http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3341924/Pedigree-dogs-face-extinction-due-to-inbreeding.html

I just read this interesting article and I wonder if the reason my child hood extreme mutt dog lived to be about 18 years of age is because he was part lab, rott, sheep dog  and who knows what... .He could literally eat a dozen cookies a dozen rolls and eat chocolate all in one go and not have any issues (he would eat anything and did not behave around food).He was a free pup on the side of the road. Which also reminds me of when he would eat puzzle pieces and glow in the dark beads which could be seen out in our yard at night   (completely of topic.... lol). People always asked us what he was and were surprised to find out he was a mutt. He had the coloring of a rott and the disposition of a lab with the fur of a sheep dog.

Is inbreeding getting to be a big problem in the US? AND would it be better to breed mutts instead of pure breeds? I have been thinking about this some and to me it is more important to have dogs live long healthy lives than to worry about what the show dog arena has to say about it. It does seem like I hear about way more genetic problems in my favorite breeds of dogs than I used too. OR are we seeing a rise in poor dog health due to premature breeding of a female dog that is too young to have puppies? Also does cheap dog food contribute to the dog health crisis. I think it would be nice if mutts were not looked down on from the show dog pedigrees. Not that pure breed dogs are bad or anything , but it would be nice if they weren't so elite minded.

I would like to hear any thoughts about this. I'm sure my view point could stand to be molded more.

What dog health crisis?

There are a many a dog, pure bred and mutt alike, that survive very long lives on "bad" food, so I don't think I would lay a lot of blame on bad food to cause a health crises. We eat awful fast food all the time and our obesity rates are at an all time high, but managed diets can allow a person to eat that bad food and still be a relatively healthy person.

It seemed to me a lot of the things in the article that were talked about as genetic issues were linked to the things that were being bred for (spots, skin, coat, etc.) and not so much inbreeding in general. People are specifically choosing to breed for these things that are unhealthy and it may not be inbreeding per se that will get them the visual result they desire. Even mutts have genetic issues. My new dog is case and point. He has hip dysplasia. He is a mutt of all sorts, but even mutts can pick up the worst traits of the breeds mixed. Feeding him good food may make him healthier, but it isn't going to undo the genetic faults he was dealt since before he was even able to eat food. I will say, I have known some very hardy mutts, but I have known good quality pure breeds that were just as hardy. How many of the dogs mentioned in this article with all these problems were actually show quality dogs? Or were they backyard breeder spawns that were pushed out with no testing and bad pairing judgement.

The lines are naturally going to get smaller. That's just how it works until whatever the breeding fad is currently goes out of style and they start redirecting the lines for a new look. It's like all the other articles about how the lines have changed over the decades. As needs and desires change breeders will eventually have to go out of line to make those changes happen. When the public wants a Great Dane that is shorter, then the breeding will happen to achieve that, then years down the road the standard will change to fit this new normal in. What we need is for people to wake up and stop being drawn to unhealthy things, like disproportionate animals and anorexic women. They both lead to unhealthy dogs and unhealthy people. That's just my 2 cents take from the article. I may be totally off gear from what others think though.

Good point. This article is about the show dogs in Britain. I agree totally that breeding needs to be about adding good traits and not about what is "in" at the time.

I might have gone a bit too far in calling it a crisis, but it seems like everywhere a go i hear about serious health issues with a dog and people breed it anyway!!   

Also I think the point I was trying to make was this ..are dog shows in part responsible for enhancing unsound traits just for looks? Shouldn't we be all for making a breed more genetically sound rather than worry about pure breeding? I think good healthy mutts should be just as desired has ones that aren't mutts.

Or should we just focus on making sure each puppy has a place in a family and that people are aware of what they need to do in order to take care of said puppy. Because in the end isn't that what is important? I mean dogs exist either to be pets or to be working dogs...right?

I think that it's all of the above. We have dogs now that do need homes. I wasn't notified when I got my mutt from the shelter that he had that extensive of medical issues and the shelter should have been more proactive in checking him before adopting him out so we would have had some forewarning.

People breed anyway because they are stupid and greedy. We will never be able to stomp out stupidity. Unfortunately stupidity is just spreading like wildfire and the internet only lets that stupidity spread faster, but on the flip side we can spread good practices with the internet just as easily. Just can't force people to read what they don't want to hear.

Dog shows have the ability to save the breed in my opinion. Show dogs have to fit a set of standards. As long as idiots don't twist that standard to an unhealthy level, show dogs should be relatively safe. It's the non-show and non-working dogs that people breed that hurt us.

I believe the Labrodoodle could be considered a mutt that is relatively genetically sound. Designer breeds are just mutts but they have potential to be very hardy with proper selection. There should be some distinction between what is a designer breed though and what is a mutt. Designer in my mind should only be a select mix of sound breeding with a bettering purpose, not just whatever two dogs you had on hand that made something that looks kinda cool.

Yes a agree . If people want to become a breeder they should ask themselves what they are trying to accomplish and what purpose the dog serves. I am a big fan of working dogs and I think it's good to only mix breeds with a clear goal in mind. Like I always thought that the two breeds should make sense together. Not many people would say that malamutes and huskies are a bad combo, but if someone mixed a corgi and husky that should raise some eyebrows...for what purpose would they do that besides it might be cute?...lol

This has been pretty thought provoking...thanks for your input.

Here are some more articles on this topic. Just food for thought, I definitely agree there should be less line breeding, and less in-breeding, but there are very good breeders that strive to keep their inbreeding coefficient low and their purebred lines less inbred.

You see this a lot in siberians.

http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/the-pox-of-popular-sires.html

Pawvillage is an online database for pedigreed dogs, below is a link to one of the very popular sires in siberians. It shows his progeny. Keep in mind, these are just the dogs that have been added to pawvillage. It does not include the many puppies sold as pets, or never added to pawvillage.

http://pawvillage.com/pedigree/progeny.asp?ID=AWSH38072

The myth of hybrid vigor

http://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/mixed-mutts-and-designer-crosses-healthier-than-purebred-pets

Also, there are show breeders (even in our breed) that do push to the extremes, and breed dogs that would fall apart if worked. When people say ethical breeding is not profitable, I think that is a total myth. Look at Karnovanda, Innisfree, Kristari, Snowmist. They are some of the oldest, and most respected breeders in siberians, and they most definitely profit from breeding, however they are still producing some of the best dogs, and I think most would agree they are reputable breeders. I prefer a balanced dog, with better length of leg than is seen in a lot of show dogs.

Quite frankly, I am totally against the whole designer breed thing. Below is an interesting article from the 'inventor' of the labradoodle. They are some of the spookiest and most annoying dogs I have encountered. If you want a mutt, go to a shelter.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/06/labradoodle-creator-regrets-the-damage-he-started-with-designer-dog-craze/

Genetic testing, interesting take on it below. I haven't really formed an opinion on it yet...

http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/why-dna-tests-wont-make-dogs-healthier

Also, the last thing I will say is that comparing genetic diversity to endangered wildlife doesn't make sense to me. We have essentially genetically engineered dogs from the very beginning of breeding to a purpose, and if humans decide more diversity is needed, they will breed to that need.

More concerning to me is the loss of connection people have with the working nature of animals. People don't see their dogs and dogs, they see them as furry children. I LOVE my dog, but he is not my furchild, I have enough respect for his nature to see and treat him like a dog. I see this fading connection causing more long term harm than line breeding. The carriage horse debate in NYC is an example of that. People are saying it's cruel for a horse to pull a carriage and work. As if horses should just be large pasture pets. Or protesting the iditarod, saying that making huskies pull sleds is not humane. Losing this connection is much worse for dogs, both mutts and purebreds than unethical breeding.

There will always be people breeding dogs to the extreme of the standard to win shows, and people breeding without considering the standard at all to make a faster sled dog. The key is to find the breeders that support a balance of working ability, with standard in mind, and working to better the breed.

One link I forgot:



The offspring of any mating is a unique combination of their parent’s DNA. Even offspring within the same litters have different DNA. In a mixed breed mating, the resulting offspring are NOT a member of either breed now that they’re less than 100% of those single breeds. It is not accurate to make assumptions about behavior by comparing the offspring to the breeds of their parents. All should be assessed as individuals.

And finally...

http://www.dogchannel.com/dogsinreview/are-you-a-dog-breeder-or-just-breeding-dogs.aspx

Very good food for thought! I agree totally with you about people losing the working relationship with dogs. I mean even dogs feel better when they have a purpose. In fact a lot of bad behavior in dogs stems from them not having anything important to do.

I think the growing popularity of "urban" dog sledding might really help sled dogs in the long run. If dogs were bred for a functioning purpose we would get a lot less "useless" dogs.