# The Decision to choose Breed With Short Lifespan/Health Problems



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

How do you do it? Knowing it's going to be tragic in the end?

The more I research Berners the more I'm falling in love, but I just read a study done by the Bernese Mountain Dog club where they took a sample of like 1300 dogs and looked at lifespan and health factors. 

The results were depressing, like seriously the percentages of dogs who died from cancer or a TON of other health problems was crazy. Out of 261 dogs only 18 died from old age, 18!! That's outrageous. 

So how do you find the silver lining so to speak, how do you say to yourself, I will probably only have 6 years and I'm okay with that.  

I'm sorry, the study really made me sad and upset.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Honestly? I don't do it.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

But they do. I joined a Berner facebook page to get to know people ask questions and thst sort of thing, and I swear 4 posts on top, we're. 
1. We're at the beach our favorite, our days our numbered.
2. Just diagnosed with cancer today. 
3. Started treatment, doesn't look good. 
4. Leg was removed a month ago, cancer hasn't seemed to spread, fingers crossed. 

And everyone is all like....this is normal and we love Berners. And im like this is heartbreaking, how are you doing it. But, this breed as just captured me, maybe that's it , I don't know.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I personally wouldn't choose a breed like that. I love my dogs almost like kids, and to then choose a breed where I know time will be cut short would be heartbreaking. If my dogs live for 18 years, it still won't be enough.

ETA: But then, I guess because you can never have enough time with your dog, you could argue for choosing a breed you love and just making the most of it, no matter how many years you get. I can kind of see that side of the coin too.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I personally wouldn't choose a breed like that. I love my dogs almost like kids, and to then choose a breed where I know time will be cut short would be heartbreaking. If my dogs live for 18 years, it still won't be enough.


Agreed with you on that. 
That's the problem with dogs, they don't live nearly Long enough.


----------



## Eenypup (Mar 21, 2014)

How do people adopt senior dogs? Bennie was about 4 or 5 when I adopted her, so now she's 5 or 6. I like to say 5 because I can pretend we might have 10 years left, but I know realistically that's likely not true. People go out and adopt 13, 14 year old dogs knowing their time is extremely limited.

I mean, if the breeders were actively breeding to try and steer the breed away from health problems because they loved the breed, I can see why people take the chance.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

That's a good point, the top breeder I'm interested in impressed me. She posted a picture of their new girl, and she was saying how she has longativity on both sides, grandparents living into their teens, and she was so happy, ABC saying how this is what they are striving for and working towards, and I thought that's a breeder I can support, and maybe feel It's worth a chance. 

Never thought about the senior dog thing, but your right, they adopt them, love them and make the most out of the time they have together.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

I don't have the... constitution (?) for it? I think that may be the word. I get sick to my stomach thinking of Watson dying 10-15 years from now. 

I think there's a certain... dignity in big dogs with shorter lifespans. They seem to have a different temperament that I can relate to. Almost a quietness. And that's not all big dogs. Obviously. But it is something I see more commonly in big dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I wouldn't. I have ethical issues with breeding dogs that have a shortened lifespan if I'm honest.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

When my wife's dog Buc passed.... I tried to get her to consider breeds other than Labradors......
We looked hard at Flatcoats and Leonbergers..... But average lifespan was a deal breaker....


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

From a purely fiscal standpoint, they're terrible. To get a healthy dog from a good breeder with extensive health testing, it's going to cost you an arm and a leg. And then on top of that, they're still going to live shorter lives.  It sucks. I really don't know how people deal with that kind of heartbreak.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Eenypup said:


> How do people adopt senior dogs? Bennie was about 4 or 5 when I adopted her, so now she's 5 or 6. I like to say 5 because I can pretend we might have 10 years left, but I know realistically that's likely not true. People go out and adopt 13, 14 year old dogs knowing their time is extremely limited.


IMO adopting an oldie senior is a different matter, because you didn't have the dog made to order, so to speak. It's like providing hospice. The dog has already lived most of its life, and needs a quiet safe loving place to finish out its days. There's really no illusion about the time you have with the dog, and it's not supporting the production of the dogs.


----------



## Damon'sMom (Aug 2, 2011)

Its hard, and I don't think I could ever do it again. I had an English Mastiff and he was my first dog. He lived to be 11 and I cried like a baby when he went on his way. Its never easy to lose an animal no matter how long you have with them. I lost my boxer Piper at less than 2 years old. Every time I lose an animal I always think "Why. Why do I do this to myself!?". But the answers always the same, I can't imagine not having a dog in my life.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> I wouldn't. I have ethical issues with breeding dogs that have a shortened lifespan if I'm honest.


There are a lot of breeds I have ethical issues with. Hell, sometimes I have ethical issues with Corgis. But that doesn't mean I don't want them around anymore :/


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Eenypup said:


> How do people adopt senior dogs? Bennie was about 4 or 5 when I adopted her, so now she's 5 or 6. I like to say 5 because I can pretend we might have 10 years left, but I know realistically that's likely not true. People go out and adopt 13, 14 year old dogs knowing their time is extremely limited.
> 
> I mean, if the breeders were actively breeding to try and steer the breed away from health problems because they loved the breed, I can see why people take the chance.


Apples and oranges.....


----------



## voodookitten (Nov 25, 2012)

In black and white? Quality over quantity would be a good way to go in if it was me.

If you make a choice to take on a dog that has a limited life span, regardless of reason, just make sure you don’t go in with rose tinted glasses. That is, to me, it. It doesn’t matter if its a breed, a dog who is sick or an elderly dog. 

Whether you have 18 years or 6 years, knowing a dog’s life span (again, to me) is sort of reassuring. This isn’t condoning any breed who has limited life due to whatever...it’s just an acceptance. I know going in and it doesn't make it easier but I could (not really sure how but I'm sure you know what I mean..) get ready to deal with the sadness if they pass away early.

If I wanted a dog from a certain breed such as the OP’s and was told it has only around 6 years, I’d just make them count. I wouldn’t deter from a certain breed because of that if I loved it as much as you sound like you do, even knowing it will pass before I'm ready – heck, 30 years isn’t enough is it?

6 years is also relative. 6 good years are 6 good years. You could have 6ish awesome years with no health problems. Think positive. Pick a good breeder who health tests etc and do what you can (which I'm sure you would) to get a good run. And Lady luck will hopefully be on your side.

It doesn’t help in knowing that your beloved dog is going to pass away early but you can make those years count. And make sure those around you will help you when the time comes to say goodbye.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

I can truly say it's very hard in the end. I can look at mine and go "he will most likely live 9 or 10 year" or I can look at him as the great dog he is and list a ton of ways he enriches my home. It's a love of the breed period. Nothing easy about it, and you enjoy your time with them.

Until you have a giant breed in your life it's really hard to understand. If you want a lot of time with them, spend it with them, enjoying them.

Not sure of the cost of health tested BMD's from quality stock is. I can state for my health tested, good stock, higher energy line, Mastiff it was 2500 for a pet quality pup, who I know will only have 6 to 12 years, and yes I'll do it again, as I have before. (Yes it will hurt a lot when he passes)

From the time I walk in from work till I leave for work he's generally by my side


----------



## LuvMyAngels (May 24, 2009)

Average lifespan for Saints is 8-10 years. Buster turned 6 in Feb. I do the same thing Ive done since he was a puppy. Enjoy every day for the gift it is. Do SOMETHING he loves (even if its just a belly rub, snuggles on the couch or lounging in the yard) and make some great memories. When the time comes, even if he's 100, it'll be too soon. Forever wouldnt be long enough. He'll leave a Saint-sized hole that's going to hurt for a very long time but I knew that going in and I wouldnt trade the good to avoid the bad.


----------



## Fergusmom (Apr 12, 2015)

parus said:


> IMO adopting an oldie senior is a different matter, because you didn't have the dog made to order, so to speak. It's like providing hospice.


I agree, it's a bit different. I had a senior dog with health problems. His previous owner died very suddenly. I had him for only one year. Frankly because of his health problems, I was mentally prepared for him to pass. 

However, I could see how someone loves a breed so much, even with a short lifespan. I think Great Danes are fabulous, and I wouldn't be opposed to owning one, someday.

Also, people keep another types of non-domesticated pets, knowing that they won't live very long.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

chimunga said:


> There are a lot of breeds I have ethical issues with. Hell, sometimes I have ethical issues with Corgis. But that doesn't mean I don't want them around anymore :/


I didn't say I don't want them around. i just wouldn't buy one because it's an ethical dilemma for me and also I wouldn't want to spend a bunch on a dog I know is very likely to die young when I could get a dog breed that has a much higher chance of making it longer. It also just doesn't make any sense for someone like me who likes to train a lot. If I've put a lot of effort into training and my dog starts trialling at 2.5-3 years and starts hitting their stride around 4-5 years... then it's a 'senior' at 6 it's not the best situation for me. And accidents/tragedy could happen with any breed but why nearly guarantee myself that it will happen?

I know that sounds kind of cold but.... :/


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Fergusmom said:


> Also, people keep another types of non-domesticated pets, knowing that they won't live very long.


Yes, but there's a huge difference between what is just a short-lived species (e.g. hamsters), and the breeding of a short-lived strain of a longer-lived species. There's also the fact that while senescence in larger dogs generally comes somewhat earlier than in smaller dogs, the breeds with very short average lives are short because of heritable illness, not just because big dogs age faster...I do think there are some ethical problems with knowingly perpetuating fatal genetic disorders, which is indirectly what breeding certain breeds in a closed studbook amounts to.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

parus said:


> Yes, but there's a huge difference between what is just a short-lived species (e.g. hamsters), and the breeding of a short-lived strain of a longer-lived species. There's also the fact that while senescence in larger dogs generally comes somewhat earlier than in smaller dogs, the breeds with very short average lives are short because of heritable illness, not just because big dogs age faster...I do think there are some ethical problems with knowingly perpetuating fatal genetic disorders, which is indirectly what breeding certain breeds in a closed studbook amounts to.


Please enlighten me as to what fatal Genetic disorder your speaking of.
And yes many giant breed dogs once reaching maturity do age faster.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I wouldn't. I have ethical issues with breeding dogs that have a shortened lifespan if I'm honest.


Same. Even though I know the shortened life-span isn't the goal of the breeding programs, it has happened and I just... can't support that.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

MastiffGuy said:


> Please enlighten me as to what fatal Genetic disorder your speaking of.
> And yes many giant breed dogs once reaching maturity do age faster.


How about dilated cardiomyopathy in great danes?


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

It's an interesting question. I've always wanted a Greater Swiss Mountain Dog... But we have never pulled the trigger on it because of their lifespan (~10 years). Part of me agrees with some of the comments - go into it knowing what you're going to get, and make those years count. Then the other part is like - why put yourself through that? Losing a pet is one of the hardest things to ever experience, and it seems like the less you have to deal with that, the better off we are. Ultimately though, I think if you truly feel an affinity with a certain breed and you are well aware that your time may be limited when compared to other breeds... then go for it. I am still not certain I'll never own a Swissy because I've wanted one for many many years. Another way to look at it is this: you never know, with ANY dog, how much time you'll have with them. There are freak accidents, injuries, sudden health issues... all of these are hazards for any dog no matter the breed. So in that sense, is a dog with a shorter life span really that much different from any other dog? Your loss will feel the same whether it's at 10 years or 15. So why not get a dog that is compatible with your lifestyle, and that you'll love and enjoy.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

MastiffGuy said:


> Please enlighten me as to what fatal Genetic disorder your speaking of.
> And yes many giant breed dogs once reaching maturity do age faster.


There's a lot of breeds whose lifespan is cut short by common genetic disorders in the breed. Dobes have short lifespans even though they're not terribly large dogs for example. Flatcoats and cancer. Dogues have really really short lifespans even compared to other mastiffs. If there's a saying of 'it's not if a specific health problem happens but WHEN it happens' then I'm not going to be buying that breed. 

RE: ethics. 

I guess the crux for me is that if I pay a breeder I'm condoning their ethics. I would want a breeder at MIMIMUM to be breeding dogs that are above average for a 'regular' dog. If dog average life expectancy is 12 and a breed is at 6-8 then... that's WAY below average. It makes no sense to me to pay someone to produce dogs that are below average.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Well obviously I have no ethical problem with owning giant, short-lived breeds. 

I think the important thing with these breeds is to find a breeder that is breeding for the things you want to see. Annabel comes from a fabulous line of Newfs that regularly live to about 14 (healthy, too, not just alive). Seriously low instance of HD in the lines, she tests every puppy she produces at 10 weeks with a cardiologist for SAS, moderate sized to aid in health... everything I was looking for.

And yes, it can be very sad to know that your dog isn't going to be around for 20 years, but... I dunno. We don't really think about it. Also, at least for me for Newfs, the temperament and big cuddly lovability is absolutely worth it. She was EXACTLY what we were looking for in every way. And really, no one gets a "guaranteed" amount of time with their dog anyway, so as long as the breeder is working to better the breed and ticking all your boxes and the breed is something you really desire, it's just simply not something to focus on. No dog is with us as long as we'd like.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I wouldn't. I have ethical issues with breeding dogs that have a shortened lifespan if I'm honest.


Agreed completely. There are too many examples of "bad becomes normal" with regard to just shrugging and accepting major health issues in various breeds. If it's expected a breed will get cancer before 10 years old, that isn't something I want to support personally. I'll look elsewhere (either different breeder/lines within a breed or a completely different breed).


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I love berners, goldens, flat coats, and CKCs, but I will likely never get any of them because of the health issues. I just don't think I could get a dog knowing that it will probably break my heart at a young age.

I also agree with Laurelin and Sass that I don't want to support breeding dogs with huge known health issues. The more these issues become normal and acceptable, the worse off we are.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Then I'm curious (actual question, not being snarky) do you think we should stop supporting unhealthy breeds and let them die off completely? I'm mean, sure that will never actually happen. People will always give in. But that's kinda what you're saying, right?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Another problem I have with the cancer issue is that it doesn't just mean shortened lifespan, it also means tons of vet bills. If my dog gets cancer at age 5, I'm going to do what I can to save it, and surgery and chemo are not cheap. If I had a 14 year old dog with cancer I would probably just try to keep it comfortable and not spend lots of money trying to beat cancer. So it's not like these dogs just die quietly in their sleep at 6 years, they often have a year or more of expensive exhausting heartbreaking cancer treatments.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

chimunga said:


> Then I'm curious (actual question, not being snarky) do you think we should stop supporting unhealthy breeds and let them die off completely? I'm mean, sure that will never actually happen. People will always give in. But that's kinda what you're saying, right?


Alternately you could outcross those breeds to add in healthier individuals.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> Then I'm curious (actual question, not being snarky) do you think we should stop supporting unhealthy breeds and let them die off completely? I'm mean, sure that will never actually happen. People will always give in. But that's kinda what you're saying, right?


Personally, I think we should outcross. It's not always easy, because closely related breeds are likely going to have the same issues (both goldens and flat coats are prone to cancer), but I think it could be done. As long as the stud book remains closed, I think some of these breeds are doomed.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Some breeds are probably never going to be healthy again. CKCS will just be little messes, Goldens will get cancer, Corgis will always be dwarves, Pugs will always be brachys. Even if we make a concerted effort to make them healthier, they will always have problems.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> Some breeds are probably never going to be healthy again. CKCS will just be little messes, Goldens will get cancer, Corgis will always be dwarves, Pugs will always be brachys. Even if we make a concerted effort to make them healthier, they will always have problems.


Not if we allow out crossing. And not if people change what they are breeding for.

It's not hard to make pugs less brachy, and you could breed dwarfism out of corgis, but I don't see either of those things happening ever because many people like those traits.

Golden and flat coat people so want to get rid of cancer, but they are fighting a losing battle if we don't start to accept out crossses


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've heard Dane owners say "8 years with a Dane is better than 15 years with any other breed!". OK, I guess, if that's how they feel. 

Personally, if a dog/breed lived 8-10 years and just keeled over, I'd be sort of OK with that. But they don't just keel over. They get cancer and heart problems and, well, ugh. So I guess I'm saying that for me, it's the health problems, not the average lifespan, that matters most.

A lot of info says the average lifespan for Rotts is 8.5. I didn't know that when I got Moose, not that it would have changed my mind, because if I didn't get him his lifespan was going to become a whole lot shorter :/. But he'll be 12 in June, and he's still healthy, although a bit stiff and cloudy-eyed. I have no idea what his breeders were aiming for, if this was just a happy accident or something they were trying for on purpose. 

Also---for me this makes a difference---if I get a dog at the shelter (or other life-threatening situation) and he's unhealthy or is of a breed that has a short lifespan, I'll think "at least he lived longer than he would have at the shelter". It's sad but I don't feel like I _chose_ to deal with premature health problems. But if I custom ordered a puppy from a breeder, paid big bucks, supported the breeder in their breeding practices, I'd feel a lot different about it.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

How do you outcross while still keeping a breed a breed? I'd imagine it would have to take a lot of planning, generations. And I can see it backfiring in the general public with lots of new fancy designer breeds.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> How do you outcross while still keeping a breed a breed? I'd imagine it would have to take a lot of planning, generations. And I can see it backfiring in the general public with lots of new fancy designer breeds.


It only takes a couple generations to get back to the phenotype of the original breed. Look up the LUA dalmatians. I think someone was also working on a toller outcross.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> It only takes a couple generations to get back to the phenotype of the original breed. Look up the LUA dalmatians. I think someone was also working on a toller outcross.


So, you outcross for a couple generations, then introduce the dog back into it's original breeds genepool?


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

And then what about actual structural problems, like oversized dogs, dwarves, or extreme bracys?


----------



## Sandakat (Mar 7, 2015)

I don't understand the whole ethical problem. It's not like the breeders are lying about the life span of their breeds and good breeders are working toward improving the breed. You go into it knowing what you're going to get.

I say get a breed that speaks to your heart. No matter how long you have a dog, be it 7 years or 15, it's too short. And dogs can die early from trauma or some other fluke thing. There's no guarantee. If you're drawn to a breed, then get it.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> So, you outcross for a couple generations, then introduce the dog back into it's original breeds genepool?


For the LUA dalmatians, I think they just bred one pointer x dalmatian generation, then bred back to purebred dalmatians for multiple generations. That was done to fix a single gene which isn't that difficult, so it would require more effort to fix something like cancer.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Sandakat said:


> I don't understand the whole ethical problem. It's not like the breeders are lying about the life span of their breeds and good breeders are working toward improving the breed. You go into it knowing what you're going to get.


It's not un-ethical because the breeder is lying to you or being deceptive about the health of the breed.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> And then what about actual structural problems, like oversized dogs, dwarves, or extreme bracys?


Breeders are breeding *for* those things. If they just started breeding the more moderate dogs it would start to go away. That's easy. 

Breeders are not breeding *for* cancer, they are actively trying to breed away from it, but when you have limited genes in the pool it's not that simple.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There's a line of Dalmatians that were outcrossed to Pointers to get rid of the high uric acid gene. However they did it, after a few generations the dogs are basically full Dalmatian again (something like 99.99%) and don't have the high uric acid problems. (oops too slow)

The really flat face is very easily lost when not bred for strongly. In Persian cats, a flat-faced cat who breeds with a regular cat will not have any flat-faced kittens (they'll be shorter-faced than a regular cat though). It goes away just that quickly. I'm pretty sure they could make Pugs a lot healthier without losing their Pug-ness.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Dalmations have had a successful outcross with pointers to deal with high uric acid levels (and probably deafness too):http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/about/nash_research.htm

Although afaik the breed club still isn't accepting of it (but that could be old news).

And it's not like you do it a bunch. You outcross with one or two individual and then backcross until they are virtually indistinguishable, but with more genetic variety. I mean, obviously with some breeds and problems, you might have to use multiple breeds, multiple times, but it's not that hard to keep the breed and "breed" with backcrossing.

EDIT:

I seems unethical when you have lines of Newfs like Manna's that regularly live to 14, and most giant breeds have an average life span of 8. That's nearly double. So clearly you CAN have a long(er) lived giant breed. It's silly to act like, well, it's a giant breed so they're going to die young anyway. (I'm not saying breeders across the board are thinking that, but it can seem that way when such longevity is an anomaly).


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> Breeders are breeding *for* those things. If they just started breeding the more moderate dogs it would start to go away. That's easy.


They are. And it drives my nuts and I hate it. It all goes back to corgis in my mind. I want corgis to be around forever. And I want them to be healthy. The stupid thing is that they are generally hardy little dogs. And if you're careful with their backs, they can be healthy forever. But If breeders would just breed reasonably lengthed backs and reasonably sized legs, we wouldn't have to worry about it so much. There are some people that breed "mini" corgis, and it just makes me want to scream. Stop ruining my dogs. I like corgis. I don't want an aussie or a BC. I want corgis. 

/endrant


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

You can outcross and get back very fast. Check out the bobtail boxer. Sweden also outcrossed clumbers to cockers and the pups were back to Breed type at gen 3. 

Ethics: imagine someone said they were breeding pekapoos or whatever but they died at 6-8 years. People would be up in arms. But it's ok in purebreds?

It's not ethical to breed a dog you know will have health issues. Dogs that are bred should be bred because they are above average.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Also some working breeds keep a semi open or open registry and don't implode or cease to be a breed. It's done all the time in other animals and plants.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

I don't think I could own a breed that's average lifespan was less than 12, especially when it's health problems that kill them, not old age. That's one reason why I'll never own a large breed dog.

Outcrossing is needed for a lot of breeds, but that won't happen until the breeders get off their high horse. Dogs are the only species of animal (as far as I know), were outcrossing is so vilified.

So apparently the main issues with LUA Dalmatians are -

Possible health problems introduced from Pointers. (the only valid argument.)

''They look like Pointers.'' They look Dalmatian enough to win at shows though.

''The spots are smaller!'' Yes, this is an actually an argument. Colour is more important than health to these people.

''They (the LUA breeders) will make blue eyes a fault like every other standard expect the AKC one.''

''We'll have to allow dogs with patches then!'' That would also be an improvement to the health of the breed, since dogs with coloured markings are less prone to deafness than pure white dogs with only ticking. Again colour being more important than health.


----------



## WonderBreadDots (Jun 26, 2012)

sclevenger said:


> But they do. I joined a Berner facebook page to get to know people ask questions and thst sort of thing, and I swear 4 posts on top, we're.
> 1. We're at the beach our favorite, our days our numbered.
> 2. Just diagnosed with cancer today.
> 3. Started treatment, doesn't look good.
> ...


Sounds like a depressing group.

I belong to a few Berner groups and there are plenty of long lived dogs in those groups. It really depends on your research and choices you make when getting a puppy of any breed. Join a local club of your breed choice and you will meet lots of dogs and people. Just listening to people talk you will find out who consistently has problems in their lines and who tends to have dogs making it past 10 years old.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Also some working breeds keep a semi open or open registry and don't implode or cease to be a breed. It's done all the time in other animals and plants.


Exactly. I'm told it's very common in horses. And it's better for breeds in the long run IMO.

The LUA dalmatians were the result of a single breeding to a single pointer. One dog, one time. That's an extreme example because the way that trait is inherited is very simple and well understood. But it took something like 30-40 years after that SINGLE breeding for the breed club to approve its descendants be eligible for AKC registration. When keeping a breed "pure" is more important than addressing a major health problem with outcrossing - yea, that's sketchy ethics.

I'm seeing more and more goldens getting lymphoma between 4-6 years old. FOUR to SIX year old dogs dying of cancer. Things didn't used to be this bad, even just within the span of my career so far, and it's only going to get worse.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

The bobtail boxer is an interesting study to me. I'm not saying we should be really focusing on introducing a superficial gene like this but it's cool to see how well documented things were and how fast the dogs revert back to boxers. Especially since in this case the two breeds used were DRASTICALLY different in shape: Corgi vs Boxer

http://bobtailboxers.com/
http://bobtailboxers.com/genetics-can-be-fun

Gen 3, 3/4ths boxer is when you start seeing individuals that (at least to me) would be pegged as pure boxer if parentage wasn't known. Jane looks nothing like a corgi
http://bobtailboxers.com/the-first-backcross

Breeder's site with more pictures of bobtails.
http://steynmere.co.uk/BOBTAILS.html

Articles: http://steynmere.co.uk/GENETICS.html#articles

In the other cases like the LUA Dalmatians or the Clumbers they crossed more similar breeds. The clumbers (wish I could find more on it but all I've seen is in Swedish) was to a working English cocker spaniel. From what I understand (I have a friend in Sweden who shows aussies) Clumbers were unable to pass the health component that Sweden requires dogs to pass before breeding. Some of the 3/4ths clumber, 1/4th cocker puppies were shown in the ring with pure clumbers and voted into the registry based on quality compared to peers.

Bobtail boxers are also shown in some parts of the world and do well. The LUA dogs were -finally- accepted to show AKC but they've been showing in other registries a long time and can compete against 'regular' Dalmatians.

The koolie registry allows for a 'grading' type system which will register purebred registered dogs, unregistered dogs, dogs with an unregistered parent, or even koolie mixes (with other working type dogs) in various grades.

There's some neat stuff out there! I love genetics, it's fascinating.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Tollers have been outcrossed to Welshies and Aussies in Europe. Here is a little info:
http://retrieverman.net/2012/05/24/another-toller-outcross-in-germany/


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Here is one of the Clumbers from the cross breeding project: http://www.champdogs.co.uk/litter/31256

This is from a post by spanielorbust (I miss having them around!) on this board.



> Interesting thinking this is, and I read it a lot from those in Cavaliers. I happen to be a huge fan of the breed, but I read this following bit on a forum once, and it made me give my head a good shake (thank you John). The conversation was with someone who wanted to try to breed the best Cavaliers they could, but who admitted that they would not be able to know, at breeding age, what their dog was carrying in regards to both the serious issues, and many more.
> 
> "There you go, Seven! You made the leap (you're not alone) from wanting to breed healthy cavs to wanting to breed cavs as long as they're not so bad.
> 
> ...


So well stated.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

But not all dogs/breeds that have shorter than average lifespans are strictly due to health issues. Some just have shorter life spans. For me, those are two separate issues.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

TGKvr said:


> But not all dogs/breeds that have shorter than average lifespans are strictly due to health issues. Some just have shorter life spans. For me, those are two separate issues.


Could you give an example? I'm struggling to think of a breed known to have a short lifespan that doesn't also suffer with health issues.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

TGKvr said:


> But not all dogs/breeds that have shorter than average lifespans are strictly due to health issues. Some just have shorter life spans. For me, those are two separate issues.


You may want to define "average". Average for their size category? Average compared to all dogs?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Why would they die young if they didn't have more health problems? I guess some do age faster but usually when the average lifespan is low it's because a lot of them end up with fatal diseases at a very young age.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ireth0 said:


> Could you give an example? I'm struggling to think of a breed known to have a short lifespan that doesn't also suffer with health issues.


Me too...

At any rate aging faster would just be getting old dog diseases faster right? Cancer at 6 years vs cancer at 14. 

General vitality decreases would also just make me want to examine population genetics and diversity too


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

The are medium sized breeds with horribly short lifespans too. (i.e. Bulldogs at about 6-9 years) No one can use the 'large dogs age faster' excuse there.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

Is buying a puppy really saying.. I'm okay with this short life span aND health? I mean most of the good breeders I've looked at our activity working and testing to breed out the problem, that just doesn't scream...I'm okay with this and it's normal. 

Don't we have to continue breeding to fix the problem?


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

sclevenger said:


> Is buying a puppy really saying.. I'm okay with this short life span aND health? I mean most of the good breeders I've looked at our activity working and testing to breed out the problem, that just doesn't scream...I'm okay with this and it's normal.
> 
> Don't we have to continue breeding to fix the problem?


I think the point is that we can't continue breeding the way we are. We have to let our own egos go. "Keeping a breed a breed" should not trump "Making the healthiest dogs possible."


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sclevenger said:


> Is buying a puppy really saying.. I'm okay with this short life span aND health? I mean most of the good breeders I've looked at our activity working and testing to breed out the problem, that just doesn't scream...I'm okay with this and it's normal.
> 
> Don't we have to continue breeding to fix the problem?


There is probably no way to breed out cancer (and certain other diseases) without outcrossing at this point. Breeders can keep trying, but when so many dogs in the population have the genes for whatever it is, and when it's not something easy to test for or breed away from, it might already be too late. The effective population size for a lot of breeds, like goldens, is so small that you don't have much genetic diversity to work with, even if you have a lot of individuals in the breed.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

chimunga said:


> I think the point is that we can't continue breeding the way we are. We have to let our own egos go. "Keeping a breed a breed" should not trump "Making the healthiest dogs possible."


True. I can see that point. 

How would decide though what to breed in to fix the problem? Especially with a breed woth such excessive health problems?

Also, I can see the struggle of wanting to keep a breed a breed. I mean when you have a breed thats been around 100s of years, I can see where it might be hard to say, ya will just throw a dash of aussie in there and see if that fixes the problem. 

I know it's more complicated than that and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying I could understand the struggle.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> There is probably no way to breed out cancer (and certain other diseases) without outcrossing at this point. Breeders can keep trying, but when so many dogs in the population have the genes for whatever it is, and when it's not something easy to test for or breed away from, it might already be too late. The effective population size for a lot of breeds, like goldens, is so small that you don't have much genetic diversity to work with, even if you have a lot of individuals in the breed.


Now, with breeds that can be broadened, could it help? The breeders I researched for BMDs, the ones that were vocal and active about fixing the problem, the dogs they were happy about with longativity and better health were imports? 

Golden retriever breeder, I saw the same thing. Her dogs our mostly imports that she is crossing, and her imports had less cancer relatives And so on.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sclevenger said:


> Also, I can see the struggle of wanting to keep a breed a breed. I mean when you have a breed thats been around 100s of years, I can see where it might be hard to say, ya will just throw a dash of aussie in there and see if that fixes the problem.


It's sort of a myth that breeds have been around for hundreds of years. Types have been around forever, but it's only been since Victorian times that people really started breeding "breeds" and caring about purity. And plenty of breeds/types have been more or less recreated within the last 100-200 years to mimic some ancient breed, but that doesn't mean it really is that ancient breed, if that makes sense. Our ideas about the ancient purity of a breed are extremely new in the history of dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

sclevenger said:


> Is buying a puppy really saying.. I'm okay with this short life span aND health? I mean most of the good breeders I've looked at our activity working and testing to breed out the problem, that just doesn't scream...I'm okay with this and it's normal.
> 
> Don't we have to continue breeding to fix the problem?


Yes I think buying a breed is condoning or approving what the breeders are doing and what the breed *is*. 

To fix the problems in some breeds... Breeders need to take a stand and buck the status quo. Until that happens I doubt things will change.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sclevenger said:


> Now, with breeds that can be broadened, could it help? The breeders I researched for BMDs, the ones that were vocal and active about fixing the problem, the dogs they were happy about with longativity and better health were imports?
> 
> Golden retriever breeder, I saw the same thing. Her dogs our mostly imports that she is crossing, and her imports had less cancer relatives And so on.


It really depends what else is available out there. If there are dogs in Europe without those health problems, then heck yes people should be importing and breeding them. But for cancer in retrievers there is evidence that it's been around since the development of these breeds in sort of a founder effect. It didn't just crop up recently in a few lines and it's not going to be fixed just by importing a few dogs from overseas or they would have fixed it already.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

sclevenger said:


> How would decide though what to breed in to fix the problem? Especially with a breed woth such excessive health problems?


Probably a whole lot of careful planning. 



sclevenger said:


> Also, I can see the struggle of wanting to keep a breed a breed. I mean when you have a breed thats been around 100s of years, I can see where it might be hard to say, ya will just throw a dash of aussie in there and see if that fixes the problem.


I really think that does have a lot to do with human ego. I made this, and I wanna keep it that way. I don't want it sullied by impure blood. I think you can probably still keep a breed a breed if you're careful with how you do it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Sadly many dog breeding programs are focused on short term goals and their lines only. I feel like there is a big lack of understanding of population genetics or really just genetics in general. 

I'm not sure how I fix it but change is going to have to come from within by people willing to rock the boat in ways that are probably going to be very uncomfortable.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

So far giant breeds outcrossing is the answer? And just how often would this need to be done, to make a Mastiff live greatly longer?

Oh and yes this is a very loaded question.

Also if it's from a long history of a closed stagnant gene pool, why do boerboel have a 10yr average, along with a Dogo, and cane corso.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

Alaskan Malamutes are classed as a 'giant breed', and their lifespan is apparently anything from 10-15 years on average, depending on the source. So size doesn't always equal predicted lifespan.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Well perhaps I should clarify. I can't think of a single breed that does not have SOME health issue listed as a potential problem. This doesn't mean of course that most or all dogs within that breed will have those health issues (and I realize most people know this so I'm mentioning it for the sake of argument). I will offer my own experience... I grew up in a family that bred and raised both Rottweilers and Miniature Schnauzers. (so different!) Rotties are great dogs, but as a breed, we are cautioned that they are prone to bone cancers, hip dysplasia, several eye issues... as well as what we'd consider a fairly short life span. In 20 years and countless litters, we never had a pup that presented with any of the "well known" issues, and the dogs we DID keep all died from old age... the earliest at 8, the latest at 10. All were very healthy. Obviously we have no true way of knowing how all of our pups turned out, but never once did we have a customer call us with a health issue on our dogs. 

So perhaps there's not a universal answer to the health problems vs. life span questions of the various breeds, and I can only offer commentary on that with which I'm familiar, so based on my own observations it is certainly possible to have dogs that simply don't live that long that are otherwise very healthy. And that's all I was trying to say.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

"Old age" is not a disease. And honestly, I don't think 8-10 is a very long lifespan at all.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sassafras said:


> "Old age" is not a disease. And honestly, I don't think 8-10 is a very long lifespan at all.


This. Dogs die of something, and 8-10 is quite young.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

TGKvr said:


> and the dogs we DID keep all died from old age... the earliest at 8, the latest at 10. All were very healthy.





sassafras said:


> "Old age" is not a disease. And honestly, I don't think 8-10 is a very long lifespan at all.


Agreed, with all due respect. Your dogs died AT an (some would consider) old age from......?

(Asking out of curiosity. I am learning a lot from this thread. Fascinating stuff.)


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I'm not sure where you're going with that? No, age isn't a disease. That was kind of my point. My point was that our dogs died within their "expected" life span but were cancer free, disease free, good hips... all healthy dogs that passed from our lives too soon. Sometimes certain dogs just don't live as long as others and it doesn't have to be health related.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

TGKvr said:


> I'm not sure where you're going with that? No, age isn't a disease. That was kind of my point. My point was that our dogs died within their "expected" life span but were cancer free, disease free, good hips... all healthy dogs that passed from our lives too soon. Sometimes certain dogs just don't live as long as others and it doesn't have to be health related.


But then what did they die of? Unless it was lightening strikes or something, they must have died from something in their body not working anymore.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

I haven't fully read everything, but personally, a dogs life span will not determine what type of breed I get. I had rats, and they only live for about 2-4 years and for the years that I did have them (before they had to be rehomed due to really severe allergies) and I loved every moment I spent with them, and the happy memories I have of them were totally worth their short time with me. I believe as long as you are ready for the short amount of time that you are going to spend with that animal, it makes their years that much more special. I want a Great Dane, I absoLUTELY want a Great Dane. They have one of the shortest life spans of any dog. That won't stop me from getting one, and giving it the best life I can, and having it be loved all of the days of it's short life. I'll just make the most of it while I can, and when he/she leaves, I'll try really hard to remember I knew it was coming, I accepted this, no matter how hard it is.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

There's a difference between issues that arise from aging vs. getting cancer, or having acute HD, or some other diagnosed disease. Our dogs got old. They got grey... less active... joints stiffened... all the things that happen when people and animals get old. I don't really know why this is such an arguable point here - the topic was that certain breeds have health issues that cause them to have shorter life spans than other dogs. My point was that some dogs just have shorter life spans, and they don't all necessarily have to die from a horrible disease or even a health problem to which the breed is prone, but just get old. Even if "old" is relative.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I am not trying to be snarky at all but I am honestly confused how death is unrelated to health issues?


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Ehh. I wouldn't call anyone unethical for getting a breed they love just because it is known for health issues. There are far too many breeds on that list. Something needs changed in the breed clubs and such.. but I really don't see how not buying them is going to help other than make the gene pool even smaller or make them extinct.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

I don't really see the point in getting a dog that's a puppy for 2 years, an adult for 2-3, and geriatric by 6 years old. These dogs are dying at the time most other breeds are 'hitting their prime'.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

missc89 said:


> I haven't fully read everything, but personally, a dogs life span will not determine what type of breed I get. I had rats, and they only live for about 2-4 years and for the years that I did have them (before they had to be rehomed due to really severe allergies) and I loved every moment I spent with them, and the happy memories I have of them were totally worth their short time with me. I believe as long as you are ready for the short amount of time that you are going to spend with that animal, it makes their years that much more special. I want a Great Dane, I absoLUTELY want a Great Dane. They have one of the shortest life spans of any dog. That won't stop me from getting one, and giving it the best life I can, and having it be loved all of the days of it's short life. I'll just make the most of it while I can, and when he/she leaves, I'll try really hard to remember I knew it was coming, I accepted this, no matter how hard it is.


An hour ago I was in the same boat... But then I thought big dogs 'naturally' didn't live as long because their size 'naturally' caused more strain on their hearts or what have you, and long lived giants being the anomaly. But if it's true that lifespan is largely affected by genetics and not just a by-product of largeness itself, then that is not something I can reconcile with when choosing a dog for myself.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

MastiffGuy said:


> So far giant breeds outcrossing is the answer? And just how often would this need to be done, to make a Mastiff live greatly longer?
> 
> Oh and yes this is a very loaded question.
> 
> Also if it's from a long history of a closed stagnant gene pool, why do boerboel have a 10yr average, along with a Dogo, and cane corso.





SamiSaysRawr said:


> Alaskan Malamutes are classed as a 'giant breed', and their lifespan is apparently anything from 10-15 years on average, depending on the source. So size doesn't always equal predicted lifespan.


Anatolians and great pyrs also tend to have much much longer lifespans compared to other dogs of similar size.

I guess for mastiffs and the same, I'd like to see research into the why... Why are Anatolians outliving them so much? What are they dying from? Genetic diversity isn't going to HURT a breed so yeah why not outcross some? And yeah maybe we should think about breeding more moderate in size dogs (giants and toys) and choosing to pay attention to longevity in breeding. If there's lines living a lot longer then WHY are they? but no one is saying it's a simple solution. I do think it's something we should look into. 

Oddly enough the really long lived giant breeds tend to also be breeds still often bred for serious work... just saying. 

I just don't like the idea that cancer at 6 years old is 'normal'.

EDIT: did some research and maybe pyrs aren't quite as long lived as I thought. Around 11. Anatolians are probably the better case to bring up.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

Canyx said:


> An hour ago I was in the same boat... But then I thought big dogs 'naturally' didn't live as long because their size 'naturally' caused more strain on their hearts or what have you, and long lived giants being the anomaly. But if it's true that lifespan is largely affected by genetics and not just a by-product of largeness itself, then that is not something I can reconcile with when choosing a dog for myself.


Yeah it's a really hard decision to make, especially with a G.D. because I _know_ the reason that it dies early is because it's been bred to be so huge it's heart cannot support it - but the dog itself just has such a lovely temperament I feel like I would be missing out on something if I didn't have at least one dog of each breed. I really wanted a CKCS for the longest time, because of their temperament, regardless of their numerous health issues. Heck, I'm getting an Aussie for crying out loud lol


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

Canyx said:


> An hour ago I was in the same boat... But then I thought big dogs 'naturally' didn't live as long because their size 'naturally' caused more strain on their hearts or what have you, and long lived giants being the anomaly. But if it's true that lifespan is largely affected by genetics and not just a by-product of largeness itself, then that is not something I can reconcile with when choosing a dog for myself.


Agreed. Totally thought the same thing as you. This has been a very educational thread for me.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

missc89 said:


> Yeah it's a really hard decision to make, especially with a G.D. because I _know_ the reason that it dies early is because it's been bred to be so huge it's heart cannot support it - but the dog itself just has such a lovely temperament I feel like I would be missing out on something if I didn't have at least one dog of each breed. I really wanted a CKCS for the longest time, because of their temperament, regardless of their numerous health issues. Heck, I'm getting an Aussie for crying out loud lol


Aussies are a fairly healthy breed though.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Canyx said:


> An hour ago I was in the same boat... But then I thought big dogs 'naturally' didn't live as long because their size 'naturally' caused more strain on their hearts or what have you, and long lived giants being the anomaly. But if it's true that lifespan is largely affected by genetics and not just a by-product of largeness itself, then that is not something I can reconcile with when choosing a dog for myself.


I think it's a bit of both size + genetics. 

Anatolians for example supposedly live 13-15 years which is fantastic for any size let alone one that is often 100+ lbs. Other resources say 10-13. Which is less but still within a good range (compared to 7-9 in a lot of breeds)


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

elrohwen said:


> Aussies are a fairly healthy breed though.


I've had SO many people try to discourage me from getting an Aussie because of health issues (like the MDR1 gene, eyes, etc...) or because they think that they're really bad dogs. I've learned to kind of tune out non-dog people, and take advice with a grain of sand until I can educate myself more on what they are talking about and then I can give a much better educated opinion.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Some interesting reading on the cancer topic:
http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/why-do-dogs-get-cancer

There are a lot of other great articles on this blog.



missc89 said:


> I've had SO many people try to discourage me from getting an Aussie because of health issues (like the MDR1 gene, eyes, etc...) or because they think that they're really bad dogs. I've learned to kind of tune out non-dog people, and take advice with a grain of sand until I can educate myself more on what they are talking about and then I can give a much better educated opinion.


But MDR1 is a simple recessive, and eyes are pretty easy to test for. Those aren't really a big deal as far as dog diseases go. Anything easy to test for and control in a breeding population isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

sassafras said:


> I am not trying to be snarky at all but I am honestly confused how death is unrelated to health issues?


Well this MIGHT come across as snarky but... if a person can't see a difference between the "normal" aging health problems and problems being hailed as breed specific, like various cancers or acute HD or... anything else, then I'm really not sure what to say here? People get old and die. Their bodies just don't function the way they did when they were younger. Same as animals. There are health problems associated with getting old - I'm not trying to claim otherwise. But then there are other, more specific health issues that are "known" within certain breeds. Torsion. Cancer. Entropian. Hip Dysplasia. Blindness. Different thing.

Am I the only one that can see that? Am I just going crazy?


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I think it's a bit of both size + genetics.
> 
> Anatolians for example supposedly live 13-15 years which is fantastic for any size let alone one that is often 100+ lbs.


Yea I agree. I mean, there is a cap on the dog as a species in general... They can't live till 20 (VERY rare) no matter how healthy, how big, how small. So within the parameters we are given to play with, this discussion makes me think there is a lot that could be done for some giant breeds.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

TGKvr said:


> Well this MIGHT come across as snarky but... if a person can't see a difference between the "normal" aging health problems and problems being hailed as breed specific, like various cancers or acute HD or... anything else, then I'm really not sure what to say here? People get old and die. Their bodies just don't function the way they did when they were younger. Same as animals. There are health problems associated with getting old - I'm not trying to claim otherwise. But then there are other, more specific health issues that are "known" within certain breeds. Torsion. Cancer. Entropian. Hip Dysplasia. Blindness. Different thing.
> 
> Am I the only one that can see that? Am I just going crazy?


I think what's being said here isn't 'your dogs had problems and they died young' but rather your dogs died of aging related issues that typically *come on later* for dogs as a whole. They aged faster. Maybe not as dramatic as the 'big ones' you're listing, but still something that doesn't need to be typical of the breed.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

TGKvr said:


> Well this MIGHT come across as snarky but... if a person can't see a difference between the "normal" aging health problems and problems being hailed as breed specific, like various cancers or acute HD or... anything else, then I'm really not sure what to say here? People get old and die. Their bodies just don't function the way they did when they were younger. Same as animals. There are health problems associated with getting old - I'm not trying to claim otherwise. But then there are other, more specific health issues that are "known" within certain breeds. Torsion. Cancer. Entropian. Hip Dysplasia. Blindness. Different thing.
> 
> Am I the only one that can see that? Am I just going crazy?


But why do some breeds 'age' more quickly than others, even those larger than them?


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

elrohwen said:


> But MDR1 is a simple recessive, and eyes are pretty easy to test for. Those aren't really a big deal as far as dog diseases go. Anything easy to test for and control in a breeding population isn't that big of a deal.


Like I said, lots of advice from uneducated people. Now that I've been educated (thank you!) I will no longer be comparing Aussies to dogs such as the CKCS in the health department!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

TGKvr said:


> Well this MIGHT come across as snarky but... if a person can't see a difference between the "normal" aging health problems and problems being hailed as breed specific, like various cancers or acute HD or... anything else, then I'm really not sure what to say here? People get old and die. Their bodies just don't function the way they did when they were younger. Same as animals. There are health problems associated with getting old - I'm not trying to claim otherwise. But then there are other, more specific health issues that are "known" within certain breeds. Torsion. Cancer. Entropian. Hip Dysplasia. Blindness. Different thing.
> 
> Am I the only one that can see that? Am I just going crazy?


They aren't allowed to put "old age" on someone's death certificate. There's always something they died of. Cancer, kidney failure, heart failure, etc. I would say a dog dying of one of those things at age 8 would be something worth looking into, the same way a human dying at age 60 of one of those things would be worth looking into. Yes, body parts wear out after a while but just wearing out doesn't kill you.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

missc89 said:


> Like I said, lots of advice from uneducated people. Now that I've been educated (thank you!) I will no longer be comparing Aussies to dogs such as the CKCS in the health department!


Yeah, aussies are absolutely not close at all to the CKCS in terms of health.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Ehh. I wouldn't call anyone unethical for getting a breed they love just because it is known for health issues. There are far too many breeds on that list. Something needs changed in the breed clubs and such.. but I really don't see how not buying them is going to help other than make the gene pool even smaller or make them extinct.


I don't mean that people are unethical for buying its just... An ethical dilemma for me. Everyone has their own line in the sand. For me if I feel like breeders are producing dogs that are less robust and healthy then that's my personal line.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

missc89 said:


> Yeah it's a really hard decision to make, especially with a G.D. because I _know_ the reason that it dies early is because it's been bred to be so huge it's heart cannot support it


This can't be true, can it? Horses are bigger than GDs. Elephants are way bigger than GDs. Their hearts do just fine. if that really is true I'd say there's something wrong in their breeding practices to breed dogs whose hearts can't keep up with their size.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> They aren't allowed to put "old age" on someone's death certificate. There's always something they died of. Cancer, kidney failure, heart failure, etc. I would say a dog dying of one of those things at age 8 would be something worth looking into, the same way a human dying at age 60 of one of those things would be worth looking into. Yes, body parts wear out after a while but just wearing out doesn't kill you.


And really most of the time we don't know why an old dog "slowed down." It's not like every old dog gets an autopsy after they die.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

To that, I have no idea. I've never seen "early aging" listed as a health problem. The original question sparked a discussion about whether someone would or wouldn't buy a particular breed knowing that it only has a certain expected life span, and knowing that they can be prone to specific medical conditions. The only point I was trying to make was that you can go into a certain breed knowing these things, and be lucky to end up with a dog that doesn't present with any of the expected medical problems, but still passes away within the expected/predicted age range. I really don't know why this is.

**ETA: I was truly not trying to get into an argument, and I feel like my comments have been misinterpreted here... or that I'm missing something really obvious... or that I'm losing my mind...


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

TGKvr said:


> The only point I was trying to make was that you can go into a certain breed knowing these things, and be lucky to end up with a dog that doesn't present with any of the expected medical problems, but still passes away within the expected/predicted age range. I really don't know why this is


I think what people are saying is... can you? Dogs don't just keel over for no reason, a dog that is 8 and still fit as a fiddle with everything functioning normally isn't an old dog, and so there isn't a reason you should be expecting them to be dying of old age.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I don't mean that people are unethical for buying its just... An ethical dilemma for me. Everyone has their own line in the sand. For me if I feel like breeders are producing dogs that are less robust and healthy then that's my personal line.


I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone. I was just stating an opinion as far as the original topic.  I agree.. everyone has their own line. 

I personally can't support Bulldogs.. although not to say there aren't healthier lines of Bulldog out there. I'm not going to judge people's choice of dog.. but I still think something needs done about that extremeness. 

Some might even have a line that won't cross into Aussies. Docking tails and I can tell you right now that most don't breed for MDR1 normal/normal dogs very often..


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

SamiSaysRawr said:


> I don't really see the point in getting a dog that's a puppy for 2 years, an adult for 2-3, and geriatric by 6 years old. These dogs are dying at the time most other breeds are 'hitting their prime'.


Uhhh... the point is that they're awesome and amazing dogs and every bit of the time you have with them is wonderful.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

TGKvr said:


> I've never seen "early aging" listed as a health problem.


Not meaning to pick on you but I think this is a very good point! Goes back to what's been said here about big dogs dying at 8 being ACCEPTED as normal. Maybe it shouldn't be listed as a health problem but still acknowledged as something that has the potential to be bred away from.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Effisia said:


> Uhhh... the point is that they're awesome and amazing dogs and every bit of the time you have with them is wonderful.


I can understand this 100% which is why I'm not saying don't get one. 

If Aussies lived for 6-10 years.. I'd still want another so much..


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

Willowy said:


> This can't be true, can it? Horses are bigger than GDs. Elephants are way bigger than GDs. Their hearts do just fine. if that really is true I'd say there's something wrong in their breeding practices to breed dogs whose hearts can't keep up with their size.


Horses and Elephants have evolved to have the proper sized organs for their bodies, and their evolution was left to their own devices, or Darwinism.

Dog breeds are a human creation, in the last 50 years alone we have bred dogs away from what their 'original' standard was, and in doing so, introduced a lot of health problems. (I'm trying to find the citation that says why the GD has such bad heart issues. I will PM it to you when I find it. I think it was an episode of Dogs 101 tbh)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> ETA: I was truly not trying to get into an argument, and I feel like my comments have been misinterpreted here... or that I'm missing something really obvious... or that I'm losing my mind...


Haha, I know the feeling! OK, what I see as obvious is that nobody dies of old age. It's not a disease. Age makes one more susceptible to disease but is not the actual disease. The medical community has moved away from treating old age as a disease, instead they try to get doctors to look for underlying diseases that can be treated. So whatever your dogs died of, may possibly be something that can be bred away from.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

missc89 said:


> Horses and Elephants have evolved to have the proper sized organs for their bodies, and their evolution was left to their own devices, or Darwinism.
> 
> Dog breeds are a human creation, in the last 50 years alone we have bred dogs away from what their 'original' standard was, and in doing so, introduced a lot of health problems. (I'm trying to find the citation that says why the GD has such bad heart issues. I will PM it to you when I find it. I think it was an episode of Dogs 101 tbh)


Yes, of course, I understand it's been bred into them. I'm just saying it's not purely a side effect of being large, it's a breeding issue. Either dogs are not supposed to be that large, and nature is trying to correct matters, or there's been some bad breeding going on in order to increase size ("oh, he's the biggest? Sure we'll breed him, even if he does have heart disease!").


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I can tell you right now that most don't breed for MDR1 normal/normal dogs very often..


Personally, I don't feel that they should be breeding normal/normal all the time, because it would cut too many dogs out of the gene pool. You can work towards that certainly, but with something that is so easy to test for and track across dogs, I don't think we need to say "all dogs with one copy of the gene need to be speutered immediately".

ETA: Also, more articles!
http://www.bestinshowdaily.com/blog/how-we-must-change-as-breeders-and-why-a-football-field-of-dogs/


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I knew a woman who had a pair of Irish wolfhounds. They weren't her first.

She was fond of telling people that she'd rather have an Irish wolfhound for five years than anything else for 15. After spending some time with those dogs, I could understand.

If longevity was the primary concern, we'd all get tortoises.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Yes, of course, I understand it's been bred into them. I'm just saying it's not purely a side effect of being large, it's a breeding issue. Either dogs are not supposed to be that large, and nature is trying to correct matters, or there's been some bad breeding going on in order to increase size ("oh, he's the biggest? Sure we'll breed him, even if he does have heart disease!").


They aren't supposed to be that large, just like how 'teacup' dogs have so many issues because they're not supposed to be that small.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Yes, of course, I understand it's been bred into them. I'm just saying it's not purely a side effect of being large, it's a breeding issue. Either dogs are not supposed to be that large, and nature is trying to correct matters, or there's been some bad breeding going on in order to increase size ("oh, he's the biggest? Sure we'll breed him, even if he does have heart disease!").





SamiSaysRawr said:


> They aren't supposed to be that large, just like how 'teacup' dogs have so many issues because they're not supposed to be that small.



Like Hank the huge "pit bull"?


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

RonE said:


> I knew a woman who had a pair of Irish wolfhounds. They weren't her first.
> 
> She was fond of telling people that she'd rather have an Irish wolfhound for five years than anything else for 15. After spending some time with those dogs, I could understand.
> 
> If longevity was the primary concern, we'd all get tortoises.


Or snakes, or lizards, or a parrot, because we KNOW those suckers live well in to their 20's and 40's!


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Haha, I know the feeling! OK, what I see as obvious is that nobody dies of old age. It's not a disease. Age makes one more susceptible to disease but is not the actual disease. The medical community has moved away from treating old age as a disease, instead they try to get doctors to look for underlying diseases that can be treated. So whatever your dogs died of, may possibly be something that can be bred away from.


I can get on board with this... and in truth, medical technology related to diagnostics has come a long way in the last 10-15 years. So maybe if we had the chance again, we'd discover something different now than we could at that time. Bear in mind this was 20 years ago, and we had been breeding for 20 years before that. But at that point, when the dogs went to the vet, they were simply classified as old. None of them developed cancer (they could screen for that then at least), none had HD, etc. So when they passed away, it wasn't entirely unexpected considering we were well aware of the average life span, and we weren't battling any particular health issues other than their bodies slowly failing.

I'm an advocate of responsible breeding and for trying to breed for better health. That's what some people are trying to do with the breed I currently have... take out all of the "problem" issues related to a lot of bulldogs and make them healthy. I haven't been involved with this breed long enough to know how that's really panning out big picture wise, but I'm hopeful. Certainly my girl is too young to say for sure if these improvements have bred true... but so far so good. She doesn't have breathing problems, she has a fairly dry mouth so not slobbery with drool, she has solid hips, her eyes are good... she does well in the heat so far as we can tell. So to my mind it seems like my breeder at least is on the right track. So it IS possible to make a healthier dog with selective breeding and I would support that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

SamiSaysRawr said:


> They aren't supposed to be that large, just like how 'teacup' dogs have so many issues because they're not supposed to be that small.


Yeah, it could be that dogs have a size they aren't supposed to be larger/small than. Like cats---do you know how much money you could make if you could make a domesticated cat that stays 1-2 pounds or is the size of a Golden Retriever? People have tried but it can't be done. Smallest seems to be about 4 pounds, largest seems to be about 20-25 pounds (if not fat), and even those sizes aren't consistent. Anything beyond that and they just don't survive. But dogs are more elastic genetically. So I'm not entirely sure if it's because people were only breeding for size and not health, or what. If they naturally can't be that big/small, I would think they'd die before being able to pass on their genes, so I'm more inclined to think it was just short-sighted breeding that got them that way.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

TGKvr said:


> So it IS possible to make a healthier dog with selective breeding and I would support that.


I second this


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

My problem with the "I'd rather have X breed for 5 years than any other breed for 15!" is that it is totally human-centric. There are only so many dogs I can see struck down and suffering from really serious diseases at a young age before it makes me really mad. Four year old goldens shouldn't be getting lymphoma and feeling like crap because "I'd rather have a golden for four years than any other breed for 15!" Watch a CKCS screaming in pain from SM or drowning from congestive heart failure and then excuse it as "I'd rather have a CKCS for shorter than another breed for longer!" 

And longevity doesn't have to be the _primary_ concern to be a concern at all.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, it could be that dogs have a size they aren't supposed to be larger/small than. Like cats---do you know how much money you could make if you could make a domesticated cat that stays 1-2 pounds or is the size of a Golden Retriever? People have tried but it can't be done. Smallest seems to be about 4 pounds, largest seems to be about 20-25 pounds (if not fat), and even those sizes aren't consistent. Anything beyond that and they just don't survive. But dogs are more elastic genetically. So I'm not entirely sure if it's because people were only breeding for size and not health, or what. If they naturally can't be that big/small, I would think they'd die before being able to pass on their genes, so I'm more inclined to think it was just short-sighted breeding that got them that way.


With the number of medical and technological advances that have been done throughout the years (and the more recent focus on health and what not), I think it may be fair to assume that, when dogs were bred in previous years, health issues may not even have been on the list of their concerns...


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> ETA: Also, more articles!
> http://www.bestinshowdaily.com/blog/how-we-must-change-as-breeders-and-why-a-football-field-of-dogs/


I LOVE this forum.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> ETA: Also, more articles!
> http://www.bestinshowdaily.com/blog/how-we-must-change-as-breeders-and-why-a-football-field-of-dogs/


I LOVE this forum!


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> ETA: Also, more articles!
> http://www.bestinshowdaily.com/blog/how-we-must-change-as-breeders-and-why-a-football-field-of-dogs/


This is why I love this forum.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

NICE article elrohwen! (Can't reply with quote or it goes to mod approval). I love this forum.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Canyx said:


> NICE article elrohwen! (Can't reply with quote or it goes to mod approval). I love this forum.


Just to mess with ya, I approved all three posts. They went to moderation, not because of the quote, but because of the link in the quote. Interesting that the original post with the link did NOT go to moderation. It's a very sophisticated system. 

I guess this is some kind of moderator job security, except it's not a job.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Hahahaha Canyx really really really loves this forum!  




sassafras said:


> My problem with the "I'd rather have X breed for 5 years than any other breed for 15!" is that it is totally human-centric. There are only so many dogs I can see struck down and suffering from really serious diseases at a young age before it makes me really mad. Four year old goldens shouldn't be getting lymphoma and feeling like crap because "I'd rather have a golden for four years than any other breed for 15!" Watch a CKCS screaming in pain from SM or drowning from congestive heart failure and then excuse it as "I'd rather have a CKCS for shorter than another breed for longer!"
> 
> And longevity doesn't have to be the _primary_ concern to be a concern at all.


Yes yes yes. This

These things are too accepted.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

RonE said:


> Just to mess with ya, I approved all three posts. They went to moderation, not because of the quote, but because of the link in the quote. Interesting that the original post with the link did NOT go to moderation. It's a very sophisticated system.
> 
> I guess this is some kind of moderator job security, except it's not a job.


I wrote the post, then remembered the article and edited it back in, so that's why it didn't go into moderation.

Why did that link specifically trigger moderation? Or is it links in general?


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

So I just thought of something and please pick it apart:

I am not willing to get a Golden or a Lab because (ime) they have been over-bred and all of the ones I meet do pass away from medical issues in earlier years than their breed standard says they should live. (enlarged heart, cancer, diabetes, etc...)

Yet I am willing to get a Great Dane because (again ime) I am seeing more and more breeders importing dogs from Europe to try and make better lines for their dogs.

The way I see it, longevity in life is only one part of the reason why I would adopt a dog, and known serious health issues (like with a CKCS) / recent overbreeding due to a boom in popularity (like the Huskies in England when Game of Thrones became really popular) is more of a deterrent than anything else.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

RonE said:


> Just to mess with ya, I approved all three posts. They went to moderation, not because of the quote, but because of the link in the quote. Interesting that the original post with the link did NOT go to moderation. It's a very sophisticated system.
> 
> I guess this is some kind of moderator job security, except it's not a job.


HAHAA! You trickster. But yes, I do really love this forum


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Links in general offer trigger things to go to moderation. 

And as an aside (or to backtrack, I guess), I am somewhat bewildered by the idea of an 8 year old dog acting old. My pyr was starting to be vaguely senior-like at about that age (very vaguely), but right now I live with TWO 8 year olds - Jack and Bug. Even Bug, for all her issues, is basically indistinguishable from a 4-5 year old dog. I mean, I realize they are getting older and they've both got a little gray and I guess they might LOOK a little older, but slowing down, acting painful, sleeping all the time, losing stamina or general condition? Not even close. I can't imagine them being near DEATH from anything I associate with old age.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

missc89 said:


> So I just thought of something and please pick it apart:
> 
> I am not willing to get a Golden or a Lab because (ime) they have been over-bred and all of the ones I meet do pass away from medical issues in earlier years than their breed standard says they should live. (enlarged heart, cancer, diabetes, etc...)
> 
> ...


I think the whole excuse about a breed spiking in popularity due to tv/movies, and then spiraling into aggression and health problems because of "bad breeders", is way overblown and often a myth. Sure, maybe for a few months or a year after some movie came out there was a bit of a population boom, but I just do not buy (and do not see the evidence to support) that it has a serious impact on the breed. Often these breeds were overbred before the movie came out, or already had the issues that people later attribute to a Disney movie. Population booms and busts do have a negative effect on breeds, but they usually have nothing to do with popular media.

Huskies, specifically, are usually a very healthy breed. I know a breeder and her dogs routinely live to 14-15 years old, and health issues are minimal - that is not unusual in the breed. There have been a bunch of movies in the past 20 years featuring huskies, but I don't see the breed as a whole spiraling down in aggressive unhealthy dogs. 

I don't deny that overbreeding by people who don't know or don't care about health is a problem, but I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be either. And plenty of golden and lab breeders are trying hard to improve the health of their breeds, so how is that any different from the great dane breeders?


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

Sorry, but there was a 700% jump in Huskies that were dropped in pounds due to Game of Thrones and Twilight

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lamed-huge-rise-number-huskies-abandoned.html

And here's another article depicting that movies may in fact determine which breeds become popular

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/top-dogs-movies-may-determine-which-pups-are-most-popular

And another

http://www.petsadviser.com/pet-health/hollywood-dog-curse/

And I remember reading similar news articles after 101 Dalmations came out.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

missc89 said:


> Sorry, but there was a 700% jump in Huskies that were dropped in pounds due to Game of Thrones and Twilight
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lamed-huge-rise-number-huskies-abandoned.html


Yes, but has that effected the breed as a whole negatively? I just don't see the correlation. Yes, more people bought huskies. More huskies ended up in shelters. But are those dogs automatically sickly with poor temperaments? And are they necessarily entering the gene pool as breeding dogs?

It's certainly sad that those dogs are dumped in shelters, and that some people bred a few more litters because people suddenly wanted huskies, but I haven't seen the evidence that this type of thing really has a long term effect on breed health. At least not as much as natural booms and busts in breed populations that occur over decades.

For example, there is evidence that 101 Dalmatians was not the cause of the dalmatian population boom. Correlation, but not causation.
http://www.border-wars.com/2013/05/dont-blame-disney-for-dalmatians.html


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yes, but Huskies even with the popularity are STILL an overall really healthy, temperamentally sound breed. (And it's not as though it's a new thing with Huskies - they saw a similar spike around Snow Dogs )

So... where's the disconnect in there? Why are CKS really unhealthy, but huskies aren't? 

My theory involves how much crossing goes on with the breed and in the gene pool, thanks to the working population. Not because there is a working population, but how willingly those owners WILL outcross. Which, IMO, are a lot more than labs or goldens.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

I think I am deviating from my point - I was only using Huskies as an example of a dog breed that had a spike in popularity. I could have easily used Dalmatian's as an example.

CptJack - I'm kind of with you in the way that, dogs that are closest to their ancient breeds have less health issues, like the New Guinea Singing Dog, Alaskan Malamute, Basenji, etc... but those that have been bred over and over again by people have the most health issues, like Shih-Tzu's, Goldens/Labs, etc...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Yes, but Huskies even with the popularity are STILL an overall really healthy, temperamentally sound breed. (And it's not as though it's a new thing with Huskies - they saw a similar spike around Snow Dogs )
> 
> So... where's the disconnect in there? Why are CKS really unhealthy, but huskies aren't?
> 
> My theory involves how much crossing goes on with the breed and in the gene pool, thanks to the working population. Not because there is a working population, but how willingly those owners WILL outcross. Which, IMO, are a lot more than labs or goldens.


I don't get the impression that field bred goldens have a low incidence of cancer. There is evidence that cancer is a founder effect which is why it's widespread across the retrievers and related breeds. 

I don't think the show husky people are still outcrossing to working dogs anymore, but I do think the fact that the breed started as a working breed, and one where unfit dogs were quickly culled from the breeding population, has an effect on their health now. 

But yeah, overall I totally agree with the points you are making. Dogs bred to do work, or recently bred to do work, are typically healthier.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

sassafras said:


> My problem with the "I'd rather have X breed for 5 years than any other breed for 15!" is that it is totally human-centric. There are only so many dogs I can see struck down and suffering from really serious diseases at a young age before it makes me really mad. Four year old goldens shouldn't be getting lymphoma and feeling like crap because "I'd rather have a golden for four years than any other breed for 15!" Watch a CKCS screaming in pain from SM or drowning from congestive heart failure and then excuse it as "I'd rather have a CKCS for shorter than another breed for longer!"
> 
> And longevity doesn't have to be the _primary_ concern to be a concern at all.


I agree with this. And to me it isn't so much a longevity-centric thing as it is a potential and responsibility thing. If a breed had a 7 year average lifespan and was, completely unrealistically, happy and frolicking until it dropped dead one day, one might say "Why does lifespan matter if it was happy all its life? Why does a dog 'need' to live till 12?" I mean, keep a dog well into its years, 13...16... there is still suffering and the dog doesn't know any better whether it's young or old or above or below the average lifespan. But to me, dogs in this day and age are products of human selfishness, whether for work or companionship or collection, whatever. I think quality of life matters more than quantity and that it isn't necessarily wrong to breed short lived dogs IF longevity is the only issue... But rather, because we took this species and we breed selectively, the greatest justice we can do for dogs is to breed them to be the best they can be. And breeding dogs that die at 8 might not be causing individual dogs more suffering, but accepting that as the norm is... MORE selfish than what dog breeding already is.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Cavs are unhealthy because they were founded on a very very tiny population. And I'm assuming at least one of the founders was carrying some nasty genes.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

missc89 said:


> I think I am deviating from my point - I was only using Huskies as an example of a dog breed that had a spike in popularity. I could have easily used Dalmatian's as an example.


Yes, read the link I posted. The point I'm making is that spikes in breeds are not all that related to movies and tv, and spikes in breeds are not necessarily linked to health either. There are spikes, and they are not good for the breed (or the crashes that follow the spikes are not good), but those happen in lots of breeds for lots of reasons.

Lots of breeds that were never all that popular have a lot of health issues. And some that are popular have health issues because of founder effects, not because they are overbred or bred by "bad breeders". "Overbreeding" is kind of a catchall for why breeds have problems, but it's not specific and not based on anything. It's just an answer that feels right, because "blame the BYBs" feels good to us and lets us keep the responsible breeders on a pedestal. But it's not that simple. Some of the genetic issues are so ingrained that it doesn't matter how responsible people try to be, they will not fix it without a radical change in the way we breed.

Look at flat coats. From what I can tell, the breed community is excellent and tries very hard to fix their breed, but they still have one of the highest rates of cancer. You can't put cancer in goldens down to just "bad breeders" or "overbreeding".


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Effisia said:


> Uhhh... the point is that they're awesome and amazing dogs and every bit of the time you have with them is wonderful.


ALL dogs are awesome and amazing and every second you have is wonderful. 

I mean Mia is the best dog I've ever had bar none. I love her so much. She will probably die young for her breed. Just because she's the best dog and the 4 healthy years I had with her were the best years of owning a dog in my life doesn't mean I should breed her. It would be unethical to breed her. 

To me there's a disconnect somewhere and honestly, I don't get this mindset at all.

What if you can capture all the traits you love about a breed and then by some tweaks you can put what you love into a healthier package? Isn't that ideal?


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

elrohwen said:


> Yes, read the link I posted. The point I'm making is that spikes in breeds are not all that related to movies and tv. There are spikes, and they are not good for the breed (or the crashes that follow the spikes are not good), but those happen in lots of breeds for lots of reasons.


Definitely reading the link you posted!

@Laurelin - I think that's what I'm trying to say, that longevity doesn't matter if you have healthy dogs, and if you have an unhealthy dog, then don't breed it, and make sure you can make it as comfortable as you can for the rest of its life.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Links in general offer trigger things to go to moderation.
> 
> And as an aside (or to backtrack, I guess), I am somewhat bewildered by the idea of an 8 year old dog acting old. My pyr was starting to be vaguely senior-like at about that age (very vaguely), but right now I live with TWO 8 year olds - Jack and Bug. Even Bug, for all her issues, is basically indistinguishable from a 4-5 year old dog. I mean, I realize they are getting older and they've both got a little gray and I guess they might LOOK a little older, but slowing down, acting painful, sleeping all the time, losing stamina or general condition? Not even close. I can't imagine them being near DEATH from anything I associate with old age.


This. Rosie will be 9 next month, and she still acts the same as she did when she was 4. Aside from her greying, (then again she started greying at 3!) you wouldn't be able to tell.

I'd rather my 'awesome and amazing time' to be as long as possible. Longevity is one of the things I would be looking for if I were to get a different breed.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

missc89 said:


> Definitely reading the link you posted - in fact, I saved it as a favourite too.
> 
> @Laurelin - I think that's what I'm trying to say, that longevity doesn't matter if you have healthy dogs, and if you have an unhealthy dog, then don't breed it, and make sure you can make it as comfortable as you can for the rest of its life.


But healthy dogs ARE long lived. That's what I'm trying to say.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

Laurelin said:


> But healthy dogs ARE long lived. That's what I'm trying to say.


See and this is where I think I am getting confused - because a healthy Great Dane will still only have a 6 - 8 year 'average' life span, but according to this thread, regardless of the fact that it is a happy and healthy dog, I shouldn't get it because it won't live long enough?

Just trying to understand where everyone is coming from!!


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

missc89 said:


> Definitely reading the link you posted - in fact, I saved it as a favourite too.
> 
> @Laurelin - I think that's what I'm trying to say, that longevity doesn't matter if you have healthy dogs, and if you have an unhealthy dog, then don't breed it, and make sure you can make it as comfortable as you can for the rest of its life.


But what we're saying is that longetivity is connected to health. Dogs don't just die young because they got old faster. Something happens in those dogs. And often, they are dying young after some very painful diseases that are genetic in nature.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

missc89 said:


> A healthy Great Dane isn't though? Well, not long if you're counting life-span expectancy.


Why are those great danes dying young? Because of heart issues? Then that's not a healthy dog. That's a dog who has to suffer with heart issues. Or if cancer is more common in large dogs (which it is) maybe we shouldn't be breeding dogs so large.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Slightly off topic but I also think people 'prematurely age' their dogs by treating their dogs certain ways based on age alone and not actual health of the dog. Like, "my dog is 7 so it's a senior now and I should probably start toning things down a bit.' And I'm not saying run your dog like it's a 4 year old dog until you see it hobbling. But age is really just a suggestion (outside of the extremes; puppies are puppies and not denying that dogs do eventually get old and slow down) and not a rule of how any dog should act.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

missc89 said:


> A healthy Great Dane isn't though? Well, not long if you're counting life-span expectancy.


It's not healthy if it's dying at 6 or 7, the leading causes being bloat, DCM and other heart conditions, and cancer.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

missc89 said:


> See and this is where I think I am getting confused - because a healthy Great Dane will still only have a 6 - 8 year 'average' life span, but according to this thread, regardless of the fact that it is a happy and healthy dog, I shouldn't get it because it won't live long enough?
> 
> Just trying to understand where everyone is coming from!!


I would reword it as 'Great Danes as a breed are so unhealthy that they only have a 6-8 year average lifespan.' And I would never use that as a reason to tell anyone not to get a certain breed, but it would be folly to say this is how Danes are and we NEED to just accept that this breed dies young.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

Canyx said:


> I would reword it as 'Great Danes as a breed are so unhealthy that they only have a 6-8 year average lifespan.' And I would never use that as a reason to tell anyone not to get a certain breed, but it would be folly to say this is how Danes are and we NEED to just accept that this breed dies young.


THANK you! NOW I get it! And also agree with you, and now I'm sad because I probably won't be getting my Great Dane anymore


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Canyx said:


> I would reword it as 'Great Danes as a breed are so unhealthy that they only have a 6-8 year average lifespan.' And I would never use that as a reason to tell anyone not to get a certain breed, but it would be folly to say this is how Danes are and we NEED to just accept that this breed dies young.


Yes! That pretty much sums up the entire thread in two sentences.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

missc89 said:


> See and this is where I think I am getting confused - because a healthy Great Dane will still only have a 6 - 8 year 'average' life span, but according to this thread, regardless of the fact that it is a happy and healthy dog, I shouldn't get it because it won't live long enough?
> 
> Just trying to understand where everyone is coming from!!


That average is so low because so many dogs are dying young from things like bloat, DCM and cancer. 40% of Great Danes will get bloat at some point, and 29% of those dogs will die from it.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

Also explains why I was probably frustrating the crap out of you guys (really sorry!) Because in my mind I was all "well if I can FIND a healthy Great Dane why WOULDN'T it be okay if I had it!?" but its because it's a bigger problem than just what I (was) seeing. 

They say that ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is power, amirite? This thread is making me REALLY sad, but I'm glad I know better now.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

missc89 said:


> Also explains why I was probably frustrating the crap out of you guys (really sorry!) Because in my mind I was all "well if I can FIND a healthy Great Dane why WOULDN'T it be okay if I had it!?" but its because it's a bigger problem than just what I (was) seeing.
> 
> They say that ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is power, amirite?


Yes, the problem with some of these breeds is that there aren't any healthy dogs, not really. Sure, there are individuals who manage to avoid cancer or live a bit longer than the average, but looked at as a population they are not healthy.

Breeders try hard to breed healthier individuals, they really do try, but when the genes that cause these problems are so widespread there's really nothing you can do, especially when they are not simple recessives that you can test for. It's not the good breeders trying to fix the problems the bad BYBers have caused - it's the good breeders against a breed that just will not be healthy unless something drastic is done (like outcrossing).


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Tons of things but I just have to add... I've never really seen labs listed in the "overbred to the detriment of their health as a breed" category until this convo- interesting, I don't think of them that way at all. Goldens however yes- the reason why I'm staying with labs and won't go into goldens. For op question, same thing. Me personally, ethics and everything I'm just not comfortable with the breeds with tons of health issues. Berners, ckcs, goldens, and tollers are all breeds I would've liked to own otherwise, sadly.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

And just throwing it out again that everyone has a different line in the sand for ok and not ok. There's a lot of traits that aren't 'ideal' but also aren't detrimental. And a lot of grey.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Rescued said:


> Tons of things but I just have to add... I've never really seen labs listed in the "overbred to the detriment of their health as a breed" category until this convo- interesting, I don't think of them that way at all. Goldens however yes- the reason why I'm staying with labs and won't go into goldens. For op question, same thing. Me personally, ethics and everything I'm just not comfortable with the breeds with tons of health issues. Berners, ckcs, goldens, and tollers are all breeds I would've liked to own otherwise, sadly.


I think labs are pretty average as far as health and life expectancy goes? I've certainly not seen a horrible amount of issues in them. Or GSDs either and they often get painted as being unhealthy. Most labs and GSDs seem to live decent to good life spans especially for their size.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

Whenever I was about 8, Cavaliers were one of my favourite breeds. Unfortunately I will probably never own one now because of how awful they are genetically. Unless some breeders decide to outcross of course.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> Slightly off topic but I also think people 'prematurely age' their dogs by treating their dogs certain ways based on age alone and not actual health of the dog. Like, "my dog is 7 so it's a senior now and I should probably start toning things down a bit.' And I'm not saying run your dog like it's a 4 year old dog until you see it hobbling. But age is really just a suggestion (outside of the extremes; puppies are puppies and not denying that dogs do eventually get old and slow down) and not a rule of how any dog should act.


I honestly blame a lot of this on nonsense like 'senior food' and other marketing things that are basically telling you that if your dog is over 7 it is old and it needs special care. I kind of think, relatedly, that maybe that's also part of why people hear 8-10 years as a lifespan and don't recoil. Because that's REALLY OLD FOR A DOG! SEVEN is really old for a dog! Says all the marketing out there, ever.

(As an aside, Rat Terriers have an impressive lifespan. 17-18? Not bad.)


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I think labs are pretty average as far as health and life expectancy goes? I've certainly not seen a horrible amount of issues in them. Or GSDs either and they often get painted as being unhealthy. Most labs and GSDs seem to live decent to good life spans especially for their size.


Agreed with this. If the cancer thing is a founder effect, somehow it hit goldens and flat coats and not labs. Outcrossing to labs seems like a pretty obvious option to me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> Links in general offer trigger things to go to moderation.
> 
> And as an aside (or to backtrack, I guess), I am somewhat bewildered by the idea of an 8 year old dog acting old. My pyr was starting to be vaguely senior-like at about that age (very vaguely), but right now I live with TWO 8 year olds - Jack and Bug. Even Bug, for all her issues, is basically indistinguishable from a 4-5 year old dog. I mean, I realize they are getting older and they've both got a little gray and I guess they might LOOK a little older, but slowing down, acting painful, sleeping all the time, losing stamina or general condition? Not even close. I can't imagine them being near DEATH from anything I associate with old age.


I know! My dogs have only just recently started slowing down at age 12  (side note: WHY did I get 3 dogs the same age?). I can't imagine them being this way 4 WHOLE YEARS AGO. But they're still pretty peppy overall. 

I do think lifestyle has something to do with it. Not enough activity, too much food, too low-quality of food, etc. If I made you eat a low-protein diet you wouldn't feel too peppy either.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> This can't be true, can it? Horses are bigger than GDs. Elephants are way bigger than GDs. Their hearts do just fine. if that really is true I'd say there's something wrong in their breeding practices to breed dogs whose hearts can't keep up with their size.


I don't think you can really compare between species... Evolutionarily, there is an "ideal" body size, where the amount of food required to survive/thrive and the ability to obtain said food are optimized for maximum production and that isn't going to be the same for all species.

Even in humans, evidence indicates that the larger you are (height and weight) the more likely you are to die earlier, even with all other factors being equal.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

I have a friend whose Goldens have lived to be 13 and 16. She has one now who is 12 and in good health. They are or were all field/obedience lines, and I know several other people with senior dogs from similar lines. Is cancer really ravaging the breed as a whole? Is it most common in BYB lines (which, of course, is where most Goldens come from)? 

I don't know, but I'm always a little surprised when people talk as though Goldens are the ultimate example of a horribly short-lived cancer-riddled breed. Everyone seems to think this is true, and maybe it is, but it just seems strange to me because that hasn't been my experience. But then, I've never owned a Golden.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Friend of mine just lost a 16 year old golden. I honestly haven't seen them have that many issues but I'm also jot a vet like Sass is.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Shep said:


> I have a friend whose Goldens have lived to be 13 and 16. She has one now who is 12 and in good health. They are or were all field/obedience lines, and I know several other people with senior dogs from similar lines. Is cancer really ravaging the breed as a whole? Is it most common in BYB lines (which, of course, is where most Goldens come from)?
> 
> I don't know, but I'm always a little surprised when people talk as though Goldens are the ultimate example of a horribly short-lived cancer-riddled breed. Everyone seems to think this is true, and maybe it is, but it just seems strange to me because that hasn't been my experience. But then, I've never owned a Golden.


Like people have said, there are lines of goldens that are healthier. Unfortunately, your evidence is anecdotal. But it seems like it would all around for the breed to not be so obsessed with keeping them a breed. I feel like out-crossing goldens would actually be pretty easy.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> I think labs are pretty average as far as health and life expectancy goes? I've certainly not seen a horrible amount of issues in them. Or GSDs either and they often get painted as being unhealthy. Most labs and GSDs seem to live decent to good life spans especially for their size.


Because Labs (and GSD's) are a very common breed, in fact, the most common registered breed, vets see lots of them, and there have been reports of Labs getting almost every disease in the book. But if you look at disease incidence, they tend to be pretty healthy dogs. If you read Mary Rosyln Williams, you'll find lots of gripes about outcrossing to hounds and other breeds/landraces back between the world wars and into the 1950s. Maybe all the impurities have helped the breed stay healthy. In any case . .. if you go to breed a Lab, you're never starved for choice . . . lots of healthy studs available of every type in the book. It also helps that the breed standard makes much of the word balance. Labs could get in trouble from people demanding broad heads (block head labs . . . or boofy heads). There are people who seem to prefer Labs that look like Rottis. But many moderate dogs still do well in the ring . . . not to mention as service dogs, hunting dogs, and dock diving/agility/tracking, etc.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Friend of mine just lost a 16 year old golden. I honestly haven't seen them have that many issues but I'm also jot a vet like Sass is.


A friend of ours has had 4 goldens in the last 10 years (including her current dog, who is ~3 years old.) Only one of them made it to age 10; one died at 4 and one died at 6, both of cancer. Similarly, my husband's aunt had a golden; he made it almost to 11 despite a ton of health problems (epilepsy, reduced kidney function, pancreatitis), but he outlived several of his siblings who died of liver cancer (he did too, in the end).


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I do see people talk about overbreeding and I have nooooo idea what that means. Generally larger population and larger diversity is good. Underbreeding is more of a concern. 

That is interesting about labs though. I'm not too big on that breeds history.


----------



## Sandakat (Mar 7, 2015)

I may be dwelling on stuff from a few pages ago, but I'm still having problems with the whole "ethics" thing. It may just be semantics, but I don't think it's "unethical" to breed a dog with a shorter lifespan if you are trying to better the breed overall. There may be a number of things the breeder is trying to correct over the course of years and the lifespan may be further down on the list. In a lot of breeds, fixing some problems may positively affect the lifespan, but other things, like hip dysplasia, may not.

Sort of tangential to this, I do feel that there are breeds that are so generally unhealthy that keeping them the way they are is unethical. English Bulldogs come to mind primarily.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> I so see people talk about overbreeding and I have nooooo idea what that means. Generally larger population and larger diversity is good. Underbreeding is more of a concern.
> 
> That is interesting about labs though. I'm not too big on that breeds history.


Maybe they mean overbreeding a few studs so that the "market" is saturated with their genetic material?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

General question to think about. 

Which is better to breed. 

1. Purebred dog that is a champion and beautiful but who will die at age 8 to breed specific issues?

2. Mixed breed dog that will live to 15 and be functional and healthy that whole time. 

Would you be ok with people breeding mixes if their dogs only lived to 6-8 years on average?


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

gingerkid said:


> A friend of ours has had 4 goldens in the last 10 years (including her current dog, who is ~3 years old.) Only one of them made it to age 10; one died at 4 and one died at 6, both of cancer. Similarly, my husband's aunt had a golden; he made it almost to 11 despite a ton of health problems (epilepsy, reduced kidney function, pancreatitis), but he outlived several of his siblings who died of liver cancer (he did too, in the end).


I know someone with two Golden's. Both are alive today. One is currently 13 and the other, I believe, is 15. Age is catching up to them but they are still pretty healthy. AND they have lived their entire lives on a purely vegan diet! I still think the breed as whole is pretty unhealthy, though.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

There is an awesome performance golden kennel near me. Like, tons of otch and mach dogs. They cross in field, obedience, and confo lines. There is a page on their website about how cancer is so prevalent in the breed and though they do the best they can they would be lying to pretend it couldn't be an issue in their dogs. So if one of the more respected breeders admits it's a big deal I tend to believe it.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

ireth0 said:


> I think what people are saying is... can you? Dogs don't just keel over for no reason, a dog that is 8 and still fit as a fiddle with everything functioning normally isn't an old dog, and so there isn't a reason you should be expecting them to be dying of old age.


Yes. I will use my old girl Queenie as an example. She was already rather visually grey and lumpy by age 8, and her energy level started to go down somewhat. However, as of age 13 she still has apparent full function in all organs, no serious orthopedic issues, and is able to fully participate in normal activities, albeit at a slower pace. She has gotten old, but she has not gotten ill. When a creature lives long enough eventually some key body part will give out, or some cell will go rogue and create cancer, but there's no good reason to accept that it's routine for that to happen very early in an entire subpopulation of a species that is otherwise longer-lived. Do the longest-lived giants like Malamutes live less long than some of the longest-lived small dogs like rat terriers? Sure. To me that's a pretty acceptable level of variation, might just be the cost of being a big canine. But an average individual from both populations can be expected to make it well into their teens. That's a huge contrast with a breed like Berners where an average individual may live literally half as long as a Malamute. To me it's kind of crazy to accept that as OK. If a human died of "old age" at 45 we wouldn't accept that explanation, and would be trying to figure out what ailment actually killed them, or what accelerated senescence. 

To me, unanticipated heart failure at age 14 in a dog, well, okay, maybe something was going to give out eventually and the heart went first. Heart failure at age 9...there is a specific problem with that heart, probably structural or heritable heart disease, if it's not due to disease or parasites.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

I really think my husband would like a CKCS. But he'll never have one because I don't want him to have the heartbreak.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

elrohwen said:


> There is an awesome performance golden kennel near me. Like, tons of otch and mach dogs. They cross in field, obedience, and confo lines. There is a page on their website about how cancer is so prevalent in the breed and though they do the best they can they would be lying to pretend it couldn't be an issue in their dogs. So if one of the more respected breeders admits it's a big deal I tend to believe it.


Yeah looking at a breeder I am vaguely familiar with.... every single one that has a cause of death listed is cancer of some kind.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

When I think of over-breeding, I am talking about the BYB's and the Puppy Mills and the people who don't take breeding seriously like some of the members on here. Sadly, my ex-breeder comes to mind and makes me even HAPPIER that I switched when I did. 

One thing I hadn't mentioned (probably out of embarrassment) was that, when I was there, one of her male dogs that she had JUST retired was showing advanced signs of cancer, and she admitted that she had already found lumps on him. 

Overbreeding to me is : breeding unhealthy dogs for the sake of making money off of the puppy, not caring about lineage or the breed standard.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

^^Honestly I think some breeds are better off in the hands of people who don't care about the breed standard.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

missc89 said:


> When I think of over-breeding, I am talking about the BYB's and the Puppy Mills and the people who don't take breeding seriously like some of the members on here. Sadly, my ex-breeder comes to mind and makes me even HAPPIER that I switched when I did.
> 
> One thing I hadn't mentioned (probably out of embarrassment) was that, when I was there, one of her male dogs that she had JUST retired was showing advanced signs of cancer, and she admitted that she had already found lumps on him.
> 
> Overbreeding to me is : breeding unhealthy dogs for the sake of making money off of the puppy, not caring about lineage or the breed standard.


I would prefer to call that wrongful breeding.


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

pawsaddict said:


> I would prefer to call that wrongful breeding.


Sounds a lot better to me too! Thanks!


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

longevity was the largest reason I went with Sola's breeding. I lost my previous Toller at 8 years old. that's pathetic. a 30lbs dog only living to 8 years? and when I looked up her relatives 4 other siblings had already passed away before her...that's FIVE 30-40lbs dogs dead before 8 years and not a single one was an accident. that is not OK. 

Sola's Dam is 7 years old, her sire is 9, their parents are still alive and there grandparents are still around. the majority of Canada's oldest living Tollers are directly related to Sola, her great grandmother JUST passed away like 2 days ago. at nearly 17 years old(16 years and 9 months). after losing Baby so young, longevity was a major driving force behind my decision. 

there are several breeds that I adore, but will never own because the health problems and drastically reduced lifespans scare the heck out of me but there are lines that do beat the odds..and those lines should not be lost. my bosses great danes mom is 15.5, his great dane is 12 and she has a 10 year old daughter. THAT is something to be proud of IMO.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Sandakat said:


> I may be dwelling on stuff from a few pages ago, but I'm still having problems with the whole "ethics" thing. It may just be semantics, but I don't think it's "unethical" to breed a dog with a shorter lifespan if you are trying to better the breed overall. *There may be a number of things the breeder is trying to correct over the course of years and the lifespan may be further down on the list. *In a lot of breeds, fixing some problems may positively affect the lifespan, but other things, like hip dysplasia, may not.
> 
> Sort of tangential to this, I do feel that there are breeds that are so generally unhealthy that keeping them the way they are is unethical. English Bulldogs come to mind primarily.


Bolded part is what I find problematic. Of course I would support a breeder aiming to correct health problems. But longevity, imo, should trump all. If you are breeding to increase that, I think you naturally have to breed out health problems that would hurt quality of life. Like, I'm not sure you meant it that way, but the idea that lifespan could not be the top of anyone's list (assuming it is a good quality life), especially a breeder's list, is quite frankly disturbing. Or at least unsettling.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

I never thought of Tollers as being an unhealthy breed. Is that really the case with them?


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

gingerkid said:


> A friend of ours has had 4 goldens in the last 10 years (including her current dog, who is ~3 years old.) Only one of them made it to age 10; one died at 4 and one died at 6, both of cancer. Similarly, my husband's aunt had a golden; he made it almost to 11 despite a ton of health problems (epilepsy, reduced kidney function, pancreatitis), but he outlived several of his siblings who died of liver cancer (he did too, in the end).


Sounds like my experience. Our Golden died at 10 (cancer - was diagnosed at 8 though, surgery helped for a bit). Friends two littermates just died within a month of each other (10, cancer, both had different types). Uncles 2 Goldens both died at 10 and 11 (cancer). Grandma's Lab died at 10 also, cancer. Another friends Golden died at 9 from cancer. My grandma's Golden was the longest lived I had ever met - she was approx 13 and my grandma told me she died of natural causes.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CrimsonAccent said:


> Bolded part is what I find problematic. Of course I would support a breeder aiming to correct health problems. But longevity, imo, should trump all. If you are breeding to increase that, I think you naturally have to breed out health problems that would hurt quality of life. Like, I'm not sure you meant it that way, but the idea that lifespan could not be the top of anyone's list (assuming it is a good quality life), especially a breeder's list, is quite frankly disturbing. Or at least unsettling.


I don't exactly agree with that. Temperament and metal stability should trump all. No one wants a bunch of long-lived crazy neurotic dogs. But I understand what you're saying.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

CrimsonAccent said:


> Bolded part is what I find problematic. Of course I would support a breeder aiming to correct health problems. But longevity, imo, should trump all. If you are breeding to increase that, I think you naturally have to breed out health problems that would hurt quality of life. Like, I'm not sure you meant it that way, but the idea that lifespan could not be the top of anyone's list (assuming it is a good quality life), especially a breeder's list, is quite frankly disturbing. Or at least unsettling.


Well.... yes and no? I mean if you're dealing with life-threatening issues first, obviously lifespan is going to increase as an offshoot, and obviously life threatening issues are the biggest issues, so letting those slide is not a good idea. It's also pretty crappy to fix one issue if it comes along with a life-span shortening issue.

But. Average lifespan for Boston Terriers is 15 years. I don't think most people would say they're particularly healthy, as a breed, or there's nothing breeders should be working on to improve their health. There is more to breeding for health than average lifespan. 

Conversely, GSD live on average 11 years. Their lifespan could be improved. So could the percentage of dogs with hd and ed. Which of those is the priority, and how do you separate the two things, ANYWAY? (Ie: how many are dying or being put to sleep as a result of HD at earlier ages than they might otherwise?) (I am not picking on GSDs, just pulling a breed out where I know there's a lot going on and lifespan isn't super high).

It's just not as cut and dry as 'breed for dogs to stay alive longer'. I don't think length of lifespan SHOULD be the top priority, as a standalone. That's okay, because frankly? It can't be, not really.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Fair enough. I guess I was considering healthy to cover mental and physical health. An unstable dog can have a questionable quality of life, which is why I mentioned a good quality of life with longevity.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

For less anecdotal information I'd recommed the Finnish KC database.
http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmTerveystilastot.aspx?R=312&Lang=en scroll to get breed . . . choose health statistics, scroll to cause of death.

The finnish data has goldies living slightly longer than Labs . . . Tollers die younger on average.

IMO ALL kennel clubs should be tracking age and cause of death and making the data available. . . seems to me if you care about dog health, vital statistics need to be tracked and transparent.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

We chose a mastiff. And we won the gamble.

My parents took Clyde to a dog park the other day and there were 2 mastiffs there. One was the same age as him. My parents thought she was 10-12, her owner thought Clyde was under 2 years old, and both are 7 years old.

I really need to go find out what lines Clyde came out of, because he is spry, "small", lean, and free of displaysia and known cancers. He is a randomly bred BYB purebred, but whatever he has behind him has good joints because the breeder had a guarantee in his contract for good hips and elbows.

It really is amazing how some breeds are longer lived when from random-bred BYB-from-puppymill-lines settings.




> I never thought of Tollers as being an unhealthy breed. Is that really the case with them?


It's mainly the big C if I'm not mistaken. Their effective population size is pathetic, and that's why they have also been at the center of the stupid outcross controversy.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

I guess it's also linked in my head. Like, by breeding out bad hearts, bad joints, etc. the quality and length of life should generally go up, shouldn't it? (And maybe this just applies more to breeds with the 8 year life span than to just every breed ever.)


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

CrimsonAccent said:


> I guess it's also linked in my head. Like, by breeding out bad hearts, bad joints, etc. the quality and length of life should generally go up, shouldn't it? (And maybe this just applies more to breeds with the 8 year life span than to just every breed ever.)


I think I get what your saying, you breed out cancer in Goldens they are gonna Start to live longer. Considering that what seems to kill most of the. 

So I think breeding for longer lifespan starts with the diseases themselves that are making for a shorter lifespan. 

It's been said here a lot, it's not that they love happy healthy lives and lay down and die at 8 of natural causes. It's disease that's killing them, so kill the disease you would in theory kill the short lifespan.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Exactly, that's more of what I was trying to get at. I was oversimplifying by just saying breed for longevity and that's it.


----------



## Sandakat (Mar 7, 2015)

CrimsonAccent said:


> I guess it's also linked in my head. Like, by breeding out bad hearts, bad joints, etc. the quality and length of life should generally go up, shouldn't it? (And maybe this just applies more to breeds with the 8 year life span than to just every breed ever.)


 I was thinking in terms of a breeder choosing to breed longer lived dogs, who might not be that healthy, but who crank along (Hip dysplasia came to mind as one possibility) just because they lived longer vs breeding for a healthier overall dog. A healthier dog should be a longer lived dog, but that might not correlate directly.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> ALL dogs are awesome and amazing and every second you have is wonderful.
> 
> I mean Mia is the best dog I've ever had bar none. I love her so much. She will probably die young for her breed. Just because she's the best dog and the 4 healthy years I had with her were the best years of owning a dog in my life doesn't mean I should breed her. It would be unethical to breed her.
> 
> ...


I guess? Though, I'd prefer finding a breeder who was doing all the things I liked/desired in my chosen breed. Which is what we did! I think 14 healthy years is pretty good, actually, to be perfectly honest. I mean, growing up I had a mini poodle and by the end he was mostly blind and deaf with arthritis and a sensitive tummy and just a grumpy old man, but he lived to 18 so I guess that's a win.

Regardless, I don't think we're getting another Newfie after Annabel. My husband will be wrecked and doesn't want another one so soon after her. Plus there are a ton of other breeds I want to own (but at this point I consider Eurasiers "my breed" and I'll always want one of our two dogs to be a Eurasier). Hubby is looking at a Pyr, which I have to work on convincing him is NOT just a white Newf :/ My guess would be a golden, but again, we'd look for breeders who import and whose lines I'm comfortable with. 

You're right, though. It all comes down to personal lines in the sand. This isn't necessarily one for me, but on the other hand, I wouldn't go to a Newf breeder who has dogs dying young. Or a higher rate of HD or SAS or bloat.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Wow this seems like a hot topic, late to the convo but here goes... we started out with Boxers/ not known for longevity/ with good care and exercise our backyard boy was put down at 10(joint issues)... not bad/ our breeder bred dog (out of Dutch Shtuzhund lines) made it to one month shy of her 13th birthday...(I had her put down d/t quality of life but up to about 11 she was out on walks with us every day!).... so it does depend on the dog/ breeder/ your care I think, but yeah I would be devastated if I kept with a certain breed and kept losing them to say, cancer....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

sandgrubber said:


> For less anecdotal information I'd recommed the Finnish KC database.
> http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmTerveystilastot.aspx?R=312&Lang=en scroll to get breed . . . choose health statistics, scroll to cause of death.
> 
> The finnish data has goldies living slightly longer than Labs . . . Tollers die younger on average.
> ...


That is neat but also sad considering Summer has lived longer than the papillon average!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Though those stats seem off. It had JRTs at 7 years, paps at 10, BCs at 9, ACDs at 8. 

Though it included accidents


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

On Goldens: show lines are raging with cancer. Field/Sport lines are healthier. I've seen a few breeders that cross the two lines... which is much better to me anyway. I love the temperament of the show Goldens but other traits of the field. "Pet" lines are hit or miss. 

Again.. I'm not going to tell someone not to get the breed they like whether it is human ego or what. Now.. I will urge them to screen breeders carefully and aim for long lived lines in a breed such as a Toller or Berner. There is nothing wrong with supporting a breeder who is working toward that goal.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

Laurelin said:


> General question to think about.
> 
> Which is better to breed.
> 
> ...


Only problem with this is the well bred dogs are the ones surpassing the norm.



Sandakat said:


> I may be dwelling on stuff from a few pages ago, but I'm still having problems with the whole "ethics" thing. It may just be semantics, but I don't think it's "unethical" to breed a dog with a shorter lifespan if you are trying to better the breed overall. There may be a number of things the breeder is trying to correct over the course of years and the lifespan may be further down on the list. In a lot of breeds, fixing some problems may positively affect the lifespan, but other things, like hip dysplasia, may not.
> 
> Sort of tangential to this, I do feel that there are breeds that are so generally unhealthy that keeping them the way they are is unethical. English Bulldogs come to mind primarily.


There are no English Bulldogs, today is a example of crossing to recreate the breed which went extinct in the 1830's, and mans attempt was a huge fail, they are nothing like the true breed.

If Great Danes where, heart issue is so rampant, why does it not show in the breeds they where used to create?
Forget where I read it at but the last 3 or 4 world record holding, where supposedly early neuters also.

I can find many mastiffs still alive at the top end of there average and the majority are from better breeders.

As the outcross approach it's been done with most of the giant breeds after WWI and again after WWII.
Or did everyone forget most giant breeds where close it extinct at the end of one or the other and in some cases both.

Tobin Jackson did it on a scale so large that it was a lifetime banning from the AKC and all other orgs. None of his dogs or offspring where ever kicked though due to the fact that you would have to kick the entire breed, as 99.9% of todays Mastiff can be traced back to DeerRun and Senper Fi lines.
Also the anatolian shepherd has been crossed with the Mastiff in what is now called the AM and even with the claims, there has been no released data that infact it has help the lifespan.

The Dogo Argentino has been shown to have next to no health issues but has a general lifespan of 10 to 12 years (Majorly still a working breed)
The Boerboel again little health issue wise, it has to be judged on it's ability to be a working dog just to register one. (Again Majorly still a working breed)

Seeing alot of ideas with very little in research past a quick google or wiki.

Anyone think maybe alot tipping the scales is BYB and when they do a average in lifespan? Also why if you talk to a giant breed owner, they will tell you go with, health tested parents and research the breeder.

Tobin Jackson most likely knew more about giant breeds and mastiff than anyone past or currently living, and yet the oldest ever Mastiff was 15 years.

I'm talking about a breed which is many times close to twice the size of a Great Dane, without the heart issues.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

Thanks for the info, sandgrubber and BigLittle.

Edit: and Miss Bugs


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

There are some giant breeds that really appeal to me (Saints, Leonbergers) and the fact they might not live to double digits isn't a factor. Maybe it should be but with my experiences, a dog living to ten would be a novelty.

My first dog was from a byb & he died of cancer at age 8.

My smooth fox terrier came from a reputable breeder, was healthy, til she wasnt. Died at age 8, I think, of protein losing enteropathy, caused by lymphangectasia. Horrible death. 

The next sheltie was ten when he died of trigeminal neuritis. Came from what I call a hobby breeder. He's my avatar. Horrible death.

I've had three senior dogs. Emma the foxhound was 8 when she came here, we think she had something neuro going on along with canine cognitive dysfunction. Her breeder was a huntsman. She was 11 when she died. Katie the sheltie was from a shelter, no idea of breeding. Horrible shape when she got here, lived 3.5 years & died at 14, ortho issues. Gemma came from a byb, I guess you'd call her. She just died in January, was 12 or so, kidney disease.

Right now, I have Boone, age 9.5 and Ginger, almost 5; both from reputable breeders. As you can see from above, the dogs to lived to double digits were mostly the ones who came here as seniors. 

If I had a dog from a puppy to double digits, I'd be a happy camper.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

pawsaddict said:


> I never thought of Tollers as being an unhealthy breed. Is that really the case with them?


Tollers are notorious for AutoImmune diseases because of the extremely small effective population. My previous Tollers COI was 29%(high average), Sola is 24%(low). They have Toller specific Autoimmune issues in addition to your standard Autoimmune problems.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Also want to add.. the Berner I know to die at 6-7...

He was from your typical "byb". Neutered at 6 mo. Kept a bit overweight. He blew his knee. Got surgery. Blew the other. Had more surgery. They weren't getting better. Had more surgeries. Dog started going mentally downhill from all the surgeries and still couldn't walk anymore. He was put to sleep. So.. true reason of death = bad knees. He was otherwise healthy.

I've always felt like any double digits were good too for medium - large breeds. I have known lots of dogs to die of cancer this year. Some mixes, some purebreds but not typical "cancer" breeds. None of them over 10.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't know that the FCI stats are going to have BYBs in there. But those numbers look low for all breeds.

Remember we're not talking just giant breeds (tollers, flat coats, cavs, etc) though I do think there's room for improvement on several. Dogues and Anatolians are similar in size but there's a drastic difference in life expectancy.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

Laurelin said:


> I don't know that the FCI stats are going to have BYBs in there. But those numbers look low for all breeds.
> 
> Remember we're not talking just giant breeds (tollers, flat coats, cavs, etc) though I do think there's room for improvement on several. Dogues and Anatolians are similar in size but there's a drastic difference in life expectancy.


There is a huge area for improvement in both the Dogues and Neo's.

Both have been breed to the extremes. Hence why the Cane Corso was created as a breed, was to once again have a coursing mastiff, which the Neo once actually was.
Neo's there been a push to return in the last 20 years to return to the working class neo and while it is slowly gaining sleep and there are now a few great looking working class neo's there's a huge up hill battle to get the to be the norm rather than what people over the last 100 year turned them into. 
There are currently also is a slow push to return to the sleeker more athletic Dogues again a long way to go before that is thought of as the norm.
Though the EM and BM are actually by all account much stronger breeds than they where 150 to 200 years ago. Tobin Jackson is to be thanked for todays Mastiff, and it's a UK Major after WWII that accounts for todays Bullmastiff. (Forget the Majors real name.) 

Also I disagree with most breeds are not actually very old, The English history of the modern breeds published in 1800 something, think first edition is 1840 or 1850 will have to check later, tracks some of todays lines from the 1600's to the 1800's, which are later tracked to todays lines. So while yes many breeds are only 150 or so years old some are as much as 400+ years as a breed not type.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> Though those stats seem off. It had JRTs at 7 years, paps at 10, BCs at 9, ACDs at 8.
> 
> Though it included accidents


The numbers include all pedigree dogs registered with the Finnish KC. Finnland may or may not be the same as elsewhere. It's a shame we don't have equiavlent stats for elsewhere.

You're right about JRT's and accidents. In the Finnish numbers, almost 1/3 died at a young age due to accidents, and accidents was the single most common cause of death. Maybe the Finns use JRT's as earth dogs and put them against something fierce. In Australia JRT's often die young because they are so inclined to attack snakes.
Notice also that nearly 10% of ACD's were euth'd for behavioral reasons. 

While not part of the normal concept of health, I do think accident proneness and frequency euth'd for behavioral reasons are useful things to consider in choosing a breed.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

I finally got around to reading that article, and it was really interesting. It was probably one of the most interesting articles on breeding I've read. I love the completely different perspective.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Goldens are only 100 - 150 years old. I think the history of the breed is famously well-documented. 

Sass wrote: "I'm seeing more and more goldens getting lymphoma between 4-6 years old. FOUR to SIX year old dogs dying of cancer. Things didn't used to be this bad, even just within the span of my career so far, and it's only going to get worse." Is cancer due to a limited gene pool? Would a type of outbreeding similar to what Tweedmouth did originally help the breed?

Many of the issues discussed throughout this topic are of immediate concrete interest to me. Shep is a 14 yo Lab/Gold x GSD mix. If he is sleeping, standing, or trying to interact with people, then he can pass for 3 - 5 yo, easily for under 10yo. When you hear his cough, hoarse bark, or slow walk, his appearance ages immediately... and this aging has accelerated mainly in the past two years. He is on the decline, though it could be a long, shallow glide path.

His hips are not stable, so he can't navigate stairs or even a ramp, but he can walk and doesn't seem to be in any pain. He has a large lump, liquid-cyst (?) that seems to cause no issue. His hearing is less sharp, his vision is dimming, but without cataracts (?) ... so those don't seem to be an issue. His liver and kidney numbers seem OK, but internal functions could be declining. He may not die of cancer and he may not lose all mobility... but one day a system may give out, undiagnosed ... and maybe he'll pass in his sleep ... hopefully in 5 - 6 years, more probably in 2 - 4 years. Maybe I won't know the exact cause, and I won't be interested in a necropsy, b/c there's no point. At that time, I will say that he died of old age.

Then, hopefully, after a brief period of mourning... we'll go adopt another puppy to provide companionship for another 15 - 20 years


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

sandgrubber said:


> The numbers include all pedigree dogs registered with the Finnish KC. Finnland may or may not be the same as elsewhere. It's a shame we don't have equiavlent stats for elsewhere.
> 
> You're right about JRT's and accidents. In the Finnish numbers, almost 1/3 died at a young age due to accidents, and accidents was the single most common cause of death. Maybe the Finns use JRT's as earth dogs and put them against something fierce. In Australia JRT's often die young because they are so inclined to attack snakes.
> Notice also that nearly 10% of ACD's were euth'd for behavioral reasons.
> ...


I did notice both that JRTs #1 cause of death was accidents and ACDs were euthanized for behavior a lot comparatively. It's interesting.

I don't have the time to look it up right now but I recall ASSA doing a study on sheltie longevity and it being in the 12 year old range as compared to this study which puts shelties at 10 years old. I remember looking it up and thinking that both my shelties died on the dot at the expected age for their breed and that virtually every other sheltie I've ever known died in that range (I do know a 14 year old now). It'd be interesting to compare more studies over various countries and see what you get.

I also remember seeing the DDB health study and it was really depressing and did put them at 6 or so years on average.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Here's some links to longevity studies. This one puts papillons at 11.45-13 years which seems more correct to me based on the dogs I've known. Sadly the actual study seems to be gone now?

http://users.pullman.com/lostriver/citations.htm

Actually a lot of the health study links don't work but there's some decent info that they've calculated. Some of the links do still work. Makes me wonder why some breed clubs seem to have removed their health studies? Maybe they just moved the link... 

EDIT: Aha!

http://www.pcagenetics.com/Health-Survey.html
http://www.pcagenetics.com/HEALTH-SURVEY/Papillon-Health-Survey-2010.pdf


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ACDs: 13.41 years
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static...-FINAL.pdf?token=Dp367NHLanOnXH8fa98twTTNwrE=


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> ACDs: 13.41 years
> http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static...-FINAL.pdf?token=Dp367NHLanOnXH8fa98twTTNwrE=


This one is interesting. I do not think this one factored in behavioral and injury deaths so much.

But both happen a fair amount in the breed. They are dardevils and most of them believe they are invincible. 
They tend to bang themselves up. 

I know one example that should give a visual of self damage these dogs can do to themselves. 

A guy.... I know was re doing some fence on a plasture for a rancher. He was out there working alone with his dog. He had the doors of his truck wide open, radio on etc. Nobody was supposed to be around. He heard a noise by his truck that was about 40 yards way. Some guy was getting in it, cranked it up and took off.. He starts chasing after his truck on foot. So does the dog... But the dog took off across the pasture. The truck was on the dirt road through the property. But the dog took a short route to cut him off. Like it would do to cut off some cattle. The dog was successful and got in front of the truck. But the guy that stole the truck ran him over and killed him. That can be the mindset of ACDs... At least with the really drivey ones. In the dog's head I am sure he thought he could turn the truck just like he could a bull. 


And having done rescue in the breed.... A bunch get put down for behavioral issues. It is not so much that the dogs have a real issue as much as the humans around them have an issue with the dogs actions. First and formost they "heel". Which no matter how you look at it, the world is going to look at it as biting. One with any sort of real herding instinct will start from early puppyhood heeling everything they can. People, cats, kids, other dogs, etc. Once you get some training on the dog and some manners it becomes a non issue for most of them. But when people get them without a real understanding of why they do it and how continuing to do it is self rewarding, it can become a monster.... Next thing you know the kid next door ir running around the back yard with your kid and "dundee" heels the neighbor kid.... Now little Bobby is crying, his calf is bleeding and his mom does not want to hear any crap about the dog did not really bite little Bobby but rather heeled him. It does not fly. Now mom rushes little Bobby to the emergency room for what amounts to a scratch. Now "dundee" has a bite record, Little Bobby's mom is threatening to sue if the dog stays.... "dundee" has to go..... But where? He has a bite record, no rescue is going to take him. If you take him to AC the put him down immediatley because of the bite history. And even if he comes from a good breeder, this history is an issue.....They would be risking a lot to keep the dog around and cannot rehome it. 

The other scenerio is ACDs in shelters, ACs, rescues. etc...... The breed is naturally aloof and suspicious of strangers. Now they are surrounded by strangers both people and dogs, in a strange place and cannot see their people anywhere.... That usually manifests itself in one of two ways.... The dog pouts and does the pancake dog thing on the kennel floor. Or the dog is nasty and testy with everyone....


----------



## missc89 (Jan 20, 2015)

It really frustrates me when I see all of these beautiful dogs for sale on Kijiji during their teen years and people leave the comment of "I just don't have the time/space/energy that s/he needs". It makes me so sad


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> But both happen a fair amount in the breed. They are dardevils and most of them believe they are invincible.
> They tend to bang themselves up.


I can't even remember where it was, but I was reading somewhere about malis and when discussing their health it said something like "the most likely thing you'll have to take them to the vet for is self-inflicted injuries" because they're so fearless.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> ACDs: 13.41 years
> http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static...-FINAL.pdf?token=Dp367NHLanOnXH8fa98twTTNwrE=


Note that's 13 yr 4 mo _for dogs that died of natural causes_. I'd guess a fair number of ACD's die of accidents and euth, and most of those that die of 'unnatural' causes die young. So the life expectancy will be much lower if you include all dogs, as opposed to those dying of natural causes.

This statistical problem greatly confuses discussion of life expectancy. Some life expectancy data also fails to register neonate deaths, or deaths at a young age. This inflates life expectancy figures.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> I can't even remember where it was, but I was reading somewhere about malis and when discussing their health it said something like "the most likely thing you'll have to take them to the vet for is self-inflicted injuries" because they're so fearless.


Yes.... In my opinion.... Not sure why because I have looked and looked and not found any real common ground.....

But Bel Mals are the most similar to ACDs in that respect...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sandgrubber said:


> Note that's 13 yr 4 mo _for dogs that died of natural causes_. I'd guess a fair number of ACD's die of accidents and euth, and most of those that die of 'unnatural' causes die young. So the life expectancy will be much lower if you include all dogs, as opposed to those dying of natural causes.
> 
> This statistical problem greatly confuses discussion of life expectancy. Some life expectancy data also fails to register neonate deaths, or deaths at a young age. This inflates life expectancy figures.


But in ACDs..... 13 is on the young side. ESPECIALLY in some lines.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I keep telling hank he better live to 20 considering terriers and cattle dogs seem to just keep going and going.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I keep telling hank he better live to 20 considering terriers and cattle dogs seem to just keep going and going.



Well.... Ratties tend to live a LONG time as well...

Oldest ACD I have known was just a couple weeks over 25 when he passed....

I have known three more over 20 and a BUNCH in their late teens.


----------

