Dogs don’t mind being “spectacles.” They aren’t getting their self-esteem wounded or anything by being put in beauty contests, so using loaded terminology makes you look over the top.
There are a ton of issues worth discussing, but whether the dogs are “on display” is a very silly angle. Dogs love being on display.
I bet they love all those genetic health problems due to the continual inbreeding that goes on.
I think it’s great that breeding cocker spaniels to show them off has resulted in a dog that looks ‘perfect’ according to breeders but couldn’t carry a bird in its mouth if it tried. I think it’s wonderful that bulldogs have a classic looking smashed in face, even if it means they can’t breathe very well. I’m glad that so many collies get bred that the breed is known for eye problems and that dalmations have metabolism issues that can’t be gotten rid of.
Yeah, I’m so tickled that there are all these people who wanna show their dogs because they really love dogs and want to do whats best for dogs! Well, they care what the thing looks like, anyway.
But you keep changing the subject to NON-responsible breeders, which nobody is defending. Responsible breeders don’t breed a dog that has eye problems, or metabolism problems, or breathing problems, or hip problems. They are not interested in perpetuating health problems just so that they can have more pretty puppies.
So did the Tsarevich. Why do they need to be purebred? Would you love them less if they weren’t?
That seems to be catsix’ point. Dysplasia occurs in the general population at one rate, in the purebred population in certain breeds at another. It’s not about how the breeders treat their puppies; it’s about the idea of having societies devoted to marrying cousins.
The money that good breeders spend is to prevent health problems. That’s what a lot of the testing and databases and care is all about.
We’re wasting time on catsix. His/her opinion is fixed. That’s fine. I’ll go enjoy my beautiful purebred dogs (2) and my two mixed breeds. Guess which pair has the most health problems.
<hint> It’s not the purebreds.
That would mean there are no responsible breeders of dalmations, since the metabolic condition is related to the same genetic property that causes them to have the dalmatian spot pattern.
There are, as I’ve read, anywhere between 300 and 500 genetic problems that affect purebred dogs. The number of genetic problems that affect mixed breed dogs, as I’ve read, is much lower, around 100. I read that Scotties have thirty six genetic diseases that are specific to the breed.
It’s not just hip dysplasia. That was one example of the hundreds of genetic problems purebred dogs have.
Inbreeding, and line breeding, which from what I’ve read in the last couple of days are both common, contribute to these problems.
Then why are there so many more genetic problems in purebred dogs than there are in mixed breeds? With the lowest numbers I found, there are three times as many genetic problems in purebred dogs that there are in mixed breeds. The problems are there, inherently, because the gene pool is already limited, and it’s already closed. It gets even more limited because show breeders are going for conformity to a specific look above all else, so any genes that don’t contribute to that ‘right’ look are kicked out of the gene pool. The same dogs are bred over and over and over again, like the Wycliffe Kennel and the black standard poodle. You end up with double grandparents, grandparents breeding with grand-children, brother-sister mating, and all kind of other inbreeding. Populations that lack genetic diversity are at higher risk for disease and often have significant problems. ‘Purebred’ dogs are populations that by definition lack genetic diversity, and as time goes on and the same dogs are bred over and over again in order to get a more perfect looking dog, that genetic diversity degrades even further, thus opening the door for even more problems as the recessive genes that cause these problems come into contact with each other more and more often.
The very act of having purebred dogs causes this lack of genetic diversity. This isn’t about ‘irresponsible backyard breeders.’ This is the dog show winner being mated to its own grandchild and creating an even less diverse gene pool than already exists.
From what I’ve been reading, it’s more like socities in which grandparents are marrying their grandchildren and having offspring. Apparently dog breeders call this ‘line breeding’, but let’s be honest… if these were humans we would call it inbreeding.
Well I’ll venture a guess as to which ones you care more about. Purebreds are beautiful, but mixed aren’t?
And the more you talk, the less inclined I am to put any stock whatsoever in your opinion. Good news is, neither of us needs to care 
Thats a cheapshot and no doubt false on top of it. You make a lot of assumptions about purebred owners, catsix. If she didn’t like mixed breeds, would she have any? I don’t think any pet owners will say that all mixed breed dogs are ugly compared to purebreds. The onlt difference is that you know what a purebreed will look like.
– hawksgirl, who loves her mutt puppy from the shelter and her mom’s purebred Shi Tzu equally.
But no refutation of the fact that a ‘pure’ breed of dog is a closed genetic pool with a lack of diversity and inherent problems?
I’ve posted plenty of facts about lack of genetic diversity, closed gene pools, inbreeding (aka line breeding) and the problems that exist in purebred dogs as compared to mixed breed dogs.
You have ignored it all.
Kind of like how you ignored the requests for the basis of your “it really does hurt them, and I know it” comments.
Not wasting my time on this thread any more.
I see a lot of beautiful mix breeds, and I think alot of them are much more beautiful than pugs, chinese cresteds and bulldogs.
But I do think Shih Tzus are cute 
I wouldn’t mind owning a purebred but I am leaning more to breeds that are not bred to be extreme like giant breeds, tiny breeds, ones with pushed in faces or excessive long hair. I would also own a mix breed too if I could reliably predict if it would be a good size.
To be honest, I do think dobermans look better with show crop ears than the floppy ears but I don’t want to put a puppy through that.
One last question, doesn’t crop ears and dock tails affect communication?
Because of people like your mentally deficient friend trying to make a fast buck and completely failing to understand the biology of sexual reproduction? That’d be my first guess. If you provide cites, we can all look at the data and go from there.
Show me a cite. I’ve never seen a database that tracks mixed breed health issues. On the other hand, there is lots of data on purebreds because anyone with half a brain would like to avoid breeding unhealthy puppies. Like, OFA, for example which seems to contradicts your statement. OFA tracks hip dysplasia among other things and they found "There was no significant difference in the prevalence of HD between sexes or between purebred and mixbred dogs." (warning .pdf)
Try again.
Works both ways.
I could turn this around and say you must hate most dogs since they’re purebreds, but I’d look ignorant.
I hear ya.
Here’s the thing. I love my dog. Madly. In my (not so) humble opinion, he’s the greatest thing on four paws. I knew what I wanted in a dog, and everything I wanted came wrapped up in a Dogo Argentino package. That means personality, character, temperament, health, and appearance. I could get muttley dogs that look similar to a dogo, but there’s no way to know whether or not they’ll have a dogo temperament and I guarantee they won’t have the dogo’s drive.
Getting a dog from the pound is a crapshoot at best. You’ll never get a perfect view of the dog’s personality in the pound because it’s a sick, stressful environment. After adjusting to the new home you may have a completely different dog. Rescues are better but many of the dogs they end up with are abused, abandoned, unsocialized, unhealthy, they might have an unreported bite history, or any number of other things. Many, maybe most, are great dogs… but there’s no way to know that, and I’m not interested in undoing other peoples’ mistakes, or putting myself and my family in the face of the liability of a dog with an unknown background.
I knew what I was getting in my dog from before he was even conceived, and through the breeder’s knowledge and experience I got the particular puppy out of the litter that was perfect for me, my family, and our situation, and like I said, he’s absolutely the perfect dog for us.
So, if you found me a mixed breed dog that is everything my Simon is then no… I wouldn’t love him any less for not being a purebred. But good luck finding it.
Also, if the anti-dog-breeding folks had their way, and purebred dogs were eliminated, we’d eventually end up with something like a Carolina Dog, which is what you get when any number of dogs breeds for any length of time. Ask ten dog folks what their ideal canine companion is and you’ll get ten different answers. If you and me and Catsix walked into a pound looking for a dog, we’d probably choose thre completely different animals. I can’t imagine the world being happy with a single generic default dog for everyone.
I think the problem with this debate is that pound puppy fans will never understand people who are choosy about what they want in a dog. It’s not that I just wanted a canine to live in my house and be my bud, I had very specific ideas about what I wanted. Lots of people do. Some people like big, floppy, drooly, protective, calm dogs. Some people like little, yippy, spunky dogs that need to be prissed over and professionally groomed. Some people don’t care, they just want a dog. Like I said to Catsix, good news is we all have options.
Wrong again. My mixed breed dog with the most problems (exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, masseter myositis, etc.) is my Bouncer dog. He’s the one that sleeps on the bed every night. I have to help him up on the bed – he can’t jump by himself anymore.
Sorry,** catsix**, you just really don’t understand.
My mentally deficient friend? I think you need to back the wagon up just a bit. I specifically stated that she is a friend of a relative of mine. Although that won’t stop you from attempting to sully me by calling her my friend.
I’ll give you a hint: the lack of genetic diversity in different breeds of dogs goes straight on back to the founders of the breed and the fact that the same founder can be seen more than once in the first few entries of a stud book, because it was mated to its own relatives - including sisters and grand-children.
This is what I found on sites about purebred dogs. Too few founders, closed stud books, continued overbreeding of ‘show champions’, continued narrowing of the gene pool, cases like the Wycliffe Kennel creating an entire breed of dogs (black standard poodle) where every living specimen can trace the majority of its ancestry to one kennel, that those who pursue the ‘show dog’ look dwindle the gene pool even further by eliminating genes that create different looks in dogs that have good health and temperment, and the fact that the AKC still allows the registration of dogs that have genetic problems.
Take a gander at k9web.com or yourpurebredpuppy.com or caninegenetics.com.
If a lack of genetic diversity doesn’t lead to health problems, why do we discourage close human relatives from marrying and producing children?
I understand the deliberate reduction in genetic diversity for what it really is: tragic.
I don’t blame the dogs. They don’t know better.
Humans, on the other hand…
Yeah, and you’ve ignored everything anyone else has to say, and been snarky and insulting to boot. There’s plenty of refutation for all of that. Check out the OFA website for one database.
So what about the closed genetic pool and lack of diversity? Mixed breeds are prone to as many problems as purebreds are, just not the same ones. You said somewhere that mutts have around a hundred potential genetic issues. My breed has two or three that are common enough to watch out for specific to the breed, and a few like CHD that are common to large breed dogs in general. Does that mean dogos are healthier than mutts? Also, my breeder knows intimately the genetic background of every dog in the pedigree of all her breeding stock. I know the likelihood that I’ll see health problems crop up and what to watch out for. I know nothing about a pound dog and its health potential.
Mixed breed dogs carry the same genes that pure bred dogs do, you just don’t have as many of the recessive pairs lining up. If you know a pure bred dog carries a recessive gene for some particular issue, you can easily eliminate it from the gene pool. Problem is with mutts, you don’t have a clue what the parents’ backgrounds were.
To echo a comment above, you keep bringing up issues that are seen much more commonly with irresponsible breeders than reputable ones. Yes, some purebred dogs are genetic messes. “Purebred” doesn’t mean carefully bred. The overall congenital deafness rate in my dog’s breed is something like 10% born bilaterally deaf and 20% unilaterally deaf. My breeder has had one --that’s one single-- unilaterally deaf puppy in the last six litters. Period. No bilaterally deaf puppies. That’s what very strict and careful selection of matches does to improve the health of the breed.
Yes, genetic problems exist, but that’s why we (purebred dog fanciers) rely on reputable breeders to provide us with healthy, well-socialized dogs of the type we enjoy.
