Ludwig my Pug!

Aw come on, don't be such a grumpy guss! We're just having fun, its really not about you anymore.
It IS funny to say that a dog's breed is a matter of opinion!

Hue. When a dog is one breed, and another person comes along and says it is another, is that not the person's opinion? You have Great Danes, if I came and said they were Pointers and was persistent with that thought, would I not be having my own opinion due to that being what I thought they were? Is opinion not the right word? I get the feeling off the posts you guys are taking me for an idiot over this, which is why I do not find the posting of yours dogs saying they are this and that, funny.

I guess I just don't take myself or my dogs that seriously. I mean I have people all the time tell me my dogs are dalmatians - no, really! And will even say when I correct them "are you SURE?" Its FUNNY. In my world someone telling me my dog is a dalmatian, my pink clad dog is a boy, my labX is a pit bull is just not worth getting all hot and bothered over.

But then... maybe the reason it doesn't bother me is because *I* know I'm right...

Oh, as for semantics... Facts are something you can test or prove. Opinions are not. Your dog's breed is a fact, not an opinion.

"Opinion" tends to be used for things that are preferential rather than something that can be proven or dis-proven with factual evidence. Depending on how you bend the definition, I suppose you could call a statement such as "the sky is green" an opinion... but you would still be wrong in stating that the sky is green. So it might be your opinion, but your opinion is based on misinformation or misunderstanding of a fact, and is therefore incorrect and false (a false fact.)

I think opinion is the wrong word. It is scientifically impossible your dog is a purebred pug because of his coat color and other physical features. Anyone with experience in genetics could tell you exactly why and how this is impossible. Since there is scientific evidence to back this up, it makes it a fact.

It's like if a woman has a baby, and the baby comes out with genetic traits of someone of a different genetic background than she or the person she says she reproduced with. It can be her "opinion" the baby is her husband's, but if DNA and the baby's physical characteristics don't add up to that, her opinion is going against fact and evidence and therefore is wrong, and not really an opinion, just defiance.

I'm starting to wonder if my dogs BEING brindle makes them pugs. Can I change my name to PugMom, mods?

(kidding!)

That being said, I've followed this entire thread and am horrified that someone can look at those dogs and think they are pugs. Adorable? Yes. The mom, definitely a predominantly pug mix? Sure! Pugs, however, they are not. No one I have showed the photo of the father to has even GUESSED pug...

PUG:

Fact: 2+2 = 4

Opinion: My dog is cute.

When the brindle coloring does not exist in purebred pugs it is not an opinion that you have a pug. Because you don't. You have a pug mix. I posted a similar example before, but it's like calling Tipper a purebred corgi when she's definitely not.

It's not a matter of opinion that she's not purebred, it's a fact. She might even be mostly corgi (in fact she probably is) but that doesn't make her a corgi. She's still a mix. And if I called her a corgi I would be lying.

Pug..... Don't think so....

Cute?? Omg YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very adorable dog.

No way its pure pug, in so many ways. But why does that matter to you? Since you seem happy with your dog, and like the breeders... why care if its a mix or not?

The only reason I would see to care is if you were sold the dog with papers that said it was full pug, because if so that was fraud on someone's part. Since you like and trust the breeders, its possible that they were the ones who got taken.

Its fairly common for people (puppy mills in particular) to breed what ever together but claim it was from a different dog. They are notorious for using dogs on their pedigrees that were never theirs or were never bred.

Enjoy your dog, but pls don't tell everyone its a purebred pug. You end up looking very silly and gullible. (I don't know you, and note I said "looking" not 'Being')

isnt it true that if a dog is not sold with papers than "techniqually" its cannot be a "pure bred" because there is not proof to back up that it is?

I've never heard this, and if I did, I've believe it about as much I believe people who tell me their black and tan, 125 lb dog with long silky hair is a "purebred siberian husky" because "she has the papers to back it up".

I suppose papers occasionally mean something, but usually when people talk about their dog's papers it's something completely random some pet store somewhere typed up so they could charge few hundred more dollars.

Sorry what I ment was like ACK or CKC or UKC papers not papers from a petstore, but legit papers

As a general rule unless you have a traceable pedigree, preferably from a recognized and accepted registry, your dog is merely "possibly purebred".

Thats what I thought. Thanks Adrianne

I get what you guys mean by opinion now.

So then, his breed is not an opinion. It is fact he is Pug.

I think it matters to others more here so far than it has mattered to me. I have been just answering to everyone he is a Pug. Seems almost everyone keeps coming here with the need to say "NOT PUG NOT PUG NOT PUG" opcorn:

I don't see anything to be horrified about. But, if you have that much of a problem...well, that's your problem.

Because he is not a purebred Pug.


On a side note, in Canada (and I'm fairly sure the US) it is ILIGAL to sell a dog or puppy are a pure bred unless CKC (or AKC/UKC) papers are provided at no extra charge. It's under the pedigreed dog act.

Fixed it.

There is scientifically no possible way your dog is a purebred pug. It's not an opinion, or a fact that he's purebred pug, it's just misinformation.

You wouldn't look at a big cat that's tan with a furry mane and say "that's a tiger." You wouldn't look at a labrador with long, flowing hair and say "it's a long-coated labrador". Certain things, like size, certain colors, coat type, etc. are subject to "throwbacks" or mutations making them show up in breeds where they don't usually show up, but the traits your dog have are not those traits, and anyone with any kind of education in genetics could tell that dog is not a purebred pug.

Why are you so against acknowledging that the dog's parents must have some either boston terrier or french bulldog in them to create that color (and more than likely a healthier dog than most purebred pugs are to begin with)?

Not sure why you feel the need to keep this going. If you don't like what people are saying in this thread, then just let it die. Digging it up after it's been dead for weeks.... makes you look like a troll.

^that. So ^that. If it's really not that big of a deal, why in the world did you bring it up again?