Grey Wolf Skull (Pencil on Paper, 15 x 10cm)
English Bulldog Skull (Pencil on Paper, 12x 15cm)
What have we created and why? Where do we go from here?
Dog owners and breeders talking in response to the BBC documentary 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' ,first aired in 2008, follow up documentary aired 2012.
(please note all responses will be kept anonymous)
'You have to remember, by and large this is a propaganda film, and they picked they absolute WORST examples they could find to illustrate their point.'
'But it is the very fact that these 'worst' examples exist that should motivate us to make changes in the way we breed dogs. The fact that there are plenty examples of ill and suffering dogs, the causes of which can be biologically traced back to irresponsible selective breeding, and that there is enough of an outcry from breeders, show owners and pet owners alike for the program to have even been created in the first place, surely is the point we should all be focusing on. I know there is nothing simple about how to tackle these issues, the film was biased and did not show the breeders who TRUELY care for the future health and temperaments of their chosen breeds. I cannot however condone those who show and breed ill dogs or dogs with genetic health issues that are KNOWN to be passed on to pups. All I can see in that scenario is pure despicable greed at the expense of the dogs and the breed as a whole. In order for the show world to continue with any kind of morality and to represent any kind of respectable role model, breeders like that should be weeded out, not have their dog anointed best of breed. That just seems like the deliberate destruction of a breed! But then we hit another problem of how best to ethically turn out unethical breeders without creating a witch hunt. We all know how we feel about our dogs, we just don't know how to move forward with so many differences of opinion. Its a true conundrum with mans most loyal and innocent friend left in the firing line...'
|
'To say the film is biased in a drastic understatement. Plenty of breeds are still fairly historically correct. Plenty tend to be healthy and have fairly natural builds. Plenty of breeds spend time and money supporting furthering available health testing for their breed. Plenty of breeders participate in open health registries for their breed, both good and bad. But showcasing all the good that breeders do for their chosen breed, isn't going to support a film in which the purpose is to paint breeders of purebred dogs as the bad guys.'
|
'It's obvious that it is not an objective film; there is clearly an agenda, BUT that does not negate the truth of much of what they say. I don't agree with everything they say in the film (Like the jack of a judge who thinks that shepherds who can't even walk strait are what the breed is supposed to be even though that is clearly not the case based on the pictures of the original or older shepherds.) But much of this video seems to be backed up by facts...'
'The bull dog is terrible, but you have to remember this, people are breeding now a days for "looks" not workability (for a lot of breeds). The Bull Dog is one of them. They want to acheive a specific "look." They used to be workingdogs and go after bulls and hogs. Now they are lazy medically hot messes. My friend owned one she paid big bucks for from a reputable breeder, but he looked like the most recent skull, serious underbite, short and stalky. The dog was running around playing with the neighborhood kids and it's heart exploded from the amount of exercise. He was not even two years old.'
'All dogs have changed since their "inception" many years ago. Some are just more extreme then others.'
|
'Dogs count on us to have their best interest at heart. They don't ask to be brought into this world, we choose to have them in this world. Because of this, we owe them the best chance at life we can give them; everything else is secondary.'
|
'It's not dogs changing that necessarily bothers me. If the dog was originally bred to do a job that it no longer is needed to do; I really don't have a problem with people breeding pretty companions that keep whatever breed traits they like and lose the ones they don't. What I have a problem with is this being done at the expense of the health of the dog....'
|
'Absolutely agree. Whenever we selectively breed for anything, we will get some bad along with the good. What I think is sad is the breeders that fail to put health & temperament above looks. At the point where conformation reaches unhealthy extremes (preferably somewhat before), there should be a push back in the opposite direction.'
|
'Wow, this really opened up my eyes. I know the documentary is slanted or biased, but really, you can have a best in show dog that has serious health defects, that the judges know about and they still say best in show? Then the "breeder" goes on to let them sire puppies? With a deblitating, painful brain disease that is being passed to the puppies?'
|
'...And the fact is that no dog is genetically normal. Meaning no dog of any breed or mix will only ever produce totally normal dogs, who have no health, temperament or structural issues. Removing large numbers of dogs from the gene pool of any breed will always result in decreased health in the population and ultimately, will destroy the breed. In breeds such as Cavaliers, genes for normal hearts do not exist. All Cavaliers develop heart problems As the situation currently is, requiring only Cavaliers with normal hearts to be bred means the end of the breed. The only solution to improve heart health in the breed is to outcross to another breed to re-introduce normal genes for normal hearts, which from my understanding is being experimented with in Europe. Of course, though many people think breeders should be "doing something more" about health in X breed of dog, outcrossing to another breed would be very controversial.'
|
'Who cares if you have a top-of-the-line dog from the-best-of-the-best lines who's papered out the wazoo if at the age of 3 it gets every illness known to mankind and either dies, or racks up a huge vet bill and then dies? What I hate about irresponsible breeders is that a lot of them care more about titles and papers and a specific look and carriage that they don't care at all about the well being of the animals they are producing.
I would rather have a mutt with a clean bill of health than a world-class, judge preferred, perfect pedigreed money sink any day, thank you very much.
And don't even get me started on what havoc popularity (Rin Tin Tin, Lassie, 101 Dalmatians, anyone?) has wreaked and the kind of puppy mill scum and irresponsible backyard breeders that start coming out of the wood works when that happens... Uck.
It's a shame that breeds are often formed through necessity and careful planning, and are then consequently wrecked through popularity and profit-mongering.'
|
'That documentary was very biased, but it had a very valid point!
Why on earth would there be a best in show dog who had numerous health issues? Why is it so taboo to talk about these issues?
It highlighted the problems in the show world...breeding for looks and not utility, taking something from a standard and warping it, all the politics. Not bad to reveal to the public, IMO. '
'I am not sure what the answer is, but I do not think it is so easy...'
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment