Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver  I think that's an interesting point, and I can see that applying to yorkies for things like LP. On the other hand, coloring is part of the standard, which I don't think has anything to do with health (other than extreme cases, like albinos). In other breeds, it's been clear that breed standards have become exaggerated and actually hurt the health of the dogs. It's also fact that extremely unhealthy dogs have won best in show at major events. I think bulldogs are a classic example of this.
I'm not saying that showing is wrong, just that it is not related to dog health at all. You can have a dog that's healthy, show quality, one but not the other, both, or neither.
It really bothers me that with all the advances we've made, the average dog's life span has not increased at all over the past few decades. I know there are a lot of theories about this - I've seen vaccination and nutrition cited - but I really wish that breed standards were about health, not looks |
True, true. But wow, I didn't know that about the show dogs! All the show dogs I know were healthy.
I don't know much about color because maltese are supposed to be white but to me, if it wasn't about looks than it wouldn't technacally be considered a purebreed. Some say mixed breeds are even healthier than purebreds, but they aren't considered a breed. The definition of a purebred, is one that has a consistence look. The standard also states the breed's personality.