[beks]

My friends and i were talking the other night about pure bread dogs and non pure bread and how some of us thought pure bread dogs are more likly to have health problems, and some of us thought the opposite or are just as likley

Just a disscusion, what's your thoughts or knowledge on the subject?

[cougarfan06]

Well, pure breeds are far more likely to have medical conditions due to genetics and breeding. But Mixes can also get them as well. Cancer seems to be the #1 disease that any dog can get pure or not. It is just that some pure breeds are more suseptable to getting it. Hip displaysia seems to be a big problem in pure breeds also. Some breeds have little to no health problems while others have a whole list. Just depends on the genes! I hope this helps.

[BestBuddies]

I've heard that purebreds are more prone to disease, HD, and more health issues in general....but it has not been my experience. I've owned both mixed breeds and purebreds and have really had more health issues with the mixed breeds. Right now I have a Golden Retriever, Irish Wolfhound with tons of health issues from allergies (lots of them) to HD. She's had 2 knee surgeries due to her hips being bad. She is on a special dog food (limited diet) and can eat nothing else but that or her allergies flair up. She is a giant of a love and gentle as a kitten...she has my heart and there is nothing I won't do to keep her comfy and healthy for as long as I can. She's 10 now and I only hope that when the time comes, I have the internal strength to do what's right for her...at some point the vet thinks she will become allergic to the only food she can tolerate. Sorry, got a bit off topic there.

I've had a couple of purebred GSD and have had no health issues what so ever with them. Good strong, healthy, active canines.

So, I guess my feelings are that you can get issues with either mixed or purebreed dogs. When the times comes that I get another dog........I'll look at the qualities of the dog first and go from there.

[chul3l3ies1126]

I've heard and expirienced that pure breeds are far more suseptible to health problems. All my life i've had mutts, and god knows they've been the all time best. I love them to death. I have never once had any problems with them health wise. No allergies, no hip displaysia, no nothing, and thats a blessing.

The pure breed dog i've had for 11 years, is a dachshund Bingo... who was born blind with corneal distrophy. The veterinarian stated that dachshunds and few other breeds are the ones most prone to that due to inbreeding to make the breed. So yea thats his health prob, he is like any other dog, just blind heh, he's great tho. But I will always stand by that, mixed breeds are far more healthy than pure breeds. Too many ppl I hear from that own them need to give them meds daily for allergies and numerous other probs.

They've made beautiful dogs no lies about that, but the inbreeding did them wrong.

[CH_Venom]

Ok well I just lost my whole post because this stupid thing just logged me out!

Anyway, mixes having less health problems is a myth.

If you breed 2 dogs with HD together (lets say a Rottweiler and Bullmastiff) then you will get pups with HD just like in purebreeds. Just because they are 2 different breeds doesn't cancel out the disease.

Most breeds have specific health problems to that breed. But some bloodlines are healthier and some ill due to puppy mills and poor breeding. When you have a purebred (from a good breeder) you have a pretty good idea of knowing that dog will be healthy. But if you get a mixed breed you can be completly uncertain of what health problems will pop up. Because if both breeds carried the same genetic problem your pup could get it or if it is a dominant health problem your pup could it from one of their parents even though they are a mixed breed.

I know a shet Tzu mix that had a genetic breathing disorder and airway blockage. I knew purebred Pugs who had the same. I also knew a "breeder" (as in bad breeder out for money) that bred their Boston Terrier to their Beagle and 2 from that litter died of a heart defect. I have owned pure and mixed, I owned a purebred Boxer who had a number of health problems but she was from a byb that kept breeding dispite the dogs having poor health. I also owned a Pit Bull mix that had a bunch of health issues. As well my in laws owned a number of chi and doxie mix and they had terrible heart problems, so that goes to show that mixing won't eliminate health problems. They spent so much on trying to help the dogs and used so many different meds from Enalapril, Theophylline, Lasix, Digoxin Elixir just to name a few. The dogs have since passed but not without having their share of health problems.

I have been in APBTs for a long time now and know that some lines are prone to illness and genetic defects while some are very hearty and healthy. It all depends on the dogs genetics.

What eliminates health problems is proper breeding practices whether you are breeding purebred or mix. If you know the lines and your dogs then you will know how likely the offspring are to have health problems. If breed together 2 different breeds that have genetic problems they will likely pass them on just the same.

Inbreeding can be a very great tool, actually for breeding healthy dogs, if you inbreed on solid stock then you know what you are working with and know that the problem doesn't exist in your line. If you inbreed on weak lines that what you will get is weak dogs prone to disease. I've owned purebred APBTs and never once had to give any of them daily meds for anything. I will admit that my Boxer had allergies amoung other problems but then again so did my bros aussie/retreiver mix, ended up with demodex (which they say is hereditary due to poor immune) and allergies. So again it depends on the bloodlines you are working with. You can say a bunch of purebred dogs have problems but where did those purebred dogs come from? Mills, bybs, breeders who don't care about health only pretty show dogs? Do you have the full story? vs a purebred coming from a line that has proven to be healthy.

[chul3l3ies1126]

Thats totally understandable, but why would you breed to dogs that have health problems? Not saying you would or anything, but i hope no one would because that just makes the puppy's life full of health problems as well. Different people would come up to us at the veterinarians office during Bingo high flying years, ohh the young days, the vet would always compliment on how he was the ideal breed standard, and people would ask us to breed him with their female. That was always a very big no no, due to the fact that the corneal distrophy had a high chance of passing on to the litter. Sigh... lol bingo will die a virgin. An as far as I know, inbreeding never amounts to any good, there are always going to be some problems, hidden or not.

[CH_Venom]

Wow it just did it to me again!!! OMG!

While I wouldn't breed a dog with health problems a lot of people do for different reasons they are ignorant and don't know about health problems in dogs, don't know their dog is carrying one, don't know they are genetic others do because they want pups regardless, some think its unfair to not let dogs mate and the biggest reason is money. Most dogs in puppy mills are unhealthy riddled with genetic defects including the designer crossbreds and they are bred heat after heat pumping out pups for money.

An as far as I know, inbreeding never amounts to any good, there are always going to be some problems, hidden or not.

On the contrary, inbreeding bring out problems, it doens't hide them, because you are dealing with like genetic code. You can not hide problems through inbreeding. Just like you doubling up on positive traits through inbreeding you double up on negative it goes both ways depending on the dogs of course. If its not there then you won't see it. Scatterbreeding and outcrossing hides them as their is extreme diversity in genetic material. You are hiding problems since the genes are different until eventually the "right dog" is bred with another "right dog" who is also scatterbred and unrelated and you end up with an "oops litter" because the breeder didn't know the dogs were carrying problems since they were hidden so long and has no idea where the problem came from because of all the scatterbreeding. While if you inbreed you can't hide anything, if their is a problem it will surface quickly. That is what some breeder want to do, they will inbreed and cull, inbreed the remaining and cull again and then inbreed and not have to cull as problems are eliminated. If you are breeding a healthy family of dogs however that are free of genetic defect you can only continue to breed healthy dogs as that is all thats genetically available and no other factor can come in.

One heavily inbreed dog I know of is Little Tab, he has extremely similar DNA to his sire Tab who he is triple bred off of, very inbred dog. Tab is from an outcross of Jeep to a triplebred Red Boy female.

Here is Tab's DNA as compared to Little Tabs.

Tab (1st 5)
CD FF AB DE DD
Little Tab (1st 5)
CD FF AB DD DD

Tab (next 5)
FG CD BB FF AB
Little Tab (next 5)
FG CC BB FF BD

Is this bad? Why would it be? If one dog is healthy and a good specimen then so will those that share similar DNA. Of course you wouldn't want all dogs or all dogs of one breed to all have the same DNA. But for continuing a line and its traits that works perfect. A dog like this can be taken and outcrossed and still pass on its dominant traits of the line without loosing the consistency and the other parent will also do the same with its line and you will get a dog who has positives traits your breeding for from both bloodlines and will have a different genetic make up.

This is just one dog but I know many dogs that are great specimens who are inbreed. My best male is. Just the same I know those who are not. It all depends on the dogs you are breeding no matter what type of breeding you are doing. Bad breeder with bad dogs=bad offspring. You'd be surprised how many supposed reputable show breeders breed a dog of poor temperament and/or health because it had correct conformation. Phenotype is easy to lock in and too many people lose site of what else is important when breeding.

[CH_Venom]

dumdog1964 that was a good post!

I agree that working dogs have natural selection and are superior in most cases.

I see that AKC has ruined a lot of breeds, some of their standard show dog even cause health problems because of the extremes show breeders are breeding for.

As far as the APBT I see horrible specimens in the UKC also, but in most working breeds you will see that UKC dogs actually work and show and have working ability, temperament and health. They are not bred for some extreme look.

[GSlover]

I believe in the purebred dogs for health and temperment. We did a ton of research on different breeders prior to getting our Bouvier And Giant Schnauzer. They were able to provide registered papers, health certificates and pictures of 4 generations.

We do not show our Giant but he comes from a long line of Champions in Canada, the United states and the UK. When i look up the perfect Giant Schnauzer for breed information, then thats exactly what i have. He is a proud Giant with a bit of an attitude but yet gentle. Our Bouvier was about the same, a very good looking and well behaved dog.

We just prefer a purebred dog but you have to research the breeder and the line it comes from. Friends of ours always get mixed dogs, no papers, health certificates and not really sure exactly what they are and they have a couple nice dogs. I think it is personal choice and if you get a purebred thats not healthy then the breeder can't be a good one.

[gnicoll]

If you want a purebred, PLEASE consider rescuing one, instead of using a breeder!!! There are SO MANY adorable, lovable, innocent dogs put up for adoption by families who think it's suddenly "inconvenient" to have a dog! We rescue, and we LOVE our "senior" purebred dogs!!!