I guess its just me then, I look at the facts and the numbers and the point rather than the style
Guess its because I was never that good at English but good at Science so I am used to reading badly written things but reading the facts instead of commenting on the style
To me reading that the things like the 2 years struck me far far more than the style, I had hoped that people would be wanting to discuss the points not the style

You look at the numbers and regard them as significant and so do I, BUT, because the style is soapbox with the science mixed in, the science tends to be somewhat lost.

I don't think I'm wording this very well, but, take any issue, for example, my soapbox issue is punitive training tools. If I flower up what I'm saying with a lot of my own opinion, name calling and personality bashing, the point I'm trying to make becomes watered down. Only those who agree with me would see the relevance of the evidence I provide against the use of the tools whereas those that are adamant these tools are good and even those who are on the fence will only see the rant and lose the whole point of the exercise. Hope that helps make sense of what I'm trying to say?

I get what you mean.

The science over ruled the rant for me however, there will be some who won't see past that.

But what about the dog? 2 years of extra life is important to you because you want your dog to be around longer, but what if those extra 2 years are filled with agony and misery. Where in the blog does it state the dog lived all of it's 19 years happy and well? What are the chances that the "experts", as he puts it, recognised the symptoms of a suffering dog 2 years earlier and did the kind thing? (And before people jump down my throat, HE calls them expert breeders, which by it's very definition denotes a better understanding of dogs.)

My point is what I originally stated: this blog is nothing more than another persons opinion with some interesting excerpts thrown in for good measure. Excerpts that contain little evidence that can be validated, all it contains is an opinion that you happen to agree with which somehow seems to automatically raise it up to the level of critically analysed research?

Longevity is not a good indicator of health or good breeding, especially when such "evidence" is void of any particular information about the population of the study and/or it's selection.

To say that bybs are better because they can breed dogs that live 19 years as opposed to the experts dog of 17 is bizarre to say the least.

All I want is healthy, well bred pedigree dogs that live out a normal life. Having them reach the age of 19 is not a top priority, given that the dog, as a species, will always have a natural lifespan.

With any ethical science relating to sentient beings, there will always be 'what ifs'. It's why a single study is interesting, but, in itself, pretty worthless. It's only when similar studies are carried out and a pattern forms that we can be pretty certain of what the conclusions are.

it never said the dogs were owned by the expert breeder but that it was a study of pet dogs purchased from expert breeders and pet shops and got from rescues
And he himself says that the rescues age won't be accurate but the other groups would be

yup one study on its own dosent say much
But people advise other to go to an expert breeder for a better chance of a healthy pup based on no studies
Infact quite the opposite
In longevity data crossbreeds are seen to have a longer average life expectancy than the average of the breeds of similar sizes by around two years
And they cost less to insure so insurance find on average insured crossbreeds need less expensive treatments than insured pedigrees

Not definitive studies but imo it does call into question just blindly advising expert breeders when there is actually no evidence I have seen to support it

Yes it seems to make sense that breeders who health check would have healthier puppies
But it may be possible that out very restrictive breeding methods are detrimental to the health of the individual and those effects are more than cancelling out the good done by health checking

Exactly, research is really important, but what is even more important is critically analysing several studies to try to ascertain it's validity.

To me the aforementioned blog is no different than going to your local park and asking a random dog walker their opinion on "expert" and BYB's. It's all really interesting stuff, but at the end of the day it's just another opinion and has very little analytical value IMO.

Thats the difference---I just want a healthy dog. Generally apart from my pedigree I have managed OK with that.

rune

I'm a bit lost now? Are you saying that wanting a healthy, well bred pedigree is a bad thing? Or are you trying to infer that because you've had healthy dogs that aren't pedigree that all pedigree dogs aren't healthy? If that's the case I also have to ask how that's relevant to this thread other than trying to play a game of one-upmanship?

Having had well bred, healthy pedigree dogs living to decent ages and a unhealthy crossbreed living to a decent age I'm inclined to disagree if the answer is yes to the third question.

Regardless of this my feelings remain the same: the blog is just another lay persons opinion, a dog living to 19 years of age is not a good indicator of health or good breeding and I do think wanting well bred, healthy pedigree dogs is an ethical viewpoint.

Rips - thats the thing tho - what EVIDENCE do you have that the breeders that health check are actually creating healthy well bred dogs?