Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover-Dog Edition

By now, everyone has seen one of those videos or articles on the internet that uses pictures of dog breeds from the late 1800s to early-mid 1900s and sets them against the absolute worst photos (usually, but not always) of modern counterparts.  Typically, it's the same handful of breeds because they can't possibly go through 400+ breeds and say they've all changed immensely because they haven't.  Ones that exhibit what seems like extreme physical changes. And the whole theme here is pretty much "BREEDERS RUIN BREEDS". 

Now, I want you to look at the title of this post again.  You've probably heard this phrase many times over in your life.  I'm not going to evaluate individual dogs, as I do my best to avoid copyright issues.  Instead....

I'm going point out a few things. 

1.One of America's most beloved breeds, the Labrador, is almost never on these lists.  Even though a good number are often kept over weight.  This breed is an average looking dog, nothing extreme, but distinct enough that you typically know a  Lab when you see it, probably because they're everywhere.  Not flashy, not extreme, though there are a ton over over-sized Labs.  But let's look into some of their health issues.  Hip and elbow dysplasia, luxating patella, progressive retinal atrophy, cataracts, corneal dystrophy, retinal dysplasia, hereditary myopathy, autoimmune diseases, deafness, exercise induced collapse, and yes, obesity.  Because in a study of 310, most were missing all or parts of the POMC gene which plays a part in appetite regulation.  But it's okay, they look normal, so no concern there, right? 

2.Bull Terriers and their egg shaped heads....there's no known problems that can be attributed to their head shape alone.  The OCD.tail chasing is a mental thing, and there are other breeds that have dental problems just the same.  Now, the fact that Bull Terriers seem to literally use their heads may be a side effect of the head shape, but I kind of consider it a benefit. 

3.The Bull Terrier and the GSD were still rather young breeds back then.  Technically, they're still quite young when you compare them to Otterhounds, which are in NO way the oldest.  In early days of development, the breed may not be what it was meant to be.  Don't like them?  Don't get them. 

4.GSDs are popular and varied.  There's many different lines, many different types.  Also, you can stack a GSD four ways ( Example from google ) and, depending on the dog, get four different looks.  There's terrible working lines, awesome show lines, iffy bred lines...all kinds!  I used to harp on this breed myself, but I can no longer, with the evidence, paint the breed with the same paint brush. 

5.Basically, if you're going to judge health on looks, you are going to miss the fact of cancers, heart problems, mental issues, joint diseases, and a plethora of other things that AREN'T seen in a single photo.   You ARE judging a book by it's cover.  Because some of those weird looking dogs are just fine, are healthy, had health tested parents and won the Russian roulette of genetics when some of those normal looking dogs, purebred or not, didn't. 

Do not prioritize your idea of the appearance of health over the whole and deeper picture.  There is more going on under that cover.

"Most Dog Breeds"

There is no quicker way to get me to anger than to spit out the phrase "Most dog breeds".  The reason is that every, and I mean EVERY time someone says that it is 1.ALWAYS in regards to health issues and 2.ALWAYS followed by examples of COMMON breeds -OR- the Neapolitan Mastiff and Dosa Mastiff on the rare occasion.  There has never been a general dog owner or dog loving person who has spit out this phrase followed by a rare breed other than the Neo or Dosa.  Serious dog people will talk about the health of various rare breeds, but I absolutely can not recall any one of them ever using the phrase "Most dog breeds".

I have then asked people who use the phrase to tell me how many breeds are there.  They never respond to the question.

In regards to health, most of the general public then throws out some of the most common breeds there are, like...German Shepherds.  Boxers.  Dachshunds.  These are the breeds they use as examples for the over 300 different breeds and land races out there.  The FCI recognizes 332 breeds officially with 11 more provisional breeds.  This may not even come close to all that is actually out there.  As more and more areas become connected to the internet, more and more people are popping up out of seemingly nowhere with a "Hey, this breed exists". 

It is important to realize the number of breeds, because when you start talking about health, it gets muddy.  You can't use a handful of popular breeds as examples of "purebreds" having health problems.  And you sure as hell can't judge a book by it's cover, appearance is only a part of health in dogs. 

Do you realize how many people are disabled but don't look like it?  Various auto-immune diseases, heart problems, visual and auditory impairments, cystic fibrosis, etc.  The wide scope of genetic diseases in humans, both visual and not? 

I've come across far too many people who start talking about health in dogs and they go straight to physical appearance.  People point out the Boxer's short muzzle, but two of the biggest problems are cancer and cardiomyopathy.  Things that aren't obviously visual from the start.  It's backwards thinking, to believe, that you can judge health on appearance.

The fact remains, however, that they still point out popular breeds that they refuse to research because they believe them sickly.  Why not do more research?  For whatever reason, they want answers given to them on a silver platter, and they accept the first ones they're given because it's dressed up in a neat little, simplistic package.  They are given these handful of examples and reasons and use them to wipe the entire dog world with the same brush.

Fact is...no, most breeds aren't that badly off.  Yes, all breeds can have genetic diseases occur.  However, there is a popularity issue at play.  The more popular a breed is, the more likely it is that there's questionable people breeding them, and breeding unhealthy examples. 

At the same time, the rarer a breed is, the harder it is to breed away from genetic problems, and this is especially true in breeds that had almost been wiped out, creating a genetic bottleneck.  Some of the middle of the road breeds are decently off, but it's not always the case.  There's some rare breeds who are quite healthy, there's some popular and middle-road breeds that are as well. 

When vets get involved, things get even more absurd.  They run a business, they went to school to learn to deal with health related issues.  They're not geneticists, they're not often involved in breeding any more, they deal mostly with....health problems.  And, again, this becomes a popularity thing....the rarer a breed is, the less likely anyone is going to see it, including vets.  So if they're using the examples of "purebreds are unhealthy because German Shepherds"......they haven't dealt with even a large number of breeds.  You'd think they'd be more wise to the whole situation.

For the most part, from my crazy research and interest in the vast number of breeds.....most....aren't seriously unhealthy.  Problems do occur, there are things to watch for, there may be a few common-ish problems, but typically the issues are not nearly as common as a handful of example breeds.

20 breeds out of over 300 isn't even a quarter of the breeds and landraces out there.  On top of it, most breeds aren't "extreme" physically, so, there really is no reason to complain or say that phrase I hate so much..."Most dog breeds". 

So stop saying it.