Breed manipulation: what's your view?

Post by **Donald** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:35 pm

Hi guys. It's help Gorgon with his homework time again...

Basically I'm just curious to find out what your thoughts are on how dogs are bred for their traits, but specifically for superficial reasons. I'm talking more about pugs and their squashed faces (supposedly cute) than large dogs with hip troubles (as this is not sought after).

You don't have to be in depth or scientific, just let me know what you think. Even better if you have/had a pet that goes into this category.

Cheers

Post by **Gayno** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:42 pm

I think dogs that are bred for a purpose, ie labradoodle for blind people with pet hair allergy is no bad thing.

Breeding them to become a fashion or status symbol is wrong.

Post by **bluejackhustler** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:44 pm

I have no issue with breeding any traits into a dog as long as it does not have a detremental effect.

For example, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels are bread to have a daft face (some people like them) and this causes them to have breathing difficulties.

My mum has a Border Collie which were bread to be ultra intelligent.

Big difference between the 2.

Post by **rob quilter** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:45 pm

I agree, if its bred for a purpose that's fine. A guy at the end of our street has a husky crossed with a wolf! Its awesome!

Breading to make something 'cute' is just wrong.

Post by **Donald** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Gayno wrote:I think dogs that are bred for a purpose, ie labradoodle for blind people with pet hair allergy is no bad thing.

Breeding them to become a fashion or status symbol is wrong.

Often the "bred for a purpose" side of things is where problems start. For example, dogs that were bred to have a certain amount of overbite were used to hold on to things, like bulldogs, but over the years this has changed and is now functionless and purely cosmetic.

Would you agree or disagree though that breeding dogs for a certain coat type is acceptable though?

bluejackhustler wrote:I have no issue with breeding any traits into a dog as long as it does not have a detremental effect.

For example, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels are bread to have a daft face (some people like them) and this causes them to have breathing difficulties.

My mum has a Border Collie which were bread to be ultra intelligent.

Big difference between the 2.

CKCS's also have a deformed brain shape due to that as well!

rob quilter wrote:I agree, if its bred for a purpose that's fine. A guy at the end of our street has a husky crossed with a wolf! Its awesome!

Breading to make something 'cute' is just wrong.

Not quite sure what to make of that cross

sounds intense though!

I don't want people to worry about being judged either, if you think that a dog has a trait that you think looks nice, say so. I have quite a soft spot for English Bull Terriers, but 100 years ago they didn't look like they do today.

Post by **RattyMcClelland** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:07 pm

I think its quite cruel in a way.
Im using Cats as an example.
I have a red Persian. Its very hairy so he gets hot easily and matted hair almost daily. Hes short nose means he snorts ALL the time and struggles to eat with his flat face. He snores constantly.
Also because of his flat face he gets a wet chin everytime he drinks.

But i wouldnt change him for the world. Hes a happy cat. So are my other 3.

mercutio · Post by **mercutio** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:58 pm

breeding any animal for cosmetics is wrong, it almost always means the animal will suffer some problems. Daschunds have spinal problems olde english sheepdogs have eye problems alsations and dalmations have hip problems the list goes on and on and its all because they are inbred to get the breed traits the gene pool for some of these breeds are so small its unbeleivable.
If you did to humans what you do to animals to get certain traits you would be considered a monster why are people allowed to experiment on an animal thats supposed to be your best friend.
This inbreeding causes congenital defects and is so wrong.

Post by **4thgenphil** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:09 pm

mercutio wrote:breeding any animal for cosmetics is wrong, it almost always means the animal will suffer some problems. Daschunds have spinal problems olde english sheepdogs have eye problems alsations and dalmations have hip problems the list goes on and on and its all because they are inbred to get the breed traits the gene pool for some of these breeds are so small its unbeleivable.
If you did to humans what you do to animals to get certain traits you would be considered a monster why are people allowed to experiment on an animal thats supposed to be your best friend.
This inbreeding causes congenital defects and is so wrong.

just look and norfolk for an example of this ! where do you think the phrase normal for norfolk came from

littlefeller · Post by **littlefeller** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:38 pm

all these animals are doomed

if anything happens to the human race then most dog breeds are knackered. changing anything not intended is wrong, evalution should not be messed with, it has taken millions of years to get where it is now, dont mess with it

Post by **4thgenphil** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:45 pm

littlefeller wrote: evalution should not be messed with

evaluating evolution? can you get that in you assignment gorgon and maybe cite LG?

sorry i shouldnt take the P but it made me chuckle