The Pug "Standard"

The perfect Pug will meet the breed standard, but at what cost to the health of the dog?

I've been told many times that my Pug is too thin. She weighs 16lbs and has alot of muscle and a definite tuck up.

Here's a visual aid (Click for a bigger view):



Now i've recently been reamed for keeping a not to standard Pug and lectured about the breed standard by someone who doesn't even have pugs who then compared my dog to a "Champion" pug. While i respect show dogs and standards, i do not believe the standards are set in mind of the health of the dog especially in pugs. Not to say every pug should look like Izzie, but really i'd rather see pugs look thinner than they're supposed to than double wide beach balls like many do.

So how did we get from this:



To this:



It baffles me and as much as i love the pug breed, i've based it more on personality and character than what they look like and some days the champion dogs that can barely move and wheeze their way around the ring make me sad.

What are everyone's thoughts on the current state of our breed healthwise? Is it concerning? Nothing to worry about? Do they look better when they're short and fat? How are these extreme features going to progress into the future with further breeding for the perfect Pug?

Lets keep it civil because i know this is a touchy subject :)

I think the "breed standard" pug is beautiful, but I also think the long legs, short legs, skinny, big eared, bug eyes and other non standard traits make for a beautiful pug as well. Chyna is the closest pug that I have that resembles the breed standard. Pugsly and Taz were very handsome boys, but they were long and tall. I've seen some very skinny pugs and while keeping weight off is good for pugs, there is a thing as too skinny no matter what. Also, some breed standard pugs might be considered fat to people who don't realize that most of their structure is muscle and not fat.

Not every dog can be show quality. While I would welcome a show quality dog into my home, I also have a pug mix, a purebred Brussels Griffon that looks more like a shih tzu then I have Chyna. I don't care what they look like as long as they are sweet

First of all, it is possible to breed to a standard and still have a healthy dog. Good breeders of pugs breed for health and temperament first and if they get show dog out of it, then that's gravy.

I have several friends who do very well in the show ring with their pugs, but they breed primarily for health and temperament and if they get a show dog, they are happy, but it's a bonus as one of them says. Even she worries about the dogs with health issues that she sees in the ring--but again, most good breeders don't breed for the "look" first. Sarina could talk about this more knowledgably than I can. I have one dog that is from a show breeder and while he is gorgeous, he has many health problems, but I knew when he came into rescue that he had them and I knew this breeder had let her lines slide in a big way.

I worry most about all the puggles, bugs and jugs that folks are cranking out with the myth that they are healthier because they are mixes. There's some real genetic dynamite going on there.

Eh, I don't show or breed and my dogs are neutered so I don't worry about it. I have two puppy mill pugs and one pug descendant from champion lines. They all have their good and bad points when it comes to health and temperament. I just try to keep them healthy and happy.

I know very little about what is the actual breed standard. I have my own preferences about what a perfect pug should look like and that is easy - they should look like Thurston.

I know there is a BBC film about dog breeding and someone was telling me one of the statistics put forth about British Pugs and the lack of genetic diversity. I wish I had a source for this info.

Ahh, no wonder this has been talked about recently. The stat was from the BBC film Pedegree Dogs Exposed that was shown in the US a few days ago. You can see the entire film here.http://www.pawnation.com/2009/12/11/potentially-explosive-bbc-doc-on-purebreds-set-to-air-stateside/4

Just like man has evolved into what we are today, so has pugs. We were cave men at one time, eating off the fruits of the land and now we are a society of fat people driving to the grocery store to get prepared meals! (It's the same in any breed). This is entirely my personal opinion....

I believe the pugs that are breed to meet or exceed the standard are the epidomy of a "pure-bred". They are bred by pedigress, not looks. They are bred by temperament and health not by the shade of their coat or the double curl tail (like that of the pet breeders).

Now I will say that not all breeders are created equally, however those of us who have spent years studing our pedigress and keeping our lines tight are reaping the benefits of having a pug that not only is perfection on the outside, but also near perfection on the inside. I am pleased to say that I have a house of seniors now, and it gives me great joy to know that none of them has ever had a surgery (beside spay/neuter), they see the vet 1 time a year for their check ups, and occassionally one will need to be seen for something, which has always turned out to be nothing.

I have a well bred Boston Terrier (bean) that is 11 years old that can still scale a 6' fence. Now I am not saying that behavior is ok, but it is another example of when a dog is breed to the very best that the end result is usually nothing short of the best. I have never had a luxtating patella, hip displaysia, entrophian, mass cell tumors, heart problems, kidney problems, or any other kind of major organ problem. I will say that I have a beauitful 4.5 year old 9lb pug with a sever spinal deformity that was passed on by her mom (my beloved Emma). As a good breeder, not only did her mom get fixed, I also got ALL the sibilings, including my beloved Dre. You know why? Because I did the right thing. If I would have bred her I would have damaged the line and the breed. There is so much more that goes into breeding these dogs that the outter appearence. It's all about what is behind the DNA and getting the lines closed up. Again, just my opinion for what it is worth. And for the record I adore pugs of all shapes and sizes, just like I adore people! It does not matter to me if they are well bred or not, it matters if they are well loved.

leslyeb wrote:I think the "breed standard" pug is beautiful, but I also think the long legs, short legs, skinny, big eared, bug eyes and other non standard traits make for a beautiful pug as well.

Me too!

BDazzpugs wrote:Just like man has evolved into what we are today, so has pugs. We were cave men at one time, eating off the fruits of the land and now we are a society of fat people driving to the grocery store to get prepared meals! (It's the same in any breed). This is entirely my personal opinion....

Off topic, but I consider obesity a sign of a successful nation. The more successful the country, the fatter the people are. *LOL* Rome was that way, look at the renaissance era, etc.

So I decided instead of calling myself 'fat', I call myself 'successful'...

Maryjo wrote:

Off topic, but I consider obesity a sign of a successful nation. The more successful the country, the fatter the people are. *LOL* Rome was that way, look at the renaissance era, etc.

So I decided instead of calling myself 'fat', I call myself 'successful'...

Not only am I extremely successful but I'm getting more successful all the time.

Yeah I agree with Sarina as well...perfectly said.

As long as they are healthy, happy, and loved, that is all that matters.

I've been thinking about this topic all day after having viewed the BBC piece. It is complicated - very complicated. I ended up having a discussion about Eugenics last night as a result of the BBC piece. Taken to an extreme, Eugenics is a terrible thing. I wish all breeders were responsible and thoughtful as Sarina is. I think way too many people get caught up in both the potential income as well as the desire to be a winner in some form of their life. It clouds judgment way too often.

I don't know, I know the breed standard is a lot different than the one you posted, but I DO think good reputable breeders take health into consideration, I know in every group there are those that makes others bad. These are the breeders that do questionable things for LOOKS and ignore temperament and health, but that is not ALL show breeders do. I got Co-Pilot from a show breeder and she does have faults as far as the breed standard goes, BUT she is short and cobby so YES she is stocky, she could not look like your pug no matter what.

However, I love all pugs, if you have a pug that is thinner and leggier, I think it's great that you keep her in good shape. Co-Pilot is in great shape too, but she IS stocky, she is a pug! I get upset when people act like she is fat, I mean my vet is thrilled with her weight.

This is an issue I've thought about a lot over the years. I spent a number of years showing pugs in conformation and then moved on to competing in agility.

This is my opinion only;

Pugs in the show ring are too heavy, Kittie is an AKC breed CH. She accomplished this despite being told she was too thin by many judges. when she was being shown she weighed about 16 pounds, since then her weight is around 11 pounds, a much better weight for her. She can run and play and never pants at all, at 16 pounds you could hear her coming in the park! She never could have accomplished all that she has in agility, or lived the way she does at her "show weight".

Many pug traits aren't in our dogs best interest, the extreme short backs, the totally flat muzzles aren't helping these guys. I don't know what you can do about that though, as that's what the standard has become.

Recent changes to the pug standard in the UK are going some way to addressing these issues.

Muzzle is now only required to be "relatively" short, pinched nostrils and heavy over nose wrinkle is now unacceptable, eyes and nose are not to be obscured or adversely affected by over nose wrinkle.

Eyes now only "relatively" large.

As for size they specify that "substance should not be confused with overweight"

So I think some steps in the right direction are now being made, at least over here. I don't know if other standards will change or not.

Sadly a lot of the old school judges don't actually seem to be doing much in the way of judging to the new standard. The owner of a pug I know was specifically told by the judge, in the ring, that the pug was not carrying enough weight to be successful. That pug is most certainly not thin.

A friend of mine from out of state brought one of her pugs to a show here in TX. The first thing she noticed was how FAT they show their pugs here...

Not stout. Not muscular. but fat.

That surprised me, and when I looked at her pugs vs. the others in the ring, there was a noticiable difference.

TxAllieGrl wrote:A friend of mine from out of state brought one of her pugs to a show here in TX. The first thing she noticed was how FAT they show their pugs here...

Not stout. Not muscular. but fat.

That surprised me, and when I looked at her pugs vs. the others in the ring, there was a noticiable difference.

YES! They do want them fat in the ring, especially for a girl like CP who is a normal sized girl pug, about 15lbs on average and the standard is 14-18lbs, seems like she would be the perfect size, but I regularly got comments such as "Is that a midget pug?" at shows. It was quite annoying. Per advice of my mentors I bulked her weight up a bit for showing so she was even stockier than she normally is, but her boning is more fine and her head is small (at least compared to what they are looking for in the ring) so bulking up her body worked against me.

This was frustrating to me as she has a great figure and nice proportion of kept at her ideal weight. It just never made sense to me that the breed standard was 14-18lbs, but even the bitches that were getting points were typically 18lbs or more. Yes there were exceptions, but anyway, I didn't mean to get into all that.

And Bella, those standards they are changing are interesting. I don't show anymore, but I haven't heard about anything changing.

I spent a very short time in the ring, and I noticed that pugs aren't the only breeds that seemed to be suffering for the championships. I sat with a few handlers during the best in show part of one show and we were all commenting on how the German Shephard breed is being tortured by the want for their short hinds legs. And as we looked around we could see that other breeds, to achieve perfection, had their own crosses to bear. From fat pugs to shivering Chinese cresteds, it happens in all breeds.

I think the key, like Sarina said, it to have a showable pug, but it's most important to have a healthy, well-tempered pug. My boys are FAR from perfect, but I think they are the perfect pets. They are champions in my book.

Snifter&Toddy wrote:Recent changes to the pug standard in the UK are going some way to addressing these issues.

Muzzle is now only required to be "relatively" short, pinched nostrils and heavy over nose wrinkle is now unacceptable, eyes and nose are not to be obscured or adversely affected by over nose wrinkle.

Eyes now only "relatively" large.

As for size they specify that "substance should not be confused with overweight"

So I think some steps in the right direction are now being made, at least over here. I don't know if other standards will change or not.

Sadly a lot of the old school judges don't actually seem to be doing much in the way of judging to the new standard. The owner of a pug I know was specifically told by the judge, in the ring, that the pug was not carrying enough weight to be successful. That pug is most certainly not thin.

I think this is the challenging part-we want pugs to look like pugs, but there has to be that balance between looks and being healthy. I think like Sarina said, the really good breeders do this-they do all the necessary testing, and know their pedigrees and that makes their pugs healthier, which should be the ultimate goal. But I think it's the standard that can be troubling, like a few of you have seen in the ring-where maybe even the judges think bigger is better. Not just with pugs, but I think other breeds may ever see it to a greater degree-like dachshunds and their back issues, etc. They see the traits that make them that breed and exaggerate it to a dangerous degree.

God, the poor GSDs. What's been done to that breed is a crime.

I won't argue that a slavish devotion to a look is the ruin of many dogs. And frankly, alot depends on the judges--it can vary alot from judge to judge. And some folks just will breed to win, regardless.

But one can still adhere to a breed standard without going to extremes. Some of the issues have to do with pretty shallow gene pools with some breeds. Right now, 90% (I think) of all English Setters have thyroid issues. Radical re-thinking and major changes to breeding practices will have to change if ES dogs are ever to improve their health.

As a rescue person, I'm less wed to a breed standard, but I see the really horrid results of stupid/ignorant/commercial breeding. And not all of the pugs with noses are healthy dogs--nor are all the mixes that are sold with the myth that they are healthier because they are mixes--I'm speaking to the Designer Dog industry rather than the true mutt.

And here's a horrible little statistic I heard on the CBC radio this week. 1/3 of all dogs in shelters in California are chihuahuas. Many very small with multiple health issues. Guess who we have to thank for that little event?