Chuffy
Posted : 8/26/2008 12:46:43 PM
Marklf
Chuffy
There are enough pet quality dogs in shelters already and I will
not coondone breeding more of them, if that is the sole purpose. Now,
if you were to deliberately attempt to help breed out genetic defects
in "your" breed, through rare, careful breeding... that may be a
different story!
There are many reasons for people to gets their pets from a shelter
but there are also many reasons for people to to choose not to get
their dog from a shelter.
Then they should go
to a reputable breeder who will have "pet quality" pups in every litter
that are NOT going to cut it as show dogs/breeding specimens and will
need spaying or neutering and placing in pet homes.
Marklf
Many of the dogs in shelters are not "pet quality" they
have issues that make them unacceptable to those that are not suited to
deal with those issues.
So? Just as many do NOT have
issues and are there because the owner has passed away or is now in
circumstances where they can no longer meet the needs of the dog. Look
at "dogs in danger!" and see JUST how many dogs are being PTS because
of "age" or "space". Every time a breeder breeds, they should be doing
so for the betterment of that breed. THAT should be uppermost in their thoughts. Not JUST "producing pets".
I
AGREE that making the bulldogs head wider, the KC spaniels head
smaller, the doxie lower and longer and the great dane larger are NOT
"bettering the breed(s)". There is a large difference in my mind.
Marklf
As for your comment about "careful breeding" to attempt
to breed out genetic defects, I suggest you watch this film again. The
film clearly shows that breeding to a artificial "standard" is not
ridding dogs of genetic defects it is causing them!
Unless the standards themselves were to change so that unsuitable specimens could be ruled out of the gene pool? I
honestly don't think abolishing shows and breed standards is going to
fix this problem, nor is it even going to happen because NO ONE is
going to go along with it.
Marklf
Actually if you
read the standard for the basset hound it requires that the dogs "The
height should not exceed 14 inches" while at the same time the standard
requires the chest " is not to be more than one-third the total height
at the withers of an adult Basset". So following that standard a
dog cannot possibly have their chest be more then 4.6 inches of the
ground at the maximum. In order to win at the shows (and thereby be
"proven";) a dog would have to be even less then that! Try running
around outside with your chest no higher then 4.6 inches off the ground
and see how banged up you would become. Look at the photo of a
champion basset hound from the past and the champion basset s of
today. They do not even look like the same breed! Yet they are both
following the "blueprint" of the standard and the changes were made
under the guise of "improving" the breed.
I actually
missd that part and I'm afraid the BH was a poor choice for me as I
don't know a whole great deal about them. My bad 
If champions of the past were champions because they fit the standard, then it can't be the standard itself which is all bad. Let's see if we can find a picture of a show Bassett when they were still healthy and functional, and one from today. Let's also see if we can find out what, if any, changes were made to the Standard itself between "then" and "now". I would be really ineterested to see just how much the Standards have changed... because I suspect that what has changed is breeders' and judges' perceptions of what is acceptable and desirable, rather than the standards themselves.
Marklf
Chuffy
So? Just meeting ONE of my requirements doesn't mean much. Have proven your dogs would be a good start, no guarantee of purchase though.
That one requirement, in too many breeds, means that the health of the dog was placed at risk. For example the ridge being required on the RR means that all the dogs that meet the standard are predisposed to a debilitating condition. How is that a "good start"?
How else do you suggest proving the dog?
Marklf
Thats a nice myth but its reality was exposed in this film! Watch the film again and pay attention to the history and original purpose of these shows! Eugenics was the driving force behind the origination of these shows but since then eugenics has been renounced by both the political and scientific community as it applies to humans yet somehow we still accept it for animals? Take a look at the results of that eugenics as was portrayed in this film. Can you really justify its continuance? Look again at the deformed skulls that this has caused for the bully breeds, the undersized skulls that it has caused for the Cavalier Kings, the misshapen bone structure in the GSD, the predisposition for a debilitating condition in the RR, look at all of that and tell me just how this is a "good thing".
So let me get this straight... you are proposing abolishing all breed standards and all dog shows. Do you really think that will happen?
Selective breeding, tinkering with genes... it's something in our nature it seems, but we humans are unable to resist it. And yet selective breeding CAN be a force for good. It's not selective breeding in and of itself which is bad... its FASHION! Fashion is ENORMOUSLY detrimental to dogs of all breeds.
When the royal family expressed a dislike for ear cropping in the UK, suddenly having "natural ears" was the "thing" in the ring. Not long after that, cropping was outlawed and to this day most people here dislike the idea of ear cropping. This is an example f the influence that fashion can have.
Let's take boxers as an example. The standard says that one third of the dog may be white - that is acceptable. In recent years, it's rare to see a boxer win a show that DOESN'T have the flashy white collar and chest. Some breeders are breeding FOR that colour. The standard only says "acceptable", but fashion has made it "desirable".