Corgi Boxer hybrid

16 years before Pedigree Dogs Exposed, there was a cross done in Britain between a Welsh Corgi and a Boxer Dog.

The puppies grew up very cute. They had short legs, but not real short like a corgi.

Two of these puppies were females with naturally short tails like the Corgi parent. They were bred to a male Boxer dog.

One of these 3/4 Boxer, 1/4 Corgi puppies looked like a purebred Boxer (not show quality) and was named Jane.

Later, Jane was bred to another purebred Boxer dog, and her descendants have gone on to be registered as Boxer dogs with the UK's kennel club.

The British succeeded in doing for Boxers dogs, what was tried in the US for Dalmatian dogs.

However, in the US, while the LUA Dalmatians looked just like other Dalmatians but were healthy, the club would NOT accept them.

Really, what the British did was more bold, because Dalmatian dogs and a Pointer dog look alike, while Corgi Dogs and Boxer Dogs look nothing alike.

I remember this when it came out. Spectacular! It turned out very well. Now Boxer Dogs in the UK can be born with short tails, instead of surgically amputated tails.

It was an ice breaker. And it could be hoped that more of these well planned and successful crosses would eliminate diseases in purebred dogs.

Unfortunately, the hybridizing seems to have stalled, despite this really successful start.

Takes a bit more nerve to walk cross country than to stay on the well worn trail.

You can read about this hybridization and see the photos if you click on "genetics" and then "genetics can be fun" at this link:

http://www.steynmere.com/PEDIGREE-EXPOSED.html

I have to agree with the author, breeding dogs in the era when cross breeding was allowed would have been so much more fun. Note: cross-breeding was allowed - not demanded.

I am linking to his re-action to Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which I find refreshingly mild compared to that of some other show dog breeders. I agree with what he said, some people got so use to the problems that they no longer noticed them. "inured".

Although, I believe that many people here, knew very well what they were doing in breeding unhealthy dogs, many other people were like the boiled frog.

(A pan of water was setting on a stove, the flame under it left on simmer. Along came a frog who hopped into the pan and enjoyed the warm water. As time passed the water, ever so slowly, got warmer and warmer, but the frog did not notice because the change was so slow.

When the water was way hotter than what the frog would have jumped into, he was still happy in the now dangerously hot water. Sadly, although he could of hopped out of the water at any time, the frog was boiled and died because the change was too gradual for him to notice.)

Change

It is said that the Internet allows information to be passed around. True, but . . .

It also lets propaganda get spread around.

I hope the people like terrierman (Patrick Burns), Margaret Carter, and Jemima Harrison, will keep telling the truth about what is happening to the canine gene pool, purebred dogs, and at dog shows.

I hope that a younger generation will understand not to breed dogs for dog shows or to be used in other competitive sports.

I hope the public will understand to not accept dogs bred for shows and sports, over dogs bred to be good pets.

I hope that even the show breeders will acknowledge that:

If Mary breeds dogs that are good with children, she can't truthfully label those puppies who are not good with children as "show quality".

If Sue breeds dogs to win dog shows, she can't truthfully label those puppies who are not good show dogs as "pet quality".

Mary's puppies can be divided into 2 groups: "Good with Children" and "Not good with Children".

Sue's puppies can be divided into 2 groups "Potential show dogs" and "Not potential show dogs".

It would be exactly as much false advertising for Mary to label her pet puppies that are not good with children as "Show Quality" as it would be for Sue to advertise her show dog puppies who are not going to win, as "pet quality".

A puppy who is not good with children is NOT automatically "show quality".

And a puppy who is not built to win in the show ring, is NOT automatically "pet quality".

I am NOT impressed by claims that telling a lie for 40 years, makes it true.

And calling lions "house cats" for 40 years will not make them house cats - they will still be lions.

A reject from the show ring might be a good pet, just like a puppy bred to be a good pet, but who is not good with kids, MIGHT be a good show dog.

But dogs have instincts. It is easier to teach a pointer to point, than to try to teach a bloodhound to point. It is easier to teach a border collie to work sheep, than to try to train a foxhound to herd sheep.

Why do so many dogs not work out as pets? I believe that it is because they were not bred to be good pets, so it is no surprise that they fail.

You can try to baby all kinds of animals. But there is a huge difference between having a pet dog that naturally adapts to your house, loves your kids, and whose whole life is centered around trying to please his family, vs -

- a 'pet' dog who requires constant updates on his training, and requires that his owner project mastery over him to keep him in line, and that the kids have to learn to handle in a way to prevent the dog from becoming aggressive.

How many?

According to factoidz 1,012,472 animals were used in research laboratories in 2006, this number did NOT include mice rats, and birds.

Although I had thought that AWA covered them all, factoidz says no.

Factoids also says the 2 biggest funders for this are the National Institute of Health and the Department of Defense.

http://factoidz.com/animal-experimentation-is-it-really-neccessary

I have heard that universities use animals. and that cosmetic companies do too.

I don't know if religion is doing it's job. I thought the idea of religion was to make people more compassionate. Guess I was wrong; it often seems to make people angrier and less tolerant.

Look where these breeders/dealers are: in the bible belt.
http://www.okpuppymilltruth.org/comparison.php

(you might want to look up you know which kennel club here too)

I thought that animals were only supposed to be used once, for one experiment, then found homes for - but without positive ID, those animals can be sold down the river again and again.

What? You think that the sort of person who sells dogs and cats into torture, wont re-use them?

This is a different civilization than what it was. It is harder to hide things, now that there is an internet. I think it would be best for this sort of thing to be more transparent.

There are people who would adopt a used animal after it has been experimented on - what was the survival rate for dogs?

And the companies could help by directing breeders to only produce dogs that would be re-home-able.

As for completely shutting down such things - you just about have to find an alternative first.

Where's my doggie?

Well, I wouldn't want a pet FROM at "class A" dealer/breeder.

But your pet doesn't want to go TO a "class B" dealer. Better off dead with a quick injection, than living the life of a 'lab rat'. Dogs are often used as 'lab rats' or 'guinea pigs'.

People have been trying to stop vivisection from the beginning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Dog_affair

If you have been reading, you know that one of PETA's latest is a months long infiltration of a University in Utah - one of the few states that still have pound seizure laws - a law which says that if a shelter receives public money, then it MUST provide animals to experiment type places.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13861593

I am saddened that lost pets can be sold into places of torture and hell.

There are suppose to be laws. But who is enforcing these laws? The gov? Or does it look like PETA is doing the work?

And I have been around dog show breeders far too many times to be trusting. I just read that class B dealers are suppose to get dogs only from certain types of sources and under certain conditions - one of those is from the person who bred the dog.

Isn't that nice, not? And who would have the paper work that says that they are the breeder of your dog? Might it be the person who you bought the dog from?

Funny, I have heard dog breeders say that they only sell puppies with a contract that says the buyer must return the dog if the owner can't keep it anymore, BECAUSE, the breeder doesn't want the dog sold into research.

But if the class B dealer, is suppose to get dogs from breeders . . . just what do breeder do with returned dogs? There are plenty of dogs for sell on petfinders. Not many grown dogs for sell in the newspaper. Where are these dogs ending up?

A list of dog bunchers is good, but it doesn't tell you who is gathering up and selling dogs and cats to the bunchers.
http://fortheloveofthedogblog.com/animal-advocacy/dealing-in-dogs

A list of states that have laws that force shelters to sell dogs into research, and a list of states that forbid pounds from selling pet dogs into research, yields interesting results.

Look at how many are in North Carolina? Didn't know NC was that populated! North Carolina? that rings a bell. What is in North Carolina, something that cares about dogs?

Bigger Taboo than Dog Sex

Do you know what is a bigger taboo than exposing those purebred dog breeders like Pedigree Dogs Exposed did?

What is more taboo then showing breeding dogs with skulls too small for their brains?

What is more taboo than showing English Bulldogs that can't mate without a person helping them?

What is more taboo than showing bitches tied in rape stands?

Did you learn anything from watching Pedigree Dogs Exposed? If you missed Pedigree Dogs Exposed, it is online, in 6 parts, Terrierman has the links.
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com

I just read about an expose done by HBO, called "Dealing Dogs" - it's about Class B dog dealers, bunchers, people who sometimes steal dogs and sell them into laboratories.

http://www.hbo.com
(enter "dealing dogs" in the search - it has links to articles, the video itself, etc.

Would you rather buy a dog from a "Class A" breeder, or a "Class B" dealer?

Ignorant fool. Trusting naive puppy person. Learn and be ignorant no more.

Class A ("A" like in A$$?01ez) are people who breed animals to sell them to research facilities, experimental places, and Frankensteinish laboratories. Their animals are sold to be in the lab, on the slab.

It is worse than you think it is. Pedigree Dogs Exposed did not prepare you for the whole truth.

The truth is that the dogs are bought for experiments, and that the laboratories pay more for some types of dogs than for others.

Class A breeders supply animals bred for laboratories.

If a scientist in studying a condition, he wants animals that are bred to suffer from that condition.

If it is a lethal condition, affected animals sometimes can't be used for breeding, especially the females, because they don't always live long enough.

When two carriers are bred, only 1 out of 4 offspring will suffer from the condition.
What do you think the for-profit animal breeder does with the other 75% of the offspring?

What about when the lab only pays $25 for unaffected animals, but the public pays $350 for the unaffected animals? But 2 of every 3 of those unaffected animals, carry the mutant gene.

Everybody is welcome to their own opinion, many people believe that the unhealthy mutations in purebred dogs got there by accident, and spread through the breeds accidentally;

I believe in following the money trail, and I believe that when an industry pays more for mutant dogs than for normal ones, there will be people who deliberately breed for mutations, and middlemen who encourage people to reproduce animals with the desired mutation. It's what I believe, based on a few conversations, and slips of the tongue by show dog breeders.

Every notice how when you enter "Class A breeders", you get hits about type B breeders? Even Wikipedia. Taboo?

Is there any law anywhere that says that a Class A breeder can ONLY sell to industry? That they CAN'T sell extras as pets?

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/07/reitman.htm

http://wildwend.blogspot.com/2006/02/sir-maam-your-special-corner-of-hell.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_animal_sources

PDE - Pedigree Dogs Exposed

If you like Pedigree Dogs Exposed, try reading the archives of these two groups - you don't have to join or sign in - they both have open archive, and allow cross-posting:

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/pet-treaty/messages

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political_dog_law/messages

Much like Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the archives of both groups are full of posts about the problems within the dog breeding industry.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed was not the first time that people exposed pedigree dog breeding and selling, people have been complaining about dog shows since they started.

Pedigree dogs exposed was the first time that somebody got action for their complaints.

Pedigree dogs exposed didn't just talk, it didn't just write, it video taped, edited, and aired.

Jemima Harrison, brave woman, went to dog shows and filmed.

Jemima Harrison, did interviews, and she got the BBC to put her film on the air (TV - telly).

We need to remember Jemima Harrison, and watch her video film, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, so that we never forget, that not everybody is nice, and that not everybody who sells warm fuzzy puppies, are nice warm fuzzy people.

I love the film. I love that finally, somebody was able to speak out for the suffering dogs, and the duped people who bought the puppies, wasted money, and had their family's hearts broken by breeders who were not producing good pets, but who were producing show dog puppies and then selling them as pets.

If you can't watch the film in your area, it is on video in 6 parts; there are links over on terrierman:

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com
(search: Pedigree Dogs Exposed)

Terrierman was also in a film himself about the problems in show dogs.

PDE, Pedigree Dogs Exposed will be on TV tomarrow in America, THURSDAY Dec, 10, 2009.

Making them comfortable?

It is amazing how we can think that we have learned so much when we are 16, and then after many many years more, realize that we still only know bits and pieces of anything.

Before I the time that I raised dogs (I don't anymore), I worked with a woman who raised little dogs. She claimed to be very much into animal welfare, and said that her extensive contract was to make sure that the people who bought her puppies spoiled them with lavish care.

She 'reclaimed' dogs who were not being cared for up to the standards she had laid out in her very strict contract and then re-sold them.

But what type of dog did she breed and sell? A flat-faced dog. A dwarf dog bred to have extra short legs. A dog not bred to be free of discomfort.

Yet, if someone else, had made those puppies suffer, she would have been angry.

Who tells you that?

The one thing I can say about this is that I wouldn't want somebody who has bred Dalmatians for 30 year sto tell me what to do about do breeding (unless, maybe, it was LUA dals).

You can read about one of the problems in dalmatian breeding over on:
http://darlingyouaredoingitwrong.blogspot.com/
(click on Quiz in the left hand column, it is also over on one of the yahoogroups, either Political Dog Law, or Pet-treaty, I forget which.

How hard would it be to add LUA (healthy) Dalmatians into a breeding program?

Fairness

I agree, that the fairest way to reduce the number of dog and cats is to limit the number of unfixed (fertile) dogs or cats to one or two per residence.

It is ridiculously unfair to tell pet owners that they must have their puppy operated on, while the dog breeder who sold them the puppy still mass produces more puppies.

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.

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?

1. First Step. 2. Second step.

1. Change what the judges give ribbons for.

After getting council from lawyers, who don't breed dogs/ have a conflict of interest, plan the changes in what dog show judges look for in dogs.

There is no need to get every dog breeder in the country stirred up about this - you know what the vast majority will want - they will want changes that give themselves the best advantage over the other breeders.

You are planning changes that will help the dogs themselves, and the public at large.

Why are you doing this? Because the animal loving public increasingly doesn't like what you are doing.

2. Second step: Respect pets and the people who love pets. Pets are NOT any animals that doesn't show well.

The public who are buying "pet quality" puppies, expects that to mean the puppies have been bred to be quality pets.

The term "pet quality" is a misnomer. Aren't they really just "not good enough for the show ring"?

If I breed dogs as pets, can I label the puppies that are too bad tempered to be sold as pets, "show quality"?

It is the same thing. Call it a lie if you want, but the truth falls on both sides.

If Mary breeds puppies with most of the right instincts to be good pets, and who are usually good with children, can be left in a pack loose in the house, don't bark much, don't require much coat care, and don't shed a lot, and she sells them as good pet puppies - what do you call those puppies who have a bad temper?

Are they "nothing"? "Culls"? "Show Quality"!
Terms like "nothing" or "culls" wont sell the bad tempered puppies. So can Mary call them "show quality" to sell them?

If Joe breeds puppies with most of what it takes to win in the show ring, what do you call those puppies who don't have what it takes to win in the show ring?

Are they "nothing", "culls", or "pet quality"?
If you think they are "pet quality" then, in all fairness, aren't Mary's rejects automatically "show quality" when they aren't good enough to sell as good pets?

Giving it a go (or a heave-ho)

For the people in the small upper percentile, who know what the problems in dog breeding are, have some big picture of the situation at the breeder level, AND who care enough to want to improve dog breeding -

- but for some reason don't want to send the old structure into the trash bin, I am going to try to write a patch up job.

I don't know that it can be done. The world is full of greater minds than mine - and no one has done it yet, but then it doesn't look as if anyone has tried.

My ego is NOT so grand, that I think I can do this, but I am going to try, and if anyone comes along and takes it to the next step, that'll be good with me.

So consider it a first rough draft - that I am letting the public read - not so much because it is great, or even good, but because nothing will get done, unless people try.

I have written about some of the problems (below), now I am going to try to find a few answers, or rather, a few possibilities that might be worth discussing.

I have no idea where this will lead. I might give up after a short while, but for right now, I am going to try to be helpful, and constructive not destructive - although I won't hesitate to conclude that the whole system will never meet my standards and should go down, if I can not find a step by step way to chart a course for improvements.

So lets start off with the assumption that dog shows could be useful to the future of dogs, and that it is possible to divide dogs into separate breeds and still have things go well. (Start with the least likely scenario?).

Patch it Up, or Toss it Out?

There are major problems in dog breeding.

There are puppies being sold with genetic diseases.

Puppies are being bred for one purpose but sold for another - bred for the ring, but sold as family pets.

Health and temperament are often NOT priorities with show dog breeders.

The person producing the puppies (the dog breeder) is often trying to produce traits which the buyers (puppy owners) don't want, or don't care about.

While traits that the family buying the puppy want their puppy to have, are often traits that the dog breeder doesn't want or care about.

Genetic variation is being lost very rapidly. Some of it can never be recovered even if we could stop the inbreeding, and popular sire trends right now. There is no recycle bin for genes, once a gene is extinct, it is gone forever.

There are puppy mills, and smaller scale puppy mills: basement-puppy mills, garage-puppy mills, and extra-bedroom puppy mills, where dogs are kept in crates or cages. It is cruel to the dogs, and often produces inferior puppies that are not bred to be good pets.

Salon agriculture?
There are people breeding purebred dogs who don't even like dogs. They breed a few litters, so that they can claim to be in the business of selling puppies, so that they can use their dogs as a tax shelter. They can be a bossy and very vocal group, trying to get the rules changed into their favor.

Real puppy farmers?
Covered that, under puppymills. That is what for profit breeding often is.

Hobbyist?
On their own, hobby breeders might not be too bad. But they tend to get social, and led around by craftier people who are using dogs as a tax shelter, selling dog related services, using dogs as sport objects, or using dogs in experimental research or product testing.

Dr. Frankenhound?
That bunchers get dogs and sell them into research labs (laboratories), and product testing centers is a fact. It is a business. Pets do get used this way - it can be torture.

Some breeders produce puppies with genetic diseases to sell into research. But many of these puppies end up being sold into pet homes, or to other dog breeders.

Competitive Sports Breeder?
They only want the few puppies that are most likely to win in the ring or in the field. Their left-overs are taking over other areas of dogs, like kudzu in a southern summer. Like someone who breeds fancy carp, and sets the not-fancy-enough carp loose in public waters.

Family Pet Owner?
Pet puppies traditionally have come from other people's pets. A neighbor's dog has a litter of mutt puppies, and one of your kids asks "Can we have one?". This seems to be the best way to produce pet puppies.

It is often best that ranchers produce sheepdogs, that mushers produce sled dogs, that hunters produce hunting dogs, that pet owners produce pet puppies.

Two things have messed up this traditional method of producing puppies.

1. The pet market is the largest demand for puppies. Commercial breeders have pushed the pet owners out of their own turf. Pet owners are too naive, and the business people too organised.

2. Some uses for dogs, produce a large unwanted surplus of puppies.

Competitive events, like dogs shows, means that only those puppies most likely to win in the ring, have any value to the show breeders - the rest of the show-bred puppies will not find a home with a show dog person.

So the left over puppies are sold as pets, or as "pet quality", although there were not bred to be good pets. The traits selected for were NOT: how good they are with children, how easy they are to house-train, if they can be left in the house without destroying it, if they don't bark all day, and if they have a desire to please.

Other competitive events have a similar effect. Only the most likely to win puppies have value to their breeder - the rest are sold as pets. This includes breeding fighting dogs: the puppies that are not quite "game" enough, or not "game" at all, are sold as pets.