Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: News: The Modern Kennel Conundrum

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    24,070
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default News: The Modern Kennel Conundrum

    A very long and intriguing (and aggravating) piece from this weekend's NYT Magazine. Whatever your perspective on purebreds, designer dogs, breeding facilities and breeders, and dog ownership generally, this provides lots to think about from a detached, analytical angle.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/ma...pagewanted=all
    Karlin
    Cavaliers: Jaspar Lily Tansy Libby Mindy
    In memory: Lucy Leo
    Cavalier SM Information site:www.smcavaliers.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    924
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Well, I read it. (I skimmed a bit in the middle.)

    I think some good points are made about the lengths to which some breeders go to control a dog's physique. I, personally, find it disturbing that the pug (as well as some other purebreeds) are unable to naturally reproduce. That makes them seem "unnatural" to me.

    But at the same time, I simply can not condone the philsophy shared by Haven. Really, I find it scary and shocking. Good job of the reporter to notice a limping dog, so he can write down the pen number to check on later?? That dog could be in pain for hours without proper care. That's clearly negligent in my book. He is NOT properly caring for these animals. How could he with such a large "operation"??

    As far as it comes to creating 'hybrids' to improve the breed or to create a new one, such as was the purpose behind the labradoodle, I'm not as concerned. There was a purpose and a design to the process. It was controlled and studied, with labradoodles breed to labradoodles to the point of breeding to a set of traits. To me, this is not different from breeding pugs.

    Unfortunately, dogs are in such a place in our culture/psyche that they are still seen more as possessions rather than creatures due respect. Until we as a society adjust, making our laws and regulations reflect the concern for the mental as well as physical needs of dogs, the factions of this issue will continue to conflict.
    Cindy
    Cedar (tri), Willow (blen), Holly (ruby), & Bella (blen)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Santa Monica CA
    Posts
    1,906
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    wow. i found that very thought provoking.

    Why is it not considered cruelty to restrictively breed dogs to have flat faces which make it difficult for them to breathe?

    The writer did a good job of presenting troubling aspects of breeding and designer crossbreeding, and ultimately, of the human condition.

    I remember when i was a kid in early elementary school, there was an albino child at the school, and somehow it ended up being explained to me that close relatives were not allowed to have children together because terrible health problems would result, deformities and other conditions that would happen if people who were too close were mixed together.

    i liked how the writer contrasted the fairly uniform looking show dogs to the "motley" group of people who were involved in the show.

    Also the way in which some purist breeders conflate strict breeding to type with caring behaviors and virtue, an unjustified conflation of caring about the breed with caring about the dogs. Interesting point.

    That guy Havens makes my blood run cold, not that he's mixing different breeds but just the mass scale of his operation and all that this implies, the commodification and resulting prioritization of business efficiency over humaneness--and the way in which this mirrors the society at large which does not frown on this, and which supports such enterprises through strong market demand.

    I don't think of designer dogs as mutts or mongrels. I think of a mutt as a heinz 57 where you can't say for sure what breeds are involved--sort of like a human being. To me, designer dogs are on the same end of the continuum as purebred dogs--they are carefully *designed* for certain purposes, the human tries to control the outcome. The article suggests that today's pure breeds were once created out of different kinds of dogs, just as designer dogs are being created today.

    Not to say that trying to achieve certain results from breeding is in itself good or bad. What i consider bad, of course, is when breeding is controlled without regard for resulting health problems such as trying to create an animal who's nose is deformed to a point where they can't breathe adequately or where they tend to injure their eyes (and to find this amusing and endearing), or without appropriate concern for the risks of genetic diseases.

    I really have never known anything about purebred dogs because my parents got my first dog at the pound when i was 9, she was a wonderful dog, i was an only child and she was my close companion--so getting a mutt at the pound seemed successful to me and i didn't know why everyone wouldn't do that. I thought the whole point of getting a dog was to get a friend, a companion. My second companion dog was also a mutt, i don't really know what breeds were in her, but there could not be a better sweeter, smarter, more loving, affectionate, happy healthy amazing awesome dog. So i never even considered getting a purebred dog until my daughter got a cavalier.

    Having experienced two cavaliers at close range, and knowing so many people on this forum, and through them, getting a sense of their dogs, it makes me think that maybe it would not be such a bad idea to breed humans for temperment. If people could be bred to have the temperment of cavaliers, just think of how much better the world could be.

    thanks for posting that article. It represented two extreme cases of inhumanity that are not really seen or treated as such in our society, people who blend into the social landscape as part of the acceptable spectrum--you have Havens who is a crass puppy miller, striving to meet and to create market demand to make himself rich, and you have Beard, a ghoulish caricature of a person who has no grasp of true humaneness but is self righteous about her bizarre values...

    anyway, that's my reaction.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Home Base in Ohio
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Speachless... this article has left me speachless... I can't believe some of the comments made in it...

    All I can say though, I am soo very greatful for our responsible breeder and our little Cicero!
    [B][COLOR=yellowgreen]We[/COLOR] [COLOR=plum]Love [/COLOR][COLOR=yellowgreen]Cicero[/COLOR]![/B]
    [B][COLOR=yellowgreen]"Suum Cuique"[/COLOR][/B]
    (To Each Thier Own)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hartlepool UK
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by judy
    wow. i found that very thought provoking.

    Why is it not considered cruelty to restrictively breed dogs to have flat faces which make it difficult for them to breathe?
    Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:15 am Post subject:

    controlled without regard for resulting health problems such as trying to create an animal who's nose is deformed to a point where they can't breathe adequately or where they tend to injure their eyes (and to find this amusing and endearing), or without appropriate concern for the risks of genetic diseases.


    .
    My charlies have flat faces ( though not as short as pugs & pekes) & can breath very well. One of our dogs happilly went for a 9 mile walk not long before he died age 12. & my sister has one of about 16 who still runs around like a pup

    The only dogs i've had with breathing trouble have been cavaliers.

    & who would find eye injury's amusing

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
  •