or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Dog Fur and Suits
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dog Fur and Suits - Page 2

post #16 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by j
Is it a secret breed?

No, it's not a secret, but I'm trying not to "popularize" the breed in this day of breed-bans.
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartorially Challenged
No, it's not a secret, but I'm trying not to "popularize" the breed in this day of breed-bans.
Breed bans?
post #18 of 26
Thread Starter 
Yes, banning of certain breeds (and also higher insurance premium or non-renewal for owning certain breeds).
post #19 of 26
Breed bans (aka breed specific laws) can be found in quite a few juridictions. Usually they are directed against Pit Bulls (and cognate breeds) and Rottweilers. Quite a few European countries have much more comprehensive breed bans. Usually rare breeds with limited followings are singled out since there is little political liability in doing so. This amounts to a combination of meaningless "feelgood" legislation and a ceremonial witch-burning. Some countries have gone so far as to outlaw breeds that are already extinct!

In some jurisdictions, the breed bans entail outrageous violations of civil liberties: They give animal control officers the power to enter homes at will and seize any dog that in their opinion looks like a Pit Bull or might be part Pit Bull. In essences--any medium-sized smooth-haired mixed breed could be seized and destroyed (Boxer mixes, even Lab mixes would be at risk). Ironically, such legislation is particularly popular in so-called "liberal" jurisdictions like Denver, CO.

Elsewhere, many insurance companies will not issue homeowner policies to anyone who has a breed they disapprove of: Not only the usual suspects, but such seemingly innocuous breeds as Bernese Mountain Dogs and such obscure breeds as the Karelian Bear Dog and the Russo-Finnish Laika. (These are all on the Auto Club's proscribed list.)

Some dog advocates have supported "vicious dog laws" as an alternative to breed specific laws. Unfortunately, many of these are written so that any spirited dog (e.g., one that chases a cat) could be classified as a "vicious dog."
post #20 of 26
Bizarre. Thanks for filling me in on that, Jan.
post #21 of 26
Thread Starter 
Yup.

And that's why I keep my dog breed under the radar.

Thankfully, my home insurance company -- USAA -- is sane and judges dogs individually (past history) not based on nebulous notions of breeds ("Pit Bull" is not a breed).

Now if only USAA wouldn't ask for serial numbers of my "sporting" equipment.
post #22 of 26
"'Pit Bull' is not a breed."

Sure it is, the American Pit Bull Terrier has been recognized and registered by the United Kennel Club since 1898 and by the American Dog Breeders Association since 1906. When the American Kennel Club decided to recognize them in the 1930s, the already well established club for the (English) Bull Terrier objected to the name, and so members of the Pit Bull fraternity who favored AKC recognition adopted the name "Staffordshire Terrier," changed to "American Staffordshire Terrier" ("AmStaff" for short) in the 1970s. Many Pit Bull men stuck with the UKC and the ADBA and have done so down to this day. They will argue that the AmStaff and the performance-type American Pit Bull Terrier have evolved so separately that they should be considered distinct breeds. However, you can still dual-register an AKC AmStaff as an American Pit Bull Terrier with the UKC for a modest fee.

Not very germane to a Style Forum, I know, but I just thought I ought to set the record straight.
post #23 of 26
Thread Starter 
Understood and knew all that.

Indeed, I consider APBTs and AmStaffs separate breeds. But "Pit Bull" as used in common parlance is not a breed per se. It is a vague, nebulous term that arbitrarily encompasses many dogs in the popular media. That's what I meant.

Personally I couldn't care less for the AKC, except for its destruction of the real (or original) purposes of the breeds for appearance sake -- not that this has anything to do with clothes (except perhaps distantly as it relates to form & function).

In any case, I think I will still stick to the Kent brushes for removing fur, as I think the sticky tapes are quite destructive to fine threading. I wish there were some sort of a contraption (electrostatic, maybe?) that aids in dog (or cat) fur removal. Probably would sell well, too.
post #24 of 26
I would feel guilty about hijacking this thread, but since you are the original poster, Sartorially, I feel somewhat absolved.

Regarding the AKC destroying the functional aspects of a breed for appearance's sake, my motto is "Registries don't ruin breeds, breeders ruin breeds."

I personally just don't care for the whole dog show culture--inane, highly politicized beauty contests sustained by some of the most vicious human beings it has ever been my misfortune to be involved with. The AKC is far and away the foremost promoter of dog shows in this country, so you have a point. However, I can never understand those rare breed enthusiasts who will lambaste the AKC as the ruination of dog breeds and then turn around and boast of the prowess of their dogs in American Rare Breed Association dog shows that totally ape AKC shows and are usually judged by AKC judges!
post #25 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
However, I can never understand those rare breed enthusiasts who will lambaste the AKC as the ruination of dog breeds and then turn around and boast of the prowess of their dogs in American Rare Breed Association dog shows that totally ape AKC shows and are usually judged by AKC judges!
Agreed.
post #26 of 26
Ahhh, relief. That thread title threw me off.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Dog Fur and Suits