Mutts against Crufts! Crufts against Mutts?

Click here to read the complete article

74 – June, 2015

by Attila Márton · attilamarton.com

Photos by Lisa Croft-Elliott

I do not intend to debunk PETA. On the one hand it is not my way to discuss the pros and cons of an organization in this way. On the other all you have to do is google it and a good number of hits are guaranteed to appear about the organization. Instead, all we need to is examine and analyze it in a more sophisticated way whether the opposite of the title statement is correct.

The domestication of dogs – the process when dogs became part of the human society – began thousands of years ago. Dogs possess better senses than human beings. They run faster, their power of smell is better and they became very useful for hunting and for protection. This made them essential companions for everyday survival.

As life changed, the function of dogs altered as well. As human society developed, many tasks that dogs used to perform completely disappeared. But the unique skills that dogs possess are still required. For instance, they are still used for hunting (which is not only a hobby, but required to keep wildlife at bay), guarding house and property as well as herding. Not long ago I saw guarding and herding dogs at work in Transylvania where up in the mountains bears and wolf packs are still a threat.

Meanwhile new areas are revealed where dogs can be really effective as rescue dogs, detection dogs, helping dogs for the disabled, and guide dogs. This list could go on forever. Many of these functions are brand new and have never existed before.

Parallel to new ones emerging, many functions disappeared, so some breeds lost their original function. Those breeds which lost their original purpose for work simply became the company of humankind, a function that cannot be overstated in its importance.

The basic concept of conscious and intentional breeding is to keep the character and function of the breed and to keep the function even if it is not used anymore.

That is the reason organized dog events began with working trials. This was the best way of checking to see if the breeder could preserve the sort of behavior and instinct related to the breed.

Along with working trials, dog shows developed and became popular. Anyone involved in showing dogs knows in order for a dog show judge to make an objective decision, he or she does not decide only consider pure ‘outer’ beauty as described in the breed standard but they also consider anatomy, character, behavior, movement, and, last but not least, health.

The young man from PETA who interrupted the announcement of the Best in Show winner at Crufts enthusiastically used the term ‘breedism’. Creating and using such a word suggests something wise, freshly discovered and invented, whilst also sounding trendy and up-to-date.

All those people calling for the boycott of Crufts, along with registration of purebred dogs, raise certain interesting issues. I intend to highlight that you can find many similarities with the PETA blog and the Independent article that appeared before Crufts. They were both talking about a boycott against a ‘beauty pageant killing dogs’. I have never known such a crime to happen at a dog show.

Many people, outside dogdom, have a stereotype of the sort of person a dog breeder should be. However, breeders come from many different segments of the world with absolutely different financial, educational, and cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, the stereotype makes it easier to make certain arguments and for judgements to be formed. It is like the old-fashioned western films when the guys with the white hats were good and the ones with black hats were bad. It makes life simple but it has nothing to do with reality. Judgement becomes more problematic if a white hat guy prefers to wear a black hat once in a while, or moreover, if they want to put on a blue hat one day. Such stereotypes are caused by ignorance.

The above-mentioned, anti-breeding propaganda headlines warn everyone about a social threat and depicts an evil and depraved world where ‘appearance-obsessed’ people commit such disgusting practices as ‘canine incest’. It grabs the attention of the public whilst neglecting facts and logic. For instance, inbreeding has been banned in the case of registered dogs since 2009 in the UK and the same is true in many countries all around the world.

Instead of mass media ‘education’ about this topic, you can delve into the scientific facts about the debate of ‘crossbred vs. purebred’, just to make sure that all the accusations on health issues are reasonable. Though I confess it takes a lot of time and quite a bit of reading.

The one available study aiming to answer this question is Longevity and mortality of owned dogs in England by D.G. O’Neill, D.B. Church, P.D. McGreevy, P.C. Thomson, D.C. Brodbelt, published in 2013 at the Veterinary Journal.

Scientists sought to answer whether there is any correlation regarding the longevity of the life of purebred vs. crossbred dogs.

The study itself is a thorough and detailed analysis based on a large amount of data gathered in England. It had numerous conclusions, one of them was that the average life longevity of crossbred dogs is 12 years and in the case of purebreds it is one to two years shorter. This counters outrageous arguments made by unnamed people about the difference in longevity between these types of dogs.

Concerning the current debate, I highlight one important conclusion of this interesting study: ‘No substantial differences were noted between purebreds and crossbreds in rankings or proportions for causes of death’.

Additionally, in the case of purebred dogs it is not indicated or separated, as it is impossible, if the dog was registered or not. It does not mention if the dog originated from a registered breeder, a pet shop, or any source related to puppy mills.

Moreover, this instructive study only examines a certain time period, and because of the lack of other previous relevant studies, no tendencies can be calculated, so you cannot see if there is any sort of increasing or decreasing trend in any of the figures.

If we remain focused on the field of science, I suppose a study related to the effect of general environmental pollution as a factor – just like in human health – would be an interesting one, together with the analysis of the evolution of canine diseases over a long period of time. The more medicine develops, the more we will able to learn. But it does not mean that because we could not detect these things in the past they never existed.

We can only speculate. But to declare an extremist point of view based on speculations is simply stupid and arrogant. Especially when the available science we have reveals there is nothing like the sort of alleged ‘purebred illness’ that these people claim.

You don’t need to be a scientist to believe that no illness develops even if you have a certificate for a dog about his or her parents and breed. Meanwhile, some believe that this is the very reason for any and all trouble related to pedigree dogs.

A pedigree is defined by an official paper containing the ancestors of a particular dog. It shows the breed type and confirms that the puppy met the breeding criteria of that breed together with further relevant data. How does this administration process affect the health of dogs? Silly question? Oh, yes it is. But you can only hear anti-breeding protestors say that those dogs that are registered are unhealthy. All of them!

Meanwhile, probably the most ridiculous statement made by the opponents of registered breeding is that ‘breeders continue to churn out litter after litter of pedigree puppies’. Can you picture yourself a puppy being just born holding a pedigree in his/her paws?

Some articles mention that dogs do not care if they have a pedigree at all. I think this is the only one of their ideas that I can agree with at all.

It is hard to understand why it is not obvious to all that the registration of dogs will give you a way to monitor and trace not only the dog but the breeder, the responsibility of the breeder, and the circumstances with which the litter was born.

Despite everything, puppies sometimes ‘happen-to-be’ born due to mating ‘by accident’ (even as a result of ‘canine incest’) without any registration, and that is true in the case of the possible forthcoming litters as well. And, moreover, those puppies probably will never be tested for any sort of inherited diseases at all, and uncertain if they are ever going to be neutered to avoid unexpected successors.

Let’s not forget to mention financially motivated puppy farming. From time to time I am sure that (hopefully not) many people probably think that a puppy farm is a lovely farm with a huge meadow for joyful, fluffy puppies running around cheerfully. The existence of such a ‘farm’, where the bitches are used for constant mating to bear litter after litter, is (or should be) the major animal welfare issue all over the globe.

These puppies can be cheaper, released at a younger age, look like the breed, and in most of the cases do not have any veterinarian care. Not only are DNA tests missing, but they do not receive any vaccinations either. Oh, and there will not be the traceable pedigree piece of paper.

I will now point out the biggest contradiction of those preaching, these so-called ‘heroes’ of extremist propaganda. It is really a piece of cake to demonstrate this hypocrisy, as their statements make it extremely clear: while malicious breeders with wicked intentions spread the world with purebred dogs, ‘thousands of charming, healthy mutts are desperately waiting for loving homes in shelters across the country.’

I am an empathetic person. Thus I clearly can understand that it is much easier to set up such an emotion-driven campaign instead of doing something about the problem. It’s far more easier to talk about some scandal, get your 15 minutes fame, and then feel deeply satisfied with supposedly having done something for the greater good. However, that is the equivalent of doing nothing besides creating hype and collecting some donations.

How on Earth does such a campaign or statement prevent the resupply of these stray dogs? Who are the ones really responsible for those abandoned dogs? How would the enormous number of homeless animals be reduced by boycotting or banning dog shows and issuing traceable pedigrees?

And here comes the bonus question which will always remain unanswered: if breeding is evil, why are the shelters not exclusively full of purebred dogs, but are also full of mutts? Who on Earth bred them…?

I definitely understand that placing the blame on breeders is much easier than finding the real cause of animal welfare problems and taking action to solve those problems. Wouldn’t it be better, instead of seeking public attention, if these organizations would prefer not to scratch the surface of the problem in the name of animal welfare and instead get to work and do something?

It is just silly to grab one part of the debate and then prejudge the whole segment of our dog showing society. And especially to want to ban it, due to speculation and negative media hype when scientific studies would lead one to a different conclusion. If you want to select bits of information from the whole picture, turn a blind eye to the rest, and just concentrate on the facts that confirm your argument leading you to present speculations as facts, you should be aware that you create a different reality where it is impossible to solve problems.

No one at Crufts discriminates against mutts. So the final answer for the rhetorical question of the headline is a definite no. In case such activists would like to declare self-discrimination on behalf of mutts, well, I think it is more than pointless, childish, and harmful, as it diverts the focus from the real problems and their real solutions.

I assume you agree with the above thoughts and statements more or less since The Canine Chronicle is published for breeders.

A message to all purebred dog breeders: it is still important to preserve all the characteristics and functions (used or not) for all breeds, so spread the word to those people who know nothing about it. All they know is what is presented by the mess media. Cross my heart, I will not sue anyone for copyright infringement, if you want to use any sentences above.

Fight back against ‘ignorancism’ and add real content and meaning to ‘breedism’.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=79716

Posted by ralbee on Jun 11 2015. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.