No Bulldog or Pekenese will Compete at Crufts

[elegy]

Originally Posted by ravennr

Exactly. This is why I don't understand why the breeders are jumping to blame animal rights extremists for this. I hate animal rights, but I feel like I'm being thrown under the bus for agreeing with what's trying to be done here, from a welfare standpoint. Why would we tolerate dogs who can't even be dogs in comfort? If that's not welfare, then my life has been seriously misguided for a long time.

Well said.

And I think it makes things quite interesting to have the health check come after the breed judging. The judge chooses what he believes to be the best representation of the breed. It would be a whole different ballgame if he were to only be able to choose from what is left.

[lizzybeth727]

Originally Posted by elegy

And I think it makes things quite interesting to have the health check come after the breed judging. The judge chooses what he believes to be the best representation of the breed. It would be a whole different ballgame if he were to only be able to choose from what is left.

I agree. But I also see where judges would be upset by this... It's gotta be bad for your rep if you chose the best representative of the breed, and it turned out to be unhealthy. I'm sure judges would much prefer the vet checks come first, so they don't end up looking bad.

[Aleron]

Originally Posted by Kat09Tails

If it's not you tell me what it is. Animal rights is about giving the individual liberties normally afforded people to animals.

We're all in big BIG trouble if we cannot agree on common grounds of something as simple as a dictionary definition.

AR opposes pretty much everything that involves humans and animals having any sort of "relationship" that involves the animals being interacted with or cared for by humans. They are about restricting ownership of animals, breeding of animals and "use" of animals by people for any reason (pets, work, entertainment, food, clothing, any type of research, etc), as well as environmental issues. The major AR groups have lobbyists pushing legislation in this direction constantly. As far as dogs go, AR is involved in most any laws which wish to restrict breeding, owning and caring for dogs. So limit laws, breed bans, restrictive breeding laws, MSN, docking/cropping, etc. A lot of people don't realize just how much AR influences such things. Most assume they are just nuts looking to grant animals "equal rights" but that's not so much the case. And they're a lot more powerful than a lot of people realize.

The AR agenda:
http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/a...-rights-agenda

AR or AW?
http://www.ncraoa.com/AR_AW_WhatYouShouldKnow.html

Originally Posted by elegy

Well said.

And I think it makes things quite interesting to have the health check come after the breed judging. The judge chooses what he believes to be the best representation of the breed. It would be a whole different ballgame if he were to only be able to choose from what is left.

I think it makes a lot more sense, if you are hoping for it to have an more widespread impact. Although the issue is still the same - will it simply make people more careful about which dogs they bring to Crufts?

[release the hounds]

I don't think anyone has ever accused me of being an AR person. I'd still defend a breeders rights to cull their own breedings as they see fit.

I think putting the vet checks when they did, is a good thing. I've never shown personally, it definitely isn't my thing. I have been involved in some pretty big shows however, breed specific, but everything from a local show, to regional and national confo shows.

I've seen enough of the BS behind the scenes junk that goes on, with organizing groups deciding on what judges to bring in to be more favorable to them and not to other "groups" of breeders and changing ring sizes, organizing parking by shade and by sun, and the rest of the crap that goes on.

I have no doubt it happens at all levels, especially at the high end shows in all breeds. Judges have their hands as dirty as the breeders and the people themselves. If a breed gets ding'd after it's declared "best" of that breed and can no longer move on and represent that breed in the show, people are going to get upset.

Then they're going to bitch for a while and rationalize every shitty choice they've made so far that has brought them to the place they're in, and then they're going to have to change. adapt and grow, or fade away. It doesn't matter to me, and the breeds will be better off for it.

The judges are going to be embarassed, then they're going to have to adapt and grow, or fade away as well. Put up good representations, or deal with the humiliation that follows when your "best" is deemed unhealthy by way of genetic defect. They will either start picking more correct dogs, or people doing the shows will stop asking those judges to come if certain breeds are going to be left out because they don't know how to pick one free of genetic defect. People aren't going to tolerate missing out on showing because a judge can't pick the right dog to represent the breed for very long.

[Aleron]

Originally Posted by release the hounds

I
If a breed gets ding'd after it's declared "best" of that breed and can no longer move on and represent that breed in the show, people are going to get upset.

Then they're going to bitch for a while and rationalize every shitty choice they've made so far that has brought them to the place they're in, and then they're going to have to change. adapt and grow, or fade away. It doesn't matter to me, and the breeds will be better off for it.

I'm not sure what would send a stronger message though. DQing after BOB or when a huge number of dogs don't make it into the ring to begin with?

[ravennr]

Yes, what Aleron posted is the AR I know. The complete separation of humans and pets. It isn't what they outwardly push to portray, but it is clear by their movements, such as laws and campaigns and actions, that it is a strong motivation, and head proponents in organizations have openly admitted it as the main motivation, and one reason it will forever clash with animal welfare.
It's the biggest reason I oppose it; my pets are not slaves, and we already have an animal welfare act. We don't need animal rights laws.