The problem isn’t their standards, its the small fraction of people who must take something and exaggerate it, such as the extremely pushed in faces of the Bulldogs and Pekes, and those rears on the GSDs. I don’t think those who do things like that to their breed are particularly responsible, but then we can’t really legislate it. Even if you could, for the most part those dogs do pass a health exam, it is just the outliers that don’t.
For me, responsible breeding is concern for the breed as a whole, not just what goes on in the show ring or any one performance venue. The responsible breeder does all of the health checks recommended, offers a solid guarantee, is available for any follow up questions/issues for the life of the dog and is always willing to take it back at any time. This breeder carefully screens prospective buyers and only has as many puppies/litter as s/he can realistically keep track of and take back if needed. This breeder also only keeps as many dogs as s/he can take care of and interact with daily.
I’m sure I’ve missed stuff, but I have to run off to meet friends to train!
The irresponsible breeder is one who cavalierly ignores such things as “the extremely pushed in faces of the Bulldogs and Pekes” as not problems of HER breed. As the cost of doing business, in other words.
All purebreeders are irresponsible and willfully ignorant–that is to say, consciously in denial–of the horrible cost to some individual dogs–even if they cavalierly accept it as collateral damage, as a “small percentage.”
I can’t distinguish it, morally, from veal farming or fur trapping: it’s the cavalier attitude of most humans that animal torture is nothing in the service of human vanity.
I’m not a PETA person; I eat all meat, I wear leather, I put myself through school working in pet stores. I’m not a hunter or fisherman myself, but I don’t object to it morally, as long as the game is killed humanely and consumed as food.
But inbreeding deformities into a dog–like the cavalierly dismissed bulldog face–or a cat–like the expected incontinence of Manx cats–simply because a human thinks it’s “cute”–is morally objectionable to me.
And while those may be extremes, cavalierly dismissing the incidence of the trademark disorders that many, many purebreeds are subject too, is on the same moral spectrum, as far as I’m concerned.
Nature gave us a pretty good working dog. There’s no justifiable reason to sculpt them, Moreau-like, into different shapes and deformities, just to suit a human whim or fashion.
I am amazed at your bias on this subject. Does it not occur to you that your little bit of research, because of one dog of one breed, may not be as complete and up to date as someone who has spent her life in dogs for over 40 years? I spin nothing, I merely provide facts.
So, in other words, you want dogs to cease to exist? Or are you under the impression somehow that mixed breed dogs have no genetic illnesses, no orthopedic problems, never have pushed in faces, etc? Do you think those genes only exist in purebred dogs?
I’m sorry, but this is totally off base. There is no willful torture being done by any responsible breeder, and even most BYBs cannot be said to be torturing any animals. There are even a few puppy mills that treat their dogs well. It also rarely has anything to do with human vanity.
And how does this apply to all the breeders of dogs and cats that don’t have any, uh, unusual structure? (I have no idea if it is true that incontinence in Manx is “expected” - I have had only one, briefly, and he wasn’t incontinent.)
And yet, you don’t respond to the fact that these disorders all except a very few, also appear in mixed breeds. Nor do you get yourself educated on genetics. I’ll give an example of the problem here - are you aware that humans have far more genetic illnesses than dogs, despite the fact that the average human is far more outcrossed than a pure bred dog? Yet you continue to want to blame genetic illness on “inbreeding”.
Almost all of the breeds were created many decades ago to do a specific job, nothing to do with “whim or fashion”. Please go forth and educate yourself.
Curlcoat, all of your “interpretations” of the data are spun out to inaccuracy due to your bias. I refuse to continue this debate with you here, when you’re obviously willing to fragment this argument dishonestly until it’s impossible to engage on any one, consistent front. If you’re not willfully misinterpreting something I’ve said, you’re extrapolating it illogically until it bears no relation to reality. And then there’s just the disrespectful dishonesty: do you honestly think that no one here can see the difference in your apples-oranges comparison of trademark dog disorders brought out by inbreeding and the general range of genetic disorders in the planet’s entire human population? If you have to pretend I’m that stupid before you can engage, please count me out. Unless it’s your strategy just to keep tossing bad-faith straw balls at me to prevent the actual substantive engagement of the actual subject, then again, have at it. Your bias has clearly prevented you from educating yourself about the “dark side” of pure breeding, and frankly until I see some evidence that you’re willing to at least balance that information without bias, I’m not all that interested in spitting into the wind of your bias.
Everyone else, ignore us: assume we’re both wrong. Do your own research.
The facts are out there, the science is out there. Watch the documentary, do some reading–specifically on the genetic problems caused by purebreeding, and the AKC’s adherence to standards of appearance over standards of health. Curlcoat, you seem only to allow yourself to take that information in after reinterpreting it; you convert each scientific fact to some abstract principle of your understanding of genetics, or whatever, and then you further insist on considering it only when comparing it something you can say is worse, or find a way to minimize it statistically. In other words, you can only “accept” the information after spinning it, as I said initially, with your biased filters.
Much of this information is solid science, not subject to spin or interpretation.* Fine, you’re emotionally invested in dog breeding. Whatever. Man up and admit, like a bow hunter or a spear fisherman, that you accept the collateral damage. Don’t try to “interpret” out of existence, or minimize it as the rare exception, or whatever. It just makes you seem dishonest.
*Whether I’m its most convincing advocate is a different question; dismissing it because I’M not communicating it clearly is lazy, ad hominem reasoning; there are far more compelling sources for such information than I, so don’t dismiss the information because I’m the one who’s bringing it. Watch the BBC documentary. There’s an Atlantic Monthly article from a while back that covers much of the same ground, I’ll try to find it. Educate yourself on the seamy underbelly of the thing.
I think the amount of blame people assign to BYB is overstated. The problem isn’t on the supply side, it’s on the demand. Someone who buys a dog from a breeder and keeps it until it dies is less harmful then someone who rolls through 4 or 5 different shelter dogs in that time. The problem is that people are fickle idiots who get dogs they don’t train or understand.
I think our easy disposal of animals is partly to blame. The fact that shelters take any dog anonymously makes it too easy for someone to drop off their dogs. There is a disconnect in between that somehow makes them feel less responsible for it’s eventual nuking. Unfortunately making it hard to drop off animals would only increase abuse and general abandonment. What is needed is a cultural change away from dogs being disposable objects to a member of the family
lissener - I’m sorry, there is nothing I can say to you. I don’t know why you have gone off the deep end on this, but if you cannot discuss this politely and without all of the overblown insults, then there certainly doesn’t seem to be any point, eh?
Miltonyz - much of what you say is spot on. The biggest (and really only) issue I have with BYBs is the lack of health testing of the breeding stock, and the lack of guarantees and followup. But, as I said, responsible breeders cannot keep up with the demand, and better that someone wanting a purebred pup get it from a clean BYB than a puppy mill!
This -
*What is needed is a cultural change away from dogs being disposable objects to a member of the family *
needs to be tatooed onto the forehead of anyone who dumps a dog (or cat) at a shelter!
One of my personal rules, curlcoat, is once a debate devolves to the point where I have to begin every response with “that’s not what I said,” and I have to devote most of my energy to, what, *protecting *what I’ve said from willful distortion, then I try to have the discipline and self respect to back slowly away and leave the spinner to spin alone.
If you want to make an honest effort to respond to what I’m actually saying, rather than reinterpreting everything first and then responding only to your reinterpretation–ditto the available scientific information–I’d obviously be very interested in debating this issue in Great Debates, or wherever. But I won’t engage with someone who refuses to engage honestly.
I’m sorry, but hearing this from anyone who’s willing to cavalierly write off the destruction of “a few” Dalmatians or Blue Merle Collies or Manx cats, or who poopoos the deformation of Bulldogs or King Charles Spaniels as “an exception”–in other words, someone who explicitly relegates a certain number of purebred animals as disposable–just boggles me.
Please, curlcoat, examine the contradictions in your own statements here.
Adult discussion doesn’t include accusing the other party of bias and spin every other sentence.
sigh. Does it not occur to you that the breeding of anything means that there will be some born that are not “normal”? You think that mixed breeds don’t have deafness, double dilute or incontinence? At least in the case of purebreds, you have some breeders who are working to produce as close to 100% healthy as is genetically possible - “breeders” of mixed breeds are not trying to do anything.
That’s a problem, because there’s demand for dogs that should not be filled. There are people who want a dog but would mistreat it (an extreme example would be people who want dogs for fighting). There are people who would, intentionally or not, make a dog into a hazard to those living near them (like the owners of the dogs that killed Diane Whipple or Nicholas Faibish). These people want dogs and are willing to pay for them, but they should not have dogs. A responsible breeder or rescue organization shouldn’t be willing to provide these people with dogs. A backyard breeder might, and this is why I think dog breeders should be regulated.
I agree with all you say except for your proposed solution. You want to regulate who breeders can sell to? Make it illegal for some people to have dogs because of something they might do? Shoot, we can’t even do this with babies, which society thinks are far more important than dogs!
Yeah. Like for example if someone is buying children for the sex trade, it’s okay to let them do it, as long as the children are treated well when they’re not in use.
We don’t require people to be sterilized because of the issues of autonomy over your own body, but we do take children away from parents in some cases. We also require some people (such as some sex offenders) to stay away from children because of what they might do.
We regulate who can own other dangerous things, such as guns, based on what they might do- that’s the point of background checks. We don’t let people sell guns to anyone who can come up with the money, no questions asked.
