I have seen the same Chuck, and many mixes are well cared for and in great shape, we had a mixed breed that lived to 18, but I do not think any of my GSDs will.

As a child; we always had dogs and mainly mixed breeds. The one "purebred" dog (Welsh Terrier) from a "prominant" breeder in the area ran up more vet bills than all the others put together in their lifespan. The mixed breeds lived healthy and well up to their late teen years while the Welsh Terrier passed on before his seventh birthday. That dog had a multitude of health problems and was impossible to potty train.
None of the others ever had an accident in the house. Their eyes would be bulging out of their heads rather than have an accident.

Today; I have mainly mixed breeds with the exception of my GSD pup. Time will tell if my instancetance on dam and sire background will insure healthy hips as is my foremost concern.

throwing out a possible answer, many popular breeds come from mass producer puppy mills, which could care less if they produce dysplastic, disease prone pups with temperament problems-as long is it bears a decent resemblance to the breed it's supposed to be. hey, if the parents had papers, the pups can get papers regardless of flaws.

Mixed breeds wouldn't have near the likelihood of genetic factors brought out by careless, excessive inbreeding.

Mixed breeds are just that, mixed. By throwing in two and probably three or four breeds into one dogs background you greatly increase the genetic variability of that individual. The chances that "good" genes will outweigh the "bad" ones are much better. Not that Heinz 57s are not exempt from illness, disease and genetically induced behaviour problems, of course not. Just that you don't hear about them as much.

Also, if owners of purebred dogs are more likely to test for genetic diseases in for example hips and eyes, the statistics will be there for all to see. Much more so than for owners of mixed breeds, who, while certainly not neglectful of their dogs health would probably not be as apt to screen or test for these things.

A lot of the problems in purebred dogs comes about from the fact theat they are most often bred for a certain "look". This is most often some extreme feature that doesn't have much to do with the healthy functioning of the dogs and is
something that if it is pursued to its most
exteme limits, often is detrimental, unhealthy or eventually lethal to the dog. The worst condemnation from a show breeder is to not have enough "type". If dogs were bred for function they would be a lot healthier. The big problem in
the working breeds is that they are very often not used(or bred)for their original intention. Protection
breeds don't protect, hunting dogs don't hunt and
sled dogs don't pull sleds. The biggest influencers on most breeds is the show producer who is often selecting only to a standard of canine beauty and doesn't use the dog in its original intented use; and the puppy mill that
produces dogs with no care for health or temperment. The working kennels are generally in he minority - they produce fewer litters, only breed proven dogs and only place them in working enviroments. It's a numbers game. Mutts seem to
be healthier because they are the product of human stupidity, not the human vanity which produces the majority of purebred dogs (and a whole lot of other problems,but we won't get into that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

A patient of mine is a self proclaimed "breeder of GSD". This gal is only out to breed a "look" of dog per her words. She's bred her 2 year old bitch twice and has produced non healthy dogs in both litters. Now she's going for her third..still trying to get that "look".

I recently ran into her at the PetSmart store and she had one of her "returns" with her. The dog was 14 months old, weighed a skeleton 40lbs and had an elizabethen collar on. The dog's belly was wrapped from stomach surgery. This gal informed me that the poor dog wasn't able to swallow and keep down solid food from a genetic trait..but the dog would be fine on a liquid diet and would I like to have the dog...and..oh by the way..this dog's dam was to be bred again soon and would have another litter..perhaps I'd be interested in a puppy...DAAH! I asked her why she would continuing breeding this bitch with known genetic problems... her reply..I'm still trying to get that "look".

I work as a vet tech so I will speak from my experience with our clientel. Owner compliance at our practice is very good for the most part, so generally the animals we see are well cared for.

The 3 worst cases of HD I have seen have been in mix breed dogs. Two were chow crosses, and the last wasn't anything we could easily attribute to one breed or another. We see plenty of dysplastic purebreds, too. What I have noticed is that unless the mix is showing definite signs of limping and pain they do not get X-rayed. With breeds that are prone to HD if the dog limps for 2 seconds the owner wants the rads. So most likely more purebred dogs are getting X-rayed and have a definite diagnosis even if they are not suffering. One thing mixs have in their advantage is size, generally they are medium sized dogs and you don't see the extreme size of some of the larger breeds so less likelyhood of incidence.

As for cancer, it doesn't matter what breed, mix, sex or size. They all get. Some breeds are more prone to certain types of cancer, but generally these thing occur later in life. Osteosarcoma and older Rotts, for example. We have 2 dogs we have chemically treated for lymphosarcoma, a lab and a hound mix. Breed doesn't seem to be an issue. Lumps come off everything, generally benign. Boxers are notourious lump factories, but generally they are fatty cysts. Ugly but harmless. So, unfortunately, cancer isn't a breed elitest.

Allergies are a huge issue, and some breeds do seem to suffer worse than others. Especially, with ear infections. But that is a confirmation issue. There are just as many mixes tearing themselves apart as purebreds. Mixes do not have the advantage here.

One thing I have found interesting is the number of health issues with cats. We see very few purebred cats. Almost all are rescues or foundlings. There is no intentional breeding so inbreeding is not an issue as random breeding is responsible. Kidney and liver issues occur often, as well as heart. Allergies are seen in the cats quite often. I wouldn't begin to explain the significance of this. I find this very interesting as we are always led to believe mixs are healthier. It's certainly not the case with cats, so I'm not so sure it is with dog either.

As for life span. My vet's golden lived to 17. We have way too many chows over 10, we just put one down at 13. Some of our smaller mixes have lived to be close to 20. I think you have just as much chance with a purebred dog as a mix at a long life. But one thing is sure smaller dogs live years longer than large dogs.

Poor breeding is poor breeding, whether it be pure or mix breed dogs. Intentionally mixing cocker and poodle isn't going to give you a healthier dog than breeding a cocker to a cocker. If the two cocker are genetically sound the puppies will be healthier than randomly mixing.

Skipper

Nice post Skipper.