naitche

This is not meant to be Pedigree bashing thread.

There are undeniable benefits to Pedigrees. Better understanding the genetic history, able to match  traits with expectations and personal environment are just two reasons the system has has been supported as long as it has. They are good reasons.

Welfare of domestic dogs could benefit enormously  if Back yard breeders were more aware of those considerations. That should have been a side effect of the K.Cs establishment. A positive influence on their environment.

The opposite has been true. I am convinced after years now of examining the problems and culture that the reason for that is the K.Cs do not recognise the environment beyond their own identity.

Instead of promoting practices that deliver maximum value in dog breeding, those practices are suppressed . A Dog Breeder, to the K.C identity ( not member, they are individual ) is a K.C member. Biologicaly speaking, the perspective of the K.C Identity is fixed to that idea. Because a dog with out a pedigree is not recognised.

In defining the space of a Pedigree breeder against what lies beyond that space, its no longer an environment created to better support dog breeders goals and purpose.

Its an Identity in its own right, with a fixed perspective. Possibilities are limited. Its self evolution is  finished. Breeders themselves have described the dedication to the pedigree and its standards as a religion. Their faith in the Pedigree .

Persons on the Pedigree forums requesting help with a pedigree breeding related problem are advised or directed to help. Those with unregistered dogs are invariably derided for their irresponsibility,  being in a situation where they need help. For not understanding the consequences and pit falls of breeding. For breeding dogs whos history is unknown. 

Their ability to respond to the species is denied and discredited. Demonstrations of successful  breeding practice beyond the pedigree system are not permitted to stand. They will be discredited. Demonstrations of poor practice on the other hand, are used to justify Legislation targeting the environments where those practices have been shown to occur. And exemptions sought at the same time for the K.Cs.

Its a single species. The practices used to bring best value to humanity from that species are not confined to a pedigree environment. 

The Pedigrees are closed. There are protocols in place to to allow out crosses, and this has been done for example in Boxers, to introduce the bob tail gene,  and in Dalmations to overcome a uric acid problem. Only using other pedigree dogs, but it has happened. When it does, many breeders will avoid those new lines as not 'true' to their breed, or even reject that breed completely. Its a long, slow process with approval needing sanction every step of the way.

The closed pedigrees are are a problem, but the closed culture on top of that makes it a far bigger one.

The only value to dogs recognised must be in the Pedigree. In the 'standard' condition of the dog. Its breed standard.

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, the title for a start...

Not really. Domestic Dogs....

I think the Pure breed/Pedigree system is and has been  affecting our attitudes  and expectations for Domestic dogs. I think it has lead human communities to become less responsible in their breeding practices and understanding of the species. To view them more as commodities and status symbols.

To dumb them down so they are less responding to their human environment and more reacting to stimulus according to fixed traits.

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

The whole pet thing is a mystery to me. I had some goldfish a few years ago by accident, and I kept them out of curiosity. I got some pond weed off freegle, and there must have been eggs on it. 

I like cats but don't want one. Other people's cats are near enough. And I certainly wouldn't want one that had a shrunken nose. How people can live with their consciences buying shrunken-nose animals escapes me.

I'd like to start a mongrel register, where people could post their dog's details, only including dogs that have not been a recognised breed for more than three generations. Or preferably no breed history at all. People could buy a mongrel in the knowledge that it's not just a cross between two different pure breed dogs, but a genuine no-breed mongrel. And they could find a mongrel mate for their dog, so that the pups were genuine mongrels as well.

You could allow a bit of choice, like in size and coat, for mating with your dog, to get the kind of pups you were hoping for, and give the buyers a rough idea of what the pups might look like when they grow. But really, it would be better if it was like having a baby. You don't know what you're going to get, and end up loving them anyway.

I would love to see a new register started based on purpose, free movement between groupings based on suitability to purpose,  and even multiple category listing.

A  mission statement to promote value, responsibility and purpose.

I think it would serve to better educate people about their choices,  have a huge effect on  welfare issues  by promoting the idea that domestic dogs are a personal responsibility, Not an organisational one. I think that could reinforce  Registered or not, there is a responsibility to promote value and purpose in breeding practices.

At the moment, the registries don't do that. instead its implied that a Pure Breed Pedigree Register  inherently supplies those benefits  ( As one breeder told me ) It doesn't. A pedigree register is just a set of environmental conditions with no value of itself. It depends on the value brought to it. As it stands now,  no value can be brought that isn't there to begin.

10 hours ago, Itoero said:

I don't have a mongrel. I have a West-Siberian laika

Your breed has some advantages at this stage. Its a relatively recently recognised breed. There is still a very large 'control' population of Land race specimens, very  likely a much larger gene pool with no historical 'bottle necks'.

The Russians have their own unique cultural  attitude to dogs that has been slower to embrace the Pure breed/Pedigree culture. Most Western cultures were pretty much at the same place regarding dogs about 75 years ago. I.M.O much healthier.

The same does not apply for a majority of recognised breeds.

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

They have two choices.
They can inbreed- to maintain the "purity of the breed" or they can outbreed- " to diminish the chance of genetic defects."
They can not do both- because that's the way genetics works.

Which do they do?

Or, they could breed with a clear purpose in mind, and select for that purpose based on what is proven in their own environment to deliver maximum value to that purpose.

As open working dog registries do.

Regardless of a mythical set of 'standard' conditions that may or may not have any bearing on your own. 

Itoero,

No, not the system. The culture. 

Sled dogs are bred for a purpose other than the 'standard' condition .

I'm not familiar with the registry governing sled dogs, if there is one. But I'm pretty sure that if it is an open registry it will will not be recognised by the F.C.I that the majority of pure breed registries now come under, or that it will be the F.C.I or any affiliated registry running the sled dog trials or competitions.

We have open registries here too for working dogs. mostly shepherd types. They are not recognised by 'Pure' breeders.    Breeders of dogs such as working Basset hounds are  discredited. Because their Dogs do not have an unbroken lineage pedigree proving it is the breed claimed, and differ in type. Do not conform to the standard as its recognised in the show ring today. Never mind that they are bred as Basset Hounds, from Basset Hounds, for the purpose of a Basset Hound and do it successfully.

"Thats not a Basset" 

Open registry working breeds  breeds may have a show line version that is recognised by Pure breed registries, but  kept distinct and apart from its working counter part. Show lines have recognition, but not once a working line is introduced from an open registry.

Dogs bred for any purpose other than the standard as its recognised in the show ring diverge. A pure breed working line version may still gain recognition in ring sports or trials under the F.C.I. Few breeds can gain recognition for value in both disciplines. Given enough time, I can almost guarantee no breed will.

Breeders  have tried to achieve success in both ring sports and show ring. Their success is almost nil and generally results in value lost to  working  line. No longer fit for purpose.

The biggest barrier to improvement in the K.Cs is the culture. To understand  that, it makes sense to look at the constitution and mission statements.

While I was exploring that angle, I looked for guides to the writing of a successful constitution and found a text where it was advised that negative rules or statements are avoided.

The reasoning being that positive rulings/statements provide direction. Negative gives no direction , only blocks it, most often in unforeseen ways.

It was also advised that any ruling or statement should be to define the working of the organisation, so relate to those only. Any reference in the negative to what lies beyond the workings of the organisation should also be avoided.

Reason being that what is beyond the organisation is its environment. So a negative ruling is  a ruling against the environment. 

I haven't been able to find that document lately, so can't refer back to it to be exact. In essence though, it said that in stating non pedigree Dogs are not recognised, the organisation would not recognise its environment. The result would be to take dogs out of their environment.

The Organisation as Organism idea.

I figured the K.Cs would be a very good test of that hypothesis since they

Have been going for over 150 years, so multi generational.

A generation  as a breeder is shorter than a  human one.( averages out at about 7-10 years, high rate of attrition) 

The dogs themselves and their position in their environment give an additional, observable evolutionary  reference.

Evolutionary changes should be easier to observe and note. And the effects  able to be measured.

So is that what is happening?

I am sure it is. Though I think its more apt to describe  the organisation as  part of an organism, That identifies as something separate. Its  definition of self excludes  the organism.

What its founded on. So actively undermines its own foundations.

I know I'm not good at language to get this across well,  but it looks to me like the K.Cs are driving cultural change and expectation to exclude dogs.They lose purpose and value to the  human community and the human community looses its ability to respond to dogs- looses its response-ability to dogs.

Legislation to target irresponsible practices becomes aimed at environments where poor practices are demonstrated, rather than promoting  and rewarding demonstration of better practice.

The K.Cs loose their ability to meet the needs and expectations of their environment. They are aimed at meeting the expectation and demands of the breed standards.

 Demonstrated as successful in the show ring or Ring sports. Not in the broader environment.

The trend to cross breeds might look positive at 1st, but is connected to an increased commodification of dogs as accessories with little purpose and increased reliance on commercial motives and practices. We expect far less of dogs today than 100 or even 50 years ago.

We loose our response-ability to dogs because we are less familiar with them, with their diverse needs and requirements. with the demonstrations of the practices that maximise their value to us.

Familiarity and demonstration of value teaches responsibility. 

Legislation meant to target irresponsible practice is instead aimed at environments where irresponsible practice is recognised,

because out side of the K.Cs, responsible practices rarely are. They are discredited.

Even the designer dogs benefiting from their new popularity are increasingly driven  to registering bodies that compete to standardise  the breeding practices, and  type.   Pedigrees are given to validate the dog. Rather than the dog being recognised for the value it can demonstrate to its environment.

The purpose of the K.Cs, if they are unable to recognise a dogs value without a pedigree, is to the pedigree, Not the dog.

They promote Pedigrees, not dogs. Any improvement to dogs must come through elimination. 

They have defined the space  the K.Cs will occupy by  its conditions, not its own scope. Its possibilities are unrecognised. 

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_Dogs_Exposed

Personally, I find some of the practices reprehensible.

Yeah. 

Interesting too to look  at illustrations of some of our modern breeds and how they have changed in 100 years. Shar pei , Bull terriers, and most Mastiff breeds can be pretty shocking.

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, Imagine I'm intelligent and looking to get a dog.
I have essentially two choices. I can get a puppy from the bloke down the street who didn't realise his pet bitch was in heat (God only knows who the pup's father is).

Or I can pay a lot of money for a dog whose genetic defects are so predictable that I can research them in detail on the web.

 

As an "intelligent owner", which should I choose?

The breeders seem to want it both ways. They tell me that breeds of dogs have characteristic traits (a few have been listed here) and then they tell me (for example) that Rottweilers are not really innately aggressive.

 

Incidentally, Asthma is triggered by dander, rather than the smell of a dog.

You've hit it with this. Predictability  isn't the same as reliability.

Predictability reduces other possible  responses.

The push for predictability through a pedigree system also reduces our own response-ability to the species.

The K.Cs could be a positive influence on Dog ownership and breeding practices. They are not, and I'm sure thats largely because they refuse to recognise the value of a dog without a pedigree. 

To be recognised as a 'Dog breeder' and assisted, mentored or encouraged  requires membership into a Pedigree registry. So signing up to an agreement that those working out side that system shouldn't be recognised for any value.

Re; parvo, Black and tan dogs are more vulnerable , and seem to be more commonly affected by haemophilia too.

Regarding working ability of guardian breeds, These breeds under the K.Cs seem to inevitably split into two groups, Show line and working line.

Working line dogs are tested and proven through trials. The working Dog version of the show ring. Set stimulus to provoke predictable response. Modern training methods have come to rely on training over natural ability for predictable results.

A very high prey drive and state of arousal is usually sought to achieve that since its a drive that can be utilised for ease of training. Not within the ability of the average dog owner to manage safely or effectively.

Even so, the rate of wash out seems to increase over time so that those once popular breeds are used less and less often.

The Malinois is taking over for now.

53 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Genetic defects like that, caused by inbreeding, is a major point of naitche's post.

Yes.

These are increasing at an incredible rate and are becoming far more prevalent than most owners realise. Cancers, haemophilia, and mental disorders too.The list is growing and is at  the stage now where to breed even cross breeds ideally requires extensive genetic testing for multiples of  conditions.

Then we have the deliberate breeding of extreme physical characteristics that cause their own problems for the dogs quality of life and life expectation.

I understand the Pedigree system has a lot of benefits for reliability of traits.

But the selection for those traits is no longer  driven by 'environmental' demand or expectation. At least not if you consider the environment for domestic dogs must be humanity. The environment has become the K.Cs ( or Kennel Clubs)  The Breed Standard, as awarded in the show ring, has replaced the environmental conditions governing selection. And shapes our expectation according to what is demonstrated.

I want to  find ways  to combat the problems seen in Pedigree dog breeding, and the Pedigree culture that perpetuates  those problems.

I immersed myself into that culture via forums to study and understand it.

I have found it worse than I expected, not so much for the attitudes that prevail, as for the effects that culture has on its environment and the species as a whole.

I see a very real danger that our rights to keep dogs, our abilities to respond to the species, and to breed  for purpose is being increasingly eroded.

Hoping for discussion that will help change that.

The Pedigree Registries mostly include in their constitutions, or mission statements words to the effect that non-pedigree dogs are not recognised. I'm pretty sure that this statement is the root cause of the majority of problems and the difficulty in changing the culture.

Its effects on the broader environment are hidden, but real.

There is such huge variation of phenotype in domestic dogs. Looking at a dog like the Koolie for example, its easy to think they might be be more closely related.

There are likely more recent genetic studies  you could find associated with conservation efforts and captive breeding.  

Research is ongoing, but current studies seem to indicate that domestic dogs and grey wolves both evolved from a common ancestor wolf species, now extinct, while 

African wild dogs are related but more distantly. They can not be domesticated (or have not successfully been) or interbreed with Domestic dogs as The Grey wolf can.

The more modern Grey wolf on the other hand has contributed to the genetics of Domestic dogs.

 My point is still missed.

Science is supported by evidence. Its not science without that. Yes you still have reason, critical thinking, probability etc. but with out evidence, science can only apply those to past experience and conditioning.

Good reasoning to support a belief of expectation, or at the least to be extremely sceptical, yes.

Not enough for me to have faith in that belief  though.

I'm not trying to support belief in a supreme being, or 'paranormal' experience.  I've noted the results often and they can be horribly damaging.

Just a persons right to have them, with out invoking science to discredit them. With out the evidence needed to support that as science.

I can't assume a persons belief is based on faith with out taking their perspective into account. I don't see a perspective as wrong, just often incomplete. Faith when its unable to adapt and respond to changed or  contributing conditions.  

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I didn’t down vote you. I replied to you with a clear cogent response. The neg rep was not from me. 

I didn't assume you did, but your response was still helpful to my understanding.

Quote

Will you please state this in another way? I’m struggling to parse it and feel that I may have...

Quote

...misunderstood. 

 If there were a person who could demonstrate clear reliable and cogent evidence of phenomena currently regarded as paranormal, its assumed its in their interests to provide that evidence for science. I think it very likely that person might see it  differently.

It seems there is little thought  about the effects that  might have on a person, the people around them,  the reactions it could provoke or the demands made of them.

Such a person may well not be in a state to think  dealing  with that is such a good idea.

It seems to be viewed as an 'ability'. Its not unless you understand the causative factors.

Too far off topic though and not the interest that brought me here.

11 hours ago, iNow said:

By saying this, you continue to reinforce your previously denied ignorance of science.

The most famous people EVER are the ones that turned conventional understandings upside down.

Those who show the flaws in previous understandings are the MOST celebrated, yet you persist in these suggestions that they’d be ostracized and would need to go into hiding for demonstrating flaws in existing theories. 

If you think that’s how it works, you’re badly mistaken. 

 

No, you miss understood. 

I was referring to the a person who could demonstrate evidence reliable, clear and cogent. Not the science behind it or the research  that explained it. The subject who could provide it. As a possible contributing factor for its lack.

But thanks, it explains the  down vote and lets me see where I went wrong.

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

As it concerns faith, I think science has a firm grasp on what's happening.  As it may concern the paranormal, the evidence provided through real scientific methodology has, IMO, shown the paranormal or supernatural to be quite normal and not so super.  The evidence for what "is happening" has been consistently ordinary and explainable. Regardless, some of us still cling to the child-like hope for something more magical to our existence that just being alive.

Yes. So I expect more will be explained in future, concerning things still often dismissed as woo.

6 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

 Unfortunately, impartial and open-minded study of the paranormal hasn't as yet uncovered incontrovertible evidence for the paranormal. 

Off topic, but since this seems to be a point people are stuck on I will say thats likely going to be the case until some one comes up with an idea of just what is happening, and how/if we can affect that.

Or the person who can provide that evidence. Though I wonder what the future might hold for any who could.

Personally, that alone would be incentive to hide deep.

Yes. Willing to look beyond past experience and conditioning to recognise whats present.

Agreed.

Though I think far too few have the confidence of self you favour, when   group affiliation is increasingly promoted as part of ones identity.

 Its easy to miss judge the effects and strength of the concerted opposition of a group you choose to identify with.  It doesn't need to be universal to that group to have a huge effect on that groups diversity , while people who disagree with the vocal consensus prefer to avoid the same opposition.

The effects on the environment also seem to be underestimated.

As an area I've been led to explore,  Its looking to me like faith is tied in to identity, by  limiting perspective and available response.

More than a 'property' of religion.

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

If I may comment on just this bit here, your comment appears to show how little you may understand science.  Science attempts to provide a clear, cogent, and reliable methodology whereby evidence may be investigated or found for the ideas we espouse. Science isn't discouraged from investigating the supernatural, it has investigated and have found clear, cogent, and reliable evidence lacking.   

I'm gad you said 'may'. My understanding is not as poor as assumed here.

I did say no fault of science if evidence is lacking.

It was wrong to say  paranormal research is discouraged by science.  Enough people of science though, do a pretty effective job of discrediting  those interested enough to undertake its research .Few who value their credibility to science  are willing to try.  Leaving the field more open to those who don't value credibility to science. I'm sure that and much more  has a huge effect on the  availability of suitable subjects.

I agree clear, cogent and reliable evidence is lacking.

But this is not the topic here, just an example used for its similarities to the question 'What is faith?' The assumptions made of  people or their credibility who might be interested enough to try an idea. 

Thank you Phi for All, for your considered questions.

beecee,

I don't question that  a belief in a supreme being, or god,  is how faith is defined by general consensus of the the scientific community.

Just that any such consensus must be the  final definition of science.

That a scientific  'identity' rules out the chance there is more to faith, or  there is any more to be learned from it. That it would block a direction science might take, based on past experience. Ruling out other possibilities.

On 26/06/2018 at 3:25 AM, Phi for All said:

Why does dependency on a perspective change the way we believe in it? I depend on critical thought, which is data gathered as information using reason, tested rigorously so I can trust it to accurately represent what we observe in nature, so I can make informed choices that reflect the value of my identity. I would no more call that faith than I would call a hammer a saw or a drill. I depend on science as the most accurate, objective way to derive such information, and I see no value in listening to any individual perspective that doesn't agree with natural observation and experiment. I know why you think it's important, but I also know you can't understand why science is based on trust and not faith if you don't bother to study it rigorously. It's intellectually dishonest to discount scientific principles if you haven't studied them. 

A late attempt to answer, while I have time.

I don't discount the principles of science at all. 

I  see them as conditions, of an environment that exists as it is because we uphold them.

What I am saying is I don't think a personal perspective of what those conditions  'mean' for anything that is (presently) beyond them add anything to your value as a scientist, or science itself. Insistence on a personal perspective of science,  applied to what is currently beyond it, can only limit  the  direction science  might take in regards to the subject.

Your value as a person of science depends on what you bring to its conditions. Not  others. They don't apply, and shouldn't.

Quote

This is a common claim from those facing rigorous pushback from sceptics. Since science ALWAYS looks for the best supported explanations, and uses them as a test for other explanations (Can your TOE match the accuracy of Relativity?), it can seem hidebound, especially since you may not understand the whole theory (which is probably why you might think it's wrong and needs fixing). Science perspective isn't fixed at all. In fact, that's one of the big differences between trusted beliefs and faithful beliefs; trusted beliefs are capable of figuring out when they're wrong or incomplete.

I don't think science needs fixing either. Its fine as it is, as long as we don't try to apply it  to other environments  where its conditions are not supported.

There is no evidence to support  science in religion. Science should not be there until there is support provided .

That seems to me to be where the danger for science lies. It measures the value of  science against what is beyond the scope of its  space. So limits the potential for its space.

Fixes science in time and space. Ie: I experience phenomena that some here might prefer to call supernatural. I don't believe in 'woo' as some here like to call it- so I look to science to explain it , one day. Rather than occultist environments.

While science is discouraged from looking for evidence, and is more interested in discrediting or disproving what is provided, that limits its direction and  the potential space  it might occupy. No fault of science if the evidence is not there, or does not meet the scientific conditions.

But until acceptable evidence is provided one way or another, evidence that  supports its conditions, science  shouldn't have a perspective on that subject. That would  rely on faith, (or what I have come to view as 'faith') and a fixed 'identity'  for science, and who/what belongs in the space it occupies.

Meeting the conditions of science should be the only criteria of what science is, or  its perspective becomes limited.

No longer a set of environmental conditions, but a fixed identity with limited ability to respond to the changing conditions of its environment.

On 29/07/2018 at 6:07 AM, Itoero said:

Do you think veganism will be necessary in the future? Do vegans have the moral high ground?

I Don't think Vegans have the moral high ground, Until thats the only option we leave viable.

If it is needed,  we will have new problems related to that 'choice'. 

We tend to settle and  build our cities on the most fertile and watered lands as populations increase, and monocultures, Well, they only have one thing going for them at any time.

Pasture lands often act as a buffer zone protecting crops from predation, while retaining a measure of diversity. Inter-generational farmers are learning .Free range live stock production often serves as incentive for reclaiming desert lands, and increasing diversity.

Sustainability is still  the problem,  until causative issues ( of the reasoning for veganism being the moral choice) are recognised and addressed.

i think a moral choice would be to recognise and address the issues that answer 'yes'  to your questions.

9 hours ago, ali1382 said:

There is a question that bother's me a lot, and that why are here? But I think there is no answer for it... But what do you think?

I prefer  

We are here.

What do we do with it?

What meaning will we give it?

If faith is seen  as the same thing as a belief in a God, then it doesn't apply to me.  

I can't say why people do have that belief because its subjective to their own perspective.

My interpretation of faith is  when someone  is dependent on a  perspective as being central to the value of identity. 

Being faithful to an idea. Not turning aside from a  value recognised, to enable recognition of others.

Holding on to that rope for dear life with all your focus on the view in front of you, So you can't see the step that would change your circumstance or the danger in its condition.

I don't think you can understand faith in a  belief unless you can separate the two.

If you can't,  I don't think  it can be a scientific question either. 

My interest in faith isn't in its specific manifestation of a belief in god, or discrediting one.

Science can't do that. Science is dependent on evidence and to assume otherwise is assuming properties of science it hasn't got. 

 Individual perspective is essential to diversity.

My interest is in when diversity of perspective is not recognised or valued. When perspective is fixed, and seeks to enforce its view of reality as correct.

Even when its missing the pieces needed for it to be.

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

The only support for this is the viscosity of the midden.

 

There is evidentiary support for this in biology, in the  organism that cannot recognise its environment.

There is support in History in the expression of Nazism and other forms of identity politics,  or Isms.

There is evidence in the evolutionary course of the Kennel Clubs . And many religions. That discredit and/or reduce their environments, because all they can recognise is their own positional image. 

That image must be either replicated, or removed because no response to it is possible without recognition. And that requires familiarity.

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It supports knowledge and understanding.

Thats its purpose. If  it can achieve it or not depends on the values brought to it.

Quote

The only support for this is the viscosity of the midden.

I think this thread supports it. That physics supports it. The value of a space can't be measured by conditions beyond it.

It can't be measured by its  position in opposition  to what is beyond it, without with out limiting the possibilities of the space  available to it. 

Surely it must It become fixed in opposition?

Quote

Does it matter? The only thing about the faithful that matters to me is the moment they stop telling me I should have some.

Yes it matters if you are to decide if that faith is baseless or not.

It matters if you are going to respond to to faith in an effective way.

It matters if you hope to open that space up to science because your response must effective. Its unlikely to be effective if you are opposed  to its existence.