Bias and hypocricy of views
- Thread starter ufimych
- Start date
no not really.. a debate is not simply an argument.. and i wouldn't even call this an argument. I am a HUGE fan of debates... lol just check out some of my older posts 
I am not a fan of personal attacks.. evar!!
A debate is an intelligent argument, which whilst can get heated should never be personal. If its personal.. then its just an attack.
I am not a fan of personal attacks.. evar!!A debate is an intelligent argument, which whilst can get heated should never be personal. If its personal.. then its just an attack.
That's right- I forgot about that- how dare he have an ancient working breed that is kept in the house and has never done a lick of work. Next thing you know he'll be watering down the gene pool with his foo foo dog!
But would you say that to his FooFoo dog if you didn't have a big head start?
I'd just like to say I'm not an ARista yet my two girls will be spayed when they are mature. Why? They are both mixes and naturally not breeding stock. Not only that, but I admit I know too little about genetics to even think about breeding. And spaying will reduce the risk of cancer. To each their own I suppose.
To each their own I suppose.
This argument doesn't make much sense. Would you want to be locked behind a fence when you're outside, unable to decide on your own if or when you are leaving your property? But you keep your dogs secured on your property with fences, leashes, and so forth, don't you? OMG, SO MEAN!!!
Dogs do not have the mental capacity of humans, therefore we must make choices for them. We must choose what they eat, where they are allowed to go, what kind of vaccinations they receive, and, yes, whether they are spayed/neutered or not. If a responsible dog owner decides not to neuter--okay, that is their choice and I respect that.
In response to several comments about inbreeding--yes, linebreeding IS inbreeding, in the biological sense. You look at reports on the wolves on Isle Royale and the biologists will talk about inbreeding . . . They do not mean "mothers breeding to sons", they mean "individuals who are closely genetically related breeding together." All purebred dogs have inbreeding in their past in one way or another; if bred carefully, inbreeding may not have any negative effects. Then again . . . it might.
Um, yeah, those were the good old days . . .
Dogs do not have the mental capacity of humans, therefore we must make choices for them. We must choose what they eat, where they are allowed to go, what kind of vaccinations they receive, and, yes, whether they are spayed/neutered or not. If a responsible dog owner decides not to neuter--okay, that is their choice and I respect that.
In response to several comments about inbreeding--yes, linebreeding IS inbreeding, in the biological sense. You look at reports on the wolves on Isle Royale and the biologists will talk about inbreeding . . . They do not mean "mothers breeding to sons", they mean "individuals who are closely genetically related breeding together." All purebred dogs have inbreeding in their past in one way or another; if bred carefully, inbreeding may not have any negative effects. Then again . . . it might.
Um, yeah, those were the good old days . . .
I don't think he's a troll, he just has drastically different view on dogkeeping than most people here.
Aside from him, for the record, culling, as in killing, instead of speutering has advantages.
The legistlation controlling our ownership of dogs is dictacted by the public. If all the public sees and hears about are good examples of the breed, they won't try and ban the breed. Take, for instance, a Cane Corso. These are rare dogs; the average person is going to see very, very few. They might only see one or two in their life. If they meet your Cane Corso with fear issues on the street, and they go to pet it, and you have to say "Sorry, but she's very fearful and she won't be comfortable with that" What is that person going to think about your breed? That it isn't safe, even to pet. Now it seems everyone on the internet has lab horror stories, but in real life, I have never seen a lab that was anything but reliable and safe. They have a well deserved reputation for being sweethearts. And even if there is a whacko in the bunch, the average person will see 100 good ones to counter it.
These are not dog people, they don't know anything about them and don't care enough to research. When the topic of banning them comes up, do you really think they'll put of much of an objection, if they have bad experiences with the breed?
Likewise, having one that flops on its back around other dogs and bounds up to everyone like a labrador is not good for the Corso. Why? Because it gives the 5,000 people a year that see it the wrong impression about the breed.
To me a breed should be defined by its temperament as much as its appearance. If someone buys a German Shepherd they should be able to count on it acting like a German Shepherd, otherwise, it's not much of a German Shepherd. With dogs, and rare breeds in particular, it just confuses people when a quarter of the dogs out there have out of standard temperaments. Which leads to problems.
ETA Also. Contracts. If you really want to breed a dog, you can do it. If the breeder has the money, they can sue, I guess, but oftentimes the damage is done. Someone who has a cattle ranch with kelpies might not have the money and time to be chasing puppy buyers around. Some would say that he shouldn't be breeding. Yet, as far as maintaining the breed, no one would no more about a dog's true working character as someone who uses in them in "real life," and has it around stock all its life. Trials are one thing, real life is another. And it's not like there's a surplus of cattle ranch owners that have the money and time to chase after buyers.
Quietly culling dogs that don't make the cut has never, ever and will never harm a breed. I do believe that it is a disservice to the breed to give out weird breed examples, even to good owners. The alternative, of course, is pretty sad. It just comes down to whether you place more value on the breed and its integrity or the lives of individual dogs.
Aside from him, for the record, culling, as in killing, instead of speutering has advantages.
The legistlation controlling our ownership of dogs is dictacted by the public. If all the public sees and hears about are good examples of the breed, they won't try and ban the breed. Take, for instance, a Cane Corso. These are rare dogs; the average person is going to see very, very few. They might only see one or two in their life. If they meet your Cane Corso with fear issues on the street, and they go to pet it, and you have to say "Sorry, but she's very fearful and she won't be comfortable with that" What is that person going to think about your breed? That it isn't safe, even to pet. Now it seems everyone on the internet has lab horror stories, but in real life, I have never seen a lab that was anything but reliable and safe. They have a well deserved reputation for being sweethearts. And even if there is a whacko in the bunch, the average person will see 100 good ones to counter it.
These are not dog people, they don't know anything about them and don't care enough to research. When the topic of banning them comes up, do you really think they'll put of much of an objection, if they have bad experiences with the breed?
Likewise, having one that flops on its back around other dogs and bounds up to everyone like a labrador is not good for the Corso. Why? Because it gives the 5,000 people a year that see it the wrong impression about the breed.
To me a breed should be defined by its temperament as much as its appearance. If someone buys a German Shepherd they should be able to count on it acting like a German Shepherd, otherwise, it's not much of a German Shepherd. With dogs, and rare breeds in particular, it just confuses people when a quarter of the dogs out there have out of standard temperaments. Which leads to problems.
ETA Also. Contracts. If you really want to breed a dog, you can do it. If the breeder has the money, they can sue, I guess, but oftentimes the damage is done. Someone who has a cattle ranch with kelpies might not have the money and time to be chasing puppy buyers around. Some would say that he shouldn't be breeding. Yet, as far as maintaining the breed, no one would no more about a dog's true working character as someone who uses in them in "real life," and has it around stock all its life. Trials are one thing, real life is another. And it's not like there's a surplus of cattle ranch owners that have the money and time to chase after buyers.
Quietly culling dogs that don't make the cut has never, ever and will never harm a breed. I do believe that it is a disservice to the breed to give out weird breed examples, even to good owners. The alternative, of course, is pretty sad. It just comes down to whether you place more value on the breed and its integrity or the lives of individual dogs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 469
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Culling dogs that don't make the cut, in itself dosn't hurt the breed as a whole no. But why? Those puppies didn't ask to be here. That is why reputable breeders generaly evaluate their puppies, and separate the show quality from the pet quality. The pet quality are the ones considerd to not "make the cut". so, are those the ones that should be killed? Because they are just pet quality?
If I hypothetically bred Presa Canarios. And I have a dog that is over 30% white, lacks a mask, has east-west feet and not much prey drive, but is a calm, confident pup, would I say that this dog should be culled? No. Would I say that this dog should be bred? No. So I would deem it "pet quality." It isn't great but it also isn't a liability to the breed.
Another dog/pup, with the same body or a perfect body or whatever, tail tucks when a pomeranian with "dog aggression" starts yapping at it, and hides behind the owner/tries to run when confronted with a threat. This is also pet quality, but this dog, I wouldn't let out there.
I don't understand why someone goes looking for REALLY "pet quaility." Ok, I understand if you're looking for a pet pug. I understand if you want a Presa-looking dog that has the courage to hold down your house and protect you on a walk, but isn't super super driven. Understandable. But why would someone come to a breeder looking for a dog that is DEFINED by being courageous, protective, etc, but then apparently not care if it's too nervy to protect? Unless they like the "bad-ass" look of a presa? The history? The percieved prestige? I dunno. At any rate, there are dogs, that IMO just should not be out there representing the breed.
Again, just my opinion. I don't breed dogs, so you don't have to worry about me killing any.
Another dog/pup, with the same body or a perfect body or whatever, tail tucks when a pomeranian with "dog aggression" starts yapping at it, and hides behind the owner/tries to run when confronted with a threat. This is also pet quality, but this dog, I wouldn't let out there.
I don't understand why someone goes looking for REALLY "pet quaility." Ok, I understand if you're looking for a pet pug. I understand if you want a Presa-looking dog that has the courage to hold down your house and protect you on a walk, but isn't super super driven. Understandable. But why would someone come to a breeder looking for a dog that is DEFINED by being courageous, protective, etc, but then apparently not care if it's too nervy to protect? Unless they like the "bad-ass" look of a presa? The history? The percieved prestige? I dunno. At any rate, there are dogs, that IMO just should not be out there representing the breed.
Again, just my opinion. I don't breed dogs, so you don't have to worry about me killing any.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 469
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
If that were a real situation, that dog still didn't ask to turn out that way. It shouldn't be killed. That would be a temperment flaw yes, so being to that extreme (or whatever the fault may be) if that is being passed on then maybe the dog/dogs producing such a fault just shouldn't be bred, if they are producing puppies so bad someone feels the need to kill them. That is certainly not the desired result of breeding.
Chorus about benefits of spaying and neutering is driven by politics and animal rightist ideology. It is not based on scientific data, as those proponents claim.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
It is simply a question of convenience. Some people like to keep surgically modified animals, such as desexed, with removed vocal cords, removed claws, etc.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
It is simply a question of convenience. Some people like to keep surgically modified animals, such as desexed, with removed vocal cords, removed claws, etc.