Pwca
Posted : 12/13/2009 5:13:28 AM
What I think is weird about using that photo as a 'look how light he was' is that look, that dog cannot even keep his tongue in his mouth when closed. (A known problem with the breed that yes, goes ALLL the way back!).
Lighter bone doesn't necessarily make a dog any healthier. And it doesn't tell you anything aobut the dog's heart, patellas, eyes, soft palatte or anything else on the INSIDE of the dog. And that boy's head isn't significantly less extreme than the pugs I see at most shows. He has less wrinkle and a lower earset, but his muzzle's just as short.
Pugs have never BEEN a working breed. They've been bred for a funny appearance, a darling temperament, and ideally, a long and healthy life for centuries. Shows may have exaggerated some features, but I don't honestly think the short muzzle that the show shrieked about was one that has been changed nearly as much as the amount of bone and coat the dog carries.
To someone looking for a pug, are you REALLY going to tell them "Ignore show breeders, just look for someone breeding for health and temperament?" Knowing that is the #1 claim of BYBs ("We breed ONLY for temperament, and look, our dogs are all healthy.";) and that breathing problems aren't something with anything like an OFA database where a puppy buyer can look for indepnedently verifiable test results. (And looking at the OFA database, only 35% of the pugs submitted for hips were normal, yet I've never known anyone with a symptomatic dog- only 7% of patellas are abnormal and I know a ton of people with pugs with patella problems. And there's no test at all for an extended soft palate which causes the dog to have noisy, abnormal breathing, and while any relatives you meet may be free of that, wouldn't you like to be able to see a pedigree full of clears for a health condition rather than just going on the one dog you CAN see?) I'm not saying there are not reputable non-show breeders in companion breeds, because I think they exist. (I bought Lizzie from a breeder who did not show, although that was more due to lack of access; when she was born, they were not eligable for showing anywhere but Rarities and IABCA, both of which are few, far between, and expensive for the level of judging expertise and competition.) But I think sorting through them is difficult for someone with a lot of dog experience, let alone someone who is NOT a dog person looking for a family pet, in a breed that is wildly popular.
Terrierman is a jerk. He found something that gives him a power trip and has been riding it for years now. He's not ever bred a litter or done anything that convinces me that he actually has a SOLUTION for solving genetic problems in a breed. His main expertise in dogs is letting his dogs harass a relatively harmless (the amount of trouble groundhogs cause is really minimal, they're just not that big of a pest) to death. It's not a qiuck kill like a sighthound breaking the neck of a rabbit, it's not a retriever bringing in a dead duck. It's a terrier taking chunks out of a large rodent until it gives up and gets dragged out to the surface, where Patrick shoots it and takes a picture of it on his car before throwing it away. (I think he eats them once in a while, but there's not much on there.) If he was using pit bulls and the animals he hunted were more photogenic, I suspect pepole would be screaming about animal cruelty.
I'm not against hunting. I just don't think the access to small animals for my dogs to harass makes me an expert on breeding ANY dogs, let alone show dogs. I think his posts on hunting groundhogs are interesting and his observations as a nature fan are solid. (I've only ever hunted dove, quail, and duck, with labs, pointers, and Brittanys.) But I think he's just talking out his butt when it comes to observations about show dogs.