Friday, March 13, 2009

More on pedigree dogs

A few months back BBC came out with a show blasting the pedigree dog circuit in the U.K. called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. If you still haven't seen it, watch it now cuz it's an important film whether you agree with its message or not.

So, anyway, last night ABC does its own mini version of busting the pedigree dog circuit in the U.S. with a news segment called Best in Show?. It's not bad but not as in depth or shocking as the BBC program.

I don't like to implicitly trust everything I see on TV so I did some digging around and found this on Youtube. It's an interesting little rebuttal to "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" by a guy named David Cavill who is a breeder and judge. According to him, though he acknowledges that there are faults with the kennel club pedigree dog circuit, he claims the numbers of screwed up purebred dogs has been grossly exaggerated in the BBC program.

So who to believe? Are dog shows inherently evil or has all this been blown out of proportion? I don't know and I'm not exactly sure how anyone in the public is supposed to know either since the data to back up claims made by either side are hard if not impossible to come by.

My main concerns with regards to breeding have got nothing to do with show standard pedigree looks anyway. The looks of a dog are of minor importance. If someone is trying to breed two dogs, whether mutt or purebred, because they've got, say, big ears, but who can't breathe properly because their faces are too flat or their skin wrinkles get in the way or their noses are on the back of their heads or whatever, then I'd call that immoral breeding. I want to know that the dogs are bred to be healthy, behaviorally well-adjusted and end up in decent homes - and I think that's much more challenging and significantly more important than breeding a dog for big ears.

No comments: