incest

There are reasons to scrap dog shows. Not just that they lead people to breed dogs that win shows instead of breeding dogs that are good with children, or good in the house.

But also that dog shows are competitive events. It is not good enough to do well, you have to do best.

Only one male and one female of each breed win points in that breed event. The others are losers.

People who compete want to win. To win, you breed to the winners, or buy puppies from the winners. This leads to many fine house dogs, who a great with children, never having any puppies of their own. Their genes are lost forever.

We don't even know what genes were lost when all those pet dogs were spayed- neutered, and the show dogs were overbred.

Meanwhile, the winners have lots of puppies. In male dogs this is called "The Popular Sire Syndrome".

Breeders wanting dogs that look like the winning dog, often breed him to his relatives.

The Imperial College of London tells how inbred dogs have become. Many breeds, even very popular breeds, are really like less that 100 DIFFERENT dogs, the rest are just copies.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk
search: inbreeding.

Trash Bin the Dog Shows.

I really have tried. But I just can't think of any way that dog shows (doggie beauty type shows) can help produce good pets, good working dogs, or anything except more "pageant winners".

Can you judge how well a car drives by looking at the color of the seat covers?

And I can't find even one dog event that judges dogs by how good they are with children - the trait most wanted.

other kingdoms

Competitive events can help a dog breeder choose dogs that are good at competitive events.

To know if a line of dogs are good house dogs, good hunting dogs, or good ranch dogs, it is best to find dogs dogs that live that life.

It's not possible to look at a kennel full of dogs of one breed and know, just by looking at them, which dogs herd sheep best, or are best with children,

and taking the dogs out of the kennel and having them led around in a circle, so that you can watch them trot, does NOT tell you which dogs are best at herding sheep, or best with children.

Dog shows help people decide which dogs are best at winning dog shows.

Competitive events are not always helpful, and they can be unhelpful.

For example, competitive retrieving events, dock diving, reward retrievers that JUMP into the water, but if you live by ponds with submerged rocks, a retriever that doesn't look before he leaps, is NOT what you want.

Sled races do not reward lead dogs that gently ease out onto ice making sure that it doesn't start to crack. Racing sled dogs are not judged by their ability to find seal air holes, bear dens, or to avoid raging moose.

They are not judged by their ability to be kept loose in a pack in a shed and yard, rather than staked out singly to dog houses due to dog on dog aggression.

Field trail dogs are not judged on how early they were house-trained, and show dogs are not judged on this either.

Can you name one competitive event that judges dogs by how good they are with children? Neither can I. AFAIK, there are none. Not one event to judge if dogs are good with children - but isn't that what most families want most?

Many people buy a dog "for the kids".

Yet there are show dog breeders who say (and post) that only show dogs should be allowed to have puppies, and that all pet dogs should have their reproductive organs surgically removed to make sure that they never have puppies.

Doesn't this boil down to "People wanting a pet dog, should have to buy a dog from a show dog litter"?

I think the reverse, makes more sense. The vast majority of dog owners do NOT show their dogs. Most dogs and puppies are sold as pets.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that all show dogs should be fixed, and that only dogs who are good with children should be allowed to produce puppies?

But show dog breeders wont like the idea that they should get their show dogs from litters of well bred pets.

Yet, somehow, you can read plenty of sites from show dog breeders that say people wanting pets should get them from show bred litters, and that pet dogs should not be bred.

In California there was even a state law proposed to only let show dogs breed, and to make all others be spayed-neutered. I have heard that Los Angeles has passed a law with wording like that.

Triage

Perhaps one of the best ways for multi breed kennel clubs to deal with dog shows is to devise fun events, and register as "pure professional" litters from all event degree winners who were bred to other event degree holding dogs.


For example: If a boxer, who has an advanced obedience degree, is bred with a Doberman who has the same advanced obedience degree, their puppies could be "First Generation Purebred Obedience Dogs".

When a dog earns his advanced degree, and both of his parents and all 4 grandparents have the same advance obedience degree, then he should be entered into a stud book of "purebred obedience dogs".

I believe it would work best if all dogs could enter, fixed or not, purebred or not, and only earning the degree is required (not based on competitive ranking).

Then after this takes off, let BREED shows charge more to enter; if your going to go for snob appeal, you might as well go all the way.

At it again?

Oh yes, we were trying to find ways to save dog shows. First reform the standards. Then give each group of dog owners their own kingdom, a sort of breaking up the show breeder monopoly on claiming to be best.

We have:

1. WORKING. (Their breeds are already developed to specialize in this work.)

The Hunters. Their domain is all dogs that hunt.

The Ranchers. Their domain is all herding, droving, and flock bonding dogs, tha actually work with livestock on a ranch or farm.

The Mushers. Their domain is all dogs that pull sleds or carts, and all sea dogs (transportation and draft dogs).

The Watchers. Their domain is all dogs that are kept to bark an alarm or scare away trespassers, and yard dogs that actually guard an enclosed area. (Only dogs NOT able to jump a 6' fence.)

The Patrollers. Their domain is actual police dogs, military dogs, and shutzhund dogs that attack on command, yet have to be trustworthy in public. (Only dogs that can jump a 6' fence.)

2. PROFESSIONAL (These have dogs that can NOT be sorted by breeds. Dogs must be trained for these tasks.)

The Sniffers. Their domain is all dogs that do search and rescue, city tracking, sniffer work, scent matching, arson sniffing, border patrol sniffing, customs sniffing, medical sniffing, drug sniffing, or other sniffing work except hunting.

The Special. Their domain is all the dogs that have special permission to go into pubic places as an assistance dog for handicapped people. or to cheer people in need. Guide dogs, hearing dogs, wheelchair dogs, etc, and visiting dogs taken to hospitals and such places to visit with people in a challenging situation.

3. COMPETITVE DOG SPORTS

The Stars. Their domain is all the dogs that perform obedience, drills, acting, or such competitive performances that require training.

The Ballsport People. Their domain is all dogs that are entered in ballsport type event. Excludes bloodsports and sports that involve animals other than dogs, or aggression. Includes agility, lure coursing, ball herding, circus acts, stunts, and all sports that involve balls.

The Field Trail People. Their domain is COMPETITIVE hunting type events. (Actual hunting, not as a sport, but people who take their dogs hunting, is covered under "hunters".)

The Show Dog People. Their domain is competitive dog shows judged on appearance, conformation, or gait.

4. PET DOGS & HOUSEDOGS (A House Dog must have been bred to be especially good at living in a house. They must be easily and completely house trained, not need to crated, not be yappy or noisy, must be good with children and guests, and have a coat that is easy to care for and which doesn't shed much.)

The Pocket Dog People. Their domain is all House Dogs for people who want a tiny, carryable dog, that travels well.

The Little Dog People. Their domain is all House Dogs for people who want a cat sized or twice cat sized dog, that is especially good as in indoor, uncrated pet.

The Middlepet Dog People. Their domain is all House dogs 22 to 44 pounds, that are bred to be good with children, and good alone in the house.

The Large Dog People. Their domain is all House dogs 44 to 66 pounds that are bred to be very tolerant, gentle, easy going, good with children and the elderly.

The Bigger Dog People. Their domain is all House dogs 66 to 88 pounds, bred to be exceptionally gentle with all people.

The Giant Dog People. Their domain is all House dogs 88 pounds or more, and bred to be very gentle with all people.

5. THE CANINE PRESERVERS

The Dogish People. Their domain is all dogs that are created from mixing with wild dogs or feral breeds with domestic dogs, in order to preserve the wild or feral type or genes.

The Wild Dog People. Their domain is all kept wild canines or feral type dogs, mostly unmixed with modern breeds of domestic dogs, to preserve them. Wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc.
-------
This clear sort of division, keeps each type of persons from trampling and taking over areas that they are not breeding for, just selling to. This is very important.

People without flocks of sheep should not breed 'sheepdogs' which they sell as herding dogs.

People who keep their dogs in kennels, crates, cages, or yards should never sell their puppies as pets - they have not selected which dogs to mate based on how good the dogs are in the house, or on a leash, or how good they are with children or guests.

These are the traits pet people usually buy a pet House Dog for - not looks; when pet people buy a House Dog for looks, it is usually because they assume the puppy comes from dogs that are good with children or can be kept in a house.

OT Global Warming - Climate Change

Over on retrieverman, the post on the talking gorilla KoKo (she uses sign language) got a bit off topic and strayed to global warming. I want to interrupt the series here on thepdkc to comment on global warming.

http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/koko-and-all-ball

Is it a good thing, or a bad thing?

Depends on if you ask a guy while he is shovelling snow in the winter or while he is mowing the yard in the summer, doesn't it?

If the ice sheet is getting thinner, is it because more ice is melting during the summer (warming) or because less snow is falling in the winter (drying - less falling moisture).

Drying of the weather - less rain, less snow, less moisture, is different than temperature change. AFAIAC, drying is a huge problem - in many areas, seedlings die without enough rain in the spring to support them until their roots are deep enough.

Our cereal grains are annual crops - they die in the fall, and most be regrown from seeds every spring (unlike trees that can live for thousands of years).

Warming itself doesn't worry me. As retrieverman said, in the 70s there was a big scare over a coming ice age - and a gasoline shortage - where we would be cold and out of fuel.

As for rising oceans from icebergs. No. Melting ice and snow ON LAND can cause water levels to rise. But the icebergs are like popcorn, bigger than what they were before they were popped, but weighing the same.

Melt an iceberg and the water from it will fill about the same area that that the iceberg did. Terrierman mentions that this morning as "displacement", as why concrete ships float.

AFAIK, you could melt the entire north polar icecap and the ocean level will not rise any. If I remember right, ice takes up MORE room than water - but I doubt that melting the north polarcap will DROP the ocean level, because some of the iceberg are floating above sea level. I think it evens out.

Now if melting the north polar ice cap caused Greenland to melt, it might raise ocean levels a little. And IF that spread to the antarctic (south pole) and IF it could melt the south pole - that I do believe would raise ocean levels a bit.

The north pole is little more than a giant ice cube held in place by a few islands.

But the south pole is a continent that is covered with ice and snow.

Warmer ocean water could melt the north pole - which would be very good for shipping! (AFAIK, no animals live on the polar ice cap, although I guess some sea mammals might go there some part of the year).

But to melt the south pole, air temperature must be warmer. (Penguins and some seals live along the coast - but no animals live inland).

So, would melting the north polar ice cap hurt anything? Or would it help temperature?

As for melting icecaps raising water levels. Get out a glass, fill it with ice, pour water in it, cover the top of the glass with something flat like a saucer or small plate so that the glass is completely filled to the very top but no ice bobs above the surface, dry up all the water split around the glass.

As the ice melts, does any of it overflow the glass? That will tell you about melting icebergs in the ocean.

PS - you might have to sop up condensation from the glass - this is NOT water flowing out of the glass. It is the water that jumps out of the air to cling onto the cold surface of the glass.

Kasper Hauser

You don't hear about people being outraged over dogs with kennel syndrome anymore.

Is it that people care less about it? Or that they haven't heard about it? Or that we now have it too?

I went looking for a link to post, explaining what kennel syndrome was.

But the post I found described a different condition, although they called it kennel syndrome.

What I am talking about is where the dog was left in a stark environment for so long that it's brain fails to develop. This is why breeders were urge to sell their puppies before they were 4 months old.

What was on the net were a couple of articles about imprinting. I guess I could have dug deeper, but I think it will be easier to just explain.

Strange, the other part of this, is not the same as I was taught either. Wikipedia's post on Kasper Hauser is nothing at all like I was taught about him.

Casper Hauser was a subject that teachers didn't just dutifully teach, it was a subject that they liked to talk about. My parent knew the tale, teachers frequently used it as an example for their point of view.

Like: Women should not be allowed to work, so their babies can get full attention, and not grow up like Casper Hauser.

This is because, back then it was common for working wives to just leave the baby alone in the house in a playpen, and have a neighbor come over every four hours to feed and change the baby. It was not unusual for babies to be left alone until school age. Some had no knowledge of the world - they were kept in a room with a locked door;

other children had the opposite - they wandered the streets with a pack of other children (like Our Gang?) until old enough for school.

Now that we have day care, where little kids can play with other little kids, it almost seems like isolation to NOT put a pre-schooler in day care once or twice a week so that he can explore relationships with other children.

Kasper Hauser, was also used as an example of why we should study hard. Someone would ask the teacher why we have to learn this junk we will never use, and we would get told that we didn't want to end up like Casper Hauser - our brains needed to learn something every day to develop normally.

Kasper Hauser was said to have been a 'lab rat' (an 'animal' use in an experiment).

In Europe, each area had it's own language, and dialects. Much of a student's time was spent learning other languages. (They didn't have Google Translate This Page or Babblefish, they didn't have electricity).

The holy grail of the time was to find a way for all of Europe to speak one language. The study of languages was very important then for political unity. Animals don't talk, so they couldn't be used in experiments on language. But birds have song, and so studies were done on bird song.

Some scientist found that the eggs of some song birds could be removed from a nest - and the male birds would still sing their species mating song at puberty.

It was hypothesized that people were meant to suddenly start speaking at puberty, but that we had outsmarted ourselves, and since we are all one species, we should speak the same language.

It was believed that children (clever little 'birdies' that they are), mimicked adult languages and thereby, ruined their ability to speak the natural human language at puberty, and that this corruption of natural language had been passed down through the generations.

So 2 scientists, paid a woman who couldn't speak (deaf-mute?) to raise a baby (Kasper Hauser) without him ever hearing speech. She and her husband (who did not speak to his deaf wife) lived in a rented cottage way off where Kasper would never hear people outside.

The woman kept him in one room, and raised him like one might a hog. She fed him, but ignored him. The husband attacked Kasper if he tried to leave the room.

After puberty, one of the scientist came to find what language Casper spoke. Casper didn't speak any language. The scientist tried teaching him language, but later took him to the city where the other scientist lived and dumped Casper Hauser there.

That's what I was taught.

There was a study on rats which proved the point, rats raised in isolation were retarded and their brains under developed. But even older rat's brains would develop if removed from the isolation and deprived environment and given an enriched environment - according to what I was taught in school.

Found this little book, that you can scroll through and read:
http://books.google.com/
enter: Casper Hauser an account of an individual kept in a dungeon.
It was written in 1833, and is a short read.

It is interesting that alligators raised in the dark, grow very very differently than those raised in the light - they are said to grow very quickly, and reach huge size in a few years.

This, of course, is cruel, like keeping long haired shows dogs in a cold dark basement in the belief that the darkness and cold will make them grow super long coats.

How accurate can are guesses about the intelligence of animals be, when they are raised in cages, or taken from their natural abode and tested in a strange environment?

Even those watched in the wilds, have such uneducated minds, that we don't really know what they could be if taught concepts in a manner they could understand.

What IQ would a man have, before he had a culture or any learning from previous generations?

Judging the inbreds.

If the standards can't easily be changed, can the judging be changed? Can there be a rule made like the rule that applies to all breeds: "All male dogs must have 2 testicles, fully descended in the scrotum"?

Can that universal rule be expanded upon to read things like the dog must be healthy, move well, not have saggy skin, -

- not have loose lower lips that cause the saliva to run out of the dogs mouth (yucky for the owners & dry mouth for the dog - AFAIK, only useful for Frankensteins that want to measure saliva production (Pavlov?), and I don't think scientist do that same experiment anymore.

etc.

How about the rule that the dog can't try to bite the judge? Can that be expanded upon to have where the dog must be friendly towards the judge?

Can it also say that all dogs must be friendly towards people at the show, and towards other dogs?

Is that too much to ask of show dogs?

It might be. That is probably one of the things novices first notice at a dog show. They know that their own dogs would be overjoyed to be at a dog show - in the belief that they could play with other dogs.

Pet owners can often picture what their dog would do at a show - jump up and down, wag his tail, grin, make eye contact at the other dogs. Whine at the in season females, or flirt with the boy dogs.

But I have noticed that at the dog shows, so many of the dogs move around like zombies - that is, the dogs don't try to play with each other.

They often act like they are the only dog there. Like the other dogs and other people are not there at all. Like a negative hallucination - like they are not seeing reality, as if they fail to smell that these are other dogs, and that there are other people there.

After a few dead end conversations, someone told me "They aren't trained to do that, they have kennel syndrome."

What? Harking to terriermans post "Do Kennels make dogs stupid?" It has a name "kennel syndrome".

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/
Dec 3, 2009

Have you noticed how people have gotten that way? We have! People use to say "Good morning", "Good afternoon" or "Good evening" to everybody who walked by the on the sidewalk.

Crocodile Dundee (one of the movies in the series) had a scene where he first goes to New York City (having been raised way out in the boonies of Australia) and he greets each person that walks by him on the side walk with "Good Day!" and tips his hat at the ladies. Because that is what he was taught, and that is what everybody did in his little town - just like people use to do in America.

Now we walk by each other like one show dog does another.

Eeeeks, is this a sign that we have "House syndrome"? Did we fail to notice that we were causing dogs to suffer from this, and in divine retribution, now we suffer from it?

I have said for some time, that dogs so mean and un-sociable that they can't be kept in a pack should be neutered/ spayed. Now, I believe that even more.

If they are written only on paper?

If the standards can be legally be changed, then the answer is easy, re-write the standards.

What to change? Want my opinion?

Get the breeders themselves to reach that moment of realization where they understand that they have been breeding for harmful mutations.

Those breeders who can't understand will have to adjust to "We are all doing it this way now, breed accordingly."

What to change in the standards is very easy - maybe if you are too close to it, you can't see it, but just breed normal looking dogs.

Some basics:
1. Dogs have a tail. The tail expresses the dogs emotions.

2. The dog's tail should NOT curl over it's back. A curl in any part of the spine, could mean a deformity in other parts of the spine, which might not be obvious when the dog tries to stand normally.

In dog sign language, a tail temporally curled over the back is a sign for aggression or suspicious alertness - which is not generally the baseline temperament you want your dog to have.

A genetically curled tail, that usually stays in that position, communicates this mental state all the time - leaving owners and guests unaware of when the dog is hyped, because he always looks like that.

3. Dogs have two ears. Dogs with one ear, might have had a damaged ear, dogs with two cropped or chomped off ears should not be shown, because how would you know what type of ear he genetically has? And if you let people show cropped dogs - some people will crop their dogs ears.

Dogs ears come in various forms. Some dog's ears are like a wolf's ears - they usually stand up, but are mobile. Some dogs have ears that flop down. Some dogs have ears that part way stand up. These are all okay.

But some dogs are bred to have very long ears. This does NOT help them hear better, it's like having giant ear lobes (although it is actually the whole exterior part of the ear).

Very long ears are bad, especially if they are wrinkly. The dogs can get ear infections, and the tips of the ears can drag the ground when the dog puts his nose to the ground.

3. Dogs should not have very short legs. Dogs should not have very long backs.

4. All dogs should have teeth that meet well. The incisors should meet in a scissor position. Level or slightly undershot is a fault. Obviously undershot or overshot is a DQ.

5. Dogs like to see, they should be allowed to do so. All dogs whose hair covers their eyes, should be shown with their hair pulled away from their eyes, or with their bangs cut. (This one is easy to do, it is not a breeding change.)

6. Dog's hair has a natural growth direction. Dogs with cowlicks or ridges of hair that grow the wrong way, should not be shown.

7. Dogs have a snout, a muzzle. If a dog doesn't have a snout, he can't breathe right. Dogs without a snout (flat-faced dogs) should only be bred to dogs who do have a snout. Dogs without a normal snout should not be shown.

8. Dog's skin should be elastic, but not wrinkled or in folds.

9. Dogs should have eyes that are set like a wolf's eyes, or somewhat deeper or a little bit shallower set. Dogs should not be shown if they have pop eyes.

10. Dogs have four toes and one dew claw on each front leg. Each back leg should have 4 toes, with one dewclaw being optional.

There are probably lots of others, if I took the time to think on it, but you get the idea, of what I mean.

And what about all the health problems that can't be seen? Aren't they even worse?
Yes, they are. But we have to start somewhere, and this is something the breeders can see without testing. Judges can see it.

Changing the standards?

As some of you might have read, people sued when one breed club & the multi-breed kennel club which it belongs to, changed one breed standard.

Some dog people are really into the show scene and they don't like changes that put them at a disadvantage or push them out of the game.

As far as I know, neither of the clubs had to pay anything out in any settlement, but court battles still cost money.

Which brings us to the question of: Can breed clubs change their standards (without courtroom conflict), or are they like a steel hulled ship, strong but not very flexible?

The British are changing some of their standards a little bit.

IF, if, if, if American dog breed standards are not truly changeable, then what?

Could any of the multi-breed kennel clubs in America safely drop any breed because they no longer feel the standard describes a healthy dog?

If not, then, although the standards were not written on stone, they might as well have been, for they are no longer erasable, or editable. They have turned to stone (wasn't that a song?).

Even if they are dieing like dinosaurs, they would not be able to change?

If the court case was more of a test, and the standards are changeable, and the standards are re-writable then what?

The first question isn't "How should the standards be re-written?", but "How do the big kennels, and active breeders want the standards to be re-written" - that will tell you what to watch out for.

The people involved are very apt to want the standards to describe their own dogs, even if those dogs are having genetic problems.

If you followed the arguments against ear cropping, breeders whose dogs had ears that looked good uncropped were not so much against banning ear crops -

-but breeders whose dogs did not naturally have the desired type of ear, tended to be against banning ear crops, as then their dogs would lose in the ring, and be out of favor with the pet buying public.

It comes down to the question of just how changeable the standards are.

Could any multi-breed kennel club oust one of their breeds, without it being more effort and expense than what they could be asked to do?