The Elitist Attitude.

Marklf

Benedict,

Benedict

"I never once said that my dog is more important than my spouse, and my dog is fixed so I'm not comparing breeding *my* dog with breeding...well...me."

Please re-read your post!  You made a direct comparison between breeding a dog and a human!

Benedict

"My point was, and it still stands, that if we are going to get a dog we owe it both to ourselves, and to them to make sure the dog is the best fit possible, and that doing so, according to our own standards, isn't elitism any more than choosing the best spouse possible is elitism."

Marklf

I do not disagree with that statement at all!!!  However it is "elitist" to demand that others also follow "our own standards" when selecting or breeding their dogs!

I didn't do that.  I was talking about buying a dog that was the best fit, I wasn't talking from the perspective of breeding one.  I am more than capable of finding a breeder who already fits my standards, without having to demand that they do it.  Do you know any breeders?  Because the demands come from their end, not the buyer's end.   

Benedict

"And we're discussing breeding/hereditary conditions in dogs because, well, this is a dog forum.  I'm quite sure there are forums out there on which to discuss the relative risks of human breeding and hereditary conditions.  This just isn't one of them."

Marklf

Sorry but you were the one that brought that perspective to this discussion I just responded to your post!

Actually I didn't mention health screening at all in my original post, that was the slant YOU put on it. 

Truley

David, I cannot stop anyone from breeding their dog, I can offer suggestions, facts and my opinion, but in the end they are going to do whatever they want. But, and this is where it all came down to elitist or not, I cannot, in good conscious, support the breeding of sweet, cute, friendly pets for no other reason than they want to, I'm sorry, I just can't do it.

I respect that and your opinion should be heard and become part of the decision process as to whether to breed or not.  I don't partake in a thread unless the topic is a current happening in my home.  And even though others don't like it, I partake in a big way.  But that is me.  And, if you read my posts the central theme has been the approach or delivery of these opinions. 

Now, the few that know me, know that the dog's, any dog's well being and life is important to me.  I am not going to do anything wreckless.  Some may think me adopting and paying $250 for 8 week old Blizzard, a pigment challenged deaf Great Dane is nuts.  But I did prepare and did do research and I had the resources to cover the worst of scenarios.  What a great dog and to me she was the Holy Grail.  I am also a person that is not willing to sacrifice a dog to teach a breeder a lesson.  There are other ways to reach that breeder and how one delivers the message can influence the decision and make a difference.

FourIsCompany

Marklf

What gets me is that many on here seem more concerned about breeding dogs then breeding humans! 

 

There aren't 3-4 million humans being put to death every year in this country because someone didn't want them. When children are born with birth defects, there isn't a place where you can just turn them in and make it someone else's problem. When people move, they don't leave their children behind, tied up in the back yard to an unknown fate. When people decide to get a dog, they don't take their children to someone else to have them be put to death.

People ARE concerned about human breeding, but let's get realistic here. 
 

Yes and there are a lot of laws with stiff penalties to deter this.  In Chicago if mother wants to abandon her baby it is ok for her to do so within the law so long as she drops the baby off at a hospital, and a few other designated legal places.  Are you suggesting similar laws for dogs?  I like the idea of a new thread on human and dog analogies.

Benidict,

" I said the bit you quoted because you made it personal...not me."

I do not see where I "made it personal" but if any of my posts came across as an attempt to make it personal or insulting in any way then I apologize for my lack writting skills!  Please be assured that was NOT mt intent!!!

Mark

Marklf

"I'm not a huge fan of the AKC but don't blame them for the Plott's standard."

 

If the AKC really wanted to eliminate hereditary problems in the breeds it could do so fairly quickly!  All it would need to do is require breed specific health screening for all dogs that it registers!  Any dog that fails its genetic screening would lose it "AKC registered" status!   Too many people assume incorrectly that by getting a dog that is "AKC registered" they are getting a good healthy example of a particular breed, the AKC profits from this misconception so unfortunately I do not see them doing anything to change that anytime soon!

Mark
 

We are off topic

But...

I, for one, agree with you! My last dog was registered, but only because her breeder did it. I could register Kord, but I refuse to, he is my pet, so there is no reason to.

Now, back to our scheduled debate on why I wrong to be an elitist, thank you!

Marklf

"I'm not a huge fan of the AKC but don't blame them for the Plott's standard."

 

If the AKC really wanted to eliminate hereditary problems in the breeds it could do so fairly quickly!  All it would need to do is require breed specific health screening for all dogs that it registers!  Any dog that fails its genetic screening would lose it "AKC registered" status!   Too many people assume incorrectly that by getting a dog that is "AKC registered" they are getting a good healthy example of a particular breed, the AKC profits from this misconception so unfortunately I do not see them doing anything to change that anytime soon!

Mark
 

But the AKC is just a registry, it is not and never has been responsible for the breed's standard and what constitutes responsible breeding practices.  That is up to the parent club of each breed.  That's like blaming census people for not dealing with poverty and health care issues.  It's just like I was saying earlier, if people have real problems with their breed's standard and/or breeding practices, then why aren't they joining the parent clubs and doing something about it?  German Shepherds are important to me, and as such I join clubs and get my voice heard, make it count for something, instead of complaining about hereditary problems and blaming arbitrary registries for not curing them.  Sure it would be nice if the AKC set some standards, but that's not their responsibility and I won't blame them for not.  That is totally up to the breed fanciers. 

Truley,

"Now, back to our scheduled debate on why I wrong to be an elitist, thank you!"

The problem with being an "elitist" is that it is not an effective approach when trying to convince others to join in ones attempt achieve a particular goal!  For example (and I am not directing this to anyone in particular on this thread so please do not take anything I state as "personal";), if a persons goal is to lower the number of dogs that end up in shelters but they come across as "elitist" when they present their views then the majority of people that hear their views will be turned off by their "elitist" attitude.  This does nothing to help reach the goal of less dogs ending up in a shelter.  In fact it could hurt their cause because their "elitist" attitude could cause people to shy away from going to a shelter because they do not want to be exposed to more "elitist" views from people at those shelters.

Mark

In Chicago if mother wants to abandon her baby it is ok for her to do so within the law so long as she drops the baby off at a hospital, and a few other designated legal places.  Are you suggesting similar laws for dogs?

i dont know about chicago, but there are laws about just willy-nilly abandoning dogs here. there are special places set up for irresponsible owners to dump their puppies. the laws applying to pets may not be as strictly enforced as ones pertaining to humans but they do exist.

Marklf

"I'm not a huge fan of the AKC but don't blame them for the Plott's standard."

 

If the AKC really wanted to eliminate hereditary problems in the breeds it could do so fairly quickly!  All it would need to do is require breed specific health screening for all dogs that it registers!  Any dog that fails its genetic screening would lose it "AKC registered" status!   Too many people assume incorrectly that by getting a dog that is "AKC registered" they are getting a good healthy example of a particular breed, the AKC profits from this misconception so unfortunately I do not see them doing anything to change that anytime soon!

Mark
 

You're discussing two different issues.  

The Plott was only recently accepted into the AKC.  I was replying to a post that concerned itself with the ear length of the Plott.

 It's true, the AKC could require testing for all of it's prospective breeders.  I don't know what the ramifications of that would be though.  Additional cost to the breeders and thus to the buyers, maybe? 

The reason I'm not a huge fan of the AKC is because I've met many breeders in the hobby that do not concern themselves with the whole dog.  They concentrate on specific parts to wit:  The coat of the Borzoi-with no regard to temperment, which is a huge mistake because these dogs are 100lbs and more, and can kill or cause bodily harm to almost anything on two or four legs.  The cut on a terrier, while important, portrays nothing of what these dogs can do when going to earth.

I place much more emphasis on performance events than I do conformation, though conformation does matter immensely if a dog is to perform the tasks for which it is bred.  The question is, however, has the dog had it's drive bred out of him? 

Too bad that "til death do us part" is not honored and there is divorce.

there are a whole host of reasons why people get divorced. sh!t happens. until you have walked in someone else's shoes it is best that you keep your judgements to yourself. 

Liesje,

"But the AKC is just a registry, it is not and never has been responsible for the breed's standard and what constitutes responsible breeding practices. "

Actually the AKC can and does get does get involved with "breeding practices" they have an inspection process for kennels and DNA testing to insure breeding is done to their established standards.  They could easily include a breed specific health screening to their requirements for registration but it would cost them and their members money so I don't see it happening.  You are correct that they are not "responsible" for the breed standards BUT they are responsible for their standards for registration!

Mark

Marklf

Liesje,

"But the AKC is just a registry, it is not and never has been responsible for the breed's standard and what constitutes responsible breeding practices. "

Actually the AKC can and does get does get involved with "breeding practices" they have an inspection process for kennels and DNA testing to insure breeding is done to their established standards.  They could easily include a breed specific health screening to their requirements for registration but it would cost them and their members money so I don't see it happening.  You are correct that they are not "responsible" for the breed standards BUT they are responsible for their standards for registration!

Mark

I still disagree.  The parent clubs are responsible for standards and standards of registration.  The AKC doesn't make/change the standards, breed clubs do.

Also, health screening is not the end-all or be-all.  Dogs can develop hip dysplasia from two parents that score near perfect or OFA excellent.  There aren't tests (or reliable test) for many diseases and conditions.  And what about breeds like the GSD, where temperament and drive are just as important, if not more so, than structure and health?  There's a kennel not an hour from me that DOES health screen their dogs, but guess what they are a puppy mill.  They have half a dozen litters on the ground at a time and have been known to dump their puppies at vets' offices and local GSD rescues.  They don't care about their dogs' temperaments and working abilities, only cranking out puppies and making thousands of dollars on each.  They DNA their dogs and the AKC inspects their kennel.  So much for that...
 

Marklf

Truley,

"Now, back to our scheduled debate on why I wrong to be an elitist, thank you!"

The problem with being an "elitist" is that it is not an effective approach when trying to convince others to join in ones attempt achieve a particular goal!  For example (and I am not directing this to anyone in particular on this thread so please do not take anything I state as "personal";), if a persons goal is to lower the number of dogs that end up in shelters but they come across as "elitist" when they present their views then the majority of people that hear their views will be turned off by their "elitist" attitude.  This does nothing to help reach the goal of less dogs ending up in a shelter.  In fact it could hurt their cause because their "elitist" attitude could cause people to shy away from going to a shelter because they do not want to be exposed to more "elitist" views from people at those shelters.

Mark

I was labeled an Elitist for refusing to condone or support the breeding an unproven pet dog. It was just my view, the OP asked a question, I gave my answer. I did not call her names, or call her a bad person, but gave my view non the less. It was up to her, and her alone, on how to react, to be honest she never said a word to me, someone else came along, someone with deep feelings of regret, and gave me a label. Someone who I might add, fosters dogs, that someone in that line of rescue, would have that attitude, broke my heart, and I am sure it floored a few others here as well. 

I don't care about the label, I do care about over breeding. I don't walk up to people and demand to see the testing on their dogs, I don't yell at people who breed their pet to someone else's pet because they can and they think the puppies would make great pets, I offer advice, give a few suggestions or opinions, if asked or involved in a conversation about it. I don't run amok among people beating them down with my views.

Someone, anyone, has yet to convince me that my view is out of whack. I just cannot see bringing more dogs/cats into a world because they like a parent dog and want to "keep that". It is selfish.

As for Elitist views at a shelter, never seen one yet. But I have in rescue and fosters.

Marklf

  For example (and I am not directing this to anyone in particular on this thread so please do not take anything I state as "personal";), if a persons goal is to lower the number of dogs that end up in shelters but they come across as "elitist" when they present their views then the majority of people that hear their views will be turned off by their "elitist" attitude.  This does nothing to help reach the goal of less dogs ending up in a shelter.  In fact it could hurt their cause because their "elitist" attitude could cause people to shy away from going to a shelter because they do not want to be exposed to more "elitist" views from people at those shelters.

Mark

I have to agree with you there, I am one of those people.  The Richmond SPCA's attitude during their adoption screening cost them placing a homeless dog in (what I consider to be) a very good home and resulted in that home going to a breeder to get the dog they wanted.  They caused a 10 year delay in any other homeless dog making its way into my home and caused me to have a bad impression of the whole adoption process as a result.  When I was considering adopting again, I deliberately avoided them because of my past experience.  Luckily, the people at the Richmond SHELTER were wonderful, lead to me volunteering there and restored my faith in rescue and adoption.  It also taught me a lesson not to take one representative as a whole.  I try to pay that forward by encouraging adoption in as positive and non-judgmental a way as possible.  I do, however, have a strong bias against reckless, ill-informed breeding and that comes across in my reaction, probably to the detriment of my goal of discouraging it.  If nothing else, I'm learning in this thread and the other one how to approach the issue in a more calm, helpful manner by reading the posts of the more level-headed, less confrontational (I'm so NOT level headed, and SO confrontational, speaking only of myself here, not any other posters!    ) posters so that I can do better in the future.

But I'm still proud to be an elitist!  

Also wanted to add that I think the Richmond SPCA does great work, Woobie now attends flyball classes there and I've met people that are great.  I think we just encountered a particularly zealous adoption screener but it shows you how long-lasting and detrimental a negative impact can be.  Good point Mark. 

Truley,

I think you may have missed the part where I said " I am not directing this to anyone in particular on this thread so please do not take anything I state as "personal"".  I was attempting to answer the general question of "whats wrong with being an elitist".  I was not attempting to address your personal elitism or lack of elitism.  In no way am I trying to get you or anyone else to support breeding practice that you may disagree with!  In fact I do not consider holding a personal standard for acceptable breeding practices to be "elitist"!  What I consider to be elitist is when someone (I am NOT saying you do this) expects all others to follow their standard for breeding practices!  When people come across as attempting to dictate was constitutes "reputable" or "ethical" breeding practices based on their own agenda (again I am NOT saying you do this) then that strikes me as "elitist" and is counterproductive.

Mark