Has anyone read "the new work of dogs"? I think that there are lot of enlightening points.
John Katz argues that thier is nothing actually unethical about mixing dogs together to create new breeds. what he challeneges is the reasons that designer dogs are being breed for. Solely for companion purposes. Sounds innocent enough. But what are these new companion dogs being bred for, what kinds of charcterisitcs. #1 by far much more damaging than anything else. vanity. many are being bred to be cute almost stuffed animal like. next non-shedding....no one has successfully accomplished this yet. yes thier maybe individual dogs that are non-shedding but the trait cannot be fixed into the lines. next is for behavior. they are trying to bred out preadatorial instincts. like barking chasing, and digging. needless to say what a failure this is going to be. also, that's what a dog is, a predator. it's not going to happen. so what I think we are going to end up with for awhile is dogs that look cute, some will not shed, and some will be sold as perfect little angels. but what will happen is these dogs genetically will be a mess, from the vaninty breeding. horrific health problems from them focusing on capturing the uncapturable, the non-shedding gene, and nothing else. and behaviorally these dgos are going to be so confused.
I believe a dog's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment he holds dear, is when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle-with a ball in his mouth."
If you've made it through high school, you've been exposed to the difference between correlative and causative. And if you haven't yet, there's always dictionary.com.
I'm fine with interracial marriage, thanks for asking. I also don't have the problem with breeding mixes that most people who post here have. I've said so before, trying to explain myself carefully and plainly, and immediately got slammed for being an apologist for puppy mills and other unhealthy practices. Plus being made to feel personally responsible for mass euthanizations, though I've yet to ever breed a dog, surrender a dog, or buy a designer dog. Go figure.
"Just wondering what Maltese, Shih Tzu's and Pugs were originally bred for? Because today they are STRICTLY companion animals so I guess no one should be breeding them either."
We are talking about this century. Not thousands of years ago. We have no need for new companion breeds now. BECAUSE we have those.
How hard is that to understand? Why is there always a need felt to bring up other breeds that have been around for so long and are actually consistent and not bred as they were when they were first created? Some people have such a lust for money, it's disgusting what they'll do to get it...such as breeding mutts, and dodging the facts and truths presented.
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way it's animals are treated. ~Gandhi
"JoanEK, if you were responding to my post, sorry, but I don't see how it correlates."
I wasn't, GBROXON, I just now saw your post. And the definition you quoted is on point. I would only ask you to go back to that span of time in American history when enslaved humans were being bred against their will for desired characteristics. That era lasted for quite a few years, for much longer than we've been out of it. Also, the human Eugenics movement had many parallels with dog breeding, to include forced sterilizations, and the idea that only certain people with certain characteristics should reproduce. I'm not going to write about the differences (between human eugenics and dog breeding) unless I start seeing some recognition here of some of the similarities.
I'll try to refrain from contributing anything else to this thread to just be looked over and ignored by those who refuse to understand or just don't care. I've explained more than enough times, with plenty of facts, quite clearly, but people keep making excuses for their own actions, or the actions of those irresponsible people who really shouldn't be defended.
It's upsetting that the dog world has come to this...which is why I say that true dog people have become hard to find. I came to forums to find them, but it seems that a few have leaked here too, unfortunately.
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way it's animals are treated. ~Gandhi
Rescuepup, good on you for caring. But any kind of dog that's bred for any good or bad reason adds to pet overpopulation. If you're a bad breeder it doesn't matter at all whether you're producing purebreds or mutts. Every dog eats, poops, takes in oxygen, and adds carbon dioxide to the air. Methane too, judging by my own beloved Camilla.
JoanEK: "I wasn't, GBROXON, I just now saw your post. And the definition you quoted is on point. I would only ask you to go back to that span of time in American history when enslaved humans were being bred against their will for desired characteristics. That era lasted for quite a few years, for much longer than we've been out of it. Also, the human Eugenics movement had many parallels with dog breeding, to include forced sterilizations, and the idea that only certain people with certain characteristics should reproduce. I'm not going to write about the differences (between human eugenics and dog breeding) unless I start seeing some recognition here of some of the similarities."
Sorry, but I don't see why I have to go back in history. You are, I believe, trying to point out correlations in the here and now. How about you just tell me how, since I, myself, can't find a correlation between modern-day mixed dog breeding and modern-day human ethnicity mixing, what you think the correlation between those two is (other than they're happening at the same time, which, it seeems has happened throughout history)? It seems to me that you're trying to correlate apples to oranges. How are the two mixings related, other than occurring at the same historical time?
Gbroxon, here's something I wrote on another thread about how the two trends may correlate:
So many of us project our beliefs about people onto our attitudes about our pets. Look at the trouble many guys have with getting their male dogs neutered. It's not a giant leap to think that with attitudes relaxing about people from different ethnic groups getting together to make families, there could be a spillover effect. Like that changing trends in dog breeding might reflect a similar relaxation of attitudes. And yes, of course endorsing the human trend doesn't mean buying into the dog one. Biracial friends of mine have a purebred Chow -- I'm not trying to make a case for "one = the other" by any means. Though it did seem to encapsulate both for me when I read about Tiger Woods and his Labradoodle.
you all agree on one thing- that there is a problem with too many dogs in the shelters. You all differ in the part where 1)one group attacks designers 2) the other is ok with it. The problem is that all breeders need to help on where there puppies go ,no matter if it's "pure" or "mutt" B/c an ad on FREE mixed puppies could trigger more puppies from that person who didn't keep up with the takers of his/her pups.Everybody can help-breeders should not breed their dogs much -cut down big time b/c their puppies that they are selling are taking the place of the same breed in the near by shelter.If breeders didn't sell then buyers have to go to shelters. And on the dogs...come on in this time and age we don't need them for food or anything. Just for companionship. Mixed or Pure they both having feelings. They both are dogs just label by us!
Yes, I read your post you referred to, JoanEK, and found it interesting but ultimately flawed. All diversions aside, can you answer my question, please? How does modern day intentional mixed breeding of dogs correlate (beyond happening in the same historical era) to different ethnicities procreating? My point is that humans don't procreate for the primary reason that dogs, left to themselves, procreate. If there's a correlation in that, I just don't see it. IMO, your hypothesis doesn't hold water even at the outset and should be seriously reconsidered.
Granted, I am not anywhere near being a scientist or researcher, but, at the risk of being obtuse, I feel you're illogically imposing a hypothetical correlation that just doesn't exist. I feel that if someone were to study this situation, they would find less parallels than more.
BTW, JoanEK, thanks for keeping this a civil discussion between opposing viewpoints.
Hey Gbrox, I also appreciate the civility. I'm not arguing for as tight a connection as you're arguing against. The similarities I was pointing to are symbolic and subjective, not scientifically robust: same time, same country, both related to procreation, and both related to the bucking of long trends that are rooted in custom and tradition. I did enjoy Lady And The Tramp, but I also understand that dogs mate because of hormones and proximity, and sometimes also because of one being physically placed on top of one that's being physically restrained from fleeing. And that humans copulate for one set of reasons and procreate for another, though many of them decide to do both with the same partner, and that the pairing is usually up to the humans. If every single element of both trends lined up perfectly it would be way more than a correlation.