Doubt it Polly.  The RBT isn't that old a breed either and it seems to have some health problems like all dogs something will crop up occasionally.

Thing is those who really care health test especially when they bring in new breeds to the country to check that they don't have a problem.

I still say that until ALL breeding dogs are health checked including hips, eyes etc. no-one can say that crossbreeds are any healthier.

as an ex G/D puppy walker of almost 20 years, my belief is that it is the temprement of the lab x goldens that make them the prefered choice not only for G/D's but other assistance dog organisations.  the G/D labs are much taller than the 'show type' so are already a more suitable height.  

Polly wrote: Mongrel owners are a mixed bunch, none to my knowledge do voluntary testing for health problems and while some will go to the vet at the first sign of illness, many will try to 'cure' their dogs and hope they get better rather than go to the vets.

I just don't buy this. No one I know with crossbreeds would be less likely to take them to a vet just because they are 'mongrels'. Perhaps in the old days, but not now.

Re voluntary health tests, the reason you take, eg, your flatcoats to have their eyes tested is because there is a breed disposition to eye problems and also because you may want to breed from them. And if you don't want to breed from them, the info is useful for the breed as a whole. This doesn't apply to mutts.

There are several good mongrel v purebred studies out there and the conclusions of most is that mutts have the health benefit and, overall, live a little longer. There are individual breeds, however, that score higher than mutts in terms of health - some terriers, miniature poodles and whippets in one study. It's also the case that some small breeds live longer than the average mutt - but if you split the mutts into size/weight categories, the crossbreed advantage manifests again. Small mongrels live longer than small purebreds (and that's the same for every weight category). More studies needed on this, though.

Re designer dogs - the data isn't there yet. But did you know that more than 400 labradoodles have been tested under the BVA/KC scheme? That's more than many (and I mean many) purebred breeds, including boxers and dalmatians. I was really surprised to see this figure.  The BMS for labradoodles is 14 - the same as for their parent breeds. So you can certainly argue that in terms of joint disease there is no benefit to the cross. But, equally, the labradoodle is no worse, either.

Jemima

It would seem though that there are many that would want to see the end of pedigree dogs and put the canine race into a melting pot and we would simply have a PC canis familiaris, which would basically look like one of the feral dog types or Pariahs to be found around the world, or at best a couple of basic types of canine like there were before pedigree breeding started?

I and other pedigree dog enthusiasts want to keep the wonderful array and choice of well over 200 breeds, even if we have to work to eradicate genetic health issues in closed gene pools and keep a weather eye to ensure no new problems emerge.

Human beings also suffer from a myriad of genetic health issues, some of which are more common in certain gene pools than others, it is the nature of the beast, and animals are no different.

Many of us with newer breeds brought into this country did eye testing straight away to ensure that we didn't come across any eye problems, or if there was we could do something about it.  How many Labradoodles have eye tests every year or any other crossbreeds for that matter?  Isn't the Labradoodles worst hipscore around 96, thought Poodles were lower than this?  Don't know why, but I felt that most of the water dog types nearly all seemed to have worst scores of around the mid 40's but it was some time ago when I last looked at the figures.  Thought it was really interesting that similiar types of breeds seemed to have similiar kind of hipscore results.

I still feel that in certain circles they would be less likely to take their crossbreeds etc. to a vet.  The pedigrees that I see at the two vets I attend I would say are more from the "pet" bred society rather than "show" so I don't know why the "show" fraternity were the ones to be picked on.

You don't learn much from just looking at the worst hip scores:

Standard poodle: 74
Labradoodle : 86
Labrador: 106

Jemima

Brainless wrote:

I and other pedigree dog enthusiasts want to keep the wonderful array and choice of well over 200 breeds, even if we have to work to eradicate genetic health issues in closed gene pools and keep a weather eye to ensure no new problems emerge.

Human beings also suffer from a myriad of genetic health issues, some of which are more common in certain gene pools than others, it is the nature of the beast, and animals are no different.

Are you watching the Despatches tonight about the very high rate of genetic disease in the UK Pakistani community because of all the first-cousin marriages?  The children of these marriages are paying a big price - ten times more likely to be born with recessive genetic disorders including infant mortality, deafness and blindness.

British Pakistanis constitute 1.5 per cent of the UK population, yet a third of all children born in this country with rare recessive genetic diseases come from this community. Do you just say, oh well, their choice? Or do you educate the Pakistani community in the hope that they will move away from such close marriages?

This is the price you pay for small gene pools and we are imposing this on the dogs, quite unnecessarily. I'm not saying get rid of the breeds - I'm saying open up the gene pools. As I've said endlessly, you CAN do this and still keep your breeds. Indeed, if you go back through the literature, this is what dog breeders 100 years ago used to do. And, frankly, unless you start doing it again, you won't have the breeds in another 100 years - you'll have inbred them to extinction.

Jemima

Just a thought, if there were no longer recognised breeds there could no longer be crossbreeds, all dogs would in the end look similar but would have the full range of temperaments. You would no longer be able to have a dog that suited your life style or your own personality, you would not know if you took a dog into your home if it was likely to fit in or turn out to be totally unsuitable. It is likely that in the end the only dogs would be ferrule and only the few would actually own a dog.

> You would no longer be able to have a dog that suited your life style or your own personality, you would not know if you took a dog into your home if it was likely to fit in or turn out to be totally unsuitable.

But perhaps that might not be such a bad thing. If we have caused problems trying to make dogs fit our lifestyles, perhaps the time has come when we have to try to fit the dog's lifestyle :) Who is the more important - the dog or the human ?

Daisy

Nova, do you honestly think that it's an either/or - that you either keep things exactly as they are at the moment, or you end up with medium-sized brown generic dog?

You cannot see that it's possible to do things a bit differently and still have your breeds?

Jemima

Never said you did, but it is interesting that breeds that are similiar seem to have similiar scores.

Not sure that stands up.

But you can check here:

http://www.bva.co.uk/public/documents/BMS_hip_2010(1).pdf

Jemima

Jemima I did not say anything like that. I was just pointing out that if there are no breeds there will be no crossbreeds.

The main problem is that these marriages are the result of no health testing or selection as you would expect to carry out with livestock, to limit the likelihood of passing on the same negative genes.

The doctors want genetic counselling, so that partners can be tested.

You cannot breed close without selection.  The purpose of close breeding has been to ensure predictability of traits, when establishing a breed or setting type, negative ones can be passed on just the same as positive ones, that is why you need to select against the negative and for the positive.

Early breeders were a lot more ruthless in their selection, not only would they not breed from those not meeting the standard they had set, but they would actually be killed.  Nowadays so many people breed from perfectly unsuitable animals with little knowledge of what they are doing.

I believe that in laboratories strains of mice were intensively inbred sibling to sibling for many many generations before problems were observed, such intense inbreeding is simply not practised in established breeds any more, even if background inbreeding is taken into account..

The doctors want genetic counselling, so that partners can be tested.


But, as it was pointed out in the programme, you can't test for everything. And so, ideally, you still need to stop marrying so close so that you minimise the risk to the children.

You cannot breed close without selection.  The purpose of close breeding has been to ensure predictability of traits, when establishing a breed or setting type, negative ones can be passed on just the same as positive ones, that is why you need to select against the negative and for the positive.

Yes, good selection can help, but only to a degree. We breed dogs when they're young, often before a problem has appeared. Just look at poor Zamp - dead at 8 after siring hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of GSD puppies. As far as I know, the owners have still not disclosed the cause of death. Here's hoping it wasn't of anything genetic.

Early breeders were a lot more ruthless in their selection, not only would they not breed from those not meeting the standard they had set, but they would actually be killed.  Nowadays so many people breed from perfectly unsuitable animals with little knowledge of what they are doing.

Yes, I agree. But unfortunately people who are making the effort to do the right thing often aren't either.

I believe that in laboratories strains of mice were intensively inbred sibling to sibling for many many generations before problems were observed, such intense inbreeding is simply not practised in established breeds any more, even if background inbreeding is taken into account..

It is true that we don't inbreed dogs to the extent of laboratory mice. A very good thing too - over 95 per cent of mouse lines don't survive the process and the remaining ones are kept in sterile conditions because they are so vulnerable to bacteria/viruses etc.  The point I am trying to make is that if you don't open up the gene pools it is a one-way street. You may be able to slow down the genetic erosion, but you cannot reverse it and therein lies enormous problems.  Now there are examples in nature of small populations which appear to thrive (Chillingham Cattle is one example) but they are the exception. Most pay a big price - and that's even where nature has been absolutely ruthless in terms of who gets to breed (the weak and inefficient, however beautiful they are, never get a look-in and males have to earn the right to breed.). Good breeders of course try to select on the basis of good health but other traits/characteristics are often equally, and sometimes more, important. This doesn't help in terms of long-term viability. And, again, inbreeding (which is inevitable within a closed, reducing gene pool) impacts on vitality/fertility + fecundity.

Jemima

Your answer though would be to out cross to other (I assume similar) breeds to get more genetic diversity, but these breeds too will be genetically condensed, and may in fact have defects the other breed does not so incorporating them into your gene pool will add extra problems as well as expanding the gene pool.

Proper selection with testing and monitoring of health and longevity, fertility is what needs to happen, and people should not play around breeding without the expertise to do so.

Any breed that is generally pretty fit and healthy and lives an average of 12 years plus is doing pretty well.

Breeds not in this position should address how to improve things.

For example have any studies proved that the odd influx of new blood (as in different breed) has any appreciable difference in increasing lifespan?  Bearing in mind that after the initial injection of new blood it will require breeding back into the original breed to regain type.

As I have said before my breed does not have a large gene pool in this country, but does have conscientious careful breeders (except for the odd PF/commercial litter).  I would say most people try to breed out once they have done a closish mating (half sibling is rare, half uncle/niece more likely or first cousin or half first cousins).

The breed is usually robustly healthy until just before death at an average of 13 1/2 years with many living longer than that.  Serious health issues that are of very low incidence are tested for or monitored, and minor niggling ones (sebaceous cysts for example) are also taken into account.

There are breeds that have issues that seriously affect a dogs quality of life, and these need to address the issues.

It si interesting that soem of the most exploited and numerous breeds sem to ahve a lot of problems (maybe because a large proportion fo teh breeders are not thsoe with breed welfare at heart or knowledge, yet some very small gene pools, like the Lowchen for example are kept pretty healthy by a small band of enthusiasts?  Being small can be argued that it gives more control.

I just don't buy this. No one I know with crossbreeds would be less likely to take them to a vet just because they are 'mongrels'. Perhaps in the old days, but not now.

Do you live in a well off area? I have, in the past ten years, lived in a very poor area (mainly unemployed people, council housing etc), a middle area with a mixture of average earners and unemployed people, council houses and privately owned houses, and now live in an area with more expensive houses and generally people a lot better off. In the first two areas people would never have dreamt of taking a mongrel to the vet, ever. They let it die if it got ill, and got a new pup. Some families had a new puppy every spring, every year, year in and year out. There were no pedigree dogs at all in the first area and also NO old dogs. They either died of illness, on the road, or were disposed of in any other way. In the second the pedigree dogs saw the vet, but not the mongrels. It was also telling that the mongrels were all roaming free, the pedigree dogs were kept in secure gardens. In the area I am now I haven't even seen a mongrel, all are pedigree dogs and everyone sees the vet.

Re voluntary health tests, the reason you take, eg, your flatcoats to have their eyes tested is because there is a breed disposition to eye problems and also because you may want to breed from them. And if you don't want to breed from them, the info is useful for the breed as a whole. This doesn't apply to mutts

But huge numbers of mutts are bred every year - just look at the rescues who are full of them :-( Why shouldn't mutts be health tested before being bred from - could it be because people who breed from mutts have absolutely no idea about the ethics and morals of responsible breeding and they cling to the fluffy beliefs that have been  presented to them as valid beliefs - their dogs must be healthy as they are not pure bred or how about the one that every bitch just has to have a litter or that they could sell the pups and earn some money etc, etc. Oh of course - I forgot the one about not needing to be health tested because the pups are only going to be pets :-(

And as for the first part of your statement the reason responsible, ethical breeders health test is because they have researched their breed, they are fully aware of health problems that can be associated with their breeds and they are doing their very best to ensure that the dogs that they breed from are the fittest, healthiest and of the best temperamet possible. Those breeders are more than willing to admit that their can be problems with health and temperament unlike those breeders - and that term is given to anyone who has ever bred a litter for whatever reason -  who do no research, don't health test and believe that it is their right to breed from any dog whatsoever.

Those who take responsibility for the health of future generations of dogs should be applauded in my book and not condemned.

It is true that we don't inbreed dogs to the extent of laboratory mice. A very good thing too - over 95 per cent of mouse lines don't survive the process and the remaining ones are kept in sterile conditions because they are so vulnerable to bacteria/viruses etc.

Laboratory mice are however bred to be PRONE to illness -what use would they be otherwise? FANCY mice on the other hand are also heavily inbred, and they are much healthier as they are bred for showing. I don't think you can compare large and small animals at all as the small, "simpler" animals, can take an awful lot of inbreeding before anything goes wrong.

Laboratory mice are however bred to be PRONE to illness -what use would they be otherwise? FANCY mice on the other hand are also heavily inbred, and they are much healthier as they are bred for showing. I don't think you can compare large and small animals at all as the small, "simpler" animals, can take an awful lot of inbreeding before anything goes wrong.

Oh my.. so many misconceptions here.
1) a mouse is not a "simpler" animal genetically. It's just a smaller one. The genetic principles are the same whether mouse, dog or us.
2) lab mice are not bred to be prone to illness in any general sense. That's not why they keel over from the inbreeding. The purpose of a laboratory mouse is to be genetically reliable. They are bred to have a particular trait - long life/a specific mutation/disease etc -  in exactly the same way as the fancy breeder might select for bigger ears.
3) If fancy mice are 'healthy' - it's because they've gone through the same inbreeding process as laboratory mice. There is a huge cost to this along the way and it takes a very large number of animals. Really, really, not something you want to put your dogs through. That it's been deemed OK wth mice is because we care less about what we inflict on them during the inbreeding process.

For more info on inbred mice:

http://www.fancymice.info/inbred.htm

But please note:

"At the F2 to F8 generations, the proportion of sterile mice is often so great that the earliest mouse geneticists thought that inbreeding was a theoretical impossibility (Strong, 1978). Obviously they were wrong. But, to succeed, one must begin the production of a new strain with a very large number of independent F1 X F1 lines followed by multiple branches at each following generation. Most of these lines will fail to breed in a productive manner".


Jemima

could it be because people who breed from mutts have absolutely no idea about the ethics and morals of responsible breeding

yes to the above statement
the reason people breed mutts or 'designer' crosses is for MONEY  what else could it be??

Sorry but my pug is as pure bred as they come and he is super fit and full of energy he can run and run as much as the bigger dogs i walk with him! Hes mad as a hatter!

sorry scotgal2009 but what does your pugs health have to do with this thread?

I believe scotgal2009 is giving an example of a purebred dog who  is very healthy :-)

The issue re mongrels being just as likely to go to the vets etc. Its the same with cats on the whole, pedigrees are well cared for and moggies are allowed to roam and end up run over etc. The principle is no different imo.

Just to clarify though if mongrels are more hardy due to genetic diversity how does that apply to a crossbreed, which is only two breeds?

I think you will find that this was not the sole (if any) reason for crossing the GR with the LR, it is not just height that is the issue it is the length of stride hence why some people suit a GSD and many do not.

Sorry Tina s, im quite thick when it comes to computers....i meant to quote someone above who said

he's a Jack Russell cross Pug.  He has the energy, drive, zip, get up and go of the JRT and the physique of the Pug complete with squashed in muzzle.  It's been very hot and humid.  He still wants to go, go, go but his breathing and wheezing, oh my.  I don't think purebred Pugs are that energetic, are they?

Sorry!!

> I just don't buy this. No one I know with crossbreeds would be less likely to take them to a vet just because they are 'mongrels'. Perhaps in the old days, but not now.
>
> Re voluntary health tests, the reason you take, eg, your flatcoats to have their eyes tested is because there is a breed disposition to eye problems and also because you may want to breed from them. And if you don't want to breed from them, the info is useful for the breed as a whole. This doesn't apply to mutts

Having worked in a vets in an area serving a very diverse community we did not see many mongrels although out and about as I was known to be working at the vets I was often stopped and asked for my opinion on the dogs health or in other cases I would spot an obviously sick dog and be told that it didn't matter as the dog would get better and often they would be giving it human over the counter meds. A vet friend in the Wirral told me the only way most people in the communities with mongrels would get help with their dogs was if she gave them cut rates and often would tell them to buy certain types of drugs 'over the counter' as it was cheaper.

Re voluntary testing and eye testing in particular. Clearly you did not know that since the very early days of eye testing all flatcoats have been eye tested for PRA and Hereditary Cataracts among many other eye diseases even though flatcoats were not known to actually suffer from any eye disease. In 1991 we had a few cases of glaucoma and as a result the flatcoats went on the BVa eye testing lists, to date the number of flatcoats affected by glaucoma or the predisposition for glaucoma remains very small as Peter said to me it is regarded as a blip. Recently the Flacoated Retriever Society asked the KC and BVA if the breed could go onto the affected list for PRA and HC NOT because we have British flatcoats with these conditions but because we had heard that overseas a small number of dogs have developed these conditions.

So would I test my flatcoats if they were not on the eye testing lists? Yes and I have been doing so for over 30 years.

I'm not hijacking the thread because I don't know too much about breeding.  However, I have to make a point about mongrel owners - I disagree with the comments about owners of mongrel dogs not taking them to the vets.  I have two dogs, one pedigree golden retriever and one a rescue collie/retriever cross (so a mongrel) and they are both treated equally and both if needed are taken to the vets.  They both have pet insurance, both go to dog training and are taken on holiday with us, - mongrel owners can and do love their mongrel dogs as much as their purebred ones!

I agree totally, Perry. I have a rescued mongrel and a pedigree too. Both have been treated identically - taken to obedience and agility classes over a period of many years. Both have had the best food, general care and medical treatment that we could give them. I don't see why I should treat my pedigree worse than my rare and probably, unique mongrel ;)

Daisy

Obviously not all owners of mongrels (or pedigrees!) are the same, but as a rule people take more care of something that cost them a lot of money as compared to something cheap. Sadly mongrels, in a certain section of society, are of the status "Well, if it dies I can easily get another one."

> However, I have to make a point about mongrel owners - I disagree with the comments about owners of mongrel dogs not taking them to the vets

Hi Perry,

I don't doubt for a minute that you do take good care of your mongrel same as I do not make a difference between my mongrel and my pedigree dog, but I have worked in areas where people who have mongrels are not likely to pay out for them and the same applied to my vet friend, whose practice is in a poorer area. Most of the dogs owned in my friends area were mongrels, very few people could afford a pedigree for a start. A great number of the crossbred dogs she sees these days on the streets are of the Staffordshire Terrier type but she sees a lot less in the surgery.

Having worked in a vets in an area serving a very diverse community we did not see many mongrels although out and about as I was known to be working at the vets I was often stopped and asked for my opinion on the dogs health or in other cases I would spot an obviously sick dog and be told that it didn't matter as the dog would get better and often they would be giving it human over the counter meds.

How long ago was this Polly? I lived in London for 20 years - most recently (2000 - 2005) in Holloway in north London - not a posh area at all. I can honestly say that I never saw a single unaccompanied dog on the streets and that includes walking through the local council estates (a stone's throw from where I lived). I'm not saying it doesn't happen; just that I'm not convinced that there are droves of sick mutts owned by uncaring owners roaming the streets.

A vet friend in the Wirral told me the only way most people in the communities with mongrels would get help with their dogs was if she gave them cut rates and often would tell them to buy certain types of drugs 'over the counter' as it was cheaper.

But they cared enough to take them to see her, though, obviously, unless she was doing random consults in the street?

Clearly you did not know that since the very early days of eye testing all flatcoats have been eye tested for PRA and Hereditary Cataracts among many other eye diseases even though flatcoats were not known to actually suffer from any eye disease.

All flatcoats Polly? I don't think so. But that's not to imply that flatcoat breeders as a bunch are not health-conscious re available tests - I know they are. So much so that I hope yet to convince the Society to embark on a breed-wide MHC diversity test.

http://www.genoscoper.com/in_english2/gene_tests/gene_tests/dla_diversity/

Jemima

> in a certain section of society, are of the status "Well, if it dies I can easily get another one."

Certainly a commonly held belief around here.  the same as the ones who give their dog up to the dogs home when they go on holiday or when their dogs gets old and suddenly needs the vet.

But aren't these people the sort that treat everything in this way ? They probably buy cheap cars and don't tax/insure/maintain them either. It's nothing to do with whether they are mongrel or pedigree.

Daisy

> All flatcoats Polly? I don't think so. But that's not to imply that flatcoat breeders as a bunch are not health-conscious re available tests - I know they are. So much so that I hope yet to convince the Society to embark on a breed-wide MHC diversity test.

You asked if I personally would have tested and I replied truthfully that yes I had done. Not only that but I went on to help other breeders and novice owners from a wide range of breeds to get eye testing done on their dogs and have advised many on health testing as you know.

We are aware of the testing you are promoting and it will no doubt be looked at in due course by the breed club members. Flatcoat people who care about health will look into all possible tests which may benefit the breed but we do not rush in, instead we like to trial these things first.

Oh my.. so many misconceptions here.
1) a mouse is not a "simpler" animal genetically. It's just a smaller one. The genetic principles are the same whether mouse, dog or us.
2) lab mice are not bred to be prone to illness in any general sense. That's not why they keel over from the inbreeding. The purpose of a laboratory mouse is to be genetically reliable. They are bred to have a particular trait - long life/a specific mutation/disease etc -  in exactly the same way as the fancy breeder might select for bigger ears.
3) If fancy mice are 'healthy' - it's because they've gone through the same inbreeding process as laboratory mice. There is a huge cost to this along the way and it takes a very large number of animals. Really, really, not something you want to put your dogs through. That it's been deemed OK wth mice is because we care less about what we inflict on them during the inbreeding process.

Exactly -so many misconceptions. Both mice and rats ARE bred to be prone to above all tumours, as that's what they were needed for. How many have you bred yourself, Jemima? How many inbred generations, over how many years? I've bred thousands upon thousands.  I've done brother x sister and similar for many, many generations without any new blood and there was never a single health problem, all that eventually happened is that you lose size.  However if you inbreed on larger animals, you see effects MUCH sooner, such as the loss of size can come in the first generation already, weaker immune system etc. And when did I say I'd want to put dogs through it? I said the exact opposite.

But aren't these people the sort that treat everything in this way ? They probably buy cheap cars and don't tax/insure/maintain them either. It's nothing to do with whether they are mongrel or pedigree.

No it's all to do with what they PAID for them. And up until the designer crosses, you could still get mongrels free. In fact when it comes to Staffie crosses, you could probably go out and find 20 free ones in a day quite easily. So when one gets sick, it's easily replaced -and cheaper than going to the vet. You cannot easily find free pedigree dogs. Hence less mongrels see the vet.

but the mongrels are the cheap alternative (except for the designer crosses which seem to be double the normal cost).

I am sure if you went to a Car garage, those with expensive cars will keep them better maintained and service them more regularly than those with a cheap old banger that just scrapes through the MOT, where is is simply cheaper to replace it than fix it.

This is how this sort of person views a dog.

Both mice and rats ARE bred to be prone to above all tumours, as that's what they were needed for. How many have you bred yourself, Jemima? How many inbred generations, over how many years? I've bred thousands upon thousands.  I've done brother x sister and similar for many, many generations without any new blood and there was never a single health problem, all that eventually happened is that you lose size.  However if you inbreed on larger animals, you see effects MUCH sooner, such as the loss of size can come in the first generation already, weaker immune system etc. And when did I say I'd want to put dogs through it? I said the exact opposite.

Some mice and rats are bred to be prone to tumours. But, again, there are many different types and the main purpose if for them to be genetically reliable - for all kinds of research purposes. Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:

"Mice are common experimental animals in biology and psychology  primarily because they are mammals, and also because they share a high degree of homology with humans. They are the most commonly used mammalian model organism, more common than rats. The mouse genome has been sequenced, and virtually all mouse genes have human homologs. They can also be manipulated in ways that would be considered unethical to do with humans. A knockout mouse is a genetically engineered mouse that has had one or more of its genes made inoperable through a gene knockout."

So, again, mice are not "simpler". They're just "smaller". I also don't think you can make claims re inbreeding effecting them differently as there is no comparison data that I can find. Don't forget that your "fancy" mice were established in the first place through inbreeding - ie they were massively inbred for generations, which killed off over 90 per cent of the lines (many of which would have suffered some pretty hideous abnormalities) until a handful of 'purged' lines emerged from the process.

Nevertheless, whatever you might think, or have experienced yourself, there is still a cost for inbred mouse strains - both in terms of reduced lifespan and in unwanted genetic effects alongside the wanted ones.

http://cc.ysu.edu/~helorime/inbredmice.html

Good that we can agree on the effects of inbreeding in dogs, though.

Jemima

> Hence less mongrels see the vet.

according to what statistics?

I can accept that there are ridiculous prices being paid for designer cross breeds, I can accept that without the appropriate health tests crossing a purebred poodle with a pure bred labrador doesn't necessarily ensure healthy F1 offspring.
But some of the comments on this thread about "mongrel" owners imply that they are less caring and less bothered to seek help if their dogs fall ill. That cross breed owners are more likely to have clapped out cars too!
Oh dear.....

> That cross breed owners are more likely to have clapped out cars too!

LOL - not what I meant at all :) All I was trying to convey is that there is an element in society who don't take care of anything they have. Yes - that often means people who have little money, therefore more likely to have a mongrel than a pedigree dog. But that doesn't imply that owners of mongrels have clapped out cars - I don't , although I don't own anything very new or flash :) :) There are also many people who have little money who take the utmost care of their possessions - you have only to walk down the street.

Near where I live is the home of a man who won the lottery. It was valued around £700k at one time,  but he left it in such a state it was sold recently for only around £170k. If he had had a pedigree dog, would he have treated it any differently to his house - I doubt it :(

Daisy

Daisy it wasn't in response to you.

It was in reference to this
"I am sure if you went to a Car garage, those with expensive cars will keep them better maintained and service them more regularly than those with a cheap old banger that just scrapes through the MOT, where is is simply cheaper to replace it than fix it.

This is how this sort of person views a dog."
I just do not agree that those that own mongrels view their dogs like this.

No, but some do. Some people (but not all) who have two cars (a new expensive one and an old banger) don't care what happens to the old one because it's ot worth as much. Some people (but not all) who have a pedigree dog and a mongrel are prepared to spend more money on their pedigree than they are on the mongrel. It's a sad fact of life, but not a generalisation.

Some people (but not all) who have a pedigree dog and a mongrel are prepared to spend more money on their pedigree than they are on the mongrel. It's a sad fact of life, but not a generalisation.

But on what evidence is this based? It could also be interpreted that they take their mongrel to the vets less because it is more healthy?

>But on what evidence is this based?

Talking to them when I've met them out and about. It's amazing what information you can pick up when you're just chatting 'off the record'. They actually tell you that they 'value' their expensive dog more than the 'cheapy', and say that if a dog was ill they'd be more willing to take the pedigree to see the vet than the other one.

Yes, am sure there is some element of truth to this. I accept that people tend to take more care of things that have cost them money. But if people like me or Daisy or Olive bridle a bit it's because some here really do think that pedigree dogs are superior just for being purebred.  They're not. They're just different - one honed by man; and the other more by nature which is a better breeder than we will ever be in terms of rude health and vigour.  And if you question that, just look at leopards or polar bears or humming birds and ask if you really could improve on what nature has produced in terms of beauty and function.

Don't forget that even a mutt from a rescue costs something - typically £100-£150 - and then there's the associated costs which can add up: beds, leads, collars etc, so there is often quite a financial investment. And I would also ask this: does the son of a poorer family really value his second-hand Fiesta he is given on his 18th birthday that much less than the posh kid whose parents buy him a BMW?  We all have to cut our cloth to fit our budget and on your reasoning, people who buy one of the more expensive pedigrees (and we all know there is a range) would be more likely to take them to the vet than someone who buys a cheaper one.

I think the initial cost relationship soon breaks down anyway - most of us are guilty of discarding things we have spent money on. Dogs are precious to us to different degrees for a host of reasons other than the initial purchase cost.

How about designer crossbreeds, Jeangenie - reckon people are less likely to take them to a vet, too?

However, the point of this part of the discussion was that the defenders of purebred dogs were trying to say that if the statistics show that mutts are healthier, it's not because they are really healthier - it's because their owners take them to the vets less often. But I'm afraid neither the data nor the science support this claim. 

Jemima

Hi Jemima,

Does the data disprove this claim?
I think the whole discussion on how a dog is valued is entirely down to the individual concerned, regardless of the dogs lineage. Class, money or social status are simply red herrings and without wishing to dismiss statistics entirely (as they are a very valuable tool and I find them incredibly helpful personally) they are easily manipulated.
As far as "designer dogs" are concerned the fact that people will believe they do not have seasons etc shows that among all the excellent owners there are some who may be less than suitable, of course this applies to all dogs, but which of these owners is more likely to take their dog to the vet when needed? I would suggest it is the responsible ones and human nature being what it is I suspect that they will be the ones who did their homework and preparation in the first place.

Jeff.

>But if people like me or Daisy or Olive bridle a bit it's because some here really do think that pedigree dogs are superior just for being purebred.

I don't think that's true at all. You're not reading posts right if you've got that impression.

> I just do not agree that those that own mongrels view their dogs like this

Your assuming I meant all mongrel dog owners.

It is just that this sort of person who is more likely to have a mongrel or cheap pedigree, usually unregistered, and will not bother with the vet.

I have had my dogs all through being a single parent, but saved for my dogs make sure they go to the vet (though can't afford to insure them), but have made sacrifices elsewhere, as do most of the people here.

A lot of people would never dream of spending £500 plus on a dog, they expect to pick one up free or cheaply and view it as disposable.  It has no great value to them financially or emotionally, The poor mongrel or badly bred pedigree is more likely to end up in such hands.