What if that rescue has adopted a dog to a good couple like you and they had a dog walker, but the dog walker turned out to be a bad person? Instead of getting mad, ask yourself why they'd be that strict. Think about it, a rescue needs to get rid of the dogs because everyday they keep one it costs money and takes time away from another dog that needs help. If one of you not being home during the day doesn't matter, then ask yourself this: Say you ran a rescue. Two families approached you about adopting the same dog. Both of them seemed like wonderful people and both seemed financially responsible. One family had a husband or wife home all day and the other didn't, who do you choose? Remember, you're not a retailer so you're responsibility isn't to customer service but its to finding the very best home for the dog. And btw, most rescues will make minor concessions if the dog doesn't get adopted quickly enough. A rescue isn't going to have a dog put down, because the ONLY family that wants it doesn't have a stay at home parent. Chances are the dog you wanted to adopt had or will have had plenty of suitors.
I think a bigger factor is the treatment of the animals. Our first bulldog, we fed him premium food, maintained him, kept up with all the nuances that his breed required, and he lived to be 12. Caesar, same thing, and he is 9, but acts like a puppy at times. His food is $70 a bag, but worth it, and doesn't need vitamins or supplements because its not Alpo. These are long lives for the breed or most big dogs. These things, like with people, are half the battle. My mom has his brother from the same litter, and despite a heart defect diagnosed as a puppy, he is in similar health.
Of course the better care you take of them, the better your chances are they'll stay healthy. I want to reiterate, purebreds are more prone to illnesses. That doesn't mean they are guaranteed to get sick or that mutts don't get sick. Yank, started this thread with a worry about health costs. Based on that worry, the first thing he should be looking for is to reduce the odds of the dog getting sick, and that can be part of the choice of picking a dog.
thanks, I was just about to point that out. He changed the argument to only the "responsible" breeders. If that's the case, then I agree with him, but that's not what we are debating. Justright's point below makes no sense in the real world. It's a simple rule that people buying dogs from these breeders like the traits such as the blue eyes and therefore breeders are more willing to breed two dogs together to retain this gene because the demand is there.
I got the dog below in my signature, Bess, when she was 6 months old from a rescue place. They even came around to where we were staying for an interview and to ensure our home was suitable for a dog, as well as making sure one of us was at home the majority of the time. I didn't mind the vetting at all at the time, and still don't, but circumstances changed in the non-dog relationship and I ended up with Bess by myself and with a full-time job. Vetting's never going to be 100% foolproof, but I still do think it's well meant and in place for the right reasons. Now, it may have been a good idea then to try and find a new home for Bess, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it in what was, for me, a hard time due to the break-up of a long-term relationship with kids (not mine, so no rights) involved....Bess was one of the few good things in my life then, or at least that's how I saw it. She's a small dog too, so longer periods being left alone seem to be easier for her than they were for my previous bigger, purebreed, dog that I'd had. Anyway, she's now 16 and still doing ok, I'm now married and she has company most of the time as I work from home. However, I digress and ramble a bit, I've never had insurance for her and, up until the last year or two, have never had to pay the vet much apart from the usual annual check-up/jags. I don't know if cover in the US is the same, but in the UK most cover doesn't protect your dog once it's past 10-12 years old...which, considering that's when things can really start going wrong, isn't much help. Cover that does protect all ages is prohibitively expensive, and I've definitely been better off saving that from earlier years and paying the costs myself lately. It's a lottery though, and it's up to the individual concerned if they want to take the chance with no insurance or not. I went the no insurance route in the knowledge that I would happily pay a large bill if I had to.
Exactly. It comes down to the fact that breeders are retailers. By nature of their business, profits are the driving factor. If there's demand for blue eyes, then blue eyes will be striven for.
Depends upon the breed too. Smash faced dogs have more breathing issues and require facial cleaning, short legged dogs more back and hip issues. The more a breed has been bred for specific or extreme physical traits the more genetic health issues get selected as well. Also, the smaller the population base the more health issue get selected for. 30% of purebred dalmatians have some sort of hearing problem. Just do a little research so you know what the breeds issues are. Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
Hybrid vigor in dogs does NOT exist. Health problems cannot be avoided by mixing breeds - they can only be reduced through responsible breeding. Additionally, purebreds are not unhealthy due to inbreeding. That is also a myth. "Inbreeding" is not what you think and in fact, you're using the wrong terminology. A good tempered dog should be bred with another good tempered dog. Again, mothers aren't being mounted by their sons etc etc. Unhealthy purebreds are a result or poor and irresponsible breeding. Mixed breeds are NOT any healthier than pure bred dogs. A mixed breed dog can be just as unhealthy as any poorly bred pure breed dog. A responsible breeder does not do it for the money. They do it to better the breed.
I never changed anything. You just think I did because I'm the only one here who understands genetics and has provided real facts.
Yes, it does. Hybrid vigor is not specific to just an animal or even just a plant. You are wrong. Link Purebreds were inbred, (yes, mother being mounted by son, etc.) in the beginning of their existence and on through time. There was was simply no other way to get the traits that make certain breeds what they are without it. It was from then on that the breed had picked up certain genetic markers that carry with them the propensity for certain illnesses. At this point, I've provided proof from PetMD, the Humane Society, Cambridge University and an article from Wikipedia that has 4 different studies from 4 different countries referenced. All you've provided is one link from a pro breeding source and a bunch of stuff you're just saying with no evidence to support it. You've also neglected to answer 2 very basic questions: What do you think makes a responsible breeder? and Are you or a loved one a dog breeder? I shouldn't think these questions would be terribly hard to answer, especially since you seem quick to espouse a responsible breeder can guarantee one of its dogs health. And yes, breeders are absolutely about the money. They don't give the dogs away.
There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start. How about I start with...it's from Wilipedia...did you write this? lol Purebred dogs are believed to have MORE health problems, which, is simply a misunderstood untruth - they are not any healthier per se, but they are not any worse off - due to the breeders dutifully health testing, and clearing dogs prior to breeding. Health and longevity in many breeds HAS improved, and usually health problems can be narrowed down to usually a few prime suspects per breed. Now... when it comes to the myth of hybrid vigor, why would someone think that breeding two breeds together would eliminate any of the health problems within those two breeds? Now, you take two dogs of two different breeds, and whelp a litter. Knowing how genetics works - why would ANYONE claim OR believe that breeding two breeds WITH health problems would ELIMINATE those problems? What REALLY happens, is the resulting offspring are more prone to the health problems associated with BOTH breeds. But, genetics tells us that breeding ANY two animals is about combining genes, and possibly doubling up on recessives - which can and DOES happen in ANY breeding - pure or mixed. The merit in buying a wellbred dog from a reputable breeder is in that those breeders are trying to ELIMINATE any of those negative traits from their breeding programs through testing, knowledge and diligence. Bottom line - combine two breeds, and you combine the health problems for those two breeds. Here- http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570144.html Go and read that..understand that..and get back to me. Having a small gene pool has nothing to do with health problems. A small gene pool is NOT the same as inbreeding or line breeding. Having a gene pool full of genetic disorders - large or small - and breeding irresponsibly is a problem. And who do you think has the MOST responsible breeders? Purebreed breeders..that's who.
1. I challenge you to stop ignoring my 2 specific questions. 2. Did you read what was posted? There are 4 studies referenced. Here's links/info to those: - http://web.archive.org/web/20090327062759/http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/Mcgreevy.pdf - No link, but the info for you to find the study: H.F. Proschofsky et al, Mortality of purebred and mixed breed dogs in Denmark, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2003, 58, 53-74 "Higher average longevity of mixed breed dogs (grouped together). Age at death mixed breeds (Q1 Q2 Q3 mixed breeds 8,11,13, purebreds 6, 10, 12)" - No link, but the info for you to find the study: A. R. Michell, Longevity of British breeds of dog and its relationship with sex, size, cardiovascular variables and disease, Vet. Rec., 27 Nov. 1999, S. 625-629. - The fourth one was in German. Do you truly think that your genealogy link proved your point? Really? Seriously this table from your link alone shows you to be misunderstanding this whole thing: http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570144.html#_ftn15 Again, you've questioned my sources yet I've provided nothing but numerous reputable sources and you've only provided 2: One of them is far from reputable and the second actually proves my point and not yours. As far as these two questions you asked: What they illustrate is an unsettling lack of understanding of genetic disorders for someone who claims to have so much knowledge of them. I'd like to refer you to your own link for the answers, but I doubt you'll bother reading what you posted. I'd also like to point out that no one said health risks of genetic disorders are eliminated by mixing breeds. What was said is that mixing breeds is less likely to generate genetic disorders than purebreds. So to actually answer your questions (since you've shown an actual disability in answering questions), hybrid vigor is not a myth and combining 2 sets of genes with the same predisposition for certain genetic disorders is multiplicative effect or an exponential increase in the likelihood. Combining 2 sets of genes with different predisposition for certain genetic disorders divides the effect or exponentially decreases the likelihood. You've no doubt heard of the simple brown/blue eye chart. Eye color is determined by 2 genes from each parent. Brown eyes are BB or Bb and blue eyes are only bb. Pretend blue eyes are genetic ailment.
Gold fish are impossible to take care of... of course, we didn't have an aquarium, used a regular old fashioned gold fish bowl. I've killed three gold fish. Every time I change the water. Read up on it too... after the first death. Thought I was doing everything legit... with the second and third goldfish (they were a package deal from a kids' birthday party). Both dead within 24 hours of me "cleaning" their water. My daughter is allergic to dogs/cats... thankfully. So now we have two hamsters and a cray fish. Rodents.... so easy to take care of... and the mini lobster is great. no need for pet insurance. I would love to get a cat though. Great animals.., great pets.
Did you allow them to adjust to the temperature of the new water and was the bowl big enough for two fish?
There are some basics being missed here. Most bad health problems are recessive. That's why small pools mater. Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
I've answered your questions. It proves that you don't bother to read my posts and just argue for the sake of it. In a five-year study of veterinary cases at the University of California-Davis, there was no difference between mixed-breed and purebred dogs in the prevalence of common inherited disorders. Even designer-bred dogs were being seen with hereditary conditions that it was assumed crossbreeding would eliminate: hip dysplasia, epilepsy, cancer, hypothyroidism, eye disorders and more. Although mixed-breed dogs were just as likely to inherit health problems, there were a few exceptions, according to the study, which will be published in a veterinary journal later this year. Some genetic disorders remained isolated to specific breeds. Still, the findings make sense: If you cross a Labrador Retriever that has hip dysplasia with a Poodle that has hip dysplasia, what do you get? Chances are, a Labradoodle with hip dysplasia. In addition to hip problems, Labradoodles are now being diagnosed with Addison’s disease (a deficiency in adrenal hormones) and elbow dysplasia—two genetic disorders that are common to purebred Labradors and Poodles, according to Dr. Bell. Of course, there’s no way to control genetic disorders passed on by the accidental backyard mating or a tryst with the neighborhoodRomeo. But it's possible to prevent many inherited conditions in pure- and cross-bred pets that are mated on purpose, says Dr. Bell. http://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-ex...designer-crosses-healthier-than-purebred-pets
LOL. you think you're the only one that understands genetics. I'll put my 3 science degrees, biochemistry, genetics and organic chemistry up against yours any day of the week. Your argument works, but only for the very small population of "responsible" breeders you keep referring to. Hate to tell you, but most breeders are not responsible enough to prevent breeding between 2 dogs with recessive genes that may lead to a negative phenotype. Let alone all the real F#*#ED up breeders that provide "purebreds" to these stores in the malls. Of all the many breeders I've visited over the past 15-20 years, I'd say maybe 20% had enough sense in their heads to actually think about these scenarios, and that doesn't include the puppy mill breeders. So, keep living in your happy little world, thinking you're only providing "facts". more like facts as seen looking through a very small tunnel.
You may have taken those classes, but I highly doubt you have a degree in each. If you had a degree in any one of those your stance would be closer to mine instead of using the excuse you're using. If anyone thought I was talking about backyard breeders then they are either obtuse or lying. Again, I wouldn't assume FinD s talking about two-headed mixed breeds. He's smart enough to realize what we are talking about it's just that he has the inability to change his mind.
You have not answered my 2 very specific questions, that is simply a weak *** lie on your part. Please show me were you've answered these: 1. What are qualifications for a responsible breeder? 2. Are you or a loved a breeder? You've repeatedly ignored those questions. Just man up and answer them, they shouldn't be to hard. Once you do that, I'll rip apart your last article link and we'll continue on that path. But sack up and answer these first.
You don't have the right, in terms of this argument, to keep quantifying purebred breeders when you consistently refuse to answer my 2 simple questions, one of which is: What makes a responsible breeder? If you cannot answer that, you cannot keep hiding behind "responsible breeders". I'm fairly confident your education in genetics is not as significant as you advertised, considering your basic misunderstanding of genetics is proven by the fact you thought the genealogy link you provided proved your point, when it proved mine. I have no formal training in genetics, btw.
Holy ignorance. You just assume he is lying because he has a differing opining? Did it ever occur....nah it couldnt have....that maybe...just maybe.....YOURE WRONG?
No, I assumed nothing. I doubted. If I told you that I was a head coach in the NFL and then wrote that the Hail Mary has the highest percentage of success than any other play in the NFL would you doubt me? Have you read any of this thread. FWIW, he agrees with me. His objection is that he thinks I changed the parameters of the debate. I doubt him because of how, and what, he's written. Having a degree in ALL three of those fields is asinine unless you're one of the top scientists in the world.
i went back and took a look. I answered the first question. I thought I also answered the second, but I have been responding to you while at work. The link I provided was intended to teach you a little. You don't understand what was written. Really? I would have never guessed that to be the case.
ok, since you keep refusing to answer either question, I feel justified in the assumptions I made but didn't write out on here: 1. You are a breeder. You're probably even AKC registered and are very proud of that fact, even though we both know you did little more than fill out a questionnaire and pay a fee to get that registration. 2. You're afraid to really detail what makes a responsible breeder because you realized I actually know what I'm talking about when it comes to dogs. Its why you've tried to keep this discussion in the realm of genetics, thinking that you could baffle the board with bs by posting unreliable links and purposely trying to overwhelm the discussion with big words and links with equations you think no one will understand. Unfortunately for you, Ohio is an actual scientist and I'm not an idiot. 3. I think you probably either show your dogs or would like to. 1 & 2 are fairly obvious, based on your clearly biased arguments and thinly veiled disdain for non purebreds. Plus, EVERY dog breeder says they aren't in it for the money but for the breed. Its "a tell" and its why I brought it up earlier. Meanwhile, every breeder charges for their dogs and sells to people who are just going to muck up the lineage. I mean if you were doing it for the breed and you were just so careful to breed these perfect specimens, you'd think you'd give them away to other breeders to keep the breed's bloodlines strong. Instead, you sell them on a first come first serve basis, with I'm guessing, little to no vetting of the buyer, meanwhile 25% of all dogs in shelters are purebreds. As for #3, that was purely a guess. I admitted I had no formal training in genetics, because unlike you, I don't need to falsely represent myself, to try and make myself sound smarter. I know you're wrong, I've proven you're wrong and I've done so with evidence, corroboration, facts and studies. You've provided 3 links, two of which are dubious and one also proves my point. The honorable thing for you to do at this point, would be to admit that I'm right, not only about dog genetics, but also points 1,2 & 3 about you. I'm not expecting you to do that, but it would be the honorable thing.
1) Your analogy isnt a good one. Its a lot more under the radar to be well studied in the sciences then it is to be an NFL HC. For one theres a lot less likelihood of ever meeting or coming across an NFL HC in any fashion. Secondly your analogy just throws poop at a wall to see what sticks. 2) I did read the thread. I just went with your exact words because he said you changed the parameters. 3) Or maybe he had a career change that required it? Or maybe he simply liked it enough that it was worth the investment? Whatever the reason, Im inclined to give Ohio the benefit of the doubt because in the years Ive posted with him hes never been one to draw attention to himself for no reason.
Again, I answered one of your questions. For question number 2: I do not know any breeders. 1. Nope. Never bred a dog. 2. It doesn't take great detail. I answered you in one, short sentence. Due to the fact that you argue for the sake of it you failed to read that entire post. 3. Nope. Never have, never will. I currently own mixed dogs. Did you fail to read where I wrote that? I've owned many dogs. More mix than pure. Neither "type" is better. That's a personal choice. You, OTOH, think mix breeds are better. Do you even realize how dumb your post reads? I've said that purebreds and mixes are equal...the entire time. You're the one suggesting that one type is inferior. Now, who has the disdain for one type? Lol The fact that you think you're right further proves my opinion of you. You're an emotional, knee-jerk thinker. You think you know it all because you know very little.
The most up to date study on this very topic was published THIS MONTH. A University of California, Davis, study published in the June online edition of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association has suggested that mixed-breed dogs are not always more resistant to inherited canine disorders than their purebred counterparts, the university reported in a news release. UC Davis researchers analyzed health records from more than 90,000 purebred and mixed-breed dogs examined at the UC Davis veterinary medical teaching hospital between 1995 and 2010. The researchers then identified 27,254 of those dogs that presented with one or more of 24 specific genetic disorders. http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10613 i really love this part: "Results from this study give us insight into how dog breeding practices might be modified to reduce the prevalence of certain genetic disorders," she said. Again: Dog breeding to REDUCE certain disorders. But, how can this be? Do any of you know of a mutt breeder? Do mutt breeders know their dogs family history? Sorry. I win. Good night!
None of that is true, and you know it. You had 2 routes to take, you didn't chose the honorable route. I am not surprised.
Lol. All of that is true. hey, where's Boik to give me the benefit of the doubt and call you ignorant? And FinD... Look up. Lol
How much simpler do you need this spoon fed to you. A University of California, Davis, study published in the June online edition of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association has suggested that mixed-breed dogs are not always more resistant to inherited canine disorders than their purebred counterparts, the university reported in a news release. This is the finding of the study. Period. You're reading what you want to read and not comprehending some of that. Lol... If this wasn't so comical it would be sad. BTW, I have a biology degree. Do you even know what the requirements are to get just the undergrad degree? I'm not a geneticists, but I'm ****ing Albert Einstein compared to you on this matter. I just showed you the conclusion of the most up to date study on this topic that proves me correct and you still argue. Unbelievable.
Do you think that this statement: ..proves your point or mine? Dear god, read your links before you post them. From your link: Do you understand what that says? It says that while purebreds and mutts have the same chance of getting 13 of 24 genetic disorders, purebreds still are more likely to get 10 more on top of that. Math....do you speak it?
C'mon this guy thinks he won, even though his big link, shows purebreds are susceptible to 23 out of 24 genetic disorders while mutts are susceptible to 14 out of 24. You know me, I can't pass up that kind of ignorance.
too funny. Again, you have no understanding of what you're reading. The part your quoting here proves me right and yet you champion it as if it shows that I'm wrong. here's a simple test for you. If you think that "math" (it's funny how you think those numbers mean something else) proves me wrong, why is the conclusion of the study show that mixed breeds are no more healthy than purebreds? I mean, this thing is written on a 3rd grade level and it clearly states in their findings that " mixed-breed dogs are not always more resistant to inherited canine disorders than their purebred counterparts." This one part proves you wrong. I've been oversimplifying this because if I got into alleles, Mendel's Laws, hetero/homozygous, vectors, etc etc I'd really lose you. The simple truth is, between a mixed breed and a purebred, everything equal, well... Everything is equal.
