Purebred = Animal Abuse?

[Mighty AC]

So the vast majority of dog breads, something like 90%, have been created in the last 100 years and the standards for what qualifies as a new breed are quite arbitrary. Purebreds are sick, inbred, and have shorter life spans than mixed breeds. Is our obsession for arbitrarily, sick and weak animals in itself sick and twisted? Or are designer organisms an acceptable practice? Does the gel haired fellow in this video have a point? Is the fact that the modern Bulldog even exists borderline animal cruelty?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo

Edited August 13, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Bonam]

I dunno, to me owning a pet in general seems like animal abuse. You get them castrated for your convenience, train them to do what you want for your amusement, etc. Pet owner's obsession with owning living beings as property is in itself sick and twisted. Once you accept that you are gonna own an animal as a "pet", it seems only a small step further to modify its genome for your amusement as well.

[Mighty AC]

Once you accept that you are gonna own an animal as a "pet", it seems only a small step further to modify its genome for your amusement as well.

Good point, but can we draw a line between companionship and exploitation? If we decide that the practice of owning another organism is acceptable can't we still debate the ethical limits of our genetic manipulation?

Golden retrievers are loyal, gentle, companions that live about 10 years at which point most will die of rupturing cancerous cysts. Many other breeds like Bulldogs, Boston Terriers, etc. can no longer even be born without human help and they live an existence plagued by ailments, disease and breathing problems. Is it all unacceptable, all copacetic or is there a line to be drawn somewhere in between?

[Bonam]

I dunno, to me it seems largely all the same. Not only do I think owning pets is unethical, I also have no desire or inclination to own a pet. Is there a distinction to be made between a well-treated slave and a slave beaten daily? Sure, but it's all still slavery and all should be done away with.

I guess in this case I view it as kind of binary... if you for some reason accept that it is ok to own other living thinking beings for your personal pleasure and amusement, then clearly they are no more than chattel, in which case you should be able to do anything you want with them for your amusement, including modify their genome, torture them, whatever. If you do not accept that it is ok to own other living thinking beings, then the entire culture of pet-ownership should be repulsive. Keep in mind that pet species (dogs, cats, etc) are still "treated better" than the species we keep for food, and that the whole concern that so many people have about how people treat their pets is totally incongruous when compared to the totally accepted practices relating to cows, pigs, chickens, etc. Why is putting some animals in zoos unacceptable as that confines them too much, while other animals can be given to be the property of whatever random person, who may treat it pretty much however they want? It is totally hypocritical and arbitrary.

The thing that really perplexes me is vegetarian pet-owners... yeah they don't want to butcher animals because that would be "cruel" but they are ok with the fact that we have enslaved and modified entire species for our amusement.

[Boges]

I've seen several documentaries about how the idea of a pure-bred animal is most certainly abusive.

I did a thread about this awhile ago and it also turned into the idea of enslaving animals being cruel anyway. Which is a ridiculous claim because the modern dog has a kinship with humans built into their genetics. I'm sure if I set my dog free, she'd not be all that pleased.

Going back to pure-breds. It's the idea of a "standard" that Kennel clubs have created in-order to show dogs that cause the trouble. In the past dogs were bred for a purpose, now they can be bred for appearance.

An English Bulldog and a Pug need to be bred to have no face which is not healthy. You have the Rodesian Ridgeback who have to have a ridge on their back which is actually a genetic deformity. You have the King Charles Cavalier Spaniel who have to have such a small head that they're prone to seizures. Chihuahua's have been bred to be so small that they can't give birth on their own.

I like the idea of designer or hybrid dogs because dogs are bred for diversity. You know there's a less chanced of problems with such a dog. I want a healthy dog, not a dog that have deformities bred into them.

[Boges]

I dunno, to me it seems largely all the same. Not only do I think owning pets is unethical, I also have no desire or inclination to own a pet. Is there a distinction to be made between a well-treated slave and a slave beaten daily? Sure, but it's all still slavery and all should be done away with.

I guess in this case I view it as kind of binary... if you for some reason accept that it is ok to own other living thinking beings for your personal pleasure and amusement, then clearly they are no more than chattel, in which case you should be able to do anything you want with them for your amusement, including modify their genome, torture them, whatever. If you do not accept that it is ok to own other living thinking beings, then the entire culture of pet-ownership should be repulsive. Keep in mind that pet species (dogs, cats, etc) are still "treated better" than the species we keep for food, and that the whole concern that so many people have about how people treat their pets is totally incongruous when compared to the totally accepted practices relating to cows, pigs, chickens, etc. Why is putting some animals in zoos unacceptable as that confines them too much, while other animals can be given to be the property of whatever random person, who may treat it pretty much however they want? It is totally hypocritical and arbitrary.

The thing that really perplexes me is vegetarian pet-owners... yeah they don't want to butcher animals because that would be "cruel" but they are ok with the fact that we have enslaved and modified entire species for our amusement.

So what if it's arbitrary? It's not a black and white argument. Would someone who thinks eating meat is cruel also weep for the plight of all the ants that I poison as they try to enter my home?

The idea of animal ownership is the reason civilization, as we know it, exists. We stopped having to hunt animals for protein we "enslaved" them raised them and ate them.

Many of the early dog breeds were created to assist in agriculture and herding food animals as well as assisting us hunt when that was needed. The kinship between humans and dogs goes very deep, that's why we keep them around even though we don't need them to help in herding animals or hunting.

In the west we often see horses and dogs as a step above other animals because of their role as assisting humans to create the civilization we have now. Sure it's not terribly logical, but so what? As you say, these animals are our property.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Boges

[Black Dog]

I dunno, to me owning a pet in general seems like animal abuse. You get them castrated for your convenience, train them to do what you want for your amusement, etc. Pet owner's obsession with owning living beings as property is in itself sick and twisted.

This is a joke, surely? I mean, in the case of cats and dogs, we're talking about a mutually beneficial relationship that has persisted for thousands of years before the concept of property even existed.

Once you accept that you are gonna own an animal as a "pet", it seems only a small step further to modify its genome for your amusement as well.

Originally, breeding was a smart way to propagate useful traits. Over time, that's been twisted, but no, it's a very large step from ownership to genetic manipulation.

[Remiel]

What is this, the communitarian theory of animal cruelty? Now it is not enough to be cruel to individual animals, we can be cruel to their collectives as well? You cannot make a case that being pure bred is animal cruelty without making the case that the animal in question would be better off not existing. You cannot make the case that it would be better for them not to exist without applying the same standard of pain and suffering to all living creatures. And once you apply that standard to all living creatures then it turns out the only "moral" thing to do would be to annihilate all life on Earth.

Or, in other words, poppycock.

[Big Guy]

I agree that the manipulation of dogs to satisfy an artificial standard based on "looks" causes many physical problems in dogs. I also agree with most of the posts which vilify the selfish ownership of animals.

But - it still makes me feel good when I see my bride, after giving me $20 to go to the Legion to see the "boys", settle on to the couch and start to knit, with our 13 year old Sih Tzu snuggling up to her thigh and preparing for at least an hour of warm companionship and napping.

[Boges]

But - it still makes me feel good when I see my bride, after giving me $20 to go to the Legion to see the "boys", settle on to the couch and start to knit, with our 13 year old Sih Tzu snuggling up to her thigh and preparing for at least an hour of warm companionship and napping.

Lots to unpack there. You get an allowance?

Are you acknowledging Shih Tzu's, though they look like Ewoks, are bred to have bad respiratory systems? Or are you just referring to the idea that dogs are good for people?

[Mighty AC]

You cannot make a case that being pure bred is animal cruelty without making the case that the animal in question would be better off not existing. You cannot make the case that it would be better for them not to exist without applying the same standard of pain and suffering to all living creatures. And once you apply that standard to all living creatures then it turns out the only "moral" thing to do would be to annihilate all life on Earth.

Interesting point, but I think it misses the mark. The key here is that humans are purposely shaping dogs for our own amusement. Bulldogs, Pugs, Boston Terriers, etc. do not naturally exist, we have created these 'breeds' based on a desired appearance that has lead to health and quality of life issues. So the question is not whether or not it is better for one particular dog to exist, but is it cruel that we have created and continue to breed sickly dogs for our own pleasure.

Let's use a child with Down's Syndrome as an example. In one case a child is born with a naturally occurring genetic mutation leaving them with an extra piece of chromosome 21. In the second case, let's say I purposely manipulate the genome of a fetus or blastocyst to add an extra piece of chromosome 21, because I find the appearance of children with the disorder pleasing. In the first case you can certainly make the argument that the child may be better off existing that not. However, the second case illustrates the problem being discussed here.

[Boges]

I think member Remiel was simply refuting the argument posed by member Bonam about the idea that simply owning an animal is cruel on it's surface and not the question posed in the OP.

The Downs Syndrome analogy is apt in only that objective people would find having Downs syndrome a hindrance in enjoying one's life, if not a drain on public resources. The bigger moral question there is should people with the Downs Syndrome trait be removed from society by aborting any fetus that shows such a trait.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Boges

[Mighty AC]

I think member Remiel was simply refuting the argument posed by member Bonam about the idea that simply owning an animal is cruel on it's surface and not the question posed in the OP.

The Downs Syndrome analogy is apt in only that objective people would find having Downs syndrome a hindrance in enjoying one's life, if not a drain on public resources. The bigger moral question there is should people with the Downs Syndrome trait be removed from society by aborting any fetus that shows such a trait.

A question worth exploring, but it probably deserves it's own thread.

[AngusThermopyle]

Personally I do not like the whole pure bred thing, it tends to reinforce and promulgate unhealthy traits and make the breed weaker and more unhealthy as a result. The whole pet ownership is abuse argument is however a load of bull. This idea was first advanced by PETA, an organization that has been shown to be bogus and is run by a woman who is totally fruit loops. This ethical organization runs a shelter that has a kill rate of 98% and actually refuses to let people adopt dog and cats preferring to kill them instead. They believe that rather than going to a good home the dog or cat is better off dead. They were also recently found dumping the remains of these animals in dumpsters behind grocery stores. They refuse to take or answer calls relating to these incidents. Nice bunch, not cruel at all.

The relationship between dogs, cats and humans is a symbiotic one. This has existed for thousands of years and a strong case can be made that the human race would not be where it is now without their contributions. As was mentioned earlier I really don't think our companions would be too happy if we dumped them off in the wild and said "be free, run wild and happy", neither would they live very long before dying a horrible miserable death. It depends on how you view them. For ourselves we view them through the lense of an intelligent loving companion. They let us know what they want and we respond appropriately to their wants. This does not mean that we just do what they want, no more so than we would with a person. It does however mean that we respect them and when appropriate accommodate them. Just as you should with another person, or for that matter another living creature. If you could ask our guys if they wanted their "freedom" rather than the life they have I'm pretty sure they'd choose what they have, just as others of them have done for thousands of years.

[Big Guy]

Lots to unpack there. You get an allowance?

Are you acknowledging Shih Tzu's, though they look like Ewoks, are bred to have bad respiratory systems? Or are you just referring to the idea that dogs are good for people?

I have little difficulty getting access to funds that I require. She calls the $20 an encouragement to go out to enjoy myself. I accept it as a bribe that she is willing to pay for uninterrupted quiet time with her knitting, dog and TV programs.

Yes, I think dogs are very good for people. And yes, this adopted Shih Tzu has respiratory, eye, digestion and attitude (towards me) problems but serves as another member of our family and is treated as such. She had trained the grandchildren at an early age of her personal space requirements and seems to be enjoying her autumnal years.

It does give my bride pleasure and good feelings to interact with her dog and the extra little exercise gained through walking has also served to initiate pleasant conversations with neighbors.

[Moonlight Graham]

I dunno, to me owning a pet in general seems like animal abuse. You get them castrated for your convenience, train them to do what you want for your amusement, etc. Pet owner's obsession with owning living beings as property is in itself sick and twisted. Once you accept that you are gonna own an animal as a "pet", it seems only a small step further to modify its genome for your amusement as well.

You can argue there's definitely abuse with a lot of pet ownership. As for dogs, castration and some breeding etc. is cruel, but we have to keep in mind also that dogs as a species came to be and evolved from a mutually beneficial relationship between humans and wolves tens of thousands of years ago.

I'm most disgusted with tightly confined/caged animals, like birds, which is horrible when you think about denying any animal like that the ability to fly freely as it was born to do.

[WestCoastRunner]

I dunno, to me owning a pet in general seems like animal abuse. You get them castrated for your convenience, train them to do what you want for your amusement, etc. Pet owner's obsession with owning living beings as property is in itself sick and twisted. Once you accept that you are gonna own an animal as a "pet", it seems only a small step further to modify its genome for your amusement as well.

What a very strange response to dog ownership. You have obviously never developed a relationship with a dog, and if you have, you have never enjoyed the benefits resulting from this relationship, nor have you observed the genuine enjoyment a dog experiences with its owner.

Edited August 14, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[AngusThermopyle]

As for dogs, castration and some breeding etc. is cruel,

Actually neutering and spaying dogs is a very desirable thing to do. Other than the fact that it makes the dog far less likely to be or become aggressive is the fact that it makes the dog far less prone to be susceptible to various forms of cancer and tumours. Does anyone believe its kinder to allow a condition that will make it more probable that the animal will suffer such a disease? Add to that the fact that each day in North America thousands of dogs and cats are killed, the nice way to say it is euthanized but it is killing none the less. The toll is literally millions each year. Do you think its better to make more puppies and kittens without restraint so they can be killed later?

What a very strange response to dog ownership. You have obviously never developed a relationship with a dog, and if you have, you have never enjoyed the benefits resulting from this relationship, nor have you observed the genuine enjoyment a dog experiences with its owner.

I agree, in fact dogs will seek out the company of humans and want to be with humans. The dog human relationship is one that is quite unique in nature, no other animal has shown this desire to share the company of humans. Personally I have enjoyed this relationship all my life and cant imagine not having one of these wonderful creatures in my life. As for the whole slave thing, well that's almost correct. There is a slave relationship going on. For instance in the middle of the night in January when my little girl wakes me up and I have to take her out in the blowing snow and wait until she's done what she wants to do before I can come back inside to bed.

I should mention however that some breeding is cruel. For instance the dog fighters who breed their dogs to fight and die a horrible agonizing death in the pit. The pups are doomed to this fate at birth, or, if they prove unsuitable to fight they are used as bait dogs. That's cruel. Or the Chinese practice of breeding dogs for their dog meat festivals. This is especially despicable because these people ( I use that word loosely as forum rules forbid me from calling them what they actually are) believe that if the dog dies in extreme terror and agonizing pain it makes the meat better and imparts strength to them when consumed. I could post some links to videos of these festivals but I don't think anyone wants to see images of dogs skinned alive or thrown into pots of boiling water alive. Sure, that's cruel. Instead of criticizing people who love their dogs as members of their families how about some outrage about these people who do things such as this?

Edited August 14, 2014 by AngusThermopyle

[Mighty AC]

I should mention however that some breeding is cruel. For instance the dog fighters who breed their dogs to fight and die a horrible agonizing death in the pit. The pups are doomed to this fate at birth, or, if they prove unsuitable to fight they are used as bait dogs. That's cruel. Or the Chinese practice of breeding dogs for their dog meat festivals. This is especially despicable because these people ( I use that word loosely as forum rules forbid me from calling them what they actually are) believe that if the dog dies in extreme terror and agonizing pain it makes the meat better and imparts strength to them when consumed. I could post some links to videos of these festivals but I don't think anyone wants to see images of dogs skinned alive or thrown into pots of boiling water alive. Sure, that's cruel. Instead of criticizing people who love their dogs as members of their families how about some outrage about these people who do things such as this?

I would add that breeding dogs to the point of health problems simply because we like the appearance is cruel as well.

I have no problem with some cultures eating dog meat, however, I do have a problem with the inhumane treatment of any animal prior to slaughter. Our food system is not like the festivals you described, but still cruel enough that the glass houses line comes to mind. I think simple awareness campaigns on how our own meat sources are treated would go a long way to create demand for more humane practices. It would no doubt create many new vegetarians as well.

[AngusThermopyle]

I think simple awareness campaigns on how our own meat sources are treated would go a long way to create demand for more humane practices. It would no doubt create many new vegetarians as well.

There are such campaigns, one was levelled at Saputto recently after video surfaced of inhumane treatment of dairy cows on one of their contracted suppliers farms in BC. This consisted of both a petition and boycott action aimed at the company, it has proven to be quite effective and if necessary will be continued. In the case of China some small progress is being made. Within the country animal activists have recently managed to save over 4000 dogs from one such festival and international petitions have caused the government to ban advertising of dog meat by establishments. These are small steps but steps none the less.

The problem I have with eating dogs is the same problem I have with the killing of any intelligent animal. Researchers have now discovered that the average dogs intelligence level is comparable to that of a three year old child. They have the same emotions as we do and even anticipate events. Of course any long time dog person could have told them that without the research but the research does add legitimacy to this information. This is why what the Chinese do is even more terrible. They make sure they torture and kill the dogs in front of the other dogs in order to drive their terror levels even higher. The dogs viewing this know that their turn is coming. It took researchers to determine this but the Chinese knew it all along. As I said, I have a big problem with killing any intelligent animal, Whales, Dolphins, Great Apes, Elephants, Dogs etc. You are also correct in that knowledge of such things does provide a strong incentive to become vegetarian or at the very least fight for more humane treatment of all animals. Ghandi said that the quality of a culture can be determined in the manner in which it treats its animals. By this metric Canada gets a failing grade.

Our animal cruelty laws were first enacted in 1898. Since then they have essentially not been changed. Sure, we've raised the fines somewhat to keep pace with inflation but thats about it. The maximum sentence for animal cruelty in Canada is 6 months in jail and a $2000 dollar fine. Unfortunately no one ever goes to jail or pays the maximum fine for such behaviour in this country. Our laws put us one step above countries like China but pretty well equivalent to places like Mexico. Not a very good result. Of all developed Western countries we rank last in animal cruelty laws. This is not something to be proud of and I would say an eye opener for those who like to crow about what an advanced and compassionate society we have.

Another undesirable effect of our almost none existent laws is the rise of Dog fighting in Canada. Our country is becoming a safe haven for Dog fighters. In Canada Dog fighting is illegal but raising and training Dogs to fight is not. Given our lax laws this makes our country a desirable location for such activities. For dog fighters a potential fine of $2000 dollars is akin to a registration fee that most likely wont even be collected. Contrast this with America where Dog fighting is a felony offense punishable by up to five years in jail and a $250,000 fine. They know the destructive effects this disgusting activity fosters. They've found that these people display strong socio/psychopathic traits and other criminal activities are always attached to these events. By making real and concerted efforts to disrupt this activity they've made major busts in the hard core drug trade and the illegal weapons trade as well as making inroads into larger organized crime organizations. This is another reason I believe its time we as a country stop ignoring animal cruelty and step up our game to match or surpass the rest of the Western world.

[Boges]

Pigs are apparently very smart.

[Wilber]

Breeding animals for certain physical and mental capabilities is what nature does, and not a lot different than what humans do in the case of working dogs. Problems with inbreeding arise when breeds become too popular. Breeding for purely cosmetic reasons is questionable. Dog fighting is animal cruelty, regardless of the breed.

[Mighty AC]

Pigs are apparently very smart.

And amazingly efficient at turning slop and vegetable matter into bacon. Pigs are apparently more intelligent than dogs. Edited August 14, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

These are small steps but steps none the less.

I'm glad some progress is being made.

The problem I have with eating dogs is the same problem I have with the killing of any intelligent animal.

Many common food animals are in the top 25 most intelligent including pigs, sheep, whales, squid, octopuses, horse, squirrel, pigeon, etc.

http://list25.com/25-most-intelligent-animals-on-earth/?view=all

I don't like the idea of eating dogs, in fact, I am currently transitioning away from eating meat altogether. However, if the world finds it acceptable to eat pigs, then it would be hypocritical to condemn the eating of dogs.

Our animal cruelty laws were first enacted in 1898. Since then they have essentially not been changed. Sure, we've raised the fines somewhat to keep pace with inflation but thats about it.

Our federal animal rights laws are a joke...though most provinces have stricter laws and punishments. From what I understand the Feds do not want to infringe on meat industry profits by strengthening cruelty laws.

[jbg]

So the vast majority of dog breads, something like 90%, have been created in the last 100 years and the standards for what qualifies as a new breed are quite arbitrary. Purebreds are sick, inbred, and have shorter life spans than mixed breeds. Is our obsession for arbitrarily, sick and weak animals in itself sick and twisted? Or are designer organisms an acceptable practice? Does the gel haired fellow in this video have a point? Is the fact that the modern Bulldog even exists borderline animal cruelty?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo

The only dog-owning part of my family, my father-in-law's side, prefers rescues to pure-bred dogs for that reason. The only pure-bred they had, a golden retriever, did indeed die early from cancer. The breed has the nickname "cancer retriever" because that is a common problem.

That dog's death saddened me. It was one of the few dogs of that breed that was not ferocious. The one thing I will say is that breeding enables selectivity of characteristics. For example, Golden and Labrador Retrievers and Newfoundlands are commonly bred for their utter ferocity.