[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

Even if we look at it this clinically and assume they're cold, heartless people that care nothing about the dog's well-being

Just to be clear, that's not what I said. Questioning their priorities doesn't mean I believe it's as black and white as them being cold and heartless or not caring about their dog's wellbeing. I'm merely disputing the spokesman's claim that "the vast majority of the people exhibiting and handling and showing at Westminster are more interested in the health of dogs than anything else." Or at least, there's some major cognitive dissonance going round if that's the case.

Originally Posted by Sean

...isn't it true to say that part of what makes a show-dog viable is good health and fitness?

Partly. The problem is that the KC (certainly in this country) appears to display a shocking amount of blindness when it comes to diseases and deformities brought about by the selective breeding of owners looking to breed the perfect standard, whether that's for showing or for selling 'premium' show-grade/breed-quality pups. I don't call a bulldog that can barely breath healthy, or a GSD dragging its hind legs around healthy, or a spaniel with a brain too big for its skull healthy, even if the KC, exhibitors and showdog owners believe they have the perfect specimen. The problem with shows like this is that they attract and cultivate a certain culture of people who do still put breeding standards above health, effectively people deliberately breeding dogs to be disabled. An example is the Rhodesian Ridgeback, bred to have that prominent ridge and scored for it at dogs shows, even though Rhodesians without the ridges are actually healthier than those with the ridge. What does the (British) KC breed standard say about this? It advises the culling of pups born without a ridge. And yet we're told that people are "more interested in the health of dogs than anything else". Rubbish. It's positively ingrained that standards come above health, time and again.

Sure, the owners may well be concerned about their dogs' health to a certain degree and will no doubt love their dog, but that's not to say that concern isn't ultimately trumped by the joy of showing or the pride of winning.

Originally Posted by Sean

I mean, you can hardly blame someone who owns and/or shows a French Bulldog with respiratory issues today for the breeding practices that created the breed back in the 1800's or earlier, can you?

If, as often happens, those people showing are also breeding and if the respiratory issues are severe and the animal is suffering, then I absolutely do blame the owner.

Originally Posted by Sean

And what about German Shepherds with their frequent hip problems being used as police dogs? Should police and others who use them be condemned as well since they surely advocate the continuation of the pure breed?

No. GSDs experience hip problems, but I've never seen police dogs barely able to walk let alone run, or with the striking deformities of their hind quarters, as I have with "young and healthy" dogs at dog shows. Even in seniorhood they don't end up as bad as that. I'm not against the continuation of pure breeds or working dogs, and I don't doubt for a second that there are good, ethical pedigree breeders out there breeding healthy dogs. The problem arises from those breeders - more inclined than most to be involved in showing - who breed with a different set of priorities. That and the lack of sufficient testing in the first place.

Originally Posted by Sean

Actually, the creation of different pure breeds originates with the mutualistic relationship between mankind and canines that has allowed both species to flourish in ways that would have been impossible otherwise.

I'm well aware of the history of the relationship between man and dog. The point is that somewhere along the line, it became, as Dubman suggests, about money, about elitism and cosmetic appeal, at the detriment to the animal's health. The breeding of extreme features purely for cosmetic reasons even though they impair the dog's health. You mention bulldogs - look at a picture of a bulldog today, and compare it with a picture of one from just 100 years ago. Do you think the massive change in skull shape that's occurred over the last century has anything to do with the mutualistic relationship between mankind and canines?

Originally Posted by Sean

And of course, human tampering with evolution has led to some breeds having inherent health problems, like the bulldog and pug's respiratory system, the german shepherd's hips, dachshunds with their back problems, etc., so maybe it is worthwhile examining whether allowing certain breeds to continue is good or not. But the simple fact is, dogs would be a far, far more marginalized species had humans not formed the relationship with them that we did and started breeding them. And we wouldn't have advanced as a species as quickly and broadly as we have without them either. And while most of us with dogs own them as companions, we can't forget that a huge number of pure breeds are still needed as working dogs around the world

I don't disagree with this. I would also add that some breeds have been changed in order to fit into a pet environment - staffies for example - and I fully appreciate the reasons for that.

Originally Posted by Sean

As far as I'm concerned, any hint of good that may have come from this tact has been completely overshadowed by their incredible display of idiocy.

Honestly, I'm finding myself far more outraged by practices that cause real suffering - sometimes agony - to dogs than I am by the consequence of a handful of 'offended' human beings. That's not to say I think PETA's approach is the right one. I just find myself more motivated to outrage by one part of this story than the other.