How sad is this? I understand breeding to a standard but there is no reason not to place puppies who do not meet the standard with loving homes where the puppies can be neutered and live out their natural lives as pets.
Thanks to our friends at K9 Magazine for championing the cause of these poor puppies.
A quick bit of canine trivia for you:
If a Rhodesian Ridgeback who is ridgeless is mated to a dog or bitch who is also without the ridge, how do you think the puppies will turn out?
A) Half will have ridges and half wont
B) Some will have ridges but most wont
C) The males will have ridges but the females wont
D) None will have ridges and so all the puppies should be killed
Admit it. You are hoping that D) is a sick joke, arent you?
Sorry to disappoint.
As breeds go, the Rhodesian Ridgeback is one of the healthiest. A life expectancy of some 14 years and a breed which is still a functional, physically impressive dog.
The breed is so synonymous by the ridge of hairs which run up in the opposite direction of the middle of the dogs back, the dog even earned its name in recognition of this unusual physical trait.
In many ways it would be like naming a Basenji an African Bark-less or a Chow Chow a Chinese Purple Tongue such is the importance given to the ridge in this incredible breed, a breed which is famous for its ability to hunt lions.
This unique ridge is not required for the dog to be healthy. It is purely aesthetic. It almost goes without saying though that a ridgeless Rhodesian Ridgeback is undesirable in terms of adherence to the breed standard, but thats fine. Lots of dogs, thousands in fact, live happy, healthy fulfilling lives as companions who arent even CLOSE to meeting a breed standard.
So the question is, why should a healthy dog be killed because it is aesthetically not compatible with a description and set of figures and numbers on a breed standard? And moreover, who is suggesting this arbitrary execution of perfectly healthy dogs?