<< 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.