Sausage Dogs: yay or nay?

No I would never buy one, I think they are so inbred it's cruel. They can barely function as normal dogs at all.

No I would never buy one, I think they are so inbred it's cruel. They can barely function as normal dogs at all.

Not a fan of breeding for the purpose of aesthetics, a pet is not a painting.

No... they're super prone to back issues, its expensive to treat and the dogs suffer.

I know this is meant to be a lighthearted discussion but pedigree dog breeding is one of my 'special interests'/'fixations' (whatever people want to call it ) so I will write out what I really think - no offence is intended.

Dachshunds (similar to corgis, bassets etc) are what is known as a chondrodystrophic breed. What this essentially means is they have a kind of dwarfism. People unfortunately associate dwarfism with something cute or mini but it can actually cause a lot of health problems as it is fundamentally a deformity.*

Now I don't think chondrodystrophy is as harmful a phenotype as brachycephaly (an abnormally shortened skull that pugs, bulldogs etc are burdened with for aesthetics) but in an ideal world it wouldn't be purposefully bred for either.

I do think it's important that we take a look at where this all originated from, in large part so we can discredit breeders that claim it is somehow necessary to the dogs function. I will look at Dachshunds specifically because that is the breed being discussed here. There are actually 6 types of dachshund; long haired standard, wired haired standard, smooth coat standard, long haired miniature, wired haired miniature and smooth coat miniature. Generally 'sausage dog' tends to be used for smooth coated miniature dachshunds but I will be referring to all of them in general terms.

Dachshund translates to 'badger dog' and from this it is quite easy to guess their original purpose. They were developed in Germany to hunt badgers so we can all appreciate why you wouldn't want a huge dog with long legs trying to squeeze down a badger sett.
However as they lost their original function (there are still some that are used for hunting in Germany but let's be honest one of the most popular dogs in the UK is not being used as a hunting dog to kill badgers) as with a lot of other breeds, the kennel club has bred them to more and more extremes.

The original badger hunting dog was short in stature yes, but it's legs weren't tiny little stubs and their backs have been ever elongated in the show room.

Here are some comparisons:







Now obviously artistic license has to be taken into consideration with sketches and drawings, additionally a lot of these dogs appear to have bow legs which is not ideal.

However these dogs are far favourable from a health perspective. The shorter the legs and longer the back the greater risk for spinal conditions such as IVDD but I will touch on those in a moment.

Here are some modern dachshund comparisons, it should be noted that these have been rewarded in the showring.






Now there has been some shift in the show ring, in the interests of balance i think it is only fair to show Maisie the 2020 crufts winner.



As you can see she is a bit more moderate in length of back and leg, however generally the wire haireds are a bit more moderate anyway. The smooths and especially the miniatures seem to be especially afflicted.

As we have explored there was a functional basis behind the build of these dogs however it has been hugely warped by the show ring in the name of breed 'preservation' - which is very ironic given the appearance change these dogs have undergone.

I would argue even if this extreme phenotype was hugely advantageous to their original role - which it isn't since the originals were not so extreme - given that the majority of these dogs are now kept for pets I would suggest that the welfare of the animal should be put first since they are not hunting anyway.

Given there is no functional purpose to this extreme build, or any benefits to the dog I would therefore conclude it is very immoral to breed these animals in such a way when it predisposes them to such health issues. This is only being done for one reason and it is aesthetics.

People may be querying what health issues these dogs do have, I think it is helpful for context to show a picture of the skeleton inside the dog.


As we can see this is an almost entirely normal canid skeleton apart from the legs. We can see the bowed bones of the forelegs and their shortened stature.

Having such short legs combined with a long back puts an enormous amount of pressure on the spine. This can cause what is known as intervertebral disc disease which is where the discs in the back prematurely age and dry out.

If a spinal disc is like a donut then the disease is what happens when the jam is squeezed out of the donut. The disc either dries or explodes and this can cause paralysis. It is virtually impossible to treat at this stage and the dogs are almost always put to sleep unless you can afford expensive spinal surgery.



There are two kinds of IVDD, the first is type I which is the less severe and can be managed long term and may even heal on it's own and the second is the severe type II which can lead to paralysis unless decompression surgery to remove the herniated material is performed.

I think we can all agree that neither type is in the dog's best interest and although breeders and consumers are not purposefully breeding dogs with IVDD the obsession with how they look (tiny legs and short body) is a direct causation of this condition.

There are things to help prevent it such as reducing them jumping up and down but honestly is the best prevention just breeding them more moderately in the first place. Which not only helps their health but also takes them more back to their original iteration which is what the KCs are allegedly all about - 'preservation'.

So from this please form your own conclusions, I am merely here to educate.

*note I am talking about this in an animal breeding context i.e something selectively bred for this - I am not making a comparison to human disabilities so please don't try to bring that into the argument. They are not comparable.

I know this is meant to be a lighthearted discussion but pedigree dog breeding is one of my 'special interests'/'fixations' (whatever people want to call it ) so I will write out what I really think - no offence is intended.

Dachshunds (similar to corgis, bassets etc) are what is known as a chondrodystrophic breed. What this essentially means is they have a kind of dwarfism. People unfortunately associate dwarfism with something cute or mini but it can actually cause a lot of health problems as it is fundamentally a deformity.*

Now I don't think chondrodystrophy is as harmful a phenotype as brachycephaly (an abnormally shortened skull that pugs, bulldogs etc are burdened with for aesthetics) but in an ideal world it wouldn't be purposefully bred for either.

I do think it's important that we take a look at where this all originated from, in large part so we can discredit breeders that claim it is somehow necessary to the dogs function. I will look at Dachshunds specifically because that is the breed being discussed here. There are actually 6 types of dachshund; long haired standard, wired haired standard, smooth coat standard, long haired miniature, wired haired miniature and smooth coat miniature. Generally 'sausage dog' tends to be used for smooth coated miniature dachshunds but I will be referring to all of them in general terms.

Dachshund translates to 'badger dog' and from this it is quite easy to guess their original purpose. They were developed in Germany to hunt badgers so we can all appreciate why you wouldn't want a huge dog with long legs trying to squeeze down a badger sett.
However as they lost their original function (there are still some that are used for hunting in Germany but let's be honest one of the most popular dogs in the UK is not being used as a hunting dog to kill badgers) as with a lot of other breeds, the kennel club has bred them to more and more extremes.

The original badger hunting dog was short in stature yes, but it's legs weren't tiny little stubs and their backs have been ever elongated in the show room.

Here are some comparisons:







Now obviously artistic license has to be taken into consideration with sketches and drawings, additionally a lot of these dogs appear to have bow legs which is not ideal.

However these dogs are far favourable from a health perspective. The shorter the legs and longer the back the greater risk for spinal conditions such as IVDD but I will touch on those in a moment.

Here are some modern dachshund comparisons, it should be noted that these have been rewarded in the showring.






Now there has been some shift in the show ring, in the interests of balance i think it is only fair to show Maisie the 2020 crufts winner.



As you can see she is a bit more moderate in length of back and leg, however generally the wire haireds are a bit more moderate anyway. The smooths and especially the miniatures seem to be especially afflicted.

As we have explored there was a functional basis behind the build of these dogs however it has been hugely warped by the show ring in the name of breed 'preservation' - which is very ironic given the appearance change these dogs have undergone.

I would argue even if this extreme phenotype was hugely advantageous to their original role - which it isn't since the originals were not so extreme - given that the majority of these dogs are now kept for pets I would suggest that the welfare of the animal should be put first since they are not hunting anyway.

Given there is no functional purpose to this extreme build, or any benefits to the dog I would therefore conclude it is very immoral to breed these animals in such a way when it predisposes them to such health issues. This is only being done for one reason and it is aesthetics.

People may be querying what health issues these dogs do have, I think it is helpful for context to show a picture of the skeleton inside the dog.


As we can see this is an almost entirely normal canid skeleton apart from the legs. We can see the bowed bones of the forelegs and their shortened stature.

Having such short legs combined with a long back puts an enormous amount of pressure on the spine. This can cause what is known as intervertebral disc disease which is where the discs in the back prematurely age and dry out.

If a spinal disc is like a donut then the disease is what happens when the jam is squeezed out of the donut. The disc either dries or explodes and this can cause paralysis. It is virtually impossible to treat at this stage and the dogs are almost always put to sleep unless you can afford expensive spinal surgery.



There are two kinds of IVDD, the first is type I which is the less severe and can be managed long term and may even heal on it's own and the second is the severe type II which can lead to paralysis unless decompression surgery to remove the herniated material is performed.

I think we can all agree that neither type is in the dog's best interest and although breeders and consumers are not purposefully breeding dogs with IVDD the obsession with how they look (tiny legs and short body) is a direct causation of this condition.

There are things to help prevent it such as reducing them jumping up and down but honestly is the best prevention just breeding them more moderately in the first place. Which not only helps their health but also takes them more back to their original iteration which is what the KCs are allegedly all about - 'preservation'.

So from this please form your own conclusions, I am merely here to educate.

*note I am talking about this in an animal breeding context i.e something selectively bred for this - I am not making a comparison to human disabilities so please don't try to bring that into the argument. They are not comparable.

That's a super, detailed post on a topic very close to my heart. Thank you, Cavy

I'll stick with the Labradors and English Springer Spaniels, I think.

If I was going to get a dog, I'd think that I'd go with a Lab - although I hear their health issue is normally with arthritis.

Are there any dog breeds that don't have common/predictable health issues?

If I was going to get a dog, I'd think that I'd go with a Lab - although I hear their health issue is normally with arthritis. Are there any dog breeds that don't have common/predictable health issues?

A lot of the time, arthritis in Labs is caused by their owners not controlling their weight properly - I'm sure you've seen those enormous fat Labs, poor things. I usually tell the owners off. A properly fed and exercised Lab can avoid arthritis and other weight-related health issues to a large extent.




Springer Spaniels are a very hardy, healthy breed - and often long lived. Our Springer will be 18 in a month or so, and our previous boy was over 17. There are a few hereditary issues (such as hip and elbow dysplasia, an eye problem) but these can be easily screened for. Apart from that, it's the same with labs - keeping them a healthy weight, properly exercised and properly loved. Cocker Spaniels are also a hardy breed, though not quite as long lived as Springers, and slightly naughtier too in my experience. Cockers can be quite passive aggressive. The only issues with Springers are that they need a lot, and I mean LOTS, of exercise and activity, particularly when younger, and they can be quite nutty - but that's what I like about them. The can also turn into velcro dogs easily, which can be very distressing for them.

I think with any dog, the key is to only buy from reputable breeders, screen for hereditary health issues specific to that breed, feed a really good quality diet, keep the dog's weight strictly under control and lots of activity and exercise. A bit like a human being, really! I'm also a huge advocate of taking a dog on from an animal shelter - there's too many dogs out there who need safe, loving homes where they can be looked after and thrive.

That's really interesting and good to know - thanks 18 sounds like an amazing age, well done!