Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business | Hacker News Reader

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

theguardian.com

231 pointspaulpauper250 comments

Not just Pugs. I had a German Shepherd. Beautiful dog, but everyone who I met who had had a German Shepherd in the past told me their dog had to be put down around 10 years of age due to their back legs failing.

Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According to the vet this is another common problem with the breed.

I well never get a pure breed again.

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

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

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

We had a cocker when I was in college that, at about age 8, became aggressive toward my mom and brother, biting them both on the neck hard enough to draw blood. Obviously we had to euthanize him. The vet told us that the tan-colored cocker spaniels were especially prone to problems, as their light color was a result of very close breeding.

I had English cockers growing up. Check out rage syndrome [0]. I only first heard about it a couple of years ago and it very accurately describes the behavior I saw in our dogs. FWIW, not all of our dogs were from the same breeder.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_syndrome

What kind of spaniels? I've got a working English Springer, healthy so far, from healthy working stock, but reading things like this makes me worry.

American cocker

There are acknowledged problems with pure breeds of all kinds, but not all pure breeds suffer from such extreme problems. It's possible to find a breeder with a strong bloodline free of many defects but it is not going to be cheap.

There are also many thousands of mutts in need of a good home for free.

and mutts, by their very nature, are far more genetically healthy than pure breeds.

Not sure why this was downvoted. "Free" isn't quite right, there are usually still nominal fees associated with adopting from a shelter, but compared to purchasing a purebred it might as well be free.

I've owned mutts my whole life, mostly medium-large dogs that you'd expect would suffer from hip dysplasia and so on, but they've all lived to ripe old ages and they've all been smart as a tack. Hybrid vigor is awesome.

I have a mutt and a purebreed (Anatolian Shepherd).

The Shepherd isn't even a year old yet and she looks like she has trouble standing up when she's been laying down a while. Maybe her legs just fell asleep, I don't know.

She was free. Some family has them to keep with the livestock, and they bred them--I took the runt.

The mutt looks mostly boxer to me, the pound said boxer/shepherd mix. She's beautiful, very smart, and loyal, and just incredibly quick outdoors--best dog I've ever met.

Anyway, just my one data point.

Virtually all pure bred dogs have have genetic issues.

A "pure" gene pool can only get smaller, never larger.

Not all pure bred dogs have health problems. If you take the time to find a breeder who cares about the dogs more than money then you can find dogs that are healthy and well cared for. This takes effort though and research.

Very thorough research as many breeders will hide genetic inbreeding through confusing naming of sires and bitches.

Source: My father breeds GSDs for maximum diversity. Very few of his dogs suffer hip dysplasia or congenital heart defects.

Your "German Shepherd" today is nothing like the purebreeds from the WWII era. They were bred afterwards for looks, nothing else. The inherent intelligence remained and was left unchanged, everything else was selectively bred, so you get to enjoy cardiac failure and hip dysplasia as a result.

Is there some connection between the breeding of the German Shepherd and WWII? My impression is that the breed dates back at least fifty years before that.

German Shepherds were the dog of choice on both sides in WWII, and capture the public's emotion.

Disney made a historical drama "Chips, the War Dog" in the 90s. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099262/ (Though FYI, Chips was actually a Sherperd-Collie-Husky mix.)

Germans extensively used Giant Schnauzers as well. In WWI as medic dogs, WWII as guard dogs. The breed was annihilated by the Russians as they extinguished almost every kennel and took home prime specimens to breed for size. This is why Giants have two types: German soft coats and Russian hard coats which are also physically larger.

I have it on good authority from a couple Giant breeders in the USA that the Russians went on this kennel extermination campaign because the German soldiers were feeding dead Russians to the dogs. I have not seen this specifically documented anywhere though. It would be nice to know the true motivations behind the ruthless killing of these dogs by the Russians.

For a long time, as a German Shepherd owner and enthusiast, I believed the old adage about white German Shepherd's being "awful." Granted, in some cases this holds true - pink skin, pink noses - typical of melanin deficiencies in the skin (and often in the eyes & brain) buuuuuut that's not where the bias started.

Some of the founding Shepherd's were white! The foundation stud, Grief, was white. The creator of the breed is on record saying that white dogs have no less working capacity than any other color... So what happened?

Turns out, this was due largely to nazi influence, too. The WWII era really transformed the German Shepherd. From a pastoral sheep-herding companion came a military machine. White dogs, while good at blending in with the flock and being spotted by a Shepherd in the field, were not so good on the battlefield, unfortunately for the same reasons. You can see them coming at night, they are easy targets on a black mountainside.

In other words, the ideas of the time have an ENORMOUS impact on the dogs we create. I don't doubt the Giant Schnauzer story for a second. Breeds evolve to suit the government, the people, and the culture that they are born into...

It does, but Nazi control over Germany shaped and changed the kennels significantly. The Verein fur Deutsche Schaferhunde (the breed organization for the GSD at the time) was relinquished to Nazi control a few years before the founder of the breed, Von Stephanitz', death.

Nazi influence on breeding and the use of dogs for experiments (Hitler's "beloved" German Shepherd, Blondi, was famously fed a cyanide pill to test its effectiveness) had quite an impact. Many of the best bloodlines have vanished because of this (in Blondi's case, her puppies were shot and killed after her death) but because of the dogs military value, this was of course not the fate of all of them.

The ancestry of the "working line" dogs we have today can be traced back to these same dogs that fought alongside soldiers in WWII. What's left of them, anyway.

I'm glad you used the phrase "get a pure breed" as opposed to "purchase a pure breed". There are far to many amazing dogs that need a home to spend money buying a dog.

If you want a rough story, look at the Bernese Mountain Dog. Twenty years ago the life expectancy of the breed was only 7 years due to congenital heart problems. Breeders have been working to breed it out of them and introduce more variety in the genome of the breed for some time and their life expectancy has been going up.

The key is to at least get a diverse line, though I don't think there's any reason to get a pure bred dog unless you want to show or breed it yourself.

My father recently purchased a Sharpei. It's father was also it's grandfather because it was basically the product of two kennels interbreeding. In humans go as far as to outlaw that in many countries. In dog breeding it's a matter of course.

Be honest - "in dogs, its a matter of course". Lets not paste human social constructs on an animal.

Maybe I'm ignorant but my understanding was it's not really a social construct for us, it's often rooted in the understanding of genetics that makes inbreeding a bad idea.

Mostly myth. The first million years nobody cared. Inbreeding over time is a bad idea, if the gene pool is too small. But line breeding(?) like done with dogs (and cattle and pigs and ...) is not a death sentence, nor even a very bad idea unless taken to extremes.

> I don't think there's any reason to get a pure bred dog unless you want to show or breed it yourself

There is one other reason - working dogs. Livestock guardian for example is a job that's very poorly suited for mutts due to the genetic personality traits involved. An LGD with chasing, shepherding, or tracking instincts would be at best worthless, and at worst a danger to your animals.

Yes, but a working breed is vastly different to a domestic breed. Working dogs need to be intelligent, obedient, and free from health problems.

Depends on the line and the particular confirmation of the dog. For German Shepherd's specifically, dogs from "working lines," tend to be absent of these issues because their breeders focused more on the dogs temperament and behavior than confirmation. Ergo, you have a sturdy, intelligent, willing dog with minimal health problems.

I am a professional trainer. I have 2 German Shepherds, one is a "show line" and the other is a "working line." The showline dog has congenital health issues and grew up with terrible confirmation. The working line dog last weekend rolled about 150 feet down a mountain while chasing his ball and just walked it off.

Having a mixed breed dog can be a great thing, but it is no more a guarantee against confirmation and health issues than any other dog. The real issue, IMO, is that clients/buyers don't know nearly enough about dog breeding to know if what is being advertised is actually a good thing.

Do you mean "conformation"?

Probably.

My oldest is 12 and still runs around like the energizer bunny. She's a pure bred shepherd.

Be more careful when you buy.

This is why the Whitehouse and a lot of security companies are switching to the slightly smaller Belgian Malinoise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/2...

And because of that, many pet owners now want Malinois* instead of Shepherds...because they saw one on TV and it looked super obedient and they think, well if the police are using them, it's probably just what I need to complete my apartment..!

You'll see the same problems in Malinois in - my guess - 3-5 years from now. Let a couple generations go by. Keep an eye out for phrases like "old world" and "large-boned" when you start seeing super-sized Mal's walking around Petsmart.

eternally SMH

Well they've been used as service dogs in place of german shephards for > 10 years. Not sure why you picked 3-5 years arbitrarily. They're bred for their actual talent as working dogs (and holy hell are they fast!).

You can get things like hip replacements for dogs now, but it isn't cheap. We had a knee replacement for our rottweiler that cost about $10K all up, but he was only 4 when it happened, had he been 8 we probably wouldn't have paid.

Holy cow! As a Rotty owner myself (beautiful Ruby),and shes had plenty of damn problems, but 10k, holy shmoly man, I can afford it too, but ahhh, thats so killer. For the record, I probably woulda done it too.

List of problems: suffered from Panosteitis until she was 2, tore ACL when 1.5 years old, had eye entropy surgery. The toughest was the ACL. Shes 7 now, suffers from pretty terrible arthritis which I combat with different stuff.

Tomorrow, my brother is taking his doberman shipped to the US from Serbia 3 hours away to the doggie dentist, where he has the most fucked up teeth you have ever seen. They are made of glass. My brother is already in over 7g's on the teeth, the dog is about to turn 2...

Anyways, you are a great human being and I am glad rottys are getting love like that.

This particular dog made himself an inside one and never quite realized he was too big to be a lapdog. We never had to ask him to do something, when the car was going out the gate for instance, he would wander up the stairs where he knew he was supposed to be without prompting. Later after I moved away he would play passive aggressive when I visited, ignoring me but betrayed by his waging tail banging on the ground.

I can't say we would have done the same for most other dogs we've had, but this one was special and we got another 8 years out of him.

German shepherds frequently carry the gene for Degenerative Myelopathy. Genetic testing for it has only become available in the past 5-7ish years. A reputable breeder will test their dogs for this prior to breeding now that the test is available.

There was a great video I saw about how "purebred" dogs are essentially a cesspool of genetic disorders, and how we need to start taking active steps to bring back genetic diversity in our dogs. It was eye opening to see that the pedigrees we put on a pedestal are actually putting our dogs through a host of abnormalities and health complications.

https://youtu.be/aCv10_WvGxo

There's also this BBC documentary https://vimeo.com/17558275

I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can manage to retain breed traits without damning the dogs.

If I had to slap down a guess on what is going on. The #1 issue is targeting cosmetic traits that are anatomically not functional. The #2 issue is breeders not prioritizing health over conforming to the breed standard. Pet grade purebreds may not look quite perfect to a discerning eye, but they can be very robust especially if they are a working dog.

If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues? Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch? Is it an ethical issue? Maybe. I mean I eat animals. I can't put myself on some high horse. At some point we make them to use so there is a balancing act going on.

The fallacy to watch out for is conflating breeder behavior and outcomes with outcomes for the breed if bred "properly."

> I mean I eat animals. I can't put myself on some high horse. At some point we make them to use so there is a balancing act going on

Well I must say it is rare to see someone sliding down their own slippery slope, bravo.

I appreciate it. If a vegan made that point it would be instantly viewed as self-righteous and ignored. Source: I make that point a lot.

Genetic clearances are much more common in the world of working breeds, since there is a market pressure to have dogs that can actually function in their job. Demand for working titles (search/rescue, agility, hunting championships, etc) also selects for more physically capable animals.

I have seen so many working GSD with hips so bad they are quivering. They stick out like a sore thumb. The selection process for working dogs is not perfect either. It's always been security theatre where I see these dogs. Granted I also see perfectly good dogs with great temperments some of the time.

Where working dogs are not status symbols, but a means to an end I agree there is market pressure. Assistance dogs in particular.

I should probably have clarified that, where the focus is on physical performance and trainability.

The focus on "sloped backs" among GSD breeders is a tragedy.

The problem is population size, breeders rarely have more than a few hundred dogs and lose diversity though selection, which given short lifespans quickly leads to problems.

> I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can manage to retain breed traits without damning the dogs.

> If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues? Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch?

You just answered your own question. Is it theoretically possible for any species (including humans) to be purebred/inbred while still avoiding the whole host of genetic disorders and health complications? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? Of course not. The video does a pretty good job of showing how so many purebred dogs have worse health compared to their mutt counterparts.

You bring up a good point about eating meat. Most of us are willing to trade off animal welfare/suffering for human pleasure and aesthetics, so why not apply the same principle to dogs. One argument is that most people who adopt dogs do so with the genuine intention to love them and care for their welfare/health. In fact, people get so attached to their dogs that they spend a great deal of money to promote their health, and deeply mourn their suffering/death. Given this, it only makes sense for dog owners to adopt mutts.

You can't make the argument that a mutt is universally better than a pure bred either. A mutt is a random assortment of components some of which are not ideal for life in human society or what you want in your particular pet.

Temperament is the most problematic because you can get a bad mix of drives and intelligence.

I think the question is whether what you get by picking the components is worth the cost? You won't answer that question with anecdata from a farcical comedy video. IMO the video does a lousy job of making any kind of useful point. I suppose it's good for awareness.

The video makes the exact mistake I warned about. You can't conflate what bad breeders do with what the outcome would be if all breeders were forced to conform to better standards or you find a breeder who breeds the way you want it done.

Straight from the video, breeders breed parents and children and siblings. It's sadly common that it will have happened at some point with many breeders. It's also insane and if you buy from a breeder that does that you have done something wrong.

If someone has some well thought out research comparing the outcomes of a known strong set of well bred dogs from a breed designed to be functional (for some definition) to a set of mixed dogs then we might have a way to quantify exactly what the cost is. Anything else is conjecture.

There are other strong arguments to be made for adoption and mixed breeds. Possibly for people unable to muster the expertise to find a breeder. I still think it's conjecture, but at least more reasonable sounding.

Some of those arguments apply to human breeding, but try having that conversation ;-)

My family trains and breeds hunting retrievers as a hobby. Hip displaysia, heart disease and eye disorders run rampant in the breed, particularly in show lines where the dogs are expected to be pretty and not be particularly athletic. Organizations like the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (http://ofa.org/) maintain public databases of genetic clearances for dogs in the effort to combat these problems.

If you want a purebred, adopt a rescue or buy one from a breeder that properly runs genetic clearances.

How do you "run genetic clearance"? It sounds quite ominous - do you kill the offspring that does not pass the clearance?

Most likely you can only breed sufficiently healthy animals.

One way to do it would be to test each candidate parent dog for the problematic genetics and simply not breed the ones that do have the problems. That isn't any more ominous than breeding in general.

Where it is possible it will also be more effective than culling; it should lead to a population of animals that are free of the problem altogether.

Clearances are run on the parent animals. In the case of hip displaysia, we have adult x-rays sent to OFA for grading - signs of the condition don't usually manifest until the dog is fully grown.

For pups, we have a refund/buyback policy for animals that do manifest such conditions. We have on occasion "adopted back" dogs that the owner could no longer care for, and we've never had a problem finding them a new home.

We did acquire one dog that received an OFA "Fair" hip rating (as opposed to "Good" or "Excellent"), and she simply didn't breed. She lived a long and happy life among the rest of the pack.

It wasn't mentioned there is a 23andme for Dogs called Embarkvet (Austin, TX the DNA is sent to Canada for processing strangely enough) We got our dog from craigslist due to timing and waitlist issues with purebred breeders. At first we were worried and got a DNA test. She's a mutt and now that I know I am happier albeit lucky there is nothing identifiably wrong with her. I think many prospective owners are afraid because there is a higher risk of uncertain behavior and characteristics from mutts. The DNA tests took 2 months however, most people buy puppies at 8 weeks and no breeder wants to shell out $150-$200 dollars and puppies are harder to sell the older they get sadly. I think the cheaper and quicker these DNA test are the more the dog community will be able to open their eyes in a more transparent light. I've sadly met owners who want returns/discounts for defects in their purebred huskies which leaves me with mixed feelings.

https://embarkvet.com/dog/eevee2 (my dog's public results)

- 74.7% Siberian Husky - 7.7% German Shepherd Dog - 11.4% Alaskan Malamute - 6.2% Doberman Pinscher - clear of 160 genetic conditions

- https://embarkvet.com (non referral link) - http://fbuy.me/e2c-9 (my referral link for $30 off)

Vast majority of purebreds have some serious generic issues. I'm hoping that we as a society will solve this whole situation soon.

There is a BBC documentary on this https://vimeo.com/17558275

Whats the solution here?

Not breed to optimize for certain traits. But that's what dogs (and the current 'breeds') are all about anyway, both pugs and what most people consider 'anatomically correct' dogs.

Or at least don't optimize for traits that are disconnected from the health and wellbeing of the dog, like pure looks? Optimizing on more practical or athletic aspects probably makes it more difficult to end up with a sick dog.

Dogsled racing is a working area that has seen trend away from pure huskies. There are still plenty of huskies in the sport, but mixed teams are very common in the Iditarod now. In 2000 there were only three all-husky teams in the whole race. The racers are crossing with other breeds and bringing in new dogs that are more optimized for the race. There's a danger that in the long run they could end up with something extreme, like what greyhounds are for racing, but right now it's full of healthy, diverse dogs.

Mutts mostly, maybe a few different kinds of pure breeds. Might offend someone's aesthetic sensibilities (though I can't see why), but that seems like a worthwhile trade.

Ban breeding. There are plenty of dogs available for adoption. Once we run out of those we can reconsider the ban. Pretty simple stuff.

>Ban X

the username checks out

Realise that the incarceration (physically and/or psychologically) of animals for a purely comforting or entertainment purpose is an affront to proper morals.

Don't buy a pure bred, especially not at a premium.

Maybe: we stop using terms like 'purebreed' and 'mongrel'. Or reclaim 'mongrel'

I like the term 'natural dog'. "I'd like a medium sized natural dog with a long coat because it's cold here."

"Natural dog" is a silly term. Dogs are a domesticated animal and breeds have been around for almost as long as writing. [1]

I call mine a "mutt" - it's inoffensive and gets the point across.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed#History

Mutt is intended to be an insult. While I'm fairly confident I've never heard it used as such first hand, it's still the 2nd definition on whatever Google uses for defining things:

    a person regarded as stupid or incompetent.
    "“Do not give me orders, mutt.”"

'Dog' is also an insult, and for that matter so is 'bitch' (n.b. for non-English-speakers: 'bitch' is the English word for a female dog).

I don't think that there's anything wrong with calling things by their proper names.

If you wish to be pedantic, "mix" and "mixed breed" are fairly neutral terms.

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

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

Start calling purebreds "GMO dogs" instead.

Did you know purebreds contain chemicals?!

how about the term 'landrace'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dog_landraces

Have them mate with other breeds

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

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater in that approach.

Purebreds carry common genetic weaknesses. They also carry common genetic strengths. How confident are we that we can preserve the strengths as we mitigate the weaknesses?

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

> Can you imagine we did the same with humans?

I can! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalt...

Oh, there's a pretty good chance people will try doing the same for humans when genetic engineering becomes a tad more common/extensive. There's a reason talk of 'designer babies' and the likes is a hot topic, especially in regards of selecting for certain characteristics here too.

This is why mutts are the best. Genetic diversity is good. Anecdotal, but growing up my two mutts lived to the ages of 16 and 18...well past the life expectancies you see in the purebred world.

It's really a case-by-case basis thing.

I grew up with a mutt that I loved dearly. My parents got her because my Dad had read something or other in (I think) Popular Science about how the "dog of the future" would be a mutt, and the mutting of genes would suppress bad recessive traits. Then she got sick as a puppy, had an allergic reaction to her medication, and suffered permanent brain damage. That having been said, she was a perfect house pet; lived to be a very ripe old age and was good natured, just a little slow to respond to things.

If you're a breeder and there's something wrong in the genetics of the dog you're breeding, stop breeding that dog. But resolving genetic issues isn't as simple as just throwing mutts together; you really just roll the dice on a new set of strengths and weaknesses when you do that.

A mutt could still be the offspring of two pure bred dogs and have inherited genetic problems from both.

Exactly. Mutts may often be better than their purebred parents (by various objective and subjective criteria), but in the end it'll take a few generations of mutts and, well, survival of the fittest before you can see a general trend towards improvements in health and longevity.

Genetics are a lottery, starting with unhealthy parents the odds are against the offspring. It'll take generations for the population as a whole to move towards being healthier on average.

Well, the only problem with mutts (for me) is that you have no good idea on what size they will have as adults.

Living in an apartment I can't really have a big dog and by getting a breed dog (even if it's not really pure bread) I know it will not get too big for the space I have available.

I would rephrase this. The concern as an apartment dweller is less one of size, and more one of energy. I have a Bernese Mountain Dog (currently 110lbs/50kg) he's a great apartment dog, because he's low energy. Other residents in the building have much smaller dogs that pose a real challenge because the energy level doesn't match the space available

You are right, that's also an issue in my mind. A small, energetic and noisy dog wouldn't be a proper pet for an apartment as well.

Then again, it's exactly why I feel safer getting a breed dog that fits the basic requisites. In my parents home - that is quite big and with a lot of open space - we've got a mutt and we were very happy with him, but we didn't really have any constrains about how he would turn out to be as an adult.

For apartment dwellers I always recommend getting an older dog. Puppies are cute, but they're honestly a lot of work and generally high-energy. After just one or two years most dogs will settle down and you'll have a very good idea of what you're going to get. The adult dogs are perfectly trainable. Most people who get puppies also have no actual skill in how to train dogs, so they're basically rolling the dice on what their dog's personality is going to be like.

Rescue organizations (in the US at least) are a great place to find dogs. The dogs have often been in a domestic setting with a foster owner. The history of the dog is usually known. You'll be adopting dogs in the 2-8yr range and you'll have a great idea of what you're getting.

It can take a while to find the right dog, but it should. It's a decade-long commitment.

That's one of the reasons I like Australian Cattle dogs. They are still mutty enough that there aren't a whole lot of genetic issues in the breed.

Of course, they are also very smart, tough, low-maintenance, and tend to live for a very long time. Some are a little over-active, but mine will happily lay in her bed all day and sleep, as long as she gets a good walk in the morning.

Suppose there was a breed of, say, monkey, that was popular as a household pet. They were considered to be quite clever and could be trained, over some years, to use a toilet, fetch things from the fridge, even manage primitive forms of communication. The only problem is that they're a genetic trainwreck. They've got a pronounced, gourd-like head with a snout so compact that it's common to have to surgically remove some of their teeth. They've got limited ability in their front legs that forces them to spend their entire life in an abnormal posture, resulting in a cornucopia of spinal and joint problems that cause many of them lifelong pain. On top of all this, all of their natural defenses (claws, canines, protective fur) have been bred out and disease traits bred in (myopia, hemophilia, diabetes, and so on). Now, knowing all of this, suppose your sister, who already has three of these things running around her house, calls up and gleefully announces that they're getting another one. What do you tell her?

Well, when the monkey gets older it can use tools to defend itself, as well as keep itself alive. However, I would perhaps suggest teaching it abstinence, sterlilisation if it has one of the particularly debilitating genetic diseases

Humans are apes not monkeys.

What if you sister called and said there was a safe, cheap and effective way to remove, say, the myopia from her spawn (in the case of dogs, stop inbreeding, in the case of humans, currently imaginary)? Would you tell her not to do it?

I had some in-laws at one point who had a kid with cystic fibrosis, and they decided to roll the dice and have a second one. (Murphy's Law won that round.) I can't imagine convincing those people to get their $1200 purebred pug[1] neutered for the good of the species.

[1] https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/much-pugs-87fd8b209ca...

I imagine the thing to do would be to sell healthy dogs for $1500 (make sure lots of people say they are worth $1500).

so their second kid had CF too?

We aren't apes or monkeys.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans...

That is a very long-winded and opinionated article just to make the point that "ape" is not a taxonomic term, and it's not used completely consistently.

In any case, please don't promote anti-science articles (this one begins by complaining about "those who accept and promote evolution").

The writer is a Professor of Anthropology. Don't jump to conclusions.

sorry, i came across way too bluntly. i really should have noted how suprised i was the an expert thinks its a misconception to think of ourselves as apes.

in any case, i think the author is very much in favour of science.

Hmm. We're "Great Apes" (hominids), but not "Apes"? That seems to violate common sense, in my opinion.

I've had good success with telling people about how the industry works. These people probably like dogs (which is why they are getting them) and showing them that dogs suffer quite a bit due to their choices can be convincing.

https://xkcd.com/1650/

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

People aren't binding pug's snouts. They just grow into hideously deformed beasts all on their own like people do.

The successive generations of pure breeding are pretty artificially imposed.

I think your confusing breeding with tail docking.

I'm really not. Foot binding is similarly debilitating to the squished snout. It wasn't possible to choose an example that was literally the same because human's don't breed themselves for deformities.

If anything, now that we can test, many people take steps to make sure their children don't end up with debilitating traits. Having back issues when you are 60 isn't even remotely in the same league as the back issues these dogs end up with.

> humans don't breed themselves for deformities.

Except maybe intelligence, I fail to see how the traits we breed for could be considered anything but deformities if a baboon had them.

Right now the only thing people are selecting for is wanting to breed and ability to provide for one's family. Sometimes. A study of who fucks who would be really interesting, but kind of useless because what would you do with the information?

That second part "ability to provide for one's family" means something though, doesn't it? Our societies aren't perfect, but "ability to provide for oneself/family" does generally mean that they have certain desirable traits.

My response would be "Is it possible to get a version of this monkey without these problems? No? Then go ahead."

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

I mean, I know you're being ironic, but that's really an inaccurate view of people. Sure, we have certain diseases, but we're hardly unique in that regard. We live decades longer than our closest relatives, even without medical intervention. In terms of natural defenses, we are an apex predator, and have been even in the hunter-gatherer days. Even ignoring the fact that we are the most intelligent species on the planet, we're also one of the greatest distance runners in the animal kingdom.

Probably nothing. Monkeys are a telling example: almost nobody cares for a monkey, so in the absence of some genetically compromised monkey bred for suitability as pets, there not only would be no pet monkeys, but also fewer monkeys overall, as humans edge monkeys out of their habitats more and more every year.

Totally agree! The only counter argument I've heard ist that purebreds also have predictably the same character traits, which is important if the dog has to fulfill a job. But to private owners health and longevity should matter more.

See https://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-year... for an eye-opening view of how much breeders have changed dogs for the worse over a century.

Folks might enjoy reading The Dog Wars:

https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Wars-Border-Battled-American/dp/0...

Border collies were extremely functional dogs, and a subset of border collie owners did not at all want their dog breed to be part of the American Kennel Club, lest they start being bred for appearance or some other random irrelevant attribute.

I have mused on occasion about the consequences if, given a world in which the only dog breed was a kind of domesticated wild dog bred for nothing in particular, someone created dog breeds such as we recognise today and presented them to the world.

I reckon that person would get lynched. We put up with an awful lot of things just because that's how they were when we got here.

The problem is that for the last two centuries we've been breeding for conformance with an æsthetic standard, rather than breeding for conformance with a work- and health-based standard. My understanding is that many of distinct traits found in show breeds were originally working traits, but have now become exaggerated & useless.

Personally, I don't care for the idea of breeding show dogs. It's one thing to breed dogs for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting or herding): then the negatives of particular trait are the cost of its benefits. There's no (IMNSHO) valid benefit to a non-productive trait.

For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question:

Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?

No, the reduced quality of life for existing dogs isn't enough justification for euthanization (except maybe in extreme cases).

I'd say it's probably unethical to breed more brachycephalic dogs, and by extension unethical to purchase those dogs from breeders (unless maybe the breeders have ceased to breed these dogs).

Ok. Can I assume we agree that nobody is obligated to own or care for a dog of any sort? I apologize in advance if you don't agree.

With that stipulated:

If the benefit a dog obtains from living outweighs --- in all but the most extreme cases --- the suffering that dog will have due to its genetic defects, AND people are entitled to make a rational decision not own a dog, are they not ethically entitled to select any breed they want? How would it be more ethical to create no benefits for any dogs than to create compromised but net-positive benefit for some dogs?

I don't think the argument still works of you view the different companion animal breeds as generally fungible. You would need to make the argument that the breed would need to somehow be substantially better than other choices or else it would always be better to pick other dogs.

That's a good point I forgot to account for. But it can be accounted for: even if we stipulate that it's not ethical to acquire genetically compromised dogs purely for aesthetic reasons, there are other attributes of these dogs breeds that make them more suitable than others. For us, it was a requirement that the dog be content on its own, amiable with other dogs and children, and not excessively demanding of exercise that we'd be unable to provide it (we're simply not around most of the day).

Were no dog available that could reliably provide those attributes, our choice would certainly have been not to acquire a second dog.

But I also think, for what it's worth, that it's still ethically tricky to dispose of the question of whether it's unethical to select dogs for appearance. I think you can predict the argument I'd make there.

I think it's critical to distinguish between:

a) Given existence: significant suffering, but not enough to justify ending the existence

b) Given no existence: creating an existence knowing you'll create the same amount of suffering as in (a)

Something meaningful is created by the very fact of existence. Or, should I say, already existing matters a lot.

No, were not obliged to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately. The reason is that the (a) desire for the dog to live and (b) emotional bond between dog and owner usually outweighs (c) the suffering of the dog.

But in choosing a dog to bring into the world, (a) and (b) have no weight, so (c) wins

Putting aside the pain it would cause dog owners to have their pets put down --- which I agree is a meaningful concern --- would we still be obligated ethically to end the suffering of these dogs?

For instance, to refine the point: some decent number of brachy purebred dogs are currently in shelters (usually, specialized shelters). Those dogs have no owners and the human emotional pain that would be inflicted by euthanizing them is minimal. Should those dogs be put down, rather than rehomed? Bear in mind that it's actually pretty difficult to acquire a homeless purebred brachycephalic dog; they're in demand.

(We tried; our older dog is a rescue and we'd hoped to rescue an older purebred as well).

I'd say the desire for the dog to live should be considered. That is, even if (b) has zero weight, (a) can outweigh (c)

Can you help me understand how an extant dog could have a desire to live so ethically powerful that it overrides suffering, while it being simultaneously the case that it is unethical to bring such a dog into existence? It seems to me that your (a) implies that a living dog suffering from these defects is generating some benefit from living. Isn't it: maximum benefit > some benefit > no benefit?

That's a good question. I suppose I'm arguing for ethical framework in which I'm not the sole judge of costs and benefits.

I think the pug will suffer so much that its life is not worth living. But if the pug feels differently then to some degree I should respect that.

I guess my view is shaped by my empathy for the dog. How would I feel in his situation? Similarly, if I end up in a hospital bed racked with pain, do I want the doctor to make a cost-benefit analysis without regard for my own feelings?

Respectfully I want to creep up towards a presumptuous argument and say that you won't argue for euthanizing pugs because your gut tells you that whatever trouble pugs have due to their (many) health problems, a well-cared-for pug is generally a happy dog, and is not in fact living a life of overwhelming suffering.

We own a rescue mutt and a brachy purebred, and while I can't get inside the heads of either of my dogs, I would have absolutely no trouble telling you which of the two dogs is enjoying its life more. :)

I'm as much of a dog lover as anyone, but this seems really extreme.

People have known for a long time that brachycephalic breeds have many health problems, but just like people: why shouldn't they have a chance to live their life? I don't think it's fair to say that society as a whole has a responsibility to completely remove a type of animal from the world by force.

Instead: it would be great if more people were educated about this stuff. The more dog owners that know about this, the better. When I first heard about this I told myself that if I ever had a brachycephalic dog I'd ensure they were fixed, and didn't reproduce. That way I can take care of something and ensure it has a good life, but also prevent future generations from pain.

Dogs are great companion animals. If anything, we have a responsibility to help them out as much as we can and reduce suffering long term through education.

Just my two cents.

I think it is unethical to breed brachycephalic dogs. It's merely inconvenient to own them. I don't blame dog owners for not knowing better.

I blame dog breeders for knowing better and breeding the dogs anyway.

Never say "ethically obligated" and "euthanasia" in the same sentence. That is asking the wrong question - but for the record the answer is no. Obviously. In addition to such a thing being impossible, there are easier ways forward. :-)

On suffering, the fact of the matter is that the dogs really have no idea that they're suffering. They just exist. They know nothing more than what they are exposed to, and what they perceive.

I feel that if we are obligated to do anything, it is simply to change how and for what purpose we breed animals. Deciding that the pug can still exist - with a longer nose - or that the Dalmatian can exist after they breed out their uric acid problem is attainable. It just takes work. And support, from pet owners and breed lovers, to guide people and to vote with their money.

Before I had to give my pug up this past summer - I used to take him for good length jog daily, and he would frequently out pace me. If a pug is in shape, it will do great. If you just feed it hotdogs all day and only infrequently give it proper exercise, then yes, I could see it being an anatomical disaster. Compare this dog's fitness http://imgur.com/a/doIi9 with the dog in the linked article.

your pug seems to have a slightly longer nose but I agree- pugs are a breed that seems to live a long time with pretty good health. I've known more than a few pugs older than 15 years.

Yep - had a pug when I was younger who had a more pronounced snout. No breathing issues, didn't get super dirty in his folds, etc. His mother on the other hand had a super flat face and had all of the typical pug issues. The tiniest bit of a snout makes a huge difference.

I'm afraid you may be missing the point. The evidence you give (dog runs faster than you) doesn't really mean anything, and exercise does not affect anatomy.

These are vets giving expert opinions and you are a (former) pug owner with an anecdote.

Ok I will take the bait - breathing, especially over the course of lets say ~45 minute run should definitely have some relation to the part of anatomy the article was talking about (specifically, the vets are claiming that the smashed nose shape makes it harder for them to breath, in relation to other dog breeds). Surely being able to breathe correctly is necessary to run for 45-50 minutes continuously? What I am claiming, with my anecdote, is that maybe exercise can help alleviate problems related to being out-of-breath (certainly it does for people!) Based on my anecdote, one might suspect that the vets conclusions do not hold true for 'all' pugs. Maybe their argument is statistical, based on an analysis of a large number of pugs. Personally, I have seen many more out-of-shape pugs than in-shape pugs. On the other hand, maybe they are specifically arguing against very inbred variations, in which case, they are making a point against very in bred variations, and not pugs in general.

They're arguing that you shouldn't buy a pug as at the moment because a large proportion of the population of pugs will suffer terrible health problems

That you had a single individual that you believe did not suffer from the issues related to extreme brachycephaly doesn't really tell us much.

The problems are only partly related to inbreeding - selecting for dogs with such squashed heads is bad in and of itself.

So get the ones that are fit like the one in the anecdote and breed them? This entire thread is such a non-issue.

That's not happening, breeders are breeding dogs that uave all sorts of problems and people are buying them in droves.

That's the issue!

Is it really an issue?

As long as the animal is happy, I don't see the problem of a shorter lifespan.

You can simply (and sadly) have it put down in an humane way once it starts to get health issues. Plenty of pets don't make it past 8 years.

What I am trying to point out is that it should be impossible to enjoy prolonged daily aerobic exercise under the constant respiratory distress the article is claiming for 'all such brachycephalic dogs.' Let me quote directly from the article: "The only time these dogs are not in some degree of respiratory distress is when you have them intubated under anaesthetic." What I am claiming, as a proof by contradiction of sorts, is that with proper exercise, it is possible that such a dog will not suffer from respiratory distress all the time, like the article is clearly claiming.

Firstly, are you qualified to know if your dog was not in "some" degree of respiratory distress?

And again, your dog might have been ok. Hell, you might have got a classical pug with a longer snout and few issues.

The problem is that there are vast numbers being bred and sold that do suffer from these problems, and no amount of exercise is going to help them.

This is a solvable problem, if people stop selecting for dogs with collapsed faces.

Responsible owners of pure bred dogs discuss these issues with their veterinarians. We own a rescue mutt and a brachycephalic purebred, and had this discussion with our vet. You're a commenter on a message board projecting authority from a few sentences from an advocacy piece in The Guardian.

I concede that the ethics of purebred ownership remain a live debate after this comment, but hopefully we can eliminate right now the notion you have that you can club down other commenters with the question "are you a vet?".

And responsible vets and veterinary associations are now starting to publicly say that there are problems with these breeds.

It's not even the ethics of purebred ownership in general - it's the ethics of selecting for known harmful traits, and people buying them in droves due to little more than fashion.

You see how your argument has now forced you to second guess our veterinarians? You're now making a special pleading: the veterinarian in the advocacy piece you just read in The Guardian is honest, and all other veterinarians aren't. And, yes: that is also a rhetorical weakness of the Guardian piece itself: it attempts to generate authority in part by invoking a narratively compelling worldwide conspiracy of cruel veterinarians.

I'm sorry, in what way did I second guess vets?

I'm not making any special pleading here, the guardian piece is backed up by publications from the British Veterinary Association. I'm not impugning any vets, it looks like the entire profession is moving this way in the UK.

You're reading things into my argument which just aren't there, and what's more it feels like you haven't fully read the article.

Once again: we discussed the issues of our breed in detail with our vet. Our vet, I think you can infer, does not agree with this advocacy piece. Your argument depends on the notion that only the veterinarians who agree with you are qualified to voice opinions. That's special pleading. It's not a complicated point.

Also: please stop suggesting that commenters haven't read the article.

I can't infer anything, what did your vet say?

What do you think the article is advocating? Because AFAICT it's not euthanasia, it's to stop supporting breeders in their quest for ever 'cuter' brachycephaly.

I know the article isn't advocating euthanasia. I think that, too, is a flaw in the logic of the article.

I think it's totally fine to exhort people who don't have strong dog preferences to select non-compromised dogs. It also makes sense to me to advocate rescues. We own a rescue, too. Where you lose me is when you suggest that it's unethical to purchase a purebred dog.

Acquiring a rescue when you have a preference for a purebred puppy is an ethically positive action. I think few people here would disagree with that. The fallacy in your argument is that the positive outcome of acquiring a rescue does not automatically imply that a acquiring a purebred is ethically negative; it can be --- and I think usually is --- ethically neutral.

No, I'm suggesting to you that it is unethical to breed dogs that will suffer predictable, known, severe health problems.

Further that purchasing from such breeders is also unethical.

I understand that to be your argument. I'm saying, you haven't made a coherent case for it.

I'm not sure I should have to, you're advocating unnecessary suffering.

You haven't established that the suffering is unnecessary. Unless I'm obligated to own a (second) dog, a compromised dog is better (for the dog!) than no dog at all.

>Firstly, are you qualified to know if your dog was not in "some" degree of respiratory distress?

I had a little red dog when I was a kid. A mutt,a little larger than a pug, with short legs.

She would run alongside me while I rode my bike, say at 15km/h.

One time she ran till she collapsed. I felt really bad for not noticing that she was running too hard.

She had so much heart I think she would have run herself nearly to death if I let her.

After that I never rode fast when she was with me.

15 km/h is quite fast

Anyone looking to get a dog should do their research before getting a dog.

I have a pug. I made the decision after doing a lot of research and finding a breeder that clearly understood the health issues that pugs face, and was able to explain what he and other breeders have been doing to improve the health of the breed, including what factors they look at when deciding which pugs are healthy enough to bear/sire a litter.

My pug is getting close to 4 years old now. She did have to have surgery to remove some skin and to change the shape of her lower eyelids because hair would rub against the eyes, which caused pigment to be pushed up. It's still a common problem with pugs, and breeders know it. The worst case scenario for my pug at this point is that I'll need to put an ointment containing ciclosporin in her eyes daily for the rest of her life.

Beyond that, her vet is extremely happy with her health and doesn't expect her to have any of the common health issues pugs face. Yes, I have to be careful about letting her get overheated when it's hot out, but other than that, she has no breathing issues. I watch her weight carefully since pugs are greedy little things. Many people think a pug is supposed to be fat, so a 6.3kg female pug looks very skinny to them.

There are still plenty of unscrupulous breeders who don't care about the health of pugs, but spending time to make sure you aren't getting a pug from one of them will put them out of business, and leave the breeders who are doing a good job restoring the health of the breed.

I had a friend in elementary school who had an English Bulldog. One summer it just died laying on the kitchen floor, at age 4 or 5. Not enough oxygen.

Pretty messed up.

The evolution of the pug: https://youtu.be/iHPozu1raQo?t=2m12s

Upvoted for Loriot :D

Adopt a greyhound or galgo español instead of buying purebreds. It's a noble cause, and they are both healthy races in comparison.

I live in a neighborhood and several of my neighbors have greyhounds that they've adopted who were former race dogs.

Probably the most docile, loving, affectionate dogs. And absolutely gorgeous animals.

Alternatively, go to a local shelter and get a mutt.

Pure breeds that are bread with no caring for genetic issues shouldn't be allowed.

And you shouldn't be purchasing from a puppy mill anyways when there are so many dogs that need homes.

Small plug: If you are in San Diego this Sunday Feb 12th there is a large dog adoption event with hundreds of dogs and cats looking for homes. (I'm volunteering there.)

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/events/2017/feb/12/11th-annual...

Pug parent here. As many other comments have mentioned, brachycephalic dogs are only one kind that suffers largely as a result of selective breeding by humans. I have the (somewhat) unfortunate opinion that brachycephalic dogs are also by far the cutest. Nothing makes me happier than being with my pug.

I think this particular article brings up two important things about dogs as pets, but fails to connect them properly: 1) some animals suffer much more than others due to selective breeding 2) we should not buy them. Perhaps the author actually intended this, but as written it doesn't go far enough: We should not be supporting animal breeders at all, regardless. Creating animals that are dependent on humans for survival is wrong, as is giving people a financial motivation for creating more of them. Animals are not a commodity—they are living beings that feel just like we do.

What I think we should do is take care of the lives we already have (adopt animals in shelters and rescues and take the best care of them you can) but stop breeding animals as human companions, and certainly don't support those who do financially.

This viewpoint goes hand in hand with my beliefs on a more philosophical level: veganism and antinatalism.

I disagree. From an evolutionary standpoint right now, the best thing an animal could do would be to be liked by humans. If we disband our love for cats and dogs and stop using them as pets, then after a while the only remaining ones would be seen as pests and would be suppressed or eradicated.

With that said, I agree that our breeding of purebred pets should be stopped. It hurts the pets with no benefit to us other than bragging rights.

Well, we invented dogs. So while it is a good morale argument that breeding co-dependency into a species and infantilizing an otherwise very self-sufficient predator is a bad thing, its probably not going to happen. At least not in our lifetime.

Which brings us back to improving the standards for breeding that we have today. Some dogs, such as Dalmatians and Bulldogs, are genetic atrocities and should not be bred in the way that they are right now. Not only is it irresponsible, it results in a very poor quality of life for the resulting litter.

Standing firmly against these practices as an industry - as pet lovers, as professionals - is a difficult, but remarkably achievable goal.

I don't know why people buy dalmatians. My only experience with the breed was my childhood friend's dalmation, who was an asshole and bit me.

But I do know why people buy bulldogs. They're easygoing. They have high medical and upkeep maintenance costs, but very low day-to-day costs. They're suitable for families with small children or other pets. They're grateful for play time when it's available, but not harmed by prolonged inattention. They're not so big that you couldn't own one in an apartment.

If there's another, healthier breed with the same characteristics and no major health problems, I'll concede that people should buy that breed and not the bulldog. But I don't think that's the case.

Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument. If you need those attributes in a pet, your alternative to a compromised dog is no dog at all. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that bringing a genetically compromised dog into the world is an ethical positive, I can't find a way to it being ethically negative. It seems pretty neutral to me.

Obviously: to responsibly acquire one of these dogs, you need to be educated about their issues and committed to ensuring their comfort as best as can be done.

I looooooove Dalmatian's. They're so pretty and spotty and different looking.

On the other hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why someone in their right mind would buy a bulldog. lol. They slobber and fart and cost a small fortune just to keep alive for a reasonable period of time. Not to mention they literally cannot give birth without a C-section which, to me, is just unfathomable to put an animal through just because you like the way the animal looks. But to each their own, eh?

> "Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument"

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

If you want an apartment-sized dog that has like, no health issues, adopt a pit bull. Adopt a mutt. Adopt a labrador. If the dog tears up your shit, hire a trainer. If it needs exercise, exercise it more. Etc.

You can certainly choose a breed (or mix) that will have a significantly better quality of life without sacrificing anything personally. In which case, why would you instead choose a breed that is for-sure without-a-doubt no-way-around-it riddled with problems? The ethical negative seems obvious because there are plenty of other dogs that fit the bill without sacrificing their health from jump.

I will agree with you on education being an important factor in choosing a dog. But very few people have the in-depth education required to make that choice in the first place so, like I said, the responsibility ultimately falls on the BREEDER.

This is like saying, "if you have a set of requirements X, Y, and Z, don't have those requirements". If we didn't have those requirements, we'd have bought a different dog. If the dog that met those requirements wasn't available, we simply wouldn't have bought another dog. No healthier dog's welfare was impacted by our decision to acquire this particular dog.

Isn't that a bit of a misrepresentation of the problem though? The genetic problems that bulldogs exhibit aren't results of the traits you mention, but of conformance to a breed standard and the trends of a very small minority of bulldog owners (those that show them).

Unfortunately, that small minority drives the cost of bulldogs and thus drives the breeders. If the bulldog standard was revised to a healthier expectation and the show dog fashion was for more robust dogs, the breed would improve in the areas where it falters now and it wouldn't impact the traits you mentioned right?

I'm uncertain of that. American bulldogs, for instance, are much more demanding than English bulldogs. Part of what you're buying in a bulldog is a low-energy dog.

American bulldogs are specifically bred for 2 traits against what you mentioned size & energy. So I think that is largely a bad counter example.

Granted I have no idea about dog breeding but you can see in the history of the bulldog itself that it is getting more exaggerated in the traits that make it less healthy. Do we know if they are getting more companionable?

You're right, I don't know, but it was my understanding that the "healthier" modern bulldog breeds are also much more active.

How do you mean? When you say "misrepresentation."

All breeders (in theory) are breeding to the "breed standard," which means if the standard says to breed unhealthy dogs then that's what they do. Because of the existence of the standard in its current state, even 'pet owners' (rather than dog showers/breeders) will be forced to buy dogs that are unhealthy. It is by design. This is precisely why it must be changed.

I am of course referring to the English Bulldog when I say "all" (this variety is overwhelmingly unhealthy) whereas the American variety seems to be significantly better off.

So - YES, we should change the standard to focus on health. But - NO, breeders are not "the minority." Not all breeders show their dogs, not all handlers breed the dogs they show, but because they are the ones doing the breeding, the responsibility begins with them.

Get a whippet. Sleep all day with a few nutty runs in park.

The article is misleading. I own two pugs, and it's a breed that must be kept fit and healthy. They can't be allowed to run hard in hot weather, and if it is hot they need a lot of water. The folds in their skin need to be kept clean as well. This is a very old breed, and the dogs do have a decent lifespan if they're cared for properly. I don't know about Bulldogs, but I've never owned one because they're only expected to live 6 - 8 years.

I've owned many different breeds over the years, and it's true that mutts are generally better health wise. They also tend to have better temperaments. I have pugs because I love them, but I also think too many people get them just because they're cute.

As a dog lover, it's going to be headlines like these that are going to get some well-needed discussion going. So on one hand I disagree with the thrust of the article that pugs are anatomical disasters, but on the other the whole 'purebred' arrogance needs to be taken down a few notches.

I think the problem is that with some breeds, a large proportion of the individuals will necessarily suffer from problems related to their deformed anatomy.

Pugs are just one example of a breed where breed characteristics (brachycephaly in this case) have gone far enough that it can be argued that continued breeding of them is cruel, particularly f continuing to select for extreme breed characteristics.

Oh stop! Breeding them is cruel? Let's have a rational discussion without trying to lay a guilt-trip.

Yes, cruel, deliberately bringing dogs into the world that are likely to suffer pain and discomfort throughout their lives due to their extreme deformities.

What other word are you going to use?

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But pugs do not have to suffer pain and discomfort throughout their lives _if_ the owners are responsible. Many aren't, and sadly those dogs are going to experience pain and discomfort.

Wrong - many pugs and other breeds are anatomically disastrous, and will suffer throughout their lives regardless of their owners.

That's the whole point of the article.

Since nobody is obligated to care for a dog of any sort, the bar is somewhat high for the claim that owning breeds with genetic defects is unethical. If you can support with evidence the claim that no matter how carefully the dog is kept, its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence, then you've made a powerful argument against those breeds. Otherwise, you probably haven't.

Nobody is obligated to create a creature that will suffer for its entire life either.

I'm not sure one needs to prove that its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence - merely that a sufficient amount of suffering is likely, and the benefits are equally obtainable from a dog without these problems.

It is unethical to bring into existence a dog that will suffer pain every day of its shortened life, even if it is a happy dog and brings joy to ita owners, if the alternative is to bring one into existence with a slightly less deformed head that does not suffer so.

We own a rescue and a brachy purebred. We acquired the brachy dog due to the temperament and exercise requirements of the particular breed. Had our only option been to acquire a mixed-breed dog with typical dog exercise and attention requirements, our choice would almost certainly have been to acquire no new dog at all.

I am having trouble making your argument cohere. I can't tell whether you think our brachy dog should be put down immediately to end its suffering, or not. If not, I can't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that providing the best possible life for a genetically compromised pet is worse than providing no life at all for any pet.

At no point have I or would I advocate putting your dog down unless or until its life became unberable due to pain.

What the article covers and what I agree with is that people should think very carefully before buying such a dog from a breeder, as breeders are engaged in breeding dogs for extreme looks that are very likely to experience considerable health problems. By buying such a dog you are incentivising the breeder to create more, with scant regard to the health of the animals.

So I'll repeat - nobody is saying you're evil for adopting a rescue pug, quite the opposite, you did a great thing! The advocacy is to stop buying them from breeders until the health issues have been addressed - probably by introducing greater genetic diversity and ceasing to select for extreme brachcephaly.

Can I ask why you feel the need to reduce everything to extremes? Why do you feel the only ethical options are "Put all the pugs to sleep" and "Yay pugs!" ?

Is it impossible for you to see a middle road - the individual dogs are to be cherished, but for ethical reasons we should change breeding practices and maybe discontinue some breeds?

My purebred brachy dog isn't a rescue. It's very difficult to acquire the breed of dog we own through rescues. The middle ground you say we should be on doesn't apply to me: you've made a continuous thread of arguments that what my family did was unethical, and I'm challenging you about that.

Clearly, you don't believe my family was obligated to acquire a second dog.

Clearly, you don't believe my brachycephalic dog should be put down. You concede here that whatever suffering my dog endures due to its genetic defects, they don't make its life unbearable.

Thus, you implicitly concede that my dog obtains benefits from being alive.

I agree, my dog does not obtain all the benefits that a well-cared-for mixed breed dog of good health would obtain.

But since the alternative to the dog we have is not "a healthier dog", but in fact "no dog at all", I am still having trouble reaching the ethical problem you claim exists with these dogs. Some benefit is better than no benefit at all.

In which case yes, I believe what you did was unethical, in suporrting the continued production of dogs known to suffer severe health problems.

You chose, deliberately, a.dog breed that would suffer, when there are others that would have suited the situation just as well.

No, there were not. I've explained that to you already, and you've simply chosen to ignore the basis of our preference. I'll repeat it for you: we needed a dog that would be amiable with people and other dogs, that would be comfortable in a not-especially stimulating household, and that would not have excessive requirements for exercise, since our house is empty most of the time. We chose our second dog based on temperament and requirements, not based on appearance.

You can believe my choice to own pugs is unethical and cruel, but I am not persuaded by your reasoning. I do not believe I have done anything wrong, and my dogs Bailey and Maya are not suffering. I will now end any further engagement with you.

If you want to engage in spirited debate with people and learn to persuade people to your point of view, have a look at this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0dCTvX0wzs&feature=youtu.be...

Your dog can't run in hot weather? Doesn't that concern you when there are millions of working dogs that are at the same fitness level, but wont die in hot weather?

I feel as though you justified the entire article in your second sentence?

Every responsible pug owns knows you should not run pugs _hard_ in hot weather. It can lead to organ damage. Pugs are not working dogs, they are companion dogs.

Because the poor beasts overheat and can't breathe properly!

Part of the point of the article...

I think he understands the article, and that you're not following his point. He's saying: yes, due to genetic defects in the breed, his dogs can't run in hot weather. Solution: don't have the dogs run in hot weather.

Alternate solution - don't breed dogs with extreme anatomical features that mean if they get overexcited in hot weather they can suffer organ damage.

You're begging the question.

I think I can speak for the entire thread when I say we all agree that one downside of the pug breed is that their genetic defects prevent them from performing in hot weather.

My question to you is: so what?

Surely we all agree that it would be cruel to buy a pug and then put it into circumstances that exacerbate its defects. But the person you're arguing with is a responsible pug owner, and is careful not to subject their dog to those conditions. So: why am I meant to care about whether that dog can run in the heat?

Virtually all pet dogs can't do some of the things that dogs would do in the wild. Why is running hard in hot weather one of our sticking points?

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

Do you believe that the article is 100% correct and speaks for all veterinarians on the planet?

It speaks for the British veterinarians, yes, that's what that group does.

I'm not British, I'm Canadian, and my mom was a breeder of Pekingese. She never made money at it, she simply loved the breed. I have known many Canadian vets, and have been around dogs my whole life. So I can speak to this issue with a degree of informed opinion that is higher than some others.

All of these concerns about brachys breeds has been known for centuries - yes, literally hundreds of years. Pugs and Pekes are very old breeds, are cherished by most owners I know, and in fact used to only be owned by wealthy families. But now that they are popular everywhere, the issue of these breeds being owned by people who are not fully aware of their limitations is an important discussion.

I can see veterinarians being concerned about general trends of a populace not giving due care (concerned only about the fact that they're "cute"), but to say that these breeds are doomed to suffer their entire life in the hands of a responsible owner is a point of view I believe to be incorrect.

Anything that can help the well being of canines I'm in favor of. Dogs truly are man's best friend. I'm even willing to endure some scorn and tolerate the occasional sensational article, because I don't think just anyone ought to own a dog. My pugs Bailey and Maya are not just pets, they're family to us.

But to accuse me of being cruel because I want these breeds to continue as they have for centuries? No. I don't buy it. You and the British vet society have not convinced me. Go scorn others who breed dogs to fight to the death or those that eat them.

I feel no guilt or shame whatsoever. I love pugs, and I hope to have many more in my life, maybe even be a breeder myself someday.

> and it's a breed that must be kept fit and healthy.

Are you saying that human intervention is needed to overcome the genetic flaws created by weird breeding?

Your comment persuades me that the article is right, and not that the article is misleading.

Independent of this fork of discussion, all pet dogs would benefit from being kept fit and at an appropriate weight (a good proxy for healthy)

As a dog owner I take this as part of my responsibility towards my dog. I control both his opportunity for exercise, and his diet.

There are many dog breeds out there, and some have been bred strictly as companion pets for human beings. So yeah, human intervention is needed to overcome the genetic flaws brought about by the desire to maintain certain genetic traits.

Being that I'm of two minds on this subject, I think it's reasonable for people to take a side here. I still think the article is a bit misleading, but it is accomplishing something important: discussion.

One of the dogs I have right now is a pug and it is by far the best dog I have ever had. I wish I could reliably get pug personality and behavior in a mutt. For me, one of the benefits of getting a dog of a specific breed is that it's a known quantity.

Yep, you're correct that purebreds have a more predictable pattern of temperament and known health challenges (all dogs have problems. Some have more problems than others). Pugs are very smart, and can be difficult to train unless it's done at an early age. Unfortunately (okay, not really :) our two pugs are so stubborn, they often decide "no, I'm not going to listen to you".

I've owned pugs, pekingese, airdales, yorkshire terriers, a cocker spaniel, and a variety of mutts. Pugs are definitely my favourite. We have an informal pug owners club that meet every week at a local dog park. Most of the owners there are responsible owners, and love these little guys as much as I love mine.

It's cool here in British Columbia, so the hot weather problem with pugs isn't as big of an issue. We have been considering moving to the Caribbean, but it's very hot down there. We would either have to leave them behind, or they would have to be indoors most of the time. We love these guys too much to just up-and-leave them, and we don't want to keep them enclosed like prisoners, so we are likely going to wait until they pass away before we move.

I wouldn't describe my pug as smart... but he's very, very happy.

I live in central Texas, so we have to deal with very hot weather. Dogs do get acclimatized to some degree, but we have to wait until the sun goes down to walk him. Even if he could deal with the hot air during the day, the temperature of the sidewalk and roads would burn a pug's feet.

One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea of breed have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?

Seems like a fair question. Dogs seem very versatile. Dogs are apparently like neonatal wolves, can we breed neonatal humans?

Humans are neonatal humans. But also we cross-breed a lot. The exception would be certain royal families in centuries past and we all know how that ended up. Human races are a result of a process similar to dog breeds, but the differentiation is nowhere near the same.

What do you mean by neonatal in this instance? My use of that word would be 'relating to newborn babies'... so "can we breed neonatal humans" seems to imply a different usage?

I think the word intended is "neotenous"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny

Well there are families that inherit hereditary disease, and inbreeding has been a problem in some communities in some eras, but it's always been far, far more localised than any culture or 'race'.

Breed in dogs is a product of selection by humans on dogs.

So no, no real analogy.

What about in communities that are basically closed by custom or by geography? Is how differences arise more important than the actual differences when it comes to talking about breed?

I'm thinking about aboriginal communities, Pygmy peoples, or even groups like the Ashkenazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics

(It's the most inflammatory of questions!)

To an extent, we can abstract dogs away as a thing we can categorize with detachment.

To start categorizing humans in such a manner invites similar detachment, with the hazard of conclusions potentially being applied to people.

All dogs can still interbreed, so they're still the same species. They're different enough from wolves that they're given a different sub-species, sort of like Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. However, the variety within domesticated dogs is similar to race.

What makes dogs breeds so different is that the dog genome is extremely plastic: it has a lot of room for variation as evidenced by how far pugs have come from wolves, even though theoretically they can still mate and produce fertile offspring.

> What makes dogs breeds so different is that the dog genome is extremely plastic

Is there evidence that dogs genome is more plastic than humans?

To my (very limited) knowledge we've not tried selectively breeding humans within bloodlines in anywhere near the same way that breeds of dog have been selected. Are there other domestic animals that have recieved the same degree of breeding but not reached such variation?

It's my understanding that breed in dogs would be more analogous to ethnicity in humans.

Whereas certain breeds of dog are prone to developing certain medical conditions, like hip dysplasia or heart failure, certain ethnicities of human are more likely to develop certain medical conditions, like Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia.

This touches on Eugenics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Dog breeds would be the equilivent of small groups of humans with very small genetic diversity. Perhaps, a small, uncontacted tribe. The defining characteristic of pure breeds if selective inbreeding, essentially.

Pugs are bred to look like human babies IMHO, with flat faces and eyes in front.

Even the size is about right.

Bulldogs

https://nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-be-s...

Personal anecdote: my family's yorkshire terrier just passed away from lymphangiectasia[0] - essentially his abdominal lymph nodes dilated and he was unable to absorb protein. Poor thing suffered from symptoms related to the disease for most of his life, but it got quite bad in the past couple of months before he passed away.

[0]: http://pets.thenest.com/lymphangiectasia-yorkie-dogs-12246.h...

Slightly related, I've always wondered when I look at various dogs when I am out and people are walking theirs, why some people would want a dog that is clearly struggling just to live. For instance, dachshunds, I look at them and think, running can't be easy for them. It just looks painful to be a dachshund. And there are many breeds we see each day I think something is really wrong with them.

It so crazy to me that some people own pugs, but won't eat a GM tomato. Were it not for our cultural baggage, it's would be obvious these animals are abominations.

In all fairness, the author is probably right that his or her clients would change vets if they told the client to stop owning brachycephalic dogs, and the client would be right to do so. People are deeply emotionally attached to their pets; it'd be a bit like a doctor setting a kid's arm telling the parent "These extra-long arms are prone to breakage; you should consider having children with someone with the genes for a stockier build."

Divorcing the general notion of a category problem from individual cases of ownership is hard, and honestly, Guardian op-eds may be the best option in the short-run.

This is a false equivalence. Parents of children can't choose their genetic traits. Pet owners have the choice of what breed to adopt.

> Parents of children can't choose their genetic traits.

In many cases they can, through genetic screening of eggs and artificial insemination. Few things make me sadder than seeing a kid with some genetic disorder, whose parents knew that was a possibility.

That's not fair at all.

People are deeply attached to their pets, once those are actually born and part of the family.

Here the vets just need to stop working with breeders. Those are not emotionally attached to their pets, and they are the one considering making specific adults mate for some specific genetic material.

Stopping this market has nothing to do with telling some family that they should just give up on their dog. It's far sooner than that, before the animal is even born, that a change has to be made.

Had an English bulldog. Great dog, but the breeders warned us they have it rough. Poor dog had a tough last year. I miss that ugly dog.

This doesn't work. You can't convince people who's income depends on staying silent to speak out. You need to convince politicians to make it harder on people breeding unhealthy dogs. Politicians yearn for topics to fight for if it can bring them voters. Vets yearn for people bringing their sick dogs to them and not another guy.

UK vets spoke out about mutilations[1] of pets long before politicians took action.

Vets lost money by refusing to perform these mutilations.

[1] declawing cats; tail docking; ear cropping, etc.

Did anyone else find this title pretty confusing before clicking the link?

Nope, 'twas exactly what I expected.

Most purebreds are

My wife and I got our dog, Andi, from a pound in Tampa, FL shortly after we were married. Andi was about a year old, and insanely hyper. We figured it was just because she was nervous about being stuck in a pound, and excited that we were spending time with her when most other people focused their attention on the younger puppies.

She was one of the older dogs the pound showed us, and we were told it was her last day before they had to euthanize her. I was skeptical at the time, assuming they could easily say this about any dog that they wanted to move quickly, but we fell in love with her and made the decision to adopt her into our family.

She's a mutt, probably part German Shepherd, and part something smaller and more energetic---turned out her hyperactivity was actually a persistent character trait. Despite growing to over 70lbs, in her mind she was a lap dog, incapable of concealing her excitement, jumping all over any guest who came to our home.

When she was 3, we found a tumor on one of her legs and spent what was, to us at the time, a considerable fortune to have it removed. The vet told us that when they tested her blood they found signs that the cancer had already spread, and gave her at most six months to a year to live. I cried about it then.

For the next several years we continued to find tumors and have them removed, each time being told that more tissue and blood tests have confirmed that she's probably not much longer for this world. After several years, we made the decision to stop putting her through the surgeries when new tumors showed up. It was incredibly expensive, it was stressful for her and us during her recoveries (keeping stitches in a dog as hyper as her was incredibly difficult), and she had already far outlived the life expectancy predicted by all of her vets. If it was her time, we decided, then so be it.

The growth of new tumors seemed do die down considerably around the same time we made that decision.

When she was around 10 or 11 years old, her penchant for continuously and violently wagging her foot-long tail at even the slightest provocation finally caught up to her. She somehow injured its tip, so whenever she was excited (several times per day) the wound would re-open and the halls of our house, her sides, and often our pants would get covered in a spattering of blood. No attempt to clean and close it up was successful, so we took the only option available to us. She kept wagging her little stub just as often and violently, starting the very same day we had it cropped.

She's fourteen now, and has finally slowed down. We can tell she's tired. She's at least partially lost control of her bodily functions and regularly has accidents. Her back legs are also starting to give out, causing her difficulty when going up and down stairs in this, the fifth house she's shared with us. Despite being "prepared" for this by a prognosis handed down well over a decade ago, it's still very hard to watch her body and mind slowly wind down. We've started having "the talk" about when we should do her the kindness of ending her suffering.

It's such a difficult topic---are we just "getting rid of her" because she's more annoying to take care of in her old age? Are we "keeping her around" too long despite her obvious suffering due to our own selfishness? How many moments of observed happiness during a day constitutes "enough" to justify her life to continue? How the hell are we supposed to make this kind of decision? These are the kinds of things that run through your head.

She's been a part of our lives for the entire 14 years we've been married, and an even bigger part of our kids' lives, who have not even known a time without her. She's been a kind, sweet, loving, and often infuriating member of our family. I wouldn't trade our time with her for anything. I love her dearly, and those tears I shed for her all those years ago when we found that first tumor are probably coming back for a second and final round some day very soon now.

And so ends my ridiculously maudlin stream-of-consciousness only tangentially-relevant comment. Moral of the story is, if you're looking for a dog, I definitely recommend staying away from the problematic breeds and giving a mutt from the pound a chance, otherwise you could be overlooking a fantastic pet.

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

Well we're not purposefully breeding humans specifically to give them cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. I'm sure if we did, the author would be calling for us to stop breeding specifically to get these genetic disorders.

I see what you're saying.

But I just rechecked the article and nowhere does the author call for us to stop breeding pugs.

If people stopped buying them, it would have that effect.

The ethical issues surrounding dogs are entirely different from those surrounding people. Additionally, humans didn't specifically select for traits in other people which caused genetic disorders to become rampant in an entire bloodline (with some accidental exceptions I suppose).

> Additionally, humans didn't specifically select for traits in other people which caused genetic disorders to become rampant in an entire bloodline

Well actually they did. Many East Asians have historically preferred lighter skin tones even though it increases melanoma risk.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2013.806386

There's infinite other examples of unintended negative consequences of sexual selection preferences.

Specific selection? Not with that knowledge in mind admittedly but some groups of people continue to inbreed regardless of the clear dangers of this for offspring. There is a country where 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins. The results are dire.

She's implying you shouldn't buy one, shouldn't fund the breeders who select for these unhealthy traits.

We don't delibrately select people with these conditions and breed them to make them worse. This is exactly what breeders are doing with brachycephalic dog breeds.

Everyone on this thread seems to keep making an analogy to humans, but that's pretty problematic. Remember, we also breed dogs, buy and sell them, and routinely sterilize them. The analogy doesn't really hold up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com