Leema Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 There is two arguments happening in this thread: 1) Is showing a neutered bitch wrong because it is against the rules? and 2) Is showing a neutered bitch wrong because it is against the tradition of dog showing? Universally, we agree that it is wrong because it is against the rules. However, question 2 is more the issue - but not the reason this thread was established in the first place (i.e. to ascertain 1). Hence the circular nature of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bokezu Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 There is two arguments happening in this thread:1) Is showing a neutered bitch wrong because it is against the rules? and 2) Is showing a neutered bitch wrong because it is against the tradition of dog showing? Universally, we agree that it is wrong because it is against the rules. However, question 2 is more the issue - but not the reason this thread was established in the first place (i.e. to ascertain 1). Hence the circular nature of this thread. the only way there will be more neuter's in the ring is by people who want neuter class, lobbying for it. The entire dog is written into every standard right around the world, and is not going to change any time soon, so those that want neuter class start doing something about it instead of complaining, and those that are cheating, hope they feel good with their shallow win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 There is two arguments happening in this thread: I tried pointing that out at post 64 and it didn't get us off the hamster wheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Mistiqview: Mon and crypos are a concern. While a person may "fix" this animal, the condition continues on down the generations. I would rather cull now, than keep running an increased risk further down the track. I recently rehomed a 14 week pup that I could not feel the second nut. I could have waited, but chose rather to cull now. Damn shame as it was a nice pup. One exhibitor told me to send it to Sydney and get it operated on and stitched down... :eek One view is that these conditions continue down the bitch's line. Removing affected males from a breeding program doesn't necessarily resolve the problem. If folk are deadly serious about it they'd not breed with the mother or any litter sisters of an affected male. Brings a slighlty different aspect to the issue doesn't it. Then there's the evidence that these conditions can be nutritionally based. If there's an issue with the rules, then the most ethical method of dealing with them is to lobby for change. I don't really hold with the we show dogs in order to breed so only "breeding stock" should be eligible to compete philosophy. No other animal fancy has this approach and that's for good reason. Limiting the 'proper' exhibition of purebred dogs to entire animals limits hobby (as opposed to breeder) participation (huge in some other fancies), and is absolutely no guarantee that those animals that win are capable or even likely to reproduce. I think there's at least one Westminster winner with a genetic condition that makes him unsuitable to breed (shall we introduce rules requring test results before entry?) and at least one Crufts winner has been proven sterile from memory. The best test of a breeding dog's quality and value appears in the litter box, not in the show ring. The more quality animals you see exhibited that were produced by that dog or bitch or by their progeny, the better a breeding dog its likely to be. How challenging it can be to find even one or two good dogs by a prospective sire when nearly everything is petted out or the dog is rarely used. Personally I find it ironic that people continually lament the decline of dog showing but refuse to make changes to encourage more participation. Don't even get me started on those who make these laments but won't sell a dog to a show home or allow their stud dog to be used by anyone but themselves. Breaks my heart to see a whole line come to a complete end with a breeder exit because they never allowed a Main Register dog off their property. Edited January 7, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I just agreed with Poodlefan. I feel faint ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiesrule Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I show coated and WYSIWYG breeds. You can always tell the quality of a judge if it goes over a coated breed properly... but you also can't judge a book by it's cover. A well groomed dog doesnt always mean product (of course if you can see the powder floating out of the dog that's a different story!), and it doesn't always mean covering something up either. I also do not think it's any harder showing a short coated breed to one with coat, if the judge knows what they are doing for the breeds they are judging. There is grooming and there is grooming LOL nothing better than seeing a correctly groomed and well presented dog ! But its the ones done with tons of hairspray and powdering that was what I was really referring to... Dogs leaving white foot prints as they run around the ring or a big puff of white powder if they stop for a shake ??? Why is so much product needed? Ive seen it used to make the dog appear to have more bone, more coat, change the outline, give a coarser coat... surely all this is 'changing the natural dog'. How can a judge get their hands through a coat full of spray or check legs and feet that are caked in powder ?? Trimming of dogs that shouldnt be trimmed to change their outlines and make their coats appear nicer ! And you are right... IF a good judge knows what they are doing... it shouldnt be a problem !!! But Ive seen many get caught up in a beautiful and correctly groomed dog and the thing could hardly get around the ring !!! But that is another topic altogether LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) I just agreed with Poodlefan.I feel faint ... Smelling salts Sheridan? Actually I'm sure we've agreed before. I think it was in one thread in about August 2006. Edited January 7, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Megz- Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 So in terms of the breeding argument and breeding stock etc. What about a desexed male that has had semen taken and stored? There is nothing stopping this male from reproducing after being desexed. But the only way he can enter a ring again after desexing is if his nuggets have been replaced (against the rules) or entered as a neuter. I think you missed the point I was making. The arguments about a desexed dog not following the traditions of showing by being unable to reproduce is null and void when it comes to males who can have semen taken. If those arguing for reproduction being key to showing then they should also concede that a male with semen stored then desexed can still be bred from and therefore should be allowed to show. Obviously I understand rules don't allow that but for the above argument should they not be changed to reflect the wonders of semen storage :laugh: the rules are there to be followed, if people with desexed dogs want to show they are the ones that should be pushing for changes, most people don't care, you would have to change every breed standard and don't think that will be happening. Again with the harping on about the rules, I have clearly said that I understand the rules. I am just pointing out that males can be reproduced from. I don't need to be told about what the rules are Again. There is two arguments happening in this thread:1) Is showing a neutered bitch wrong because it is against the rules? and 2) Is showing a neutered bitch wrong because it is against the tradition of dog showing? Universally, we agree that it is wrong because it is against the rules. However, question 2 is more the issue - but not the reason this thread was established in the first place (i.e. to ascertain 1). Hence the circular nature of this thread. Can you explain why it is only bitches that are being targetted by the questions? It's just as big of an issue with males being shown once desexed yet they are being completely left out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Megz: It's just as big of an issue with males being shown once desexed yet they are being completely left out. Unless they've still got their 'nads, its going to be obvious to anyone they've been done. I think the issue with bitches is that there are no external signs they've been desexed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 If you only stop to think there are plenty of de sexed males being shown. You don't have to casterate a male to render it infertile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 If you only stop to think there are plenty of de sexed males being shown.You don't have to casterate a male to render it infertile. Temporarily, for sure. Showing with hormonal implants is one issue that still needs a decision one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 If you only stop to think there are plenty of de sexed males being shown.You don't have to casterate a male to render it infertile. Temporarily, for sure. Showing with hormonal implants is one issue that still needs a decision one way or the other. Aaaaaahhhhhhhh, and don't forget the vasectomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Megz- Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 If you only stop to think there are plenty of de sexed males being shown.You don't have to casterate a male to render it infertile. Temporarily, for sure. Showing with hormonal implants is one issue that still needs a decision one way or the other. Aaaaaahhhhhhhh, and don't forget the vasectomy. Vasectomy and fake implants are two very real alternatives that allow for dogs to be shown after being castrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxx'sBuddy Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I just agreed with Poodlefan.I feel faint ... Smelling salts Sheridan? Actually I'm sure we've agreed before. I think it was in one thread in about August 2006. ;) :laugh: you both crack me up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Vets no longer tattoo when they desex. When I had one of my dogs desexed I asked for it to be done and the vet had no problem doing it. I know a few vets have received complaints when they have tattooed dogs ears so alot don't do it for this reason. Uhm......yes they do! In fact in QLD it is compulsory, in fact it is an offence under the Animal Management Act for a Veterinary Surgeon to fail to tattoo at time of desexing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxx'sBuddy Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 it's not compulsory in SA my dog is de-sexed but has no tattoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BittyMooPeeb Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I just agreed with Poodlefan.I feel faint ... I agree with both of you. And they said it would never happen .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 it's not compulsory in SA my dog is de-sexed but has no tattoo Here it is optional as far as I know, but haven't had anything desexed for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog geek Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 If I was showing neutered animals I would do so in neuter classes... Any stock I was showing would be demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of my breeding program. I think altering phenotype (or enhancing colour/coat texture/drape) to match the breed standard is lyin' and cheatin'. And I think that altering an animals' hormonal suite chemically or surgically and not declaring it to be altered - by continuing to show in classes for entire animals - is not good sportsmanship... and is deceitful and dishonest. If an exhibitor decides they cannot show their animal without a hormonal implant to alter the hormonal balance, then can they approach the regulatory body for an exemption? I mean to ask for permission to show while temporarily altered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bokezu Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) If you only stop to think there are plenty of de sexed males being shown.You don't have to casterate a male to render it infertile. Temporarily, for sure. Showing with hormonal implants is one issue that still needs a decision one way or the other. Aaaaaahhhhhhhh, and don't forget the vasectomy. Vasectomy and fake implants are two very real alternatives that allow for dogs to be shown after being castrated. who for? cheats and why go to all that trouble? keep him entire or get another dog, such elaborate deceitfulness blows me away.......and all for a ribbon or a few points.......... Edited January 7, 2011 by Bokezu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now