|
Location: South Wales, UK.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,620
|
|
Originally Posted by Housedog
In the members opinion, who benifits most from KC affiliation, Humans or Dogs? I am quite certain that the human gets the most advantage out of this marriage.
KC affiliation or no KC affiliation, is really what you are getting at.
Taking aside those breeds that do not have the choice (ie import breeds/new breeds/other non KC recognised breeds), then all those other breeds who
are recognised by the KC
are better off - the facts speak for them selves: if you took all the badly bred/unhealthy dogs out there who suffer genetic disorders or other forms of disease, you would probably find that around 90% are from NON KC REGISTERED breeders (largely made up of: puppy farmers/ wannabee breeders/get rich quick idiots/I know best fools/etc) In addition, you'd probably find the rescues also hold more non kc registered than kc registered dogs.
So from the dogs point of view - it would prefer to be a KC dog because it knows the rules are more stringent for it's own conception - meaning it has a better chance of being bred healthier.
Obviously the KC is not perfect as you can see what has happened to the English Bulldog (re it's health problems), however the breed clubs and jugdes are more to blame for that really and on the whole the above statement ecompasses the wider spectrum of breeds.
I feel it is a HUGE mistake when some people try to portray that non-KC dogs (in particular staffs) as 'fitter' versions, because in my own experience I have found non KC staffs to be absolutely dreadful!! two of Rockys friends are non KC Staffs (and we see many more of them around here) one is heavily overweight and way too wide for a staff and the other is too short with a head that does not fit in proportion with it's body! (According to the owner they are pedigree staffs but not KC reg
). Now what Im
not saying is that those non-kc staffs that some of the people here talk about, are unfit, unhealthy, diesease ridden animals, but what I am saying is THOSE are an exception and you probably should start classing them as something else ( I forgot, some people already do as 'gamrbred staffs' - but then that opens up another can of worms) because for most people, when you mention non KC staffs they get recollections/images of staffs that have been bred by the non KC breeders I mentioned above ie, those that end up looking nothing like the breed standard (and sometimes they almost look like cross breeds
).
So KC affiliation or non KC affiliation? From a buyers prospective I would always suggest if possible for the breed they are after, the KC affiliation route unless I knew a breeder perosnally and knew 100% the dogs were being bred to a high standard. You simply have a better chance of a better animal from a KC reg breeder, especially from the point of view of an unexperienced buyer.
Regarding the show dogs are always fatter - I believe this is a myth started by people who 'breed/support those above mentioned dogs', they put 2 and 2 together and come up with 19 (because they believe what they want to believe and so after seeing a 'few' poor specimins out of the thousands out there, they brand 'all' the same - in addition it fits in with their 'cause' so they are glad they found this 'proof'). Also and this is human nature - most of the people who we get to talk to who have those views, probably have never been to crufts! but they just repeat what they've been told/fed regarding 'oh there were so many overwight dogs there this year', nomatter how untrue it is - but like I said it's human nature - we believe what we want to believe bcos is suits our methodology, and we are too lazy (and not really bothered) to go and make sure whether there really is any real substance to it all.
jmho.