I defer to your experience /an/ This is a slightly biased /pol/

stronger

>>2171868
Could you please present an example?

>>2171867

The term you are looking for is "hybrid vigour" or "heterosis".

I will never own a "pedigree" or "purebred" all it tells me is that the dog is inbred and its parents have won a beauty competition.

I select dogs for type personally, I like landrace types of dogs a type of dog that evolved specifically from people who bred good dogs to good dogs when they performed the job given to them.

http://www.davidhancockondogs.com/archives/archive_399_493/456.html

File: 1469082343590.jpg (442KB, 638x3464px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 638x3464px

>>2171867
While mutts are *generally* healthier, a lot of breed specific diseases can be reduced in severity by getting a working line dog instead of a show line.

>>2171867
Damn, why did you post a frog-legged shep?

>>2171868
wouldn't it also depend on what cross you would get? for example if you cross two breed prone to hip dysplasia wouldn't that increase that cross's chance for hip dysplasia?

>>2171892
Not quite different from inbreeding a breed prone to hip dysplasia.

>>2171879
What is wrong with a dog resting his leg?

>>2171895
GSDs have been bred poorly since the start, now all of them have legs and back like that, they can't stand straight up like most other dogs.
The only solution to the fuckload of the GSD's problem would be crossbreeding with healthier breeds, or breeds that don't have the same problems as widely, like the malinois, or even breeding back with wolves or wolfdogs.

It depends on what you mean by "stronger".
Breeds as a whole are better at doing the job they were bred for. And the breeds are generally (with a few exceptions) healthier than mutts.
BUT individual purebred dogs are not stronger or healthier because there are too many people breeding dogs who shouldn't.

>>2171912
go to
>>2171946

>>2171867
Weaker.

They were bred for a specific task in a specific environment. They will not become better adapted to the environment or better at their task in 99.9% of crosses.

This only applies to working dogs who still do the job they were bred for in very similar climates. For the rest it makes little difference any weaknesses can be bred out.

>>2171867
Crossbreeds are somewhat worse at the tasks that the original breeds were bred for, but are less likely to get the diseases and complications which come with selective breeding.
Also, i'm pretty sure that dog breeds and people are different things anon.

>>2171873
Purebreds are inherently inbred.. that's what makes them you know, look alike

However dogs fare better with being inbred than people do and as long as the dog isn't bred with an immediate family member it should be fine. Reputable breeders do a lot of research to ensure that their dogs remain genetically diverse while also doing their best to avoid genetic markers for disease and still conforming to the breed standard, which I agree is a little silly but the more I think about it the more it makes sense, especially from the POV of a breeder. It's probably easier on some level if the breed standard I'd narrowly defined so that breeders can strive towards something that's specific instead of broad

Honestly reputable breeders are not the problem. They breed healthy dogs that are put into good homes and account for virtually 0% of the homeless/shelter dog population

A lot of misinformation seems to be happening in this thread. Just because a dog is cross bred doesn't make it automatically a healthier dog. Not only is it worse at the job it was designed for (retrieving, hunting, lap) there's no guarantee that it won't get two recessive alleles that would make it more susceptible to diseases. I'm not too well read on the biological aspect of inbreeding but to my knowledge cross breeding doesn't equate to a healthier dog, especially when you compare say, a designer dog bred by people who want to make a quick buck to a dedicated breeder who has been in the game for years

>>2171868
Cuck.

>>2174442
Half the dog owners on /an/ are poor as shit and shouldn't own dogs to begin with, which is why you constantly see "do I REALLY have to take my dog to the vet for this clearly serious issue?" threads

Obviously driving for hours and paying $1000+ for a dog is out of the question, so their purebred experience boils down to BYBs exclusively

>>2174736
>BYBs
?

>>2174736
I think the group of usual posters on /an/ all care about their dogs. I think the "MY DOG IS SHITTING PURE BLOOD AND JUST COUGHED UP HIS LUNG I DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR A VET WHAT CAN I TO TREAT HER AT HOME" are posters from other boards who only come here to get advice when they need it.

>>2174753
Backyard Breeder. A term, usually used as a pejorative, to describe a small, unprofessional breeder who typically does not understand the proper protocols in breeding dogs and often breeds to the detriment of the dogs. There is also often the implication the operation is run purely for profit.

>>2174933
Can I confess to a sin? One time I came on /an/ with a story about how my dog was shitting and vomiting blood, and would he die? He actually was shitting and vomiting blood, he had haemorrhagic gastroenteritis and it was pretty fucking serious. Anyway, I told /an/ that he died when really he spent two days at the vet and got better. He's in the next room for right now. But I made one of those threads.