DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**HedoShoodovex** · 06-19-2012, 11:10 PM

One thing about dogs from unknown origin and pedigree is that it's ALWAYS a coin toss.
The best dog I've ever owned was from unknown origin and pedigree ... but he was a genetic soup sandwich and I lost him to cancer just before he turned 5 years old.
I didn't want to go through that heartbreak again and chose to get a carefully researched pup from a known and proven healthy bloodline. Still as with any pup ... ya never know how they will turn out. So far so good ... except he eats shoes LOL

Joe I am sorry for your loss but I do not think loosing a dog to cancer is in any way related to the fact that he was a genetic soup sandwich as you put it. Cancer can occur due to exposure to toxins, genetic mutation, and occurs randomly throughout almost all sample populations. If anything a varied gene pool tends to make for healthier animals. The purer a bloodline the more inbreeding is required and therefore a higher risk of genetic anomalies. I don't think there is any proof that pure bred dogs are healthier than mixed breed dogs. I know my mom had a champion bloodline giant schnauzer and a rescue giant schnauzer. The AKC registered dog, bit people, seemed crazy and died at 6 years old, the rescue dog although not as pretty live a long and healthy life and had a superior disposition. It is just one case but I do believe if you health tested a large group of registered dogs and unregistered dogs, I sincerely doubt you would find any evidence that the pure bred dogs are healthier.

Pit bulls in general are very healthy dogs and live a relatively long time. Part of this is because they were not bred for conformation traits. Color, markings, size etc were not important. What we have wound up with is incredibly athletic, fit, smart, driven dogs who can perform and come in a variety of builds, colors, and sizes. As soon as you start inbreeding to get specific narrower conformation standards of color, size etc, you actually increase the chances for health issues. It is why I don't like blue dogs, not because I don't like the color, but because they are for the most part specifically bred by breeders for that color, or head size etc, which goes against the history of the breed and IMO what sets the APBT apart from most other recognized dog breeds.

06-19-2012, 11:10 PM	#31
HedoShoodovex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	One thing about dogs from unknown origin and pedigree is that it's ALWAYS a coin toss. The best dog I've ever owned was from unknown origin and pedigree ... but he was a genetic soup sandwich and I lost him to cancer just before he turned 5 years old. I didn't want to go through that heartbreak again and chose to get a carefully researched pup from a known and proven healthy bloodline. Still as with any pup ... ya never know how they will turn out. So far so good ... except he eats shoes LOL Joe I am sorry for your loss but I do not think loosing a dog to cancer is in any way related to the fact that he was a genetic soup sandwich as you put it. Cancer can occur due to exposure to toxins, genetic mutation, and occurs randomly throughout almost all sample populations. If anything a varied gene pool tends to make for healthier animals. The purer a bloodline the more inbreeding is required and therefore a higher risk of genetic anomalies. I don't think there is any proof that pure bred dogs are healthier than mixed breed dogs. I know my mom had a champion bloodline giant schnauzer and a rescue giant schnauzer. The AKC registered dog, bit people, seemed crazy and died at 6 years old, the rescue dog although not as pretty live a long and healthy life and had a superior disposition. It is just one case but I do believe if you health tested a large group of registered dogs and unregistered dogs, I sincerely doubt you would find any evidence that the pure bred dogs are healthier. Pit bulls in general are very healthy dogs and live a relatively long time. Part of this is because they were not bred for conformation traits. Color, markings, size etc were not important. What we have wound up with is incredibly athletic, fit, smart, driven dogs who can perform and come in a variety of builds, colors, and sizes. As soon as you start inbreeding to get specific narrower conformation standards of color, size etc, you actually increase the chances for health issues. It is why I don't like blue dogs, not because I don't like the color, but because they are for the most part specifically bred by breeders for that color, or head size etc, which goes against the history of the breed and IMO what sets the APBT apart from most other recognized dog breeds.
	Quote