Archive for the ‘animal welfare’ Category

madness and stupidity bulldog

What I am about to suggest is something rather extreme.

I wouldn’t have deliberately plagiarized Lenin in the title if I were to write something somewhat milquetoast and banal.

But right now, there is a major welfare problem in the world of dogs that I don’t think can be solved with gentle suggestions and politically correct language.

One must be blunt and clear about the problems and the solution.

Right now, I would argue the biggest welfare problem facing domestic dogs in the West can be found in a single breed of dog. I choose  to take on this breed not because other breeds are without problems. I choose it because there is no breed with as many problems occurring at once, and in the United States, it is sadly becoming even more popular, despite it being well-known that these dogs have very real issues.

And the problem is even further exacerbated when one discovers that well over 90 percent of the breed’s fanciers have their heads shoved squarely up their arses. They live in a fantasy world in which deformities are actually assets, where they live in the delusion that their dog is tougher than all the rest, when it is indeed perhaps the most fragile.

The breed I’m talking about is the bulldog.

The bulldog is the old baiting and butcher’s dog of yore. A creature much ballyhooed for its legendary courage, which eventually made it a symbol of the British Empire.  It is the canine John Bull, and one sort of gets the impression that much of the breed’s current phenotype is really nothing more than attempt to turn much more lithe old bulldog into a caricature of that patriotic figure.

This breed has a lot of health problems and not a single one of them is new. This breed was messed up within twenty years of becoming part of the “dog fancy,” and as it became more and more extreme, there was actually a robust debate about bulldog health even back then.  Perhaps most famously, there was a bulldog “walking race” in which the very “typy” dog wound up positively knackered within a mile.

These dogs have problems breathing and cooling themselves efficiently– which tells you they couldn’t possibly be used to bring down an animal the size of a bull! They problems with infections resulting from their inverted tails. The dogs are so top-heavy that they cannot mate without people holding them or the use of a breeding rack, and in the US, many are produced through AI. Almost all bulldog puppies are delivered through C-section, and the breed has the highest percentage of dysplastic hips, according to OFA hips.

And those are but a handful of the problems this breed faces.

And they’ve been going on and on for a century without any degree of improvement.

But there is now another problem that is coming to the fore:  This breed is now among the AKC’s most popular.

They have been popularized on “reality television,”  and every young idiot who watches too much TV wants one. They are so cute!

This is such a difficult dog to breed that the puppy mills have had a field day with them. They can charge much higher prices for these dogs than all the other mass-produced breeds and crosses. They will sometimes add a bit of boxer to their bulldogs to make them easier whelpers and then dock the puppies’ tails to make them look pure.

So we have a breed that is utterly screwed by its own fanciers and then is getting it double from the really ugly underbelly of the pet market.

Both of these systemic problems mean that it is going to be very hard to help this breed.

It is simply madness and stupidity all around.

This is not to say that there aren’t some good bulldog fanciers out there who are trying to moderate the breed, and there are dozens of breeding programs out there that are trying to produce an “old-fashioned” bulldog.

But these people are fighting an uphill battled against an entrenched idiocracy.

With so many things going against this breed, how can it be saved?

The thing is, I don’t think it can be– not unless there is a very strong cultural revolution against the powers that be.

We must stigmatize anyone who buys this breed as a pet.  We must not be nice about it.  If you buy a bulldog, you are participating in the deformation of a dog. You are encouraging people to breed unhealthy freaks. You are encouraging the misery of living things, and these living thing suffer every breath they take. In this way, the breeders of the extreme bulldog are worse than dog fighters. Dogs that are bred for fighting suffer. It’s certainly true. However, they don’t spend their entire lives struggling to oxygenate themselves or keep themselves cool.

If you are breeding bulldogs as they currently are, you are worse than Michael Vick.

If you measure the amount of suffering each type of cruelty, the bulldog breeder is encouraging far more than the dog fighter.

And what’s more, there is nothing illegal about what the bulldog breeder does. Indeed, what a bulldog breeder does is celebrated!

It is evil that is not seen as evil, and to steal from Hannah Arendt, it is evil that is banal.

People accept the suffering that bulldogs undergo because it is institutionalized and legitimate.

And it is this legitimacy that we must attack at its core.

The dogs deserve so much more.

The radical step is to say that this breed must stop. If it cannot be put on the road to healthier phenotype, then the breed must be stopped.

I would hate to see it go this far, but it may wind up that all bulldogs will be required by law to be spayed or neutered unless put into a breeding program designed to select for a healthier phenotype.

I wouldn’t want to see this happen, but it seems to me that there is very little that be done to stop the madness.

But at some point, this is where this breed is headed.

And in the end, all dog people of conscience have to say stop.

No more.









Read Full Post »

But I thought I needed to make a comment.

Apparently, the Animal Rights Taliban has decided to campaign against me– because of this post.

Like all fanatics, these sorts of people are incapable of tolerating views that contrary to them. You’ll note that I’ve not commented on their pages, but they’ll not had the same good manners to leave this blog alone.

But let’s leave all this alone for the sake of this post.

One of the hysterical comments I received, which I did not approve because it did not fit comment guidelines, provided a link to the Facebook Group defaming Melissa Bachman.

The comment I didn’t approve got listed on the page because I’m a mean old Stalinist who doesn’t believe in free speech.

I actually do believe in free speech, but this is my blog. Every comment I choose to approve is a reflection of editorial decision. Anyone is perfectly free to start his or her own blog. You can even start one called “Retrieverman Sucks” or “Retrieveman Touches Little Boys.” (WordPress blogs are free!)

But you’re not getting a free space to deny science and act like a bunch of hysterical thugs on this blog.

Now, I noticed that the anti-Bachman page suggested that I was biasing the information somehow. In the comments I do quote Valerius Geist, a world-renowned expert on deer and wildlife management. I also provide a link to abstracts to links from wildlife management specialists, including some research scientists, who contend that trophy hunting can be a major positive for wildlife and for their ecosystems.

These scientists come to these conclusions through scientific inquiry, not rank emotionalism and a sort inverted (or perhaps perverted) kind of emotionalist class warfare.  One comment goes like this:

He is also biasing the information, the emeritus proffessor that he is quoting is also a hunter, and they are arguing that hunters help the balance of the ecosystem by keeping herbivores numbers controlled, but how do they justify the killings of all the bears and that horrifying photo of her with around 8 wolves! which poor community eats wolf meat!?

Now, I do have some issues with wolf controls as they are currently promoted in the United States.

However, wolves will eventually have to be controlled at some point.

Wolves will conflict with people, and the best way to ensure that wolves and people have fewer conflicts is to make sure that wolves fear people.

The best way to do this is to have a limited and controlled wolf hunt.

Whether wolf numbers have recovered enough in order to have those controls is a good question.

And about that we can have an honest debate. I don’t necessarily agree with Geist on this issue.

But I don’t assume that Geist is an idiot or doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is somehow horribly biased because he is a hunter.

But our dear anti-Bachmanists think this is a reliable source:

The Animal Liberation Front!

What’s the Animal Liberation Front?

Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center considers them as a terrorist group. The SPLC has been instrumental in monitoring and, yes, shutting down extremist groups, including the Klan. It’s hardly a conservative group at all.

The US Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and ATF considers ALF to be a dangerous terrorist group.

An ALF member famously burned down a sheepskin factory in Colorado a few years ago.

These people are not nice little hippies that want to have discussions.

They are so fanatical that they will destroy property and put people’s lives at risk to achieve their aims.

It turns out that my decision to call this particular round of trolls the AR Taliban was not inaccurate.

This group of Taliban actually supports the AR version of Al Qaeda! Or at least, they consider them to be a more reliable source than tenured, published scientists.

And I will not take lectures on my morality from people who think like this.

I simply won’t.

I’m not about to let the fanatics win.

Like all fanatics who support terrorism, you cannot be nice to them.

They only understand strength.

I hope that all of my readers will help me stand up to these bullies.

They don’t want us to have a free society.

They want all of society to accept their morality.

And if they don’t, they support violence until we do.

We cannot allow that.

I did not intend to blog this weekend, but when I saw that these people were quoting ALF (not Gordon Shumway) on their Facebook page, I soon realized that I needed to say something.

These people are not interested in discussion.

They are interested in forcing others to agree with them.

So to hell with you AR shitheads and your support of terrorists!

I am not afraid of you.

I will write and control my blog as I see fit.

And if you don’t like that, you can kiss my ass.

This is what I think of that Facebook group:


Read Full Post »

Melissa Bachman just got a TV show on National Geographic. The show will be about hunting. The animal rights elitists have, of course, lost their collective minds over this development.

In the US, we have plenty of hunting and fishing channels on TV.

They are usually located deep within the recesses of the sporting channels that I normally don’t watch.

However, there are fishing shows on major networks.

Animal Planet has two fishing shows:  River Monsters (one of my faves), Hillbilly Handfishin’, and the upcoming Top Hooker.

Now fishing is one thing.

Most people don’t care about how fish feel.

I really don’t. There is some debate about whether fish can feel pain from the hooks.

I’m quite skeptical, because it’s so common for people to catch the same fish multiple times. You’d think they’d learn if they actually consciously felt pain.

But I digress.

There is a big ideological difference between fishing and hunting.

And that’s when you start shooting animals that are cute or are closely related to dogs and cats.

And that’s when otherwise rational people lose their minds.

Now, Nation Geographic Channel, wanting to cash in on the outdoor sports TV genre that Animal Planet has been so successful with, has decided to sign Melissa Bachman for a TV series.

Melissa Bachman is a young female hunter.

You know, a strong woman.

The type feminists are supposed to admire.

But not in this case, because she kills bears and alligators and deer.

And that’s so evil and wrong to have on TV.

Because we said so.

Since it was announced that Nat Geo was doing the show, Facebook, the place where all sorts of hysterical, pseudo-activists like to hang out, now has an anti-Melissa Bachman page, and there are at least three online petitions going around.

If I ever lose subscribers, I am glad to lose them because of animal rights issues.

I don’t believe in animal rights.

At all.

And I think hunting shows should be on television more often.

If you look at Animal Planet’s line-up, there are good programs about conservation.

And then they have those shows who are for the hysterical loons.

Like Whale Wars.

A show that has nothing to do with conservation.

It’s really just an animal rights-centered propaganda show.

It teaches you nothing, other than there are people who actually believe all this animal rights garbage and are trying to use industrial sabotage to get their way. (Which is quite scary!)

But most of the nature programming leaves out a really important part of the conservation story.

The truth is that most of the big game species we have in North America actually wouldn’t be here but for the efforts of hunters.

Hunters contribute lots of money to conservation– and lots of labor and political campaigning. I don’t think people realize how much duck hunters actually have contributed to ensuring the wetlands have been preserved.

Wetlands aren’t just good for ducks. They are good for all sorts of wildlife.

And they do it for selfish reasons.

They want ducks to shoot.

But in order to have ducks to shoot, they have to preserve duck habitat.

And duck habitat is good for lots of different species, including songbirds, beavers, otters, mink, and muskrats.

A well-produced show about hunting with a charismatic and well-informed presenter could do a lot of good in changing the way many people feel about hunting.

That’s what I hope Melissa Bachman’s show will offer.

I find the reaction from some quarters rather disgusting– and a little bit disturbing.

So much do these people hate what others do that they demand that it be taken off television.

There are a lot of shows I don’t like.

I have a little secret way of dealing with them:

It’s really tricky.

I don’t watch these shows.

That’s all there is to it.

But what I also find disturbing is the cultural elitism that comes across from the anti-hunter crowd.

They look down their noses at rural people and what they do for fun.

I can’t tell you how old I was when I was first taken hunting.

I couldn’t have been very old, but I do know that my grandpa took me.

My grandpa knew all about the wild animals in our area. He was very concerned about them.

He enjoyed hunting them, but he also knew that hunting was under attack.

When I was about 7 or 8 years old, we were out squirrel hunting, and I remember he told me that there were people out there who wanted to ban all hunting.

I thought he was crazy.

But then, I had only known West Virginia. In West Virginia, hunting and fishing are truly ways of life.

I had no idea exactly how alienated from the natural world most of America actually is.

And it’s because of that alienation  that people have no clue what sound conservation  practices actually are.

Hunting and fishing are major parts of a sound wildlife management scheme.

If people don’t want to learn this simple fact, then there really isn’t much hope for wildlife in this country.

It is this same mentality that argues we shouldn’t control feral goats or pigs or cats– they have individual rights, don’t you know?

If we allow the animal rights community to set the entire debate about how animals are treated in this country, wildlife will lose.

There is no discussion about it.

I hope Melissa Bachman’s show helps change how we discuss hunting and wildlife issues in this country.

We really need to educate people.

If we don’t, wildlife and our free society will lose.


Update:  No more comments from intolerant animal rights cultists will be tolerated on this post. Post them. I’ll remove them, and I’ll ban you. This is not a public forum. This is my blog.

Read Full Post »

One of the most bizarre things I’ve seen animal rights activists throw fits about are dairy cattle.

Now, one can make the case that dairy cattle are meant to be on pastures, and maybe they shouldn’t have docked tails. And maybe the nutritional value of dairy is something we ought to question.

However, one thing that the animal rights people worry about is that dairy cattle never get to mother their own calves.

This is supposedly the absolute worst thing that can happen.

It is a major feature of this piece by a vegan activist writing on a “farm sanctuary” ( read: food hoaders’) tumblr. The piece is an ode to a dairy cow that has recently, which in my part of the world would not be something that anyone would read or write without bursting out in riotous laughter.

Anyway, here goes:

I hope you will honor Sadie’s memory. She is a former dairy cow. She never nursed her own calves. Her only value? Her milk, meant for her growing calf.

Animal Place gave her an amazing seven years of life. She lived it with dignity. I am beyond honored to have been included in her circle.

She never deserved the hand dealt her.

You can help. Drink almond milk. Try coconut ice cream. Slap some soy cheese on your sandwich. Transition to a vegan diet and embrace compassion and kindness.

Never mind that monocultures of soy have a disastrous ecological effects and can destroy small farmers in the developing world.

And never mind that intelligent cattle rearing could be a solution to soil conservation and to climate change crises.

The real issue is that dairy cattle have been selected to be terrible mothers.

If you know anyone who has raised any kind of beef cattle, the cows are super protective of their calves.

When they are first born, it can be dangerous to approach a mother cow and her calf. It’s almost always dangerous for even familiar dogs to approach the pair.

That’s because she has very good mothering instincts, and there have been no selection pressures to produce cattle with weaker mothering instincts.

They are still very much like their wild aurochs ancestors.

Dairy cattle are quite the opposite.

When normal cattle are separated from their calves, they get quite stressed and start bawling for hours and hours.

This always happens when beef cattle are weaned. The mother cows don’t like to be away from their babies, so they try to call them back.

However, if a dairy cow got that upset and stressed when she became separated from her calf, she would be a terrible milk producer.

And because dairy cattle almost always have their calves taken from them, there has been an inadvertent selection pressure for a cow that has terrible mother instincts.  If she doesn’t have a strong instinct to bond with her calves, she’s not going to be stressed when she’s producing milk.

Temple Grandin, a livestock expert, writes that a lot of this selection may have come from the desire to produce the most calm dairy cattle possible:

There is a need to select cattle and other animals to have a calm temperament. However over selection for any single physical or behavioral trait can cause problems (Grandin, 1998). It is probably a bad idea to select for the absolute most calm animals. Doing this might cause problems. For example, the Holstein dairy cow is very calm but she is a poor mother. Over selection for the calmest might cause a loss of other beneficial traits such as mothering ability or motivation to forage long distances on a pasture.

Now, I don’t think dairy is necessarily best use of cattle. I don’t consume much dairy in my diet. I get most of my calcium from almonds and broccoli.

I generally avoid milk because it’s too high in carbs. And regular carb consumption makes my ass jiggle. It also takes away all my energy. I don’t think as clearly. I’m also much more prone to moodiness when I’m eating lots of starchy foods.

But I do eat a lot of beef, and if we’re smart about our cattle rearing, we can actually mitigate so many ecological problems.

This is yet another example of where the animal rights movement is in conflict with possible solutions to real ecological issues, and the way that the animal rights fanatics frame it, ecology always loses when it comes up to emotionalist appeals about the “sanctity” of an individual animal’s life.

Holstein, Holstein-Frisian, and British Frisian cattle are truly specialized animals.

They would not exist without human intervention.

If they were left to be wild, they would hardly ever raise calves to maturity, especially if predators are around. My guess is these cattle would regularly tear their pendulous, over-sized udders and teats if left in a more natural situation.  They are certainly more prone edemas of the udder.

In breeding super milk producing cattle, we have produced something like a bovine equivalent of a bulldog.

Like the bulldog, these animals would be next to impossible to produce without lots of human intervention.

I use very little dairy in my diet for my own health reasons.

Humans have only recently evolved the ability to digest lactose. Lactose tolerance in Europeans is at its highest in the region of Europe that was home to the Funnel Beaker region, which is about where my ancestors came from. The Funnel Beaker culture of north-central Europe was the first area where dairying became established in Europe nearly 6,000 years ago.

We’ve done pretty well without consuming dairy, even if a lot people can now digest lactose as adults.

So yes, there are problems with dairy cattle.

But one of them isn’t that the cows go into hysterical fits when their calves are removed from them.

And I am entirely fine with the problem of dairy being solved through consumer choice.

If you find that you can do well without dairy in your diet, there is no need to buy it.

I am not in all in favor shutting down dairies. The cows are generally well-treated and not stressed. If they were truly stressed through general operations, they wouldn’t produce milk. And yes, there are bad actors out there, just as there are in any industry.

But excessive moralizing about how much dairy cattle mothers suffer when their calves are removed isn’t at all helpful.

It makes someone look silly.

It certainly doesn’t make a person look like someone we should take seriously about issues relating to the environment and animal welfare.

Read Full Post »

Wrong fox

Some mastiff and bulldog and mastiff enthusiasts have been discussing this blog on World Mastiff Forum. I happen to like mastiffs very much–nice, very intelligent dogs.

But one of my detractors on the forum made a massive taxonomy error that I just can’t let stand:

I’m sorry. That’s just wrong.

The foxes in question were not silver foxes.

They were gray foxes, which aren’t even in the same tribe as silver foxes. A silver fox is just a color phase for the red fox, Vulpes vulpes.  The foxes in question were gray foxes, Urocyon cineroargenteus. Urocyon is a very distinct genus and evolutionary lineage in the dog family. It’s not closely related to any other dog species. It split off the main canid evolutionary tree 9 to 10 million years ago.

It’s about as distantly related as a dog can be still be a dog.

I should note that no one has refuted a thing I’ve written about toaddogs.

Not a word.

They can’t.

So what they do is throw nice little tantrums and hope someone gives a flying fig.

They are so caught up in my foul mouth, which I readily admit that I have, that they’ve refused to address any of the cogent points I’ve made in any posts about the breed.

And if you want to compare cruelty between bulldog faddists and fox trappers, well, the bulldog faddists are much more cruel.

The only human-inflicted discomfort a fox feels is the few hours it’s caught in the trap.  The dispatch, in this case with .22, is humane and quick.

A bulldog suffers its entire life because it’s been bred to be so deformed.

That’s years of not being able to breathe or cool itself properly. Years of hip dysplasia. Years of poor oxygenation. Years of skin infections.

I could go on.

But if you think you’re going to destroy my arguments by suggesting some hypocrisy in my impassioned defense of hunting, fishing, and trapping and my passionate attacks on dog breeder stupidity, you’re sorely mistaken.

I’ve got my arguments lined out.

They are logical.

Yours aren’t.

That’s why you must come on  here act like a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativity on my blog.

You don’t have any arguments.

At all.

I win.

Read Full Post »

The bulldog is a great example of what the dog fancy does to dogs.

This animal didn’t always look like a toad.

It was once a fairly nice animal that could move efficiently and cool itself properly in all kinds of weather.

I have run into a bout of trolls on this blog who seem to have taken offense to the simple fact that I’ve written that this breed is unbelievably fucked up.

Most of these commentators are poorly educated British people. In Britain, it doesn’t get hot and humid for extended periods of time like it does over here, and when it does, the bulldogs drop like flies.

Normal dogs can put up with some heat. They have good cooling mechanisms because they have normal muzzles and proper amounts of soft palate tissue. They also don’t a have scrunched up airways.

Dogs cool themselves through the airways. That’s what panting is.

Making it so a dog can’t properly cool itself in this fashion would be like creating a person who cannot sweat.

I guarantee you if you couldn’t sweat, you’d be quite miserable whenever the temperature got above 75 degrees.

But it’s okay to make dogs miserable. They are so cute with their flat-faces, eh?

Never mind that brachycephalic dogs are further encumbered with increased risk of a certain tumors called chemodectomas.  These tumors are caused by bracycephaly.  They are caused because the dogs have what has been termed “chronic asphyxiation.” They never properly oxygenate their bodies, and this causes damage to their chemoreceptors, which then results in the formation of tumors.

Ah, but none of you people care about this.

You’ll throw out the old bromide that say “My dog’s fine. Your wrong. Research the bread!”

To be honest with you, that’s not an argument.

At all.

It’s a stupid argument by stupid people who don’t understand I’m not talking about your single dog or your limited breeding program.

I am talking about the breed as a whole.

It is a definite, scientifically proven, absolute fact that the bulldog’s conformation is the main cause of almost all of its health problems.

And yes, these dogs do require C-sections to whelp, rape racks or AI to mate, and special care to keep alive.

I don’t really care about the British bulldog fancy and what it’s doing. It might be doing some positive things to reduce exaggeration.

But I hate to tell you this:

Most bulldogs don’t live in your country.

Most actually live in mine.

And in my country, the standard has not been changed and will not be changed.

The dogs still almost always require a C-section to whelp.

They can’t mate naturally.

And they die like flies whenever they are left out in temperatures above 65 degrees.

Is this an animal we should be celebrating?

Are these breeders we should laud as ethical?

If you do, then you’re too batshit even attempt to comment here.

And I’m going to call you out on it, whether you cluck like a bunch of hens or not.

You people make me sick to my stomach.

I feel the same way about you as I do about Michael Vick.

Actually, you’re worse than Michael Vick because he never claimed to be the savior and guardian of a breed.

He just fought them for money.

You claim this title for yourself, and you continue to produce a defective, miserable animal that really shouldn’t be allowed to exist as it does.

If you can’t see that, then you’re delusional fools, and there is not a snowball’s chance in hell for your breed.

You sadistic pieces of shit.

Shame on you!

My only regret is that I didn’t realize that if you’re going to own one of these dogs– which have so many problems– you have to be crazier than a shithouse rat.

I didn’t realize that.

It’s really quite amazing.

Read Full Post »

At least it wasn’t Santeria practitioners.

TNR is one of the biggest problems with the No Kill Movement.

Cat colonies do pose problems to both ecology and public health.

And TNR really doesn’t reduce the cat population to the level they need to be.


Read Full Post »

Chris sent me a link to a border collie blog called Champion of My Heart.

The post in question was about how to get a dog to leave venomous snakes alone.

The blog’s author is having lots of trouble getting her border collie to leave rattlesnakes alone, and she has been bitten twice.

The author wants to know some way to get her dog to avoid snakes, but it doesn’t appear that there are any alternatives besides doing a “snake-proofing.”

Snake-proofing is when a dog is exposed to a snake– usually a dead one or one that is safely confined–and when it starts to focus in on the snake, it receives a shock from an electronic collar. The dog learns to associate the smell of a snake with shock and learns to avoid them.

Now, a great many people are skeptical of electronic collars. I do tend to think they are over-used and over relied-upon, but they do have a purpose in certain situations.

A snakebite can be fatal to a dog.

It certainly will be painful.

Both of these things are far worse than the electric shock the dog would experience in being snake-proofed.

So the use of an electronic collar in this situation appears to be a necessary evil.

If a little shock can prevent a dog from dying from a snakebite, then it appears that a traditional snake-proofing session might be justified.

It’s not that I’m defending what everyone is doing with electronic collars.

I’m not.

But with this situation, it might be a good idea to use one.

Now, the dog has to be exposed to virtually every snake species in a region if the snake-proofing is to be successful. Each species has its own odor, and dogs have harder time generalizing their behaviors than humans do.

So if a dog is proofed off of timber rattlers, it likely won’t be proofed off of copperheads.

I live in a very unsnakey part of the country, and most golden retrievers don’t pay any attention to snakes. One of my dogs was bitten by a copperhead when she dropped a tennis ball on it. It was a mostly dry bite, and after getting an antivenin shot, she was fine in within a few days.

But if a little shock treatment prevents the a dog from bothering snakes, it can be given more liberty to run about.

Going through snake-proofing would just be a small price to pay for a dog to be able to run around safely.

In this case, shocking is worth it.

Read Full Post »

Chris has a neat post up on BorderWars.

It’s about the mice showing culture.

Yes. Competitive conformation shows for domestic house mice.

They do exist.

I think the most interesting aspect isn’t how naked and disturbing and bizarre the ideals of the subculture actually are.

The most interesting–and much more disconcerting– aspect of the piece is it reveals the id of the competitive animal showing and breeding practices.

Mice are not intelligent animals.

They are short-lived, tolerate inbreeding very well, and have very short gestation periods.

They are also often bred solely to feed other animals and for research purposes.

And no one really cares about mice as individuals.

Because individual mice are largely expendable, the moral restrictions that might hold back that id in its rawest and most naked forms with other animals simply aren’t there.

Thus, one can breed mice with no real concern for their genetic health, their quality of life (in the case of the “waltzing” mice), or their intrinsic value as individuals.

One can use whatever breeding and culling practices one wants in order to produce that ribbon winner, and if today’s ribbon winner is inferior to his sons or grandsons, then slam him up against the wall!

This nonsense would not be tolerated in dogs, but like all ids, it can’t be truly hidden.

It’s held back by certain moral strictures, but if dogs were valued in the same way mice are, they would be bred exactly like this.

And they were bred like this in the early days of the fancy.

The ribbon chasing id has only be ameliorated through the growing status of dogs in the West, and as dogs become more and more valued, it’s likely that the values of the entire system will be questioned.

It’s already happening.

People are beginning to wonder if breeding animals for competitive exhibition has resulted in vast improvements of animals themselves.

The evidence simply isn’t there, and in terms of genetic load and inbreeding depression issues, breeding animals for these purposes has  made things worse.

The mice fancy shows us what would happen if the ribbon-chasing id were allowed to exist in other animals without any moral strictures.

The revelations of their exact values are quite disconcerting.

And they should be.

They tell us what could happen if people hadn’t been questioning the axioms and platitudes of the dog fancy.

Dogs would be in far worse shape now.

And that’s why we should keep on challenging the dog fancy as it exists in its various subcultures and permutations.

Otherwise, the ribbon-chasing barbarism would take over.

And that would be quite bad for dogs– the animals we like to call our best friends.



Read Full Post »

"Pekingese breeders are going to the gas chambers! Oh my!"

John D. French, the president of the Pekingese Club of America, thinks that taking away BOB from Palacegarden Bianca at Crufts this year is something akin to the Nazis’ conquest of Europe.  He left a bizarre message on his Facebook profile. In this message, he drags up the Winston Churchill analogy that so many foolish Americans like to throw out whenever they feel that someone is out to get them. The analogy comes across as little more than a paranoid rant. And yes, he does invoke the specter of the Holocaust, because he just can’t stop himself from going there:

I know that other lists have put out an email from AKC President, Dennis Sprung, about what is happening at Crufts. But I have the complete email conversation that Dennis’ email was taken from. It was sent to the AKC Delegate’s list, and I’m sure it is going to be discussed at the Delegate’s meeting this week.

This is just one more reason why I support the AKC in every way possible. Without the strength of the AKC and its leadership, what is happening in the UK could very well happen in the USA and around the world.

Even after receiving support and advice from AKC, The Kennel Club in the UK exercised very weak backbone when confronted by the animal rights attack and their BBC television program, and as a result, the fall out continues.

I was told by some UK Peke breeders that this decision to disqualify these breeds was determined before the show had actually started as it was rumored for weeks that “something” was going to happen. It has also been told to me that the KC is promoting actual legislation to ban certain breeds from the UK. And the Peke is one of them. If this is actually fact, then the Kennel Club in the UK has ceased to function in the best interests for the dogs, and the sport of pure bred dogs and ultimately the rights of all Brits. It will be the canine version of the Holocaust, and shame upon ultimate shame on the Kennel Club.

I am a student of history [just like Newt Gingrich!], and well remember when England was being savagely attacked by the Germans in The Blitz. The Brits fought back with everything they had to save their country. If they hadn’t, they would be singing a very different National Anthem today. So, where is that fighting for survival and civil liberties spirit in the British Peke breeders now?

When Lord Chamberlain came back from meeting with Hitler waving a piece of paper that ended up being worthless, what happened? Winston Churchill. If the Pekingese liaison to the Kennel Club isn’t fighting for the survival of the breed, the British Peke breeders can either be sheep and be driven off the cliff, or fight for the breed they say they love so much. Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes.

I have been a part of the British Peke world for a majority of my life and cannot for the life of me understand the lukewarm reaction from the British breeders this whole time. I always thought that the British people had civil rights and votes. Why am I not seeing it now?

May I remind the UK Peke breeders, when the Brits over here were being oppressed and unfairly treated and yes, discriminated against, they held a certain tea party in Boston that started a chain of events that changed the world. Guess what? I suggest you have a tea party.

As the 13 American colonies united to take matters into their own hands, so should the 15 breeds on the Kennel Club’s “hit list” do the same. This is your moment in time, the point of no return, war has been declared upon you and you are in the beginning of another Blitz. Either stand up and fight, or lose all respect from Pekingese lovers around the world.

I don’t have any problem signing my name to this post because I want all the UK breeders to know where I stand. WITH THE PEKINGESE!!!

Last I heard, David Cameron was going to set up secret prison camps to put all the Pekingese and bulldog breeders.

But you didn’t hear it from me.


My God, these people are total head cases.

I hate to tell people this, but the Kennel Club is a private entity. Although it is a registry system, it also is the governing body for conformation shows in the United Kingdom. It’s not a government agency.

There is no big government telling the Kennel Club that it must have mandatory health checks for BOB winners in certain breeds.

This was the Kennel Club’s decision to have this rule for its conformation shows, not that of any government official. There is no evidence that the Kennel Club is pushing for more government regulation of dog breeders– at least that I know of.

Because we’re not talking about the government or state agency, is it too much to ask people to leave the Tea Party slogans out of this discussion?

At the very least, should we really respect people who want to compare everyone who disagrees with them Nazis?

All these people are doing is making themselves look like they need straight jackets and rubber rooms.

It would be funny, if these people weren’t taken so seriously by so many.

All that’s going on here is that the Kennel Club wishes to be relevant in the future. Clinging to past in such a bizarrely paranoid fashion means that you’re going down the tubes.

See related post:

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: