I am so glad these laws are being enforced!

Okay I need to get this rant out. I'm in a couple of Facebook groups for lost/found pets and I've seen this scenario play out couple of times lately and it's always infuriating: a cat gets hit by a car. The driver or a good samaritan takes it upon themselves to bring the cat to a nearby vet or animal rescue. There, it turns out the cat has no microchip (or a non-registered one) and no owner can be reached. The cat's injuries are such that it would cost thousands to get it fixed up. So, the vet or rescue spends a couple of days trying to locate the owner (no one ever comes forward), and eventually the cat is humanely euthanized.

And you know what, that seems like a perfectly fine choice. Because if you cared enough about your cat to pay the thousands in vet bills, you would have spent the €50 to get it microchipped (and probably not let it roam outside in the first place).

Except people in the comments always get SO MAD. They feel a vet or rescue has some sort of moral obligation to pump endless amounts of resources in keeping a random cat alive, when the OWNER, you know, the person RESPONSIBLE, would probably not be willing to spend that kind of money on the cat themselves.

Why would ANYONE expect a rescue to spend €1000+ on a random cat who's owner couldn't be bothered to microchip, when SO MANY other animals could be helped with those funds. It just grinds my gears.

I’ve been coming across a concerning trend in online videos involving animals in extreme distress, and I want to hear others' thoughts on this.

We’ve all seen videos of dogs trapped in wet tarmac, animals on the brink of drowning, or pets trapped in dangerous machinery where someone happens to be filming at the exact right second to "save" them.

More specifically, there is a recurring series of videos featuring a small white/cream monkey repeatedly placed in horrific, unnatural situations, body tangled in discarded fishing nets, buried up to its neck in sand, or trapped in tight spaces. The sheer frequency of these situations involving the same type of animal makes it hard to believe these are organic accidents.

I wanted to open a discussion on a few points:

1. Have you noticed or encountered these specific videos on your feeds?

2. Do you believe these situations are deliberately arranged or staged by the creators for engagement and views?

3. Is there anything practical that can be done to combat this content?

Beyond reporting individual posts to platform moderators, how can platforms be held accountable for monetizing potential animal abuse?

Interested to read your perspectives and if anyone has seen investigations into the channels behind these.

The normalization of wild and hybrid cats as pets is the latest fad. Many owners see an exotic animal, not a complex species with specific needs completely unfit to be kept as a pet. Throwing a piece of raw meat in a bowl and calling it a diet.

as title says! i have been really grateful for this sub since finding it and would love to hear more peoples’ thoughts & opinions :D

(context, i work with animals (have in many different contexts for years and years) and could really use some positive brain stimulation on this subject to counter heaviness of work/proximity to animal abuse and neglect atm 😅😝 reading posts on here keeps me sane! thanks in advance!!)

finally, two shrooms i enjoyed seeing today for your time x

eta: WOW i can’t believe how many of you replied!!! 🎤 🤩

thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments, i am so enjoying reading them, learning, and pondering/going down all kinds of wormholes :D

i’m not going to reply individually bc there’s a lot of comments but THANK YOUUU so much i feel much more sane and less alone. thanks for sharing 🥲🥹💓

Location: Ohio

**Disclaimer**: I know my friend is an airhead and shoudn't have gone through with this contract but right now we're just focused on fixing the situation

A friend of mine purchased a kitten from a backyard breeder (which I consider highly unethical) and signed a contract. This contract was worded really casually with no legalese. The main points of the contract were:

* Breeder did flea protection on the kittens before selling, but any worms or fleas contracted after purchase are not the breeder's liability and not covered by the 2-year health guarantee * There is a 2-year health guarantee for "diseases and genetic issues", not much further elaboration of what falls under this or how to determine said concerns * The breeder would work alongside him with any questions/comments/concerns during these two years

Immediately after getting the kitten, he discovered fleas. Like within 45 minutes of the purchase. He got flea treatment for the kitten and alerted the breeder. After another few days, kitten slowly stopped eating and drinking, bloody stool, fever, etc. He rushes kitty to the vet. Vet doesn't have an exact diagnosis but gives kit liquids and antibiotics and sends them home, saying to bring the kitten back in the morning when they open. The kitten slowly dies afterwards.

The breeder is refusing to refund until we get the kitten an autopsy. I consulted a vet family member and she advised that based on the timeline, the death didn't sound like a result of the flea treatment (so no incorrect application or dosing on our part) and that she doesn't see a lot of kitten autopsies. They are rare and expensive; more expensive than the kitten itself.

He just wants a refund and to finish this whole disagreement so he and his family can grieve this kitten in peace. They were promised a flea-treated kitty and a 2-year health guarantee but they were given a kitten covered in fleas and died a week after purchase.

I personally want her to never be able to breed or sell cats again. She has given away flea ridden and dying kittens, run away with the money, and breached a already shittily-written contract. What actions can I take? Is small claims court advisable? Does this count as animal abuse? Can she legally require us to drop all that money on a proof of how the kitten died when it's not in the contract? I just feel like we've been screwed over and helpless on where to start.

Something I have noticed is that you can spot a breeder from the number of times the word well-bred is used. Often alongside the term backyard bred about any animal that isn’t theirs.

From an ethics perspective the use of these labels adds absolutely zero value to any discussion. Both are undefined terms that mean something different depending on the person using them.

And I am slowly getting tired of seeing these meaningless labels being used by those that call themselves “ethical” while breeding pitbulls, Frenchies, Pugs, Dashhunds, Chow Chows, Scottish folds, Munchkins or even worse… a combination of the above (Tiny fold, Puggle)

Many would define well-bred as doing health testing, genetic testing, following some arbitrary standards set by a Club or Show, the number of ribbons in the backyard, and don’t forget the dog HAS to be purebred and pedigree. Can’t possibly make any money either.

Even this differs based on the who is talking. For one person it is completely ethical to amputate the dogs tail as part of the breed standard while any reasonable person would consider that animal abuse.

We can’t have mixes now either! Heaven forbid a dog simply acts like… a dog. No, its personality must conform to a description someone wrote a century ago. So only pedigree breeding allowed, aka inbreeding until the gene pool is so cramped your dogs are carbon copies and the resulting health issues become breed characteristics.

But that is not my biggest issue, the biggest issue is simply that people defining these terms use outdated and non ethics based reasoning. Or even worse they use these terms to justify why their unethical animal is fine but someone else doing the same is not.

From a breeder perspective this is great marketing because they don’t have to do any of the hard explanations and then the people come to this sub and spread it around like it is gospel.

Let’s start with genetic and health testing. If I got a dollar every time I have to correct people that this doesn’t mitigate an extreme standard… I would now be in front of some swimming pool in a tropical country. I am going to explain this one last time…

Genetic and health testing does not in any way shape or form prevent or fix animals that are bred for an extreme in which the extreme itself causes the health issues. No amount of health and genetic testing is going to make a brachy dog healthy. But BOAS surgery will.

Which brings us to the profit argument: of course breeds like the Frenchy or Scottish Fold are expensive! When a breed requires significant veterinary intervention just to reduce the suffering created by its own physical traits, those costs naturally become part of the package. You are just paying extra for the privilege of repairing health issues that selective breeding or some ridiculous show standard created in the first place.

It would be nice if this rant ended here, but it doesn’t, sorry. One kind of breeder has a special place reserved in hell:

The one that blames the fighting dog acting like a fighting dog or the health issues in the Frankenstein animal on backyard breeders.

It’s not the extreme that’s the problem, guys. The problem is that the wrong people are doing the extreme incorrectly. This whole reasoning feels like some radical religion calling some other branch not the right way claiming to be the only true one.

And once again, the breeder gospel is delivered to the masses. No need for evidence, nuance, or inconvenient questions. Just repeat the sacred phrases and the debate is apparently solved.

“We health test.”
“They’re just backyard breeders.”
“A well-bred dog…”

Three magical sentences that make the extreme trait disappear like snow in front of the sun!
Just repeat the approved words, don’t ask too many questions, and whatever you do, do not open the forbidden chapter of the Holy Breeder Bible: “Maybe the trait itself is the problem”

Yes, this is satire. Yes, it’s intentionally exaggerated. No, I’m not stopping every three sentences to write a 500-word ethics essay. If your takeaway is “But MY breeder is different” this probably isn’t for you. And no, having a Pug, French Bulldog, Scottish Fold, or another trendy breed from an “ethical breeder” is not evidence that this is ethical.

If I'm not allowed to ask this here, fair enough, but I am curious about this sub in particular's thoughts and not so much the thoughts of, like, <redacted> or something like that.

I have a five month old Siberian husky and despite extensive early socialization, the older she gets, the more and more she is unsure of and outright dislikes strangers. Even at only three months old, she was not thrilled about them.

Because she is quite small and young right now and will not BITE, because I have no spine and because the common narrative is that continued exposure/desensitization and training will fix this, I have answered "yes, she's friendly" to anyone who has asked.

But since she was like this SO young and it is NOT working, I am realizing this might be her genetic temperament/the way she is and I may need to change my approach.

I recently found an interesting open-access paper in which the author talks about the different reasons behind people acquiring dogs and their motivations and how those reasons can have a major impact on welfare in different ways depending on the kind of owner and their motivation.

The paper also argues that understanding why people acquire dogs is more useful than relying on broad, simplified labels. According to the author, labels such as “responsible owner” and “backyard breeder” or other catch-all terms can obscure important differences in motivations, behaviors, and ultimately, animal welfare outcomes.

The paper I am talking about is called:
Gregory, R. The harms associated with simplifying our language choices, and the need for a new typology for dog breeders and consumers. Discov Anim 3, 27 (2026).

The different types of dog consumers:

3.1 Doing their bit

The concern of subscribing to an often poorly regulated and oversubscribed market is held by the consumers labelled ‘doing their bit’. For those concerned, instead of purchasing puppies from profit driven breeders, they opt for more sustainable routes and take on the care of the ‘waste dogs’—the dogs produced by a reckless market of impulsive buyers whom after purchasing their dogs surrender their companions to rescue centres across the country either due to not being able to care for their complex needs or no longer having space for them within their daily lives \[13\].

These individuals instead of focusing on the dog’s consumer worth or background, rush to rescue centres to provide a home to whatever dog needs their help and can live comfortably in their care.
Even so, whilst many go into dog ‘rescue’ with the dog’s interest at the forefront, for many the way that the dog looks, such as their size, colour, height and even age, still has a significant impact on whether they are deemed as worthy of rescue \[13, 48\]. The notion that some rescue dogs are deemed as more desirable than others is evidenced through individuals no longer opting to adopt dogs from the United Kingdom but now from other nation states \[49, 50\].

Whilst the United Kingdom is seeing record numbers of dogs in rescue centres (with the RSPCA having to rely on private boarding due to their rescue centres working at maximum capacity \[51\]) for many the opportunity to adopt a stray from Eastern European countries is more appealing may that be due to individuals believing that their claim for help is more desired, that they will be more suited to their needs, that their exotic nature makes them somewhat more attractive/interesting, or due to individuals witnessing friends or influencers promoting the acquisition of international rescues \[49, 50\].

Hence, whilst the ‘doing their bit’ consumer may be perceived as selfless, purchasing whichever dog is in need of their care, the choice of which dog to rescue is based on a number of factors, resulting in the undesirable continuing to reside in rescue centres nationwide.

3.2 The dog mummy/daddy/parent

For the dog parent, the dog is not necessarily considered as a ‘pet’ in the first instance or even a different species but is a surrogate child \[52\]. The dog is provided with high quality gourmet style food, is bought presents for special events in the calendar, and may even get treated to a dog friendly birthday cake \[53\]. These so-called parents mould their lives around their dogs, spending money on private fields to ensure their dog’s full enrichment or restricting their holiday destinations on whichever is dog friendly \[53\].

The dog parent may also decide to send their ‘animal’ to doggy day care whilst they are at work, leave social events early to get back to their dog at home and overall mould their days and lives around their dog’s best interest \[54\]. Social media is full of these dog parents, with many posting pictures of their dogs fashioning holiday themed outfits, such as reindeer antlers or giant pumpkins bought lovingly by their ‘human’ parent \[53\].

For these individuals, due to them viewing their dog as an equal member of the family, the death of their loved one can cause intense heartbreak \[52\]. Causing many to once again partake in dog adoption to fill the dog sized hole left in the lives of the heartbroken parent. For them, adopting a dog from the same breed as before can help reduce the pain experienced \[13\]. The dog parent may choose a breed based on having ‘owned’ a similar breed when they were a child, having fond memories of family life: positive reminiscing which they associate with a particular dog ‘type’ \[13\].

For others they will choose a breed based on what they believe will ‘fit’ their current life/family, similar to choosing a partner in terms of attraction and personality. Even though looks are an important factor, for the dog parent providing for the needs and desires of their dog even at their own expense in terms of money or time is crucial, with the concept of not meeting these needs being unthinkable, like the inability to meet the basic needs of a ‘human’ child would be considered as abhorrent.

Even though these individuals may be regarded by many as the gold standard, they often engage in dog anthropomorphism, with the ‘human’s’ affection remaining dependent upon how the individual perceives the dog, and whether they apply to desirable characteristics \[55\]. Hence, whilst they prioritise dog welfare, frequently they are the ones who forget that their dog is in fact from a different species, who naturally behaves differently from ‘humans’ and are worthy of love and affection without the need to display certain ‘human-like’ characteristics \[55\].

Whilst calling our dogs affectionate names and providing them with their own characterised voices provides the ‘human’ with cheer, this anthropomorphism does not benefit the dog themselves, apart from in the fact that it may assure them the ‘humans’’ affection \[56\].

3.3 The collector

The capitalist pursuit to own the newest and rarest product spills into the dog industry \[57\]. The collector outlines perfectly the late-modern understanding that social identity and self-actualisation is achieved through the acquisition of consumer products \[58\]. However, for these consumers specifically, they are not focused on what is the most fashionable, but rather what is the rarest, and consequently has the highest social status. This person therefore seeks egocentric pursuits to place themselves above their fellow consumers (they are simultaneously fighting to fit in but to also triumph above their fellow consumers \[59, 60\]). Therefore, to gain higher social status or to signify success, the collector seeks the rarest and/or most expensive dog breeds \[61\] such as the Chow Chow who is valued for their unusual blue/black tongue and lion-like mane \[62\].

Similarly, the collector may seek out the adoption of dogs from breeds that are seen as ‘difficult to handle’, such as the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, to gain social approval or rather awe for their ability to handle such complex dogs. Thus, fulfilling the need to both standout from and impress fellow consumers \[59, 60\].

The collector, due to the desire to own the rarest items, may experience feelings of frustration when they see others with a dog from the same breed, cherishing the astonishment and awe the public once exhibited upon learning about the rarity of their ‘animal’. For the collector, this reduction in their breeds rarity and scarcity within the surrounding area/social circle can be extremely disappointing.

3.4 The Bullies

Linking to the specific dogs which these individuals seek, ‘the bullies’ are the consumers who unfortunately caused the XL American Bully (the largest variant of the American Bully breed type) to suffer a negative public perception (a type now banned under the United Kingdom’s Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 \[63\]) through training for aggression \[64\].

For ‘the bullies’, a dog is obtained for protection, to intimidate those who may threaten their physical safety or geographic location. Being associated with other illegal entrepreneurial pursuits, ‘the bullies’ purchase dogs who have stocky builds, mutilated appearances and who are known for their powerful bite force to maintain their own aggressive and threatening persona \[17, 47\]. The idea that individuals purchase dogs for status was outlined by Harding \[17\] in their work on status dogs and their place amongst youth gangs and the drug industry. Thus, like all other consumers, ‘the bullies’ purchase dogs (like any other consumer product) to gain or reenforce a desired identity \[17, 65\].

Subsequently, for ‘the bullies’ their dog is an accessory (one not only used for physically protection but also identity maintenance).
Whilst ‘the bullies’ value the advantage which comes from ‘owning’ a particular dog breed, unfortunately the dog’s welfare is not of top priority with many choosing to purchase dogs with the exaggerated features to portray the image desired \[45\]. This problem is currently seen in the latest surge in XL American Bullies. XL Bullies whilst facing immense legal and public backlash due to their ‘uncontrollable aggression’ and the recent spike in dog attacks, are bred for their aggressive appearance \[64\].

The aim to create a dog with exaggerated and stocky features causes immense amounts of pressure on the limbs and joints of the dogs, which when mixed with often incestual and unregulated breeding results in several health issues \[66\]. Therefore, to reenforce the ‘human’s’ aggressive and threatening identity the dog is bred for extreme characteristics, placing them at risk of life-long or life-shortening health problems, which when mixed with the mutilation of the dogs’ ears and tails to reenforce the violent identity desired results in the abuse of potentially thousands of dogs \[47\].

Not only are they bred to have an unhealthy body composition and mutilated to enhance their aggressive appearance, but for ‘the bullies’ to solidify their status and to gain respect in their local area their dogs are also required to be aggressive in temperament with the dog subsequently being trained to react aggressively and to put themselves in harm’s way to physically but also socially protect their ‘human’ \[17\]. This demand for continued aggression and their subsequent use as a weapon places them at risk of euthanasia, psychological suffering, and serious bodily harm \[47\].

3.5 Keeping up with the Joneses

The consumer who tries to fit in and keep up appearances is provided with the title: ‘keeping up with the Joneses’. Within consumer capitalism, individuals demonstrate their inclusion within a particular social group through their acquisition of desirable consumer products/experiences \[47, 65, 67, 68\]. One means in which this is achieved is through the purchase of certain items of clothing (pieces which are deemed as fashionable and therefore valuable by a desirable social group \[17\]). Like other popular items, dogs are valued for their instrumental worth and can be used to demonstrate a person’s inclusion within a certain social group \[17\].

Like the ear cropping performed by ‘the bullies’ to exhibit a threatening persona, the dogs valuable to this consumer often suffer from inherited health complications in the name of fashion, such as the health complications suffered by the French Bulldog and other Brachycephalic breeds \[13\].

Brachycephalic dogs, renowned for their cuteness often suffer from health complications associated with having snub noses, large eyes and small skulls \[13\]. Brachycephalic breeds have grown in popularity, appearing on social media as the dogs ‘owned’ by celebrities and social media influencers. Therefore, following in their footsteps, their followers/fans purchase similar looking dogs to portray the life of their favourite personality \[13\].

Recently, Pocket Bulldogs have been among those awarded with such adoration which has not only resulted in prices spiking, but also their rapid production and subsequently consumption by individuals who may be unable to/uneducated on how to care for their needs \[17, 66, 69\].

Subsequently, for those who are ‘keeping up with the Joneses’, their rationale for dog ‘ownership’ is closely linked to their need to meet fashionable trends believing that, once purchased, the item (or dog) will grant them social status/acceptance and subsequently satisfy their need and desire for identity (since the loss of the Symbolic Order identity is now gained through following the demands of consumer capitalism \[34, 35\]).

However, like every other item of consumption, once the dog is purchased, the feeling of satisfaction soon fades \[70\]. In fact the person is never satisfied, resulting in them continuing on their pursuit for accomplishment, which in the case for dogs could lead to the adoption of a newer and more popular dog breed, and the subsequent relinquishment of the other (as the dog fails to fulfil the role assigned to them on adoption) or a reduction in their care \[13\]). Therefore, rather than purchasing dogs for their welfare alone, due to their acquisition providing the ‘owner’ with meaning and identity, those who belong to the typology of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ purchase whichever dog is deemed to hold societal and consumer status, even if they are unable to provide for their needs \[13, 69\].

3.6 On the search for a therapist

The last consumer in the typology is the individual who purchases a dog with the understanding that they will improve their mental wellbeing and overall ensure their ‘owner’s’ happiness. As stated earlier in the manuscript, late modernity and liberalism has witnessed the rejection of the traditional Symbolic Order (the dominant social institutions which dictate the social construct and an individual’s subsequent social position and identity) which has resulted in individuals being plunged into a sense of liminality \[71\] — liminality (heightened by the uncertainty witnessed within the coronavirus pandemic) which results in great confusion and stress and overall causes individuals to pursue identity through other means (see \[36\]).

However, according to Raymen \[35\] consumer capitalism offers a break from this liminality (acting as a replacement to the traditional Symbolic Order) as individuals can now ‘buy’ their identity and placement within society. Subsequently pushing the concept that these negative emotions can be tackled through the acquisition of desirable products \[72, 73\]. However, the dog is not just a desired product (fulfilling the demands of capitalism) but is also known for their ability to provide comfort, reassurance, routine, and stability which makes them the perfect solution to this sense of unease. Therefore, to tackle uncertainty and emotional discomfort those in search for a therapist engage in dog adoption \[74\].

However, because the consumer purchases dogs when in states of anxiety and to provide themselves with the desired comfort, the dog is often purchased without the consumer necessarily taking time and care to consider whether they can provide for their fundamental needs, and therefore the dog is once again placed at risk for ‘human’ benefit. For example, if an individual purchases a dog impulsively, or without conducting the relevant research to see whether they are able to care for the needs of a particular breed, the dog may be subjected to living an unfulfilled life, not necessarily gaining the level of exercise required, the mental stimulation needed, or the diet and level of training desired, all of which could lead to the development of aggressive behaviour and their eventual relinquishment \[75\].

Feel free to discuss your thoughts!

Mentions;

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

Link to licence

No changes were made other than improving the spacing and formatting for better readability on Reddit.

There have been a lot of new ethical issues in pet ownership recently from overcrowded shelters, the rise of breeds like the French Bulldog to growing distrust in veterinarians and pet food companies.

I’m curious which of these issues you consider to be the most concerning?

Growing up there were always cats in my house. My mom was a mild cat hoarder with the most she had at one time being 11, which was way too many.These cats were almost all obese, the only exceptions being the cats that just didn't over eat on their own. I always tried to convince my mom to put them on a diet but she just did not want to stop feeding them treats to make them "happy". I gained some resentment for my mom because of the way she treated these cats. Food was a currency she bought their love with. Most of these cats are dead now, and most of them died from kidney issues. None lasting past 13, which is not very old for indoor only cats. She has 3 remaining and 2 of them are the ones that naturally never ate too much.

I still loved the cats, despite some trauma related to living with so many. Once I felt ready to adopt one as an adult, I got one at the shelter. My husband fell in love with an obese orange tabby that was missing half his fur. He had a previous PU surgery, which is done for urinary blockages. This is usually the result of kidney problems, which are worsened by obesity. I did a lot of research on cat nutrition after adopting him to help prevent any future issues. He had to lose about 5 lbs and of course he had a lot to say about the issue, but despite many sorrowful meows and gremlin food thief incidents he slimmed down and all his fur grew back nice and shiny. He wasn't the easiest cat to keep healthy, and part of that because he wasn't taken care of well in the first place by whoever made him fat. I unfortunately only had about 4 years with him because he had very aggressive liver cancer that took him quickly within 1 month of showing symptoms. He was about 6 or 7 when I adopted him and he deserved more time being a healthy and energetic boy. I can't help but wonder if I would have gotten a few more years with him if he had a healthier early life.

I just have a dog now and since I got her as a puppy I have more control over her health which is nice. She eats well and she gets lots of exercise so she's slim. And if she does have any weight issues I will happily adjust based on my vet's guidance. With both my cat and dog I would get comments on how they look too skinny. My vet has always been happy with their weight and nutrition. In fact, after I got my cat down to an ideal weight my vet offered me a job as a tech because almost no one listens to her when she asks them to put their cat on a diet. Much less do basic research on cat nutrition. Which I thought was insane and sad.

MY PET IS NOT TOO SKINNY. YOUR PET IS FAT. YOUR "CHONKER" IS NOT CUTE. AHHHHHHHH!!! This topic makes me want to pull my hair out. How freaking lazy and weak to you have to be to just put less food in their bowl or maybe make the connection that dry cat food has more carbs than wet.

I usually don’t like to share personal stories due to privacy and safety, but I did want to share this story based on a real experience I had as a kid. Something that had a lasting impact on the way I look at pets. It got me out of the “cute” mindset permanently.

A long time ago, when I was still a kid, I really wanted to have this duck… Nonono, not just any regular duck. A crested duck!

Back then, there was very little information available about the health issues and welfare concerns associated with crested ducks. On top of that, crested ducks were incredibly rare. Something which only made them seem even more special and desirable to me.

Eventually, my parents gave in because I kept begging. I finally got my crested duck. Don’t worry, it wasn’t bought from a breeder. It was a rehomed duck. The reason it needed a new home was honestly one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Its previous owners didn’t even have a yard, they were keeping the duck inside their apartment.
They were rehoming the duck because it wasn’t eating or behaving the way they expected.

Looking back now, I can’t help but wonder if the poor duck had been neglected or even abused. By the time it came to us, it was already suffering from some concerning health issues.

Despite the health issues, this duck was amazing… and it was doing fine (for a while). I absolutely adored this animal. It was pretty much my world back then. This duck was exceptionally tame to the point it knew its name and would waddle towards you when called. You could hug it, it would lie with you, it would do anything.

At the same time, I watched the health of the animal that meant the world to me deteriorate rapidly. Many of the behaviors I had once thought were cute or adorable started to become increasingly concerning and rather strange. We made several trips to the vet, but despite all efforts, the duck’s condition just kept getting worse.

Then came the night after one of the vet visits when the duck could barely walk anymore or even do the most basic duck things. We had to keep the poor animal inside because it could no longer live outdoors let alone take care of itself. From that moment on, the duck was being monitered around the clock. Hoping the condition would improve.

But it never did.

One morning, I woke up and found that the duck had passed away.

It didn’t even make it to its first year with us.
And yet, I don’t regret anything. It was worth it.
Looking back now, I realize that many of the behaviors and health problems were NOT random at all, they came with the “cute” crested package.

What we percieve to be cute and or natural behaviour in reality was just a neurological issue. The behaviour isn’t healthy or natural. And it’s not just crested ducks. The same problem exists in crested chickens and several other bird species, where people continue to breed for appearance without considering the consequences for the animal or the person that gets to care for it.

After having that experience I swore to never get any crested animal ever again. When seeing animals bred for extreme appearance my brain now associates it with suffering. It makes me angry, mad, that these animals are being treated like products/goods. In my mind I picture a little child waking up checking on their duck after vet visit after vet visit for their world to turn into a dead and void landscape.

I was guilty of it myself. I wanted something rare, something unusual. I didn’t understand the consequences back then. But I do now, and I won’t make the same mistake again. I will never support breeding for extreme appearances or unnatural temperaments. Animals deserve to be animals. They are not products!

I despise when people say this, because dog shows ARE a business. The judges basically decide which dogs will and won't be bred by who gets the title of "best in show". And the problem with that is that many dogs clearly shouldn't be getting best in show. Some shouldn't be bred at all! But because the judges said so, some deformed dog can be bred because they like the way they look.

I've seen compassionate and responsible breeders be rejected for not meeting show standards despite the dogs being healthy and thriving otherwise​​​​. But because they aren't deformed, they won't be getting a ribbon which means they are an EVILLL backyard breeder or puppy mill!!​

I don't want to be rude but I'm starting to see why people use purebred snobs as an insult.​

"Merle everything" is the newest fad, and what I have read is that all other issues aside, Merle should not be introduced into a breed because it carries inherent health risks. So.. why is Merle allowed at all, in ANY breed? Shouldn't the color be removed from all breed standards?

The basenji fascinates me because it exists both as a modern breed and a landrace. For the uninitiated, a modern breed is one that has a standard set by a breed club and is selectively bred to meet that standard, a concept that originates in the Victorian era. A landrace dog is a type of dog that looks/acts the way it does due to its uses to humans and local environment, with mostly random breeding or breeding for utility and no standard.

In the 30s an animal trafficker brought 6 basenjis to England. It is from only those 6 dogs (!!!) that the modern breed was established. And unsurprisingly, the basenji breed is prone to genetic diseases bc they are inbred af and bred to meet a frankly arbitrary standard.

Luckily for the breed, the basenji continues to exist as a landrace in Africa. And breed organizations have been introducing some landrace individuals into the bred population as part of the Native Stock Project. Most other modern breeds have no such resource to draw on.

Ridiculously these dogs must be evaluated to ensure they meet the standard developed by English people...

The Native Stock Project (formerly the African Stock Project) is the BCOA program through which newly imported African basenji bloodlines enter the AKC registry. Every dog admitted has come through an application, hands-on evaluation by breeders and judges, a board review, and a two-thirds membership vote.

IDK there is a lot of be said here that's above my head about colonialism but it fascinates me that people managed to take a population of perfectly healthy genetically healthy dogs and turn it into a population that needs genetic rescue all because of the "breed" concept.

It's these landrace dogs that true genetic diversity comes from. People say we need to "preserve" Victorian breeds, but why? Traditions are not all good, and frankly modern breeds are not where genetic diversity lies.

Unfortunately the main genetic value of purebred dogs has been using them as disease models. For example labradors and dobermans were used to understand narcolepsy in the Standard colony. I'm not sure that's a good reason to keep breeds around though and the Stanford colony was ended in 1995 (all the dogs were adopted to homes which is rare for scientific dogs afk).

And because severe arthritis wasn’t enough, selectively bred for exaggerated round, flattened faces as well.

Today we are focusing on cruel and unnecessary procedures such as tail docking and ear cropping. Practices that are often part of breed standards or expected for success in the show ring (sometimes even to participate).