Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Touche 🙂 Totally grabbed that stat off of Wikipedia. However, I would like to restate the point, that dogs have been around for thousands and thousands of years. Twenty-five generations is an eyeblink.
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Bringing your pet to veterinary school
Started by adoptapuffin
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Touche 🙂 Totally grabbed that stat off of Wikipedia. However, I would like to restate the point, that dogs have been around for thousands and thousands of years. Twenty-five generations is an eyeblink.
Maybe you should consider what's best for yourself as well. Does having the dog with you really outweigh all of the negativity you are going to carry with you. I can tell you from experience, having a dog with you cross-country will exponentially increase the stress of the trip. Worrying if you are being selfish, worrying about the dog crated while you are in class, occassionally neglecting groomint, etc will all be a stress you may not want.
Just saying that although it may seem you will be happier with the dog, it is possible you will not be. Especially in a situation where you KNOW the dog will be in a great situation with your brother.
I don't know the right answer for you (and really there is probably no RIGHT answer), just want you to at least consider it from another point of view.
FYI: none of those things would stop me from bringing my dogs, but then again, I have a spouse to share the responsibilities/worries with.
Six thousand dollars for something that belongs in the woods anyway? I think I would tell the boyfriend to get his priorities straight. Does he have that sort of money laying around?
Also, why does he want a fox so badly? Can he clearly state what he would get from a fox that he could not get from a dog, cat, or other animal historically raised as a pet? Besides the 'cool' factor involved in owning a semi-wild animal...
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just really trying to understand the human compulsion to own these specific tamed-but-wild animals... monkeys, tigers, raccoons, whatever... I mean, so you like the animal. Why do you think it's a good idea to share your home with one? Do you have to go that far? Can't you just hang a picture of it in your room?
Also, why does he want a fox so badly? Can he clearly state what he would get from a fox that he could not get from a dog, cat, or other animal historically raised as a pet? Besides the 'cool' factor involved in owning a semi-wild animal...
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just really trying to understand the human compulsion to own these specific tamed-but-wild animals... monkeys, tigers, raccoons, whatever... I mean, so you like the animal. Why do you think it's a good idea to share your home with one? Do you have to go that far? Can't you just hang a picture of it in your room?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
As much as I agree with this in general, the silver foxes have been selectively bred for a landmark experiment in domestication.
Your boyfriend is still a ******* for wanting one though Two.
Okay, yeah, an experiment. But are they really being sold as pets as a result? How does that contribute to the research? It can't be justified. At least not IMO.
I'm actually kind of glad that they're getting sold as pets 'cause I always wondered what the researchers did with these animals once breeding for the next generation. If you've seen the cages they're in... it's kind of like a puppy mill (unless they've changed things since I last saw a documentary on it). If I were a researcher, I would have a really hard time making these "sweet-natured" animals either live out their lives in those tiny cages or euthanizing them. But I really don't know about the ethical implications of allowing these animals out into the public at large. I mean... what's the point? Sell enough of them to the point that they are common and the public starts breeding them as pets? What happens if some of these animals get loose and start breeding with wild foxes and you get a semi-friendly or feral population going? Or only send them out spayed/neutered?
Putting that aside... not sure if they should be pets per se. I haven't kept up with the research, so I don't know how domesticated they are at this point, and how much of their wild instincts are bred out of them. Even if they are "A+ pet-grade" at this point, I don't think I would ever get one myself. And unless a person was settled with a very stable life, responsible, knowledgeable (not just on owning the animal, but legal implications, effects on community around them, etc...) I think it's a pretty terrible idea. Being one of the first people to import these animals into a country/state/county/city where the legality of it in itself is iffy at best, and I think it would be awful to even attempt it unless you have the the resources to deal with all the possible pitfalls. Plus, why would you want to live with all of these "if's" anyway? What happens if this animal gets loose? What happens if this animal bites someone (and foxes are a rabies vector species. not sure if legally, a dog/cat rabies vaccine will allow you to prevent the instant euthanasia and off with the head thing)? What if having them where you live becomes illegal? How will you find a vet who agrees to see the animal? How do you know you can even meet the animal's needs?
Last edited:
Am I really the minority of people who isn't completly against this? I understand your opinions, I really do. But, how do you feel about people owning animals like hedgehogs, sugar gliders, snakes, lizards, etc? From what I can see on the forums, it seems like you guys are against owning big wild/semi-wild animals. I have not seen anything so far about anyone condoning the owning of exotic snakes, small mammals or frogs.
Tweletigers- It does not contribute to the experient, it is merely a result. The purpose of the entire experient was to make foxes more easier to handle for the people that want to use their fur for clothes. The foxes behavior (and looks) have come to more closely resemble dogs now so that they are being sold as pets and the research is now soley behavior based. None are being shipped off to fur farms anymore 🙂
Minnerbelle- The foxes come spayed or neutered and with all of their vaccines.
Tweletigers- It does not contribute to the experient, it is merely a result. The purpose of the entire experient was to make foxes more easier to handle for the people that want to use their fur for clothes. The foxes behavior (and looks) have come to more closely resemble dogs now so that they are being sold as pets and the research is now soley behavior based. None are being shipped off to fur farms anymore 🙂
Minnerbelle- The foxes come spayed or neutered and with all of their vaccines.
I think there are two reasons people are against this:
-The ethical problem with keeping a wild animal in captivity
-Public safety
It is much more likely for a wolf or fox to hurt someone than for a lizard. Not only are they better physically equipped to hurt someone, but they are more inclined to be loose in the house, to be taken outside, and to have contact with the public.
My third reason, which was already mentioned, is why on earth, when we have millions of fully domesticated pets being put to sleep, why you'd want to pay 6000 for a pet and continue to contribute to overpopulation. That goes for anyone buying pets that is not involved in showing or sports, not just people buying foxes.
If you want to be around wild animals, volunteer at a wildlife rescue.
-The ethical problem with keeping a wild animal in captivity
-Public safety
It is much more likely for a wolf or fox to hurt someone than for a lizard. Not only are they better physically equipped to hurt someone, but they are more inclined to be loose in the house, to be taken outside, and to have contact with the public.
My third reason, which was already mentioned, is why on earth, when we have millions of fully domesticated pets being put to sleep, why you'd want to pay 6000 for a pet and continue to contribute to overpopulation. That goes for anyone buying pets that is not involved in showing or sports, not just people buying foxes.
If you want to be around wild animals, volunteer at a wildlife rescue.
Thanks to everyone that gave me their opinions! I really appreciate it.
I think you guys should read up on the experiment with these foxes before you keep making blanket "wild animal" statements against Two - these animals have been exclusively selected for tameness for dozens of generations. They are no more "keeping a wild animal in captivity" than keeping a cat or dog.
I also don't see how it is any different to pay x dollars for one of the foxes vs. paying x dollars for a companion dog, or even to show or sport. If you're going to shun someone spending their money on a companion animal, it should be a blanket statement. And be careful, because just think of all the superfluous things you buy whose money could be spent saving animals.
But I will just comment that this thread has officially been really, really derailed from the original question, and we may want to move this argument elsewhere.
I also don't see how it is any different to pay x dollars for one of the foxes vs. paying x dollars for a companion dog, or even to show or sport. If you're going to shun someone spending their money on a companion animal, it should be a blanket statement. And be careful, because just think of all the superfluous things you buy whose money could be spent saving animals.
But I will just comment that this thread has officially been really, really derailed from the original question, and we may want to move this argument elsewhere.
and/or if you want to play with these exotic pet species (and possibly learn one of the big reasons why you shouldn't have these exotic pets) volunteer at a wildlife sanctuary, where you can see tons of ex-pets.
And that website where they sell the foxes is uber shady. No, you cannot visit them beforehand. We will just send you a random pup. You can return it for a 50% refund. If it dies within 30 days, we will give you a 50% refund. It might be illegal for you to have one, but it's up to you to check. We'll just send a pup where you want us to.
I would never buy a dog from a puppy mill, not only because of the almost certain genetic issues, but also because of where the pup spends the first however long of its life (as well as lots of other garbage too, but that's besides the point). I don't see how this is any different.
Most shelters and breeders won't adopt out a dog without making sure that the dog is compatible with the family's lifestyle because that's the responsible thing to do. If these foxes are like dogs, I don't see why it should be any different. It just seems like a money making venture where the company doesn't care about the animals or the people involved. The spay/neutering seems more like a way for the company to have monopoly over the tame-fox trade than a public safety/ecology thing.
http://www.sibfox.com/
I tend to agree with this statement. The Farm Fox Study (http://www.floridalupine.org/publications/PDF/trut-fox-study.pdf) is a huge influence on the study of ethology. But as with many studies, there are bi-products, and the bi-products of this study are domesticated foxes. Some of those involved with this project are trying to prove that the DNA of foxes is a closer link to the domestic canine than the wolf.
As for owning one (a domesticated fox), putting legality aside, I also don't see it as being any different than owning a "bully" breed. I train with dogs that should probably not be allowed near civilization due to thier "wild" behavior, but in the hands of their handlers, they are not a immediate threat to those around them. It is just making sure that the owners are qualified to own an animal of this nature. Same goes for people who own boas, certain lizards, and other "dangerous" animals. Just my two cents.
My trainer just spent close to $10,000 for a dual purpose sport and SAR dog.
As for the actual site selling the foxes, it SCREAMS byb to me, with which I have HUGE problems. I condem byb because they are not trying to do the best for the animal or the breed, they are only looking to make money. I also get that feeling from this website and agree with what Minnerbelle wrote about them.
Trilt, my post was not a blanket statement as I clearly stated the difference between purchasing a pet and purchasing a dog for show or sport.
Basic economics will tell you that spending an amount of money on a fancy boat, for example, is different than spending that money to buy a pet. If you buy a boat, your effect on animal welfare is neutral. You have neither helped nor hurt by this action. If you buy a pet (for no special sport or work) from a pet store or a breeder, you are having a negative effect on animal welfare because you are keeping that person in business, allowing them to breed another litter and allowing a shelter animal to die homeless. If it wasn't profitable to breed those Shorkiepoos people wouldn't do it.
---
And the bully breed thing? APBT's score higher on the American Temperament Test Society's test than most other breeds (including the great "family dog" the Golden). They were bred to bait bulls, not to attack people (most other breeds were bred for hunting and guarding too).
Police dogs might be a better example for what you're trying to say (have the physical potential and the training to do a lot of damage), and the difference there is that they are handled by people who have been trained and know what they are doing, not any idiot with an internet connection that wants a fox.
Basic economics will tell you that spending an amount of money on a fancy boat, for example, is different than spending that money to buy a pet. If you buy a boat, your effect on animal welfare is neutral. You have neither helped nor hurt by this action. If you buy a pet (for no special sport or work) from a pet store or a breeder, you are having a negative effect on animal welfare because you are keeping that person in business, allowing them to breed another litter and allowing a shelter animal to die homeless. If it wasn't profitable to breed those Shorkiepoos people wouldn't do it.
---
And the bully breed thing? APBT's score higher on the American Temperament Test Society's test than most other breeds (including the great "family dog" the Golden). They were bred to bait bulls, not to attack people (most other breeds were bred for hunting and guarding too).
Police dogs might be a better example for what you're trying to say (have the physical potential and the training to do a lot of damage), and the difference there is that they are handled by people who have been trained and know what they are doing, not any idiot with an internet connection that wants a fox.
Last edited:
Sooo... if a non-show family wishes to buy a "pet quality" pup from a reputable breeder who had health clearances on the parents' hips, eyes, elbows, heart, thyroid, etc, and who bred the the litter with the intention of keeping the best pup for show/field/etc... you're condemning that?? Some people like shelter animals, some people want a quality animal without health issues, a known history, that will turn into an adult dog of a specific size with a specific temperament. One is not right and the other wrong, and people should not be condemned for either preference.
Supply and demand doesn't just work on intentional breeders - if people couldn't give away those 10 pups sired by the Sneaky Neighbor's Dog when they left Fluffy in the backyard by accident, they'd be much more interested in getting Fluffy spayed. I've bred a couple litters, and trust me - when you have ten 8-week old pups you sure breathe a sigh of relief when the last of those little monsters goes to his loving home.
I think that fox project is a lot more than 25 generations at this point, because I recall hearing about it when I was knee-high to a grasshopper. As domesticated as they are, I don't have a problem with it. I'm not spending $6K on a house ornament, but if that's the way someone wishes to spend their money, who am I to criticize?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Are you actually serious? Did you just compare owning a semi-wild animal to a domesticated staffie or terrier mix? Pit bulls are NOT dangerous animals. This has been discussed to death on here (TT--links?? lol). That statement was very ignorant and very hurtful. I train with dogs who are unruly. Most of them are actually labradors. Go figure. Just because you are afraid of something doesn't make it dangerous. As a dog trainer, I can't believe you are calling bully breeds dangerous. Do you have any idea what kind of damage you, as a "trainer" (not sure in what capacity) are doing to these dogs by calling them dangerous? Did you mean to say that blanketly or was it a mistake? Because if it wasn't, I strongly suggest you do not train any more dogs. ALL dogs bite. Why? Because they have teeth.
Sorry to be blunt, just my opinion.
I do agree that the owner can make or break a dog. Most of the dogs we adopt out at my shelter can only go (and be safe with) a very special owner or family. However, I DO NOT agree with your comparison between bully breeds specifically and "wild" animals. If you're going to make a generalization like that. I would say ALL dogs and not just discriminate based on breed.
I'm not condemning it, but I am saying it has an undesirable effect on overpopulation. I understand the motivations behind getting a purebred puppy, and I appreciate the small minority of people that do their homework and buy from health- and temperament-tested stock. And let's be realistic - that type of situation is such a ridiculously small fraction of breeding/buying that you can't really think that my statement was directly solely at it.
I didn't say that people that buy pets are bad people or that they don't have their reasons for doing so. I'm saying that they do contribute to the overpopulation problem. If for some unknown future reason I was to acquire a pet that way, I would make sure I upped my volunteering and fostering efforts in response.
As far as unintentional breeders, I have met a lot of clients that do realize how hard it is to place animals and after their first they say "never again" and get their animal fixed. So demand does play a role, but there is always the option of dumping the litter at a shelter so it is more complicated than what you are saying. There are many factors causing oops litters, and a lot of that can be targeted with education and low-cost sterilization. The supply and demand I was referring to was about for-profit breeding: if it was not profitable to breed, we would not have pets sold in stores or puppy mills.
Sorry, but I have very little empathy for your sigh of relief because I'm involved in a daily basis on picking up the mess that breeders are causing. Want a real sigh of relief? Help a shelter dog get off death row and into a home. But guess what - that's the exception and not the rule, and if you spend any time in a shelter you'll see some of your favorite "little monsters" getting put to sleep because someone went out and bought a dog in a pet store or from their "breeder" friend instead - and because some breeder didn't bother to screen their "good homes" properly. You can get offended all you want that I think almost all breeding is negatively affecting animal welfare - but as someone who has led animals to the euthanasia room, I would rather offend you than not speak out about the reality of the situation.
And one more thing - many dogs in shelters have no problems, and many purebred (even tested) dogs have issues. My current foster is friendly, calm, obedient, healthy, and housetrained. Anyone who adopts from me will know exactly what they are getting as far as his adult temperament and personality - a lot more than someone buying an 8 week puppy will know.
Last edited:
Also, just logistics-wise, Two:
You said the foxes came with their shots. Not sure what kind of laws exist (if any) but at least in dogs and cats, you need at least a rabies vax every 3 years (every year in some states). So while your cute little cuddly new fox may come with all of his or her shots, she/he will need to get more shots at least every couple of years throughout his (probably short) life. Most licensed veterinarians do not see wildlife (even if they are somewhat domesticated. So you will need to find a wildlife veterinarian, which are few and far between. And most wildlife vets may not even see 'pet' wildlife, as they are only involved in rehab work. And rehabbers can't give vax. So...?
You said the foxes came with their shots. Not sure what kind of laws exist (if any) but at least in dogs and cats, you need at least a rabies vax every 3 years (every year in some states). So while your cute little cuddly new fox may come with all of his or her shots, she/he will need to get more shots at least every couple of years throughout his (probably short) life. Most licensed veterinarians do not see wildlife (even if they are somewhat domesticated. So you will need to find a wildlife veterinarian, which are few and far between. And most wildlife vets may not even see 'pet' wildlife, as they are only involved in rehab work. And rehabbers can't give vax. So...?
uh, what? not all dogs from shelters have health issues, and not all dogs from breeders are healthy.
also, i have known some dogs from breeders who have different temperaments from their parents...not expected. you can't ever be completely certain of things when breeding.
Most of your comments are exclamation points at the end of a conversation. No further discussion seems appropriate.
BTW, I am awaiting your comment to the "GPA rounding-up" thread. I couldn't bring myself to bother.
No, I think that the original derailment of "What do we think about these foxes being domesticated?" has been double derailed to "What do we think about captive exotics?" and "Pure-bred vs. Shelter animals".
The way domestication happens does fascinate me, but I think domestication would be wasteful without a specific purpose/niche that another animal/breed is not fulfilling. Dogs and cats seem to fill the companion animal niche just fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRQbSdMXBk0
[YOUTUBE]PRQbSdMXBk0[/YOUTUBE]
-The Silver Fox Experiment
I did get some information wrong. The project has been going on for 50 generations instead of 25.
http://sibfox.com/history/
I also misread some other information wrong regarding their history. I thought that the experiment started off for the purpose of benefiting the fur industry. The foxes that started the project were taken FROM fur farms.
http://sibfox.com/faq/
Besides the heck wants to go to siberia.
You know fennec foxes are actually quite common in the United States and Japan and they have remain unchanged from their original forms. They are from africa and are naturally relatively wild. They are sold for about 3k.
Silver foxes cost double but have actually been domesticated and modified by breeding. They only vaguely resemble wild silver foxes which is why they are not wanted by the fur industry.
[YOUTUBE]PRQbSdMXBk0[/YOUTUBE]
-The Silver Fox Experiment
I did get some information wrong. The project has been going on for 50 generations instead of 25.
http://sibfox.com/history/
I also misread some other information wrong regarding their history. I thought that the experiment started off for the purpose of benefiting the fur industry. The foxes that started the project were taken FROM fur farms.
http://sibfox.com/faq/
Besides the heck wants to go to siberia.
You know fennec foxes are actually quite common in the United States and Japan and they have remain unchanged from their original forms. They are from africa and are naturally relatively wild. They are sold for about 3k.
Silver foxes cost double but have actually been domesticated and modified by breeding. They only vaguely resemble wild silver foxes which is why they are not wanted by the fur industry.
Last edited:
While 50 generations is double than what was previously discussed, I still don't think it's that much of a difference. Domestication cannot occur over 25, 50, 100, 200 generations. It looks like the dog was domesticated over the span of 1000s of years (and this experiment has only been in place a couple of decades at most?). Cats are thought to be less domesticated than dogs by the experts (google it, if you haven't heard this). It takes a lot less time and circumstance for a cat to become feral than a dog. Cats have been domesticated for around the last 9500 years or so. And they are STILL less domesticated than dogs. Twenty years is NOTHING in evolutionary time. Cats can become feral very quickly and these are animals that we accept to be tame. I'm not saying that in 500-1000 years we won't have pet foxes, but the state of the matter is that they are NOT (as of now) domestic animals that should be kept as pets.
Also, exotic pet ownership has been brought up. You can see all of the negatives of this out there (the chimp that attacked that woman? The Burmese pythons causing destruction of the ecosystem in FL after irresponsible people got them as babies? People that keep tigers in their bedrooms as their "kids?") Fact of the matter is is that smaller exotic animals with less ability to harm humans can be kept as pets, ie lizards, small snakes, whatever else. But when you bring in a potentially dangerous animal, you are exposing that animal to unnecessary stress trying to contain it safely, and yourself and others around you to unnecessary risk. Would your neighbors want to live next to a 'pet' fox? Probably not. I wouldn't want to either, so I can't blame them.
bunnity - sure, breeding of any type contributes to the population, status quo or overpopulation as it may be. However, were the general public made more aware of what they should look for in a breeder before purchasing a pup, there would be less "backyard breeders" - that goes back to supply and demand.
While I agree that not all purebred dogs turn out like you expect them to - temperament, health, size, trainability, etc - you run a higher chance of getting what you expect when buying from a reputable breeder. We may have to agree to disagree on this one - I buy from breeders, and I have the pedigree, the knowledge of the sire and dam, sometimes knowledge of previous litters/full siblings, and I've gotten everything I expected.
On the subject of reputable breeders - a good breeder knows where their pups are and has picked quality homes for them. Sometimes you end up keeping a pup longer than expected because you haven't found a good home. I kept one for almost a year... it happens. A good breeder will also take back a pup at any time if the owner can't keep it for any reason. So far I haven't had to do that, but that goes back to picking good homes initially.
Do not lump all breeders into the same catagory. Just because someone breeds a litter that happens to be intentional and happens to be purebred does not mean they are a reputable breeder - and if you are busy cleaning up a mess from BYBs, do not assume that my breeding or buying a quality pup is contributing to that mess. It may contribute to the number of dogs in the U.S., but it does not necessarily contribute to overpopulation. Putting a pup from a reputable breeder in a dog-friendly home does not mean it has taken away a home from a shelter dog; not everyone out there wants a mixed breed or unregistered animal. I like owning and showing my purebred, registered dogs - that's my preference and my right.
To return to the original topic - I bought a 9 month old pup this spring and he will be going with me to vet school. Not an option. Sure, it may make housing options a little more difficult, and it may cut into my study time and free time, but that's part of the choice I made when I agreed to buy him.
While I agree that not all purebred dogs turn out like you expect them to - temperament, health, size, trainability, etc - you run a higher chance of getting what you expect when buying from a reputable breeder. We may have to agree to disagree on this one - I buy from breeders, and I have the pedigree, the knowledge of the sire and dam, sometimes knowledge of previous litters/full siblings, and I've gotten everything I expected.
On the subject of reputable breeders - a good breeder knows where their pups are and has picked quality homes for them. Sometimes you end up keeping a pup longer than expected because you haven't found a good home. I kept one for almost a year... it happens. A good breeder will also take back a pup at any time if the owner can't keep it for any reason. So far I haven't had to do that, but that goes back to picking good homes initially.
Do not lump all breeders into the same catagory. Just because someone breeds a litter that happens to be intentional and happens to be purebred does not mean they are a reputable breeder - and if you are busy cleaning up a mess from BYBs, do not assume that my breeding or buying a quality pup is contributing to that mess. It may contribute to the number of dogs in the U.S., but it does not necessarily contribute to overpopulation. Putting a pup from a reputable breeder in a dog-friendly home does not mean it has taken away a home from a shelter dog; not everyone out there wants a mixed breed or unregistered animal. I like owning and showing my purebred, registered dogs - that's my preference and my right.
To return to the original topic - I bought a 9 month old pup this spring and he will be going with me to vet school. Not an option. Sure, it may make housing options a little more difficult, and it may cut into my study time and free time, but that's part of the choice I made when I agreed to buy him.
Nstarz, I do want to respond to the whole trainer and bully breed thing, because I don't think I was very clear in the point I was trying to express, but I don't want to take this thread in a third, unrelated direction, so I will PM you.
As for original question on having a dog or pets in general at school, although I have not been to vet school, I do have three dogs that I have had with me while working full time and going to grad school part time. It has not been easy, and occasionally I have to make sacrifices - go out with friends or take the dogs to training/hiking/etc. It can be a burden though, I will not lie, you just have to weigh the pros of having your dog with you versus the cons and see which comes out higher.
As for original question on having a dog or pets in general at school, although I have not been to vet school, I do have three dogs that I have had with me while working full time and going to grad school part time. It has not been easy, and occasionally I have to make sacrifices - go out with friends or take the dogs to training/hiking/etc. It can be a burden though, I will not lie, you just have to weigh the pros of having your dog with you versus the cons and see which comes out higher.
i'm still not sure what to think about this experiment. a part of me is like "omg why are they messing with the genetics of this population?!?! it is not natural at all" the other part of me is like "wow that is so strange how their tails curled in the tame ones, what else can this tell us about evolution of domestic animals etc" I'm still not sure the benefits outweigh how much we are messing with this species. Then again, wtf haven't we screwed up already 😕
Um, it's just like any other experiment that involves selective breeding. It isn't like they removed every single silver fox to do this, and it's teaching so much about behavior, genetics and domestication! I can't see how it wouldn't be worthwhile.
All they're doing is selectively breeding two lines....I mean, I really can't see where the issue is. They're not "messing with the genetics" any more than anyone who breeds any 2 captive animals. 😕
edit: When you distill it down to "natural," well, domestication and any breeding of human-selected animals are "unnatural" then...and then PeTA shows up at your door and shakes your hand for your "enlightened view."
All they're doing is selectively breeding two lines....I mean, I really can't see where the issue is. They're not "messing with the genetics" any more than anyone who breeds any 2 captive animals. 😕
edit: When you distill it down to "natural," well, domestication and any breeding of human-selected animals are "unnatural" then...and then PeTA shows up at your door and shakes your hand for your "enlightened view."
Last edited:
lol i'm welcome to my own opinion nyanko 😛 i didnt choose a side and i'm not going to defend myself. i'm open to many things and we'll see where their research takes them so far. but considering it has been 50 yrs and who knows how many thousands of foxes (maybe millions?) and all they concluded so far was curled tails and floppy ears. it will be interesting to see what genes they think play a role...
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
White spotting too - it was even the most frequent. And various other size metrics that were different in males of the two lines. And it's provided another model organism and outgroup that we can study extensively for studies that help dogs.
I dunno, I just don't see a difference here between this and breeding any other animals, and we breed plenty of other animals with far less of a beneficial reason.
In fact, the animals he started with were originally being farmed for their fur, lol..
edit: Of course you're entitled to your opinion...I'm just sort of surprised at it given your background in actual science. 😉
I dunno, I just don't see a difference here between this and breeding any other animals, and we breed plenty of other animals with far less of a beneficial reason.
In fact, the animals he started with were originally being farmed for their fur, lol..
edit: Of course you're entitled to your opinion...I'm just sort of surprised at it given your background in actual science. 😉
Last edited:
Yea, I'm surprised nobody else on here was bothered by that and the awful cages these animals are kept in. The cages are tiny, wire boxes with no bedding or stimulation whatsoever. To me, any value their research has is overshadowed by the terrible lives these animals lead. The mice in the lab I worked at throughout undergrad were living in paradise compared to this.
As a fellow shelter worker, I couldn't have said it better myself. I understand the reasoning that some people want a purebred or no dog at all (because they need the dog to do a specific type of work for example) so their buying a purebred puppy doesn't take a home away from a shelter dog. I also understand the value of responsible breeders who are committed to preserving and improving the health of certain breeds (and by responsible I mean they will take back any dog they have bred at any time). But the fact is that most breeders do not provide this kind of guarantee and most people do not need a purebred dog to fulfill their needs...and even if they do they can look into a breed rescue.
I myself would much sooner adopt an adult animal because I would know exactly what I'm getting. And I think any first time or inexperienced pet owner especially benefits from adopting a foster/rescue animal that comes pre-trained/evaluated.
Actually, in my behavior course this past semester, we discussed Coppinger's theory of domestication, which suggests that dogs self-domesticated from wolves, but the theory also suggests that "domestication" could have occurred in as little as 10 years. Just food for thought.
Agreed. We breed our dogs (who are also show dogs), working with a breeder. The breeder we work with, as well as the other breeders I have met through her, are fantastic in terms of their policies. ALL of their dogs are hip, heart, and eye certified at Cornell and/or UPenn. They have spayed or neutered dogs that showed health/behavior problems, regardless of loss of money. And all of their contracts state that if for some reason, the owner wants to surrender the dog, the dog MUST be returned to the breeder, not a shelter. They have taken back dogs at all ages.
A friend of a friend contacted us because she'd just bought two purebred golden puppies from a breeder. Her 7-year-old lab was not adjusting, she didn't have a fence, the puppies weren't housebreaking, etc etc etc. Our breeder immediately homed the two puppies without question or payment. These were not her dogs, but she did it anyway.
I totally agree that there are issues with breeding animals when we have such overpopulation issues, and before anyone says it, I will agree that the breeders I work with are likely the minority. But it is naive to think that there will ever be a time when there aren't people who want a purebred puppy and not a shelter dog. Because of that demand, it is so important to support GOOD breeders (while simultaneously shining light on backyard breeders and puppy mills). If we can breed good, healthy, purebred lines and minimize (or completely eliminate) puppy mills, then that's a success for animal welfare.
Of course, I strongly advocate educating the public about shelter animals, and I plan to adopt my own personal pets in the future. But I think it's unfair to put ALL breeders and purebred animals in a negative light.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
