Yesterday, Nora must have found SOMETHING with dairy in it . . .

Now, our little kitty Nora is a sweet and dainty thing, a bit skittish, deeply affectionate once she knows you, and adorable.

And very, very lactose-intolerant. In the "bad for EVERYBODY around" way.

I think I've mentioned this before. Anyway, yesterday, she demonstrated it again. . .
( Read more... )

A NYT article on the bulldog

I suppose that it won't come as a surprise to anyone that I disapprove of "extreme" breeding of any pet animal, by which I mean breeding for traits that are ultimately unhealthy for the animal in question. I disapprove of flat-faced Persian cats, and I prefer Traditional/Applehead Siamese to Modern Siamese, although that doesn't go as far as disapproval, since the Modern Siamese doesn't have significant health problems based on its extreme nature. Still, I consider appleheads to be much more attractive cats than moderns. I think the extreme wedge Siamese look like aliens, rather than like cats. They look creepy.

I'm not a fan of the Scottish Fold, since its folded ears are more prone to earmites and ear infections; I disapprove of breeding tailless Manxes to tailless Manxes, since that increases the chance of serious spinal deformities. Not a real fan of Munchkins, either.

Mind you, if I could only change ONE of those, I'd change the breed standard of the Persian cat to disallow the flat-faced Persians, or even the peke-style, and allow no form more extreme than doll-faced.

Anyway, that's my standard rant about "let cats look like cats, and don't make 'em sickly."

But dogs have it worse.

The New York Times Magazine recently had an article about the breed of dog which has it absolutely worst: the English Bulldog. English Bulldogs are the flat-faced Persians of the dog world, only worse. They have crippling health problems of SEVERAL types -- flat-faced Persians can't breathe and have eye problems, but bulldogs can't breathe, have eye problems, can't eat, can't run, and are completely screwed up internally, too.

The article is here, and it's rather upsetting. Because, well, bulldogs are ALSO loving, loyal, and sweet-tempered dogs, so of COURSE people love them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-be-saved.html

Here's a slideshow of pictures that the New York Times Magazine had as part of the article. The two which I find most interesting are the first two: a picture of a typical modern English bulldog, and a rendering of what an early 1800s bulldog probably would have looked like.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/11/22/magazine/mag-27bulldog-slideshow.html

It probably wouldn't take THAT many generations to breed back to that earlier form. And, to MY eye, everything that's appealing in that modern dog is present in the old-fashioned one, and all of the grotesqueness is gone.

Indeed, one thing that I found in the comments, that ISN'T in the article, is that the American bulldog looks a heck of a lot more like Picture #2 than Picture #1. The American bulldog is often a hunting and working dog, and can hunt feral pigs and herd cattle.

Extreme wedge Siamese, flat-faced Persians, and modern English bulldogs -- why the HECK do we humans take attractive, distinctive animals, and then exaggerate characteristics of that distinctiveness past the point of caricature and well into the range of creepily grotesque? The original forms of Siamese, Persians, and bulldogs are ALL attractive and healthy animals, able to live happy, active lives. The modern extreme forms of the Persian and bulldog have their lives severely compromised, and for what? The wedge Siamese lucked out in that it's not unusually unhealthy, but still.

Compare the doll-face to the flat-face Persian, the applehead to the wedge Siamese, and the English to the American bulldog, and, to me, the more appealing choice is obvious.