Pit Bull Kills Child, so ban Golden Retrievers.

I am glad that the British care about their children, and about people out for a walk, but I hope they go the right way with their laws.

Politicians and other lawmakers are not dog professionals, and again, I must point out that 'information' by people whose business involves dogs, is apt to be propaganda.
(either intentional lies to deceive, or innocent people parroting those lies.)

Where does one go when they don't understand an important topic, but they must do something about it, and the professional 'information' is suspect for being biased?

Common sense, and plain investigation by people who wont put a bias on what they see and hear.

But lets not forget the propaganda. People whose business is dogs, often lie or spin the truth to manipulate information.

People sometimes post things that don't jive with the facts. Like:

"Chihuahuas are more dangerous than pit bulls".
This is so unbelievable that I don't know where to start to de-bunk it.

Common sense should tell you that the bite from a Chihuahua, is not as bad as the bite from a pit bull. Look at their jaw structure and the muscles that work those jaws! And just the plain size of the dog. And the difference in muscle mass.

If common sense won't do it, let me add knowledge.

Dogs have instincts - think of instincts as inherited knowledge. Pit bull are born with programming that will urge them to hang on when they bite.

This instinct, this 'inherited knowledge', this 'program folder', is called "Locking Jaws".

Pit bull fans, have argued that pit bull's jaws are not different from other large dog's jaws. That's not quite true, but more importantly, it is totally beside the point.

"Locking Jaws" is an inherited behavioral trait, it has nothing to do with anything that you can see by looking at a dog's skull.

But the pit bull fan has changed the focus of the subject. He has relied on the lawmakers lack of knowledge about pit bulls.

He has ignored the fact that locking jaws is something a dog does - an instinct, and misdirected the lawmaker to look at skull structure, and to return to subject of the greater power of a pit bull's head and jaws.

And then the pit bull fans conclude for you "They are are stronger dogs, but that is all".

Sorry. That is the beginning of the argument. They are stronger dogs, and have more jaw strength. That is obvious. But that isn't what we have moved on to discuss.

"Locking Jaws" means that the pit bull doesn't nip, he doesn't bite and retreat.

He bites, puncturing the skin, and he holds on. He doesn't let go. He doesn't open his mouth back open and release. He starts to hang on like an American bulldog. He 'locks' his jaws on his victim.

Most dogs do NOT lock their jaws.

Police 'train' German Shepherd Dogs to hang on by playing tug of war with them, this awakens the hang on instinct that is latent in the breed. (It installs the program from a previously unopened file already in the dog).

But even with canine police training, German Shepherd Dogs do NOT jump up and hang onto sacks tied to trees and swing themselves around for hours out of the day.

Pit bull, and several other very similar breeds have an urge to bite and hang.
Like border collies want to herd sheep, and beagles want to follow their nose, and field-bred bird dogs look at birds, pit bulls want to hang on when they bite.

There is a fine little line, between a bulldog that bites and hangs, and the much much much more common case, where pit bulls not only bite and hang leaving a nasty row of puncture wounds, they also have the instinct to shake their heads while they are biting.

It is NOT them grabbing you with their teeth which does most of the damage. It is the head shake which TEARS parts of your body loose.

I have seen a veterinarian, day after day, do surgery on a dog shaken by another dog.

Some days, the dog's laboratory results would indicate the dogs kidneys were overloading.

The veterinarian would open the dog back up, and all would look healthy and pink, but he knew from the lab results that something was decomposing inside of the dog.

He'd have to cut through health tissue to find it, but there it would be.

A muscle, dead and dieing, while hidden by healthy muscle above it. The muscle, or sometimes part of a muscle, would die because the blood supply to it had been torn loose from when the dog was shaken.

The only visible mark when the dog was brought in was 4 puncture marks from the bigger dog's fangs. But underneath muscle tissue was dieing. The surgeries, the pain the dog was in, the suffering. This should not be.

And this should not happen to people. Not to people walking to their car. Not to children. And not to visitors.

It is time to make people responsible for their dogs actions.

And because we are people, we can learn from the mistakes of others. We don't have to let each person learn how dangerous pit bull type dogs are.

We can use collective knowledge - the experiences of other people - to figure out which lines of dogs have the instincts to bite, hang, and shake, and which lines of dogs have emotional or aggressive problems which require that they be trained to suppress their instincts.

It is far easier to raise a puppy who naturally has the instincts you want,
and who doesn't have any of the instinct you don't want -
than to start off with a puppy who has urges to do things that you have to train him not to follow.

People who buy a puppy as a companion, have a right to be sold a puppy who was bred to be a good companion.

One of the questions is:
Are we going to allow dogs as yard guards?

If so, under what conditions?
What type of fence? How high? What to prevent a dog from digging out?
What type of double doors to prevent a child from answering the door and the dog bolting out?

What precautions for invited visitors? (not trespassers.)

Will we have breed bans (No dangerous breeds),
Or size restrictions (like no more dogs over 16 inches or 40 pounds)?

Read:
http://dogsbite.org

Dog Breeders

I have been looking around the web, looking for other people like me.

What I find a lot of, are followers of various doggie creeds.

People who, you don't have to ask them their opinion to know what their opinion is, because they will parrot the club's opinion.

Never mind the loss of genetic diversity, the amount of inbreeding and mis-breeding; they say they are improving the breed.

Never mind that they are selling most of the puppies they produce to families as pets; many breeders think that breeding to get show points and titles is more important than breeding to get puppies who are good with children.

Duh. If you are selling puppies to families with children - you need to be breeding dogs who are best with children - dogs who love to have children play with them, dogs who are tolerant of toddlers pulling their ears and trying to ride them.

Even if the family who buys the puppy, doesn't have young children, they often have nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and friends who visit with children.

Don't disqualify a dog because his tail is a bit too long or too short, disqualify a dog who tries to bite your children's friends, or who growls or snaps at children.

Breed sane dogs who can live in the house without wreaking it, are naturally easy to housebreak, who don't bark too much, who don't want to fight or kill cats, and who are good with children.

That the dog is healthy is also important, but better a sickly dog, than one who bites children.

It is also nice if the dog has an easy to care for coat.

And if the dog is to be kept indoors, that he doesn't shed too much.

Mostly, if you are selling puppies to families as pets, then you have to have breeding stock that run loose in your house and are safe with children, visitors, and other pets.

That pedigree with fancy sounding names on it? It is apt to go in the trash bin, along with the dog its self, if the dog bites the children.

Not part of the herd?

I tried google's new personalize your news page - which is a good thing, if you don't have to keep re-personalizing it.

But I can't quite personalize myself into any one herd type.

I guess, if it were possible, I would tell the search engine:

Find me something new, something I don't know already, some whole new topic, "Amaze me", show me something "Wow!"

Don't show me more of what I've already read about, show me new science, new concepts, something different.

I know that, no matter how much I like a subject, there are only so many new ideas.

At first, UFOs are strange, cool, stories - but after 50 such stories, unless you've got photos of space aliens leaving their UFO and saying "Take me to your leader", then I have heard it before - actually, I've heard that story before too.

With dogs, often the story registers with me only as "Yes, another person understands!"

I'm happy, but it isn't news, it's collecting other people's "How I came to understand that the dog system it not functioning" articles.

Good! but not the adventure it started out to be.

I am totally for people understanding, but I can only do so much.

How often can I say:

Please don't breed dogs to be used in competitive sports or shows.

Please understand that dogs are NOT all the same, select only healthy dogs, who posses instincts that help them be good pets, for breeding stock - do not breed dogs that have instincts which makes them unfit for civilized living.

If you have some use for uncivilized dogs, then when you breed them - please don't sell the extra as pets.

Please understand that quality pets are NOT just left overs from working, hunting, sports, or show litters - being a quality pet is a speciality just like breeding working dogs, or show winners.

Pet puppies should have most of the wolfish instincts bred out of them, and retain the puppy instinct to please.

How can I get that message out better? What more can I say?

More examples of dogs who need a home? Try petfingers.

More examples of dogs who really really really didn't work out? Try dogsbite.

More examples of how there are different lines of dogs in the same breed, and that they are not equally usefully at all tasks? Try retrieverman - his understanding of the split between different types of Golden Retrievers.

More examples of how purebreds, and show dogs are NOT the best idea? Try terrierman.

Want to read of years spent around the purebred dog breeding sub-culture?
Try thepdkc and darlingyouaredoingitwrong.

More

After, supposedly reading about how purebred dogs are becoming more inbred and unhealthy, one person pointed out the the dogs she had as a child lived to an old age, and so did the next one, and . . . then she did get one that died young, and then . . . (sounds like she is an older woman)

But puppies can have puppies when they are a year old. That dog she had as a child?

He could be 70 dog generations ago - as far removed from the puppy of his breed that she could buy today, as you are from your ancestors in the year 500.

Dog breeds are not carved in stone. They are like the sea, always changing, yet always the same.

The Meek and the Brassy.

I went browsing around the internet - I might not get much exercise that way, but it is sure easier than going for a walk.

I am amazed by the stupid things people say.

Among the dumber points that some people try to make, is one that goes something like this:

How can it be true that any purebred dog has health trouble, when I have owned 2 of them that didn't?

Is that just too stupid to answer or not?
Just in case you are young, or never bred dogs:

If a breeder has a pair of dogs that are both carriers for the same inherited disease, on average, 1 of every 4 puppies in a litter will be affected.

That might be one or two puppies in the litter, on average. If you are one of the people who get one of the healthy puppies, then you have no experience with getting a puppy who will grow sick and die.

If you are one of the people who are sold an affected puppy, then you understand. If you are wealthy, or a lawyer, the breeder is less likely to put the affected puppies in the litter when you arrive.

The meek may inherit the earth, but they are also the most likely to get sold on affected puppy.

I know of one breeder, who screens who she lets buy her puppies very carefully. No lawyers, no rich people, no toughs can buy a young puppy from her, if there is much chance that that litter will throw affecteds - but she might sell these people an older puppy or young dog.

But somebody is apt to get sold the extra puppies out of the litters that could of thrown an affected.

BIS terrierman

I never thought I say this, but I'm saying it now, IMO, terrierman is not quite harsh enough to be hitting the nail on the head.

Terrierman's review of the film "Best in Show" ("BIS" in dog show lingo), is very good, but I would add this to it: not all that is wrong in dog shows is funny.

I know that there are those in the mental field who believe that a person who does things not in their own self-interest, is neurotic.

In more exact words, there are people who believe that all altruism, is neurotic, and that all helping of other people is a form of crazy - unless you get something in return.

I disagree.

If I were pushed to choose, I prefer the neurotics of the movie "Best In Show" over the cold blooded, selfish breeders,

like the mis-named "Class A" breeders/dealers, who breed dogs specially to sell them into research, and the "Class B" bunchers who get pets and sell then to be used in experiments and product testing.

I like the somewhat nutty breeders who baby their dogs, and treat them like people, better than I like the cold mean breeders who use dogs in the 'sport' of dog shows and sell the losers to people who bunch for the bunchers or companies who buy masses of dogs for who knows what.

I like the neurotics that are a bit crazy over their dogs, better than I like those focused on using dogs for sport or money.

Nothing like seeing people for the nuts they are, but loving them anyway.

Of course, if one can have sanity AND kindness, that is best - but we are talking about dog shows aren't we?

and like the variety of opinions on what is neurotic, I am not so sure, that dog show fans are any less fanatics than Star Trek fans or Football fans.

In all groups there seems to be those who go too far with their love, fandom, or obsession, and others who err by not loving enough.

Yes, laugh at "Best In Show" and groan out loud because there are nuts like that in dog shows, but don't go away thinking that that is all there is.

While people have often said that dog shows are agriculture (animal breeding),

And some say that showing dogs is a sport (the 'sport' of combing dog hair? and leading the dog around a ring? - not IMO),

And I have heard people claim that dog shows should be part of the entertainment industry,

But, now, I have heard it said, that dog breeding ought to be classed as part of the medical industry, as that is where so many of the dogs end up - used in experiments.

The movie is funny, the other side of the truth is a horror story with a bad ending, not a comedy.

"Class A" breeders/ dealers, and "class B" dealers are real.

Trained or Gentleman?

If dogs were as smart as people, and could talk, a bird dog, with the instinct to point, could tell you how he felt when he smelled birds, but a greyhound would have to watch pointing dogs, and analyze how they must feel to freeze up like that.

The pointing dog could "look within" his own 'heart', the greyhound would have observe, think, observe more, analyze, report.

Instincts matter.

Dogs that are bred to herd sheep, usually have an urge towards sheep, like bird dogs have an urge towards birds, and hounds want to track, and fighting breeds have the urge to be top dog or fight.

Yes, you can train dogs that want to herd sheep to ignore sheep, and train bird dogs to leave all birds alone, hounds to not run off after a scent, and fighting breeds not to fight.

But, if you are a dog breeder, and you sell purebreds puppies as pets, your responsibility is to breed dogs that don't have to be trained to repress their instincts because you have bred most of those instincts out of the dogs.

Pet sheepdogs who want to herd sheep but live in a city with no sheep, will often chase cars, kids on bikes, or other moving beings. Pet herding dogs should have the urge to chase and nip bred out of them.

Pet Pit Bulls and other fighting breeds should have the urge to fight bred out of them. The people who buy a puppy might not know how to repress aggressive instincts in game-bred dogs.

Unfortunately, what the current infrastructure has, is lots of dog breeders who ignore breeding against un-civilized instincts, and who keep unsocial dogs in crates, or kennels.

The vocal fraction of breeders are often breeding for appearance, mostly antique rural instincts, or as a tax shelter.

You would be surprised how few dog breeders are breeding dogs that actually live loose in the house, live around children, and are bred from the goal of producing good pets. Even fewer of those dogs come from long lines of dogs specially bred for traits that make for healthy dogs that are good pets.

Many dog breeders breed to try to win dog shows, or to try to win sporting events. They breed dogs to win in a competition that uses dogs.

Some dogs are bred for a use, like guide dogs, military dogs, some few of the herding dogs.

Many of the home-bred dogs are where someone went out and bought two show bred dogs, and then breeds them in her home. This is another case of dog trained to be well behaved, not bred to be naturally well behaved. Her results depend on her knowing how to raise and handle these dogs, or her natural ability to project dominance, or not spoil dogs.

Dog can be bred to be naturally tolerant of children, to have a low drive to bark, and to be friendly.

A working Border Collie puppy, a show Golden Retriever puppy, and a game-bred Pit Bull puppy, can be bought as a pet, but they all carry a different mix of traits.

A working Border Collie puppy is very likely to grow up too active for most people.
A game-bred Pit Bull puppy is apt to grow up too aggressive for most people.

And, while Golden Retrievers are very popular, and the show variety is NOT breed to have hunting instincts, neither are the puppies growing up to each having one litter, then being fixed. Many of the puppies still come from dog breeders who breed from show winners.

When you see a person fall off the top of a tall building, do you have to wait for him to hit the ground before you realize what his chances are?

People have been looking at dog shows and seeing what the end will be since dog shows started - but no one could stop the disaster before it was too late, and it is too late.

We can't go back to a time where it could have been done right and give it a good outcome.

We can make for a better future, but it is like waiting until most of the giant old trees are cut down before starting to try to save them - yes you can replant, and in a hundred years, replant again with shade tolerant forest trees . . . but it would have been so much easier to do it right to begin with.

Wellminster

If you read the short bit on wikipedia about Scruffts, you will read that it is a show for crossbred dogs, which is put on by the British Kennel Club.

I though what would a crossbred dog show in the US be called if it were modelled after Westminster? Wellminster! - a show for first generation hybrid breed dogs!

Or a Westminster for all mix breeds? Mixminster!
For mutts? Muttminster!

How would purebred dog show breeders feel about a dog show where dogs are judge by their dog's behavior around other dogs and people?

Just look at how few show dogs also have a CDX or Utility dog degree after there name - the info would be in any show catalog, with the obedience degree listed in the dog's registered name.

Most dogs entered in the obedience part of dog shows are NOT show champions.

And few show champions are also Obedience Trail champions.

Mine is an over-all impression, but you can do the current numbers yourself from show results on line, just look for the titles in the dogs name

-"CD" means Companion Dog, which is the beginning obedience degree. Rally is another obedience event. Agility requires training, and therefore, some control by the owner. But none of these mean the same as being a good pet.

It is possible to have dogs who have obedience degrees, who still have to live in cages at home, because they try to kill each other, try to tear the cat up, bark endless at falling leaves and everything that moves, try to remove legs from children, and "cat in the hat" the house.

Being easily trained (impressionable, easily conditioned) is not the same thing as having been bred with wolfish instincts deleted. These traits are independent of each other.

A good house dog, is calm, loves to be played with but is fine left alone in the house for awhile, loves his family more than strangers but loves strangers too, does just tolerate children but enjoys their attention, has a strong bladder and a strong instinct to not soil the place he lives in, and only barks when there is a real problem.

An easily trained dog is not the same thing as a well behaved dog, and both of those kinds come in intelligent and non-intelligent varieties.

Spay: chopping years off of dogs?

After all those years, where breeders (whose own dogs weren't spayed), made people sign legal contracts to buy a puppy from them - making them have the puppy spayed, now, finally, someone gets around to figuring out that it isn't just cutting out the dog's ovaries, it's cutting off years of her life.

And those rescue people, and the 'humane' people? Chop it off and cut it out.

In Europe, spaying and neutering is not popular. Maybe we should do it their way, because our system is not working right at all? Maybe, eclectically, we could get a better system by taking the best of all the systems to make one new system.

http://media-newswire.com/release_1107284.html

and wikipedia on neutering (I never looked up neutering on wikipedia, because I have seen neuters done, had neutered and unneutered dogs . . . thought that I understood.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutering

Well, now we know, it is NOT just early (juvenile) neutering and spaying that are harmful.

Maybe we should stop cutting up pets, and retrain the veterinarians to be doctors in a new health care system?

They LIED!

They lied with their voice, they lied with their pamphlets, they lied with their radio shows, they lied in the newspaper, they lied on TV, they lied on the web, they lied on the phone, their lies fill books.

Look and read it on the web,
If you want a healthy pet,
Everyone spay, use your head,
She'll be healthy, you can bet!

Two independent research studies show that hysterectomies are NOT useful to the long life of women or dogs . . .

read it - the title tells it:
http://www.procto-med.com/message-for-women-and-dogs-keeping-ovaries-is-linked-to-longevity/

Breeders don't want to have THEIR animals fixed, they want you to have YOUR animals fixed!

(Report by David J Waters, Dec 1)

Fetched you a new one from Oregon.

What part of "puppy mill" does the government not understand?

100 dogs, in holes in the ground covered with planks, or tied to farm equipment?

Were they fighting pit bulls or breeding purebreds for profit, or what?

What were they doing with 100 dogs? And earlier this year, nearby 200 dogs were rescued?

Oregon, listen, people don't need 100 dogs. Really.

100 dogs are not pets. 200 dogs sounds like far too much work for any family. And where do you put the poop from 200 dogs? And the urine?

A show breeder can do very well with her 4 best breeding dogs - the rest can be fixed (spayed/ neutered).

A socially responsible dog club would allow fixed dogs to compete alongside the fertile ones.

If the club they belong to doesn't allow fixed dogs to enter, then they need to find a new club or work to change the club that they are in.

I am for FAIR limit laws, that restrict the number of unfixed cats and dogs per residence, and/ or per person - so long as those laws do NOT give excemptions to clubs, kennels, purebreds, or people with dozens of dogs.

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/12/08/crew-sent-to-rescue-up-to-100-dogs-in-rural-ore/

What goes around, comes around.

I was looking for more blogs to read, when I found one that had ads for sloped back ('banana back') show shepherds (GSD).

The main arguement of the article seemed to me to be, "How dare Los Angeles treat us like everybody else!"

Maybe my point of view was different because, I had been in a group where this was discussed, and nobody , NOBODY, ever, EVER, said "Those poor pet owners" or "What about the pet owners?" which was annoying because the group was suppose to be about pets, and the law.

The LA law was to make pet owners all have their dogs and cats operated on so they could never reproduce, but was allowing show dog breeders to keep churning out more purebreds. (Voldermort has risen again! and he is in Los Angeles.)

So I'm cruising around today, and I find a site where kennel owners are upset because the law they thought was only going to apply to pet owners was being applied to them.

What goes around sometimes comes around.

The computer went down for awhile and my connection was lost, so no link, not that you'd want to read about kennel owners complaining about having to obey the law.

Book

I have NOT read this book, but it looks good, maybe Santa will bring me a copy, if I leave him some hot chocolate and cake (because I'm not going to merit it from being good!) -just kidding.

The author is an ex-veterinarian - Matthew Watkinson.

I Quote from an article about the book:

"What about a client who owns a purebred dog with a lot of inherited problems?"

"It's a potential gold mine." says Watkinson.

"Unsurprisingly, his statements haven't endeared him to his peers."

This link does have ads, but it also has the rest of the article:
http://www.pawnation.com/2009/12/04/why-one-veterinarian-quit-disgusted-with-a-profession-he-once-r/

I hadn't heard of Matthew Watkinson until a few minutes ago, but now I like him. Tell it like it is! (I once worked for a veterinarian).

Mind Messers?

How does a dog breeder, who sells litter after litter, convince people, who by a puppy from her, that they need to have their puppy operated on, while her own dogs keep churning out more puppies week after week?

How can a person say "You need to have your pet fixed, but I am going to keep breeding it's parents (and grandparents, and siblings, and aunts, uncles, and cousins)?

How can a dog breeder say:

Have your pet spayed - so I can sell more puppies?

Have your male dog's balls knocked off - so I can sell more puppies?

I don't need to have MY dogs spayed because there is no over-population of puppies -
just an overpopulation of unwanted misbred GROWN dogs - yet require people buying puppies from them to have THEIR puppies operated on?

Isn't it a blatant case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Pet Peeve

The TV special, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, (which will be on TV in the US, Dec 10, 2009) really seems to have brought change into the way dog breeders are seen in the UK.

Hopefully it will start those same changes here in the US.

As much as I feel puppies are cute, they are also a product, and dog breeders should not be allowed to deliberately produce unhealthy animals with inherited diseases, and then sell these puppies to the public, and then call it art.

When puppies are advertised as quality pets, then they should have been produced to be quality pets, and be capable of being quality pets. Not hyper active, yappy, crazy, mean, or retarded animals who are by-products of show breeding.

What I don't understand is how some of the show breeders who I know, can stand right there and say that they are NOT producing pet puppies, they are producing show puppies - and then advertise those same puppies as "pet quality".

Getting a dog which is naturally geared to be a house dog which can be left in the house during the day, and who is good with children, is very important.

This should not be looked down upon by dog breeders who think of dogs as art, or as the ball in a ball game (you need it to play the game, but it isn't important in itself). And dogs bred to only be good as objects in a 'sport' should not be advertised as "pet quality".

The show dog breeders understand that they can not take a puppy from two dogs who are very good pets, and expect it to win shows -

I expect them to understand that families who want a good house dog, have a right to buy a dog produced to be good with children and good in the house - and that those puppies should come from 2 dogs who are best in the house, and best with children - not left overs from the show ring.

Good dogs

What's a good temperament for a pet dog?

Well if the breeder has to keep her dogs each in a separate cage or kennel, then her dogs don't have it.

He bites.

There are many things that need to be improved in several sections of dog breeding, I know that, but the one thing that seem to me to be such a no-brainer, that I just can't understand why everybody isn't working on it is - good temperament.

Okay, if you want fighting dogs, then you want nasty dogs.

But for all the other people out there, health & temperament are it. And temperament is numero uno. If you get a nice dog that gets sick and dies, that's bad.

But if you get a nasty bad tempered but healthy dog, who lives until somebody kills him, then you never did have a good dog, not even for a few months.

Well, maybe when he was a puppy he was okay. But how does that feel, raise a nice puppy, then he gets too bull headed to deal with, tears stuff up if you turn your back on him, turns on your other pets with you standing right there, growls at the kids.

Like watching the degeneration of somebody you love. At least with a good tempered but unhealthy dog, he dies, or you have him put to sleep for his own good. With a healthy but bull headed mean dog, you have to decide to get rid of him for you or your family's safety.

I have discussed this with a a few dog breeders.
Pretty much people who breed healthy but ill-tempered or crazy dogs, say health is most important.

People who sell nice but sickly dogs say the fact that the dogs are nice, is more important than health - at least the dogs don't try to mess up anybody.

But is it really to much to ask? To get a nice dog that is also healthy?

People have had nice healthy mutts for ages, seems like somehow the system went astray.

New Retriever

If scientist made a retriever, would it look like this? He has no hair so he wont shed.

.

He can walk upright and so wade out into the water to pick up ducks. He has good vision.

.

Somebody is apt to find that to be an improvement -look at all the other ridiculous things dog breeders have called 'improvements",

.

like turning nice spaniels into walking hair mops, and the lower jaw on bulldogs.

.

photo source:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Creaturefromtheblacklagoon.jpg

fly on a bird

Free LibreVox - The Island of Dr. Moreau.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Dr.+Moreau
.
The Big Q is: How did H. G. Wells foresee this over a hundred years ago?

Or did he not foresee it, he inspired it?

It involves genetic transplants. Like say you live in Alaska and it gets cold in the winter, and your children get too cold to play in the snow in the winter. What do you do, when even furs fail to keep their little bodies warm?

You take them to the doctor, he gives them a shot that has polar bear coat genes tied to a vector.

You children grow polar bear fur for the winter, and in the spring, you take them for another shot, and they return to normal.

Not happy with you looks? Forget make-up or surgery. Get the real thing, genes from your favorite movie star - and look just like them.

Want to be a music star, but lack musical talent? No problem, get injected with musical talent genes.

Wish your cat and dogs were smarter? Give them a bite of the apple. Give them human intelligence genes, and they will be as smart as the person who you got the genes from. Boy and his dog lives!

Want a ferret that flies? Can make that too. Mix hawk genes with ferret genes.

Tied of the same old same old? Get grow-smaller genes, and become a humming bird.

We could be talking about the possibility of a whole new world. Over populated? Produce babies that only grow to be pixie sized like 12 inches tall.

One house would be a skyscraper to them. They would eat very little. And those same genes could be taken by their parents too, and the whole family would be little people.

Why stop there? Why not be small enough to ride pigeons?

Honey I shrunk the kids lives too.

Wrong Going Ons.

There is a lot going wrong in this photo (of Lot & his daughters), and don't let dog breeders try to tell you any different.

In-breeding (short for incestuous breeding) will lead to genetic or health problems, especially in domestic animal where Nature doesn't cull the weak.

In cats, inbreeding seems to cause health problems sooner, sometimes after the first inbred generation.

In dogs, breeders have done inbreeding longer. Maybe it would have been better if the ill effects had shown up right away.

Now instead of one family of weak inbred kittens, we have whole breeds of dogs with problems.

Incest has Lot's problem, and lots of problems.