________________________________________________________________________________
This is well known. Sometimes people breed the grandfather with the bitch or even the father. I think 'Pedigree certificates' has a lot to answer for in this regard. It doesn't encourage any kind of genetic diversity and people are actively discouraged and punished for trying to introduce new blood into lines. Another group to blame are 'puppy farms', people who breed merely to make money and take no responsibility for the genetic mess they make.
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.
Agree with everything you just said. My wife and I (mainly her) rescue French Bulldogs. They are popular so a lot of people get them without realizing all the health issues, then give them up once they realize the money and work involved. 2/3 of our current rescues have had the IVDD (spinal) surgery and are doing fine. One has also had palette surgery in an attempt to open her airway a bit more. None of them should be walked if it's > 75F.
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.
Thank you.
> Generally you want your dog to be smart enough to read your queues and work around you
I think you mean "cues" here.
For reading queues, a rabbit is more popular.
> 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:
> 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.
It's my experience that a dog's tendency to wander or want to escape has only a little to do with its intelligence. (Their _ability_ to effect an escape is a different matter.) I think it's partly just a personality trait. I've met stupid, misanthropic chihuahuas that won't wander and intelligent, deeply loyal huskies that chase after everything they can see.
We tend to measure a dog's intelligence by obedience and trainability, but dogs like huskies and beagles do not follow that rule. There is a reason there are always beagles readily available for adoption.
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.
I've got a blue tick beagle (he's amazing:
https://www.instagram.com/elvisrufflife
), we recently had a friend up to our house in the woods and they had their dog run away from them on a walk the first morning they arrived. Over an hour later, i leashed up our beagle, started where their dog got lost by pointing at a few of her footprints and...away he went (on leash!). We followed a trail (that i could not see) for about an hour, i was convinced he was just tracking a deer or something unrelated. Eventually the trail lead to a road a few km away from the house where we met some other people walking their dog, i asked them if they had seen a black dog and they instantly responded with "Yes, we saw a dog 10 minutes ago".
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.
Our goldendoodle sounds very similar to this. She's great at "go see XYZ" or "go get ABC", knows all the party tricks, and will play fetch endlessly without ever wandering off no matter how far I throw the ball.
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.
Same experience.
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 have a corgi/beagle mix, so she loves to smell and doesn't have to crane her neck as much as a standard beagle. She loves to smell _everything_, so areas where other dogs have been are slow to traverse. She is smart and seems to understand commands, it is just a coin flip of if she will listen (or just give me a quick mopey look)-- especially if there is an interesting smell they're locked on to.
Yes those seem to be mostly independent traits. Portuguese Water Dogs are generally rated above average for intelligence but they have a natural instinct to stay close to their owners and don't tend to run away.
I discussed this with my partner that takes her hobby of dog-training very seriously (like, we live with three dogs, and she sometimes does payed woroshops, e.t.c) that Border Colies are often considered to be the most intelligent dogs, but that might be mostly a side-product of breeding them to be eager to please.
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.
The Border Collie is indeed intelligent. It is overwhelmingly the sheepdog preferred by Welsh shepherds. It is also loyal, good-natured, and pretty safe around children. This breed doesn't suffer health problems due to inbreeding, because it isn't a (UK) Kennel Club breed; there's no such thing as a "pedigree" Border Collie in the UK.
Yeah, from what I've read Collies are a smarter breed and also vary in intelligence amongst themselves. High obedience has been shown to at times be counter to good test performance as it means lower curiosity, higher dependence on humans and lower problem solving persistence. Collies are curious, enjoy learning and having a job but can be chaotic when bored, which is markedly different from incurious obedience.
> 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.
> Can you explain the significance of not being a Kennel Club breed?
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)
That's also true for English Sheppards; they are bred for temperament, not conformance to appearance rules. So they don't all look identical, but they are great companions (and good at herding).
Yeah, I have seen a working dog Collie compared to a bred-for-beauty-constests Collie and they could be considered two distinct breeds
As a owner of a smart and a dumb dog.. the smart dog is a lot lot lot lot more work. Dumb dogs make so much easier pets..
For sure -- you should only get a working-breed dog (which _tend_ to be the smarter ones as we view it) if you actively enjoy spending time on training with them.
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...
Laughs in Australian Shepherd. Idk how, but my Aussie manages to be simultaneously smart and dumb.
In general terms I agree. FWIW, my wife breeds white Swiss shepherds, and very much has the health of her animals in mind when she plans a litter. 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. She was spayed.
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.
> FWIW, my wife breeds white Swiss shepherds, and very much has the health of her animals in mind when she plans a litter.
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.
> Generally you want your dog to be smart enough to read your queues and work around you
Great write up. Btw, in that context you want "cue" instead of "queue".
Is there a place to find which breeds are most inbred? I am wondering what the status of the Beagle is
A lot of dog "breeds" are basically just genetic deformities being perpetuated through in-breeding.
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.
This image of 2 French bulldogs, one a winning show dog and the other the attempt to make a healthier breed, has made the rounds and it really shows the scope of the problem:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/oaw4v8/t...
It’s pretty gross. It’s animal abuse at that point, breeding in a way that you know causes the animal great suffering.
I resent the idea of some third party organization setting the standard for whether my dogs are an official breed or not. So I've been making up breeds whenever people ask. My current dog, Eloise, is fairly obviously a mutt with a lot of St. Bernard and a lot of Great Pyrenees. So when people ask I say, "Oh, she's a new breed that people are calling St. Pyrenees. Her ancestors included some Great Pyrenees and some St. Bernard" By people I mean me.
This is a great! We have a rescue dog picked off the streets of Stewart, FL (near West Palm Beach), so I say "oh he's a West Palm Beach Itinerant". People who take breeds seriously get confused, everyone else has a laugh.
The UK kennel club allows you to calculate the inbreeding coefficient for either a registered (pedigree) dog or for future puppies of two potential mates:
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.
the problem with these calculations is that they're based on pedigree, not genetics. If you're only studying 3-5 generations of pedigree, the COI might look REALLY good, but the animal can still be a genetic mess because those 3-5 generations all had a common (or multiple common) ancestors in generations 6-7.
The point is though that most dog breeds are already too inbred .
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)
I think some pure breeds, due to their slight inbreeding by design, are going through "inbreeding depression". Probably because some breeds just don't have that large of a gene pool to start with.
[0]
https://breedingbusiness.com/inbreeding-depression/
I think this is one of those studies where you didn't really need to do a study.
It's useful to measure things even if we already know that they're common. Numbers tell a story that beliefs cannot.
The point is, the study has been done, and now there is an academic precedent and solid evidence people can cite now.
A lot of scientific studies are like this. Doesn't make them any less important.
No, this is important. There are a lot of people who will tell you that 'selective breeding doesn't work and always backfires, because look how unhealthy some dog breeds are'.
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.
I feel the same about a great many studies, but normally would never say so here. What if people found out I was tainted in my epistemologies?
New study shows most water is wet
There is, however, a significant percentage of it in dry or gaseous form.
You got me thinking now...
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.
It's sort of strange that everyone thinks that an aggressive eugenics program for animals is completely normal and morally acceptable (just because it's been going on for a long time).
In my opinion, purchasing a purebred pet is cringeworthy at best.
Eugenics gave us much better cows, pigs and chickens. We've continued that to freakish levels in some instances. You morals are your own; mine are just fine with short lived chickens and $2/lb chicken breast.
The angus and longhorn enthusiasts better police some of their nuts or they're gonna get the Aurochs back.
The purpose of dog breeding isn't health or usefulness, it's to match a picture and description.
Generalizations like this are kind of ridiculous, given the existence of hunting dogs, police dogs, herding dogs, livestock guardian dogs, and even many ordinary family/companionship dogs that are specifically bred to be docile, long-living pets.
Dogs are not naturally occurring.
Wish people were more mindful of this in real life. All these dogs with short snouts have terrible problems breathing when they get older (and many when they are young).
I will have GSD's from a working line for the rest of my life.
Totally agree re:short snout problems. I was shocked recently to see several pictures of short-nosed Rottweilers with what looks like a tendency to have noses that seem to be trending in pug-like direction.
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!
I've often wondered why breeders don't do more cross-breeding across areas. Travel time aside, I think it would be a good investment into what is literally a business. e.g. If I'm a Border Collie breeder in Nevada, I could meet up with another Border Collie breeder in Arizona or Idaho and do an "exchange". While this does water down the lines, as each breed is probably generally in the top-tier form of whatever they've been bred for the past X00 years, I think a little genetic diversity would go a long way to help with these issues.
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.
I think the problem for now is more pronounced with dogs than cats, but I just checked my Maine Coon breeder's site. Out of their two current litters, only one is from one of their own cats; two are from other breeders in the same country, and one is from Holland. On their planned litter page, only two cats out of six are from their own lines. The rest are from other Swedish lines, Holland, and Italy. I think responsible breeders do already do this. I worry that as cat breeding progresses, standards will slip like they have with so many dog breeds. It's already started with some breeds.
This happens. Mostly buying fresh blood from overseas in my (European) experience. Like Maine coons from Russia, bull terriers from Australia … It’s more rare in the same country (where they could just buy sperm). Sometimes they just use a fellow breeders (and friend I suppose) male for a few litters.
We have a cross between a purebred momma English Spring Spaniel and a purebred daddy Black Lab. They were an accidental happening and we got our boy for cheap. One of our friends got one of his sisters. The variety in those pups is pretty wild. The coloring is similar, black body with white tuxedo stripe along the belly. Our boy is nearly identical looking to the purebred flat coated retrievers we had growing up, he has soft long fur and fully webbed feet. His sister looks like a runt black lab with short coarse fur, our boy is twice her size in weight and stature. I love our mutt!
Going on 30 years, I have had a pack of working hounds, usually from 4 to 12 strong. We have rural land surrounded by large plots of _more_ rural land, 4,000 acres+ of tree farm and private hunting preserve, so our hounds are necessary for keeping coyotes and etc off livestock and other pets.
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.
I've read through your thread, and your takes are super interesting and I'd love to learn/read more. If you have a dog blog/newsletter or anything I'd love a link, and if not I'd encourage you to make one
Thank you for sharing, I really enjoyed reading this. It was informative and quite enjoyable to read. I'm also very jealous of the amount of space you have.
I've got 10ac in the middle of this. There's drawbacks (we get snowed in for 2wk by 12in of snow) but there's compensations.
My opinion is 10 is about perfect, big enough but not too big. I can appreciate the perspective, I take a lot for granted in the city and detaching my family from a major metropolitan area will be a living shift.
We had a Beagle, or perhaps Beagle x similar hound (it was on the upper end of size for a beagle). I loved him, but he was a psychopath while also being the smartest dog I have ever had. I firmly believe some of the smartest dogs are some of the least trainable.
Really interesting, thanks for posting. What do you practically do with the psychopath dogs/pups? Presumably the 'insane effort' required to keep them in line doesn't square well with all the other hard work your farm requires. Are you essentially forced to give the mentally unstable ones to a shelter?
I put the effort into the first one i met; she was named "Rascal" and one of the best dogs evar! (as they all are, of course :)
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.
Thanks for sharing!
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?
My wife calls me a werewolf, I can't say she's wrong. I speak 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.
Not OP. Dogs are pack animals, so less bright are kept in order by pack. They are still usable for guarding, but can not be used for herding or hunting.
"Psychopat" dogs have to be put down. Risk they attack something is too big. But they are rare.
Buying or breeding purebred dogs is morally wrong, a dog should not be forced to endure a miserable existence for aesthetic reasons.
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.
This is interesting, but not exactly news. Has been known for decades.
I do think it's news because some breeds suffer terribly at the end of their life, like golden retrieves typically getting cancer at 60% rates. [1] Would you get a golden retriever if you knew that at 7 years-old it's very likely to get a brain tumor?
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...
At some period of human history, breeding for some traits probably made sense, functionally. Dogs that could hunt well or track other animals for you all made sense in a survival situation.
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.
> Would you get a golden retriever if you knew that at 7 years-old it's very likely to get a brain tumor?
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?
The joy and happiness is purely at the expense of unethical practices tho, that is my issue. These are living empathetic creatures, not designer fashion pieces (which is often what pure breeds are selected to emulate). There's no reason why you couldn't bread a healthy retriever dog, yes it may not look exactly like the current iteration of a golden retriever but it will live a life that is less likely to be purposely afflicted with pain or suffering.
I've only owned mixed dogs and they've all lived extremely health lives with zero joint, spine, breathing, or jaw issues.
Indeed, a major contributor is the AKC who rates breeds on arbitrary characteristics like shoulder height and color instead of overall fitness. So you end up with dogs with terrible hips, cancer, spine problems, breathing problems, etc but have the right color hair.
Side note: you can get a pretty robust genetic panels (health + breed) for dogs for about $150 now.
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!
Time to do this would be before you acquired the dog, no?
Well, if you're adopting from a shelter, chances are the genetics are pretty varied.
Is there a pair of dog breeds who is so different from each other such that no offspring is possible between them?
Genetically, they should all be able to interbreed, also with wolves and coyotes.
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.
Not at all. Domestic dogs, coyotes and wolves can all breed together.
Nice! Thanks!
Yes. The pairing would probably be a male from a bigger breed and a bulldog bitch as the latter often can’t give birth without a C section. So, sans technology, I can imagine there are at least a few pairs where offspring wouldn’t happen.
I don't know if this counts, but a lot of bulldog-like dogs can't give live birth because they're so deformed and unnatural. They can only give birth by C-section.
Why not cross different dog breeds to increase total diversity instead of trying to protect what's left?
That makes complete sense.
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.
I’m not personally a big fan of “purebreds”, but breed was important to me because I had small children and needed an extremely predictable and fairly easily obtained behavior profile.
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.
Doodles already aren't purebred.
try to explain it to proud owners of "standard Australian mini labradoodle" or something like this... they claim that it's a new pure breed
If you paid $4000 for a designer pooch, you'd make that claim too. ;)
Yeah. I "manage" at work dog owners group in our collaboration system that has >500 people now. Amount of purebred _doodles or _poos is amazing. I wasn't even aware that those combinations are bred
Because people are disconnected from what matters in nature and self-centered. French pugs are at the top of breed popularity, facepalm.
Inbred dogs for shallow purposes is a reflection on our species.
One of our dogs is from farmers who specifically bought a giant working breed from across the country to sire puppies with their other giant working breed dogs. The two breeds make a good mix, and it ensures some genetic diversity. They actually use dogs on the farm, so they have more of an interest in cultivating health and good temperament than designer looks like some breeders do.
Some people want a specific breed for generally aesthetic reasons. And some breeds exist almost exclusively for aesthetics (vs working and sporting breeds). Sadly, some working breeds have degenerated to the point they can barely work - GSDs with short rear legs and hip problems come to mind.
That happens too, there are quite a few ‘designer’ cross breeds, like labradoodle or cavapoo.
Article:
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/g3414/cutest-mixe...
Because you can’t get $2,000+ for a ‘mutt’ puppy
Because capitalism. People want to buy “pure” dogs which causes this.
there are many benefits to having a mutt
the dumbest dogs I have ever owned were a very-pure viszla and a very-pure mastiff. between the two of them there could not have been ten working brain cells.
now I have a mutt that has such diverse characteristics that it is confounding for dog experts to tell me what he is...he is also, by a mile, the smartest dog I have ever had
I am convinced the purebred = dumb observation is not just an anecdote
From the featured article:
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%.
It's been a while since I took biology, but doesn't this depend on the genders of the siblings?
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?
In humans, y is so small as to be insignificant in these terms. ChrX is much larger. Also, the combination of the remaining chr1-22 are much larger than chrX by itself, so these numbers don’t factor in as much as you’d think.
Rough scale example:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
YY
Off topic, but I very much enjoy the creativity you used to explain the relative size of the chromosomes.
The Norwegian Society for Protection of Animals is actually bringing a case on bad breeding to the courts in Norway (
https://www.dyrebeskyttelsen.no/2020/11/23/norway-to-decide-...
), its going to be interesting to see how that works out. If we are lucky, we might get some more sane dog breeding, and healthier dogs out of it.
I though this was common knowledge? This is why I prefer “mutts” myself.
Dog breeding is mostly a net-negative for the society. Kind of like jewelry and luxury cars.
This seems like a judgement call from someone who doesn't understand any of the three topics and therefore sees only the negatives.
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?”
>Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”
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.
1.“I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry:”
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
I don't really believe that luxury cars or jewelry are inherently evil and won't defend those claims. I gave those as examples of (obvious) reasons people might object to those things.
>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 sounds a bit like you're arguing that people can't have nice things because it will make others feel bad?
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.
It's nice when all of us have nice things.
Money spent on luxuries/social status signaling is money not given to reduce suffering. If you have any sense of empathy for the billions of people living with low incomes, it's obvious that luxury spending is resource misallocation.
What’s obvious is economic misunderstanding.
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.
Oh yes, the expertise of Patek Philippe will trickle down any day now.
It has. Wristwatch mechanical and material expertise has greatly diffused, resulting in good watches at many price points.
I'm sure that's a real benefit to all the people living paycheck-to-paycheck who wear mechanical watches.
Again, sarcasm.
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.
>They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence.
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.
I dont support government support for the arts. At least not in a direct way like buying PPs for library.
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
For the ones who want a cheap watch that works well and looks good, absolutely.
OP spoke in generalities, and I answered in generalities with specific examples merely as illustrative aids.
You just used sarcasm.
Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical device. If you find it rude, I apologize.
_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.
“ Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical device. If you find it rude, I apologize.”
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.
Similarly to watches, jewelry techniques, styles materials have made their way far down market. Exclusivity (or a certain designer's mark) is just one buyer preference.
Take a look at the jewelry case at Walmart or Kohl's (if you're in the United States) to see what's happened.
1. I'm talking about the society at present.
2. Key part of my argument is “net”.
Having added a timeline (point 1), I’ll agree - dog breeding today appears to me, a non-expert, barbaric.
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!
What a negative and downright wrong thing to say. Dog owners are happier and healthier than non-dog owners.
https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4870796/dog-o...
I'm not the person you're replying to, but: I love dogs, I have a dog, and I think dog breeding is a net evil. I wish it would stop.
Edit: While it's admittedly over-the-top snarky, this video sums up my feelings nicely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo
There is an ethical version of breeding that would be good for society though (and I imagine this exists to some extent outside the mainstream mainstream). E.g. if a breeder decides "I want a hypoallergenic dog between 40 and 50 pounds with a calm demeanor who is otherwise maximally healthy" instead of worrying about the the nitpicky specifics of their appearance, that would be a benefit for society.
It's more the culture of dog breeding and showing than the concept that's harmful.
you just described proper poodle breeders: hypoallergenic, ~50lbs, bred for good demeanor (part of standard description, i believe) and do extensive genetic testing to exclude problematic lineages.
Personally I just worry that the result would be all dogs being pitbull mixes.
Why is that?
The traits that make a dog best for breeding in a more natural environment don't necessarily make them good for pets.
What does that have to do with dog breeding? Add to the fact, there's more than one way to be healthier and happier.
I'm not sure if this was the point he was trying to make but dog breeding is why dogs exist.
What I find interesting is that dogs are way better adapt at living a “city life” or an “apartment life” than we ever will be (unless we start breeding for those traits ourselves). People think “ah dogs are animals and should live in nature and not in closed doors of a city apartment”. Nope, from a genetic point of view some dogs are way more naturally fit to live indoors (look at Maltese for instance who’s bread to be a lap dog).
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.
> What I find interesting is that dogs are way better adapt at living a “city life” or an “apartment life”
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.
> 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.
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.
I think 'borderline cruel/dangerous' is overstating it (I do live in an 1 bedroom appt with 2 BOC and 1 BOM), but it certainly is true that if you have a working dog, you need to give it work. And place to expunge energy.
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 had a Malinois for 15.5 years. She was a wonderful dog in most respects but frankly required a significant amount of management despite years of training and socialization on top of a large fenced yard and ample daily exercise.
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.
> it is borderline cruel keeping them in an apartment in some cases
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.
Certainly makes sense we also breed in the opposite direction. Where they are better fit to be outdoors. Still I would argue dogs have a certain adaptation to living indoors that was bread into them artificially rather than naturally. Herd dogs still relied on the food/shelter from the owner.
It's the complete opposite as far as I know, genetic diversity makes animals _more resistant_ to diseases.
Humans haven't stopped evolving, what the fuck. We're healthier, smarter, stronger than ever thanks in part to easy access to a massive genetic pool.
The idea of pure breeds is a relatively modern phenomenon and not a very good one. The number of people that I have heard talk about how they cannot "trust" a dog if they don't have papers is staggering.
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.
I am advancing this even further and going to call out creating pure breeds for no reason is an animal racism.
Hopefully less inbreeding is one of the positive outcomes of the current "designer mutt" fad. I was thinking about this the other day actually...
This should be the top comment. I don't fault people who do get designer dogs, but I just got a "covid rescue" dog... a 5 year old something or another and given all the amazing dogs that need happy homes, I can't imagine buying a specially bred dog.
Isn't that how you get a dog breed?
Line breeding is almost necessary for trait stabilization, yes. Lots of culls. When the "breed standards" market values looks over anything else for 50yr+, you get... what we got now.
This is distressing but not surprising. What is aggravating is that sometimes this is not even unintentional. For cats, there is the Scottish Fold. The very thing that makes them considered cute is a painful disease. The perpetuation of this breed is really a comment on human... what? Vanity? Cruelty? It's disgusting.
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...
I find the idea of purposefully breeding dogs with short legs, stubby noses, etc. repulsive. Why do people do it? Wouldn't they prefer a pet without health issues?
I vaguely remember reading that if you randomly bred dogs they slowly revert back to the "original" kind (strays). Is that true?
That does bring up a good question, if one were to breed dogs at random from a very large pool of dogs, how many generations would it take to revert to a wolf-like dog? Of course some care would be needed to ensure the dogs were a compatible size, that is no St. Bernards crossed with corgis. For the sake of argument let's say 1,000 randomly selected medium (30 to 70 pounds) dogs as the initial pool and taking care to avoid inbreeding at least 5 generations back.
Assuming no selection is involved, merely global mating completely at random where any dog could breed with any dog, they would never 'revert'. You would instead get a global average of current dogs, and then there would be a very wide bell curve around that mean, which would throw up lots of extremes at random. Genes are conserved, and get randomly distributed among offspring.
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!).
Do you perhaps mean wolves by strays? If so,, I don't think that's how natural evolution works, otherwise humans might start looking like Homo erectus.
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).
Kind of the definition of a 'dog breed'?
"Studies show water is wet".
Inbred is measurable with the coefficient of inbreeding.
But to claim a dog is X% golden retriever requires you to define a single dog as THE "golden retriever", or the reference genome.
Who gets to set the reference genome?
Isn’t there a known phenomenon where a species has been inbreeding for so long that they’ve selected out defects caused by inbreeding via natural selection? I thought I had heard that about lab mice, but I can’t find info about it.
Yes, that's actually referenced in the Discussion of the paper if you want to look at a mouse textbook. But while that can happen, it obviously has not in dogs given their results. It'd be nice if it had, but it didn't. (I'm not sure why: perhaps lab mice have gone through far more generations, with much more stringent selection on overall health, and that is how much it takes to purge all the exposed bad recessives etc?)
A good rule of thumb is that the more a dog looks like a wolf, the less inbred it is.
Really? Alsatians have dreadful hip dysplasia, and look pretty wolfy.
Most rules have exceptions and edge cases.
I find these answers (mostly) refreshingly free of the Dog Rescue Nazis, who seem to troll anyone who mentions dogs in any context. Many of them operate "breed rescue groups." These groups are usually 501(c)(3) organizations and pay their chief officers a salary, which you can check on their IRS form 990.
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.
Interesting rant - I have been glancing at shelters in my area over the last year and have been confused that it is almost entirely pit bulls and pit mixes. I thought maybe those types of dogs were just all people were into these days. I _never_ see puppies available . . .
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 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.
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...
Thanks, I expected a flood of condemnations!
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.
> The term "backyard breeder" is just one step up in snobbery from "trailer trash."
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
> The term is often used to refer to people running extremely sketchy for-profit operations
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.
> 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 uh... I don't think that was a condemnation at all?
I uh... I didn't say it was, but I guess you could legitimately read it that way.
I meant "I expected a flood of condemnations, but this is nice." or words to that effect.
Oh wow, I completely read it as if you were saying "thanks for condemning me as I expected you would" and was very confused why you'd take it that way. Apologies!
I find it a bit ironic that you and the OP seem to be saying these rescue groups work for their actual goal and the goal of the shelter.
What do you think the "goal of the shelter" is? To just move as many dogs out as possible, or to serve the public by giving them fair access to dogs others don't want? Those are subtly different.
Successfully performing an ethical responsibility to house dogs in a good situation inherently deprioritizes every member of the the public getting a great choice in free dogs. That is a successful supply side shortage which is the goal.
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.
Sorry, but you're resorting to word salad here. "The welfare of the dogs placed in it's [sic] care" is not at issue, as I'll demonstrate:
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.
Rescues typically house their dogs in foster homes rather than shared kennels, and are more likely to engage in rehabilitation and training than shelters are. Dogs at breed rescues generally get way more individual attention and care.
> 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 the foster homes: point taken. Although it's irrelevant if the dog is so desirable that someone adopts it right away. Which is the case we're talking about here after all.
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.
Fwiw I think what's good about breed rescues, when they are good, are virtues that shelters could also have, in principle (and some shelters do). I would rather rely on robust, publicly funded and publicly accountable shelters that emphasize foster programs of their own than fall back on a ton of random, breed-specific, donor-funded organizations. Seems like that would be better for dogs of mixed and unpopular breeds, as well as more convenient when it comes to locating a dog for adoption.
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.
Yeah, one can imagine some kind of public-private partnership that combines "love for a specific breed" with "ease and fairness in finding & adopting the dog you want."
I'm sure you heard it a thoudand times, and you anticipated hearing it when you posted in this thread, but since things are friendly:
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.
Despite the headline this is only talking about purebreds, not mutts, which actually make up the bulk of dogs
Isn't this just something everyone has already know for ages?
You're saying my basset hound is inbred? I don't buy it.
I like mutts. Healthier and more sane.
Not if they are a mix of two inbred breeds. Good genes are what inherently matters not muttiness, which is just a lazy proxy for good genes.
That is not correct as typical remaining genetic problems are not successfully bred out since they are recessive.
The mutt will almost always be healthier than it's parents as it is highly unlikely to have any recessive ailments of either line.
> The mutt will almost always be healthier than it's parents
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.
Looks? Many people are conditioned to like the near death look of royalty through association with wealth and power. Does a defect in the observer's taste make the observed not bleed to death?
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.
That's literally the definition of the word inbred. "In breed".