Rhodesian's Ridge Discussions

indeed there are

There are hundreds of mutant animals, plants and actually people we have genetically engineered for our own purposes, including food.

I can't believe you think this is 'funny' or 'lighthearted'.

I don't give a feck whether those with or without the ridge are considered mutant. I am talking about HEALTHY dogs.

Apparently it is OK for 'show' dogs to be bred so they cannot breathe, run or give birth naturally so long as they 'look right'? But heaven forbid they should have a line of fur not pointing in a pleasing direction to the show dog breeder's eye? Off with their heads.

This is surely one for Pedigree Dogs Exposed?

Well it is up to you what you believe.

I do not get outraged about dogs being put down in a humane way after careful thought.

I get much more annoyed about thoughtless breeding and its fallout.

Still reading this thread I see.....................

if i bought a RIDGEBACK i'd want a ridge.

if i ended up buying a pup that was a ridgeback with no ridge i'd expect to pay less. IMHO

Totaly, lots of things are a mutation
But its not always a good idea - and quite alot of the dominant mutated genes are really not a good thing especialy when doubled up - like merle/hairless/tailless
and there is a fair bit of evidence that the 'lethal dominants' can actually be associated with problems with the single copy of the gene - just to a lesser degree so it is important at the very least to make sure we have hetrogeneious individuals - who will naturally produce animals without the mutation at all - but who are still healthy examples of the breed and could still produce litters containing pups with the mutation

Or surely get your money back for the PTS fees?

Exactly its only a dog ffs! If it aint perfect it shouldnt exist surely?

I took a white boxer in a long time ago so it would not be put to sleep, could not care less about KC standards or if it had an extra leg!! would still love it as part of the family, wonder if we should do the same with people !!!

If I got a ridgeback, then I would prefer a ridge but it wouldn't really bother me to be honest.

I don't think any dog should be PTS because they do not conform to breed standard (the only reason, for me, is if they have a health issue). Just because a dog does not conform to breed standard, does not mean they don't deserve the chance of a good life.

IMO, any breeder who does that should not be allowed to breed.

Oh no, I do not believe that at all.

I do not think dogs DESERVE to be pts because they do not have a ridge, that is quite a different argument altogether.

Let's face it, if we only let perfection survive we would all be extinct"

what?!

If i went to a breeder of ridgebacks, this is unlikely as they aren't a breed that appeal to me. and saw they had x amount with ridges and y amount without, i'd expect x to be significantly more than y. If i was going to show i'd be prepared to spend a lot more for one with a ridge, if i wanted a pet i'm sure i'd adore either, however without a ridge i'd expect to be at a pet price.

Well I dont compare people to dogs, there is no comparison IMO. If you want to take in a white Boxer then you are perfectly entitled to do so, however they do have specific health problems directly resulting from their colour, is it ok or responsible to breed them? I personally do not think so, but I have absolutely no objection to anyone who wants one. Likewise my choice of dog is MY choice. If you do not care less about KC standards then a crossbreed may be better, because the breed standard is what pedigree dogs are all about. Without that, we have "any variety pedigree!!"

the dog had no health problems proven....... lived until a ripe old age of thirteen and was an excellent dog, like you said my choice, but you are wrong on the health problems on this dog, maybe not all, we could say youd prefer a jaguar and im happy with a mini!! personal choice

Well this is a difficult one because as a dog lover I hate the thought of any healthy hound being PTS. However, the whole point of selectively breeding any animal is to breed in desired traits and breed out those which are not desired.

So if a puppy is born that does not have the traits which are desired then if their genes are allowed to continue on it works against "the program". As such the very minimum I would expect a breeder to do is neuter that puppy and sell them on as a pet but that's all assuming there is a decent demand.

I guess its all about whether you see breeding pedigree dogs as a livestock business or not. If the thought of unwanted livestock being culled was truly abhorrent to me I would be a vegetarian and I'm not. I can't see the difference between the culling of bull calves or puppies that have traits which are undesired by the breeder.

Hmm I understand what you are saying but as far as breeding goes what about bulldogs are they bred to breath easily!! we could go on, I agree we do not want undesired traits but that is not always the case and surley comes down to (perfection & business), y do we need perfection?

just to make it clear from my post. I expect puppies without ridges to be put up for sale, but neutered to pet homes.

agreed they should be at least given a good chance of a good home before being PTS

Well there is also the argument that if the breeder is selling "sub standard" (as in KC standard) dogs at a lower price than they could sell ones that meet the standard the they are doing themselves out of potential income.

It is also possible that they would also be doing damage to their reputation within the showing world.

What if in all other ways they are perfect examples of the breed and if put to a ridged dog can produce pups with ridges? is it important to take a pup out of the gene pool when it is natural that ridgless pups will be produced sometimes

Especially when you add into the equation that ridgless RR's are free of Dermoid Sinus - so wouldnt it be more important to rid the breed of this illness before worrying about the ridge?