Hi Jeff

Yes, the available data shows that, overall, cross/mixed breeds are healthier than purebred dogs - also that they live a little longer too. Insurance claim data supports this too, and scientific theory also tells us it should be true - nature loves a mutt because they are more genetically diverse, especially where nature has had a hand in the breeding choice.  However, once you start to delve a bit deeper, it's clear that not all purebreds - or indeed all cross/mixed breeds - are equal. Clearly you can't just mate any old dogs together and claim hybrid vigour as some of the designer dog breeders do. Also, some smaller breeds (eg some terriers, miniature poodles and whippets) live longer than the average crossbreed (although if you match purebred/mutt in size bands, the crossbreed advantage reasserts itself)

More studies are needed to examine the different populatons of pedigree/crossbreed dogs and how they compare. But, definitely, taken as a whole, the crossbreeds have the advantage in terms of health/longevity (but not of course in terms of predictability). This doesn't account for individual dogs and I'm sure many here (including me) could tell stories of mutts lost young and purebreds who have led very long, very healthy lives.

Jemima

Jemima

I must be missing something here, I totally agree with Daisy's comments about there being a certian type of person who doesn't really care about : dogs, houses, cars and probably children (just to put the cat amongst the pigeons) etc.

I have never thought about my dogs in monetary terms, I look on them as living, lovable companions that need to be cared for - I really don't think pedigree v mongrel has anything to do with how we feel about our dogs. It is an attitude.  Most of the people I know are like this.

If we look at Ireland there are lots of pedigree dogs in rescue over there, it's an easy come easy go attitude, nothing to do with cost, but more to do with education and caring.  There is an uncaring element who will discard an animal, (god knows all of us that help rescues have seen this) some people even disregard older family members.  And that has always been the case and sadly always will be, but I find it really hard to believe that owners of mongrels are less caring than owners of pedigrees. 

Health - my mongrel (or I guess I can call him my designer cross now :)) has more health problems than my pedigree!  But I love them both equally!

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.

Money doesn't always ensure health. Many people choose not to spend alot of money getting a dog by going to a rehoming centre where there are hundreds of mongrels waiting for loving homes. This does not mean they see the dogs as cheap alternatives to a pedigree. It doesn't mean they are less caring or less likely to take their mutt to the vets if it falls ill.

"The poor mongrel or badly bred pedigree is more likely to end up in such hands." But Barbara, look at my Olive? She may well be badly bred pug but I love her to bits and will go without food to care for her it it came to it  :)

>I have never thought about my dogs in monetary terms, I look on them as living, lovable companions that need to be cared for - I really don't think pedigree v mongrel has anything to do with how we feel about our dogs. It is an attitude.
>Many people choose not to spend alot of money getting a dog by going to a rehoming centre where there are hundreds of mongrels waiting for loving homes. This does not mean they see the dogs as cheap alternatives to a pedigree. It doesn't mean they are less caring or less likely to take their mutt to the vets if it falls ill.

Unfortunately not everyone is the same, and just as it's wrong to say that "All people who have mongrels don't care about them as much as a pedigree" as it is to say "All people who have mongrels do care about them as much as a pedigree". Some thankfully do, some unfortunately don't. You just can't generalise; but it remains a fact that some prioritise their care according to the monetary value. I would sincerely hope that nobody on here would fall into that category.

Sorry - almost never contribute to these threads but I find myself getting quite confused by this whole subject (and just replied to the last post).
Question on health of crossbreeds vs pedigrees - how can anyone possibly gather enough reliable information to be convinced either way on this subject? I am thinking that by comparing animals that go to a vet, pedigree vs cross, you have no idea of the background of the dog, propensity of the owner to take their animals to the vet, breeding history etc etc.
I have 3 pedigree dogs, and must end up in the vet with them around every six weeks. Not because they are 'sick' but because they steal inedible items, run into fences etc. The only thing the have inherited is naughtiness! Is someone going to go 'Mr bloggs has xxx breed of dogs and they've been in the vets 5 times already this year - they must be in bad shape'?
If people owning any kind of dog don't visit vets for whatever reason (self administering, can't be bothered, animals aren't ever sick), you can't measure whether they're healthy or not. So where does any data/information come from to back up the ideas?

Not making argument just truly interested to know where the statement 'pedigrees are less healthy than crosses' gets backed up by evidence?

>If people owning any kind of dog don't visit vets for whatever reason (self administering, can't be bothered, animals aren't ever sick), you can't measure whether they're healthy or not. So where does any data/information come from to back up the ideas?

A good point. If a dog doesn't get taken to the vet it would be wrong to assume it's never ill. Just that it's owner doesn't take it to the vet.

Hi Jemima,

Thanks for the answer.
One thing that did occur to me was of those "pedigree" dogs that are included in the statistics are there any checks made as to their origin? For instance including a Patagonian Snakehound from a puppy farm against one from a careful breeder would give a unbalanced result. What the % of this variation would be I do not know it could be 1% it could 99%. I am not dismissing the data but I would like to know if we have any way of refining it?
That said I am well aware, as most of us are, that "caring breeders" still produce badly bred dogs when the evidence and information is right in front of them and those people need "running out of town"!

Jeff.

Your missing the point the kind of person who views dogs as disposable and not worth going to the vet with will more likely get a mongrel, badly bred pedigree, or a cheap rescue.

It does not mean that caring people are not going to get mongrels or rescues and be willing to spend what it takes.

I am saying the poor mongrel and especially badly bred pedigree is going to find itself in less good/vetted homes, as often they are available cheaply to anyone who will take them.

Jeff wrote: One thing that did occur to me was of those "pedigree" dogs that are included in the statistics are there any checks made as to their origin? For instance including a Patagonian Snakehound from a puppy farm against one from a careful breeder would give a unbalanced result. What the % of this variation would be I do not know it could be 1% it could 99%. I am not dismissing the data but I would like to know if we have any way of refining it?

As I said, the data at the moment is only there for an overall comparison. I would urge anyone embarking on a breed health survey that a question re the dog's origin is included (I think the new peke health survey will do this). At the moment, the evidence is anecdotal/hearsay - with the exception of one survey - of Scottish Terriers in the US. If anyone knows of any others, I'd love to hear about them.

Jemima

This has always worried me with the proposal (very welcome) of vets collecting data on breed health issues.

How many of the dogs would be verifiably of the breed purported.

Jemima,
At the end of a previous post you said the following:
'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.'

Can you tell me what this data is and whether it can be considered reliable? I (personally) do not think that insurance claims and vet stats can be reliable...they by their nature are restricted to people who take their dogs to the vets and insure them...and still doesn't provide background information on the owners and breeding circumstances of the dogs. I just get very, very worried that this whole debate is based on extremely questionable data - not because it's wrong but because it's not balanced. I don't know how you could ever collect enough data from enough different people with enough different dogs to prove this.  
Again - not intending to start arguments here, I just want to be sure that if I am going to argue for or against something that I have something reliable to back it up. and sorry if the source of the data has already been discussed - I haven't been able to trawl through the hundreds of posts on this topic in this and other threads!

> Clearly you can't just mate any old dogs together and claim hybrid vigour as some of the designer dog breeders do.

Or mate two pedigree, but unregistered, dogs together and claim good health on the basis of the non-KC status. ;-)

Statistics can sometimes lend themselves to a totally false conclusion: statistics show that in summer, ice cream sales rise. Statistics show that, in summer, more children have accidents at the beach. That could be taken to mean that ice cream causes children's accidents.

Equally, if mongrels don't get taken to the vet as often as pedigrees, is doesn't follow that they're healthier. It just means that they don't get taken to the vet as often. If there are fewer insurance claims for mongrels than pedigrees, could it not be that fewer mongrels are insured in the first place - possibly because their owners don't value them as highly?

> If there are fewer insurance claims for mongrels than pedigrees, could it not be that fewer mongrels are insured in the first place - possibly because their owners don't value them as highly

Or is it that insured mongrels claim less often ?? Actuaries wouldn't set lower insurance on the former, rather the latter :)

Daisy

Possibly - or it could be that they believe that mongrels are healthier so they don't insure them, so can't claim for them anyway, and the insurance companies try to attract them with lower premiums ... nobody can say for sure - it would only be speculation. :-)

> Or is it that insured mongrels claim less often ??

Or are the lower premiums designed as a loss leader to encourage cross breed owners to Insure. 

Also with Insurance for replacement being part of most a pedigree will cost usually more to replace.

I work at a vets and we rarely see true mongrels these days. We see a fair few designer cross breeds and pedigree dogs too. I wold definately say in my area it doesn't follow that the mongrel owners are less likely to see the vet as most of our clients who don't bring their dogs in until they are at deaths door are pedigree dog owners. Staffie owners tend to be the worst for some reason but there is a vast array of breeds i can name. One of the worst offenders i know paid £700 for their labrador but they don't like to spend a penny on her.

>Could it not be that fewer mongrels are insured in the first place?

I would say that it's likely that fewer mongrels are insured; in fact, it's rare that I see a mongrel these days and they used to be common place years ago.  Having said that, it's not really important from an insurance perspective; they calculate their premiums over a % of their overall book.  Some put more emphasis on value; some more on the calculation of risk and most a combination of the two.  Pedigree dogs are higher value in the market place and on calculating risk, more claims and higher pay outs, equals higher risk, equals higher premiums.  Some will load the premium based on the purchase price, i.e. the more expensive the dog, the higher the premium.  But don't forget, many have clauses that will pay out the purchase price or the market value in the event of a claim, whatever is less, so they are limiting their liabilities.  Not so easy on vet fees but you'll find that most if not all, increase the premium as the dog gets older.  I.e Decreased market value but higher risk for vet treatment.  I have a 13 ½ year old that costs 6 times as much per year to insure now than she did at 2 years old. 

Still, it could be argued that mongrels are higher risk if owners don't value them as highly ;-) and take all precautions to prevent a claim being made.  I.e. the typical 'latch key 'dog may present a higher public liability risk.

Katien wrote: Can you tell me what this data is and whether it can be considered reliable? I (personally) do not think that insurance claims and vet stats can be reliable...they by their nature are restricted to people who take their dogs to the vets and insure them...and still doesn't provide background information on the owners and breeding circumstances of the dogs. I just get very, very worried that this whole debate is based on extremely questionable data - not because it's wrong but because it's not balanced. I don't know how you could ever collect enough data from enough different people with enough different dogs to prove this.  

Have you read the three reports into dog breeding that followed Pedigree Dogs Exposed? Every one of them spelled this out - and gave the references. All three are online. Even the KC's geneticist Jeff Sampson is on the record saying this:

"Unfortunately, the restrictive breeding patterns that have developed as part and parcel of the purebred dog scene have not been without collateral damage to all breeds.... Increasingly, inherited diseases are imposing a serious disease burden on most, if not all, breeds of dog" ( "The Geneticist's View on Dog Breeding", FECVA Symposium, 2004)

Again, the avail data tell us that crossbreeds overall are healthier and live a little longer - with the caveats I have mentioned before (please have a look back through the thread). It is not a question of being "balanced". Scientific studies find as they find. That's the whole point of science: you start out with a question or theory and you test it - over and over again if possible.  Now of course there's good science and not-so-good science and every published paper does need a careful assessment of its quality. But the studies are there and I'm not cherry-picking - I've looked for every paper which attempts to answer the question. Now there are some that find no difference between 'mongrel' and purebred and some that find it impossible to say one way of the other because of all the counfounding factors (eg: http://www.vu-wien.ac.at/i122/files/Mongrels.htm), but the majority confirm what I say above.

Having said all that, I absolutely agree that we need more and better data. Hopefully, as the Bateson report and others recommended, a proper health surveillance scheme will be able to be implemented in the not too distant future.

Jemima

Thanks Jemima.
You say 'you start out with a question or theory and you test it'. So is there an equal and opposite study which starts with the theory that pedigree dogs are equally as healthy as cross breeds - which has then been tested?

Am I right in thinking you are anxious about bias or agenda, Katien?

It would be naive of me to suggest that there is never any bias in science (there are too many stories of pharmaceutical companies never publishing the results that don't suit them). But the whole point of scientific studies is to rule out that kind of bias or agenda.

In this case, the question might be: which is healthier - mutts or pedigree?
Or the theory might be: "scientific theory tells us that mutts should be healthier - but are they really?"
Or: "pedigree dog breeders believe their dogs are healthier than mutts - but are they really?"

However you ask the question, you should get an accurate answer if you are doing the science right.

Jemima

Jemima, I guess both. The main reason for my questions is this...I have pedigree dogs and have been shouted at across the street for being cruel to my 'sick cripples'. This might have been a one-off but it hurt and it grates with me. I chose my dogs carefully and they are healthy. So why should I be subjected to this sort of abuse when, as far as I can see, the subject has only been addressed by the media from one angle. That, in my mind is bias and I have suffered personally from it. If this already biased approach to the subject is also backed only by biased data or an 'agenda' then that would make me doubly mad!

And just to clarify, by bias in the media I mean that no other subject on dog breeding and ownership (other than pedigrees are sick and badly bred) has received the same attention in al genres. What about those people who work towards better breeding practices? Responsible owners? Highlighting puppy farms?
Touched upon here and there, granted.

Finally, apologies if this is off topic...

>I have pedigree dogs and have been shouted at across the street for being cruel to my 'sick cripples'. This might have been a one-off but it hurt and it grates with me.

Katien, did this only happen after the broadcast of Pedigree Dogs Exposed? We'd heard reports of this sort of thing happening but unfortunately Jemima, as spokeswoman for the programme makers, gave the impression that such fallout, where innocent people were publicly abused because of the totally avoidable bias of the programme, was acceptable collateral damage.

As Jemima has said, good science isn't biased.

I have never had anyone ask how old any of my pedigree dogs have been when they have died and to be truthful many of them have died without the intervention of vets near the end at the age of 16 or so.  A few over the years have been OK then have passed away during the night.  My Spanish though I have mainly had to have PTS.

The KC does not ask for a record of when your dog dies.  I still have dogs under my details on the KC website that have been dead now for a few years.  My most recent girl died at the age of 15 but is still of course on their system, so presumed alive??

I would like to know where they get the details of longevity of dogs when there's nowhere to store this information? 

I think it would be more helpful in collating the full facts if the KC was able for you to input the dates of death etc.  Lydia's dad was longlived to almost 15 as well and I have a grand-daughter of Lydia's who is 10 and acts like a 10 month old so I'm presuming that she will also have a very long lifespan as will the rest of her relatives who live with me.

Hi Jeangenie.
Yes, it did happen shortly afterwards. Acceptable collateral damage? Interesting concept, certainly doesn't feel that way which is why I ask about bias and the validity of studies and data. Science is hard to argue with and as you say, good science isn't biased. But the focus of studies and they way the data is presented certainly can be. This is what concerns me.

I guess it depends on where you're coming from...I don't breed, show, work or anything else in particular with my dogs. I have no hidden agenda here, just an experience which I found difficult to take.
Please don't think that I haven't concerned myself with the problems within some breeds and it's terrible the pain the dogs must suffer but to tar all pedigrees or even all examples of an individual breed with the same brush is shortsighted and just plain wrong. That seems to be what has happened here, whether deliberate or not it's the view of the otherwise uninformed general public.

>to tar all pedigrees or even all examples of an individual breed with the same brush is shortsighted and just plain wrong. That seems to be what has happened here, whether deliberate or not it's the view of the otherwise uninformed general public.

I couldn't agree more.

I have actually told the KC of the dates of death of the two of mine that have died and they say it is on their records, but they still appear in the list of dogs owned by me, even though I sent them a list of which I actually still own.

I have often seen websites list the lifespan of my breed as only 10 - 12, the AHT/KC study showed the average age of death as 13 1/2.

Maybe it's time the KC did their own survey and asked owners of all of the pedigree dogs that are registered with them, who couldn't possibly still be alive, at what age they passed on and why.
It would make a very interesting 'scientific' study.

been done here are the results based on those who responded: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/570

Time for an update I think.

Yep I'd say, though it took about 2 years to get the results.

The response rate doesn't look very good

A better response than most surveys get, apparently.

about 26% in our breed.  I do think it should have been more widely distributed, perhaps to all those with KC registered dogs, or those with more than 2 or whatever.

About 30% in my breed. I wonder which breed had the best response rate (64.7%).

Irish Red + White Setters if I remember right - a really impressive response.

GSDs meanwhile? Nil...

Jemima

17.6% response in our breed and perhaps being a cynic, I guess that in a breed that does have its concerns that some people are less likely to respond.

Jemima, you didn't respond to my previous question regarding my experiences and why I should have to accept that...

Sorry to harp on but you could acknowledge it?

What breed do you have, Katien?

Jemima

How is that relevent, Jemima? The question is is it right that people should have abuse shouted at them from strangers?

Could you please tell me how that is in any way relevant?
I simply want to know why it's acceptable that I have been tarred with having an unhealthy dog because it's a pedigree.

No, Jeangenie, I do not think it is right for anyone to shout abuse at anyone in the street.

Katien, there are some breeds that are, fundamentally, unhealthy, hence why I asked what breed you have.  If, for instance, you have a bulldog I think it's acceptable for you to be 'tarred' with having an unhealthy breed. If, however, you have a border terrier  I'd say it was an unfair charge.

I am betting, however, that you don't have a border terrier.

Jemima

Is it coincidence that Katien was abused in the street shortly after your programme was aired, in the same terms that were used in your programme? In fact it would be fair to say that your programme put those words into their mouths and was the direct cause of the abuse.

I'm sure it wasn't coincidence, Jeangenie.

Jemima

Well, even before the documentary one could say I was subject to prejudice because of the breed I have. A work colleague and vet refused to treat my dog if she became ill, and refused to spay her. My work does not deal with domestic, but wildlife, but we have all the facilities and equipment to spay domestics, and this was done as a favour to people who work there. I did numerous anaesthetics on my colleagues pets (mainly cats but the occasional dog). Although this upset me I respected his choice.
I didn't watch the documentary when it was aired. I refused. I felt embarrased because I owned one of the breeds shown on the programme. A friend of mine gave me a copy on dvd, and it went onto the shelf.
Numerous friends came up to me after it was aired, asking if I had watched it because it had a similar dog to mine on there and I got quite defensive and angry saying NO i have NOT seen it.
A few months later we were leaving a pub garden and a hairy biker type man basically shouted at me and my partner "thats not a dog, get a real dog". I wanted to go over and cut his pony tail off and place it somewhere, but just walked away.
Having already suffered with two conditions, I was clearly angry and upset when my dog went on to develop two much more serious problems. It was then that I watched the programme, and saw the similarities with the poor dog shown on it. I was shocked to learn that my breed had such a small gene pool and that many of her problems could have been down to selective breeding for a certain conformation.
I joined forums for the first time and was shocked to see how many others of the breed suffered with one or two of the conditions my dog has.
So up until now I had thought my dog was just "unlucky". It led me to write to the KC with my concerns over the breed. I was told that the majority of my breed were healthy and indeed poor Olive was an unlucky one off.
The programme gave me the courage to speak out about my dog. I believe alot of her problems are down to the way she looks and down to poor breeding. This is not to say that all breeders of the breed produce dogs that are as unhealthy as Olive, but there are dogs of the breed out there that are just as sick for the same reasons. My initial visit to this forum was quite hairy to say the least, as I was accused of making sweeping statements about "breeders". I was also told that my dogs problems had nothing to do with conformation. I disagreed and still do.
I have since tried to educate people about the potential problems in the breed through video. Since doing that, I have had numerous people email me about their dogs, and I can give them advice and help. I also contributed to the APGAW enquiry as written evidence, although individual evidence submitted was shunned by the KC just like my concerns about the breed.
Not all of the breed go on to develop serious medical conditions and I accept many probably never require medical treatment at a vets. But for every "unlucky" dog, someone has to have a voice for them if they believe the problems may be down to poor breeding and conformation.
I thank the programme for giving me the bottle to finally speak out and try and help the other unlucky Olives.

>If, for instance, you have a bulldog I think it's acceptable for you to be 'tarred' with having an unhealthy breed.

So this dog is unhealthy and its owner should be verbally abused in the street?

What a fab video - lovely to see. And particularly that this dog is longer-legged and has almost no over-nose wrinkle. If all bulldogs were more like this, there would be fewer problems.

This dog is not typical of the breed. Here's a pic of the dog that went BOB at Bournemouth a couple of weekends ago - Eclair Grace:

http://www.tkdogs.com/dog_shows/2010/Bulldog+Crufts/photo/1188-248

Eclair Grace is much shorter-legged. And she has an over-nose wrinkle that totally contravenes the amended breed standard which demands that an overnose wrinkle like this should be heavily penalised.

Bulldogs
Over 80 per cent delivered by C-section
Most need help mating
Many live their entire lives in some degree of respiratory distress
The breed with the worst hip dysplasia of all the breeds (http://www.offa.org/hipstatbreed.html)
Considered such a high veterinary risk that some insurance companies will not insure them and those that do charge very high premiums.
Dead, on average, by 6.

Jemima

Jemima,

I don't know huge amounts about the Bulldog, but I would of thought it would only be fairer to place the UK BVA scoring results on here
http://www.bva.co.uk/public/documents/CHS_Hip_Scheme_Breed_Mean_Scores.pdf

Incidently not knowing or looking at the age of this dog but there are no results of any health tests on it currently on the KC website health checker.
Is hip scoring recommended in the breed as a general rule?

>What a fab video - lovely to see. And particularly that this dog is longer-legged and has almost no over-nose wrinkle. If all bulldogs were more like this, there would be fewer problems.

It's still a bulldog - the breed that you have stated is unhealthy and the owner must expect abuse for owning it; should be 'tarred' for having an unhealthy breed. You think it would be understandable and acceptable for the owner of that bulldog to be abused in the street. That's verging on racism.

Latest Hipscore totals from the BVA. Bulldogs, with a BMS of 45 are only marginally worse that Otterhounds, with a BMS of 43. However only 22 bulldogs have been scored, so it's too small a sample to be considered scientifically representative.

According to the BVA/KC health survey, the oldest reported individual was 14 years 5 months.

You obviously missed the bit where I said I didn't think it was right for anyone to abuse anyone in the street, JeanGenie.  But, as ever, you will believe as you wish and it is pretty pointless getting into a debate with you.

I didn't quote the UK scores because I agree with you - not enough bulldogs have been scored for it to be meaningful. Indeed, that's why I quoted the OFA stats, where plenty of bulldogs have been scored and the percentage of dogs with excellent hips totals a massive... 0.2 per cent.

Bulldogs, with a BMS of 45 are only marginally worse that Otterhounds, with a BMS of 43.


I presume you are not trying to tell me that's OK, though?

According to the BVA/KC health survey, the oldest reported individual was 14 years 5 months.


Yes, but the average age of death is 6.25yrs (according to the BVA/KC health survey). Given that the above would suggest that they have potential to live until 14, why do you think they're dying so young?

Jemima

>>Bulldogs, with a BMS of 45 are only marginally worse that Otterhounds, with a BMS of 43.
>I presume you are not trying to tell me that's OK, though?

You presume correctly. I just wonder why bulldogs are picked on when otterhounds (until 2006 they had a worse BMS than bulldogs) aren't. Interestingly no bulldog in the UK has scored the worst score possible, unlike so many other breeds.

>Given that the above would suggest that they have potential to live until 14, why do you think they're dying so young?

I have no idea, and wouldn't be so arrogant as to hazard a guess.