Had a long drive to do today (almost 600 miles round trip) to mate a bitch of one of Suziques mentioned breeds , so had a lot of time to think!  Wonder what her recomended method of perpetuating dogs would be to produce healthy specimens - just let them have a canine reporduction free for all?  Of course, that would mean that each dog would only chooses a perfectly healthy specimen, thus eventually arriving at the perfect corssbred brimming with the wonderful hybrid vigour which is oftenmentioned but rarely proven! ;)  (not!) The fact is, a whole lot is made out of the unfitness of many breeds due to uncaring breeders, seeing only the show standard, etc, etc.  In fact , these breeders are the one producing the healthy dogs, with parents who have been tested free from problems!  Many, many of the pedigree dogs seen with the awful consturction faults which lead to unsoundness and even pain are the product of the puppy farms/mills, who breed without thought or concern for health and careful mating/rearing.  Unfortuatley the press (and the EEC) have got on the pedigree dog bandwagon, and dont look beyond the headlines.  So just to take an illustrative point of a breed with which I am intimatley acquainted and which has been mentioned as one of the "undesirables", have a look at our pugs!  Yes, they have flat faces, and undershot jaws.  I do take extra care in very hot weather, but other than that they are fit, healthy and can do anything my spaniels do!  Lewis happily keeps up with the Yankees on runs, plays football in the park with any kids who have a ball, and can do laps of the pitches, or gallop up the local hills (photo available of Lewis in full flight for anyone who wants proof)  The girls are mostly not quite as astive, apart from Alison, but still enjoy a good walk and run.  All eat without problem anything they want, without the undershot bites being a problem.  They whelp naturally, the pups are resilient and a joy to rear.  I do have a pug with a scissor bite and a longer nose too, she is a darling, but has so many health problems due to many birth defects (congenital not hereditary).  Why would anyone make the sweeping assumption that my Pugs are unhealthy just because they conform to the breed standard!  I also have a friend who has Bassetts, they too fit the breed standard, but are super fit and regularly go out with him on his horse, covering several miles at speed, not a dodgy back among them,  these dogs are not the exception!

Conversely, as a groomer I see several crossbreeds reguarly and thouroughly.  And would you believe that they also come with bad mouths, Hd, slipping pattellas, dodgy backs, weak pasterns and eye problems!  Of course, as their parents are mostly unkonwn the owners have no idea where the problems came from, or if they have been passed on if the dog has reproduced.   Sad fact is, nature is not perfect, dogs, people, horses,  etc etc all come with faults, some inheredited some just birth defects. By all means lets all have a go at puppy frms/mills and unethical breeders of all sorts breeding for profit without thought of health issues, but this is a list of dog lovers, we all value our pets, be they pedigree or cross.  Think how miserable our lives would be (not to mention the dog's) if a looney organisation like PETA got their way and animals were no longer kept as pets but allowed to be "free range" surviving and breeding as they saw fit! (and sorry againn Fiona for going way of your topic)
bye
Gwen

Noticed this post today for those who think that x-breeds are healthier than pedigree dogs!!!

Helenlj 02.09.04 17:00 BST  [Misc] [Reply]  

Hi Lynn,

Our 10 month old boy Len (1/2 victorian bulldog, 1/2 ddb) has just recovered from  surgery for Wobblers, and although he still has a wobbly gait, he is fine and the abnormal bone growth and cysts which were compressing his spinal cord have been removed. 

Helen 

What does ddb stand for?  It's stuck in my head now, don't you just hate that? 

Regarding PETA, is that seriously their aim?  I've never heard such a ridiculous idea.  I don't know a lot about the organisation,  but that really is loony.  It's a shame, because they do make sense on some issues (IMHO) e.g. their anti-fur stance, but if they promote ideals such as us all taking our dogs into the countryside and just letting them go, nobody will take them seriously about anything else. :-(  Have I misunderstood the issue (me being silly rather than the post being vague)?

Apologies for replying to my own post, but it came to me as I hit "post".  Is it Dogue de Bordeaux (sp?).  I'm not sure exactly what a Victorian Bulldog is, another name for the English Bulldog?, but I'm not surprised that a cross between those two breeds would be prone to health problems.

Regarding hybrid vigour, I think that it certainly exists, but it is hyped-up more than necessary.  All the real "oldies" (20+) I can recall seeing were mongrels, but real Heinz 57s rather than first generation crosses.  And look at Yorkies - they seem to go on forever, especially the ill-tempered ones! :-) 

Hi Mary-Caroline.  Victorian Bulldogs, are crossbreeds, promoted by their producers as being more healthy than "real" Bulldogs!!!  We've had a couple of posts from owners who's dogs have serious health problems. 

In my job I travel to many countries where dogs are not kept as pets or bred to any standard - most are street dogs who freely interbreed. Interestingly throughout the world a distinct 'type' of dog emerges - sandy coloured, medium sized, short coated and usually with prick ears ( think of the Caanan dog) - most feral dogs seem to eventually conform to this 'jackal' type of look and I suggest that this is because this 'type' is the most efficient in regard to construction and health and so predominates. Maybe we should take notice of what nature naturally selects and breed dogs which do not differ too far from this pattern and certainly avoid any extreme exaggeration from this 'blueprint' .

Trevor you might be interested in an organisation set up in South Africa which is to protect this type of indigenous dog. Look up africanis on your search engine and you will find a link to Johan Gallant who is one of the organisers of this.

Exactly!!

Would a dog of this type be suitable for all purposes? For draught purposes in polar regions, for example? Or would its coat require adaptation?

If a dog lived in arctic conditions it would adapt naturally or die or migrate to more favourable conditions.  Canids that have to survive in harsh climatic (cold) conditions have a different system of circulating blood around their bodies so that the cold temperatures of their feet do not decrease the blood temp. to a point so low that it would shock the body and cause death.  rather clever don't you think, especially as this was achieved without the intervention of man?

Like most animals living ing the wild they have had to adapt over the years in order to survive.  That's survival of the fittest. 

Have you not heard of species of birds that have developed longer beaks over the years in order to get fish off river beds in areas where water levels have risen due to the destruction of rain forests somewhere else?    It's called evolution.

Yes of course I've heard of evolution! :rolleyes: I was just pointing out that the 'one size fits all' idea that has been proposed for the 'ideal' dog (jackal-like, medium sized, sandy-coloured, prick-eared, smooth-coated) is no more ideal than any other.
:)

>'ideal' dog (jackal-like, medium sized, sandy-coloured, prick-eared, smooth-coated) is no more ideal than any other.

yes and a jackal-like dog won't find and point grouse for me or flush game.

Helen

Hi Mary-Caroline,

Nope, that is one of Petas stated aims, that no dogs (not sure of theri stance on other pets) should be kept as pets.  When they are getting dog lovers support for the anti fur issues, such as Sharon Osbourne or David Boreanaz (Angel) they don't play this aspect up too much, of course! ;)
bye
Gwen

As a matter of interest then...if everyone suddenly joined PETA, what do they suggest actually happens to all the domesticated dogs in the world?

hi guys i dont no why people say it and i dont have any idear how they got it into there heads i have read the posts and find them intresting why cant people understand there is no such thing
sorry i didnt replie sooner i have been away
fiona

Gwen

(And this will be my last posting on this thread because I am sure I have answered all my critics to date)
My issue is not about Pedigree v XBreeds v mongrels and yes, accidental deformities/abnormalities  occur in all types.  My issue is with the deliberate breeding of dogs with deformities and weaknesses.   

The concept would not be tolerated within the humans race so why should it be tolerated let alone engineered in our dogs?  It is the deliberateness of it that I find abhorrent, especially as the original purpose for which these dogs were intended no longer exists or is utilised for some breeds.

And my answer to you, Suzieque, is that you have been aiming at the wrong segment of the dog breeding community.  Ethical, caring breeders breed healthy, fit for purpose dogs.  My dogs fit the breed standard, but are happy, fit , healthy and live fulfilled lives.  One of my breeds is flat faced, this does not stop them enjoying a full doggy life, my other breed has been accused on having abnormally long ears - this again does not stop their enjoyment or activity.  Thye media hype about "deformed pedigree dogs" appears to be a bandwagon which you and several others have jumped onto, one of the most prominent being the TV vet Emma Milne.  I note you are not posting on this subject anymore, but I cannot reconcile where on earth you are coming from,  you object to breeding towards a breed standard, or showing to be seen how close the dogs fit this standard, yet you say you are not opposed to breeding pedigree dogs if they are healthy.  For the life of me I cant see how, without the breed standards, we can evaluate our own dogs (if we are to suppose we are not showing), because with the age old argument "form and function" fitness for purpose is what dog breeding is all about.  With no breed standard to aim towards anyone could breed the worlds worst specimens of the breed, and simply cliam them to be perfect, as nothing to measure them against!

bye
Gwen

Having read the thread I can see exactly where Suzique is coming from. Some breed standards are ridiculous. For example the Bulldog that can't breathe properly and the gsd that has hip dysplasia. Yes you responsible breeders do all the health checks and do your best to eliminate your pups from having said conditions but if 'man' hadn't interfered with nature in the first place we wouldn't be seeing these said conditions. It's the breed standards that are wrong, and they are getting sillier. Yes I like to see a nice pedigree dog but don't see what's wrong with a mongrel, and quite like those jackal type dogs. At least they are healthy as natural selection takes care of any faults, humans trying to play God just seem to make faults worse. :-(

All breeds & non breeds can have HD & it's nothing to do with the breed standard

I have owned a GSD with perfect hips & also fitted the breed standard

I have also owned a mongrel which had severe HD & was born deaf & also had eye problems, she was not a cross but a mongrel

So much for mongrels & hybrid vigour

>but don't see what's wrong with a mongrel,

They can be lovely. Or they can be like the sandy-coloured young mongrel I saw in town today, whose hips were so bad that he could barely hobble. Natural selection would have assuredly resulted in his death. Are we all prepared to go down that road with any puppies that have problems?

And don't forget that HD is quite common in Man! It is known as 'congenital dislocation of the hip' and all newborn babies' hips are manipulated to try to ascertain if they have a problem. And people can hardly be called pedigree! ;)

Errr Yes??? that's what natural selection is all about, separates the wheat from the chaff.

So all the people whose dogs have congenital problems should have them destroyed and try again? Because that's exactly what you're saying.

Well my mongrel was a result of"natural"selection & she was decidedly unhealthy & would have died a painful death in the wild like many"wild"animals

For example in lions when a new male takes over a pride he will kill all the cubs in the pride to ensure only his genes are passed. Maybe this is what you want

Sounds very much like a P.E.T.A.member to me No pet dogs only mongrels the result of random mating between dominant alpha males & females that by their very dominance making the not suitable to share human households

I don't even know what a P.E.T.A is but am getting used to people assuming things about me. But if P.E.T.As think that dogs should be able to perform everyday functions such as running, eating and crapping without hinderance of it's own body caused by over exaggerated breeding of certain features then I guess I am one.

Just for information, PETA is an organisation comprised of animal rights activists who, amongst other things, have as one of their aims the total abolition of pet ownership.

May not of heard of them but the aim is the same.

Thay also release dogs from crates & benching at shows & one of their top people(a brit I am ashamed to say)supports the killing of all Pitbulls in the world. they also run "shelters"in the US where 80% of the dogs are killed

They believe in the surival of the fittest & that ALL animals should be "Free"

They run campaigns against dog food companies using out of date & false "proof"

Harriet

Don't worry about people on this forum making assumptions about you (incorrect no doubt), they do it all the time.  (see the references made to me earlier on this thread).  I have lived with and trained dogs for over 30 years, loved the species for even longer but was not allowed to have them in the house, bothered neighbours from as long as I could remember, to walk their dogs to compensate.  I have worked with dogs all my life, studied canine evolution, ethology, psychology, cynology, physiology, neuropsychology, nutrition, genetics, behaviour, drug therapy, and training (agility, working trails and obedience).  Some people on this furum believe there are no formal qualifications in some, if not all, of these fields but to contradict them I have advance dqualifications and diplomas in almost all and yet I have been accused (incorrectly)  of not loving dogs, not having dogs, not knowing anything about breeding or Crufts and having no rights to post on this forum.

Believe in yourself and your right to have an opinion, especially if it relates to the rights and welfare of dogs.

Harriet, would you read the breed standards for the Bulldog and the GSD until you have full understanding of them and then come back and explain what it is in those breed standards that make people breed Bulldogs that can't breath and GSD's with HD. Think you are confusing what you see produced by back street breeders and puppy farms with the dogs bred by caring and careful breeders who do their best to product healthy animals as close as possible to the standard. It may interest you to know that the breeders of GSD's have over the years been at the forefront of the scheme to help improve the construction of the hip and at the 1st Jan this year 34,028 separate GSD's have been presented for hip scoring so that is 34,028 owners of GSD's in the UK you have just not only insulted but maligned. By the way every one of those GSD's will be Kennel Club registered.

Okay, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that Man made a huge mistake 12,000 years ago domesticating the dog and gradually developing its various characteristics to make life easier - herding, draught, guarding etc, and that this has resulted in chronic problems in the species.

What should be done about it? It's happened - how should it be put right? I would say that the responsible breeders who only breed from animals without these problems are going about it the most sensible and practical way.

No JG

Neither man nor dog made a mistake to co-exist.  Man made a mistake when he decided to play God, or if you don't believe in God, to intervene, manipulate and exploit the dog to serve his own ends at the expense of his faithful friend.  There should be balance.  No one's interest should be served at the expense of the other and well-being and welfare should predominate over all. 

Man only overrides the well being of the dog because he can - that does not make it right - it makes it an abuse of power.

So Man also did wrong to breed horses in different forms for different tasks (heavy draught horses, lighter, faster riding horses); sheep with different types of wool (shorter, softer wool for garments; longer, coarser wool for harder-wearing cloth); some cattle to make meat, others for milk ...

Producing sheep with lighter/heavier coats does not interfere with the animals basic needs to eat, breathe and move without pain.

As I said when I replied to Jackie H earlier, the problem is not with controlled breeding per se but with producing/breeding to meet specific breeds standards which result in the dog having its basic survival traits impeded.  Ask anyone who has to live with respiratory problems how debilitating and frightening it is to have to struggle for your every breath and look at those breeds of dogs that have their ability to breath severely impeded.  How can this be justified?  And no, I am not a member of PETA or any other animal rights activist group - just a person who loves dogs.

Suzieque, we all keep repeating ourselves! You keep repeating that you think it is wrong for breed standards to say that dogs should have HD or breathing problems. If I could find one that said that, then I would agree with you 100%, but try as I might, I can't find which breed standard says anything of the sort. However, I also keep repeating myself - what do you think should be done about it? How can the problem you see be remedied?

I have never mentioned HD, JG. 

But you are anti-breed standards, aren't you? You don't think animals should be bred to be suitable for a purpose - whether draught, hunting, herding - even as a companion (the toy breeds). Or have I misunderstood your posts?

<<but if 'man' hadn't interfered with nature in the first place we wouldn't be seeing these said conditions>>

Hip dysplacia has been found in just about all animals in the wild!

<<At least they are healthy as natural selection takes care of any faults, humans trying to play God just seem to make faults worse.>>

Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, is simply not true. They suffer from just as many problems as the domestic dog only in their case it is not treated. The animal dies in pain, often due to starvation.

John

Natural selction in action John, the ones with the faults die and only the healthy survive. :-)

Do I take it then that you would be happy to see domestic dogs suffering from hereditory defects put to sleep then? Or are you suggesting that other domestic dogs should kill them as would happen in the wild?

No John you miss my point, that all happens in the wild of course, wouldn't expect to see domestic dogs being left to die obviously. The thing that everyone seems to be overlooking is how dogs have evolved to have bodies that make life difficult or painful for them thanks to human intervention. The breed standard dictates how a certain breed should look. The people who decide what the 'standard'  start to exaggerate certain features eg shorter legs, longer hair, flatter nose etc so much so that the dog has trouble with it's health. That is what I don't agree with. I mean imagine having to wipe a dogs bum for it every time it took a crap because it's extra long hair got in the way. Imagine having a dog that was knackered after a trot up the garden because it can't breathe properly due to the shape of it's head. Imagine having to put cream on a dog's face everyday because it is sore due to no air being able to get through all it wrinkles. Imagine the dog that walks into a lampost because it has too much hair in front of it's eyes. Imagine the dog with short legs and a long back slipping a disc as it ran up a steep hill. The list goes on and on and it's a disgrace that dogs are suffering like this because someone decided to change parts of their anatomy. Evolution should be left to the expert.

The eye analogy is actually not a problem. It works on the same principal as in the old days before glasses where people would look through a perforated eye patch. As the other points you have made, I have also said very similar things on here in the past. I don't agree that we should scrap pedigree dogs, there are very good reasons for them, not least being that the puppy buyer has a very good idea what the final size and shape of the dog will be. A very important point where a person has limited room in their home or if the dog is intended for a particular job of work. Running on a puppy for use as a guide dog would be a complete waste of time if it finished up the size of a Yorkie!

Another reason for pedigree dogs is that there is some small measure of control due to the fact that lineage and health screening is documented and therefore something a puppy buyer can check.

More to the point is to lobby the KC to take more notice of defects due to abnormal development. Interpretation of breed standards has always gone on and sadly to the detriment of some specimen of certain breeds. Certain aspects or a dog get exaggerated often due to fashion and often changed back again when breeders realise they have gone up a blind alley. The KC have stated in their own publication that they are not in the business of policing the breeders and although breed standards are established in consultation between the breed clubs and the KC they are, once accepted, a KC document and as such are the responsibility of the KC. They cannot duck the responsibility for their own documents! To change a breed standard may suit one section of breeders but would not suit those whose dogs are nearest to the old standard! Therefore, to me anyway, the only people who can change a standard to any great extent is someone with no connection to that breed, the KC. This to me is the way forward, not to knock the very breeders who try to breed sound stock.

Regards, John

 

Hereditory defects are one thing but breeding to produce dogs with insufficient nose length to house a full compliment of scent receptors is another.  Humans live a lot of their lives by what they can see  dogs live their lives by what they can smell.  What about  breeding dogs that struggle to breathe correctly (we've all seen the pugs and pekes wheezing down the street) or the bull-dog gasping for air.  What about the pug  that has vulnerable eyes because they protrude so far out of their sockets.  What about the Bassett and other long backed/short legged breeds that suffer untold back pain from prolapsed/collapsed discs.  these are not natural, freaks of nature - they are deliberate traits of specific breeds bred in by man.  That is what is so distressing.  Nature does produce occasional, accidental abnormalities but these can not be compared with the abnormalities that man produces, in certain breeds, as a matter of course, to meet some man-made breed standard.

And again Suzieque, you are making the false assumption that the animals you see with over exagerated features causing problems are those aimed at the breed standard!  Please go back and have a look at my response re: Pugs and Bassetts I personally know!  The root cause of a lot of these distressing problems is not breeding to a standard, but the greedy and ignorant breeding without thought or care!  I know cross breds with severe defects too. 
bye
Gwen

You can both answer this question then

If all dogs were allowed to interbreed so that all dogs that lived were perfectly healthy

How would my nearest neighbour choose a dog to work with his sheep ? How could he select one if they were all the same mixture of genes behaviour & ability ?

How would he know which puppy would be able to control the sheep & obey his commands not to kill them but to herd them ?

If natural selection decided on which dogs lived & died The primeaval hunting instinct would obviously survive & all dogs would hunt to kill

So how would he select his dog to work his sheep

Answer is he couldn't because there would not be hundreds of years of man made selection of behaviour & ability would not be available for him to select a dog that would herd & not kill

I am not saying abolish pedigrees at all, I am saying that some dogs are bred with exaggerations that affect their health and it is not right. Some of you may think it is but I don't. End of story.

You have a fair point. What do you think should be done about it?

Read what John said about it, I agree with most of that.

So we only abolish SOME pedigree dogs

Interesting CA(Storage disease)in BC causes death & BC's are pedigrees ergo abolish BC's but the only BC in the UK known to carry CA is a KC only dog so do we abolish all BC's or only KC or part KC BC's ???

Cavaliers have Syringomeylia & most dogs carry a line(but not necessarily the gene)to a sufferer So abolish all Cavaliers then as there is no test yet for SM & as Cavalier have descended from King Charles Spaniels should we also abolish KCS-a breed breed to be short nosed in the 19th century to look more human(the breed was originally longer nosed like the CKCS)

Gwen

I am not referring to the results of amateur breeding - I am referring to official, formal, breed profiles written by judges, breeders and 'showers' of the breeds mentioned.

Suzieque, Bassets are hunting hounds. They have always been low-to-the-ground; it's what the name means. They are slow, but have enormous stamina, and can hunt all day without pain.