With its sweet and loving disposition, combined with silky fur and elegantly droopy ears, the Cavalier King Charles spaniel is a popular breed—with families paying hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars per puppy. Unfortunately, though, it is almost certain that their pet will also come with genetic disorders.
Yep. And what kind of idiot continues to buy and breed these dogs? No answer there! The article continues:
By age five, for example, half of all Cavaliers will develop mitral valve disease, a serious heart condition that leaves the dogs susceptible to premature death. By the same age, up to 70 percent will suffer from canine syringomyelia, a debilitating neurological disorder in which the brain is too large for the skull, causing severe pain in the neck and shoulders, along with damage to parts of the dog’s spinal cord. And although Cavaliers may be a particularly obvious case of purebreds with problems, they aren’t alone. Most purebred dogs today are at a high risk for numerous inherited diseases. Why did this happen—and what can be done about it?
Ah well, we will be entering well-plowed ground here now, won't we?
But the vast number of modern breeds—and the roots of their genetically caused problems—came about over the past two centuries, as dog shows became popular and people began selectively inbreeding the animals to have specific physical features. Over time the American Kennel Club (AKC) and other such organizations have set standards defining what each variety should look like. To foster the desired appearance, breeders often turn to line breeding—a type of inbreeding that mates direct relatives, such as grandmother and grandson.
No news there. But then the article slides off the track and starts down the road to complete prattle:
Despite the negative effects of controlled breeding, animal science experts point to the value of selecting for consistency. “A breed standard is the template providing information about the appearance and temperament and reflects the original function and purpose of the breed,” says Milan Hess, a Colorado-based veterinarian who works with the AKC. When choosing a dog as a pet, consumers look to the breed standard for certainty. “They know what it will look like and how it will act,” says Thomas Famula, an animal-breeding specialist at the University of California, Davis.
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot. An "animal science expert" selected by the AKC is talking about working dogs? Right.
Let's count the AKC dogs on the Iditarod, the AKC dogs at the race track, the AKC dogs actually herding sheep for a living, the AKC terriers dug to in the field, the AKC dogs retrieving ducks in the Chesapeake.
And exactly what is the work of a Pug, an English Bulldog, or a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel?
Going to the AKC to talk about working dogs is like going to the sugar industry to ask what you should do to lose weight.
And AKC dogs are bred to ACT a certain way? Really? Complete bullshit.
The AKC show ring gives ZERO points for health, ZERO points for work, and ZERO POINTS for temperament.
ZERO, ZERO, ZERO.
The writer then repeats the AKC prattle that they are "just a registry".
With the search for consistency yielding unforeseen flaws, however, who is to blame? Although the AKC sets the breed standards, it is principally a registry organization and has little control over the actual breeding process.More complete bullshit. Claire Maldarelli simply FAILS as a reporter.
As I have noted in the past:
It is the AKC that mandates that dogs be bred in a closed registry system in which increasing levels of inbreeding are the inevitable byproduct.
It is the AKC that green lights the standards which select for defect and which mean that most members of some breeds suffer their whole lives.
It is the AKC that credentials judges who have no idea of what they are doing because they know nothing about working dogs or even the basics of anatomy.
It is the AKC that gives show dogs zero points for health, zero points for work, and zero points for temperament.
It is the AKC that not only allows puppy mill dogs to be registered -- it goes out of its way to solicit their business, giving them cheaper registration deals, creating special computerized registration programs for them, and even inviting them into their guest suites at Westminster.
It is the AKC that refuses to allow any breed club to mandate health tests as a requirement for registration.
It is the AKC that refuses to allow any breed club to mandate working tests as a requirement for registration.
It is the AKC that refuses to allow any breed club to delay registration until a dog is an adult and is actually proven to look like the breed it is supposed to be.
So how did this article start off right, but so quickly get it wrong?
The answer is at the very end. It seems Claire Maldarelli is from "Scienceline, a project of New York University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program."
Right. So we have a college student pantomiming the job of reporting. "Fake it until you make it," as they say today.
This is one of her first efforts as a reporter, and she simply does not know enough about the subject she is writing about to separate wheat from chaff, and bullshit from truth. Good Lord, she think all the problems with canine health have to do with genetics alone! How could she possible miss the selection for deformity?
Bottom line: Scientific American needs to proctor itself better. Articles like this are no doubt free to them, but they come at a cost of credibility. Once that is lost, it's very hard to get back!
2 comments:
Manure is no good unless you spread it around.
The conceit of many editors is that if a person knows a good deal -- or *anything* -- about a topic, then she is unqualified to write about it, because she knows enough to have formed an opinion. This is not "objective."
"Objective" is diving in armed with ignorance and finding "two sides" to the story, then presenting them as if they were equally credible.
Post a Comment