Why is it ok...

[HollyS]

for an unaltered male dog to *hump* a female dog as the owner just stands there?

I took my female dog to the dog park today and she (and I) got upset when two persistent male dogs kept humping her. The owner just stood there and said "oh, I need to get my dogs neutered..." My dog was clearly agitated and defensive and was no longer enjoying her dog park experience. (She even headed to the gate to leave.) I had to pull my dog away from the other dogs as the owner did nothing.

It's not ok for human males to hump every female in sight, why is it ok for dogs?!

So frustrating!

Because their owners are dumba**es? That's the only reason I can think of.

 

[waterlilly]

Waterlily - I understand that you have some expertise in the area of dogs, but Deb could very well have a LONG history in the dog world and we don't even know it, regardless of whether she only just got the new boy. Take a step back and relax here. Also, male dogs CAN be taught proper manners, even around females in heat. If a 1200 lb horse can perform around mares in heat, I think a 100lb dog can be managed.

Based on what she said about her prior dog experience in the threads leading up to getting her latest, no.

And no, in my experience, no - an unaltered male dog can not be taught proper manners around a female in heat. If you put a bit in their mouth perhaps, but loose in a dog park, no, never.

My history, which you discount:

1) Two female spaniels that went into heat we had when I was a child.

2) A male Irish setter puppy from a store (i.e. from a puppy mill, but as a college kid I didn't know that) that got distemper that I had in college, nursed back to health, and then gave to a good, responsible home.

3) A female Golden Retriever that my husband and I got at six weeks and had spayed and who had a happy, uneventful life. She knew our daughter as an infant and died of natural causes (cancer) at age 12.

4) A huge, oversized, yellow Labrador Retriever that we adopted through Adopt-A-Dog when he was two and our daughter was five and in kindergarten. He was already neutered. He had been neutered too early and never learned to urinate by lifting his leg. He was very good with children, but growled at, and actually bit (albeit never to draw blood) anyone who came to the front door. Until we let the person in. Once the person came inside, everything was fine. It was only the front porch that was dangerous. But if you have a 110-lb dog lunging at you, barking, it is counter-intuitive to want come inside and shut the the door. We hired a trainer who came to the house at what was then a huge fee of $85.00 an hour to work with him. Ultimately I kept him on a leash and held a bottle of tabasco sauce in my hand when I answered the door. He was very scared of the tabsaco sauce, so it was an effective deterrent. This worked better than locking him in the bathroom, which I had tried. Eventually, at age 11, he was euthanized, not for bad behavior, but because his arthritis had become so painful. By then he was confined to his bed and I was bringing him his meals and helping him to the back yard to urinate and defecate. He was no longer terrorizing anyone. When my teenage daughter attempted suicide the first time, I was afraid he might try to bite the emergency medical technicians on the front porch as they entered if I stayed in her bedroom with her, but the dispatcher told me, "Don't worry about the dog! Make sure your daughter is breathing!" Of course the dog couldn't get off his bed, but old habits die hard. I knew my job was to be at the door with the tabasco sauce!!!

4) A small, perky young male, black cocker spaniel from a cocker spaniel rescue group that my daughter absolutely had to have then absolutely couldn't live with. He was neutered. I adored him. Now that was a hyper dog!!! When my daughter decided that she couldn't live with a small dog, we found him what we hoped would be a good home. Tragically, it was a loving home, but an unsafe home, a home in which he was hit by a car. Not by the owner's car, by a car in a street near their house. I had just visited him. I had continued to take responsibility for him, following up on him and volunteering to pay for his vet bills since I knew that this family did not have a lot of money. They truly loved him, though. All members of the family loved and doted on him, as did their neighbors. I saw that when I visited.

So there it is. I don't have an unblemished record. I had a Lab who was a terror and I never made him perfect. I gave away a cocker spaniel and he was hit by a car. So now do I have a right to have opinions on whether male Newfoundlands should be altered or don't I?

PS-I have to take my daughter out, so unlike on most days, typos and grammatical errors will have to stay in my posting. My apologies.

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

Do you have the right to make a decision about your own dog? Of course!

Are you remotely in the position to be making statements such as:

"Neutering is not all that it has been cracked up to be, and in some instances it actually seems to make male dogs more, "hyper"."

"In the dog world the issue is becoming what male circumcision is in the pediatric world."

No, you are not in the position to be making such statements with the very limited dog experience you have.

Even to say:
"Some of us are responsible animal owners who have made an informed decision not to neuter our male dogs based on the breed of the dog, the circumstances in which the dog is kept, and the health history of the breed."

You are brand new to the breed and have had your dog for a couple weeks and are simply doing what someone else told you. You haven't made an informed decision based on any experience on the subject.

This thread is about unwanted behavior at dog parks, specifically dogs mounting each other. My stance - unaltered dogs should not be allowed based on my experience with them and based on my experience managing groups of dogs with a mix of neutered / un-neutered males. If they aren't aggressive themselves, they are triggers of aggression - either way they are not appropriate for a group social setting where a bunch of strange dogs gather.

 

[AGBF]

Do you have the right to make a decision about your own dog? Of course!

Are you remotely in the position to be making statements such as:

"Neutering is not all that it has been cracked up to be, and in some instances it actually seems to make male dogs more, "hyper"."

"In the dog world the issue is becoming what male circumcision is in the pediatric world."

No, you are not in the position to be making such statements with the very limited dog experience you have.

Even to say:
"Some of us are responsible animal owners who have made an informed decision not to neuter our male dogs based on the breed of the dog, the circumstances in which the dog is kept, and the health history of the breed."

You are brand new to the breed and have had your dog for a couple weeks and are simply doing what someone else told you. You haven't made an informed decision based on any experience on the subject.

I never claimed to have made a decision based on experience. I was very clear when I said that the breeder (whom I respect) and the trainer (whom I respect) concurred about this breed of dog and neutering them in situations where the owners could keep the male dogs fenced.

This thread is about unwanted behavior at dog parks, specifically dogs mounting each other. My stance - unaltered dogs should not be allowed based on my experience with them and based on my experience managing groups of dogs with a mix of neutered / un-neutered males. If they aren't aggressive themselves, they are triggers of aggression - either way they are not appropriate for a group social setting where a bunch of strange dogs gather.

And what can I maturely say to you: my father can beat up your father? You claim to be the biggest, baddest honcho on the block. I think my breeder is God's Gift To The World. If you two were men you could just unzip and whip out a ruler. Since you're both women, how do you propose to settle this?

AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[waterlilly]

Do you have the right to make a decision about your own dog? Of course!

Are you remotely in the position to be making statements such as:

"Neutering is not all that it has been cracked up to be, and in some instances it actually seems to make male dogs more, "hyper"."

"In the dog world the issue is becoming what male circumcision is in the pediatric world."

No, you are not in the position to be making such statements with the very limited dog experience you have.

Even to say:
"Some of us are responsible animal owners who have made an informed decision not to neuter our male dogs based on the breed of the dog, the circumstances in which the dog is kept, and the health history of the breed."

You are brand new to the breed and have had your dog for a couple weeks and are simply doing what someone else told you. You haven't made an informed decision based on any experience on the subject.

I never claimed to have made a decision based on experience. I was very clear when I said that the breeder (whom I respect) and the trainer (whom I respect) concurred about this breed of dog and neutering them in situations where the owners could keep the male dogs fenced.

This thread is about unwanted behavior at dog parks, specifically dogs mounting each other. My stance - unaltered dogs should not be allowed based on my experience with them and based on my experience managing groups of dogs with a mix of neutered / un-neutered males. If they aren't aggressive themselves, they are triggers of aggression - either way they are not appropriate for a group social setting where a bunch of strange dogs gather.

And what can I maturely say to you: my father can beat up your father? You claim to be the biggest, baddest honcho on the block. I think my breeder is God's Gift To The World. If you two were men you could just unzip and whip out a ruler. Since you're both women, how do you propose to settle this?

AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

Seriously?

I claim what?

Look - you made some ridiculous statements with nothing to base them on, I called you out on it. Instead of doing some "stop being a bully" routine, either say something useful to back yourself up - or move on.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Here are some additional articles regarding the problems with neutering/early neutering:

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-practice-news-columns/bond-beyond/is-early-neutering-hurting-pets.aspx
http://www.associationofanimalbehaviorprofessionals.com/effects_of_neutering.html
http://www.sonic.net/~cdlcruz/GPCC/library/ccah-cancer001.pdf
http://tallahasseehuntingretrieverclub.com/pdf/newsletter_Dec-Jan_2006.pdf

The benefits of neutering often fall into three categories: 1.) population control 2.) behavior 3.) health

I personally do not believe in permanently altering a dog for the first two reasons--I think those things can be overcome with a responsible owner. The third reason is the most important reason for me, and I'm not convinced neutering is more healthy.

ETA: The NAIA does not support puppy mills--the biggest supporter of puppy mills (aside from those who actually buy from them) is shelters. When I volunteered (in Missouri), over half of the dogs who came in were from puppy mills. We effectively kept them in business by allowing them to dump their unwanted dogs on our doorsep...and we could do nothing about it.

ETAA: I'm definitely not against neutering altogether...obviously, since my dogs have been neutered. I'm only posting this because I do undersand why somebody would choose not to neuter his/her dog if he/she felt it was the right choice. Often times people who choose to keep their dog(s) in tact are seen as irresponsible, which I don't think is fair to the owners. They may, in fact, be doing what they feel is he MOST responsible thing.

 

[kenny]

My Newfoundlandland doesn't "hump" anybody.

Well, what good is he then?

 

[waterlilly]

Here are some additional articles regarding the problems with neutering/early neutering:

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-practice-news-columns/bond-beyond/is-early-neutering-hurting-pets.aspx
http://www.associationofanimalbehaviorprofessionals.com/effects_of_neutering.html
http://www.sonic.net/~cdlcruz/GPCC/library/ccah-cancer001.pdf
http://tallahasseehuntingretrieverclub.com/pdf/newsletter_Dec-Jan_2006.pdf

The benefits of neutering often fall into three categories: 1.) population control 2.) behavior 3.) health

I personally do not believe in permanently altering a dog for the first two reasons--I think those things can be overcome with a responsible owner. The third reason is the most important reason for me, and I'm not convinced neutering is more healthy.

ETA: The NAIA does not support puppy mills--the biggest supporter of puppy mills is shelters. When I volunteered (in Missouri), over half of the dogs who came in were from puppy mills. We effectively kept them in business by allowing them to dump their unwanted dogs on our doorsep...and we could do nothing about it.

NAIA - board members also sit on the AKC board. NAIA - strongly opposes and lobbies against anti-breeder legislation that will regulate puppy mills...why? AKC could not survive without registrations from puppy mills. 80% of AKC's business comes from puppy mills, AKC gives money to keep NAIA up and running. AKC doesn't give a sh** about dog welfare, it is a money making business, and puppy mills are it's bread and butter. This is no secret.

To say the biggest supporter of puppy mills is shelters is absolutely laughable. The dumping ground for irresponsible owners is responsible? Did you seriously just write that? How on earth does that keep them in business? Was the shelter paying the puppy mill for every dog they took in? That is an absurd statement.

Anyway, neutering vs. not neutering is NOT the topic of this thread, it was about dog parks and un-neutered dogs. I am responding to "claims" made about the topic of neutering, but I don't care why someone doesn't want to neuter their dog, it's a personal choice.

 

[AGBF]

Let's look at your statement, waterlilly. Let's see if it holds together under scrutiny.

Look - you made some ridiculous statements with nothing to base them on, I called you out on it. Instead of doing some "stop being a bully" routine, either say something useful to back yourself up - or move on.

B-A-L-O-N-E-Y!!! I made statements based on the opinions of experts, not on, "nothing". I told you that I relied on my breeder and my trainer. One doesn't have to experience everything in life personally in order to have, "something to base (his opinions) on". You claim to be a scientist. Do you realize how ludicrous it is to act as if you would personally have to replicate the experiments of every other scientist, to experience them, before you could use their results? Why must I, personally, live with my Newfoundland and watch as the things my breeder says will happen unfold?
Let's look again.

Look - you made some ridiculous statements with nothing to base them on, I called you out on it. Instead of doing some "stop being a bully" routine, either say something useful to back yourself up - or move on.

Please tell me what a, "stop being a bully" routine is? Is it publicly pointing out that someone is treating you unfairly? Is it to examine the words of the person who has denigrated you? Is it to question self-appointed authority? If not, do, pray, elucidate.
And another look:

Look - you made some ridiculous statements with nothing to base them on, I called you out on it. Instead of doing some "stop being a bully" routine, either say something useful to back yourself up - or move on.

You plan to tell me when I should move on? Are you new here? Let me quote you two lines from an old Phil Ochs song,

"So I'd like to make a promise and I'd like to make a vow
That when I've got something to say, sir, I'm gonna say it now".

AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[Cehrabehra]

It's not okay, but my 95 lb. lab will do it even though he's neutered-it's a dominance behavior. But the owner should intervene.
I find it humiliating, frankly.

My neutered FEMALE lab does it. She's confused. She's not just not a boy, she's a submissive lol

I never just let her do it, it creeps me out. I mean you go to someone's house and their dog humps your leg - do they just sit there and watch? Oh, he's almost done. Just another minute now..

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Here are some additional articles regarding the problems with neutering/early neutering:

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-practice-news-columns/bond-beyond/is-early-neutering-hurting-pets.aspx
http://www.associationofanimalbehaviorprofessionals.com/effects_of_neutering.html
http://www.sonic.net/~cdlcruz/GPCC/library/ccah-cancer001.pdf
http://tallahasseehuntingretrieverclub.com/pdf/newsletter_Dec-Jan_2006.pdf

The benefits of neutering often fall into three categories: 1.) population control 2.) behavior 3.) health

I personally do not believe in permanently altering a dog for the first two reasons--I think those things can be overcome with a responsible owner. The third reason is the most important reason for me, and I'm not convinced neutering is more healthy.

ETA: The NAIA does not support puppy mills--the biggest supporter of puppy mills is shelters. When I volunteered (in Missouri), over half of the dogs who came in were from puppy mills. We effectively kept them in business by allowing them to dump their unwanted dogs on our doorsep...and we could do nothing about it.

NAIA - board members also sit on the AKC board. NAIA - strongly opposes and lobbies against anti-breeder legislation that will regulate puppy mills...why? AKC could not survive without registrations from puppy mills. 80% of AKC's business comes from puppy mills, AKC gives money to keep NAIA up and running. AKC doesn't give a sh** about dog welfare, it is a money making business, and puppy mills are it's bread and butter. This is no secret.

To say the biggest supporter of puppy mills is shelters is absolutely laughable. The dumping ground for irresponsible owners is responsible? Did you seriously just write that? How on earth does that keep them in business? Was the shelter paying the puppy mill for every dog they took in? That is an absurd statement.

Anyway, neutering vs. not neutering is NOT the topic of this thread, it was about dog parks and un-neutered dogs. I am responding to "claims" made about the topic of neutering, but I don't care why someone doesn't want to neuter their dog, it's a personal choice.

I would agree with you that the AKC does not give a crap about animal welfare, but I think that's about the only are we would agree.

Based on my first-hand experience, I absolutely stand by my statement that shelters support puppy mills. As long as we were there to rescue them from their unwanted puppies/adult dogs, they did not have to take responsibility.

The only reason this thread got so far away from the original topic was because you jumped in and immediately became very condescending. Your opinion on neutering and rescue dogs is very apparent in all of your dog-related posts, and I appreciate your passion, but your defensiveness when somebody makes a choice that you don't agree with is...overwhelming.

 

[afreebird]

Every veterinarian we have ever seen has told us about the health benefits of delayed neutering, or no neutering, in our large dogs. Responsible pet families are not the ones who have caused the overpopulation problem. I'm going to base my decision on what is best for my dog.

I understand how someone who works in an animal shelter would feel so strongly about neutering. It's heartbreaking. But it's my responsibility to do what's best for MY dog, and for us, that was waiting as long as possible to get him neutered. And the only reason why we neutered at all was because of the tinkling issue.

I've never heard a vet recommend to neuter a dog as soon as possible. My vet's opinion is the only scientific opinion that holds any weight with me.

By the way, we took our Dane to the dog park ever weekend before he had the snip-snip. We watched him like a hawk to make sure he behaved himself. He was the most well-behaved little gentleman in the park, balls and all.

 

[y2kitty]

I have dog sat for an unaltered (medical issues) 3 legged female Doberman while she is in heat. Even with 3 legs, she is extremely strong and I can't imagine being able to separate her from a male if it came down to it. So we would just go around the block for our walks and back inside.

To the original poster, its not ok, but I am not surprised that another dog choose to try and dominate that sweet docile Dane in your avatar. I always found that dogs would try to dominate my Dane mix b/c she was so big. Must feel good to make the big dog submissive.

 

[dragonfly411]

Waterlily - I understand that you have some expertise in the area of dogs, but Deb could very well have a LONG history in the dog world and we don't even know it, regardless of whether she only just got the new boy. Take a step back and relax here. Also, male dogs CAN be taught proper manners, even around females in heat. If a 1200 lb horse can perform around mares in heat, I think a 100lb dog can be managed.

Based on what she said about her prior dog experience in the threads leading up to getting her latest, no.

And no, in my experience, no - an unaltered male dog can not be taught proper manners around a female in heat. If you put a bit in their mouth perhaps, but loose in a dog park, no, never.

I never rode my stallion with a bit. He was in a natural halter at all times.

Stallions are trained in bosals as well, no bit there. Yes, a dog can be taught proper manners around a female in heat. If you can't control your dogs then maybe you need to consider attending guided obedience classes to learn proper training.

 

[AGBF]

If you can't control your dogs then maybe you need to consider attending guided obedience classes to learn proper training.

May I point out that I enrolled our Newfoundland puppy, who-as Waterlily delighted in pointing out was new to us-in obedience classes as soon as we brought him home? Moreover, it was with the fabulous trainer we used for our Lab 12 years ago! The trainer is also going to come to the house for private sessions to work on issues not covered in class, like walking up a ramp. He had Bull mastiffs and they had to be trained to use ramps. It takes a lot of work. Although Newfoundlands are higher on the scale of trainability (I looked), Griffin does not focus easily in obedience class. Ken says he finds Newfoundlands to be like Bull mastiffs with lots of fur. (And the reason he loves Bull mastiffs is that they are a challenge to train. He always told me that our Lab, Biscuit, was a rocket scientist among dogs.)

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[dragonfly411]

If you can't control your dogs then maybe you need to consider attending guided obedience classes to learn proper training.

May I point out that I enrolled our Newfoundland puppy, who-as Waterlily delighted in pointing out was new to us-in obedience classes as soon as we brought him home? Moreover, it was with the fabulous trainer we used for our Lab 12 years ago! The trainer is also going to come to the house for private sessions to work on issues not covered in class, like walking up a ramp. He had Bull mastiffs and they had to be trained to use ramps. It takes a lot of work. Although Newfoundlands are higher on the scale of trainability (I looked), Griffin does not focus easily in obedience class. Ken says he finds Newfoundlands to be lke Bull mastiffs with lots of fur. (And the reason he loves Bull mastiffs is that they are a challenge to train. He always told me that our Lab, Biscuit, was a rocket scientist among dogs.)

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

Deb - I hope you didn't think I was referring to you. I was more referring to waterlily's comment that intact male dogs cannot be trained to be controlled *around* in heat females.

I do think obedience training is highly beneficial. I'm begging my mom to take my sister's dog. He is a nightmare, and has remained so even after being neutered. If he were consistently at my grandparents' house I'd take care of it, but he is back and forth, so the training ends up being inconsistent and he doesn't retain anything.

 

[AGBF]

Deb - I hope you didn't think I was referring to you. I was more referring to waterlily's comment that intact male dogs cannot be trained to be controlled *around* in heat females.

No, I didn't sweetie! I am still chafing at Waterlily's comments, which I consider ill-bred, and unwarranted. I am an experienced dog owner, and I never held myself out as a dog expert, a dog breeder, a dog trainer, or a dog handler! She attempted to denigrate me by pointing out that I couldn't "even" handle a 120-lb dog who who had lived outdoors all his life and had no obedience training. I couldn't "even" get him out of my yard. Well, I wanted to make the point that-like any responsible owner-I am training him. He isn't at any dog park now, I assure you!!! He wouldn't hump any other dogs. He is very sweet and docile and friendly. He doesn't try to dominate anyone. But I am concentrating on walking him right now. And trying to get him to remember how to sit and do the, "Down!" position. We're a bit behind the rest of the class who are already working on, "Come!".

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[waterlilly]

Waterlily - I understand that you have some expertise in the area of dogs, but Deb could very well have a LONG history in the dog world and we don't even know it, regardless of whether she only just got the new boy. Take a step back and relax here. Also, male dogs CAN be taught proper manners, even around females in heat. If a 1200 lb horse can perform around mares in heat, I think a 100lb dog can be managed.

Based on what she said about her prior dog experience in the threads leading up to getting her latest, no.

And no, in my experience, no - an unaltered male dog can not be taught proper manners around a female in heat. If you put a bit in their mouth perhaps, but loose in a dog park, no, never.

I never rode my stallion with a bit. He was in a natural halter at all times.

Stallions are trained in bosals as well, no bit there. Yes, a dog can be taught proper manners around a female in heat. If you can't control your dogs then maybe you need to consider attending guided obedience classes to learn proper training.

Seriously. How is a horse in a bridal, natural halter or bosal anything like a dog running free in a dog park? A dog on a leash - yes you can control that. A dog running free in a dog park? An unaltered male loose in a dog park with a female in heat? Not a chance!

 

[dragonfly411]

Waterlily - I understand that you have some expertise in the area of dogs, but Deb could very well have a LONG history in the dog world and we don't even know it, regardless of whether she only just got the new boy. Take a step back and relax here. Also, male dogs CAN be taught proper manners, even around females in heat. If a 1200 lb horse can perform around mares in heat, I think a 100lb dog can be managed.

Based on what she said about her prior dog experience in the threads leading up to getting her latest, no.

And no, in my experience, no - an unaltered male dog can not be taught proper manners around a female in heat. If you put a bit in their mouth perhaps, but loose in a dog park, no, never.

Direct quote from you water lily. You also stated that unaltered male dogs in a group setting are a nuisance. That is where I differ.

And yes, in a park setting, male dogs around females in heat can and SHOULD be taught to behave and react on voice command.

 

[waterlilly]

Here are some additional articles regarding the problems with neutering/early neutering:

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-practice-news-columns/bond-beyond/is-early-neutering-hurting-pets.aspx
http://www.associationofanimalbehaviorprofessionals.com/effects_of_neutering.html
http://www.sonic.net/~cdlcruz/GPCC/library/ccah-cancer001.pdf
http://tallahasseehuntingretrieverclub.com/pdf/newsletter_Dec-Jan_2006.pdf

The benefits of neutering often fall into three categories: 1.) population control 2.) behavior 3.) health

I personally do not believe in permanently altering a dog for the first two reasons--I think those things can be overcome with a responsible owner. The third reason is the most important reason for me, and I'm not convinced neutering is more healthy.

ETA: The NAIA does not support puppy mills--the biggest supporter of puppy mills is shelters. When I volunteered (in Missouri), over half of the dogs who came in were from puppy mills. We effectively kept them in business by allowing them to dump their unwanted dogs on our doorsep...and we could do nothing about it.

NAIA - board members also sit on the AKC board. NAIA - strongly opposes and lobbies against anti-breeder legislation that will regulate puppy mills...why? AKC could not survive without registrations from puppy mills. 80% of AKC's business comes from puppy mills, AKC gives money to keep NAIA up and running. AKC doesn't give a sh** about dog welfare, it is a money making business, and puppy mills are it's bread and butter. This is no secret.

To say the biggest supporter of puppy mills is shelters is absolutely laughable. The dumping ground for irresponsible owners is responsible? Did you seriously just write that? How on earth does that keep them in business? Was the shelter paying the puppy mill for every dog they took in? That is an absurd statement.

Anyway, neutering vs. not neutering is NOT the topic of this thread, it was about dog parks and un-neutered dogs. I am responding to "claims" made about the topic of neutering, but I don't care why someone doesn't want to neuter their dog, it's a personal choice.

I would agree with you that the AKC does not give a crap about animal welfare, but I think that's about the only are we would agree.

Based on my first-hand experience, I absolutely stand by my statement that shelters support puppy mills. As long as we were there to rescue them from their unwanted puppies/adult dogs, they did not have to take responsibility.

The only reason this thread got so far away from the original topic was because you jumped in and immediately became very condescending. Your opinion on neutering and rescue dogs is very apparent in all of your dog-related posts, and I appreciate your passion, but your defensiveness when somebody makes a choice that you don't agree with is...overwhelming.

Nope, other people took it off topic and started saying silly things, that's where I came in. Defensive when someone makes a choice I don't agree with? Not hardly. When someone makes opinionated off base statements against something I happen to have first hand experience with as if they are fact - yes, that causes me to become defensive.

Puppy mills take their dogs to shelters to avoid taking "responsibility"? Wouldn't that be nice. They don't just kill them on sight, they are concerned about the dogs finding homes and actually bring them to shelters? What thoughtful people. I can't even continue to debate this one, it really is just absolutely absurd and you need to become educated about what goes on inside puppy mills.

If anyone is concerned about health issues in their pedigreed dog, I suggest you start with the breeder. Breed standards apply to "looks", nothing more. Inbreeding and a lack of ethics regarding the passing of genetic defects has more to do with health issues than neutering your dog does.

AGBF - your dog could be a genetic gold mine, but because his outward appearance didn't quite cut it, his breeder cut him from the line. It's never about a healthy specimen when it comes to earning titles, all that matters is how they look on the outside. Yet, oh my, don't neuter him, that would be SO dangerous!

 

[JillyC]

It's not okay, but my 95 lb. lab will do it even though he's neutered-it's a dominance behavior. But the owner should intervene.
I find it humiliating, frankly.

My neutered FEMALE lab does it. She's confused. She's not just not a boy, she's a submissive lol

I never just let her do it, it creeps me out. I mean you go to someone's house and their dog humps your leg - do they just sit there and watch? Oh, he's almost done. Just another minute now..

I'm now picturing the scene in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation as Cousin Eddie discusses his dog ,Snot, with Clark:

" He's cute ain't he? Only problem is, he's got a little bit a Mississippi leg hound in 'im. If the mood catches him right, he'll grab your leg and just go to town. You don't want him around if your wearing short pants, if you know what I mean. Word of warning though, if he does lay into ya, it's best to just let 'im finish."


I would certainly apologize for my dog's behavior!

 

[AGBF]

AGBF - your dog could be a genetic gold mine, but because his outward appearance didn't quite cut it, his breeder cut him from the line. It's never about a healthy specimen when it comes to earning titles, all that matters is how they look on the outside. Yet, oh my, don't neuter him, that would be SO dangerous!

You don't know my breeder, so why don't you stop defaming her? She kept Griffin long after she decided not to breed him because she loved him. She had been on the fence about whether to keep him or give him up, that is why I got him at 16 months. He is actually gorgeous. My trainer, who had Bull mastiffs compete against Newfoundlands is the working dog category, was surprised that the breeder thought he was too small to be a champion. As I said, he took one look at Griffin and said, "Best in show!". He thinks he is big enough to be a champion, but I have zero desire to have a show dog. I love my dogs. Each of my dogs has been a huge part of my life. My breeder cares about her dogs as I do about mine. We discussed their vitamins and their food and their genetic illnesses for hours. She isn't breeding Griffin because she breeds to improve the breed (the Newfoundland breed). Griffin isn't large enough to improve the breed according to what the breed is defined as being. She doesn't believe in neutering male Newfoundlands for health reasons. Why don't you get that? Why do you have to slur the reputation of someone you don't know? If you don't like it that there are parameters for show dogs, don't take it out on my breeder!

Deb/AGBF

 

[waterlilly]

Waterlily - I understand that you have some expertise in the area of dogs, but Deb could very well have a LONG history in the dog world and we don't even know it, regardless of whether she only just got the new boy. Take a step back and relax here. Also, male dogs CAN be taught proper manners, even around females in heat. If a 1200 lb horse can perform around mares in heat, I think a 100lb dog can be managed.

Based on what she said about her prior dog experience in the threads leading up to getting her latest, no.

And no, in my experience, no - an unaltered male dog can not be taught proper manners around a female in heat. If you put a bit in their mouth perhaps, but loose in a dog park, no, never.

Direct quote from you water lily. You also stated that unaltered male dogs in a group setting are a nuisance. That is where I differ.

And yes, in a park setting, male dogs around females in heat can and SHOULD be taught to behave and react on voice command.

I think you misunderstood my point. A horse with a bridal or halter on - and a human at the end of the reigns has no comparison to a dog off of leash. I don't get where the comparison comes from. I meant if you put a bit in the dogs mouth - if you are going to compare horse and rider to an off leash dog, that makes no sense. Great, you are of the opinion that an unaltered male should be under voice control in front of a female in heat. If you can accomplish that, I'd pay to see it.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Waterlily, I'm not going to continue debating because I'm content to agree to disagree. I respect your opinions because I don't think you're ignorant...we just fall in different sides of the fence.

To be clear, however, conformation is not based on "looks". Breed standards are developed for the purpose of the dog. If a dog does not meet those standards, then the breeder isn't bettering the breed by keeping that dog in her lines. I'm the first to argue that I think health clearances are about 100x more important than whether a dog is 27" at the withers vs. 28", and I personally seek out working lines for my dogs because that is what I care about, but the basis of conformation has little to do with looks.

 

[waterlilly]

AGBF - your dog could be a genetic gold mine, but because his outward appearance didn't quite cut it, his breeder cut him from the line. It's never about a healthy specimen when it comes to earning titles, all that matters is how they look on the outside. Yet, oh my, don't neuter him, that would be SO dangerous!

You don't know my breeder, so why don't you stop defaming her? She kept Griffin long after she decided not to breed him because she loved him. She had been on the fence about whether to keep him or give him up, that is why I got him at 16 months. He is actually gorgeous. My trainer, who had Bull mastiffs compete against Newfoundlands is the working dog category, was surprised that the breeder thought he was too small to be a champion. As I said, he took one look at Griffin and said, "Best in show!". He thinks he is big enough to be a champion, but I have zero desire to have a show dog. I love my dogs. Each of my dogs has been a huge part of my life. My breeder cares about her dogs as I do about mine. We discussed their vitamins and their food and their genetic illnesses for hours. She isn't breeding Griffin because she breeds to improve the the breed (the Newfoundland breed). Griffin isn't large enough to improve the breed according to what the breed is defined as being. She doesn't believe in neutering male Newfoundlands for health reasons. Why don't you get that? Why do you have to slur the rputatio of someone you don't know?

Deb/AGBF

Defame her? You just confirmed exactly what I said! I don't want to bash breeders, because in the scheme of things - reputable breeders are not part of the problem in terms of overpopulation. But, "breeding" dogs is a sport, and full of questions regarding ethics as far as I'm concerned. He was an item to her, he lived outside in a kennel with no training - for 16 months. He wasn't up to standard as far as looks go, so she got rid of him. Am I bashing her by saying that?? I only know this because you said so! Is this bashing? No! This is simply par for the course in the world of breeding.

As you said - she breeds to improve the outward appearance of the breed, she didn't think he was big enough - so isn't going to breed him. I'll say it again, Breed Standards have nothing to do with health, nothing. Do some research on Cavalier KC spaniels - how champion dogs are wrought with genetic defects - but nothing is done to eliminate them because it would effect the outward appearance of the dog, take a look at what breeders have done to German Shepherds or Pugs in this country. When people say they fear neutering a dog - especially a pedigreed dog - because they worry about the health issues it would cause, I shake my head. How is there such a disconnect? Many dogs look nothing like their healthy ancestors, we have molded and shaped their looks with no regard to their health.

 

[waterlilly]

Waterlily, I'm not going to continue debating because I'm content to agree to disagree. I respect your opinions because I don't think you're ignorant...we just fall in different sides of the fence.

To be clear, however, conformation is not based on "looks". Breed standards are developed for the purpose of the dog. If a dog does not meet those standards, then the breeder isn't bettering the breed by keeping that dog in her lines. I'm the first to argue that I think health clearances are about 100x more important than whether a dog is 27" at the withers vs. 28", and I personally seek out working lines for my dogs because that is what I care about, but the basis of conformation has little to do with looks.

Actually, to be clear - conformation is based SOLELY on the external appearance of the dog. Conformation is an evaluation of breed standards...what about a breed standard has anything to do with a dogs health and actual ability to perform a function? Breed standards describe the outward appearance of a dog, period.

Here is a blurb regarding exactly what I was just talking about:

Criticism of dog showing

See also: Pedigree Dogs Exposed
The practice of breeding dogs for conformation showing has become a subject of intense debate. Some critics state that conformation shows lead to selecting of breeding dogs based solely upon appearance, which is seen by some as being detrimental to working qualities and at worst as promotion of eugenics.[11]
In the United States some working dog breed organizations, such as the American Border Collie Association and the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America, have put a considerable amount of effort in the fight to keep their breeds from being recognized by the AKC and some other kennel clubs,[12] as they fear that introduction of their breeds to the show ring will lead to decreasing numbers of working dogs with adequate qualities.
In August 2008, BBC1 televised a documentary film titled Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which investigated the subject of health issues affecting pedigree dogs in the United Kingdom, with a particular emphasis on dogs bred for showing. The programme provoked an unprecedented response from both the public and the dog-breeding community, with widespread criticism directed at the Kennel Club. Since the broadcast, the BBC has withdrawn its television coverage of Crufts dog show in 2009, with other sponsors and partners also withdrawing their support, including Pedigree Petfoods, the RSPCA, PDSA and the Dog's Trust. In response to the programme, the Kennel Club in the UK announced a review of all breed standards, with the long-term goal being to eradicate hereditary health concerns. Most notably, they will impose a ban on breeding between dogs that are closely related and will impose greater monitoring to prevent unhealthy dogs from being entered for and winning awards at dog shows.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I understand what you are saying, but when you say they are based on "looks", it sounds like the emphasis is on aesthetics and not purpose. As I'm sure you know, a dog is bred for a purpose. If a dog cannot serve its purpose because of its physical shortcomings, then what's the point of continuing those genes? I'm sure lots of people would love a dry-mouthed Newf, or a non-shedding Husky, or a 60-lb. Mastiff, but a good breeder would never support those traits and a good conformation judge would never reward those traits. And that has nothing to do with "looks", it's about essential traits of the breed enable that breed to do its job.

If Griffin doesn't meet the breed standards for size, it's something the breeder has to consider. It's only one piece of the puzzle--which obviously also includes his health and temperament--but it's not something that would ever be ignored by a good breeder.

 

[dragonfly411]

Waterlily, I'm not going to continue debating because I'm content to agree to disagree. I respect your opinions because I don't think you're ignorant...we just fall in different sides of the fence.

To be clear, however, conformation is not based on "looks". Breed standards are developed for the purpose of the dog. If a dog does not meet those standards, then the breeder isn't bettering the breed by keeping that dog in her lines. I'm the first to argue that I think health clearances are about 100x more important than whether a dog is 27" at the withers vs. 28", and I personally seek out working lines for my dogs because that is what I care about, but the basis of conformation has little to do with looks.

Actually, to be clear - conformation is based SOLELY on the external appearance of the dog. Conformation is an evaluation of breed standards...what about a breed standard has anything to do with a dogs ability to physically perform a function? Breed standards describe the outward appearance of a dog, period.

Here is a blurb regarding exactly what I was just talking about:

Criticism of dog showing

See also: Pedigree Dogs Exposed
The practice of breeding dogs for conformation showing has become a subject of intense debate. Some critics state that conformation shows lead to selecting of breeding dogs based solely upon appearance, which is seen by some as being detrimental to working qualities and at worst as promotion of eugenics.[11]
In the United States some working dog breed organizations, such as the American Border Collie Association and the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America, have put a considerable amount of effort in the fight to keep their breeds from being recognized by the AKC and some other kennel clubs,[12] as they fear that introduction of their breeds to the show ring will lead to decreasing numbers of working dogs with adequate qualities.
In August 2008, BBC1 televised a documentary film titled Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which investigated the subject of health issues affecting pedigree dogs in the United Kingdom, with a particular emphasis on dogs bred for showing. The programme provoked an unprecedented response from both the public and the dog-breeding community, with widespread criticism directed at the Kennel Club. Since the broadcast, the BBC has withdrawn its television coverage of Crufts dog show in 2009, with other sponsors and partners also withdrawing their support, including Pedigree Petfoods, the RSPCA, PDSA and the Dog's Trust. In response to the programme, the Kennel Club in the UK announced a review of all breed standards, with the long-term goal being to eradicate hereditary health concerns. Most notably, they will impose a ban on breeding between dogs that are closely related and will impose greater monitoring to prevent unhealthy dogs from being entered for and winning awards at dog shows.

Conformation determines an animal's ability to perform based on human judgment of qualities that enhance performance. A short dog with short legs and heavy body is not going to be able to jump as high as a taller dog with a more refined body. A bassett hound will never run as fast as a greyhound due to body structure, conformation. A thoroughbred race horse will not be able to trot like a saddle seat horse because it's built differently. A house cat will not be able to take down a full sized gazelle because it's conformation is not made for large animal hunting. What about that is solely about looks to you? Breed standards are developed based upon common characteristics of a breed that not only make them unique, but give them their abilities to do certain jobs.


And I was referencing your quotes about dogs not being able to be trained to have good manners around each other when in heat. An intact male animal can be trained to have good manners just like a 1200lb horse can as well. I'll stand by that. I've seen male dogs around females in heat that behaved perfectly fine for their owners. It is called training and discipline. I'm sorry YOU haven't seen it in YOUR experience, but you aren't working in ALL venues of dog breeding and ownership either now are you.

Waterlily - I feel like you have a lot of expertise IN YOUR AREA, but just like you say Deb cannot make general statements based on her area of experience, you cannot make general statements about the entire dog world based on JUST your experience. Until you've seen every dog there is in the nation (I'll edit this to say world since some of us are international), you cannot say that NO INTACT MALE DOG can be trained to behave around a female in heat while not on a leash. I understand you are passionate about the subject because you have to deal with the repercussions of irresponsible breeders, but you are also quick to note how wrong the rest of the world is when yourself may not be right.

 

[Ella]

We know that this topic can be heated, but please stay respectful and calm so this conversation can continue.

 

[waterlilly]

I understand what you are saying, but when you say they are based on "looks", it sounds like the emphasis is on aesthetics and not purpose. As I'm sure you know, a dog is bred for a purpose. If a dog cannot serve its purpose because of its physical shortcomings, then what's the point of continuing those genes? I'm sure lots of people would love a dry-mouthed Newf, or a non-shedding Husky, or a 60-lb. Mastiff, but a good breeder would never support those traits and a good conformation judge would never reward those traits. And that has nothing to do with "looks", it's about essential traits of the breed enable that breed to do its job.

That's exactly what the emphasis is on - aesthetics. Do you honestly not know about the endless list of health defects that are perpetuated in the name of aesthetics?

I'm sure you know, there are Newf. breeders that breed for dry mouth - and I guarantee you more people would do it if it didn't require altering that giant block head - one of the physically attractive characteristics of the dog.

If conformation is about traits that enable a breed to do it's job - why are there "show" dogs and "working" dogs in one litter? Why wouldn't a dog that is capable of doing a function it's breed was created for pass in the show ring? Because it doesn't LOOK a certain way. It doesn't matter how healthy a dog is (or isn't !) all that matters is how it looks. Titles have absolutely nothing to do with a healthy dog. Appearance changes over time depending on what traits draw more $$ from people that want to own the breed.

 

[dragonfly411]

Waterlily - That's where aesthetics DO come into play, but that doesn't mean that conformation is based solely on aesthetics. Conformation's emphasis will depend on the breeder and whether they dedicate themselves to conformation that is useful or a show ring aesthetic. Two different things.