KathyF Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/...how-fans-t.html Just thought I'd share this link with everyone. Kathy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nancy Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 My dilemma is that I hate to support PETA in order to not support the AKC. The AKC sure does breed to a standard. But it is a standard of looks, not a standard of ability. And I hate that. I certainly don't watch Westminster unless DH stops on it while channel-surfing. And then it's only to get my hackles up. But PETA is mostly whacko. Having a pet is not enforcing slavery. Heck, we have a cat! And I defy anyone to say Fergie has a sad life as an owned animal. A local PETA group was taking animals from the pound, ostensibly to rescue them, then killing them. Their rationale was better dead than sleeping in my bed, I guess. I say a pox on both their houses. And don't televise that silly show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLloydJones Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 My dilemma is that I hate to support PETA in order to not support the AKC. Quite so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 I would rather support the AKC than PETA, but it is at best the lesser of 2 evils. If Westminster gets banned they will go after dog sports next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painted_ponies Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Thanks for the link. PETA has had it in for dog shows for a long time, and their members have done all kinds of things to endanger the dogs participating, up to and including sneaking around opening crate doors and letting the dogs out to go play in the traffic. I think AKC registration is an awful thing to have happened to working border collies. But I showed dogs - other than BC - for long enough to know that there are lots of AKC folk who honestly believe they're doing the best for their breed. So yeah, I think USA needs to have their cameras at the Garden. I'm not a big fan of censorship. Anyway, y'all think PETA will be in favor of televising sheepdog trials? *snort* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamincomet Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think I'd take AKC over PETA any day. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/...we-first-r.html Pay special attention to the comments regarding working dogs. Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurelin Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I hate hate hate censorship. Any change in dogs needs to come from dog breeders/owners themselves and not from a bunch of crazy extremists like PETA. Being interested in and having owned working bred dogs in the past and then having a toy breed I see both sides well. In paps conformation showing is an important venue though really imo at the level that Westminster has. I'd love seeing some breeds and breed standards changed for the better health of the breeds. (Even a companion breed should be in good health and able to whelp on their own, but I digress). But should PETA dictate it? Hell no! It is vital that dog people of all splits and sides work together to work against the AR extremists like PETA. At first it may just affect the show dogs or the pit bulls, but it won't be long until your sport or activity is deemed cruel and banned as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachdogz Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Thanks for the link. PETA has had it in for dog shows for a long time, and their members have done all kinds of things to endanger the dogs participating, up to and including sneaking around opening crate doors and letting the dogs out to go play in the traffic. I think AKC registration is an awful thing to have happened to working border collies. But I showed dogs - other than BC - for long enough to know that there are lots of AKC folk who honestly believe they're doing the best for their breed. So yeah, I think USA needs to have their cameras at the Garden. I'm not a big fan of censorship. Anyway, y'all think PETA will be in favor of televising sheepdog trials? *snort* I think this is a good post, with some reasonable and good points of view. I also think that breeding for any ONE factor is wrong...even working. What good is a good working dog with bad temperament? What good is a good working dog with bad hips? Or epilepsy? Or blindness? Or deafness? I also believe that breeding animals is not as simple as some want to think. You can breed parents with clear grandparents and clear great grandparents and still get a genetic defect. A recessive gene pops up many times when not expected. Don't we all wish that it was as simple as black and white...but there are always gray areas, and always will be. I was thoroughly entrenched in AKC when the Border Collie and Aussie people were fighting to keep their breed out of AKC...I knew where they were coming from and I truly hoped it would not happen. But, of course, it did. I guess if you live long enough, you realize that the AKC is only an organization and stupid and/or greedy people are what ruins dog breeds. And stupid and greedy people will always be around whether there is an AKC or not. I think that I fear "pop culture popularity" more than the AKC. 101 Dalmatians, Big Red (yes, years ago there was an onslaught of bad Irish Setter breeding), Strongheart/Rin Tin Tin, Lassie, and on and on has only proven that mass media popularity can be the ruination of a breed. I truly cringe at all the Border Collies that are being portrayed on TV commercials. As for PETA, only one word describes them: scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I also think that breeding for any ONE factor is wrong...even working. What good is a good working dog with bad temperament? What good is a good working dog with bad hips? Or epilepsy? Or blindness? Or deafness? But the point is that if you're breeding for working, you are necessarily breeding for all those qualities that make a good working dog -- including temperament and physical ability to do the job. You're just not breeding for the things that DON'T have any bearing on working ability. I'd love seeing some breeds and breed standards changed for the better health of the breeds. (Even a companion breed should be in good health and able to whelp on their own, but I digress). No you don't. That's not a digression, that's the main point. But should PETA dictate it? Hell no! It is vital that dog people of all splits and sides work together to work against the AR extremists like PETA. PETA can't dictate anything. But where they're right, and they can make a convincing case to the public that they're right, people are going to listen to them and be persuaded. And if public opinion turns against Westminster, the TV networks simply are not going to telecast it. We're certainly not at that point yet here, but if we ever do reach that point, I don't think you can properly call the result censorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTrain Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I can't support AKC or PETA. In my opinion AKC is single minded and have made little or no contribution to the betterment of any breed. I believe PETA is dangerous and sensational, they contradict themselves and they are extreme even to the point of inflicting harm on animals. I can fully agree however with any group who takes up the cause in reasonable fashion against animal cruelty. I think it is the responsibility of any breeder breeding for any purpose and any dog owner having a dog for any purpose to contribute positively to the betterment of the breed and the dog. I is every persons responsibility to be certain that every dog and every animal have perfect care. In AKC, in PETA and in just about every other concern there are holes. In the world of working dogs, border collies whether it be breeders, handlers, trainers and owners there are holes. I congratulate and appreciate those border collie breeders who breed dogs for working, who breed the best dogs they can with the highest of standards but in this world that is not always the case. I have first hand experience with BC breeders who would breed dogs with hip problems among other things. I have first hand experience with BC breeders who sell young dogs claiming they come from champion stock and they do not. You get my point I am sure. In my opinion it comes down to each and every individual in the end to be responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca, Irena Farm Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Well, my feeling is that this is the US and for better or worse, publicity draws attention and anyone's free to try to get the attention of the voting public. Or, in this case, the viewing public. In between sensationalism and that publicity having an actual effect, there has to be reality. In the UK, there were admitted issues, problems with the way the Kennel Club was handling things, and the public became convinced that there was real harm being done to dogs for the sake of human pleasure and pride. I think there's a difference between that and the airing of sheepdog trials. Abuse should never be a part of livestock husbandry or of stockdog training. AND, it's outright illegal, not in a grey world where breeding dogs with holes in their spines, dwells. If it were ever documented and accurately linked to some participant in the trials both the law and the community would be quite quick to act. Just this weekend I saw the handling of sheep with dogs demonstrated on PBS. Anyone seen that? It was a show hosted by a cartoon dog (I was over at the neighbor's, we never watch TV). The handler (named David) showed the kids how difficult it is to catch sheep with no help, and how flustered the sheep get, and once the dogs got involved, the "host/narrator" pointed out how much calmer everything was. It was an impressive explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painted_ponies Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 PETA can't dictate anything. But where they're right, and they can make a convincing case to the public that they're right, people are going to listen to them and be persuaded. And if public opinion turns against Westminster, the TV networks simply are not going to telecast it. We're certainly not at that point yet here, but if we ever do reach that point, I don't think you can properly call the result censorship. Problem is, people will be persuaded by PETA when it's spouting propaganda and plain damned lies. I live in the only state in the USA where it's illegal for public aquaria to display marine mammals. Guess why that is? Because PETA convinced people that dolphins in concrete tanks go deaf - undoubtedly surprising news to many who'd been doing acoustic research on captive marine mammals for decades - and die early from all sorts of maladies - like most animals, captive specimens live far longer than those in the wild. And of course there are the lies PETA spreads about pit bulls, with which everyone here is familiiar. Remember back twenty years or so ago, when fundamentalist religious groups were contacting advertisers and threatening congregation-wide boycotts of TV shows on their black lists? I thought that was a form of censorship, even though I'm sure all the good congregants were persuaded of the rightness of their views - at least at the time. Anyway, I agree that we're nowhere close to PETA's affecting the ratings for Westminster and I'm sure the network will air it. So then we can have the annual "that dog's fat and ugly" - "Oh, yeah? So's your mama" thread. ETA: And I don't suppose we really have to worry about PETA persuading the network or advertisers. Cause I bet AKC's propaganda machine is even better funded than PETA's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Problem is, people will be persuaded by PETA when it's spouting propaganda and plain damned lies. I live in the only state in the USA where it's illegal for public aquaria to display marine mammals. Guess why that is? Because PETA convinced people that dolphins in concrete tanks go deaf - undoubtedly surprising news to many who'd been doing acoustic research on captive marine mammals for decades - and die early from all sorts of maladies - like most animals, captive specimens live far longer than those in the wild. Yeah, but people who know better are free to get their data before the lawmakers or other decisionmakers and discredit what PETA is saying. The clash of ideas, y'know, which is the very opposite of censorship. The right side doesn't always win in the clash of ideas, but the odds are better, and if an organization is discredited often enough it loses credibility. Remember back twenty years or so ago, when fundamentalist religious groups were contacting advertisers and threatening congregation-wide boycotts of TV shows on their black lists? I thought that was a form of censorship, even though I'm sure all the good congregants were persuaded of the rightness of their views - at least at the time. Mmm. But if the viewership numbers are high for those shows, the advertisers are usually going to keep on sponsoring them, and even if they don't, there's always cable to pick them up. If the viewership numbers are low, that means for whatever reason not enough people want to watch the show. I just can't see the lobbying of private profit-making organizations, or the response of such organizations to lobbying, as censorship, even if the organizations happen to be media. But reasonable minds can differ. BTW, Terrierman has been dealing with the KC/BBC brouhaha with his usual pith and vigor. In his most recent blog entry on the subject, he notes that the KC has retained a distinguished ethologist to "review" the registration and showing of dogs in the UK, and expresses skepticism that this is anything more than windowdressing prompted by "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" and the resultant public outcry. He is right that nothing may come of it, but OTOH, the ethologist will no doubt make recommendations that will be publicly reported and the KC may well act on them. This is often how progress is made, and progress is much more likely as a result of public exposure and discussion than as a result of "change coming from dog breeders/owners themselves." The KC breeders and owners are not going to suddenly have an epiphany on their own -- they're immersed in the system, it all looks right to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bo Boop Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Yeah well...where was PETA when Westminster 86'd Joe Garagiola Now that was just wrong! :P I gotta admit I loved watching him ;-) OMG just like Best in Show ;-) tooooo funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurelin Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Censored was the wrong word choice. I guess I just wish PeTA would stay out of dogs. It will be interesting though to see how the KC's changes work based on the BBC's program. To me it sounds like they're really just halfway doing the changing by adding things like 'reasonably' or 'moderately' or 'relatively' other descriptors that are very vague. At least on most breeds. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamincomet Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 The KC breeders and owners are not going to suddenly have an epiphany on their own -- they're immersed in the system, it all looks right to them." I have to disagree with that kind of blanket statement. In actuality, a lot of breeders and breed clubs have been pushing for this (The review of breed standards in the KC) for quite some time. A lot of the changes that were made were submitted and approved by breeders and breed clubs, they have been clamoring for change for some time now, it just happened that (unfortunately) the KC needed a serious "push" from the public as well. Hopefully they (the breeders/owners and the public) will continue to push (shove, really) until real progress is made. But at least it's a step in the right direction. Laurelin, I agree that it will indeed be interesting to see how this all pans out. I'm not sure if this is really going to change anything to be honest, as the border collie AKC standard already states that medium bone should be preferred with lighter being more correct over heavy. And we all know how that works out. Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katelynn & Gang Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 The KC breeders and owners are not going to suddenly have an epiphany on their own -- they're immersed in the system, it all looks right to them. I would say this very true. These breeders within the Kennel Clubs very much so believe their system is the only correct way and, sadly, so does much of the general public because they do not know any better. Kennel Club papers are the stamp of approval to millions. This is why the Kennel Clubs have so much out reach. Their people are brain washed and so is a lot of the general public. If their breeders can't even fix problems within their lines by choice and do what is right by the dogs they produce, how are they going to do whats right for the breed? There is a much larger range of Kennel Club breeders then most would like to believe. More then 95% have no real interest or idea in what is and isn't good for the breed. I do not care for PETA but at least they can do the foot work of outing the Kennel Club and its breeders. I am just fine with that and I will sleep soundly at night knowing I can work, breed and keep my dogs all I please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamincomet Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Posted by Katelynn & Gang If their breeders can't even fix problems within their lines by choice and do what is right by the dogs they produce, how are they going to do whats right for the breed? A lot of breeders do fix problems within their own lines, you just don't notice them because, sadly, they aren't the ones winning the big shows most of the time because they don't breed for the flashy extremes that most judges like. Posted by Katelynn & Gang There is a much larger range of Kennel Club breeders then most would like to believe. More then 95% have no real interest or idea in what is and isn't good for the breed. I would like to know where you are getting this 95% statistic. Posted by Katelynn & Gang I do not care for PETA but at least they can do the foot work of outing the Kennel Club and its breeders. I am just fine with that and I will sleep soundly at night knowing I can work, breed and keep my dogs all I please. And when you wake I truly hope you will still find your dogs beside you, and you haven't lost them after PETA finishes with the AKC and continues on to working breeders who have dogs who are "forced to do jobs that are considered too dangerous for humans and that are, therefore, obviously too dangerous for a dog, too." - Quoted from the Vice President of PETA. You really think PETA is just going to stop when you want them to? If you put off fighting them now, it will be too late when you truly want to fight them. If PETA (Or any animal rights extremist group for that matter) can convince the public that breeding for conformation dogs is bad, what's to stop them from convincing the public that breeding for working dogs is bad? Common sense? We all know the public has none of that. Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurelin Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I think the 95% is random. There are a lot of good breeders in the AKC in many breeds. The problem is again that they don't win big like at Westminster. If you focus on more than showing then unfortunately you won't be labeled as the best in your breed most likely in the AKC. I think that's a shame, there's a whole lot more to a dog than its looks as you all know. Now, no argues from me that a lot of show breeders are doing breeds harm, that's obvious and I really hope it can begin to be fixed by the documentary. I hope they can do so without peta's 'help'. I do not care for PETA but at least they can do the foot work of outing the Kennel Club and its breeders. I am just fine with that and I will sleep soundly at night knowing I can work, breed and keep my dogs all I please. But you probably won't be. The mandatory spay/neuter propaganda PETA has supported is not exactly favoring working dogs. The exemptions are usually main registries and they have to be show dogs. A lot of peta-esque people consider the use of dogs to hunt, sled, etc cruelty. I have even heard the people say agility and sports are cruel. Now, I haven't heard their opinion on herding but I doubt it could be much different. Those poor poor dogs being forced to work when they could be sleeping on the couch, and don't even mention the 'cruelty' to the sheep. Showing is cruel to PETA because dogs have to be crated and have to travel from show to show (they'd rather just 'free' them at the show) And we all know peta's record with pit bulls. I just can't see how anyone thinks it's going to stop with just the show dogs and their dogs are going to be left alone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 In actuality, a lot of breeders and breed clubs have been pushing for this (The review of breed standards in the KC) for quite some time. A lot of the changes that were made were submitted and approved by breeders and breed clubs, they have been clamoring for change for some time now, it just happened that (unfortunately) the KC needed a serious "push" from the public as well. I would like to know where you are getting this. Can you cite any evidence? Usually you argue that the kennel club is powerless and it's the breeders and breed clubs that set the standards and ruin dogs. Now you seem to be arguing that it's the breeders and breed clubs who are "clamoring" to change but the kennel club won't let them. And when you wake I truly hope you will still find your dogs beside you, and you haven't lost them after PETA finishes with the AKC and continues on to working breeders who have dogs who are "forced to do jobs that are considered too dangerous for humans and that are, therefore, obviously too dangerous for a dog, too." - Quoted from the Vice President of PETA. PETA is the organization people love to hate but it's just not that powerful. It has not managed to outlaw fur, even though fur has been a top priority of theirs for a long time, and the general public is much less devoted to fur than they are to their dogs. And herding livestock is obviously not "considered too dangerous for humans," so I think that quote is not particularly applicable to our working dogs. The mandatory spay/neuter propaganda PETA has supported is not exactly favoring working dogs. The exemptions are usually main registries and they have to be show dogs. . . . I just can't see how anyone thinks it's going to stop with just the show dogs and their dogs are going to be left alone? Actually, there is an exception for livestock working dogs in nearly all of the proposed spay/neuter legislation I've seen, and I know of none that have passed without it (except possibly in big cities). California's AB1634 started out without one, but was amended to add one during the long run-up to its ultimate defeat. PETA simply cannot gain enough support to achieve its aims unless it can convince people that its aims are good and important. It's a lot easier to convince people that breeding dogs whose skulls are too small for their brains is a bad thing than that dogs who help farmers and ranchers produce the meat they like to eat is a bad thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurelin Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Actually, there is an exception for livestock working dogs in nearly all of the proposed spay/neuter legislation I've seen, and I know of none that have passed without it (except possibly in big cities). California's AB1634 started out without one, but was amended to add one during the long run-up to its ultimate defeat. PETA simply cannot gain enough support to achieve its aims unless it can convince people that its aims are good and important. It's a lot easier to convince people that breeding dogs whose skulls are too small for their brains is a bad thing than that dogs who help farmers and ranchers produce the meat they like to eat is a bad thing. I definitely agree with you, but PETA is not the one trying to put the exceptions there. Hopefully the public will remain educated enough to know that there are legitimate reasons for dog breeding. Now I was thinking about the KC's response and such. I really really hope the AKC changes some things, but I just dont' see how it'll help the breeds that really need the help. The KC's reforms, for instance, are not addressing the big concerns. On cavaliers, it doesn't even mention the skull, just the eyes, for example. Even so, it's not the standards that need re-written (the KC's bandaid solution imo), it's the ring fads. The standards can be changed and words like 'moderately' added but what will it matter if the judges aren't re-educated to not put up the 'freaks'? (There are moderate breeders out there but they can't win) The standards as is don't specify things to be that exaggerated but they still put up the dogs that are. It's going to take more than a minor re-writing of the standards. Anyways, I hope I'm making sense. I agree with you on basically every point. *blushes* What I've been trying to say is change is definitely needed for the sake of the dogs involved, however I'm just not sure THIS is the change needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painted_ponies Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Breeders, handlers, and owners can and have changed things in their breeds for the better. And they can win doing it. You know how? People stop showing under judges who hand out ribbons to defective dogs, and make an effort to enter under judges who put up correct dogs. Dog show promoters and sponsors absolutely notice when this happens, and before long the breed is judged differently and then of course bred with different goals in mind. I haven't been involved in conformation shows for a long, long time, so my examples are outdated, but chows and Norwegian Elkhounds both spring to mind as a breed I saw improved in this way. Judges stopped handing out ribbons with blood on them, and breeders started breeding for temperament. Dramatic improvement in the breeds. When the fashion for "closed" faces stopped being rewarded in the chow ring, breeders stopped producing dogs whose eyelids ulcerated their corneas. Just takes organization and will. There's resistance from those who are winnning with defective dogs, of course, which is why GSD's look more like crippled coyotes than Rin Tin Tin. That's a popular breed with a huge number of people involved, and so it's harder to get everyone with the program. Maybe this deal with the BBC and Crufts will motivate some change on this side of the pond. But it won't be PETA - y'all think we hate PETA? Dog show folks hate them a hundred times more. If PETA is for it, every last person in the AKC will be agin it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 And I agree with you too, Laurelin, both about what PETA's leadership would do if it could, and that just adding "moderately" to a few standards is not going to fix the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurelin Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 And I agree with you too, Lauren, both about what PETA's leadership would do if it could, and that just adding "moderately" to a few standards is not going to fix the problem. Oh good. I talk myself into confusion sometimes. I definitely agree with painted ponies too in that PETA at the helm of this is the WORST thing that could happen. Show people loathe them and anything true they say is undermined by their more radical claims. They'd have a lot more chance of things changing if peta wasn't involved. I don't know why, but peta is sometimes hard to take seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painted_ponies Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I don't know why, but peta is sometimes hard to take seriously. ETA: OMG. I just realized what this means. Andy was taking Opie out to hook sea kittens! Right there in Mayberry! Every week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.