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 ?
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.
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.
I believe both are the case, they cannot copulate or give birth naturally.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. :rolleyes:
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Pugs can neither copulate nor give birth naturally, either.
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.
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.
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:
(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.
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.
