English Bulldogs Have Reached a Genetic Dead End

[Hickdive]

I don't agree that it is the breed standards...

You don't agree and then you proceed to agree by taking a couple of paragraphs to make my points. Why?

As far as breed specific rescues, yes, they can be a wonderful source of pets. However, you are more likely to get dogs--who deserve good homes and who can be wonderful animal companions--who also have some potentially serious medical and/or behavioral issues. There is a reason they ended up in rescue. Also a good--that is an ethical breeder will ALWAYS take back a puppy that doesn't work out because it 'got too big' or the kids are allergic, or the puppy has too much energy or now we're into corgis, sorry labrador puppy...

I think your experience of breed-specific rescue organisations and the re-homing they do is negligible. I've yet to see one that isn't very clear to potential adopters about the reasons for re-homing and any issues the dog has, or that will not take an animal back if the re-homing doesn't work. There are also home checks and introductions before the animal is released to their new owners.

 

[Toni]

You don't agree and then you proceed to agree by taking a couple of paragraphs to make my points. Why?

I didn't. Sorry you didn't understand my post.

I think your experience of breed-specific rescue organisations and the re-homing they do is negligible. I've yet to see one that isn't very clear to potential adopters about the reasons for re-homing and any issues the dog has, or that will not take an animal back if the re-homing doesn't work. There are also home checks and introductions before the animal is released to their new owners.

I'm sorry that perhaps I wasn't clear. A good, ethical breeder will always take back a dog that needs re-homing.

Breed specific rescues--not the breeder but breed specific rescues-- are negligible in terms of the volumes of animals they re-home. Breed specific rescues that I am familiar with generally know the history behind their animals and are good about sharing information, and will take back dogs if they prove unsuitable to the living situation.

But most shelters are different than that. They do not necessarily know anything about the animals they 'adopt' out, do not necessarily try to find homes for dogs that do not work out but euthanize quickly. Many operate on a profit motive and rely on heavy importation of dogs to 'adopt' from locals far removed, even specifically looking for certain breeds or 'breeds' because they know there is a larger market --and so more revenue--to be had 'adopting' them out--that is by selling them. Knowing nothing of the health history of the parents does not serve the animals well nor the pocketbooks of the new owners.

Of course those animals need and deserve good homes. But it is specious to claim that it is morally superior to 'adopt' i.e. purchase a puppy from a rescue. It encourages irresponsible, careless breeding which in turn produces dogs with serious health and behavior problems. I believe that all puppies should be produced from dogs which are of sound health, with sound, stable personalities.

 

[Peez]

FWIW: I grew up with dogs (purebred and mutt), worked for a short time at a not-for-profit animal shelter (SPCA), have lived with purebred digs for many years (GSD's), and I am a biologist (I know a bit about genetics). There are certainly some breeds which have been selected for traits that are potentially problematic (e.g., breathing problems in bulldogs), and there are many irresponsible breeders out there (even outside of 'puppy mills'), but dismissing so-called purebred dogs as bad is simplistic and silly. Note that any dog is a 'purebred', in the sense that it is a pure Canis familiaris: inbreeding is not a yes/no proposition, it is a question of degree. There are millions of German Shepherd Dogs in the USA alone, with responsible breeding this is not an extremely inbred population.

When my family adopted/purchased our current companion dogs, we had to have an interview with the breeder and sign a commitment to return the dogs to the breeder if we did not keep them. This is not consistent with a breeder who is selfish or cruel. For the record, I do not own, nor have I ever owned, a Hummer.

 

[Hickdive]

I didn't. Sorry you didn't understand my post.

I did, actually you didn't understand mine, which is why you then listed the reasons why breed standards aren't helpful. I didn't think they needed explaining but you did. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of how standards may stay the same but the expression of them creeps to extremes.

I'm sorry that perhaps I wasn't clear. A good, ethical breeder will always take back a dog that needs re-homing.

I wasn't talking about breeders, I was talking about breed-specific rescues who will take back dogs that don't work out with their new homes. You don't seem to know much about breed specific rescues hence you you write about breeders.

Breed specific rescues--not the breeder but breed specific rescues-- are negligible in terms of the volumes of animals they re-home.

So what? Nothing to do with your earlier implication that breed specific rescues won't take back re-homed animals but "ethical breeders" will.

Breed specific rescues that I am familiar with generally know the history behind their animals and are good about sharing information, and will take back dogs if they prove unsuitable to the living situation.

Exactly what I said but you implied rescues wouldn't when you recommended a breeder over a rescue.

But most shelters are different than that. They do not necessarily know anything about the animals they 'adopt' out, do not necessarily try to find homes for dogs that do not work out but euthanize quickly. Many operate on a profit motive and rely on heavy importation of dogs to 'adopt' from locals far removed, even specifically looking for certain breeds or 'breeds' because they know there is a larger market --and so more revenue--to be had 'adopting' them out--that is by selling them. Knowing nothing of the health history of the parents does not serve the animals well nor the pocketbooks of the new owners.

They may well do, but since I never mentioned shelters why would you bring it up?

Of course those animals need and deserve good homes. But it is specious to claim that it is morally superior to 'adopt' i.e. purchase a puppy from a rescue.

Which is a claim I never made. This is an atheist site, you should know better than to straw man.

 

[Toni]

I did, actually you didn't understand mine, which is why you then listed the reasons why breed standards aren't helpful. I didn't think they needed explaining but you did. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of how standards may stay the same but the expression of them creeps to extremes.

I was writing about breeding extremes of standards.

Clearly you and I are not understanding one another.

I'm sorry that perhaps I wasn't clear. A good, ethical breeder will always take back a dog that needs re-homing.

I wasn't talking about breeders, I was talking about breed-specific rescues who will take back dogs that don't work out with their new homes. You don't seem to know much about breed specific rescues hence you you write about breeders.

We were writing about two different things.

Breed specific rescues--not the breeder but breed specific rescues-- are negligible in terms of the volumes of animals they re-home.

So what? Nothing to do with your earlier implication that breed specific rescues won't take back re-homed animals but "ethical breeders" will.

Not at all what I wrote. I am not sure if you simply misunderstood me from the beginning or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. I was talking about 'rescues' and shelters, not breed specific rescues.

Exactly what I said but you implied rescues wouldn't when you recommended a breeder over a rescue.

Nope. Not what I said or implied.

They may well do, but since I never mentioned shelters why would you bring it up?

I entered the discussion to talk about the issue of breeders vs shelters/rescues. Not breed specific rescues.

I am sorry you simply seem unable or unwilling to understand that.

Of course those animals need and deserve good homes. But it is specious to claim that it is morally superior to 'adopt' i.e. purchase a puppy from a rescue.

Which is a claim I never made. This is an atheist site, you should know better than to straw man.

FFS, I wasn't talking to you or suggesting YOU made a claim.

Atheists are as likely to be moral and ethical as are theists.

 

[Tigers!]

Silly me, thought that the title meant that those who play the game of British Bulldog had reached a genetic dead end.

 

[untermensche]

Dogs are bred to meet arbitrary standards some stupid humans made up out of thin air.

The standards can as easily be changed as they were created.

But people infatuated with dogs don't seem to comprehend this.

 

[Toni]

Dogs are bred to meet arbitrary standards some stupid humans made up out of thin air.

The standards can as easily be changed as they were created.

But people infatuated with dogs don't seem to comprehend this.

You are ill informed. Breeds were developed for specific reasons, to perform specific tasks and serve specific roles. a retriever was vred for the specific purpose of fetching fallen birds, brought down by the master. the dog needed to be able to mark where the bird fell, track it and bring it back to the hunter unmarred by its teeth. Terriers were typically developed to go after rats and other vermin, a valuable skill. Herding dogs were developed to keep flocks together and to bring the flock where directed. Again, a highly skilled function, a combination of both genes and training. And so on. These are not 'arbitrary' by any means.

 

[untermensche]

Dogs are bred to meet arbitrary standards some stupid humans made up out of thin air.

The standards can as easily be changed as they were created.

But people infatuated with dogs don't seem to comprehend this.

You are ill informed. Breeds were developed for specific reasons, to perform specific tasks and serve specific roles. a retriever was vred for the specific purpose of fetching fallen birds, brought down by the master. the dog needed to be able to mark where the bird fell, track it and bring it back to the hunter unmarred by its teeth. Terriers were typically developed to go after rats and other vermin, a valuable skill. Herding dogs were developed to keep flocks together and to bring the flock where directed. Again, a highly skilled function, a combination of both genes and training. And so on. These are not 'arbitrary' by any means.

They were bred for that a long time ago. These Bulldogs can barely walk no less chase a bull.

For decades they have been bred to meet arbitrary aesthetic standards.

 

[Toni]

You are ill informed. Breeds were developed for specific reasons, to perform specific tasks and serve specific roles. a retriever was vred for the specific purpose of fetching fallen birds, brought down by the master. the dog needed to be able to mark where the bird fell, track it and bring it back to the hunter unmarred by its teeth. Terriers were typically developed to go after rats and other vermin, a valuable skill. Herding dogs were developed to keep flocks together and to bring the flock where directed. Again, a highly skilled function, a combination of both genes and training. And so on. These are not 'arbitrary' by any means.

They were bred for that a long time ago. These Bulldogs can barely walk no less chase a bull.

For decades they have been bred to meet arbitrary aesthetic standards.

Not 'arbitrary' so much as exaggerated.

I agree that some breeds have been taken to extremely unhealthy 'standards.' Bulldogs are among those. It's the primary reason I have refused to consider getting one.

 

[untermensche]

They were bred for that a long time ago. These Bulldogs can barely walk no less chase a bull.

For decades they have been bred to meet arbitrary aesthetic standards.

Not 'arbitrary' so much as exaggerated.

I agree that some breeds have been taken to extremely unhealthy 'standards.' Bulldogs are among those. It's the primary reason I have refused to consider getting one.

The point is, the standards could easily be changed.

If people were just smarter than their dogs.

 

[Potoooooooo]

the projected future development of the breed

 

[Elixir]

Cute. But do they have hip problems?

My parents bred Golden Retrievers back in the 1950s. I grew up loving those dogs. But by the time I was old enough (and fiscally responsible enough) to actually get one, the breed had become reft with genetic problems that were not in evdence "back in the day" - hips, ears, and spine all subject to various ills that were previously rare, and personality traits that would have embarrassed a GR of the 50s.
I ended up with a Golden/Norwegian Elkhound mix - great dog! Then, years later after that boy had passed, I got a wonderful Golden Retriever (supposedly purebred but sans papers) from a non-breeder. He got cancer and died at 9 yrs of age. Now I have one that I got from a breeder (at obscene expense). He had papers going back almost 100 years, showing how he had "out-bred" his lines, and an impressive record of the longevity of the pups he had bred. So far so good - he's strong as an ox, has all the Golden personality (and looks) and will, from all indications, possibly outlive me.

So I have mixed feelings about breeders - but not about "breed standards". Breed standards are pretty much pure evil.

 

[Potoooooooo]

Cute. But do they have hip problems?

'fraid so, but at least he is well hung