OT: for the dog people—and maybe genetics or stats folks—NYT: Has Dog Breeding…

[RWL2222]

…Gone Too Far?

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...smid=url-share

A long-time dog person, I currently own a Lab (actually, it owns me)— the most recent of a long string of mostly pure-breds, but no show or trial dogs. While I wholeheartedly support the upshot of the article—the headline being that breeding to a defined standard is detrimental—the stats it cites on inbreeding in seem a stretch:

“The average mixed-breed dog’s parents are as closely related as first cousins once removed.”

And on and on with similar statements. (Reminds me my favorite Samuel Clemons line: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.).

My angle on this is necessarily limited to the anecdotal, but this article has me wondering where the next member of the pack is going to come from. How would you pick the next member the pack?

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by RWL2222

How would you pick the next member the pack?

They pick you at the shelter, easy.

Everyone I know with purebred dogs has health issues, and mutts generally have pretty few.

[makoti]

Originally Posted by .RJ

They pick you at the shelter, easy.

Everyone I know with purebred dogs has health issues, and mutts generally have pretty few.

Or from the rescue group, if you want a particular breed.
My chosen breed (Pekingese) has horrible breathing problems because of crazy breeding. Their closely related cousins, the Tibetan Spaniel, was more or less spared but some still have that smashed face.

[Ken Robb]

Originally Posted by makoti

Or from the rescue group, if you want a particular breed.
My chosen breed (Pekingese) has horrible breathing problems because of crazy breeding. Their closely related cousins, the Tibetan Spaniel, was more or less spared but some still have that smashed face.

My pug's snoring sounded like a snow-blower. Our mutt Annie looks and behaves just like a shih-tzu but her nose is way too long for that breed's standard and she has no snoring or breathing problems. She was picked up living VERY rough in coyote country so nothing is known about her history or breeding. She loves everyone she meets.

[ltwtsculler91]

I could go on about this all day, as we have two Havanese and my wife is on the board of the NY area Havanese club and deeply involved in the national one. She's shown our 3-year old in Conformation (Champion, shown at Westminster, won best puppy at their national show in year 1) and has done agility with our 13 year old since 2015 (Masters level dog, general grumpy old man).

Overall, this is like rim versus disc that both sides will run around throwing out arguments that are more based on emotion than anything and the mixed folks have had a field day since these "Doodles" became popular and expensive. At the end of the day, a RESPONSIBLY BRED pure-breed dog is the best way to guarantee that you're going to get a healthy, well mannered animal. Unfortunately, many folks breeding both are not responsible so you need to do your homework and find a good breeder through a breed club.

Nando is being bred now, and has a few puppies, but all is closely examined for inbreeding and dog health which mixed breeders generally don't do. People love to talk about "inbreeding" in dogs, but the whole process is much closer to racehorses or livestock breeding than popular articles like this make it out to be. Sure there are plenty of irresponsible breeders, and some of the bad clubs will over select for certain traits in the show ring (like German Sheppards or Bulldogs right now) but there is usually big controversy in the breeding world about that and folks shift it back.

Here's some pics of ours, because a dog thread needs them!

Both of our boys recently:



Paco, our 13 year old lovable grump



Nando, our 3 year old little Champion who's now starting agility. No longer in full coat because that was 6 hours a week of work


Now in chill mode:

[christian]

Originally Posted by RWL2222

the stats it cites on inbreeding in seem a stretch:

“The average mixed-breed dog’s parents are as closely related as first cousins once removed.”

And on and on with similar statements. (Reminds me my favorite Samuel Clemons line: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.).

The stats seem pretty solid to me. I've linked the actual study below. The net seems to be that there has been so much inbreeding across many many generations that the percentage of shared alleles in purebred dogs is astonishingly high. Basically, there is little diversity added to the pool, ever.

https://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com...75-021-00111-4

The average inbreeding based on genotype across 227 breeds was Fadj = 0.249 (95% CI 0.235–0.263). There were significant differences in morbidity between breeds with low and high inbreeding (H = 16.49, P = 0.0004). There was also a significant difference in morbidity between brachycephalic breeds and non-brachycephalic breeds (P = 0.0048) and between functionally distinct groups of breeds (H = 14.95 P < 0.0001). Morbidity was modeled using robust regression analysis and both body weight (P < 0.0001) and inbreeding (P = 0.013) were significant (r2 = 0.77). Smaller less inbred breeds were healthier than larger more inbred breeds.

[christian]

Originally Posted by ltwtsculler91

At the end of the day, a RESPONSIBLY BRED pure-breed dog is the best way to guarantee that you're going to get a healthy, well mannered animal.

Except like, that's exactly what the study doesn't say. Well, it doesn't say anything about manners, and my mutt sits on the couch, so maybe purebreds are better on that department.

[ltwtsculler91]

Originally Posted by christian

Except like, that's exactly what the study doesn't say. Well, it doesn't say anything about manners, and my mutt sits on the couch, so maybe purebreds are better on that department.

Ours love the couch too, but it's more that you get the expected personality and traits for the dog. Havanese are toys and expected to be people friendly clowns which both of ours are, a herding dog like a border collie would be expected to be much more active and need stimulation (their known to herd and nip at people if bored).

There have been big problems with temperament on a lot of these doodle mixes, as you're crossbreeding two obsessive, neurotic type dogs and can end up with some really hard to train dogs that aren't well suited for the oblivious owners and cause problems.

[benb]

Completely obvious it's gone way way too far if you're outside the dog bubble.

It's amazing to read the comments on that NYT article basically claiming the scientists have no idea what they are doing and the Breeders are the ones who do. Defending that their purebred was a good personality completely ignoring if the inbreeding subjected that dog to a life of debilitating health conditions. Even trying to switch the language to call it "linebreeding" when none of it matters and they are all inbred no matter what is done.

I had no idea it was so bad that even a mixed breed dog was so inbred it was almost the equivalent of a cousin mating. That basically implies all dogs came from such a small population that the whole thing is almost impossible at this point unless maybe they start crossbreeding with wolves and wild dog species or go straight to genetic engineering.

[benb]

Originally Posted by ltwtsculler91

At the end of the day, a RESPONSIBLY BRED pure-breed dog is the best way to guarantee that you're going to get a healthy, well mannered animal. Unfortunately, many folks breeding both are not responsible so you need to do your homework and find a good breeder through a breed club.

You realize of course there is literally no way on earth any pure bred dog can *ever* be considered "responsibly bred" from a biological point of view. If it's the same breed there is no dog on earth that is a responsible mate.

The whole article can be summed down to just saying the entire thing is basically illegal everywhere if you tried to do this with humans.

[ltwtsculler91]

Originally Posted by benb

You realize of course there is literally no way on earth any pure bred dog can *ever* be considered "responsibly bred" from a biological point of view. If it's the same breed there is no dog on earth that is a responsible mate.

The whole article can be summed down to just saying the entire thing is basically illegal everywhere if you tried to do this with humans.

Sure, but dogs aren't humans. Compare it to livestock breeding or racehorses and it all looks really similar...

There is responsible breeding from the genetic and health testing that is done beforehand to ensure that there will be no known hereditary conditions passed down. This is how good breeders work, they work with a vet who's trained and make sure that the pair will not produce a genetic defect.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by ltwtsculler91

At the end of the day, a RESPONSIBLY BRED pure-breed dog is the best way to guarantee that you're going to get a healthy, well mannered animal.

Maybe the best in some respects - you'll know the dog has adequate care and socialization as a puppy - but certainly not the only way.

I feel like most regular people are going to have an awful time sorting out and evaluating whether the breeder is truly responsible or not, even if the owner and breeder are well intentioned.

[C40_guy]

Originally Posted by christian

Except like, that's exactly what the study doesn't say. Well, it doesn't say anything about manners, and my mutt sits on the couch, so maybe purebreds are better on that department.

My mutt lies on the couch, and on the bed, and pretty much everywhere else he wants. He clearly understands our guidance on behavior...

Of course as part King Charles Spaniel and part Bichon (English/French royalty dogs) he is the prince of the family.

[stackie]

OMG. Please stop with the adorable dog pics. Makes we want one but we have ptsd from the last rescue dog. We’ve said never again. But, c40, your pup makes me doubt our stance.

Obviously I’m kidding I still offer the neighbors to dog sit their dogs. Kind of like being a grandpa. Send them back at the end of week and no vet bills

Jon

[kgreene10]

Originally Posted by RWL2222

And on and on with similar statements. (Reminds me my favorite Samuel Clemons line: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.).

I used the know the author. She is a serious academic with a fantastic publication record for both academic and non-academic audiences. I like the famous quote about statistics because it’s fun and provocative. Yet it could be taken to imply malfeasance, which, without much more information, I would have a hard time believing. If re-interpreted in light of thinking over the last 15 years or so, it could be taken as a critique of frequentism. I’m with you there.