Page 23 of 29 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 290

Thread: 'Oodles' 'Schnoos' 'Aliers' and 'Poos'

  1. #221
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    Well... When I say 'be the best they can be', I'm not meaning an uber-dog, not at all.

    Does 'Fido' need a good skeleton? Yes. Because Fido needs to be able to run and play and fetch the ball his owner throws. To jump and grab the frisbee. To run beside the bike. To wrestle on the floor with the kids or his canine mates. To be able to have the joys of movement. To not have to undergo painful surgeries or have his life limited. Yes, Fido needs a terrific skeleton. He needs good teeth to chew good bones and to maintain health. He needs a good coat to ensure warmth, cooling and year round weather protection. He needs a good breathing system and healthy eyes.

    I actually think the family Fido needs to be hale, hardy fit and healthy, possibly even more do than some others because as the family dog he needs to cover oh so many more bases.

    So, no, not an uber dog. A healthy, fit, structurally sound Fido... But the best Fido he can be. He is no less impprtant just because he is not working, tracking, showing, trialling. I utterly shudder to think Fido could be perceived as less than Gr Ch Uber Doggy Dom I'm so Special!!
    But we don't selectively breed our kids to get the best genes they can get either? I know kids are not dogs, but I really think the comparison is valid here, especially as most people would agree that kids are more valued than dogs. At least it is accepted to test breeding dogs for genetic flaws and not breed from them if they fail the test. That is more than we do for our kids. The average accidental litter moggie is also considered good enough for most cat owners. So what makes dogs so different that many think we need such rigorous genetic filtering?

    And if you select the best from the best from one particular litter, why is that apparently still not good enough? That original best pup had presumably an adequate skeleton, eyes, coat, etc. Why this constant drive to improve on that?

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,785

    Default

    I think part of the reason is that we do love them (dogs) so much and that it is devastating when we have to PTS them early in life, either due to the fact the average family cannot afford to pay the vet bill or because it cannot be fixed.

    I know there are some real cat lovers here, but on average, people get more attached to dogs comapred to dogs

    Hate comparing, but kids will be seen to no matter what the medical condition, Medicare and such. And if you work where I work you wished that sometimes people had considered before they had children. Things like severe scoliosis and HD (the same) make life hell for kids. And you see the parents and they tell you they have the same problem

    And there is something in the human nature that we always want better.........

    But dogs were healthier in the past and we actually went backwards with some breeds, bulldog type, just check old pictures. No brachy problems and such. Great Dane, not as large. Newfie not as large and so many more. Labradors that could go forever annd such........Some breeders are now trying to get back to those healthier, fitter standards (the good ones)
    Last edited by newfsie; 12-30-2011 at 02:03 PM.
    Pets are forever

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post

    Thing is, we just differ completely on the genetic selection stance and though I can see where you are coming from, for me it is taking it a step too far. I understand trying to breed out hereditary conditions and temperament testing breeding dogs. And to me that is all it should be. I don't agree with this whole "Do we not owe it to our canine companions to be the bloody best they xan possibly be?". Do you seriously, honestly believe that a dog will have a lesser life if he doesn't have the nicest coat, the strongest skeleton, the best whatever or is the best at everything his breed was bred for? Because I don't. I don't think it is necessary to make our dogs into some kind of uber-dog. I think an average dog is good enough for the 'average dog owner' - ie. the majority of them - and I am pretty sure the dogs couldn't care less as long as they are healthy and happy. "The best of the best" are probably best left to those who want to enter competitions. It's a world I am not familiar with and feel no need to be involved in.

    I think with the above paragraph you dug all the way to the very base of this discussion. And it also shows why there will be no agreement, because it goes to the substance of what you believe in.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    I sent an email to my surgical specialist vet surgeon family member about comparing the health problems of pure and crossbreds and here is what she said.

    "I saw equal problems with purebreds and crossbreds - mainly because there are lots of ignorant people breeding dogs with defects that could be passed on regardless of who they were mated with".

    She also commented that it takes quite a few generations of mating to clear animals to dilute the effect in some cases.
    Last edited by Kalacreek; 12-30-2011 at 03:13 PM.

  5. #225

    Default

    Did u guys know that the kennel club in britain was sporned at the same time as the eugenics movement? Its very roots come from the oncept of selective breeding of people! Ie hitlers blond haired blue eyes race... You need to forgive me for not being overly specific, just repeating what i saw on the doco, but u could look into it. I found it really interesting to know that people used to meet up and select characteritics in people and try to "breed" them! So whilst hitler and his movement were overturned the kennel club continued.

    Now im in now way calling purebred supporters supremisists or anything like that, but it might explain the root concept of "bettering" the breed? I might do some research so i know what im talking about properly...

    Also, at what point does bettering the breed unbetter the breed? Ie was the breed of a certain dog the best 20 yrs ago but now its pushed past the point of better? Um an example would maybe be that skull neuro condition in british cavaliers?

    Just throwing some things out there that ive been pondering for a while...

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    So, recently the ANKC has made some attempts to get its house in order by making it mandatroy to do certain screening in some breeds. But it could go a lot further ( I have had two cattle dogs with ED) and ED is becoming more common in this breed. But at least somehting is happening.

    Unfortunately there is no such thing happening in the world of crossbreeding.

    So we get back to the problem of breeding ignorance.

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuppyforme View Post
    Did u guys know that the kennel club in britain was sporned at the same time as the eugenics movement? Its very roots come from the oncept of selective breeding of people! Ie hitlers blond haired blue eyes race... You need to forgive me for not being overly specific, just repeating what i saw on the doco, but u could look into it. I found it really interesting to know that people used to meet up and select characteritics in people and try to "breed" them! So whilst hitler and his movement were overturned the kennel club continued.

    Now im in now way calling purebred supporters supremisists or anything like that, but it might explain the root concept of "bettering" the breed? I might do some research so i know what im talking about properly...

    Also, at what point does bettering the breed unbetter the breed? Ie was the breed of a certain dog the best 20 yrs ago but now its pushed past the point of better? Um an example would maybe be that skull neuro condition in british cavaliers?

    Just throwing some things out there that ive been pondering for a while...
    I dont get to hung up in that sort of thing when dealing with animals, after all I work in agriculture and breeding is a serious business to try and select for the animals that provide us the most effeicent means of growing meat and wool and best dogs to work them with. Nothing wrong with that. Genetic testing is also offered to parents who have a high risk of passing on severely debilitating genes to their children.

    I also think it is good to produce healthy dogs that have a high chance of living a healthy pain free life. That is the least we can do for them and if genetic selection helps that is good.

    I dont agree with breeding that ends up with dogs that by their very structure or weird breed standard is hazadous to the dog health. This happens when pure bred or crossbreeders breeders start breeding to weird extremes or doing crosses that dont do well and are are not really compatable.
    Last edited by Kalacreek; 12-30-2011 at 03:35 PM.

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuppyforme View Post
    Did u guys know that the kennel club in britain was sporned at the same time as the eugenics movement? Its very roots come from the oncept of selective breeding of people! Ie hitlers blond haired blue eyes race... You need to forgive me for not being overly specific, just repeating what i saw on the doco, but u could look into it. I found it really interesting to know that people used to meet up and select characteritics in people and try to "breed" them! So whilst hitler and his movement were overturned the kennel club continued.

    Now im in now way calling purebred supporters supremisists or anything like that, but it might explain the root concept of "bettering" the breed? I might do some research so i know what im talking about properly...

    Also, at what point does bettering the breed unbetter the breed? Ie was the breed of a certain dog the best 20 yrs ago but now its pushed past the point of better? Um an example would maybe be that skull neuro condition in british cavaliers?

    Just throwing some things out there that ive been pondering for a while...
    Now I always thought that dog most of the Breeding initially came about from what the dogs were used for not what they looked like.

    "On September 17, 1884, a group of twelve dedicated sportsmen, responding to a "meeting call" from Messrs. J. M. Taylor and Elliot Smith, met in the rooms of the Philadelphia Kennel Club in that City. Each member of the group was a representative or "delegate" from a dog club that had, in the recent past, held a benched dog show or had run field trials. This new "Club of Clubs" was, in fact, The American Kennel Club."

    I know that most of the initial breeds came from working, utility or gundogs, with the exception of some of the smaller dogs from China. They were liked by the English Gentry and brought forward to the clubs by them "lap-dogs" (pekinese and such)
    So that is quite a length of time. The reason I know is because Newfoundland dogs were one of the first registered. Their standard has not even changed that much........
    Pets are forever

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfsie View Post
    I think part of the reason is that we do love them (dogs) so much and that it is devastating when we have to PTS them early in life, either due to the fact the average family cannot afford to pay the vet bill or because it cannot be fixed.

    I know there are some real cat lovers here, but on average, people get more attached to dogs comapred to dogs

    Hate comparing, but kids will be seen to no matter what the medical condition, Medicare and such. And if you work where I work you wished that sometimes people had considered before they had children. Things like severe scoliosis and HD (the same) make life hell for kids. And you see the parents and they tell you they have the same problem

    And there is something in the human nature that we always want better.........

    But dogs were healthier in the past and we actually went backwards with some breeds, bulldog type, just check old pictures. No brachy problems and such. Great Dane, not as large. Newfie not as large and so many more. Labradors that could go forever annd such........Some breeders are now trying to get back to those healthier, fitter standards (the good ones)
    But I do agree on the testing for genetic illnesses in dogs. I also agree that you should not breed dogs who have obvious physical flaws, like a serious lack of endurance or out of proportion skeleton that is bound to cause joint problems etc... I just don't agree that you should not breed dogs who are cleared of these issues just because they are not prize winning dogs (the best of the best), like is usually the case with these DDs. Trying to breed a dog that will not have a higher than average chance of ending up costing the owners thousands in vet bills or develop an incurable illness is one thing. I just don't believe that the average dog owner needs a dog with a constitution comparable to a human top athlete and looks comparable to a top model.

    And we have already determined that lots of you are not 'average dog owners'. So I totally understand that this may matter to you and nothing less will do. But why put such a responsibility on some suburban family who just wants a dog for the kids to grow up with? Yes, make sure the dogs are health tested before they are bred, because the average family are even less likely to be able to afford expensive veterinary surgery. Yes, make sure they are only bred to demand and that breeders vet the owners before they sell the pups, etc. No puppy farms and no selling pets at stores. Desexing your pet dog should be mandatory in every state anyway as far as I'm concerned, and it needs to be enforced. Those who want to breed have to apply for a licence and they should be subject to some regulation regarding breeding which should also cover the above points. Offer breeders some affordable training about these types of issues regardless of what they intend to breed.

    They are all achievable and they could greatly improve the lot of many dogs out there. Which is why I feel so passionate about this and feel unable to tear myself away from this debate!

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfsie View Post
    Now I always thought that dog most of the Breeding initially came about from what the dogs were used for not what they looked like.

    "On September 17, 1884, a group of twelve dedicated sportsmen, responding to a "meeting call" from Messrs. J. M. Taylor and Elliot Smith, met in the rooms of the Philadelphia Kennel Club in that City. Each member of the group was a representative or "delegate" from a dog club that had, in the recent past, held a benched dog show or had run field trials. This new "Club of Clubs" was, in fact, The American Kennel Club."

    I know that most of the initial breeds came from working, utility or gundogs, with the exception of some of the smaller dogs from China. They were liked by the English Gentry and brought forward to the clubs by them "lap-dogs" (pekinese and such)
    So that is quite a length of time. The reason I know is because Newfoundland dogs were one of the first registered. Their standard has not even changed that much........
    Yes I expect that was likely the case. Unfortunately a lot of those breeds probaly no longer resemble what they were originally, or what they were used for. It has become very much a conformation breed standard. My showbred BC bears very little resemblance physically or in working ability to my working bred. BC They are both Black and white and that is where the similarity ends really. Both healthy loving dogs.

    The GSDs have changed a lot in some countries and not for the better. A person I know has a field bred lab from Ireland and she also bears no real resemblance to the shpwbreds. She is leaner, lighter and more athletic. Whether she makes a better companion animal I have no idea.
    Last edited by Kalacreek; 12-30-2011 at 03:51 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •