without papers
Cynthia Ann Holden
This is in response to selling registerable animals without papers,
just my $.02. I have been the owner of two dogs which fall into
this category (Lasha Apsos). We wanted a Lasha that had the personality
of a Lasha and to be assured of not having other characteristics show
up later. We had absolutely no desire to show the dog and the lower
price was much more realistic financially. Both dogs we owned could
not have been shown anyhow: one was a show dog at first but for some
reason grew too big, the second had messed up teeth. Both have been
loved greatly and I see no reason why cats would be any different.
Hope to be owned by a Himalayian one day,
Cindy
--
*************************************************************************
PROGRESS NOT PERFECTION!! Cindy: kitt...@strauss.udel.edu
*************************************************************************
Erin Miller
Cynthia Ann Holden <kitt...@strauss.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>This is in response to selling registerable animals without papers,
>just my $.02. I have been the owner of two dogs which fall into
>this category (Lasha Apsos). We wanted a Lasha that had the personality
>of a Lasha and to be assured of not having other characteristics show
>up later. We had absolutely no desire to show the dog and the lower
>price was much more realistic financially. Both dogs we owned could
>not have been shown anyhow: one was a show dog at first but for some
>reason grew too big, the second had messed up teeth. Both have been
>loved greatly and I see no reason why cats would be any different.
Seems to me like you got lucky more than anything else. When you go
looking for cats 'without papers' you are supporting the backyard breeder
market. Why do these cats not have the papers? Do you think CFA charges so
much for the presence of 'papers' that that shoots the price up by $300?
No, it is because the BYBs don't even know what they've got in their
genetic heritage (very possibly some not purebreds, how would you really
know?).
Also, some people will buy a pet quality purebred from a responsible
breeder, never get it fixed, so the breeder won't give them the papers.
That breeder has deemed that this dog/cat was not fit to be bred, but
someone else, who has never shown, doesn't know the intricasies of the
breed, has decided to go ahead and breed anyway. Or the dog/cat has come
froma shelter, the streets or newspaper but LOOKS enough like an X to be
one, so someone decides to make a little money off a very cheap
investment. Whether they breed 'for money' or 'for pets' (and oxymoron at
best), they are still not taking everything into account that a
responsible breeder does. As people do this more and more, they come more
and more away from what the breed is supposed to look and act like,
because they don't know what ear set an X breed should have, or the coat
consistency, or the tail length, or whatever. And eventually you get cats
which people say "oh it's a purebred X" and it doesn't look much like a
purebred X should, because the standard was not taken into consideration
when the breeding happened.
In terms of dogs, try talking to some groomers, they can tell you about
their clients who come and say "make my little Lasha look like the one on
Westminster" and to dog has been so far bred away from the standard by
backyard breeders that there is NO WAY without surgery they can make the
dog look that way, grooming or no. It looks more like a Shi-tzu, but try
telling that to the owners who SWEAR it was well bred, after all, the
breeder told them so.
Sorry, but if you are going to look for a breeder who sells 'without
papers' you might just as well go to your pound, because you're odds are
about as good that your 'purebred' won't have the personality you desire.
Use some sense people! The mere registration of kittens/puppies so not
SO expensive that THAT is what drives the prices up (if it was, kitten
mills would be out of business). What drives the price up is concern about
quality, health, and meeting breed standards both personality-wise and
looks-wise. *That* is the difference between a $400 kitten and a $50 one.
And if you've ever had to treat a dog for hip displaysia, or a cat for
FeLV, you'll see what kind of 'investment' you made when you chose to
save that $350 dollars at the beginning.
-erin
Christel Gohlich
> and more away from what the breed is supposed to look and act like,
> because they don't know what ear set an X breed should have, or the coat
> consistency, or the tail length, or whatever. And eventually you get cats
> which people say "oh it's a purebred X" and it doesn't look much like a
> purebred X should, because the standard was not taken into consideration
> when the breeding happened.
> papers' you might just as well go to your pound, because you're odds are
> about as good that your 'purebred' won't have the personality you desire.
> Use some sense people! The mere registration of kittens/puppies so not
> SO expensive that THAT is what drives the prices up (if it was, kitten
> mills would be out of business). What drives the price up is concern about
> quality, health, and meeting breed standards both personality-wise and
> looks-wise. *That* is the difference between a $400 kitten and a $50 one.
> And if you've ever had to treat a dog for hip displaysia, or a cat for
> FeLV, you'll see what kind of 'investment' you made when you chose to
> save that $350 dollars at the beginning.
> -erin
Sorry Erin but I disagree with you what you call "back yard breeders"
people who do not sell pets with papers are not all bad. My mother
use to breed cats -- she had to stop because of severe allergies --
got most of her breeding stock from unwanted animals. My fatner is a
vet and my mother has a big heart. when some cats would come in to be
destroyed my mother would take pity upon them and with the owners
permission keep them herself.
She started to breed them. All healthy
and she would give a health gauentee with them. When they were sold
they would always be vacinated and sometimes declwed if the new owner
requested it. The offspring of these paperless siamese rejects were
beautiful affectionate and healthy. She would ussually get about $150
Canadianfor the kittens a fair price with vacinations and declawing.
I really resent the fact that you tried to portray backyard
breeders
badly. Some people are not just in it for the money. I myself have
two of my mother's cats -- they have evolved into a new breed after
cross breeding with a manx to get a cat without a tail and siamese
markings. I plan to Breed Bastet. She is a beautiful cat and would
make a wonderful mother. The problem that I'm facing is finding her a
boyfriend ... it seems that many breeders who cats have papers refuse
to breed a non pedigreed cat ... this is sad because Bastet needs to
be bred with new blood I cannot breed her back to one of the cats my
mother has remaining. It is true that I will selll the
kittens but they will be healthy and if like their mother very
loveable. I'm a student and could use some money but bastet will most
likely only be bred once a year. I personally think that it is
healthier for a cat to have some kittens before she is spayed. All
"back yard breeders" are not bad --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christel Gohlich. |"If God is dead and an actor plays his part
Carleton University |his words of fear will find a way to a place.
Poli Sci Honours. |in your heart. With out the voice of reason
#1509-400 Slater St. |every faith is it's own curse. Without freedom
Ottawa, Ontario, Can. |from the past things can only get worse."
K1R 7S7 | -- Sting. from "History will teach us
|nothing" -- DotBT
Email address: cgoh...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Schoenberg
>Sorry Erin but I disagree with you what you call "back yard breeders"
>people who do not sell pets with papers are not all bad. My mother
>use to breed cats -- she had to stop because of severe allergies --
>got most of her breeding stock from unwanted animals. My fatner is a
>vet and my mother has a big heart.
A-ha. Your mother felt so sorry for the poor pitiful animals
waiting to be euthanized that she decided to bring more animals
into the world. Seems like something is faulty in the reasoning
here. Did you know that in my state (Washington) a cat that
comes into an animal shelter has only a one in six chance
of making it out alive? (That's a one in six chance of either
being claimed by an owner or being adopted into a new home.)
There are many, many more companion animals being born
today than there are homes available for them. Seems to
me that the truly "big-hearted" thing to do is to get your
pets spayed and neutered.
>The offspring of these paperless siamese rejects were
>beautiful affectionate and healthy. She would ussually get about $150
>Canadianfor the kittens a fair price with vacinations and declawing.
Hmm. Did you know it is illegal in Canada to sell unregistered
dogs as purebreds? (I do not know if the same is true of cats.)
I won't even comment on the declawing issue.
>I really resent the fact that you tried to portray backyard breeders
>badly. Some people are not just in it for the money.
The end result is the same. I have spent too much time cleaning
up after backyard breeders (I do purebred dog rescue) to really
care "what the breeder was in it for." The end result is the
same whether they truly think their pet is wonderful or whether
they were just trying to make a buck. I don't have any problem
with a knowledgable breeder who starts with quality breeding
stock and makes an honest, educated effort to bring superior
animals into the world. I do have a problem with "breeders"
who breed pets to make more pets.
Why don't you spend some time volunteering in a shelter
and getting to know some of the wonderful cats there (many
of whom will end up being euthanized) before you bring any
more cats into the world.
>The problem that I'm facing is finding her a
>boyfriend ... it seems that many breeders who cats have papers refuse
>to breed a non pedigreed cat ...
Good for them. You might give some thought to their reasons
for doing so.
>I'm a student and could use some money but bastet will most
>likely only be bred once a year.
In dogs, responsible breeders usually lose money on each litter
(again, I don't know about cats).
> I personally think that it is
>healthier for a cat to have some kittens before she is spayed.
You need to talk to a vet and get some better information
on breeding. There are serious health risks involved
both in remaining intact and in bearing a litter. I can't
imagine how it possibly be considered better for the animal
than spaying.
There are good reasons that knowledgable dog and cat people
are against backyard breeding. I hope you will educate
yourself on responsible breeding and not just listen to
your mom and dad.
Dianne
B.C. French
>>beautiful affectionate and healthy. She would ussually get about $150
>>Canadianfor the kittens a fair price with vacinations and declawing.
>
>Hmm. Did you know it is illegal in Canada to sell unregistered
>dogs as purebreds? (I do not know if the same is true of cats.)
>I won't even comment on the declawing issue.
I don't know about Canadian laws, either. But I will make one comment on the
declawing issue. Just about every breeder I know, including myself,
specifically forbids declawing on kitten sales contracts. They not only don't
do it themselves, they make it a part of their sales contract that the buyer
agrees to adopt behavior modification instead of ripping out the claws.
>>I really resent the fact that you tried to portray backyard breeders
>>badly. Some people are not just in it for the money.
>
>The end result is the same. I have spent too much time cleaning
>up after backyard breeders (I do purebred dog rescue) to really
>care "what the breeder was in it for." The end result is the
>same whether they truly think their pet is wonderful or whether
>they were just trying to make a buck. I don't have any problem
>with a knowledgable breeder who starts with quality breeding
>stock and makes an honest, educated effort to bring superior
>animals into the world. I do have a problem with "breeders"
>who breed pets to make more pets.
Thank you for not lumping all breeders into the pot. Almost all purebreds who
end up in shelters are the results of backyard breeders, people who don't take
the time and educate themselves. They just have a couple cats and put them
together and boom! Kittens. I used to volunteer at a shelter and every purebred
I saw was way out of standard in one respect or another. There is a reason why
the vast majority of shelter purebreds are Siamese or Persian -- it's because
these are the breeds most often bred by backyard breeders.
>>The problem that I'm facing is finding her a
>>boyfriend ... it seems that many breeders who cats have papers refuse
>>to breed a non pedigreed cat ...
>
>Good for them. You might give some thought to their reasons
>for doing so.
No ethical breeder in his or her right mind will breed to a nonpapered cat.
Why? Most good breeders spend a great deal of time, money and effort into
building their stock. There are many show-quality cats who are altered and/or
"petted out" because most breeders keep few stud cats -- and these studs
represent the best of their males. Even so, they can't keep all their best. I
have a gorgeous show-quality Javanese who could have been a terrific stud cat;
his father was a national winner and he's the spitting image of his dad.
However, we chose to neuter him (just did it Friday) and show him in alter
class because we don't have the room or facilities to keep a stud. They require
special facilities. People with stud cats are putting the reputation of their
cattery on the line every time they agree to an outside breeding.
Many breeders won't do outside breedings at all, or only to a select few
friends who they trust. Why? The female resides with the male during the
breeding because males are territorial. Most breeders I know who have done
outside breedings have horror stories of various diseases and parasites outside
females have brought into their catteries. Frankly, a breeder approached by an
outside breeder with a nonpapered cat will wonder, rightly so in the vast
majority of cases, what other things that breeder is neglecting. They're
concerned about the health of their cats and their reputation in the cat
community.
Most breeders take the responsibility of breeding cats very seriously. They
usually have few litters (fewer than most people would believe) and strive to
make the best matches to produce the highest-quality cats, in terms of health,
genetic soundness, personality, and adherence to show standards. A nonpapered
cat usually doesn't fit these. A breeder who just does it for the money of "get
my stud fee and turn a blind eye" and purposely produces pet-quality kittens
for the sake of producing pet-quality kittens is going to lose all respect in
the fancy. I mean, you can put together two national winners and get nothing
but pet quality kittens, but part of that is luck of the draw. The thing here
is intent.
>>I'm a student and could use some money but bastet will most
>>likely only be bred once a year.
>
>In dogs, responsible breeders usually lose money on each litter
>(again, I don't know about cats).
Breeding cats will not make you money. Forget that right now. Vet bills alone
are staggering. I went back to graduate school a year ago and did what I
considered the responsible thing: I spayed, neutered, and petted out my entire
stock. Why? Because I knew I could no longer afford not only stud and show
fees, but emergency vet trips, c-sections, etc. In short, I could not afford to
breed anymore.
Also, you may say you are only planning to breed once a year, but is this a
Siamese? The Oriental breeds often need to be bred more than once a year
because they tend to have more frequent heat cycles. This is why I spayed my
Somali queen before to grad school -- I could not afford to breed her as often
as she needed to be bred. Leaving a cat to cycle unbred can lead to serious
health difficulties, including pyometra, a life-threatening pelvic inflammatory
disease.
>> I personally think that it is
>>healthier for a cat to have some kittens before she is spayed.
>
>You need to talk to a vet and get some better information
>on breeding. There are serious health risks involved
>both in remaining intact and in bearing a litter. I can't
>imagine how it possibly be considered better for the animal
>than spaying.
It is not healthier for a cat to have kittens before being spayed. This is one
of the biggest and most dangerous myths. Studies have shown that even one
litter before spaying increases the cat's statistical chances for certain types
of cancers, including mammary cancer. There are absolutely no proven health or
personality benefits from this. Cycling unbred can lead to pyometra. Please do
not anthropomorphize a cat by saying the cat will somehow "miss" the joys of
motherhood.
>
>There are good reasons that knowledgable dog and cat people
>are against backyard breeding. I hope you will educate
>yourself on responsible breeding and not just listen to
>your mom and dad.
I agree! I'm sorry if I sound so negative here. I don't mean to be. Cat
breeding, done properly, can be a great joy and very rewarding. If you are
serious about becoming a breeder, and you want to learn to do it right,
consider joining the Fanciers listserv. We're a group of cat breeders. There is
so much we all need to learn, and this offers a supportive environment for
doing so. Education is key.
...Barb
Bette M Winer
>Most breeders take the responsibility of breeding cats very seriously. They
>usually have few litters (fewer than most people would believe) and strive to
>make the best matches to produce the highest-quality cats, in terms of health,
>genetic soundness, personality, and adherence to show standards. A nonpapered
>cat usually doesn't fit these. A breeder who just does it for the money of "get
>my stud fee and turn a blind eye" and purposely produces pet-quality kittens
>for the sake of producing pet-quality kittens is going to lose all respect in
>the fancy. I mean, you can put together two national winners and get nothing
>but pet quality kittens, but part of that is luck of the draw. The thing here
>is intent.
You make the large breeders sound like saints...and it isn't so.
They breed to an artificial standard that is developed by and meets the
needs of other breeders, not the cats. What has happened to the siamese
show breeds over the last 30 years proves my point. With the exception
of just a few characteristics, the breed is far worse off now than it
ever was....gone are crooked tails and crossed eyes, but gone also are
the easy tempraments and great intelligence and thick coats. Cattery
stock may be healthy, but only in a hothouse environment. Bring them
into the real world, and they are extremely vulnerable.
Who benefits from all that careful breeding....seems to me that it
is NOT the cats.
Erin Miller
Bette M Winer <win...@world.std.com> wrote:
>bcf...@vaxc.isc.rit.edu (B.C. French) writes:
>
>
>You make the large breeders sound like saints...and it isn't so.
"Large" breeders is not the issue. Responsible breeding is. Responsible
breders can have only one cat, or two or three. In fact, the larger the
place the more likely (tho not necessarily) it will be like a mill.
>
>They breed to an artificial standard that is developed by and meets the
>needs of other breeders, not the cats. What has happened to the siamese
>show breeds over the last 30 years proves my point. With the exception
>of just a few characteristics, the breed is far worse off now than it
>ever was....gone are crooked tails and crossed eyes, but gone also are
>the easy tempraments and great intelligence and thick coats. Cattery
>stock may be healthy, but only in a hothouse environment. Bring them
>into the real world, and they are extremely vulnerable.
Are you basing this on your observation of the Siamese breed as a whole?
I know two people who have purebred Siamese and feel they are wonderful,
loving cats. How many cats are you bassing this gross assumption on (or
dare I say stereotype?)
Resonsible breeders breed for temperment as well as health. Any
breeder who does not do this (large or small) is not being resonsible,
and only adding to the overpopulation problem.
>Who benefits from all that careful breeding....seems to me that it
>is NOT the cats.
There are lots of cats in the world with great temperments and
personalities. Thousands of them are dying in the shelters yearly.
Temperment ALONE is NOT reason enough to breed cats. Health can only be
assessed by having a pedigree to trace back and the diseases to track.
You CAN NOT do this with mixed breeds. You CAN NOT do this with
'purebreds without papers.' You want a cat with a great temperment, go to
a shelters, they're waiting for you. You want a cat with a great
temperment, and a health guarantee, go to a responsible breeder. If you
cannot be sure that you are breeding cats that are not carrying recessive
unhealthy genes ("Gee, but the Mother looks healthy and we've never had a
problem with her) DON'T BREED. There are too many healthy cats dying out
there for that.
-erin
Bette M Winer
>In article <D4o4B...@world.std.com>,
>Bette M Winer <win...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>bcf...@vaxc.isc.rit.edu (B.C. French) writes:
>>
>>
>>You make the large breeders sound like saints...and it isn't so.
>"Large" breeders is not the issue. Responsible breeding is. Responsible
>breders can have only one cat, or two or three. In fact, the larger the
>place the more likely (tho not necessarily) it will be like a mill.
OK....you're right...but so called backyard breeders are more likely to
have just one or two cats and less likely to be mills.
>>
>>They breed to an artificial standard that is developed by and meets the
>>needs of other breeders, not the cats. What has happened to the siamese
>>show breeds over the last 30 years proves my point. With the exception
>>of just a few characteristics, the breed is far worse off now than it
>>ever was....gone are crooked tails and crossed eyes, but gone also are
>>the easy tempraments and great intelligence and thick coats. Cattery
>>stock may be healthy, but only in a hothouse environment. Bring them
>>into the real world, and they are extremely vulnerable.
>Are you basing this on your observation of the Siamese breed as a whole?
>I know two people who have purebred Siamese and feel they are wonderful,
>loving cats. How many cats are you bassing this gross assumption on (or
>dare I say stereotype?)
> Resonsible breeders breed for temperment as well as health. Any
>breeder who does not do this (large or small) is not being resonsible,
>and only adding to the overpopulation problem.
I have been following the breed since I got my first one 35 years ago and
have watched this happen. My first one was pet quality with papers
albeit from a "backyard breeder" and was promptly neutered. It is
now so bad that there is talk of establishing TWO different siamese
breeds...the current model and the original or so-called "applehead."
The only way I can get one of my beloved appleheads is from one of
those backyard breeders. There is no reason for the applehead owners
to show their cats since they cannot win and so there is no
reasonable basis for getting good studs and papers.
>>Who benefits from all that careful breeding....seems to me that it
>>is NOT the cats.
You didn't answer this issue....the lines that follow are as much an
article of faith than anything else and it is not supported by my
observations.
>There are lots of cats in the world with great temperments and
>personalities. Thousands of them are dying in the shelters yearly.
>Temperment ALONE is NOT reason enough to breed cats. Health can only be
>assessed by having a pedigree to trace back and the diseases to track.
>You CAN NOT do this with mixed breeds. You CAN NOT do this with
>'purebreds without papers.' You want a cat with a great temperment, go to
>a shelters, they're waiting for you. You want a cat with a great
>temperment, and a health guarantee, go to a responsible breeder.
Temprament is a matter of degree....all you have to do is watch those
poor purebred siamese at the shows to understand how much more high
strung they are than were the original appleheads. The best thing about
the siamese breed was their temprament and their vocalizations...but that
is now just a pale shadow of what it was 35 years ago in SHOW QUALITY W.
PAPERS animals. This has NOTHING to do with the cost of the animal...I
would probably have to make up the difference with two trips to the vet if
there were a real problem.
Look....breeders have made mistakes in the past...we know they
have...remember the crossed eyes of the show siamese of old? We still
live with those mistakes through recessive lines. Why do you find it so
difficult to believe that they are making mistakes now. It is only the
"backyard breeder" who is maintaining the diversity needed in the
gene pool if we are to correct these mistakes in the future?
(You don't have to be wrong for me to be right...y'know...we aren't that
far apart.)
Erin Miller
>Bette M Winer <win...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>ermi...@tezcat.com (Erin Miller) writes:
>
>>In article <D4o4B...@world.std.com>,
>>breders can have only one cat, or two or three. In fact, the larger the
>>place the more likely (tho not necessarily) it will be like a mill.
>
>OK....you're right...but so called backyard breeders are more likely to
>have just one or two cats and less likely to be mills.
Um, I don't follow that line of reason. If we divide into three
classifications (and yes, I know it is not this simple, but for
arguement's sake) Mills, BYB and Responsible breeders. Mills have a lot of
animals. Backyard breeders tend to have just one or two. Responsible
breeders can have any range between, so if they have a lot therefore they
are more likley to be mills? Sorry, I don't buy that. You can be a
reponsible breeder and have 14 cats and that DOESN'T *make* you a mill,
just because mills also have a lot of cats. Does that mean that breeders
with only one or two cats HAVE to be (or are more likley to be) BYBs? I
don't think so.
>> Resonsible breeders breed for temperment as well as health. Any
>>breeder who does not do this (large or small) is not being resonsible,
>>and only adding to the overpopulation problem.
>
>I have been following the breed since I got my first one 35 years ago and
>have watched this happen. My first one was pet quality with papers
>albeit from a "backyard breeder" and was promptly neutered. It is
>now so bad that there is talk of establishing TWO different siamese
>breeds...the current model and the original or so-called "applehead."
>The only way I can get one of my beloved appleheads is from one of
>those backyard breeders. There is no reason for the applehead owners
>to show their cats since they cannot win and so there is no
>reasonable basis for getting good studs and papers.
Yes, there very well may be a 'split' among siamese, but that doesn't mean
that Appleheads are 'good' and the non-appleheads are 'bad' (or vice
versa) They subscribe to different tastes. And from what I understand the
other (non-appleheads) have also been around a LONG time. There are
Apple-head breeders on the Fancier's List who are extrememly responsible
breeders and they CAN be shown in the Traditional Cat Association which
provides a referral list for ethical, healthy purebred Apple-heads. This
is taken from the Traditional Siamese FAQ (written by an Apple-head
Breeder) as is the following question:
---
What's the difference between Traditional Siamese and modern Siamese?
To be honest, the main difference is largely individual preference. Some
people adore the new look, while others hate it.
As far as personalities go, in general, Traditional Siamese tend to be a
bit more laid-back than their modern counterparts. But individuals will
vary, and you will find very lively Traditionals and mellow moderns.
Either type can be a delightful pet.
---
>>>Who benefits from all that careful breeding....seems to me that it
>>>is NOT the cats.
>You didn't answer this issue....the lines that follow are as much an
>article of faith than anything else and it is not supported by my
>observations.
"Who benefits from all that careful breeding... *seems to me* that it is
NOT the cats." That is your OPINION, and I think it is grounded more in
stereotype than fact. You don't like the modern Siamese, therefore
purebred breeding is bad. I don't subscribe to that. *I* don't like
spotted cats such as E. Maus or Bengals, that doesn't mean the breeding
of them is bad.
>Temprament is a matter of degree....all you have to do is watch those
>poor purebred siamese at the shows to understand how much more high
>strung they are than were the original appleheads. The best thing about
>the siamese breed was their temprament and their vocalizations...but that
>is now just a pale shadow of what it was 35 years ago in SHOW QUALITY W.
>PAPERS animals. This has NOTHING to do with the cost of the animal...I
>would probably have to make up the difference with two trips to the vet if
>there were a real problem.
But I know Siamese owners (modern-type) which would radically disagree
with that statement. So who is right? Again, I think we are talking
opinions, not scientifically 'better' cats.
>Look....breeders have made mistakes in the past...we know they
>have...remember the crossed eyes of the show siamese of old? We still
>live with those mistakes through recessive lines. Why do you find it so
>difficult to believe that they are making mistakes now. It is only the
>"backyard breeder" who is maintaining the diversity needed in the
>gene pool if we are to correct these mistakes in the future?
I am not saying the breeders are not making mistakes now. I'm saying that
the odds are in the favor of getting a healthy cat with a predictable
temperment from those who are breeding responsibly, even those who are
breeding FOR traits that you don't like. A "backyard breeder" as you say
who has pedigrees for their cats (as Apple-heads do) and screens out bad
potential mates based on health, genetics, etc., sells with a spay/neuter
contract defines a reponsible breeder, not a backyard breeder (by my
definitions). Just because they don't go to CFA shows, does not mean
therefore they must be a backyard breeder. The following URL is to that of
a Classic Siamese breeder. Her cats are champions accd. to TCA, she is no
backyard breeder tho she does breed Apple-heads.
http://www.ai.mit.edu/fanciers/people/farpoint-new.html
>(You don't have to be wrong for me to be right...y'know...we aren't that
>far apart.)
I agree, but in this instance I still think that nothing good comes of
backyard breeding. I think we have different definitions for what
consists of one, however, and part of your definition fits into my
reponsible breeder category.
-erin
Erin Miller
>Erin Miller <ermi...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>In article <D4MIL...@cunews.carleton.ca>,
>>Christel Gohlich <cgoh...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>>Sorry Erin but I disagree with you what you call "back yard breeders"
>>people who do not sell pets with papers are not all bad. My mother
>>use to breed cats -- she had to stop because of severe allergies --
>>got most of her breeding stock from unwanted animals. My fatner is a
>>vet and my mother has a big heart. when some cats would come in to be
>>destroyed my mother would take pity upon them and with the owners
>>permission keep them herself.
>
>them? IOW, there is NO difference between those cats and and those from a
>shelter. She pitied those cats SO MUCH, that she brought more into the
>world when millions die yearly? Uh-huh. I have two great mixed breed cats.
>I bet everyone who reads rec.pets.cats has got GREAT cats who are so
>wonderful that in their opinion they should be bred to make more of them.
>But that's all it is, one person's opinions. Cats and Dogs which are shown
>are evaluated by MANY people, who are supposedly knowledgeable in the
>field before they are bred. Why was your mother so fit do make a
>judgement that most people are humble enough to recognize that they don't
>have the right to make?
>
>> She started to breed them. All healthy
>>and she would give a health gauentee with them.
>
>conditions without showing them directly? Are do you beleive that all
>illnesses and heritable conditions are either visiible with a physical
>exam or else not present?
>
>> When they were sold
>>they would always be vacinated and sometimes declwed if the new owner
>>requested it.
>
>> The offspring of these paperless siamese rejects were
>>beautiful affectionate and healthy. She would ussually get about $150
>>Canadianfor the kittens a fair price with vacinations and declawing.
>
>more, not having a complete sense of their health background, or the
>traits they carried, and selling unnfixed kittens. She was selling
>nothing different than all the look-alike Siamese, some of whom no doubt
>are purebred, which are euthanized at the shelters.
>
>> I really resent the fact that you tried to portray backyard
>>breeders
>>badly. Some people are not just in it for the money.
>
>defined as someone who irresponsibly breeds their pets. A description
>follows at the end.
>
>> I myself have
>>two of my mother's cats -- they have evolved into a new breed after
>>cross breeding with a manx to get a cat without a tail and siamese
>>markings. I plan to Breed Bastet. She is a beautiful cat and would
>>make a wonderful mother. The problem that I'm facing is finding her a
>>boyfriend ... it seems that many breeders who cats have papers refuse
>>to breed a non pedigreed cat ... this is sad because Bastet needs to
>>be bred with new blood I cannot breed her back to one of the cats my
>>mother has remaining.
>
>people out there willing to breed their animals to you that you need to
>advertise on the internet for a stud as you have done numerous times
>recently. I can't imagine why you are looking so hard, there are certainly
>enough toms out there. Why is it you seek a pedigreed male, they seem to
>be so against your ideas of what makes a good cat? If you revile at the
>idea of a cat needing to be predigreed so badly, stop looking for a
>pedigreed one. It makes you a hippocrite: YOUR cat which doesn't have
>papers is fit enough to breed, but no toms out there which don't have
>papers are. Oh yes, as I recall your mother 'made' a new breed, the
>Manxamese! Get yourself a GOOD book on genetics and learn that one does not
>'make' a breed over the course of a number of generations.
> So let's see. No breeder with a papered cat will breed with you,
>therefore they are all wrong, and you are the only one who is right. Can
>we say arrogence?
>
>>It is true that I will selll the
>>kittens but they will be healthy and if like their mother very
>>loveable. I'm a student and could use some money but bastet will most
>>likely only be bred once a year.
>
>off, because you have no scientific reasoning to make such a claim (other
>than "gee, the mother looks healthy.") And again, the number of litters
>and the size of the cattery are NOT what defines a good breeder, neither
>is the cost of the kitten.
>
>> I personally think that it is
>>healthier for a cat to have some kittens before she is spayed.
>
>(clearly you don't subscribe to science, I'm shocked you even vaccinate
>at all!) shown to be innaccurate. It is much healthier for a cat to be
>spayed before her first heat than ever to be bred.
>
>> All
>>"back yard breeders" are not bad --
>
>
>Below is an excellent classification of breeders, I wish I could take
>credit for it, but it is not. You (and your mum) DEFINATELY fall into
>paragraph 3(a).
>
>-erin
>
>----
>BREEDER CLASSIFICATIONS
>
>The dog fancy generally uses the term Hobby Breeder to refer to the
>dedicated, knowledgeable breed devotee who breeds as part of his/her
>concern for a particular breed. (The cat fancy does not use such a term,
>but generally uses the term ethical or responsible breeder -- this is
>often used in dog breeding as well). This type of breeder is concerned
>with breeding not merely a sound, healthy dog or cat, but a sound healthy
>pet who is a good example of breed X. These are the people who study
>pedigrees and go in for genetic tests before breeding, and who take the
>time to place the pups and kittens in the best possible homes.
>
>Commercial breeders are those who breed for profit, exercising economies
>of scale, even though they try, within the limitations of fiscal pressure,
>to breed healthy stock. They may be concerned with breeding a sound
>animal, but not so much with breeding one who is a good example of breed X
>(i.e., not really aware of being typey.) Puppies and kittens from
>commercial breeders most often lack proper early socialization, because
>there are just too many animals and too little time.
>
>Backyard breeders may be divided into two basic types: (a) those who love
>their dog, bitch, tom or queen and think she/he is so wonderful they want
>another just the same, and so go to another of the same breed. Or, if
>their dog or cat is not purebred, but they want another that will be just
>like them, they will randomly pick a stud or female with which to produce
>offspring. They are not knowledgeable, and do not understand the
>importance of first learning from the mistakes (and successes) of others
>before practicing. (b) what I have called puppy/kitten mill wannabees:
>some just breed an occasional litter to get a little extra money; others
>think they will eventually be able to make serious money by breeding.
>
>Finally, the puppy/kitten mill: a mass production system, where the
>breeding stock is kept for one purpose only, supplying young puppies and
>kittens that can be sold, and where great effort is made to spend as
>little as possible to maximize the profit margin.
>
>The first or hobby breeder is the one who is most likely to be the
>responsible breeder. Others are MISbreeders, and a poor source for good
>companion animals. (Good pets can come from anywhere; the issue is
>maximizing your chances for finding one.)
>
>Or as our teachers and parents used to say, DON'T FORGET TO DO YOUR
>HOMEWORK.
>
>---
>
B.C. French
>because of their temperment. Two years ago, we got our first show style
>Siamese. What a difference. He's sweet, but he sprays everywhere.
>Nuetering didn't help.
How old was he when he was neutered? Iwth any cat, if they start showing
secondary sex characteristics BEFORE they are altered, it is very difficult to
break them of that AFTER they have been altered. That's not a breed
characteristic; it's just the way cats are.
He won't let othet cats sit on my mom unless he's
>locked away. He paces around the house like a caged animal. Of our 4
>traditional applehead Siamese, only one is dominant. The others are very
>docile. We also have a Half Siamese. He looks like a russian blue, but he
>is very talkative.
It is true that contemporary Siamese are somewhat more possessive of "their"
humans than Appleheads. These are really two different breeds in some ways. But
in this, there is great individual difference. Not all Siamese and
Oriental-type cats are like this. You will get this sort of behavior from many
active cats.
>for me, the most important traits are health and temperment. it is my
>understanding that cats are not judged on their temperment. they can win
>even with a terrible temperment.
This is not exactly true. A cat who acts up in the show ring has a MUCH harder
time winning over a cat that is sweeter and more easy-going. Cats can be
disqualified for being to pugnacious in the ring. Temperament is a VERY
important factor for judging.
>But a traditional applehead can only
>compete in an applehead show and can never hope to win over the newer
>ugly style cat.
The "ugly style cat", as you chose to put it, is _not_ newer. The contemporary
type and the applehead style are both found in old Siamese paintings. There is
ample evidence both have been around for years, perhaps centuries.
> Yes, they may be sweet, but they look ugly. They look
>like they've been starved, and although they may be healthy, the appear
>unhealthy to me. yes, I know that I am not a judge or a vet. I am only an
>individual who sees a breed going downhill fast.
Your opinion. I don't happen to like the look of Persians or Rex cats, but some
people find them irresistible. The Siamese cats are lean, not starved. My
Javanese eats like a horse and stays very trim, mostly because he is very
playful and loves his Kitty Tease. He is quite healthy, I assure you.
>If all cats had the personality of the traditional Siamese, then i would
>happily accept any cat you give me. but i will not take the new Siamese.
>I don't want one.
Then don't get another one. Keep buying traditional Siamese, if it appeals to
you. Just don't put down other people who find the active cats appealing. I
love high-activity cats; I have a Javanese and I used to breed Somalis, and
plan to do so again. There is nothing to say that everyone isn't entitled to
their opinion. And if one breed appeals to you, by all means get another.
>In my opinion, these "responsible" breeders that I keep hearing about
>only want to breed for the purpose of getting the one that satisfies the
>judges standards better than another cat. They do not care that the cat
>may lose personality or get high strung.
You must have different experience than I do. I know breeders, including
myself, who have petted out show-quality animals because they are not happy in
the show ring, or found a good pet home and don't feel they could give the cat
as much attention as it would get in a happy home. In fact, I cannot think of a
single breeder who's been in it any length of time that hasn't stopped showing
a promising cat because the cat didn't like show life, or didn't pet out a show
quality animal because a good home is more important.
Please don't judge us until you've gotten to know us. You are making
assumptions based on what you have _heard_. Have you gotten to know breeders at
your local cat club? Have you attended many shows? Talked to breeders on
listservs? Most of us love our cats as pets first, as show animals a distant
second. They are our beloved companions.
>But what makes the new Siamese better than traditional?
As I have said, this "Siamese" is no more "new" than the so-called
"traditional".
>If bad genes can
>be phased out by selective breeding, then we can have a traditional
>Siamese without the bad genes.
What bad genes are these?
>It sound like this is all about
>appearance. Diversity is bad. Everyone must look the same. Sounds like
>Hitler would have decided if he were breeding cats.
Sorry to break this to you, but people breeding Appleheads and showing them
also have a standard they follow. It's no different.
>I have a feeling that someday those backyard breeders that love their
>cats and keep the traditional Siamese alive will come forward to help
>when the new Siamese have been inbred too many times to remain healthy.
>If you can only breed the most superior each time, and the superior
>kittens are rare, then the genetic pool will get small. Take a look at
>history when royalty could only marry royalty.
The Siamese breed is large. Genetic diversity is not a problem. And as I said
in another message, backyard breeders with their traditional Siamese are just
as prone to genetic problems and small gene pools. Many don't take genetic
diversity into account and breed closely-related cats.
Just where are you getting your "facts" that the "new" (they are NOT new!)
Siamese are inbred? Or are you simply assuming this because they all look alike
to you? Please do not state such fallacies without evidence to back up your
position. It is a distortion and unfair to the thousands of people working in
the Siamese breed.
>This selective breeding is not the way nature strengthens a breed. there,
>the strongest and most adaptable survive. Not the ones that are protected
>and pampered. If they never get sick or fight off infections, they will
>eventually lose their immunity to some diseases. We are destoying the
>breed, not helping it.
What gives you the impression that the breed is sick? Siamese are, in fact,
quite hardy, well-outcrossed and a generally healthy breed.
...Barb
Moya Luckett
from shots of sodium pentathol every day. All breeding should be outlawed
until we get our pet over-population problem under control.
If you think this would eliminate pure breeeds, you are mistaken. In
today's society, we could store genetic material, eggs, sperm etc. until
needed. We need compassion for our cats rather than just appreciation of
markings etc.
Just my $0.02,
Moya
EVCrockett
Most of the cats which are surplus are from the FERAL population. How do
you plan to get these unowned cats to stop breeding?
Ellen
Bette M Winer
sperm....every pure bred litter that is adoped out as pets, even neutered,
spells the doom of another litter at the shelter. It is time to stop the
insanity of this apprach.
Bette M Winer
"backyard breeder" and what constitutes a "responsible breeder" and from
those definitions come some very serious consequences...both to the gene
pool and to our favorite breeds.
To me, a "backyard breeder" is someone who does it for the love of the cats,
typically in their home, making no distinction between their breeding
stock and their pets. They seldom if ever participate in the shows and
the money is usually just enough to cover their costs. These breeders can
be either responsible or irresponsible....that is a totally unrelated issue.
Someone called the "responsible" versions of these people "hobby
breeders" and attach the value judgement to the fact that they adhere to
the CURRENT breed standards. By your definition, every applehead breeder
is NOT responsible because they for many years, they did not adhere to
the current standard and since there are very few shows dedicated to the
applehead, they have little or no basis to distinguish between pet stock
and breeding stock.
When I first started paying attention, the relationships between the
so-called pet community and the show community were more laid back. I
really didn't care what standards were used for the shows...the grand
champions provided stud services to both communities, but the
characteristics weren't that much different and they were diluted by the
gene pool covered by the queens. The people who kept the toms would make
them available to the "backyard breeder" and felt that they were doing
the community a service by making the better gene pool available to those
of us in the pet community. Both communities had papers issued by the
CFA....the issue becoming moot when the pet was altered.
Things are very different today. There is a big difference between the show
stock and the pet stock...to the point that I wouldn't want one of those
studs to father my pets.....I don't like the way they look and I don't
like the change in temprament and their fragility. Show breeders have
failed to retain all the best characteristics of the breed.
This gulf between the two communities is a result of breeders being too
"RESPONSIBLE" according to your definitions...any cats sold to the pet market
from this community are to be neutered. In addition, the show community
began to refuse stud services to the backyard breeder....I can't blame
them since their toms are so delicate, they cannot stand being exposed to
real-world germs...this is the result, not the cause. Breeders have
restricted the SHOW breeding stock to smaller and smaller fractions of
the gene pool....finally, the backyard breeder had to go elsewhere for
their studs and we have this pending schism between modern and
appleheaded siamese. Under these circumstances, the show stock must
eventually die out...felled by some mutated germ unknown to our current
breeders OR some extremely rare, and fatal genetic disease.
Just who do you think has benefited from all this? It certainly hasn't
been the cats...show or pet. Hubris has caused it...the belief that the
CURRENT show standards are more important than a REASONABLE DEGREE OF
DIVERSITY in the gene pool. It is a matter of degree ... the standards
that you have supported for both diversity and responsibility are at the
extremes. I believe that backyard breeders represent the saving of the
breeds...retaining a healthy gene pool from which the ematiated show
stock can be replenished. But I also think that both communities would
gain if the show breeders were just a little less exclusive.... a little
less of what you have called "responsible."
==============================================================================
I understand the issue of unwanted kittens...believe me, I do. But
segregating the show community from the pet community will not solve that
problem. If I were really cynical, I might ask if the show breeders
aren't really just attempting to limit competition in the market ... getting
rid of those back yard breeders so that the price of their product could rise.
But that is just too, too...... ;-))
Nancy Jane Murphy
: We don't need the outsiders to start a flame war...we do all right on that
: score all by ourselves.
: I understand that there are fans of modern
: siamese that take great umbrage with our comments on what has happened
: with the breed, but let us remember that :
: * the apple head was THE
: standard just a few decades ago...I take umbrage with the CHANGES forced
: by the show people....if you wanted that kind of cat, just breed one and
: call it something else and leave those of us who like the original breed
: alone.
I hate to tell you this but as my mother was breeding "pedigreed" siamese
in the 1950s and while they are not as svelt as the modern siamese of today,
they also do not meet the standard for the Traditional (aka Appleheaded)
siamese of today. I have pictures & pedigrees to prove it. I also have a very
good friend who breeds lovely Traditionals, who conform to the breed
standard set by the Breed Council of the Traditional Cat Association. It
was our discussions about the differences in the two breeds that lead me
to research our files for the proof of this instead of relying on my
memories from childhood.
: * we are not telling you that you cannot have YOUR cat type, but
: in the name of "responsible breeding," you ALMOST lost us OUR cat type and
: many people would do that now if they could.
: ¬
I think if you will do some checking of the actual history here you will
find that neither breed was ever close to being "lost". They are just
different. And just because some of the cat registry associations do not
choose to accept both does not make one or the other "bad" or "wrong". I
also think that the ethical and responsible breeders of Traditional
siamese that I know would take umbrage at being lumped in with backyard
breeders who don't care about much except "making money", and therefore
don't register their cats, or even usually have an inkling as to what the
standard for the breed even is. BTW, I don't think a bad temperment is a
requirement in *any* breed standard that I know of. There is as much
diversity in cat temperments as there are in the human population.
I have been a registered & certified breeder for over 4 years now, and
no, I don't breed either Traditional or Modern siamese. I do know that I
have yet to ever make any money at it. When you do this in an ethical,
aboveboard manner you seldom make money. In fact, most of the breeders I
know count ourselves lucky when we break even.
So, either get responsible in your breeding - follow a standard and use
pedigreed animals or quit hollering about those who do. Allow for the fact
that we all have different tastes and likes or go start a group for those
who feel the need to lie to registered breeders, buy cats and break the
spay/neuter clause of the contract so that they can breed an animal who has
been deemed "NOT FOR BREEDING" so that you can feel superior to those who do
follow a standard, register their cattery and their cats and are trying to
maintain and better a specific breed. Oh! And let's not forget my
favorite assinine statement... "My Fluffy is so beautiful, I want her to
have babies so I can give one to all my friends and family without having
to pay a breeder all that money." Or how about "I really want to own a
brandX but why should I have to pay for it? Does anybody know where I can
get one for free?"
Linnea
Bette M Winer
>In article <D4oIH...@world.std.com>,
>>Bette M Winer <win...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>ermi...@tezcat.com (Erin Miller) writes:
>>
<snip>
>>
>>I have been following the breed since I got my first one 35 years ago and
>>have watched this happen. My first one was pet quality with papers
>>albeit from a "backyard breeder" and was promptly neutered. It is
>>now so bad that there is talk of establishing TWO different siamese
>>breeds...the current model and the original or so-called "applehead."
>>The only way I can get one of my beloved appleheads is from one of
>>those backyard breeders. There is no reason for the applehead owners
>>to show their cats since they cannot win and so there is no
>>reasonable basis for getting good studs and papers.
>Yes, there very well may be a 'split' among siamese, but that doesn't mean
>that Appleheads are 'good' and the non-appleheads are 'bad' (or vice
>versa) They subscribe to different tastes. And from what I understand the
>other (non-appleheads) have also been around a LONG time. There are
>Apple-head breeders on the Fancier's List who are extrememly responsible
>breeders and they CAN be shown in the Traditional Cat Association which
>provides a referral list for ethical, healthy purebred Apple-heads. This
>is taken from the Traditional Siamese FAQ (written by an Apple-head
>Breeder) as is the following question:
The show STANDARD thirty years ago was the apple head...the show STANDARD
today is not. How did it change and WHY? Why was it so important to the
breeders to reserve the title "siamese" to the new standard and create a
new name for the old standard. Why wasn't it done the other way around?
I don't believe it had anything to do with old pictures of siamese
showing what someone interpreted as the modern line.
The material given below regarding personalities confirms what I have
been saying.
>---
>What's the difference between Traditional Siamese and modern Siamese?
>To be honest, the main difference is largely individual preference. Some
>people adore the new look, while others hate it.
>As far as personalities go, in general, Traditional Siamese tend to be a
>bit more laid-back than their modern counterparts. But individuals will
>vary, and you will find very lively Traditionals and mellow moderns.
>Either type can be a delightful pet.
>---
>>>>Who benefits from all that careful breeding....seems to me that it
>>>>is NOT the cats.
>>You didn't answer this issue....the lines that follow are as much an
>>article of faith than anything else and it is not supported by my
>>observations.
>"Who benefits from all that careful breeding... *seems to me* that it is
>NOT the cats." That is your OPINION,
you are d...ed right it is....and the new standards are YOUR
OPINION...and I strongly disagree with them.
<snip>
>>Look....breeders have made mistakes in the past...we know they
>>have...remember the crossed eyes of the show siamese of old? We still
>>live with those mistakes through recessive lines. Why do you find it so
>>difficult to believe that they are making mistakes now. It is only the
>>"backyard breeder" who is maintaining the diversity needed in the
>>gene pool if we are to correct these mistakes in the future?
>I am not saying the breeders are not making mistakes now. I'm saying that
>the odds are in the favor of getting a healthy cat with a predictable
>temperment from those who are breeding responsibly, even those who are
>breeding FOR traits that you don't like. A "backyard breeder" as you say
>who has pedigrees for their cats (as Apple-heads do) and screens out bad
>potential mates based on health, genetics, etc., sells with a spay/neuter
>contract defines a reponsible breeder, not a backyard breeder (by my
>definitions). Just because they don't go to CFA shows, does not mean
>therefore they must be a backyard breeder. The following URL is to that of
>a Classic Siamese breeder. Her cats are champions accd. to TCA, she is no
>backyard breeder tho she does breed Apple-heads.
>>(You don't have to be wrong for me to be right...y'know...we aren't that
>>far apart.)
>I agree, but in this instance I still think that nothing good comes of
>backyard breeding. I think we have different definitions for what
>consists of one, however, and part of your definition fits into my
>reponsible breeder category.
I think that show breeders have showed themselves irresponsible in many
other ways....we would have lost the applehead altogether if a FEW had
not rescued the line despite any way of distinguishing which animals
adhered well to that standard during the TWENTY YEARS when there were no
shows for them.
Do not confuse this issue with the one of pet population control....it
really is much wider than that. I would like to see fewer show animals
bred in the first place...where is it written that the outcasts of one
community should be the masses of the other community. If the outcasts
of the show community were put to sleep rather than sold, there would be
that many fewer REAL pets euthanized....but the breeders would never do
that....they would never say...if I let these kittens live, the chances
of that shelter kitten finding a home will go up...do they? But isn't
that really what you are asking the shelter people to say?
Ebeth Jones
>
>>What's the difference? Each are contributing to the overpopluation
>>problem. BTW, I tried for 6 months to find a kitten in one of our
>>local shelters - we have 6 in the area - and I never found one.
>>I keep hearing about this overpopulation problem, but you can't
>>prove it by me.
>
>I worked in a shelter for 4 kitten seasons. That's right -- SEASONS. In
>general, cats breed seasonally -- there *are* exceptions, but because there's
>such a lack of kittens at certain times of the year, kittens born in the
>fall/winter are usually placed easily by the owner of the queen. But go visit
>those shelters between May and August -- our shelter got SWAMPED. Don't
>believe me -- count the number of "KITTENS: free to good home" ads in your
>newspaper today, then compare it to an average day in June.
>
>I'll bet you've been looking for a kitten for the last 6 months -- and yep,
>you probably wouldn't find any. Go back in May or June.
To add another data point -
I took in a family of homeless kittens last spring, naively thinking
that I could palm them off to one of the many adoption groups that
work with cats here in the DC area. Out of the 10 organizations that
I called, not a single one had space in a foster home to take in the
kittens - they were too overwhelmed with other kittens, most of them
dumped. To make things worse, a stray cat showed up on my doorstep
and I decided that with 4 kittens plus my own 3 cats, this cat would
have to go to the animal shelter and hope to be adopted. But every
shelter that I contacted told me that if I wanted this cat to live,
I'd better keep her because they were euthanizing every cat that
was brought in - they were also jam packed with the spring kitten
season.
--
Elizabeth Jones E-MAIL: baj...@nvl.army.mil
Susan Hagan
>Christel Gohlich <cgoh...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>beautiful affectionate and healthy. She would ussually get about $150
>>Canadianfor the kittens a fair price with vacinations and declawing.
>Hmm. Did you know it is illegal in Canada to sell unregistered
>dogs as purebreds? (I do not know if the same is true of cats.)
Where did she say that she was passing them off as purebreeds?
>they were just trying to make a buck. I don't have any problem
>with a knowledgable breeder who starts with quality breeding
>stock and makes an honest, educated effort to bring superior
>animals into the world. I do have a problem with "breeders"
>who breed pets to make more pets.
What's the difference? Each are contributing to the overpopluation
problem. BTW, I tried for 6 months to find a kitten in one of our
local shelters - we have 6 in the area - and I never found one.
I keep hearing about this overpopulation problem, but you can't
prove it by me.
I got my first kitten from a neighbor cat's litter. I had the cat for
17 years (outdoor cat, too!). I can't imagine that a so-called
"superior" animal from "quality" stock would have made a better pet
than my Bernie did (RIP). I also have a hard time with the idea that
animals that meet certain standards for tail length and nose length
and ear placement etc, are in fact "superior" at all.
I recognize the usefullness of breeding to filter out health
disorders, and for temperment reasons, btw. But I see nothing wrong
with breeding a healthy mixed-breed to another healthy mixed breed if
there is a demand for the kittens and if all the cats are treated well.
>Why don't you spend some time volunteering in a shelter >and getting
to know some of the wonderful cats there (many >of whom will end up
being euthanized) before you bring any >more cats into the world.
From what I could tell in my search for kittens at the local shelters,
the majority of the cats brought in were adult cats that were either
strays (runaway or abandoned) or their owners couldn't keep them any
longer due to a move, new baby with allergies, etc. They all told me
that they really didn't get a lot of kittens, but that I was welcome
to keep calling in case they did get some in.
For some people, adopting a cat is not an acceptable alternative to
adopting a kitten. For me, it has to do with allergies. I cannot adjust
to a grown cat. I am allergic to most of them. But, if I adopt a kitten
I do become accustomed to it as it grows and I have no allergy problems
with it.
For others, it has to do with behavioral problems. But the point is
that adopting a cat should not be assumed to be an acceptable
alternative in all cases.
Erin Miller
Meghan E Noecker <rom...@cyberspace.com> wrote:
>
>I have to agree. My family has had Siamese since before I was born
>because of their temperment. Two years ago, we got our first show style
>Siamese. What a difference. He's sweet, but he sprays everywhere.
>traditional applehead Siamese, only one is dominant. The others are very
>docile. We also have a Half Siamese. He looks like a russian blue, but he
>is very talkative.
So you have a cat that sprays everywhere and this is by default a
characteristic of the breed? When was he neutered, before or after he
started spraying? It would be shocking for me to believe that EVERY
SINGLE CAT of a breed would act the same way. To say "I have one of X
breed and don't like it's personality therefore the breed is awful and
people should stop breeding them" is pretty ridiculous.
>for me, the most important traits are health and temperment. it is my
>understanding that cats are not judged on their temperment. they can win
>even with a terrible temperment. But a traditional applehead can only
>compete in an applehead show and can never hope to win over the newer
>ugly style cat. Yes, they may be sweet, but they look ugly. They look
>like they've been starved, and although they may be healthy, the appear
>unhealthy to me. yes, I know that I am not a judge or a vet. I am only an
>individual who sees a breed going downhill fast.
Good lord, so do greyhounds! So do a number of other breeds (dog and
cat). And Persians have smooshed faces, and Bengals ahve spotted coats
and Maine Coons are often tabby. And Apple-heads have round heads. The
above is one of the most opinionated statements I've ever heard. "I think
they are ugly." Well don't get one. For the thousands of people who
happen to like them, they should not be made available because YOU don't
like them? They appear unhealthy to you? Well gee, Miatas appear unsafe
to me, so do Ford Festivas. So I didn't buy one. But to say "they appear
unsafe to me, so the manufacturer should stop making them" is ridiculous.
Talk to people who breed them, talk to vets who service them. Try basing
your opinions on fact, not just "they look unhealthy to me, despite the
fact that I am not a vet."
>If all cats had the personality of the traditional Siamese, then i would
>happily accept any cat you give me. but i will not take the new Siamese.
>I don't want one. We've been trying to find a home for this one for over
>a year. We have to be guaranteed that they will keep in a one-cat
>household because is so territorial and jealous.
If you don't want one, don't get one. If you don't like the one you've
got, why not contact the breeder you got it from? A responsible breeder
will take back cats that did not work out. In fact, most responsible
breeders write that into their contact. Did you get this cat from a
responsible breeder? Or is this yet another 'as good as the real thing
without papers' cat?
>In my opinion, these "responsible" breeders that I keep hearing about
>only want to breed for the purpose of getting the one that satisfies the
>judges standards better than another cat. They do not care that the cat
>may lose personality or get high strung. I do not believe that the
>standard is an acceptable standard. Yes, I am just a lowly individual.
>But what makes the new Siamese better than traditional? If bad genes can
>be phased out by selective breeding, then we can have a traditional
>Siamese without the bad genes. It sound like this is all about
>appearance. Diversity is bad. Everyone must look the same. Sounds like
>Hitler would have decided if he were breeding cats.
Congrats. You get my award for the most assinine statement made in RPC
this month. That is based on not one iota of fact. You are like people
who go to shows and say "oh how cruel" yet never learn a thing about the
breeders themselves. How would you like it if I saw you, said "oh you have
blonde hair. You must be dumb." There's as much truth to that statement
as your above about breeders. BTW, I do not breed, nor have I ever shown
a cat. But at least I've waited until I've actually met and conversed
with breeders, and found out what they are about before making such a
ridiculous, opinionated, and NOT BASED ON AN IOTA OF FACT statement. Yes,
there are bad breeders, sometimes ones who show. But BYB are as a whole
far worse. Just b/c YOU think the modern Siamese are ugly (and BTW, do
some research and you'll find that both existed a long time ago, not just
apple-heads) therefore nobody in the world should breed them because they
are doing horribly cruel things and are awful people, just because YOU
don't like the look of the cat. Oh yes, and they 'look unhealthy to you.'
And talking about Hitler and lack of diversity from selective breeding.
Who is the one in this conversation who is saying "I don't like a
particular breed" therefore they should not be bred?
>It's a good thing that we don't breed people like we do cats. Anyone who
>didn't look like the long lean models would have to be fixed. Regardless
>of intelligence or temperment. A responsible person would not breed a
>short person or someone with genetic tendencies toward obesity. What a
>boring world those few would live in.
What the hell are you talking about? The modern Siamese are lean cats,
true. Therefore they must be stupid and have bad temperments and faulty
genetics? All of them? Again, just because YOU don't like the look of
something does not mean it is therefore bad, dumb, poorly, created,
unhealthy, or evil. Your statements are not based on an ounce of fact, just
that you have a modern-looking siamese and don't like it. BTW, I happen
to be 95 lbs, I'm working on a PhD at the Univeristy of Chicago, and except
for a short temper with people who make stupid comments, have a decent
personality (so I'm told). But because I am skinny (and a candidate for
hereditary hyperthyroidsim) I should not be allowed to reproduce because
you deem this as a bad trait in our society to pass on? Whose being
fascist now?
>I have a feeling that someday those backyard breeders that love their
>cats and keep the traditional Siamese alive will come forward to help
>when the new Siamese have been inbred too many times to remain healthy.
>If you can only breed the most superior each time, and the superior
>kittens are rare, then the genetic pool will get small. Take a look at
>history when royalty could only marry royalty.
Got news for you, Appleheads do have a breed standard and are treated the
exact same way as all other purebred cats. Try going to a TCA show
sometime, you'll find its all the same. It is the responsible breeders
who sell with neuter contracts that are not adding to our overpopulation
problem rather than your beloved backyard breeders 'that love their cats'
and do little more than add to the shelter populations being euthanized.
>This selective breeding is not the way nature strengthens a breed. there,
>the strongest and most adaptable survive. Not the ones that are protected
>and pampered. If they never get sick or fight off infections, they will
>eventually lose their immunity to some diseases. We are destoying the
>breed, not helping it.
Try reading a book called _Principles of Population Genetics_ by Hartl
and Clark. Why don't you try learning something about selective breeding
and natural selection before you make such a statement. Every species
that is out there is the product of selective breeding. Clearly you know
nothing on the subjects on which you proclaim as fact, but are talking
about 'facts' based on a few experiences, heresay and stereotype.
-erin
--
Erin and the Mainly Moggy Moiety
In Chicago: In Atlanta:
Zeke (shelter Somali) Oliver (FeLV+ minimally Maine Coon)
Perseus (sizeable sable moggy) Jack (all American Eskimo)
Andromeda (his shaggy sister)
http://www.tezcat.com/~strange/erin.html
University of Chicago / Anthropology Department / ermi...@tezcat.com
Erin Miller
>typically in their home, making no distinction between their breeding
>stock and their pets. They seldom if ever participate in the shows and
>the money is usually just enough to cover their costs. These breeders can
>be either responsible or irresponsible....that is a totally unrelated issue.
So where to breeders who DO show and make no distinction between their
breeding stock and their pets fit in? It seems your definitions do not
allow for this possibility, and if you actually took the time to meet
them, and get to know them rather than base your assesment on pure
stereotype, you'd see that this definition excludes MOST breeders, one way
or another.Sure there ARE breeders who show who treat their cats and dogs
NOT as pets. There are backyard breeders who treat their pets as
mini-money-making adventures. Your definition EXCLUDES a majority of show
breeders because you are stereotyping anyone who shows as someone who
doesn't view their cats as cats, but as objects for the show ring. And
that just isn't true.
>Someone called the "responsible" versions of these people "hobby
>breeders" and attach the value judgement to the fact that they adhere to
>the CURRENT breed standards. By your definition, every applehead breeder
>is NOT responsible because they for many years, they did not adhere to
>the current standard and since there are very few shows dedicated to the
>applehead, they have little or no basis to distinguish between pet stock
>and breeding stock.
Again, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but APPLE-HEADS DO HAVE STANDARDS AND
ARE SHOWABLE. No, NOT by MY definition is every applehead breeder NOT
responsible, those who show their cats, only breed those who will produce
healthy, well-tempered kittens, examine pedigrees for health concerns,
sell the kittens with neutered contracts ARE NOT BACKYARD BREEDERS.
Absolutely true, they would NOT do well in a CFA show (tho check out the
Tonkinese which does do very well), but that does not mean therefore all
the breeders cannot show. The fact that you don't even seem aware of the
TCA and the applehead standards bolsters my assessment that you are not
basing your statements on fact, but on stereotype.
>When I first started paying attention, the relationships between the
>so-called pet community and the show community were more laid back. I
>really didn't care what standards were used for the shows...the grand
>champions provided stud services to both communities, but the
>characteristics weren't that much different and they were diluted by the
>gene pool covered by the queens. The people who kept the toms would make
>them available to the "backyard breeder" and felt that they were doing
>the community a service by making the better gene pool available to those
>of us in the pet community. Both communities had papers issued by the
>CFA....the issue becoming moot when the pet was altered.
Back in those days unwanted kittens were regularly drowned, too. There
were no active spay/neuter programs, and there was not perceived problem
with 'doing away with' the unwanted animals in a multitude of ways which
are not acceptable now. You can't say "in those days responsible breeders
loaned out there studs to anyone" without also accounting for the way in
which unwanted animals were dealt with.
>Things are very different today. There is a big difference between the show
>stock and the pet stock...to the point that I wouldn't want one of those
>studs to father my pets.....I don't like the way they look and I don't
>like the change in temprament and their fragility. Show breeders have
>failed to retain all the best characteristics of the breed.
Again, YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK does not by default make them
awful, unhealthy, poorly bred, etc. You are condemning all "Show
breeders" without real evidence, but simply on impression and stereotype.
I'll use this analogy again: I don't like Ford Festivas, because I don't
think they are safe. So I didn't buy one. But to say that because I don't
think they are safe is factual basis enough to say that Ford should be
closed down for creating hazardous road vehicles is ridiculous.
>This gulf between the two communities is a result of breeders being too
>"RESPONSIBLE" according to your definitions...any cats sold to the pet market
>from this community are to be neutered. In addition, the show community
>began to refuse stud services to the backyard breeder....I can't blame
>them since their toms are so delicate, they cannot stand being exposed to
>real-world germs...this is the result, not the cause.
Yet again an assessment of 'fact' based on stereotype. Responsible
breeders don't without stud serves to anyone who wants it because they
are 'too delicate' (ha, explain that to any Maine Coon breeder who does
so), but because they don't want to add to the pet overpopulation
problem. I can't believe you don't see this. That by studding out to
everyone willing to pay a stud fee, they are contribuing, hell they are
CAUSING, the pet overpopulation problem. A mix of a purebred and a mixed
breed is still a mixed breed. Why make more when there are SO MANY being
euthanized?
>Breeders have
>restricted the SHOW breeding stock to smaller and smaller fractions of
>the gene pool....finally, the backyard breeder had to go elsewhere for
>their studs and we have this pending schism between modern and
>appleheaded siamese. Under these circumstances, the show stock must
>eventually die out...felled by some mutated germ unknown to our current
>breeders OR some extremely rare, and fatal genetic disease.
That is completely untrue. Not factual at all. Appleheads ARE PEDIGREED
CATS (granted there are no doubt lots of people selling them without
papers claiming this fraudulent case). They are purebred and are in no way
moggies. Therefore your entire paragraph is a theory based completely
based on false perceptions. I really have to ask you where you get your
'facts'? It seems that you know people who are breeding without papers,
and have made up this fabrication about appleheads not being purebred and
you are basing your whole theory on this erroneous fact. Look, step one of
your therum is innacurate, therefore everything else that follows is also
wrong.
>Just who do you think has benefited from all this? It certainly hasn't
>been the cats...show or pet. Hubris has caused it...the belief that the
>CURRENT show standards are more important than a REASONABLE DEGREE OF
>DIVERSITY in the gene pool. It is a matter of degree ... the standards
>that you have supported for both diversity and responsibility are at the
>extremes.
The Siamese gene pool, applehead and not, is quite large. I think I've
already shown above that since you are basing everything on the one point
of logic that Appleheads can't be shown are are not pedigreed therefore
everyone who breeds them is a backyard breeder and everyone else is awful
is JUST NOT FACTUALLY ACCURATE. You really do need to go to a TCA show.
> I believe that backyard breeders represent the saving of the
>breeds...retaining a healthy gene pool from which the ematiated show
>stock can be replenished. But I also think that both communities would
>gain if the show breeders were just a little less exclusive.... a little
>less of what you have called "responsible."
Nonesense. Backyard breeders HAVE NO MECHANISM with which to trace
genetic illnesses. In general they do not neuter their kittens, nor care
if they are neutered. They often do not even followup as little as one
year later to even see if the 'good homes only' which they found even
still have the cat. They are the ones who contribute to the
overpopulation problem, not the responsible breeders.
>==============================================================================
>I understand the issue of unwanted kittens...believe me, I do. But
>segregating the show community from the pet community will not solve that
>problem. If I were really cynical, I might ask if the show breeders
>aren't really just attempting to limit competition in the market ... getting
>rid of those back yard breeders so that the price of their product could
>rise.
>But that is just too, too...... ;-))
No, I don't think you do. Everything above which you have scolded these
so-called responsible breeders for doing: not offering stud fees to
whoever wants, selling their pet-qualtiy purebreds with neutere
contracts, attempting to to let everyone who wants to make a quick buck
use their beloved pets (again, something you seem to feel is impossible)
are the things which PREVENT the overpopulation problem. The BYBs do none
of this.
As far as restricting their market: take a look at the really popular
dog breeds. Goldens and German Shepherds have HUGE hip dysplasia rates (a
hereditary disease for which the parents can be screened to see the
likelyhood of passing it one, but ONLY responsible breeders do this -- and
fix the potential parent if the tests are not good enough hence losing out
on all that has been invested in them prior -- it costs too much money for
it to be worth BYB's time). This is where the BYBs are leading the
'popular' cat breeds. You may not like the 'look' of some of the more
extreme breeds, but at least they are healthy (when bred responsibly). The
drive for the popular-looking dog breeds is the direct cause of the high
percentage of these illensses. Spend some time over in
rec.pets.dogs.health if you want to see what is the result of your
love-of-the-animal backyard breeding.
Since you clearly do not believe me that Appleheads are purebred cats
who most certainly can be shown and do have standards, I'm enclosing a
substantial portion of the Traditional Siamese FAQ (and will also post it
in its entirety in a seperate thread). This was written BY AN APPLEHEAD
BREEDER!!!
-erin
----
Where can I find Traditional Siamese breeders in my area? Check the ads in
the Siamese section of any cat magazine for breeders' names. Look for
those advertising "Traditionals" or "Appleheads".
The Traditional Cat Association (TCA) offers a kitten referral service and
Breeder's List. This list includes many breeders who are ethical and offer
healthy, purebred kittens. Contact:
Diana Fineran
1000 Pegasus Farms Ln.
Alpharetta, GA 30201
(404) 751-0328
How much do they cost?
They range in price from $200-$500 - registered cats from reputable
breeders are
more expensive.
What's the difference between Traditional Siamese and modern Siamese? To
be honest, the main difference is largely individual preference. Some
people adore the new look, while others hate it.
As far as personalities go, in general, Traditional Siamese tend to be a
bit more laid-back than their modern counterparts. But individuals will
vary, and you will find very lively Traditionals and mellow moderns.
Either type can be a delightful pet.
Why do Traditional and modern Siamese look so different?
See History.
Why don't you see Traditionals at cat shows? The Traditional Siamese does
not conform to the breed standards for Siamese cats in most of the cat
associations (with the exception of the Traditional Cat Association (TCA)
which wrote its standards specifically for the Traditional Siamese). As
such, they are unable to compete with modern Siamese cats. Though
theoretically there is nothing in the show rules that prohibits a
registered cat from competing in its breed class, in practice, very few
people attempt to show them as Siamese. They are sometimes shown in the
"Household Pet" class, where breed is not a factor.
History
The Siamese is considered by many to be a "natural" breed - one that
developed without the intervention of man. Pictures of seal-point Siamese
cats appear in the manuscript "Cat-Book Poems", written in Siam (now
Thailand) sometime between 1350 and 1700.
There are a great many legends regarding the origin of the breed -
especially the crossed eyes and kinked tails. According to some of the
legends, the Siamese cat guarded Buddhist temples and was considered
sacred - and was only kept by priests and royalty.
The first Siamese cats appeared in the West in the mid-to-late 1800s.
Though initially described as "an unnatural, nightmare kind of cat", they
quickly became popular with fanciers, even though these early cats were
delicate and subject to health problems. These first cats had crossed eyes
and kinked tails, characteristics which are now considered faults, and
have almost completely disappeared as a result of careful breeding.
Photographs from the late 1880s of some of the first cats to be imported
from Siam show the thick, round heads and solid, muscular bodies that
distinguish the Traditional Siamese from today's show Siamese.
As the Siamese breed has developed over the years, some breeders have
preferred the rounder look, while others have preferred a slender look
with a wedge-shaped head. During the 1950s and 1960s, the differences
became even more pronounced: show breeders developed an extremely slender
cat with a very long, triangular head, almond-shaped eyes, and flaring
ears. This look caught on with show-oriented Siamese breeders and with
judges. Other breeders, who did not like the new look, continued to breed
the larger, round-headed cats. These "Traditional" breeders found that
their cats were no longer competitive in the show ring and stopped
showing. A great many also stopped registering their cats, though they
continued their breeding programs with their existing purebred Siamese
stock.
Today, Traditional Siamese cats are somewhat rare, though they seem to be
making a comeback, as the breed is popular with pet buyers.
It should be pointed out that Traditional Siamese are purebred cats,
descended from the original cats imported from Siam. A pointed cat that
you find in the shelter, though it may look Siamese, is probably not a
Traditional Siamese cat. Enough purebred Siamese cats have interbred with
domestic cats over the years that the gene which creates the pointing
pattern is found in a large number of cats, and some may look Siamese when
in fact they have very little Siamese blood in them.
Genetics
The "pointing" gene creates the distinct color pattern that distinguishes
the Siamese breed. This gene is recessive: two pointed parents will always
produce pointed kittens.
The Siamese kitten is pure white at birth - the gene that produces the
"points" on the face, paws, and tail is heat sensitive, and the point
color gradually develops on the cooler parts of the body. In some breeding
lines, and in warmer climates, the point color may not fully develop until
the cat is over a year old.
Older cats have a darker body color than young cats and kittens, though
there is still a marked contrast between the body color and the point
color.
The Seal Point Siamese is genetically a black cat, but the pointing gene
causes the color to manifest almost exclusively on the points. As the cat
matures, the creamy body color will usually give way to a light shade of
the point color, particularly with seal and blue points. (For this
reason, seal and blue point Siamese have relatively short careers as show
cats - it's rare to see one at a cat show over the age of 2. Chocolate and
lilac points don't darken as quickly and can be shown longer.)
The recognized colors are: Seal Point, Blue Point, Chocolate Point, and
Lilac Point. The Red Point is not an accepted Traditional Siamese color,
though it is an accepted Siamese color in some cat organizations.
Recognized
The Traditional Cat Association (TCA)
Cat Fancier's Federation (CFF) is about to accept them into provisional
status as a new breed.
Some breeders chose not to follow the modern standard, so small numbers of
them are still bred and registered as Siamese in the following
organizations:
American Cat Association (ACA)
American Cat Fanciers Association (ACFA)
Cat Fanciers' Association (CFA)
Cat Fanciers' Federation (CFF)
Care and Training
Traditional Siamese are not delicate cats, and typically are very healthy
with very good appetites. Most breeders recommend a high-quality dry food,
and most cats can eat when they like without becoming overweight.
Middle-aged cats (5-10) are the most likely to have weight problems, which
can usually be controlled by switching to a low-calorie food.
Traditional Siamese require very little grooming on the owner's part - the
cat is able to keep itself clean and well-groomed. Still, most cats enjoy
the sensation of being brushed or combed, and this is a good way to remove
excess fur and keep it from ending up on your clothes or your furniture.
Traditional Siamese do not shed excessively.
Most Siamese cats reach sexual maturity at an early age - it is not
uncommon for a female to experience her first heat at the age of 5 months.
Spaying is recommended by the age of 6 months, and neutering at the age of
6 months or even earlier. If neutered at an early age, males generally do
not spray.
References
Breed Clubs:
The Traditional Cat Association
Diana Fineran, Secretary/Treasurer
1000 Pegasus Farms Ln.
Alpharetta, GA 30201
(404) 751-0328
Breeders
There aren't many Traditional Siamese breeders in the world. Each breeder
tends to specialize in a different look - some have the very round, very
stocky, Traditional cats, while others have a cat that TCA calls a
"Classic Siamese" which is a bit more refined, though still retaining the
round head, and still others have cats that are more of a modified wedge.
Prospective buyers need to decide what sort of look they prefer, and talk
to breeders about their cats, their health, and their personalities.
Don't be surprised if the breeder thoroughly questions you about the sort
of environment you will provide for the cat - most breeders are very
careful in selecting homes for their kittens. You will probably be asked
to sign an agreement stating that the cat will be spayed/ neutered, that
it will NOT be declawed, and that it will be an indoor-only cat.
Many Traditional Siamese cats are not registered, even though the majority
are from purebred lines whose breeders have kept meticulous records over
the years. We must admit that some cats advertised as "Traditional
Siamese", though they exhibit all the desirable purebred qualities, are of
questionable lineage, and may have some alley cat not too far back in the
pedigree. If this matters to you, you can try to find cats that are
registered - though difficult, it is not impossible.
---
Dianne Schoenberg
> BTW, I tried for 6 months to find a kitten in one of our
>local shelters - we have 6 in the area - and I never found one.
>I keep hearing about this overpopulation problem, but you can't
>prove it by me.
Cats are seasonal breeders & are usually born in spring
or summer. We call it "kitten season" around here--there
is no shortage of shelter kittens in Seattle during those
months :-(. My guess is that you were just looking at
the wrong time of year.
Dianne
& Trouble the tiger-kitty (shelter kitten, born around 7/94)
Speed Racer
Yes, sad but true. My cat who is as I type lying across my arms and has
been the best roomate ever was unwanted. I explained about the importance
of neutering him when I took him to the vet to have it done. I love him
and wish that I could have his gene line preserved to have another cat just
like him in twenty years, but I know I did the right thing.
Also I would never de-claw a cat. And my cat always has outdoor access
24hrs a day! If he can't be free to go out into the yard then his life
isn't worth living. He needs his own friends anyway!
Speed Racer @:)
Cara Vandy
Don't be so tough on Erin. Her mother's cat breeding operation sounds
like it would have been a great place to get a pet. I know what the
shelters are like, and wouldn't recomend anyone breeding for pets right
now, but I think there's more value in breeding exclusively for pets and
taking responsibilty for the animals, as her mother apparently did, than
in breeding for the ring and letting health and temperament issues
slide. I know, I know, *good* breeders don't do that. But a lot of
people who do breed pure bred, recognized animals do.
CEV
Erin Miller
Cara Vandy <c...@clam.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>Don't be so tough on Erin. Her mother's cat breeding operation sounds
>like it would have been a great place to get a pet.
Hello. I am Erin. My mother, nor anyone else in my family, breeds cats,
dogs, or any other species which are being euthanized by the millions at
shelters. I think you have the names wrong.
B.C. French
>understanding from books that they cannot compete against the show style
>even though they are the same breed. In dog shows, twh different types od
>hounds can compete against each other. Then the best in each class of dog
>competes for best in show. Why do the traditional Siamese not qualify?
There are examples on both sides of this. We'll take Siames and Colourpoint
Shorthairs on one hand, and Persians and Himalayans on the other. We will just
look at the breeds in CFA, the association I'm most familiar with.
Ostensibly, the only difference between the Siamese and the Colourpoint is the
colouration. The Siamese is accepted in solid point colours seal, blue,
chocolate and lilac, the the Colourpoint in patterend point colours, such as
lynx point and tortie point. This is the real difference. Why are the two
separate breeds? Beats the hell out of me. I suspect it is because the Siamese
breeders fought the introduction of the new colours as being nontraditional so
the Colourpoint breeders banded together and got it accepted as a separate
breed.
The Himalayan and the Persian were once separate breeds, but a few years ago
CFA decided they weren't a separate breed and made Himalayans a variation of
Persians. Really, Himalayans (at least to a non-Persian, non-Himmy person like
myself) seem much the same -- basically, they're colourpoint Persians. CFA
decided that since the difference was just colour Himmies should just be
redefined as a different Persian colour. Why they did this with Himmies and not
declare Colourpoint Shorthairs as Siamese and Javanese as Balinese, I don't
know. Some associations do.
>Why would a lot of breeders be interested in brreding a cat that has to
>be shown separately and cannot win as big as another breed?
That is a dilemma faced by all "minority" breeders. Many people work with small
accepted breeds and don't win big, not because the cat isn't an excellent
example of its breed, but because it's not as well known. You would think that
a person showing an excellent Singapura and a person showing an excellent
Persian would do equally well, but sadly it's not the case. There are more
Persian being shown in CFA than any other breed of cat. More _black_ Persians
(a single colour) are registered with CFA every year than the entire count of
some entire breeds. If you have 50 cats entered in a show, with 30 Persians and
20 "else", the Persians are going to do better. Period.
Also, frankly, judges aren't supposed to have preferences, but they do.
Campaigners, or people who show a lot, often pick a show based on who is
judging. There are some judges a Chartreux breeder might avoid because that
judge never finals Chartreux. Maybe the judge doesn't like the breed, or just
isn't that familiar with the standard and feels nervous about finalling a cat
he doesn't know much about. But they know Persians inside, outside, upside
down, and the Persian breeders flock to his shows.
So why do people show minority breeds? Because they like them. Period. People
pick their cats based on what they like. I don't want to work with Persians
because they're not my cup of tea.
>Why can't
>both cats, if they are up to *their* standard then compete against each
>other?
A question minority breeders ask themselves almost every blessed day. :-)
Seriously, the Traditional Cat Association is starting the process, and the
applehead breeders are banding together to get their breed recognized in
associations. New breeds are being introduced and presented every day. Just so
you don't feel alone, here are some breeds that aren't accepted in every
association: Bengal, Ragdoll, Sphynx, Snowshoe, Oriental Longhairs, Tiffany,
Selkirk Rex, Ojos Azules, Siberian Cats, Nebelungs, Alaskan Snow Cat, just to
name a few. If you want to help promote the applehead breed, get involved! I
gave you through email the address of the woman in TCA. Contact her and see
what you can do.
But producing more nonpapered traditional Siamese isn't the way to get it
accepted into the mainstream fancy. Contact TCA. I don't know what their policy
is regarding new cats. They may have some way for you to register your
nonpapered traditional Siamese, if you can construct a reliable pedigree; I
don't know. What harm is it to call and ask?
...Barb
...Barb
No reason why they can't. But there are other things
>
B.C. French
I stand by my original assertion that most people I know who breed papered
animals and show their animals are *more* likely to breed for temperament and
health than backyard breeders will. Of course, there are exceptions on both
sides.
...Barb
Jean Marie Diaz
It is time we recognize that every "purebred" litter brought into
existance against the CHANCE that one will be a champion and then adopted
out as a pet DOOMS the litter of kittens at the shelter.
I disagree completely. People who want the predictability of a kitten
of a particular breed, with parents and grandparents of a particular
temperament and look, who want kittens from a known _health_ situation,
are not going to be satisfied with a kitten from a shelter.
Many, many of the people who come to me (as a Maine Coon breeder) are
looking for a cat "just like" one they had way back when... that they
got at a shelter, as often as not. They know the shelter is there, but
the shelter can't provide what they want.
If someone just wants a vaguely Maine Coon-ish kitten for $50, I'll
happily point them at the local shelters and rescue groups. If someone
is looking for a kitten who has been carefully bred for temperament and
health as well as a given appearance, they won't find that at a shelter.
So the 'every one bred dooms one' simply doesn't hold true because its
an apples and oranges comparison.
(Before you fire up the flame throwers, I'm not claiming that you can't
find a healthy and loving pet at the shelters. The point under
discussion is PREDICTABILITY.)
AMBAR
--
Jean Marie Diaz am...@eworld.com eWorld Postmaster
Fine Maine Coon Cats since 1989
Susan Gustavson
I myself am not a Siamese breeder but a Maine Coon breeder. I have
however had experience with both backyard and regular breeders. The two
cats I bought from backyard breeders were genetically defective ( one has
only one kidney one had a defective heart). Both of these cats came from
nice looking homes. As a regular breeder who shows I can only tell you
how I handled my cats and how my friends handled theirs. My cats come
first and they are pets first. I have one altered Bombay, one altered MC
and two breeding female MC. My two alters are show cats and one is a
former breeder. I breed for type and personality. Most of the cats I
breed will never see a showhall. My main concern is not to breed more
than I need to. Every kitten I produce takes a home that might have gone
to a HHP cat. I keep tabs on my kittens and if I sell a cat to someone
other than another breeder that cat is sold with a neuter spay agreement
that says if they breed the cat the cat and all it's kittens belong to
me. I would never sell a kitten to a backyard breeder because they
contribute to the pet over population problem. I breed my breed to help
continue the breed. Shows are supposed toinsure that the breed stays
true. It costs me $500 to $800 to breed my females. This is after she
has had about $75 worth of tests. After she is bred she see the vet two
more times at least and once after the litter is born. This usually runs
me another $150. Each kitten is then given all its shots, wormed, and
fed for at least 4mos. For an average sized litter (4) this usually cost
me another $700. Add to all that the show costs, registration, and
advertising and it can cost $350 to raise. I usually get $250 per
kitten. I usually sell cats to breeders for $250 plus a kitten for the
kitten I sold. I am not in this to make money. This is not a perfect
world and their are bad breeders out there. You would be suprised how
good we are though at running them out of town. Most of my friends
operate their catteries like I do mine, no cages and lots of love. This
make sence because of a litter of 4 you are lucky if one gooes to a show
home.
Right now Applehead Siamese are not recognised in TICA but if any
of you want to go through the same recognition proceedure that all the
other breeds had to go through more power to you. One of the things TICA
will look at is to see if you have a big enough gene pool for the breed
to survive. If a breed doesn't the breeds registration is held open to
unregistered cats until it is. Please join your local cat club. Ours
has as many non breeders as breeders. Get to know us before you condemn
us
Susan
Bette M Winer
>In article <D4q0z...@world.std.com>,
>Bette M Winer <win...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>>To me, a "backyard breeder" is someone who does it for the love of the cats,
>>typically in their home, making no distinction between their breeding
>>stock and their pets. They seldom if ever participate in the shows and
>>the money is usually just enough to cover their costs. These breeders can
>>be either responsible or irresponsible....that is a totally unrelated issue.
>So where to breeders who DO show and make no distinction between their
>breeding stock and their pets fit in?
They are NOT "backyard breeders." The distinction here is that they are
NOT into the show circuit and living up to an artificial AND CHANGING
standard....that doesn't make them bad people.
>It seems your definitions do not
>allow for this possibility, and if you actually took the time to meet
>them, and get to know them rather than base your assesment on pure
>stereotype, you'd see that this definition excludes MOST breeders, one way
>or another.Sure there ARE breeders who show who treat their cats and dogs
>NOT as pets. There are backyard breeders who treat their pets as
>mini-money-maki
No, it is your definition of a "backyard breeder" as a BAD person that
escludes most of the people I know....you should get to know more of them
as people, rather than as competitors. :-)
>>ng adventures. Your definition EXCLUDES a majority of show
>breeders because you are stereotyping anyone who shows as someone who
>doesn't view their cats as cats, but as objects for the show ring. And
>that just isn't true.
My definition exclues them BECAUSE they are into shows and have accepted
an artificial and changing standard as superior to the welfare of the
cats as defined by a more impartial observor...every word you have
written supports this view since I can never believe that they ahve set
asside the demands of the show for the welvare of the cat....removing a
cat from a show environoment seems to always imply neutering...but you do
that for all "losers" no matter what the reason....so what?
>>Someone called the "responsible" versions of these peopl "hobby
>>breeders" and attach the value judgement to the fact that they adhere to
>>the CURRENT breed standards. By your definition, every applehead breeder
>>is NOT responsible because they for many years, they did not adhere to
>>the current standard and since there are very few shows dedicated to the
>>applehead, they have little or no basis to distinguish between pet stock
>>and breeding stock.
>Again, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but APPLE-HEADS DO HAVE STANDARDS AND
>ARE SHOWABLE. No, NOT by MY definition is every applehead breeder NOT
>responsible, those who show their cats, only breed those who will produce
>healthy, well-tempered kittens, examine pedigrees for health concerns,
>sell the kittens with neutered contracts ARE NOT BACKYARD BREEDERS.
>Absolutely true, they would NOT do well in a CFA show (tho check out the
>Tonkinese which does do very well), but that does not mean therefore all
>the breeders cannot show. The fact that you don't even seem aware of the
>TCA and the applehead standards bolsters my assessment that you are not
>basing your statements on fact, but on stereotype.
All of this may be true TODAY, but you keep wanting to ignore the 20 year
hiatus during which it was not true and during which the applehead might
have disappeared if it had not been for people who insisted on ignoring
the standards that you set so much store by.
>>When I first started paying attention, the relationships between the
>>so-called pet community and the show community were more laid back. I
>>really didn't care what standards were used for the shows...the grand
>>champions provided stud services to both communities, but the
>>characteristics weren't that much different and they were diluted by the
>>gene pool covered by the queens. The people who kept the toms would make
>>them available to the "backyard breeder" and felt that they were doing
>>the community a service by making the better gene pool available to those
>>of us in the pet community. Both communities had papers issued by the
>>CFA....the issue becoming moot when the pet was altered.
>Back in those days unwanted kittens were regularly drowned, too. There
>were no active spay/neuter programs, and there was not perceived problem
>with 'doing away with' the unwanted animals in a multitude of ways which
>are not acceptable now. You can't say "in those days responsible breeders
>loaned out there studs to anyone" without also accounting for the way in
>which unwanted animals were dealt with.
This is a totally unrelated issue...the birth rate is determine almost
entirely by the number of breeding queens and NOT by the number of
breeding toms. The tom is needed, but he and his kind do NOT determine
the birth rate and so their availability does not have any effect on the
number of unwanted animals. We neuter them because we don't like the
inconvenience of tomcat sexuallity...smell, etc. If we were to stop the
altering program while maintaining the spaying program, you probably
wouldn't see any difference...just some toms would get slightly less than
what they have been getting when there was less competition.
>>Things are very different today. There is a big difference between the show
>>stock and the pet stock...to the point that I wouldn't want one of those
>>studs to father my pets.....I don't like the way they look and I don't
>>like the change in temprament and their fragility. Show breeders have
>>failed to retain all the best characteristics of the breed.
>Again, YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK does not by default make them
>awful, unhealthy, poorly bred, etc. You are condemning all "Show
>breeders" without real evidence, but simply on impression and stereotype.
>I'll use this analogy again: I don't like Ford Festivas, because I don't
>think they are safe. So I didn't buy one. But to say that because I don't
>think they are safe is factual basis enough to say that Ford should be
>closed down for creating hazardous road vehicles is ridiculous.
You keep focusing on the one item of the three and then you go from one
extreme to the other. I am not saying that because *I* don't like YOUR
type of cat you cannot have one....but for a 20 year period, your
colleagues were saying this to those of use who like the applehead. It
is inherrent in the show system and is overcome only by the "backyard
breeders " who you disdain.
>>This gulf between the two communities is a result of breeders being too
>>"RESPONSIBLE" according to your definitions...any cats sold to the pet market
>>from this community are to be neutered. In addition, the show community
>>began to refuse stud services to the backyard breeder....I can't blame
>>them since their toms are so delicate, they cannot stand being exposed to
>>real-world germs...this is the result, not the cause.
>Yet again an assessment of 'fact' based on stereotype. Responsible
>breeders don't without stud serves to anyone who wants it because they
>are 'too delicate' (ha, explain that to any Maine Coon breeder who does
>so), but because they don't want to add to the pet overpopulation
>problem. I can't believe you don't see this. That by studding out to
>everyone willing to pay a stud fee, they are contribuing, hell they are
>CAUSING, the pet overpopulation problem. A mix of a purebred and a mixed
>breed is still a mixed breed. Why make more when there are SO MANY being
>euthanized?
Bull feathers...see item above about relative impact of the number of
breeding toms versus breeding queens. Also, who said that the backyard
breeders are not using purebred stock?
>>Breeders have
>>restricted the SHOW breeding stock to smaller and smaller fractions of
>>the gene pool....finally, the backyard breeder had to go elsewhere for
>>their studs and we have this pending schism between modern and
>>appleheaded siamese. Under these circumstances, the show stock must
>>eventually die out...felled by some mutated germ unknown to our current
>>breeders OR some extremely rare, and fatal genetic disease.
>That is completely untrue. Not factual at all. Appleheads ARE PEDIGREED
>CATS (granted there are no doubt lots of people selling them without
>papers claiming this fraudulent case). They are purebred and are in no way
>moggies. Therefore your entire paragraph is a theory based completely
>based on false perceptions. I really have to ask you where you get your
>'facts'? It seems that you know people who are breeding without papers,
>and have made up this fabrication about appleheads not being purebred and
>you are basing your whole theory on this erroneous fact. Look, step one of
>your therum is innacurate, therefore everything else that follows is also
>wrong.
Just what percentage ofthe pruebred population actually breeds? One
writer puts it as low as 5%. This is a perscription for genetic
disaster.
>>Just who do you think has benefited from all this? It certainly hasn't
>>been the cats...show or pet. Hubris has caused it...the belief that the
>>CURRENT show standards are more important than a REASONABLE DEGREE OF
>>DIVERSITY in the gene pool. It is a matter of degree ... the standards
>>that you have supported for both diversity and responsibility are at the
>>extremes.
>The Siamese gene pool, applehead and not, is quite large. I think I've
>already shown above that since you are basing everything on the one point
>of logic that Appleheads can't be shown are are not pedigreed therefore
>everyone who breeds them is a backyard breeder and everyone else is awful
>is JUST NOT FACTUALLY ACCURATE. You really do need to go to a TCA show.
The TCA is a recent additon to correct exactly the faults that I have
been highlighting in the show-based system. As far as I am concerned,
its existence validates what I have been saying.
>> I believe that backyard breeders represent the saving of the
>>breeds...retaining a healthy gene pool from which the ematiated show
>>stock can be replenished. But I also think that both communities would
>>gain if the show breeders were just a little less exclusive.... a little
>>less of what you have called "responsible."
>Nonesense. Backyard breeders HAVE NO MECHANISM with which to trace
>genetic illnesses. In general they do not neuter their kittens, nor care
>if they are neutered. They often do not even followup as little as one
>year later to even see if the 'good homes only' which they found even
>still have the cat. They are the ones who contribute to the
>overpopulation problem, not the responsible breeders.
Again...this paragraph is nothing more than your attempt to place a nasty
title on your competitors...go back to the definition in the first
paragraph of this message. Theer is nothing in that definition that
requires the backyard breeder to be irresponsible.
If you are so concerned about overpopulation, STOP YOUR BREEDING
PROGRAM. Until you do, I think that you are only worried about the
competition and the fact that YOU cannot get your price. There is no
reason why one community should be totally denied and the other expand
without limits.
> Since you clearly do not believe me that Appleheads are purebred cats
>who most certainly can be shown and do have standards, I'm enclosing a
>substantial portion of the Traditional Siamese FAQ (and will also post it
>in its entirety in a seperate thread). This was written BY AN APPLEHEAD
>BREEDER!!!
Of course they are "purebreds"...so what...my problem is with the system
that made it necessary to create a TCA to offset the very negative
effects of the new system....they are a solution to a problemthat I think
should haveer have happened and that your current attempts to be
"responsible" make much worse.
>----
>What's the difference between Traditional Siamese and modern Siamese? To
>be honest, the main difference is largely individual preference. Some
>people adore the new look, while others hate it.
I am one of the latter and I am pleased to see that theyre are many who
agree with me.
>As far as personalities go, in general, Traditional Siamese tend to be a
>bit more laid-back than their modern counterparts. But individuals will
>vary, and you will find very lively Traditionals and mellow moderns.
>Either type can be a delightful pet.
"laid back" is another way of saying "not high strung"
>Why don't you see Traditionals at cat shows? The Traditional Siamese does
>not conform to the breed standards for Siamese cats in most of the cat
>associations (with the exception of the Traditional Cat Association (TCA)
>which wrote its standards specifically for the Traditional Siamese). As
>such, they are unable to compete with modern Siamese cats. Though
>theoretically there is nothing in the show rules that prohibits a
>registered cat from competing in its breed class, in practice, very few
>people attempt to show them as Siamese. They are sometimes shown in the
>"Household Pet" class, where breed is not a factor.
It continues to amaze me that you see nothing wrong with this...that
champions with a full champion papers can be "written off" by the
changing wihims of the cat show judges. Amazing.
>History
And you STILL see nothing wrong with this and the system that made it
happen? Sigh.....there is noone so blind as the person who will not see.
PennyC7360
>>a shelters, they're waiting for you. You want a cat with a great
>>temperment, and a health guarantee, go to a responsible breeder.
gorgeous, what I love about his the most is his personality. (Anyone who
lives with a siamese knows what I mean.) I did a lot of breed research and
decided on a siamese, because I wanted an affectionate, outgoing, and
highly involved (with me) cat, and these traits are almost guaranteed if
you purchase a cat through a reputable breeder. (The whole litter that my
cat came from seemed very sweet-tempered and affectionate.) In my opinion
all cats are beautiful, and it is easy to go to a shelter and select a
gorgeous cat, but it is the personality that is harder to predict. I also
live with a beautiful, mixed breed black and white cat who I found at a
shelter, and he is a true sweetheart in temperment, but when I decided I
also wanted a more extroverted cat with the personality of a siamese, it
only made sense to go through a reputable breeder.
PennyC7360
>>siamese breeds...the current model and the original or so-called
>>"applehead." The only way I can get one of my beloved appleheads is
>>from one of those backyard breeders.
Actually, there are many breeders of apple-head siamese listed in the
back of major cat magazines (as many as for siamese that meet the show
quality.) Appleheads still have a big following among people who want
pets, and there are many responsible breeders out there who are devoted to
them.
PennyC7360
>poor purebred siamese at the shows to understand how much more high
>strung they are than were the original appleheads.
I just came from the Cat Show in New York City, and was able to hold
several of the siamese in my arms - they were all lovely - little purring
machines. I saw no evidence of suffering ...
SAM CUTTELL
"Whiner".
My cats mainly go as pets into the "real" world, and none has died of
the exposure yet!!
I just can't believe that you believe in all the BS you've been writing.
B.C. French
>NOT into the show circuit and living up to an artificial AND CHANGING
>standard....that doesn't make them bad people.
When _I_ refer to backyard breeders, I refer to people who often have one or
two cats, often closely related, and just breed them together to make a fast
buck. I refer to a substandard kitten as one that is bred without regard to
health, temperament, OR conformation. There are some unpapered breeders who do
this. Unfortunately, there are some papered breeders who do this, too. I have
seen the fruit of these breedings: cats with serious health problems, some
fixable, some not. Ever seen a truly inbred cat? It's really sad.
>No, it is your definition of a "backyard breeder" as a BAD person that
>escludes most of the people I know....you should get to know more of them
>as people, rather than as competitors. :-)
I have seen some conditions some cats are raised, and it's deplorable. I still
say most of the truly unethical breeders I know don't "paper" their cats, and
almost every breeder I know I would count as ethical does "paper" their cat.
However, I would not thus draw the conclusion that all "paper" breeders are
ethical. I've seen and heard some things that would stand your hair on end.
>My definition exclues them BECAUSE they are into shows and have accepted
>an artificial and changing standard as superior to the welfare of the
>cats as defined by a more impartial observor...every word you have
>written supports this view since I can never believe that they ahve set
>asside the demands of the show for the welvare of the cat....removing a
>cat from a show environoment seems to always imply neutering...but you do
>that for all "losers" no matter what the reason....so what?
That just isn't true. What are you basing this statement on? Most ethical
breeders I know breed for health, temperament, and conformation, IN THAT ORDER,
and would rather have a healthy cat with show faults than an unhealthy but
spectacularly beautiful cat. I have many friends who have taken significant
financial and show whacks to preserve health -- people who have neutered their
entire stock because of a discovered bad recessive, people who have pulled
their promising cats from the show ring because the cats just don't like being
shown. Where do these "losers" go? They are petted out, which means these
breeders carefully screen for loving homes.
And no, removal from showing doesn't always mean neutering, but it often does.
Because removal from showing often means removal from a breeding program,
because the cat has a health or temperament problem the people don't want to
pass on to progeny. If they are not going to be used as breeders, neutering is
the most humane thing to do. Most cats are only used in breeding for a few
years, as it's not healthy to overbreed a cat.
Why can't you believe breeders would think the cat's welfare more important
than success in the show hall? Sadly, there are some people who do that, but I
am fortunate not to know too many of them. I showed a promising boy _once_. He
could have granded, but he hated the show hall, the showing, the activity, and
the noise. I showed him once and never again. He now lives with a lovely family
in Ohio who dote on him mercilessly. I wasn't going to sell him at all, but at
the time he was the only "active" cat in the house, and I felt he would do
better in a loving household with either children or other active cats. As it
happens, I had an opportunity to place him with a member of his own breed. I
considered it to be in his best interests, and from all reports he's thriving.
>>Yet again an assessment of 'fact' based on stereotype. Responsible
>>breeders don't without stud serves to anyone who wants it because they
>>are 'too delicate' (ha, explain that to any Maine Coon breeder who does
>>so), but because they don't want to add to the pet overpopulation
>>problem. I can't believe you don't see this. That by studding out to
>>everyone willing to pay a stud fee, they are contribuing, hell they are
>>CAUSING, the pet overpopulation problem. A mix of a purebred and a mixed
>>breed is still a mixed breed. Why make more when there are SO MANY being
>>euthanized?
>
>Bull feathers...see item above about relative impact of the number of
>breeding toms versus breeding queens. Also, who said that the backyard
>breeders are not using purebred stock?
Actually, the main reason it's difficult to get outside stud service for ANY
breeders -- and papered breeders have a hard time with this too -- is that the
queen should reside with the stud because male intact cats are territorial, and
many breeders I know have had too many problems with outside queens bringing in
infections or parasites. That's a universal problem. I also think it's
important for the stud owner to be just as careful as the queen owner to ensure
that the breeding is breeding for quality -- quality of health, temperament,
and conformation.
>Just what percentage ofthe pruebred population actually breeds? One
>writer puts it as low as 5%. This is a perscription for genetic
>disaster.
Purebred cats and domestic cats have _equal_ numbers of genetic problems.
Actually, this is where the fallacy has been occurring. "Inbreeding", or
breeding closely-related animals or people, is not IN ITSELF harmful if done
once in a while. Let's separate for a moment here the medical and the social
facts.
THIS IS NOT AN APOLOGIA FOR INBREEDING. I just think we need to get some things
straight.
Social facts: In humans, incest is bad. This is because it often conflicts with
lines of responsibility and social lines. A father-daughter pairing confuses
recognized societal roles. This is not true with cats.
Medical facts: Repeated inbreeding can cause problems. Occasional inbreeding
does not, IF there are no undesirable recessive genes involved. Despite popular
belief, if a brother and a sister had offpsring together, it would not
automatically produce a little mutant, unless both the brother and sister
carried a bad recessive gene.
Let's get something straightened out here. Purebred cats and domestic cats have
equal numbers and incidences of genetic problems and bad recessives. The reason
we seem to see it more in purebreds is NOT because of higher incidence, but
because breeders can _track_ these more effectively and thus these things tend
to get publicized more. Yes, there are some genetic problems in some particular
breeds and lines, but do we know this because it happens more, or do we know
this more because we have the ability to track these problems? A feral queen
who quietly has five kittens with craniofacial abnormalities will probably
dispose of the kittens once they die. A purebred cat in a cattery program has
problems like this -- maybe the breeder covers it up, but a good breeder will
_do_ something about it: trace the pedigrees, neuter the breeders in question,
etc.
So I'm not convinced domestic cats are more genetically sound than purebreds.
We don't know for _certain_ whether it just seems like it's more that way
because breeders are finally getting the courage to talk about these problems
openly.
I'm very concerned about breeders getting publically crucified for being vocal
about genetic problems. Breeders who are open about health problems should get
_support_, not villification. They didn't hide it or attempt to pretend they
didn't have a problem. Sorry, this is a tangential issue but it is a pet peeve
of mine.
>The TCA is a recent additon to correct exactly the faults that I have
>been highlighting in the show-based system. As far as I am concerned,
>its existence validates what I have been saying.
Every cat association started for a reason. But let me point out that TCA is
its _own_ show-based system.
>Again...this paragraph is nothing more than your attempt to place a nasty
>title on your competitors...go back to the definition in the first
>paragraph of this message. Theer is nothing in that definition that
>requires the backyard breeder to be irresponsible.
Erin doesn't have any "competitors", Bette. Erin is not a breeder, and owns one
probably-purebred cat: a Somali she rescued from the shelter.
>If you are so concerned about overpopulation, STOP YOUR BREEDING
>PROGRAM. Until you do, I think that you are only worried about the
>competition and the fact that YOU cannot get your price. There is no
>reason why one community should be totally denied and the other expand
>without limits.
See my above paragraph. Erin is defending responsible breeders, but she doesn't
breed at all. So she has nothing to stop.
Personally, I don't care if I can't get my "price". I'm not in it for the
money. Yes, I would like it if my breeding program at least covers my expenses,
but even this isn't necessary. If a person is really most interested in
shopping on price, then they're not the kind of person I want having one of my
cats anyway. I had no trouble finding people willing to pay my price for my
kittens. One found it a little hard to get the money right away, so we worked
out a monthly payment plan that fit her budget. If a person is really more
interested in price than quality, then all I can say is that you generally get
what you pay for. My cats are guaranteed for health and temperament. I would
always take back a cat if there was an incompatibility. I don't know too many
backyard breeders who would do the same.
>I am one of the latter and I am pleased to see that theyre are many who
>agree with me.
But I know just as many people who like the contemporary look. It's a matter of
personal opinion and taste.
>"laid back" is another way of saying "not high strung"
And to some, "mellow" is another way of saying "Take the cat's pulse every now
and again to make sure it's still alive". Some people, myself included, _like_
active cats. I have one active, playful Javanese and one fuzzy throw pillow
that occasionally gets up to grace her food dish and litter box. I love them
both.
>It continues to amaze me that you see nothing wrong with this...that
>champions with a full champion papers can be "written off" by the
>changing wihims of the cat show judges. Amazing.
It's very, very difficult to change a standard. It's not the show judges that
make the decisions -- it's members of the association's breed councils.
>And you STILL see nothing wrong with this and the system that made it
>happen? Sigh.....there is noone so blind as the person who will not see.
Let me throw another quote to you -- it's better to light a candle than curse
the darkness. Perpetuating Traditional Siamese only in unpapered breeding
programs is not the way to get the breed accepted by the mainstream cat fancy.
I applaud the work the TCA is doing to get the applehead defined as a separate
breed. I think this is a constructive way to work through a problem. Saying it
never should have happened may be true, but it solves nothing. If you're really
interested in promoting the applehead, get involved with TCA. They're trying to
get the applehead accepted into other associations as well. Perhaps in ten
years this whole discussion will be moot.
...Barb
Susan Gustavson
I can't believe this woman can get off calling us liars and she has never
personally been to any of our houses or any of our friends houses. The
last time I was in a friend of mine's house, who just happens to be one
of the best Siamese breeders I know of, the only problem I had with her
Siamese is that it was hard to get ready for the show we were holding the
coming week was that her cats kept getting in our laps. This woman
devotes her life to the care of cats. She runs a cat sitting business
and was instrumental in starting a new animal shelter. She has turned
half of her house over to fostering cats so they won't be euthanized by
the city. She breeds top show cats who have no trouble giving birth and
are so friendly that whenever you sit down at her house you ususally get
at least one in lap. Her motive for what she does isn't profit, there is
none. She, along with most breeders I know, is to help cats. If she
thought that what she was doing was hurting the breed she wouldn't do it.
Our whole cat clubs purpose is the betterment of cats lives. That is
why we hold charity cat shows and why TICA sponsers research into cat
diseases and genetics. Until you have done for cats what we have don't
condemn us.
As for your assertion that that applehead is the origin of the
breed you haven't taken to close a look at the temple cats these cats are
descended from. In a resent BBC documentary they showed that these
original cats are as extreme as the show cats we see but they are a far
cry from the appleheads of yesteryear. These appleheads came about due
to crossing the first imported siamese with the shorthair cats found in
Britain and Persians. The inclusion of Persians in to these early
pedigrees explains the longhair kittens that showed up later.
I don't think anything I or anyone else can say will ever change
your mind. We can inudate you with facts and tell you how we run our
catteries but if you refuse to believe us there is nothing we can do. We
know we are right and nothing you can say will change that. The only
thing we can do is continue to care for and love our cats the best we
can. The most important thing to remember is that cat breeds are man
made our for most duty is to the species cat. Our duty is not to bring
one more pedigree kitten in to this world than is necessary because each
kitten we bring into this world takes the home of an unwanted kitten. By
the way if you could not find an applehead breeder why not go to your
local shelter and look for one there. Our shelter is willing to look for
a specific type of kitten.
Susan
Bette M Winer
>My cats mainly go as pets into the "real" world, and none has died of
>the exposure yet!!
>I just can't believe that you believe in all the BS you've been writing.
It is just that I don't believe all the BS YOU and your colleagues have
been writing about how much show breeders care about the welfare of the
breed. In my case, I have the RESULTS to prove the validity of my
scepticism...you show breeders have not preserved all of the best
characteristics of the breed... you gave up temprament (less laid-back?
:-/) in order to get those scrawny body types and if it had not been for the
TCA, the genotype could easily have been lost.
I think your campaigns against what you call the "back yard breeder" is
a poorly camoflaged attempt to limit the supply so that the price for
yours will rise....simple economics and it has been proven to represent
reality in may other systems. Tell me why your group should be
considered exempt from the results of a simple incentive/reward system?
Erin Miller
Bette M Winer <win...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>No, it is your definition of a "backyard breeder" as a BAD person that
>escludes most of the people I know....you should get to know more of them
>as people, rather than as competitors. :-)
Competetor for what? I don't show. I don't breed. But you are right, I do
see a lot of BYB kittens, and they are competetors, they are competetors
for spaces in the shelters.
>
>>Back in those days unwanted kittens were regularly drowned, too. There
>>were no active spay/neuter programs, and there was not perceived problem
>>with 'doing away with' the unwanted animals in a multitude of ways which
>>are not acceptable now. You can't say "in those days responsible breeders
>>loaned out there studs to anyone" without also accounting for the way in
>>which unwanted animals were dealt with.
>
>This is a totally unrelated issue...the birth rate is determine almost
>entirely by the number of breeding queens and NOT by the number of
>breeding toms. The tom is needed, but he and his kind do NOT determine
>the birth rate and so their availability does not have any effect on the
>number of unwanted animals. We neuter them because we don't like the
>inconvenience of tomcat sexuallity...smell, etc. If we were to stop the
>altering program while maintaining the spaying program, you probably
>wouldn't see any difference...just some toms would get slightly less than
>what they have been getting when there was less competition.
What about strays then? If people only neutered their queens, not their
toms, you'd have every female stray out there pregnant. Again, you are
not basing your arguments on real-world facts, but on fantasy-world
philosopy in a place where every cat born will have a home. That *IS NOT*
the case, so you can't base arguements as tho it were.
>>
>You keep focusing on the one item of the three and then you go from one
>extreme to the other. I am not saying that because *I* don't like YOUR
>type of cat you cannot have one....but for a 20 year period, your
>colleagues were saying this to those of use who like the applehead. It
>is inherrent in the show system and is overcome only by the "backyard
>breeders " who you disdain.
Once gain, evidence that you know nothing about it. There would *be* no
breeds, Applehead or not, if there were no standards by which to adhere,
and BYB don't understand this because usually they are working with
first-generation purebreds. Cats gotten from responsible breeders, so
that when they breed, they get purebreds that look relatively like the
standards that were set up by the responsible breeders AND are desired by
the people who seek them out. BUT as those breedings go on, more and more
generations away, while the cats even can be papered, they get farther
and farther away from the standard, in looks, health AND temperment, and
you end up with mixed breeds, no different than the millions dying in the
shelters every year.
>>
>Bull feathers...see item above about relative impact of the number of
>breeding toms versus breeding queens. Also, who said that the backyard
>breeders are not using purebred stock?
If they were, why not pay the $7.00 or so registration fee for the papers
then?
>
>The TCA is a recent additon to correct exactly the faults that I have
>been highlighting in the show-based system. As far as I am concerned,
>its existence validates what I have been saying.
Well, you can free-associate and interpret it that way if you like, just
as you have been uniquely interpreting the other facts. However, the TCA
was started in order to create a set of standards so people can adhere to
them and attempt to breed responsible and track the genetic histories.
Exactly everything you claim BYBs don't need to do.
>Again...this paragraph is nothing more than your attempt to place a nasty
>title on your competitors...go back to the definition in the first
>paragraph of this message. Theer is nothing in that definition that
>requires the backyard breeder to be irresponsible.
Again... what competitors? Who am I competing against? I have no show
cats, I do not breed.
>>
>If you are so concerned about overpopulation, STOP YOUR BREEDING
>PROGRAM. Until you do, I think that you are only worried about the
>competition and the fact that YOU cannot get your price. There is no
>reason why one community should be totally denied and the other expand
>without limits.
I DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER BRED. Apparently no one can be against
irreponsible breeding unless they have something to personally lose! I am
sick of seeing the products of the irresponsible breeders end up on the
streets and in the shelters.
>>As far as personalities go, in general, Traditional Siamese tend to be a
>>bit more laid-back than their modern counterparts. But individuals will
>>vary, and you will find very lively Traditionals and mellow moderns.
>>Either type can be a delightful pet.
>
>"laid back" is another way of saying "not high strung"
"laid back" is another way of saying mellow. My cat (a shelter-found
Somali) is definately not mellow. Nor his he high strung. The two are not
antonyms.
>
>And you STILL see nothing wrong with this and the system that made it
>happen? Sigh.....there is noone so blind as the person who will not see.
Hah! The evidence you present is SO based on stereotype. You clearly do
not know many people who show, yet you make sweeping biases against them
without meeting them. You clearly have never worked in a shelter, because
you see nothing wrong with the irresponsible breeding that is inherent
in the system you so praise. You accuse me of being a breeder, because of
course I MUST have something to lose by the competition that BYBs
provide. No Bette, I do not breed cats. I just hate seeing the slaughter
of millions of cats every year that come from the irresponsible breeding
that you seem so fond of, based on hatred crated out of the fact that one
breed has changed in such a way that you do not like, therefore all
breeders who show, anyone who has anything to do with showing, is
evil.
Linnea A. Danielsen
: [Newsgroups trimmed]
: Some of the breeds seem to have standards that reflect a respect for the
: animal, but others seem to be pursuing exaggerated characteristics at the
: expense of the animal's health and dignity. I can understand breeding for
: spots or colors or hair but some of the breeds seem to be aiming at
: skeletal deformities or unhealthy mutations (BALD cats!? Is that really
: fair to the cat!?)
As you said, Betsy, this was your first show. How does that make you an
authority on what the breed standards are and what breeders and
exhibitors (those who show) are all about. All I hear are uninformed
*opinions*. How do you *know* that a natural occuring mutation is
"unhealthy"? Who made you the last word on what is acceptable and what
is not?
: I hear this is the
: current fashion in bulldogs, and that some of their owners carry oxygen
: tanks to the shows because the dogs have such trouble breathing.)
Again, all I am *hearing* is unsubstantiated opinion. While I'm not
trying to say that problems within breeds don't occur, I just don't think
you have any idea of what you are talking about.
When you have actually been a part of working with a breed and are
knowledgeable as to what the standard calls for and all that entails,
then maybe you will have a right to your "holier-than-thou" attitude. Until
such a time, you might want to keep your opinions to yourself instead of
showing the world how little you really know.
BTW, I do breed, show & register my Scottish Folds. I also sell them as pets
already spayed & neutered as I have found that then I don't have to worry
about BYBs who will lie through their teeth to get a cat they can then
use in their unpapered kitten mills. And, yes, I have had this happen in
the past. It will never happen again.
The Fold is a product of a naturally occuring mutation. When ethical and
responsible breeding occurs, it is not harmful or debilitating to the
cats. You cannot say that the cat is an abomination because there are
unethical and irresponsible people in the world. If that were so, then
over half the human population should be spayed & neutered immediately.
Linnea
--
************************************************
* *
* The opinions expressed above should not be *
* attributed to my employer, family, friends *
* or relations. Any brainwashing should fall *
* solely upon the shoulders of my cats. *
* *
************************************************
Bette M Winer
>win...@world.std.com (Bette M Winer)
>I can't believe this woman can get off calling us liars and she has never
>personally been to any of our houses or any of our friends houses.
I didn't call you a liar...I called you mistaken and mislead by good
intentions.
You are participating in a simple (and I emphasize that word) stimulous
response system and evidence from many other such systems shows that ON
AVERAGE, people do respond. They respond to sales....the lower the
price, the more people buy....they respond to tax incentives....they
respond to the rules associated with going on welfare....the human birth
rate rises and falls along with the fraction of the population on the
farm (still haven't quite figured out the incentive on that one). You
are claiming that cat-breeders who breed for the show ring are exempt
from this particular stimulous response system and that they act
ethically and morally despite the fact that all the stimuli are pushing
them in the opposite direction.
I am more than just a little skeptical about your claim for these
straightforward reasons alone. When I put it together with the results
that I see, results that could have easily been predicted from observing
the stimulous in question, I am doubly skeptical. I don't think you are
"lying," I think you are too close to this particular forest to see the
trees and that you are WRONG. Whatever the particular moral framework
followed by you and your friends, it appears that it is being sidetracked by
issues beyond your control.
The
>last time I was in a friend of mine's house, who just happens to be one
>of the best Siamese breeders I know of, the only problem I had with her
>Siamese is that it was hard to get ready for the show we were holding the
>coming week was that her cats kept getting in our laps.
I love that image...I only sorry that my observations do not support it as
the norm.
> As for your assertion that that applehead is the origin of the
>breed you haven't taken to close a look at the temple cats these cats are
>descended from. In a resent BBC documentary they showed that these
>original cats are as extreme as the show cats we see but they are a far
>cry from the appleheads of yesteryear. These appleheads came about due
>to crossing the first imported siamese with the shorthair cats found in
>Britain and Persians. The inclusion of Persians in to these early
>pedigrees explains the longhair kittens that showed up later.
The applehead may not be the "original" breed of any kind, but they were
very close to the STANDARD of thirty years ago. WHY did that standard
change? Why does ANY standard change. Isn't it contrary to the whole
idea that you all are pushing? Well it has changed and I object to the
consequences of that change. These consequences naturally flow from the
isolation of show stock from pet stock that is the natural result of the
excessive pursuit of these changing standards.
Betsy Schwartz
Scrawny, high-strung Siamese. Persians with deformed jaws and breathing
problems whose eyes have to be washed twice a day. Cats with short legs.
Cats with bent ears. Bald cats. BALD cats!?
There is a lot wrong with the system that holds these cats up as a
standard.
I went to my first cat show last week and was quite impressed with the
variations between the breeds. I like a cat that still looks and acts like
a cat. I was particularly impressed by an Abysinnian who managed to get his
paw out of the cage and snag his display card...that cat had brains, and a
natural style! Probably in a few more years all of the Abysinnians at the
shows will be skeletal wraiths...
Some of the breeds seem to have standards that reflect a respect for the
animal, but others seem to be pursuing exaggerated characteristics at the
expense of the animal's health and dignity. I can understand breeding for
spots or colors or hair but some of the breeds seem to be aiming at
skeletal deformities or unhealthy mutations (BALD cats!? Is that really
fair to the cat!?)
Betsy
(I saw a bulldog the other day who could barely walk. She was SO bowlegged
that her shoulders looked dislocated. She was accompanied by a very stylishly
dressed person with another elaborately styled dog...I hear this is the
Brandy Alexandre
>From: bet...@shore.shore.net (Betsy Schwartz)
>Subject: Re: There is such a thing as being TOO responsible
>Date: 08 Mar 1995 14:35:47 GMT
>[Newsgroups trimmed]
>Scrawny, high-strung Siamese. Persians with deformed jaws and breathing
>problems whose eyes have to be washed twice a day. Cats with short legs.
>Cats with bent ears. Bald cats. BALD cats!?
I saw those short legged cats. That defeats the purpose of cats and I thinks
it's dreadfull to breed them. Cats have style and grace as the sit, stand,
stretch and leap. Sure, it probably won't get to the kitchen counter, but if
you want a dashound (sp) get one.
Brandy
____ _
| _ \ _ __ ___ _ __ __| |_ _ No a.s.m e-mail!
|____/| '__/ \ `_ \/ | |_| | This Means You!
| _ \| | | - | | | | - |\ / Read the a.s.m FAQ!
|____/|_| \___/\| |_|___/| |_| Read *my* FAQ!
http://www.primenet.com/~otrprod <-----------------
Bette M Winer
The norm at the last show I attended had the owners guarding their cats
and signs saying "your affection can be the source of infection." So how
you were able to touch any of those guys is beyond me. I can understand
that when the cats are fragile and the crowd large...so tell me again why
I should believe that the cats are robust when to me they look scrawny
and unhealthy? If an applehead looked like that, it would be at deaths'
door.
B.C. French
wri^
>Susan Gustavson <gust...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>
>>win...@world.std.com (Bette M Winer)
>>I can't believe this woman can get off calling us liars and she has never
>>personally been to any of our houses or any of our friends houses.
>
>I didn't call you a liar...I called you mistaken and mislead by good
>intentions.
So, in short, you're calling her well-meaning but ignorant. I'm sorry;
I've been attempting to be civil throughout this whole thread, and even
I am losing my patience. I find that statement patronizing and based
almost solely on personal opinions.
>You are participating in a simple (and I emphasize that word) stimulous
>response system and evidence from many other such systems shows that ON
>AVERAGE, people do respond.
Are you saying that people will basically try to get away with anything
they can for the sake of gain? That's a pretty dim view of humanity. I
think it is true that _some_ people respond to that, but not _all_, I am
happy to say. But more on that as we progress.
>They respond to sales....the lower the
>price, the more people buy....
True on a general scale, but not entirely true. My husband is in sales and
has a business degree, so I have read a great many of his sales and
marketing textbooks. The one thing everyone does agree on is that people
buy things for different reasons. Take auto sales. You may think people
buy primarily on price, reliability, and safety, but I can name three
top-selling vehicles which defy those: Lexus, anything by Hyundai, and
most sports cars. People buy things for many different reasons: style,
performance, brand loyalty, sales, safety, reliability, colour, you name
it.
(Actually, studies in marketing have shown that consistently lowering
a price on a product is NOT the way to gain long-term customer loyalty.
This is because it courts the least loyal customers: the price-shoppers.
Although they will occasionally put things on sale or offer coupons,
this is to encourage trial of a brand and encourage long-term use, but
actually keeping the price low consistently is NOT the way to encourage
long-term customers. True advertising and marketing theory -- and not
a simple stimulus-response system at all).
My point with this is that to say that everyone is swayed by the same
stimulus in the same way is oversimplifying human nature. People are
incredibly diverse and are motivated by different things. They respond
to different stimuli in different ways. To say that all people who show
their cats are willing to sacrifice health and temperament for show
success is making an unfair and entirely inaccurate generalization. I
will grant that there are SOME who do that. Fortunately, I see a definite
swing in the cat fancy, mostly in response to what is happening in the
dog fancy, to taking a much dimmer view of breeders who perpetuate ill
health for the sake of physical standard.
It is NOT a "simple stimulus-response" system. There is very little in this
world that is.
>You
>are claiming that cat-breeders who breed for the show ring are exempt
>from this particular stimulous response system and that they act
>ethically and morally despite the fact that all the stimuli are pushing
>them in the opposite direction.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that cat breeders are
under so much pressure to perform in the show ring that they are always
going to sacrifice health and temperament for show success? Sorry to
disappoint you, but the big winners in the cat fancy are NOT the sick,
deformed, nasty cats. Go to a big show and look at the finalists. They
will be well-behaved, beautiful cats. Nasty cats really don't do well in
the ring, so in your "stimulus-response" model, it seems a true show-er
would have no incentive to ignore temperament.
And personally, I'm rather offended to believe you think cat breeders seem
to be incapable of sticking to their ethical/moral ground. No rosette in
this world is large enough or fancy enough to make me compromise my ethics.
No national win is worth it. Sorry to disappoint you. And I am not alone on
this; I am fortunate enough to know many, many other breeders who would
echo that statement.
>I am more than just a little skeptical about your claim for these
>straightforward reasons alone. When I put it together with the results
>that I see, results that could have easily been predicted from observing
>the stimulous in question, I am doubly skeptical. I don't think you are
>"lying," I think you are too close to this particular forest to see the
>trees and that you are WRONG. Whatever the particular moral framework
>followed by you and your friends, it appears that it is being sidetracked by
>issues beyond your control.
What results do you see? Most of what you have said is based on your personal
impression of the Siamese breed, although I have pointed out time and again
that I believe your impressions are largely personal opinion and have another
and equally valid viewpoint.
To recap:
You say about show Siamese: I say about show Siamese:
Ugly Beautiful
Scrawny Lean, but healthy (love those fast
metabolisms!)
Small genetic pool Plenty of genetic diversity
High-strung Active
I understand you had a show Siamese that didn't work out for you. Is my
opinion more valid than yours? No. That's the great thing about opinions
in a free country. I can respect that you don't like show Siamese, but I
want to point out that there are many people who agree with both of us. I
would argue on factual evidence for the small gene pool vs. large gene
pool -- Siamese are certainly not a breed in genetic danger.
And whose opinions and observations are more valid? Most of your evidence
for believing we are wrong and you are right is based on personal opinion
and observation. Well, I have every bit as much personal opinion and
observation as you do, and which of us is right? You seem to claim
objectivity on the matter, and claim that we are biased because we are
involved in breeding. However, I would point out that your vocal dislike
of show Siamese places you in a bias position too. You are not objective and
have made that clear. So who is right and who is wrong: you, who are not
involved in the mainstream cat fancy, or me, who is heavily involved and has
more experience and probably knows more breeders?
All I am asking is please to take a look at what you are basing on _factual_
evidence and what you are basing on _personal opinion_.
>The
>>last time I was in a friend of mine's house, who just happens to be one
>>of the best Siamese breeders I know of, the only problem I had with her
>>Siamese is that it was hard to get ready for the show we were holding the
>>coming week was that her cats kept getting in our laps.
>
>I love that image...I only sorry that my observations do not support it as
>the norm.
And my observations do. So who is right?
>The applehead may not be the "original" breed of any kind, but they were
>very close to the STANDARD of thirty years ago.
Is it? I haven't seen a copy of the standard thirty years ago. If you have a
copy or know where I can get a copy, please post it here. I would be very
interested to look at the thirty-year-old standard.
>WHY did that standard
>change? Why does ANY standard change.
My question is: did it? If you have a copy of the standard, post it here and I
will be happy to do a line-by-line comparison of it to the current standard.
I will even do some investigating with my "older" Siamese breeder friends to
ask them about this. However, my observation about old standards vs. new
ones is that remarkably little has changed in the standards over the years.
The interpretation may change, but the written standard is remarkably
slow to change.
>Well it has changed and I object to the
>consequences of that change. These consequences naturally flow from the
>isolation of show stock from pet stock that is the natural result of the
>excessive pursuit of these changing standards.
I don't think you realize how difficult it is to change standards . . .
...Barb
Jean Marie Diaz
The norm at the last show I attended had the owners guarding their cats
and signs saying "your affection can be the source of infection." So how
you were able to touch any of those guys is beyond me.
You ask the owner's permission, of course. You know; talk to people?
Try to learn things?
Mind like parachute; functions only when open.....
AMBAR
Liz Albrook
>
>you were able to touch any of those guys is beyond me. I can understand
>that when the cats are fragile and the crowd large...so tell me again
why
>I should believe that the cats are robust when to me they look scrawny
>and unhealthy? If an applehead looked like that, it would be at deaths'
>door.
And if the oriental bodied siamese looked like a manx it would be a
candidate for a stroke or heart attack.
I have 4 tonkinese I purchased from 2 breeders. Two tonks decended from
applehead, non-oriental bodied siamese. The other two, from
the other breeder, decended from oriental bodied siamese.
The latter have somewhat more elegant body lines and are thinner
that the other two. (Since they are tonks, not siamese, none have
oriental bodies.) All are healthy, affectionate and playful.
When breeders talk about how all breeders are interested in making
wonderful, genetically superior cats they are full of it. I visited
too many breeders before I found the ones that had cats I would
buy to believe that fairy tale.
By the same token, when the backyard breeders talk about how they are
all in it for love, they, too are full of it. I've seen the results
from too many backyard breeders to buy into that story, either.
As for the argument that you can't buy an applehead with papers -
there are several breeders who do sell appleheads with papers that
I know of on the west coast. I would assume that there must be
others elsewhere.
And, if you don't like the oriental body type - fine. I don't like it,
either. I also don't like Sphynxs or Rexs or Manxs but lots of other
people do.
So far no one has advanced a good argument for the backyard breeder
who sells "purebreds" without papers. It sounds more like, at some
point, the breeders couldn't be bothered to register their cats. That
makes people wonder what else they couldn't be bothered with.
Liz
Bette M Winer
>In article <D5735...@world.std.com> win...@world.std.com (Bette M Winer) writes:
> The norm at the last show I attended had the owners guarding their cats
> and signs saying "your affection can be the source of infection." So how
> you were able to touch any of those guys is beyond me.
>You ask the owner's permission, of course. You know; talk to people?
>Try to learn things?
NOBODY was touching those cats except their owners...but NOBODY. I
watched several areas for some time, and NOBODY was asking the owners if
they could hold or even touch their babies. There were lots of people
speaking with the owners, but their hands stayed in their pockets.
You and your friends are clearly part of the IN group and you are seeing
things through your own rosy glasses and set of assumptions. You see
nothing wrong with scrawny cats and can't understand why I would respond
to a cat that is deliberately scrawny THE SAME WAY I would respond to a
normal cat who is that way because s/he is sick.
>Mind like parachute; functions only when open.....
I agree....you might try it sometime.
JULIANNE WEIGHT
: The norm at the last show I attended had the owners guarding their cats
: you were able to touch any of those guys is beyond me. I can understand
: that when the cats are fragile and the crowd large...so tell me again why
: I should believe that the cats are robust when to me they look scrawny
: and unhealthy? If an applehead looked like that, it would be at deaths'
: door.
I wonder too, but I can't blame the show owners for being protective of
their cats. The time and money invested, besides the fact that many of
these cats are loved by the breeders as PETS, can be totally severely
compromised by someone handling the cats when they have a transmittable
organism (ringworms, etc.) Even if it doesn't kill your cats, you can
tot up some pretty hefty vet bills.
However, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the appearance of the
cats and I wish you would at least TRY to understand this. The Siamese
body type is a healthy one. What you are saying is the same as saying
that someone who is 5'-1" and weighs 90 pounds is unhealthy when compared
to my 6'-0" and 180 pounds (okay, I'm lying, but none of you care!). The
first person is not unhealthy, and neither am I. We have different body
types, that's all. The same is true of the Siamese and the traditional
Siamese. For me to weigh 90 pounds would certainly be unhealthy; for the
short person to weigh 180 would be equally unhealthy. Apples and oranges.
BTW, I got the Eyewitness Handbooks "CATS" book (David Alderton). It
shows a picture of a prizewinning Siamese circa űearly 1900 and another
modern counterpart -- big difference! The 1900s cat is even rounder in
the head than the traditional Siamese today.
Sorry for the garbage -- we're having quite a storm!
Julie
Paul G. Russell
>From: otr...@primenet.com (Brandy Alexandre)
>Subject: Re: There is such a thing as being TOO responsible
>In article <BETSYS.95...@shore.shore.net> bet...@shore.shore.net (Betsy Schwartz) writes:
>>From: bet...@shore.shore.net (Betsy Schwartz)
>>Subject: Re: There is such a thing as being TOO responsible
>>Date: 08 Mar 1995 14:35:47 GMT
>>[Newsgroups trimmed]
>I saw those short legged cats. That defeats the purpose of cats and I thinks
>it's dreadfull to breed them. Cats have style and grace as the sit, stand,
>stretch and leap. Sure, it probably won't get to the kitchen counter, but if
>you want a dashound (sp) get one.
I'm not sure what your point is! Are you suggesting that the purpose of cats
is to have long legs? I've got news for you. My short legged persians still
run, jump, and play just as hard and just as often as longer legged cats.
And, contrary to your suggestion, they do jump on counters, no matter how hard
I try to discourage them. And they have style and grace (or at least most do
-- a few can be real clutzes, but that's an individual thing, just like with
people). If you don't like short legs, fine. But don't try to justify your
dislike by casting aspersions at the breed, or the breeders when you obviously
know so little about the cat fancy. Learn the facts first, and don't be
so quick to judge.
Regards,
Paul
Dawn Ivey
EM>characteristic of the breed? When was he neutered, before or after he
EM>started spraying? It would be shocking for me to believe that EVERY
EM>SINGLE CAT of a breed would act the same way. To say "I have one of X
EM>breed and don't like it's personality therefore the breed is awful and
EM>people should stop breeding them" is pretty ridiculous.
EM>Good lord, so do greyhounds! So do a number of other breeds (dog and
EM>cat). And Persians have smooshed faces, and Bengals ahve spotted coats
EM>and Maine Coons are often tabby. And Apple-heads have round heads. The
EM>above is one of the most opinionated statements I've ever heard. "I think
EM>they are ugly." Well don't get one. For the thousands of people who
EM>happen to like them, they should not be made available because YOU don't
EM>like them? They appear unhealthy to you? Well gee, Miatas appear unsafe
EM>to me, so do Ford Festivas. So I didn't buy one. But to say "they appear
EM>unsafe to me, so the manufacturer should stop making them" is ridiculous.
EM>Talk to people who breed them, talk to vets who service them. Try basing
EM>your opinions on fact, not just "they look unhealthy to me, despite the
EM>fact that I am not a vet."
EM>If you don't want one, don't get one. If you don't like the one you've
EM>got, why not contact the breeder you got it from? A responsible breeder
EM>will take back cats that did not work out. In fact, most responsible
EM>breeders write that into their contact. Did you get this cat from a
EM>responsible breeder? Or is this yet another 'as good as the real thing
EM>without papers' cat?
EM>Congrats. You get my award for the most assinine statement made in RPC
EM>this month. That is based on not one iota of fact. You are like people
EM>who go to shows and say "oh how cruel" yet never learn a thing about the
EM>breeders themselves. How would you like it if I saw you, said "oh you have
EM>blonde hair. You must be dumb." There's as much truth to that statement
EM>as your above about breeders. BTW, I do not breed, nor have I ever shown
EM>a cat. But at least I've waited until I've actually met and conversed
EM>with breeders, and found out what they are about before making such a
EM>ridiculous, opinionated, and NOT BASED ON AN IOTA OF FACT statement. Yes,
EM>there are bad breeders, sometimes ones who show. But BYB are as a whole
EM>far worse. Just b/c YOU think the modern Siamese are ugly (and BTW, do
EM>some research and you'll find that both existed a long time ago, not just
EM>apple-heads) therefore nobody in the world should breed them because they
EM>are doing horribly cruel things and are awful people, just because YOU
EM>don't like the look of the cat. Oh yes, and they 'look unhealthy to you.'
EM> And talking about Hitler and lack of diversity from selective breeding.
EM>Who is the one in this conversation who is saying "I don't like a
EM>particular breed" therefore they should not be bred?
EM>What the hell are you talking about? The modern Siamese are lean cats,
EM>true. Therefore they must be stupid and have bad temperments and faulty
EM>genetics? All of them? Again, just because YOU don't like the look of
EM>something does not mean it is therefore bad, dumb, poorly, created,
EM>unhealthy, or evil. Your statements are not based on an ounce of fact, just
EM>that you have a modern-looking siamese and don't like it. BTW, I happen
EM>to be 95 lbs, I'm working on a PhD at the Univeristy of Chicago, and except
EM>for a short temper with people who make stupid comments, have a decent
EM>personality (so I'm told). But because I am skinny (and a candidate for
EM>hereditary hyperthyroidsim) I should not be allowed to reproduce because
EM>you deem this as a bad trait in our society to pass on? Whose being
EM>fascist now?
EM>Got news for you, Appleheads do have a breed standard and are treated the
EM>exact same way as all other purebred cats. Try going to a TCA show
EM>sometime, you'll find its all the same. It is the responsible breeders
EM>who sell with neuter contracts that are not adding to our overpopulation
EM>problem rather than your beloved backyard breeders 'that love their cats'
EM>and do little more than add to the shelter populations being euthanized.
EM>Try reading a book called _Principles of Population Genetics_ by Hartl
EM>and Clark. Why don't you try learning something about selective breeding
EM>and natural selection before you make such a statement. Every species
EM>that is out there is the product of selective breeding. Clearly you know
EM>nothing on the subjects on which you proclaim as fact, but are talking
EM>about 'facts' based on a few experiences, heresay and stereotype.
EM>-erin
geez Erin! get a life!
-----------catwoman
dawn...@dojo.cts.com
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * This tagline will self-destruct in 5 seconds.
Dawn Ivey
GU>contribute to the pet over population problem. I breed my breed to help
oh bull! that's a myth created and perpetuated by snobby purebred
breeders like you! i never see kittens at shelters. you just don't want
petowners breeding their cats because then people don't have to go and
pay breeder's appalling prices for kittens.
and by the way i do not breed my cats in the back yard. my kittens never
go outside until they are at least five months old.
---------catwoman
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * This message is SHAREWARE! To Register, send $5.
Bette M Winer
But there is the difference....the original standards called for a cat
much closer to the applehead or traditional siamese....then a small
minority of cat owners...the judges etc. decided to change the standard
(or the interpretation of the standard...hard to tell which) to a look
that if demonstrated by the original, would have indicated an unhealthy
animal and it would have been disqualified by that unhealthy look.
You are asking people to look at two siamese side-by-side looking
identical and say the one on the left is clearly unhealthy and the one on
the right is SUPPOSED to look like that and is beautiful. Well maybe you
in the show circuit can do that....we in the pet market cannot. To me,
the modern show siamese is an unhealthy, scrawny LOOKING animal. AND YOU
PEOPLE WOULD HAVE IT BE THE ONLY TYPE BRED AND I OBJECT. I have for a
very long time "let" you have your type of siamese....when I went to get
my present two guys, I had an awful time finding any good breeders of
these GOOD siamese and I object....
PennyC7360
> The norm at the last show I attended had the owners guarding their
cats
> and signs saying "your affection can be the source of infection."
I was able to hold several siamese at the TICA cat show by talking
with their owners, asking for their cards, telling them I had a siamese at
home and one day I might be interested in purchasing another one, and then
I asked: "can I hold the cat in your lap", and the breeders always said
"yes", but of course, I didn't go around sticking my fingers in the cats'
cages. It always help to show interest in the breed, to ask questions, and
of course, to compliment their kitties. (I was even able to pet one of the
champion Maine Coons, which I'm told is rarely allowed by the breeder!)
Betsy Schwartz
an animal survive are passed on, mutations that prevent an animal from
surviving die with that animal, and mutations that hurt an animal's chances
die out over time.
With domesticly bred animals, the choice of what genes to pass on is made
by the breeder. Animals with maladaptive mutations are bred because humans
find the mutations cute or amusing. Scottish folds are a borderline case,
but Sphynx's are not, in my opinion. A bald cat is missing its natural
protection against changes in temperature and rough objects; it is a
deformed animal. To find amusement in deformity is decadent, to say the
least.
I haven't been to a lot of cat shows but I know a fair bit about science in
general. Your cats have a minor mutation that might or might not affect
their health... but it certainly does not *improve* their health. To use a
more extreme example, cats, and people, can survive with shortened limbs,
but with lessened physical strength and abilities. Cats who cannot groom
their own extremely long hair, cats whose eyes gunk up without constant
human attention, bulldogs who need oxygen when they exercise... who
benefits from this? Not the animals who are afflicted.
Scottish Folds are endearing and affectionate cats... but they would be
just as endearing and affectionate with normal ears. They would just be
less distinctive, and less expensive.
Betsy
Disclaimer: of course, it's just my "unsubstantiated" opinion. We all
speak for ourselves here.
B.C. French
>>several of the siamese in my arms - they were all lovely - little purring
>>machines. I saw no evidence of suffering ...
>
>The norm at the last show I attended had the owners guarding their cats
>and signs saying "your affection can be the source of infection." So how
>you were able to touch any of those guys is beyond me.
Because different breeders have different ideas about what they will and will
not tolerate. I often allow people to pet my cat IF THEY ASK. I don't like the
assumption that a person can touch or pick up my cat without my permission, and
I don't think it's fair to the animal to have it _constantly_ on display. I
have cage curtains which come down over the front to allow him time to sleep
undisturbed. But if someone asks, I often allow it.
I am going to get a DO NOT TOUCH sign myself, because the fact is that while
most spectators are respectful of the cat's needs, some are not. I was at a
show this past weekend and when I came back to my cage from the bathroom I
found an older woman trying to wake up Buddy by shaking his cage.
The answer to how she was abloe to touch and hold the cat? She probably asked
polite permission.
>I can understand
>that when the cats are fragile and the crowd large...so tell me again why
>I should believe that the cats are robust when to me they look scrawny
>and unhealthy?
Here you are going on another false assumption. The cats are not fragile. That
is not the reason people don't want spectators handling many cats and then
coming to handle theirs. It's because of the nature of illness and infections.
Say, for example, a cat comes to the show with a ringworm infection that is in
its first days -- no one can see it yet and the cat looks perfectly healthy.
You cannot detect ringworm of this type until the cat starts to lose hair. Say
then a spectator handles that cat and then moves on to handle many other cats.
Now all these cats are exposed to ringworm. Like people, a cat can have an
infection or sickness which is contagious but doesn't yet show symptoms, and no
one can ever know. It's a wise precaution to protect the cats' health.
>If an applehead looked like that, it would be at deaths'
>door.
(exasperated sigh). Of course it would, because the applehead has a completely
different musculoskeletal structure. If you took all the skin and fat off a
show SIamese and an applehead, you would have two (rather gruesome) cats which
don't look all that different conformation-wise from what they look like with
their fur _on_. If you pick up a show Siamese and really feel it, it's a very
muscular cat -- not unhealthy.
...Barb
B.C. French
>watched several areas for some time, and NOBODY was asking the owners if
>they could hold or even touch their babies. There were lots of people
>speaking with the owners, but their hands stayed in their pockets.
Then they should have asked, if they wanted to do that. I would call that
respecting my cat, frankly.
>You and your friends are clearly part of the IN group and you are seeing
>things through your own rosy glasses and set of assumptions.
And you aren't??? You have a very clear set of biases and assumptions, based on
some observations but little experience with show settings, as far as I can
tell. I just got back from a cat show, and I let many, many people pet and hold
Buddy, when he wasn't asleep in his cage or obviously wanting to just hang out
or not about to go to a ring and had to scoot quickly. All these people had one
thing in common: they ASKED.
Would you go into someone's home and handle their heirloom china without
asking?
>You see
>nothing wrong with scrawny cats and can't understand why I would respond
>to a cat that is deliberately scrawny THE SAME WAY I would respond to a
>normal cat who is that way because s/he is sick.
Again: LOOK AT THE MUSCULOSKELETAL STRUCTURE. My cat has an appropriate layer
of muscle and fat for his frame. If he was round and full like an Applehead, he
would be seriously obese. He is very delicate-boned and extremely muscular, but
the muscle on am Oriental tends to lay very close to the body. Look at people.
Put two women in size 16 clothing, both about 5'10". A large-boned woman in a
size 16 may be quite trim and within proper bodyfat ratios. A small-boned woman
might be quite obese.
Before you make judgements, maybe you should be a little more aware of the
physiology of various breeds of cat. What you are saying is that all cats
should be full and round, and in the case of the Oriental breeds, this would be
serious obesity -- not, NOT healthy.
>
>>Mind like parachute; functions only when open.....
>
>I agree....you might try it sometime.
I have been quite willing to hear the other side. I have been talking to
several people, including Megan, on e-mail and I am willing to say that not all
breeders are perfect. But you have been very unwilling to hear any argument
other than "show Siamese are scrawny", even though I have pointed out on
several occasions that we are dealing with TWO DIFFERENT BREEDS. You are
certainly no paragon of openmindedness.
...Barb
B.C. French
>much closer to the applehead or traditional siamese....then a small
>minority of cat owners...the judges etc. decided to change the standard
>(or the interpretation of the standard...hard to tell which) to a look
>that if demonstrated by the original, would have indicated an unhealthy
>animal and it would have been disqualified by that unhealthy look.
As I have said, please post a copy of this standard so all of us can see. And I
would like to point out for the benefit of anyone who is reading this thread
that the healthy/unhealthy look is Bette's personal opinion and not
substantiated by veterinary fact.
>You are asking people to look at two siamese side-by-side looking
>identical and say the one on the left is clearly unhealthy and the one on
>the right is SUPPOSED to look like that and is beautiful.
Again, please cite your evidence (NOT personal opinion!) that applehead Siamese
are healthier than contemporary Siamese. I have heard no evidence -- hard
evidence -- that contemporary Siamese are unhealthy animals. I know many
breeders of contemporary Siamese and have no observation of this, either.
And can you put two _people_ together and tell if they are healthy or not? I
don't know about you, but X-ray vision didn't come as standard equipment for
me. I recall an AIDS poster with a nice-looking young woman on it and the
caption read something like, "You don't know if she has AIDS. Neither does
she."
Given the number of people who came up to me yesterday, stopped me to and from
rings, and drooled over my Buddy, I would say there are many people who
disagree with you. Had I been selling kittens yesterday, I could have sold at
least four.
> Well maybe you
>in the show circuit can do that....we in the pet market cannot. To me,
>the modern show siamese is an unhealthy, scrawny LOOKING animal.
To you. TO you. This is the important thing. That is your personal opinion and
not shared by everyone.
> AND YOU
>PEOPLE WOULD HAVE IT BE THE ONLY TYPE BRED AND I OBJECT.
Excuse me, but did I miss something here? Have you heard a single one of us say
that we would not have the Traditional Siamese bred? Have you heard a single
one say it should not be shown? No. In fact, most of us have been saying that
the Traditional Siamese should be set up as a breed separate from the
contemporary Siamese and given championship status in its own right. LIke it or
not, Bette, the contemporary Siamese isn't going away. It's a well-established
breed, so the way to deal with it is to set up Traditionals as a separate breed
class. The genie is out of the bottle. Stop cursing the darkness -- get out
there and light some candles.
>I have for a
>very long time "let" you have your type of siamese....when I went to get
>my present two guys, I had an awful time finding any good breeders of
>these GOOD siamese and I object....
Good/bad are value judgments. They are not shared by everyone. If you're so
interested in promoting the breed, get involved with TCA and do something
constructive instead of just whining about fate. You're not going to make the
contemporary Siamese go away; there are too many of us, fanciers and cat lovers
alike, who like the breed. So don't just sit here typing -- do something
constructive. If you want to promote the Traditional, get involved with TCA,
which is doing something. But trying to promote the Traditional by lambasting
the contemporary will just piss people off (and it has). You're not just saying
you like the Applehead -- you're calling _my_ cat names, and insulting the
people who like the breed by calling them things like "scrawny" and
"unhealthy". Name one place where I, for one, have ever said a single bad word
about the Tradition. I happen to like the Contemporary better, but I have no
problem with the Traditional. In fact, name one place wehre _anyone_ here has
insulted the Traditional. (the breed, not the breeders).
...Barb
B.C. French
>breeders like you! i never see kittens at shelters. you just don't want
>petowners breeding their cats because then people don't have to go and
>pay breeder's appalling prices for kittens.
If a person wants to shop for kittens primarily on price, fine. That's probably
not the kind of person I want buying one of my kittens anyway. The "appalling
price" as you call it -- what do you consider appalling?
>and by the way i do not breed my cats in the back yard. my kittens never
>go outside until they are at least five months old.
Oh, geez -- I'm not even going to _touch_ this one.
...Barb
Erin Miller
Dawn Ivey <dawn...@dojo.cts.com> wrote:
>geez Erin! get a life!
>
>-----------catwoman
> dawn...@dojo.cts.com
My, what a wit-ty reply. Your eloquence is astounding. Your facts
countering my points leave me speechless. I am always amazed when people
bother to reply with sound, logical arguments, when replies such as this
will do so nicely.
Well "catwoman" it is clear I *do* need to get a life. As you state in
one of your other posts "I never see kittens in shelters." I must need to
get a life, "catwoman," because obviously I have been living in a fantasy
land where there are thousands unwanted kittens in shelters. In fact, I
must be fantasizing every time I go to a shelter and see the kittens there.
You, "catwoman" who so obviously has such a life, and never sees kittens
in shelters, must live in a wonderful world. I wish I could find a life
like that. I'd better stop doing my volunteer work, because obviously the
kittens I help are really just figments of my imagination.
So "catwoman" you have shown me the error of my ways. My life has been
plagued by delusions that there are people irresponsibly breeding cats
which end up in shelters, but thanks to your eloquent argument you have
proven my folly. In fact, to start my new life out, I think I'm going to
get a new name. Maybe "batman," so I can lead a wonderful life just like
yours. It must be a wonderful life, where kittens don't end up in
shelters, "catwoman." I hope to find that life very soon.
-erin
On the internet nobody knows you're a dog ...
but damn if everyone won't know what your cat looks like.
--
Erin and the Mainly Moggy Moiety
In Chicago: In Atlanta:
Zeke (shelter Somali) Oliver (FeLV+ minimally Maine Coon)
Perseus (sizeable sable moggy) Jack (all American Eskimo)
Andromeda (his shaggy sister)
http://www.tezcat.com/~strange/erin.html
University of Chicago / Anthropology Department / ermi...@tezcat.com
Erin Miller
>breeders like you! i never see kittens at shelters. you just don't want
>petowners breeding their cats because then people don't have to go and
>pay breeder's appalling prices for kittens.
Um, no. People pay high prices because responsible breeders provide them
things backyard breeders cannot. Such as health guarantees, and the
knowledge that the cat's background has been researched and the chances
of genetic ills are slim, and that temperment and health have been bred
for first and foremost. That if ever in the future the cat can no longer
be kept they can return it to the breeder at *any* age. The knowledge
that the breeder screens potential candidates, and doesn't turn the cat
over to the first person who "looks nice" and has a check for $25. That
the price being paid has been invested into the kitten, and that the
utmost health care has been given.
Never see kittens in the shelters, huh? Your credibility has dropped
through the floor, either that or you never GO to shelters.
>and by the way i do not breed my cats in the back yard. my kittens never
>go outside until they are at least five months old.
Oooooh. Is that your main advertising line? "buy my kittens, they are
cheaper than those snobby breeders' cats, and never leave the house until
they are 5 months old." That's a breeder I'd trust to have made sure the
kittens have received the utmost vet care. BTW, "backyard breeder" does
not mean someone who literally keeps their cats outside. "basement
breeder" is another similar term. Just as "backseat driver" doesn't
literally mean someone who drives from the backseat of a car, just tries
to. Clearly "catwoman" you are a prime example of a backyard breeder.
Never see any kittens in the shelters, huh? Ever followup on all your
kittens? One year later, two years later? See how many of them are still
in those good homes. How many of them had kittens? How many of those
kittens ended up in the shelters? None, right. Because you never see
kittens in shelters, therefore it is perfectly OK to make more and provide
them for all those people who don't want to spend money at the snobs. And
of course you are doing them a service, because it's not like they can get
kittens anywhere else, because remember, there are no kittens in shelters.
So it is due to the good samaritans like yourself providing the world with
all those kittens that they can't get elsewhere. You should pat yourself
on the back.
Bette M Winer
There are different ways of protecting their health....in the cases I
have seen, there was no reason to believe that the signs didn't mean
exactly what they said and that the cat was and would continue to be OFF
LIMITS.
>>If an applehead looked like that, it would be at deaths' door.
>(exasperated sigh). Of course it would, because the applehead has a completely
>different musculoskeletal structure. If you took all the skin and fat off a
>show SIamese and an applehead, you would have two (rather gruesome) cats which
>don't look all that different conformation-wise from what they look like with
>their fur _on_. If you pick up a show Siamese and really feel it, it's a very
>muscular cat -- not unhealthy.
(double exasperated sigh) Again....to me the STANDARD *IS* the
Applehead. That was what it was when I first started following the breed
and to me, that is what it remains. I really don't care what some SMALL
*IN-GROUP* changed the paper standard to read, the STANDARD *IS* the
Applehead. When I look at a cat that is claimed to be a siamese, I judge
it against the standard and THAT IS THE APPLEHEAD. Compared to the
standard, today's show siamese look scrawny and unhealthy. The fact that
they are SUPPOSED to look that way doesn't change that....I cannot look
at two otherwise identical cats and say one is sickly and the other is
supposed to look that way and is beautiful....they are not. The fact
that they are actually quite muscular and healthy, the point that you
keep making, is really not relevent....compared to the standard, they
LOOK scrawny, high strung, and overall unhealthy.
In effect, all you are saying is that looks aren't everything. But then,
why make show standards the key to entry into a breeding program? If
looks can be deceiving and this scrawny cat is actually very muscular,
etc., then why bother having a standard at all? You cannot have it both
ways.
This all would be an academic discussion except that too many people are
claiming that only show breeders should be "allowed" to breed cats and
these show breeders are exactly the *IN GROUP* that changed the
standard. This drive for "responsible breeding" is nothing more than an
ill-conceiled attempt on the part of the show community to finally destroy
what has come to be called the applehead....TICA and the applehead
standard being a relatively recent attempt to reverse this trend while
there is still some champion, papered applehead stock available to do it.
I have no objection to allowing this IN-GROUP to have their own, oriental
bodied siamese...why are they so unwilling to allow those of us who love
the applehead to have them. All they had to do was pick another name for
their cat....and that wouldn't have cost even $7....but no, it was easier
to highjack the name being used by someone else.
Bette M Winer
>>But there is the difference....the original standards called for a cat
>>much closer to the applehead or traditional siamese....then a small
>>minority of cat owners...the judges etc. decided to change the standard
>>(or the interpretation of the standard...hard to tell which) to a look
>>that if demonstrated by the original, would have indicated an unhealthy
>>animal and it would have been disqualified by that unhealthy look.
>As I have said, please post a copy of this standard so all of us can see. And I
>would like to point out for the benefit of anyone who is reading this thread
>that the healthy/unhealthy look is Bette's personal opinion and not
>substantiated by veterinary fact.
All you need is a PICTURE of champions, and I have seen many of
them....including my own cats from thirty odd years ago.....and you would
see that the head was much rounder and the body much more
muscular....more like the current Tonkinese....but pictures don't do well
on Usenet.... You seem to want to challenge the claim that the STANDARD
HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS....but you have no evidence so you try to push
the burden of proof back on me. My answer was straight forward....I WAS
THERE AND THIS IS WHAT I OBSERVED. Unless you can make a similar claim,
you will have to dig up your own evidence or add materials that you know
that I would not be privy to unless I was part of the show circuit, which
I was not.
>>You are asking people to look at two siamese side-by-side looking
>>identical and say the one on the left is clearly unhealthy and the one on
>>the right is SUPPOSED to look like that and is beautiful.
>Again, please cite your evidence (NOT personal opinion!) that applehead Siamese
>are healthier than contemporary Siamese. I have heard no evidence -- hard
>evidence -- that contemporary Siamese are unhealthy animals. I know many
>breeders of contemporary Siamese and have no observation of this, either.
Actually being healthier is not the issue....to me, THE STANDARD *IS* THE
APPLEHEAD and the modern cat is judged relative to this standard. *IF*
the applehead looked like that, it would be scrawny and unhealthy.
Similarly, the "siamese" standing next to it is also scrawny and
unhealthy....OOPS, I forgot....it is supposed to look like that.
>And can you put two _people_ together and tell if they are healthy or not? I
>don't know about you, but X-ray vision didn't come as standard equipment for
>me. I recall an AIDS poster with a nice-looking young woman on it and the
>caption read something like, "You don't know if she has AIDS. Neither does
>she."
You can't....but all that says is that looks aren't everything....but
show breeders have made it everything by making it a condition for entry
into a breeding program. In a very real way, your IN GROUP has made
looks everything and everthing is to be judged by looks. So, given that
the APPLEHEAD *WAS* AND SHOULD HAVE REMAINED THE STANDARD, the current
show siamese is scrawny and unhelathy....this is the result of YOUR
SYSTEM....but you keep flinching from these natural results when they are
applied to you....you just want to apply it to everyone else.
>Given the number of people who came up to me yesterday, stopped me to and from
>rings, and drooled over my Buddy, I would say there are many people who
>disagree with you. Had I been selling kittens yesterday, I could have sold at
>least four.
terrific....I am pleased for you....I just wish that you would have been
as pleased for the applehead breeders before someone took the trouble to
get the new breed recognized....
>> Well maybe you
>>in the show circuit can do that....we in the pet market cannot. To me,
>>the modern show siamese is an unhealthy, scrawny LOOKING animal.
>To you. TO you. This is the important thing. That is your personal opinion and
>not shared by everyone.
>> AND YOU
>>PEOPLE WOULD HAVE IT BE THE ONLY TYPE BRED AND I OBJECT.
>Excuse me, but did I miss something here? Have you heard a single one of us say
>that we would not have the Traditional Siamese bred? Have you heard a single
>one say it should not be shown? No. In fact, most of us have been saying that
>the Traditional Siamese should be set up as a breed separate from the
>contemporary Siamese and given championship status in its own right. LIke it or
>not, Bette, the contemporary Siamese isn't going away. It's a well-established
>breed, so the way to deal with it is to set up Traditionals as a separate breed
>class. The genie is out of the bottle. Stop cursing the darkness -- get out
>there and light some candles.
Having HIGHJACKED the name and standing of these wonderful cats and
having applied it to a new creature, you are DEIGNING to allow it to
apply for seperate status....how magnanimous of you. Why is it that I
don't feel grateful?
>>I have for a
>>very long time "let" you have your type of siamese....when I went to get
>>my present two guys, I had an awful time finding any good breeders of
>>these GOOD siamese and I object....
>Good/bad are value judgments. They are not shared by everyone. If you're so
>interested in promoting the breed, get involved with TCA and do something
>constructive instead of just whining about fate. You're not going to make the
>contemporary Siamese go away; there are too many of us, fanciers and cat lovers
>alike, who like the breed. So don't just sit here typing -- do something
>constructive. If you want to promote the Traditional, get involved with TCA,
>which is doing something. But trying to promote the Traditional by lambasting
>the contemporary will just piss people off (and it has). You're not just saying
>you like the Applehead -- you're calling _my_ cat names, and insulting the
>people who like the breed by calling them things like "scrawny" and
>"unhealthy". Name one place where I, for one, have ever said a single bad word
>about the Tradition. I happen to like the Contemporary better, but I have no
>problem with the Traditional. In fact, name one place wehre _anyone_ here has
>insulted the Traditional. (the breed, not the breeders).
By all means, you can like your cats as much as you want....after all,
TEHO-to each his/her own.... Now, why can't you accept that for us, this
does not represent the standard for the ORIGINAL CAT.
That I like the siamese and someone else likes the persian and someone
else likes the manx is wonderful. The rub comes from when you try to
describe what you mean by these names...that is where the standards come
in. No? What used to be meant by "siamese" is what is now called the
applehead. WHY DID THE STANDARD CHANGE AND WHAT *WAS* DONE TO ENSURE
THAT THE GENOTYPE REPRESENTED BY THE ORIGINAL STANDARD WASN'T LOST is the
issue. The current push to ensure that future applehead stock come ONLY
from the small percentage of cats who continued to be registered over a
period of THIRTY YEARS when there was no incentive to do so would be the
end of this breed. THIS IS NOT AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION...this push for
very limited breeding of only champion stock is the final push to purge
this lovely cat type from consideration. IF YOU REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO BE
OPEN MINDED, STOP SUPPORTING THIS PUSH FOR CHAMPION BREEDING *ONLY*.
Linnea A. Danielsen
: This drive for "responsible breeding" is nothing more than an
: ill-conceiled attempt on the part of the show community to finally destroy
: what has come to be called the applehead....TICA and the applehead
: standard being a relatively recent attempt to reverse this trend while
: there is still some champion, papered applehead stock available to do it.
Once again, Ms. Winer shows she know nothing of which she speaks...
TICA is The International Cat Association. The ONLY siamese which TICA
recognizes for championship competition is the modern siamese, although,
TICA as the other associations do, allows the traditional siamese to be
registered for pedigree purposes.
TCA is the Traditional Cat Association and is the registry association
for the "applehead" siamese. BTW, they also register a number of other
breeds as well. Lest anyone think otherwise, TCA registered breeders do
breed to a set standard and compete at TCA sponsored shows.
: I have no objection to allowing this IN-GROUP to have their own, oriental
: bodied siamese...why are they so unwilling to allow those of us who love
: the applehead to have them. All they had to do was pick another name for
: their cat....and that wouldn't have cost even $7....but no, it was easier
: to highjack the name being used by someone else.
Again, Bette, no one "stole" anything. Both breeds have been around for
ages. It's just that at a certain point, different breeders went off in
different directions and both retained the name. BTW, my mother was
breeding registered siamese 30 yrs ago. While the are not the
sleek-bodied cats of the modern breed of today, they were neither quite
the well rounded look of the traditional breed either.
BTW, as Barb asked, if you are so sure of yourself, why haven't we seen
proof of this standard you keep harping about?
JULIANNE WEIGHT
: much closer to the applehead or traditional siamese....then a small
: minority of cat owners...the judges etc. decided to change the standard
: (or the interpretation of the standard...hard to tell which) to a look
: that if demonstrated by the original, would have indicated an unhealthy
: animal and it would have been disqualified by that unhealthy look.
Bette, have you ever LOOKED at what is required by the cat clubs to change
a standard or introduce a hybrid/variant breed? You totally ignored my
very polite invitation to look at the difference between PEOPLE. If you
took a typical person of Asian descent and stood them next to a typical
person of Anglo-Saxon descent, would you call the Asian "unhealthy"
because s/he didn't have the same body type as the Anglo-Saxon? It took
me years to realize that no matter how skinny I got, at 6'-0" I was never
going to be considered "petite." That doesn't mean women who are "petite"
are unhealthy. This is what you're saying about these two different body
types. It's like accusing fruit growers of being selective and
discriminatory because they've produced a great variety of apples but only
a few varieties of oranges.
ū
: You are asking people to look at two siamese side-by-side looking
: identical and say the one on the left is clearly unhealthy and the one on
: the right is SUPPOSED to look like that and is beautiful. Well maybe you
: in the show circuit can do that....we in the pet market cannot. To me,
: the modern show siamese is an unhealthy, scrawny LOOKING animal. AND YOU
: PEOPLE WOULD HAVE IT BE THE ONLY TYPE BRED AND I OBJECT. I have for a
: very long time "let" you have your type of siamese....when I went to get
: my present two guys, I had an awful time finding any good breeders of
: these GOOD siamese and I object....
YOU PEOPLE, YOU IN THE SHOW CIRCUIT, GOOD SIAMESE/BAD SIAMESE. Good
generalizations, Bette. Since you were responding to my post, I have a
bit of news for you -- I'm not a breeder and I don't show cats. I've been
to shows, I've done some homework and I have educated myself somewhat
about cat, breeding and show standards. You are entitled to your
opinions, but for crying out loud -- stop acting like a baby whose
ūbottle's been taken away. I like the look of the Traditional Siamese,
too -- but I've handled purebred contemporary Siamese and they are NOT
unhealthy or scrawny and they have lovely temperaments. Take a deep
breath and get some oxygen to your brain.
Julie
B.C. French
>have seen, there was no reason to believe that the signs didn't mean
>exactly what they said and that the cat was and would continue to be OFF
>LIMITS.
While I admit some people's signs are somewhat snotty (I don't mind "Do Not
Touch", but I find some of the other ones a little rude, like "Do you believe
in life after death? Touch my cat and FIND OUT!"). What can I say? Breeders are
people, and some are more protective than others. You don't know if that person
has recently been through an epidemic problem. You don't know if that cat is a
new show cat and the person is afraid she might bite.
Also, do you dispute the fact that breeders have a right to say who may and who
may not handle their cats? I wouldn't go into your home and start handling
your heirloom china . . . why is there the natural _assumption_ that you are
allowed to touch someone's pet without their permission?
>(double exasperated sigh) Again....to me the STANDARD *IS* the
>Applehead. That was what it was when I first started following the breed
>and to me, that is what it remains. I really don't care what some SMALL
>*IN-GROUP* changed the paper standard to read, the STANDARD *IS* the
>Applehead.
Sorry to tell you -- it was and is no small "in-group". There are thousands of
breeders of contemporary-style Siamese and other Oriental breeds, including
Colourpoint Shorthairs, Oriental Shorthairs, Balinese, and Javanese. In almost
every major cat association, the written standard is for the contemporary style
cat, not the Applehead. These breeders have no trouble finding adoring "fans"
who will buy their kittens.
And the fact that you believe the standard for all Siamese *should* be the
Applehead is once again your personal opinion. It is not an opinion which is
shared by everyone -- perhaps not even the majority of people. I certainly do
not share that opinion. I like the Traditional and support it being set up as a
separate breed. What's wrong with that?
>The fact
>that they are actually quite muscular and healthy, the point that you
>keep making, is really not relevent....compared to the standard, they
>LOOK scrawny, high strung, and overall unhealthy.
In your opinion. My "high-strung" Javanese spent almost all day on both show
days sitting calmly in my lap and greeting spectators. Not the actions of a
high-strung and nervous cat.
>In effect, all you are saying is that looks aren't everything.
No, I did not say that at all. Your interpretation of the looks of the
contemporary Siamese are your opinion. You say scrawny and unhealthy, I say
slim and elegant. I think they are beautiful. Is my opinion less worthy than y
yours?
>But then,
>why make show standards the key to entry into a breeding program?
Professional judgment of the conformation of the cat is important. If anyone
can go willy-nilly with what a cat looks like, what's the sense of having breed
distinctions at all? People who buy purebred cats are looking for, among other
things (most particularly a guarantee of health and temperament), a certain
predictability of looks and behaviour. That's the reason to have breeds: that
predictability element. If there are no standards, you lose that element, and
you might as well just chuck the entire notion of breeds.
>If
>looks can be deceiving and this scrawny cat is actually very muscular,
>etc., then why bother having a standard at all? You cannot have it both
>ways.
I am not having it both ways. In my opinion, a good Siamese _looks_ muscular,
although it is the wiry muscularity of a well-toned, slim cat rather than the
heavy muscularity of a Burmese. You _think_ it looks scrawny. The standard
calls for a lean, well-muscled cat. Nowhere does the word "scrawny" appear in
any of the standards. Words like "lithe" appear. "Lithe" is not a thick cat.
>This all would be an academic discussion except that too many people are
>claiming that only show breeders should be "allowed" to breed cats and
>these show breeders are exactly the *IN GROUP* that changed the
>standard. This drive for "responsible breeding" is nothing more than an
>ill-conceiled attempt on the part of the show community to finally destroy
>what has come to be called the applehead....TICA and the applehead
>standard being a relatively recent attempt to reverse this trend while
>there is still some champion, papered applehead stock available to do it.
Oh, right. People are lying awake nights thinking, "How can we destroy the
applehead?" No. Sorry to disappoint you -- there is no conspiracy. There was a
preference among people who showed for the contemporary, and since you think
all breeders are just in it for the "pecuniary rewards", as I think you once
put it, why in hell would they continue to breed them if they weren't selling
kittens to _someone_? Some people have decided to bring back the Traditional
conformation as a separate breed, and I have no problem with that. But you, in
essense, are proposing destroying the contemporary breed by changing the
standard _back_. Is that more fair?
...Barb
B.C. French
>HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS....but you have no evidence so you try to push
>the burden of proof back on me. My answer was straight forward....I WAS
>THERE AND THIS IS WHAT I OBSERVED. Unless you can make a similar claim,
>you will have to dig up your own evidence or add materials that you know
>that I would not be privy to unless I was part of the show circuit, which
>I was not.
I have also seen pictures. I am not claiming the standard has not changed, but
I am saying the standard evolved (or de-evolved, in your opinion) gradually. I
have seen efforts to change standards, and I have observed standards change
very, very slowly. I have seen pictures of champion Siamese over the years (I
collect old cat books) and the shift has been gradual. It has not been the
efforts of a single small group of people, but a shift in the Siamese fancy as
a whole.
>Actually being healthier is not the issue....to me, THE STANDARD *IS* THE
>APPLEHEAD and the modern cat is judged relative to this standard.
The written standard of the major cat associations, including CFA, TICA, and
ACFA, clearly states a cat which describes the contemporary Siamese. In your
opinion, you believe the standard should favour the Traditional. This is not
the case. You may judge the cats as you wish, but Siamese are, in fact, judged
against this official standard, not your personal standards, in the mainstream
cat fancy.
>Similarly, the "siamese" standing next to it is also scrawny and
>unhealthy....OOPS, I forgot....it is supposed to look like that.
You say scrawny and unhealthy, I say lithe, elegant, and beautiful. Who is
right? To each his own opinion. I just find it offensive that you present your
personal opinion as fact about the breed. If you don't like the contemporaries,
fine. Don't breed them. Don't buy them.
>You can't....but all that says is that looks aren't everything....but
>show breeders have made it everything by making it a condition for entry
>into a breeding program. In a very real way, your IN GROUP has made
>looks everything and everthing is to be judged by looks. So, given that
>the APPLEHEAD *WAS* AND SHOULD HAVE REMAINED THE STANDARD, the current
>show siamese is scrawny and unhelathy....this is the result of YOUR
>SYSTEM....but you keep flinching from these natural results when they are
>applied to you....you just want to apply it to everyone else.
You can bark all you want about how things should have been, or what should
have happened, but the fact of the matter is that it did happen and that's how
it is. So work with reality and change it in a way that will work. Saying we
should go back to the traditional standard is going to fall on deaf ears,
whether you like it or not.
What natural results am I flinching from? Have I ever claimed the show system
was perfect? That's a separate issue. I happen to think there are real flaws
with the current system, and I am working to change them in what limited
fashion I can. But the fact of the matter is that the cat associations involve
thousands of people, and change is slow.
BUT . . . an association does provide SOME restrictions on its members, while
the unpapered, unaffiliated pet market provides NONE. A person who is found to
be breeding unhealthy animals can be suspended by the association or face other
punitive measures. An unaffiliated breeder has no one to answer to except the
local ordinances and animal-welfare laws that apply to others. I find SOME
restrictions from the association better than NONE from no association.
>Having HIGHJACKED the name and standing of these wonderful cats and
>having applied it to a new creature, you are DEIGNING to allow it to
>apply for seperate status....how magnanimous of you. Why is it that I
>don't feel grateful?
Believe it or not, I'm not personally responsible for this. No one person here
is. However, what is done is done, and unless you've got a time machine in your
basement you can't change it. You can only move forward with what you can.
Saying it should not have happened is not constructive at this point. You are
not going to change the Siamese standard back to a more Traditional-like form
because there are now thousands of dedicated contemporary breeders who are
going to resist that. That's fact. Like it or not. What IS doable is setting it
up as a separate breed. That's possible. Changing the standard back to what you
claim it was thirty years ago is probably impossible at this point, or it would
take so long that the Applehead breed would suffer in the interim.
And Bette, I don't need or expect your gratitude. I'm not being magnanimous.
My sincere belief is that as things stand right now, in March of 1995, these
two breeds have taken such different paths they are separate breeds. Like it or
not, the contemporary has been shown for so long as a Siamese that changing the
name to something else probably is not going to happen. So the "new" breed (new
in terms of establishment as a separate breed, not as origin) will need a
descriptive name. That's reality. Sorry you don't like it.
>By all means, you can like your cats as much as you want....after all,
>TEHO-to each his/her own.... Now, why can't you accept that for us, this
>does not represent the standard for the ORIGINAL CAT.
I can accept that you do not want that to be the standard, and that you wish it
could not have happened. I can accept and appreciate that. I have never been
"against" the Applehead. All I am saying is that the major cat associations and
thousands of other Siamese breeders disagree, and they have the advantage of
being "established" in the mainstream cat fancy. That's a serious disadvantage
to changing the standard back. The two have become separate breeds, for all
intents and purposes.
>WHY DID THE STANDARD CHANGE AND WHAT *WAS* DONE TO ENSURE
>THAT THE GENOTYPE REPRESENTED BY THE ORIGINAL STANDARD WASN'T LOST is the
>issue.
The answer to the first is, presumably, that some people preferred the
contemporary. The answer to the second is "nothing".
>IF YOU REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO BE
>OPEN MINDED, STOP SUPPORTING THIS PUSH FOR CHAMPION BREEDING *ONLY*.
Personally, I don't see how openmindedness and championship breeding are out of
sync. If you mean that I'm not willing to risk my show stock with
unknown-origin cats, and you call that close-mindedness, then I'm afraid we're
once again at odds with definitions.
...Barb
JULIANNE WEIGHT
: BTW, as Barb asked, if you are so sure of yourself, why haven't we seen
Because she has so little knowledge of the associations that she thinks
you want a *picture* showing a cat meeting that standard and doesn't know
how to post one [paraphrasing from another post Ms. Winer responded to
regarding this same question].
Julie
M. H. Mcleod
: years have owned four siamese. Presently, we are on our fourth. The first
: three were appleheads and the one today is very wedgeshaped or if you
: will newlook. We have always loved the look of the applehead but were
: unable find one this last time around. So we settled for what we consider
: second best. It's mainly personality that's important to us. I have a
: concern that this part of the animal can't help but be altered. You can't
: mess with the shape of the head and expect the brain to remain the same.
: Also I have a fear that the true blue cat people will change the
: personality deliberately. I've already had one cat lady say that she
: wouldn't bother having a siamese because they are too much like a dog.
: That's the appeal of the animal to me.
: In conclusion, there should be two distinct breedsand the one which had
: the name first should be the only one with that name. The so-caLLed
: siamese I have now chould be called something elsebecause in my mind
: he's definitely not a siamese even if he does have papers.
Jean Dannelley
BMW>From: win...@world.std.com (Bette M Winer)
BMW>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 22:19:45 GMT
BMW>The applehead may not be the "original" breed of any kind, but they were
BMW>very close to the STANDARD of thirty years ago. WHY did that standard
Whose Standard? Do you have a copy of it? If you do, I'm very
interested in seeing it. You can e-mail it to me or FAX it to:
(619)247-9204, if you would be so kind. I've seen standards from the
turn of the century and they describe the (modern) Siamese we see at the
shows today (with a bit of refinement, admittedly).
BMW>change? Why does ANY standard change. Isn't it contrary to the whole
BMW>idea that you all are pushing? Well it has changed and I object to the
Standards change as the keepers of the Standard (Breeders!) try to
better define their ideal. There will be some change in the general
concept of what is ideal over the years, but that isn't necessarily bad
(i.e. the Standards of Perfection that now disqualify or penalize things
that are considered to be faults including health problems).
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Jean :)
---
. SLMR 2.1a .
----
ABSOLUT(e)LY TEMPORARY BBS PCBoard 15.21 OS/2 WARP 2 Lines
Las Vegas, NV, USA Public Line: (702) 254-8601 USR DS 14.4K V.32/HST
- Official BBS of the Las Vegas OS/2 User Group (lvo...@at.com)
Joy Bartels
following it with interest. A lot of people have been very eloquent, and
I hesitated to add my opinions as the others were doing so well for me!
But there are a few things that have been neglected. First, in reference
to the statement that appleheads are the true Siamese and the new type
are something different, I'd like to tell you what Jeannie Singer has to
say. She is _the_ definitive Siamese breeder. She's been in the Fancy
since 1952, and her cats are the foundation for many, many Siamese
catteries. In the 1979 CFA Yearbook is an article she wrote about Siamese
breeding, and parts of it are (Quote) "Nature invented Siamese cats, not
breeders. Nature also outlined the Siamese show standard before it was
explicitly defined by breeders. It is common knowledge that Siamese cats
were first discovered in Siam and that several of them were brought to
England and America at the turn of the century. These cats were generally
described as being smaller and finer-boned than domestic cats and having
distinctive "marten-like" or'fox-like" faces, with larger than normal
ears plus vivid blue eyes that appeared slanted. The show standard
evolved from these early cats. The Siamese standard has never been an
outlandish fantasy imposed on living creatures in defiance of nature.
"Fox-face" is now called a long wedge....Today's show standard is merely
a refinement on the original ingredients supplied by nature....Breeders
who have problems complain that today's standard is ruining the health of
today's Siamese. Uninformed breeders tend to think there is a very
recent"modern" Siamese style which wins, and an old-fashioned Siamese
style which used to win, but couldn't compete today. Both of these
notions are false. I'll discuss each separately."
She goes on to give lots of info on the breed. But the most telling thing
is the pictures. Cats and kittens from the 40's, and not an applehead in
the bunch. Clearly, the breed has always been intended, even by Nature,
to have the nice wedge-shaped head. Nowhere in the standard was there
ever the word "round" which would describe the appleheads. So I contend
the Siamese name belongs to the "modern" Siamese cats.
As far as a _SMALL*IN*GROUP_changing the standard, that hasn't happened.
I'm not a Siamese breeder, I breed Himmies. And I know from experience
that you don't need to change the standard to change the look of a breed.
When I first started showing in the 70's, Himmies were lucky to have any
type of break to their nose. You didn't see short noses or small ears,
even though the Himmie standard was almost identical to the Persian
standard. In 1983 I finally produced a tortiepoint who the judges hailed
as the first "true Persian-type" Himmie they had seen. She was gorgeous.
And yet today I wouldn't even be able to get an occasional ribbon with
her. Has the standard changed? No. But breeders have refined the breed to
the point to where you now see several superb Himmies at almost every
show. Some meet the standard better than the Persians! So where before a
cat with a slight dip in the nose was closest to the part of the standard
that calls for a "break", now you must be able to put your whole
fingertip in the "break" to compete with the others. Same standard, same
words, interpretation changes with the progression of the breeders. I'm
sorry this is so long, but I think these points neded to be made. I have
no problems with people breeding applehaeds if they love the look, but
don't try to say the "new" Siamese are something else. They are the same
Siamese as ever, just refined to meet the original standard more closely.
Joy
Jean Dannelley
BMW><D5735...@world.std.com> <1995Mar13.1...@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
BMW>Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 12:20:45 GMT
I'm coming into this really late, but here goes. . .
BMW>(double exasperated sigh) Again....to me the STANDARD *IS* the
BMW>Applehead. That was what it was when I first started following the breed
BMW>and to me, that is what it remains. I really don't care what some SMALL
The standard IS the modern Siamese, Bette. Even 20 - 30 years ago if
you were seeing Appleheads you were NOT seeing cats described by the
then-current Siamese breed Standard. EVERY Siamese Standard I have ever
been able to find described a cat closer to the modern Siamese than to
the Applehead.
BMW>it against the standard and THAT IS THE APPLEHEAD. Compared to the
BMW>standard, today's show siamese look scrawny and unhealthy. The fact that
BMW>supposed to look that way and is beautiful....they are not. The fact
BMW>that they are actually quite muscular and healthy, the point that you
BMW>keep making, is really not relevent....compared to the standard, they
BMW>LOOK scrawny, high strung, and overall unhealthy.
Where are you located? I'd love to show you some healthy, happy Siamese
and OSH (owned and bred by a vet I HIGHLY respect who will certify their
health). You may or may not appreciate their beauty, but they are
healthy, sound, and happy.
That you may perceive them as looking that way DOES NOT make them that.
BMW>there is still some champion, papered applehead stock available to do it.
Please show me an =American= Champion Applehead! I am aware of one
country where they have recognized separate breed status (Germany), but
am not aware of any mainstream registry in this country where they have
championship status.
BMW>I have no objection to allowing this IN-GROUP to have their own, oriental
BMW>bodied siamese...why are they so unwilling to allow those of us who love
BMW>the applehead to have them. All they had to do was pick another name for
BMW>their cat....and that wouldn't have cost even $7....but no, it was easier
BMW>to highjack the name being used by someone else.
The irony of this statement is that I know several Siamese breeders who
love Appleheads (many of them had one in their youth!) who have no
problem with them becoming recognized as a separate breed - =providing=
they do not include the word `siamese' in their name (which is one of
the reasons I prefer =Applehead= to =Traditional Siamese= as a breed
name).
That this discussion is even going on greatly saddens me. I do not
believe that we must have either Appleheads OR Siamese in this world - I
truly believe that there is enough room in this world for BOTH breeds of
cat!