A 2013 study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, found that mixed breeds weren’t always healthier than purebred dogs when it came to inherited canine disorders. This was of particular interest not just to purebred dog owners and breeders, but to scientists because dogs are second only to humans in the number of identified genetic disorders that affect them.

The year before, a National Geographic article was less than kind in its view on purebred dogs,  especially with regards to Victorian era breeders who were faulted for having created genetically isolated populations. The Victorians didn’t know what we know now, of course, but some of these breeds are now tremendously useful in the fight against human disease such as cancer. All that said, and from the vantage point of a conscientious breeder devoted to their breed, we can’t undo what the Victorians did, but we can improve on it. There’s never been a better time create sound future generations of a breed. DNA tests, blood work screening, OFA, BAER, and CERF tests, CHIC results, pedigree software, these are all tools that help limit, if not eliminate conditions in breeds, and every day, the tool box gets bigger. The reply to the person who spouts that purebred dogs are less sound than mixed breeds is to cite the UD/Davis study. The reply should be that breeding Dog A with Dog B with the hopes that the best characteristics of both dogs will be passed down is fantasy, and very often results in the worst characteristics of both parents. That reply should also to point out that parents of mixed breeds are virtually never health tested, while ethical purebred breeders are scrupulous in having as much health information about their dogs as possible.  Just saying.