Breeders create a Shar-Pei fox

[Potoooooooo]

https://retrieverman.net/2017/08/25/loose-skinned-arctic-foxes-being-bred-in-finland/

The animal above is a super-sized blue phase arctic fox that is of a type being bred in Finland. The exposed haw is actually the result of being bred for super loose skin, a trait that those in the dog welfare community know very well. “Typy” shar pei and Neapolitan mastiffs are well-known sufferers from loose skin problems, but even a in breed that isn’t as exaggerated, like Clumber spaniels, this loose skin can lead to all sorts of eye infections.

Why are arctic foxes being bred with such loose skin?

Well, that loose skin actually makes for a larger pelt and a larger pelt goes for higher price. In nature, arctic foxes are quite small, much smaller than Boreal red fox subspecies, but the arctic fox in its winter fur is a much more valuable animal.

Both red and arctic foxes breed well in captivity, and they have been farmed extensively for their pelts. Captive red foxes come in many colors now, but the naturally-occurring silver phase was once the staple of fox pelt market. The arctic fox, especially its blue phase, is also quite valuable, but the smaller pelts mean they cannot compete with the silver phase reds.

These Finnish breeders have begun to produce large blue arctic foxes, some of which weigh 20 kg, and have very loose skin in order to make a much more profitable strain of arctic fox.

This development has several moral and ethical questions, as well as being something that those of us curious about dog domestication and evolution might find intriguing.

 

[Trausti]

Just because you can doesn't me you should.

 

[Angry Floof]

 

[ronburgundy]

That chicken-wire floor cage may be less ethical than the breeding for fur issue.

 

[OLDMAN]

The planet would be so much nicer, without us. Bring back the dinosaurs.

 

[repoman]

The planet would be so much nicer, without us. Bring back the dinosaurs.

You might not have to wait very long.

 

[Valjean]

Cruel.

 

[LordKiran]

Cruel.

Eh, its no worse than what we do to chickens and pigs. But I guess because chickens are little feathery monsters and don't look cute and cuddly the reactions aren't the same.

 

[Angry Floof]

Cruel.

Eh, its no worse than what we do to chickens and pigs. But I guess because chickens are little feathery monsters and don't look cute and cuddly the reactions aren't the same.

Complete bullshit. Most farmers take good care of their animals. It's mainly big corporations like Tyson that treat animals as objects to be fattened as much and as fast as possible and by any means they can get away with without regard to anything but profits. And if you don't think there's a reaction to that, you are oblivious.

 

[LordKiran]

Eh, its no worse than what we do to chickens and pigs. But I guess because chickens are little feathery monsters and don't look cute and cuddly the reactions aren't the same.

Complete bullshit. Most farmers take good care of their animals. It's mainly big corporations like Tyson that treat animals as objects to be fattened as much and as fast as possible and by any means they can get away with without regard to anything but profits. And if you don't think there's a reaction to that, you are oblivious.

Oh I'm sure there's a distinction between corporate estates and Independent farmers. But just how much of our food is supplied by independant farming? My understanding was that the bulk of our food came from corporate farming. I'm sure there's a movement against the cruel treatment of livestock, but you and I both know we're not necessarily talking about genuine activists. We're talking about your average American who feels for the polar bears just not enough to do something, because its good PR to claim you care even if you don't really. You know, the kind of person who can un-ironically complain about the treatment of these domesticated foxes while chowing down on a big old porkchop straight from a tightly caged breeding pig that got too old to breed.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Fucking breeders.

Now I know what all my gay friends are complaining about.

 

[bilby]

Complete bullshit. Most farmers take good care of their animals. It's mainly big corporations like Tyson that treat animals as objects to be fattened as much and as fast as possible and by any means they can get away with without regard to anything but profits. And if you don't think there's a reaction to that, you are oblivious.

Oh I'm sure there's a distinction between corporate estates and Independent farmers. But just how much of our food is supplied by independant farming? My understanding was that the bulk of our food came from corporate farming. I'm sure there's a movement against the cruel treatment of livestock, but you and I both know we're not necessarily talking about genuine activists. We're talking about your average American who feels for the polar bears just not enough to do something, because its good PR to claim you care even if you don't really. You know, the kind of person who can un-ironically complain about the treatment of these domesticated foxes while chowing down on a big old porkchop straight from a tightly caged breeding pig that got too old to breed.

There's something massively ironic in the fact that you imagine that pork chops are sourced from old sows.

Nobody in the first world is eating meat from a "breeding pig that got too old to breed". Not unless they raised the pig themselves.

Such meat is only considered fit for pet food. Chops are almost exclusively from young animals - often very young indeed - as are most cuts of meat for human consumption.

It's astonishing just how little most people know about farming; City dwellers get a kind of vague snapshot of how farming was three centuries ago, and just invent the details (on the rare occasions when they think about the details at all).

The truth is very different from either the beliefs of the ignorant masses chowing down on their big old pork chops, or those of the vegan activists whose propaganda largely depends upon mass ignorance.

Farmers are rarely cruel, for purely pragmatic reasons. But much of what they do is very different from what people imagine; and it's very easy to misunderstand when your baseline ideas are so badly removed from reality.

 

[LordKiran]

Oh I'm sure there's a distinction between corporate estates and Independent farmers. But just how much of our food is supplied by independant farming? My understanding was that the bulk of our food came from corporate farming. I'm sure there's a movement against the cruel treatment of livestock, but you and I both know we're not necessarily talking about genuine activists. We're talking about your average American who feels for the polar bears just not enough to do something, because its good PR to claim you care even if you don't really. You know, the kind of person who can un-ironically complain about the treatment of these domesticated foxes while chowing down on a big old porkchop straight from a tightly caged breeding pig that got too old to breed.

There's something massively ironic in the fact that you imagine that pork chops are sourced from old sows.

Nobody in the first world is eating meat from a "breeding pig that got too old to breed". Not unless they raised the pig themselves.

Such meat is only considered fit for pet food. Chops are almost exclusively from young animals - often very young indeed - as are most cuts of meat for human consumption.

It's astonishing just how little most people know about farming; City dwellers get a kind of vague snapshot of how farming was three centuries ago, and just invent the details (on the rare occasions when they think about the details at all).

The truth is very different from either the beliefs of the ignorant masses chowing down on their big old pork chops, or those of the vegan activists whose propaganda largely depends upon mass ignorance.

Farmers are rarely cruel, for purely pragmatic reasons. But much of what they do is very different from what people imagine; and it's very easy to misunderstand when your baseline ideas are so badly removed from reality.

Fair enough. Can you answer two questions for me though?

1. How prevalent is 'indie farming' compared to industrial-scale agriculture

2. How do their methodologies differ when it comes to the treatment of livestock?

 

[bilby]

There's something massively ironic in the fact that you imagine that pork chops are sourced from old sows.

Nobody in the first world is eating meat from a "breeding pig that got too old to breed". Not unless they raised the pig themselves.

Such meat is only considered fit for pet food. Chops are almost exclusively from young animals - often very young indeed - as are most cuts of meat for human consumption.

It's astonishing just how little most people know about farming; City dwellers get a kind of vague snapshot of how farming was three centuries ago, and just invent the details (on the rare occasions when they think about the details at all).

The truth is very different from either the beliefs of the ignorant masses chowing down on their big old pork chops, or those of the vegan activists whose propaganda largely depends upon mass ignorance.

Farmers are rarely cruel, for purely pragmatic reasons. But much of what they do is very different from what people imagine; and it's very easy to misunderstand when your baseline ideas are so badly removed from reality.

Fair enough. Can you answer two questions for me though?

1. How prevalent is 'indie farming' compared to industrial-scale agriculture

2. How do their methodologies differ when it comes to the treatment of livestock?

I don't think the questions are well formed.

Farming is a spectrum from hobby farmers with one or two animals or a vegetable patch that produces more than just the direct household needs, all the way up to massive agribusinesses. There's no bright line dividing the independent farmer from agribusiness; many of the largest agribusiness farms are family owned and run.

Reality simply doesn't comply with the presumed dichotomy of 'indie farmer' vs 'agribusiness', so your questions make no sense, any more than would 'What does green smell like?' or 'What is the difference between a tree?'

 

[LordKiran]

Fair enough. Can you answer two questions for me though?

1. How prevalent is 'indie farming' compared to industrial-scale agriculture

2. How do their methodologies differ when it comes to the treatment of livestock?

I don't think the questions are well formed.

Farming is a spectrum from hobby farmers with one or two animals or a vegetable patch that produces more than just the direct household needs, all the way up to massive agribusinesses. There's no bright line dividing the independent farmer from agribusiness; many of the largest agribusiness farms are family owned and run.

Reality simply doesn't comply with the presumed dichotomy of 'indie farmer' vs 'agribusiness', so your questions make no sense, any more than would 'What does green smell like?' or 'What is the difference between a tree?'

Who could have guessed agriculture could be so complicated?!

 

[Malintent]

The planet would be so much nicer, without us. Bring back the dinosaurs.

Make Earth Great Again!

 

[Malintent]

Fair enough. Can you answer two questions for me though?

1. How prevalent is 'indie farming' compared to industrial-scale agriculture

2. How do their methodologies differ when it comes to the treatment of livestock?

I don't think the questions are well formed.

Farming is a spectrum from hobby farmers with one or two animals or a vegetable patch that produces more than just the direct household needs, all the way up to massive agribusinesses. There's no bright line dividing the independent farmer from agribusiness; many of the largest agribusiness farms are family owned and run.

Reality simply doesn't comply with the presumed dichotomy of 'indie farmer' vs 'agribusiness', so your questions make no sense, any more than would 'What does green smell like?' or 'What is the difference between a tree?'

Before you answer, LK, remember; If your response does not cover the complete scope of, and every possible hypothetical around, anything the person you are arguing with can imagine, then you response will be called "nonsense".

"but what about the people that have a few too many vegetables for them to eat themselves... they give that away to a neighbor, so they are FARMERS TOO"! Therefore "nonsense".

There is this guy, in this place, somewhere, that does things a little differently... so your generalization is NONSENSE!!!one1!

It's bad to shoot people
There's this guy that should be shot, therefore what you say is IRRELEVANT!

I know someone that once said that chickens are cute. Therefore the entire concept of humans preferring more human-like faces over less human-like faces is COMPLETE GARBAGE!!!!


ok, sarcastic rant over.

 

[bilby]

I don't think the questions are well formed.

Farming is a spectrum from hobby farmers with one or two animals or a vegetable patch that produces more than just the direct household needs, all the way up to massive agribusinesses. There's no bright line dividing the independent farmer from agribusiness; many of the largest agribusiness farms are family owned and run.

Reality simply doesn't comply with the presumed dichotomy of 'indie farmer' vs 'agribusiness', so your questions make no sense, any more than would 'What does green smell like?' or 'What is the difference between a tree?'

Before you answer, LK, remember; If your response does not cover the complete scope of, and every possible hypothetical around, anything the person you are arguing with can imagine, then you response will be called "nonsense".

"but what about the people that have a few too many vegetables for them to eat themselves... they give that away to a neighbor, so they are FARMERS TOO"! Therefore "nonsense".

There is this guy, in this place, somewhere, that does things a little differently... so your generalization is NONSENSE!!!one1!

It's bad to shoot people
There's this guy that should be shot, therefore what you say is IRRELEVANT!

I know someone that once said that chickens are cute. Therefore the entire concept of humans preferring more human-like faces over less human-like faces is COMPLETE GARBAGE!!!!


ok, sarcastic rant over.

It might have been better had you thought harder before you started.

I am not saying that the categories are meaningless due to small numbers of exceptions.

I am saying that the categorisation fails completely. That there are no definitions of the two categories proposed that do not result in such a large overlap as to render them valueless.

As you might know if you thought about what I wrote without first engaging your knee-jerk outrage.

There is a spectrum, with members at every point along it that belong to the other category than that implied by mere size. My examples of the extremes were not intended as a complete statement of all of the possibilities, as such a complete statement would be impossible; I rely upon the reader to fill in the gap between these extremes, rather than going off on a thoughtless and ill-informed rant.

 

[Angry Floof]

Before you answer, LK, remember; If your response does not cover the complete scope of, and every possible hypothetical around, anything the person you are arguing with can imagine, then you response will be called "nonsense".

"but what about the people that have a few too many vegetables for them to eat themselves... they give that away to a neighbor, so they are FARMERS TOO"! Therefore "nonsense".

There is this guy, in this place, somewhere, that does things a little differently... so your generalization is NONSENSE!!!one1!

It's bad to shoot people
There's this guy that should be shot, therefore what you say is IRRELEVANT!

I know someone that once said that chickens are cute. Therefore the entire concept of humans preferring more human-like faces over less human-like faces is COMPLETE GARBAGE!!!!


ok, sarcastic rant over.

It might have been better had you thought harder before you started.

I am not saying that the categories are meaningless due to small numbers of exceptions.

I am saying that the categorisation fails completely. That there are no definitions of the two categories proposed that do not result in such a large overlap as to render them valueless.

As you might know if you thought about what I wrote without first engaging your knee-jerk outrage.

There is a spectrum, with members at every point along it that belong to the other category than that implied by mere size. My examples of the extremes were not intended as a complete statement of all of the possibilities, as such a complete statement would be impossible; I rely upon the reader to fill in the gap between these extremes, rather than going off on a thoughtless and ill-informed rant.

He was talking to LordKiran, anticipating his response to you.

 

[LordKiran]

It might have been better had you thought harder before you started.

I am not saying that the categories are meaningless due to small numbers of exceptions.

I am saying that the categorisation fails completely. That there are no definitions of the two categories proposed that do not result in such a large overlap as to render them valueless.

As you might know if you thought about what I wrote without first engaging your knee-jerk outrage.

There is a spectrum, with members at every point along it that belong to the other category than that implied by mere size. My examples of the extremes were not intended as a complete statement of all of the possibilities, as such a complete statement would be impossible; I rely upon the reader to fill in the gap between these extremes, rather than going off on a thoughtless and ill-informed rant.

He was talking to LordKiran, anticipating his response to you.

Well gee, I don't really have one...I spent the bulk of my life in Metropolitan Arizona. People don't farm in Metropolitan Arizona...Maybe backyard farming if you're a rich prick from Scottsdale or something.