I sometimes get accused of sensationalism and ‘going over the top’ in some of the blog posts I make here.

See, for example, the recent ‘Is the Kennel Club an Underground Cult?’ post I made. I got a few emails about that one.

‘You’re not helping’, they’d say. ‘What does that achieve?’, read another. ‘You should write more responsibly’, claimed one more.

Well I’ve had a think about it and have decided, it being a new year and all, that I need to either take heed the words of these worriers or else I could end up with more abusive emails from angry people accusing me of ‘going over the top’.

So here, Jan 2nd 2009, my new year message to ‘Concerned of Milton Keynes’.

Ready?

-clears throat-

Shut up!

My right to write is the same as yours. In this day in age with blogs and forums available to anyone with access to a computer capable of sending me emails letting me know what you think of me (all welcome by the way) then ANYONE can have their opinions heard. I happen to be – on occasion – quite a rude, direct and unapologetic kind of a person. I don’t expect everyone to like me or what I write but those who seek to tell me not to write it in the first place can save their breath.

For those people too stupid to understand how a headline works when it has a question mark on the end, I say: get a grip and clear the drool from your chin.

When I read things from the chairman of the Kennel Club talking about ‘the outside world’ and ‘terrorists throwing grenades in to a casualty hospital’ what that is, for the uneducated, mouth breathers, is using the power of analogy. It is using an example of something in order to make a point. It usually involves using an extreme example – i.e ‘terrorists with hand grenades’ – ‘analogy’, look it up.

What it means is not literal – I did not write ‘The Kennel Club is an underground cult’ – had I done that, I believe I would be probably get sued and would certainly be open to accusations of getting my facts wrong. But what I actually wrote was an opinion – and I want to set the record straight on opinions, they are like a**eholes, everyone’s got one!

Some of the emails I receive are, when you cut to the chase, nothing more than people saying: “You can’t have an opinion.”

So, I’m ‘not helping’ – apparently. What, exactly ‘I’m not helping’ I’m not quite sure and really not too worried about because apparently, according to the DisneyHeads who believe we should all be ‘pulling together’ in a fluffy field of kinship and bunnies and chocolate fairies and sugar mushrooms where everyone agrees (or agrees to disagree without actually saying anything that might conflict with those who they disagree with) they are prone to use lovely phrases such as ‘all move in the same direction’ without any actual understanding of what that actually means, in practice.

To ‘move in the same direction’ you need to share the same goals and ideals, and until my dying day I shall NEVER move in the same direction of someone or something in pursuit of goals or ideals that I DO NOT agree with!

I can ONLY ‘move in the same direction’ if that direction is in harmony with my own conscience. If it’s not – then guess what? – I’m going to speak about it and I’m going to have my opinion and anyone who is arrogant/stupid enough to believe I’m not entitled to an opinion because I happen to express it on a reasonably popular blog (i.e. right here) and because I’m prone to doing it in a way that might be considered ‘direct’ or rude or unapologetic, they’re barking up the wrong tree.

And this brings me to my point: What is a dog for?

If I tell you what I think a dog is for (and what it isn’t) perhaps it will clear the air for 2009 so my opinion on dogs is a little clearer to those people who keep asking me what my hidden agenda is and telling me that I need to ‘pull in the same direction’ (usually as them, you see they all think THEIR direction is the right direction and what ‘pull in the same direction’ ACTUALLY means is – ‘you should think what I think and do what I do’):

I love all dogs. Everyone of them. There is not a breed of dog, not one, that I don’t have affection for. Cavaliers? I think they’re ace, really brilliant. Bulldogs? I love them, I adore their personalities and I also feel ashamed – as a human – for what we’ve subjected them to. Rottweilers? Love them, own one. Yorkies? Admire them hugely. Large, small or medium I love dogs. I have, since I was small child, and always will see past breeds and instead, I just see an animal with a leg on each corner (usually) and a tail on the end (usually) with a wet nose at the front – it’s like when I see a TV, the first thing I notice is what’s on TV, others tend to obsess about the brand, the picture quality, the size etc – all of which I perfectly understand – but to me a TV is box which entertains me and provides me with enjoyment (most of the time), simple as that.

I can see the benefits and advantages of those breeds that have been purposely bred to do something which is advantageous to humans., to help us in our tasks or to be happy in providing us with companionship day in day out. I see and I appreciate the diversity of dog breeds.

However, I recoil at what man has done to those dogs which have been bred to fit a physical ideal for NO OTHER REASON than being judged against a set of numbers and measurements – I want it on record, clear as crystal: I have NO objection to dog shows and the showing of dogs, I HAVE A MASSIVE objection to this ‘end justifying the means’ philosophy if the end happens to be the pursuit of a set of physical charateristics within a breed standard which also happens to be a person’s primary motivation for creating or owning a particular dog. That, to me, is not what a dog is for.

First and foremost, in my mind, a dog is a friend – they have earned the title ‘man’s best friend’ – and I mean that, they have genuinely EARNED it. When we start to look past their companionship and task based qualities and take an attitude that a dog is only of interest to us if it fits a set of physical stats which happen to match closely to the figures decided on by a breed club, then it digusts me. No, I’m not sensationlising: it genuinely disgusts me.  When I see a dog that has been bred to a point where it is now a crippled, disabled animal that is suffering because of the generations of people who have PURPOSELY bred it that way and it can be traced back that the motivation for this was a breed standard, a rosette, a trophy, personal kudos, a fistfull of cash etc, I feel disgust – toward man – I feel terrible sympathy for the dog, I wish I could apologise to them on behalf of humankind, but I’m not mental – I know I can’t. So instead I can take my feelings and express them to those who’ve contributed to, endorsed and perpetuated this suffering. And when people try and tell me not to, to ‘calm down’ to ‘tone it down’ or to simply not saying anything at all, it just makes me more determined to shout louder and farther.

I go to my local vets and see dogs in the waiting room who are there because they struggle to breathe, struggle to walk, struggle to cool down, struggle to see, can’t hear and I think to myself: ‘Well, maybe I’d see a similar sight at my local doctors?’ but then I think, no, I won’t. I won’t see people at my local doctors whose conditions have been deliberately caused because their parents were attempting to create offspring to match up with some figures on a piece of paper decided on by some commitee.

So – if I don’t hate dog shows and I don’t hate all dog breeders, what’s my problem?

It’s pretty simple really. The concept of a dog show is fine, the actual reality of what is happening and being rewarded is FAR from fine.

If I took my fit, healthy, working Labrador to a dog show – I’d be literally laughed out of the place. She is small, she has a little flipped up ear. Her tail is certainly not very ‘otter like’ (but she does swim like one). So how does this benefit dogs? I must ask, and it is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know, if the primary principle of the show is not 100% focussed on rewarding fit, healthy, functional dogs (which, as 2004’s Crufts has shown us, it most certainly isn’t) then what is it for?

If the principle to win is based on which dog most closely matches the ‘breed standard’ then dogs are doomed. Becase it’s a stupid principle. Seriously, that is a point blank, ridiculous, flawed, idiotic, slap-dash, dunce of a principle. It sucks. The ‘breed standard’ is a set of figures, concepts and ideals drawn up by people which, when you study a lot of them, have nothing in common with what I view a dog’s role to be. And yes, I appreciate this is I , me, me personally, consider a dog’s role to be – a friend first and foremost.

If our dog’s primary role is to be a companion or a contributor to making our lives better/easier in some way – what the hell difference does it make as to what they happen to look like? The pursuit of aesthetic perfection is gross. It’s something that needs to be ridiculed and laughed at and hopefully future generations will understand that when we create animals with the principle of attempting to develop a ‘type’ in order to win a prize for what that animal looks like, then we’re stuck in the bloody dark ages. These are dogs, they are our friends – why are we disabling them on purpose? It’s not a laudible thing to do, it’s a horrible thing to do.

So a dog show in itself is not a problem to me – it is the very principle of rewarding a breeder/owner (not the dog, the dog is not bothered about winning) because it most closely matches a ’standard’ that is my problem.

We should be ’showing’ dogs and rewarding owners/breeders for other principles: health, functionality, talent, excellence in fitness, impressively long-lived dogs, courageous dogs – Crufts has started to incorporate lots of these things in its format with the Friends For Life section, the Heelwork to Music, the Flyball etc – this is where the future should be. The public loves this, the dog benefits from it. These are the right ideals to promote and perpetuate.

Am I against ‘breeds’ or ‘pedigree dogs’?

Well, no. I happen to own pedigree dogs. However I paid NO attention whatsoever to the heritage of my dogs in relation to their closeness to a breed standard and nor would I in the future. Get this, I AGREE with the concept of dog breeds. Their diversity is part of their unique appeal – but when that diversity is gradually hammered out of them in pursuit of a ‘type most closely resembling the written standard’ then we’ve gone wrong, badly wrong. I look forward to seeing MORE breeds – creation of new breeds should be encouraged, not ruled against. Breeds created to fulfil a noble function, be that companionship or cancer detection is a great philosophy to follow and, fortunately, many breeders follow it.

It is (I would hope clear) my view, that the pursuit of a set of aesthetic ‘ideals’ is not, in any way shape or form, noble, principled or for the benefit of the dog.  I think its gross, turns my stomach, makes me mad, gets me all rude and preachy and finger-waggingly frustrated.

So I’m just replying, publicly to those who believe I am duty bound to help in a universal ‘pull together’ – I’m not. I’m bloody well NOT! Not when ‘pulling together’ actually means heading in a direction which I am fundamentally opposed to or compromising the notion of what I believe a dog is for. No. Way. Ever.

And for those who think I have to be more ‘responsible’ with my views: the day ‘my views’ cause harm to a single dog, then I’ll take this advice on board. If they happen to hurt the feelings of a few dunces with paper thin skin, then I don’t care (really, I don’t).

What I absolutely can get on board with are those people who care passionately enough about dogs and understand that we must – absolutely MUST – do whatever we can to end the suffering of THOUSANDS of dogs who’s pain is caused by humans in pursuit of a morally objectionable goal. It’s a terrible thing to do and I care about it, I care about it enough that it genuinely makes me angry – and when I get angry I just happen to want to say so, anyone who hates me for it or who wants to write to me (often anonymously) to tell me to button it, well hopefully I’ve made myself clear – I shan’t be shutting up any time soon.

So, to answer my own question: Dogs: What Are They For? I would like to sum it up in as few of my own words as possible, then, perhaps, it will give an idea of where I’m coming from whenever I may upset or offend with my views:

Dogs, they’re here because they are the best friend a person could ever wish to have and because they so willingly contribute so many of their skills to assist us where we often fall short.

For me, where dogs are concerned, this is where it starts and ends. An abuse of that friendship should be called as such. When that abuse is laid out right before our eyes in the shape of dogs who can’t breathe, walk, see, function, cool down, hear or comfortably exist PURELY because some people decided that this is how they should LOOK, then it needs to be tackled, from the top down.

Happy New Year.

Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!

Related posts:

1. Our Dogs Newspaper Attacks RSPCA & Dogs Trust Over Crufts Withdrawal
2. Children and Dogs: Why Children Shouldn’t be Around ‘Dogs Like That’
3. 7 Questions For Dog Breeders and The Kennel Club
4. UK, Do You Know What a Pit Bull Is?
5. Crufts – The Future?