so I went to see some pups today and it was awful :-(

[AllergicToNutters]

They were living in rank cages outside on concrete floors. The smell was horrid. There was Dad and a Portuguese pointer in a cage, Mum was sooo skinny and looked as if she had been bred and bred. The pups looked healthy enough but the one remaining pup ( so I had no choice in selecting one for us) was shaking and whimpering. He was absolutely beautiful but I didn't take him. I felt awful. The pups were kept in a shed away from the other dogs and Mum. They were clearly not 'indoor' dogs. Very sad and don;t know what I can do.....

Dooing, there is no definite definition of a mongrel vs. a cross breed. Except that if three breeds are involved, it is usually a mixed breed or mongrel. Cross breed usually refers to a mix of two pure breds. i.e. lab and poodle. A lab, poodle and retriever mix would be called a mix breed or mongrel in the studies

Anyway, the studies I have posted just demonstrate the obvious - pure breds on average, have the most health issues and mongrels the least. The idea is that greater genetic diversity works more effectively than eugenics.

Rigorous screening is necessary if you are perpetuating a pure bred line and trying to correct for problems you would not have gotten if you had not done selective breeding in the first place.

see I have a bit of an issue with this idea of being able to return a dog to the rescue/breeder. Of course circumstances do arise sometimes where you miht not be able to keep a dog. But I do feel a bit of taking on a dog with thought to the possibility of having to get rid of it in the future. It shouldn't be a consideration IMO unless in case of dyer emergency but ykwim.

It's just a safety net isn't it Wannabe, as you say for emergencies but good to have in place just in case.
I'm happy knowing that I have things organised for my dc should dh and I snuff it simultaneously and that there is a back up plan for my dog too.

Surely, even if both parents are cross-breeds/mongrels, a responsible breeder would want to know a proper medical/genetic history for the parents, to ensure that there are no genetic problems on either side that could lead to illness/poor health in the puppies?

Flatbread, I am curious whether you've read those studies or just copied the list off a certain webpage. Anyway, since you're a scientist, maybe you could explain the studies, since flinging references at people doesn't in itself explain an argument.

One problem with studies of pedigree health vs. mongrel health is that they don't necessarily consider where the pedigrees came from (i.e. puppy mill or responsible breeder), which as people keep saying on this thread, is something that's important.

There's also an issue of personal choice. Why shouldn't people be allowed to have pedigree dogs, if that's what they want? Personally I wouldn't breed dogs until there are none left in rescue, but my next dog - which will be a rescue - will also be a siberian husky. Huskies are beautiful, healthy, long-lived working dogs that happen to fit in with my lifestyle. Why shouldn't I be able to get one? (assuming there will be one in rescue, which there will be because sadly there always are). And because of that, I understand that other people - who might feel differently than me about rescue - should have the option of going to a responsible breeder. (Responsible being an important word).

Renaming rescue dogs? We kept our dog's rescue name as it is very nice. If it hadn't been so nice we would have changed it. I don't think a dog understands the concept of names - he just knows that when he hears a particular word often enough that means him. I'm imagining homeless Staffie sitting in bed at new home feeling depressed by being called something middle class............no.

only read the first 3 pages but have to say this in case it hasn't been said: natural selection does not mean just letting random matings occur - for 'natural selection' you need a wild population with predators for example and changing environments/conditions.

you cannot have natural selection in domestic animals - what would that really look like? given that random matings generally only happen to irresponsible or careless owners who are likely to have gotten their dogs from similarly reckless owners it will be nothing to do with selection of fitness or strength and health but simply the dog who has the most reckless owner will get the most input into the gene pool. and given the vast numbers of unneutered staffies in pounds and rescue centres in this country (due to their unfortunate habit of attracting feckless owners in recent times) all dogs would probably be 80% staffie within a few generations.

natural selection is a complex interaction of 'natural' phenomena. it cannot be replicated in a domestic breed who don't live in a natural environment, don't have predators and aren't even 'natural' animals anyway given they've been bred to be reliant on a relationship with humans.

you don't need to be the fittest, the healthiest, the most successful in order to smell a bitch in heat and nip through the whole in the fence and mate with her ffs.

natural selection means that in a situation of having to survive in a challenging environment without starving or being killed by a predator only the fittest animals will make it to adulthood and successfully manage to mate and and produce healthy young of which only the strongest, fittest, healthiest, resourceful will make it to adulthood without being eaten or starving and go on to reproduce healthy young of which...... ad infinitum over thousands of years.

Sorry, not prejudging, just mooting some reasons you were having no joy with rescue centres, but I see you took it with a

How about getting back in touch with the centre which home visited you? Not taking on a dog with on going medical problems is very sensible, perhaps they can suggest another dog...

I cannot believe how narrow minded certain people are.
As for unwanted or accidental matings, an injection by the vet the following day would stop adding additional dogs to the already bulging rescue centres.
This is being a responsible dog owner.
My dogs are all pedigree.I choose to have these dogs,as they are bred by responsible breeders,who by the way are not breeding for money but to better the breed...unlike many of these designer mutt breeders who are doing it purely for money.
My dogs come from health tested parents,whose history I can trace back.I have always had this breed and always will, as I like the breed characteristics .

lambethill - I do look on their site frequently (and several others) ......and will leap at the chance should a dog I am interested in appear but I have a narrow window of opportunity now as we are going away at the end June/beginning of July so I am now waiting until after the Summer holidays. If I had got a dog now that would be fine timewise but any later than now(ish) is not going to be fair on a new dog imho. I gave myself until March or after August, so for now, I am going to have to do something else to take my mind of my dog broodiness - maybe take up knitting or something! That is why it makes it all the more sad that I was so let down by the breeder on Sunday. I was really excited..................

natural selection does not mean just letting random matings occur

Um, actually it does. The whole idea is to increase the diversity in the gene pool. Many of the problems we have with pure bred dogs are the narrowing of the gene pool and the increased probability that both mating dogs carry the same recessive genes, which carry health risks. When two random dogs of different breeds mate, the probability of them having the same recessive genes is lower.

This is about genetics, probabilities and the law of averages. Nothing to do with morality. And the data on health outcomes for pure breeds and mongrels bears this out.

Red, for your point about responsible breeders, show me the data that their 'careful selection' of mates has led to healthier pups than the average mutt. If the answer is no, or we don't know, then why assert that they are responsible breeders? we just don't know.

MidoriHaven't read the whole thread but as an assured breeder in our breed they will not let you register any litter with out having up to date eye tests on the dogs. Where is you are not a assured breeder you don't have to. There is also a lot of other things that you have to do as well such as puppy notes and sale agreement. From talking to people at crufts there are a lot of people who are thinking of not being an assured breeder because of all the extra conditions there are.
On a different note have you seen the new puppy packs that the kennel club have brought out for all reg litters?

Yes you can be responsible,knowing the parentage going back generations you can work out the COI,and pedigree dogs can be clear of heritary diseases by parentage,something not possible when the background is not known.There are now DNA tests.
The kennel club whilst far from perfect does have a huge database which is very useful.
Putting 2 unknown quantities together,I.E 2 dogs with no history and you can have double the trouble.
Again certain diseases can be random effecting any dog..nothing to do with genetics.Cancer ,environmental factors,diet,the same as us humans.
Please do not make such black and white statements.
I am sorry my pedigree dogs have been far more responsibly bred than your mutts, something you fail to acknowledge.
And whilst healthy now,who knows what lies in the future in terms of genetic faults.

Natural selection doesn't occur amongst pet dogs because there are owners to prevent matings occurring, to take dogs with genetic conditions to the vet and make decisions about whether dogs should have treatment or be pts etc. That isn't random genetics at work; even if the two dogs mated accidentally, someone has still decided a) to allow that to happen b) knowing that it did happen, allowed it to continue and c) decided what to do about the puppies [and I think you are doing the right thing re-homing yours via the DT, btw].

I'm not a veterinary scientist so I can't write you an academic paper, but let's talk about hip dysplasia since it's such a common problem. It's an awful inherited condition that certain dogs are prone to, such as german shepherds and labrador retrievers; the dogs go through a lot of pain before being pts. Responsible breeders wait until their dogs/bitches are old enough to have X-rays to look at their hips and see if they are likely to have problems or not. If they are, then they don't breed from those dogs. That's why, in the thread about getting a dog that DBF started, it suggests asking a breeder for the hip scores of the parent dogs. That way, you can know that HD is unlikely to be a problem.

Suppose you had a labrador retriever, and you hadn't had it hip scored, but you decided to let it mate with the dog next door which happens to be a german shepherd, but also hasn't been hip scored. The resultant dog would not be a pedigree, but it is still possible for it to inherit HD from both parent dogs.

So, you wanted references. For example, Swenson et al (1997) in the J.Am.Vet.Assoc., looked at HD in german shepherds and found that after 5 generations of selective breeding, incidence of HD decreased from 55pc to 24pc.

Now if you only considered HD in breeding and nothing else, you might end up with an in-bred population and lower genetic diversity. But apparently you can also get in-breeding scores for dogs which means that you can try to decrease HD and get more diversity at the same time. See Zhang et al (2009) Am.J.Vet.Research which looks at the genetics of HD in several breeds of dogs.

Like I said above, I'm not a veterinary scientist or dog breeder, so there will be others out there with a better understanding of the field, but that at least answers your question.

I don't think there is anyone on this thread who doesn't think there is a lot wrong with the way dogs are bred at the moment. But the existence of pedigrees isn't itself the problem, and nor would anyone want to wave a magic wand and send all the dogs out to survive on their own in the wilderness for a few generations to sort out the problems.

If we did send all the dogs out to the wilderness, my husky cross would do just fine. I think my other dog would refuse to go though because he is always glued to my side

did you actually read the rest of my post or just one line and decide to disagree with it and repeat yourself flatbread? natural selection is a process whereby the fittest survive - there is no such weaning process in a domestic animal where they're kept alive by humans and vets etc, random matings would not therefore be 'selective' in the genetic sense at all.

not to mention that we don't have a wilderness.

Left to their own devices, domestic dogs will mate with the nearest available candidate regardless of whether that dog is it's mother/father/sister/brother, crippled with HD, blind through PRA etc. That's hardly going to improve genetic diversity.

Type of Dog Avg Annual Avg life
treatment cost expectancy
Great Dane £1697 10 years
Bulldog £1191 8 years
Basset Hound £768 12 years
Springer Spaniel £715 12 years
Jack Russell £607 12 years
Lab-Retriever £505 13 years

Mongrel £403 16 years

like all things to do with dogs, this says much more about people that about the dogs they look after.

Next you'll be claiming that because BMWs cost more to service than Bangers, that they are less reliable cars....

(note: bigger/ bulkier breeds do have specific issues, but these aren't solved by crossbreeding - a great Dane/ mastiff cross isn't going to any healthier than a pure bred Dane) #

pure bred Yorkshire Terriers and Toy/ Miniature poodles live to 18 years odd. crossbreeding them will not increase this. your average mongrel is a small terrier dog whose root breeds would be long lived anyway.

the largest vet bill i had in 6 happy years of pedigree dog owning was due to a broken toe. Yet there are people who'd PTS or ignore things like that rather than paying for those things.

"
Unless you are breeding for a very specific purpose, e.g., cows that give more milk, there is absolutely no defensible reason to mess with nature"

dogs aren't 'nature'

and this is pretty much my argument. responsible breeders have a good reason to breed selectively - for health and for the improvement of their chosen breed. That's the specific purpose.

that's the reason. I'm glad we agree.

Ah rest assured Higgle, my ILs are proudly working class and think their dog breeds of YTs, JRT & staffies are honest working class dogs so a renamed Slash (his 'full' name is worse) will fit right in. ILs have inverse dog snobbery and would think owning a lab would be selling out!

ok, lets assume for simplicity sake

a) dogs left to their own devices to mate indiscriminately
b) owners mate dogs with other breeds intentionally or by accident
c) 'responsible' breeders mate purebred dogs selectively
d) other puppy farms bred purebred or designer cross breeds

If we were to get a sample of say, 1000 dogs from each type of mating over 5 generations, which would be the healthiest on average?

Most of you are saying c and but the evidence seems to indicate either a or b.

Anyway Red, for you - no idea of the data sources but has a reference to Siberian huskies as being one of the healthiest breed of dogs. Thought you might enjoy, given that you are planning to get one
www.infobarrel.com/Top_10_Healthiest_Dog_Breeds

According to the bibliography the main info source is wikipedia. I enjoyed the photos. But since siberian huskies are generally very healthy I don't see why people shouldn't breed them? [apart from the general problem of dog overpopulation].

I think you are defining 'responsible' as only breeding pedigrees, whereas (to my mind) it relates to things like checking the health of the parent and grandparent dogs to avoid genetic diseases, ensuring pups go to good homes and offering a guarantee and support for the lifetime of the pup. If the end result is a mutt that makes a good family pet, that's fine.

The thing with a) is that it happens in countries where there are large numbers of stray dogs and leads to overpopulation and can still lead to inbreeding and lots of genetic problems. It doesn't happen in a way that benefits 'natural selection' because dogs don't live in the wild...

A lot of people want pedigrees. It's one of the main reasons people give for not getting a rescue dog. (even though pedigrees are still available through rescue).

How exactly will a work? These are domesticated animals not wild wolves. They need a home to live in and owner to look after them. There are not enough owners and too many dogs as it to suggest letting dogs mate indiscrimately here, there and everywhere, just proves how stupid your own argument is.

I vote for e) ban fuckwits from breeding their pet dogs, ban puppy farmers and BYBs and let those who know what they are doing carry on the breed in a responisble and controlled manner.