How a century of breeding ruined dogs

[paassatt]

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/how-a-cen...ruined-these-beautiful-an-1477122149/@maxread

 

[Boatman]

I love the look of the old tyme English Bull Terrier.

 

[bugmankeith]

I read about this with German Shepherds too how their back legs always look like they are crouched when the older dogs walked straight and now hip problems are common defects.

Dogs aren't working dogs anymore they are pets that are bred to look how we like, like every other kind of domestic animal.

 

[The Snark]

I read about this with German Shepherds too how their back legs always look like they are crouched when the older dogs walked straight and now hip problems are common defects.

Dogs aren't working dogs anymore they are pets that are bred to look how we like, like every other kind of domestic animal.

Dachsund, nearly all now have spinal problems galore. Shepherds, and several others, hip displacia very common. The same applies to many horse breeds.

 

[pitbulllady]

I read about this with German Shepherds too how their back legs always look like they are crouched when the older dogs walked straight and now hip problems are common defects.

Dogs aren't working dogs anymore they are pets that are bred to look how we like, like every other kind of domestic animal.

BMK, you hit upon something that very, very few of the anti-purebred dog folks take into consideration: the purpose of dogs in the first place. Until about a century ago, nearly all dog breeds, with the exception of the Toy breeds, were NOT bred primarily as pets, but as working and hunting animals. Dogs whose physical form best allowed them to complete the tasks for which they existed in the first place were allowed to breed and pass along their genes, while those that lacked the physical, mental and behavioral attributes that were best suited for their purposes, were eliminated from the gene pool, usually by culling(killing), at least until surgically eliminating a dog's ability to reproduce became more assessable. Sounds cruel and harsh, but few people could afford to maintain a dog, especially a large dog, simply to have it as a pet, and if it could not perform the duties for which it was bred, it was not kept, period. The change in society from a largely rural, agrarian one to a more urban and industrial one, gave more people "expendable" income, that could be spent on things like pet dogs, rather than working/hunting dogs. At the same time, dog shows started to become fashionable, and dog breed standards were adopted, originally intended to describe the IDEAL specimen based on the purpose for which that breed was created in the first place. At first, dog shows were attended mostly by hunters wanting to showcase the dogs they'd bred, but more and more, drifted away from the working class and more towards the upper class, who lived in cities, did not participate in hunting, herding or other typically rural activities, and as this happened. breeders lost track of their breeds' original functions. Dogs were being bred mostly for cosmetic, rather than functional, appearances. The first dog show judges were themselves hunters or owned real working dogs and understood the "form=function" concept, but as those judges died, and were replaced by younger people who'd never participated in a real hunt of any kind, nor owned livestock, you had all these people judging dogs who were really clueless as to how to interpret a breed standard based on the "form=function" notion. Also, there is a LOT of politics in the dog show world, a lot of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", especially in the American Kennel Club and other organizations that permit professional handlers, people who show other people's dogs for a living. I've seen this first-hand, believe me, since I used to show dogs in AKC, and saw many dogs of poor conformation, with obvious health issues, win over sound dogs, simply because the judge was only looking at who was on the OTHER end of the leash. I know one handler who actually paid to put a judges kid through university in exchange for that judge awarding every dog that handler brought into the ring, no matter how poorly-constructed that dog was. That's when I decided that this was NOT the world for me, and started to concentrate exclusively on real working dogs, dogs that could still perform the tasks for which they were bred in the first place.

Now, that being said, though, I do want to address the common myth that mixed-bred dogs are healthier than purebreds. Numerous scientific studies, carried out by medical professionals, have shown that this in not true! Mixed-breed dogs, kept and bred primarily as pets, are just as susceptible to genetic abnormalities as their purebred counterparts. Getting a mutt does not in any way guarantee that you'll get a healthy dog. The notion of "hybrid vigor", often touted by breeders of mixed-bred, or "designer" dogs, as the advantage of their high-dollar mutts over a purebred, simply does NOT exist in dogs, since ALL dogs are the same species, and "hybrid vigor" ONLY applies when the parents of a given animal are of DIFFERENT, yet related, species, for example, a mule. Here is a run-down from a study by Tufts University, one of the most-recent to debunk the myth of mutts being healthier than purebreds: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/doggone-dna . While certain genetic conditions are more prevalent in certain pure breeds than in the general dog population, others are more commonly associated with mixed-ancestry dogs, and logically it stands to reason that if you have a dog who had one parent that was, for example, a result of breeding a dysplastic German Shepherd to a dysplastic Lab, and the other parent was a dysplastic Boxer with a gene mutation for certain cancer, you're going to get an unhealthy mongrel dog! Genes do not "go away" and do not recognize "breed'.

Another thing that simply cannot be ignored is what dogs, like ourselves, are being exposed to, in their food, in the general environment, etc. Commercial dog foods contain things that I bet most of you cannot even pronounce, let alone explain, much as our own food does. The role of those chemical additives in the development of many physical maladies in dogs, which, while possibly genetic in nature, might otherwise never manifest is like the proverbial elephant in the living room, and must be taken into consideration in explaining the proliferation of genetic conditions in all dogs, purebred as well as mixed, since even in my own younger days, these things didn't exist, but the ingredients in most dog foods was much simpler, too. There were fewer brands, and they were not meant to sit on a shelf for more than a few weeks.

pitbulllady

 

[jecraque]

The original link says nothing new or terribly helpful but the pictures are striking. I'm a dog person--I like some breeds as much as any mutt, but most of the featured breeds are especially good examples of domestication-turned-deformity. You can find similar examples in horses, cows, chickens, pigeons, and lots of plants, but the visuals here are quite well-done.

PBL, I had to stop reading that article you linked when it mentioned "a designer breed such as a Labradoodle." (j/k I kept going because it was interesting. BUT STILL. Call me old-fashioned, I guess.)

You probably know more about this, so please correct me as needed, but if the most common hereditary disorders are equally frequently found in purebreds and mixed-breeds... doesn't that still not tell us a whole lot?
I mean, (I think) the reason people think mutts are healthier is because of the perception that they run a lower risk of developing specific hereditary problems than any one breed that happens to be susceptible to whatever specific hereditary problem. I'm interpreting this to mean that in the study referred to here they tested a bunch of purebred breeds, which presumably would have different susceptibilities to different inherited disorders, vs. mutts, and found that of all the 13 tested disorders mutts were as likely as purebreds to have something--anything--wrong with them. But if you were comparing each breed to mutts, would the results have looked different? Maybe the actual paper clarifies this but I haven't got the time to hunt it down at the moment. Intuitively, I know that outbreeding is a useful thing in managing declining species and combating hereditary disorders, but I don't know how well that applies to dogs or how genetically diverse they are to start.

Also, the author draws some attention to the issues that linkage poses... but then the example used, with Dalmations, doesn't really seem to say how the problem is "fixed" beyond the outbreeding to a spaniel thing. If the issue is that an undesirable trait is linked to a highly desirable trait, and you continue to breed for the latter, the genes are still linked and you'd still have problems, right? I would think so, anyway.

You're absolutely on-point about the hybrid vigor thing (and it's pretty controversial in a lot of true hybrids too despite being enshrined in biology textbooks everywhere) and good point about the food, too. It will be interesting to see what the effects of ingesting massive amounts of preservatives, antibiotics, and pesticides does to both humans and their pets over time. I doubt it's harmless...

I remember reading a blog post long ago about the genetics of the egg-shaped skull in bull terriers and finding it super-fascinating. If I can dig that up I'll post it.

 

[bugmankeith]

Yeah there is a whole list of health problems modern day breeds have that their former breed standards did not have, its scary dogs are bred knowing they will have defects and people pay a lot of money only to end up with heartbreak when the dog dies or requires very expensive (and usually painful) surgery.

Here is original page for this topic.
http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/

In the UK people are trying to get dog breed standards changed back to their healthier ancestors.
http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaigns/companion/dogwelfare/borntosuffer/health

Here are more health problems for different breeds.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/epis...d-the-world/selective-breeding-problems/1281/

 

[pitbulllady]

Yeah there is a whole list of health problems modern day breeds have that their former breed standards did not have, its scary dogs are bred knowing they will have defects and people pay a lot of money only to end up with heartbreak when the dog dies or requires very expensive (and usually painful) surgery.

Here is original page for this topic.
http://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/

In the UK people are trying to get dog breed standards changed back to their healthier ancestors.
http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaigns/companion/dogwelfare/borntosuffer/health

Here are more health problems for different breeds.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/epis...d-the-world/selective-breeding-problems/1281/

You are missing the point of my original post, BMK. Purebred dogs are NOT any less healthy than their mongrel counterparts. Most of the documentaries that paint that picture of purebred dogs as fragile and unhealthy by default are funded and produced by people who want to ultimately see the breeding of purebred dogs, and all dogs, actually, eliminated completely. They find the emotional impact of a sickly or defective dog to be an effective tool in getting the general populace to agree with them, that people who breed purebred dogs are horrible people who only care about money, prestige, etc. , that all purebreds are defective, and that mutts are so much better, when in fact they aren't. The problem is not breed standards, but in those who INTERPRET those standards...or ignore them completely. Changing a breed's standard is pointless unless judges are actually going to USE it in the show ring and breeders are actually going to use it as a "blue print", a goal. The German Shepherd standard, for example, already calls for a specimen of that breed to have a STRAIGHT back, but the trend has long been to breed dogs with dramatic, sloping hindquarters because it produces that exaggerated "flying trot" that the show ring judges love, never mind that it also produces dogs that are incapable of doing any of the things that the GSD was intended for.
One of the reasons why purebred dogs seem to be afflicted with genetic disorders more frequently than mutts is because purebreds are more likely to be screened for such, and therefore those problems are more likely to be detected. Most mixed-bred dogs will never undergo any sort of genetic testing in their entire lives, not unless the disorder actually manifests itself in an obvious way, so most genetic disorders in mixed-ancestry dogs simply will go unnoticed, and by the time those issues manifest, the owner will usually make the decision to simply put the dog down when things get bad rather than pay for expensive tests to determine the exact cause of the problem. I DO believe, though, that the combination of getting away from breeding dogs with a PURPOSE, other than being pets/ornaments, combined with environmental factors like chemicals and other ingredients in pet food that can exacerbate underlying genetic issues that might have otherwise never manifested, such as auto-immune related soy sensitivity, have done far more to "mess up" dogs in general, more than what is written in a standard for any one given breed.

pitbulllady

 

[The Snark]

A couple of things worth mentioning. The 'mongrel' being a healthier animal appears to be based upon the natural selection phenomenon. That wouldn't apply to the domestic dog however as the sneakiest or luckiest has an equal chance in entering the gene pool. On the other hoof however, much of the selective breeding done by the foo foo crowd has been anti natural selection, often breeding in undesirable traits purely for appearance.

I do think you are looking at things with rose tinted goggles a little PBL. A lot of what you are describing is the more perfect world of proper breeding which remains the exception and not the rule. Let's cite the puppy mills which mass production churn out whatever crud makes them money and mucking up the gene pool in the process. There's a heck of a lot of more of those animals than the careful methodical breeders doing the necessary testing.

 

[Jebbles]

I was actually talking to some people at the vet office the other day about how pugs used to have long muzzles like terriers. But after tons of breeding it created our common pugs... breathing problems, plus over weight issues. Its sad.

 

[pitbulllady]

I was actually talking to some people at the vet office the other day about how pugs used to have long muzzles like terriers. But after tons of breeding it created our common pugs... breathing problems, plus over weight issues. Its sad.

Pugs have always been a brachycephalic breed, and this can be documented in that Pugs were popular subjects of paintings even in Renaissance times, as you can see in this link: http://doctorbarkman.blogspot.com/2012/06/pug-history-and-vintage-photographs.html . The only "terrier-like" dog in the whole series is William Hogarth's dog, painted in 1754. Toy breeds and breeds that have always been just pets have changed the least of all breeds, because that has always been their function, unlike hunting and working breeds, who, upon finding themselves the unemployment line, being now bred just for looks, and have therefore changed the most, and not for the better. Compare this photo of the German Shepherd, Rin Tin Tin V, descendant of the iconic silver screen canine star, born in 1957: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jh939/Class/Images/Rin-Tin-Tin-5-Full-Size.jpg to a photo of a modern show ring GSD, an AKC champion: http://thedogwallpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/german-shepherd-dog-show-11.jpg and note the differences in structure, in a bit over 50 years' time. This is why most police K-9 and military K-9 units no longer use German Shepherds; it's too difficult and expensive to find one physically suited to the demands of the job, so they have turned to less-popular breeds like the Belgian Malinois and Dutch Shepherds, which are more likely to derive to stock still bred to work, not just for looks. The Great Dane of 100 years ago was nearly indistinguishable from the Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog, with which it shares a common ancestry, but today 's Danes? I definitely wouldn't want to take one into a swamp on a hog hunt, that's for sure!

Now, the "puppy mill" issue-Yeah, I know that there are substandard mass puppy breeding operations, but I'm hesitant to use to term "puppy mill" due to the fact that this term has been "hijacked" to mean ALL people who own multiple intact dogs or breed more than one litter per year, regardless of the care provided for said dogs. It's like the term "hoarder", which is now applied freely to anyone who owns more than one animal, period, and would certainly apply to most of US here, according to many people. BUT, even factoring in those dogs, born and raised in poor, unsanitary conditions, with no health testing at all, the rate of genetic conditions of purebred dogs vs. mixed-breed dogs is still about the same. Here in the US, more and more of those substandard mass breeding facilities, who keep dogs in chicken wire cages and breed females on every heat cycle, are moving away from purebreds to the so-called "designer" dogs, which are mixed-bred dogs, often with cutesy-sounding names like "Chorkies", "Pomapoos", "Puggles", "Chiweenes" and all sorts of "Doodles". Even many of the so-called "purebreds" produced at such operations are, more often than not, still just mutts, who look less and less like the breed they're supposed to be as they grow. Operators of these outfits do not really keep track of who is the real father of a litter, after all, and since most now use questionable registries like the Continental Kennel Club, which does not require DNA testing on breeding stock and which will issue "papers" on a Chupacabra if you have one, there's no way to verify parentage.

pitbulllady

 

[Najakeeper]

This is quite simple. It really does not matter much if a dog is "pure bred" or "mix bred" to get a genetic condition. In very basic terms, two different breeds carrying the same condition will result in a pup with the same condition. These are all dogs, not different animals, they are susceptible to the same diseases.

However, if a genetic disease is prevalent in a "pure bred" strain, then bringing new blood in, which does not have this disease, will help the population. But since this is not possible as people want to keep the breeds as they are, it is the breeders' responsibility to not to breed individuals carrying any disease. Yes, if it is a recessive mutation, it will show up as a lot of dogs are still carriers but again it is up to the breeder to take any sick individual out of the breeding pool.

 

[PlaidJaguar]

I think the real problem here is closed stud books and the tendency to "line breed" and favor popular sires. We're intentionally limiting the heterozygosity of dogs by sectioning them all off and destroying the genetic variation of each group individually. All dogs, including mutts, suffer from this practice because breeds have become so prevalent that there are few true mongrels left--most mutts are mixed breeds who can trace back to purebred dogs usually quite recently in the pedigree. It has been my experience that true mongrels (those of medium size, average build, coat type, and lacking any exaggerated characteristics) are indeed healthier and more structurally sound than regular mixed breed dogs.

Look at the Dalmatian for a truly absurd example. They suffer from a fixed genetic issue with uric acid, that was causing a tremendously high rate of health problems in the breed. It wasn't possible to breed away from it in the AKC because literally every dog was affected. So the low uric acid breeding project was started by outcrossing ONE pointer. It has been a tremendous benefit to a large number of dogs descended from that outcrossing, but the AKC and show breeding community went into an uproar because the lines weren't pure anymore. They were "contaminated" with healthy blood. The dogs descended from that outcrossing, to this day, are not accepted as "true" Dalmatians and have to be registered differently, despite the fact that they are genetically indistinguishable from their AKC counterparts at this point.
http://www.luadalmatians.com/History.html

This is not the work of people who love dogs. This is the work of hundreds of miniature Hitlers, fighting for "pure" bloodlines rather than healthy animals. Before show registries, dogs were classified as a breed based on their appearance and performance, not their heritage. Many fine examples of breeds were actually from non-purebred heritage, and that was good for everyone. Basically, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, etc., then it IS a duck. Sound logic.