On August 17, 2009, Terrierman blogged: When Pit Bulls Act Up, Punish the Owner
One commenter wrote:
Terrierman didn't want this posted on this article:
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/08/when-pit-bulls-act-up-punish-owner.html
"I'm truly shocked by this.You, Patrick, of all people. Buying into fear mongering bigotry.
After all you did to expose that Basset issue.
If you really did read the CDC's report, I'm surprised you still cite it. Maybe this article will help:
http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/
DogsBite.org also uses Merritt Clifton's study, which is so absurd it's mind boggling.
You've lose one reader with this post. Toodles."
How fun.
Add your comments below ...
Monday, August 17, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Terrierman blogged: Dog Food for Deformed Dogs
My Comment:
Oh come on Terrierman! Euthanize all Pugs because a dog food company has made a specially shaped kibble for them? Get real! Pugs have been eating the same dog food as other dogs for a very long time now, and they obviously have no problem eating it. Have you ever seen an undernourished Pug because it couldn't eat regular kibble? Even the picture you included in this blog entry shows a very plump and happy Pug. Smarten up or we may have to start calling you TerrierTwit.
Add your comment below ...
My Comment:
Oh come on Terrierman! Euthanize all Pugs because a dog food company has made a specially shaped kibble for them? Get real! Pugs have been eating the same dog food as other dogs for a very long time now, and they obviously have no problem eating it. Have you ever seen an undernourished Pug because it couldn't eat regular kibble? Even the picture you included in this blog entry shows a very plump and happy Pug. Smarten up or we may have to start calling you TerrierTwit.
Add your comment below ...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Terrierman blogged: Howard Galton's Bloodhounds
My Comment:
Terrierman remarks:
Howard G. apparently wrote:
has disappeared."
Howard G. was observing the power of combining (1) inbreeding to increase the liklihood of desired traits being present in the offspring with (2) outcrossing to increase the liklihood of defective genes being dropped and therefore absent in the offspring. In this case the outcross eliminated the occurrence of a tail knot in subsequent generations.
Terrierman uses Howard Galton's observations as if they are demonstrating a "bad thing" but in fact they only prove how powerful the combination of inbreeding and outcrossing can be to improve dogs when appropriate selection is used.
Howard's G.'s notes regarding bitches being unwilling to breed may be related to a number of possibilities:
"Theoretically", according to science, bitches should be programmed to be choosey, and mate selection based on the male most likely to produce strong, healthy puppies. There is apparently an innate tendency for female animals to use pheromones in mate selection and the tendency is for the female to select mates that are genetically different from herself. Of course, it doesn't always work this way, and in fact there are countless numbers of closely related (brother to sister and parent to offspring) accidental matings that occur every year in dog owners households. It may be that this trait has been lost from some bitches over the generations of past breeding. This could explain why accidental matings between close relatives occur in dogs or perhaps the males invloved are quite aggressive and determined. Or perhaps it is a flexible, variable, or even completely unreliable tendency that is consistent only under very specific circumstances such as randomly bred population? There are lots of questions to be answered here here.
But, regardless of why, very closely related accidental matings occur quite reliably in dogs when the opportunity arises. Howard G's bitches may have rejected his males due to their being too genetically related, or they may have just been bitches being "bitchey". Many young bitches and older ones as well are reluctant to be bred, and he may just have been observing this from his "1838 chauvinistic" point of view that females should always be open to sexual advances from males, and those that were not receptive were viewed as dysfunctional. A notion that persists amongst some men even today. ; - )
Add your comment below ...
My Comment:
Terrierman remarks:
"What is only notable here is the provenance of the observation: Darwin's inquiry into the effects of inbreeding in Howard Galton's blood hound pack dates back to 1838, more than 20 years before the first formal dog show in the U.K., and 35 years before the start of the Kennel Club."That means that as far back as 1838, Howard G. noticed how inbreeding fixed traits in a group of purebred dogs. Unfortunately he focused only on the one negative trait that he noticed was fixed (sounds like it was a tail kink, which is no biggie for concern).
Howard G. apparently wrote:
"I have found from breeding in & in that there is considerable difficulty in keeping up the breed. Many of the females have never exhibited any sexual appetite & those which do so at all, very rarely."So he was breeding "in and in" and it was not until "at last I got a cross with one of Lord Aylesfords' Bloodhounds, since which time it
Howard G. was observing the power of combining (1) inbreeding to increase the liklihood of desired traits being present in the offspring with (2) outcrossing to increase the liklihood of defective genes being dropped and therefore absent in the offspring. In this case the outcross eliminated the occurrence of a tail knot in subsequent generations.
Terrierman uses Howard Galton's observations as if they are demonstrating a "bad thing" but in fact they only prove how powerful the combination of inbreeding and outcrossing can be to improve dogs when appropriate selection is used.
Howard's G.'s notes regarding bitches being unwilling to breed may be related to a number of possibilities:
"Theoretically", according to science, bitches should be programmed to be choosey, and mate selection based on the male most likely to produce strong, healthy puppies. There is apparently an innate tendency for female animals to use pheromones in mate selection and the tendency is for the female to select mates that are genetically different from herself. Of course, it doesn't always work this way, and in fact there are countless numbers of closely related (brother to sister and parent to offspring) accidental matings that occur every year in dog owners households. It may be that this trait has been lost from some bitches over the generations of past breeding. This could explain why accidental matings between close relatives occur in dogs or perhaps the males invloved are quite aggressive and determined. Or perhaps it is a flexible, variable, or even completely unreliable tendency that is consistent only under very specific circumstances such as randomly bred population? There are lots of questions to be answered here here.
But, regardless of why, very closely related accidental matings occur quite reliably in dogs when the opportunity arises. Howard G's bitches may have rejected his males due to their being too genetically related, or they may have just been bitches being "bitchey". Many young bitches and older ones as well are reluctant to be bred, and he may just have been observing this from his "1838 chauvinistic" point of view that females should always be open to sexual advances from males, and those that were not receptive were viewed as dysfunctional. A notion that persists amongst some men even today. ; - )
Add your comment below ...
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Terrierman blogged: Bulldogs: How Did We Come to Select for Defect?
My Comment:
As usual Terrierman makes many inaccurate and inflammatory statements in this piece.
First off, those pictures of skulls that he used are just pictures from a company that makes medical models of bones ... the company is Bone Clones Inc.
As Joanna Kimball pointed out in Implications of the Kennel Club decision on the Pekingese: Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the model used for the Bull Dog (and probably the Pitbull too) are not normative skulls.
That is, the model used is not typical of the breed but may be the skull of an extreme outlier in a breed, if the skull is even based on a real example of the breed and is not just an artistically made mold.
To quote Joanna Kimball specifically:
What is factual is that the skull image used by Terrierman to criticise Bulldog head conformation is simply a model produced by a company that makes skeletal models, and the model is NOT a normative Bulldog head, and is not consistent with the standard that Bulldog breeders are striving to achieve.
I find it interesting that in this particular piece that Terrierman refers to someone who asked "Did I have a "before" picture of what an English Bulldog looked like? ... But she wanted dog skull pictures. I have those somewhere, don't I? Now where were they?". Now would that "she" be Jemima?
As Joanna Kimball pointed out in Implications of the Kennel Club decision on the Pekingese: Pedigree Dogs Exposed, "the research done for this program was incredibly shallow and irresponsible".
Add your comment below ...
My Comment:
As usual Terrierman makes many inaccurate and inflammatory statements in this piece.
First off, those pictures of skulls that he used are just pictures from a company that makes medical models of bones ... the company is Bone Clones Inc.
As Joanna Kimball pointed out in Implications of the Kennel Club decision on the Pekingese: Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the model used for the Bull Dog (and probably the Pitbull too) are not normative skulls.
That is, the model used is not typical of the breed but may be the skull of an extreme outlier in a breed, if the skull is even based on a real example of the breed and is not just an artistically made mold.
To quote Joanna Kimball specifically:
"This is the exact skull the program said was representative of the English Bulldog:
This is not only an incorrect skull but a grossly malformed one. The dog would have had serious trouble eating or living anything close to a normal life.
By the way, this is a skull sold by a medical research company, which would, of course, have nothing to do with determining the normative Bulldog skull. And it’s on the first page of a google images search for “bulldog skull”– the research done for this program was incredibly shallow and irresponsible.
This is the actual Bulldog skull, as described by the illustrated standard–in other words, this is the skull that is seen as the highest achievement of deliberate breeding:
It is absolutely obvious that show breeders do NOT want the unhealthy skull, would immediately reject the unhealthy skull, and would be horrified by any animal in that condition."
Terrierman goes on to speak on how the Bulldog breed was developed:
" In fact, it was now mostly Chinese Pug crossed with Staffordshire Terrier!"
That is not a known fact but a theory that some have. Others believe the Bull Dog breed developed out of Mastiff type dogs. Not that any of this really matters. Some how or other through selective breeding practices the Bull Dog was developed.What is factual is that the skull image used by Terrierman to criticise Bulldog head conformation is simply a model produced by a company that makes skeletal models, and the model is NOT a normative Bulldog head, and is not consistent with the standard that Bulldog breeders are striving to achieve.
I find it interesting that in this particular piece that Terrierman refers to someone who asked "Did I have a "before" picture of what an English Bulldog looked like? ... But she wanted dog skull pictures. I have those somewhere, don't I? Now where were they?". Now would that "she" be Jemima?
As Joanna Kimball pointed out in Implications of the Kennel Club decision on the Pekingese: Pedigree Dogs Exposed, "the research done for this program was incredibly shallow and irresponsible".
Add your comment below ...
Terrierman blogged: Mountain and Pearl Make It to ABC's Nightline
My Comment:
From Blog for Show Dogs:
"It's pretty obvious that Nightline didn't bother to sniff out any legitimate sources of information when "researching" the feature piece Best of Breed? Pedigree Dog Face Disease. First of all, why were there no interviews with people having real credentials in Canine Genetics?"
Read the full commentary here: ABC's NIGHTLINE: Best of Breed? Pedigree Dogs Face Disease
Add your comment ...
My Comment:
From Blog for Show Dogs:
"It's pretty obvious that Nightline didn't bother to sniff out any legitimate sources of information when "researching" the feature piece Best of Breed? Pedigree Dog Face Disease. First of all, why were there no interviews with people having real credentials in Canine Genetics?"
Read the full commentary here: ABC's NIGHTLINE: Best of Breed? Pedigree Dogs Face Disease
Add your comment ...
Terrierman blogged: Nightline: AKC Terrified of Dog Health Topic
My Comment:
Same as above ...
From Blog for Show Dogs:
"It's pretty obvious that Nightline didn't bother to sniff out any legitimate sources of information when "researching" the feature piece Best of Breed? Pedigree Dog Face Disease. First of all, why were there no interviews with people having real credentials in Canine Genetics?"
Read the full commentary here: ABC's NIGHTLINE: Best of Breed? Pedigree Dogs Face Disease
Add your comment below ...
My Comment:
Same as above ...
From Blog for Show Dogs:
"It's pretty obvious that Nightline didn't bother to sniff out any legitimate sources of information when "researching" the feature piece Best of Breed? Pedigree Dog Face Disease. First of all, why were there no interviews with people having real credentials in Canine Genetics?"
Read the full commentary here: ABC's NIGHTLINE: Best of Breed? Pedigree Dogs Face Disease
Add your comment below ...
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Terrierman blogged: Dogs Shows As Human Failing
My Comment:
Terrierman didn't actually write any of this particular blog, he just pasted in an article entitled Why Televised Dog Shows Are a Sham by Sacha Zimmerman that was printed in The New Republic, 12.14.06.
Ms. Zimmerman goes on at great length about her distaste for dog shows and she makes it very clear that she has no real understanding or knowledge of dog shows as such. Perhaps the only ones she has seen are are the televised ones with lame commentary? Regardless, her assertion that a dog's "soul" is never taken into consideration is way off base.
A dog can fit the breed standard to a "T" and be one of the best of it's breed from a conformation perspective and yet not be a great show dog or even a good show dog.
The one elusive quality of a great show dog is showmanship, that enthusiastic, outgoing personality that makes you notice a dog out of all the others. And it can carry a dog a great ways in the show ring even when the dog has faults or is not the best representative of the breed standard standing in the ring.
A dog's "spirit" or "soul" can make it a great show dog, and when coupled with sound structure that conforms to the breed standard, it will make it a great representative of the breed.
And Ms. Zimmerman fails to understand that dog shows are occassional events and that the dogs all go home after the show and do what dogs do including spending time with their owners that "wear frumpy clothes, have less than perfect posture, lack good muscle tone" etc. Dog shows are just a small part of a dog's life or show career. The majority of a show dog's life is spent just being a dog and companion to it's owner. Most dogs love going to shows because it is a full day of activity with their owner, and from a dog's perspective nothing is better than spending time with your owner.
Ms. Zimmerman's also makes reference to eugenics and dogs and stated "many of which suffer from genetic diseases due to inbreeding".
First off, eugenics refers to the selective breeding of human beings not animals. The use of selection is morally reprehensible to human beings, but not for animals. Selecting for health, temperament, structure, and appearance in dogs is intended to improve and preserve health and breed characteristics. Used appropriately, careful selection for positive and useful attributes can be beneficial in the breeding of dogs.
Secondly, inbreeding itself does not cause genetic diseases. Genetic diseases are caused by the combination of defective genes that exist in both of the dogs that are bred together. Inbreeding is not going to create unhealthy dogs unless both parents carry for the same defective recessive genes or one parent passes on an unexpressed defective dominant gene (one having incomplete penetrance).
The same would be true of a breeding of two mixed breed dogs if they both carried for the same defective genes, or if one parent carried an unexpressed defective dominant gene. The same applies for line-breeding and outcrossing. It's not the breeding method that is used that matters, it is whether the two dogs that are being bred carry the same defective genes or one carries for an unexpressed dominant gene.
It's about gene combinations and gene expression not breeding methods.
As for comment Retrieverman left for the Dogs Shows As Human Failing blog:
Retrieverman, you need to get with it. There are a lot of Irish Setters that can hunt, including the show bred ones. Many show bred Irish Setters are earning or working towards Junior Hunter, Senior Hunter, and Master Hunter titles and in the past year alone the Irish Setter Club of America has seen 4 new Dual Champions (Show Championship + Field Championship). The field championship is earned in direct competition with dogs that are bred only for the field so it is a fully deserved title. Irish Setters have been given a bad rap for the wrong reason. Many Irish Setters are in pet homes and never get an opportunity to prove what they can do in the field. Hunting is not needed anymore to put food on the tables and many owners are not interested in pursuing it. It's very expensive to put a field title on a dog, the entries are high, as is the training time commitment and travel that is needed to develop a competitive dog. Blame the owners if you must, but unless the dogs have the opportunity to prove themselves in the field then you have no business just dismissing their hunting potential so offhandedly.
Add your own comment ...
My Comment:
Terrierman didn't actually write any of this particular blog, he just pasted in an article entitled Why Televised Dog Shows Are a Sham by Sacha Zimmerman that was printed in The New Republic, 12.14.06.
Ms. Zimmerman goes on at great length about her distaste for dog shows and she makes it very clear that she has no real understanding or knowledge of dog shows as such. Perhaps the only ones she has seen are are the televised ones with lame commentary? Regardless, her assertion that a dog's "soul" is never taken into consideration is way off base.
A dog can fit the breed standard to a "T" and be one of the best of it's breed from a conformation perspective and yet not be a great show dog or even a good show dog.
The one elusive quality of a great show dog is showmanship, that enthusiastic, outgoing personality that makes you notice a dog out of all the others. And it can carry a dog a great ways in the show ring even when the dog has faults or is not the best representative of the breed standard standing in the ring.
A dog's "spirit" or "soul" can make it a great show dog, and when coupled with sound structure that conforms to the breed standard, it will make it a great representative of the breed.
And Ms. Zimmerman fails to understand that dog shows are occassional events and that the dogs all go home after the show and do what dogs do including spending time with their owners that "wear frumpy clothes, have less than perfect posture, lack good muscle tone" etc. Dog shows are just a small part of a dog's life or show career. The majority of a show dog's life is spent just being a dog and companion to it's owner. Most dogs love going to shows because it is a full day of activity with their owner, and from a dog's perspective nothing is better than spending time with your owner.
Ms. Zimmerman's also makes reference to eugenics and dogs and stated "many of which suffer from genetic diseases due to inbreeding".
First off, eugenics refers to the selective breeding of human beings not animals. The use of selection is morally reprehensible to human beings, but not for animals. Selecting for health, temperament, structure, and appearance in dogs is intended to improve and preserve health and breed characteristics. Used appropriately, careful selection for positive and useful attributes can be beneficial in the breeding of dogs.
Secondly, inbreeding itself does not cause genetic diseases. Genetic diseases are caused by the combination of defective genes that exist in both of the dogs that are bred together. Inbreeding is not going to create unhealthy dogs unless both parents carry for the same defective recessive genes or one parent passes on an unexpressed defective dominant gene (one having incomplete penetrance).
The same would be true of a breeding of two mixed breed dogs if they both carried for the same defective genes, or if one parent carried an unexpressed defective dominant gene. The same applies for line-breeding and outcrossing. It's not the breeding method that is used that matters, it is whether the two dogs that are being bred carry the same defective genes or one carries for an unexpressed dominant gene.
It's about gene combinations and gene expression not breeding methods.
As for comment Retrieverman left for the Dogs Shows As Human Failing blog:
Retrieverman, you need to get with it. There are a lot of Irish Setters that can hunt, including the show bred ones. Many show bred Irish Setters are earning or working towards Junior Hunter, Senior Hunter, and Master Hunter titles and in the past year alone the Irish Setter Club of America has seen 4 new Dual Champions (Show Championship + Field Championship). The field championship is earned in direct competition with dogs that are bred only for the field so it is a fully deserved title. Irish Setters have been given a bad rap for the wrong reason. Many Irish Setters are in pet homes and never get an opportunity to prove what they can do in the field. Hunting is not needed anymore to put food on the tables and many owners are not interested in pursuing it. It's very expensive to put a field title on a dog, the entries are high, as is the training time commitment and travel that is needed to develop a competitive dog. Blame the owners if you must, but unless the dogs have the opportunity to prove themselves in the field then you have no business just dismissing their hunting potential so offhandedly.
Add your own comment ...
Friday, January 23, 2009
Terrierman blogged: No Tolerance for Diversity
My Comment:
Terrierman starts this one out with: "The American Kennel Club has very little tolerance for diversity. The goal of conformation, after all is to conform."
Well, it would seem Terrierman wants us all to conform and do like he does, work your dogs, hang dead animals over your car and take pictures of them. Not sounding too appealing?
There is a saying "different stokes for different folks". For some reason we have some folk like Terrierman and others who want to control or limit what others do with their dogs. Some of them want to impose hunting and work trial certification before a dog is permitted to have a litter.
What these people don't seem to get is that many people do not have access to such activities and/or are not interested or even physically able to take their dogs to such events for various reasons. And why should they? Does a working title mean that dog is healthier than another without a working title? Of course not! Does a working title mean a dog won't develop cancer or a breed-specific genetic disease? Obviously not.
It's fine if Terrierman wants to encourage dog owners to get their dogs involved in working activities but not at the belittlement of those who do not.
That's showing a clear lack of tolerance and an extreme insistence on conformity in and of itself; exactly what Terrierman is accusing the AKC of.
Different strokes for different folks, Terrierman.
You can hang all the dead animals you want on your car.
Many of us find that offensive but we support your civil right to do so.
Dog show exhibitors and dog breeders have civil right too.
You may find dog showing and breeding to be offensive but it does not give you the right to rail against us.
My Comment:
Terrierman starts this one out with: "The American Kennel Club has very little tolerance for diversity. The goal of conformation, after all is to conform."
Well, it would seem Terrierman wants us all to conform and do like he does, work your dogs, hang dead animals over your car and take pictures of them. Not sounding too appealing?
There is a saying "different stokes for different folks". For some reason we have some folk like Terrierman and others who want to control or limit what others do with their dogs. Some of them want to impose hunting and work trial certification before a dog is permitted to have a litter.
What these people don't seem to get is that many people do not have access to such activities and/or are not interested or even physically able to take their dogs to such events for various reasons. And why should they? Does a working title mean that dog is healthier than another without a working title? Of course not! Does a working title mean a dog won't develop cancer or a breed-specific genetic disease? Obviously not.
It's fine if Terrierman wants to encourage dog owners to get their dogs involved in working activities but not at the belittlement of those who do not.
That's showing a clear lack of tolerance and an extreme insistence on conformity in and of itself; exactly what Terrierman is accusing the AKC of.
Different strokes for different folks, Terrierman.
You can hang all the dead animals you want on your car.
Many of us find that offensive but we support your civil right to do so.
Dog show exhibitors and dog breeders have civil right too.
You may find dog showing and breeding to be offensive but it does not give you the right to rail against us.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Terrierman blogged: It's Time to Celebrate an American Dog in Song!
My Comment:
Add your comment below ...
My Comment:
Add your comment below ...
Friday, December 19, 2008
Terrierman blogged: We Want Our Mutant Dogs, Never Mind Their Pain
My Comment:
Add your comment below ...
My Comment:
Add your comment below ...
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Terrierman blogged: Loading the Dice for Defect, Deformity and Disease
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Terrierman blogged: Vet Lecture 101: Kennel Club Selecting for Defect
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
Terrierman blogged: The Kennel Club: When Truth is Inconvenient, Lie
My Comment:
Add your comment below ...
My Comment:
Add your comment below ...
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Terrierman blogged: BBC: Pedigree Dogs Exposed
My Comment:
Joanna Kimball has written a scathing expose of Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
Take a look at it:
Implications of the Kennel Club decision on the Pekingese: Pedigree Dogs Exposed
Add your comment ...
My Comment:
Joanna Kimball has written a scathing expose of Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
Take a look at it:
Implications of the Kennel Club decision on the Pekingese: Pedigree Dogs Exposed
Add your comment ...
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Terrierman blogged: Cesar Millan: A Balanced Trainer for Unbalanced Dogs
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
Friday, May 26, 2006
Friday, May 5, 2006
Terrierman blogged: What the Hell is an American Staffordshire Terrier?
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
Thursday, September 9, 2004
Friday, July 16, 2004
Terrierman blogged: Westminster, and the show ring fixation with fox terriers
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
My Comment:
Add your comment ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)