The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2009, 01:00 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
French bulldogs can't breed naturally, so how come they are still around ?

Was just watching a show about dogs on Animal Planet. And they claimed French Bulldogs cannot breed naturally as their anatomy has been distorted by years of in-breeding to the point they can't mate.

In the show they claimed the breed has been around since the 1800s and AFAIK the use of artificial insemination only became common place pretty recently, how come the breed still exists ?

Last edited by griffin1977; 10-11-2009 at 01:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 10-11-2009, 01:14 PM
dolphinboy dolphinboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Posts: 3,018
I don't have a good answer for you, but I'm pretty sure that artificial insemination, for example for livestock, is not a recent discovery. Someone more knowledgeable about dogs will be by shortly... please stand by.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-11-2009, 02:08 PM
DocCathode DocCathode is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
By 'can't breed naturally' did they mean that they cannot copulate or (and I suspect it's this) that the bitches cannot give birth naturally? I've heard (I don't remember the specifics and cannot confirm) that there are breeds which cannot give birth due to head and pelvis sizes and must be delivered by caesarian.

Hmm, according to Wikipedia it's both "French bulldogs frequently require caesarean section to give birth. As well, many French bulldog stud dogs are incapable of naturally breeding, requiring breeders to undertake artificial insemination of bitches (female dogs). French bitches can also suffer from erratic or 'silent' heats, which may be a side effect of thyroid disease or impaired thyroid function."

Dolphinboy is right though. The knowledge that semen placed in a fertile bitch's/sow's/ etc vagina equals pregnancy is thousands of years old. Complicated equipment is needed only if there are complications. Otherwise, you need the equivalent of a turkey baster.
__________________
Nothing is impossible if you can imagine it. That's the wonder of being a scientist!
Prof Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-11-2009, 02:29 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocCathode View Post
By 'can't breed naturally' did they mean that they cannot copulate or (and I suspect it's this) that the bitches cannot give birth naturally?
I believe both are the case, they cannot copulate or give birth naturally.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-11-2009, 04:30 PM
Chez Guevara Chez Guevara is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocCathode View Post
The knowledge that semen placed in a fertile bitch's/sow's/ etc vagina equals pregnancy is thousands of years old.
I would have thought so too, but this paper concerning the history of artificial insemination claims that "the first successful insemination was performed by (Lazzaro) Spallanzani (1784) in a dog, which whelped three pups".
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-11-2009, 05:10 PM
NajaNivea NajaNivea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
The short answer: they're still around because we humans go to great lengths to get things we like. Also, because to some extent, dogs have become fashion accessories for a large part of society. They always have been for a certain socio-economic class, but as we've gotten progressively more urban dogs have gotten progressively less utilitarian in general. A shrinkingly small sector of society still relates to dogs as basically utilitarian beings.

Tying in with that, dogs of many "fashion" breeds have gotten progressively more extreme in recent decades. Evidence the Bull Terrier's downface. Frenchies ("English" type bulldogs, too) are bred for tiny hips and enormous melons. They've been bred for that look for some time, but it's only in the last half of the last century that they've gotten quite so drastic... perhaps not-so-coincidentally at the same time that companion animal medicine as a practice took off, and about the same time that dogs went from generally being seen as "tools" to being "furry children". The reason we still have them around despite the problems they have breeding and birthing is partly the reason they've been allowed to get so extreme in the first place--if surgical intervention wasn't possible people would have to breed physically capable dogs. As it happens, it is possible, so as time went on what started out as the occasional aberration became the norm. Puppy buyers are perfectly willing to pay what it costs to make these dogs, and as long as there's a market there will be breeders to supply it.

Lots of people breed "Old English" type (sometimes called "Victorian" or, ye gods, "Olde English Buldog(g)(u)e") bulldogs for this very reason--physically capable animals. They're much closer in form to the bulldogs seen in depictions from the bull- and bear- baiting days.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-11-2009, 07:03 PM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by NajaNivea View Post
Lots of people breed "Old English" type (sometimes called "Victorian" or, ye gods, "Olde English Buldog(g)(u)e") bulldogs for this very reason--physically capable animals. They're much closer in form to the bulldogs seen in depictions from the bull- and bear- baiting days.
Similarly, the American Bulldog.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-11-2009, 10:53 PM
NajaNivea NajaNivea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Yup, and Am. Bulls are very capable working dogs... they've been the basic, all-purpose farm-and-hog-dog from pioneer days on forward. The "Old English" types are a reconstruction, folks aiming for a physically functional version of the backyard bulldog. It's really too bad that in the world of backyard bulldogs it takes people breeding "outside the standard" to do what's best for the dogs.

Per the OP, these are good examples... what happens when you breed for nothing but looks vs. utility.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-12-2009, 12:57 PM
cwthree cwthree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by NajaNivea View Post
Evidence the Bull Terrier's downface.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but can you tell us more about this picture? Are these three Bull Terrier skulls showing a change in breed standards over time? Or is only the bottom one a Bull Terrier skull?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-12-2009, 01:33 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Here is a series of posts on an excellent dog breeder blog explaining why most of the hype around purebred dogs and their health issues is sensationalist bullshit.

Paintings from the 1750s of random dogs are not representative of how breeds have changed over time. Most dog breeds have had the same standard for the past couple centuries. There is lots of variation in breeds and there are always plenty of animals that do not conform to the standard, then and now. You can find paintings of downface Bull Terriers from the 1700s. You can see plenty that don't have it in today's dogs. All purebred animals are 'inbred'. This is not a particularily bad thing.

There are a lot of dogs that have trouble breeding and giving birth. It has ever been so in these breeds. Modern technology (easy, effective insemination, cheap C-sections, better more affordable and accesable vet care) just makes it easier for breeders to end up with healthy mothers and more surviving puppies from each litter.

Last edited by rhubarbarin; 10-12-2009 at 01:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-12-2009, 02:01 PM
NajaNivea NajaNivea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwthree View Post
Not trying to hijack the thread, but can you tell us more about this picture? Are these three Bull Terrier skulls showing a change in breed standards over time? Or is only the bottom one a Bull Terrier skull?
They show changes in the breed over time. All three are bull terrier skulls, dating from from 1931, 1950, and 1976, top middle and bottom respectively.

Here are a couple early bull terriers from the late 1800's.

Patsy Ann in the 1930's.

Four 1950's dogs (Amazon preview, zoom in for a closer look).

Modern bull terrier with exaggerated downface.

I should note that this extreme "downface" isn't exactly what the best breeders are aiming for. The cream of the crop are slightly more moderate, like this guy, with a gently domed, egg-shaped face. That's true in most "fashion" breeds--there are some folks breeding for extreme type only... and, fortunately, some breeding for other reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-12-2009, 02:33 PM
NajaNivea NajaNivea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
rhubarbarin, I think you've got me wrong. I am not in here arguing about "inbreeding" at all. You have not seen me arguing from that platform because it is not a belief I hold.

Hopefully my response post will clear up my position. I did actually come across that article, poking around for good "downface" photos, and agree with most of it. She's wrong about bull terriers though, or rather the point she makes misses the mark slightly. There are, of course, more moderate BTs being bred today, and the best breeders are breeding more moderate BTs, as I just said. This kind of severely exaggerated downface did not exist in the 1700's, if for no other reason than because James Hinks didn't start breeding them until the 1850s.

Secondly, HR Garner's work on variable number tandem repeats shows a steep change in the genes which direct the "downface" trait over the last half of the last century.

Quote:
Rapid and sustained evolution of breeds. Purebred bull terrier skulls from 1931 (Top), 1950 (Middle), and 1976 (Bottom). Despite the lack of genetic diversity caused by population structure and history, these breeds are able to continually create new and more extreme morphological variations at a rapid and sustained pace. Analysis of the Runx-2 repeats in the 1931 bull terrier reveals a more intermediate allele (Q19A14) than is present in the modern bull terrier (Q19A13).
Finally, she does prove my point just fine on the "English" type bulldog front. Look at all the depictions of early bulldogs--it's not the snout length I'm "complaining" about, it's the relative size of skull-to-pelvis, the problem that makes modern dogs unable to birth naturally. Her use of a Polish top-winning bulldog to prove her point is a bit disingenuous. European dogs are, in general, far less extreme in type than American-bred dogs, and she surely knows that.

If you'd like to step aside from believing that I'm arguing in favor of the "Pedigree Dogs" special propaganda, maybe you'll take a minute to consider that in the early 1800's, no one was routinely AI/C-sectioning bulldogs of any type. I guarantee you that, because companion animal medicine as a practice, and certainly routine elective surgery, was not something practiced or invested in until the later half of the last century. If you want to try and argue that French bulldogs were routinely delivered by c-section 150 years ago, be my guest.

If you don't think there are recent, widespread morphological changes which necessitate this sort of routine surgical intervention... maybe you think they just do it now for the fun of it?

Last edited by NajaNivea; 10-12-2009 at 02:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-14-2009, 01:13 PM
Rodd Hill Rodd Hill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Sidebar to this discussion: one of my favourite little books to give as a gift is by a British lady named Libby Hall, who has collected old photos of dogs from Victorian and Edwardian times. Her books "Prince and Other Dogs" I and II are full of delightful and often poignant portraits of people and their dogs.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-14-2009, 03:09 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NajaNivea View Post
rhubarbarin, I think you've got me wrong. I am not in here arguing about "inbreeding" at all. You have not seen me arguing from that platform because it is not a belief I hold.

Hopefully my response post will clear up my position. I did actually come across that article, poking around for good "downface" photos, and agree with most of it. She's wrong about bull terriers though, or rather the point she makes misses the mark slightly. There are, of course, more moderate BTs being bred today, and the best breeders are breeding more moderate BTs, as I just said. This kind of severely exaggerated downface did not exist in the 1700's, if for no other reason than because James Hinks didn't start breeding them until the 1850s.

Secondly, HR Garner's work on variable number tandem repeats shows a steep change in the genes which direct the "downface" trait over the last half of the last century.



Finally, she does prove my point just fine on the "English" type bulldog front. Look at all the depictions of early bulldogs--it's not the snout length I'm "complaining" about, it's the relative size of skull-to-pelvis, the problem that makes modern dogs unable to birth naturally. Her use of a Polish top-winning bulldog to prove her point is a bit disingenuous. European dogs are, in general, far less extreme in type than American-bred dogs, and she surely knows that.

If you'd like to step aside from believing that I'm arguing in favor of the "Pedigree Dogs" special propaganda, maybe you'll take a minute to consider that in the early 1800's, no one was routinely AI/C-sectioning bulldogs of any type. I guarantee you that, because companion animal medicine as a practice, and certainly routine elective surgery, was not something practiced or invested in until the later half of the last century. If you want to try and argue that French bulldogs were routinely delivered by c-section 150 years ago, be my guest.

If you don't think there are recent, widespread morphological changes which necessitate this sort of routine surgical intervention... maybe you think they just do it now for the fun of it?
I don't think there are recent, widespread morphological changes in French Bulldogs necessitating c-sections, any more than I think there are recent, widespread morphological changes in the heads of human infants or the pelvises of their mothers to explain the current yearly rate of 32% of American babies being born by c-section, up from 4.5% in 1965.

I'm sorry if you felt I was accusing you personally, I wasn't.

My belief is that before c-sections were routinely practiced in these dog breeds, there were heavy losses of both bitches and puppies during labor.

Last edited by rhubarbarin; 10-14-2009 at 03:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-14-2009, 03:25 PM
NajaNivea NajaNivea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
I don't think there are recent, widespread morphological changes in French Bulldogs necessitating c-sections, any more than I think there are recent, widespread morphological changes in the heads of human infants or the pelvises of their mothers to explain the current yearly rate of 32% of American babies being born by c-section, up from 4.5% in 1965.

I'm sorry if you felt I was accusing you personally, I wasn't.

My belief is that before c-sections were routinely practiced in these dog breeds, there were heavy losses of both bitches and puppies during labor.
Ah, I guess it seemed that way because you specifically chose examples from my post to illustrate your points

So you do really just think it's for the fun of it? Out of convenience? If that's the case, why is it only a fad in certain breeds? Coincidentally ones with body shapes that frequently have trouble breeding and birthing naturally?

As you point out, the use of elective c-section and AI drastically increases the reproducibility and survivability of brood bitches and offspring which exhibit previously fatal traits. What selective pressure are you imagining that would prevent a corresponding increase in the frequency of these traits in subsequent generations?

Last edited by NajaNivea; 10-14-2009 at 03:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-14-2009, 03:48 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
All I am saying is that dog breeds that have trouble mating and birthing naturally (those with wide heads) have always had these problems.

Humans have always had many problems with birth as well. Our infants also have wide heads, which have trouble navigating our bipedal pelvises.

Once technology became widely available and affordable, the former level of risk involved in birth became unacceptable. Of course 32% of (American) human mothers would not be dying/injured, or have dying/injured babies, without their section. The section rate has skyrocketed just in the last two decades, while perinatal mortality and maternal death rates have remained about the same.

I don't assume that because surgical interventions have become normal for both, the majority are life-saving. And unlike the majority of women who get a trial of labor (which is carefully monitored and cut short on any suspicion of fetal distress), breeds with a high c-section rate are having elective c-sections performed.

See this.

Because nearly 100% of French Bulldog bitches are sectioned, we now have no idea which ones would be capable of natural birth, and no evidence that those which would be if they were allowed are decreasing in number.

But you are correct that there is nothing now to prevent an increase in bitches/puppies with fatal traits.. however I don't see how it matters because they are all being sectioned anyway, and will continue to be forever I imagine because no one knows what the risks will be without it. It's become a cycle.

Last edited by rhubarbarin; 10-14-2009 at 03:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-14-2009, 03:58 PM
needscoffee needscoffee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Pugs, also

Pugs can neither copulate nor give birth naturally, either.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-14-2009, 04:35 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Actually elective sections are not performed on the majority of Pugs. They will do so if they feel the bitch has 'narrow hips' though. And they are better at breeding naturally than Frenchies - who suck at mating not because of their physical structure, but because they have a lot of trouble understanding the idea of penetration for some reason.

Dog mating in general is complicated. Insemination is by contrast quick, easy, and problem free - take her temp and when she's ovulating make the quick trip to the vet. For convenience sake most reputable breeders in all breeds use insemination on a regular basis. If for no other reason, so that they don't have to be shipping bitches away constantly to be bred - it's expensive, and the timing is difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-14-2009, 04:38 PM
NajaNivea NajaNivea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
All I am saying is that dog breeds that have trouble mating and birthing naturally (those with wide heads) have always had these problems.
Yes. And the ones that had these problems were either previously unable to reproduce, or died in labor, thereby being unable to pass along this trait to subsequent offspring. There was a self-limiting endpoint to the relative size of skull-to-pelvis. Selecting for exaggeration of this trait would result in dead bitches and no puppies.

Quote:
I don't assume that because surgical interventions have become normal for both, the majority are life-saving. And unlike the majority of women who get a trial of labor (which is carefully monitored and cut short on any suspicion of fetal distress), breeds with a high c-section rate are having elective c-sections performed.

See this.

Because nearly 100% of French Bulldog bitches are sectioned, we now have no idea which ones would be capable of natural birth, and no evidence that those which would be if they were allowed are decreasing in number.
Again... I'm having a difficult time understanding.
Prior to elective c-section: balanced skull-to-pelvis size ratio = surviving bitch, many generations of offspring. Exaggerated trait = dead bitch, no puppies.
Now: exaggerated trait = no problem reproducing, many generations of offspring.
What selective pressure stops this trait from continuing to increase with every generation of surviving pups, seeing as how at least some number of Frenchie breeders are actively selecting for these traits, or at the very least, nothing is preventing these dogs from being born and continuing on to breed?

Also, from your link:
Quote:
As you may already know, the vast majority of French Bulldogs -- and most other Bully breeds -- deliver their puppies by C Section.
(bolding mine)
That's nonsense. The only "bully breeds" that deliver by C-section are the ones that have been bred with physical traits that prevent natural labor and delivery... the varieties we're discussing now. Pit type and working bulldogs do not need to deliver by C-section because their puppies' skulls do not have problems fitting through their pelvises.

I am not saying all Frenchies fit this profile, but most certainly a significantly larger percentage do today than did 150 years ago. That the top-shelf breeders are not necessarily selecting for extreme typiness doesn't mean it's not happening. It is true in every breed that some select for balanced, physically capable dogs, while others only breed for type. It is impossible for the increased reproducibility and survivability of offspring carrying a previously fatal trait to not affect subsequent generations.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-15-2009, 10:33 AM
Serenata67 Serenata67 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NajaNivea View Post
...
Also, from your link:
Quote:
As you may already know, the vast majority of French Bulldogs -- and most other Bully breeds -- deliver their puppies by C Section.
(bolding mine)
That's nonsense. The only "bully breeds" that deliver by C-section are the ones that have been bred with physical traits that prevent natural labor and delivery... the varieties we're discussing now. Pit type and working bulldogs do not need to deliver by C-section because their puppies' skulls do not have problems fitting through their pelvises.
My brother and his wife have a bullybeagle and they actually watched the bitch delivering the pups. And their bullybeagle (prior to her getting fixed) would have been able to reproduce normally. Not all bully breads are like the French Bulldogs.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-15-2009, 10:47 AM
Freudian Slit Freudian Slit is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Pugs and bulldogs can't have sex? Cite? It doesn't even make sense. I could see their pelvises being too small and their heads being too large for giving birth but how would that affect copulation?

http://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=16OMfipCs04 (not work safe) This pug seems to manage it fine--he's only humping so far but if the other pug weren't walking away, I'm sure he could do it.

Last edited by Freudian Slit; 10-15-2009 at 10:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-15-2009, 04:02 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Prior to elective c-section: balanced skull-to-pelvis size ratio = surviving bitch, many generations of offspring. Exaggerated trait = dead bitch, no puppies.
Now: exaggerated trait = no problem reproducing, many generations of offspring.
What selective pressure stops this trait from continuing to increase with every generation of surviving pups, seeing as how at least some number of Frenchie breeders are actively selecting for these traits, or at the very least, nothing is preventing these dogs from being born and continuing on to breed?
Why do you assume that exaggerated traits led to dead bitches and no puppies 100% of the time?

I don't think this is the case at all. Some bitches had problems giving birth due to bone structure - this led to an increased incidence of puppies being born dead (it's not impossible to assist in the delivery of a stuck puppy, it's just that the one that gets stuck usually dies quickly) and an increased risk of death or injury for the bitch.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-15-2009, 05:53 PM
NajaNivea NajaNivea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
Why do you assume that exaggerated traits led to dead bitches and no puppies 100% of the time?
Because the exaggerated trait in question, the one we're discussing here, is "skull so far out of proportion with pelvic size that it leads to an inability to deliver naturally". If the skull was small enough to fit through the pelvis and bitch and pups survive... then... they aren't exhibiting this trait. It's like asking "why do you assume taking a fatal dose of poison results in death 100% of the time?" Because if you take a dose and survive, it's not a fatal dose. Back then, "skull that doesn't fit through mama's pelvis" or "pelvis too small for normal parturition" was a fatal trait. Now, in the age of 100% elective c-section, it's not.
Quote:
this led to an increased incidence of puppies being born dead (it's not impossible to assist in the delivery of a stuck puppy, it's just that the one that gets stuck usually dies quickly) and an increased risk of death or injury for the bitch.
Okay, so, what makes you think the increased count of surviving bitches and offspring of those bitches (the ones that likely would have gotten stuck and likely died as a result) which all carry and exhibit the trait of "disproportionate skull" are not affecting the gene pool today?

Last edited by NajaNivea; 10-15-2009 at 05:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-15-2009, 07:32 PM
rhubarbarin rhubarbarin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
I did some research and you might be interested to know that French bulldogs difficulty in labor/birth is due to poor tone in the uterus (inefficient contractions) as well as their conformation.
'
It seems to me that you are saying that affordable canine c-section somehow coincided exactly with a conspiracy on the part of breeders to vastly increase the head size of all their Frenchies just because they could.

There's no question that some puppies that would have died during a natural birth living and going on to reproduce now is 'affecting' the gene pool today. Of course there is no ACTUAL affect because of all the elective sections. But if the elective section option was taken away totally, than yeah, more puppies might be dying now than in the days before elective section was the norm.

The French bulldog standard hasn't changed. There is no reason for breeders to be encouraging wider heads and narrower hips, and no evidence that they are.

This is how I see the last century of French Bulldogs. From 1909 til c-section became widely available (last 2-3 decades) there was a certain incidence of puppies not progressing, perhaps dying themselves, possibly leading to the exhaustion or injury of the mother when trying to extract the stuck puppy, to the deaths of puppies who should have delivered after it, or rarely to the death of the mother herself.

The majority of pups and bitches lived and thrived, but when breeding expensive purebred show dogs you want all your pups born live.

With the advent of affordable technology, Frenchie breeders were able to circumvent this risk and get more live puppies. End of story. There was no huge increase in head size across the breed in 1985 (to pick a random year) that caused so many puppies to be born dead that they had to start doing sections.

Last edited by rhubarbarin; 10-15-2009 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-15-2009, 08:43 PM
NajaNivea NajaNivea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
It seems to me that you are saying that affordable canine c-section somehow coincided exactly with a conspiracy on the part of breeders to vastly increase the head size of all their Frenchies just because they could.
No, that's not actually what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is this: that for the breeders for whom "extreme typiness" is paramount, balanced, physically capable conformation is no longer a prerequisite. The nearly 100% c-section rate allows the bad breeders to get away with breeding for extreme type in a way that wasn't really possible before. In general, the trend may be to be less concerned about breeding totally balanced dogs because it's no longer a life-threatening issue.
Clearly birthing issues are wide-spread enough that a nearly 100% c-section rate is preferable to whatever percentage of risk existed before. The elective human c-section rate is horrifically high, but it's not that high. The fact that risks are high enough with this breed to prompt a nearly 100% section rate tells me that there's something grossly abnormal about their parturition risks, because very few other breeds operate the same way.
I, personally, would not choose to replicate dogs that couldn't physically function in a normally-capable way. If my dogs were such poor reproducers that they couldn't breed or birth naturally, I would be looking into solving those significant health problems with each subsequent generation. That does not appear to be the goal of the French Bulldog breeding community as a whole. As a whole, the solution appears to be "choose elective surgery 100% of the time and then you don't have to worry about it".

I realize the standard as written is still the same. If you know anything about the dog show world (and it appears you do) you'll know that in most breeds there is room within a standard for a significant range of variation while still being technically "correct". That's why you have trends in breeds over time. The best type of breeders will always breed "correct" dogs, but some will follow trends for whatever is fashionable at the moment... like long, sloping, roachy backs on GSDs, for example (those are all Seiger winning dogs, the best-of-the-best). Or Persian cat breeders producing "ultra face" Persians with nose leather placed above the lower limits of the eyeballs.

I still think you're lumping me in with the whole "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" propaganda crowd. I'm not arguing that all purebred dogs are inbred and mutated, or that dog breeding as a whole is going down the toilet. I'm only saying that a) to some extent that big round head and narrow rear contributes to the breed's difficulties with natural birth, and b) to what extent it's necessary to surgically intervene to ensure the breed's continued propagation, French Bulldog breeders have turned to routine surgical intervention to ensure the breed's continued propagation. Also that some breeders (in nearly all breeds) will breed for extreme type, regardless of whether this is the healthiest or most physically robust choice. For French Bulldog breeders for whom extreme typiness is a priority, the lethality of birthing pups with the giant-noggin look is no longer an issue. Yes, I understand that a balanced Frenchie does not look like that, any more than a top winning Silverwood bull terrier will exhibit extreme downface. However, even the balanced Frenchies' skulls are disproportionately large. In some breeds, the solution to these problems would be to produce even more balanced dogs which didn't have the same birthing difficulties. In Frenchies and other similarly-built bulldogs, the solution is, apparently, routine elective C-sections.

Quote:
There's no question that some puppies that would have died during a natural birth living and going on to reproduce now is 'affecting' the gene pool today. Of course there is no ACTUAL affect because of all the elective sections.

If you don't get how a bunch of dogs who previously wouldn't have survived birth, surviving and going on to pass those genes along affects the gene pool then I think we're at a standstill here.

Last edited by NajaNivea; 10-15-2009 at 08:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.