like he will get it too -had we all been dogs from breeders like most of us here on CD, we'd never have been bred from. Humans have far more genetic diseases than dogs yet not many are tested before breeding and we just expect the NHS to sort it all out. And no, sick babies have no more say in being born than puppies do. You can turn anything around anyway anyone want to make it sound like their particular views are right.......

> I think not the same as saying that breeding certain features encourages said problems

The thing is any feature away from that found in nature can cause issues, and those that are a plus in one environment would be a disaster in another..

the mere fact that a breed is short nosed causes issues with reduced airways, spaniels are prone to ear infections, heavy breeds to inter digital cysts etc.  Toy breeds can have problems with delicate bones and regulating body heat/energy.  Short legs and long backs can cause issues too.

So should we do away with these breeds, as even more moderate examples can still develop the same issues, maybe less often but there will still be the Spaniel needing ear re-section, the Mastiff with sore feet.  Even wolves can have Hip Dysplasia, missing teeth etc.

What we also need to remember some of the issues will be exacerbated by environmental/rearing conditions.  For example a longer backed dog may never have any back problems if kept fit and lean, and not have to climb a lot of stairs.  Drop eared dogs who have their ears regularly plucked and cleaned may never develop an issue.  Pugs that aren't exposed to windy beaches are less likely to get sore eyes etc etc.

China Blue, thank you for actually understanding what I am trying to say. And yes your right, I will go away from this with a very negative opinion of breeders now which is a shame.
Some of the comments made about the general public are terrible to say the least. They can also read this forum.
I have every right to say that I think its down to the breed and breeders. The latter are the ones that produce these dogs. And of course its absolutely their right to produce a breed that they think are constructionally sound.
My whole point throughout this is that (I repeat ) it is my belief that my dogs problems be them genetic or physical are down to her construction. It is not therefore unfair for me to want to ask for changes that I believe would benefit the dog.
All I have had from most on here who are mainly breeders is attack. If none of you are EVER open to ideas then how can any member of public come forward and speak out with their views. The only impression you give out is that no one is allowed to ever critisize a breed because you all know best and us uneducated public (many of whom you probably sell your dogs to) shouldn't step out of line, take advice from our vets.

> And no, sick babies have no more say in being born than puppies do

We don't sell babies though do we?

> I carry a blood disease, hubby carries a gene for bad eyes, his mother has severe HD and it looks like he will get it too -had we all been dogs from breeders like most of us here on CD, we'd never have been bred from.

I hardly think that this is a relevant argument :) However:
Now that DNA tests ARE becoming available people are making a choice as to whether to have children and pass on a defective gene. In the past that choice wasn't available.

I am not trying to make it sound as though my view or anyone else's is right. It would just surely be a lot more sensible to consider all things and not just focus on a narrow area.

It would just surely be a lot more sensible to consider all things and not just focus on a narrow area.

That's exactly what I meant!

> So should we do away with these breeds, as even more moderate examples can still develop the same issues, maybe less often but there will still be the Spaniel needing ear re-section, the Mastiff with sore feet.  Even wolves can have Hip Dysplasia, missing teeth etc.

Of course we shouldn't. It isn't necessary, simply breeding initiatives to modify the more extreme examples. How do we know what more moderate examples may or may not develop? What would happen if it reduced serious conditions by 75%?

> What we also need to remember some of the issues will be exacerbated by environmental/rearing conditions.  For example a longer backed dog may never have any back problems if kept fit and lean, and not have to climb a lot of stairs.  Drop eared dogs who have their ears regularly plucked and cleaned may never develop an issue.  Pugs that aren't exposed to windy beaches are less likely to get sore eyes etc etc.

These are exactly the type of construction issues that I am referring to. You are talking about environmental conditions that dogs (any dogs) should be able to encounter without the chance of serious harm (forget stairs, call it difficult terrain instead), Wind, whether on a sandy beach or in a forest with debris - these should be things that ALL dogs can fundamentally deal with. In which case, why not make an excessively long back a bit shorter to reduce the stress, and the protruding eyes to be less so, and thereby be less prone to damage?

BTW no-one has answered my question as to whether the breed clubs/councils have ever considered changing their breed's construction?

It would just surely be a lot more sensible to consider all things and not just focus on a narrow area

That's exactly what good Pug breeders are doing - looking at the whole dog and not just focussing on the length of head and curly tail! :)  The vast majority of the dogs they produce are healthy, happy companions in the right homes.

Wind, whether on a sandy beach or in a forest with debris - these should be things that dogs can fundamentally deal with.

But these are toy dogs, bred to be companions not working or gundogs, which are built to deal with debris in the field.  If owners want to take their dogs in such places, then they should choose a suitable breed.  Otherwise we should say that all cats should walk on a lead because that's what the owner wants.  But if the owner wants to walk a pet, then they need a dog not a cat.  The same reason applies to choosing the right breed.

China Blue
I contacted the Pug Dog Club and asked if breeding in a longer muzzle and breeding out the screw tail were being recommended in the new breed standards.........answer NO

Maybe look at a Tibetian Spaniel next time if you would prefer a longer muzzle and back and no screw tail.  Those things are part of what makes a Pug a Pug as opposed to a dachshund!

> BTW no-one has answered my question as to whether the breed clubs/councils have considered changing the construction?

Depends on the breed, Yes in GSDs I'm sure the UK club will be pushing for a change in the breed standard-back to the 1940/50/60 one that included the noted suspicious of strangers & was lacking in detail of construction. They will be pushing for all GSDs to be bred to look like their dogs.

The GSD breed council has for over 30 years been pushing for mandatory health testing, but because of the UK club's refusal to even discuss it, the KC have been powerless to act as they have to have the agreement of all breed clubs(as happened with the Irish Red & White Setters & Irish setters over CLAD)

In Border Collies(which no one ever seems to complain about)I would love to see measuring of the dogs to be made mandatory as the show type do appear to be much small in height & heavier in bone than their working relatives(well the ISDS dogs I have owned & seen have all been 21" at the shoulder & tower over the other males in the ring)

>I contacted the Pug Dog Club

But have you applied to join ???

Olive1
I didn't think they would be. I would truly be astounded if ANY actually were, but I will be very happy to hear if it IS the case.

It seems to be taboo to breeders and clubs to consider this at all. Having said that, it probably goes back to judging and showing, and it takes a brave soul to break away from tradition and the herd, and consequently drop off the planet in terms of show results - there is the dilemma. Now it is likely that changes to standards will be ruled in by organisations like the KC or even worse the government - now that is a scary prospect. I believe that fundamentally most breeders are good and knowledgeable and love and care about their breed. Just wanted to make that clear, but I believe also somewhat kennel blind.

MM
Without getting into the GSD debate which is a whole saga in itself, you are guessing the UK club will be, not that you have sat in any meetings and heard and seen that discussion with your own eyes and ears. So - that's not the answer to my question, nor is the irrelevant statement (in the context of the highlighted question) about the UK GSD club and health testing - different issue.

Lets choose another breed you may well ACTUALLY know the answer to and have been involved in: The Cavalier - have the breed club considered an alteration in construction to try and overcome the problem of syringiomyelia? Not are they MRI testing before they breed, that's stable door and bolted territory. Have they considered breeding initiatives to change the shape/size of the skull as a potential solution to the problem?

Wind, whether on a sandy beach or in a forest with debris - these should be things that dogs can fundamentally deal with.

> But these are toy dogs, bred to be companions not working or gundogs, which are built to deal with debris in the field.  If owners want to take their dogs in such places, then they should choose a suitable breed.

Well this is by far the most absurd reply I have seen to just about any thread. It is so absurd I don't really know how to reply to such a bizarre statement. They may have been bred to be companions and sit in parlours and little else in the victorian era, but I think in this day and age we are a little more enlightened. A dog is a dog, and should be able to deal with going outside and enjoying life, whatever the breed.

Are you saying that a toy breed is not fit to function as a dog, only to be an indoor companion, not to be taken out if the wind isn't right ?
I would like to think that many toy dog breeders would more than challenge that statement.

>Are you saying that a toy breed is not fit to function as a dog

Nobody's saying that, but the very lack of size of toy breeds means that certain environments would be difficult for them - just as smooth-coated breeds would find an Arctic environment difficult, or a Newfoundland in a hot desert environment. Different breeds have been developed differently for different purposes.

If we're going down the 'fit to function as a dog' route, that would mean that any dog that was unable to hunt its own food was not 'fit for function'.

Are you saying that a toy breed is not fit to function as a dog, only to be an indoor companion, not to be taken out if the wind isn't right ?
That is just about the most absurd distortion of what I've said.  Can't discuss with people who have no logic or reason..............

Nobody's saying that, but the very lack of size of toy breeds means that certain environments would be difficult for them

Exactly. I cannot walk my Papillons in all the same places that I can walk my Malinois in. Size does matter.

But these are toy dogs, bred to be companions not working or gundogs, which are built to deal with debris in the field.  If owners want to take their dogs in such places, then they should choose a suitable breed.

It is not such a distortion of what you said, it was a distillation. Basically don't get a pug if you want to take it anywhere it might be windy enough to blow something into their eyes.  Is that what you meant by they are happy and healthy in the right homes? The homes that will shelter them from certain normal everyday environmental conditions?

Reasoning tells me that if the pug didn't have overly bulging eyes it could go in the forest or on the beach without fear of harm. What is not logical about that ?

> The Cavalier - have the breed club considered an alteration in construction to try and overcome the problem of syringiomyelia? Not are they MRI testing before they breed, that's stable door and bolted territory. Have they considered breeding initiatives to change the shape/size of the skull as a potential solution to the problem?

If you ( ChinaBlue) are placing yourself as the voice of reason on this board of blinkered breeders then it may be better if you actually know what you are talking about.......

Hot off the press, latest research paper.

"to address this problem by evaluating the caudal fossa dimensions
of large and small breed dogs, including the CKCS and investigating
skull radiograph dimensions in a new breed affected by
CLM, the Griffon Bruxellois (GB), respectively. It appears that
the CKCS actually may have a caudal fossa which is suitable for
the size of the breed, but have too much parenchyma when compared
to a similar sized dog; truly a situation where bigger is not
better!
For the purposes
of guiding breeding programs, we need a better marker than
size and we await a genetic awakening.
Journal of Small Animal Practice * Vol 50 * August 2009 * © 2009 British Small Animal Veterinary Association"

To this date there is no research evience that skull size and brain size are mismatched in the CKCS.
It would seem that you too have bought into the media hype.
Everything about the Cavalier standard says 'moderate'. Eye size is getting bigger yet eye disease is at an all time low. Head size has altered little but an unfortunate mutation within the packing material in the brain has caused this inherited disease. It is not thought to be caused by breeding for head shape

Sorry I'm only MRI scanning my dogs but to date that is the ONLY indicator of disease.

Well said Tooolz!!

> you are guessing the UK club will be, not that you have sat in any meetings and heard and seen that discussion with your own eyes and ears. So -

No I have seen their written response to the Breed Council(which they have now left I understand)so it's not hearsay or me surmising

As for SM, it has yet to be proven that it's the shape of the head that causes SM, it is the same Chiari Malformation in humans & should we be looking to change the shape of human heads to prevent this too ???

If you ( ChinaBlue) are placing yourself as the voice of reason on this board of blinkered breeders then it may be better if you actually know what you are talking about.......

I am not setting myself up as the voice of reason, simply expressing my opinions.

If you read my post, I said as a potential solution - ie had it been considered as an option, and I was asking the question because I didn't know (and didn't profess to know the answer), so there is no need for your condescending remark 'better if you actually know what you are talking about'. The context of the question was whether the breed clubs had considered whether this (and other breed specific problems) was a constructional issue. It was directed particularly, purely in the context of the breed clubs, to MM, as an alternative to opening up the highly political GSD debate again, because I know that MM has them. In actual fact the major debate on this thread has been the pug. The information you've set out is very informative, and demonstrates that the problem is being considered as a structural one, or at least not being ruled out.

> It is not thought to be caused by breeding for head shape

Although that isn't definitive it does at least show that consideration to structure has been considered. I'm glad that at least one club has. I fear it is unlikely that there are many others, but will be happy to be proved wrong.

It isn't a case of buying into media hype. If that is the case then the whole breed must have bought into it to have given consideration to head shape at all! 

MM  The link doesnt go to their written response, can you advise whereabouts it is?

> A dog is a dog, and should be able to deal with going outside and enjoying life, whatever the breed.
>
>

I totally agree, a pug owns me, she is nearly one and we took her to Skegness a few weeks ago for a week away......she absolutely loved the beach, it wasn't too windy, her eyes didn't run or give her any problems and she loved it. Infact it was a beautiful sight she just ran around in excitment. On the other hand she also loves her everyday walks with our boxer dogs, they run through the woods with great big branches in their mouths and she follows them. The woods aren't bushy so she won't scratch her eyes, but they are woods and she loves it. I'm all for health tests and good breeding, and at the moment mine is a picture of health.......long live the pug. :)

I saw the written response via the BAGSD of which I am a member & my mother was on the EC-it was their reply to the KC about the BC's proposal, it is not in the public domain.

BTW you didn't answer my question re the human head shape, did you ?

> It isn't a case of buying into media hype. If that is the case then the whole breed must have bought into it to have given consideration to head shape at all! 

The skull/brain ratio has been looked at as one possible avenue of study for years now  by scientific researchers - I'm unaware of any breeders using head shape/size as a breeding criteria to breed SM free dogs. ( Just as well it seems)

> there is no need for your condescending remark 'better if you actually know what you are talking about'

There is every need to get ones facts straight when debating a point - surely (especially as you particularily stressed that lack of focus on construction was a major contributor to the ills of pedigree dogs) what is condescending about believing in giving fact?

Just an observation re structure of breeds.

Juliette Cunliffe often does articles showing historical photos of breeds.

I have to say that many of these display some awful construction, bandy legs cow hocks, etc, so maybe those who think things were better for the breeds in the past are perhaps seeing through rose tinted specs.

Ref the Pug, how far back would we need to go as this pic http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/Pietoro/Dog%20Breed%20Historical%20Pictures/1915Pug.jpg from 1915 shows a fairly typical lookign pug other than not being as heavy as some fat ones I see.

The whole page is interesting: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v485/Pietoro/Dog%20Breed%20Historical%20Pictures/

Her is one from 1907 http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v485/Pietoro/Dog%20Breed%20Historical%20Pictures/?action=view&current=1907Pug2.jpg

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/3739/pug-specific-food-from-royal-canin-perfect-for-your-dogs-abnormalities/

Ah yes, that writer. ;-)

Ah & what exactly does Ryan O'Meary know about dog nutrition ? One of Ms Puddleduck's biggest sycophants. So everything on his site must be right ?

Oh dear looks like you really are one of Ms Puddleduck's sycophants too.

I wonder why he used two painting/drawings instead of photos ?????????

>BTW you didn't answer my question re the human head shape, did you ?

Still waiting for a reply ?????  Chiari malformation is far more common in humans than dogs BTW

Toolz - Context - read my post.

If people suffer as much as some dogs do with it, I'm sure that they would be happy to change their head shape if they could to be free from pain. We don't have the option of alleviating pain with breeding practices with humans, we DO have that option with dogs if it were the solution.

I fail to understand why it is at all relevant to bring human beings into a debate about dogs. People were quick enough to jump on PP when they did it. Talk about double standards.

UK GSD Shame that isn't in the public domain, since it isn't actually possible to see what they were proposing or considering in terms of structure.

Well as kibble is not a natural food, and tends toward dustiness, and many small dogs prefer to eat what is easy to get down their little necks.

I am sure many of us prefer to cut up our food rather than gnaw on a  joint of beef (I actually like to chew on a hunk of beef rather than spoon down mince, it's personal preference).

We are confusing marketing tools and appealing to owner preferences.

Lots of dog foods have pretty colours and shapes to attract the owner who is the one buying it, the dog doesn't give a stuff.

I can guarantee these tailored diets are not fed by most breeders but by doting pet owners, and some of the toy breeds attract more than their fair share of owners that want to baby and spoil.

A pug is just as capable of sitting down and demolishing a raw rabbit as any dog, except it's dentition may make this harder work.  Though I suspect the kind of owner that would be taken in by this kind of sales hype would faint at the idea of giving their precious a rabbit carcass.

I can not believe that anyone with an once of intelligence would buy into  the "Pug specific food" from RC.. being more kinder to the bred.

Is it not down to the fact they develop there breed specific range to  up their revenue... and fool people into believing  their dogs will suffer if not fed breed specific kibble.

I had a rep trying to sell me the Boxer one a few yrs ago at a show,  why I asked,  is my Boxers digestive system  so different from every other breed of dogs...  as long as I feed good quality food my dogs  are happy, the size of the kibble makes little odds,  my dogs , dont take the time to look and say...oh thanks mum, you have given  my larger kibble, making it easier for me to  eat.... its not in the bowl long enough .

I pay enough for my dog food as it is,  I dont need to be  foxed into believing that a larger more expensive kibble is the only thing my dogs can eat safely.

Comparing the Pug of old to the Pug of today regards eating kibble is preposterous... as Correct me if I am wrong, but did they manufacture kibble 100 yrs ago!

But if SM/CM is related to head shape, why don't all humans & all Cavaliers have it ???-answer is obvious because it is not directly linked to the shape of the skull QED

Why bring humans into it ? Because any research break through on the canine or human side will be mutually beneficial I thought that would be quite obvious

They weren't proposing any change as their dogs are bred to what they interpret as the breed standard. This was & still is the problem. They do not want anything to change, they do not want any health testing to be mandatory, no breed surveys before breeding & certainly no AD test(Ausdauerprüfung physical endurance and fitness test - 12 mile trotting, with check stops every 4 miles) or BH(Begleithund Companion Dog) test before breeding is allowed

If people suffer as much as some dogs do with it, I'm sure that they would be happy to change their head shape if they could to be free from pain. We don't have the option of alleviating pain with breeding practices with humans, we DO have that option with dogs if it were the solution.

But surely using that logic,  you could have the head shape as large as a loin, and if you are unfortunate to suffer from the disease, it still would not matter, the brain would swell to the proportions of the skull....

So yes, we have the option to  make the skull larger, but how large would you like to go,,, surely the onus is on, eradicating the disease, not the making the skull larger to accommodate swelling, if it happens???

Hmmm.

A month ago we had "several" posters who were denigrating pugs in particular, stating that pugs bred by certain judges etc were unhealthy.   Later turned out that the "posters" were in fact breeders of many questionable crosses.

This poster does seem more literate ...but I still wonder?????

Hmmm!

Olive, you said: "If you look at the old picture of the pug it's unbelievable how breeders have chosen to squash their muzzles shorter and shorter.
Do you have any links to photos of early pugs with longer muzzles, because the ones I can find from the late 19th/early 20th century also had extremely short muzzles; a lot less wrinkle on the head, and less bodyweight overall, but the muzzle is very similar to the modern pug.

Found this snippet.


Ancient Chinese documents state that short-nosed dogs with the description matching that of the Pug existed in China at around 700 BC. These dogs were only breed and owned by the emperors

So I guess even as far back as then, they where recorded to be of the Brachycephalic  type..

Mmmmmmmmmmm, so you cant really lay the blame  to the modern day can you!!

They certainly do have very similiar heads and tails, only difference is that the bodies look longer and finer and only one of them seemed to have much longer legs.  Looking back at old DW and OD yearbooks from the 60's etc. they look the same as they do today.

> I think the attitude of if you don't like it don't buy it is a) not helping the breed (any breed with health problems) to improve and get away from some of the problems

i think your wrong here. if people didn't buy dogs of a worrying type people wouln't breed them

> she is the sweetest little thing and has a good pedigree

can i ask exactly what you mean by a good pedigree? as in a champion pedigree? a kc reg pedigree? or a fully health tested pedigree?

pyo is not an inherited condition i don't think?

if you bought her from health tested stock the hip problems are unlikely to be inherited so why would that influence you in choosing a pug again?

were her family prone to bladder stones?

> I do think that people should ensure that they have seen lots of the breed & research health issues etc before buying a pedigree puppy

absobloominloutly!

i have a dog with related health problems, this is because my family rushed into buying without any real thought and i have been trying to pick up the pieces. i do not blame the entire breed for the problems i am encountering.

when i next buy a dog i will be spending months/years researching a suitable breeder and line and all health issues that appear in the breed- NOT just those that there are tests for- and asking about occurance of health conditions in the line, which a breeder should know. buyer beware and all that...

> If I was a pug breeder myself who wanted change to the breed standard, how would you treat me then?

that very much depends on your level of knowledge.

> Considering the pug gene pool originates from around only 50 dogs, without improvement, surely we could be looking at a possible mutational meltdown ahead.
>

thats interesting- where did the figure come from? i'm surprised they have figures that old from the chinese court.

> So please stop attacking me for attacking ALL breeders. My concerns are for improving the breed.

then why attack all breeders? there is a pug breeder on this forum who is dedicated and careful and caring in her selection of breeding specimins. she has i believe eschewed breeding from otherwise lovely dogs because they came from bitches needing assistance whelping- does she fit your damning perception?

The English painter William Hogarth was deeply in love with the pug breed. He painted a self-portrait with his beloved pug "Trump." The dog in his self-portrait does not look exactly like the modern pug. It has a longer muzzle, which is only partly covered in black. It is longer in the leg and deeper in the chest. However, the British are considered to be the people who created the modern pug, breeding it to have an even shorter muzzle and an even more tightly curled tail.
(we can all copy and paste)

Astarte; "attack" is a little strong.
Pug breeders are responsible for the way the breed look today. Some like it, some are concerned about it. I'm the latter.

> Astarte; "attack" is a little strong.
>

i was mirroring the language in the post i was replying to, though i must say it certainly read to me like an attack. its hardly a balanced critique.

> Pug breeders are responsible for the way the breed look today

in part certainly, they could breed for one trait or another and many do, hence why the collective comments on pug breeders are inappropriate.

and the we can all copy and past line, was that addressed to me? i quote from the post that i am answering to make it clear who and what point i am answering, it makes the thread smoother to read as the quote function is designed to.