Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

How much is too much for a dog?


GOAT
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CRA said:

$100 adoption fee for my pit mix 

outside of basic shots she is in perfect health.    every mix I have ever had has had great health.  

everyone else in my family has expensive pure breed dogs.  All sorts of health issues.   They spend small fortunres on the their dogs healthcare. 

but my dog is dumb as a box rocks.  I guess that is the trade off.  Their dogs have been easier to train and are better behaved. 

Fair point. My dog is quite dumb too. But we have a cattle dog mix that is very very smart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GOAT said:

The health concerns with purebreds is a good point, I've heard that before and definitely don't want to go down that road.

That being said, I've had problems with my mutts as well at some point or another - but paying the bill for a $100 mutt hurts a lot less than paying a $1,000 bill for a $5,000 dog.

 

Perhaps I will stop by the local shelter, I just hate going there unless I'm dead set on leaving with a dog. If I go there and don't see exactly what I'm looking for I'm gonna feel like an asshole.

Typically if you go to the shelter you WILL leave with a dog. Search petfinder.com and see if you find a purebred if that's what you really want.  At least look first before spending that coin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, toldozer said:

Disagree.  Of course on an individual basis it may not be true but overall mixed breeds have fewer issues 

http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/uploads/1/9/6/9/19691109/moller_2013_mixed_breed_dogs_are_not_protected_from_breed_disease_heritage__mydogdna.pdf

Quote

It has been publicly discussed for years that hereditary disorders would be a direct consequence of the strict selective breeding of pedigree dogs and that for this reason the purebreds would have a much greater risk of developing hereditary disorders than mixed breed dogs. According to the latest research by Bellumori and his group, this assumption does not seem to hold. Indeed many diseases seem to be as common in mixed breed as in pedigree dogs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/uploads/1/9/6/9/19691109/purebred_dogs_not_always_at_higher_risk_for_genetic_disorders_study_finds__uc_davis_news__information.pdf

Quote

 

Study provides an insight into how breeding practices may reduce the prevalence of common genetic disorders.


A study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, suggests that mixed breed dogs don’t necessarily have an advantage when it comes to inherited disorders.

The study, published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, provides a better understanding of the prevalence and source of such disorders, and could advance efforts to prevent and treat genetic disorders in both dogs and humans, the researchers say.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

From what you referenced.  24 issues were studied.  13 were equal,  1 was more prevalent in mixed breeds 10 were more prevalent in purebreds. I don't think you made the point you were trying to make. I can quote it as well if you want..  and i believe the one that was more prevalent was a ligament issue.  Not, you know, cancer or heart issues 

Edited by toldozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toldozer said:

From what you referenced.  24 issues were studied.  13 were equal,  1 was more prevalent in mixed breeds 10 were more prevalent in purebreds. I don't think you made the point you were trying to make. I can quote it as well if you want..  

There are lots of studies out there. The consensus is not clear. Thus it is by definition debatable.

Lesson for all you kids out there. If someone makes a statement on the internet without support do your own research. If someone makes a statement on the internet and claims that it is not debatable you can be certain they don't really have any real insight. Same goes for when someone ends a statement with "PERIOD." They are usually full of feces. They are selling you something.

But since this not debatable I guess we are done here. I hope you find a great puppy.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, onmyown said:

really zero logical reason to buy a dog

There are different kinds of people.  Cars being a great example.  Some prefer particular model and make and willing to pay premium to get it while others don’t care what they drive and go for value.  At the end of the day you will pay a ton of money and spend a lot of time on it.  Get what you want and will enjoy.

Edited by Ja Rhule
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ja Rhule said:

There are different kinds of people.  Cars being a great example.  Some prefer particular model and make and willing to pay premium to get it while others don’t care what they drive and go for value.

that’s emotional, not logical.

but that wasn’t my point, dogs are not an inanimate object 

there a literally millions homeless and out to death and you can find everything you want in a dog by simply adopting one

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, onmyown said:

that’s emotional, not logical.

but that wasn’t my point, dogs are not an inanimate object 

there a literally millions homeless and out to death and you can find everything you want in a dog by simply adopting one

Absolutely not true.  You get a purebred and you know exactly what you are getting with temper, energy and etc.  You get a mutt and you have no clue what you got.  You bring it home and hope the dog fits in.  

Edited by Ja Rhule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure breeds by and large are going to have more specific health issues. It's just a matter of reality when you artificially narrow the gene pool. The breeds with the most issues are the ones with the most extreme features signifying significant selective breeding and the ones that have undergone booms in popularity encouraging scrupulous backyard breeding for a buck with little to no concern for ethical breeding practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Pure breeds by and large are going to have more specific health issues. It's just a matter of reality when you artificially narrow the gene pool. The breeds with the most issues are the ones with the most extreme features signifying significant selective breeding and the ones that have undergone booms in popularity encouraging scrupulous backyard breeding for a buck with little to no concern for ethical breeding practices.

Can you link a peer reviewed study?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my view, the realistic expectation for this team to compete will start 2027.  At that time, I think we could be looking at the following (this is HIGHLY speculative):   QB:  You know, Bryce.  I am not a fan, but they don't ask me.  But there is reason for hope--and here it is.  Bryce will be entering his prime.  Since we are likely to pay him, there will be changes that I include throughout this exercise--I realistically speculate on what they are going to do with Bryce and then I realistically speculate on what means in terms of the cap and other positions. Bryce HAS IMPROVED.  The idea is that if you give him more weapons and protection, that will continue.  His career:   At this rate, if his growth continues, by 2027 we should expect nearly 30 TDs and about 12 Interceptions and a Rating of about 98.  His completion percentage should settle at 65-66% or so.  If that happens, you can win with it. The following stats demonstrate how the Panthers will be able to afford it (and re-sign Ickey) My guess is they will require about $60m per year. This is why rookies who can play are important.  It also helps us see the blueprint.  You may disagree, but this is the cruel realities of the salary cap. Robert Hunt:  Cut post June 1 and save $19m.  Who do you replace him with?  Ickey. Tershawn Wharton:  Cutting him saves nearly $15m.  We should all hope to see Aaron Hall (UDFA) make the roster and play well.  Regardless, this is a position we would likely have to address in the next draft. Trevin Moehrig:  Cutting Moehrig as the starting SS saves this team $16.5m.   Ransom will be on year 3 of a cheap rookie deal and should be more than ready to take the reins.  their styles are similar.  Furthermore, FS Wheatley (R, 4th round) will be starting. Taylor Moton:  So much depends on his knee, but I have an idea that he can play another 3 years.  extending him could save the team about $5m per year.  Cutting him outright would save the team about $21m. In the most drastic situation, we have to cut Moton and the other three players mentioned.   We would need (in all likelihood) a starting DT and RT.  It is possible that the DE would be addressed, but Wharton's production (so far) could be equaled by a rookie.  Look for a cut free agent and a 2027 draft pick here.  If you cut Moton, you save $21m, and that would be the only big hole to fill.  Having Ickey at RG gives you some depth at T, and Ickey could be the guy.  T could be pick in the 2027 draft (first round), fwiw.  It saves you $21m while costing you $5m, for example. We get younger, creating a core of Freeling, Hecht, and the RT first rounder in 2027) along with Ekownu (second contract in the $15m range, and Lewis, whose contract would be in the $16m range if not extended.)  The OL cuts (Hunt, Moton) would save $40m.  The OL would get younger and still solid with veterans at G.   By cutting Wharton (no brainer if his play stays the same) and Moehrig (good player--but we have Ransom on a rookie contract who would not be that much of a drop off--if any) in addition to Hunt and Moton, we would save over $70m in cap room. We would be able to give Bryce bag  and we would have enough to re-sign Ickey (if the knee is not too risky) to a Guard contract (probably at a discount, coming off that injury).  Furthermore, we could add a RT in the draft (or a RG if Ickey moves to RT) and that would be the only large hole to fill. Correct my logic if you see issues-- On defense, in addition to the aforementioned, Scott ($2m contract) is out, replaced by a 4th round rookie contract. CB Jackson's contract ($7.8m) expires and he is (possibly) replaced by a rookie contract.  At Edge, patrick Jones II's $10m contract expires and he is likely a reserve, and his role is absorbed by Phillips, Scourton, Princely, and possible an UDFA like Isaiah Smith or a 2027 draft pick.   These productive developmental players over the past 2 drafts will pay huge dividends.  On paper, I see the team getting much younger and possibly better while cutting nearly $100m and reallocating that money to get more production.          
    • If everything played out and that last thing happened, I probably just quit. 
×
×
  • Create New...