My rationale for adopting and not breeding cats

So is it okay to breed turkeys so top-heavy they can't ever stand up, because
that benefits "society" in terms of lots more white meat on the plate?


Of course not. It's just as wrong as breeding poor little runny-eyed Persians.
It's screwing the poor animals up, in both cases.

Sherry

itty (Sherry ) wrote in message ...
(...)
Purebred cats seem to be
bred for whatever trend the judges are preferring to maximize show qualities.
Extreme concave faces, lynx tips, etc. don't seem to have any purpose at all

Well, I don't have a problem with 'no purpose', but I think there is a
big problem with 'deleterious' (e.g., flat faces and the like).

otherwise, certainly no benefit to either the cat or "society."

Except in the sense that people want (e.g.) Siamese cats, just as
people want cheap meat. Neither are necessary at all. And it's
arguably just as cruel to breed meat animals that suffer from their
breeding, as it is to breed pets that suffer from their breeding.
Depends on your attitude to pets vs. livestock and such.

Or at least I've never heard of selective breeding in cats to create a more
robust, healthy cat, with cosmetic features incidental. It seems that
appearances are the priority.

Breeding for appearance is relatively easy, but breeding for
robustness / good health (and appearances) is more tricky - and
therein lies the problem. Plus it's difficult to judge 'robustness',
so there's less of an incentive for breeder to target this property.
Plus there's no guarantee that any given breeder is using sound
genetic principles anyway.

Steve.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...

So your thinking is that there are good reasons for selective breeding and
bad
ones.

A good reason for selective breeding would be to breed *out* the genetic
defects and deformities the breeders bred in! However, in the process
they'll probably replace one defect with another.

"Fixing a trait". What a wonderful concept; cats that all look very
similar... To my mind, it robs a cat of some of her uniqueness and
individuality.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
Phil P." wrote:

"Sherry " wrote in message
...

(Steve G) wrote:

Do you feel as strongly about non-pets, I wonder. Or is it OK to have
selectively-bred animals if they're just for eatin'...?

Now there's a good point I haven't seen come up before. Makes me
wonder
too:
is
it okay to selectively breed animals to labor for us? Is it okay for
Seeing-Eye
to selectively breed dogs?

This may be over-simplistic, but it seems like totally different
purposes... I
am just assuming that Seeing-eye dogs are "selectively-bred" for
intelligence,
non-aggressiveness, etc. and animals for food slaughter bred to
maximize
quality and quanitity of the meat for processing.


Purebred cats seem to be
bred for whatever trend the judges are preferring to maximize show
qualities.
Extreme concave faces, lynx tips, etc. don't seem to have any purpose
at
all
otherwise, certainly no benefit to either the cat or "society."

With some traits being potentially harmful or lethal for the cats.

So is it okay to breed turkeys so top-heavy they can't ever stand up,
because
that benefits "society" in terms of lots more white meat on the plate?

.....because that benefits *breeders* in terms of more money per turkey.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
itty (Sherry ) wrote:

I so do not understand the Manx thing anyway. Tails are a pretty useful
appendage anyway, even though they can live without them. Were they
originally
a "created" breed?

No, they came about naturally on the Isle of Man.

Down syndrome and other deformities occurs naturally, too. Yet they
shouldn't be intentionally perpetuated. Tailless is also a *deformity*
because not only does it carry health risks, cats use their tails for
balance and communication. Thus it deprives the cat of some of her natural
abilities.

The same principal applies to the Scottish Fold and American Curl with
flattened ears. Aside from restricting hearing (cats can turn their pinnas
180* to zero in on sounds), flattened ears also deprive a cat of a major
means of communication - could signal aggression to another cat.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...


Human nature. From the earliest times in which animals were domesticated,
don't
you imagine people favored not only the best producers but the best
looking
ones as well?

No. The ancestor of the domestic cat was selected first for rodent control.
Second, from that population, the capacity to tolerate the close proximity
of other cats - highly territorial cats could not have controlled the rodent
population if they continuously fought with each other and chased other cats
away. And third, from that population, cats that displayed affiliative
behavior towards people.

I don't think looks played any roll in the early domestication of the cat.

"Sherry " wrote in message
...

Oh my. What a beauty.

Do you remember little Jade 'o mine from 5 years ago?

http://www.maxshouse.com/Main_Photos.../JADE-Main.jpg


You should see her now!

http://www.maxshouse.com/Ours/Jade-1...-4-ed-511k.jpg


I have pretty good taste in women, don't I? ;-

Phil

itty (Sherry ) wrote:

But, this is the part I find really offensive about selective breeding. Who
decides what is "outstanding" and why? A committee? CFA? Judges? Breeders?

The fancies determine the standards for the breeds they register, and judges
and breeders are supposed to learn the standards and use them as a reference.
Breed standards came about earlier with dogs than with cats, of course, and
originally they were based not just on what the dog was supposed to look like,
but what a particular breed was supposed to be able to do, such as hunt or
herd.


Why
did the Persian become increasingly concave-faced to exemplify an
"outstanding
example of the breed"? It certainly didn't benefit the health of the cat.

The flat face of the Persian and the wedge-shaped head of the Siamese are two
extreme looks that became fashionable in the latter part of the 20th century, I
imagine in an effort to distinguish these cats from non-purebred versions. I
don't really know how the trend developed, except that as I mentioned before,
the looks must appeal to some people or they would not have been perpetuated.
However, you do not see such extremes in the majority of cat breeds.

"Phil P." wrote:

"Yngver" wrote in message
...


Human nature. From the earliest times in which animals were domesticated,
don't
you imagine people favored not only the best producers but the best
looking
ones as well?

No. The ancestor of the domestic cat was selected first for rodent control.
Second, from that population, the capacity to tolerate the close proximity
of other cats - highly territorial cats could not have controlled the rodent
population if they continuously fought with each other and chased other cats
away. And third, from that population, cats that displayed affiliative
behavior towards people.

I don't think looks played any roll in the early domestication of the cat.

Well, that's a matter of opinion but I find it difficult to believe. Human
beings naturally respond more favorably to a creature that is attractive than
to one that is ugly. Whether consciously or not, early people would have been
more likely to encourage the attractive cat to become friendlier than they
would the unattractive one.

Depictions of cats in ancient Egypt show them at work as well as sleeping under
an owner's chair, but they are depicted as handsome animals.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"Phil P." wrote:

"Yngver" wrote in message
...


Human nature. From the earliest times in which animals were
domesticated,
don't
you imagine people favored not only the best producers but the best
looking
ones as well?

No. The ancestor of the domestic cat was selected first for rodent
control.
Second, from that population, the capacity to tolerate the close
proximity
of other cats - highly territorial cats could not have controlled the
rodent
population if they continuously fought with each other and chased other
cats
away. And third, from that population, cats that displayed affiliative
behavior towards people.

I don't think looks played any roll in the early domestication of the
cat.

Well, that's a matter of opinion but I find it difficult to believe.

Okey dokey, Shallow Hal. LOL!


Human
beings naturally respond more favorably to a creature that is attractive
than
to one that is ugly.

You mean there are ugly cats??? I've never seen an ugly cat in my life.
Where can see one of these "ugly" cats?


Whether consciously or not, early people would have been
more likely to encourage the attractive cat to become friendlier than they
would the unattractive one.


I don't know about you, but I think most people would choose friendliness
before looks! I sure as hell would! I don't think the looks of the
individual cats played a significant, if *any* roll in domestication.




Depictions of cats in ancient Egypt show them at work as well as sleeping
under
an owner's chair, but they are depicted as handsome animals.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The artist probably saw cats
beautiful as a species.... as I do. Remember, the early Egyptians revered
the cat.