The other night on TV there was a special from the BBC about how We (humans) are breeding our 'pure breeds' to death.
They highlighted a few breeds that are being inbred to 'to breed to a standard'. This often meant grandfather to granddaughter, son to mother etc. The result to this is that they're breeding in genetic faults. In increasing cases breeding dogs to die prematurely and in excruciating pain or crippled.
They showed how two dogs that won the world's most prestigious dog show were in fact riddled with genetic faults and were passing them on in breeding....stud fees etc.

In reality many of these standards have changed the breed almost beyond recognition the breed from what it was.
e.g. the ridge on a ridge back is a deformation in the spine.
The head size of Cavs are too small for their brains. The majority of this breed in the UK has the same genetic diversity of less than 200 individuals...in short in the wild they would be considered endangered species.
Short nosed dogs are so short they cant breath properly
German shepherds move sideways drop at the rear patella disorders etc.

Most of these standards are cosmetic and in some cases scientifically untenable.
Common sense dictates that the standards should be changed and set on veterinarian grounds.
The kennel club knows this is afraid they'll lose their power if they alter the standards.. People will simply breed outside the organisation.... This is a logically a specious assertion as it is the prestige that dictates the money flow on price of dogs and stud fees.
The other option is to stop all shows completely.
While these are the extremes and gives an unbalanced picture but these unscientific cosmetic breeding is an increasing reality.
As an ex long time breeders we stopped showing and eventually breeding simply because of the internecine politics that dominate these showing circles.

What do you think should be done ?

Dear Examinator,

I came across an interesting article called:
"Man's best friend? How cosmetic breeding is
deforming domestic animals." It can be read in
full at the following website:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article849130.ece

Some of the things the article suggested could be
done were:

1) A new Animal Welfare Bill.
2) A ban on cutting off puppies tails.
3) Tighter controls of pet shows and the
exotic-animal trade.
4) A new criminal offence of 'likely to cause
unnecessary suffering.'
5) Increased powers for police to investigate
cruelty.
6) Longer sentences and more time for cases to
be brought to court.
7) Prosecution of breeders who produce genetically
defective animals.

However, as the article states:

"Thanks to lobbying campaigns by breed associations and
owner's clubs, every one of these ideas was fiercely
opposed."

It seems that people want to go on cutting
off puppies tails. They're against regulatory control
of pet shows. They don't want increased protection of
imported exotic species - and so on. It seems that
breed associations and owner's clubs are a very strong
economic and political force. Plus, there's a billion
dollar industry associated with pet food, products,
and services as well.

We can only keep our fingers crossed that as the
article states - "New legislation
mey be coming to the rescue of these poor animals -
providing it isn't killed by the country'e all-powerful
pet lobby."

Exam:”What do you think should be done ?”

Stop buying them?

No one stopped the cat breeders though.

Oh hey that was like a male vs femnazi statement. If it continues someone is gonna say "cats always get what they want, the courts always hand over their kittens to them, when is anyone going to acknowledge that dogs have feelings too?"

I watched that show too, examinator, and fought back tears several times. Many of the animals were in obvious pain. Some as you say had breathing problems and some could barely walk. Others were fitting regularly.

The whole dog breeding industry and show dog circuit in the UK looked like one sick freak show. Some of the footage from these top-notch dog shows came across as some sort of black comedy, but unfortunately it was all too real. The dogs and their owners looked totally surreal and farcical. If it wasn't for the cruelty being inflicted on these animals, I'd have laughed it off as self-indulgent irrelevance.

My answer as to what should be done, on the strength of what I saw the other night, would be to ban dog shows completely. They are all about pandering to the vanity of the dogs' owners. There is little or no consideration for the health and well-being of the dogs.

The whole dog-breeding industry needs to be brought under the spotlight. The documentary the other night was a great first step in alerting the public as to what is going on. It mightn't be as bad here as it is in the UK, but we're no doubt heading in the same direction. A strong regulatory regime needs to be introduced and enforced and this out-of-control industry brought to heel.

Dear Examinator,

I didn't see the TV program - but my hudband did.
He was disgusted by it - and feels very strongly
that we need to pass legislation to protect animals
here in this country. That there needs to be tighter
controls on pet shows and so on. As the article
that I quoted in my previous post tells us:

" Any scientist who deliberately produced a monster
like the English bulldog or Chinese shar pei should
risk a firebomb. Only in its premature death does the
experimental rat get a worse death than a family pet.
No research animal in a well-run laboratory will be driven
mad by lack of companionship or sexual frustration; none
will be bred for cosmetic reasons specifically to pass
on genetic deformities that cause illness and pain; none
will be made ill being force-fed the wrong food... none
will suffer surgical mutilation, and none will have any
parts of their bodies removed without anaesthetic...
Britain's pet lovers not only do all these things at whim,
they campaign vigorously for the right to go on doing them..."

That is something that should not be allowed in this country!

“This is something that should not be allowed in this country!”

This sentiment I like. Let’s forget the dogs eh? I saw a similar program (probably same one) years ago now, nothing new to be heard here. Yes the poor little dogs, yes the poor mutated cats. Damn shame about the intensive farming and Yabby knocking off the odd puppy…

Years ago now, my very young children were in bed sleeping like angels and I had some friends over. They were older than me and immersed in politics. Interesting people but that is not my point. As we were chatting a Greenpeace Advert came on the TV in the background. It had just preceded a Save the Children advert. I turned and commented “aren’t the children more important than the damn animals?”. It was explained to me that no, in fact everything is important and some people help the animals and some the children blah blah blah. So I try and support whatever wrongs there are, understanding that people have different focus and no one’s cause should be less than another’s.

Well fuckit. Sorry Exam baby, you are a treasure but I have seen and heard some horrible stuff from the mouths of babes. If I was not the master of mocking everything I do believe I would weep without end. Some things children say or do, I don't hear or see, I feel them.

Can we please demand that children come first in this country before we even glance sideways at the damn animals? You ship your puppies and greyhounds off to be eaten anyways.

As the custodians of Earth isn’t our duty clear? This passion and opinion wasted… Do you all understand that this:

“… often meant grandfather to granddaughter, son to mother etc…”

Humans do this too. Those kids aren't treated as well as your average shepard with hip problems.

To ignore ones offspring in the aid of another species?

I am not clever; I don’t have the words, Please Save Our Children First.

im with piper..in this..kids first

anyhow...its about love/hate..for most of us...and i for one..[via the previeuws]..realised i didnt want to..watch the program...lets face it..it had/has its extreem adgenda behind it...to the extreem that people who love their replacement human beings..[pet children]wont be allowed to keep or breed..love..their chosen breeds

there is nothing inherantly..[automaticlly]..bad about breeding bulldogs..[or poodles...but their owners/breeders..need to be held to minimum standards/breed specific skilling..depending on the breed...and first..given the oppertuinity to rectify/remedy..the dangers/injurouse practrices..

and not all..the breeds picked on..have problems...here we have a place for the vets...who via the breed-books..can track down the hurtfull genes...and eliminate the problem...

the hips if you recall..decended from one individual..its nothing breeders cant eliminate..simply by avoiding the matting of two resesive/carriers

aborigonals..pre-invasion..were remarkable free from ressesive defects..this was due to the system of skin mating...that avoids inbreeding..by keeping favourable sepperation..of genetic population/quotant

im reluctant..to turn vets into cops...their there..to advise on health..as well as treat sickness..NOT..to fill people with fear..[so they are afraid to go..to the vet..this..seems more stupid...than the idocracy/stupidity..that caused the issues

see those..who use vets..arnt the problem...its those breeders who treat breeding as income/business..not a calling..of account-ability/tryust to the unborn.....much like that of priests...brrreeders of beasts..is an art...it needs to become a science...

dont be fooled by those..who sell only the negative side..be it kids or animals...if there is not love..of the fruit/result...then arises the problem...

solution's are needed...the ressesives..are easilly detected...and the breeding tests..are allready done...vets can find those dangerouse genes..and hold their owners to acountabiliuty...then no more problems...

we should be hearing better/more solutions...not mandated govt act..upon the all..public servants arnt vets..but because of the greed/need of the few bad-apples...vets will become policy/police enforcers/informers..

set up..by those who seek to..ban all pets..[and children]..eugenics begins..when we murder animals/sick...via govt legislation...euthinisation is murder

evil people..pretending to do good things..do worse things..via govt censure/..via govt right to oppress/police../and/are..very willing to diseminate injurous propaganda..to keep us from thinking/seeing good/love..in that mearly different...

its not the child perverts..i hate..as much as..that they deliberate to injure kids..and make things worse..upon innocents

Thank you OUG and sorry Exam.

I should have gone to bed instead of leaving that post. I'm like this at home as well if it's any comfort. I can be having a nice discussion with a grown up about what they've been up to then suddenly I'm ranting about some poor kid and how no one will listen.

I know... I'm going to the corner...

No doubt Pomeranians were one of the breeds mentioned...

I'm sitting here typing this looking at my mate Max. No inbreeding there: the black and tan face of a kelpie, the body colouring of a washed out cattle dog with black instead of blue, red roan socks, an exuberantly fethery tail like nothing I've seen and the build of a german shepherd (still growing and he can put his paws on my shoulders already). All that and one of the best natures I've ever come across in a dog.

I grew up with a pedigreed corgi, who was very lucky that my dad knew the breeder, because she had "inverted" colouring. She was white where she was supposed to be tan and vice-versa, which meant she was going to be put down until dad put his hand up for her. Even then, the breeder wouldn't sell her unspayed and she still had her tail docked.

All of my dogs (Max is my 10th) since then have been bitzas, mostly from the pound as puppies. Personally, I'd like to see the end of pedigreed breeds altogether.

I started to watch this program and had to turn off. Must be age but I can no longer watch any program where kids or animals (don't worry Pied I got you) are abused. Confession: I am a bit of a sucker for "Find my Family" - and usually end up in tears as well when it all works out well.

The irony is that these sorts of people usually profess an undying love of their pets.

I'm with Anti (nice change) on this. Who are we to interfere with nature to the extent we do, it seems humans know no bounds sometimes whether it be polluting the planet for profit, sexualising chidlren for profit or breeding dogs for profit and 'pleasure'.

Okay there is the rant.

What do we do about it? Ban it altogether under animal cruelty. Also Pet Show organisers and judges might need to assess their criteria for these pet beauty pageants and give points for character, intelligence and ability to jump through hoops (or something like that).

I must admit I agree with most of the comments like pelican I wasn't that keen to watch it but I thought that the other offerings at the time would unnecessarily have used up/damaged my few remaining synapse. So I did.

As I said there was very little that I didn't already, generally speaking. To my eternal shame Apart from not being involved and avoiding dogs I knew were the products of the in-breeding etc. I didn't give the issue a lot of thought.

We have had and bred/ trained a succession of dogs a from
Blue Healer cattle dogs (B) need lots of runs/ activity and can climb
Dobermans Special understanding needed
Rough coat Collie too much work for me. Wrong for Aus heat
Lhasa Apso (B) great long nose needs clipping, runners
Shih Tzus (B) great short nose clipping ideal small family dog ..watch breeders
Labs (B) Needs regular swims (webbing between toes) breeding issues
Golden retrievers (B) same
Bouvier de Flanders (my favourite) great idiosyncratic dog too small gene pool
and a Wombat Wally (extraordinary originality there). Great chick magnet...often cranky. (illegal now)
Dad and I trained police dogs and I was a tutor at a basic (Sunday am) obedience classes for about a year. We also owned 3 pet shops.

Observations.
The problems are usually **idiot owners**, wrong dogs (bad choices) and bad crosses.
The show mentioned dogs for purposes and IMHO that is true.

The point is that people tend to buy on emotion and not purpose or the home environment.
All the problem on the show are here already BUT the show talked about the worst.

Keeping things in perspective, I'm not convinced that we should ban pure breeds or showing.I do believe that Kennel Clubs/ Cat Council need to be govt funded/mandated, given teeth to enforce veterinarian based “Standards”. Yes more controls(sigh). How else can we give people the right to choose and maintain healthy pets? Some nutters, profiteers will go...good riddance. And the small, caring breeders may take over. continued

Continued.
Re more control and success.

Problem...too many cat/dogs in Sherbrook (Vic) killing all the lyrebirds.

Solution
Total cat/dog ban? (rejected)loss of freedom of choice.

Universal cat/dog registration. Owners required to enclose pets on their property unless on lead or in special areas. Caught animals without tags were sent to RSPCA. those with tags escalating fines. Lots of angst, arson attacks, aggression even beatings etc.
3 years later some belligerent ones moved the most vocal opponents (cat owners) were on TV and are now in favour of protecting their expensive/loved pets.

The point I'm making that the options to have a pet or even the breed they want should remain but breeding practices and associated direct and indirect cruelty should be eliminated

Thanks for the thread examinator.
I saw it but had to turn off, it made me angry and such pain always does.
How perfectly stupid and self interested some of those owners are.
Please tell me why they did not put a pet they loved out of that misery?
Those who read my thread about a lost dog and buying another will know I love dogs.
I got ripped right of in buying Sky, pure breed Foxy female?
Not likely but she has no defects yet if she gets them? she will not be let suffer.
Blue is female half Foxy, who knows what else but she is fit well a pound puppy and cheeky, her and Sky are best mates with each other and me.
Here in tick country hairy little balls on legs die every year, almost every one.
So inbreeding and cross breeding kills dogs too.
We should have laws that stop such breeding and real penalty's for offenders.

Yes examinator, I too watched that program with much disgust.
I am the proud owner of two King Charles Cavalier Spaniels, so you can imagine how devastated I was watching those poor dogs in such pain with the seizures etc.
I wanted to jump through the tv to confront those self-righteous breeders and judges in England. I consider applying clamps to their skulls and slowly squeezing each side of the head too good for them!
Hell, maybe deep down I am one of those violent females constantly talked about on other threads!
Stop inbreeding dogs, and ensure comfort and quality of any dog's life is high on the list of breeder attributes.

What got me about the show was the hypocrisy about the definition of the breeds, the comparison between "definitive examples" then and now.
Clearly, endless emphasis on a given "feature" produces grotesques.

To me, the problem is that the breeds are defined using qualitative terms like "has a ridge of fur" or "short legs and long body".

I think the breeds should have definitions of absolute measurement such as "stands X inches high at shoulders" or ratios such as "length from back of skull to base of tail shall be P:Q. perhaps even a requirement that the over/underbite be within a certain range and functional.

Currently, if all the entries have a given feature, then the owner and breeder will argue endlessly that their particular grotesque is the true breed because the defining feature is "pronounced". If the definition gave a measurement, then those self-same people would go to great lengths to breed to that measurement.

Of course, this does not prevent inbreeding, but makes it far less desirable to try unless you know a lot about the particular mechanism of expression of the feature.

I further think the definition should include features other than appearance. Average lifespan, ability to run, jump etc. not just obedience in following an easy course, but reasonably difficult for a prime example.

I'm sure some dogs do have this in their definition, but something similar could be done for all, including the poor grotesques.

Rusty

Okay I’m back on track. Apologies again Exam.

I have two miniature poodles; they don’t lose hair and are hypoallergenic. They are also too small to cause physical harm in any significant way and big enough to not be too damaged in any significant way, they are one of the more intelligent breeds that are inclined to be gentle. They are also one of breeds that live the longest.

So yeah – I couldn’t just go to the pound in the last 20 years and pick just any dog for a household like mine, I need better odds. But for the small kids that I get they have an important role and a lot of children will warm to them before the other humans.

Hey Rusty – yeah they do have cm’s and definite measurements... no idea how over time they sort of shifted. I guess like beauty contests the bar keeps getting raised or something.

Hey and seriously – same thing has already been done to cats.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162118/Inbreeding-makes-pedigree-cats-diseased-deformed-animal-welfare-groups-warn.html

http://current.com/items/89215980_inbreeding-makes-pedigree-dogs-diseased-and-deformed.htm

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/RSPCA-pulls-out-of-Crufts.4494035.jp

Thanks, TPP.

So, some things are defined in absolutes, but probably not all.

I think a winning example of a given breed should look almost indistinguishable from a winner of say fifty years ago.

Those "furnished" beagles for instance, or the english bulldogs. clearly the measured attributes didn't give any clue as to when a given feature had been taken to the stage of "that's just silly". They clng to very simple "more is better".

Other measures, not related to the "feature" could easily be defined. If the definition of the spaniels had included the head width and circumference of historical examples, current cranial issues might not exist.

I actually suspect that the images shown in the show were extremes, and that the "long ago" and "now" examples were cherry-picked. Nonetheless, the basic message is still there, and, I think, still valid.

Rusty

Rusty

<< Those "furnished" beagles for instance .. >>

I missed the start of the show and had actually thought that beagles hadn't been featured, even though I did glimpse a brief shot of one once or twice I think. Was wondering if you'd have a moment to elaborate on your reference to 'those furnished beagles'. What was that all about?

My daughter has recently bought a pedigree beagle in the UK and I've had two here in Aus, so I have a personal interest in the breed. We did notice a fairly close breeding relationship I remember with one of them when we looked over the papers.

Beagles are beautifully natured dogs and not meant to be susceptible to many health problems, which is why we decided on that particular breed when the kids went through the inevitable 'We want a dog' stage over a decade ago now. They can be prone to heart problems and both ours developed a heart murmur around their sixth or seventh year.

My daughter's beagle is a very different shape to ours - longer legs and more of a racy greyhound look, whereas ours aren't nearly as lean, though they're not fat. I commented when I visited her that he looked underfed, and her reply was that the beagles in the UK tend to be like that.

Pied Piper

I raised abandoned children for several years too, however, I do not think that compassion should be restricted to children just because they are of our species. One will find that many researchers have concluded that humans who abuse children also abuse animals.

'No humane being, past the thoughtless age of boyhood, will wantonly mutilate any creature, which holds its life by the same tenure that he does. The hare in its extremities cries like a child.' (Henry David Thoreau)

I too watched the documentary on the breeding of pedigree dogs in the UK, however, I believe it is worse in the US. In all countries, it has become an abomination. Apart from abused canine refugees, I have always refused to adopt a pedigree animal on principle. I have witnessed the incarceration of pedigree breeding bitches, caged and suffering and in a deplorable state.

Of course pedigree breeding is a mere peccadillo when we humans think nothing of, say nothing and do nothing about legalised vivisection laboratories.

1. Every thirty seconds vivisectors kill another thousand animals.

2. Vivisectors use cats, dogs, puppies, kittens, horses, sheep, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys, baboons and any other creature you can think of.

3. While waiting to be used in laboratory experiments animals are kept in solitary confinement in small cages. Alone and frightened they can hear the screams of the other animals being used.

4. Animals used in experiments are tortured, blinded, burned, shot, injected and dissected. They have their eyes sewn up or their limbs broken. Chemicals are injected into their brains and their screams of anguish are coldly recorded. If the animal lives through this torture it will then be killed.

5. During 2004, six million animals went through Australia's vivisection laboratories.

In Australia it is legal for the livestock rouseabout to enter a cow’s back end, replete with shears to hack out her ovaries.

Those who object to these abominations are ridiculed.

It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong.

Bronwyn, I probably meant bassett, thanks for pointing that out. In the bit where they were comparing historical examples with current winners, the interviewer asked a judge just why "this one" was such a good example, and besides praising the overall conformation specified the "furnishings", very exaggerated rolls of skin around the ankles (joints corresponding, anyway). These were far more exaggerated than in historical pictures, and much more fleshy than in typically loose-skinned dogs. The comparisons of "ideal" ear length were a giveaway too. By "ideal" did they mean "as big as possible" or should they have a real measurement, with "too big" being as bad as "too small". The Dacshund comparison with moderns looking about half the leg length of historical examples is another. If the leg length were actually specified, why is it shorter, and the back longer, rather than cleaving close to the "ideal".

I just think the rules should give consistency. A winner from now should have a reasonable chance against a winner from decades ago and vice versa.

rusty

Hey Protagoras. I know, sometimes it just bubbles up. If I could have deleted the post I would have popped back and done it.

I haven’t had any abandoned children and it isn’t the initial abuse that brings them in to care that concerns me as much as the decisions made for their lives by the people that don’t know anything about who they are. It’s the post placement government inflicted abuse that makes me angry.

As for mongrel vs pedigree – either can come out of puppy mills or be kept in bad conditions or treated cruelly whether for years or generations. Some pedigree kennels are very particular and do not cross the bloodlines and have not altered the breed. Both mine are “pet” poodles and couldn’t be entered in shows because they weren’t bred to be. It is not the whole breed that needs rejecting but the kennels who do not act with care or concern for the future of the breed.

I get another dog today, one I don’t really want either, my son is moving home and with him comes a staffy X puppy and I have to figure out how to convince him to find the puppy a new home. I can’t risk a child being hurt or the allergies or any other thing that comes with the breed.

Now years ago I had a Rottweiler, a Weirmerana (sp?) and a Doberman, if I didn’t have the little kids I’d have another Doberman – they are amazing dogs if you have a lot of time. I had a Ridgeback for awhile, had heard many a good thing about them and I imported one from a breeder in Oz. My ex fell in love with the stupid thing so in the end I let him have it. I should say we’d been separated years by then.

Rusty seems to have all the good ideas though.

How we treat those who are dependent on us should be the standard, the foundation for all our plans. Human beings pretty much control everything. We call ourselves civilised, which, quite frankly is a load of bollocks.

We can't even treat each other with respect, let alone children and other animals.

Since the program aired on ABC, I haven't been able to get the images of suffering out of my head - I knew I should've watched Rush.

I used to have a German Shepherd, she protected me from some hoons once - this was years ago now, she was also a half-breed although looked like a pure Shepherd. I would love to have another GS but my property has inadequate fencing. German Shepherd's used to have hip displasia due to the inbreeding that resulted from Shepherds being banned from import to Australia. You'd think we'd have learned from that, but no, decades later inbreeding continues, not due to ignorance but deliberately for absurd and useless affectations.

When and if I do get another dog, it will be from the Lost Dog's Home or RSPCA.

I will not buy a pure-bred. I do not shop at pet-stores that sell puppies and kittens either. People make a lot of claims about the free market determining what people will accept. I would like to see this actually work for a change - no-one should be buying from breeders. There is a plethora of unwanted animals at shelters requiring a home right now. And those animals became unwanted due to human behaviour, only humans can change this appalling situation.

G'Day All,
This is an interesting thread but I don't see much mention of the musieling? of the sheep. There is no reason that this practice should be going on.
The docking of Rotwieller dogs tails started with the breeding bitches because of the calcium deficency because when the bitches used to wag thier tail in excitement it could actually break the pelvis of the bitches. With the docking of the tails of the bitches they found that it also lessened the effects of the elongating of the hip joints as well so they began docking the dogs tails as well.
The easiest way to get docked tails is put a Smithfield cattle across your bitches that is as good as taking a knife to the tails the old Smithfield will soon dock the tails in a litter.
Rotwiellers know their own faults as you will not see many Rotties do much jumping.
The docking of tails in the larger breeds that were used as cart dogs stopped the occurrence of the dogs hitting thier tails in the harness & making the tails bleed giving rise to infections.
Anyway protect our kids should be the first recquisite but remember this if you learn to get along with animals you should be able to get along with humans they at least speak your language.
Thanks have a good life from Dave

Fractelle, and others

Whoa there, let's not get carried away here.
The elimination of one extreme doesn't justify the other extreme.
Think of it like this.
I had bought one of the original Condom - a - doors from new. it seemed that after every weekend I returned it to the dealer with faults a week later they became recalls. By some poster's reasoning I shouldn't buy any new car. Because there are engineering compromises(and faults) in them all.

That logic is internally flawed in a number of ways....Nature sometimes cocks genetics all on its own. I've dealt with cross breed that have serious genetic and behavioural flaws. Likewise I've dealt with some 'pure breeds' that are the same. I've dealt with good in both. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Also I'm unconvinced about 'designer dogs too...i.e Labradoodle etc.
both the Lab and poodle have genetic faults. Therefore according to Mendel's law some of the pups have a real chance of inheriting both flaws (double whammy .....garbage in garbage out.) more culls?

How do you know with a RSPCA cross that it doesn't have some faults...the ones shown in the show don't always show in the pub and or require MRI etc detection. There are no guarantees.

I think the real point of the show was to point out the EXCESSES of what SOME (get a lifers, nut jobs and unscrupulous entrepreneurs) will do in the pursuit of ego, fame, power, money.

Like I said Dogs should be chosen for the purpose/conditions they are to fill/be in. The RSPCA doesn't always have appropriate dogs i.e. a kelpie cross, a terrier cross for my 85 yo mum? A cat? no thanks, she lives near the bush... in her case a a externally maintained Shihy is apt. A cross bred as a guide dog, bomb sniffer, cadaver,crowd control etc that's a real hit and miss activity.

Vivisection and child welfare while important issues both are way off topic

<< if you learn to get along with animals you should be able to get along with humans >>

A psychologist friend of mine once told me that people who are good with animals are good with children.

:)

Examinator

We are talking about living creatures here - not a (WTF) Condom - is that what I think it is? A car? Comparing apples to clockwork oranges? No relevance whatsoever.

How do you propose to persuade breeders to change their practices? I was suggesting a reasonable and actionable method. I did not suggest banning all animal breeding, just a solution to current practices. Nor was I blaming ALL animal breeders - just the ones where there are problems, like those who breed pugs etc. Also you do remember starting this topic - now you want to control what people say?

Besides there is a huge range of animals available at animal shelters. I know I have done volunteer work at a couple. You are really taking an extreme reaction to my post. In your mother's case a pet would need to be kept indoors - not difficult. Get a young puppie (you mentioned shitzu) or kitten - they can both be house trained.

Also vivisection was mentioned by Protagoras in response to Piper's concern for children over animals.

And did you not read the comments by DWG and myself about people who care for living creatures? People who mistreat animals tend to mistreat children too.

G'Day All,
I have to correct a little the words " If you learn to get along with animals you will get along with people, because they at least speak your language", also "If nature looks good you will feel good with it", should not be acredited to me as they were given to me in 1982 at Cairns by an Elder that gave me the right to sit with the Elders.
That last part is something that has puzzled me since then because in 1982 I was only 28 years old & when I said to the Elders that at my age I had not the right to sit with them they replied "You don't know who you are & from who you come, We recognize our own".
I suppose this would be better off on the Tribal Post but I thought an old "silver back" might get away posting on an animal thread.
Thanks Have a good life from Dave.
PS Foxy the well wishes are truly meant I only wish you well & also the other readers.

I formed my opinion on this years ago, after being dragged along to dog shows. The kennel clubs made lots of noises on choosing dogs on temperament, on heath, or breeding, on getting the best dog. Yet all I saw was dogs spending hours being paraded around the ring, with the judges looking on. Tests for temperament were limited to touching the dog, or a loud noise, and ensuring they didn't rip into each other. The primary considerations were obviously what the dog looked like and how it moved compared to some pre-conceived "standard". This "standard" was really a fashion statement. Books with a pictorial breed history openly admit it: they referred to long hair was in favour one decade, a certain stance in favour in another.

I could not see any difference between this the human beauty contests. But for all the feminists outcry over human beauty contests, they are harmless exercise compared to this, and unlike the beauty contests the hypocrisy underlying the entire "show dog" edifice is just breathtaking. Every breed standard always ascribed the breeds origins to hard working dog breed for a specific job: gaming, herding, sleding or whatever. In those glorious ancestors no quarter was given to looks: the dogs that were allowed to breed where the healthiest, the fastest, most skilful, had the best endurance and fitted in best with their human masters. Then, on becoming a standard, all those attributes that were the basis for the breed are ignored in the show ring. The only thing that matters is the pretty outer shell. Thus over time, the very qualities that gave rise to the breed start to fade away.

It gets worse. Dogs have to be sold, so the market ensures they are moderately good companions that say healthy for most of their lives. Animals like pidgins have no such check. I don't know what a pidgin in agony looks like, I doubt many do. But I don't doubt there are a lot out there that spend most of their lives that way.

Fractelle
1.>”Is that what I think it is? A car?” < Yep Commodore >”No relevance whatsoever”<
Logic is logic regardless of what it's applied to. Hence I said 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' .

2.>”How do you propose to persuade breeders to change their practices?”< read my previous post.

3.>” I was suggesting a reasonable” (?) >” and actionable method ”<. But you said >” no-one should be buying from breeders “<

4.>“I did not suggest banning all animal breeding, just a solution to current practices”< how?

5. >” Nor was I blaming ALL animal breeders but you did say - just the ones where there are problems, like those who breed pugs etc.” see no 3

6.<Also you do remember starting this topic - now you want to control what people say?” < Fractelle come on it's me here. I was pointing out that Vivisection and child abuse are a long long stretch from cosmetic genetic breeding of dogs. They ere clearly irrelevant to this topic.

7.>”Besides there is a huge range of animals available at animal shelters.<” Not all the time or when a pet was needed.

8.>” You are really taking an extreme reaction to my post. In your mother's case a pet would need to be kept indoors - not difficult. Get a young puppie (you mentioned shitzu) or kitten - they can both be house trained.”< see 7. I can't remember the last time I saw a Shih Tzu puppy on the RSPCA web site. Pets tend to be spur of the moment topic....some go away and discuss it but it is usually with a specific in mind. Kittens become cats and do wander no matter what how you train them.

9.>"And did you not read the comments by DWG and myself"< (of course) >" People who mistreat animals tend to mistreat children too.<" Sometime but not mutually exclusively so.
It wasn't about you just what you said

Exam

I am not going to shred your last post the way you did mine. However, given that I feel my post to be as valid as your or anyone else's, I need to clarify a couple of suppositions you have made about my last post.

I am not speaking in absolutes - I am making some generalisations for the sake of keeping my posts brief and clear.

It is not logical to make comparisons using two completely disparate elements: the purchasing of animals and cars.

The selection of a pet from an animal shelter may take longer if a particular breed/type of pet is required - where is the problem with that? Does it HAVE to be a Shitzu - there are many small, quiet dogs.
Also having worked at animal shelters, I am aware of the thorough checks that the vets make before offering animals for adoption.

Also where is the problem with boycotting breeders who continue to breed for aesthetics over health?

I agree that nature can produce mutants, but why should this mean people shouldn't adopt bitzers, moggies or mongrels?

I find your response completely baffling as I am sure you care about animals as much as I, yet you are arguing with people who believe, like myself, that this topic is very worthy of discussion, but you appear to want to control the content.

I think you are being very pedantic - I stand by saying no-one should be buying from breeders who are irresponsible such as those highlighted on the BBC program.

I don't understand why you are being so critical of people who have posted here. I would've thought that this was topic where a great many different ideas could be offered openly without fear of attack. Just for a change.

Well that was an awkward silence.

It is an interesting topic, even if I haven’t thought of a solution. I do wonder what the dog breeders that are breeding in specific mutations feel about it, do they just not think about how it effects their animals or maybe they have convinced themselves they are doing some good?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681558.htm

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1150/tiny-dogs-have-tiny-mutation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/dog.asp

Fractelle
In your original post you appeared to be saying only buy from RSPCA and don't buy off (all?) breeders and not differentiating between the good and bad.. I was saying that was extreme, there is a middle ground and supporting my stand.
The line by line was to take your comments seriously and answer properly.
I was not comparing dogs to cars but the causation/consequences LOGIC is the same.

I AGREE that the minimum line in the sand is to boycott those breeders who follow cruel show type extreme practices.

These practices include in breeding , ear/tail docking (both the latter are illegal in the show ring, however, some non Kennel Control Councils' (KCC) breeders still do this some with scissors etc. GRRR !

Other unacceptable practices include locking up of a show Shih Tzus in baby pen 24/7 on tiles so they wont break their coat. To me a dog is a dog and should be able to run and play dig etc.

We've seen, reported etc horrific practices.
Even some of the seemingly reasonable breeders take "the curmudgeon attitude" get livid and tell you to mind your own business and sometimes retaliate .

I also agreed that PP& Protagoras' points were important just that they were perhaps steering onto unrelated hostile areas. We've seen what happens when the topics go that way before.

Consequently I am at loss to understand the level of your disquiet. My actual words don't support your interpretation I suspect either you forgot/didn't read the the points I made earlier in this topic.

I already know what I think, I want as usual, others problem solving skills. That included their ability to defend their views with real evidence of insight.

I get frustrated with those posters who see critical analysis of an ideas as criticism of them as a person. I believe I show posters real respect by taking their opinions seriously and thinking about what they say. I EXPECT/WANT to have the holes/weaknesses in my arguments attacked/challenged just not me as a person.

the obvious way to rebalance breeding is to allow the females to
breed with THEIR choice of male.
empowering female humans will by proxy empower female canines.
the solution is an equal rights republic.

For what it's worth - when I read
Fractelle's post - I thought -

'What a marvellous suggestion!'

If you want a pet, why not buy one
from the animal shelter or the RSPCA?

There's so many animals out there in need
of a home. Why not give them one?
What's the difference between these animals
and pure-breds, unless of course you want
to enter them in pet shows. But just as a pet -
won't any little creature do?

I read Fractelle's post and thought it well
argued and as always - it made sense.
I didn't read anything else into it.

I think sometimes we misunderstand things,
and read things into posts - that actually
aren't there. I know, I've done it heaps
of times myself.

Group hug all round?

Exam, I’m thinking that like everything we need to know what drives the people to continue the practice. The breeders are often completely over the top type people and love their animals and treat them better than they would a child so I’m guessing there is some mental block going on.

Now wouldn’t the simplest thing be that a law is passed forbidding any alteration in any breed and for the ones with mutations to not be bred from in future?

It would be like the people who are growing the old fashioned fruits and veges now, rejecting the modern mutated forms. Heritage produce or called something similar.

But umm... dogs are pack animals and if we really wanted a dog to be a dog wouldn’t we just let them run the streets in packs? Or just not have animals ever anywhere at any time for any reason.

Were you wanting insight or just logic or a combination? I went and read a whole lot of pages in wiki about how to make a logical statement… I think I worked it out as logic is the form of the statement and it doesn’t matter if it is correct or not because that would be the rationality of the statement.

Insight – We are a facile race obsessed with “cute”, which is re-defined constantly.

Logic – All people are facile.

PP – No offence meant and besides I like your spontaneity - your involuntary outbursts are good therapy for we humourless souls.

“I also agreed that PP& Protagoras' points were important just that they were perhaps steering onto unrelated hostile areas. We've seen what happens when the topics go that way before.”

Examinator – As my poor old mum used to say (with speech impediment) “I’m surpwised at you” for the issue of abuse of sentient beings stretches into many areas. The threads to which you refer become hostile due to sadistic bastards infiltrating and corrupting these threads because of their vested interests and good men on OLO say nothing!

And I trust that posters don’t think that the appalling standards practised by many dog breeders is anything new? Pedigree canines with serious disorders have been flogged in Australia for decades. Boxers with holes in the heart and breeders knowingly selling bulldogs, suffering asthma and eczema.

Australia’s RSPCA had this to say recently:

“In the UK, all of the top 50 registered breeds have at least one inherited disorder: 35 of those breeds are in Australia’s top 50. Australian breed standards reflect international breed standards so we are certainly dealing with similar issues here.

“Despite all the evidence against inbreeding, the Australian National Kennel Council is still operating a closed studbook system and registering first and second degree matings (mothers with sons, grandfathers with granddaughters), increasing the chances of inherited disorders and making the puppies less resistant to infectious and genetic diseases."

What a racket eh when a crossed poodle and labrador or a Shiatsu/Maltese terrier were once considered “mutts” or “bitzers” which they are, but the industry saw a way to make a quick buck. What is the cost these days for suckers? >$1000?

I snatched my mutt from an animal abuser. The mutt's honey coloured with woolly pants and his mum was a good sport. That's why he has several pedigrees!

If the following links are an example of how “top” breeders have operated for decades, what are the others doing?:

http://www.fivetvonline.tv/news.php?page=7&news=1864

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/117269

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/258249.stm

Thanks for your reply, Rusty.

Yes, I know the breed you're referring to with the rolls. I think it's called a basset hound and it can have a similar colouring to the tri-coloured beagle, hence the understandable mixing of the two breeds. So pleased to know the beagle wasn't featured. Phew!

As much as I adore beagles, I had already thought, like Fractelle, that if I ever get another dog, I'll go to a refuge first and look at giving an abandoned dog a home.

Some great comments above. I've wondered a few times lately if Protagoras was you, Dickie, but your contribution to this thread has left me in absolutely no doubt! Reading your posts is like watching that show the other night - painful, but enlightening - and very valuable if we are going to help bring about change. Thank you as always.

I heard a promo on the ABC tonight for Catalyst this Thursday. Apparently, there's to be a segment relating to the fallout from the pedigree dogs doco. Could be well worth a look I'd say.

Foxy, Protagoras all
Oh dear,
Fractelle specifically said quote "no-one should not be buying from breeders. There is a plethora of unwanted animals at shelters requiring a home right now."
To a literal mind like mine this doesn't differentiate between good and bad breeders.
I Didn't say that buying dogs from RSPCA is a bad idea. The KEY is balance.
F. specifically stated as above. I, on the other hand didn't mention the RSPCA. One is definite (if unintentional), the other is a supposition. Again with the 'the absence of one extreme = the other" fallacy.

NB. I'M IN FAVOUR OF BUYING AN RSPCA MUTT WHERE POSSIBLE however there are some circumstances that certain breeds with certain specific natural skills are preferable.
Like it or not certain breed do have breed specific superior skills.
See the list of activities I gave.
Then there's freedom of choice . But this does not justify the abominable practices.
This means specific breed Breeders are necessary.
The trick is how do we reduce the extreme practices. I've suggested a few means, tell me the flaws in that you see or come up with better ideas.
Group hug is a good idea I'm sulking now :-( ….better now. :-)
PS I've taken note of the criticisms.

PP all
If only it were true that the majority of breeders (all types)of dogs ( any breed) did loved them too much. Some owners do, but many breeders tend to see dogs as as a means of their fame and prestige, power or money. The non KCC breeders we saw were just after the money. A bit like some stage parents.

I think the the 'standards should be re written (changed) by vets not breeders. These standards should be monitored enforced for the show ring . (This precludes dogs with life threatening genetic faults in breeding etc.. ) Shows could then be the motivation for breeders to undo their appalling breeding practices to really improve the breeds. Making health etc. as a prime requirement.

I forgot something or didn’t say it loud enough earlier:

Predictability is of huge importance to some people…(well okay me)

I don’t want a dog from a shelter that bites the head off a baby soon after walking through the door, no experienced person at a shelter or dog pound sends them out with absolute guarantees and I would never expect them to.

And I don’t’ want a puppy without knowing its eventual and approximate height and bulk. I want to know if they are from a particularly stupid breed or known vicious or noisy breed. I can’t have stupid little yappy things that wake small children up at night. It cannot cause any allergies in children that could arrive. I don’t like dog hair all over the place either or the usual doggy smell.

My requirements in a pet are specific and demand a specific breed.

I want to know as much about something as I can before I invest up to 20 years in sharing my life with it.

Yes I’m still talking about dogs!

And considering the horrific amounts vets charge I want one that has been checked so not inclined to develop diseases. I would have thought hereditary diseases would be bred out by the better kennels.

But then I thought humans would have been jiggy with that one too by now. And I don’t understand painful/unhealthy mutations being bred in.

That is two different things aye - disease compared to cosmetic mutation? And any law about animal health or safety would be ignored and under-policed like they are now anyways.

I have the dogs for the kids, they bring out something in children that nothing else does and I couldn’t afford a dolphin.

Hey Protagoras, I didn’t mean to sound offended.[smile] Those puppy mills are horrible. Not what I would call a “breeder” that I have bought from. Mine weren’t from shops. Labradoodle were originally for a purpose – blind allergic peoples. But the shmoodles, cockapoo, whoodle,scnoodles, spoodle, shitipoo, cavodoodle, groodle, jackroodle, westypoo…cute – maybe it will help the breeds get a bit more diverse?

G'Day All,
This post has raised the issue of breeders & breeds of dogs.
What about the Merle breeders that will breed an entire litter to try & get one that may be able to be kept the rest of the litter will get put down because of deformities(blind,deaf & body deformities).
These breeders know that the breeding of the Merles is extremely hard to get pups that have nothing wrong with them.
You all should know the breed of dog they are the ones with the one blue eye & one green eye. These dogs are Collies working dogs but they are bred for nothing more than human satisfaction.
Would humans be considered good parents if they knew they had genetic problems that gave rise to deformities & had child after child knowing that they were continually bringing children into the world that are going to need full time care I think not.
I am not saying people should not take the chance on having a child.
Every woman deserves the right to be a mother & every man has the right to be a father.
Thanks have a good life from Dave

I tried hard to resist, honestly I did.

But to me, this whole discussion is off key.

Is it better to breed your own slaves, coupling selected samples for specific work - say, in the cotton fields, or in the kitchen preparing chittlins or whatever. Or do you buy them at auction, and take pot luck.

Keeping animals for our personal pleasure has to be on a par with slavery, as one of the most unattractive traits of supposedly civilized human beings.

Thanks, I feel better now.

Have a great day.

Foxy

Your understanding and comments are very welcome.

As a fellow Melbournian, you would be familiar with the Lort Smith Animal Shelter and the Lost Dogs Home. I have worked in both. I favour the Lost Dogs Home as they do not place animals up for adoption unless the animal passes both health and temperament evaluations. And then they will take care to ensure that the animal goes to an appropriate household (no Rottweilers for little old ladies). As a result of this procedure, the animals you see in the adoption areas will remain there until they are found a home. This also means that euthanasia is performed within a couple of days of arrival at the home. My job was to clean out cages, feed and litter trays of all as well as providing a kind hand and cuddle and 'walkies'. As one worker pointed out to me, when I was particularly tearful over a proud and very ancient retriever, its final days were warm, comfortable and well fed and even loved for a short time.

I see no reason why regulations cannot be placed on breeders to ensure healthy animals - they can breed for health as easily as for aesthetics. I am hoping the public attention will finally achieve what should have occurred years ago; limits on the fanciful excesses of (some) breeders.

Exam

I am sure you now understand that I was not calling for a moratorium on ALL breeders - we all make mistakes and are sometimes ambiguous. I am not in the habit of calling for complete bans on anything (with the significant exceptions of rapists and paedophiles). Could you please move on and discuss your topic rather than critique the literary skills (or lack thereof) of other posters. Thank you.

Pericles:”Is it better to breed your own slaves, coupling selected samples for specific work - say, in the cotton fields, or in the kitchen preparing chittlins or whatever. Or do you buy them at auction, and take pot luck.”

Breeding them would maybe not be profitable in the long run… take a human longer to mature, train etc.

If money wasn’t an issue I’d say breed them for required tasks.

“Keeping animals for our personal pleasure has to be on a par with slavery, as one of the most unattractive traits of supposedly civilized human beings.”

Ah yes and I keep my foster kids in kennels out the back but they all have a chew toys.

I can think of many worse traits than keeping a widdle doggie to wuve.

Greetings Bronwyn and thank you for your kind words. Dickie, my magnificent(and once feral) feline has gone to his secret place where he runs for fun, instead of running for his life. It was an appropriate time to change my pseudonym.

"Keeping animals for our personal pleasure has to be on a par with slavery, as one of the most unattractive traits of supposedly civilized human beings."

Yep you've told us many times before Pericles yet you persist with the notion that the lump of meat on your dinner plate (for *your* personal pleasure of course) is exempted from your definition of slavery.

Perhaps you might lobby to enslave cats and dogs for a cook-up too, to help us evolve towards that "civilised" society you dream of.......please Pericles......no drooling on the keyboard...ya hear?

I've heard that a few times too, Protagoras.

>>Yep you've told us many times before Pericles yet you persist with the notion that the lump of meat on your dinner plate (for *your* personal pleasure of course) is exempted from your definition of slavery.<<

It's the standard defence of the indefensible.

Only vegetarians, according to the Protagoras principle, are allowed to observe that keeping animals as pets for one's personal amusement is a morally degrading and fundamentally decadent pastime.

So tell me, would having this reality paraded in front of you by a vegetarian enhance, or diminish the basic message?

Do the facts - that we habitually and without thinking deprive a fellow-creature of their freedom and free will, simply to indulge our feelings of mastery over nature, or whatever other excuse you might find - change, if delivered by a Buddhist rather than a Fascist?

It's the message that matters, Protagoras. Not the messenger.

Is this a good time to bring up that may breeds couldn't live in the wild.

I think turning all dogs free scenario has well and truly passed with our Neanderthal ancestors.

The idea that keeping dogs in analogous to having a slave is stretch of the term way too far. Some dogs naturally want human company and need the pack (family)

Our dog is a member of the family.

Keep in mind the collie we gave to a nursing home the dog was the right size for bed ridden patients and gave them the love/attention/affection they craved. When He died two old dears fretted badly and dying soon after one claiming she now had no reason to go on. The home now has Collie number 3. all they do is visit each patient sleep on the floor guarding the the patients at night. No 2 reputedly called the night nurse to a patient in distress.
The benefit of a pet if handled properly can sensitise children to the plight of animals. i.e. all 4 are committed to conservation and endangered animal..I suspect the menagerie we had and still do when they were young contributed greatly to their views today.
We have two turtles that due to injuries wouldn't survive in the wild but are happy enough in their tank. 19000 litre .
My rescued native bees, My son's blinded dragon (courtesy of a #*%&@ cat)and other transiting research injured wildlife.
The point dear Protagoras and like minded is that it isn't that open and shut.

"The point dear Protagoras and like minded is that it isn't that open and shut."

Examinator - Who said it was "open and shut?"

"Only vegetarians, according to the Protagoras principle, are allowed to observe that keeping animals as pets for one's personal amusement is a morally degrading and fundamentally decadent pastime."

Pericles - Having to endure your hypocrisy is tiresome enough, however, I take exception to your innuendo - particularly when posters like yourself present false information with the intention of deceiving.

I am not a vegetarian as you well know!

"Do the facts - that we habitually and without thinking deprive a fellow-creature of their freedom and free will, simply to indulge our feelings of mastery over nature,"

The above is only "fact" in your deranged mind Pericles but you remain free to regularly indulge "your feelings of mastery" over the brutalised dead flesh on your dinner plate whilst demanding the wanton destruction of all companion animals - a total obliteration of any animal whose bloodied carcass is not wrapped in plastic at the supermarket for your "personal pleasure!"

Consequently, I recommend a soap box for you in Hyde Park in good old Sydney town. That's where the whackos and zealots hang out. So why not sod off and take your sick, bigoted dogma with you?

Dear Examinator,

Your reference to the collie and the nursing home
reminded me of a story I read about Oscar the two-year
old cat... You can read the story on:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/26/cat-death.html

According to the article, "Oscar was adopted as a kitten
and grew up on the third-floor dementia unit at a Rhode
Island nursing home, which treats patients with
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and other illnesses.

Oscar makes his daily round, waiting patiently outside
rooms if the doors are closed...Once insde, the grey-and-white
cat jumps onto beds and appears to inspect patients by
sniffing the air.

If Oscar leaves the room, the patient isn't likely to die
that day...

But when the car curls up on the bed, staff notice. They
start phoning family members because the patient usually
dies within four hours.

Usually indifferent and sometimes unfriendly to staff and
visitors, Oscar purrs and nuzzles the patients during their
final hours.

Since he arrived at the nursing home Oscar has been at the
side of 25 patients who have died...

For his efforts, a plaque mounted on the wall reads,
"For his compassionate hospice care, this plaque is awarded
to Oscar the Cat."

"I do think there is some biochemical reason, some odour
or smell is helping the cat sense," said Dr Joan Teno, a
physician at the nursing home.

Perhaps, but how does the cat know to provide comfort?

Ah, the beauty and wonder of animals!

Well there have been a number of suggestions for halting the breeding of animals for aesthetic reasons. As with most problems there is no single magic answer. Some ideas have been put forward, it is up to us to use what we have learned (if anything).

I thought that those of us who value our animal companions would be interested in the following:

The story of Oscar the Cat both on Youtube and article (for those who do not have the software, Foxy). Sure, its sentimental feel-good stuff and why not? There is nothing wrong with feeling love for all the people and other animals in our lives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PxI3efVVeI&feature=fvw

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/4/328

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210909/Abandoned-piglet-lost-hound-Giant-farm-dog-saves-baby-pigs-bacon-adopting-own.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0

Pericles: "Keeping animals for our personal pleasure has to be on a par with slavery, as one of the most unattractive traits of supposedly civilized human beings."

Are you serious? If so, here is a scene from Douglas Adams' "Restaurant at the End of the Universe"? It opens with two friends taking their seats in the restaurant. A cute furry animal carrying the menu leaps onto the table. He speaks English, and goes through the menu in a fairly conventional manner until he comes to the meats, at which time he bends over and asks the guests to feel his rump. He says he has been working on it for months while eating a high fat diet to get the marbling just right. He recommends charcoal braised medium rare, as his sister was done like that and the result was just divine.

The earth man recoils in horror. The animal is at first startled by his reaction, then devastated. The man's alien accomplice intervenes, apologising profusely on his behalf of his friend to the animal. The animal regains its composure, and then proceeds to patiently and soothingly explain his species was created for this very purpose. He actually wants to be eaten; his entire life has been devoted to this moment. He has practised every move, every word delivered today 1000's of times. He says he has even been trained for this very situation, but then apologies profusely for handling it so badly. He looks like losing it again, but then recovers.

Chastised, the earth man listens to the remainder of the animals spiel with suitably rapt attention, and orders braised liver and kidney served in a crispy crackling shell from the right leg. The animal looks blissfully at him, and hurries off to cuts its throat while hanging upside down from a meat hook, so it would be well bled.

Its been a while. I probably have the details wrong. My point is, it's not entirely fiction. Maybe our cows and pigs don't want to be eaten, but our dogs and cats most definitely want to be our companions.

Pericles is talking about the ideal world for animals and is correct, we get every pet fixed right now. I’m sure we’d still be allowed to rescue and care for the odd damaged animal from the wild.

Also in this ideal world we would all be vegetarian’s.

Dear Fractelle,

A much better version of Oscar the Cat
then the one I gave. And,
what a positive and uplifting story on the
dog and the piglet.
Loved the photos as well!

Thank You!

Dear Foxy

I was chatting on the phone while preparing my last post, I wouldn't have made the link if I'd known you were on the exact same trajectory as I. What can I say?

Great minds thinks alike.

Piper, Rstuart

We have all argued with Pericles many times on this issue. I do understand his point and agree to some extent. For example, race-horses (and greyhounds) would fit Pericles' "slave" ideology. There is little aspect of a relationship between breeders, owners, trainers, riders with the horses - it is only about profit.

But the issue is not straight forward. We do have distinct and dual relationships with many animals. The magpies who fly free never swoop me, cats and dogs (and in my case goats) who greet me when I am out walking. My dog who protected me (miss her). It is a relationship where we hold the greater power, therefore it behoves us to behave responsibly and respectfully. There is not a single animal rescue organisation that releases animals for adoption without the animal being neutered first, the same cannot be said about (all/some) breeders.

PS

Foxy are you still getting a new PC?

While I remain off topic (due to my bloody mindedness), I remind posters that during the 17th century, over 100,000 people perished in and around London from the black plague. London’s Lord Mayor had 250,000 cats and dogs slaughtered; believing they carried the plague flea when it was in fact the rat which rapidly increased in numbers when its predators were extinguished.

If cats had done even a quarter of the damage claimed for the past 200 years, there would be no small native animals of any description left in Australia. While there is no denying that cats kill wildlife, cats are also convenient scapegoats for wildlife depletion due to human activities and without the feral cat, destruction caused by the introduced rabbit would worsen.

Cats are always considered to be responsible for decreasing wildlife numbers despite the evidence that pollution, farming and cloven hoofed livestock, road-building, housing/industrial development, mining and habitat destruction has wiped out many native animals.

Additionally, when feral cats are culled, rodent numbers increase, posing an equal threat to wildlife as well as carrying zoonotic diseases. A huge number of native animals fall victim to 1080 poison and the brutal traps set for bush cats but omnicidal man keeps that secret.

Proponents of these dubious and unsuccessful culling methods are farmers, whose unsterilised cats and dogs roam freely in rural Australia.

Infectious diseases of livestock are a major threat to global animal health and welfare.Threats from old and new pathogens continue to emerge, fuelled by changes in the environment, climate, hydrology, disruption of ecosystems and intensive farming.

“It is estimated that approximately 75 per cent of ‘new’ human pathogens reported in the past 25 years have originated in animals and the risk of zoonoses is predicted to continue to increase and several presumed non-infectious conditions are now known to have infectious aetiologies.

"Over 1600 human pathogens are now described, an average of three new diseases is reported approximately every 2 years, and a new infecting organism is published every week. The new influenza A (H1N1) is an illustration and has spread to 91 countries."

contd.....

Contd.....

In Pericles new world order (an oxymoron), there are about 1.3 billion head of cattle, 1 billion pigs (sometimes 40,000 on one property) over 2 billion small ruminants and more than 50 billion poultry reared annually for food production and increasing.

These animals are often kept under scavenging conditions (also in Australia) with little attention to disease control, housing or feed supplementation, suffer a high burden of endemic disease and have intensive sectors of the poultry industry where the rapid growth rates of birds reared in stocking densities of up to 50,000 birds in a single shed gives the most “efficient” feed.

Greater risks to human health from wildlife pathogens have become inevitable as a consequence of increasing human contact with wildlife by man’s disturbance of habitats, deforestation, the taking of land for livestock farming and the consumption of infected bush meat, all of which has led to the the spread of pathogens to livestock and humans.

As in the past, omnicidal man’s state-of-the art technology promises many solutions to the problems he in fact has created. The new technologists have nothing but contempt for the "eco-fascist" luddites who are supposedly advocating a return to the days of primitive savagery.

The assumption for the new-technology utopias has always been that the feral human has the right to adapt the biosphere to the ever-changing demands of their individual egos. Once this has been established, the debate is merely over how best to alter existing technology so that the exploitation of the biosphere (including non-human species) can continue in a long-term, “sustainable” manner.

The “fine” examples here are man’s genetic manipulations and brutal treatment of drug induced livestock for human consumption and the breeding of genetically altered pedigree companion animals for profit and conceit.

Pericle’s utopian world proposal, for a planetary domain, exclusively for omnicidal man and his enslaved commercial animals, (dead, diseased or alive), bereft of Fido and Oscar, exacerbates my dim view of the lemming like, tool-wielding primates one generally calls “human.”

Protagoras (love the name change BTW)

I don't see how one can have a topic about breeding animals without mentioning the breeding practices of food animals. In all cases it is human arrogance and avarice that dictate the methods used and the results we see.

The points you have made about habitat destruction, the mutation of viruses as humans and other animals interact where they haven't in the past, farming northern hemisphere animals in a southern hemisphere continent - everything you have put forward, are all valid concerns and require adjustment towards sustainable practices. We are as dependent on this planet as any other creature. What does set us apart is our ability for technology which places the onus, the responsibility fairly on us.

My goodness, Protagoras.

You're not setting a very good example of civility here. It is a good job that I know you are not a representative sample of pet-owning folk.

>>Pericles - Having to endure your hypocrisy is tiresome enough, however, I take exception to your innuendo - particularly when posters like yourself present false information with the intention of deceiving. I am not a vegetarian as you well know!<<

Well of course you are not. I wouldn't dream of suggesting anything so... so... horrible. It would be almost as bad as calling you a hypocrite.

I was simply making the point that the fact that I am not a vegetarian myself, does not disqualify me from making observations on the oddities around me.

One of which is that I personally find it most strange that bipedal human beings with apparently above average intelligence, see nothing wrong in keeping animals in captivity, purely to indulge some personal need for... whatever it might be.

And, as some folk here are aware, because we have had this conversation before (albeit in a more civilized tone of voice), I am not advocating mass slaughter, merely an acceptance that it is a weird practice, that should be allowed to die out.

>>So why not sod off and take your sick, bigoted dogma with you?<<

Charming.

But just out of interest, what exactly is it about my "dogma" (was that an intentional play on words, by the way?) that is sick, and/or bigoted?

I'd be very interested to hear.

>>In Pericles new world order (an oxymoron)<<

[patiently] this is not about anything quite so dramatic, Protagoras. Merely another aspect of a personal choice that we make, that in some small way defines us.

Don't be such a drama queen. And ask yourself why you find my views so offensive. Then perhaps tell me in a more measured tone.

And rstuart - Douglas Adams was among other things, a satirist.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move"

Dear Fractelle,

Unfortunately no I'm not getting a new computer -
just yet. Other things have come up that require
money - including possible funeral expenses of a
close relative - but
I won't go into details here - suffice to say -
I've got other priorities at the moment.

I've just reread all the comments and a few points need to be emphasised.

The show on TV and this post was focused on the beyond stupidity of a minority of breeders and their beneath contempt, idiotic practices emphasis on *COSMETIC* ONLY REASONS.
What it wasn't about pure breeds V muts nor a moratorium on man's inhumanity to animals in general. Topics on the latter invariably finish up badly and counter productive in conversation mode.

Clearly there are definite advantages to having certain breeds of Dogs in that they complement man's endeavours while offering mutual benefits which aren't available by other reasonable means.

Oscar aside, cat's role along those lines in modern society is less defined.

To me the take away message here was a stark and definite warning that something needs to be done NOW while there is still time.

Any good do encyclopaedia of dog breeds lists the benefits and down sides to various breeds. And there in lies my personal message.
Puppies, dogs SHOULD BE CHOSEN to match THEIR FUNCTION in the specific family ENVIRONMENT rather than cosmetics.

The functional choice of PP's poodles are aft. However their genetic patellae joint problems are because of breeding smaller. They were originally Standards. There are at least 6 other non allergenic breeds .
In the shops We found customers simply didn't know, hadn't done their research or were choosing on cosmetics (cute). We tended to educate clients on the breeds matching lifestyle before buying this often changed their selection. We sold retreads and muts all with health guarantees.

Our vet had blanket authority to inspect, remove, treat of any livestock in the shops any time and did.
When we left they noted .

The range of animals, choice ( dogs incl) was more than they had seen in 20yrs of vetting.
Our practices had “significantly” decreased in the number of Christmas dogs presented for destruction at Easter (inconvenient, surprises) .

NB we didn't get rich (drat) but the point is as stated consider function and environment, cosmetics last.
A pox on Paris Hilton setting back dog breeding 100 years.

Dear Examinator,

I hear what you're saying and understand.
However, choosing a pet is often an emotional
response done on the spur of the moment.
I've got quite a few friends who've bought pets
because they thought they looked "adorable,"
or the kids made a fuss and wanted them, or they
felt sorry for those big brown eyes looking at them...

Not everyone as responsible as you
suggest they should be - most often people fly
by the seat of their pants (or rather emotions).

We don't have any pets (hubbie won't let me, because
we're hardly ever home) - much as I'd love a dog -
(one that actually looks like a real dog - not a toy).
And, I'm not really into "breeds," as such - having
grown up with an array of loveable mutts as a child.
I've got to confess that I recently wandered into
a pet shop at my shopping centre and saw all those
"doodle -oodles," and "shitzus," et cetera - and
thought - "Thanks, but no Thanks!"
Some of them were rubbing their little bums on pieces
of matting - and I thought ,"Do they have worms?"
Why the itchy backsides?

Anyway, I respect your arguments -
However - I'll probably get my future pet from the
RSPCA - it'll be a mutt that looks at me with those
big eyes - and I'll end up buying him.

Protagoras and Pericles – I thought you were friends? Wiki told me…

But anyways, we could stop breeding all domestic beasts. I love rats, always had pet rats – super clever. Oh I’m wavering… something decent could be done about getting rid of rats.

All of them, pets, food animals, scientific ones. No really honest or good reason to have a single one. (that I can think of at this moment)

Exam, you are fascinating. If I chose one of the other 6 breeds of hypoallergenic dogs do they also include the other traits I prefer? I am trying to work out if you mean my choice was “apt” or “daft”.[grin]

Last Miniature poodles I saw in a little pet shop two weeks ago were 1,600.00 each – I bought mine 14 years apart and they both cost 400.00, any idea why these amazing price jumps?

I know it makes no difference and I am just waffling but I don’t like them looking like poodles and get them groomed to look less poncy.

My 14 year old poodle is now blind as the vet says most dogs his age would be and other than that in brilliant health so now I’m thinking he should never have been fixed as he must have some good genes. Yes a pox on Paris, for many reasons.

Hey my son did not get custody of his dog from his ex girlfriend – phew.

Foxy hon, sorry to hear of your loss. If you had a dog allergy you would treasure the "oodles".[smile]

Foxy,
I'm in favour of RSPCA muts where appropriate. But good luck finding a suitable dog for PP specific needs.
And yes the emotions are the prime mover. Like I said, "we educated" customers.
Most pet shops don't hence we didn't make as much money as we could have.
Bums on mats worms? no. Most good shops worm dogs.

There are a few alternatives.....anal glans full 2minute job. with rubber gloves or once a year at the vet at injection time.

The food causing irritated bum skin. Change of food would make a difference solve the issue.

It could be the same as a boy baby playing with themselves...it feels good and they can.

There are bigger dogs too that can cope with being on their own Bouviers are one. They have a great capacity to be trained but can be idiosyncratic and need to know where they sit in the pack (family) hierarchy.

I did say that one of the best temperaments I've seen in a dog is the medium sized mut from across the road. It is alone most of the day. To me the owner's fault is that it never gets walked(unless I do it) and it never gets inside with the rest of its family. But it doesn't complain.

Whether the dog is a mut, a pedigreed or near too is irrelevant what is important is that you love it and are prepared to do the work....Take it for a run with you each morning and depending on the style of dog it'll be happy and well.

The reason dogs are better than humans is they wag their tails and not their tongues. :-)

Fractelle – Perhaps “Antagonist” would have been more appropriate for my new name?

Whoops here I go again!

Examinator – How do you perceive the stupidity of only a “minority” when RSPCA Australia warns?:

http://blog1.rspcasa.asn.au/2009/09/

“Topics on the latter invariably finish up badly and counter productive in conversation mode.” Awww…..lighten up Exam - I'm having a “rage!"

Attributing behavioural problems to specific breeds, is a furphy. If you want to lock a dog in the backyard with a can of Pal in the evenings then you will get what you deserve. If you say: “No dogs allowed inside” then don’t have one! I haven’t caught anything yet! These pack animals must have company and chit chats every day - human and/or non-human.

Now one of my favourite arguments is what these breeders (and pet owners) feed to their animals – bloody dried biscuits for the term of its unnatural life, with ingredients unfit for canine consumption and recommended by the likes of Dr Harry. How would you like to live on dried biscuits forever? Cancer in canines is rampant!

Now the racket of vaccines for this and for that – phooey! My 13 year old mutt was a street kid for a considerable time. He initially lived with the fringe dwellers before the animal abuser got his mitts on him. A friend (a veterinarian), after administering the parvovirus vaccine, advised that “Fido” would have been exposed to every ailment known to canines so don’t give him another vaccination, which I had not intended to anyway but I appreciated her advice.

Say "NO!" to boosters!

A neighbour’s shepherd became epileptic after his vaccinations – now on medication for the rest of its life. Another has to inject her pedigree dogs several times a day because they are both diabetics. Good people but they fail to hypothesise on what could have gone wrong.

Veterinary "care", pet and animal breeding industries are flourishing, however, I recommend reading the following links for those who remain unaware of what we may be doing (unwittingly) to these poor critters:

http://www.stoptheshots.com/

http://www.preciouspets.org/cancer.htm

On this topic we all agree on one thing; well-being and health of animals.

We put forward our views from every imaginable direction.

Pericles

I don't see that Protagoras has been any more discourteous than your good self. Clearly you both care - you just have different solutions. We are unlikely to become a pet-free society any time soon and I do believe that sharing our lives with animals is intrinsically a necessity for some humans. We all know people who just don't relate to animals at any level and would never dream of sharing their home with one. For the majority of people, we need that interaction. I am some what puzzled that you are so passionate about companion animals but less so about all the other animals we breed, exploit or consume. Your energies would be very welcome in aiding the latter.

Examinator

I am sure you were the epitome of the responsible pet-shop owner, however many aren't and I continue to be selective from where I buy pet food and other products. Perhaps you could spend some time at an animal shelter - they do get every breed there, if someone is willing to be patient they will find a pet to suit their requirements.

Piper

I had a cat who would warn me when strangers came on to my property and was fiercely devoted to me, he was with me for 18 years. I often thought that having him desexed was a waste of good genes, however since his passing I have taken on 2 more rescue cats, there are just too many unloved, uncared for animals that the only responsible thing is to have your pet de-sexed.

Protagoras

I agree with your point that cats receive far more denigration than dogs or foxes when discussing the plight of native animals. Cats are simply being cats - to hate them for being what they are is illogical. We brought cats to this country, we are responsible.

Foxy

I wish I could get my hands on your PC - how ancient is it? Mine dates from 2001 - I think it is just a matter of the right software and you would be able to watch videos. You may just need extra memory. I wish you all the best, the cycle of life and death is natural, but that doesn't make it any easier.

Protagoras,
I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't.
If I remind you of this sites rules and the well founded reasons for them I'm being anal, a policeman et al and stifles conversation. If I don't, the topic turns into an animal rights free for all I want neither.
Non distracting asides are a matter of common conversation and don't bother me nor should they.

The point that you miss is that willful and continued raves, rants tend to stop or distract conversations. Pericles at least, having put in his/her 2cents in was considerate enough to let the topic roll.

As I suggested, if you feel your topic is more interesting then start your own.

As for 'lighten up'...that at best is disingenuous given the tone and (over stated) content of your rave despite my pleas to you for perspective.

Let's be clear here, you often have useful contributions to make in this case it simply wasn't a contribution .

FYI I am currently putting a submission together on this topic and thought the topic might be interesting enough to be worthy of the collected wisdom of other OLOers.

Notwithstanding the above I do hope you will continue to contribute to my posts.

Fractelle

You are potentially right but as foxy says few people are that patient.
to wait months or even travel that far.

My epitome of anything is irrelevant I was demonstrating that some pet shops are worthy of effort/recognition, one could even postulate better than some breeders, contrary Dr Worth's dubious and unsupportable in fact attitudes that dominated RSPCA policy for so long.

The key to my current research thus far, tends to indicate that there are no absolutes or singular solutions (is there ever?).

Protagoras'/Pericles' rave are exactly that, opinions ones that are 'yeeess but', lacking perspective, out of context and certainly not Australia wide accurate. I'll consider responding more if and when they post a subject

Cats are really interesting Fractelle and I sort of understood not as favoured in Aussie as dogs. NZ has the same problem with cats eating the wee native things whereas as an animal in their own right they can be lovely creatures with amazing personalities. Go on, what are your cats names?

Exam I am guessing that someone needs to put on paper a law about cosmetic breeding and breeding of animals with a genetic problem, a License to be given to the male and female or it is illegal to breed from them?

Any puppy accidents euthanized? I guess the female has the licence and a blood test carried out on both parents and if paternity unknown then aborted on the spot? Fines etc handed out.

Is that too harsh or even possible to police?

Do we have the facilities available to test genetic stuff easily?

What is a "submission"?

Piper

OK you've got me.

My ancient cat, who passed away in 2004, was called Garp, after the character in the book, not the film. He was a huge silver and white tabby and I can still cry over his sudden demise; throat cancer, in every other way he was superbly healthy.

My current two. Gypsy is a multi-coloured (RedGingerBlackBrown) tiger-striped ball of fluff, she was 18 months old when I selected her (after Garp's death) after visiting RSPCA, Lort Smith, Keysborough shelters and winding up at the Lost Dogs Home. She was found wandering the streets, obviously lost, her previous owners had already had her spayed and probably wonder what happened to her. She adores children, so I think she must have come from a family home.

I first saw Jet in a local newspaper newspaper article about kittens a Vet Clinic was trying to find homes for. He is black and white; black back and top of head and around eyes, with lower face all white; except for black nose. He is very small for a male, and loves to jump on my shoulder and just hang there.

Long ago I had a German-Shepherd named Mikka, she was brave and loving and adored cats.

On topic: Animal breeders keep breeding records, I see how this would aid regulation, ensuring greater genetic diversity.

Examinator

I agree that the RSPCA is far from perfect, however, I think you have taken my comments which were only meant in a general sense, quite personally. It is impossible to write anything to everybody's satisfaction; I know I will never please everyone all of the time.

That said, Protagoras and Pericles both have valid points of view, whether you agree or not. They have every right to express their views on pet ownership and breeding as does the originator of this topic. A believer in varied diet, I thought Protagoras' comments on Hugh Wirth's advice about feeding nothing but dried food particularly important.

Will you be presenting your submission on this forum? Are you interested in collaboration? To whom are you submitting this submission?

Dear Fractelle,

Thanks for your concern about my computer -
I've been promised a new one for Christmas
and I can wait until then.

At present I've got a lot of other things
on my plate - I wasn't going to go into
details - but I will tell you that it's a
very difficult and heartbreaking situation
that we're facing. My step-father has a
death wish - he's refused all medication, liquids,
and food for some time now - he's in a nursing
home, and he's had enough. We've been advised
by the health professionals to respect his
wishes and await the inevitable. Watching him
deteriorate is gut-wrenching - it's especially
hard on my mother. But enough said.

Sorry, Examinator - to go off on a tangent on
your thread.

I still feel that we need stronger legislation
to protect the welfare of animals (- as I've stated
in my previous posts -). As for breed choices, and
who people buy their pets from - I guess that
will always be a matter of personal preference.
Some people are very keen on certain breeds, others
are not. I fall into the latter group - and would
prefer to go to the RSPCA to give some animal a chance
that they may otherwise not have.

Hey Fractelle, silver and white tabbies are lovely, I had one once called Jimmy. When I was flatting I had a rat who lived on my shoulder and my friend had a cat that would do the same, I got kicked out of most places while she had people coming up to pat her cat.

Gypsy and Jet sound lovely. I never had a Shepherd but I did have a dalmation once who used to sleep with my pet lamb, and a black and white fluffy cat called Ninja who used to climb in the rat cage and they would curl up together. Once my rat was running across a table and my Doberman tried to get it and it turned and bit her on the nose, she left Ralph alone after that. My pets all got along from dogs sitting with ducks to the pig parking up with the rabbit. This is what happens if you weren’t allowed a pet as a child aye, you go stupid once you’ve left home. If I had room I’d probably have a pet goat again, the right breed and they are charming little pets.

And kids are just as specific; when I had all my animals kids would be drawn to usually just one species and not stray far from them.

Foxy:”- and would prefer to go to the
RSPCA to give some animal a chance
that they may otherwise not have.”

This is the way I feel about fostering.

I hope your step-father is comfortable Foxy.

Struggling back on topic, umm… crap… my mind's blank. No unsterilized animals available for sale except to registered breeders who are policed as such! Gawd it’s like being at school when the teacher throws chalk at you for gossiping and you blurt something out.

"Rave", examinator?

>>Protagoras'/Pericles' rave are exactly that, opinions ones that are 'yeeess but', lacking perspective, out of context and certainly not Australia wide accurate. I'll consider responding more if and when they post a subject<<

Lacking perspective?

What "perspective" does it need? They are my own views, that's all.

Out of context?

The original post pointed out the cruelty involved in the dog industry. "In increasing cases breeding dogs to die prematurely and in excruciating pain or crippled" was one observation that I noticed. In my view - or, if you like, from my perspective - keeping dogs as pets is itself a cruelty. Very much in context, I would suggest.

Australia wide accurate?

I am very aware that my opinion on this subject is widely regarded as oddball. In fact, I have met no-one yet who shares it. Does that make it somehow a "wrong" opinion?

Protagoras describes it variously as hypocritical (because, presumably, I am not a vegetarian), and as "sick, bigoted dogma".

I confess I do rather like the idea of it as "dogma", but that's only because I'm into puns.

Hey, all I'm suggesting is that people start to ask themselves the question. To look at the ownership of animals for no better purpose than self-gratification, in a more objective light.

I'm considering using Paris Hilton's handbag dog as the emblem of this movement, by the way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181477,00.html

She even has doggy fashion items

http://www.funnyfur.com/parishilton-dog-clothes.aspx

Look at the picture, and tell me that is not practising cruelty on the dog.

So, it is only one airhead, I can hear the response, we don't treat our own pets like that.

I'm sure you don't.

But you're basically in the same business.

It's just a matter of perspective.

examinator

I think you're facilitating an interesting discussion here as you always do, but I also consider Protagoras and Pericles to have made relevant contributions. I sometimes think that after a certain number of posts a topic often needs to be broadened out a little or it can start to go round in circles. :)

Pericles

I agree with you that a lot of pet ownership constitutes animal cruelty, but I also think that many pets experience good lives. If pets are given plenty of space and freedom to move, are given the companionship of others, are fed good quality food, are provided with shade and warmth as required, are given periodic vetinary check-ups and exercised and played with regularly they truly do have a good life. Not only that, but they greatly enrich the lives of their owners and others who interact with them.

Protagoras

I will always appreciate the information you provide here on OLO, no matter how much you beat us over the head with it at times :), and will always love and admire your absolute passion for animals.

OK Exam so I’m a nark but I actually thought I’d come back on topic.

I had considered apologising since I realise that it was you who raised the thread and you’re a bit miffed that you have no control over what information “ranters” and “ragers” provide. That was until your dig on “animal rights” – the age old arsenal used to gag and demean those who endeavour to defend the defenceless – “Puppets of Peta!” What would you call P/Piper who is passionate about defending the defenceless and deserves a medal for her efforts – “infant righter?”

In fact I have offered suggestions for your “submission” but as yet, you have not responded. Clearly you are seeking a clinical appraisal on the stark realities of animal breeding so if it’s clinical you want, then I suggest you liaise with the industry – particularly the large proportion who view sentient beings as a commodity.

There remains an ongoing failure by these recidivist offenders to address the issue of animal welfare. The following video on Crufts UK was produced in 1985, a clear indication that the industry doesn’t give a fig and once the current public outrage abates, they’ll be back to business as usual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5RMa7AW5u8

If you seek a balanced appraisal on the whole spectrum of dog breeders Exam, you can give us the good bits and I'll give you the bad bits for which *you* can offer the solutions:

Australia:

“Victorian council report revealed yet another puppy farm operating in the state, with 100 dogs "unfit for breeding:”

http://www.dogslife.com.au/dogs_life_articles?cid=9450&pid=150261

“Biosecurity Queensland deputy chief veterinarian Dr Rick Symons says the dogs were living in cramped, filthy and substandard conditions on the property near Wondai:”

http://www.petrescue.com.au/article/721

The protests of Grandma Sicko of Rutland Manor Victoria and her “debarking” programme:

http://www.govegan.com.au/puppies/?page_id=123

Oops – apologies - that one was from one of those unwashed “animal rights" authors though were it not for their endeavours, which are constantly sabotaged by the powerful and the greedy, we'd all be falling for those cute puppies in the window and paying big bucks for inbred, deformed canines.

Pericles: "I am very aware that my opinion on this subject is widely regarded as oddball."

If it were just about anyone else Pericles, I wouldn't bother asking this question, but it's you and I can't resist.

How on earth do you rationalise away your enjoyment of munching on Fido's distant relatives, while at the same time condemning keeping Fido as a pet with slavery? I am not asking why you feel this way - there may well be no answer to that question and I don't think it is any of my business anyway. But I do wonder what logical segue you use to get from "eating Fido is OK" to "keeping Fido as a pet is not OK". Surely, you have one?

If actually makes logical sense I'll be really impressed. I confess to thinking such logical gymnastics would be beyond anybody here but maybe, just maybe, not you.

A fair and reasonable question rstuart.

>>How on earth do you rationalise away your enjoyment of munching on Fido's distant relatives, while at the same time condemning keeping Fido as a pet with slavery?<<

You are looking for logic. I have none to offer that sounds remotely convincing, even to myself.

If I were to choose to take a negative attitude to the question, I might point out that my stance is as logical as that of a vegetarian pet-lover, who gets snippy about meat-eaters but is blind to the absurdity of keeping an animal in captivity, purely for personal amusement.

But the politeness of your enquiry deserves more than that.

So I can only say that in an ideal world (that would I guess be "Pericles' new world order" in Protagoras-speak) we would neither eat them nor enslave them.

But while eating has to do with the human instinct of food-as-survival, which has been inbred in us I guess since cave-man days, keeping pets has to do with human self-indulgence at the expense of dumb animals.

Of the two, I suggest it might be easier first to wean ourselves from the selfish, self-indulgent stuff, than go cold turkey (sorry!) on eating meat.

That's the closest I can get to logic, I'm afraid.

But I will also take the opportunity to confess that I do very much like dogs, they tend to like me for some reason, and I absolutely hate to see them being mistreated.

Pericles: "You are looking for logic. I have none to offer that sounds remotely convincing, even to myself."

Ah, so it really is a religious thing. Fair enough.

Hmmm, I just did a quick check to see if the meaning I attach to "religious thing" is industry jargon. It appears it is, as I can only see used the way I do on computer sites.

A "religious thing" is a belief so strong, you can not cede it - not to authority, not to your friends, not even to logic. Obviously religion is the stellar example and that is where it gets its name, but a "religious thing" can be a belief about anything. My stubborn belief that any utopia must necessary be an open and transparent is one, Bronwyn's refusal to let any man made organism enter her body (be it GM food or vaccines) is another, and now we have you equating pets and slaves.

It is rare for people to admit something is a religious thing with them, so kudos to you for that. You usually find out by starting a discussion on the subject, which develops into an debate, which then becomes a heated, passionate argument, followed by a screaming match where all logic is abandoned; and finally, after everyone is exhausted, you realise the entire exercise has been a complete waste of time because nothing has changed. At that point you know the odds are you have been discussing a religious thing.

Most long time OLO's should have no trouble recognising this progression as OLO has the best collection of them I have seen on the web.

Although I have described them in negative terms, our religious things a candidate for the most important thing about us. They are at our core; the beliefs that are hardest to change and slowest to do so. An atheist might say they are the closest thing we have to a soul. So when we argue about our religious things, we are baring our souls for all to see. Way to go, Perciles ...

"I confess to thinking such logical gymnastics would be beyond anybody here but maybe, just maybe, not you."

Bravo RStuart - you have managed to expose more of Pericle's theatrical and ambiguous inkblots. Allow me to provide you with another of Pericle's seeds of deception:

Posted by Pericles on OLO Monday, 22 August 2005 11:35:49 AM:

Pericles: "Meredith, you make a good point":

Meredith: >>"Last year SA, Victoria, legislated against the consumption of cat and dog meat. This is a horrendus practice."<<

Pericles: "Absolutely. The practice of legislating against perfectly nutritious foodstuffs is clearly "horrendus", and should be stamped out forthwith."

Have a go RStuart. I used such logical gymnastics to work Pericle's theatrics out long ago.

I am not understanding this. Pericles says we shouldn’t have pets. Protagoras calls him a meat eating hypocrite. Mr Stuart comes in and says it is time to get down from the cross now.

Everyone is going on about logic whereas I looked the word up and feel you all really mean rationale. It might do me a lot of good in the future if someone could straighten me out on that one.

Exam is trying to make a submission about flawed dogs that were made on purpose – surely proving there is no god and that basically there is something even more flawed about humans although everyone on OLO has either not owned a pet or only purchased one in dire need or saved it from dire straits.

I got away with buying mine by quickly associating it with fostering – it is my ace card at all times, amazing what I get away with by being nice to short people. The poodle stuff is true I jsut know it helps to mention the kids as well.

Just while writing this post I have yelled at one to get off another one, picked one up and moved it away before the one that had the train first gives him a slap and told one small miss to remove her finger from her nose before it gets stuck. I have one dog standing at the door waiting for hubby (when hubby goes overseas this dog will stand there at night for weeks) and the other is hiding under my bed because I caught him in the chicken coup an hour ago and he knows where not to be right now.

Exam, give us a hand.. what sort of specific stuff were you looking for?

Did anyone see tonight's bit on Australia.
I was happier with the show in that it mentions some of the steps that had and would be put into place to combat the original issue.
When writing a submission to anyone it is always wise to deal with both sides and offer plausible solutions then explain how they could be implemented. Most interest groups unfortunately simply give their definition of the problem without considering the hic cups, road blocks etc.
Sadly I tend to take this analytic function/methodology in conversations on OLO. Sorry

Pericles
How are your answers etc in context to the question as posted?
'What do you think should be done about 'breeding pure bred dogs to death' for cosmetics? and therefore 'what do you think should done?'

Simply put they aren't they don't even remotely go to addressing the questions posed. It is as if I had asked dogs what are the issues relating to them...I didn't.

Protagoras
I am neither miffed nor do I wish to stifle your enthusiasm or what you say I did suggest you start your own topic.
as per the above reasoning or at least address the one posed.
I really don't think that's unreasonable.
But it doesn't matter now your ego is more important than anything I had in mind.

rstuart

<< .. Bronwyn's refusal to let any man made organism enter her body (be it GM food or vaccines) is another .. >>

What the hell! Thanks for slipping that one in. So I'm a prime example of illogical religious fervour, am I? I don't think so.

My scepticism towards GM food and vaccines, seeing as you've so kindly brought it up, is shared by many and is based on a wide body of reputable research. It's much more than the precious and simplistic picture you've painted here of me not wanting some contaminant to pass my lips. It takes in a whole range of factors relating to profiteering and exploitation as well as a sound understanding of holistic health, nutrition and organic farming. How dare you reduce all that to a so-called 'religious thing'. You're a nut case.

I'm not about to highjack examinator's thread, but in the right context I'll happily point out the lack of logic inherent in placing unquestioning faith in the efficacy of GM food, vaccination and whatever other harm-inducing medical and chemical intervention you care to hold up as gospel.

“<< .. Bronwyn's refusal to let any man made organism enter her body (be it GM food or vaccines) is another .. >>”

What the hell! Thanks for slipping that one in.”

I got that so so so wrong for a minute there, but thank you for even the accidental morning giggle.

Exam, I have missed all TV programs. What steps were suggested?

Does this breeding thing not simply come under an animal cruelty act already in existence that needs reinforcing?

Morning all

Piper

Repairing damage to breeds as discussed on ABC:

One of the suggestions was a blanket ban on incest, no more mating daddy with daughter. Which, BTW, I referred to when I stated that breeding records are kept by breeders and, therefore, it is relatively easy to monitor who has been mating with whom.

Also discussed was the probability that some breeds' genetic diversity has become so limited, that the breed may not be able to be brought back to full health. Which may mean we will never see toy poodles again. Somehow I am not upset.

While my suggestions have been dismissed as not strictly on topic, I still believe that a suitable advertising campaign touting the advantages of mixed breeds and saving the unlucky purebreeds that frequently wind up in animal shelters as an effective action. However, it is not useful for Examinator's SUBMISSION - hence the tanties on any contribution that does not directly concern purebred animals.

Rstuart

Your ad hominem on Bronwyn - completely called for, I'm surprised that you were not slapped on the wrist for being completely off topic. As a sufferer of ME, I understand how vitally important it is to eat fresh, organic, unprocessed food.

Pericles

I think your choice of Paris Hilton is a winner for your anti-pets campaign - those links you provided had me near to puking: so much pink aaaaggh!

Love your honesty. However, perhaps in future you may want to consider the shredding you give to the formal religionists on OLO ;-)

I have a suggestion, well 2 actually. But I know I'll never get you to Ecology 101 - so you understand protecting natural environments is more than saving the cute and fluffy.

My second suggestion means you can save a life and learn a lot about yourself and other animals. This is a big ask and will take years of commitment, but it might be the best thing you have ever done.

Adopt a dog.

You said you like dogs, they like you, why not care for one? If you do this and then still view keeping pets as slaves - cool. But you might just be converted.

BTW, the keeping of dolphins, racing horse and greyhounds - definitely slave/master relationship. I will leave your consumption of animals for Protagoras to deal with.

Hey Bronny,

You're not one of these people are you?

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/parenting/advertorial-4/selfish-dummy-mummies-need-consciences-pricked-20090806-eapa.html?s_rid=rainbow:hp5:dummy-mummies:eb:toddler-nutrition:26aug09

Lucky the rest of us keep up the herd immunity for you isn't it. And you talk to me about ethics!

<< Lucky the rest of us keep up the herd immunity for you isn't it. And you talk to me about ethics! >>

As I said before , I'm not entering into a detailed discussion here, apart from making the observation that many experts are increasingly questioning the wisdom of depressing the whole of the immune system, and all the short and long term risks that entails, in order to provide immunuity against a small number of uncommomn illnesses. As one of the growing number of adults who has experienced auto-immune disease I have done quite a deal of research in this area.

By the way, the only vaccine related discussion I've entered into on OLO related to Gardisil, which is a vaccine with many well documented problems, quite apart from the issue of compromised immunity.

I actually think it's far more ethical to be well informed and pro-active regarding ones health, than it is to rely purely on conventional quick-fix medicine and the pharmaceutical industries who promote it. But that's a debate for another time and I will happily argue my case with you, rstuart and anyone else who considers the medical establishment to be the font of all wisdom.

Houellebecq

Sorry, about the untitled and unedited post just then, I pressed the wrong button. Ggrrhh!

Houellebecq

I understand that with some people, you cannot give them more information than they're prepared to receive.

Your post is a typical example of those with fewer cognitive skills and can you provide evidence to show that Bronwyn was not inoculated as an infant?

Herd immunisation is recognised as a necessity - particularly when the Homo sapien breeds like a rabbit, deprived of organic foods, clean air and water and is force-fed a myriad of anthropogenic lethal chemicals through the food chain and the air they breathe, thus compromising the immune system. These "advanced" technologies and the "free market" are one and the same - free for those who make a fast buck at the expense of humanity and supported by sycophantic ignorant racketeers.

However, the requirement for herd immunisation has a downside and the evidence is compelling where once healthy children, have become seriously afflicted after inoculation. That's good reason why pharmaceutical companies began lobbying for government indemnity decades ago though litigation is ongoing and I recall one of the first successful class actions in the 60s when the courts upheld a jury verdict of $200,000 for a child who developed polio from the Sabin live polio vaccine.

The tragic results of vaccines can be seen all too often after inoculating our companion animals, however, the multi-national pharmaceutical companies know very well that it is difficult to establish a causal link between vaccines, brain damage and terminal diseases in once healthy animals.

Should you wish to debate with an oldie who has never had an inoculation, contracted chicken pox and whooping cough as a child, but remains in sound health to this day because she doesn't adhere to your herd mentality, then look no further than this post.

On reflection, haven't you anything better to do than to come in here and attack those who are more enlightened than yourself?

'Should you wish to debate with an oldie who has never had an inoculation, contracted chicken pox and whooping cough as a child, but remains in sound health to this day because she doesn't adhere to your herd mentality, then look no further than this post.'

Exactly Protagoras. You're alright mate. Bugger the rest aye!

Pity the immune suppressed or just weaker immune 6 month old babies that happen to catch the disease you carry. It's pretty hard to argue on the balance of things that we should just let polio, and measles and mumps become common again because 1 in 1 zillion kids might have been caused autism. Oh, that's right, the 90% un'enlightened' people won't let that happen. Good thing they take on the very small risk you're not willing to take isn't it.

Houel you must have got your 1 in 1 zillion stat from the mens club.

Autism is a shocker, like shocking, on the rise. Here’s some Yankstats:

• 1 in 150 births
• 1 to 1.5 million Americans
• Fastest-growing developmental disability
• 10 - 17 % annual growth
• $90 billion annual cost
• 90% of costs are in adult services
• Cost of lifelong care can be reduced by 2/3 with early diagnosis and intervention
• In 10 years, the annual cost will be $200-400 billion

http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_whatis_factsstats

I'm not saying immunisations are doing it or the mercury or anthing; but lots of people do.

Hey Exam, he started it.

"You're alright mate. Bugger the rest aye!"

Houellebecq

1. Inoculations are administered to infants through the decision of the parent therefore, since a six month old baby is not capable of taking itself off to a health clinic, your statement above is extremely vacuous.

"Pity the immune suppressed or just weaker immune 6 month old babies that happen to catch the disease you carry."

2. Garbage in garbage out Houellebecq since I have raised several children - mine and others. The others were quickly restored to good health after living with me and none suffered any ill effects from the close contact they had with a person not immunised.

I had also ensured that the immune systems of my children were protected from the ravages of the "free" market which continues to peddle its poisons to ignorant adults who feed this synthetic garbage to their children.

And this garbage spills over to the pet food industry where diseased pigs, chickens, cattle etc, plus anything they can find as a filler is dumped in dog food.

A worker contracted a nasty swine disease in a pet food factory in Melbourne a year or so ago. Now the drug barons may design a vaccine to protect us from that disease - a result of what the unregulated free market is doing to animal and human health.

And what about a vaccine for mad cow's disease Houellebecq -just in case eh, which is another example of the unregulated free market which forced herbivorous cattle to become cannibals and killed humans as a result. In the UK (and elsewhere), cattle for human consumption were force-fed ash in their feed, which came from India's funeral pyres but then profits are paramount are they not?

"That's right, the 90% un'enlightened' people won't let that happen. Good thing they take on the very small risk you're not willing to take isn't it."

Houellebecq how "enlightening" but what was that risk you claim I failed to take? I look forward to your response.

Ah Piper, you really are getting good at googling aren't ya. I don't care, I just love the word zillion.

ADD, Autism, Chronic Fatigue, everyone's got something these days. I think it's more to do with the looking than the having.

Polio was pretty obvious with that paralysis and all being a bit of a give-away, but a 6 year old wriggling a bit through a 2 hour reading of war and peace and someone saying they're tired all the time used to go less noticed.

I don't think it's the vaccines, or the non-organic food, or the chemicals, it's just the hypochondriacs, and google, and raising awareness, and those evil pharma people that have led to the state where Jim Carey is telling people your kid'll get autism if you vaccinate your child, and people listen to him more than when their trained doctor says it's rubbish. He shoulda stuck to dumb and dumber movies I think. Though he was good in Eternal Sunshine, there's no denying it really.

Hang on, I feel a bit tired. And I'm bored by Exam. Maybe I have ADD and Chronic Fatigue! I must rush off to the doctor and tell him what I've got since I read all about it on the internet. Poor sod.

Or maybe I'm low in iron! Hey remember 'I'm a singal mum wiv a dauda' on that Iron commercial? (Sponsored by the meat industry)

I'm converted. I think we should go back to the days of deaths by polio and measles and mumps, because at least you were sure what your kids were dying from. It was a much better state of affairs aye Piper? Much better than those nasty pharma companies in conspiracy with the doctors giving us these autism causing vaccines we have these days, then laughing with that Whaaa ha ha ha ha laugh.

Fractelle: "Rstuart, Your ad hominem on Bronwyn - completely called for"

I'm an not sure if you are praising me or having a dig. The post wasn't addressed to Bronwyn, it wasn't about Bronwyn, and I certainly wasn't attacking Bronwyn or anyone else. What I did was perfectly innocent. I just repeated what she said to me here, on OLO. Since OLO is a public forum, I didn't think Bronwyn would have the slightest qualms with me repeating it.

Bronwyn doesn't now recall where she said this. But I do, clear as a bell. It was here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8283#129644

It is etched in my memory, because I at that point I realised "this is a religious thing for Bronwyn", and ran away with my tail between my legs. Like I said, no point arguing when it is a religious thing. I always remember when I run away like a wimp.

I see it is religious for others here too. Like this, from Protagoras: "an oldie ... remains in sound health to this day because she doesn't adhere to your herd mentality" Its utter, unabridged, crap of course. This single case says nothing about the effectiveness of vaccines, as I imagine Protagoras knows. Religious things often cause people to sink to such depths. (Note: to self, Protagoras will fire back with some unpleasant remark. She always does. Don't respond.)

Bronwyn: "What the hell! Thanks for slipping that one in."

I put you, myself and Pericles in the same grouping. You don't like our company?

The Pied Piper: "I'm not saying immunisations are doing it ... but lots of people do."

They do, they're wrong, and some kids will get very sick as a result. Read the transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2403358.htm

Here is an edited extract, to give you an incentive to click the link: "the Blairs said that it was a matter of privacy around medical history. That argument is undermined by Cherie Blair's published autobiography, where she not only said her son had the MMR vaccine but also described in some detail the actual fcuk which conceived the child."

Hey I am fast becoming the Googling Queen, this is really what ABBA had in mind.

Shots, “needles” you call them in Oz I think. Okay Autism, scary – one in 150, I mean f’me that is horrific. You come across many autistic kids? I have refused to foster them (and you all thought I was a shoe in for the mother of the year award aye).

They seemed to be everywhere awhile go, I had one, I kept hearing about them from aspergers to full blown autism and then I went and had a nosey on the web. Was when I had a toddler that was just starting to show symptoms and promptly scared myself stupid about vaccinations.

ADHD – nup had lots of them, load of crap mostly. Dr has prescribed Ritalin based on reported symptoms only. Bloody shoddy if you ask me. Go on ask me.

And back to Me; I get kids immunized (rest assured Mr Stuart), my own, other peoples, I’m willing to stick a needle in any random kid, will drag them off the street if I feel they’ve missed one. Well not me, hubby does it – I don’t like watching them cry (and the award is back within my grasp).

Now cause I am so whizz bang at stuffing kids full of toxic crap I feel people like Prota should be left alone, what’s the point in being so disciplined if you can’t enjoy someone else breaking rank once in awhile.

Reminder for Exam; Houel started it.

rstuart

Thank you so much for directing we “religious” towards balance and perfection – oh such philosophical mastery and we indeed feel truly liberated! You are the shepherd and we are the dogs who heed your voice but with respect Shepherd, may I allude you to the fact that “herd mentality” is not “herd immunisation” though wasn’t it Socrates who remarked: “We do not punish someone for something he cannot help?”

PP – I didn’t break rank since the Salk vaccine was not introduced to Australia until 1956 and the Sabin vaccine in 1966. The measles vaccine followed in 1967 and the mumps vaccine in 1981 therefore many adults remain free from vaccines since herd immunisation programmes for these vaccines were conducted in infant clinics and schools but by then my sibling and I were out bringing home the bacon (apologies to pigs!)

Salk's new polio vaccine failed to completely inactivate the embedded virus. A couple of hundred children were permanently paralyzed by inoculation side effects, and a handful died. A jury subsequently found the manufacturer not negligent, but financially liable, thereby casting a pall of uncertainty over vaccine production.

During the swine flu scare in the mid-1970's, the US congress responded to liability concerns among manufacturers by declaring that any suits would have to be brought against the federal government. When thousands of vaccine recipients suffered nerve and muscle damage, they were able to prevail against the government under a fairly simple liability standard.

Currently there are about 4,800 class actions over autism in the US regarding the Thimersol/mercury vaccine and around 1 in 6 American children now suffer ADD or other neurological afflictions. Why?

Houellebecq’s herd mentality on matters beyond his comprehension – ie. organic food, chemicals, chronic fatigue, vaccines etc reveals a certain errr… – never mind but he may be interested to learn that there are millions of old tarts and codgers roaming the planet who've never had a shot in their lives due to the reasons above, therefore his sarcasm is unwarranted.

contd……

contd.....

These days infants are bombarded with multiple shots which are coming under significant scrutiny and as soon as a new born is cleaned up its given a Hep B shot. The following vaccines are then administered:

NATIONAL IMMUNISATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE

Hepatitis B (hepB) a

2 months:

Hepatitis B (hepB) b Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTPa)Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) c,dInactivated poliomyelitis (IPV) Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV Rotavirus

4 months:

Hepatitis B (hepB) b Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTPa) Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) c,dInactivated poliomyelitis (IPV) Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV Rotavirus

6 months:

Hepatitis B (hepB) b Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTPa) Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) cdInactivated poliomyelitis (IPV) Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV) eRotavirus j

Of course they don't end there - toddlers, pre-school, primary school, secondary school shots and voluntary adult shots.

I guess it's not just food animals which must be kept "alive" by the pharmaceutical industry these days, hey PP? That's "progress" for you!

Prot:”I guess it's not just food animals which must be kept "alive" by the pharmaceutical industry these days, hey PP?”

No and your kid can’t go to school without them and if you want to travel overseas you have to get even more shots and so do your dogs.

I don’t know why instead of the The Pied Piper you read Soapbox, now get your feet off me.

Rstuart

Crapola!

No I was not praising you at all. Oh dear, I wonder what Bronwyn thought.

Your comment really was out of line. I have a question, why were you so polite to Pericles and so completely rude to Bronwyn?

I have my agreements and disagreements with both, but what they do have in common is a high degree of intelligence and cogent writing.

I am really curious, please enlighten me.
.
.
.

PS

Sorry Exam, but this thread has gone completely off the rails - and you can't even blame ME for that.

Fractelle

<< No I was not praising you at all. Oh dear, I wonder what Bronwyn thought. >>

Rest assured, Fractelle, I realised straightaway you'd made a rare mistake. I knew you meant to tell rstuart his ad hominem attack on me was completely UNCALLED for. And BTW thanks for the kind words, which are all completely reciprocated in your direction. :)

As for rstuart plucking my views on GM food and vaccination out of the air as an example of a 'religious thing', I've had my say on that. I'll now let his mud slide to the floor where it belongs.

PP

Speaking of people throwing barbs from a low height, I'm rather surprised at the uncalled-for venom in your directive to Protagoras to get her feet off you.

I know she can defend herself perfectly well :) and no doubt will if she considers it important enough, but I hardly think Protagoras of all people needs to use you, PP, or anyone else as a soapbox, and I'm quite sure she had no real intention of doing so.

This is an opinion forum afterall and we are all free to express a view. And with the greatest of respect, we are subjected to a great many of yours - most of them thoroughly delightful I hasten to add. :)

Bronwyn did you get out the wrong side of the bed, trip over your dog, and break your funny bone?

I don’t think anyone would have blinked if I said it to Houel. And anyways Houel – what crawled up your bottom in regard to immunizing children? Least they get a Maccas voucher and a Bravery Award.

I should clarify – I have to immunize, I did it to my own kids but I think with the odd one with autism in the family I would probably delay it a year but I am not allowed to make that call – DoCS insist.

Sorry Mr Stuart, I’ve read both sides and just because there are two sides I’d prefer to not risk it if given the choice.

Exam "in line with the protected species program breeders should be encouraged to maintain genetic diversity" - that was from Hubby cause I had nothing. Can you imagine living with someone who talks like that? Can you imagine the poor bugger having to live with someone who talks like me?[snigger]

Having not been following this thread, for the reason given in my post to examinator's new topic 'whats your rant', his seemingly ironic comment as to this thread's "blinding success" sucked me in. I went direct to the last page in the thread, page 17. I couldn't believe my eyes!

TPP had posted, in the then last post, post 101:

"Bronwyn did you get out the wrong side of the bed, trip over your dog, and break your funny bone? ..................... Can you imagine the poor bugger having to live with someone who talks like me?[snigger]"

ROFL

IN PRINT! Tell me you knew what you were doing TPP. Tell me, tell me, tell me! I wait with baited breath.

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

See I thought I'd just wait until someone else said something so I could figure it out.

Then I was gonna swagger by all cool like and go "yeah course I knew, I saw it, I planned it" but then I started dwelling on your "baited breath" comment and got bad visuals then I stupidly started randomly holding my breath.

I don't know what I did Forrest. I don't.

Oh crap, dog breeders... "of course my mum bought some ribbons for that dress I had". Sorry Exam me and hubby were tapped out and all I had left was a small female child who is a bit fashion obsessed right now.

PP

<< Bronwyn did you get out the wrong side of the bed, trip over your dog, and break your funny bone? >>

Ah silly me! The soapbox jibe to Protagoras was a joke. Well, blow me down. Perhaps you're right, I must be losing my sense of humour. Perhaps you'd better explain to me what was funny about it.

And if you can't well I'm sure Forrest will be able to. He can obviously see the funny side in all of this.

Well my mojo has well and truly deserted me here.

Protagoras, I don’t even know if you laughed, were annoyed or if I upset you in some way. Bit of a heads-up could assist.

Bronwyn, you can get off me as well.

"Protagoras, I don’t even know if you laughed, were annoyed or if I upset you in some way. Bit of a heads-up could assist."

Your knife, my back, your meltdown Blondie and I ain't no shrink!

Thanks Bronwyn

Prota:"Your knife, my back, your meltdown Blondie and I ain't no shrink!"

I'M BLOODY BRUNETTE!

..with red highlights.[grin]

TPP,

Re the funny side of your 'Bronwyn did you get out the wrong side of the bed, trip over your dog, and break your funny bone?' post earlier in the thread.

I knew it was too good to be true. I must have stayed too long in the corner that Foxy sent me to when she said, on the 'Your tribal past ...' thread, "Dear Forrest, Now, you're just stirring! Stop baiting Bronny.", because of what I had said in this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3053#71800

It was all over Bronwyn's earlier insistence, with some degree of hauteur, upon no one being required to see a particular word beginning with 'n' in print. Although I didn't defend my use of the word (much), I did feel that Bronwyn failed to recognise the possible implications of her linguistic puritanical zeal in this cause. Just imagine - no more woodpiles allowed, because of what might be found in them! The Ennigger family having to change its surname just to accomodate Bronwyn's desires. No room left for niggling or deniggeration on OLO, and so forth.

Then I saw the last word in your post. [snigger] There it (almost) was in print! I thought you just might have been having a snide swipe at Bronwyn, hence my deliberate misuse of the homophone 'baited' for 'bated' in the phrase 'I wait with baited breath'. (I explain this so that Bronwyn will not have any excuse to miscast a spell in my direction. I suspect she teaches English.)

My apologies for judging you by my own standards TTP. I will now return to the corner.

Still ROFLing.

Oh Forrest I did read the conversation you had with Bronwyn about that word, I’m sure I popped in at the time saying I didn’t really have a problem with it. Shockingly it is in common use in my household as my Nordic looking daughter insists she is gangsta along with all her old brown skinned hommies from Godzone.

It wasn’t on purpose but I am glad it gave you a laugh.

That corner must be filling up, keep a space free for me

Dear Forrest

Looking at some of the ways you've described me recently, I think you're misjudging me.

'authoritarian side to her persona'
'Mother Superior'
'hauteur'
'linguistic puritanical zeal'
'English teacher'

You're painting me as some sort of elitist speech zealot, which I'm not at all. For all the posting I do on OLO, I don't often criticise people's choice of terminology. I'm much more likely to engage with the ideas they've expressed.

In all my exchanges with you, I've picked you up on terminology twice (that I remember), not because I'm some 'Mother Superior' figure, but because they're terms that cause offence to others, not to me personally, but to marginalised minority groups. It's an issue of fairness, not language snobbery, as you're attempting to imply.

The term 'n.igger' offends most black-skinned people, so why continue to use it, knowing it gives offence? The term 'illegals', as applied to asylum seekers, demeans an already vulnerable group and is just plain wrong anyway, as it's not illegal to seek asylum. Both of these terms, in my view, play to dog-whistling politics, and I'm surprised you'd bother to defend them.

I agree, the tone of my posts to you in Foxy's 'Tribal past' thread may not have come across as I intended. I admire you very much as a poster, which you should know by now, so that even as I admonish you sternly I always do it with respect and affection. :) I assumed that came through, but maybe I needed more smilies and exclamation marks.

BTW, I'm not an English teacher. I'm a lowly generalist primary teacher, and a casual part-timer at that.

Dear PP

The only reason I picked you up was that I felt you were being unnecessarily harsh towards a poster I hold in high regard and who I felt was undeserving of the quip in question.

Don't stay in the corner too long, as enticing as Forrest's company might be! OLO needs you both. :)

BTW, I've had my turn in the corner too and if I was truly 'Mother Superior' that just wouldn't happen!

Hey Bronwyn, can you explain yourself a little more to Forest and Piper? I really didn't know you were so sensitive mum. You're more delicate than examinator.

I suppose that's when OLO is at it's second best. The hatred and bile like on the gender blogs cant be beat, but this kind of soap opera action comes a close second.

Houellebecq

<< Hey Bronwyn, can you explain yourself a little more to Forest and Piper? >>

Is that all you can pick me up on? That snide little comment wasn't worth the effort of posting. Now, how about you get back to the work your employer's paying you to do?

<< I really didn't know you were so sensitive mum. >>

For starters, I'm not your mum. I doubt very much I'd be old enough and besides no son of mine would treat people with the contempt and arrogance that you do. I'm not overly sensitive either. I can take what I dish out. I respect Forrest and felt I owed him an explanation, that's all. I certainly don't feel compelled to explain myself in any depth to you.

Besides, Forrest sees in me a candidate for membership of his Diatribe, so I know he won't worry about the lengthy explanation. :) (smile directed towards Forrest, not you).

To think I made an extra post to apologise to you the other day for not having addressed you by name. Why do I bother?

Houel you sod right off, Bronwyn is my mothers little sisters adoptive daughters child raised by a South African family after her father went missing in a blizzard as he was looking for baculum to scrimshaw, as was his hobby, and her mother on hearing the news feinted dead away, backward out a third story window, and landed on a small terrier and they both went in to a coma.

Her mother is still in hospital with the little dog in a bed next to her. Animal Rights groups have tried to get the terrier moved to a vet hospital where the service would be better but each time they try to move it Bronwyn’s mother goes in to cardiac arrest. The African family that raised Bronwyn never told her as they didn’t want to confuse her.

Unbeknownst to Forrest him and Bronwyn actually share the same father as once Forrest’s mum was holidaying in Alaska and was attacked by a Polar bear when along came Great White Dick Hunter (Inuit name) – the bear fled screaming in terror having heard through the grapevine what he was looking for.

Forrest’s mum never found out his real name but was so impressed that just by his piercing gaze he could scare the huge beast away she immediately slept with him. What no one knows is because of a blood disorder Great White Dick Hunter is still alive and has been trapped in a huge block of ice for over 50 years now.

What the stupid bears don’t know is that if they keep pissing on it he’ll be back.

Forrest, Bronwyn... your Father’s name is Richard Hunter. Bronwyn honey, you are white and your father will soon be free – yes like Nelson. Forrest your mother always wished you to travel to Alaska and learn the secrets of “the piercing gaze” – go Forrest your father needs you... pack some wet wipes.

'That snide little comment wasn't worth the effort of posting. '

Oh it was worth that effort and much much more considering much how I enjoyed your response!

Whoops, sorry that I didn't address that to you Bronny.

Last Thursday, examinator asked me:

>>Pericles How are your answers etc in context to the question as posted?... Simply put they aren't they don't even remotely go to addressing the questions posed<<

Since that time, there has been only one single on-topic post on this thread. (Fractelle, you're now officially the class swot)

So why pick on me, examinator?

But being the generous soul that I am, I'll make an attempt at a response "in context to the question", as you so quaintly phrase it.

"What do you think should be done about 'breeding pure breeds to death' for cosmetics?"

My definitive statement on the question is that breeding any dog 'to death", pure breed or no, should be illegal.

But, I hear you all ask, what about drowning puppies at birth in a little sack - surely that shouldn't be illegal as well? It's a well-documented mechanism for population management...

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=371

And it's been happening since Shakespeare's time, evidently.

"The rogues slighted me into the river with as little remorse
as they would have drown'd a blind bitch's puppies, fifteen
i' th' litter" (Falstaff: Merry Wives of Windsor Act III Scene 5)

Interestingly, I haven't seen a single post saying "Hey, examinator, don't be so crazy. Of course we should breed pure breeds to death for cosmetics"

With such a controversial stance, no wonder everyone has wandered off at a tangent.

On the whole, I think my observations were relatively relevant.

Pericles says:

"Interestingly, I haven't seen a single post saying "Hey, examinator, don't be so crazy. Of course we should breed pure breeds to death for cosmetics""

Aw, come on Pericles. I reckon I came reasonably close with this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3076#72183 At least I accepted the status quo as it was told to be!

Yes, I know it wasn't in this thread, but didn't you read it? Yes, I know it wasn't quite the affirmation you expressed an interest in not having yet seen, but surely it goes part way toward the validation of the topic that you seem to feel should be evidenced. I think examinator has missed his calling: there is a great void out there in media earth for a headliner like him. Posters judge threads by their OLO 'headlines'. No worthy headline, no post. (Maybe even no read.)

Shock the socks of 'em, examinator! Lipstick it to 'em! "Grind 'em up. Lead 'em out. Round 'em up. Breed 'em in. Rawhide!"

Do us a favour. (A Gil Favour.) Doggone if it wouldn't be a drover's dream. "Don't try to understand 'em, just rope and throw and brand 'em. Git 'em up, move 'em out, smear 'em on, Rawhide!"

Ode to a breeder reactor.

One must pursue truth doggedly, I always say. Where is the curiosity, the inventiveness in the use of the search tools, the sheer dalliance upon the inconsequential that is so often the precursor to true enlightenment? Here, on OLO, where so much enlightenment is to be had for the taking.

Truly, Pericles, I sometimes despair!

Forrest 'Non Sequitur' Gump

<< Where is the curiosity, the inventiveness in the use of the search tools, the sheer dalliance upon the inconsequential that is so often the precursor to true enlightenment? Here, on OLO, where so much enlightenment is to be had for the taking. >>

Perhaps we don't have the limitless time of some, also I must enquire, "OLO = enlightenment"; truth in jest?

Pericles

Response to my challenge any time soon? Adopt a dog? It will change your life.

Hmmm, maybe there is enlightenment to be had here after all...

However, I am too modest to say anything further.

Bronwyn,

Looking at the list of terms you have distilled from disparate posts of mine I have to agree that, when so concentrated, they certainly could create the impression that I am trying to paint you as 'some sort of elitist speech zealot'. Such is, however, not my intention. As used, in their original contexts, they were all intended as humorous back-handed compliments of your writing style or expression. Dished out to one who in my judgement, and by self-confession, could take them.

The inclusion of 'English teacher' in that list caused me pause: it stood out as not projecting any perceivable perjorative 'edge', for the like of which I am regarded as having a penchant. Then I remembered 'speech zealotry'.

Language snobbery is not at all what I am trying to imply. It is rather a protest at the closing off of certain subjects to further discussion that, to my way of thinking, can be achieved by the placing of certain words 'off limits'. In the context of the generality of the asylum seeker debate, for example, the exclusion of the (perceivably perjorative) term 'illegals' threatens to exclude discussion of what may admittedly be regarded as convenient legal technicalities whereby persons who initially, in their primary movement to another country, may have been able to claim the status of 'asylum seeker' can subsequently be rightfully deprived of that status with respect to their secondary attempt at movement to Australia.

I see you, Bronwyn, as one who attempts to place the use of the word 'illegals' off limits in this way. Rather than just say you are wrong, I prefer to attempt via humour, or wry back-handed compliments, to make you think about other dimensions of a vexed issue about which you are commendably passionate. Just as by your spirited and well expressed defense of your own positions you make me think about things like SIEVs, as, for example, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3037#71809

And no, you don't need to use more smilies.

There, that should make Michel's day!

It does Forest. Thank you!

Although I'm sure you could expand at length if you wanted too. Do take up the challenge.

I reckon examinator thinks he expresses himself as well as you. Tell 'im he's dreamin'! He aspires to that sort of prose, but ends up closer to one under god, although much less readable.

I think what you really would love is for Bronny to mark your paper with red ink. There's some sexual tension there, that's for sure. Anyone seen that film 'The Secretary'?

Forrest

Thanks for your explanation. I feel much better!

I still don't agree with your reasoning on the term 'illegals'. Far from shutting down debate, in my view, using the correct terminology only helps ensure a more balanced and less emotive discussion. And the 'secondary movement' stuff is plain rubbish. You've listened to cracked record, Franklin, once too often! But I mustn't say anymore here. Poor examinator's already been driven to 'ranting' over the many tangents this thread of his has taken! Ludwig's new thread is sure to throw up the same old 'illegals' and 'secondary movement', so I guess I can take it up there. Ho hum.

<< Just as by your spirited and well expressed defense of your own positions you make me think about things like SIEVs, as, for example, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3037#71809 >>

Yes, I saw that 'SIEV of Eratosthenes' you parachuted in there. I decided not to rise to the bait, as I knew by that stage that Foxy was already worrying about me!

Houellebecq

'Michel' hey? Well at least I wouldn't have to do a cut-and-paste every time I went to use your name. It's a very nice name but I think I'll stick to Houellebecq. It's more suited to the image I've built up of you.

<< There's some sexual tension there, that's for sure. >>

Well, we all know you like some good 'soap opera action', but I'm afraid you'll have to look for some other characters to play your romantic leads. Our history is a history of minds and it goes back well before your time on OLO. Forrest once started a story stemming from some minor online incident between him and Fractelle. I made a few disparaging comments to begin with but he gave me a minor role and you could say I've been smitten ever since. As I know has Fractelle. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2063#43464

PP

I think there's a message for me somewhere in your ice story, but I'm afraid it went right over my head! For me at least, it's as cryptic as the best, or worst, of Forrest's writing. :)

Bronwyn:"I think there's a message for me somewhere in your ice story, but I'm afraid it went right over my head! For me at least, it's as cryptic as the best, or worst, of Forrest's writing. :)"

Hey Bronwyn, no no no completely the opposite. I just wanted to write something light and nonsensical and I thought the dog thing had sort of gone by the by.

Stupid little stories just kind of form in my head. I write them down, I delete them usually... Houel saying "soap opera" was enough to set one off. I have been wondering for awhile now if I'm even normal - hubby says not but then all husbands say that as far as I know.

I must admit there aren't many of Forrests messages that I understand on the first read.

And I think I am still kind of reeling after Fractelle's explanation of her accident over in the rant thread. The visual and everything.

Fractelle, I appreciate the thought.

>>Pericles Response to my challenge any time soon? Adopt a dog? It will change your life.<<

I have kept pet dogs in the (very distant) past. They were really great company - although I'd stop a long way short of life-changing - but I couldn't lose that constant nagging feeling that they were being horribly exploited, and that I was taking advantage of their situation.

The fact that it would be impossible for me not to become attached to them, is also a disincentive.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Pericles:"The fact that it would be impossible for me not to become attached to them, is also a disincentive."

Why on Earth would that be so? And why would you feel a dog is being "exploited" by being your companion? Are you unable to provide the slightest quid pro quo for the dog's undemanding and unjudgemental affection?

How sad for you.

“This fluid model is integrated with a “polynomic” perspective on the Corsican language, which locates linguistic identity in the diversity of socially legitimated usage. Secondly, it suggests a model of intercultural citizenship in which speaking partners make the most out of varying levels of productive and receptive competence in related codes.

"In doing so, the choice of Italian reconfigures what it means to speak Corsican. That is, Corsican is represented not just as the expression of local cultural identity, but as a bridge to participation and interaction with Europe and beyond.”

There – I’ve got that off my chest and serves ya right! What’s with the jabberwonky fellow posters?

Today, I petitioned 233 uni students – Korean, Chinese, American, Kenyan, Sri Lankan, Indian, Somalian and one Orstraylun and the dialogue was fluid .....all were good Englishers! However, on my return to OLO I see posters talkin’ in tongues! Is this some sort of conspiracy against Protagoras? Are youse goin’ behind me back agin!? Why doncha talk Orstraylun….. can’t ya?

PS: I got one knockback today and guess who that was? Bloody Orstraylun that's who...... a----sehole!

Pericles

Thank you for your honest and gracious reply. I will not pressure you again.

What you have achieved for me personally (I cannot speak for others) is that I now consider the animal racing industry to be unequivocally a master/slave relationship. I also have no doubt that some pet owners fit into that scenario as well - but not all, and not the majority (I hope). Breeders might want to begin improving the standards and conditions for the animals from which they make their income - more public outcry needed here. I suppose we are not going to hear from Examinator about his submission.

Despite the topic not following the topic as Examinator would have wanted, I believe that a great deal has been aired and discussed and we can never talk about the wellbeing and care of animals (including humans) too much or too often.

Pericles,

You still refuse to look at the second question and therefore intended context. You were part of the irrelevance.

Bronwyn
Me poor? hmmmm "driven" (?) to rant (?)hmmmm? *I* don't think so. A rant is an irrational selfish out burst. While I can concede I was trying to get the topic back on the rails the irrational bit flummoxes me.

H.
Don't kid yourself that your infantile behaviour had (Or could ever have) any measurable effect on me.
BTW excellent suggestion you made in the articles area about general posters writing a better one...I await your efforts with measured anticipation....or were those words as usual, full of BS.

Forrest
You can do better that the lame offering of grinding up dogs for cosmetics. I have come to expect more wit than that from you.

All
as for my alleged personal hypersensitivity paraphrasing Mark Twain said "Rumours of such are greatly exaggerated.

Examinator

Therefore, I conclude from your last post that we are not going to see even a rough draft of your submission anytime soon?

examinator

<< Me poor? hmmmm "driven" (?) to rant (?)hmmmm? *I* don't think so. A rant is an irrational selfish out burst. While I can concede I was trying to get the topic back on the rails the irrational bit flummoxes me. >>

Dear examinator, I was referring to your 'What's Your Rant' thread and your opening comment there -

<< After the blinding success on my last topic on "are we breeding purebreds to death' ... >>

I wasn't suggesting you were ranting here at all. I was only picking up on your OWN choice of term in that other thread and your admission there that this thread had gone off track. Not BTW that that was appearing to worry anyone else very much. :)

What's up? Such gentle subtleties aren't usually lost on you. :)

Bronwyn,
Sorry missed that one. Drat! well I haven't been to the corner in a while...I guess it's time.

The rant post was an experiment of the system and some posters for my own perverse amusement. I know, I know the corner.(sigh) as I trudge off.

'The rant post was an experiment of the system and some posters for my own perverse amusement. '

You're getting more like me every day. And you thought you were better then me. That's me 101. Hypocrite.

What second question, examinator?

>>Pericles, You still refuse to look at the second question and therefore intended context. You were part of the irrelevance.<<

I had another look, and I found:

>>Pericles How are your answers etc in context to the question as posted? 'What do you think should be done about 'breeding pure bred dogs to death' for cosmetics? and therefore 'what do you think should done?'<<

The second question, if I am reading the correct post, is "what do you think should done?"

I'm assuming there is a missing "be" in there, but I could be wrong on that as well.

I thought I had made it clear what I think should done... errr... be done, in my last-but-one post:

>>My definitive statement on the question is that breeding any dog 'to death", pure breed or no, should be illegal.<<

Perhaps I could be clearer on the action required.

My definitive statement on the question is that breeding any dog 'to death', pure breed or no, should be made illegal.

That should cover it, don't you think?

Succinct. Specific.

And entirely relevant.

pontificator,

'I await your efforts with measured anticipation....or were those words as usual, full of BS. '

Graham would never post any of our efforts (even if serious, I would try y'know, and not just writing in the vernacular) until we qualify as 'social commentators' or 'royal watchers'. I'm looking into what qualifies you for this, but cant seem to find the course in any of the universities I've looked at. Antiseptic gave me some hints of the career path required.

Anyway you're only anticipating the chance to mock my efforts, and I wouldn't give a sucker like you an even break. You're the worlds most altruistic counsellor (as you reminded us again recently on Nina's thread) so why don't you make an effort. But I'm doubtful you'd be able get the punctuation right, I think they'd expect commas and stuff.

H,
Funny but some poster do actually author articles.

I was talking to Nina. My, but you are narcissistic. Everything's about you and yup you're still going to extremes (yawn)...again.

The only thing you may have gotten right is my probable awful punctuation. Funny though, other sites publish lengthy articles from me.
BTW I published the dog submission yesterday! They even offered me money but being the world's most 'altruistic' everything I donated it back (only because I have to keep up to your image of me).

You prove my point to anti every time you attack me. 'The squeaky wheel get more abuse than oil' (copyright pending :-))

Oh where are these articles published I wanna read em! If it has punctuation it will prove that you can do it, but just choose not to.

Examinator

I feel gipped. I too would like to read your submission - but not for the same reasons as little boy H.

You invited our thoughts, got huffy when the thread did not provide whatever it was you were looking for, have ignored my offer of help and my request to read a draft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJN7B0_4D4I&NR=1