Dead at only 4 years old, from heart trouble, Uga the bulldog, was the mascot of the University of Georgia. It is cruel to breed animals to suffer. The photo is of an English Bulldogs, the same breed as Uga was.
It might be kinder to have a person dress up like a bulldog, than to use a real English Bulldog. I hope the U of G does the right thing.
When regular breeds of dogs get into a little fight, one of the dogs often will grab the other dog by the ear and hold him - this ends the dog fight.
Most dogs inherit a set of canine social behaviors, sometimes referred to as "doggie etiquette". This includes things like "If another dog lays belly up - then the aggressor is not permitted to attack - because the other dog has already surrendered.
Individual dogs in fighting breeds, may or may not have inherited the "do not attack belly up dogs" inhibition - many men who want a rock hard dog that never gives up - they want a dog that goes down fighting, never gives up - but it is in dogs to surrender when they can't win, aren't on their home turf, or would just rather not fight.
Other fighting dogs might inherit the knowledge on how to surrender by going belly up - but have deleted instincts about inhibiting themselves from attacking a surrendered dog. This means the dog that doesn't want to fight can get killed easily when he surrenders.
It is sad, and it is sick to breed dogs this way.
One of the ways that an aggressive dog can stop a fight on a smaller dog, is to grab his ear and hold on - this ear hold doesn't always pierce the ear, the grabbed dog calms down and then is released.
But when a dog has his ears cut off, the other dog can not grab him by the ear. A dog without ears can't give up when caught by the ear, because he has no ears.
In dogs who still have the social codes and inhibitions that most dogs all use to have, fights between non-fighting breeds were more likely to be squabbles, that ended when one dog got hold of the other's ear, or one dog went belly up.
We have different dogs in our culture now - it is not possible to not have different dogs. Dogs only live about 7 to 16 years, and new puppies can be born to a pair of dogs only one year old. What dogs are, is a continual shift, a species always in the flux of change - a species that is always whatever we have been choosing them to be.
If we choose harder dogs for breeding stock - then our society has harder dogs. If we choose friendlier dogs as breeding stock, then that is what we will have in the years ahead.
Cutting dogs ears off, interferes with social clues, and the abilities of dogs to surrender, or to accept surrender. It is not nice. And if you buy from someone who crops their dog;s ears - then you are not my kind of person.
Which would have the most hybrid vigor, puppies from these two dogs, or purebred Dalmatian puppies?
Which would be less extreme, puppies from these two dogs or purebred Doberman puppies?
When the goal is healthy pet puppies, why would purebred dog breeders not incorporate genes from a mix of breeds?
Do dog shows welcome mixed breed dogs to enter the same way that the purebreds can?
Or are the mutts put off into "separate but almost equal" shows, where, provided that the mutts and the mixes have been surgically spayed/ castrated, the mutts and mixes can perform, but not enter into shows for breeding dogs?
For me, it is not hard to figure out why some people see a connection between racist social ideas, and purebred dog breeders.
Basic common sense, the ears and tail of a dog are there for a reason.
Like: Dogs communicate with each other with their ears & tails. Dogs need their ears & tails. Do not hack off your puppy's body parts. How would you like it if you couldn't speak to other people?
Besides that, we people rely on being able to read a dog's body language.
I knew one person who liked bobbed tail dogs so she could see their "target" as she called it. It took me a moment to figure out what she meant. She made hand motions. I understood.
Not my thing. I like a dog to have a normal tail and for the dog to be able to cover up that part with his tail.
I knew a guy who raised dogs whose tails went over their backs. He asked me if I liked the way his dogs looked. I said: Yes, but I'd like them better if they carried their tails normally, so their @$$?0// wasn't so obvious.
He said that was his favorite part of the dog, he thought it was cute, and he liked to look at it.
Ever since then, I wonder about the people who post that they just can't stand the idea that cruelty laws might prevent them from lopping off their dogs tails.
What's so great about having a dog with no tail?
It's not because you like looking at the dog's uncovered @$$?)// is it?
Sometimes you just have to laugh at people.
Permission to cross post.
What did you guess he was bred for? Does this full view show the breed off better?
I would have guessed him to be a heavy load draft horse.
Wikipedia says the breed was a 1200 pound (good size for an adult human to ride) military horse, but is now bred as a 2,000 pound meat animal. They eat horses in Europe.
See the steer's head along the left edge of the photo? Is that how Hindus view us eating cattle? Like I feel about breeding these horses for food?
photo
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheval_ardennais_01.jpg
Look at the calf. The fluid shooting out of his little nose. What is happening to his back? In a few frames he will be yanked off his feet. Is this nice?
Rodeos aren't about skills real cowboys use. No sane rancher would ruin the health of his calves by roping them like this, at high speed. (If at all.)
There are other issues about animals. One of those issues is about dog breeding, and breeding dogs to be used in competitions.
On the surface it might not seem as bad as calf roping. But multiplied across the county by so many people, the problems multiply too.
If nobody speaks up about the problems, or if nobody listens, then the problems will just get worse, and all the improvements that could have been made, will never happen.
photo source
http://www.animalsvoice.com/
What is the difference between a staged bullfighting event and a rodeo?
In a bullfight event, the bull is stabbed to death, but in a rodeo, the animals are not killed, but they are often re-used, again and again.
When traumatic things happen to you over & over, you live in a constant state of a form of shock.
Which is worst, killing the bull the first time he enters the ring, or re-using him over & over, and then killing him?
I understand that some people are the sort who like to watch suffering - like the sort who go to dog fights. And some people like to watch people hurting animals - there are evil people in this world.
But why would people take their children to watch this sort of suffering?
photo source:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/
The crowd hears her scream, they see her suffering, do they care?
What kind of monsters have we become?
The thing I dislike most about sled dog races, greyhound races, dog shows, and all other competitive events using dogs are "What do you do with all the losers?".
"What do you do with all those puppies who you know will never become winners in the sport?"
Many breeds of dogs have been bred to be a specialist at a specific job,
if they are NOT good at that job, what happens to them?
Racing greyhounds who try to win, but can't, have very little value.
Years ago, a breeder of these dogs told me she had the losers "put to sleep" (humanly killed) so that they would not end up being used in medical research or product testing.
Some losers are adopted, but many losers are killed. I believe it would be better if dog tracks became casinos.
In the Vick case, we all read about how the losers were killed for "underperforming".
But dog fights aren't the only dog competition where the losers die.
Dog shows are just another competitive event using dogs.
I have talked with many many show dog breeders.
What value does a dog have if the whole point of keeping him has been to own and show a winner, but the pup turns out to be a loser?
He is useless as a show dog because he doesn't win, and he is usually useless for breeding because he hasn't won.
To read the rest of this post, click on the POST title (not archive title).
Message #129 of 148
Have you heard about the trouble in Dalmatian dogs?
Dalmatians get an inherited disease called hyperuricemia. One dalmatian breeder told me that the disease makes the dog's urine stink worse than most dog urine. Actually, it has a much worse of an effect on the dog's health.
Back in the 1970s one brave man, Robert Schaible, decided to fix the problem by crossing the Dalmatian with the breed most like it, the (English) pointer. He made a line of Dalmatians that looked like other dalmatians, but who didn't have the gene for hyperuricemia.
The American Kennel Club, accepted his Dalmatians.
But the AKC's structure is what is sometimes called a "club of clubs" - that is, the AKC has clubs for members, not people.
The AKC "recognizes" various clubs. There is a club for each breed. One of these clubs is a dalmatian club.
QUIZ:
How did the AKC's dalmatian club react to Schaible creating a line of healthy dalmatians?
a) They made him president of their club.
b) They gave him prize money.
c) They held a banquet in his honor.
d) They named their biggest club after him.
e) All of the above.
f) They asked the AKC to un-register the healthy dalmatians.
If you answered with any of the nice smiley answers, you don't know the world of purebred dogs.
Of course, they un-registered his dogs!
Why? Only they know why.
Maybe because a few of the healthy dalmatians had solid black ears instead of spotted ears?
Dalmatians also often have deafness. I've read that deafness is associated with white coloring, especially white around the base of the ears.
Maybe his healthy dogs made some breeders of deaf and sick dogs look bad?
Maybe the show breeders felt breeding sick dogs would improve the breed?
Maybe the purebred dog breeders had some notion about letting a dog breed with any dog that didn't look like them? But English pointers do look a lot like dalmatians.
Maybe some of the purebred dalmatian breeders had a thing about making a little group of dogs and calling them "pure" and not letting them breed with any other dog, even if it was necessary to do to produce healthy puppies?
Maybe some of the dalmatian breeders wanted to breed unhealthy dogs with a genetic disease? Who knows?
QUIZ:
What did the AKC do?
a) They said "We are glad you brought this to our attention, there is a conflict between the kind of dalmatian you want and the healthy kind Mr. Schaible has produced. We like his healthy kind better." So the AKC, un-recognized the old dalmatian club, and recognized a new dalmatian club started by Mr. Schaible.
b) They said "We are glad that Mr. Schaible made this new kind of dalmatian that looks like the other dalmatians, but is healthy. We are going to have both kinds in the breed. If the public wants to buy your unhealthy dogs, they can. If the public wants to buy Mr. Schaible's healthy dalmatians, they can."
c) They said "We want to make both clubs happy. We will have two breeds of dalmatians, the "dalmatian", and "American Dalmatians" - which will be those from Mr. Schaible's line.
d) They said "We recognized his dogs, they are in the breed, get over it. We have spoken."
e) They said "We will un-recognize Mr Schaible's healthy dalmatians, and remove them from our registry."
Let me give you a hint: despite this being over 25 years ago, dalmatians are still suffering from hyperuricemia.
That's the world of purebred dogs that we daren't say anything detrimental about, even when it is true.
The AKC un-recognized the healthy dalmatians.
Across the pond, in England, in 2008, the brave Margaret Carter, spoke out about the problem in her breed, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.
These spaniels often suffer terribly from a horrid genetic disease which makes the little spaniels have terrible pain. They also often suffer and die from heart disease.
QUIZ:
How did the the Cavalier's dog club over there re-act to Margaret Carter's words?
a) They did nice things.
b) They ignored it.
c) They promised to work on removing unhealthy Cavaliers from breeding.
d) They took a vote, and by a huge majority voted out all the people who knowingly bred unhealthy dogs.
e) They took a vote, and by a huge majority voted Margaret Carter out of the Cavalier dog club.
Would I have called her "brave" if this was easy?
Of course she was voted out by a huge majority.
Can't have anyone telling the truth about club members or their unhealthy suffering dogs, can they?
Permission to crosspost.
This post is in public domain.
