Breeding purebreds to look different in order to improve health

Hi all, I am currently working on a paper for a college English class. My topic is about how purebred dogs are predisposed to more health risks than mixed breeds because of genetic problems, such as flat nosed dogs having breathing problems, and short, long dogs having back problems. In my paper I will talk about how an active effort to breed out these "unhealthy" traits is necessary in order to create healthier standards for purebred dogs.

I was hoping to gain opinions from dog lovers such as yourself on this topic, perhaps even experiences with it.

How do you feel about changing the norm of what many different purebreds look like in order to make them healthier? For example, breeding pugs with longer noses, or dachshunds with shorter spines.

Would you not consider a bulldog with a longer nose to be a bulldog anymore?

Do you think doing this breeding to change the norm is necessary?


Please share your opinions and/or experiences on the subject, I would be very interested to hear them.

Hi Ashley, this topic has been done many times over the years.

Have a look at some of the threads where it all started:

Pedigree Dogs Exposed (discussion before program aired)

Pedigree Dogs Exposed, BBC1: Discussion

Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2

Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2 - Your Views

Thank you for the links Azz, I have read through a good portion of them and the discussion I am seeing is very interesting.

I believe these threads will be very useful for me, thank you!

You will find the largest matter that leads to health issues in purebreds is BYB and pup mills.

It is a myth that is you take 2 purebreds and mix them you will get a healthier dog on the average.

Classic case is the American Mastiff. It's healthier the breeders will say. while in truth, it just drools less and the is a slightly better of not having hip or elbow dysplasia issues.
What they fail to tell you is a there is now a chance of spine issues that is just as great as the hip or elbow dysplasia issues in the Mastiff.

Another great view of it is just by looking at all the Frankenstein dog created.

Simply by doing the correct health testing, many issues would be reduced greatly.

Any mix or purebred which is poorly bred for generation after generation, is going to have issues and new issues hardly seen, in years past.

Like so many statements made about dogs, this one is hard to prove. It is impossible to get a study sample that reflects all dogs, and health data on dogs is sadly lacking. Kennel clubs, unfortunately, don't care enough about health to record date and cause of death (with the exception of the Finnish KC, which not only records data, but publishes it online). Mixed breeds vary greatly: some probably benefit from hybridization because the frequency of harmful recessive genes is diluted in hybridization. Others may suffer because relatively healthy genes from one side of the cross are mixed with less healthy genes from the other.

There is one way this statement could be true. If you define anyone who breeds unhealthy dogs as being either a BYB or a puppy mill, then the statement is true by definition. But if you do this, many breeders of pedigree dogs are BYBs or puppy mills.

Has anyone stated as a fact that all BYB and puppy mills breed unhealthy dogs?

When I bred Griffons I did not have kennels, my dogs lived in my house, and I was a Kennel Club [UK] registered breeder. The puppies I bred were 100% healthy, but because they were bred in my house with my family, did that make me a BYB?

Actually many breeders of "pedigree" dogs are BYBs or puppy mills. Anyone can get hold of "official" Pedigree forms and fill them out as they want. When I was an active breeder it was - and possibly still is - easy to telephone any dog food manufacturer and ask if they could please send you some fancy Pedigree forms.

And not all registered pedigree dogs are what they are registered as - because unless the person registering the puppies is 100% honest regarding the dam and the sire, how can any Kennel Club be 100% sure that they are those as actually those registered?

It was a well-known but unspoken [in those days] fact that on occasions a Griffon breeder would use a Pug as a stud and yet register the puppies under the name of a Griffon stud.

Can't be proven? Exactly how long you been around a breed of dog?

Better yet show me a petshop I can get this information from.



Pure and simply by health testing animals and breeding them with other health tested. You are far less likely you have many of the health issues seen in a breed.

If you notice test shows excellent hips, that is on a 270lb mastiff. That to me if from someone breeding for health, type, standard and temperament.

Also the dog is AKC reg and DNA tested all studs have to be if they father believe it's 5 litters.

My pup's parents where health tested, and both dna checked. After just under 30 years of owning Giant breed dogs, I do not buy a pup who's parent where not health tested, and I have far, far less issues.

Anyone can buy a couple dogs which are reg and breed, and have those pups reg.
You will find the difference is they pump out litter after litter to sell cheap for a profit.

I will spend a extra for my pup, but 90% of the time I will spend far less in vet bills.

The list you post doesn't prove anything. Can you present any data to support the claim of 'far, far less issues'?

1. What we call 'health tests' are actually 'disease' or 'condition' tests. Good hips don't mean so much if the dog, by virtue of being a giant breed, has a life expectancy of 5 to 7 years. A dog can pass all health tests recommended for the breed and still end out epileptic, prone to bloat and cruciate ligament tears, suffer from an arthritic back, and be allergic to many common foods. Breeding for health, in a pure bred dog, requires long and deep understanding of the pedigree. That is, knowing cause and age of death and all significant health conditions back five or six generations, collection of data about sibllings, and systematically breeding away from problems. I suspect what you call DNA testing is effectively a paternity test . . . it has nothing to do with health.

I bred Labradors (ANKC) for many years. I found far more breeders breed for titles than for health. In choosing a stud, not many ask "what did the great grand sires and dams die from, and at what age?" More often they look for a CH or GR CH on the pedigree. Deeper, broader understanding of pedigree is hard to find, and hard to come by because many breeders cover up health problems. Such breeders exist, but they are a small minority.

2. Some breed health problems are systematically created by pedigree breeding. Do a little reading on the Wycliffe bottleneck in standard poodles. That is an extreme case, but analogous problems exist in many pedigree dog lines. Another way that KC breeding has systematically created health problems is where extreme traits have gained cult following in the show ring. This subject has been worked to death by Pedigree Dogs Exposed and company.

3. Mutts and off-registry breed dogs come with no guarantees. Depends on where you are, but in less affluent places, they don't survive unless they are pretty hearty. If you want to recover traits from the 'old' style of a breed, e.g., less brachycephilic pugs, Poms with straight legs and moderate coat, it may be worth fishing in the BYB gene pool. Unfortunately, KC rules generally prohibit this, so if you do it, you have to cut ties with the better known registries. You may still be able to offer pedigrees through shadier registries such as the Continental KC.

With that right there you have clearly shown you have no interest of actually seeing any point past, what you think.
So please write whatever dribble you wish, as you clearly are not doing real research and simply looking for a group of people to agree with you.
Oh and just for your information bad hips generally are issues you start dealing with in the first 1 to 2 years, in giant breeds. Also please quit straight up lying about lifespans, most giant breeds are around 8 to 10 years. The only one which comes in at your 5-7 years off the top of my head is the
Dogue de Bordeaux at 5 to 8. Please join a giant breed forum and ask how important health testing is.

Many giant breeds actually live to be 11 to 14 years with the proper diet, care, and exercise.

Also the DNA testing I'm speaking of has zero to do with paternity.
I've had several to live past 10 years.

I have two comments to make, the first is regarding hip problems, although my knowledge of same is about hip dysplasia and other major hip deformities in human children and adults, not in canines. They are a congenital disorder which might, or might not be due to genetic abnormalities.

In dogs, not only large breeds can be affected, but also small, ie toy breeds. As an example, the Griffons I used to breed were susceptible to hip dysplasia through genetics - so although there were no tests in those days it was possible to trace back to the lines which seemed to produce the problems. And, mostly, avoid those lines.

In humans? I guess you can do what my daughter did to me, which was to blame me for causing her to be born with severe hip deformities which took years of major surgeries to "fix". After all those years there is very little I do not know about hip abnormalities in humans, and actually dogs are not that much different in that respect.

The major difference is that a responsible dog breeder is now able to check more fully the stud/dam used, due to testing. I do not think that humans can do the same.

The second comment is regarding this statement:

Sure it can. I have a mutt of no known origin who is epileptic, and although my previous medical knowledge about epilepsy was in humans, I have lived with canine epilepsy since 1 April 2011. Not that long - other Dogsey members have/have had dogs with epilepsy for far longer, but my Vet is also epileptic and has taught me a lot. In some dogs epilepsy is in the lines. And some dogs are more prone to develop it due to various outside sources. Some can develop it due to brain trauma/infection/tumour. And many dogs, such as my own, can develop epilepsy for no known reason.

So I agree with LMost in that you are posting things that you want people to agree with, without actually having done full research into what you say.