Before you worry about that, do not get a purebred anything. ALL purebreds, regardless of the breed, are more likely to have serious and expensive medical issues (its the lack of diversity in their genes. Its the same reason why products of incest have problems). Rescue a mutt. Its cheaper, they're generally healthier and I promise you they're more appreciative of being in a good home. If you do go the purebred route (because you're a big fat stupid Republican, and those guys never do the right thing) please contact a breed specific rescue.

Also ASPCA offers pet insurance: http://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/

 

First of all do not buy your dog from a puppy store. Get him/her from a breeder.
Or you can adopt a puppy.

I get my dog insurance through Banfield, they have two types of insurance. One is a basic plan, and the other covers more expensive procedures(if your dog needs to go under the knife for something)

Anyway I found some pet insurance sites

http://www.petinsurance.com/
http://www.aspcapetinsurance.com/
http://www.24petwatch.com

 

There is no pet health insurance similar to human health insurance. You can get a couple hundred dollar pet policy, but ur still gonna pay out the nose for everything. 70-80% of medical expenses.

You're best off finding a great vet, who offers an in house insurance policy. That's what I do. I pay a small premium, and get a discount on everything. Make sure its an outfit capable of most surgeries.

 

the latter statement is dead on and the way to go.

However, if you're getting a new puppy, it's pretty silly and a waste of money IMO to get preemptive pet insurance. It's like getting life insurance on your baby (see stupid Gerber baby plan).
If you start seeing problems with the puppy, then you can look into the vet-supplied health insurance. I've owned 15 dogs and never had insurance. Having said that, two of my 3 current dogs are now 12+ years old, so I may look into getting them insurance.

and, I'd follow up with, who's going to take care of the dog? If you or your ole lady aren't dedicated to raising a dog, then don't buy one. Dog's can be a lot of work and many parents who buy their kids a puppy to make them happy end up ignoring the dogs to an extent where it's just plain wrong. I'll stop my rant there.

 

So, Dr. FinD. Where did you get your vet schooling at?


Now, let's hear from a real VET:


There’s an unspoken assumption amid the mutt-loving set that mixed breeds are inherently healthier than purebreds.
Among breeders, however, the reverse is often claimed. After all that genetic disease and temperament testing, they argue, there’s no way a mix from the pound can best a dog with meticulous breeding.
So what’s the truth?
Given that the mutt vs. purebred thing hasn’t been rigorously studied yet, there’s no way I can offer you anything definitive.

---By Dr. Patty Khuly



We deal with genetic disease every day in our practice in pure-bred, cross-bred, and mixed-breed dogs and cats. There is a general misconception that mixed-breed dogs and cats are inherently free of genetic disease. This may be true for the rare breed-related disorders; but the common genetic diseases that are seen across all breeds are seen with the same frequency in mixed-breed dogs and cats.

The most common hereditary diseases occur across all pure-bred, mixed breed, and designer bred dogs. These include cancer, eye disease, epilepsy, hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism, heart disease, autoimmune disease, allergies, patellar luxation, and elbow dysplasia. Labradoodles are being diagnosed with hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, and inherited Addison’s disease; all recognized disorders in both parent breeds.

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/...-pure-breeds-mixed-breeds-and-designer-breeds




Get the type of dog you want. I personally own both purebreeds and rescues. Both are great. The biggest factor in their health and well being is how they were and are cared for. And the insurance, IMO, is worth the cost.

 

I use pet plan for my dogs health insurance. It's about $400 a year but it insures you against everything whether its an inherent disease amongst that breed (I.e. hip issues) or simply a really bad case of diarrhea as my dog had last year. There's a $100 deductible for most stuff. They don't cover for routine visits but they do cover everything that's not routine.

As for what you should get, get what you want. I went to the shelter wanting an English Bulldog or Golden Retriever and walked out with the awesomest little poodle bijon. Every other dog was barking up a storm an the dog I chose was chillin in his cage, paws crosses looking boss. First few months were kinda rough because he had been in a puppy mill before the shelter and he had just been neutered, which if you don't know takes away a lot of their aggressiveness. Since the 6 month or so mark he doesn't so much as have accidents in house.

 

The NAIA (which is where the info comes from) is an organization paid for by breeders and pet stores.

I promise you, mixed breeds are healthier as a whole than purebreds. Genetic diversification is the key to healthy breeds. You cannot have purebreds without a history of inbreeding. Its just not possible.

 

The great pet breed conspiracy. We've got everything here!

When I got married, two pure-bred Sphynx cats were a part of the deal. Make fun of me

I think heart issues can be common with them. Other than that they are cooler than all of you

 

I'm just saying, that if I linked an article about how fast food is no more bad for you than non-fast food, and the article was from an organization that was formed by McDonalds, Burger King & Wendy's, would you trust it?

This is simply science...lack of genetic diversification weakens the gene pool. Its not to say mutts are always in better health, it just means you increase your odds that health issues won't crop up later.

Not to mention, I doubt many people even know how to spot a reputable breeder anyway.

 

Here you go, Chief.
http://www.petmd.com/dog/puppycenter/adoption/evr_dg_mixed_or_purebred_puppy_which_is_better#.Ubdw4et3aMU

http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/resources/tips/purebred_vs_mixed_breed.html

By all means tell me why PetMD and the effing Humane Society know less about this than your sorry ***?

 

Chief...lol

 

Im not arguing for or against pure breeds... I for one have a "Silver" lab and get yelled at by both sides of the isle, but it's one of the smartest and best lookin puppies I've had.

But I had to laugh at this one....

The most optimistic viewpoint I've seen lmao Never in my life would I consider a Minpin and Jack Russel (random) a benefit.

 

My company offers it. DM me

 

Optimistic? I know you're just shooting the ****, but how do you think the different breeds were created?

 

Im saying that looking at it saying youre going to have the positive features of multiple breeds and none of the negative features of either breed is pretty BS argument. There's a trade off for everything.

And to answer your question.... aliens.

Edit: ... taking the argument from how it was given.... generalizing everything as pure bred vs mut.

 

I hate when people say that. So the dog should die because it was born in a puppy mill? That is actually sick. Puppy mills SHOULD be shut down but that is no reason to make already born puppies be put down because they cant find a home.

 

You're right that's how it was given. My bad.

 

So, your solution is to keep buying dogs from them.....do you think that will close them down?

 

A mixed-breed puppy often has the advantage of having a much lower chance of being born with inherited congenital diseases, since the mating process naturally leaves out the defective genes. This is a general truism.



100% False

 

I've had enough rescue dogs to know that a huge portion of them will die either way, but buying one single puppy from a puppy mill increases demand. If people stopped buying them from the puppy mills, then demand plummets and the sleazebags who run the puppy mills will move onto the next easy money scam. (and FinD is correct, you can generalize that mutts, on average will live more often without the congenital genetic defects).

I have one purebred and 2 rescue mutts. My youngest dog - 6 year old Aussie/Border collie mix is screwed up in the head. They found her dying at a puppy mill in GA. It was the biggest puppy mill (>400 dogs) in GA history. The rescuers found a group of dogs on the next hill penned in, left to starve to death for the sole reason that they wouldn't reproduce. They did it because it was easy money.

 

Personally I think pet insurance is a sham. No regulation like people health insurance. What that means is you pay a ton in premiums you're probably never going to recoup unless you get the illest dog ever and then when something does go wrong, the sham pet insurance companies are going to find reasons why it's not covered. I have a friend who has pet insurance and somehow they have still paid 10s of thousands of dollars on their dog from hell.

Just get a good vet and take good care of your dog. If you're worried about insurance for your pet set aside a chunk of change equivalent to a pet health insurance premium in an account somewhere. That way if you don't need it you've got yourself a nice little chunk for your daughters college! And if something happens that would break the bank before your savings account could total up to the cost of treatment, then probably the dog is too ill to live a good life anyway.

As far as the mutt vs. purebred, who cares which is healthier? Nothing will warm your heart more than giving a dog or puppy on death row a nice home. I personally had to get our dogs from a breeder because unfortunately a lot of shelters have gatekeepers on power trips deciding who can and cannot adopt a dog. We weren't allowed to adopt because we work. :pity: If you choose to adopt, lie on the application. Say someone is always home.

 

I think youre both right. Its not right that the dog should die anyway but I dont want to support a puppy mill. The answer is puppy mills should be shut down. Its cruel and the people who run them should be treated the way they treat their animals.

It depends on what you feel the purpose of the pet insurance is. Unless you have the dog/animal from day 1 or extremely early then you have no idea what the dog has been thru. In my case I knew my dog had been through a neutering and a surgery for a removal of a swallowed object. I had no idea what happened in the puppy mill he was in prior beyond what the shelter I got him from told me so I figured best to insure him. So far Ive paid about 700 in insurance over 2 years and been paid out around 300. Thats to say 1 year I used it and had to file a claim so it paid off (basically broke even) and 1 year I didnt use it. But thats how insurance always works. When you have it and dont use it you wonder what youre paying for and when you have it and use it, youre happy you have it. It is what it is. Some of those surgeries if they do something like tear an acl or break a bone cost over a few thousand dollars so all it takes is one incident and youre in the hole for a crap load of money.

 

Bring a fact or leave.

 

Like I said pet insurance is not like human insurance. These companies have so much more latitude to weasel out of paying your pet bills or at least a large portion of it. Health insurance for humans is a requirement because we are humans. And I love my dogs and consider them part of the family. But they are animals that, sadly, have a short lifespan. Insurance, IMHO, is not applicable. In your example, if you had saved the money you pay in premiums in a separate account you would be ahead of the game. To each his own. But I've never heard of anyone with pet insurance coming out ahead. Mostly they pay tons in premiums only to have the ****ty companies bail on their pet bills do to some loophole in their coverage.

 

there is just no evidence that suggests mutts live longer. Don't be duped into thinking that mixing breeds will result in healthier offspring. The truth is that puppies, whether purebred or mixed, inherit genes from each parent. If the parents pass along the genes for a hereditary disease, the pups stand a good chance of having that disease. Hybrid vigor—the idea that unrelated parents produce healthier offspring—works only if natural selection is in operation. In the wild, a dog with clinical symptoms of a debilitating disease such as hip dysplasia or epilepsy would not be able to survive, and so would not pass on its genes. But in the modern world, with reasonable veterinary care and a constant food source, dogs with serious, even deadly, problems do survive long enough to produce lots of pups.
Outside of some specific breeds with exceptionally short lifespans, mixed breed dogs don't as a whole live any longer than purebred dogs. There is no such thing as "hybrid vigor" with regard to mixed breed dogs. A lot of mixed breed dogs are mixes of breeds with the same types of genetic issues. A lab/golden mix is still going to be at risk of hip dysplasia, because both breeds carry the genes for it. A yorkie/toy poodle mix is still going to be at risk of luxating patellas, collapsing trachea, etc.

Overall, dog lifespans vary with size. Small dogs will live longer than big dogs. To give you a rough idea, on average small dogs (5-20lbs) will live to be 15-17 years, medium dogs (20-50lbs) 13-15 years, large dogs (50-100lbs) 12-13 years, and extra large dogs (100+ lbs) 8-10 years. Chop off 1-5 years for overweight or obese animals. There are a few breeds that are exceptions to this. English bulldogs and cavalier spaniels have much shorter lifespans than their size would suggest. Great Pyrenees have much longer ones.

If anyone can show me a peer reviewed study I'll change my stance.

 

You cannot take it personally when rescues are strict. You literally have no idea how bad it is. The rescue doesn't know you from the 100's of other people they've dealt with. They don't know who you are and how could they? I have a good friend who runs a dog rescue. You wouldn't believe how many perfect families turn out to be horrible evil bastards.

She adopted out this dog to a couple. The wife didn't work. They seemed like animal loving hippies. A year later the animal control contacted my friend because they seized the dog. Neighbors had complained that the dog was chained up outside with no shelter. It was worse than that. Her mouth had been duck taped shut, and her legs had been duck taped together, just far enough apart that she could stand, but not really move. It left scars. Her name is Angelina and she gets very wiggly when you tell her that she's pretty, this is her:



The reason she was at that rescue in the first place is because she was found in box on the side of the road as a puppy. There were 6 in the litter, her and one other were the only ones that didn't make out of the box and get squished in the road. They were malnourished, dehydrated and covered in fleas.

From the moment she got the call from animal control, she changed her policies for adoption. She had talked to numerous other rescues who have adopted stricter criteria for the exact same reasons.

It defies logic, that people that horrible would go to a rescue to get their dogs, but it happens all the damn time.

So, please, just don't take it personally.

 

there's a distinction from a breeder and a puppy mill that's getting blurred here. I've bought from 3 breeders that were very respectable and treated their dogs well.

 

I said no such thing.

What should happen is that Puppy-Mills need to be better regulated.
Oh wait they tried that a few years ago and it got struck down.

 

That's awful. My sister rescued a grayhound. Sweetest animal I have ever met. An 80 pound dog that thought it was 5 pounds lol.

When people say that a rescue animal will thank you everyday for it it sounds cheesy but I believe it

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

Fin D,
My best dog ever was a purebred.

Btw, your comment about Rep is only half true, you need to include the Dem's is your comment too. We all know both parties are scum.

 

Now the three I have now are mix breeds that I got from humane societies. Nothing wrong with purebreds.

Spook, Storme and Pebbles says hi.
Max and Pudy are watching from the heavens.

 

I've given facts. It's just that you don't agree with them.

As a one time biology student, my genetics training hasn't shown me anything that supports your claim. The only benefit that outcrossing infers upon a genetic pool is a better chance or reducing the chances of recessive conditions showing up. The vast majority of breeds have a gene pool that is more than adequate for keeping these conditions under control, without having to sacrifice anything in looks or performance. In other words, stop with the inbreeding nonsense. It's not like sons are mounting their mothers etc etc.


Hybrid vigor, as it's termed, as nothing to do with breeds of dogs. It is a legitimate term stolen from geneticists and warped to fit the agenda of people who want to push mutts on everyone.
You want a guaranteed healthy dog? Buy a puppy from a breeder who has shown that they truly care about the health of their dogs, not the pound.


I 100% guarantee that if you took 10,000 dogs from breeders who fully health test their purebred dogs, and pair them with a sample of 10,000 mutts, that the mutts would have more instances by % of every single health problem in the book.


The problem is not purebred vs mutt, it's crappy purebred breeders vs responsible ones.

Now, I can see that you love dogs. I have "mutts" that I love just as much as my purebred. I recommend people adopt too.

 

Im not going to say its never happened to anyone but it hasnt happened to me or anyone I know who uses Petplan. Heres a pretty good layout of their policy: http://www.pet-insurance-university.com/review_of_petplan_pet_insurance.html

I have a "silver package" for my dog at which point the policies become even more consumer friendly (its about a $100/year difference)....worth it imo. Id rather pay $350-400 a year for pet insurance then not have it and get crushed by one thing gone wrong for a few grand in one shot.

 

So, you're changing your argument, or at least refining your argument now to "breeders who fully health test their purebred dogs". Of course that will skew the argument.

and let's not start pulling out degrees to solidify your arguments, I can pull out my multiple degrees, but it doesn't actually convince anyone. To your previous statement, saying all dogs are just as likely to get hip dysplacia could be true, but when you consider ALL purebred dogs, there are definitely factors you can't ignore:

- many breeds are so inbred that they have significantly shorter life expectancies, Irish Wolfhounds, Dalmations and Shar-pei's all have life expectancies from 6-8 years.
- second, many health issues are specific to certain breeds:purebred huskies and aussies are much more prone to deafness because the recessive gene that is desired for their blue eyes is tied to deafness.
Flat-faced dogs such as Pugs and Shih Tzus, are prone to breathing issues that can cause overheating and even death. Cavalier King Charles Spaniels are prone to a heart condition called mitral valve disease, and Cocker Spaniels are susceptible to recurrent ear and eye infections. For any of these genes that are recessive, mixing it with another breed reduces the chances of the phenotype appearing.

and saying there's never been proof of that argument, it's a bit silly. With the millions of dogs in this country, you could never collect the data on all the mutts to do an accurate data analysis.

 

Fin, I understand they have to be strict for the reasons you mention.

Doesn't change the fact that it was ridiculous for them to deny us adopting a dog because my wife and I both work. Especially when we pointed out we already had a dog walker lined up for during the day. Some people are strict for good reasons. Others are just plain *****.

Especially considering the alternative in most cases is the dog gets a dirt nap.

 

Your post suggests that you either didn't understand, or read fully, my post. I haven't changed any arguments. I assume that FinD isn't arguing that mixed breed dogs born with two heads, and then bred with another dog, is likely to be more healthy than a purebreed. Why would anyone assume that I'm talking about puppy mill breeders?

My degree does solidify my argument. Until someone here can show me some peer reviewed studies I'll use my knowledge of genetics to solidify my stance.

Your "blue eyes" argument is half right. It's actually the merle gene that can determine deafness and this gene MAY produce blue eyes, but more than likely it will produce a lighter coat. ANY breed or dog, mixed or otherwise, can carry this gene and if they breed/mate with another carrier then deafness may occur. This is why your argument, and FinD's don't hold water. Again, ANY dog can carry the gene. A responsible breeder will not mate two carriers of this gene and will greatly lessen the chances for deafness/occular problems.

Dalmations live to be about 10-13 yrs old, BTW.

And your last sentence cracks me up. You say that I'm wrong, but then admit that no studies have been done. Riiiiiiiight...You go on with your bad self. lol

 

Until I posted "bring a fact or leave" you had not posted any facts. I'm glad however, that you're finally defending your stance with facts & evidence.

Hybrid vigor absolutely has plenty to do with dogs. Genetic truisms, don't cease to be because its a dog breed, in fact they're generally magnified because of human interference. First of all, every single domestic breed is the result of inbreeding depression and because of that all purebreds have a predisposition for inherited diseases. Its the reason Cambridge University (inarguably one of the finest colleges in the world) has a database dedicated to as they say:

http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk/idid/

Now, you go through great pains to keep qualifying your argument by pointing out that you're only talking about dogs from responsible breeders but don't qualify anything about the mixed breeds. Basically what you're saying is take the Top 5% of all purebreds and compare them to every mixed breed. If you want to be truthful in your argument, then you'd compare apples to apples. If you were take the best dog from the best breeder of purebreds and then the best health qualified mixed breed, the mixed breed will have less chance of genetic disorders than the purebred, and that is because of hybrid vigor. Genes are genes are genes. They do not suddenly become less susceptible to hybrid vigor simply because of selective breeding...in fact the opposite is true.

I've asked you in this thread to define what makes a responsible breeder, and I'm hoping you'll answer. While I'm waiting, I'm going to ask you if you or a loved one are a dog breeder?

 

You are misunderstanding my point.

I'm not saying purebreds are bad or horrible dogs or anything. I'm saying they tend to be less healthy. That's all.

Believe me, the dog that is nearest and dearest to me was a purebred Boston Terrier. He also passed away last year, not from his breathing issues, or Atopic dermatitis or from his Cushings or his cancer in his paw, but from an aneurysm.

And the rep comment was just a joke between me & Finyank. He sometimes gives me crap for being a liberal dem and I sometimes give him crap for being a conservative repub.