The dogs that win prizes often disturb me. I feel like there must be a bunch of inbreeding going on, and maybe for features that look interesting but aren't necessarily good for them.
Is this concern misplaced? Not a dog show expert so maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance.
The genetics of inbreeding are extremely well-understood. Dog pedigrees are well tracked, and there are tools you can use to assist in preventing inbreeding. Irresponsible breeders give responsible breeders a bad name. Some breeders are even focusing on making breeds healthier as their goal.
How many hundreds of thousands of individual unhealthy dogs must be forced to life a life of suffering to make the “breed healthier as a goal” even if that laughable idea is successful?
Why not just not breed unhealthy dogs, adopt the many stray dogs that persist and only once we have empty shelters consider breeding healthy breeds?
There are bitter and heartstrong arguments on this topic. Brachycephalic breeds with flat faces or short snouts (for example pugs, bulldogs, boxers, Boston terriers) cause anger among some and devotion among others. (We are a three-pug family.) Pugs have an average lifespan of 12 to 15 years, as compared with the overall average dog lifespan of 10 to 13 years. We have also had (and loved) boxers, which have an average lifespan of 10 to 12 years. Boxers seem to be genetically prone to cancer, which is how we lost our most recent boxer.
There's a classic cartoon showing two wolves in the bushes at the edge of a campfire, looking at the leftovers being thrown around by the humans. One says, "Look, what the heck, let's cozy up to these two-legged creatures that seem to have lots of food. What could go wrong?"
Next frame is a picture of an unhappy-looking pug wearing a birthday hat..
Every child should have a dog. It gives them valuable life lessons about responsibility, fidelity, unconditional love and to always turn around three times before you lie down.
I grew up around dog show people and breeders and can confidently say that I learned a lot more about negative qualities in people than positive ones in dogs. Moreover some types of dogs are just by disposition, awful.
Alternative viewpoint: separating a dog from its natural social life and forcing its integration into a human world, even if done out of a concept of affection, is morally wrong. I suspect future generations will liken the domination of many species, such as dogs and cats, to slavery.
You’re thinking of the wolf pack that dogs came from millennia ago to be its “natural social life”. But the dogs around today are the result of myriad generations bred to be social with humans.
The dogs that win prizes often disturb me. I feel like there must be a bunch of inbreeding going on, and maybe for features that look interesting but aren't necessarily good for them.
Is this concern misplaced? Not a dog show expert so maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance.
The genetics of inbreeding are extremely well-understood. Dog pedigrees are well tracked, and there are tools you can use to assist in preventing inbreeding. Irresponsible breeders give responsible breeders a bad name. Some breeders are even focusing on making breeds healthier as their goal.
How many hundreds of thousands of individual unhealthy dogs must be forced to life a life of suffering to make the “breed healthier as a goal” even if that laughable idea is successful?
Why not just not breed unhealthy dogs, adopt the many stray dogs that persist and only once we have empty shelters consider breeding healthy breeds?
Dogs are beings, not toys or decorations.
There are bitter and heartstrong arguments on this topic. Brachycephalic breeds with flat faces or short snouts (for example pugs, bulldogs, boxers, Boston terriers) cause anger among some and devotion among others. (We are a three-pug family.) Pugs have an average lifespan of 12 to 15 years, as compared with the overall average dog lifespan of 10 to 13 years. We have also had (and loved) boxers, which have an average lifespan of 10 to 12 years. Boxers seem to be genetically prone to cancer, which is how we lost our most recent boxer.
There's a classic cartoon showing two wolves in the bushes at the edge of a campfire, looking at the leftovers being thrown around by the humans. One says, "Look, what the heck, let's cozy up to these two-legged creatures that seem to have lots of food. What could go wrong?"
Next frame is a picture of an unhappy-looking pug wearing a birthday hat..
I recommend this extraordinary book, The First Domestication the coevolution of Humans and Wolves, charting the possible events.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300226164/the-first-dome...
Every child should have a dog. It gives them valuable life lessons about responsibility, fidelity, unconditional love and to always turn around three times before you lie down.
I grew up around dog show people and breeders and can confidently say that I learned a lot more about negative qualities in people than positive ones in dogs. Moreover some types of dogs are just by disposition, awful.
Alternative viewpoint: separating a dog from its natural social life and forcing its integration into a human world, even if done out of a concept of affection, is morally wrong. I suspect future generations will liken the domination of many species, such as dogs and cats, to slavery.
> separating a dog from its natural social life
You’re thinking of the wolf pack that dogs came from millennia ago to be its “natural social life”. But the dogs around today are the result of myriad generations bred to be social with humans.
> such as dogs and cats, to slavery.
Cats famously domesticated themselves though. More of a symbiosis than subjugation
Same applies to dogs really
My first dog taught me how to love animals, and that is a gift for which I'll forever be grateful.