pekepoo thread

tcasby · 03-15-2008, 06:16 PM

Was the thread deleted because of the debate I was engaged in with Curb, or for some other reason? I left after my last post and just got back.

Dakota Spirit · 03-15-2008, 06:28 PM

It was closed because the thread was at least a year old and had been inactive for quite some time - until someone bumped it up today.

RonE requested that if you want to talk of pekepoos, then to please start a new thread.

tcasby · 03-15-2008, 06:45 PM

Closed or deleted. I don't really care for having posts removed while I'm kicking Curbs butt.

Hiding the evidence Curb?

RonE · 03-15-2008, 06:50 PM

And I don't care for being second-guessed.

I closed it, but I don't think Curb realized it was closed when he came back and kicked YOUR butt. Apparently moderators can post to closed threads without realizing it.

You can start a new butt-kicking thread. That one was covered with mold and cobwebs.

Curbside Prophet · 03-15-2008, 06:56 PM

No, I realized it was closed, I just don't like weak arguments flapping in the breeze. It's too untidy for a neat freak.

tcasby · 03-15-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonE

And I don't care for being second-guessed.

I closed it, but I don't think Curb realized it was closed when he came back and kicked YOUR butt. Apparently moderators can post to closed threads without realizing it.

You can start a new butt-kicking thread. That one was covered with mold and cobwebs.

I wasn't second guessing, just asking of it was closed, as people keep saying it is, or deleted, which it appear to me to be. When I search for my posts, none from that thread show up.

RonE · 03-15-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

No, I realized it was closed

Damn, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I enjoy a good zombie flick now-and-again but, once I kill a thread, I like it to stay dead. So, after I closed it and it started to show movement, I deleted it.

I've seen enough movies that I know not to turn my back on those things.

Wimble Woof · 03-15-2008, 07:04 PM

Its not deleted I read through it earlier today, it was, as the others have said, quite boring and I really didnt see where you were kicking any butt to be honest.
Now you just seem to want to start kicking a dead horse for some reason...

Dakota Spirit · 03-15-2008, 07:08 PM

Wimble, it's since been deleted. I didn't realize it either.

Wimble Woof · 03-15-2008, 07:14 PM

Oh well, thats sort of odd though.

RonE · 03-15-2008, 07:20 PM

Let me explain again, though I'm not sure why.

I closed it because people were responding (with the usual passion and conviction) to an OP who hasn't been here for a year.

Then Curb, believing there were still some loose threads dangling, posted to it again. I love Curb like the brother I never had, but I don't think it's fair for a moderator to post when nobody can respond, so I deleted the thread.

In the time that it's taken me to explain that, I could have actually read some NEW threads or, better still, played with my dogs.

tcasby · 03-15-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonE

Let me explain again, though I'm not sure why.

I closed it because people were responding (with the usual passion and conviction) to an OP who hasn't been here for a year.

Then Curb, believing there were still some loose threads dangling, posted to it again. I love Curb like the brother I never had, but I don't think it's fair for a moderator to post when nobody can respond, so I deleted the thread.

In the time that it's taken me to explain that, I could have actually read some NEW threads or, better still, played with my dogs.

No problem. It was just a couple hours of my Sunday morning and a manual search through a 1000 or so petfinder entries to collect the data to make my point.

RonE · 03-15-2008, 07:31 PM

tcasby, I am embarrassed to say that the only thing I actually know about you is that you feel the need to defend the breeders of poo and doodle dogs everywhere. I don't know if you yourself have a dog, or what kind or what you and your dog(s) do for fun.

Maybe it's you that should be embarrassed by that.

RBark · 03-15-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcasby

No problem. It was just a couple hours of my Sunday morning and a manual search through a 1000 or so petfinder entries to collect the data to make my point.

Nobody's stopping you from reposting it.

tcasby · 03-15-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonE

tcasby, I am embarrassed to say that the only thing I actually know about you is that you feel the need to defend the breeders of poo and doodle dogs everywhere. I don't know if you yourself have a dog, or what kind or what you and your dog(s) do for fun.

Maybe it's you that should be embarrassed by that.

http://www.dogforums.com/search.php?searchid=301237

http://www.dogforums.com/search.php?searchid=301094

http://www.dogforums.com/posts/2-gen...11-post17.html

http://www.dogforums.com/search.php?searchid=301088

I know the majority of the posters on this board have only the best interests of dogs in mind when they express their opinions about breeding ethics. I also believe that some of the opinions regarded as gospel on this board are based primarily on emotion and not a dispassionate look at the actual impact on the overall welfare of dogs, feasibility of implementation, or the complexity of the subject. So it has become a subject that interests me.

If someone makes a statement I disagree with, I express my opinion. If they wish to debate it, I debate it. This is how I happen to enjoy participating in the forum.

One of the most frequently make statements that I profoundly disagree with is that breeding of hybrids, by it's very nature, is less ethical then the breeding of purebreds. Because the statement is made frequently, I respond to it frequently. Because people are passionate about the subject, they (not I) choose to debate it with me.

I don't believe I am violating any forum rules, however, if I'm not welcome, just say so and I won't make another post.

RonE · 03-15-2008, 09:33 PM

If you were violating forum rules, the choice to post again wouldn't be up to you.

No, I was just struck by the fact that you've been here a year and I know almost nothing about your dog(s.) But that hardly constitutes a rule violation or even a serious character flaw.

Curbside Prophet · 03-15-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcasby

One of the most frequently make statements that I profoundly disagree with is that breeding of hybrids, by it's very nature, is less ethical then the breeding of purebreds. Because the statement is made frequently, I respond to it frequently. Because people are passionate about the subject, they (not I) choose to debate it with me.

Understanding of statements like this is part of the problem. You disagree simply because you care not to see the other side. That too is an emotional argument.

No one has argued that breeding for a hybrid is unethical. What's been argued is that ethical breeders understand their responsibility to the existing breeds and would never breed hybrids, unless there was a purpose. None of the purposes spouted out in defense of hybrid breeding can or ever will be substantiated. Hybrid vigor (a theory applicable only to natural selection), healthier dogs, hypoallergenic dogs, and all the other propaganda spouted out by BYB's is a selling point, not a care for breed point. It's all to make a quick buck, and you don't see that, and defend it as if this isn't part of the troubles with dogdom.

It's not for me to argue with you or to convince you. That would require you to spend a few years volunteering at your municipal kill-shelter. If yours isn't a true representation of what's going on, find a larger municipal shelter. I've seen too much to tolerate your arguments, and though I may be responding to you, I know the audience here isn't one, and it's those who care to listen I'm responding to. Regardless of what I say, I don't think you will ever hear me, and I apologize to those who find this thread silly.

tcasby · 03-15-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

No one has argued that breeding for a hybrid is unethical. What's been argued is that ethical breeders understand their responsibility to the existing breeds and would never breed hybrids, unless there was a purpose. None of the purposes spouted out in defense of hybrid breeding can or ever will be substantiated. Hybrid vigor (a theory applicable only to natural selection), healthier dogs, hypoallergenic dogs, and all the other propaganda spouted out by BYB's is a selling point, not a care for breed point. It's all to make a quick buck, and you don't see that, and defend it as if this isn't part of the troubles with dogdom.

The primary purpose for which most people acquire dogs is as a pet and a companion. Hybrids as a group excel in that role, while not in any way constraining the ability of purebred breeders to improve their breed.

Most dogs intentionally bred are bred for profit. This is true now, it will be true 100 years from now. If dogs were not bred for profit, there would be no non profit hobby breeders. There would be no purebreds at all.
The fact that someone breeds for profit does not excuse them from a high ethical standards, health testing requirements, etc. The fact that many, even most, commercial breeders do not maintain those standards is not a reflection on the ones that do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

It's not for me to argue with you or to convince you. That would require you to spend a few years volunteering at your municipal kill-shelter. If yours isn't a true representation of what's going on, find a larger municipal shelter. I've seen too much to tolerate your arguments, and though I may be responding to you, I know the audience here isn't one, and it's those who care to listen I'm responding to. Regardless of what I say, I don't think you will ever hear me, and I apologize to those who find this thread silly.

The breeding of hybrids has zero, absolutely zero, negative impact on the overall welfare of dogs, and likely has a positive impact.

People are as likely to choose a hybrid over a pet store purebred or BYB purebred as they are to choose one over a rescue dog. The simple truth is for every puppy purchased from a reputable breeder, many many more will be acquired from some other source. Some from purebred BYBs, some from pet stores, some from oops litters, some from oops litters dropped of at a shelter.
Not only is this inevitable, it is necessary if dog ownership is to remain viable in the US. Given this inevitability, hybrids make an excellent alternative.
As I have demonstrated repeatedly with the data I provided, they are very unlikely to end up in shelters. They do not impact the quality of purebred blood lines. And from my own anecdotal experience with a number of doodles that are good friends with Wheaten, I can tell you the world is a better place with them then without them.

BTW: Hi-kill shelters exist not because of dog overpopulation, but because of the apathy of the community they reside in. Richmond has not euthanize a healthy, adoptable dog in 2 years.

I'm not saying dog overpopulation (actually, it's pitbull and lab mix overpopulation) doesn't exist, but it's at a level that can be managed, and the popularity of hybrid has likely contributed to that.

Your arguments are of the nature of those apposed to Gay marriage or stem cell research. They emanate from your overall belief system, not from a pragmatic look at the actual state dog welfare.

Dakota Spirit · 03-16-2008, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcasby

BTW: Hi-kill shelters exist not because of dog overpopulation, but because of the apathy of the community they reside in. Richmond has not euthanize a healthy, adoptable dog in 2 years.

I'm not saying dog overpopulation (actually, it's pitbull and lab mix overpopulation) doesn't exist, but it's at a level that can be managed, and the popularity of hybrid has likely contributed to that.

I'd be interested to know how much time you spent in a shelter environment, because the statements you make about them have little to no merit. The elevation of kill ratio in any given place has absolutely nothing to do with apathy. Richmond likely has a far lesser population of stray dogs then say, my area does. I live in an area with one of the highest stray populations in the state.

Not only that, but you continue to call overpopulation a breed specific problem when again, if you've spent ANY time in a shelter - you'd know this was far from the truth. I also fail to see how the popularity of doodles has aided in the management of overpopulation. That doesn't make any sense at all.

RBark · 03-16-2008, 12:05 AM

It is beyond me to understand how the popularity of breeding mixes has contributed to decreased dogs in shelters.

I'm sure that if shelters initated the same propaganda that BYB mutt breeders are doing, there would be a lot more adoptions. But then, that'd be lying, which is not good.

And are we talking about Richmond CA? The reason the Richmond SPCA is doing well (according to you) is becuase the community loves dogs?

I've been to Richmond. I've worked there. I'd barely rank the community there above Oakland. Perhaps they just simply don't care who they adopt to. But I've been to the Richmond SPCA, and from talking with the people there, I have to call you on the 2 years with no kill claim.