The bulldog is a great example of what the dog fancy does to dogs.
This animal didn’t always look like a toad.
It was once a fairly nice animal that could move efficiently and cool itself properly in all kinds of weather.
I have run into a bout of trolls on this blog who seem to have taken offense to the simple fact that I’ve written that this breed is unbelievably fucked up.
Most of these commentators are poorly educated British people. In Britain, it doesn’t get hot and humid for extended periods of time like it does over here, and when it does, the bulldogs drop like flies.
Normal dogs can put up with some heat. They have good cooling mechanisms because they have normal muzzles and proper amounts of soft palate tissue. They also don’t a have scrunched up airways.
Dogs cool themselves through the airways. That’s what panting is.
Making it so a dog can’t properly cool itself in this fashion would be like creating a person who cannot sweat.
I guarantee you if you couldn’t sweat, you’d be quite miserable whenever the temperature got above 75 degrees.
But it’s okay to make dogs miserable. They are so cute with their flat-faces, eh?
Never mind that brachycephalic dogs are further encumbered with increased risk of a certain tumors called chemodectomas. These tumors are caused by bracycephaly. They are caused because the dogs have what has been termed “chronic asphyxiation.” They never properly oxygenate their bodies, and this causes damage to their chemoreceptors, which then results in the formation of tumors.
Ah, but none of you people care about this.
You’ll throw out the old bromide that say “My dog’s fine. Your wrong. Research the bread!”
To be honest with you, that’s not an argument.
At all.
It’s a stupid argument by stupid people who don’t understand I’m not talking about your single dog or your limited breeding program.
I am talking about the breed as a whole.
It is a definite, scientifically proven, absolute fact that the bulldog’s conformation is the main cause of almost all of its health problems.
And yes, these dogs do require C-sections to whelp, rape racks or AI to mate, and special care to keep alive.
I don’t really care about the British bulldog fancy and what it’s doing. It might be doing some positive things to reduce exaggeration.
But I hate to tell you this:
Most bulldogs don’t live in your country.
Most actually live in mine.
And in my country, the standard has not been changed and will not be changed.
The dogs still almost always require a C-section to whelp.
They can’t mate naturally.
And they die like flies whenever they are left out in temperatures above 65 degrees.
Is this an animal we should be celebrating?
Are these breeders we should laud as ethical?
If you do, then you’re too batshit even attempt to comment here.
And I’m going to call you out on it, whether you cluck like a bunch of hens or not.
You people make me sick to my stomach.
I feel the same way about you as I do about Michael Vick.
Actually, you’re worse than Michael Vick because he never claimed to be the savior and guardian of a breed.
He just fought them for money.
You claim this title for yourself, and you continue to produce a defective, miserable animal that really shouldn’t be allowed to exist as it does.
If you can’t see that, then you’re delusional fools, and there is not a snowball’s chance in hell for your breed.
You sadistic pieces of shit.
Shame on you!
My only regret is that I didn’t realize that if you’re going to own one of these dogs– which have so many problems– you have to be crazier than a shithouse rat.
I didn’t realize that.
It’s really quite amazing.
While rather non-diplomatic in your post, I agree with your frustration when dealing with those in denial and ignorant of their actions or endeavors. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Vanity endorsed cruelty..as simple as that. You can’t spin that right..no how. It continually needs to be said.
“..this breed is unbelievably fucked up” ..ha, where the tire hits the road.
Why hold back?
But seriously, I applaud this entire post!
This morning I happened to be looking through some old (1938-1947) dog show catalogs. At one particular show in California there was an entry of more than 200 Bulldogs! Given that c-sections and AI were NOT the rule that long ago, one can surmise that dogs of that era were more vital than the ones of today. Perhaps some of the advances in veterinary medicine have not been used as wisely as we might wish.
Typical ignorant Yanks – desperate to cause uproar then like most other issues you cause back out as soon as the going gets tough. Keep your warped thoughts and opinions to yourselves Rule Brittania with the Bulldog spirit..
My warped thoughts and opinions!
LOL
These aren’t opinions. They are facts.
You are so stupid, you don’t know the difference between a fact– that bulldogs are horribly deformed because of idiotic breed standards that cause health and welfare problems– and opinion– that you are uniquely unqualified to comment in this blog.
I don’t tolerate fools and people with authoritarian personalities.
I don’t tolerate dickwads. I don’t give them an audience.
Apparently, you don’t give a shit about what the science says about your dogs, so you are going to stomp your feet and act like a two-year-old and try to shut me up.
Tough.
I’m not shutting up, but I’m not going to tolerate any more foolishness from British bulldog fanciers, who apparently are showing the world how terrible the British educational system is.
Maybe you should go over to Terrierman, who has written almost exactly the same words I’ve written, and go to his posts and try to talk sense to him.
You’ll find that I’m quite a bit more cordial than he is.
I love all this stupid nationalism, because if we’re gonna compare bulldogs and their abilities, all our native bulldog strains kick the asses of any your little English toad dogs. We have Alapahas, “White English,” Johson, and Scott bulldogs that can herd cattle and sheep, catch hogs, and guard farms. They also can live in the subtropical South and not die when left outside for more than 20 minutes in the summer.
Yes, Britannia still does have the Bulldog spirit. And that spirit is in Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. But not in English Bulldog, not anymore.
I submit that change CAN occur — the UKC has revised their standard for the English Bulldog http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/CompanionDog/EnglishBulldog. It’s true that the AKC standard hasn’t changed, but I think that it eventually will, if only because eventually those who maintain the existing standard will be replaced by those who will be breeding in accordance with the UK and UKC standards. It would be nice if people changed their views as soon as they were presented with logical reasons to do so, but humans aren’t really like that as a whole.
They only got there because of Jemima Harrison. She dragged their sorry asses into reform, and they don’t all agree with it at all. They are still rewarding deformed bulldogs in the ring, which is why they raised hell when the dog got DQ’d for failing a health check at crufts.
but who cares if it was because of Jemima? the fact is that the folk in charge DID change. Yes some breeders were upset — they are going to be. But there WERE other breeders there who exhibited better dogs — frankly, IMO, Crufts should have done the review before the dogs went in, as there was apparently at least one bulldog that would have met the new criteria — but which wasn’t picked by the judge. if it had been the only dog in the breed class after review, so be it. The folk in charge should have rewarded that one dog. This sort of change isn’t going to come easily as “dog fancy” like AR, has strong similarities to religious beliefs. Those never alter without upheaval. What strikes me as worthy of comment is why those who DO have an alternative — the American Bulldog or the Staffordshires (either of them) continue to obtain English Bulldogs — it is NOT just the breeders. It’s the public that buys what they have to sell. Part of this is, IMO, because while it’s easy to point out the flaws in a “conformation” English Bulldog, it’s not so easy for a purchaser who wants a sounder dog of that breed (or similar) to FIND them. I could easily find the “top 10 most winning Bulldogs” for conformation. Finding even the top 10 agility or obedience would be much harder and finding the 10 most healthy dogs would be a real challenge.
The copyrights for the UKC and the British KC standards are owned by the UKC and the KC, respectively. The AKC standards copyrights are owned by the breed clubs.
I’ll be frank and say that I see few younger, progressive people in the US who want to be involved in the hideously stupid political maneuverings that are associated with getting elected to the BoD. This is one of the reasons change in the AKC occurs at a glacial pace and why they are so often in a defensive position regarding dog welfare.
I never get enough of hearing how messed up b-dogs are. And I love it when you tell them so!
You are so right here. I had heard and read all about the suffering of these poor dogs but it was only when we had one in my dog training class that I witnessed their suffering with my own eyes. The poor thing could not run properly and kept coughing up pools of yellow/green mucus, that had to be wiped up off the floor by its clearly ignorant owner. For this reason, it clearly didn’t smell right to all the other dogs in the class, who avoided him. Utterly sad.
It’s a terrible indictment, I think, that the British Bulldog is still held by some to be the embodiment of our national spirit and we need more people like you to tell it as it is. And, frankly, I don’t care if I am trolled by self-perpetuating halfwits for saying this.
I think Mitt Romney should have disparaged the bulldog and not the Olympics.
Have you read this? It explains a few things:
http://www.rvc.ac.uk/News/PressReleases/pr1205_BreathingProblemsInDogs.cfm
Thanks so much for posting this interesting, utterly depressing article. I never cease to be amazed at how people refuse to let the facts get in the way of their own ignorant prejudices.
I think the important point of the article was not so much that brachycephalic dogs have problems, but that the owners were completely unaware that the symptoms were not normal — that even if those symptoms are “normal” (i.e., common) to their flat-faced dogs, that those are symptoms of a problem and may/will affect their dogs adversely. The people simply don’t know that it IS a problem, they aren’t willfully ignoring a problem. Well, some may be, but more just don’t know any better. (another example of the modern disconnect from the natural world).
Well, yes. But surely they can see it IS a problem?
As I have mentioned before, the British Kennel Club is proactively doing something (at last) to encourage healthier breed standards and unhealthily constructed dogs are being thrown out of major shows as we speak. Can anyone point to similar moves elsewhere?
The UKC: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/the-united-kennel-club-will-revise-standards-to-better-the-health-of-purebred-dogs/
Thanks, it was nice to read good news. I will have to look into the UKC a little more.
Well, yeah. Friends don’t let friends get bulldogs. I’ve never personally understood the appeal, but I’ve never been fond of any flat-faced breed (or breeds with big, dangly flews). They are also the most dysplastic breed, to the point that most breeders just assume they are dysplastic and don’t bother to get them tested. Ironically, this month’s OFA “Champion of Health” is a Bulldog–with hips rated “Fair”…
I’m not sure the breed is “fixable”, though. If it was possible to start selecting for more muzzle and less wrinkling, would the result be recognizable as an English Bulldog?
It can only be changed if people are willing to allow fundamental changes in what a bulldog looks like. They won’t and refuse to listen to anyone.
If they won’t listen, they won’t change. It’s like watching a ship running toward and iceberg, and when you shout that they’re about to hit, they start speeding up towards it.
Oh. I didn’t mention the hips. LOL. That’s a big problem, too!
Yes, if they cross-bred to some of the American bulls (the ‘American Bulldog” is thought to be the closest thing to the original English breed) they could breed back to a dog that looked like the real Old English Bulldog did before the breeders started messing w/ them. The Old English Bulldog was a proud and admirable breed, the new one is a mess. For shame!
I don’t think they have any other choice but outcross in order to have the drastic changes this breed needs, at least not without loosing more genetic diversity. But more likely they will leave it as last resort when it should be the first one.
The (British) bulldog is a cruelly evolved design no longer acceptable to today’s majority of British opinion. Incidentally,the best of this breed at Crufts 2012 was thrown out by the appointed vet.
This is not to deny that we Brits are somewhat hypocritical as we continue to breed and buy the Cavalier in the full knowledge that most of them have inherited mitral valve disease. Visit the local vet and see them all queueing for treatment. And that’s not all I’m afraid.
The reason why the KC implemented the vet checks is because judges were continuing to put up really exaggerated dogs.
It was an attempt to punish judges who were not taking health and welfare seriously.
They did change the standards, which the judges then ignored.
So the KC needed to enforce its new standards.
My dog has one of the longest noses possible, I believe. He is a flat-coated retriever. Sadly this delightful breed is hugely susceptible to cancers. I understand that most “pure breeds” have problems such as this. I do wonder whether we are saying that people should be discouraged from buying all “pure bred” dogs, with their specific breed characteristics or that only certain healthy breeds (or mixes) should be encouraged. It is all very sad.
Flat-coats were pretty much doomed when they almost went extinct in the Interwar Period. They should have been allowed more outcrosses to Labrador and Golden retrievers, but this didn’t happen. Genetically, flat-coats are actually a subset of golden retrievers, just a very genetically depauperate, cancer-prone strain.
I know that’s a bit counter-intuitive, because didn’t goldens descend from flat-coats?
Well, both of these dogs descend from the old flat-coated or wavy-coated retriever. During the Interwar Period, this breed nearly disappeared, but its diversity was largely retained in the golden retriever, which became more and more popular. The surviving flat-coated retriever is just a vestige of what it once was.
Such a pity. I adore them and wonder what they were like before they almost went extinct. I have read an article in Dogs Today by Terrierman in which he insulted all of us who have knowingly bought flatcoats knowing full well that they are susceptible to cancer. He was extremely rude, and his article lacked logic in parts, but he’s right in a similar way to your comments about the Bulldog.
If you want to know what they were like, check out working-strain golden retrievers. It was always said that golden retrievers were more old-fashioned wavy-coated retrievers, just with a different coat color.
Thanks. I shall.
Well. . .sort of. The present field-bred Goldens in the USA are a far faster, more intense sort of retriever than were the 19th Century wavy-coats, due largely to selection for those qualities in competitive field trials. British field-bred Goldens, bred for the differently-run British trials, are highly biddable and are allowed to use their natural bird-sense. Both have many admirable qualities.
It depends. The current dogs aren’t like the 1860’s version of the wavy-coat, but they are pretty close to the ones that came about after about 1885 and were common from 1885-1914. These were faster, harder driving dogs, that didn’t much look like Newfoundlands. Golden retrievers, even over here, are still more British than our version of the Labrador is, which is why so many Americans don’t know how to use them properly.
There is a massive difference between, “Look, this is a disease process. It is not normal. You need to rethink what you are doing in perpetuating these dogs and try a different tack to improve the welfare of the animals,” and “People shouldn’t buy purebreds because they are all defective monstrosities.”
What is sad is that the modern definition of ‘purebred’ is very young and dogs have become a science project in how long an animal can be maintained within a closed system without self-destructing.
What is sad is that some people are so defensive and delusional that they cannot look at what they are doing with a dispassionate eye and say, “This is not working. Things must change.”
Agree. It does make me uneasy though as it’s a continuum.
For us, he is our first dog. Rescues rightly don’t rehome to inexperienced families with children. We have struck it lucky. But still…
If you approach it from a rational, objective (as much as is possible) point of view, it’s not a continuum, though. The slippery slope argument does not hold water. I don’t know if you read the BorderWars blog, but there is some interesting ethical discussion that goes on there. There’s a link in Scottie’s sidebar.
I am a dog breeder. I understand that these are biological organisms and as such are imperfect; there will *never* be disease-free dogs. In order to be predictable, purebred dogs must have, by definition, a smaller gene pool than random bred dogs. My ethical responsibility, as a breeder, to both my dogs and my puppy buyers, is to minimize the perpetuation of diseases that compromise the well-being of the animals to the point where their quality of life is affected. How does that work, exactly, when ‘disease’ is a feature, and not a bug?
I have Afghan hounds, and they sometimes get something called stromal dystrophy, which is an error of metabolism that causes cholesterol deposits in the cornea of the eye. That’s it. It doesn’t interfere with vision, it doesn’t cause pain or ulcers or any problems. I would have no problem breeding an otherwise good Afghan with stromal dystrophy. It’s a disease process but it’s a nothing disease process. It does not affect quality of life.
IMO, my own considerations for the welfare of my dogs and the breeding decisions that I make regarding them, is an entirely different kettle of fish than breeding from an animal who, by it’s very nature, is a walking disease process. IMO, it is incumbent on the breeders of brachycephalic breeds to *prove* that their dogs are not compromised by their conformation. And I do not mean showing videos of the occasional agility pug; I mean doing studies involving lots of dogs and whether their oxygen uptake is really impaired compared to a normal dog. It is not enough, once again IMO, to say, “Our dogs are fine.” It is quite clear that “fine” means utterly different things to different people.
I have seen people make the comment, “oh, dogs with floppy ears are more prone to ear infections, shall we outlaw those, too?” (Conveniently ignoring the fact that few of the people who talk seriously about dog breeding ethics consider ‘outlawing’ breeds or traits to be worthwhile.) Even a child can understand that needing to peer into a dogs ear every once in a while or give it a cleaning on occasion is not the equivalent of a dog trying to breathe through a trachea a couple of sizes too small, and spending it’s entire life that way.
Dog breeding is no longer considered to be a honorable, harmless hobby. One of the reasons is because of the welfare issues raised by extreme traits such as brachycephaly. This issues have to be addressed, and hiding behind the slippery slope is not going to get breeders anywhere.
I totally agree with you. To be honest to say any nore would betray my lack of further knowledge on the subject. But I am concerned that people apply the brachcephalic argument as a slippery slope to say that it would apply to cancer-prone breeds like the flat-coated retriever. I just think it would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But no, breeding from a dog with a condition that makes it suffer knowing full well that its descendants will definitely suffer too is disgraceful.
The flat coat is not the only healthy looking, but genetically-sick breed. The Bernese Mountain dog looks great . . . but has life expectancy <8 yrs and high cancer rates. I appreciate PDE, but wish Jemima put more emphasis on statistics and less on photos. Looking at most recent post on PDE, Yah, the bonemouth shar-pei may look more natural than the meatmouth . . . but is it healthy? or a relict population being revived after a serious bottleneck, with some seriousl health challenges.
The thing is that for about half of breeds in the pedigree world, their biggest health problems come from their poor structure and crappy anatomy. So it is easy for a journalist like Jemima to engage in sentimentalism.
Genetically-inherited disorders is much more difficult to engage pet-owners on unless it is something extremely obvious such as a visual mental defect.
Good point Dave. Weird isn’t it that dog shows exist to pick dogs with good form who move well, yet it is the purebred show dogs who so often don’t move well or have good form?
Think of the work it is going to take just to get standards changed for the breeds who are bred to have health problems! As for small gene pools (gene puddles), popular sires, incest, mental – emotional – instinctual unfitness, dog hair fetishes, modernizing breed goals, including pet people, broadening the tent to include the idea that: breeding the best isn’t the best, providing a good life for the dogs, returning dog breeders from people out to win to people out for the day with their pet, and getting rid of health problems not visible at birth, all of that must follow after the relatively easier task of just getting show ring people to see the dogs right in front of them without the haze of a fantasy of history.
Good to see someone leveling the blame at the people behind breeding, not the dogs themselves since they are obviously what we make them, for good or ill.
I hate bulldogs trust me they are a pain in the ass destroy EVERYTHING smell awful drool everywhere fart non stop it doesn’t do anything but annoy . All they do is require money money money , vet bills , dog beds oh yes know why because they have disgusting yeast all over their face that requires medicine everyday and still doesn’t go away …as well as skin conditions that require to bathe it a lot and has bald patches. What a fun pet. It can’t even take a walk .. This is not my dog it’s my boyfriends and its just gross and not worth it and I agree breeding these animals is selfish because you want a sloppy deformed creature that does nothing but cost money and aggravation
Dude your the man couldn’t agree more also there ugly as fuck hate them useless