Are Mixed-Breeds healthier than Purebreds?

I love dogs, and that absolutely includes mixed breeds. I spent several years working at a humane society where I cared for literally thousands of mixed-breed dogs (and a fair number of purebred). Most of these dogs were lovely, sweet, clever, fun, and presumably healthy.

I have friends who breed purpose-bred mixes that check all the boxes of a reputable breeder (appropriate and applicable health testing, mindful pairings of proven dogs, enriched upbringing, breeder support, etc.). They breed amazing dogs, and I refer people to them as enthusiastically as I do any of the great purebred breeders I know.

There are absolutely health problems within any breed. Diligent testing and mindful pairings have allowed many breed communities to make great strides with health. Still, I regularly hear that mixed-breed dogs are healthier than purebred dogs solely because they are mixed-breed vs purebred. People will tell about their mixed breed who lived a healthy 18 years. I'll tell them about my IG who lived a healthy 18 years and my poodle a healthy 17. We can all trot out germain anecdotes. But what about data?

The most common proof I'm shown is insurance premiums. Insuring a purebred is more expensive because they have more health problems. But...is that accurate? The algorithm behind insurance premiums is no doubt convoluted, but the basics are that your premiums are based on the claims submitted by owners of the same breed in your region. (This is why you're asked for breed and postal code/zip code for a quote). Whether regions are based on geographic size or population, if you have a less common breed, then the number of your breed in any region will be low and this will dramatically skew results.

The overall percentage of dogs insured in North America is very low. About 10 years ago, it hovered around 2 %. Let's say it's doubled (it hasn't) and it's now 4%. This is extremely relevant because we aren't talking about the numbers of a breed in a region, which could be low with an uncommon breed. We're talking about the numbers of insured dogs of an uncommon breed within a region, which could be infinitesimal.

In fact, you might have the only insured dogs of xyz breed within your region, and any claims YOU make will then result in an increase in your OWN premiums (this happened to a friend of mine in an uncommon but not rare breed).

In any given region, you might have one or two of a certain breed compared with hundreds of mixed breeds. So the resulting data showing that purebred dogs have more claims than mixed breed dogs is based on skewed numbers, tiny demographics, and simply isn't reliable.

I suspect most breed fanciers will tell you that poorly bred examples of their breed have more health issues. This is certainly true in Dalmatians. And this further skews the data. In region X with 10 Dalmatians, how many are well bred? So not only is data based on very small numbers, it's not representative of well-bred dogs?

All this to say.... mixed-breed dogs aren't inherently healthier than purebred dogs. Those breeders who are diligently testing and using test results as one tool to guide their breeding decisions (in addition to combing pedigrees for risk factors we can't yet test for) are improving overall health, regardless of whether they're breeding a purebred or a mix.

Find a great breeder for your best chance at a healthy dog OR adopt a beautiful dog from a reputable rescue knowing their health is unknown but they’re worth that risk!