[Discussion] Documentaries on Dogs

[shane19]

@dawney

The part where the judge says GSDs without a sunken rear end are not "anatomically correct" still pisses me off. I've seen first hand a GSD like that who developed degenerative myelopathy, and the awful effects it has.

This right here tells me everything I need to know about your lack of knowledge and credibility on the subject. DM is not in any way related to the structure of the animal. That "sunken rear end" you speak of is a product of the way the animal is stacked- the way the feet are placed. Sure, there are some show line shepherds that have atrocious top-lines, but that isn't causing DM. DM is a neurological disorder most likely caused by a mutated gene in the dog's DNA sequence. It's not like hip dysplasia in that it has no known environmental triggers or causes.

Please do some research from more credible sources before spouting off about things you are very clearly uneducated in.

 

[ssvegitto2]

@dawney There are a lot of kennel-club enthusiasts on this thread. They have their talking points, but those talking points are shallower than any of the documentaries that they bash.

In the end, the undeniable fact is that breed standards have increased the rates of cancer, eye and heart disease, joint and bone disorders, skin, immune system and neurological diseases for dogs. Pure-breeding enthusiasts can bash these documentaries all they want, but they have no answer for the basic facts.

 

[jeepdude]

@ssvegitto2 Your talking points are even worse since they came from one half-arsed 'documentary'.

Like you're not a breed enthusiast? What about your Shiba Inu? Did you go on the Shiba forum to get tips for your Shiba that didn't play fetch??? You never upvoted others' photos of their Shibas???

 

[vanessajune]

@shane19 I thought it was actually pretty interesting, it wasn't so much that purebred dogs are &*!@ed up, but that we're paying so much attention to the exterior looks of dogs that we are increasing their risk for genetic disorders by inbreeding. The tie to eugenics for looks rather than health was unsettling, I'm glad that some action has been taken to move away from this but I am curious if the world will be able to invent a more ethical competition. There were a lot of interesting parallels to beauty contests or child performers. I can see your point about not being a very formal documentary, but I still think it's a valuable watch, at least for myself!

 

[amgtx]

@vanessajune Keep in mind that dog breeding is essentially eugenics. We wouldn't have different breeds if it weren't for selective breeding.

 

[ssvegitto2]

@vanessajune This is an interesting sub, because the kennel-club enthusiasts (like Court67) are always quick to bash any documentary that criticizes breed standards, but they don't offer any arguments of substance. It's always the same talking points, but there's no answer to the basic fact that breed standards have had a massively detrimental impact on the health of dogs.

And it's not just the spaniel or GSD like in the documentary; pure-breeding has increased the rates of cancer, heart disease, joint and bone disorders, skin, immune system and neurological diseases in nearly all pure-breeds.

The talking points always go towards the positive steps the kennel club is taking to counteract the negative impact of their breed standards. But why do we even follow those standards at all anymore? Seems like we should focus on the health of the dog, not the appearance.

 

[jeepdude]

@ssvegitto2 Breed standards are not responsible for those maladies. Bad breeders like puppy mills and backyard breeders capitalizing on demand ruined breeds. Are you that ignorant not to know the difference???

You have a Shiba, do you not???

 

[ssvegitto2]

@jeepdude You do realize that the premium value of pure-breds encourages bad breeders to inbreed dogs more?

Also, breed standards are directly responsible for the listed maladies, because they promote recessive genetic traits. That's an undeniable scientific fact. Before you call others ignorant, maybe you should do some critical introspection.

 

[jeepdude]

@ssvegitto2 Which recessive traits are you taking about??? Breed standards aren't that specific.

 

[ssvegitto2]

@vanessajune This is an interesting article from the Humane Society of the Veterinary Medical Association. It confirms the harmful effects of pedigree breeding and includes an interesting Royal SPCA position statement on pedigree dogs:

• Breeding to emphasize certain physical features has become so extreme that it can cause pain and suffering, disorders and abnormal behavior
• The welfare of many dogs, of numerous breeds, is compromised as a result of exaggerated physical features and/or inherited disease in some cases for a large proportion or even all of their lives
• Inbreeding closely related dogs and breeding for exaggerated physical features is morally and ethically unjustifiable
  
  http://www.hsvma.org/breeding_discontent

 

[ssvegitto2]

@shane19 That's interesting, because an independent inquiry commissioned by the Kennel Club confirmed the findings in Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which led to various reforms by the Kennel Club.

From the Humane Society:

In response, the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust—a charity that, along with the RSPCA, had been critical of the club’s policies—jointly commissioned an independent inquiry led by Cambridge University professor emeritus Sir Patrick Bateson. The resulting report largely confirmed the documentary’s findings, concluding that inbreeding, selecting for extreme characteristics, and the practices of mass breeding facilities known as puppy mills were negatively impacting dog welfare.

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/m...rebred_paradox_p2.html?credit=web_id145418212

 

[dukedesu]

@ssvegitto2 Quoting HSUS is very much like quoting PETA. Those organizations are quite similar.

 

[ssvegitto2]

@dukedesu But you're attacking the messenger without refuting any of its arguments. Notably, the basic points of the HSUS are confirmed by articles by the SPCA and the Veterinary Medical Association.

In this thread, there's a lot of evidence that pedigree dogs and demand for pure-breeds has negatively impacted the health of dogs in general. There's also vehement opposition. Yet the opposition hasn't cited a single shred of evidence or even argument refuting those points. It's just ad hominem attacks or blanket assertions without any support.

 

[vanessajune]

@dawney Unfortunately, I will accept depressing documentaries. I just need lots of cookies, popcorn, tissues and cat cuddles while I watch them. But it's important stuff to see and hear! Thank you. If you could get the links later I would really appreciate it, otherwise I will look myself.

EDIT: Found Pedigree Dogs Exposed

 

[ssvegitto2]

@vanessajune Nice collection. I saved it. The Pedigree Dogs one is really interesting. I'm really not a fan of the AKC.

 

[shane19]

@ssvegitto2 Fun Fact: The AKC has absolutely nothing to do with dogs being bred solely for aesthetics resulting in screwed up traits (roached back in GSDs, super brachycephalic pugs, etc.) The AKC is merely a registry, they basically just host all of the breed club's standards. If you have a bone to pick with the breeds that are doing really bad things in order to stay competitive in the show ring, pick it with the national breed club, not the AKC. The AKC has absolutely nothing to do with which dogs are winning in show rings, etc.

 

[ssvegitto2]

@shane19 The AKC is part of the industry that enforces breeds. Frankly I don't really care if it's a registry for standards, or if it creates them. The fact is, it helps propagate the outdated notion of a "breed standard."