SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-much^W-big-is-that-doggie-in-the-window? dept.
Big Dogs Face More Joint Problems if Neutered Early:
It's standard practice in the U.S. and much of Europe to neuter dogs by 6 months of age. This study, which analyzed 15 years of data from thousands of dogs at UC Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, suggests dog owners should consider their options carefully.
"Most dogs are mixed breeds," said lead author Benjamin Hart, distinguished professor emeritus at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.
[...] Researchers examined common joint disorders including hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia and cranial cruciate ligament tears, a knee injury, in five weight categories.
[...] The risk of joint disorders for heavier dogs can be up to a few times higher compared to dogs left intact. This was true for large mixed-breed dogs. For example, for female dogs over 43 pounds, the risk jumped from 4 percent for intact dogs to 10-12 percent if spayed before a year of age.
"The study raises unique challenges," noted co-author Lynette Hart, professor at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. "People like to adopt puppies from shelters, but with mixed breeds it may be difficult to determine just how big the dog will become if you don't know anything about the dog's parents."
Neutering prior to adoption is a common requirement or policy of humane societies, animal shelters and breeders. [...] Shelters, breeders and humane societies should consider adopting a standard of neutering at over a year of age for dogs that will grow into large sizes.
Journal Reference:
Hart, Benjamin L., Hart, Lynette A., Thigpen, Abigail P., et al. Assisting Decision-Making on Age of Neutering for Mixed Breed Dogs of Five Weight Categories: Associated Joint Disorders and Cancers, Frontiers in Veterinary Science (DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00472)
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday August 14 2020, @01:18PM (35 children)
Joint problems can be severe enough to require the dog to be euthanized. Why don't we do the same with you?
Most of my dogs are what you could call "hand-me_downs" - people move, they die, etc. The majority are so-called pure breeds, and most weren't neut.
None of them has made puppies in over 30 years of ownership. My Jack Russell isn't neutered - when he's horny, he jumps stuffed toys, towels, or whatever. They're his, they give him hours of exercise every day, and contribute to him not getting fat and having joint problems.
They say a responsible owner neutered their pets. I don't buy it - a responsible owner doesn't let them breed.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @03:17PM (4 children)
Do your female dogs leave the house?
The males?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday August 14 2020, @05:28PM (1 child)
We have skunks in the area. For some stupid reason they want to chase the "cats". They also like squirrels, etc. I have no desire to see my dog sprayed by a skunk or run over by a car. Dogs CAN get loose - but that's not something dog owners should do. Even in rural areas, porcupines and skunks and groundhogs are a risk. I live in the city and one night a groundhog went after one of my dogs at night, while on a leash. The Jack Russell attacked it, and when I mentioned it to my sister she told me a few of her neighbours had similar experiences - and we're all in the suburbs. Not the sticks.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @06:12PM
I have a pretty big housecat that likes to come on the porch when I go out to smoke at night. The groundhogs are terrified of him. I've had to stop him from chasing them into their burrows a few times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:17AM (1 child)
You can cut the tubes instead of removing the organs. It's just as effective as neutering/spaying and doesn't have hormonal side effects.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday August 15 2020, @02:14AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 14 2020, @03:33PM (14 children)
I mean this in the kindest way possible and with no disrespect or intention to offend.
Republicans teach "abstinence only" sex education. Combined with the idea that maybe pubescent children should not be allowed to understand what is happening to them and their bodies. They don't understand what is happening to them when they "go into heat" so to speak. They are not allowed to breed. Yet often find ways of doing so -- sometimes without even understanding what they are doing. (The girl says "but mom, I didn't let him kiss me, ever, just as you said, yet I got pregnant, somehow, anyway") (Or Sarah Palin's daughter "mom! I'm pregnant again! Why does this keep happening to me?")
I think of the poor dog in this situation.
I'm not arguing against your approach, especially if it's working for you. And the alternative is that the dog later has joint problems and no understanding of what is happening to them.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday August 14 2020, @05:20PM (1 child)
I just don't understand how at some times of the year he can go 2-3 hours, stopping just to catch his breath. I know Jack Russell dogs are energetic, but I never expected this much. But I'll give him credit where it's due - he's between 8 and 10 years old, and with all that exercise, everyone says he's really buff.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday August 15 2020, @01:37PM
Some dogs are just totally into it... others couldn't care less. I have both extremes in my kennel -- a pair of males who've lived together their whole lives, and spend every waking moment exchanging humps (they have masturbation down to a fine art) ... and a younger male who lives with the girls, but is studiously disinterested unless a female actively courts him, and otherwise absolutely never humps anyone or anything (not even females in heat). His two teenage sons (and my other older males) are more typical ... they'll hump a hot bitch, but otherwise can't be bothered. Of course mine live full-time adjacent to intact females, so it's not something New And Fascinating every time they catch a whiff.
Have seen the same among females... had one who spent her entire life industriously humping her lady-love (she was, given opportunity, a monogamous lesbian)....and others who are like "keep your nasty twat away from me!" But generally females will hump whatever catches their attention, and if several are in heat together, the choo-choo train can be awesome. Overall they're much more into humping than males could ever be. And males can usually be discouraged, but if females had strap-ons, they'd be dangerous.
This is 3 females, the one in the middle in heat and the other two intent on committing Dog Rape... and yes, the one on the right is pumping with such enthusiasm that she's completely off the ground.
http://www.doomgold.com/images/3girls_having_fun_7172.jpg [doomgold.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Booga1 on Friday August 14 2020, @06:20PM (8 children)
I get where you're coming from here, but dogs are not children. I know you aren't trying to equate instincts with education, but mature dogs are fully functional adults of their species. They have instincts, hormones, and physical biological changes driving them to have sex. This is the natural course of life for them.
It is entirely our responsibility to ensure they don't reproduce. Keeping your pets isolated is just as valid a method of birth control as spaying and neutering. As long as they don't get out and others don't break in to get to them, it is 100% effective. You are responsible for what happens(or doesn't happen).
As for the article itself: It's nice to see further studies acknowledging the differences of medical outcomes between dachshunds and great danes. Unfortunately, there are still some people pushing advice to neuter male dogs as early as possible. Some suggest as soon as eight weeks [dogtime.com] along with the angle that needing to wait six months is "old and outdated" advice.
Bone development is pretty important for some of the barrel chested breeds. I've heard of constricted chests, badly formed shoulders, joint issues, and similar problems from veterinarians for years regarding early neutering of big dogs. Now, there are other reasons to spay and neuter pets. As mentioned by others here, behavior modification is a big part of it. I just think it's prudent to wait until they've had a chance to finish growing a bit more.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 14 2020, @06:39PM (6 children)
For me it is a moot issue. The dogs we have and have had in the past were all
neutered, er, umfixedrepaired.We have only one small dog now and she's getting a bit old but still doing well. I don't intend, at this point, to get another dog.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday August 14 2020, @07:56PM (5 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 14 2020, @09:04PM (4 children)
Believe me, I know all that.
This dog may be the last because we're getting old enough that we have less and less energy to take care of a dog. We have a good sized fenced in back yard, which is good. But we don't do as many walks as we used to. I would hate to have a new rambunctious puppy full of energy. Of course, there are probably older dogs that are adoptable. And my wife may want one more than I do, since I spend most of the days at the office. It's not an issue as long as have our current dog that we've had from a puppy.
Its amusing that since I do the feeding right before I leave for work, and right when I get home, I always get the anxious greeting. And if I'm running 20 minutes late, there is some anxiety in the dog I am told.
Dogs don't judge you for programming in Java.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday August 14 2020, @10:18PM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 17 2020, @03:02PM (1 child)
When we got this dog as a puppy of 3 months, the kid still lived at home, was in high school, we all had a lot more energy than we do now. The dog has had and still has a great life. But both the dog and us are getting older. If we were to get another dog, it would be worth considering an older dog.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday August 17 2020, @05:29PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday August 15 2020, @01:32PM
Found out after posting this that one of my sisters had to put down a dog riddled with cancer. She had gotten it from a woman who was dying of cancer and couldn't keep it. Sad, but at least the dog outlived it's owner, And had a good life. But yes, a fancy poodle. Inbred.
She's insisting that her current dog is the last one. Getting old, doesn't need the shedding and the inconvenience. Mind you, the same day she sent me a pic of a St Bernard that needed to be re-homed, she swore her current dog would be the last, and a few hours later she heard about the woman with cancer and took the dog. My bet is she'll continue with older dogs - not as much work as they've settled down, and it's not a commitment of a decade or more.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Saturday August 15 2020, @03:02AM
A bigger problem is early cancer, along with a bunch of other health and behavioral issues that we seldom see in intact dogs.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday August 19 2020, @04:06AM (2 children)
You can put a leash on your dog. People look at you funny if you do this with your teenagers.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday August 19 2020, @01:59PM (1 child)
It is difficult to find bird cages large enough to hold more than one child.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday August 19 2020, @11:20PM
But you can get a dog crate big enough for the entire family!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Saturday August 15 2020, @02:33AM (13 children)
As a canine professional with five decades experience... I agree. There's a very simple birth control method that works with all dogs: it's called a leash. The Pollination Fairy does not flit from yard to yard leaving puppies in its wake. Neutering is actually forbidden in some countries (being considered a needless mutilation) and they don't have zillions of surplus puppies...
...actually, we don't either. The rescue industry presently imports somewhere around a million dogs per year (more than are produced by all domestic breeders combined) and still can't meet demand, hence the escalating prices for 'rescue' dogs. (Many of which are purpose-bred for export to the U.S., and in at least one country I could name, theft of purebreds for sale to 'rescues' is a cottage industry.)
As to the effects of neutering, especially early neutering -- joint issues are the least of it. Early cancer is probably the most prominent, but failure to mature mentally leading to temperament issues (especially fearfulness and fear-biting) is also a big problem. A few references I had ready to hand:
Neutering Dogs: Effects on Joint Disorders and Cancers in Golden Retrievers
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937#pone-0055937-t001 [plos.org]
Long-term health effects:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf [naiaonline.org]
The Effects of Spaying and Neutering on Canine Behavior
Based on section from Aggressive Behavior in Dogs by James O’Heare
https://web.archive.org/web/20100919065658/http://www.associationofanimalbehaviorprofessionals.com/effects_of_neutering.html [archive.org]
New Research That Raises Questions About Current Neutering Recommendations
http://speakingforspot.com/blog/2014/01/26/new-research-that-raises-questions-about-current-neutering-recommendations/ [speakingforspot.com]
which refers to:
Evaluation of the risk and age of onset of cancer and behavioral disorders in gonadectomized Vizslas
https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.244.3.309?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528neuter%2Bcancer%2529&searchHistoryKey= [avma.org]
Neutering and behavior
https://web.archive.org/web/20130210032349/http://www.angryvet.com/neutering-and-behavior/ [archive.org]
And of course chronic hypothyroidism due to interrupting the gonad-pituitary feedback loop, hence weight gain, incontinence, and premature aging.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Saturday August 15 2020, @04:03AM (12 children)
Most people are not responsible enough to properly train nor keep their dogs on a leash. You should know this.
I'm curious to know how they achieved that status and maintain it. Can you elaborate?
The rest of your comments have caught my attention -- especially the part about importing a million dogs. I haven't heard that, but I can't refute that and it does make a certain amount of sense to me. If we're importing cats and dogs, it seems we're doing something wrong.
I don't have time right this second to read the links you posted, but I will as soon as I can. You've made some interesting remarks. Thank you.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday August 15 2020, @04:22AM (11 children)
I doubtless deal with far more pet owners than you do. In fact nearly all of them are perfectly responsible with their pets. The idea that most are not is anti-breeder propaganda, not reality. Shelters overflowing? Los Angeles has only about 500 impound kennels for a population of 8 million (and a like number of pets). Given how many dogs are escape artists, you could fill that just with unintentional escapees every day. In fact most metro shelters now import dogs from rural states, to have enough animals to sell to a pet-hungry public.
Don't recall offhand if was Scandinavia or Germany or... one of that lot, where neutering is illegal unless medically mandated. Considered in the same bucket as ear cropping and tail docking: as a needless mutilation. (Never mind that there are sometimes practical reasons for all of the above.)
Back around 2007, CDC stated 270,000 dogs imported into the U.S. for the year. They'll be the first to tell you that their numbers are fuzzy, because imports are mostly unregulated, but they have some idea from freight manifests and what permits and vet exams are required, and from smuggling operations caught in the act on the southern border. Their most recent estimate that I've seen was around a million. Consider that the U.S. population increases by somewhere around 8 million per year, and that demand for pets increases apace... while breeders only produce about 700k puppies, and dropping as more and more are legislated and regulated out of existence, and as ooops litters become mostly a thing of the past (given that ~87% of pets are now altered).
And consider this: if everything is spayed and neutered, at some point you have nothing left. (I'm always croggled that the breeders who complain loudest about loss of "genetic diversity" are also the most insistent that every pet be removed from the gene pool.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Saturday August 15 2020, @06:27AM (10 children)
I think your perspective (and mine) may be skewed because you and I live in different worlds. The sheer number of people I see being irresponsible with pets is incredibly high. I've chased (sprinted after) my fair share of other people's dogs when they slipped out the door. I know someone right now who just adopted yet another animal even though they can't afford to put food on their own table. (They definitely can't afford a vet, I know at least one isn't spayed, and I know she's not responsible enough to prevent the dog from getting pregnant.) The people who come to you (for training?) are already responsible people, but there are a lot of ignorant, unthinking, and uncaring people who don't come to you.
I'd be curious to know the country. Off the top of my head, I can say with certainly it's not Germany. [Looking it up.] It's Norway. [jennifermargulis.net]
I don't know how they achieved that. Perhaps they are an enlightened people, but Americans are not. It also doesn't address other animals. My wife knows horses pretty well and as she put it "You don't want two stallions in the same area as one another".
I don't think anyone is advocating that we spay and neuter all dogs, but your average person shouldn't be into breeding. I love seeing cute puppies and kittens as much as the next YouTuber, but I don't want the hassle and responsibility of raising that kind of family. And based on the sheer number of people who aren't responsible with pets, they shouldn't shoulder that responsibility either.
So, I read / skimmed your links. I'm glad to have been educated some, but it surprises me that we are against spaying/neutering while we continue to talk about breeds. From one article: "Breed, age, and gender are variables that must be taken into consideration in conjunction with non-medical factors for each individual dog." Breeds are probably the number one reason for health problems. Better genetic diversity would help with a lot of health issues.
Additionally (and maybe as a side note), don't forget that *I* don't make the decision when to spay or neuter. I never have. My vets decided that and should continue to decide that.
I also can't say I'm completely convinced by the articles. These are respectable articles, so I definitely won't dismiss them offhand, but in this article [speakingforspot.com] you gave, for example, it talks about how much higher these sicknesses are: 3.5x as high, 9.0x as high, 4.3x, 5.0x, and 6.5x. These are either staggeringly high "holy crap" numbers (think 100,000 x 9.0 = 900,000 animals) or they are being exaggerated (think 10 x 9.0 = 90 animals). I can't tell and I don't have time to dig deep into this.
None the less, thank you. I'll be on the lookout for more information in the future about this and keep it in mind when (if) we get new pets. I've learned something new and will continue to learn.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday August 15 2020, @01:22PM (9 children)
Simple way to fix that - ban the sale of dogs. You can only give them away. Because the whole "purebred" thing is a con. We just had 500 dogs smuggled in on an airplane - about 10% arrived dead. Unscrupulous "breeders" meeting demand for fancy dogs that, when you get down to it, are so inbred that they're going to have too many health problems.
Without a financial incentive , the problem goes away. There are too many "breeders" who are just fat dumb fucks making money off breeding dogs because they have no other marketable skills.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Saturday August 15 2020, @02:19PM (8 children)
In that case, start with banning rescues. NONE of those dogs were for sale by breeders. ALL of those dogs being smuggled in are for resale by 'rescue' which is the biggest financial scam going: get innocent good-hearted people to cover all your costs and do all the work, while you pocket the tax-free profits. The IRS statements (required to be public) from rescues that are registered as charities are quite an education... one need only be aware that "administrative expenses" is charity-speak for "owner's salary". (I've yet to see one less tha $55k/year, but most that I've looked at are in the $150k range, and one topped $750k.)
In California, where we have (or at least had, before the system was completely co-opted by rescue) good numbers, rescues actually outnumber breeders. Dog breeding is already illegal in most of California, with mandatory spay/neuter, and sale of purpose-bred dogs in public (which includes your front yard) is already illegal statewide ($10,000 fine, vs $1000 for assault... priorities!). But rescue is a huge and growing industry.
The real hilarity are the 'rescues' that specialize in some rare breed... one that was documented a few years back specialized in Maltese. This is a rare breed, with only about 500 Maltese puppies produced by legit breeders worldwide every year, and who the hell throws away a dog that cost them $2500 from a breeder?? Yet somehow this 'rescue' managed to have Maltese puppies available all the time. Turned out they were breeding 'em on the back 40 (or at least little white dogs that could be passed off as Maltese), and selling about 100 puppies a year for $500 each. This is not an unusual case.
Breeders have expenses in dogs, out of their own pockets. Rescues do not, because donations pay all their expenses. Breeders tell you what you're buying, and there is a verifiable pedigree and history. Rescues LIE about every dog's background, because (and this is a firsthand quote) "without a sob story, people won't open their wallets." Breeders are regulated up the yingyang, to the point that there's really no money in breeding dogs anymore. Rescues are almost entirely unregulated, and are vastly more profitable. (In fact, a lot of 'rescues' now breed their own puppies for 'adoption'. I have personally caught one redhanded, going around buying up every pregnant mutt they could find so they could resell the puppies.)
Breeders have to do their own work 365 days a year with no days off. Rescues get someone else to do most of the work, and only have to be the front man and collect the money.
A friend in CA who had a breeding kennel (the very last one in her breed in Los Angeles County) was told flat out by her tax accountant, who specialized in the animal industry: "Why do you still breed? All the real money nowadays is in rescue." And that was 20 years ago, when rescue was still up and coming rather than the dominant force in the dog market, as it is today.
All the "fat dumb fucks with no marketable skills" are on the side of rescue, not breeders.
And without breeders, all you'd have would be the feral street dog type, with no useful instincts and generally not safe around your kids. (Stat from the CDC from about ten years ago: at the time rescue dogs were 18% of the pet population, but committed 50% of the serious bites. I know of two cases where a 'rescue' dog killed its new owner within 24 hours of being 'adopted'. And there have been a few cases of imported 'rescue' dogs arriving with active rabies; one bit a child.)
Selective breeding makes dogs. Natural selection makes wolves.
And as to the 'inbreeding' accusation, on average 'purebred' dogs are around 4% inbred. (Somewhat higher in performance dogs, because they're selected for more than just looks. Funny thing, performance dogs also have fewer genetic defects than the run of the species. Could it be because we select against defects??) DNA analysis of several wild species with large populations found that on average, they're about 25% inbred. D'ya really think that buck cares that half those does are his daughters, and the rest are his half-sisters? of course not.
And a final note: in every other field, it's assumed that the more you practice a skill, the better you get at it. Only in dog breeding is it public gospel that the less you practice, the more you know and the better your skills. Why is that? actually, there's a point source: the Doris Day Animal League's decision to paint all breeders as "puppy mills" as part of their crusade to get rid of dog breeding. This was great propaganda, if the idea was to eliminate everyone who actually had enough experience to know what they're doing.
It's just like if anyone whose programming sklls go beyond "Hello World" was trashed as a hack and turned into a social pariah, and could therefore no longer make a living. What does that do to those who want or need those better skills?? what happens when no one is left who actually knows anything? Cuz that is where dog breeding is headed, thanks to well-meaning but misguided folk, who have heard all the anti-breeder propaganda but have no actual knowledge beyond that. Enjoy your Pakistani street dog, because someday that's all that will be left.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday August 16 2020, @09:48PM (3 children)
I blame the assholes who buy dogs without thinking long term. It's supposed to be for life. And I blame the breeders, because they're just in it for the money or they'd stop breeding pigs and other dogs with huge problems. And I blame the kennel clubs for promoting the idea of "purebred " dogs. There's nothing wrong with mutts.
And I'd definitely go for a ban on importing "rescue " dogs. Canada has for decades been the dumping ground of greyhounds from US racetracks, the dogs high-strung, And prone to attack without warning.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday August 16 2020, @11:22PM (2 children)
Idiots exist, and when I was green I thought they were the majority too. But 50 years experience has taught me that this is not the case. Fewer people are irresponsible with their pets than with their kids. Did you know there are about 80 million pets in the U.S.?? if even 1% of owners are idiots, that's a lot of idiots, but it's still not the norm. Unfortunately the idiots do stand out (as idiots always do), but it's damn unfair to the rest of us. It's like saying... there are tons of viruses out there, so every programmer is obviously an irresponsible hacker, and there's no such thing as a well-written program.
And I don't know where you got that nonsense about racing greyhounds... they're typically rather laid back and lazy, not at all aggressive. However, I wouldn't put it past rescue outfits to sort out the bad ones (cuz there are always bad apples) and ship 'em off to the unsuspecting... but the main flow of rescue dogs is FROM Canada to the U.S. (In fact going by way of the 'underground railroad' through Canada is used to disconnect stolen dogs from any chance of recovery.)
I'm reminded of this:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/02/a-journey-on-the-dog-underground-railroad.html [slate.com]
(Receiving stolen property much?? and knowing rescues, there's probably little or no truth in Fly's origin story.)
Considering how most of the states where you can get decent prices for puppies (that is, above the break-even mark, which when I last worked it out, ~20 years ago, was about $800) also have puppy lemon laws... if someone is routinely selling defective puppies, they'll rapidly find themselves in a financial pit. You can't have it both ways -- either the puppies are fit for purpose and the breeder can reasonably make a little money, or they're not fit for purpose and someone will demand a refund and (typically) treble damages, or the puppy can't be sold at all because it's too damn obvious it has issues. And if one breeder is a bad apple, there are tons of trees in the orchard, and puppy buyers can easily go elsewhere. No one holds a gun to their heads and forces them to buy a problem puppy.
Meanwhile, there is court precedent in California that if you buy a puppy on time payments, but stop paying, you are allowed to stiff the breeder AND keep the puppy.
Incidentally, if purebreds are so awful, why do rescues assiduously pursue them? A: Because despite decades of propaganda, the buying public knows that dogs are not all the same, and that purebreds are more predictable. A common rescue scam is to get a breeder raided just before Xmas (most places, animal control is allowed or even required by regulation to confiscate on mere accusation, no proof of malfeasance required -- cuz dog breeders have no 4th Amendment rights), so the rescue has lots of nice purebred puppies to hawk as "rescued from a puppy mill". About 1/3rd of these puppies will die in shelter custody, due to ignorance and neglect.
As to health: at my old vet (who had an open practice but catered to breeders, so saw more purebreds than average) I had backroom privileges, and sometimes I'd tally up what came in the door and for what. Mutts consistently presented 90% of the serious health issues (notably, more injuries due to being escape artists and hit-by-car, and more autoimmune-related issues). Purebreds were rarely presented for anything other than routine shots and the like. This was Los Angeles, so probably about as representative a sample as you'll get.
And pet insurance offers a substantial discount for puppies from commercial breeders (what are castigated as 'puppy mills') over puppies from other sources. Why? Because these puppies receive better early care, so are about 20% less likely to have expensive health issues.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday August 17 2020, @12:08AM
Pet insurance is a joke. If the insurance company decides the cost is too great, they will only pay to put the dog down.
People keep buying gigs, I keep ending up with them for free. And most of these dogs are relatively young - from a few months to 3-4 years. The Jack Russell is the exception, at 5 years. And they end up dying of diseases of old age, mostly cancer., though the St Bernard ended up with a muscle wasting disease that left her unable to walk, through her hips were fine.
The best dog I ever had was a mutt. Dumped on me as a puppy (can you look after him for 10 days). Taught him how to be a guide dog when I found out I would eventually need one, and it's a good thing I can see better now, because the two little guys I have now are just too small.
If there were no breeders, people would still have dogs. Just not the same dogs.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday August 19 2020, @01:21AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday August 16 2020, @09:53PM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday August 16 2020, @11:36PM (2 children)
Sorry, but you do not know what you're talking about. It is not even possible to "bulk register" puppies, and anyone who produces more than 6 litters, or has a male that sires more than 2 litters in a year, becomes subject to annual inspection by AKC (the primary registry). And you had damn well better know exactly who the parents are, and who the buyers are, and have all documentation ready to hand. Yes, there have been fuckups, but again they are not the norm (with 700k registrations per year, naturally there will be a few bad ones), and are generally limited to a single dog being substituted for the sire of record, or a single unknown 'traveling salesman' in the woodpile. (And actually, this happens a LOT more in Europe than in America. We're much more honest on this side of the ditch.) When fuckups are discovered, all descendants whose ancestry cannot be positively determined have their registration cancelled. Incidentally this has also been done in the case of untoward mutations, like the white Doberman.
I am, no brag, probably the world's foremost living expert on Labrador Retriever historical pedigrees, in particular the period in America from 1878 to the 1970s. And I know of a number of crossbreedings; some deliberate, some not. In every case, the crossbreeding introduced genetic defects that did not previously exist in the Labrador gene pool. In fact this is more typical than not, across all breeds. (Also know of a few cases of wrong sire on pedigree, but this is actually quite rare.)
Selective breeding is not just about selecting for desired traits; it's also about selecting against undesirable traits and defects. But when you introduce a new gene pool, such as from a crossbreeding, you also introduce all its defects, some of which may not be a defect in that breed, but function as a defect in the crossbred. Such as a Basset's short legs -- actually a form of dwarfism, but normal in Bassets. Cross that with say, a Lab, and you get Labs with dwarfed legs AND potentially with a form of blindness, perhaps due to some other gene not being there to balance things out (cuz there are tons of different alleles).
[Realworld examples: Skeletal Dysplasia 2 tracks to a point source, a terrier crossbreeding in 1966, probably a Staffie Bull. The bolting trait tracks to a pointer crossbreeding in 1946; we can deduce where in the pedigrees this happened. Cataracts in one particular field line trace to a Chesapeake crossbreeding ca.1952; I actually know who the Chessie was. CNM probably came from a cross with a racing greyhound ca,1970. Exercise-induced collapse came to America with an English dog, but probably hies from a Rottweiler cross done in England in the 1950s. The much-ballyhooed dilute gene is not from a Weimeraner, but rather from an Elkhound cross ca.1930. (However, the dilute colors in Dobermans DID come from a Weim.)]
Back in the 1950s there was a very large breeding research colony (they produced over 15,000 puppies) which among other things investigated inbreeding vs outcrossing. They found that with the inbred colony, at first they got more defects, but once they culled out all the defects, the inbred colony was actually healthier and longer-lived than the outcross colony. (This is in fact precisely my own experience, and at present I have 14 generations of my own line.) Naturally, since no new defects were being introduced, to pop up randomly in the future. And as noted in another post -- wild populations are vastly more inbred than domestic animals. If "inbreeding" was the problem, where are the defects? Turns out "generic bottlenecks" is not a given as bad-news either; there are examples of wild populations that descend from a single female, yet exhibit no issues, and they're starting to rethink what they thought they knew about this. Fact is the real key is whether defectives are culled, either through getting eaten or being knocked on the head.
Yet when professional breeders cull, they're castigated for 'cruelty'. You can't have it both ways. Either stop blaming us for Mother Nature's fuckups (and given that domestic dogs are the most genetically malleable and unstable of all species, there are a lot of fuckups, and no matter how careful one is, some will always be with us), or let us dispose of them so they don't become a burden to anyone else. We've managed to greatly reduce or even breed out some of nature's fuckups; do we get credit for that?? Hell no... (Examples: hip dysplasia is on average down by about 2/3rds since we started keeping track in 1965, thanks to breeders selecting against it; and we didn't 'create' it either -- the unselected species average is about 40% HD. Inherited blindness is also mostly a thing of the past, thanks to breeders selecting against it.)
Naturally the people who are most adamantly against rational culling are also all for "no kill" ... meaning every bad-tempered or health-challenged mutt is 'rescued', sold (er, I mean adopted), and becomes a problem to some unsuspecting sucker. Rescues actually LIKE this, because they require the animal be returned to them... so it can be sold again.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday August 19 2020, @01:18AM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday August 19 2020, @03:25AM
Sorry but you are wrong. I've been doing this professionally for 50 years; I think I have a clue. [And a few credentials: 14 generations of my own line; 3 AKC champions, 56 UKC champions (6 Grand CHs, 2 Reserve Best In Show, 1 Best In Show -- only 100% fieldbred Lab to get a BIS anywhere in the world since 1974), and about a dozen with field trial points or minor performance titles. Presently the 2nd oldest contiguous Lab bloodline in North America.]
Each litter is registered as being the offspring of a particular sire and dam (the puppies themselves are NOT YET REGISTERED), and THEN whoever owns each individual puppy can register it (and give it a registered name), be that the breeder or the end buyer. That is NOT "bulk registering" puppies. It is recording the existence, parentage, and makeup (how many males and females) of a single litter.
AKC and UKC have a provision where the breeder can, at the same time as the litter is recorded, ALSO individually register all the puppies -- paying for each one individually (albeit at a discount IF all are done at once). This was instituted because only a small fraction of puppy buyers ever register their puppy, and as registration fees kept going up, for breeders who wanted all puppies properly recorded, this was becoming a significant expense (then $20 each; it has since almost doubled). Also, increasingly breeders were falling away to the dozen or so minor registries (of varying legitimacy), or even reverting to private stud books, and AKC hoped to lure them back.
Didn't read the rest? Willful ignorance.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Saturday August 15 2020, @03:50AM
Well, that escalated quickly.
I keep an open mind and come here looking to be educated. As a general rule, I don't fire off personal attacks and I don't make fun of people. And if you look at my history, I haven't made any against you. I've even given you some points in the past when I deemed your comments interesting. I politely request you tone it down. Not everyone is looking to pick a fight with you here.
In a quote further down, you say:
It's unfortunate that more dog owners are not as responsible as you. The fact is, most people are not responsible enough for this. They don't know how to train their dogs and they don't know how to keep them under control.
Male cats (and even some female cats) have the added bonus of spraying if they don't get neutered soon enough.
I feel I'm choosing between two distasteful things: being in a city overrun with stray dogs (been there, done that, not nice) and neutering. I still feel spaying and neutering is a valid (if not perfect) response to prevent rounding up strays and killing them to keep them under control -- even if it causes a large percentage to have joint problems later in life.
Please keep your response (if any) thoughtful.