Not sure what you mean by that.. you find it shocking the 75 % of canines in the UK are pedigrees???

WHY??



Given your personal experience and the culture of preferring x breeds in your country, you will obviously find that your statistics will stack up in your favour.

So true! When I go to a dog park here, it's rare to see a purebred, some are distinctively a breed type, but not often pure. I personally have 3 mutts, one that is a crossbreed, and 2 true mutts. I believe the 10% holds true here, when at the park. I see more purebreds tho when walking in the neighbourhood sidewalks tho. It's just not important to alot of us to know what our dogs are, they're just good dogs. and the belief here is that mutts do live longer. that is just general belief, and not backed by anything, but my last mutt was 16 when he died, and my cocker x springer was 14.5. both breeds have a relatively short life span, so it was amazing she lived that long.... but maybe not by the sounds of the genetic's that is being explained.

Because it is so different from what I know/have seen here. Not having travelled across the ocean before seeing this statistic, of course, I thought other countries were more like Canada where the mutt is the most common dog.

Agreed. My personal dogs are too small a sample size to take statistics from. I was stating my anecdotal experiences which truly mean very little. It is the comparison of large numbers in a controlled manner that does count, and as has been said prior on this thread, unfortunately, there are not enough studies although the Pullman site is a good start.

It is an interesting comparison between the UK and Canada. I imagine that 50 years ago, the UK scene would have been very similar to Canada now. As a child, the only purebred dogs I ever saw were border collies used as sheepdogs, "alsations" (as we used to call them) and the beagles of the local hunt. Probably 90% of all the dogs I saw would have been mongrels (as opposed to crossbreeds). I'm not quite sure when and why it began to change.
To get back on topic, the mongrels that we all seemed to have in those days did appear to be ridiculously healthy (We always had mongrel dogs and I can't remember ever needing to take one to the vet). Todays crossbreeds are a different kettle of fish and in my experience are more, not less likely to suffer health problems than good quality pedigree dogs from health-tested parents.

Mick

In the UK there is a lot more spaying and neutering now. in the past a lot more people were inclined to let their dogs roam, that would probably be why there are less crossbreds than there used to be.

I grew up with a toy poodle who lived to be 19 years, he was PTS as he lost his sight and became incontinent, we also had a JRT who lived to a similar age.

I have had pedigree dogs with no problems whereas my sister has had crossbreds and has had problems.

Our Pomeranian's live on average til they are 16.

Lost a Spanish at 12 and one at 15.

So shows that it's not true regarding them not living as long as crosses.

Until all deaths are recorded I don't know how anyone can state that a cross or pedigree is healthier.

I don't think deaths are the best way to look at it. You could have an entirely healthy dog who has an accident and dies at a young age or you could have people who continue to keep thier dog alive with awful problems...

So ru saying people with pedigrees will let their dogs live long cruel lives to make it look as though they are healthy? My dogs never had a days illness in reality before they died. Lydia who died at 15 wasn't ill as such but lost a lot of weight within 2 weeks and a lump became evident 2 days before I had her put to sleep, she was in absolutely no pain.

Statistical trends permit exceptions and are not undermined by anecdotal evidence.

By extrapolation from samples.

Not getting at you at all.....sorry if it came across that way.

All I was saying (and this applies to X's as well as Pedigrees) is that people will often prolong the life of a dog with illnesses so deaths are not a great way of looking at it.