
Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business - paulpauper
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/22/pugs-anatomical-disasters-vets-must-speak-out-even-bad-business
======
weavie
Not just Pugs. I had a German Shepherd. Beautiful dog, but everyone who I met
who had had a German Shepherd in the past told me their dog had to be put down
around 10 years of age due to their back legs failing.

Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According
to the vet this is another common problem with the breed.

I well never get a pure breed again.

~~~
Waterluvian
We got two spaniels (years apart) from the same breeder. Both died suffering
of a number of abnormalities that became pronounced when they got older.

Later we found that the breeder was forced to stop altogether because the dogs
were so consistently damned.

I can still hear what I can only describe as "screaming" by our first spaniel
the night she came home after an emergency operation. She had to be let go
that night. Nothing in my life has haunted me the same way. That was it for
dogs for me. I have two wonderful cuddly cats and I'm delighted by how
genetically unremarkable they are.

~~~
mikesickler
We had a cocker when I was in college that, at about age 8, became aggressive
toward my mom and brother, biting them both on the neck hard enough to draw
blood. Obviously we had to euthanize him. The vet told us that the tan-colored
cocker spaniels were especially prone to problems, as their light color was a
result of very close breeding.

~~~
dopamean
I had English cockers growing up. Check out rage syndrome [0]. I only first
heard about it a couple of years ago and it very accurately describes the
behavior I saw in our dogs. FWIW, not all of our dogs were from the same
breeder.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_syndrome)

------
whack
There was a great video I saw about how "purebred" dogs are essentially a
cesspool of genetic disorders, and how we need to start taking active steps to
bring back genetic diversity in our dogs. It was eye opening to see that the
pedigrees we put on a pedestal are actually putting our dogs through a host of
abnormalities and health complications.

[https://youtu.be/aCv10_WvGxo](https://youtu.be/aCv10_WvGxo)

~~~
arielweisberg
I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can manage to
retain breed traits without damning the dogs.

If I had to slap down a guess on what is going on. The #1 issue is targeting
cosmetic traits that are anatomically not functional. The #2 issue is breeders
not prioritizing health over conforming to the breed standard. Pet grade
purebreds may not look quite perfect to a discerning eye, but they can be very
robust especially if they are a working dog.

If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues?
Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch? Is it an ethical
issue? Maybe. I mean I eat animals. I can't put myself on some high horse. At
some point we make them to use so there is a balancing act going on.

The fallacy to watch out for is conflating breeder behavior and outcomes with
outcomes for the breed if bred "properly."

~~~
whack
> _I don 't think you can make a blanket statement about whether you can
> manage to retain breed traits without damning the dogs._

> _If you control for #1 and #2 is there still a higher incidence of issues?
> Probably. Why would reducing diversity be a free lunch?_

You just answered your own question. Is it theoretically possible for any
species (including humans) to be purebred/inbred while still avoiding the
whole host of genetic disorders and health complications? Sure, anything is
possible. Is it likely? Of course not. The video does a pretty good job of
showing how so many purebred dogs have worse health compared to their mutt
counterparts.

You bring up a good point about eating meat. Most of us are willing to trade
off animal welfare/suffering for human pleasure and aesthetics, so why not
apply the same principle to dogs. One argument is that most people who adopt
dogs do so with the genuine intention to love them and care for their
welfare/health. In fact, people get so attached to their dogs that they spend
a great deal of money to promote their health, and deeply mourn their
suffering/death. Given this, it only makes sense for dog owners to adopt
mutts.

~~~
arielweisberg
You can't make the argument that a mutt is universally better than a pure bred
either. A mutt is a random assortment of components some of which are not
ideal for life in human society or what you want in your particular pet.

Temperament is the most problematic because you can get a bad mix of drives
and intelligence.

I think the question is whether what you get by picking the components is
worth the cost? You won't answer that question with anecdata from a farcical
comedy video. IMO the video does a lousy job of making any kind of useful
point. I suppose it's good for awareness.

The video makes the exact mistake I warned about. You can't conflate what bad
breeders do with what the outcome would be if all breeders were forced to
conform to better standards or you find a breeder who breeds the way you want
it done.

Straight from the video, breeders breed parents and children and siblings.
It's sadly common that it will have happened at some point with many breeders.
It's also insane and if you buy from a breeder that does that you have done
something wrong.

If someone has some well thought out research comparing the outcomes of a
known strong set of well bred dogs from a breed designed to be functional (for
some definition) to a set of mixed dogs then we might have a way to quantify
exactly what the cost is. Anything else is conjecture.

There are other strong arguments to be made for adoption and mixed breeds.
Possibly for people unable to muster the expertise to find a breeder. I still
think it's conjecture, but at least more reasonable sounding.

Some of those arguments apply to human breeding, but try having that
conversation ;-)

------
stephenitis
It wasn't mentioned there is a 23andme for Dogs called Embarkvet (Austin, TX
the DNA is sent to Canada for processing strangely enough) We got our dog from
craigslist due to timing and waitlist issues with purebred breeders. At first
we were worried and got a DNA test. She's a mutt and now that I know I am
happier albeit lucky there is nothing identifiably wrong with her. I think
many prospective owners are afraid because there is a higher risk of uncertain
behavior and characteristics from mutts. The DNA tests took 2 months however,
most people buy puppies at 8 weeks and no breeder wants to shell out $150-$200
dollars and puppies are harder to sell the older they get sadly. I think the
cheaper and quicker these DNA test are the more the dog community will be able
to open their eyes in a more transparent light. I've sadly met owners who want
returns/discounts for defects in their purebred huskies which leaves me with
mixed feelings.

[https://embarkvet.com/dog/eevee2](https://embarkvet.com/dog/eevee2) (my dog's
public results)

\- 74.7% Siberian Husky \- 7.7% German Shepherd Dog \- 11.4% Alaskan Malamute
\- 6.2% Doberman Pinscher \- clear of 160 genetic conditions

\- [https://embarkvet.com](https://embarkvet.com) (non referral link) -
[http://fbuy.me/e2c-9](http://fbuy.me/e2c-9) (my referral link for $30 off)

------
adamnemecek
Vast majority of purebreds have some serious generic issues. I'm hoping that
we as a society will solve this whole situation soon.

There is a BBC documentary on this
[https://vimeo.com/17558275](https://vimeo.com/17558275)

~~~
13of40
Suppose there was a breed of, say, monkey, that was popular as a household
pet. They were considered to be quite clever and could be trained, over some
years, to use a toilet, fetch things from the fridge, even manage primitive
forms of communication. The only problem is that they're a genetic trainwreck.
They've got a pronounced, gourd-like head with a snout so compact that it's
common to have to surgically remove some of their teeth. They've got limited
ability in their front legs that forces them to spend their entire life in an
abnormal posture, resulting in a cornucopia of spinal and joint problems that
cause many of them lifelong pain. On top of all this, all of their natural
defenses (claws, canines, protective fur) have been bred out and disease
traits bred in (myopia, hemophilia, diabetes, and so on). Now, knowing all of
this, suppose your sister, who already has three of these things running
around her house, calls up and gleefully announces that they're getting
another one. What do you tell her?

~~~
maxerickson
Humans are apes not monkeys.

What if you sister called and said there was a safe, cheap and effective way
to remove, say, the myopia from her spawn (in the case of dogs, stop
inbreeding, in the case of humans, currently imaginary)? Would you tell her
not to do it?

~~~
13of40
I had some in-laws at one point who had a kid with cystic fibrosis, and they
decided to roll the dice and have a second one. (Murphy's Law won that round.)
I can't imagine convincing _those_ people to get their $1200 purebred pug[1]
neutered for the good of the species.

[1] [https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/much-
pugs-87fd8b209ca...](https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/much-
pugs-87fd8b209cadf864)

~~~
maxerickson
I imagine the thing to do would be to sell healthy dogs for $1500 (make sure
lots of people say they are worth $1500).

------
btilly
See
[https://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-year...](https://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-
of-breed-improvement/) for an eye-opening view of how much breeders have
changed dogs for the worse over a century.

------
tjr
Folks might enjoy reading _The Dog Wars_ :

[https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Wars-Border-Battled-
American/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Wars-Border-Battled-
American/dp/0983484503/)

Border collies were extremely functional dogs, and a subset of border collie
owners did not at all want their dog breed to be part of the American Kennel
Club, lest they start being bred for appearance or some other random
irrelevant attribute.

------
EliRivers
I have mused on occasion about the consequences if, given a world in which the
only dog breed was a kind of domesticated wild dog bred for nothing in
particular, someone created dog breeds such as we recognise today and
presented them to the world.

I reckon that person would get lynched. We put up with an awful lot of things
just because that's how they were when we got here.

------
zeveb
The problem is that for the last two centuries we've been breeding for
conformance with an æsthetic standard, rather than breeding for conformance
with a work- and health-based standard. My understanding is that many of
distinct traits found in show breeds were originally working traits, but have
now become exaggerated & useless.

Personally, I don't care for the idea of breeding show dogs. It's one thing to
breed dogs for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting or herding): then the
negatives of particular trait are the cost of its benefits. There's no
(IMNSHO) valid benefit to a non-productive trait.

------
tptacek
For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps
just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by
suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question:

Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic
dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?

~~~
oxryly1
No, the reduced quality of life for existing dogs isn't enough justification
for euthanization (except maybe in extreme cases).

I'd say it's probably unethical to breed more brachycephalic dogs, and by
extension unethical to purchase those dogs from breeders (unless maybe the
breeders have ceased to breed these dogs).

~~~
tptacek
Ok. Can I assume we agree that nobody is obligated to own or care for a dog of
any sort? I apologize in advance if you don't agree.

With that stipulated:

If the benefit a dog obtains from living outweighs --- in all but the most
extreme cases --- the suffering that dog will have due to its genetic defects,
AND people are entitled to make a rational decision not own a dog, are they
not ethically entitled to select any breed they want? How would it be more
ethical to create no benefits for any dogs than to create compromised but net-
positive benefit for some dogs?

~~~
tdb7893
I don't think the argument still works of you view the different companion
animal breeds as generally fungible. You would need to make the argument that
the breed would need to somehow be substantially better than other choices or
else it would always be better to pick other dogs.

~~~
tptacek
That's a good point I forgot to account for. But it can be accounted for: even
if we stipulate that it's not ethical to acquire genetically compromised dogs
purely for aesthetic reasons, there are other attributes of these dogs breeds
that make them more suitable than others. For us, it was a requirement that
the dog be content on its own, amiable with other dogs and children, and not
excessively demanding of exercise that we'd be unable to provide it (we're
simply not around most of the day).

Were no dog available that could reliably provide those attributes, our choice
would certainly have been not to acquire a second dog.

But I also think, for what it's worth, that it's still ethically tricky to
dispose of the question of whether it's unethical to select dogs for
appearance. I think you can predict the argument I'd make there.

------
divbit
Before I had to give my pug up this past summer - I used to take him for good
length jog daily, and he would frequently out pace me. If a pug is in shape,
it will do great. If you just feed it hotdogs all day and only infrequently
give it proper exercise, then yes, I could see it being an anatomical
disaster. Compare this dog's fitness
[http://imgur.com/a/doIi9](http://imgur.com/a/doIi9) with the dog in the
linked article.

~~~
hashkb
I'm afraid you may be missing the point. The evidence you give (dog runs
faster than you) doesn't really mean anything, and exercise does not affect
anatomy.

These are vets giving expert opinions and you are a (former) pug owner with an
anecdote.

~~~
divbit
Ok I will take the bait - breathing, especially over the course of lets say
~45 minute run should definitely have some relation to the part of anatomy the
article was talking about (specifically, the vets are claiming that the
smashed nose shape makes it harder for them to breath, in relation to other
dog breeds). Surely being able to breathe correctly is necessary to run for
45-50 minutes continuously? What I am claiming, with my anecdote, is that
maybe exercise can help alleviate problems related to being out-of-breath
(certainly it does for people!) Based on my anecdote, one might suspect that
the vets conclusions do not hold true for 'all' pugs. Maybe their argument is
statistical, based on an analysis of a large number of pugs. Personally, I
have seen many more out-of-shape pugs than in-shape pugs. On the other hand,
maybe they are specifically arguing against very inbred variations, in which
case, they are making a point against very in bred variations, and not pugs in
general.

~~~
Nursie
They're arguing that you shouldn't buy a pug as at the moment because a large
proportion of the population of pugs will suffer terrible health problems

That you had a single individual that you believe did not suffer from the
issues related to extreme brachycephaly doesn't really tell us much.

The problems are only partly related to inbreeding - selecting for dogs with
such squashed heads is bad in and of itself.

~~~
divbit
What I am trying to point out is that it should be impossible to enjoy
prolonged daily aerobic exercise under the constant respiratory distress the
article is claiming for 'all such brachycephalic dogs.' Let me quote directly
from the article: "The only time these dogs are not in some degree of
respiratory distress is when you have them intubated under anaesthetic." What
I am claiming, as a proof by contradiction of sorts, is that with proper
exercise, it is possible that such a dog will not suffer from respiratory
distress all the time, like the article is clearly claiming.

~~~
Nursie
Firstly, are you qualified to know if your dog was not in "some" degree of
respiratory distress?

And again, your dog might have been ok. Hell, you might have got a classical
pug with a longer snout and few issues.

The problem is that there are vast numbers being bred and sold that do suffer
from these problems, and no amount of exercise is going to help them.

This is a solvable problem, if people stop selecting for dogs with collapsed
faces.

~~~
tptacek
Responsible owners of pure bred dogs discuss these issues with their
veterinarians. We own a rescue mutt and a brachycephalic purebred, and had
this discussion with our vet. You're a commenter on a message board projecting
authority from a few sentences from an advocacy piece in The Guardian.

I concede that the ethics of purebred ownership remain a live debate after
this comment, but hopefully we can eliminate right now the notion you have
that you can club down other commenters with the question "are you a vet?".

~~~
Nursie
And responsible vets and veterinary associations are now starting to publicly
say that there are problems with these breeds.

It's not even the ethics of purebred ownership in general - it's the ethics of
selecting for known harmful traits, and people buying them in droves due to
little more than fashion.

~~~
tptacek
You see how your argument has now forced you to second guess our
veterinarians? You're now making a special pleading: the veterinarian in the
advocacy piece you just read in The Guardian is honest, and all other
veterinarians aren't. And, yes: that is also a rhetorical weakness of the
Guardian piece itself: it attempts to generate authority in part by invoking a
narratively compelling worldwide conspiracy of cruel veterinarians.

~~~
Nursie
I'm sorry, in what way did I second guess vets?

I'm not making any special pleading here, the guardian piece is backed up by
publications from the British Veterinary Association. I'm not impugning any
vets, it looks like the entire profession is moving this way in the UK.

You're reading things into my argument which just aren't there, and what's
more it feels like you haven't fully read the article.

~~~
tptacek
Once again: we discussed the issues of our breed in detail with our vet. Our
vet, I think you can infer, does not agree with this advocacy piece. Your
argument depends on the notion that only the veterinarians who agree with you
are qualified to voice opinions. That's special pleading. It's not a
complicated point.

Also: please stop suggesting that commenters haven't read the article.

~~~
Nursie
I can't infer anything, what did your vet say?

What do you think the article is advocating? Because AFAICT it's not
euthanasia, it's to stop supporting breeders in their quest for ever 'cuter'
brachycephaly.

~~~
tptacek
I know the article isn't advocating euthanasia. I think that, too, is a flaw
in the logic of the article.

I think it's totally fine to exhort people who don't have strong dog
preferences to select non-compromised dogs. It also makes sense to me to
advocate rescues. We own a rescue, too. Where you lose me is when you suggest
that it's _unethical_ to purchase a purebred dog.

Acquiring a rescue when you have a preference for a purebred puppy is an
ethically positive action. I think few people here would disagree with that.
The fallacy in your argument is that the positive outcome of acquiring a
rescue does not automatically imply that a acquiring a purebred is ethically
_negative_ ; it can be --- and I think usually is --- ethically _neutral_.

~~~
Nursie
No, I'm suggesting to you that it is unethical to breed dogs that will suffer
predictable, known, severe health problems.

Further that purchasing from such breeders is also unethical.

~~~
tptacek
I understand that to be your argument. I'm saying, you haven't made a coherent
case for it.

~~~
Nursie
I'm not sure I should have to, you're advocating unnecessary suffering.

~~~
tptacek
You haven't established that the suffering is unnecessary. Unless I'm
obligated to own a (second) dog, a compromised dog is better (for the dog!)
than no dog at all.

------
dmalvarado
I had a friend in elementary school who had an English Bulldog. One summer it
just died laying on the kitchen floor, at age 4 or 5. Not enough oxygen.

Pretty messed up.

------
wibr
The evolution of the pug:
[https://youtu.be/iHPozu1raQo?t=2m12s](https://youtu.be/iHPozu1raQo?t=2m12s)

~~~
nom
Upvoted for Loriot :D

------
patricius
Adopt a greyhound or galgo español instead of buying purebreds. It's a noble
cause, and they are both healthy races in comparison.

~~~
at-fates-hands
I live in a neighborhood and several of my neighbors have greyhounds that
they've adopted who were former race dogs.

Probably the most docile, loving, affectionate dogs. And absolutely gorgeous
animals.

------
jnordwick
Pure breeds that are bread with no caring for genetic issues shouldn't be
allowed.

And you shouldn't be purchasing from a puppy mill anyways when there are so
many dogs that need homes.

Small plug: If you are in San Diego this Sunday Feb 12th there is a large dog
adoption event with hundreds of dogs and cats looking for homes. (I'm
volunteering there.)

[http://www.sandiegoreader.com/events/2017/feb/12/11th-
annual...](http://www.sandiegoreader.com/events/2017/feb/12/11th-annual-
cupids-canines-mega-ado/)

------
Perceptes
Pug parent here. As many other comments have mentioned, brachycephalic dogs
are only one kind that suffers largely as a result of selective breeding by
humans. I have the (somewhat) unfortunate opinion that brachycephalic dogs are
also by far the cutest. Nothing makes me happier than being with my pug.

I think this particular article brings up two important things about dogs as
pets, but fails to connect them properly: 1) some animals suffer much more
than others due to selective breeding 2) we should not buy them. Perhaps the
author actually intended this, but as written it doesn't go far enough: We
should not be supporting animal breeders at all, regardless. Creating animals
that are dependent on humans for survival is wrong, as is giving people a
financial motivation for creating more of them. Animals are not a
commodity—they are living beings that feel just like we do.

What I think we should do is take care of the lives we already have (adopt
animals in shelters and rescues and take the best care of them you can) but
stop breeding animals as human companions, and certainly don't support those
who do financially.

This viewpoint goes hand in hand with my beliefs on a more philosophical
level: veganism and antinatalism.

~~~
jacamat
Well, we invented dogs. So while it is a good morale argument that breeding
co-dependency into a species and infantilizing an otherwise very self-
sufficient predator is a bad thing, its probably not going to happen. At least
not in our lifetime.

Which brings us back to improving the standards for breeding that we have
today. Some dogs, such as Dalmatians and Bulldogs, are genetic atrocities and
should not be bred in the way that they are right now. Not only is it
irresponsible, it results in a very poor quality of life for the resulting
litter.

Standing firmly against these practices as an industry - as pet lovers, as
professionals - is a difficult, but remarkably achievable goal.

~~~
tptacek
I don't know why people buy dalmatians. My only experience with the breed was
my childhood friend's dalmation, who was an asshole and bit me.

But I do know why people buy bulldogs. They're easygoing. They have high
medical and upkeep maintenance costs, but very low day-to-day costs. They're
suitable for families with small children or other pets. They're grateful for
play time when it's available, but not harmed by prolonged inattention.
They're not so big that you couldn't own one in an apartment.

If there's another, healthier breed with the same characteristics and no major
health problems, I'll concede that people should buy that breed and not the
bulldog. But I don't think that's the case.

Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-
compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument. If you need
those attributes in a pet, your alternative to a compromised dog is no dog at
all. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that bringing a genetically
compromised dog into the world is an ethical _positive_ , I can't find a way
to it being ethically _negative_. It seems pretty neutral to me.

Obviously: to responsibly acquire one of these dogs, you need to be educated
about their issues and committed to ensuring their comfort as best as can be
done.

~~~
kasey_junk
Isn't that a bit of a misrepresentation of the problem though? The genetic
problems that bulldogs exhibit aren't results of the traits you mention, but
of conformance to a breed standard and the trends of a very small minority of
bulldog owners (those that show them).

Unfortunately, that small minority drives the _cost_ of bulldogs and thus
drives the breeders. If the bulldog standard was revised to a healthier
expectation and the show dog fashion was for more robust dogs, the breed would
improve in the areas where it falters now and it wouldn't impact the traits
you mentioned right?

~~~
tptacek
I'm uncertain of that. American bulldogs, for instance, are much more
demanding than English bulldogs. Part of what you're buying in a bulldog is a
low-energy dog.

~~~
kasey_junk
American bulldogs are specifically bred for 2 traits against what you
mentioned size & energy. So I think that is largely a bad counter example.

Granted I have no idea about dog breeding but you can see in the history of
the bulldog itself that it is getting more exaggerated in the traits that make
it less healthy. Do we know if they are getting more companionable?

~~~
tptacek
You're right, I don't know, but it was my understanding that the "healthier"
modern bulldog breeds are also much more active.

------
milesf
The article is misleading. I own two pugs, and it's a breed that must be kept
fit and healthy. They can't be allowed to run hard in hot weather, and if it
is hot they need a lot of water. The folds in their skin need to be kept clean
as well. This is a very old breed, and the dogs do have a decent lifespan if
they're cared for properly. I don't know about Bulldogs, but I've never owned
one because they're only expected to live 6 - 8 years.

I've owned many different breeds over the years, and it's true that mutts are
generally better health wise. They also tend to have better temperaments. I
have pugs because I love them, but I also think too many people get them just
because they're cute.

As a dog lover, it's going to be headlines like these that are going to get
some well-needed discussion going. So on one hand I disagree with the thrust
of the article that pugs are anatomical disasters, but on the other the whole
'purebred' arrogance needs to be taken down a few notches.

~~~
mulletbum
Your dog can't run in hot weather? Doesn't that concern you when there are
millions of working dogs that are at the same fitness level, but wont die in
hot weather?

I feel as though you justified the entire article in your second sentence?

~~~
milesf
Every responsible pug owns knows you should not run pugs _hard_ in hot
weather. It can lead to organ damage. Pugs are not working dogs, they are
companion dogs.

~~~
Nursie
Because the poor beasts overheat and can't breathe properly!

Part of the point of the article...

~~~
tptacek
I think he understands the article, and that you're not following his point.
He's saying: yes, due to genetic defects in the breed, his dogs can't run in
hot weather. Solution: don't have the dogs run in hot weather.

~~~
Nursie
Alternate solution - don't breed dogs with extreme anatomical features that
mean if they get overexcited in hot weather they can suffer organ damage.

~~~
tptacek
You're begging the question.

I think I can speak for the entire thread when I say we all agree that one
downside of the pug breed is that their genetic defects prevent them from
performing in hot weather.

My question to you is: so what?

Surely we all agree that it would be cruel to buy a pug and then put it into
circumstances that exacerbate its defects. But the person you're arguing with
is a responsible pug owner, and is careful not to subject their dog to those
conditions. So: why am I meant to care about whether that dog can run in the
heat?

------
criddell
One thing I've wondered (and I hope this isn't an inflammatory question) is if
a breed in dogs is analogous to race in humans? If that's wrong, does the idea
of _breed_ have any human equivalent? Does race have any equivalent in dogs?

~~~
ludamad
Seems like a fair question. Dogs seem very versatile. Dogs are apparently like
neonatal wolves, can we breed neonatal humans?

~~~
richmarr
What do you mean by _neonatal_ in this instance? My use of that word would be
'relating to newborn babies'... so "can we breed neonatal humans" seems to
imply a different usage?

~~~
upvotinglurker
I think the word intended is "neotenous"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny)

~~~
richmarr
Ta

------
gerbilly
Pugs are bred to look like human babies IMHO, with flat faces and eyes in
front.

Even the size is about right.

------
WillyOnWheels
Bulldogs

[https://nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-
be-s...](https://nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-be-
saved.html)

------
bichiliad
Personal anecdote: my family's yorkshire terrier just passed away from
lymphangiectasia[0] - essentially his abdominal lymph nodes dilated and he was
unable to absorb protein. Poor thing suffered from symptoms related to the
disease for most of his life, but it got quite bad in the past couple of
months before he passed away.

[0]: [http://pets.thenest.com/lymphangiectasia-yorkie-
dogs-12246.h...](http://pets.thenest.com/lymphangiectasia-yorkie-
dogs-12246.html)

------
X86BSD
Slightly related, I've always wondered when I look at various dogs when I am
out and people are walking theirs, why some people would want a dog that is
clearly struggling just to live. For instance, dachshunds, I look at them and
think, running can't be easy for them. It just looks painful to be a
dachshund. And there are many breeds we see each day I think something is
really wrong with them.

------
adamwong246
It so crazy to me that some people own pugs, but won't eat a GM tomato. Were
it not for our cultural baggage, it's would be obvious these animals are
abominations.

------
fixermark
In all fairness, the author is probably right that his or her clients would
change vets if they told the client to stop owning brachycephalic dogs, and
the client would be right to do so. People are deeply emotionally attached to
their pets; it'd be a bit like a doctor setting a kid's arm telling the parent
"These extra-long arms are prone to breakage; you should consider having
children with someone with the genes for a stockier build."

Divorcing the general notion of a category problem from individual cases of
ownership is hard, and honestly, Guardian op-eds may be the best option in the
short-run.

~~~
illumin8
This is a false equivalence. Parents of children can't choose their genetic
traits. Pet owners have the choice of what breed to adopt.

~~~
Filligree
> Parents of children can't choose their genetic traits.

In many cases they can, through genetic screening of eggs and artificial
insemination. Few things make me sadder than seeing a kid with some genetic
disorder, whose parents _knew_ that was a possibility.

------
ndesaulniers
Had an English bulldog. Great dog, but the breeders warned us they have it
rough. Poor dog had a tough last year. I miss that ugly dog.

------
erikb
This doesn't work. You can't convince people who's income depends on staying
silent to speak out. You need to convince politicians to make it harder on
people breeding unhealthy dogs. Politicians yearn for topics to fight for if
it can bring them voters. Vets yearn for people bringing their sick dogs to
them and not another guy.

~~~
DanBC
UK vets spoke out about mutilations[1] of pets long before politicians took
action.

Vets lost money by refusing to perform these mutilations.

[1] declawing cats; tail docking; ear cropping, etc.

------
hfourm
Did anyone else find this title pretty confusing before clicking the link?

~~~
macintux
Nope, 'twas exactly what I expected.

------
notadoc
Most purebreds are

------
Rudism
My wife and I got our dog, Andi, from a pound in Tampa, FL shortly after we
were married. Andi was about a year old, and insanely hyper. We figured it was
just because she was nervous about being stuck in a pound, and excited that we
were spending time with her when most other people focused their attention on
the younger puppies.

She was one of the older dogs the pound showed us, and we were told it was her
last day before they had to euthanize her. I was skeptical at the time,
assuming they could easily say this about any dog that they wanted to move
quickly, but we fell in love with her and made the decision to adopt her into
our family.

She's a mutt, probably part German Shepherd, and part something smaller and
more energetic---turned out her hyperactivity was actually a persistent
character trait. Despite growing to over 70lbs, in her mind she was a lap dog,
incapable of concealing her excitement, jumping all over any guest who came to
our home.

When she was 3, we found a tumor on one of her legs and spent what was, to us
at the time, a considerable fortune to have it removed. The vet told us that
when they tested her blood they found signs that the cancer had already
spread, and gave her at most six months to a year to live. I cried about it
then.

For the next several years we continued to find tumors and have them removed,
each time being told that more tissue and blood tests have confirmed that
she's probably not much longer for this world. After several years, we made
the decision to stop putting her through the surgeries when new tumors showed
up. It was incredibly expensive, it was stressful for her and us during her
recoveries (keeping stitches in a dog as hyper as her was incredibly
difficult), and she had already far outlived the life expectancy predicted by
all of her vets. If it was her time, we decided, then so be it.

The growth of new tumors seemed do die down considerably around the same time
we made that decision.

When she was around 10 or 11 years old, her penchant for continuously and
violently wagging her foot-long tail at even the slightest provocation finally
caught up to her. She somehow injured its tip, so whenever she was excited
(several times per day) the wound would re-open and the halls of our house,
her sides, and often our pants would get covered in a spattering of blood. No
attempt to clean and close it up was successful, so we took the only option
available to us. She kept wagging her little stub just as often and violently,
starting the very same day we had it cropped.

She's fourteen now, and has finally slowed down. We can tell she's tired.
She's at least partially lost control of her bodily functions and regularly
has accidents. Her back legs are also starting to give out, causing her
difficulty when going up and down stairs in this, the fifth house she's shared
with us. Despite being "prepared" for this by a prognosis handed down well
over a decade ago, it's still very hard to watch her body and mind slowly wind
down. We've started having "the talk" about when we should do her the kindness
of ending her suffering.

It's such a difficult topic---are we just "getting rid of her" because she's
more annoying to take care of in her old age? Are we "keeping her around" too
long despite her obvious suffering due to our own selfishness? How many
moments of observed happiness during a day constitutes "enough" to justify her
life to continue? How the hell are we supposed to make this kind of decision?
These are the kinds of things that run through your head.

She's been a part of our lives for the entire 14 years we've been married, and
an even bigger part of our kids' lives, who have not even known a time without
her. She's been a kind, sweet, loving, and often infuriating member of our
family. I wouldn't trade our time with her for anything. I love her dearly,
and those tears I shed for her all those years ago when we found that first
tumor are probably coming back for a second and final round some day very soon
now.

And so ends my ridiculously maudlin stream-of-consciousness only tangentially-
relevant comment. Moral of the story is, if you're looking for a dog, I
definitely recommend staying away from the problematic breeds and giving a
mutt from the pound a chance, otherwise you could be overlooking a fantastic
pet.

------
imjustsaying
What is the author implying? Imagine if the topic were about people
predisposed to cystic fibrosis or haemophilia. What's his solution?

~~~
jdpedrie
The ethical issues surrounding dogs are entirely different from those
surrounding people. Additionally, humans didn't specifically select for traits
in other people which caused genetic disorders to become rampant in an entire
bloodline (with some accidental exceptions I suppose).

~~~
imjustsaying
> Additionally, humans didn't specifically select for traits in other people
> which caused genetic disorders to become rampant in an entire bloodline

Well actually they did. Many East Asians have historically preferred lighter
skin tones even though it increases melanoma risk.

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2013.806386](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2013.806386)

There's infinite other examples of unintended negative consequences of sexual
selection preferences.

