Study: Most Dog Breeds Highly Inbred
ucdavis.edu
ucdavis.edu
I have a family member that breeds dogs quite seriously - one of their goals is to reintroduce good health traits back into the (working) breeds and undo the awful effects of inbreeding. Sometimes this involves reading the breeders notes from over a hundred years ago and trying to reproduce the same result (it's not easy). Often it seems to be enough to introduce a few closely related healthy breeds and after three or so generations you can get back to something healthier and a good representative of that breed.
There are a few breeds that are in desperate need of serious dedication - namely short-nose breeds (i.e. Pugs, British Bulldogs, etc). Pugs are by far the worse I've encountered in terms of physical health defects, a significant number of Pug puppies are culled early on due to spine defects of breathing issues. Those that end up getting sold are almost guaranteed to end up with breathing issues.
One of the healthier dogs you can own tends to be a mid-sized Mutt (cross-breed). From annecdata, I've found that a Bulldog (typically strong working dogs, dumb but loyal) crossed with something smarter but mid-sized tends to yield good temperament, long-life dogs with average intelligence (which is a good thing [+]).
[+] Generally you want your dog to be smart enough to read your queues and work around you, but not so smart that it's getting bored or trying to figure out how to escape.
This could be understood as if the most intelligent dogs were always bored or trying to escape. To clarify: intelligent dogs do need more stimulation, this is very true. But as long as they get it, they're happy.
In theory many other breeds could be more intelligent, but border collie is the one most likely to be excited to learn how to be good at the tests we give the dogs.
> This breed doesn't suffer health problems due to inbreeding, because it isn't a (UK) Kennel Club breed
The paper aligns with what you say, it remarks that Collies are highly inbred but not suffering that much from it. Can you explain the significance of not being a Kennel Club breed? Can that be the whole story, though?
> There were interesting exceptions to the correlation of inbreeding and health. The Border terrier, Basenji, Collie, and English setter breeds have high inbreeding but low morbidity. Likewise, the Malinois, Pomeranian and Russian Tsvetnaya Bolonka (Russian Toy) have lower inbreeding and high morbidity. These example breeds are neither brachycephalic nor particularly known for extreme morphologies.
> In the case of healthy breeds with high inbreeding, it may be possible that these breeds have been purged of deleterious alleles as has happened with inbred mouse strains
> In the opposite situation, the recorded morbidities could be high allele frequency Mendelian diseases or potentially conditions linked to phenotypes under selection in the breed. These discrepancies could also exist due to population differences between the insurance data and the inbreeding data.
Well, the Kennel Club rates breeds in terms of their conformance to "spec", which is a lot about appearance. Inevitably, breeders breed to the spec. Border Collies aren't bred to any spec. (Collies are a different breed, which I believe is rated by the Kennel Club)
My beagle growing up extremely smart--he knew every trick you can think of; he could remember specific objects by name; track someone's scent in an instant if you said find XXX; and seemed at times to understand whole sentences. Unfortunately, he also was stubborn, independent, and had an insatiable drive to follow scents.
If she ever happens to see a squirrel or a chipmunk however she'll try to rip the leash off of your arm; if she's ever off-leash and sees a critter like this you can throw the hours of trained recall out the window. Fortunately this has never happened near traffic or a cliff.
Our goldendoodle is fantastic. Our neighbors can't believe she just chills with us in the front yard without a leash. They can't let their dogo out of the house without a fence or leash. She only barks once in a blue moon and everyone in the house is on immediate high alert when she does. Generally, its salesperson walking up the front driveway. She doesn't bark at UPS/Fedex any longer... which is good this time of year.
I run her every other day a few miles and she is right with me, generally off leash. When she sees a lizard tho, its game over. I have to stop and physically pull her off the bush she is buried in to get the lizard. She is very food motivated and the word "treat" is spelled out in our house because she will not leave you alone until she gets something if she hears that word.
My only complaint is grooming. To do it properly, I've been told requires brushing her everyday. Not happening. I have tried to do it 3 times a week... it takes like two hours and is completely exhausting. We just get her shaved every two months or so.
I knew he was smart, but it's next level impressive what he can track. Our dog has had no formal training , i got him as a rescue when he was about 18 months old. He can do all the standard tricks, and apparently track things? I'm certain he knew what i wanted him to do, it was an odd form of communication but he seemed very excited with the assignment he was tasked with.
The kicker to this story is that our friends dog came back to our house all by itself about 5 hours later. We spotted it once during our hunt, but being a rescue street dog from Forida, she's pretty skittish and just ran away any time she was approach by another person.
If your ideal dog experience is sitting on the couch with them keeping you company, well, there's other breeds for that. :D
I have a pitbull/amstaff/boxer mutt, which is a pretty good balance on being smart enough to learn tricks quickly but still be kept happy with walks and toys. I'm staying well away from the border collies and Australian cattle dogs...
Great write up. Btw, in that context you want "cue" instead of "queue".
like everything to do with people, there are fads, and then bad things happen due to those fads that you don't see for YEARS. The shiloh shepherds found they had a genetic heart defect, and it was traced back to a single stud used too much as he was popular.
I forgot where else I was going with this, but I mostly agree with the parent. OH, I know, the "new blood" thing. Most of the worlds kennel clubs have a process for bringing new blood in, where you bring in a dog that LOOKS like your breed, and meets the breed standard. You give it a registration, and its attached to the studbooks as an addendum. Keep breeding with your fully registered dogs until the progeny's three gen pedigree is filled with pure breds and you have a fully registered dog. Its not perfect, but at least its there as an option.
Very glad to hear there are so many people taking this seriously, there is some hope for at least some breeds!
> She'll cull (as in remove from her program to a pet home, not take out back and shoot) dogs that don't measure up - either temperament wise, genetics (she tests every dog she keeps using optimal selection's tests), other other traits - one of our fave bitches had to have elbow surgery due to a developmental defect that left an unattached piece in her joint.
I would make an argument for culling on the basis of bad temperament - a large breed dog with a bad attitude is a burden only a few are going to be able to handle in the best case. In the worst case it's somebody's child that gets bitten because their parents didn't read the dog.
I would also make a similar argument for any puppy you believe that will require significant or expensive surgery in the future, because the chances are, they won't get it and will suffer. A bad knee joint if quite common in these heavy breeds, but a spinal defect for example is not going to be simply or easy to deal with.
> Most of the worlds kennel clubs have a process for bringing new blood in, where you bring in a dog that LOOKS like your breed, and meets the breed standard.
One problem we've seen is breed definition creep. A lot of these working dogs are no longer capable of doing the work they were selectively bred for because they have been bred for looks alone for too many generations. After about hundred years, there is not an 'expert' alive that knows what the original breed is supposed to be. This is why going back to the breeder's notes have been so important - especially ones around the time when the working dog was actually working.
We had another die from a ruptured spine and another die in my arms from a massive heart attack at 2 years old b/c of a genetic heart defect.
Obviously the rescues spay/neuter any dog that comes in. I wish I knew of a better solution, but we do what we can to help these animals since we have the means.
I think you mean "cues" here.
For reading queues, a rabbit is more popular.
I chuckled and woke my wife, thanks a lot!
Reference for those who don't get it: https://www.rabbitmq.com/
For example, some French bulldogs have a face that is so deformed it can barely eat or breathe. Some people think such deformed animals look "cute" but various Kennel Clubs are starting to penalize them in dog shows.
https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/search/inbreeding-co-effici...
This kind of information is used by responsible breeders and buyers, thus my dachshund has 0% inbreeding going back 5 generations.
I.e. even if your particular dog isn't inbred according to some particular measure - the entire dog breed are already way too much inbred and have very little genetic diversite. Leading up to most dogs of that breed having multiple deficits.
(I don't know if that applies to dachshounds though - in general it applies less to dog breeds used for utility)
How many chemicals/materials have different names depending on their state of matter, versus just having an adjective prepended?
When ice melts, it's called water. But when steel melts, it's just called molten steel.
This study is part of the evidence-base showing that that is wrong: those dog breeds are unhealthy because they are incredibly inbred with effective population sizes so small you may be able to count them on two hands.
The bulldogs will always be unhealthy to some degree because those faces are just not a good idea, but even there some bulldog breeds are far sicklier than others, and it's due to the inbreeding, and when you know that, you know how to improve them. This is important for stuff like agricultural breeding: the problems aren't inevitable, and are caused by specific mistakes, like starting with too few individuals, closing the studbook prematurely, and not outcrossing.
A lot of scientific studies are like this. Doesn't make them any less important.
In my opinion, purchasing a purebred pet is cringeworthy at best.
The angus and longhorn enthusiasts better police some of their nuts or they're gonna get the Aurochs back.
I will have GSD's from a working line for the rest of my life.
I mean, I hadn't really been keeping up with the breed, but I am curious what the heck people are thinking . . .
OTOH, I may be done with working line shepherds for the rest of my life. But enjoy!
Perhaps I'm just naive and this is what happens already, but I feel like anytime that I've been on a dog breeder's website, it's just 5-10 males, 10-30 females, and their resulting litters.
In that time we've had many litters of puppies, usually trading them with neighbors to improve the local landrace and pass around some of the best traits. There's a steady input of "dumped purebeed" in the local mutts, they never survive long unless rescued.
"Pure" breeds are useful in being controlled and defined parameters to breed from; hybrids are the best "working" dogs however. IMO.
Our greatest successes have been with hunting hounds (bluetick coonhound or great danes) x "herding dogs" of some spread. The border collie x Bluetick cross produces some great dogs but there's a high proportion of psychopaths; expect 1:20 or so to be one of those puppies you just cant do anything with without insane effort. Bluetick x Catahoula are more mentally stable but likely to fall to the "merle on merle" cillia based health issues. (Digestive trouble and/or hearing issues)
Great danes x collie were robust, intelligent, big dogs that avoided almost all the inhertibale issues of the parent lines; but that's a cross you don't want to undertake raising without significant time. They're as bright as a small child and they feel they need a job: furthermore if you're not the boss, they feel they have to be. Of 4 litters (all large, hounds are profligate) we got 2 willful and bright enough I'd call them "psycho pups". Bad news at that size and vitality. Great for a herd dog, but only if you don't care about having input into how the herd is run.
"Psychopat" dogs have to be put down. Risk they attack something is too big. But they are rare.
I had her when the next one decided she needed to try to be boss; and then that pup left to run a wild dog pack for a couple years. they were decent neighbors but didnt thrive. We'd put out food at their corner of the place and they'd sometimes accept some, she set and respect boundaries otherwise.
I tried to keep one of the great dane ones, she came after me at about 9mo old and >100lb; i still have scars. I put that one down then.
I had one other of the danes i wasn't sure about, so I placed it with a guy who does "police / guard dog" training and heard it responded well.
One of the more notional of the bluetick crosses got a job as a junkyard dog, where he didn't have to worry about people too much and vice versa.
We've got a local "no kill" shelter we've been to several times, they have several dogs i classify as "psycho" too. None of mine, and I haven't tried adopting any of them (though i have helped take them to the vet sometimes).
My view is that kind of dog can't be happy without a job and care and is unsafe to let roam where there may be humans for it to hurt. Shelter or dead and I can argue either side of "which is better". Having fostered the birth of a dangerous animal, I feel some responsibility to see it doesn't present a risk to others; and finding jobs for them, keeping them in a jail, or putting them down is a burden.
I’m curious how you’d identify a “psycho” dog in a shelter, assuming you don’t have tons of time with the dogs. Are there some particular traits that are obvious or quickly identifiable?
I’m curious just from a knowledge perspective, but also what someone should look out for if they’re adopting a dog?
"Psycho" is probably a bad word to use. "Independent" could fit many of them. Too smart to be dogs. ... It's a spectrum and many of them can find places they fit.
There are dogs that you just can't trust. The ones whose greatest joy is being aggressive, and are independent minded or otherwise unwilling to listen to anyone else anymore. Or too stupid to understand, for whom the world is a terrifying place and there is nothing but cringe.
One of Rascal's puppy moves was, after peeing on the floor and not wanting to be pushed outside, a leap for the throat and bulldog "hang on and wrench" attack. That kind of disproportionate response is a bad sign. Lack of fear and "pain don't teach" are bad signs. Perhaps this dog would respond better to someone else or another dog or something but then again maybe not.
The same can be said for many breeds that suffer from breathing problems (pugs) or spinal issues (german shepherds) because someone decided that a german shepard should have a certain angle arc in its back because it was "visually" pleasing.
It's honestly disgusting, the UK kennel club bares the majority of this suffering because they somehow declared themselves the defacto authority figure during the late 1880s.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-do-so-many-golden-retriever...
The mess we got into was when we started this whole selective genetic manipulation based on visual appearances and at the cost of their health. As pets, to me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to do all this nonsense selective breeding and inbreeding that perpetuates clear genetic issues that would resolve with a bit natural diversity. I never want to have a 'pure' bred dog both in principle against the idea and because more diversity means my pet has a better chance of moving away from bad generic traits or moving their pups into that direction (and a potentially longer, healthier life).
My sibling owned a pug at one point when I was young and she was incredibly cute and sweet but at a cost to her health. Her facial wrinkle folds were prone to bacterial infection and had to be cleaned regularly, she suffered a lot of food allergies, had clear breathing problems, but fortunately didn't suffer from any sort of eye problems pugs are prone to. She ultimately died of cancer.
I'll take rescue pets which are most often not selectively bred any day over encouraging the breeding nonsense. All of my rescue pets have lived long and healthy lives into old age with almost no issues, just by avoiding inbreeding for at least one level of lineage.
Dogs have a lifespan. It's shorter than ours. It's sad, but it simply is.
Scottish terriers seem to get cancers around 10-12 years. My dog died at 11 of liver cancer. A brother died of a stomach cancer similarly. The mother died of a brain cancer at about the same age.
Was the joy and happiness brought by those dogs not worth it simply because their lifespan wasn't longer?
I've only owned mixed dogs and they've all lived extremely health lives with zero joint, spine, breathing, or jaw issues.
Pugs are some of the most unfortunate, they have issues with their eyeballs prolapsing and cannot breathe through their nose.
All of it is disgusting, shame on anyone that breeds or owns purebreds. I’ll give a pass to breeders of actual working dogs, but show dogs are a crime against nature.
We did it recently on two of our pups (both mutts), and it was neat seeing the various possible lineages.
Our tiny terrier / beagle mix came back with >10% Chow & Siberian Husky. Never would have guessed that!
However, there are quite a few breeds that are known to have breeding and birthing problems. Some unable to properly mount each other and breed. Others with hips too small to properly birth and need close to 100% C-section delivery. I can imagine these problems could be exacerbated by attempts to breed with other larger breeds.
Inbred dogs for shallow purposes is a reflection on our species.
However a well recognized scientist specializing in dog breeding gave a talk at a conference for a particular breed. They had done extensive genetic analysis of that breed and had some recommendations. Among other recommendations, they recommended mixing in a few animals from the European variant of that breed into the American breeding population. The crowd went quiet, all future talks/panels for the scientist were cancelled. They were uninvited from the conference.
Sad that many breed enthusiasts and even the AKC (who sets the breed standards) are damaging the breeds they care so much about.
Specifically, I wanted a dope of a dog that was a living, breathing stuffed animal but with enough intelligence to be trained on the basics easily.
So I bred my goldendoodle with a bernedoodle and got exactly what I was looking for!
You do get more variation in the litters, which can be a double edged sword. For example, one of the pups ended up being shedding, where non-shedding was a desired and expected trait for me.
Overall, breeding and getting to help deliver and raise a litter was one of the most fun & rewarding activities my family has ever done, and when we get holiday cards every year from all the families that got a pup with those dogs featured, it is just the best feeling.
Article: https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/g3414/cutest-mixe...
> The average inbreeding based on genetic analysis across 227 breeds was close to 25%, or the equivalent of sharing the same genetic material with a full sibling
Full siblings would actual share approximately 50%.
Two male brothers have XY, and the Y would have to be shared with the father, and same with two sisters (X from father), but a brother and sister would get a minimum of 50% different as the X and Y from the father would be different?
Rough scale example:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
YYhttps://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4870796/dog-o...
Edit: While it's admittedly over-the-top snarky, this video sums up my feelings nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo
It's more the culture of dog breeding and showing than the concept that's harmful.
As an example, dog breeding which I know least of the three topics, provided society (the object in your sentence) with very specific work dogs that have served society for centuries. Imagine the Inuit without their sled dogs.
Jewelry and luxury cars are easier to justify, but Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”
The resources “misallocated” in luxury goods motivate and teach us to make better mass goods. The car industry is a great example. luxury vehicles have driven R&D that have made cars safer and cleaner (disc breaks, fuel injection). Tesla has put electric cars just within reach for all by charging rich people for what were (are?) bad cars with lots of status signing
Jewelry is a form of art and of adding beauty to our everyday life. I will not apologize for the $80 pearl studs my girls wear, or my wife’s shawl.
Nor is it tenable that money used on a luxury item represent resources taken away from the poor. The resources to make a Lexus or a Toyota are largely the same.
Sure, I could buy a Nissan (btw, I drive a six year old Kia and a used base manual 2013 Golf) and send a cheque to Africa. But I’ll raise you - you can drop every expenditure you have except basic needs and send the money to Africa. Like my ethic professor pointed out, that $5 beer is five child-days.
Unless you’re willing to live like an African, your position is hypocritical - jealousy masked with self righteousness. Philosophers who feel better than other, richer, people because they’ve explained away their own behavior.
Excuse my elitism, but its pop Buddhism with all the vulgarities of pop.
Patek Phillipe is 180 years old. “Normal” people used to need mechanical watches to get to work on time until 40 years ago.
Anyway, luxury goods don't have to justify themselves (at all) solely on their technological transfer. They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence.
There is nothing immoral in a watch that took a year of human hours to build that isn't immoral about Japanese artisanal charcoal.
You are getting increasingly metaphysical.
These watches are built on antiquated technology and, by design, cannot be mass-produced, so clearly they will never lead to technological innovation.
These watches are so rare that they can provide very little beauty. The vast majority of people will never lay eyes on one.
Let me ask you a question: would you support the government purchasing Patek Philippe watches and putting them in libraries for the common people to check out? This would lead to much more beauty than letting them sit in rich people's collections and would encourage even more "human excellence". But I suspect you'd find it a waste of tax money.
Should government buildings be beautiful and be tastefully decorated? Definitely, but no art for art’s sake - it degenerates it
“ These watches are built on antiquated technology and, by design, cannot be mass-produced, so clearly they will never lead to technological innovation.”
By that criteria a Roman era neckless is worthless. Human excellence is not about technology advancement. Its about human advancement. Ill never see a PP except on a store window in NYC. I’ll probably never get around to see the Hagia Sophia either. But I’m overjoyed that humans can build the Hagia Sophia and relieved that in this era of mass produce mediocrity there still are artisans with the focus necessary to make Japanese charcoal, or PPs
You just used sarcasm.
Some luxury goods are beautiful. Some are high-performance. However, many of them are prized merely because they are exclusive.
I find very expensive jewelry, almost without exception, to be gaudy and hideous. Even if it were tasteful, it could be made with artificial or semiprecious gems and clad base metals with no change in appearance.
There is nothing from high-end jewelry that can trickle down to the mass market. The entire industry is, by design, based around the work of skilled artisans. If it were possible to mass-produce jewelry, it would no longer be exclusive and would thus be less desirable.
Luxury cars are an interesting example. They are usually prized for their technical excellence. Some of the innovations may actually make it to market. The same definitely does not apply to fashion or to the majority of other luxury goods.
Take a look at the jewelry case at Walmart or Kohl's (if you're in the United States) to see what's happened.
Its perfectly valid rhetorical device, a needlessly aggressive one that is good at putting down but never constructs. Worse of all, a rhetorical device that has become trite.
Im naturally very sarcastic. In my late 30s, I see it as a personal flaw that has brought me nothing but cheap dopamine hits.
I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry:
1. Luxury cars are often wasteful or dangerous to be around.
2. The resources for jewelry are scarce and often extracted with slave labor.
3. Both are often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them.
I love fast cars and I wear jewelry. I hate the fact that these beautiful things are corrupted by their use as tools of oppression.
Let me revise, since I have met ppl like OP:
Im so bewildered at this attitude that I’ll just ask “what problem do people like you possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”
2. Jewlery can be made with slave labor. There is nothing inherent in jewelry that it must be made with slave labor. Thus, you can object to a available jewelry or specific jewelry but your objection isn't valid for jewelry generally.
This is like objecting to running shoes. De facto they’re made in sweatshops, and available sneakers supports slavery. But nothing inherent in trainers requires slaves.
3. As to the scarcity of resources for jewelry, so what? Thats a moral judgement on your behalf that jewelry is inherently less worthy than, say, an Orthodox icon, or bullion as a hedge against inflation.
4. As to cars, most of your objection appear to be directed at their drivers. How is a VW golf more dangerous than an A3? Only if you assume nastier drivers drive luxury cars. Let me assure you I drive like an utter asshole on my $3000 assessed value car (mea culpa. But I live in the mountains, the car is stick…) Nor does the A3 consume more resources than the Golf to make.
5. As your third objection, I dont agree with your statement: “[…]often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them”. Clearly some ppl buy expensive things to show off, but I dont think it follows that their intention is to demean. I think that says more about the feelings of inadequacy that we feel next to a fancy car. Feelings we rationalize by telling ourselves they’re doing it on purpose to spite us. They probably aren't giving you a second’s thought.
I think your use of the word “often” is telling. Myself, I’d love to have a luxury car but one criteria would have to be that it is not obvious that it is a luxury car. It follows that luxury cars are not purchased solely to show off (and therefore immoral?)
6. Look, if the OP had objected to cars I wouldn't have bothered to object. Maybe I’d disagree (on the fence on cars), but I can see that an argument can be made that cars, electric or otherwise, are inherently immoral.
The statement was just self-righteous
EDIT: typos. Writing this on my 5 year old SE
>Clearly some ppl buy expensive things to show off, but I dont think it follows that their intention is to demean.
I don't think it matters what the intention is. Our society universally denigrates the poor and elevates wealth to a virtue. Anything that contributes to that has got to go.
It's definitely an unfortunate truth that our brains are wired to compare ourselves and our belongings with others. Still, it's kind of nice to have nice things.
So, two people on the internet have agreed! Let’s put aside jewelry and luxury and have a virtual toast:
To your health, my cyber-interlocutor!
I also wonder: doesn’t the genetic diversity between different breeds help account with defeating illness? What I mean is that if some sort of disease pops up it might kill a % of breeds, but another % might survive because, well, they’re a different breed with a trait that helped defeat that disease.
Us humans on the other hand have stopped evolving and are quite genetically the same (much more similar than dogs). So from that perspective I wonder whether a disease would be much more dangerous for us & whether actual breeding might be good overall for their species.
Of course inbreeding is a separate issue that hurts the life of the individual. But our apparent need to want different kind of dogs might actually end up saving their species in a doomsday scenario.
This is certainly not the case with some of the herding / working dog breeds (GSD, Malinois etc) - it is borderline cruel keeping them in an apartment in some cases, and dangerous in others.
I lived with a presa canario for a year in an apartment (roommates dog) - it was not a good situation for the dog or anyone else. After I moved out, I learned the dog attacked someone and was euthanized.
100%, I live in a city high rise. I see too many anxious dogs in that category that are "toys" to the owner and do not get sufficient exercise and mental stimulation. I love the beligan malinois breed but realize I have a lifestyle today that prevents me from owning one. Its similar to fish and aquarium sizes in many ways.
My partner does several dog-sports, and it seems that if you have on avg 30-90m training a day over the week, most of the day your dogs will just be happily tired and lounge around and sleep.
Or if she has more lenient training shedule, we do take them to run around in a field just outside of city like every two days.
The misconception is, that if you give a working dog big enough yard next to your house, it will be happy, but in reality you still need to train and work with it. If I were to exagerate, this kind of psychological neglect too can be borderline cruel and sometimes dangerous.
The bad thing is, even the owners might not realize. I heard several stories along the lines of "Our bordercolie is well fed, and well behaved, and has access to run around in a large garden, and take her with us every weekend on a hike, and then bites our friends child into her leg when the she tried to run away?" ... well, yeah, I am not surprised that a shepherd dog that isn't well trained and never worked would do something stupid like that.
My point probably is, that even in the sad story of the hard-to-manage presa canario, yeah, having it in an appartment didn§t make things easier, but I wouldn't see it as the primary problem.
I would heavily caution people to deeply consider what owning high-drive and super-reactive dogs actually means in day-to-day life. Dogs with these temperaments do have wonderful (and fun) qualities but simply require specialized environments and handling.
I don't think this is true. You can have a husky in a flat, but have to go for a run every morning.
I have a German Shepard. She goes for 3 walks a day and a lot of weekend trips. The flat is just a kennel.
Every mutt I have ever had ended up being a great dog with a great personality and disposition with minimal training required. All lived into their teens with only minor health problems towards the end of life.
This from an Australian animal welfare group https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-are-the-health-p...
The Scottish Fold breed of cat is a very popular pet in the USA, due to its affectionate and gentle nature and distinctive appearance. These cats have flattened ears that fold forward and downward, sitting like a cap and giving the quaint look of an owl. This ear fold is the result of a natural genetic mutation first observed in a farm kitten in Scotland in 1961. The tightly folded ears do not appear to be any more prone to infections than those of cats with upright ears. However, this unique ear shape is caused by an underlying defect in the formation of cartilage, which would normally retain the ears in a normal shape.
This inherited cartilage defect (also known as Scottish Fold disease, or Osteochondrodysplasia) causes other deformities throughout the body and is a dominant trait, meaning all kittens in the litter will be affected. The disease is evident on x-rays of cats from as young as 7 weeks of age. Serious abnormalities in joints and bone growth lead to arthritis (painful, swollen joints), short, abnormally thick and inflexible tails, spinal abnormalities and short, stiff legs. The welfare impacts are severe in terms of pain and inability to perform natural behaviours, as these cats can be lame, walk with an abnormal gait, can be reluctant to engage in normal movements such as walking or jumping, and can even become completely crippled.
There is no cure for this progressive condition. Cats who develop arthritis need long term pain relief, which can have undesirable side effects, and dietary supplements to slow its development. In a small number of cases, surgery or radiotherapy has been effective in slowing the progression of the disease. Those with severe disease are often suffering immensely and require euthanasia, sometimes early in life.
Due to the crippling deformities evident in this breed, it was excluded from the Cat Fancy of Great Britain as a recognised breed in 1974 and was also banned by the Fédération Internationale Féline. Breeders in the USA persisted...
The main distinction between an actual 'stray' dog and a domestic dog is environmental, being around humans and so on and less to do with genetics.
If you let dogs breed freely they'd probably still clump into sets of similar genetic and physical traits based on time and location (and their prior genetics).
It's like how red hair pops up in some families. The red hair gene never 'disappeared' or 'got averaged out', it just kept being passed on until it met another copy. Another example is interracial families: you might think that the kids would all 'look like' the average of the two parents, but sometimes one kid will look just like one parent even though they are biracial. (Apparently this can cause problems, like if a little blonde-haired blue-eyed girl is walking around with her dad from Africa.)
On a historical note, this was a major issue for Darwin & Galton trying to come up with a statistical model of 'genes': the initial efforts of 'blending inheritance' predicted that everyone would quickly become the same height etc, which is both obviously not true (short parents can have tall kids and vice versa) and would mean evolution is impossible (no variation to select on!).
* <Rant warning> *
These groups come to the public animal shelters at opening time and claim any dog of their preferred breed, before any of the public gets a chance at them. Or maybe the shelter staff calls them. The end result when I was looking for a dog was that the shelters have nothing but pit bulls and Chihuahuas, and the dogs that the public prefers are all marked "reserved" or just gone.
You can go to these innumerable rescue groups and fill out their four-page questionnaire, which they all has their own version of, all almost exactly the same. Then they apply their own ideas about who should have a dog and who shouldn't. Maybe they send someone out to look at your house & yard. I met someone at the dog park who'd had dogs all their lives, and they were rejected because their backyard fence wasn't high enough. More likely, "your" dog isn't available anymore.
There is a Survivor Bias happening in all these happy stories about the wonderful dog someone got from a rescue group. You never read about all the dogs with terrible behavior problems that got returned to the shelter; the ones whose personalities were irretrievably ruined by abuse in their puppyhood.
So the question is: who appointed these people to be gatekeepers? And why are we all subsidizing their hobby?
What did I do, by the way? I went to a Labrador breeder, who questioned me closely on my situation. The puppies are cared for a family with children, which gave them the socialization every puppy needs. And I know my dog's never had anything but love and kindness, something you definitely do not know with a rescue.
* <Rant warning/> *
This is so frustrating! I'm currently looking for a dog, and the shelters near me have a few special needs dogs, a few "lab mixes" or "shepherd mixes" that are obviously Staffordshire terriers that happened to get lucky by having long noses and slightly less boxy heads than the average 'mix', but they constantly have trucks of pit bulls and Chihuahuas arriving from Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi.
Pre-COVID, I went to a pet expo and met a staggering number of these breed rescue groups. There are no Goldens at any shelters, but there's a golden rescue. No Weimaraners at any shelters, but there's a weim rescue. No dalmatians, but there's a dalmatian rescue. No greyhounds, but there's a greyhound rescue. No huskies, but there's a husky rescue. There are no pit bull rescues, I'm guessing because they'd be accused of operating a fighting ring, and if they tried to snap up every dog that matched their requirements they'd be inundated with ten thousand dogs.
Those breeds don't need rescuing, they get snapped up from the shelters faster than I can hit "F5", probably because (as you said) shelter intake staff are calling the breed rescue groups before even listing the dogs.
I don't think I'm a pitbull bigot, but I'd like an actual choice in adopting a dog, and I don't want to pay someone a thousand dollars for the privilege of 'rescuing' it. It's almost enough to push someone away from the shelters to buy from a backyard breeder...
The term "backyard breeder" is just one step up in snobbery from "trailer trash."
I got my two cats from families that could be called backyard breeders. To me, that meant that children played with the kittens, which is especially crucial to cats.
So if you want a golden (fantastic dogs, btw!), there are lots of breeders. You might have to drive for a few hours to find one. I drove two hours for my Lab breeder.
I meant "I expected a flood of condemnations, but this is nice." or words to that effect.
The term is often used to refer to people running extremely sketchy for-profit operations (basically very small scale puppy mills). Operations like that often falsely present themselves as the more innocent 'oops my grandma's dog and my dog bred one time because we didn't know hers wasn't fixed' type.
Traditional breeders have all kinds of other problems. Imo there's not really any great way to get a puppy, ethically speaking
Yeah, no question. There are also people, like the family I got my first cat from, that like to breed animals and do their best to be kind to them. Perhaps some term that doesn't conflate the two groups would be preferable.
100% agreed. I don't give a shit whether someone I buy a puppy from is (let's be real) a sufficiently certified canine eugenicist. I care whether they are kind and responsible and attentive with the animals in their home. That's it.
I don't see how I could ethically agree that people's rights to get the dog they want through a rescue shelter exists and is more important to a shelter than the welfare of the dogs placed in it's care.
Let's say a highly desirable dog, say a beautiful young Golden Retriever, is brought to the shelter, and further, let's suppose the shelter euthanizes all dogs after two weeks.
Normally, a member of the public would adopt this dog within a day or less. They're a very popular breed. How is "the welfare of the dogs placed in its care" enhanced by the Golden Rescue group taking it and deciding for themselves who should have it? (If the foster person doesn't keep it for themselves, which often happens.)
Let's say the shelter has an agreement with them: "if a Golden is slated for euthanasia within two days, you may take it." That seems fair to me.
So the only argument you're left with is "the Rescue group will do a better job of choosing its home." Not proven and doubtful, sorry. Those people are volunteers with no training and no accountability. The shelter is going to be at least as good.
> the only argument you're left with is "the Rescue group will do a better job of choosing its home." Not proven and doubtful, sorry. Those people are volunteers with no training and no accountability. The shelter is going to be at least as good.
Shelters don't generally attempt vetting adopters to the same degree as rescues do, which is much of the source of annoyance with breed rescues that started this thread. Shelters are not going to be 'at least as good' at things they're not even attempting to do.
As for your comment about shelters: you're just plain wrong about that. There's a stereotype that they're about as diligent as the DMV. Wrong. Considering the breed rescue people are mostly unpaid volunteers who don't stick with it very long, it's probably a wash.
I wonder whether breed rescues have an easier time finding fosters to volunteer for them than shelters do. I could imagine they might, because of emotional attachments people have to breeds that look like dogs they remember from childhood or that they've had positive experiences with or whatever.
chihuahuas and pitbulls are wonderful, wildly underrated dogs.
I used to think I didn't like chihuahuas until I adopted an elderly chihuahua, and she proved to be an angel. I frankly didn't understand the appeal of lapdogs at all, until I found a creature in my care who wanted very little beyond basic human company, and who was so agreeable and sweet that I could take her absolutely anywhere.
Since she died this year, I adopted a chihuahua mix puppy and it has well and truly convinced me that if you do a good job of proving to the critter that the world is safe for them, chihuahuas are lovely, polite, outgoing dogs.
And as it happens, one of his favorite playmates in the whole world is an enormous pitbull mix, who is always delighted to meet him and impressively tolerant of his puppyish nonsense.
I get seeking a breed that looks like the dogs you grew up with, or which you can trust to be reliable around your kids or whatever. But chihuahuas and pitbulls can be seriously delightful and easy dogs to have in your home, and I wish more people would give them a chance.
I'm leaning towards doing exactly what you did for a new pup - finding a caring family with a very small breeding program that focuses on socialization and a little selectivity in who they will provide pups.
The mutt will almost always be healthier than it's parents as it is highly unlikely to have any recessive ailments of either line.
Two ugly parents will not produce good looking children, even if they are from disparate breeds.
Good looking parents will produce good looking children, even if they are from the same breed.
Muttiness does not create good genes.
Anemias such as sickle cell and malaria are the text book example. Having two parents from the same area means high frequency of them having the same gene. The same sickle cell anemia gene makes one quarter of their children fully anemic and leaves one quarter unprotected from malaria. One such parent makes half of children protected and half unprotected.
Anyone can breed on the dominant traits of genes and talk about looks. Their results are defective because of recessive traits. Thus a first mutt with their line has much higher odds of being healthy even if it's other parent is also inbred. But two cross breeds from those same lines are going to be more likely to produce unhealthy offspring again when compared to fuller mutts.