Dogsey

Louise,the link is to a newspaper article reporting on the study.Can you not get it?

Problem now IMO is we are getting crosses bred purposefully and many times for profit and no health testing in the past accidental crosses you got that wider gene pool now not so much so figures for genetic problems will I am guessing even out over time.

Interesting to note the use of the word 'mongrels'. Which is what Heinz 57 dogs were called throughout my younger years. Most of them the result of unplanned or accidental pregnancies in dogs left to roam the streets. The progeny being offloaded to neighbours or disposed of by drowning and other sad means if no homes found for them.

Cross breeds I always assumed to mean pups resulting from an INTENDED mating of two different 'breeds' of dogs. Yet it seems to be used even when the owner doesn't really have a clue what breed the mother or father dog was.

Haven't read the study yet. But was just wondering what was meant by 'mongrels' as in the title here. And whether it was used to cover the old Heinz 57s as well as 'designer crosses' as they are sometimes referred to now.

A good old mix in the gene pool is good for humans or so I've been told. I guess the same is true for dogs (unless in both cases - humans and dogs - there are known inherited genetic weaknesses or problems).

It did occur to me that just maybe people who paid dearly for a pedigree working or show dog would be more likely to raise it in a healthy fashion and take it to the vet regularly if they suspect any sort of problems.

I've had dogs that didn't need to visit a vet after having jabs and booster for years afterwards. Or didn't visit a vet more than a few times throughout their life. They of course were the HEALTHIEST ones - so vets wouldn't be including those in their statistics!

I'm using my tablet and it can be temperamental in opening links at times. I'll check it out later on my computer. Is there a link to the actual study though? I wouldn't put much stock into a simple news headline/article without the study results themselves.

You said, no one would ever be able to prove to you , that pedigree dogs are as healthy as crossbreeds, note.... The article did not said they are healthier , but as healthy, there is a difference.

Yes it was funded by the RSPCA but I think they were expecting a different outcome to the results, the funding my have had an agenda, but those doing the study were impartial.

You may disagree with the study that's your prerogative, it may be only one study. But it's one study that has been carried out by a respected prominent organisation...( not the RSPCA ) but the RVC,
.

As I also said earlier, a health seminar which a friend attended,at Cambridge university veterinary collage, the conclusion was on the same wave length, although some breeds are at risk of certain problems, the same problems can effect crossbreeds and mongrels...

But I'm guessing the closed mind will stay that way.

The study was done at the RVC in conjunction with a number of vets around the midlands... The vet doing the study has put his name to it also. So it's not just a newspaper article.

That may be well and good Jackie, but I want to read the actual study results. Not just second hand reporting through this article.

I'll check it out later if the study itself is linked to from the article.

..............

I believe what will be will be I have had a mixed breed had to be put to sleep at 41/2 due to cancer. Pedigree had to be put to sleep at 41/2 due to rare incurable diseases.
Zanta BernesexNewfie who went to back to her breeder and was then re-homed with a lovely lady is still going strong at 9 years old and has outlived her sister who lived to 8. Apart from slowing down now and being stiffer she is in good health.

Tested for certain things or not I don't believe brings peace of mind or promises of longer lives or less health problems.
I am not saying pedigrees should not be tested they should especially for specific problems known in the breed but it does not guarantee if the parents are clear for certain inherited diseases or have good hip and elbow scores you are not going to get problems in their off spring.

Whatever Jackie. Disputing the validity of such a study is simply being smart IMO. You twisted my words, as usual. I said what I meant. I said that I do not think that there will ever be solid proof that pedigreed dogs are healthier than mixed breeds. I believe that.

This study is saying that pedigreed dogs are just as healthy as mixed breeds. And this study is new and just now has someone really tried to prove that pedigreed dogs are as healthy as mixed breeds.

That itself says something. Wider gene pools = better health in general, despite what this article/study says. Of course there are ALWAYS going to be exceptions but still.

I saw what they were saying and the part about it being unbiased is your opinion. Not everyone agrees with you. As for the ridiculous close minded comments, whatever. You insulting me holds so little weight it isn't even funny, since you take time to nitpick my comments whenever possible.

You're the one arguing with things I didn't write... such as saying for NO reason that mongrels and mixed breeds can have the same health issues are pure bred dogs. I didn't try to dispute that.