Why do people believe that mixes are always healthier?

Seriously.. why do they think that mixing automatically cancells out health problems?

Even funnier is when they claim that mixes are healthier than purebreds.. but then also use the argument that purebreds were all once mixes too!

My purebred Crested is nearly 5 years old and has no major health issues.. he has a few food intolerances, but its not uncommon for dogs to be lactose intolerant, or to have corn allergies. He does also have some line breeding.. a "designer/hybrid" dog person would call him "inbred"

My cousin’s spaniel mix has to stick to a strict diet to prevent urinary issues. She has had surgury once when she was only a few years old to remove HUGE bladder stones.

Growing up, we had a Lab mix who was diagnosed with severe hip displasia before he was 5 years old.. he did live to be about 17, but we were on edge the entire time thinking his hips were going to get worse and we’d have to put him down. He had a terrible temperment, and could not go up or down steps for about the last 10 years of his life!

Someone I knew of on a dog forum had a medium sized mixed breed that needed surgury on both knees for severe luxating patella.. a condition rarely seen in medium to large dogs, its mostly limited to small breeds.

We once found a lab mix.. we thought it had been lost for a while, the thing was very thin. When the owner couldnt be found, we took the dog to the vet.. turns out that it had several major problems.. including a problem with properly digesting nutrients, and severe muscle dystrophy.. doesnt matter how much the dog was fed, it would have starved to death anyways because of the problems it had.. we had to euthanize it.

A friend of mine has a Crested/Schnauzer mix that is allergic to grass.. the poor dog cant go outside without breaking out.

My ex MIL had a collie mix who was deaf and had severe arthritis. She also had a shepherd mix who had to be euthanized for kidney and liver failure.. there was no logical explanation as to why the liver and kidneys failed.

Not all purebreds are healthy either, expecially those that come from untested bloodlines.. but in my experience, I’ve seen more serious health issues with mixes than with purebreds.

What health problems have you seen with mixes?
suggested category..
Food & Drink > Beer, Wine & Spirits
not all purebreds are from mixing breeds.. many are from just selectivly breeding the domestic dog as it was known.. you have to establish breeds before you can mix!

Properly bred dogs are also selectivly bred to breed away from health issues.. why dont people seem to get that?

As for temperment issues.. I know many purebreds with lovely temperments, I only know of a few with issues.

Had a husky mix who I was told was basically "Bi-polar".. she was unstable at times.

My ex MIL had several mixes with TERRIBLE temperments

Our lab mix had a horrible temperment

I don’t think you get it. Purebreds were once mixed breed dogs too but they have been inbred and line bred for many generations to achieve a dog that breeds "true". The only way to get a purebred is by doing this. To further damage things breed clubs like the AKC and CKC focus more on conformation than working ability.

Mixes usually are healthier because the genes have in a sense been refreshed. In my experience mixes have been much, much healthier than purebreds. But to each thier own and people have different experiences with different dogs. Some purebreds can be very healthy.

I see nothing wrong with mixed breeds and love the uniqueness of ‘mutts’. A dog is a living being and there is no ‘real’ guarantee on health whether purebred or mixed. Just like there is no guarantee on your own health. I can’t stand people who bash mixed breeds as if purebreds are somehow better. They are not.
———————–
Well I’m not going to get picked for best answer but I don’t care:
Some points in the link were good – others absolutely not. Sure there are examples of bassets and english bulldogs etc that look like the originals that are in existence today. The point is that they are the rarity and they are not what 99.9% of breeders breed for. The dog in the picture IS a bulldog and not a pit bull as the author tried to imply. Breeding dogs for any type of extreme features that can have negative impacts on their health simply because some people think they are ‘neat’ is flat out wrong. There are many purebred breeds that are quite healthy but many, many more that are not. As no surprise these tend to be the most popular breeds and/or the breeds with extreme features. Sure many Canadian and US breeders health check but most kennel clubs will register a litter from a stud that is only 7 months old. Far too young to be health tested. Waiting until 2yrs is just a ‘guideline’. Many working breeds have been ruined by the kennel club.
Why do people believe mixed breeds are healthier than purebreds??? Because it doesn’t take an Einstein or geneticist to know that inbreeding and line breeding is a bad idea and people also realize that this is common place with all purebreds. As mentioned, some purebreds are very healthy. Some mixed breeds are not. The point is that all this talk about health testing in purebreds and weeding out animals with genetic defects so far hasn’t really worked. Most breeds are still affected by the same hereditary defects they were before if not more so. The majority of mutts- dogs mixed for one or more generations ARE healthier on average than purebreds. The more mixed the healthier. So while there are mixed breeds that have horrible temperments ( that can also be due to an inadequate owner by the way ) and mixed breed with health issues there are also purebreds with health issues and as seen in the following link some top breeders still breed dogs with defects even though they are aware of them and these dogs are even winning shows. And this is not just a problem in the UK. It happens here too.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44215931

What is the AKC thinking??

This was posted on a dog forum I belong to….

AKC just another money grab?

Please read the following two emails, both may be forwarded. The AKC is viewed by many ordinary citizens as a lobbying leader and a class act in support of good health and breeding practices, and is long associated with dog fanciers who breed only for the betterment of the breed. Over the last several years, the AKC has used the public’s perception to increasingly line their pockets with product endorsements. Is this behavior becoming for a 501c3 non-profit corporation? No more. The AKC is nothing more than a registry, and this week, even that has lost its starch. The American Kennel Club has entered into a contract allowing Petland employees to register puppies online at the time of purchase. I’ll post more as it becomes available, and believe me, it will.

Petland discount pet store?? Why would the AKC want to be affiliated with that?
Here is a letter between the AKC and a breed club about the contract. It sounds like they may have cancelled it under pressure. Good!

http://www.gdca.org/AKCpetland.htm

Good question, WHAT ARE they thinking!

They are thinking of $$$. They are acting like a big business, non-profit my ***! This is still not nearly as bad as AKC crawling into bed with HSUS and DDAL on the PAWS deal, another possible big money maker for them.

From what I understand, the Petland deal is dead. Much like PAWS is dead (for now) thanks to a small group of dedicated dog people.

"Not your fathers AKC", no it sure ISN"T my fathers AKC! My fathers AKC was run by dog fanciers, for dog fanciers. The new AKC is all about the money, my fathers AKC would NEVER have crawled in bed with the likes of HSUS and DDAL! UKC is looking better all the time. Most of my dog show dollars are spent north of the border these days, the Canadian KC at least has some sense.

Nor would my fathers AKC continue to have a very prestigious show in a city that has some of the worst anti-breeder laws in the country. Nor would my fathers AKC more or less ignore all the anti-dog legislation (unless it will make them $$$ like PAWS, in which they will gladly support it and sell fanciers down the river for $$$) EXCEPT for the crop/dock ban in their own backyard.

Loki – maybe if AKC is so hard up for cash they should think about dumping their high buck Madison avenue building?

BTW – there IS always the UKC. I would be willing to bet they are having record entries at there shows and will continue to grow as long as AKC continues to not work in the best interests of the dog world.