I’m so sorry that this dog has now gone, but I’ve never seen a Neapolitan mastiff with such extreme (and very uncomfortable and unhealthy conformation).
It’s sad when dogs die. They ought to live to be in their forties!
However, we have a moral responsibility to breed dogs that have a good quality of life. Dogs with eyes that hang open, very loose connective tissue, bacteria and yeast-filled skin folds, and flews that never stop dripping really can’t be said to be living a good quality of life.
This dogs eyes were so severe that it was completely blind.
This is the kind of dog that is being produced through breeding according to its breed standard. This dog likely wouldn’t have won any prizes at a dog show, but its siblings might have.
This is one of those dogs where “pet quality” actually meant “vet quality.”
Don’t cross pugs and American cockers!
There is already a breed for you!
In America, we call this breed an English toy spaniel. In the rest of the world, it’s called a King Charles spaniel, because both Stuart kings with the name of Charles had these dogs. (But they had longer muzzles and were not far removed from red and white sporting spaniels.)
These dogs became pug-nosed at some point in the late nineteenth century. Lots of sources point to Japanese chin blood, which could have played a part, but I don’t think it was the primary source. There is some evidence that toy bulldogs and pugs were crossed in.
The Cavalier King Charles spaniel, which is now much better known, was created as an attempt to bring back the dogs of the House of Stuart– to overthrow the Roundheads once again!
Of course, the creators of the Cavalier chose too narrow a gene pool to start their breed, and as it can easily be argued that the Cavalier is a breed failure. Its levels of genetic load far exceed what most people would consider acceptable.
But the pug-nosed English toy spaniel shows what would happen if we began breeding for extreme brachycephaly in gun dogs.
We could do it.
But I don’t think we should!
Let’s clear the air a bit.
When a dog breed is put into a closed registry system, it has been decided to create a population of animals that has a population genetics structure that resembles that of an endangered species. There is plenty of evidence that many very popular breeds have terrible genetic structures. In a 2008 paper in the journal Genetics, Calboli et al. performed an analysis of ten dog breeds in the UK, using Kennel Club pedigrees to determine effective population size. Effective population size tells you how big the population would be if a random number of individuals were put together that would have the same amount of genetic diversity as the population in question. The general rule for conservation genetics is that anything under 100 individuals is of critical concern.
The results went as follows:
Akita – 45 (effective population).
Boxer – 45
Bulldog – 48
Chow Chow – 50
Rough Collie – 33
Golden Retriever – 67
Greyhound – 17
German Shepherd – 76
Labrador – 114
English Springer Spaniel – 72
Every one of these breeds is a closed registry breed.
All but one have very real problems with genetic diversity. Only the Labrador retriever is out of the crisis zone– and just barely.
If you read the paper, the golden retriever, which doesn’t look as bad, has the worst problems with popular sire effects in its population. Only 5% of the male dogs in the UK population are sires, and for a popular breed, this is a recipe for disaster.
This is because even though these dog breeds have a genetic structure resembling that of an endangered species, they are not bred the way conservationists would breed endangered species.
With endangered species, the goal is to conserve as much genetic diversity as possible. The Chinese spend countless hours working to maintain what genetic diversity can be spared in giant pandas. Giant pandas, which are actually a primitive bear with no living close relatives left, have no populations for which there can be outcrosses.
You can’t say that about golden retrievers, which would be greatly served with occasional outcrosses to their somewhat more genetically diverse smooth-coated cousins. The differences between Labrador and golden retrievers aren’t that extreme. Both are derived from the same root stock. Both breeds share ancestors in documented pedigrees, and there was a famous cross between a yellow Labrador (Haylers Defender) to the Haulstone line of golden retrievers in the 1920′s.
Not ancient history at all!
If we had a dog culture that was based upon reason and science, this would be a no-brainer.
However, this is not the dog culture we have.
The dog culture we have does two things that utterly gum up the works when it comes to sound population management principles:
1. Closed registries as dogma.
2. Competitive dog breeding.
The former is what creates the genetically compromised population. The latter is what exacerbates it.
Could you imagine the madness that it would be to breed giant pandas based upon a conformation standard?
But that’s exactly what is happening in the world of dogs, and as I’ve noted before, it’s not just dog shows that are causing this problem. Breeding choices that are based solely on trial performance do the exact same job.
Each generation of dogs that is bred under these conditions loses genes. Some of these genes might be pretty nice to have– like the gene that Dalmatians had for producing urine with normal levels of uric acid. This was actually lost to the entire population of Dalmatians before a pointer was crossed in to reintroduce it.
And it took decades and decades of fighting the closed registry dogma to get these Dalmatians into the breed. Even though they were very, very distantly derived from that pointer that was crossed in, the breed vanguards would not allow in the “mongrels.”
Until it became impossible to say no.
Every single breed in a closed registry system that is being bred with under these principles is at risk for winding up like the Dalmatian. What’s even more frightening is that as these breeds become more and more related through both popular sire problems and “line-breeding,” it becomes impossible to control for genetic load. Dog breeders operate under the delusion that you can just select away from any disease just like you’d select away from poor conformation, which is why they go ape over every genetic test for a disease that comes down the pike.
It’s not that these genetic tests aren’t useful. It’s that they do give dog breeders a crutch to hold onto. You can’t talk about a better way to manage genetic load– i.e., let in new blood and selectively breed for better gene conservation– because everyone is awaiting the next genetic test to come along.
The problem is that the greater dog fancy is a culture that worships genetic plunder. Most of the effects of such pillage are not known while the pillaging is happening. During that time, a breeder might become rewarded with top winning dogs that may or may not have long lives.
But it is the next generations that the problems with gene loss and reduced genetic diversity start to become apparent. By then the breeder or breeders who plundered the genes may not even be around anymore.
But they have stolen from the next generation of dog owners and breeders.
It’s that next generation who will have to pay the vet bills and watch their dogs die agonizing deaths.
And all because we have contrived up endangered species that we call dog breeds and then bred them in ways that make absolutely no sense.
No one wants to talk about this genetic plunder.
And no one wants to talk about the simple fact that this concept of closed registry breed is really a very new concept. A breed is not a species. And although there are breed differences, when we start talking about breeds that are closely related, the differences become somewhat trivial.
And it is at this point the dog world becomes a dogma– a type of religion.
Breed becomes a faith-based assertion, and the dogs suffer because reason is not the operating force behind the management of their populations.
Dogma is not good for dogs.
Well, West Virginia really isn’t either.
But I mean come on! This is obviously a raccoon. Having caught a few raccoons in traps just like this one, they all make this growl! It’s almost diagnostic of a raccoon.
Of course, the hands give it away, and I’d like to know what state wildlife official deemed this thing a “canine.” What breed of dog has hands?
Just watch this clip and try to keep your head from exploding. The stupid. It hurts.
I don’t care if this man has hunted raccoons with dogs for years. Raccoons don’t make that growl when dogs are chasing or killing them. That’s a threat growl they make when they are in cage traps.
Raccoons basically do look a lot like dogs with hands. When Miley first encountered one in a cage trap, she went into play bows in front of it.
It was less than impressed.
Chupacabras are just normal animals that are hairless for some reason. The most common chupacabra is a mangy fox or coyote. Most of our native carnivorans are well-furred out, so when they lose their hair for some reason, most people are shocked at what their bodies actually look like underneath.
Raccoons really don’t look much like raccoons when they lose their hair.
But if you know that a raccoon is basically a dog-like animal with hands, I don’t think you’d be able to mistake it for anything.
But maybe I’m weird in that I’ve seen too many raccoons up-close that it’s hard for me to see how anyone could be so daft as to declare this poor animal a unique species.
However, this is the internet. And many people don’t go to the internet to find out things. They go to the internet to believe.
So I bet as soon as a sane, qualified zoologist declares this chupacabras to be a raccoon, there will be all sorts of denials that there is no way this animal could be a raccoon– and, of course, there will be a conspiracy theory or two spun out of it.
(See the Montauk Monster debacle, if you don’t believe me!)